2006 EMAILS 5041. 2006-01-01 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 21:28:08 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: new climate model runs to: joos , rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de Happy New Year Stefan and Fortunat - just wanted to check in to see where things stand with the EMIC runs you were going to do for the revised Fig 6.10 - that is, with the new Lean solar forcing, and (where the published runs don't already exist) with the old Lean forcing. Again, the purpose of all this is to assess what difference the new solar forcing makes. Eystein and I are hoping that you've figured out the best experimental framework - e.g., what other forcing series to use. It would be great if you used the same volcanic and trace gas series, if that is possible. I'm cc'ing this to Keith in the hope that he can help us make sure we're making the right decisions. Also, since Keith is going to be making the new figure comparing the range of obs climate over the last 1000 years to the range of simulated climate over the last 1000 years (i.e., like the fig we showed in our second/Thursday plenary talk), it would be worth thinking if there is any way to scale the solar forcing over the entire last 1000 years to Judith's new reduced-amplitude solar forcing. I'm not sure this is straightforward or not, but if it was possible, we'd have your new runs for inclusion in the new obs vs. simulated climate fig too - this would be helpful. In any case, the purpose of this email is just to see where we stand, and help keep things moving. Thanks, Peck -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 2995. 2006-01-03 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 14:57:47 +0100 from: Fortunat Joos subject: [Fwd: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Follow-up from Christchurch] to: Stefan Rahmstorf , Jonathan Overpeck , Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa , Anders.Levermann@pik-potsdam.de, Gian-Kasper Plattner Dear all, Here the data I got from Judith Lean. Please note that Judith Lean provided the data for the IPCC context. We should inform Judit of the results as requested by her and as a matter of courtesy. Considering the other forcings, we will use updated historical forcing as used for chapter 10 scenario calculation based on the formulations and the assessment provided in chapter 2. We are currently in the process of compiling these series. With best regards, Fortunat -- Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ Delivered-To: joos@climate.unibe.ch Return-Path: Received: from mailhub03.unibe.ch (mailhub03.unibe.ch [::ffff:130.92.9.70]) (TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by phkup10 with esmtp; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:17:45 +0100 id 0003FA0D.43AC697A.000077F8 Received: from localhost (scanhub02-eth0.unibe.ch [130.92.254.66]) by mailhub03.unibe.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 304BD249D8 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:21:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from mailhub03.unibe.ch ([130.92.9.70]) by localhost (scanhub02.unibe.ch [130.92.254.66]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 10205-12-31 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:21:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail2.nrl.navy.mil (smail2.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.1.147]) by mailhub03.unibe.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27C4F24CC8 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:21:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from ccssun1.nrl.navy.mil (ccssun1.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.113.66]) by mail2.nrl.navy.mil (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id jBNLL2mG029848 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:21:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from [132.250.166.98] (sdpc28.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.166.98]) by ccssun1.nrl.navy.mil (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBNLKulM003512 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:20:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <43AC6A37.5040905@ssd5.nrl.navy.mil> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:20:55 -0500 From: Judith Lean User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_phkup10-25635-1136296413-0001-3" To: Fortunat Joos Subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Follow-up from Christchurch References: <43A7680A.9090404@ozean-klima.de> <43A89A68.6060702@ozean-klima.de> <43AA0D0D.3080809@ozean-klima.de> <43AA58B3.4010206@climate.unibe.ch> In-Reply-To: <43AA58B3.4010206@climate.unibe.ch> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 X-Virus-checked: by University of Berne Dear Fortunat, Attached is a file of the new lower estimates of annual TSI since 1610, as well as references that describe how the irradiance was reconstructed. For comparison, I've also attached the earlier (GRL, 2000) reconstruction which has larger long-term variability. I can also send you monthly mean values since 1880 if you would prefer those. As well, instead of the total irradiance, I can send you files of actual spectra - depending on what you want to use as input to your model I can make the spectra on a specified wavelength grid, if this would help. Let me know if you need more than just the annual TSI. As well, I'd be interested to hear about your results! (which I guess I'll be able to read in IPCC). Best wishes, Judith . Fortunat Joos wrote: > Dear Judith, > > Please allow me to contact you with regard to your solar forcing > reconstructions. > > IPCC WGI chapter 6 is planning to run a couple of intermediate > complexity models (Climber and BernCC) with your new low solar forcing > records for comparing the impact of low and high solar on NH > temperature. Would you mind to provide us with your most recent, > published forcing estimates as shown in chapter 2. An ascii (or excel > table) would be fine. Could you provide a central value as well as > uncertainty estimates. The material should be fully consistent with > chapter 2 for cross-reference. > > Thank you for all your help, > > Fortunat Joos > > Stefan Rahmstorf wrote: > >> Hi Peck, >> >> Eva is ready to start CLIMBER-2 with the same forcings as in her >> paper, except for swapping the solar series (she has used different >> solar series in her paper anyway). That would show the impact of just >> swapping to a new solar reconstruction. But she can easily run with a >> full identical set of forcings as Fortunat - the bottom line is, >> whatever forcing you supply we can run, as long as it is given in >> some radiative forcing units (we do not have a model that could >> compute radiative forcing from aerosol concentrations). >> >> Cheers, Stefan >> >> Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >> >>> Hi Stefan - thanks. I'm not sure if we can more that fast, but if >>> David can get the new solar forcing, then perhaps you could then run >>> w/ the other forcings the same as the Bauer runs? I'll cc to >>> Fortunat too, since he has offered to carry out the same runs w/ the >>> Bern model - he might have the new/latest Lean solar series too (I >>> think back to 1600 only). It would be good to have both CLIMBER (two >>> versions) and BernCC runs with the same (or very similar) forcing, >>> so perhaps you two can coordinate in European time. Keep Eystein and >>> me posted - David too, in case Fortunat already has the new solar >>> series. Thanks, Peck >>> >>>> Hi Jonathan, I got a positive response for doing those runs with >>>> both models - but it would be good to get the forcing time series >>>> we should use within a day, to start at least the slow model before >>>> the christmas holidays. >>>> >>>> Stefan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > Fri Jul 29 17:56:43 2005 Total Solar Irradiance consistent with Wang et al (ApJ, 2005) Background component used in Lean (GRL, 2000) is reduced by 0.27 Year 11yr Cycle 11yr+background 1610.5 1365.8477 1365.5469 5331. 2006-01-03 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen , StefanRahmstorf Keith Briffa , Anders Levermann date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 12:08:15 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: new climate model runs to: Fortunat Joos Hi Fortunat et al - glad you have the forcing and can get it out to Anders/Stefan et al. Please do so with recommendations (perhaps building on mine, but suggest what you think is best) for experimental setup - what complete set of forcings should be used, etc. Please note that we'd like (can we get from both of your groups??) simulated climate to present in two forms: 1) with natural (Lean solar plus volc) plus anthropogenic forcing and 2) with natural only also. It would be good if the results from your runs (Swiss and German) were directly comparable with each other. Also, please note that I'm waiting for everyone to return to the TSU and let us know the official schedule for the next couple months. There is a finite chance that we'll need your runs, and the figures (which Keith and Tim Osborn will be drafting) well BEFORE the end of January. The reason for this is that this material will be used in the next draft of the TS/SPM (and will need iteration), and we are also likely to be under pressure to have all our figures out for broader WG1 review in January. So, we hope you can speed things up to be run sooner in Jan. OK? I tried to attach the Christchurch Chap 6 plenary talk, but my phone line is not allowing it today. Will send soon. The figure that is being considered (wanted, might be the better word) for the TS is the one on the upper right of page 7 of the pdf I will send. Please keep me, Eystein, and Keith in the loop as things develop. It would be great to know what your planned completion date is once you have things running (hopefully soon, pretty please... - we can't afford to be late with things anymore) Many thanks! Peck >Hi, > >ALL the best for 2006! > >I got the forcing from Judith and will send it tomorrow as I am on a slow >connection right now. > >We plan to have the calculation by end of Januar as we are pretty busy with >various tasks. > >Fortunat > > > >Quoting Stefan Rahmstorf : > >> Jonathan, >> as I said earlier: we're ready to roll as soon as we get that forcing. >> Who can provide it? >> Stefan >> >> Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >> >> > Happy New Year Stefan and Fortunat - just wanted to check in to see >> > where things stand with the EMIC runs you were going to do for the >> > revised Fig 6.10 - that is, with the new Lean solar forcing, and >> > (where the published runs don't already exist) with the old Lean >> > forcing. Again, the purpose of all this is to assess what difference >> > the new solar forcing makes. >> > >> > Eystein and I are hoping that you've figured out the best experimental >> > framework - e.g., what other forcing series to use. It would be great >> > if you used the same volcanic and trace gas series, if that is >> > possible. I'm cc'ing this to Keith in the hope that he can help us >> > make sure we're making the right decisions. >> > >> > Also, since Keith is going to be making the new figure comparing the >> > range of obs climate over the last 1000 years to the range of >> > simulated climate over the last 1000 years (i.e., like the fig we >> > showed in our second/Thursday plenary talk), it would be worth >> > thinking if there is any way to scale the solar forcing over the >> > entire last 1000 years to Judith's new reduced-amplitude solar >> > forcing. I'm not sure this is straightforward or not, but if it was >> > possible, we'd have your new runs for inclusion in the new obs vs. >> > simulated climate fig too - this would be helpful. >> > >> > In any case, the purpose of this email is just to see where we stand, >> > and help keep things moving. >> > >> > Thanks, Peck >> >> >> >> >> > > >-- 2142. 2006-01-04 ______________________________________________________ cc: Stefan Rahmstorf , Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa , Anders.Levermann@pik-potsdam.de, Gian-Kasper Plattner , Thomas Stocker date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 17:32:22 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Follow-up from Christchurch] to: Fortunat Joos Hi Fortunat and friends - I suggest that we (Fortunat, can you do this?) ask Thomas Stocker since he has lots of experience w/ IPCC and knows what we're trying to do too. Is this ok? If it's ok (and I'm guessing that it might not be ok to use an unpublished extended solar series, as Fortunat suggest - but it would be more comparable to other results in the same figure (our old 6.10)), I think scaling to Bard would be better since this is what has been done more in the other simulations published and in the old Fig. 6.10 - am I correct? If we can't scale Judith's new recon back to 1000, then we'll just have some simulated series back to 1610. Again, thanks Fortunat for figuring it all out. best, peck >Hi Peck, > >Thanks for your thoughts. We will try to have a complete forcing series next >week. > >Stefan and Anders are you happy with time series of radiative forcings in W/m2 >for a) solar - b) volcanic - c) CO2 -d) sum of non-CO2? Is it correct that you >do not need concentrations and burdens for individual gases and anthropogenic >and natural (volcanic and others) aerosols? > >For extrapolation of the Lean series it might be possible to use the Bard et >al., Tellus, Be-10 record as it has been used widely. Another option would be >to use 14C-derived solar modulation (Muscheler et al). This is more >sophisticated, but solar modulation has up-to-date not been used in climate >models. In any case, extrapolation of the Lean >serie might be challenged in the >IPCC context as we are leaving the area of published results. > >Regards, > >Fortunat > > >Quoting Jonathan Overpeck : > >> Hi Fortunat, Stefan and gang - Have you given any >> thought to scaling the new solar forcing >> estimates from Lean (sent w/ this email - thanks) >> in some way (e.g., to 14C/10Be) so that the new >> simulations could cover the last 1000 years, >> rather than the last 400? This would be nice >> given that we'll plot the new runs in a fig with >> the existing/published runs (old fig 6.10). Might >> take a little more work for someone, but could >> you, for example, take an old solar series used >> in a recent simulation shown in the old Fig 6.10, >> and calculate the amplitude reduction implied by >> the new Lean data over the last 400 years, and >> then apply that same reduction (assuming it's >> relatively constant - I'm being lazy here and not >> ready up) to the old solar forcing back to 1000 >> AD? >> >> Might be a stupid idea, so it's ok to say so. >> Please let me know what you think - again, it >> would be good if both groups could use the same >> forcing. >> >> Thanks again, peck >> >> >Dear all, >> > >> >Here the data I got from Judith Lean. Please >> >note that Judith Lean provided the data for the >> >IPCC context. We should inform Judit of the >> >results as requested by her and as a matter of >> >courtesy. >> > >> >Considering the other forcings, we will use >> >updated historical forcing as used for chapter >> >10 scenario calculation based on the >> >formulations and the assessment provided in >> >chapter 2. We are currently in the process of >> >compiling these series. >> > >> >With best regards, >> > >> >Fortunat >> >-- >> > >> > Climate and Environmental Physics, >> > Physics Institute, University of Bern >> > Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern >> > Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 >> > Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ >> > >> > >> >Delivered-To: joos@climate.unibe.ch >> >Return-Path: >> >Received: from mailhub03.unibe.ch (mailhub03.unibe.ch [::ffff:130.92.9.70]) >> > (TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) >> > by phkup10 with esmtp; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:17:45 +0100 >> > id 0003FA0D.43AC697A.000077F8 > > >Received: from localhost (scanhub02-eth0.unibe.ch [130.92.254.66]) >> > by mailhub03.unibe.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 304BD249D8 >> > for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:21:27 +0100 (CET) >> >Received: from mailhub03.unibe.ch ([130.92.9.70]) >> > by localhost (scanhub02.unibe.ch [130.92.254.66]) (amavisd-new, port >> 10024) >> > with LMTP id 10205-12-31 for ; >> > Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:21:26 +0100 (CET) >> >Received: from mail2.nrl.navy.mil (smail2.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.1.147]) >> > by mailhub03.unibe.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27C4F24CC8 >> > for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:21:07 +0100 (CET) > > >Received: from ccssun1.nrl.navy.mil >(ccssun1.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.113.66]) >> > by mail2.nrl.navy.mil (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id jBNLL2mG029848 >> > for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:21:02 -0500 (EST) >> >Received: from [132.250.166.98] (sdpc28.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.166.98]) >> > by ccssun1.nrl.navy.mil (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBNLKulM003512 >> > for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:20:56 -0500 (EST) >> >Message-ID: <43AC6A37.5040905@ssd5.nrl.navy.mil> >> >Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:20:55 -0500 >> >From: Judith Lean >> >User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) >> >X-Accept-Language: en-us, en >> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >> >Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_phkup10-25635-1136296413-0001-3" >> >To: Fortunat Joos >> >Subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Follow-up from Christchurch >> >References: >> > >> ><43A7680A.9090404@ozean-klima.de> >> > >> ><43A89A68.6060702@ozean-klima.de> >> > >> ><43AA0D0D.3080809@ozean-klima.de> >> ><43AA58B3.4010206@climate.unibe.ch> >> >In-Reply-To: <43AA58B3.4010206@climate.unibe.ch> >> >X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 >> >X-Virus-checked: by University of Berne >> > >> >Dear Fortunat, >> > >> >Attached is a file of the new lower estimates of >> >annual TSI since 1610, as well as references >> >that describe how the irradiance was >> >reconstructed. For comparison, I've also >> >attached the earlier (GRL, 2000) reconstruction >> >which has larger long-term variability. >> > >> >I can also send you monthly mean values since >> >1880 if you would prefer those. As well, instead >> >of the total irradiance, I can send you files of >> >actual spectra - depending on what you want to >> >use as input to your model I can make the >> >spectra on a specified wavelength grid, if this >> >would help. >> > >> >Let me know if you need more than just the >> >annual TSI. As well, I'd be interested to hear >> >about your results! (which I guess I'll be able >> >to read in IPCC). >> > >> >Best wishes, >> >Judith >> >. >> >Fortunat Joos wrote: >> > >> >>Dear Judith, >> >> >> >>Please allow me to contact you with regard to >> >>your solar forcing reconstructions. >> >> >> >>IPCC WGI chapter 6 is planning to run a couple >> >>of intermediate complexity models (Climber and >> >>BernCC) with your new low solar forcing records >> >>for comparing the impact of low and high solar >> >>on NH temperature. Would you mind to provide us >> >>with your most recent, published forcing >> >>estimates as shown in chapter 2. An ascii (or >> >>excel table) would be fine. Could you provide a >> >>central value as well as uncertainty estimates. >> >>The material should be fully consistent with >> >>chapter 2 for cross-reference. >> >> >> >>Thank you for all your help, >> >> >> >>Fortunat Joos >> >> >> >>Stefan Rahmstorf wrote: >> >> >> >>>Hi Peck, >> >>> >> >>>Eva is ready to start CLIMBER-2 with the same >> >>>forcings as in her paper, except for swapping >> >>>the solar series (she has used different solar >> >>>series in her paper anyway). That would show >> >>>the impact of just swapping to a new solar >> >>>reconstruction. But she can easily run with a >> >>>full identical set of forcings as Fortunat - >> >>>the bottom line is, whatever forcing you >> >>>supply we can run, as long as it is given in >> >>>some radiative forcing units (we do not have a >> >>>model that could compute radiative forcing > > >>>from aerosol concentrations). >> >>> >> >>>Cheers, Stefan >> >>> >> >>>Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>Hi Stefan - thanks. I'm not sure if we can >> >>>>more that fast, but if David can get the new >> >>>>solar forcing, then perhaps you could then >> >>>>run w/ the other forcings the same as the >> >>>>Bauer runs? I'll cc to Fortunat too, since he >> >>>>has offered to carry out the same runs w/ the >> >>>>Bern model - he might have the new/latest >> >>>>Lean solar series too (I think back to 1600 >> >>>>only). It would be good to have both CLIMBER >> >>>>(two versions) and BernCC runs with the same >> >>>>(or very similar) forcing, so perhaps you two > > >>>>can coordinate in European time. Keep Eystein >> >>>>and me posted - David too, in case Fortunat >> >>>>already has the new solar series. Thanks, Peck >> >>>> >> >>>>>Hi Jonathan, I got a positive response for >> >>>>>doing those runs with both models - but it >> >>>>>would be good to get the forcing time series >> >>>>>we should use within a day, to start at >> >>>>>least the slow model before the christmas >> >>>>>holidays. >> >>>>> >> >>>>>Stefan >> >>>> 4891. 2006-01-04 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 13:25:40 +0100 (MET) from: Julie Jones subject: Re: Deliverable 15 to: Tim Osborn Hi Tim, I hope you had a good christmas, sorry for the late reply, I was offline until today. We haven't had a reply so far from Bern, I'll mail Luterbacher and ask if they want to contribute anything. Berlin have offered a contribution. I've plotted the sea level and there appears to be a problem with it, which I'm looking in to. I'll keep you posted. When is the sea level meeting? Also, I mailed Keith before christmas to ask if I could have a copy of the some IPCC chapters, but he didn't reply. I'm interested in palaeo, detection and attribution and downscaling if you have them. If so, please could you send them on. Finally, Martin sent you a mail a while ago about the possiblility of obtaining the plot that you and Keith showed at the SOAP meeting of temperatures over the last millennium to show in a presentation. He asked me to ask you again if that would be possible, cheers, and happy new year, Julie ************************************ Dr. Julie M. Jones Institute for Coastal Research GKSS Forschungszentrum Max-Planck-Strasse D-21502 Geesthacht Germany e-mail: jones@gkss.de phone: +49 (0)4152 871845 fax: +49 (0)4152 871888 ************************************ On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Tim Osborn wrote: > Hi Julie - not sure quite where you are, presumably still in the > UK? Anyway, to answer last week's question: > > PDF is fine. A 1-page introduction to "structure" a collection of > individual papers/reports would be good though. Presumably there is > the von Storch paper, plus the Osborn/Briffa commentary (will send to > you if you don't have it), plus the Burger, Cubasch et al. > pseudo-proxy study that is in press at Tellus. Plus Bern have now > done a pseudo-proxy study of the Luterbacher methodology - not sure > if this is submitted yet, so they might need to contribute a new, but > brief, write-up. Did Berlin or Bern reply to offer a contribution? > > Cheers > > Tim > > At 13:57 15/12/2005, you wrote: > > >Hi Tim, > > > >Me or Edu or both will be sending out a mail before christmas asking for > >contributions to deliverable 15. Do you require new text for published > >work, or could one include the pdf of the von Storch et al science paper > >for example? > > > >see you on monday, > > > >cheers > > > >Julie > > 1321. 2006-01-05 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 22:22:56 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: the paper, sigh to: Gabi Hegerl Hi Gabi - well, one for two isn't that bad. It is sad, however, that the J. Clim paper might not be out in time. Keep your fingers crossed and do everything fast! And, keep us (especially Keith) informed. Sounds like he should take it out of the fig for now, but be ready to redo if they become in press fast enough. We're doing ok - it is exhausting, but we have have some heroic LAs - like Keith (and CA's like Tim Osborn), so that's a huge help. Glad you saw something off NZ. I'm sorry I went all the way there for some mostly cloudy sky inbetween meeting buildings. C'est la vie - those are pretty hard core meetings! Best, Peck >Hi Peck, Eystein and Keith, > >After nature deliberated for a month if they >want to use a third reviewer to break up their >stalemate, they sent me a firm "maybe later" and >wanted yet another reply to yet another >round of concerns, so I pulled it and submitted >to J Climate, where Andy promised fast >turnaround and has the old round of reviews. >Nevertheless, the chances of making it in >time are not very good (thats what I think, not what Andy said). >I send it for your info, but you might have to >knock off the CH timeseries from the >figure (and it should be called something that >starts with C in case it stays, since Tom is the >primary >on the timeseries, I am the primary on the stats). I'll keep you posted. > >The other paper, sensitivity from the last >millennium, also using our recon, got a somewhat >unclear response from nature that has "accept" >in the letter, but needs one more *(hopefully >last)\ >revision, but I think tahts more relevant for my chapter. > >How are you holding up? I feel I am playing >pingpong at an increasingly rapid somewhat >desparate pace, and I don't think my game gets better at that pace! >but NZ was fun, I rented a car and went hiking for 3 days, at Franz Josef and >Arthur's pass, beautiful, ran into the Lemke and >Kaser who were inspecting the glacier >(and all others) > >Gabi > >-- >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean >Sciences, Nicholas School for the Environment >and Earth Sciences, >Box 90227 >Duke University, Durham NC 27708 >Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 email: >hegerl@duke.edu, >http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh >HD:hegerletal_scaling_jclim.pdf (›j›Ú/›j›¤) >(00101475) -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 591. 2006-01-10 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:48:39 +0000 from: Mail Delivery System subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: vaganov@forest.akadem.ru SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT TO:: host forest.akadem.ru [84.22.151.56]: 550 : Recipient address rejected: User unknown in local recipient table ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------ ------ The body of the message is 473558 characters long; only the first ------ 106496 or so are included here. Return-path: Received: from [139.222.130.167] (helo=ueams2) by mailgate5.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1EwPTA-0003Am-OY; Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:47:52 +0000 Received: from [139.222.104.120] (helo=angara.uea.ac.uk) by ueams2 with esmtp (Exim 4.51) id 1EwPTA-0004nj-2p; Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:47:48 +0000 Message-Id: <7.0.0.16.0.20060110175058.0389aa78@uea.ac.uk> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:47:48 +0000 To: "Poulter, Emma" From: Keith Briffa Subject: RE: Nature: Review of manuscript 2005-12-14395 Cc: p.jones@uea.ac.uk,stepan@ipae.uran.ru,fritz.schweingruber@wsl.ch, vaganov@forest.akadem.ru In-Reply-To: <125F7834E11A5741A7D79412EE3504F9254CE7A1@UK1APPS2.mpl.root -domain.org> References: <125F7834E11A5741A7D79412EE3504F9254CE7A1@UK1APPS2.mpl.root-domain.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====================_405721359==_" X-UEA-Spam-Score: -102.8 X-UEA-Spam-Level: --------------------------------------------------- X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO --=====================_405721359==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Dear Emma I am very sorry for the delay in returning this response to the submitted Brief Communication By McIntyre and McKitric . I have been extremely busy and to substantiate my written remarks it was necessary to dig out the original data and produce a number of Figures illustrating the true nature of the cross-dating of the data . I have (or at least my Research Associate Tom) has now done this and I am finally in a position to write the response. This is contained in the WORD file attached to this message . The Figures are attached in a separate file. I am happy for you to send the attached written response to McIntyre and McKitric , but I would prefer if you would NOT send the Figures , at least until these are posted on the Climatic (hopefully sometime tomorrow). I am accepting your offer of sending this response directly to you rather than sending it through the Nature system . Sorry that it is a little long. If you decide to publish their communication ( which I consider very unlikely , given its entirely fallacious content) I would expect Nature to publish this response and find room to publish my Figures (even if only as Supplementary material). Thank you again for your patience. yours sincerely Keith >At 10:30 06/01/2006, you wrote: > >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; >boundary="_----------=_113654340816203" > >MIME-Version: 1.0 > >X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 3.01 (F2.6; B2.12; Q2.03) > >Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 10:30:08 UT > >Message-Id: <113654340854@www11> > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > >Dear Professor Briffa > > > >I am writing to you on behalf of Rosalind Cotter, with regard to > >your Reply to the Communications Arising manuscript by Dr Irwing and > >co-authors entitled "A gender difference in intelligence?". Should > >you now have had the chance to consider the paper, we would be > >grateful if you could send us your comments as soon as possible. > > > >We would respectfully remind you that if we do not hear from you > >within the next few days, we shall proceed with the reviewing > >process without a Reply from you (in accordance with our guide to authors). > > > > >Alternatively, if it would be more convenient, please send your > >reply directly to me by return email. However, please highlight > >those comments that are confidential and which should be passed on > >to the authors. > > > >Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter. > > > >Yours sincerely > > > > > >Emma Poulter > >Editorial Assistant > >Nature > >The Macmillan Building > >4 Crinan Street > >London N1 9XW, UK > >Tel +44 (0)20 7833 4559 > >Fax +44 (0)20 7843 4596/7 mailto:e.poulter@nature.com > > > >For Dr Rosalind Cotter > > > >*Nature's author and policy information sites are at > >www.nature.com/nature/submit/. > >Nature's publisher, Nature Publishing Group, does not retain > >authors' copyright. Authors grant NPG an exclusive licence, in > >return for which they can reuse their papers in their future printed > >work. An author can post a copy of the published paper on his or her > >own not-for-profit website. > > > >The Macmillan Building, Crinan Street, London N1 9XW, UK > >Tel +44 (0)20 7833 4000; Fax +44 (0)20 7843 4596/7 nature@nature.com > > > >968 National Press Building, 529 14th Street, Washington DC 20045, USA > >Tel +1 202 737 2355; Fax +1 202 628 1609 nature@naturedc.com > > > >225 Bush Street, Suite 1453, San Francisco CA 94104, USA > >Tel +1 415 403 9027; Fax +1 415 781 3805 nature@naturesf.com > > > > > >This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking System > >NY-610A-NPG&MTS -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 2102. 2006-01-11 ______________________________________________________ date: mið., 11 jan. 2006 11:29:58 +0000 from: Trausti Jonsson subject: Re: latest draft of the Greenland paper to: Phil Jones Dear Phil, I have now browsed through the paper and I have a few notes. I do not think that they will affect the results in any material way. The thing most sorely missed is a table of the manuscript origins of the=20 pre-1873 data, but I know that you can not do anything about that because you can not find the original journals - so it has to be this way. The figure 2 is very difficult to read (at an earlier stage I would have suggested tha addition of a vertical grid at every 20 to 30 years). But when you have actually added the monthly values to your website I can see which years you have and which not (I did not find the data already on the website). I can not e.g. see if you include the=20 following data: 1. The Giesecke observations from Nuuk from 1806 to 1813 (which I have got from the Royal Society) 2. Frederikshaab (Paamiut) data of Aug 1841-April 1842 and Oct 1828 to April 1829. The 1841 to 1842 part the DMet Office=20 has calculated the averages as the mean of the two observing=20 times at 9am and 9pm, wich I can not compare with your monthly values until I have access to the monthly table. The 1828- 1829 mean values are according to the Met.Office a mean of 9-12- 15-18 and 21 (all local times). 3. It seems as if you have the Paamiut 1851 to 1858 data. Here I know that during the 1852 to 1853 winters there were=20 sign (+ or -) problems in the original data, according to the Danish Met. Office. That is the reason for a gap during this period. 4. It also seems that you have the Julianehaab 1807 to 1812 data. There the observations used in the average are only two (with the diffuse timing of morning and evening). On you figure 3 you refer to the observation hours in GMT, but this is a bit confusing because elsewhere the observation times mentioned during the 19th century are the average local sun time, the pre-1830 observation times are not fixed by a clock - only morning and evening, in the case of Giesecke there is also a mid-day observation. =09 As you correctly note, the daily range is small during a large part=20 of the year, but south of Nuuk it is not nonexistent, even in December and January, it is more correct to say that it is negilible. I don't know why you choose Upernivik as a typical station for the illustration of the daily range, because it is larger at the more southerly stations during the summer (4.1=B0C at Julianehaab in July during the last few years and 3.2=B0C in Nuuk in July during the same period). But I don't think that these details will change your results, but the (hopefully erroneously) feeling creeps in that the main author does not know the=20 annual cycle of daily range in Greeland as well as he should do.=20 On inspection of the Danish yearbooks I found there is a wrong citation on page 7 in the draft. The quotation is: "The yearbook 1874 states that (1) is based on hourly observations from Greenland ..... polar expedition, and that (1) has bee verified to give the true daily mean temperature for Nuuk as well." What actually is said in the 1874 yearbook (p.V) is: In the case of Godthaab a direct mean of the actual observation times gives a correct mean. So, in this case Godthaap (Nuuk) is an EXCEPTION to the use of (1). If you then check the Nuuk table a few pages later, you will see that the observation hours at Nuuk during 1874 are the abnormal: 5 am, 1 pm and 9 pm and as a matter of fact the number in the mean column is not a result of (1). This state of affairs persists until June 1875 and in August that year Godthaab finally reverts to the use of (1). You will also note that the Ivittuut means are in these years based on only on observation per day so the formula is not in use there=20 either, for the first few years. The 1875 change in Nuuk could mean that during 1866 to 1875 the observation hours there were probably=20 5, 13 and 21 (local time).=20 You do not mention that the Observations before ca. 1860 are=20 probably made without screens, but it has certainly some influence on the daily range. This is mentioned in the correspondance of the Danish= Scientific=20 Society with the observers in Reykjavik in the 1870. The DSS is particularly= =20 worried about the early morning and late night observations when the=20 instruments are colder than the air, because of radiation effects. There are= =20 also evaporation effects as well on unscreened instruments. You don't= mention=20 this either. =20 As I said before I don't think that these small points change anything in the paper but you should get the Godthaab (1874)=20 quotation corrected.=20 Your search for pre-1873 data confirms that the older observation journals are not to be found at the DMI, the pre-1873 Icelandic data did not come from them, but the archives of the Icelandic Society of Letters in Copenhagen. The Greenland originials are probably found at the archives of the Danish Scientific Society. I have been looking at the ice core data and comparing it to Icelandic records with very encouraging results (it was a part of my Stykkisholmur lecture).=20 But I hope that the CRU will continue the Greenland work with the danes and congratulate you again on the paper. I also hope that the monthly values will be available at your website soon. Best wishes, Trausti 2941. 2006-01-11 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 10:02:41 -0000 from: "Vanessa McGregor" subject: Weds 11th Jan: Climate Insurance - a Tyndall Centre briefing, to: , , *Reminder* Dear all You are invited to a seminar by Andrew Dlugolecki on Wednesday 11th January, 4-5pm in the CRU coffee room 1.01, UEA. SEMINAR OVERVIEW Record losses from weather-related disasters in 2005 put climate insurance on the international agenda at last year's climate change conference in Montreal. The figure of economic losses probably exceeded $200 billion, three times any previous year. Countries worldwide seek solutions to the rapidly multiplying impacts of climate change. The decisive question today is no longer what proof we have for anthropogenic climate change but rather, what strategies we should follow to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Insurance-related mechanisms can be an effective part of adaptation strategies. This seminar will outline how climate insurance as a viable option for dampening the negative effects of global warming and reducing the financial risks of an increasing number of natural catastrophes and will share highlights from a workshop at the United Nations Climate Change Conference held in Montreal, Canada. *********************************************** Vanessa McGregor PA to Director/ Events Organiser ==================== Tyndall Events: Estonia-UK British Council Workshop on Impacts in Europe of a changing climate and strategies for adaptation 9-10 January 2006, Tartu, Estonia Management Away-Day, 13-14 March 2006, Cambridge UK Address: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Zuckerman Institute University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ Tel: +44(0)1603 593900 Fax: +44(0)1603 593901 E-mail: v.mcgregor@uea.ac.uk Website: http://www.tyndall.ac.uk This email is confidential and intended for the addressee only. The Tyndall Centre has taken reasonable precautions to ensure this communication does not contain viruses. We cannot accept liability for any damage your system sustains due to software viruses. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachments. Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Climate Insurance1.doc" 4198. 2006-01-11 ______________________________________________________ cc: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:26:02 +0000 from: Tom Melvin subject: Keith in Confidence to: drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu,mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu Ed and Malcolm, Keith asked me to send you copies of the application for a leverhulme grant. He will phone you both tomorrow. The application form is Briffa_lever_app.rtf The 1000 word outline id Briffa_lever_attach.doc The details of the full case, to be sent if outline is approved, is Briffacase.doc Notes for referees are in note_from_director and the other two documents describe Leverhulme grants. Tom Melvin Tom Melvin Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593161 Fax: +44-1603-507784 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\LeverHulme.ZIP" 4851. 2006-01-11 ______________________________________________________ cc: Valйrie Masson-Delmotte , "Ricardo Villalba" , "Keith Briffa" , "Jonathan Overpeck" date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:52:58 +0300 from: "Olga Solomina" subject: glacier box to: "Eystein Jansen" Dear colleagues, According to the comments of rewieres to the FOD and our discussion in NZ I tried to update the figure and the text of the glacier box. The main changes are in the figure - instead of just three curves (N and S Scandinavia and the Alps) we have now 10 curves from different regions including the tropics and the Southern hemisphere. They all are of different quality, but even in the Alps the reconstructions are very contradictory at the moment (see attachment "Alps"). I did not polish the style yet (the curves are of different shape), but I would like first to hear your opinion. In order to shorten the text we can even cut the description of the fluctuations - they can be seen at the figure. The chapter 4 (cryosphere) is also in troubles with the length, so we suggest (G.Kaser and myself) to delete the LIA/MWP glacier variations from there. Instead we can mention the LIA advances (one sentence) in the glacier box and MWP glacier advances (again one sentence) in the Keith' box. I hope you had a chance to enjoy the Christmass and New Year selebration. All the best, olga Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\glacier hol SOD.jpg" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Gl box for SOD.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Alps Hol resume.jpg" 1228. 2006-01-13 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Jan 13 16:39:25 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Query re. contact of referees of project application to: jandrews@leverhulme.ac.uk Dear Ms Andrews This message to request information regarding an outline application that I have recently made to the Trust. I believe it may be in the post at this time. I have named two potential referees - both resident in the United States, chosen because of their particular expertise in the area of tree-ring analysis. It has just come to my notice that one of them ( Dr. Edward Cook, Director of the Tree-Ring Laboratory at the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory in New York) will shortly be leaving for a protracted period of field work in the Himalayas. Apparently his departure may be in as little as two weeks. He is likely to be effectively out of touch with the rest of the world during most of the time he is away. On the assumption that the Trust will seek his advice, would it be possible for the application to be e-mailed to him ( drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu ), or would it be acceptable if I were to email the proposal to him in anticipation of your request for a review? I am anxious not to interfere with the correct procedure , but I believe it would be unfortunate if the Trust were not able to get the benefit of his opinion because of this scheduling difficulty. I would appreciate your advice in this matter. Thank you yours sincerely Keith Briffa -- 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/ 3414. 2006-01-15 ______________________________________________________ date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:12:45 -0500 from: "W.R Peltier" subject: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Emailing: IPCCsealevelgraphic.eps to: Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu Dear Colleagues, Attached is the next draft of the graphic describing the variation of sea level through the most recent ice age cycle. I have modified it in the way suggested during our meeting in Christchurch. This has involved incorporating the data assembled in the paper by Waelbroeck et al (2002) into an inset for the entire last glacial interglacial cycle. Claire very kindly sent me the original data plotted in this paper. For the last 30,000 years, however, I've shown the complete set of data that is now available from the Barbados location at a sufficiently high resolution that one can appreciate the importance of the new samples that have become available . In particular, the complete set of U/Th dated coral samples enables us to refine our understanding of the period extending from pre- to post-LGM in an important way. the new data have also provided better resolution of the post-Younger Dryas event called meltwater pulse 1b. Suggestions for further improvements of this Figure will be welcome. The caption for this revised version of the Figure is as follows: Figure 6.4. In (a) the range of allowed variations of eustatic sea level that have occurred over the last glacial-interglacial cycle is depicted according to the data assembled by Waelbroeck et al.(2002). These data included both dated coral assemblages from the tropics as well as oxygen isotope records from deep sea sedimentary cores that have been corrected in order to optimally remove the influence of temperature variations in the abyssal ocean that contaminate what is otherwise an excellent proxy for the volume of continental ice on the continents and therefor eustatic sea level. Superimposed upon the Waelbroeck et al. record is the eustatic sea level record corresponding to the ICE-5G model of this cycle ( shown in red) of Peltier (2004) for which the global distribution of time dependent ice thickness is available from http://www.sbl.statkart.no/projects/pgs/ice_models/. The black curve on the insert is the SPECMAP oxygen isotope record of Imbrie et al. (1984) scaled so as to deliver the same sea level as that observed at Barbados at 30 ka. In (b) is shown the complete set of U/Th dated coral derived sea level index points now available from the Barbados location (Fairbanks 1989, Peltier and Fairbanks 2006). The acropora palmata samples, which provide the tightest constraint on sea level, are shown with an error bar of 5m extending upwards from the depth at which they were sampled as is appropriate given that this is the greatest depth below sea level at which this species is found in the modern ecology. The data with the 20m intermediate length error bars attached are samples of the species monastrea annularis. Although they do not provide a tight constraint on sea level they are nevertheless useful as they provide a upper bound upon the sea level depression where such samples are available. The other samples for which the data are also shown provide similar information. The red curve superimposed upon the data, as in (a), is the theoretical prediction for the sea level history at this site based upon the ICE-4G(VM2) model of Peltier (2004). As noted directly on the Figure, the net eustatic sea level depression at the conventional age of the LGM ( 21 ka) according to the ICE-5G(VM2) model, which accurately fits the observations, is 118.7m. This is very close to the conventional oxygen isotope derived estimate of Shackleton (eg. 2000) and to the temperature corrected oxygen isotope records shown in Waelbroeck et al.(2002). Cheers Dick PS. The font employed for the lettering on this Figure will be reduced in size in the next edition of the graphic. IPCCsealevelgraphic.eps Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. Prof W.R Peltier Dept of Physics, University of Toronto 60 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA, M5S 1A7 Tel (416)-978-2938 Fax (416)-978-8905 email peltier@atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\IPCCsealevelgraphic.eps" _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 593. 2006-01-17 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:23:07 -0000 from: "Makin, Janet" subject: PRUDENCE range of results to: gspraggs@anglianwater.co.uk, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, sdw@hrwallingford.co.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, "EA - Rob Wilby" Dear all, Yes I agree too. Is there any merit though in the WRONG-HadRM3H as Tim found it lies in the middle of the range for the Ouse, while for the Eden it is in the middle during the summer drying, but at the top of the range for the winter wetting and thinks we could interpret the WRONG-HadRM3H results, including LoS results, as being a typical central PRUDENCE scenario? Janet Janet Makin Hydrology Manager United Utilities Water PLC Water Supply-Demand Team, Thirlmere House Ground Floor, Lingley Mere, Great Sankey, Warrington, WA5 3LP Tel: 01925 537060 Fax: 01925 464766 Email: janet.makin@uuplc.co.uk -----Original Message----- From: Makin, Janet Sent: 17 January 2006 15:16 To: Makin, Janet Subject: PRUDENCE range of results -----Original Message----- From: Spraggs Gerry E [[1]mailto:gSpraggs@anglianwater.co.uk] Sent: 16 January 2006 16:29 To: Rob Wilby; s.wade@hrwallingford.co.uk; p.jones@uea.ac.uk; t.osborn@uea.ac.uk; Makin, Janet Subject: RE: PRUDENCE range of results Dear All, I agree with Rob that, as I suggested at the meeting we should discard the earlier results. I think it would over-complicate the report to try and include the wrong results as sensitivity runs and the time will be better spent focussing on interpreting the correct ones. I will endeavour to fit in some runs with Tim's new data during the next couple of weeks, possibly concentrating on Levels of Service yield because Steve's model is less developed in that area. Best Regards Gerry -----Original Message----- From: Rob Wilby [[2]mailto:rob.wilby@environment-agency.gov.uk] Sent: 16 January 2006 16:09 To: Spraggs Gerry E; s.wade@hrwallingford.co.uk; p.jones@uea.ac.uk; t.osborn@uea.ac.uk; Janet.Makin@uuplc.co.uk Subject: Re: PRUDENCE range of results Dear All Looking at Tim's plots, I'm now of the view that we simply discard the earlier results rather than complicate life. Gerry and Janet's historic runs are clearly still of immense value for assessing the systems' behaviour over the last 200-yrs and for checking the realism of Steven's 'emulator'. The case for analysing the future runs using the spreadsheet method is readily made in terms of: 1) consistency between regions; 2) speed/efficiency for multiple runs and 3) potentially, sensitivity testing. How does everyone else feel about this. Tim - assuming that everyone is content with the above, it would be good to have an amendment to your plots removing the three wrong runs. Your expanded set of GCM-RCM combinations certainly helps place our scenarios in a broader context. Cheers, Rob >>> Tim Osborn 01/16/06 02:45pm >>> Dear Rob, Janet, Gerry, Steven and Phil, please find attached a graphic showing the range of precipitation results from the PRUDENCE set of regional climate model simulations. In addition to the 3 wrong scenarios, plus my 3 corrections that I'd already completed, I downloaded and analyzed results from a further 12 GCM-RCM combinations - please see the key, with the driving GCM listed first, followed by the RCM and the ensemble member (1 in all cases, except for HadAM3H-HadRM3H-M3, where the M3 indicates that I used the mean of the 3 ensembles members used for the UKCIP02 scenarios, rather than the PRUDENCE data). The top three in the list are the correct data that we should be using. They do span the PRUDENCE range fairly well (the range of all correct RCMs is shaded pale orange), as originally planned (e.g., in summer, ARPEGE (red) is near the top of the range with only moderate decreases in precipitation, and HadRM3H (dark purple) is near to the bottom of the range with strong decreases). The wrong data (black) lie partly within the PRUDENCE range. WRONG-HadRM3H (diamonds) lies in the middle of the range for the Ouse, while for the Eden it is in the middle during the summer drying, but at the top of the range for the winter wetting. I think we could interpret the the WRONG-HadRM3H results, including LoS results, as being a typical central PRUDENCE scenario. WRONG-HIRHAM (squares) tend to be near the top of the PRUDENCE range (wetting or less drying), though the only critical departure is the huge increase in December precipitation for the Ouse. The WRONG-HIRHAM results could only be interpreted as a sensitivity case, outside the PRUDENCE range, but included in the analysis as an example of stronger winter increases in precipitation than simulated by the available RCMs. For the Ouse, the fractional change in precipitation averaged over October-March is 1.41 (i.e. 41% increase - the huge December value is ameliorated in the 6-month winter mean). It seems valid to include a sensitivity case like this - a 41% increase in winter precip by the 2080s under a fairly high emissions scenario cannot be discounted - the old NIES GCM shown in UKCIP02 had a >60% increase for this case, see fig 28 of UKCIP02. WRONG-ARPEGE (triangles) are clearly outside the PRUDENCE range in summer, especially for the Ouse. The WRONG-ARPEGE results could only be included if interpreted as a clear departure from the range of possibilities indicated by the PRUDENCE RCMs. Note that the weak winter increases for the Ouse (below the PRUDENCE range in December) might explain why yields weren't found to increase as much as the increased summer rainfall might have led us to expect. [Sorry to focus on the Ouse in my discussion above - it's just that the errors are larger there.] I hope this figure proves useful to the steering group in deciding how to deal with the results from the three wrong scenarios. Comments anyone? Best regards Tim << File: prud_prec.gif >> =========================================================================================== ============================= The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain legally privileged or confidential information or otherwise be exempt from disclosure. If you have received this message in error or there are any problems, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message from your computer. You must not use, disclose, copy or alter this message for any unauthorised purpose. Neither United Utilities PLC nor any of its subsidiaries will be liable for any direct, special, indirect or consequential damages as a result of any virus being passed on, or arising from the alteration of the contents of this message by a third party. United Utilities PLC (England and Wales No.2366616) registered office: Dawson House, Great Sankey, Warrington, WA5 3LW. =========================================================================================== ============================= 2757. 2006-01-18 ______________________________________________________ cc: Stefan Rahmstorf , Anders Levermann , Eva Bauer , plattner@climate.unibe.ch, Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:55:48 +0100 from: Fortunat Joos subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Follow-up from Christchurch, RF for last to: Jonathan Overpeck Dear all, I have now compiled the input data set and written a protocol how to perform the runs. It seems to me that it would make sense if we perform the simulations first with the Bern Model and with the Climber 2 model. We can then still decide if we need Climber 3. Please let me know if there are any questions. I could also provide files where the radiative forcing of solar, volcanoes and non-CO2-anthropogenic has been added together. With best wishes, Fortunat Jonathan Overpeck wrote: > Dear Eva and Fortunat - thanks for working on getting things moving. It > seems that the detailed forcing recommendations laid out below by > Fortunat build nicely on what Eva first suggested, and that going with > the forcing series suggested below by Foortunat (and the 6 simulations) > is going to be just right for the IPCC AR4 Chap 6 needs. Does everyone > agree? > > Thanks Fortunat for preparing/sharing the standard forcing series. > > Best, peck > >> Dear Eva, >> >> We are working on the forcing series and they should be ready by the >> end of the week. Stefan assured us that you can run this within a few >> hours. >> >> What we are preparing are the following series of radiative forcing in >> W/m2: >> >> a) RF from atmospheric constituents (well-mixed GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, >> many Halocarbons) tropo and strato Ozone, various anthropogenic >> aerosols) as used in the Bern CC TAR version and the TAR (see Joos et >> al., GBC, 2001; pdf is on my homepage and TAR appendix). >> b) volcanic from Crowley, Sci, 2000 >> c) solar based on Lean and Bard et al. >> >> For the solar we will prepare 3 combinations: >> >> c1) original serie from Lean (2005) provided to you already >> c2) Bard et al., Be-10 record linearly scaled to match the Maunder >> Minimum Average of Lean-AR4 >> c3) Bard et al., Be-10 scaled to a MM reduction of 0.25 permil, i.e. >> the low case in the Bard et, Tellus, publication corresponding to the >> Lean et al, 1995 scaling >> >> For the RF by atmospheric components two cases are foreseen: >> a1) standard case with reconstructed evolution over past 1150 years >> a2) RF kept at 1765 value after 1765, i.e. a simulation with natural >> forcings only. >> >> This will yield in total 6 simulations 3 over the full length from 850 >> AD to 2000 and 3 brach-off simulatons from 1765 with natural only >> forcing. >> >> An important point in IPCC is that things are published, consistent >> among chapters, and it helps if approaches are tracable to earlier >> accepted and approved IPCC work. The arguments for these series are as >> follows: >> >> a) Considering as many components relevant for RF as possible (more >> than just CO2). The series are fully compatible with TAR and that the >> setup is tracable to the TAR for the industrial era increase. The same >> series will be used in the projection chapter 10 for the SRES calculation >> >> b) volcanic: a widely cited record >> >> c) solar: c1) and c3) are published series; c2 follows the same >> approach and spirit as used to derive c3, i.e. scaling the Be-10 serie >> linearly with a given Maunder Minimum reduction. The impact of the >> 11-yr solar cycle can be looked at in the original Lean-AR4 serie. >> >> I hope this help. >> >> With kind regards, >> >> Fortunat >> >> Eva Bauer wrote: >> >>> >>> Dear Jonathan, dear Fortunat: >>> >>> Happy New Year! >>> >>> >>> Stefan, Anders and me just have discussed how to set up our >>> CLIMBER2/3alpha runs, to produce something useful for the IPCC WGI >>> chapter 6. This chapter appears to touch the impact on the NH >>> temperature related to low and high solar forcing. >>> >>> For a reasonable comparison, we think two 1000-year simulations >>> differing only by a low and a high solar forcing, conducted with both >>> CLIMBER models, would be ideal. To do so, we would have to extend the >>> solar forcing time series based on Lean (GRL, 2000) and on Wang et >>> al. (2005) distributed in previous e-mails back to the year 1000. This >>> would require some splicing as was done, for instance, by Crowley. >>> >>> I'm thinking of some scaling applied to a series of Crowley (say the >>> data called Be10/Lean splice in Science, 2000) such that the amplitude >>> of the solar variability from the 11-year cycle is conserved after >>> ~1720. I have to check but it appears that the variation in the TSI >>> due to the 11-year cycle contained in the Crowley series agrees >>> perfectly with the 11yr-cycle data in the file based on Lean (2000). >>> Before starting such an exercise I like to ask you what you think >>> about. We would be happy to receive your response quite soon to be >>> able to finish the calculations with our slow model in time for the >>> IPCC report. >>> >>> Could you please also comment on the other forcings we should include, >>> namely the volcanic forcing and the CO2 forcing. For the present study >>> we suggest to use the forcing as in Bauer et al (2000) but omitting >>> the land-use. This means, using the volcanic forcing from Crowley, >>> 2000 and the CO2 forcing based on Etheridge et al 1996 and Keeling and >>> Whorf, 1996. (If you wish we can distribute these data series.) >>> >>> Also, thinking beyond the IPCC study, the model results may become >>> interesting enough to be discussed in a 3-model comparison study!? >>> >>> Looking forward to your reply. >>> >>> Best wishes >>> >>> Eva >>> >> >> -- >> Last Millennium Simulations for IPCC AR4 WG1 Chap 6 --------------------------------------------------- F. Joos, joos@climate.unibe.ch 18 Januar 2006 OVERVIEW -------- A total of 6 simulations is planned. Two millennium-long simulations with solar forcing following Bard et al. with a Maunder Minimum reduction of 0.08 and 0.25 percent in total irradiance and volcanic and anthropogenic forcing included A simulation from 1610 to 1998 with solar forcing from Wang et al, 2005 and volcanic and anthropogenic forcing included Three simulations from 1765 to 1998 with only solar and volcanic forcing included, but no anthropogenic forcings. These are branches from the above three simulation. A range of input data files have been prepeared. Each contains a header with additional descriptions of the data. Solar irradiance has been taken from Bard et al., Tellus, 1999 and from Wang, Lean, Shirley, JAp, 2005. It is estimated that the Maunder Minimum irradiance is reduce by 0.08 percent relative to today and that the present irradiance is 1366 W/m2 from the Wang et al. data. A case with a Maunder Minimum reduction of 0.08 percent is calculated from the Bard et al. data by scaling the original Bard series appropriately. The original Bard series are offset by 1.3 W/m2 in irradiance to bring them to a present irradiance of 1366 W/m2. For this excercise we will utilize a Maunder Minimum reduction in irradiance relative to today of 0.08 percent and of 0.25 percent (other cases with high MM reduction are included in the files). Irradiance has been converted to radiative forcing: RF= (IRR-1366)/4*0.7 Volcanic forcing is from Crowley Science, 2000, with albedo factored in (e.g. as for solar forcing). To avoid a cold start of the model, the serie is extended to 850 AD by mirroring the Crowley data from 1001 to 1150 to the period 850 to 1000. NonCO2 forcing is following TAR (updated for an error in tropo O3 in the TAR). CO2 is a spline through the Etheridge, JGR, 97 data and the Siegenthaler, TEllus, 2005 data. INPUT FILES DESCRIPTION: ----------------------- It is recommended to linearly interpolate between data points. A1: Solar irradiance and radiative forcing following Bard from 850 to 2000 (Tag description) solBard08 2. col: Maunder Minimum reduction of 0.08 percent solBard25 3. col: Maunder Minimu reduction of 0.25 percent Note: data from Bard have been linearlz interplated on an annual time step files: bard00tel_solar_RF_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out bard00tel_solar_irradiance_offset-13_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out A2: Solar irradiance and radiative forcing following Wang, Lean, Shirley, 2005 from 1610 to 2004 annual resolution Tag: WLS-05 files: wang05jastr_lean_RF_IPCC_chap6_Joos_11jan06.out wang05jastr_lean_irradiance_IPCC_chap6_Joos_11jan06.out A3: CO2 concentration in ppm from 850 to 2000 annual resolution Tag: CO2 file: co2_850-2000_splined_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out A4: volcanic forcing after Crowley from 1001 to 1998 AD, extended by artificial data from 850 to 1000 AD by mirroring the forcing from 1000 to 1150 to the period 850 to 1000 Tag: volcCrow annual resolution file: crowley00sci_RFvolcanic_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan05.out A5: radiative forcing by non-CO2 agents annual resolution Tag: nonco2 files rf_nonco2_1yr_1765_2000_individ_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out rf_nonco2_1yr_850_2000_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out B) SIMULATIONS ----------------------- B1. 2 Long simulations from 850 AD to 1998 ------- Simulation B1.1. tag: bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_850-1998 Solar forcing from Bard et al. with MM reduction of 0.08 percent, volcanic forcing and forcing from CO2 and other anthropogenic (non-CO2) agents. Start of simulation 850 AD End of simulation: 1998 AD initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar) Analysis period: 1001 AD to 1998 AD start-up period: 850 to 1000 with artificial volcanic data -------- Simulation B1.2 tag: bard25_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_850-1998 as B1.1 but with solar forcing from Bard et al. reduced by 0.25 percent for the Maunder Minimum. Start of simulation 850 AD End of simulation: 1998 AD initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar) Analysis period: 1001 AD to 1998 AD start-up period: 850 to 1000 with artificial volcanic data -------- Simulation B2: A simulation from 1610 to 1998 restarted from bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 With solar forcing from Wang et al., 2005, volcanic forci ng and forcing from CO2 and other anthropogenic (non-CO2) agents. B2 tag: WLS-2005_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_1610-1998 Start of simulation: 1610 AD End of simulation: 1998 AD initial condition: restart from simulation B1.1. bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 at year 1610 Analysis period: 1610 AD to 1998 AD ------- B3: 3 Simulations from 1765 to 1998 with natural forcing only non-CO2 radiative forcing is kept to zero (except for volcanoes and solar) CO2 is kept at its 1765 value. Simulation B3.1: tag bard08_volcCrow_1765_1998 Start of simulation: 1765 AD End of simulation: 1998 AD initial condition: restart from simulation B1.1. bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 at year 1765 Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD ------- Simulation B3.2: tag bard25_volcCrow_1765_1998 Start of simulation: 1765 AD End of simulation: 1998 AD initial condition: restart from simulation B1.2. bard25_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 at year 1765 Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD ----- Simulation B3.1: tag WLS-2005_volcCrow_1765_1998 Start of simulation: 1765 AD End of simulation: 1998 AD initial condition: restart from simulation B2. WLS-2005_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 at year 1765 Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD OUTPUT ------ I guess minimal output is global and NH mean surface temperature. # # ----------------------------------------- # Radiative forcing by individual non-CO2 agents # for industrial period in W/m2 # ----------------------------------------- # # # Date: 13/10/2005 # Time: 17.30 # # # prepared by # Fortunat Joos # Climate and Environmental Physics # Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern # joos@climate.unibe.ch # # with fortran code: nonco2_radforc.f # Version March 2001 # Code for future concentrations # provided by Michael Prather # # # components included: # CH4, N2O, Stratospheric O3, Tropospheric O3, # direct and indirect sulfate aerosol, # direct fossil and biomass burning aerosols (BC+OC), # CFC-11,CFC-12,CFC-113,CFC-114,CFC-115,CCl4,CH3CCl3, # HFC-22,HCFC-141b,HCFC-142b,HCFC-123,CF3Br,CF2BrCl, # CF4 C2F6 C4F10 SF6 HFC-23 HFC-32 HFC-125 HFC-134a, # HFC-143a HFC-152a HFC-227ea HFC-245ca HFC-43-10mee # stratospheric H2O from CH4 # # original file: # ~/ipcc_tar/sres/radforc_sres_apr01/output/ghg+rf_all_1765_2100_1yr_13oct05.out # # # Radiative forcing in W/m2 for scenario # -------------------------------------- # # # # NOTE: RADIATIVE FORCING IN THIS FILE INCLUDES ALBEDO EFFECT. # IN THE NUMBERS BELOW AN ALBEDO OF 30% HAS BEEN FACTORED IN. # IF THE MODEL ACCOUNTS FOR ALBEDO THEN THE NUMBERS NEED TO BE MULTIPLIED BY 1./0.7 # # file modified by # Fortunat Joos # Climate and Environmental Physics # Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern # joos@climate.unibe.ch # ORIGINAL MESSAGE FROM CROWLEY: # ------------------------------ # # Hi All, # # some of you have requested the forcing time series used in last years # Science paper. I referred you to a NOAA website. But I now realize there # may be incomplete information in the explanations, in the sense that the # solar and tropospheric aerosol forcing was listed as net radiative forcing # after accounting for the 30% albedo of the earths atmosphere. some 1D ebm # do not exlicitly consider the albedo term, but virtually all other models # so. # # In order to ensure that everyone is on the same page with respect to # evaluating the forcing terms I use I am sending each of you an ftp address # where you can download estimates of volcano, solar, greenhouse gas,and # tropospheric (1000-1998) using total forcing prior to accounting for the # planetary albedo. # # The ftp address is: # # anonymous FTP to stommel.tamu.edu # cd incoming/FORCING # get forc-total-4.12.01.txt # # a few other comments - # # all units are in W/m**2 # # hl in volc time series refers to the fact that eruptions of unknown origin # have been assigned a high latitude (hl) origin. There are "tails" to most # of the large eruptions that were determined based on the estimated # e-folding time of the aerosols as being about 1 year # # Sol.Be10 refers to the Beryllium 10 measurements of Bard et al but scaled # by me to the Lean et al changes over the last 400 years. After further # reflection I think the Be10 may be the most reliable of the solar indices. # # GHG refers to greenhouse gases # # Aer refers to tropospheric aerosols # # sorry about any confusion the prior data may have caused, regards, Tom 2017. 2006-01-19 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, Keith Briffa date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 11:04:17 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: Millennium simulations to: Fortunat Joos Thanks Fortunat. I got the sense from Susan that she'd love to see good old raw ice core data, but I think it makes more sense for Tim and Keith to use what you've sent. It is based on multiple ice cores, and it provides some consistence with our modeling figs. Tim and Keith - how are you doing? Let me know if you want to discuss figs you're working on beyond what I suggested in my December emails. I appreciate your dealing with the heavy load! best, peck >Hi all, > >Here the Crowley data from 1001 to 1998. The data were multiplied by >0.7 to factor in an albedo of 30% (see header of file for more >clarification). The data in the forcing file send yesterday have >been extended artificially to year 850 (mirroring the data from 1000 >to 1150) and shift in time by 0.5 to bring all forcing data to >mid-year. > >With best wishes, > >Fortunat > >Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>Hi Fortunat - thanks for pulling all the new EMIC simulation >>forcing together, and fast. Keith and Tim want (have been asked, >>might be the best way to say it...) to put together a figure that >>depicts volcanic forcing. Since you're using Cowley's recon, that >>might be the best for them too. Can you send Tim (cc me and Keith >>too) the data series for 1000 to present? >> >>Thanks, Peck > >-- > > Climate and Environmental Physics, > Physics Institute, University of Bern > Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern > Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 > Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ > > ># ># Hi All, ># ># some of you have requested the forcing time series used in last years ># Science paper. I referred you to a NOAA website. But I now realize there ># may be incomplete information in the explanations, in the sense that the ># solar and tropospheric aerosol forcing was listed as net radiative forcing ># after accounting for the 30% albedo of the earths atmosphere. some 1D ebm ># do not exlicitly consider the albedo term, but virtually all other models ># so. ># ># In order to ensure that everyone is on the same page with respect to ># evaluating the forcing terms I use I am sending each of you an ftp address ># where you can download estimates of volcano, solar, greenhouse gas,and ># tropospheric (1000-1998) using total forcing prior to accounting for the ># planetary albedo. ># ># The ftp address is: ># ># anonymous FTP to stommel.tamu.edu ># cd incoming/FORCING ># get forc-total-4.12.01.txt ># ># a few other comments - ># ># all units are in W/m**2 ># ># hl in volc time series refers to the fact that eruptions of unknown origin ># have been assigned a high latitude (hl) origin. There are "tails" to most ># of the large eruptions that were determined based on the estimated ># e-folding time of the aerosols as being about 1 year ># ># Sol.Be10 refers to the Beryllium 10 measurements of Bard et al but scaled ># by me to the Lean et al changes over the last 400 years. After further ># reflection I think the Be10 may be the most reliable of the solar indices. ># ># GHG refers to greenhouse gases ># ># Aer refers to tropospheric aerosols ># ># sorry about any confusion the prior data may have caused, regards, Tom ># 4679. 2006-01-19 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, Keith Briffa date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 08:07:37 +0100 from: Fortunat Joos subject: Re: Millennium simulations to: Jonathan Overpeck Hi all, Here the Crowley data from 1001 to 1998. The data were multiplied by 0.7 to factor in an albedo of 30% (see header of file for more clarification). The data in the forcing file send yesterday have been extended artificially to year 850 (mirroring the data from 1000 to 1150) and shift in time by 0.5 to bring all forcing data to mid-year. With best wishes, Fortunat Jonathan Overpeck wrote: > Hi Fortunat - thanks for pulling all the new EMIC simulation forcing > together, and fast. Keith and Tim want (have been asked, might be the > best way to say it...) to put together a figure that depicts volcanic > forcing. Since you're using Cowley's recon, that might be the best for > them too. Can you send Tim (cc me and Keith too) the data series for > 1000 to present? > > Thanks, Peck -- Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ # # Hi All, # # some of you have requested the forcing time series used in last years # Science paper. I referred you to a NOAA website. But I now realize there # may be incomplete information in the explanations, in the sense that the # solar and tropospheric aerosol forcing was listed as net radiative forcing # after accounting for the 30% albedo of the earths atmosphere. some 1D ebm # do not exlicitly consider the albedo term, but virtually all other models # so. # # In order to ensure that everyone is on the same page with respect to # evaluating the forcing terms I use I am sending each of you an ftp address # where you can download estimates of volcano, solar, greenhouse gas,and # tropospheric (1000-1998) using total forcing prior to accounting for the # planetary albedo. # # The ftp address is: # # anonymous FTP to stommel.tamu.edu # cd incoming/FORCING # get forc-total-4.12.01.txt # # a few other comments - # # all units are in W/m**2 # # hl in volc time series refers to the fact that eruptions of unknown origin # have been assigned a high latitude (hl) origin. There are "tails" to most # of the large eruptions that were determined based on the estimated # e-folding time of the aerosols as being about 1 year # # Sol.Be10 refers to the Beryllium 10 measurements of Bard et al but scaled # by me to the Lean et al changes over the last 400 years. After further # reflection I think the Be10 may be the most reliable of the solar indices. # # GHG refers to greenhouse gases # # Aer refers to tropospheric aerosols # # sorry about any confusion the prior data may have caused, regards, Tom # # 4. 2006-01-20 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 09:45:41 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Fwd: RE: Wahl-Ammann paper on MBH-MM issues to: "Wahl, Eugene R" , Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen Thanks Gene - it is worth all the effort, and please keep us (especially Keith) posted on the updates. best, peck X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Subject: RE: Wahl-Ammann paper on MBH-MM issues Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:17:03 -0500 Thread-Topic: Wahl-Ammann paper on MBH-MM issues Thread-Index: AcWBF2jTf69xJLFkThuHZzU6qK8tMx+kOAJUB28NG2A= From: "Wahl, Eugene R" To: "Jonathan Overpeck" Hello Jonathan and Keith: I'm not sure that I ever sent you the updated Wahl-Ammann paper that was the basis for Steve's provisional acceptance. Here it is. As is, it contains a long appendix (# 1) on issues with interannual statistics of merit for validation, which was not in the version I had sent you earlier in the year. All the main results and conclusions are the same. Caspar and I are also now responding to Steve's final requests, based on independent re-review. This is primarily to address publishing Pearson's r^2 and CE calculations for verification, which Steve and the reviewer reason should be done to get the conversation off the topic of us choosing not to report these measures, and onto the science itself. We explain thoroughly in the appendix I mention above why we feel these (and other interannual-only) measures of merit are not of much use for verification in the MBH context, so that the fact we are reporting them is contextualized appropriately. IN FACT, we will be going farther than that and will be bringing this material currently in an appendix into the main text, based on the reasoning below(quoted from another message) Caspar mentioned yesterday that he talked with Susan Solomon about this paper, and she did not see the appendix we had added concerning the issues about Pearson's r^2 etc. Based on this she therefore thought our text was weak in this area in relation to McIntyre's criticisms. Caspar thought, and I agree, that we need to bring this stuff OUT of the appendix and get it INTO the methods section, so that it won't be so easily missed!! We are working on this--which will include other material as well in the text proper. Also, we are going ahead with an even further-expanded discussion on the issues with r^2, which itself will probably become an appendix in the final text (it had been slated for publication as supplemental web-site material). This expanded discussion will go into additional reasoning (with graphics) concerning the basis for r^2 not being useful in this context. It will give a vector space analysis of the issues, and explicit visual demonstration of how these issues with r^2 play out in terms of false negative and false positive errors in validation. Let me know if I can be of any further help in all this. Apologies if this message seems long. I did my best to keep it short, but I'm a bit tired and it is hard to edit well in that state! Peace, Gene ******************************* Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 1 Saxon Drive Alfred NY, 14802 607.871.2604 ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Wahl, Eugene R Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 12:55 AM To: Jonathan Overpeck Cc: Keith Briffa; ammann@ucar.edu Subject: RE: Wahl-Ammann paper on MBH-MM issues Hello Jonathan: 1) I want you to know that we heard from Steve Schneider today that our paper with Climatic Change has been provisionally accepted for publication. The provisions Steve outlined are ones we fully accept and will implement (extra statistics of merit and remaking of graphics), so this paper can be viewed as accepted, I should think. Caspar and I are getting right on it. We wanted you to know this ASAP. 2) The Ammann-Wahl GRL comment on the MM GRL paper from early 2005 is being sent for final review along with a response by MM that GRL is soliciting. We had thought, based on info from James Famiglietti (editor), that this article had been accepted and the response from MM was just being sought. We did not realize that the entire package of comment and response would be put through a final review. We just heard about this last Friday. Sorry that we had that one mistaken. Hope you are well. Best wishes on IPCC work. Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Wahl_Ammann_3321_revised.doc" 4324. 2006-01-20 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:44:05 +0000 (GMT) from: Martin Juckes subject: MITRIE -- a new draft to: mitrie -- Anders Moberg , Eduardo Zorita , hegerl@duke.edu, Jan Esper , Keith Briffa , Martin Juckes , Myles Allen , Nanne Weber , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Hello, here is a new draft -- I've tried to incorporate comments -- please accept my apologies if something you suggested is still not in. From the new reconstructions I've done the conclusion is that the compositing approach is more robust than inverse regression. I think I need to add a little more to back up the interpretation -- this comes from looking at the regression coefficients: with inverse regression the reconstruction is dominated by a small number of proxies. cheers, martin Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\mitrie_04.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\mitrie_04.tex" 1371. 2006-01-23 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:31:50 +0000 from: simon.tett@metoffice.gov.uk subject: [Fwd: Clim. Dyn] to: Richard Betts , Tom Crowley , Jonathan Gregory , Tim Johns , Andy Jones , Elisabeth Ostrom , Tim Osborn , Margaret Woodage All, attached are reviewers comments on our paper. All are fairly positive and minor. In addition I need to include some information on land-sfc changes (t/s of forest area) and correct the soil moisture text. [I will post a copy of the review to David Roberts] Simon -- Dr Simon Tett Managing Scientist, Data development and applications. Met Office Hadley Centre (Reading Unit) Meteorology Building, University of Reading Reading RG6 6BB Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5614 Fax +44 (0)118 378 5615 Mobile: +44-(0)77 538 80696 I work in Exeter about 2 days/week. E-mail: simon.tett@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Received: from exxmail1.desktop.frd.metoffice.com ([151.170.112.5]) by exxmail2.desktop.frd.metoffice.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:36:25 +0000 Received: from exxmgw1-fw.metoffice.gov.uk ([151.170.243.15]) by exxmail1.desktop.frd.metoffice.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:36:24 +0000 Received: from hermes.cnrs-gif.fr ([157.136.10.1]) by exxmgw1-fw.metoffice.gov.uk with ESMTP; 20 Jan 2006 14:36:24 +0000 X-SBRS: 5.5 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAA+k= X-IronPort-AV: i="4.01,205,1136160000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="8193760:sNHT33864584" Received: from mailhost.lsce.cnrs-gif.fr (mercure.lsce.cnrs-gif.fr [157.136.14.3]) by hermes.cnrs-gif.fr (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k0KEaDDR025530 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:36:13 +0100 Received: from [157.136.14.188] (tahiti.lsce.cnrs-gif.fr [157.136.14.188]) by mailhost.lsce.cnrs-gif.fr (8.12.11/jtpda-5.4) with ESMTP id k0KEaAKZ004498 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:36:12 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: duplessy@mailhost.lsce.cnrs-gif.fr Message-Id: Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:37:48 +0100 To: Simon Tett From: Jean-Claude Duplessy Subject: Clim. Dyn Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1074354622==_ma============" X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) Return-Path: Jean-Claude.Duplessy@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jan 2006 14:36:24.0981 (UTC) FILETIME=[E3D9D450:01C61DCE] Dear Simon, I have now received 3 reviews of your manuscript "The impact of natural and anthropogenic forcings on climate and hydrology since 1550" submitted by Tett et al I will be able to accept it for ublication in Climate Dynamics if you can revise it following the referees comments. If you feel able to follow these recommendations, I will need only 2 paper copies of the manuscript plus a letter explaining changes that you have made. In this cas, i will make the last review myself. I will need together with the anuscript the usual copyrighht transfer form from your institution. With my best wishes for the New Year, Jean Claude Ref 1 Comments on the manuscript "The impact of natural and anthropogenic forcings on climate and hydrology since 1550" submitted by Tett et al. to Climate Dynamics November 2005 The manuscript describes some results of two climate simulations of the past 500 years, one driven by natural forcings only and one driven by natural plus anthropogenic forcings. Both are compared to a control simulation with constant forcing set, for most of the forcing factors, at preindustrial conditions. The manuscript consists of two parts. The first part is devoted to the question of the climate sensitivity, its dependence on the underlying "mean"climate state and on the nature of the external forcing and on the previous climate history. By diagnosing the forcing at the Top of the Atmosphere, the heat fluxes into the ocean and the temperature response of the model, the authors conclude that the concept of climate sensitivity may be dangerous, since in these simulations it depends on all mentioned factors. This result is in itself quite relevant, since it alerts on the dangers of trying to estimate climate sensitive from reconstructions and past temperatures and past forcings and extrapolate this knowledge to future climates. The second part contains a general description of the effects of the natural and anthropogenic forcing on some selected climatic aspects. The description is focused on the effect on variability and on long-term trends. the main conclusion is that the effects anthropogenic forcing is clearly distinguishable from the effects of natural forcings in many important aspects, although not in all of them. In my opinion, quite relevant is the finding that the tropical regions present the largest signal-to-noise ratio, and that detection of the anthropogenic influence on climate could be more successful in this regions, if longer instrumental records or climate reconstructions were available. In this second part, the authors have chosen the strategy of presenting in a quite descriptive way a general overview of the simulations, instead of concentrating in some key aspects and analyze mechanisms, causes and responses in a more detailed way. This is is a matter of taste, but some readers may find this section too descriptive. I think this strategy is alright if the reader is warned at some point that the manuscript has been designed in this way, and that a more detailed process analysis will eventually be published at a later stage. The authors have also chosen not to perform a comparison with reconstructions of global or regional climates of the past centuries. I also agree that the uncertainties in the reconstructions are still too large to warrant a useful discussion on the differences between model and reconstructions. This would also be better placed in a manuscript Regarding the presentation, I think the manuscript is generally in good shape. The relevant references have been included and the figures are in general clear and informative. I have some particular comments that the authors may perhaps want to consider. 1)In page 6, left column, second paragraph, the imbalance of the radiation budget is discussed. Both simulations are found to be in equilibrium with the external forcing until the end of the 19th century. At the end of the 20th century the imbalance due to anthropogenic forcing is 0.2 W/m2. This figures contrast somewhat with those provided by Gregory et al (J. Climate, 2002), who estimate a disequilibrium of the real climate in the 19th century of about 0.2 W/m2 and about 0.32+-0.15 W/m2 in the last decades of the 20th century. Perhaps the authors could refer to these results and comment on their agreement and disagreement. My impression is that the second figures agree, whereas the the first (imbalance in the 19th century) do not. 2) In page 6, the value of alpha (inverse of the sensitivity) and its stability is discussed. The authors find that alpha is not constant along the simulations and suggest that this may be due to the different forcing that come into play along time. However, alpha will also change just because the mean temperature is changing. In a simple energy balance equation the external forcing is proportional to the fourth power of mean temperature. The derivative will be then proportional to the third power of temperature. This would make alpha increase with mean temperature, irrespective of the changing nature of the forcing. The changes in alpha in the all250 simulation go in opposite direction to this expected thermodynamic effect, so that the qualitative effect of the nature of the forcing should be still larger. If changes in the sensitivity due to the nature of the forcing (solar to greenhouse gas) are in the order of 300 %, this result is really a blow to the attempts to estimate the present climate sensitivity from paleoreconstructions. Also in this paragraph, I am not sure that the sentence "although the low correlation will reduce the regression slope" is correct. If , for instance, other sources of temperature variability affect the correlation with the forcing, these sources will increase the temperature covariance with the forcing and the temperature variance in the same amount, so that the regression itself will be unaffected. 3) In page 7, left column, bottom, the effect of orbital forcing is estimated by calculating the trend in the difference between the NH mean from the global mean in the simulation Natural500. However, a trend in the difference may also be present in the control simulation. 4) In page 10, left column, middle, the variance of the simulated Central England Temperature is discussed. Changes in the variability relative to control are possibly ascribed to the coarse model resolution. I think this can be quite correct, since the control simulation has the same resolution. 5)Page 10, right column, bottom. JJA NAO shows a positive trend. This would indicate a pressure decrease in Iceland relative to Azores, and not an increase. 6) Page 11, left column, second half. In the all250 simulation, the aerosol forcing compensates to some extent the greenhouse warming on northern hemisphere land areas through the indirect effect, i.e. the formation of clouds. However, precipitation is reduced precisely on those areas, due to the increased long-wave radiation to space in the troposphere. I think both mechanisms are to some extent opposing each other, unless it is assumed that rain efficiency is strongly changing. Is this point perhaps worth a comment? . 7) The SOI index in figure 11 is defined as Darwin minus Tahiti, which opposite to the usual definition. Is this just a glitch in the caption or has the SOI really been calculated in this way? This could be important because there still exists a disagreement, or uncertainty, about the response of ENSO to changes in the external forcing (Collins, Climate Dynamics, 2005). The analysis of reconstructions and simulations could be, therefore, a key issue in determining the sign of the ENSO response to forcing. Perhaps the authors would to add some discussion on this, at least stating what is the sign of the SOI response to past forcing. If figure 11 has been plotted correctly, with the usual definition of the SOI, it seems that the model would tend to produce a La Niña-like response to increased forcing. If the figure caption is correct, then the model response is more El Niño-like. Some other minor points: 8) the references should be brought to a common format. 9) Page 6, left column, bottom, I think Q should read F. The notation here is different to the one used in Gregory et al. (ibid). Perhaps it can be convenient to use the same notation: Q=F + alpha T 10) When discussing the radiative forcing in all250, the authors refer in many places to CO2 , but methane is not negligible. 11) Page 6, right column, discussion on alpha: some units are missing in these paragraphs. 12) Page 7, right column, middle : change "foring" to forcing. 13) Page 7, left column, bottom: "seas-ice" to sea-ice 14) Page 8, right column: "expected be" to "expected to be" 15) Page 9, right column, middle :"these indices to how stable..." to "these indices to see how stable..." Ref 2 Review of "The impact of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings on Climate and Hydrology since 1550" by Tett et al., submitted to Climate Dynamics. This paper presents analyses of simulations of the HadCM3 model. The authors emphasize the influence of natural and anthropogenic forcings on climate variability during the past 500 years. The paper is well written and presents a thorough analysis of the variance of temperature and precipitation. I was a bit disappointed that the authors only allude (i.e. use too many synonyms of "suggest" and other hypothetical forms) to mechanisms which could be responsible to changes in variance, and do not offer ways to prove (or disprove) quantitatively such mechanisms in the HadCM3 model. I think that they had the material to be more conclusive. Although it is subliminal, the authors should state in the discussion that their results are model dependent. I have a number of minor comments listed below: 1. Introduction. "one driven by natural forcings from 1492 to 2000" The abstract says 1999. Please make sure that numbers are consistent throughout the text. 2. The authors claim that they cannot compare their simulations with proxy data. They could at least make comparisons with observations since 1850 and check whether the variability they simulate is realistic (and not just for Central England Temperature). 3. Model description, last para. "No attempt is made to model gains or losses from the rivers. Nor do we consider the large anthropogenic changes in river flow through dams, irrigation and sequestration from rivers. Thus our river flow results should be seen as indicative of the possible impact that natural and anthropogenic forcings (including changes in land-surface properties) could have on river flows." Those three sentences mean that the authors acknowledge that the surface hydrological cycle of their model is wrong, and then that ("/thus/") they can retrieve some truth on the hydrological cycle. This sounds illogical and demands a clarification (a true conclusion cannot be drawn from a false assumption). 4. Why chose the year 1492 (apart from historical reasons that do not have much to do with climate)? 5. Comparison with control (bottom of p. 4). Figure 1d does not show river flows. Please check that the figure numbers and captions are OK. 6. Climate sensitivity (p. 6). "As the simulated response is rarely in equilibrium this means that the climate response depends on the rate at which the ocean takes up heat as well as the equilibrium climate sensitivity. Thus palaeo-reconstructions of the last 500 to 1000 years are unlikely, in the absence of other evidence, to provide robust estimates of climate sensitivity." The logical implication ("/thus"/) is not clear to me. Moreover, the purpose of paleo-reconstruction is to obtain temperature (or precipitation) estimates, not to provide estimates of climate sensitivity, especially if "climate sensitivity" is defined by the rate of change under a doubling of CO2. 7. Analysis of climate indices. The authors perform a low pass filter on the climate indices. Could they explain why? 8. Cryosphere (last paragraph). It is very disappointing to conclude a study where all elements are available in principle by sentences including "we think", "this suggests", etc. 9. Regional temperature variability (p. 11). Please explain why less snow cover imply lower temperature variance? 10. p. 11. "Our results strongly suggest that decadal tropical variability is significantly driven by natural forcings. Thus studies into it, and its teleconnections, should consider natural and, as we shall see below, anthropogenic forcings as an important driver of decadal tropical climate variability." I challenge anyone to find tools proving that "decadal tropical variability (DTV) is */not/* driven by natural forcings". The second sentence is even more mysterious to me because it boils down to "not only DTV is driven by natural forcings, but also by anthropogenic forcings". This is uninformative. Apart from those points, I think that it is a valuable paper and I recommend its publication in /Climate Dynamics/ if the proper improvements and clarifications are implemented. Ref 3 Review Tett et al. The impact of Natural and Anthropogenic forcings on climate and hydrology since 1550 General This paper describes the results of three experiments performed with the HadCM3 coupled GCM. Two of these experiments are new and are forced with time-varying natural (experiment NATURAL500) and natural+anthropogenic (experiment ALL250) forcings for the last few centuries. The results of these simulations are compared with a long control simulation with constant forcings, with the aim to study the impact of natural and anthropogenic forcings on climate. This study can be viewed as a follow up of the study by Tett et al. (2002, hereafter T2002), who used the same model to simulate the response to natural forcings from 1850 to 1999 AD. The present study presents a simulation that starts much earlier (in 1492). The aim of this paper is to explore the impact of the various forcings on decadal-centennial scale variability. Unfortunately, the results of NATURAL500 and ALL250 had to be corrected for two sources of error. First, the control experiment experienced a cooling drift, for which both other experiments were corrected using a 2nd order polynomial fit. Second, the set-up of land surface parameters in NATURAL500 contained an error, for which this experiment was corrected using an additional shorter simulation with a correct set-up. These corrections introduce uncertainties that somewhat weaken this paper. In addition, the combination of various forcings in the two experiments makes it difficult to reach conclusions on the impact of individual forcings. Nevertheless, the authors try to do this (e.g., orbital forcing p. 7, deforestation p. 9), but I do find these parts of the paper somewhat unsatisfactory. The experimental set-up does not allow for a quantification of the separate impacts of the forcings, as this would require additional experiments in which the individual forcings are modif! ied. Despite these critical remarks, I find this an interesting paper that discusses relevant new results. Particularly, the conclusion that climate sensitivity depends on the nature of the forcing could have important implications, for instance that simple models are not suitable for climate change studies. Another relevant result is the increase in decadal variance (by a factor 3) in an experiment forced with natural forcings compared to a control experiment with constant forcings. I would therefore recommend publication of this paper in Climate Dynamics after moderate revisions. My suggestions for revision are listed below. Major comments 1) T2002 used an ensemble of simulations, while in this paper Tett et al. have only performed two experiments. Generally, ensembles are performed to get an idea of the variability in the results, which is necessary if one wants to assess the statistical significance of anomalies. Presumably, Tett et al. have not performed an ensemble of simulations to avoid high computing costs. Instead, they have carried out statistical analyses using bootstrap algorithms to assess the uncertainty due to variability and the statistical significance of the simulated anomalies. After reading the present paper, it is not clear to me what the advantages and disadvantages of this statistical analysis are compared to the use of ensembles. It appears that the applied statistical analysis cannot provide the same information as the ensembles. For instance, in ALL250 an early 20th century acceleration is simulated in AMOC (page 9, Section 5.4), but it remains unclear if this due to internal variabili! ty or to external forcing. I therefore suggest that the authors discuss in Section 2 in more detail the differences between the two approaches. 2) In my view, the set-up of CONTROL is not consistent compared to the other two simulations, as it is forced with forcings from varying periods. Greenhouse gas concentrations are from late 19th century, the land surface properties and orbital configuration correspond to 1990 conditions and volcanic aerosol values are the means for the 20th century. It would have made much more sense to use a control experiment forced with forcings for 1750 AD. The use of forcings from different periods makes it problematic to use CONTROL to look at the impact of natural forcings. The NATURAL500 simulation is forced with time-varying forcings for the period 1492 to 1999. Tett et al. analyse the impact of natural forcings by taking the difference between NATURAL500 and CONTROL, and by comparing this relative to the 1700-1749 average from NATURAL500. Because the set of forcings in CONTROL does not represent any period used in NATURAL500, it is not clear what the difference actually represents.! This issue should be discussed in the paper. 3) Page 3, Section 2.2, last paragraph. The authors mention here a drift in the CONTROL simulation and assume that the same drift is present in the other two simulations. I wonder if they tested on what factors this drift depends. Has the sensitivity of this drift to various forcings been tested? For instance, is it known that the drift is the same in a relatively cool (e.g., preindustrial) and a relatively warm climate (e.g., 2*CO2 or 4*CO2)? This would be important to know, also because the uncertainty due to the model drift is not assessed (page 4). Please discuss this issue briefly. Minor comments a) Page 1, Section 1, first paragraph. To support this they used an ensemble of simulations driven by natural forcings alone. This sentence is somewhat confusing, because it appears as if they refers to Collins et al. 2002, who did not use an ensemble, while presumably it refers to T2002. b) Page 2, Section 2.2, first paragraph. Please give the values of the greenhouse gas concentrations used in CONTROL. Are these the same as used for the initial conditions of NATURAL500 (page 3)? c) Page 4, Section3, second paragraph. Over most of the world, temperatures are lower in NATURAL500 than in CONTROL, while in some areas the temperatures are significantly higher. According to the authors, the higher temperatures over continents are associated with reforestation. However, significantly warmer conditions are also found over the central North Atlantic Ocean and over the Arctic Ocean north of Greenland and Svalbard. It is not clear what is causing these relatively high temperatures. Please provide a discussion. d) Page 4, Section 3, third paragraph. Please include a reference to Figure 1b here. e) Page 4, Section 3, fourth and fifth paragraph. Please swap Figures 1c (River flow) and 1d (Soil Moisture), as, according to the text, Figure 1c should show soil moisture and Figure 1d river flow. The same is true for Figures 14c-d, and 15c-d. f) Page 4, discussion Table 1. Please explain in the caption what GS stands for in NH20 Lnd GS Temp. g) Page 5, Section 3. Discussion of taiga-tundra feedback. I suggest including references to Otterman et al. (1984, J Clim Appl Meteorol 23, 762-767) and Foley et al. (1994, Nature 371, 52-54) here. h) Page 5, 2nd column, third paragraph. Total natural and anthropogenic forcing increases at a rate roughly three times faster . I propose to make clear that this sentence refers to the global mean. i) Page 6, discussion of Figure 4. á in ALL250 is not constant (Fig. 4) with very different values of á prior to and post 1900. For 1750-1900 á is 1.8 ± 0.55 W/(m2K) . This is somewhat confusing, as Figure 4 does not show values of á. Instead, the reader is expected to calculate á from the figure. j) Page 8, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph. one might expect changes (omit be). k) Page 9, discussion of Figure 11. I would suggest omitting Figure 11, as it does not provide any additional information. l) Page 10, 1st column, 3rd paragraph. According to Table 2, annual AMOC variability is not significantly different in ALL250. This is inconsistent with discussion on Page 10. m) Page 10, 2nd column, 5th paragraph. Please rephrase sentence The two UK indices show .. n) Page 10, 2nd column, 6th paragraph. JJA NAO in both experiments shows significant positive trend Please discuss the cause of the trend. o) Page 11, 2nd column, line 6. Tropics are warming (instead of is). p) Page 11, 2nd column, 3rd paragraph. These increases in snow cover (instead of increase). q) Figure 12. Please improve labels in Figure 12, these are hard to read. r) Figure 13b. Some information is missing in caption (last sentence). -- Jean-Claude DUPLESSY laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement Bâtiment 12 Parc du CNRS F - 91198 Gif sur Yvette cedex - tel (33) 01 69 82 35 26 - fax (33) 01 69 82 35 68 - e-mail : Jean-Claude.Duplessy@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr 2195. 2006-01-23 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Keith Briffa" date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:25:28 -0500 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: Fwd: RE: Wahl-Ammann paper on MBH-MM issues to: "Jonathan Overpeck" , "Eystein Jansen" Hello Jonathan: Top priority it is. We have been thinking on expanding things just a bit beyond what Steve Schneider is requiring at a minimum, but maybe that is not the best course of action at this point. Can you please advise of a deadline that we would have to hit to ensure that it can be cited. Depending on when this is, I could give you an estimate of whether we can have it to Steve Schneider with some time for his unprovisional approval. Hopefully so, but see below for (some) of the limits I'm afraid I'm facing... ...I.E., I'm teaching 12 credits now (the usual load here), so it is hard to get lots of uninterrupted time, and the University is very zealous about trimming very few corners here. Also I have had to deal with an emergency illness situation with my father recently. This (and finalizing a Science comment on the Von Storch et al. 2004 flawed criticism of the MBH work) explains why the finalizing on the Wahl-Ammann paper is not yet done. We will do everything fleshly possible to get the WA paper done ASAP. That is my promise. Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University ________________________________ From: Jonathan Overpeck [mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu] Sent: Mon 1/23/2006 3:47 PM To: Eystein Jansen Cc: Wahl, Eugene R; Keith Briffa Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: Wahl-Ammann paper on MBH-MM issues Hi all - I'm betting that "provisional acceptance" is not good enough for inclusion in the Second Order draft, but based on what Gene has said, he should have formal acceptance soon - we really need that. Can you give us a read on when you'll have it Gene? Best make this a top priority, or we'll have to leave your important work out of the chapter. Many thanks!! Peck Hi Peck, I assume a provisional acceptance is OK by IPCC rules? The timing of these matters are being followed closely by McIntyre (see: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=503) and we cannot afford to being caught doing anything that is not within the regulations. Thus need to consult with martin and Susan on this (see also last mail from Melinda). Cheers, Eystein Thanks Gene - it is worth all the effort, and please keep us (especially Keith) posted on the updates. best, peck X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Subject: RE: Wahl-Ammann paper on MBH-MM issues Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:17:03 -0500 Thread-Topic: Wahl-Ammann paper on MBH-MM issues Thread-Index: AcWBF2jTf69xJLFkThuHZzU6qK8tMx+kOAJUB28NG2A= From: "Wahl, Eugene R" To: "Jonathan Overpeck" Hello Jonathan and Keith: I'm not sure that I ever sent you the updated Wahl-Ammann paper that was the basis for Steve's provisional acceptance. Here it is. As is, it contains a long appendix (# 1) on issues with interannual statistics of merit for validation, which was not in the version I had sent you earlier in the year. All the main results and conclusions are the same. Caspar and I are also now responding to Steve's final requests, based on independent re-review. This is primarily to address publishing Pearson's r^2 and CE calculations for verification, which Steve and the reviewer reason should be done to get the conversation off the topic of us choosing not to report these measures, and onto the science itself. We explain thoroughly in the appendix I mention above why we feel these (and other interannual-only) measures of merit are not of much use for verification in the MBH context, so that the fact we are reporting them is contextualized appropriately. IN FACT, we will be going farther than that and will be bringing this material currently in an appendix into the main text, based on the reasoning belowS(quoted from another message) SCaspar mentioned yesterday that he talked with Susan Solomon about this paper, and she did not see the appendix we had added concerning the issues about Pearson's r^2 etc. Based on this she therefore thought our text was weak in this area in relation to McIntyre's criticisms. Caspar thought, and I agree, that we need to bring this stuff OUT of the appendix and get it INTO the methods section, so that it won't be so easily missed!! We are working on this--which will include other material as well in the text proper. Also, we are going ahead with an even further-expanded discussion on the issues with r^2, which itself will probably become an appendix in the final text (it had been slated for publication as supplemental web-site material). This expanded discussion will go into additional reasoning (with graphics) concerning the basis for r^2 not being useful in this context. It will give a vector space analysis of the issues, and explicit visual demonstration of how these issues with r^2 play out in terms of false negative and false positive errors in validation. Let me know if I can be of any further help in all this. Apologies if this message seems long. I did my best to keep it short, but I'm a bit tired and it is hard to edit well in that state! Peace, Gene ******************************* Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 1 Saxon Drive Alfred NY, 14802 607.871.2604 ________________________________ From: Wahl, Eugene R Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 12:55 AM To: Jonathan Overpeck Cc: Keith Briffa; ammann@ucar.edu Subject: RE: Wahl-Ammann paper on MBH-MM issues Hello Jonathan: 1) I want you to know that we heard from Steve Schneider today that our paper with Climatic Change has been provisionally accepted for publication. The provisions Steve outlined are ones we fully accept and will implement (extra statistics of merit and remaking of graphics), so this paper can be viewed as accepted, I should think. Caspar and I are getting right on it. We wanted you to know this ASAP. 2) The Ammann-Wahl GRL comment on the MM GRL paper from early 2005 is being sent for final review along with a response by MM that GRL is soliciting. We had thought, based on info from James Famiglietti (editor), that this article had been accepted and the response from MM was just being sought. We did not realize that the entire package of comment and response would be put through a final review. We just heard about this last Friday. Sorry that we had that one mistaken. Hope you are well. Best wishes on IPCC work. Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl 5195. 2006-01-23 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Wahl, Eugene R" , Keith Briffa date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 13:47:30 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: Fwd: RE: Wahl-Ammann paper on MBH-MM issues to: Eystein Jansen Hi all - I'm betting that "provisional acceptance" is not good enough for inclusion in the Second Order draft, but based on what Gene has said, he should have formal acceptance soon - we really need that. Can you give us a read on when you'll have it Gene? Best make this a top priority, or we'll have to leave your important work out of the chapter. Many thanks!! Peck Hi Peck, I assume a provisional acceptance is OK by IPCC rules? The timing of these matters are being followed closely by McIntyre (see: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=503) and we cannot afford to being caught doing anything that is not within the regulations. Thus need to consult with martin and Susan on this (see also last mail from Melinda). Cheers, Eystein Thanks Gene - it is worth all the effort, and please keep us (especially Keith) posted on the updates. best, peck X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Subject: RE: Wahl-Ammann paper on MBH-MM issues Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:17:03 -0500 Thread-Topic: Wahl-Ammann paper on MBH-MM issues Thread-Index: AcWBF2jTf69xJLFkThuHZzU6qK8tMx+kOAJUB28NG2A= From: "Wahl, Eugene R" To: "Jonathan Overpeck" Hello Jonathan and Keith: I'm not sure that I ever sent you the updated Wahl-Ammann paper that was the basis for Steve's provisional acceptance. Here it is. As is, it contains a long appendix (# 1) on issues with interannual statistics of merit for validation, which was not in the version I had sent you earlier in the year. All the main results and conclusions are the same. Caspar and I are also now responding to Steve's final requests, based on independent re-review. This is primarily to address publishing Pearson's r^2 and CE calculations for verification, which Steve and the reviewer reason should be done to get the conversation off the topic of us choosing not to report these measures, and onto the science itself. We explain thoroughly in the appendix I mention above why we feel these (and other interannual-only) measures of merit are not of much use for verification in the MBH context, so that the fact we are reporting them is contextualized appropriately. IN FACT, we will be going farther than that and will be bringing this material currently in an appendix into the main text, based on the reasoning below(quoted from another message) Caspar mentioned yesterday that he talked with Susan Solomon about this paper, and she did not see the appendix we had added concerning the issues about Pearson's r^2 etc. Based on this she therefore thought our text was weak in this area in relation to McIntyre's criticisms. Caspar thought, and I agree, that we need to bring this stuff OUT of the appendix and get it INTO the methods section, so that it won't be so easily missed!! We are working on this--which will include other material as well in the text proper. Also, we are going ahead with an even further-expanded discussion on the issues with r^2, which itself will probably become an appendix in the final text (it had been slated for publication as supplemental web-site material). This expanded discussion will go into additional reasoning (with graphics) concerning the basis for r^2 not being useful in this context. It will give a vector space analysis of the issues, and explicit visual demonstration of how these issues with r^2 play out in terms of false negative and false positive errors in validation. Let me know if I can be of any further help in all this. Apologies if this message seems long. I did my best to keep it short, but I'm a bit tired and it is hard to edit well in that state! Peace, Gene ******************************* Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 1 Saxon Drive Alfred NY, 14802 607.871.2604 ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Wahl, Eugene R Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 12:55 AM To: Jonathan Overpeck Cc: Keith Briffa; ammann@ucar.edu Subject: RE: Wahl-Ammann paper on MBH-MM issues Hello Jonathan: 1) I want you to know that we heard from Steve Schneider today that our paper with Climatic Change has been provisionally accepted for publication. The provisions Steve outlined are ones we fully accept and will implement (extra statistics of merit and remaking of graphics), so this paper can be viewed as accepted, I should think. Caspar and I are getting right on it. We wanted you to know this ASAP. 2) The Ammann-Wahl GRL comment on the MM GRL paper from early 2005 is being sent for final review along with a response by MM that GRL is soliciting. We had thought, based on info from James Famiglietti (editor), that this article had been accepted and the response from MM was just being sought. We did not realize that the entire package of comment and response would be put through a final review. We just heard about this last Friday. Sorry that we had that one mistaken. Hope you are well. Best wishes on IPCC work. Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Attachment converted: Nebbiolo:Wahl_Ammann_3321_revised.doc (WDBN/«IC») (009EB84C) -- 4579. 2006-01-24 ______________________________________________________ cc: Jonathan Overpeck , Stefan Rahmstorf , Anders Levermann , Eva Bauer , plattner@climate.unibe.ch, Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:53:04 +0100 from: Eva Bauer subject: Re: Millennium Simulations to: Fortunat Joos Dear all, The CLIMBER2 simulations are ready. The CLIMBER3a simulations are still running and unfortunately it's unlikely to finish the runs in time for the deadline Feb 3rd. But CLIMBER3a results will be available for more detailed studies. Please find attached 7 CLIMBER2 result files described in a readme file. I hope the data files are ok. In case you may wish any other output don't hesitate to inform me. We are curious to see maybe in advance some results from the model comparison. With best wishes, Eva Fortunat Joos wrote: > Dear Eva, > > This sounds good to me. I assume that you will also store output fields > of temperature and other variables so that eventual later requests (e.g. > for a NH-extratropical summer temperature curve) could be extracted from > the model output. For the moment submitting the global and NH > temperature series seems sufficient. > > With best wishes, > > Fortunat > > Eva Bauer wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Thanks for the message and also for the forcing data series. >> We will start the simulations today. >> >> We were thinking already about a control run. >> Since we suggested to account for the Milankovitch forcing in the >> CLIMBER2/3a runs we would produce a control run with Milankovitch only. >> We will provide from all simulations global and NH mean surface temp. >> Then temperature anomalies with respect to the control run can be >> considered as response to the different forcing data series. >> I hope you think that's ok. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Eva >> >> >> >> Fortunat Joos wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Please find attached an update of the simulation protocol and input >>> data description. >>> >>> Kasper Plattner pointed out that I forgot the obvious. We need of >>> course a control run to correct for potential model drift. The readme >>> file has been modified accordingly adding a brief description on how >>> the control should be done. >>> >>> I am looking forward to any additional comments. Hope everything is >>> clear. >>> >>> Kasper is currently working to perform the simulation with the >>> Bern2.5CC. >>> >>> Regards, Fortunat >>> >>> Fortunat Joos wrote: >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> Last Millennium Simulations for IPCC AR4 WG1 Chap 6 >>> --------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> F. Joos, >>> joos@climate.unibe.ch >>> 18 Januar 2006 >>> >>> OVERVIEW >>> -------- >>> >>> A total of 7 simulations is planned. >>> A control simulation without any forcing >>> >>> Two millennium-long simulations with solar forcing following Bard et >>> al. with a Maunder Minimum reduction of 0.08 and 0.25 percent in >>> total irradiance and volcanic and anthropogenic forcing included A >>> simulation from 1610 to 1998 with solar forcing from Wang et al, 2005 >>> and volcanic and anthropogenic forcing included >>> >>> Three simulations from 1765 to 1998 with only solar and volcanic >>> forcing included, but no anthropogenic forcings. These are branches >>> from the above three simulation. >>> >>> A range of input data files have been prepeared. Each contains a >>> header with additional descriptions of the data. >>> Solar irradiance has been taken from Bard et al., Tellus, 1999 and >>> from Wang, Lean, Shirley, JAp, 2005. >>> >>> It is estimated that the Maunder Minimum irradiance is reduce by 0.08 >>> percent >>> relative to today and that the present irradiance is 1366 W/m2 from >>> the Wang et al. data. >>> >>> A case with a Maunder Minimum reduction of 0.08 percent is calculated >>> from the Bard et al. data by scaling the original Bard series >>> appropriately. >>> The original Bard series are offset by 1.3 W/m2 in irradiance to >>> bring them to a present irradiance of 1366 W/m2. For this excercise >>> we will utilize a Maunder >>> Minimum reduction in irradiance relative to today of 0.08 percent and >>> of 0.25 percent (other cases with high MM reduction are included in >>> the files). >>> >>> Irradiance has been converted to radiative forcing: RF= (IRR-1366)/4*0.7 >>> Volcanic forcing is from Crowley Science, 2000, with albedo >>> factored in (e.g. as for solar forcing). To avoid a cold start of the >>> model, the serie is extended to 850 AD by mirroring the Crowley data >>> from 1001 to 1150 to the period 850 to 1000. >>> NonCO2 forcing is following TAR (updated for an error in tropo O3 in >>> the TAR). >>> CO2 is a spline through the Etheridge, JGR, 97 data and the >>> Siegenthaler, TEllus, 2005 data. >>> >>> >>> INPUT FILES DESCRIPTION: >>> ----------------------- >>> >>> It is recommended to linearly interpolate between data points. >>> >>> A1: Solar irradiance and radiative forcing following Bard from 850 to >>> 2000 (Tag description) >>> solBard08 2. col: Maunder Minimum reduction of 0.08 percent >>> solBard25 3. col: Maunder Minimu reduction of 0.25 percent >>> >>> Note: data from Bard have been linearlz interplated on an annual time >>> step files: >>> bard00tel_solar_RF_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>> bard00tel_solar_irradiance_offset-13_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>> >>> >>> A2: Solar irradiance and radiative forcing following Wang, Lean, >>> Shirley, 2005 >>> from 1610 to 2004 annual resolution >>> Tag: WLS-05 >>> >>> files: >>> wang05jastr_lean_RF_IPCC_chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>> wang05jastr_lean_irradiance_IPCC_chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>> >>> A3: CO2 concentration in ppm from 850 to 2000 >>> >>> annual resolution >>> Tag: CO2 >>> file: co2_850-2000_splined_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>> >>> A4: volcanic forcing after Crowley from 1001 to 1998 AD, extended by >>> artificial >>> data from 850 to 1000 AD by mirroring the forcing from 1000 to >>> 1150 to the period 850 to 1000 >>> Tag: volcCrow >>> >>> annual resolution >>> file: crowley00sci_RFvolcanic_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan05.out >>> >>> A5: radiative forcing by non-CO2 agents >>> annual resolution >>> Tag: nonco2 >>> >>> files >>> rf_nonco2_1yr_1765_2000_individ_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>> rf_nonco2_1yr_850_2000_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>> >>> >>> >>> B) SIMULATIONS >>> ----------------------- >>> >>> B1. 2 Long simulations from 850 AD to 1998 >>> >>> ------- >>> >>> Simulation B1.1. tag: bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_850-1998 >>> >>> Solar forcing from Bard et al. with MM reduction of 0.08 percent, >>> volcanic forcing and forcing from CO2 and other anthropogenic >>> (non-CO2) agents. >>> >>> Start of simulation 850 AD >>> End of simulation: 1998 AD >>> initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar) >>> >>> Analysis period: 1001 AD to 1998 AD >>> start-up period: 850 to 1000 with artificial volcanic data >>> >>> -------- >>> >>> Simulation B1.2 tag: bard25_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_850-1998 >>> >>> as B1.1 but with solar forcing from Bard et al. reduced by 0.25 >>> percent for the Maunder Minimum. >>> >>> Start of simulation 850 AD >>> End of simulation: 1998 AD >>> initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar) >>> >>> Analysis period: 1001 AD to 1998 AD >>> start-up period: 850 to 1000 with artificial volcanic data >>> >>> -------- >>> >>> Simulation B2: A simulation from 1610 to 1998 restarted from >>> bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 >>> >>> With solar forcing from Wang et al., 2005, volcanic forci >>> ng and forcing from CO2 and other anthropogenic (non-CO2) agents. >>> >>> B2 tag: WLS-2005_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_1610-1998 >>> >>> Start of simulation: 1610 AD >>> End of simulation: 1998 AD >>> initial condition: restart from simulation B1.1. >>> bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 >>> at year 1610 >>> >>> Analysis period: 1610 AD to 1998 AD >>> >>> >>> ------- >>> >>> B3: 3 Simulations from 1765 to 1998 with natural forcing only >>> >>> non-CO2 radiative forcing is kept to zero (except for >>> volcanoes and solar) >>> >>> CO2 is kept at its 1765 value. >>> >>> Simulation B3.1: tag bard08_volcCrow_1765_1998 >>> >>> Start of simulation: 1765 AD >>> End of simulation: 1998 AD >>> initial condition: restart from simulation B1.1. >>> bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 >>> at year 1765 >>> >>> Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD >>> >>> ------- >>> >>> Simulation B3.2: tag bard25_volcCrow_1765_1998 >>> >>> Start of simulation: 1765 AD >>> End of simulation: 1998 AD >>> initial condition: restart from simulation B1.2. >>> bard25_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 >>> at year 1765 >>> >>> Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD >>> >>> ----- >>> >>> Simulation B3.1: tag WLS-2005_volcCrow_1765_1998 >>> >>> Start of simulation: 1765 AD >>> End of simulation: 1998 AD >>> initial condition: restart from simulation B2. >>> WLS-2005_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 >>> at year 1765 >>> >>> Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD >>> >>> ------- >>> >>> Simulation B4: tag ctrl_850-1998 >>> >>> Control simulation without any forcing >>> >>> Start of simulation 850 AD >>> End of simulation: 1998 AD >>> initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar) >>> >>> Analysis period: 850 to 1998 >>> >>> >>> OUTPUT >>> ------ >>> >>> I guess minimal output is global and NH mean surface temperature. >> >> >> >> > -- ___________________________________________________________ Dr. Eva Bauer Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) PO Box 60 12 03 14412 Potsdam, Germany E-mail: eva.bauer@pik-potsdam.de Phone : +49-331-288-2588 (Fax: -2600) http : //www.pik-potsdam.de ___________________________________________________________ CLIMBER-2 results by eva.bauer@pik-potsdam.de 24jan06 FOLLOWING THE DESCRIPTION readme_doRuns_IPCC_Chap6_millennium_21jan06.txt on Last Millennium Simulations for IPCC AR4 WG1 Chap 6 --------------------------------------------------- by F. Joos, joos@climate.unibe.ch 18 Januar 2006 7 CLIMBER-2 simulations (with interactive atmosphere, ocean and vegetation modules) are performed. The initial condition was obtained from an equilibrium simulation with Milankovitch forcing fixed at 1101 yr BP ( = 849 AD), and atmospheric CO2 fixed to 277 ppmv. To simplify the performance all 7 transient simulations start from the initial condition. The annual-mean output data are from 850 to 1998 AD and differ by differently prescribed radiative forcing and CO2 forcing. The control simulation is driven by Milankovitch forcing only. The 7 result files contain data for anlysis period 1001 to 1998 AD. Each result file contains 3 columns, i.e. Year, global-mean surface temperarture and NH surface temperature. ------- Simulation B1.1 tag: bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_850-1998 result file: bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_Milank_CLIMBER2.dat -------- Simulation B1.2 tag: bard25_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_850-1998 result file: bard25_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_Milank_CLIMBER2.dat -------- Simulation B2: tag: WLS-2005_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_1610-1998 result file: bard08_WLS2005_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_Milank_CLIMBER2.dat ------- Simulation B3.1: tag bard08_volcCrow_1765_1998 result file: bard08_volcCrow_CO2nat_Milank_CLIMBER2.dat ------- Simulation B3.2: tag bard25_volcCrow_1765_1998 result file: bard25_volcCrow_CO2nat_Milank_CLIMBER2.dat ----- Simulation B3.3: tag WLS-2005_volcCrow_1765_1998 result file: bard08_WLS2005_volcCrow_CO2nat_Milank_CLIMBER2.dat ------- Simulation B4: tag ctrl_850-1998 result file: ctrl_Milank_CLIMBER2.dat Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Dgmairtnorm_millenium_Bern2.5CC-CLIMBER2_1000_1998_ipccar4.eps" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Dgmairtnorm_millenium_Bern2.5CC-CLIMBER2_offset0.8_1000_1998_ipccar4.eps" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Dgmairtnorm_millenium_Bern2.5CC_1000_1998_ipccar4.eps" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Dgmairtnorm_millenium_CLIMBER2_1000_1998_ipccar4.eps" 505. 2006-01-30 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 10:32:38 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: erik sea level to: Julie Jones ,Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de, fidelgr@fis.ucm.es,schnur@dkrz.de,Keith Briffa It is clearly very difficult to separate the signal of response to forcings (that we want) from the long-term drift (that we don't want) by selecting layers in this way. It looks like there is a response to the 20th century anthropogenic greenhouse forcing at all depths down to 600m (and maybe below). And the drift-related trends are evident (I think) up to at least 250m (and maybe above). Clearly tricky. If it's easy, then I guess it would be nice to see the curve obtained just from the upper ocean (say above 425m like you suggest) and compare this with the full-depth results already obtained (don't throw this away!). But, as mentioned before, I think the constant salinity calculation is the more important. Yes, it will still have a drift component, but perhaps not so large? I wonder whether we could use the MAGICC emulation to estimate the temperature drift component - it reproduced the ECHO-G heat flux into the ocean reasonably well (see bottom panel of attached graph). Or perhaps we just ignore sea level in erik as being impossible to diagnose without a control run to estimate the adjustment/drift term. erik2 will presumably have less sea level drift (though still some I guess) which may be useful for future work, but no time for using that within the SO&P project. Any other suggestions? Cheers Tim At 09:21 30/01/2006, Julie Jones wrote: >Dear Tim, Edu, Fidel, > >Do you have a suggestion as to the depths to inlude in a sea level >calculation just using the upper layers. I've attached Fidel's plot of >temperatures at the different levels, and here it appears that there's >already a trend at 600m. Does it make sense to calculate the sea level >from surface to 425m depth? > >cheers > >Julie > >************************************ >Dr. Julie M. Jones >Institute for Coastal Research >GKSS Forschungszentrum >Max-Planck-Strasse >D-21502 Geesthacht >Germany > >e-mail: jones@gkss.de >phone: +49 (0)4152 871845 >fax: +49 (0)4152 871888 >************************************ > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\magerik_f4.gif" 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 2579. 2006-01-31 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:16:35 +0100 from: Stefan Rahmstorf subject: Re: new millennium simulations for Chap 6 to: Keith Briffa Keith, if you need some help with the hockey stick issue phrasing for our chapter 6 ... let me know. Stefan -- To reach me directly please use: rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de (My former addresses @pik-potsdam.de are read by my assistant Brigitta.) Stefan Rahmstorf www.ozean-klima.de www.realclimate.org 4815. 2006-01-31 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Jan 31 10:26:40 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: RE: Wahl-Ammann paper on MBH-MM issues to: Tim Osborn Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 13:47:30 -0700 To: Eystein Jansen From: Jonathan Overpeck Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: Wahl-Ammann paper on MBH-MM issues Cc: "Wahl, Eugene R" , Keith Briffa X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at email.arizona.edu X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.1 X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Hi all - I'm betting that "provisional acceptance" is not good enough for inclusion in the Second Order draft, but based on what Gene has said, he should have formal acceptance soon - we really need that. Can you give us a read on when you'll have it Gene? Best make this a top priority, or we'll have to leave your important work out of the chapter. Many thanks!! Peck Hi Peck, I assume a provisional acceptance is OK by IPCC rules? The timing of these matters are being followed closely by McIntyre (see: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=503) and we cannot afford to being caught doing anything that is not within the regulations. Thus need to consult with martin and Susan on this (see also last mail from Melinda). Cheers, Eystein Thanks Gene - it is worth all the effort, and please keep us (especially Keith) posted on the updates. best, peck X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Subject: RE: Wahl-Ammann paper on MBH-MM issues Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:17:03 -0500 Thread-Topic: Wahl-Ammann paper on MBH-MM issues Thread-Index: AcWBF2jTf69xJLFkThuHZzU6qK8tMx+kOAJUB28NG2A= From: "Wahl, Eugene R" To: "Jonathan Overpeck" Hello Jonathan and Keith: I'm not sure that I ever sent you the updated Wahl-Ammann paper that was the basis for Steve's provisional acceptance. Here it is. As is, it contains a long appendix (# 1) on issues with interannual statistics of merit for validation, which was not in the version I had sent you earlier in the year. All the main results and conclusions are the same. Caspar and I are also now responding to Steve's final requests, based on independent re-review. This is primarily to address publishing Pearson's r^2 and CE calculations for verification, which Steve and the reviewer reason should be done to get the conversation off the topic of us choosing not to report these measures, and onto the science itself. We explain thoroughly in the appendix I mention above why we feel these (and other interannual-only) measures of merit are not of much use for verification in the MBH context, so that the fact we are reporting them is contextualized appropriately. IN FACT, we will be going farther than that and will be bringing this material currently in an appendix into the main text, based on the reasoning below(quoted from another message) Caspar mentioned yesterday that he talked with Susan Solomon about this paper, and she did not see the appendix we had added concerning the issues about Pearson's r^2 etc. Based on this she therefore thought our text was weak in this area in relation to McIntyre's criticisms. Caspar thought, and I agree, that we need to bring this stuff OUT of the appendix and get it INTO the methods section, so that it won't be so easily missed!! We are working on this--which will include other material as well in the text proper. Also, we are going ahead with an even further-expanded discussion on the issues with r^2, which itself will probably become an appendix in the final text (it had been slated for publication as supplemental web-site material). This expanded discussion will go into additional reasoning (with graphics) concerning the basis for r^2 not being useful in this context. It will give a vector space analysis of the issues, and explicit visual demonstration of how these issues with r^2 play out in terms of false negative and false positive errors in validation. Let me know if I can be of any further help in all this. Apologies if this message seems long. I did my best to keep it short, but I'm a bit tired and it is hard to edit well in that state! Peace, Gene ******************************* Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 1 Saxon Drive Alfred NY, 14802 607.871.2604 ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Wahl, Eugene R Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 12:55 AM To: Jonathan Overpeck Cc: Keith Briffa; ammann@ucar.edu Subject: RE: Wahl-Ammann paper on MBH-MM issues Hello Jonathan: 1) I want you to know that we heard from Steve Schneider today that our paper with Climatic Change has been provisionally accepted for publication. The provisions Steve outlined are ones we fully accept and will implement (extra statistics of merit and remaking of graphics), so this paper can be viewed as accepted, I should think. Caspar and I are getting right on it. We wanted you to know this ASAP. 2) The Ammann-Wahl GRL comment on the MM GRL paper from early 2005 is being sent for final review along with a response by MM that GRL is soliciting. We had thought, based on info from James Famiglietti (editor), that this article had been accepted and the response from MM was just being sought. We did not realize that the entire package of comment and response would be put through a final review. We just heard about this last Friday. Sorry that we had that one mistaken. Hope you are well. Best wishes on IPCC work. Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 607-871-2604 1 Saxon Drive Alfred, NY 14802 Content-Type: application/msword; name="Wahl_Ammann_3321_revised.doc" Content-Description: Wahl_Ammann_3321_revised.doc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Wahl_Ammann_3321_revised.doc" -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 [1]http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ [2]http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Attachment converted: Nebbiolo:Wahl_Ammann_3321_revised.doc (WDBN/«IC») (009EB84C) -- ______________________________________________________________ Eystein Jansen Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen Allégaten 55 N-5007 Bergen NORWAY e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 Fax: +47-55-584330 -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 [3]http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ [4]http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 4859. 2006-01-31 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:46:48 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: MWP paper / possible figure / data to: Tim Osborn Hi Time and Keith - we're talking tomorrow hopefully, and also in touch w/ Susan and Martin. Will get some feedback to you on this asap. Very nice paper. Thanks for sending. Best, peck >Dear Eystein and Peck, > >sorry for the overlong silence at this end. We >*are* working on the revised figures, etc. and >thanks for the CLIMBER and BERN EMIC data - >Keith and I must look at this and see how best >to show it. > >In the meantime, I just wanted to forward to you >a paper that we have coming out in Science next >Friday - see the *uncorrected* page proofs >attached. Please treat this in confidence and >for IPCC purposes only - I'm sure you're aware >of their strict embargo policy. > >The reason we thought it worth forwarding was >because it is useful for comparing implied MWP >and 20th century NH temperatures and thus might >be appropriate for use in the IPCC "MWP box". >The approach is similar to that which Susan >Solomon seemed to be keen on - looking at >individual series, but simply counting how many >simultaneously imply warmth or cold conditions. >There's also the possibility that one of its >figures (perhaps panel 3B) might be useful in >the "MWP box". If you have time for a quick >read, please tell us what you think. > >Eystein - you were also wanting some regional >proxy series and I thought I'd send you the data >shown in Fig 1 of this paper, because I'm >preparing a file to accompany the paper anyway >and this will kill two birds with one stone. >Are these data what you were hoping for? I'll >send them later today if they are. > >Cheers > >Tim > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh >HD:osborn_uncorrectedproofs.pdf (PDF /«IC») >(00109BAF) >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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 1377. 2006-02-01 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 22:28:25 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Figures - urgent to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen Hi Tim and Keith - I have some feedback on the MWP box fig, but would to first ask that you update us (me and Eystein) about the status of your other figs. We have a particularly urgent need to see those that are likely to be elevated to the TS (Tech Summary) - a big deal for paleo. Can you promise us these by the end of this week, Monday at the latest? Again, see my emails of Dec for details. It would be great to see a new MWP box fig asap too, but this isn't as high priority as the TS figs. Eystein and I agree with both Susan and Martin that it would be good to see a new MWP box fig that was a hybrid of the old fig concept and the new Fig 3b from your Science paper. It would be good to have two versions - if space allows, we go with the first, otherwise the 2nd: Both would have your 3b-like plot, and both would have all the normalized time series that were used to create the 3b plot (i.e., those in Fig. 1 of your paper). Version 1 - has all the input series stacked on top of each other as in your Fig. 1, with the summary Fig 3b-like plot below. Version 2 - is the same, but the input series are all on the same axis like in the FOD MWP box fig. Now, if you think Version 1 plus caption would be smaller than Version 2 plus caption, no need for Version 2. Ditto if Version 1 plus caption was only a little bigger than V 2 plus caption. Again, thanks for getting all of your new figs to us asap, particularly those targeted for TS consideration. Many thanks, Peck -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 1936. 2006-02-01 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Collins, Matthew" , Keith Briffa date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 11:16:23 +0000 from: Thomas Kleinen subject: Re: HadCM3 control run results to: Tim Osborn Hi Tim and Matt. > (1) On the comparison with observations for near-surface temperature, > you get large "errors" over winter sea ice regions. It might be > worth checking what the HadCRUT climatology represents over the > oceans - is it marine air temperature or SST. If the latter, then it > won't fall below -2 deg C and this would explain the big "errors" > when comparing with HadCM3 1.5m air temperature. Even if this is not > the case, and HadCRUT climatology purports to be marine air > temperature, then I wouldn't believe the values over sea ice areas > anyway! They'll have been extrapolated from a very few data points > or only from Arctic buoys that didn't cover the whole 1961-90 period. Supposedly it is air temperature, according to the documentation I could find (our data webpage isn't documented all THAT well), but I am not too worried about that anyway. So far I am mainly concerned with having a model configuration that gives output similar to the MetOffice's one. And that it seems to do. > (2) For the UEA control minus Hadley control results, does the > difference pattern stay constant between, say, the early part of the > UEA run and the later part. This would imply a systematic > problem. So how does UEA(30-59)-HAD(3160-3189) for DJF SLP compare > with the UEA(60-89)-HAD(3160-3189) pattern that you showed? I guess > the statistical testing you have done implies that it is sampling > variability rather than systematic, but it'd still be nice to see how > the two periods' results compared for DJF SLP. No, those differences are random. The pattern doesn't stay contant, from what I've seen. We'll have more data next week, so I can do some more checks, but my main concern right now is whether our ocean is ok. More on that next week. Cheers, Thomas 4162. 2006-02-01 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:54:28 +0000 from: Clare Goodess subject: Fwd: Indo-UK Collaboration to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk,k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,m.haylock@uea.ac.uk For information. Also attached is statistical downscaling proposal that we produced last week. All these individual proposals were subsumed into the 8 themes we identified at the end of the meeting. Julia, Kumar and Srini produced the proposal document and allocated focal points. CRU is down as focal point for theme 4 on downscaling methodologies and tailored products. We are also listed under Theme 1, understanding monsoon processes - I guess this mainly relates to the palaeo work. Clare >Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:02:51 +0000 >From: Julia Slingo >User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103) >X-Accept-Language: en-us, en >To: A.Watkinson@uea.ac.uk, balakrishnan.bhaskaran@metoffice.gov.uk, > C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk, David Anderson , > "e.maltby" , > Geoff Boulton , > Chris Gordon , > richard.graham@metoffice.gov.uk, venkata.jogireddy@metoffice.gov.uk, > richard harding , > Sari Kovats , > tim wheeler , > Andy Deacon , > Loraine McFadden >Subject: Indo-UK Collaboration >X-Scan-Signature: bcd9f88e6814cab8f8bb4d3ed0f7edb6 >X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 >X-UEA-Spam-Level: / >X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO > >Dear All, > >First of all, thank you for your participation in last week's >meeting which I felt had been a great success. I hope you all had an >uneventful journey home. > >Following the meeting, I have produced a draft summary of the >proposed collaboration, which is attached. This draft was sent to >Nick Stern at the Treasury yesterday in preparation for his visit to >India later this week. I'd be grateful for any comments/corrections. > >The next step, I think, is to ask the RS (via Sir Martin Rees) to >feed this into Government to investigate possible funding routes. >Anything you can do to help this process would be welcome. At this >stage I'm not sure whether it's worth producing a more detailed >proposal with costings but would welcome your advice. > >Best regards, > >Julia > > >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Prof. Julia Slingo >Director, NCAS Centre for Global Atmospheric Modelling >Department of Meteorology >University of Reading >Earley Gate >Reading RG6 6BB > >Tel: +44 (0)118 378 8424 >Fax: +44 (0)118 378 8316 >Email: j.m.slingo@reading.ac.uk >Web: http://www.cgam.nerc.ac.uk/ > > Dr Clare Goodess Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: +44 -1603 592875 Fax: +44 -1603 507784 Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\indouk-project-format.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Indo-UK_proposal.doc" 1264. 2006-02-03 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, Eystein Jansen date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 09:44:35 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: Fwd: new fig to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith and Tim (and Eystein): Your new figure is quite compelling, and a nice complement to the other two panels. I agree it would be good to get the Northern Hem Oerleman's plot - Eystein do you know him well enough to ask? (I never even met him, but could ask if you don't know him). What you have created will take some good work on the caption to explain, but it has my vote. What is your plan for dealing with the new German/Swiss model results? A new figure? Are you sure these runs can't be worked in, perhaps as a new panel? At least we have Susan's support for the new runs, so we do what we have to do. As for work and time, we are running out. Just do the best you can, and hopefully the new section will emerge sometime next week. Highest priority (please do first) - we need 3 TS-contender figures (and captions) by early next week: 1) the new fig showing all the sites used in the recons - with caption 2) the fig you've attached to this email - with caption (were we going to try to put all the model runs/refs/color key into a table, so the caption could be shorter than in the FOD? Think this would be better, so caption is shorter) 3) the new fig comparing the obs to the model runs (update of the fig we showed for first time in ChCh - using a version of the lower panel you attached to this email - with caption There is little doubt you guys have the hardest job of all LAs in our chapter, and possibly the entire WG1 report. Your work will have huge impact, and the extra effort is really appreciated well beyond me and Eystein. I wish we could offer up a time machine to make it easier, but... just keep plugging. thanks! Peck >Peck and Eystein >we are having trouble to express the real >message of the reconstructions - being >scientifically sound in representing uncertainty >, while still getting the crux of the >information across clearly. It is not right to >ignore uncertainty, but expressing this merely >in an arbitrary way (and as a total range as >before) allows the uncertainty to swamp the >magnitude of the changes through time . We have >settled on this version (attached) of the Figure >which we hoe you will agree gets the message >over but with the rigor required for such an >important document. > >We have added a box to show the "probability >surface" for the most likely estimate of past >temperatures based on all published data. By >overlapping all reconstructions and giving a >score of 2 to all areas within the 1 standard >error range of the estimates for each >reconstruction , and a score of 1 for the area >between 1 and 2 standard errors, you build up a >composite picture of the most likely or >"concensus" path that temperatures took over >the last 1200 years (note - now with a linear >time axis). This still shows the outlier ranges >, preserving all the information, but you see >the central most likely area well , and the >comparison of past and recent temperature levels >is not as influenced by the outlier estimates. >What do you think? We have experimented with >different versions of the shading and this one >shows up quite well - but we may have to use >some all grey version as the background to the >overlay of the model results. >We have also experimented with changing the >normalisation base for the model/reconstruction >Figure , but using the same short modern period >as for the first Figure is not satisfactory - >more on this later. We have added in Oerlemans >curve as many insisted - but we only have the >GLOBAL curve - can you get the separate North >and Southern Hemisphere curves (with >uncertainty) . I do not see that the new model >runs from Germany/Switzerland will fit easily in >the existing Figure and need to be separate! I >am really struggling with the text also - really >need more time!!!! More later >Keith > >>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16 >>Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 10:42:15 +0000 >>To: Keith Briffa >>From: Tim Osborn >>Subject: new fig >> >> >> >> >>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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >>sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > >-- >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/ > >Attachment converted: Macintosh >HD:ipcc_nhrecon_new1.pdf (PDF /«IC») (0010B41B) -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 1692. 2006-02-03 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 17:04:39 +0000 from: Keith Briffa subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: new fig to: Tim Osborn >Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 09:49:06 -0700 >To: Keith Briffa >From: Jonathan Overpeck >Subject: Re: Fwd: new fig >Cc: Eystein Jansen , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk >X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at email.arizona.edu >X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 >X-UEA-Spam-Level: / >X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO > >Keith and Tim - I do like what you did, and I >could figure it out. That said, Eystein's >response highlights the importance of my >suggestion to start early on the caption so we >can get it perfect. The presentation is not >intuitive, so we have to educate. BUT, there is >no doubt in my mind that this is more appealing than the FOD approach. > >thanks, peck > >>Eystein >>the shading represents overlaps of the >>uncertainty estimate envelopes surrounding each >>of the 10 reconstructions . If one >>reconstruction curve is envisaged , it has 1 >>and 2 standard error bounds above and below >>each smoothed value. We are trying to represent >>the most likely temperature based on all >>reconstructions. SO if their inner (most likely >>) 1 standard error bands all overlap , we want >>to show a high score . If only the outer >>uncertainty bands overlap between a small >>number of reconstructions, we need to say it is >>unlikely that this is the likely temperature - >>so a small score. Hence we allocate 2 points to >>all areas within the 1 standard error range of >>each reconstruction, and 1 point for the area >>between 1 and 2 standard errors. Then we >>overlap all reconstructions and count the total >>score. They go from maximum (20) WHERE THE PLUS >>AND MINUS 1 STANDARD ERROR Envelopes (i.e. a >>66 percent chance that the "real" value lies in >>this band) OVERLAP FOR ALL RECONSTRUCTIONS >>(each of the possible 10 gets a score of 2 in >>this area) to 0 , where no reconstruction uncertainty envelopes overlap. >>If only the 1 standard error envelopes overlap >>for each of 2 reconstructions , the score is 2, >>and if the inner uncertainty band overlaps with >>the outer uncertainty band of only 1 other >>reconstruction , the score is 3 and so on. >>Hence the high scores show where most >>reconstructions most likely estimate ranges >>overlap. This gives prominence to the middle >>estimate of the most abundant reconstructions, >>and less emphasis on those estimates based on >>only a few or even 1 reconstruction. Hence the >>scores are low where there are few >>reconstructions, and low where the confidence >>in the reconstructions is low. Now you can see >>that the most likely estimates for the MWP are >>lower than those for the recent period - this >>is better than showing the total uncertainty >>range which is controlled by outliers - such as Moberg's curve. >> >> >> >> At 14:40 03/02/2006, you wrote: >>>Hi Keith, could you just explain the values >>>reflecting the colour shading n the lower panel? >>>Eystein >>> >>>>Peck and Eystein >>>>we are having trouble to express the real >>>>message of the reconstructions - being >>>>scientifically sound in representing >>>>uncertainty , while still getting the crux of >>>>the information across clearly. It is not >>>>right to ignore uncertainty, but expressing >>>>this merely in an arbitrary way (and as a >>>>total range as before) allows the uncertainty >>>>to swamp the magnitude of the changes through >>>>time . We have settled on this version >>>>(attached) of the Figure which we hoe you >>>>will agree gets the message over but with the >>>>rigor required for such an important document. >>>> >>>>We have added a box to show the "probability >>>>surface" for the most likely estimate of past >>>>temperatures based on all published data. By >>>>overlapping all reconstructions and giving a >>>>score of 2 to all areas within the 1 standard >>>>error range of the estimates for each >>>>reconstruction , and a score of 1 for the >>>>area between 1 and 2 standard errors, you >>>>build up a composite picture of the most >>>>likely or "concensus" path that temperatures >>>>took over the last 1200 years (note - now >>>>with a linear time axis). This still shows >>>>the outlier ranges , preserving all the >>>>information, but you see the central most >>>>likely area well , and the comparison of past >>>>and recent temperature levels is not as >>>>influenced by the outlier estimates. What do >>>>you think? We have experimented with >>>>different versions of the shading and this >>>>one shows up quite well - but we may have to >>>>use some all grey version as the background >>>>to the overlay of the model results. >>>>We have also experimented with changing the >>>>normalisation base for the >>>>model/reconstruction Figure , but using the >>>>same short modern period as for the first >>>>Figure is not satisfactory - more on this >>>>later. We have added in Oerlemans curve as >>>>many insisted - but we only have the GLOBAL >>>>curve - can you get the separate North and >>>>Southern Hemisphere curves (with uncertainty) >>>>. I do not see that the new model runs from >>>>Germany/Switzerland will fit easily in the >>>>existing Figure and need to be separate! I am >>>>really struggling with the text also - really need more time!!!! More later >>>>Keith >>>> >>>>>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16 >>>>>Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 10:42:15 +0000 >>>>>To: Keith Briffa >>>>>From: Tim Osborn >>>>>Subject: new fig >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >>>>>sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm >>>> >>>>-- >>>>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/ >>>> >>>>Attachment converted: Nebbiolo:ipcc_nhrecon_new1.pdf (PDF /«IC») (00A6614D) >>> >>> >>>-- >>>______________________________________________________________ >>>Eystein Jansen >>>Professor/Director >>>Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and >>>Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen >>>Allégaten 55 >>>N-5007 Bergen >>>NORWAY >>>e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no >>>Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 >>>Fax: +47-55-584330 >> >>-- >>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/ > > >-- >Jonathan T. Overpeck >Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >Professor, Department of Geosciences >Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences > >Mail and Fedex Address: > >Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >University of Arizona >Tucson, AZ 85721 >direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >fax: +1 520 792-8795 >http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ -- 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/ 3468. 2006-02-03 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Feb 3 14:31:09 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Fwd: new fig to: Jonathan Overpeck ,Eystein.Jansen@geo.uib.no Peck and Eystein we are having trouble to express the real message of the reconstructions - being scientifically sound in representing uncertainty , while still getting the crux of the information across clearly. It is not right to ignore uncertainty, but expressing this merely in an arbitrary way (and as a total range as before) allows the uncertainty to swamp the magnitude of the changes through time . We have settled on this version (attached) of the Figure which we hoe you will agree gets the message over but with the rigor required for such an important document. We have added a box to show the "probability surface" for the most likely estimate of past temperatures based on all published data. By overlapping all reconstructions and giving a score of 2 to all areas within the 1 standard error range of the estimates for each reconstruction , and a score of 1 for the area between 1 and 2 standard errors, you build up a composite picture of the most likely or "concensus" path that temperatures took over the last 1200 years (note - now with a linear time axis). This still shows the outlier ranges , preserving all the information, but you see the central most likely area well , and the comparison of past and recent temperature levels is not as influenced by the outlier estimates. What do you think? We have experimented with different versions of the shading and this one shows up quite well - but we may have to use some all grey version as the background to the overlay of the model results. We have also experimented with changing the normalisation base for the model/reconstruction Figure , but using the same short modern period as for the first Figure is not satisfactory - more on this later. We have added in Oerlemans curve as many insisted - but we only have the GLOBAL curve - can you get the separate North and Southern Hemisphere curves (with uncertainty) . I do not see that the new model runs from Germany/Switzerland will fit easily in the existing Figure and need to be separate! I am really struggling with the text also - really need more time!!!! More later Keith X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16 Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 10:42:15 +0000 To: Keith Briffa From: Tim Osborn Subject: new fig 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: [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 3893. 2006-02-03 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 18:54:37 +0100 from: Eystein Jansen subject: Few remaining comments to: Fortunat Joos Dear Fortunat, could you quickly address the comments i Keith´s section? Eystein >Eystein >can you also check that Fortunat is addressing >the few comments (ie revising the text) that >relate to his bit of my section and Henry >Pollack is helping us to asses the comments and >revise the text to do with the Ground Surface >Temperature section. I presume Ricardo and Peck >are dealing with all the regional stuff. Thanks > >At 17:32 03/02/2006, you wrote: >>Hi, >>I can contact Oerlemans, have met him a few times. >>Cheers, >>Eystein >> >>>thanks for this - the new runs I think best in a separate panel . >>>Keith >>> >>>At 16:44 03/02/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>>>Hi Keith and Tim (and Eystein): Your new >>>>figure is quite compelling, and a nice >>>>complement to the other two panels. I agree >>>>it would be good to get the Northern Hem >>>>Oerleman's plot - Eystein do you know him >>>>well enough to ask? (I never even met him, >>>>but could ask if you don't know him). >>>> >>>>What you have created will take some good >>>>work on the caption to explain, but it has my >>>>vote. >>>> >>>>What is your plan for dealing with the new >>>>German/Swiss model results? A new figure? Are >>>>you sure these runs can't be worked in, >>>>perhaps as a new panel? At least we have >>>>Susan's support for the new runs, so we do >>>>what we have to do. >>>> >>>>As for work and time, we are running out. >>>>Just do the best you can, and hopefully the >>>>new section will emerge sometime next week. >>>> >>>>Highest priority (please do first) - we need >>>>3 TS-contender figures (and captions) by >>>>early next week: >>>> >>>>1) the new fig showing all the sites used in the recons - with caption >>>>2) the fig you've attached to this email - >>>>with caption (were we going to try to put all >>>>the model runs/refs/color key into a table, >>>>so the caption could be shorter than in the >>>>FOD? Think this would be better, so caption >>>>is shorter) >>>>3) the new fig comparing the obs to the model >>>>runs (update of the fig we showed for first >>>>time in ChCh - using a version of the lower >>>>panel you attached to this email - with >>>>caption >>>> >>>>There is little doubt you guys have the >>>>hardest job of all LAs in our chapter, and >>>>possibly the entire WG1 report. Your work >>>>will have huge impact, and the extra effort >>>>is really appreciated well beyond me and >>>>Eystein. I wish we could offer up a time >>>>machine to make it easier, but... just keep >>>>plugging. >>>> >>>>thanks! Peck >>>> >>>>>Peck and Eystein >>>>>we are having trouble to express the real >>>>>message of the reconstructions - being >>>>>scientifically sound in representing >>>>>uncertainty , while still getting the crux >>>>>of the information across clearly. It is not >>>>>right to ignore uncertainty, but expressing >>>>>this merely in an arbitrary way (and as a >>>>>total range as before) allows the >>>>>uncertainty to swamp the magnitude of the >>>>>changes through time . We have settled on >>>>>this version (attached) of the Figure which >>>>>we hoe you will agree gets the message over >>>>>but with the rigor required for such an >>>>>important document. >>>>> >>>>>We have added a box to show the "probability >>>>>surface" for the most likely estimate of >>>>>past temperatures based on all published >>>>>data. By overlapping all reconstructions and >>>>>giving a score of 2 to all areas within the >>>>>1 standard error range of the estimates for >>>>>each reconstruction , and a score of 1 for >>>>>the area between 1 and 2 standard errors, >>>>>you build up a composite picture of the most >>>>>likely or "concensus" path that >>>>>temperatures took over the last 1200 years >>>>>(note - now with a linear time axis). This >>>>>still shows the outlier ranges , preserving >>>>>all the information, but you see the central >>>>>most likely area well , and the comparison >>>>>of past and recent temperature levels is not >>>>>as influenced by the outlier estimates. What >>>>>do you think? We have experimented with >>>>>different versions of the shading and this >>>>>one shows up quite well - but we may have >>>>>to use some all grey version as the >>>>>background to the overlay of the model >>>>>results. >>>>>We have also experimented with changing the >>>>>normalisation base for the >>>>>model/reconstruction Figure , but using the >>>>>same short modern period as for the first >>>>>Figure is not satisfactory - more on this >>>>>later. We have added in Oerlemans curve as >>>>>many insisted - but we only have the GLOBAL >>>>>curve - can you get the separate North and >>>>>Southern Hemisphere curves (with >>>>>uncertainty) . I do not see that the new >>>>>model runs from Germany/Switzerland will fit >>>>>easily in the existing Figure and need to be >>>>>separate! I am really struggling with the >>>>>text also - really need more time!!!! More >>>>>later >>>>>Keith >>>>> >>>>>>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16 >>>>>>Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 10:42:15 +0000 >>>>>>To: Keith Briffa >>>>>>From: Tim Osborn >>>>>>Subject: new fig >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >>>>>>sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm >>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>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/ >>>>> >>>>>Attachment converted: Macintosh >>>>>HD:ipcc_nhrecon_new1.pdf (PDF /«IC») >>>>>(0010B41B) >>>> >>>> >>>>-- >>>>Jonathan T. Overpeck >>>>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>>Professor, Department of Geosciences >>>>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >>>> >>>>Mail and Fedex Address: >>>> >>>>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>>>University of Arizona >>>>Tucson, AZ 85721 >>>>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>>>fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>>>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>>>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >>> >>>-- >>>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/ >> >> >>-- >>______________________________________________________________ >>Eystein Jansen >>Professor/Director >>Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and >>Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen >>Allégaten 55 >>N-5007 Bergen >>NORWAY >>e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no >>Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 >>Fax: +47-55-584330 > >-- >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/ -- ______________________________________________________________ Eystein Jansen Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen Allégaten 55 N-5007 Bergen NORWAY e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 Fax: +47-55-584330 4477. 2006-02-03 ______________________________________________________ cc: mmanning@al.noaa.gov, wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu, v.ramaswamy@noaa.gov, p.m.forster@reading.ac.uk, Marquis@ucar.edu, Renato Spahni date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 15:03:26 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] [Fwd: Greenhouse Gas Figure for IPCC] to: Valerie.Masson@cea.fr Hi Valerie et al. - let's all weigh in before Renato generates the final SOD graphic. My thoughts 1) I don't feel strongly about the delta D data being smoothed or not (it makes sense, but will it make a difference? - go ahead if others agree), but I think we should keep isotopic data, rather than temperature - to avoid the confusion with the most recent data not being the warmest - or even close. It's regional temp, I know, but some readers might realize this. We can say in the caption that delta D is a regional temp record. I'm just one vote, here... 2) I agree with the vert grey shaded areas, and will go one step farther for a compromise. I vote we keep the shading on the real interglacials of the last 450kyrs, and delete the grey shading on the earlier "interglacials" - they are different, clearly, and we can make that point in the caption. Valerie's reasoning then works the other way - the grey shading helps readers get the point about how the length of interglacials comparable to the Holocene have varied, with MIS 11 being the phattest. Thanks, Peck >Jonathan Overpeck a écrit : > >>Hi Fortunat, Renato and friends: Here's my >>thoughts on what you have sent wrt to chap 6: >> >>1) for the EPICA/VOSTOK figure, I agree we >>should go with the version WITH N2O and WITH >>the anthropogenic increase >>(ipcc_ghg650kyr_v1ant) Renato - would you >>please resend with the delta D label fixed. >>Thanks - otherwise, nice job. >> >> >I have a few comments on the figure ipcc_ghg650kyr_v1ant. > >- the deuterium data should be smoothed to >appear with a resolution similar to the GHG >records (we usually use step functions for >deuterium plots because the measurements are >conducted as averages for bag samples => not >single points). > >- it is possible to show temperature >fluctuations rather than deuterium, if you >prefer. > >- I am worried about the vertical grey lines on >this figure, assumed to define "interglacial >periods". It is tricky and depends on some >hypothesis (thresholds on deuterium or GHG). For >instance stage 7.5, 7.3 should also appear as >interglacials with the thresholds used for the >other warm periods. >As we are aware of (preliminar) Dome C age scale >problems for stages 13-15, the grey bars may >give false impressions regarding the duration of >the oldest warm episodes. > >Valérie. -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 4510. 2006-02-03 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 10:36:09 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: Fwd: new fig to: Eystein Jansen Great, thanks! Since that fig is TS bound, it would be ideal to get the data to Keith/Tim by early next week. Thx again! Peck >Hi, >I can contact Oerlemans, have met him a few times. >Cheers, >Eystein > >>thanks for this - the new runs I think best in a separate panel . >>Keith >> >>At 16:44 03/02/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>>Hi Keith and Tim (and Eystein): Your new >>>figure is quite compelling, and a nice >>>complement to the other two panels. I agree it >>>would be good to get the Northern Hem >>>Oerleman's plot - Eystein do you know him well >>>enough to ask? (I never even met him, but >>>could ask if you don't know him). >>> >>>What you have created will take some good work >>>on the caption to explain, but it has my vote. >>> >>>What is your plan for dealing with the new >>>German/Swiss model results? A new figure? Are >>>you sure these runs can't be worked in, >>>perhaps as a new panel? At least we have >>>Susan's support for the new runs, so we do >>>what we have to do. >>> >>>As for work and time, we are running out. Just >>>do the best you can, and hopefully the new >>>section will emerge sometime next week. >>> >>>Highest priority (please do first) - we need 3 >>>TS-contender figures (and captions) by early >>>next week: >>> >>>1) the new fig showing all the sites used in the recons - with caption >>>2) the fig you've attached to this email - >>>with caption (were we going to try to put all >>>the model runs/refs/color key into a table, so >>>the caption could be shorter than in the FOD? >>>Think this would be better, so caption is >>>shorter) >>>3) the new fig comparing the obs to the model >>>runs (update of the fig we showed for first >>>time in ChCh - using a version of the lower >>>panel you attached to this email - with caption >>> >>>There is little doubt you guys have the >>>hardest job of all LAs in our chapter, and >>>possibly the entire WG1 report. Your work will >>>have huge impact, and the extra effort is >>>really appreciated well beyond me and Eystein. >>>I wish we could offer up a time machine to >>>make it easier, but... just keep plugging. >>> >>>thanks! Peck >>> >>>>Peck and Eystein >>>>we are having trouble to express the real >>>>message of the reconstructions - being >>>>scientifically sound in representing >>>>uncertainty , while still getting the crux of >>>>the information across clearly. It is not >>>>right to ignore uncertainty, but expressing >>>>this merely in an arbitrary way (and as a >>>>total range as before) allows the uncertainty >>>>to swamp the magnitude of the changes through >>>>time . We have settled on this version >>>>(attached) of the Figure which we hoe you >>>>will agree gets the message over but with the >>>>rigor required for such an important document. >>>> >>>>We have added a box to show the "probability >>>>surface" for the most likely estimate of past >>>>temperatures based on all published data. By >>>>overlapping all reconstructions and giving a >>>>score of 2 to all areas within the 1 standard >>>>error range of the estimates for each >>>>reconstruction , and a score of 1 for the >>>>area between 1 and 2 standard errors, you >>>>build up a composite picture of the most >>>>likely or "concensus" path that temperatures >>>>took over the last 1200 years (note - now >>>>with a linear time axis). This still shows >>>>the outlier ranges , preserving all the >>>>information, but you see the central most >>>>likely area well , and the comparison of past >>>>and recent temperature levels is not as >>>>influenced by the outlier estimates. What do >>>>you think? We have experimented with >>>>different versions of the shading and this >>>>one shows up quite well - but we may have to >>>>use some all grey version as the background >>>>to the overlay of the model results. >>>>We have also experimented with changing the >>>>normalisation base for the >>>>model/reconstruction Figure , but using the >>>>same short modern period as for the first >>>>Figure is not satisfactory - more on this >>>>later. We have added in Oerlemans curve as >>>>many insisted - but we only have the GLOBAL >>>>curve - can you get the separate North and >>>>Southern Hemisphere curves (with uncertainty) >>>>. I do not see that the new model runs from >>>>Germany/Switzerland will fit easily in the >>>>existing Figure and need to be separate! I am >>>>really struggling with the text also - really >>>>need more time!!!! More later >>>>Keith >>>> >>>>>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16 >>>>>Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 10:42:15 +0000 >>>>>To: Keith Briffa >>>>>From: Tim Osborn >>>>>Subject: new fig >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >>>>>sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm >>>> >>>>-- >>>>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/ >>>> >>>>Attachment converted: Macintosh >>>>HD:ipcc_nhrecon_new1.pdf (PDF /«IC») >>>>(0010B41B) >>> >>> >>>-- >>>Jonathan T. Overpeck >>>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>Professor, Department of Geosciences >>>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >>> >>>Mail and Fedex Address: >>> >>>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>>University of Arizona >>>Tucson, AZ 85721 >>>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>>fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >> >>-- >>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/ > > >-- >______________________________________________________________ >Eystein Jansen >Professor/Director >Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and >Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen >Allégaten 55 >N-5007 Bergen >NORWAY >e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no >Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 >Fax: +47-55-584330 -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 5077. 2006-02-03 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 23:32:10 +0100 from: Eystein Jansen subject: Fwd: Re: Data for IPCC to: Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn , Jonathan Overpeck Hi, data from Oerlemans will come on Monday, see below. Eystein >From: "J. Oerlemans" >Subject: Re: Data for IPCC >Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 22:10:21 +0100 >To: Eystein Jansen >X-checked-clean: by exiscan on noralf >X-UiB-SpamFlag: NO UIB: -15 hits, 8.0 required >X-UiB-SpamReport: spamassassin found; > -15 From is listed in 'whitelist_SA' > >I'll send it on monday >regards, hans >=========== > >On Feb 3, 2006, at 7:08 PM, Eystein Jansen wrote: > >>Dear Hans, >>I am co-ordinating lead author for the IPCC AR4 >>Paleoclimate chapter. In our section on the >>last 2000 years we would like to include your >>T-reconstruction from glaciers that was >>published in Science. We would like to have the >>data separate for each hemisphere plus the >>global mean and include this into a figure >>showing a suite of T reconstructions. There is >>an urgency to this and we hope that you could >>send us the data very soon, in order for the >>data to bbe incorporated into the 2nd draft of >>the report. >> >>Best wishes >>Eystein >>-- >>______________________________________________________________ >>Eystein Jansen >>Professor/Director >>Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and >>Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen >>Allégaten 55 >>N-5007 Bergen >>NORWAY >>e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no >>Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 >>Fax: +47-55-584330 -- ______________________________________________________________ Eystein Jansen Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen Allégaten 55 N-5007 Bergen NORWAY e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 Fax: +47-55-584330 4260. 2006-02-06 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Ricardo Villalba" , "Keith Briffa" , Valйrie Masson-Delmotte date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 11:09:24 +0300 from: "Olga Solomina" subject: glacier box sod to: "Jonathan Overpeck" , "Eystein Jansen" Dear Eystein and Peck, Many thanks for your relpy and contribution for the glacier box. Everything is fine with me except for the sentence: "Comparing the ongoing retreat of glaciers with the reconstructed records, it is evident that the current global pattern is unprecedented within the Holocene, as there is no known period with a global homogenous trend of retreating glaciers over centennial and shorter timescales." The reason of my disagreement is the following: the resolution and the spatial and temporal coverage of the Holocene glacial records is not enough to compare it seriousely at the century level. For most of regions we even cannot estimate the synchroniety of the records. Looking at the figure a reader will see that there was actually a period with "a global homogenous trend of retreating glaciers" during at least a millennium (at least 7000-8000 bp) - not a century like now! To resolve this problem we can discuss in a braoder audience and ask the opinion of more experts if you wish - I can think of Luckman, Nesje, Grove, Porter, Karlen. I corrected a little the second paragraph - removed three references - they are not used in our picture and, in fact not that good in terms of real reconstructions. I think we should stress clearly that the records from Scandinavia is now the most reliable and detailed. Regards, olga ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eystein Jansen" To: "Olga Solomina" Cc: "Jonathan Overpeck" Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 3:04 AM Subject: Fwd: Re: glacier box Dear Olga, both Peck and I like the new version, both figure and shorter text. Please find enclosed a suggestion from us with some revisions, one file with track changes, one with all changes accepted.I have added a little to your short text, but not much. If you are happy with this, please send the final version inserted into the template of the SOD we sent out so that the style is correct, the figure separately, and an endnote file with references. Best wishes and thanks for all your efforts, Eystein -- ______________________________________________________________ Eystein Jansen Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen All?gaten 55 N-5007 Bergen NORWAY e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 Fax: +47-55-584330 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\glboxsodso.doc" 5183. 2006-02-06 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Feb 6 17:53:09 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Data for IPCC to: Eystein Jansen Eystein lack of Hemispheric data a bit of a problem in my mind - but we will have to just go with it . Do you know who was supposed to send us a bit of text on this curve - from the Cryosphere chapter WE need to follow this up. ALSO - have you had any luck asking Henry Polllack to revise text to deal with comments 1422 through 1447. He really needs to do this as I am not qualified to gage the internal politics here. Can you please push him. Thanks Keith At 22:32 03/02/2006, you wrote: Hi, data from Oerlemans will come on Monday, see below. Eystein From: "J. Oerlemans" Subject: Re: Data for IPCC Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 22:10:21 +0100 To: Eystein Jansen X-checked-clean: by exiscan on noralf X-UiB-SpamFlag: NO UIB: -15 hits, 8.0 required X-UiB-SpamReport: spamassassin found; -15 From is listed in 'whitelist_SA' I'll send it on monday regards, hans =========== On Feb 3, 2006, at 7:08 PM, Eystein Jansen wrote: Dear Hans, I am co-ordinating lead author for the IPCC AR4 Paleoclimate chapter. In our section on the last 2000 years we would like to include your T-reconstruction from glaciers that was published in Science. We would like to have the data separate for each hemisphere plus the global mean and include this into a figure showing a suite of T reconstructions. There is an urgency to this and we hope that you could send us the data very soon, in order for the data to bbe incorporated into the 2nd draft of the report. Best wishes Eystein -- ______________________________________________________________ Eystein Jansen Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen Allégaten 55 N-5007 Bergen NORWAY e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 Fax: +47-55-584330 -- ______________________________________________________________ Eystein Jansen Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen Allégaten 55 N-5007 Bergen NORWAY e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 Fax: +47-55-584330 -- 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/ 2097. 2006-02-07 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 12:00:21 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Data for IPCC to: Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa ,Jonathan Overpeck Hi Eystein and Peck, sorry, but I'm *still* working on the figures. On the simulations one, we were requested to include results from the new Stendel et al. (2005, Clim. Dyn.) simulation with ECHAM4-OPYC3 for the last 500 years. Did you get these data already? I've just emailed Martin Stendel to ask for them, but thought I'd check in case you already had them. Cheers Tim 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 2512. 2006-02-07 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen , oyvind.paasche@bjerknes.uib.no, john.f.mitchell@metoffice.gov.uk, Bette Otto-Bleisner , Keith Briffa date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 19:00:52 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: IPCC comment response review to: Jean Jouzel Hi Jean et al.: Thanks for going through all the comments so well, Jean. In responding, I think there are two key issues, one scientific related to 5e Greenland Ice, and the other related to the procedure we should follow to ensure our responses to expert review are consistent with our SOD (and beyond). I think we all need to agree - especially, Jean, John M, Peck and Eystein, but I'm cc'ing to Keith and Bette since they are typical (overworked?) LA's who have to be comfortable with the plan. Please all comment if you don't like what I propose in #2 below (or even if you do): 1) First, regarding the 5e GIS ice - Bette is rewriting this section, and it is growing due to further refinement, and also coordination with other WGI and WGII chapters with stakes in ice sheet/sea level. I think Bette's prose will get it write, and we can all check to make sure. Bette (and the CLA/RE's) need to make sure we have consistency between the revised text and our final responses to expert reviews (comment numbers given by Jean below - Bette, will you double check, please). 2) The broader issue is how do we best iterate between the expert review comment responses that are now submitted to the TSU and the revised text to make sure they are compatible. I propose that we send an email to all Chap 6 LA's with the plan articulated in the attached WORD file - put in word so you can edit if you'd like. Of course, Jean is correct also that the last 2000 years text and responses to expert review comments will be the most scrutinized, so that's one reason we wanted to make sure Keith is in on our planning how to deal with the consistency issue. Many thanks, Peck Dear Peck, Dear Eystein, Indeed I sent my first comment before you reminder. I have now had time to go through all the document. I now better understand why I reacted on comment 228 (comment from Eric Wolff dealing with Greenland at the Eemian). This comment is repeated in 978 and indeed the answer is then "accepted". Ther is a clear inconsistency between the answers given to 228 and to 978 . I remember the discussion of Christchurch (Peck you were not with us) and it was clearly accepted that the North GRIP view should be taken into account in a balanced way. It is not my role to tell you how to handle this but I suggest that you have interaction on this specific comment with Valérie and Dominique. Here is the relevant text from North GRIP (The additional knowledge that the central and northern Ice Sheet during the Eemian period was at the same elevation as present constrains modelled ice volumes and sea level changes during the Eemian and glacial period. This interpretation is only consistent with modelling studies of the ice sheet during the Eemian, that although predicting an overall smaller ice sheet in accord with higher observed sea levels during this time, allow for no large ice elevation change for the central Greenland ice). For me the most critical part deals with the "hockey stick" comments. The notes correspond to what was discussed (as far as I remember) but the key here is the revised text. Again this is not our role to judge the quality of the revised text (this will be done in the next round of review) but we are, I feel, in charge of checking overall consistency between the notes and the revised text. I obviously anticipate such a consistency. With my best Jean At 13:37 -0700 1/02/06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: Hi Jean - Eystein and I talked today and just were wondering when you'll be able to review the chap 6 responses to review comments? Hope all's well. Thanks/Best, peck -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ -- Directeur de l'Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin Bâtiment d'Alembert, 5 Boulevard d'Alembert, 78280 Guyancourt, FRANCE tél : 33 (0) 1 39 25 58 16, fax : 33 (0) 1 39 25 58 22, Portable : 33 (0) 684759682 - Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Tour 45-46, 3ème étage, 305, 4 Place Jussieu, 75252 Paris Cedex 05, e-mail : jzipsl@ipsl.jussieu.fr - Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, UMR CEA-CNRS-UVSQ CE Saclay, Orme des Merisiers, 91191 Gif sur Yvette, tél : 33 (0) 1 69 08 77 13, fax : 33 (0) 1 69 08 77 16, e-mail : jouzel@lsce.saclay.cea.fr -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Commentconsistencey.doc" 3067. 2006-02-07 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 11:46:15 -0500 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Re: Questions to: Sara Goudarzi HI Sara, Thanks, I feel I have enough info to answer the questions you pose now. Please let me know if you could use any further feedback from me on this, best regards, mike Sara Goudarzi wrote: Hi Mike, Below, please find my list of questions. Again, I very much appreciate the time you are taking out to answer these. Sara --- 1. What do you think about the use of the so-called "proxy" climate records (not direct temp measurements but the change of environmental conditions), which is what the researchers used? there is a rich history of the use of climate "proxies" (tree-ring, ice cores, corals, lake sediments, etc.) in the field of paleoclimatology. The field has come a long way, growing increasingly more rigirous in recent decades. There is enough information now to draw reasonably robust conclusions, not just in terms of the proxy data that are available, but also our understanding of all of the caveats and uncertainties, given the inexact nature of the data. In this case, the authors by-passed the thorny issue of precisely how to calibrate the proxy data, by taking a more common sense approch. They have simply examined the data to determine how widespread the patterns of evidence for "cold" or "warm" behavior were, over different periods spanning the past 1200 years. 2. The researchers used data sources such as tree ring records, ice cores, historical records and chemical composition of cells. What are your th! oughts on these sources as indicators of climate data? these are all useful proxy records, as they record some attribute about the environment (e.g. favorability of growing season conditions, chemical isotopes that correlate with temperatures, etc.). However, the interpretation of the climate signal provided by any particular proxy can be challenging to ascertain in many cases. Recognizing this, the authors have sought to insure that the data they used were indeed proxy indicators of "temperature" by screening the data set to include only those data which correlate with nearby instrumental temperature records over the modern interval. 3. The researchers found that the most widespread warmth was found during the 20th century and similar expanses of warm conditions in the mid and late 20th century. How does this compare with what was previously thought? i.e did previous research know this? This is an independent approach from that used in other previous "proxy" studies of long-term temperature trends, and so the conclusions of the approach the authors take are complementary to those arrived at in past studies. Yet the primary conclusion--that late 20th century/early 21st century warmth is anomalous in the context of at least the past 1000 years--is consistent with that drawn from other past studies. 4. Why does this research matter and what does it tell us? The authors making a compelling case the recent anomalous warmth is not coincidental but, instead, likely related to recent anthropogenic impacts on climate and, in particular, human-caused greenhouse gas concentration increases. 5. I know you don't have the paper, but from what you know are there any concerns that you have with this type of data sources and statistical analysis? As mentioned above, the authors have sought to insure that the data they used were indeed proxy indicators of "temperature" by screening the data set to include only those data which correlate with nearby instrumental temperature records over the modern interval. They have also bypassed the thorny issue of "calibration". The analysis is straightforward, and the conclusions likely quite robust. 6. What are your thoughts on the overall research and results? This latest paper might be the "nail in the coffin" for the small minority of very vocal climate change denialists who continue to try to challenge the conclusion that the recent warming of the Earth's surface is anomalous. This paper adds to the weight of already-existing evidence that recent warmth is anomalous in a very long-term context. Model simulations over the time time interval indicate that only the anthropogenic iincreases in greenhouse gas concentrations over the past 1-2 centuries can explain this. But this paleoclimate information comprises only one of many independent lines of evidence indicating a primary role of human impacts on modern-day global warming. Indeed, it is remarkable that there is still a public debate, given the tremendous weight of mounting scientific evidence that human-caused global warming is already detectable, and will continue to accelerate in the absence of societal intervention. ------ Sara Goudarzi 732.266.5950 [1]goudarzi_s@yahoo.com [2]www.saragoudarzi.com ___________________________________________________________________________________ [3]Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [4]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [5]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 3172. 2006-02-07 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , tshanaha@email.arizona.edu date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 19:11:56 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Data for IPCC to: Eystein Jansen Hi Eystein, Keith and Tim - this seems odd to me, given that the N hem data must completely dominate his global recon. BUT, since the data and recon are his, and our job is to assess what is published, we don't have much choice. We have three options (or more if you can think of them): option 1) forget about his recon. Although I sense that there might be some interest in this, we must include his study/data/fig option 2) we could make a separate fig to highlight just his global recon, perhaps compared to the global borehole recon. We are dying for space, so I suspect this option isn't ideal either. Expert review of the SOD might suggest it, but in the meantime, I suggest we try to get away with... option 3) we include it in the big recon plot, and just make it clear in the caption (and table that goes with the caption if you're going with the table idea) that the Oerleman's curve, though labeled global in the original paper, appears to be representative of (or weighted mostly by, or ?) glaciers in the Northern Hemisphere (per his Fig 3a). I think we should leave it to Keith and Tim to figure out the best language, but I think this will work. Could be done as a footnote to the table instead of the caption. Make sense? thanks, Peck >Hi, this is what I got from Oerlemans. >If we go with his data it has to be the global curve it seems.... > >Eystein > >>From: "J. Oerlemans" >>Subject: Re: Data for IPCC >>Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 22:31:19 +0100 >>To: Eystein Jansen >>X-checked-clean: by exiscan on noralf >>X-UiB-SpamFlag: NO UIB: -15 hits, 8.0 required >>X-UiB-SpamReport: spamassassin found; >> -15 From is listed in 'whitelist_SA' >> >>Dear Eystein, >> >>Just returned from abroad and have some time now to look at your request. >> >>I don' t think it is a very good idea to >>consider hemispheric temperatures from glacier >>records separately. The error bars are just too >>large. I am currently extending the dataset >>substantially, but it will take some time >>before hemispheric averages have a similar >>error bar as the global mean right now (figure >>3b in my paper). >>So I propose you only present the estimated >>global mean temperature, which I give below. >> >>With best wishes, >>Hans >>==== >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>On Feb 3, 2006, at 7:08 PM, Eystein Jansen wrote: >> >>>Dear Hans, >>>I am co-ordinating lead author for the IPCC >>>AR4 Paleoclimate chapter. In our section on >>>the last 2000 years we would like to include >>>your T-reconstruction from glaciers that was >>>published in Science. We would like to have >>>the data separate for each hemisphere plus the >>>global mean and include this into a figure >>>showing a suite of T reconstructions. There is >>>an urgency to this and we hope that you could >>>send us the data very soon, in order for the >>>data to bbe incorporated into the 2nd draft of >>>the report. >>> >>>Best wishes >>>Eystein >>>-- >>>______________________________________________________________ >>>Eystein Jansen >>>Professor/Director >>>Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and >>>Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen >>>Allégaten 55 >>>N-5007 Bergen >>>NORWAY >>>e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no >>>Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 >>>Fax: +47-55-584330 > > >-- >______________________________________________________________ >Eystein Jansen >Professor/Director >Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and >Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen >Allégaten 55 >N-5007 Bergen >NORWAY >e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no >Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 >Fax: +47-55-584330 > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:for Eystein.xls (XLS8/XCEL) (0010C0BC) -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 3854. 2006-02-07 ______________________________________________________ cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 11:15:12 -0500 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Re: paper in this Friday's Science to: Tim Osborn sure thing--thanks a bunch Tim, Will not forward to anyone else. The paper looks great, the analysis is more or less what I surmised from the abstract/blurb that I received. As you're no doubt aware, you're sure to get some unwanted attention from the usual suspects, but the analysis seems clear and robust, and you haven't left much wiggle room for the contrarians, near as I can tell. So good luck! will forward you any email correspondences I have w/ press on this. Right now, I'm fielding questions from "National Geographic" (a very well known popular science magazine in the states), by the way, do you mind if we do a short RC post on this after the embargo breaks? We'll probably just provide the abstract and a link to the paper... mike p.s. not sure if you're aware, but Science is considering requiring VS04 to retract their article, and a comment pointing out a major error in their claimed implemention of MBH98 by Wahl, Amman, and Ritson is in press (I believe--would need to confirm w/ the authors) in Science. Will forward you more info when I have it. So the situation for VS04 is even worse than you allude to in your brief comments on this. Its completely wrong. Doesn't mean that calibration methods don't have potential systematic biases that need to be taken into account, but it does mean that VS04 is entirely irrelevant to any legitimate discussions of this... Tim Osborn wrote: Hi Mike, I am wary of Science's embargo, but I've included the *uncorrected* galleys for you to look at. The corrections were only minor wording changes here and there (sometimes the copy-editor inadvertently changes the meaning!) so it gives you a 99% accurate idea of the whole paper. Obviously, please don't pass it on to anyone. Cheers Tim At 15:48 07/02/2006, Michael E. Mann wrote: Dear Tim, Keith. Indeed, I'm already getting inquiries. I have the abstract to work w/ so I feel I can probably extrapolate a bit. In short, it sounds like you guys sorts of re-did "Soon and Baliunas", but you did it right! The conclusions sound similar to the Bradley/Diaz/Hughes Science perspective from a couple years back, but I take it you were more quantitative and rigorous (e.g. through the definition of appropriate thresholds). Anyway, let me know if you think there is anything else I need to know. Based on the info I have, I feel I'm pretty safe in giving the study a thumbs up in my press interviews. thanks, and congrats on the paper, mike Tim Osborn wrote: Hi everyone, I just wanted to give you advance notice that Keith and I have a paper appearing in Science on Friday (10th Feb) called: "The spatial extent of 20th century warmth in the context of the past 1200 years" I haven't got a copy of the paper to circulate to you yet (due to Science's embargo) but it is, as you can guess from the title, related to multi-proxy reconstructions. I will send a PDF as soon as I have one. In the meantime, I thought I'd let you know if case any media contact you (I guess this is more likely to be US Media) because Science has just made an embargoed press release today. [Martin & Anders - this is based on the analysis I showed you at the MITRIE meeting last summer] Cheers Tim Dr Timothy J Osborn Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK e-mail: [1]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 -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [4]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [5]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm Dr Timothy J Osborn Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK e-mail: [6]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk phone: +44 1603 592089 fax: +44 1603 507784 web: [7]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: [8]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [9]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [10]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 5308. 2006-02-07 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 17:09:10 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: Fwd: Bern2.5CC IPCC-AR4 millennium simulations to: Gian-Kasper Plattner , Jonathan Overpeck , Fortunat Joos , Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa Dear all, I have made a plot of these data from the Bern2.5CC model, but I realise that I do not understand the differences between the forcings that were applied to the model - in particular, the difference between the CO2_nonCO2 and the CO2_anthr0, though I wonder whether the latter runs have only natural forcings and no anthropogenic forcings? Perhaps "Fortunat's readme document" would clarify these issues, but I don't think I have a copy - please could someone forward one to me. A related problem is that the 7 simulations didn't come to me as separate files - at some point they were incorporated into one long email message as text. Given that the only distinguishing feature was their file names, I can no longer be certain which one is which - other than by comparing with the plots provided. Finally, if you want the forcings plotted as well as the NH temperatures, I will need the forcings. Previously we had them expressed as radiative forcing in W/m2, but separately for "volcanic", "solar" and "all other forcings", but perhaps here we just need a total forcing? Please advice. Plus, if we want a plot of the forcings, I will need the forcing time series. Perhaps these are also in "Fortunat's readme document"? Sorry for so many questions, Tim >>Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:46:40 +0100 >>From: Gian-Kasper Plattner >>Reply-To: plattner@climate.unibe.ch >>User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) >>Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 >>X-Accept-Language: en-us, en >>To: Jonathan Overpeck >>CC: Fortunat Joos , >> Stefan Rahmstorf , >> Anders Levermann , >> Eva Bauer , >> Eystein Jansen , >> Keith Briffa , >> Christoph Raible >>Subject: Bern2.5CC IPCC-AR4 millennium simulations >>X-Virus-checked: by University of Berne >>X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 >>X-UEA-Spam-Level: / >>X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO >> >>Dear all, >> >>Please find attached the Bern2.5CC model output for the IPCC-AR4 >>millenium simulations, all spanning the period from 1000 - 1998AD. >>Some plots including a preliminary comparison between CLIMBER-2 and >>Bern2.5CC results are additionally included (see infos below). >> >>1. The following Bern2.5CC files are attached (with the simulation >>tag as specified in Fortunat's readme document): >> >>Simulation B1.1: Bern2.5CC_bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_1000-1998_ar4.dat >>Simulation B1.2: Bern2.5CC_bard25_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_1000-1998_ar4.dat >>Simulation B2 : Bern2.5CC_WLS-2005_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_1000-1998_ar4.dat >>Simulation B3.1: Bern2.5CC_bard08_volcCrow_CO2_anthr0_1000-1998_ar4.dat >>Simulation B3.2: Bern2.5CC_bard25_volcCrow_CO2_anthr0_1000-1998_ar4.dat >>Simulation B3.3: Bern2.5CC_WLS-2005_volcCrow_CO2_anthr0_1000-1998_ar4.dat >>Simulation B4 : Bern2.5CC_ctrl_1000-1998_ar4.dat >> >>The variables stored are: year AD, globally averaged surface air >>temperature, and northern hemispheric and southern hemispheric >>surface air temperature. The most important information about model >>setup and references is included in the extended header in each >>file. Please note that the information on the forcing timeseries >>applied are specified in the filename only! >> >>Please let me know if something is unclear or if you want >>additional informations about these simulations in particular or >>the Bern2.5CC model in general. I can also provide more output >>variables if desired (such as e.g. MOC, Sea level, ...). >> >> >>2. In addition, the following plots with CLIMBER-2 and Bern2.5CC >>results are attached: >> >>Dgmairtnorm_millenium_Bern2.5CC-CLIMBER2_1000_1998_ipccar4.eps >>Dgmairtnorm_millenium_Bern2.5CC-CLIMBER2_offset0.8_1000_1998_ipccar4.eps >>Dgmairtnorm_millenium_Bern2.5CC_1000_1998_ipccar4.eps >>Dgmairtnorm_millenium_CLIMBER2_1000_1998_ipccar4.eps >> >>All these plots show the anomaly in global mean surface air >>temperature with respect to the value in year 1001AD from either >>CLIMBER-2, Bern2.5CC, or both. Let me know if you have questions or >>comments about the plots. >> >> >>With best regards, >> >>Gian-Kasper >> >>-- >>************************************** >> >>Gian-Kasper Plattner >> >>Climate and Environmental Physics >>Physics Institute, University of Bern >>Sidlerstrasse 5, CH-3012 Bern >> >>Phone ++41 (0)31 631 44 67 >>Fax ++41 (0)31 631 87 42 >>plattner@climate.unibe.ch >>http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~plattner >> >>************************************** 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 998. 2006-02-08 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 10:42:06 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: just checking - important to: Tim Osborn Tim - thanks for the update. Just think of the beer at the end of the tunnel. This week's deadline is a TSU deadline for figs being considered for the Tech Summary. You're looking good to get some of your figs/science in the TS, and this means big impact. Hopefully, provides the extra juice to find the extra time needed to get them done. thx, peck >update: > >reconstructions + observations: you've seen the multiple shading >extra panel already, but I've made a few more tweaks to this and >added oerlemans (global, but looks similar to his NH regions, by >eye) reconstruction. > >forcings + model NH temps: waiting for Stendel data, added new >ECHO-G run without drift problem, tried replacing reconstruction >"envelope" with the multiple shading approach used in the extra >panel of the first figure. Not sure how clear it is - obviously >adding shades of grey behind coloured lines can make it a little >harder to distinguish them. > >extra runs from EMICS: draft plot of NH temps made, got to put the >reconstruction shading under that too, not yet done and the whole >thing needs some tidying up so that it can be an extra panel of the >previous figure. > >extra panel showing a volcanic forcing time series unsmoothed (i.e., >with spikes): draft done but again needs tidying so it can be an >extra panel of the forcings/models figure. > >maps of proxy locations - still lots of work to be done. > >Cheers > >Tim > > > >At 03:01 08/02/2006, you wrote: >>Hi Tim - I did, thanks. And this is where the "hybid" MWP box idea >>came from. Speaking of which, how are all your figs going? We >>really need those being considered for the Tech Summary asap >>(deadline is this week). Please update at least. Thanks, Peck >> >>>Hi Peck - sorry, forgot to reply to this. Yes, please do share it >>>with them, if you haven't already. - Tim >>> >>>At 05:38 01/02/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>>>Hi Tim and Keith - I assume I can share your pre-pub Science pdf >>>>with Susan and Martin? Of course, I'll point out the need for >>>>confidentiality, but I'm sure they know the deal and can be >>>>trusted. Just wanted to make sure this is ok w/ you, so that we >>>>can get their opinions on what's best for the MWP box. >>>> >>>>thanks, Peck >>>>-- >>>>Jonathan T. Overpeck >>>>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>>Professor, Department of Geosciences >>>>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >>>> >>>>Mail and Fedex Address: >>>> >>>>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>>>University of Arizona >>>>Tucson, AZ 85721 >>>>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>>>fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>>>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>>>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >>> >>>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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >>>sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm >> >> >>-- >>Jonathan T. Overpeck >>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>Professor, Department of Geosciences >>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >> >>Mail and Fedex Address: >> >>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>University of Arizona >>Tucson, AZ 85721 >>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ > >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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 4611. 2006-02-08 ______________________________________________________ cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 14:53:27 -0500 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Re: paper in this Friday's Science to: Tim Osborn Tim/Keith, I've worked up an article for RC to go online when the embargo is lifted. Will send later when finalized. One issue came up in an interview w/ a writer at Science, and I didn't know the answer. Is the shorter reference period you mention in caption of fig 3 really 1865, or is that a typo (i.e., supposed to be 1856). I couldn't think of a reason for why the latter date would be used, and guessed that "65" just got transposed accidentally? Please let me know if you can what the answer is. Its a minor point, but nice to get things right if possible... mike Tim Osborn wrote: > Hi Mike, > > I am wary of Science's embargo, but I've included the *uncorrected* > galleys for you to look at. The corrections were only minor wording > changes here and there (sometimes the copy-editor inadvertently > changes the meaning!) so it gives you a 99% accurate idea of the whole > paper. Obviously, please don't pass it on to anyone. > > Cheers > > Tim > > At 15:48 07/02/2006, Michael E. Mann wrote: > >> Dear Tim, Keith. >> >> Indeed, I'm already getting inquiries. I have the abstract to work w/ >> so I feel I can probably extrapolate a bit. In short, it sounds like >> you guys sorts of re-did "Soon and Baliunas", but you did it right! >> The conclusions sound similar to the Bradley/Diaz/Hughes Science >> perspective from a couple years back, but I take it you were more >> quantitative and rigorous (e.g. through the definition of appropriate >> thresholds). >> >> Anyway, let me know if you think there is anything else I need to >> know. Based on the info I have, I feel I'm pretty safe in giving the >> study a thumbs up in my press interviews. >> >> thanks, and congrats on the paper, >> >> mike >> >> Tim Osborn wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I just wanted to give you advance notice that Keith and I have a >>> paper appearing in Science on Friday (10th Feb) called: >>> >>> "The spatial extent of 20th century warmth in the context of the >>> past 1200 years" >>> >>> I haven't got a copy of the paper to circulate to you yet (due to >>> Science's embargo) but it is, as you can guess from the title, >>> related to multi-proxy reconstructions. I will send a PDF as soon >>> as I have one. In the meantime, I thought I'd let you know if case >>> any media contact you (I guess this is more likely to be US Media) >>> because Science has just made an embargoed press release today. >>> >>> [Martin & Anders - this is based on the analysis I showed you at the >>> MITRIE meeting last summer] >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >>> sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm >> >> >> >> -- >> Michael E. Mann >> Associate Professor >> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) >> >> Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 >> 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 >> The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu >> University Park, PA 16802-5013 >> >> http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm >> > 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ > sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 806. 2006-02-09 ______________________________________________________ cc: mmanning@al.noaa.gov, wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu, Marquis@ucar.edu, v.ramaswamy@noaa.gov, Valerie.Masson@cea.fr, p.m.forster@reading.ac.uk date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:44:34 +0100 from: Renato Spahni subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] [Fwd: Greenhouse Gas Figure for IPCC] to: Jonathan Overpeck Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by thunder.joss.ucar.edu id k19H6lC2011714 Dear all, Thank you very much for including me as a contributer to this important report. I changed the EPICA/VOSTOK (CO2 also from Taylor Dome) figure accordingly: - figure with N2O and antropogenic increase - no shaded areas before MIS 11 - isotopes are shown as step plot with highest resolution published ( 0-390kyr: EPICA Community Memebers, 2004; 390-650kyr: Siegenthaler et al. 2005, Spahni et al. 2005) - for visibility reasons the line widths are smaller now - the delta D label has probably a font problem, I converted it as a pdf this time Let me know if I can be of further assistance. All the best, Renato Jonathan Overpeck wrote: > Hi Valerie et al. - let's all weigh in before Renato generates the > final SOD graphic. My thoughts > > 1) I don't feel strongly about the delta D data being smoothed or not > (it makes sense, but will it make a difference? - go ahead if others > agree), but I think we should keep isotopic data, rather than > temperature - to avoid the confusion with the most recent data not > being the warmest - or even close. It's regional temp, I know, but > some readers might realize this. We can say in the caption that delta > D is a regional temp record. I'm just one vote, here... > > 2) I agree with the vert grey shaded areas, and will go one step > farther for a compromise. I vote we keep the shading on the real > interglacials of the last 450kyrs, and delete the grey shading on the > earlier "interglacials" - they are different, clearly, and we can make > that point in the caption. Valerie's reasoning then works the other > way - the grey shading helps readers get the point about how the > length of interglacials comparable to the Holocene have varied, with > MIS 11 being the phattest. > > Thanks, Peck > >> Jonathan Overpeck a écrit : >> >>> Hi Fortunat, Renato and friends: Here's my thoughts on what you have >>> sent wrt to chap 6: >>> >>> 1) for the EPICA/VOSTOK figure, I agree we should go with the >>> version WITH N2O and WITH the anthropogenic increase >>> (ipcc_ghg650kyr_v1ant) Renato - would you please resend with the >>> delta D label fixed. Thanks - otherwise, nice job. >>> >>> >> I have a few comments on the figure ipcc_ghg650kyr_v1ant. >> >> - the deuterium data should be smoothed to appear with a resolution >> similar to the GHG records (we usually use step functions for >> deuterium plots because the measurements are conducted as averages >> for bag samples => not single points). >> >> - it is possible to show temperature fluctuations rather than >> deuterium, if you prefer. >> >> - I am worried about the vertical grey lines on this figure, assumed >> to define "interglacial periods". It is tricky and depends on some >> hypothesis (thresholds on deuterium or GHG). For instance stage 7.5, >> 7.3 should also appear as interglacials with the thresholds used for >> the other warm periods. >> As we are aware of (preliminar) Dome C age scale problems for stages >> 13-15, the grey bars may give false impressions regarding the >> duration of the oldest warm episodes. >> >> Valérie. > > > -- ______________________________ Renato Spahni Climate and Environmental Physics Physics Institute, University of Bern Sidlerstrasse 5 CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland Phone: ++41 (0)31 631 44 76 Fax: ++41 (0)31 631 87 42 spahni@climate.unibe.ch www.climate.unibe.ch/~spahni ______________________________ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\ipcc_ghg650kyr.pdf" _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 1717. 2006-02-09 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 16:32:22 +0000 (GMT) from: Martin Juckes subject: Draft conclusions for report to Netherlands Environment Assessment to: mitrie -- Anders Moberg , Eduardo Zorita , , Jan Esper , Keith Briffa , Martin Juckes , Myles Allen , Nanne Weber , Hello, I need to send in a draft report to RIVM soon. The summary should lay out what we believe to be the state of knowledge on temperatures in the last millenium. I would be grateful for feedback on the text below. regards, Martin Summary IPCC (2001) concluded that ``The 1990s are likely to have been the warmest decade of the millennium in the Northern Hemisphere, and 1998 is likely to have been the warmest year," where ``likely'' implies a greater than 66\% probability (this conclusion will be referred to below as ``C1''). The Northern Hemisphere temperatures are believed to have shown a gradual cooling trend from the start of the millenium until the mid 19th century, and a warming trend since then. Substantial interannual, decadal and centennial scale variability was superimposed on these trends. The warming trend contains a signifcant natural component, but an anthropogenic contribution was clearly detectable towards the end of the 20th century. This conclusion was based on a wide range of results, including that of Mann et al., (1999). Since publication of the IPCC (2001) report there has been much criticism of the techniques used to estimate temperatures, particularly those used by Mann et al. The criticism of the latter work has drwan attention to incomplete documentation of the wide range of data sources used and to incomplete description of some aspects of the analysis algorithm. The debate has attracted much public interest and generated considerable confusion. (C1) is sometimes paraphrased as ``there was no hemispheric wide Medieval Warm Period'', but this terminology leads to confusion: there is no agreed definition of what would constitute a `` Medieval Warm Period''. A second conclusion of the IPCC report, which is related to but distinct from (C1), is that current temperature trends have a signifcant anthropogenic component (referred to as ``C2'' below). Conclusion (C2) is based mainly on GCM simulations and is not directly addressed in this study. Conclusion (C1) is based mainly on the interpretation of proxy climate records: this is the specific issue addressed here. Reconstructions of past climates are also used to evaluate GCM simulations of those climates and hence to evaluate the GCMs: this provides some indirect input into conclusion (C2). The following concpetual model can help us to understand how studies of the past millenium can contribute to discussion of future climate change: Temperature anomaly- = [ ( climate sensitivity-) times ( sum of forcings-) ] plus ( natural variability-) This is a drastic simplification: the different ``forcings'' (solar variability, volcanic and other natural changes to atmospheric composition, anthropogenic changes to atmospheric composition) can not be wholly characterised by a single number: their influcence on the climate system is extremely complex and the response of the climate is neither instantaneous nor uniform. Nevertheless, scientists have found this simple conceptual model to be a useful basis for discussion. By testing the models against observed climate variability it can be dtermiend whether they have a climate sensitivity which is realistic. The problem is that the period of reliable, global measurements is too short to carry out this exercise comprehensively. In the last 5 years a number of studies using different techniques and different, though overlapping, data collections have re-inforced (C1), though they disagree, both with Mann et al. and among themselves, on other issues. In particular, there is a relatively wide range of estimates as to the magnitude of the cold anomaly in the 18th century (during the ``Little Ice Age''). It is clear that regional temperature anomalies can be much larger than those on the hemispheric scale. IPCC (2001) did not suggest that current temperattures are above the extremes experienced by any region in the past thousand years. Recent modelling work has led to greater understanding of climate variability on different scales. A lot of discussion in the popular and electronic media, and also, to a limited extent, in the peer reviewed literature, neglects this crucial distinction between what is happening on the global and regional scales. Data centres have improved the transparency with which data is available and the quality of the information accompanying the data, recording its provenance has also improved. The use of a wide range of different data sources and different analysis techniques makes evaluation of the differences among published results difficult. Within this project we have subjected data collections from a variety of authors to several analysis techniques. It is found that the range of different results is still spanned by the results when a single analysis technique is used. This suggests that a priority for further work to reduce the uncertainty will be to improve understanding of the data. 3171. 2006-02-09 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 14:56:51 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: progress to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, Keith Briffa Hi Keith and Tim - Eystein and I just talked about Henry's request to be able to read and comment on your SOD text, and it seems highly appropriate that we work super hard to make this possible. It is taking place w/ other sections of the SOD, and your section is the one that has to be the most perfect. I'm guessing that we'll have final figs this week or over the weekend (please!), and the edited section a day or two later (at the most). As per the last email to you and Henry, you can save everyone time if you send sections relevant to him (all the multi-proxy and proxy sections) as soon as they are done. Sorry to keep the pressure on, but we are running out of time. thanks, peck -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 3623. 2006-02-09 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 14:53:18 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: helping with IPCC expert review comment responses to: Henry Pollack Hi Henry (and Keith/Tim too!): Thanks again for your willingness to help with our chap 6 responses to expert review comments. This is a big help, and we're sorry it is last minute. Regarding your recent message to me: The IPCC draft turnaround schedule is tight, but we want to make the SOD as good as it can be. I apologize for not sending you a copy of the FOD earlier, but your are correct that we should get your input into the mix as we revise for the SOD. This was difficult for the FOD because Keith's father died right before the deadline, and it wasn't possible to circulate the "last 2000 years" text wider than just Eystein and me at the last minute. We were lucky just to meet the deadline - the final assembly of a chapter draft is time consuming, to say the least. It doesn't help that MS Word really isn't up to the task. BUT, this time around, we are trying to leave more time, and if you are ready to work very fast, we should be able to get you into the mix of finalizing the "last 2000 years" section. We set a chapter deadline for this week for all revised text and figs. Keith and Tim have the biggest job - several new, and time intensive figures, and perhaps the most difficult section prose-wise. We are hoping they will send all the figs this week, and the prose shortly thereafter. ****In order to allow Henry to read and suggest edits to the "last 2000 years" section, we are herein asking Keith and Tim to first finalize on those subsections that are most important for Henry to read - that is, all of the observed record subsections. Keith and Tim can do the forcing and simulations sections second. Thus, we should be able to give Henry the chance to at least read and comment on those subsections that are most relevant. If time allows for reading and commenting on the entire section, then that'd be great. But, we are running out of time.**** Henry - we would like you to also remind us to send the SOD to all CAs to read after it is complete. Like yourself, all of the CA's have helped with the revision of their relevant sections, but it would be good for all CAs to be able to read the entire document. I suspect we can set up an efficient way to track comments as well. Hope this works - it all hinges on Tim/Keith finalizing fast, and then you responding fast. We have to have time for CLAs to edit (and shorten) the entire draft, and then we have to get it into final IPCC TSU form for submission - just the latter step takes several days. Thanks again, Peck and Eystein -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 4963. 2006-02-09 ______________________________________________________ cc: mitrie -- Anders Moberg , Eduardo Zorita , Jan Esper , Keith Briffa , Myles Allen , Nanne Weber , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 22:57:39 -0500 from: hegerl@duke.edu subject: Re: Draft conclusions for report to Netherlands Environment to: Martin Juckes Hi all, This is fine by me, and the conclusion is interesting. My only comment would be on the section that says that different reconstructions are inconsistent with each other - are they really, given the large uncertainties? the ones I looked at (excluding Mann) did not seem inconsistent with each other for example in terms of their little ice age coolign given the large uncertainties...but maybe I am not up to date on what exactly you did there - sorry if this is the case! Gabi Quoting Martin Juckes : > > Hello, > > I need to send in a draft report to RIVM soon. The summary should lay out > what we believe to be the state of knowledge on temperatures in the > last millenium. > > I would be grateful for feedback on the text below. > > regards, > Martin > > > Summary > > IPCC (2001) concluded that ``The 1990s are likely to have been the > warmest decade of the millennium in > the Northern Hemisphere, and 1998 is likely to have been the warmest > year," where ``likely'' implies a greater than 66\% probability > (this conclusion will be referred to below as ``C1''). > The Northern Hemisphere temperatures are believed to have shown a > gradual cooling trend from the start of the millenium until the > mid 19th century, and a warming trend since then. Substantial > interannual, decadal and centennial scale variability was superimposed > on these trends. The warming trend contains a signifcant natural component, > but an anthropogenic contribution was clearly detectable towards the > end of the 20th century. > > This conclusion was based on a wide range of results, > including that of Mann et al., (1999). > Since publication of the IPCC (2001) report there has been much criticism of > the techniques used to estimate temperatures, particularly those used > by Mann et al. > The criticism of the latter work has drwan attention to incomplete > documentation of the wide range of data sources used and to incomplete > description of some aspects of the analysis algorithm. > The debate has attracted much public interest and generated > considerable confusion. > > (C1) is sometimes paraphrased as ``there was no hemispheric wide > Medieval Warm Period'', but this > terminology leads to confusion: there is no agreed definition of what > would constitute > a `` Medieval Warm Period''. > > A second conclusion of the IPCC report, which is related to but > distinct from (C1), is > that current temperature trends have a signifcant anthropogenic > component (referred to as ``C2'' below). > > Conclusion (C2) is based mainly on GCM simulations and is not > directly addressed in this > study. Conclusion (C1) is based mainly on > the interpretation of proxy climate records: this is the specific > issue addressed here. Reconstructions of past climates are also used > to evaluate > GCM simulations of those climates and hence to evaluate the GCMs: > this provides some > indirect input into conclusion (C2). > > The following concpetual model can help us > to understand how studies of the past millenium can contribute to > discussion of future climate change: > > Temperature anomaly- = [ ( climate sensitivity-) times ( sum of forcings-) ] > plus ( natural variability-) > > This is a drastic simplification: the different ``forcings'' (solar > variability, > volcanic and other natural changes to atmospheric composition, > anthropogenic changes > to atmospheric composition) can not be wholly characterised by a > single number: > their influcence on the climate system is extremely complex and the response > of the climate is neither instantaneous nor uniform. Nevertheless, > scientists have found > this simple conceptual model to be a useful basis for discussion. > > By testing the models > against observed climate variability it can be dtermiend whether they > have a climate sensitivity which is realistic. The problem is that > the period of reliable, > global measurements is too short to carry out this exercise comprehensively. > > In the last 5 years a number of studies using different techniques > and different, > though overlapping, data collections have re-inforced (C1), though they > disagree, both with Mann et al. and among themselves, on other issues. In > particular, there is a relatively wide range of estimates as to the magnitude > of the cold anomaly in the 18th century (during the ``Little Ice Age''). > > It is clear that regional temperature anomalies can be much larger than > those on the hemispheric scale. IPCC (2001) did not suggest that > current temperattures are above the extremes experienced by > any region in the past thousand years. Recent modelling work has > led to greater understanding of climate variability on different > scales. A lot of discussion in the popular and electronic media, > and also, to a limited extent, in the peer reviewed literature, > neglects this crucial distinction between what is happening on the global > and regional scales. > > Data centres have improved the transparency with which data is > available and the > quality of the information accompanying the data, recording its > provenance has > also improved. > > The use of a wide range of different data sources and different > analysis techniques > makes evaluation of the differences among published results difficult. > Within this project we have subjected data collections from a variety of > authors to several analysis techniques. > It is found that the range of different results is still spanned by the > results when a single analysis technique is used. > This suggests that a priority for further work to reduce the uncertainty > will be to improve understanding of the data. > > > > 5237. 2006-02-09 ______________________________________________________ cc: Fortunat Joos , Jonathan Overpeck , Stefan Rahmstorf , Anders Levermann , Eva Bauer , Gian-Kasper Plattner , Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 15:01:05 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: EMIC millennium runs to: Tim Osborn Hi Tim and gang - Tim, the fig panel looks good to me. I would think seriously about adding an instrumental line (e.g., same as chap 3 mean NH) - can this be done w/ your choice of ref period? Not the end of the world if we leave it off, in my opinion. EVERYONE - please send feedback on any issues straight to Tim - his goal is to finalize this figure this week. Tim and Keith - think tables for descriptions of all the curves/refs instead of captions. Either way is space-consuming, but the table approach will be less messy. Nice job - really like the way we're handling the obs data now. best, peck >Dear all, > >I've attached a copy of the figure that I've >drawn from the Bern2.5cc and Climber2 data that >I was sent (thank you Eva and Kasper for the >data). > >This isn't necessarily the final version of the >figure - I have to talk some more with Keith >about it, and of course with Peck and Eystein >too. But I thought I'd circulate this version >now to get your views/feedback. > >Some information about the diagram: > >This is labelled as panel (d) because it will >probably be added to an existing diagram that >showed forcings and NH temperatures from >published model simulations. > >The coloured lines show the model results as >indicated in the legend. I have simply labelled >them with the model name, an abbreviation for >the solar forcing (WLS or Bard25) and an >indication of whether only natural (Nat) or all >(All) forcings were included. I can change the >labelling to suit everyone. You will also see >that I haven't included the "Bard08" forcing, >because this gave almost identical results to >"WLS" forcing. All series have been 30-year >smoothed. > >The grey shading is our current way of >presenting the evidence from proxy-based >reconstructions of NH temperature (or part of >the NH in some cases). The darker the grey, the >more reconstructions overlap that point. We >haven't included any information from >instrumental temperatures, and thus the 20th >century grey band is relatively wide because >even in the 20th century it is based upon the >uncertainty in the proxy reconstructions. > >Finally, note that everything is expressed as >anomalies from a pre-20th century reference >period (1500-1899) to be consistent with the >other panels of this figure. This reference >period is used for the grey shading of the >reconstructions as well as the model >simulations. It shows the divergence of the All >and Nat simulations in the 19th and 20th >centuries nicely. > >Best regards > >Tim > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:emics1.pdf (PDF /«IC») (00112361) >Dr Timothy J Osborn >Climatic Research Unit >School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia >Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK 581. 2006-02-10 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:59:50 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: pulling teeth and hair out to: Keith Briffa Keith - figs look great for now, and hopefully the flurry of emails just cc'd to you will take care of everything except Oerlemans. To help here, I've dug up the Chap 4 pdfs. (going to the CLA would not be quick, nor necessarily any better). In the Ch04 figs file, go to Fig 4.5.4 on pg 4-72 for caption material that seems pretty bland. In the Ch04 Text file, go to first full para on p 4-22 for what chap 4 had on the Oerleman's work. I suspect this is the last time they thought about it. You can keep this really short and sweet - main thing is that it's another independent data set that shows unprecedented recent warming. A short para should do it. Are you going to use a table to help with the figure captions? On the weekend/evenings, I can be reached at home 1-970-728-0780, and during the week on my cell 520-907-6480. I'm single parenting, so on the weekends and evenings I might have to call back if 4 yr old Jack is doing something less than enjoyable to 1 yr old Eli. Julie is in Germany for IODP sampling. During the week, the boys are in school, and Julie's Mom arrives in time for next weekend. After the boys go to bed, I also work. We're getting there - thanks! best, peck >Peck (tried to phone) - >i please get Henry P to correct the text regarding the Section on >Ground Surface temperatures. I am not going to mess with this and I >can not get into which refs we need to include. Generally , I am >happy to go with what we have for this section but the comments , >especially by Beltrami need to be at least considered. Thanks >We have come to the best that we can re the Figures. The text of >course now needs to expand , especially re the justification for the >the new EMIC runs . How about you think on this and get the input >from Fortunat and Stefan especially re what we need to say and , >whether the last panel on second Figure ought to be in another >Figure with the specific forcings above as in the original second >Figure? These Figures (and even the few new additions to the >original model/data comparison) are opening cans of worms re having >to explain/justify different results. Someone also promised (from >the Cyrosphere chapter ) presumably the CLA to send the appropriate >text to describe the Oerlemans Figure - but nothing has been sent . >Can you check this out - or I will just write something naive. >Remind Fortunat he is editing in relation to his section in my >section!!!!!!! >Keith > > > >Keith > > > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Ch04_FOD_Figs_TSU_FINAL.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Ch04_FOD_Text_TSU_FINAL.pdf" 681. 2006-02-10 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Feb 10 18:47:24 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: pulling teeth and hair out to: jto@u.arizona.edu Peck (tried to phone) - i please get Henry P to correct the text regarding the Section on Ground Surface temperatures. I am not going to mess with this and I can not get into which refs we need to include. Generally , I am happy to go with what we have for this section but the comments , especially by Beltrami need to be at least considered. Thanks We have come to the best that we can re the Figures. The text of course now needs to expand , especially re the justification for the the new EMIC runs . How about you think on this and get the input from Fortunat and Stefan especially re what we need to say and , whether the last panel on second Figure ought to be in another Figure with the specific forcings above as in the original second Figure? These Figures (and even the few new additions to the original model/data comparison) are opening cans of worms re having to explain/justify different results. Someone also promised (from the Cyrosphere chapter ) presumably the CLA to send the appropriate text to describe the Oerlemans Figure - but nothing has been sent . Can you check this out - or I will just write something naive. Remind Fortunat he is editing in relation to his section in my section!!!!!!! Keith Keith -- 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/ 709. 2006-02-10 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:42:15 -0000 (GMT) from: "Tim Osborn" subject: Re: Osborn and Briffa 2006 NH temp. data archived to: "Bruce Bauer" Brilliant, thanks Bruce. Tim On Fri, February 10, 2006 4:28 pm, Bruce Bauer wrote: > Hi Tim, > The data from your Science paper is now available from the WDC Paleo > website. Hopefully the few-hour delay after publication won't cause too > much of an uproar!! :) > > I put all the series in a single text file, with our standard > documentation header, which is copied below for your inspection. As I > mentioned earlier, the paper is featured in our What's New section: > http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/whatsnew.html and > http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/osborn2006/osborn2006.html > as well as the Climate Reconstructions web page: > http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html > Please let me know if you have suggestions for improvement to any of > these. I will be out of the office next week, but can do updates upon my > return. > Thanks very much for contributing the data! > Cheers, Bruce > > Tim Osborn wrote: > >> That's great, Bruce. Looking forward to seeing it later today (already >> sceptics have been complaining that I haven't archived the data!). >> >> Cheers >> >> Tim >> >> At 00:17 08/02/2006, Bruce Bauer wrote: >> >>> Dear Tim, >>> Congratulations on your upcoming Science paper, and thanks very much >>> for contributing the data. You have provided everything I need, >>> except a few details I will obtain from Science online when the paper >>> is posted. If we have no technical glitches, the data should be >>> available via our "Whats New" web page friday morning in the US, >>> friday afternoon in Norwich. The web address is: >>> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/whatsnew.html >>> I'll let you know when it is all set! >>> Thanks, Bruce >>> >>> >>> Tim Osborn wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Connie / WDC-Paleo, >>>> >>>> Together with Keith Briffa, I have a paper that is being published >>>> in Science next week (10-Feb-2006) about Northern Hemisphere >>>> temperature variations over the last 1200 years. >>>> >>>> We would like to provide the data to WDC-Paleo so that it can be >>>> made available for people to download once the paper is published. >>>> >>>> I wasn't entirely sure what information you required, because it is >>>> a mixture of individual records that already exist (which we have >>>> used for our analysis) plus the results of our analysis itself, >>>> which is various dimensionless indicators of the relative spatial >>>> extent of warm or cold conditions. >>>> >>>> I have attached some ASCII files: >>>> >>>> wdc_paleo_osborn2006_header.txt contains a description of the data >>>> etc. >>>> >>>> osborn2006_fig 1,2,3A-C,3D .dat each contain the data shown in a >>>> particular figure of our paper. >>>> >>>> Science have a strict embargo on our paper until next Thursday >>>> afternoon (9-Feb-06), but I can provide a copy of the manuscript >>>> page proofs if you need to see the paper, provided it isn't >>>> forwarded to anyone else. >>>> >>>> Please let me know what else you need (e.g. one of the figures from >>>> our paper) and whether/when this can all go ahead. >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> >>>> Tim >>> > Spatial Extent of Warm and Cold Conditions over the Northern Hemisphere > Since 800 AD > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, Boulder > and > NOAA Paleoclimatology Program > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > NOTE: PLEASE CITE CONTRIBUTORS WHEN USING THIS DATA!!!!! > > > NAME OF DATA SET: > Spatial Extent of Warm and Cold Conditions over the Northern Hemisphere > Since 800 AD > LAST UPDATE: 2/2006 (Original receipt by WDC Paleo) > > CONTRIBUTORS: Tim Osborn and Keith Briffa > Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, > University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK > > IGBP PAGES/WDCA CONTRIBUTION SERIES NUMBER: 2006-009 > > SUGGESTED DATA CITATION: Osborn, T.J. and K.R. Briffa. 2006. > Spatial Extent of Warm and Cold Conditions over the Northern Hemisphere > Since 800 AD. > IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology > Data Contribution Series # 2006-009. > NOAA/NCDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA. > > ORIGINAL REFERENCE: > Osborn, T.J. and K.R. Briffa. 2006. > The spatial extent of 20th century warmth in the context of the past > 1200 years. > Science, Vol 311, Issue 5762, 10 February 2006. > > > ABSTRACT: > Periods of widespread warmth or cold are identified by positive or > negative > deviations that are synchronous across a number of temperature-sensitive > proxy records drawn from the Northern Hemisphere. The most significant and > longest duration feature during the last 1200 years is the geographical > extent of warmth in the middle to late 20th century. Positive anomalies > during 890 to 1170 and negative anomalies during 1580 to 1850 are > consistent > with the concepts of a Medieval Warm Period and a Little Ice Age, > but comparison with instrumental temperatures shows the spatial extent of > recent warmth to be of greater significance than that during the > medieval period. > > > GEOGRAPHIC REGION: Northern Hemisphere land masses > PERIOD OF RECORD: 800 - 1995 AD > > > FUNDING SOURCE: > This analysis was supported by the European Community under research > contract EVK2-CT2002-00160 SOAP. > > DESCRIPTION: > Four data files are provided, linked directly to the three figures shown > in the publication. > The figure captions provide the necessary description of the data. > > Fig. 1. The 14 temperature-related proxy records used in this study, > filtered to remove > variations on time scales less than 20 years and then normalised to have > zero mean > and unit standard deviation during the period from 800 to 1995 [with > adjustments made > to the shorter records]. > > Fig. 2. Fraction of the records available in each year that have > normalized values > 0, > 1, > 2, > < 0, < -1, and < -2, with the latter three series multiplied by –1. The > series are shown from > 800 to 1995 and have been filtered to remove variations on time scales > less than 20 years. > > Fig. 3A-C & Fig. 3D provided as separate files. > Fig. 3. Difference between the fraction of the records available in each > year that have normalized > values (A) > 0 and < 0, (B) > 1 and < -1, (C) > 2 and < -2, and (D) as > (A) but using a shorter (1865 > to 1995) reference period for normalization. The difference series are > shown for 800 to 1995 and have > been filtered to remove variations on time scales less than 20 years. > Zero indicates that the number of > series exceeding the upper threshold equals those with values below the > lower threshold. > In (D), results based on annual-mean instrumental temperatures from grid > boxes throughout the NH (red > curve) or only in regions close to the proxy records (green curve) are > shown for 1856 to 2004 (also > normalized over the period from 1856 to 1995). > > > -- > ******************************************************* > Bruce Bauer, Data Manager > World Data Center for Paleoclimatology and > NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, Paleoclimatology Branch > 325 Broadway, E/CC23, Boulder, CO 80305-3328 USA > Phone: (303) 497-6280 FAX: (303) 497-6513 > Email: Bruce.A.Bauer@NOAA.gov > FTP: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/ > Web: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html > ******************************************************** > > > 1262. 2006-02-10 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:31:53 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: chap 6 revision to: Henry Pollack Hi Henry - In talking w/ Keith, it sounds like he'd like (and I agree it makes sense) you to go ahead and revise the section of ground surface temperatures. You know this better than he does, and you know which refs to include. Also, since you're doing our responses to expert review comments for this section, it makes sense that you revise text to be compatible. Keith and I both thank you in advance for this. Then, when he's got the entire section done (hopefully shortly after you send him (cc me, Eystein and Tim pls.), we'll run this by you for a fast (only way possible) review. In the next email, I will send you the WORD doc and more detailed (simple) instructions for how to do the revisions. Hope that works for you, and that I haven't ruined your weekend (not that I ever thought you we adverse to working on weekends! Too productive to think otherwise). Thx again, Peck -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 1624. 2006-02-10 ______________________________________________________ cc: mmanning@al.noaa.gov, wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu, Marquis@ucar.edu, v.ramaswamy@noaa.gov, Valerie.Masson@cea.fr, p.m.forster@reading.ac.uk, spahni@climate.unibe.ch date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 08:46:44 +0100 from: Dominique Raynaud subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] [Fwd: Greenhouse Gas Figure for IPCC] to: Jonathan Overpeck Dear all, Sorry to get on the moving train (in Brussels last week and a lot of commitments this week). If it is still time to comment on the last figure provided by Renato. I believe that the figure showing also the recent increase is appropriate for TS. As I mentioned in NZ last december I am not convinced that the discontinuous N2O record add values to the figure. It seems to me that it carries a lot of questions and, in my point of view, should not appear in TS. The figure presents another difficulty, which can probably be solved in the caption: why we don't see a recent decrease of the deuterium? In any case I think that the amplitude of the deuterium variability should be scaled with that of CO2 for instance. On the other hand, for chapter 6, I think we need a figure showing the three GG together with the deuterium record. This figure should not squeeze the amplitude of the CH4 variations (the CH4 record of the last figure of Renato looks nearly like a background noise record). We need to show clearly in chapter 6 the glacial-interglacial and millenial variability. So we could have a figure similar of one of the several figures that Renato prepared for NZ, without the continuous vertical lines for the recent increases, in order to scale properly the past variations. We could probably add only the present-day levels. Sorry for these late propositions. Dom >Hi Renato and friends - this looks really nice to me, and if all >agree, it would be good to get an eps version. > >All - pls send comments asap if you want to update the figure again. > >We need a updated caption - I suggest Renato, Fortunat and Dominique >work to do this. It would be nice to have soon, since this figure >has potential TS status as well as chap 6. In the caption, we should >state that (in your words) that there is clearly evidence for >earlier interglacial periods prior to 430 kyrs, but that these were >apparently cooler than the typical interglacials of the latest >Quaternary. Please let me know when you'll be able to send the >caption. > >Again, many thanks, Peck > >>Dear all, >> >>Thank you very much for including me as a contributer to this >>important report. I changed the EPICA/VOSTOK (CO2 also from Taylor >>Dome) figure accordingly: >> >>- figure with N2O and antropogenic increase >>- no shaded areas before MIS 11 >>- isotopes are shown as step plot with highest resolution published >>( 0-390kyr: EPICA Community Memebers, 2004; 390-650kyr: >>Siegenthaler et al. 2005, Spahni et al. 2005) >>- for visibility reasons the line widths are smaller now >>- the delta D label has probably a font problem, I converted it as >>a pdf this time >> >>Let me know if I can be of further assistance. >> >>All the best, >>Renato >> >> >>Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >> >>>Hi Valerie et al. - let's all weigh in before Renato generates the >>>final SOD graphic. My thoughts >>> >>>1) I don't feel strongly about the delta D data being smoothed or >>>not (it makes sense, but will it make a difference? - go ahead if >>>others agree), but I think we should keep isotopic data, rather >>>than temperature - to avoid the confusion with the most recent >>>data not being the warmest - or even close. It's regional temp, I >>>know, but some readers might realize this. We can say in the >>>caption that delta D is a regional temp record. I'm just one vote, >>>here... >>> >>>2) I agree with the vert grey shaded areas, and will go one step >>>farther for a compromise. I vote we keep the shading on the real >>>interglacials of the last 450kyrs, and delete the grey shading on >>>the earlier "interglacials" - they are different, clearly, and we >>>can make that point in the caption. Valerie's reasoning then works >>>the other way - the grey shading helps readers get the point about >>>how the length of interglacials comparable to the Holocene have >>>varied, with MIS 11 being the phattest. >>> >>>Thanks, Peck >>> >>>>Jonathan Overpeck a écrit : >>>> >>>>>Hi Fortunat, Renato and friends: Here's my thoughts on what you >>>>>have sent wrt to chap 6: >>>>> >>>>>1) for the EPICA/VOSTOK figure, I agree we should go with the >>>>>version WITH N2O and WITH the anthropogenic increase >>>>>(ipcc_ghg650kyr_v1ant) Renato - would you please resend with the >>>>>delta D label fixed. Thanks - otherwise, nice job. >>>>> >>>>I have a few comments on the figure ipcc_ghg650kyr_v1ant. >>>> >>>>- the deuterium data should be smoothed to appear with a >>>>resolution similar to the GHG records (we usually use step >>>>functions for deuterium plots because the measurements are >>>>conducted as averages for bag samples => not single points). >>>> >>>>- it is possible to show temperature fluctuations rather than >>>>deuterium, if you prefer. >>>> >>>>- I am worried about the vertical grey lines on this figure, >>>>assumed to define "interglacial periods". It is tricky and >>>>depends on some hypothesis (thresholds on deuterium or GHG). For >>>>instance stage 7.5, 7.3 should also appear as interglacials with >>>>the thresholds used for the other warm periods. >>>>As we are aware of (preliminar) Dome C age scale problems for >>>>stages 13-15, the grey bars may give false impressions regarding >>>>the duration of the oldest warm episodes. >>>> >>>>Valérie. >>> >>> >>> >> >>-- >>______________________________ >> >>Renato Spahni >> > >> >>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:ipcc_ghg650kyr.pdf (PDF /«IC») (0011236F) > > 1642. 2006-02-10 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:21:02 +0100 from: Martin Stendel subject: Re: request for data for IPCC figure to: Tim Osborn Dear Tim, apart from my telephone which still is dead, things seem to be in place now. So I can answer your request now. The data for volcanic activity, solar irradiance variability and greenhouse gas forcing were taken from Robertson et al. (2001), http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/robertson2001/robertson2001.html. In the case of the volcanic forcing, we used Robertson's data for the period 1500-1889; for 1890 to 2000, we have used monthly mean values following Ammann et al. (2003). The volcanic data is latitude-dependent. The file I have attached is the global mean with correct area weighting. The solar irradiance data is based on Lean et al. (1995), where I have set the values for the last five years (1996 to 2000) to the 1995 value. Please note that the model expects the concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. I do not have the radiative forcings rightaway. Since (e.g. in IPCC, 2001) there are several expressions how to obtain the radiative forcing from the concentrations, I have attached only the latter. If you give me the formulae you are using, I can of course calculate the forcing, but probably it is easier for you to do it yourself. The model was spun down for a period of 500 years from present-day conditions until surface and upper ocean fields had reached an approxiate equilibrium. Then we started our simulations with AD1500 conditions. SInce I don't know how exactly you are going to display the forcing series (i.e., relative to which base period etc.), I attach them as absolute values. The volcanic forcing may differ from other data series since we tried to make an estimate of the long wave forcing following a procedure described in Andronova et al. (1999). We used the sum of this (latitude-dependent) volcanic and the solar forcing to obtain an "effective solar constant", which we used to force the model. Furthermore, I have attached the annual means of NH 2m temperature, like the other quantities as absolute values. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me (best by mail, until the phone problems are solved). Please note that I am invited to give a talk in Berlin on Monday, so that I probably cannot respond prior to Wednesday. Best regards and a nice weekend Martin _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Dr. Martin Stendel http://www.dmi.dk/f+u/klima/klimasektion/mas.html Danish Climate Centre Tel. : +45 3915 7446 Danish Meteorological Institute Fax : +45 3915 7460 Lyngbyvej 100, DK 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark e-mail: mas@dmi.dk _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Robertson irradiance 1500-2000 1500 1364.293 1501 1364.280 1502 1364.266 2112. 2006-02-10 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Keith Briffa" , "Eystein Jansen" date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:53:39 -0500 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: Wahl-Ammann paper and UAZ position to: "Jonathan Overpeck" Hi Peck: I will write Steve tonight. Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 607-871-2604 1 Saxon Drive Alfred, NY 14802 ________________________________ From: Jonathan Overpeck [mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu] Sent: Fri 2/10/2006 2:05 PM To: Wahl, Eugene R Cc: Keith Briffa; Eystein Jansen Subject: RE: Wahl-Ammann paper and UAZ position Hi Eugene - this is good news... I hope. Please contact Steve and see if we will have "in press" status before the end of the month. He knows the drill, but also the downside of not being precise. Let me, Eystein and Keith know as soon as you know. Bit nuts right now, really appreciate your help. thanks, peck >Hi Peck: > >Well, as I have understood it in our communications with Steve, >final acceptance is equivalent to being in press for Climatic Change >because it is a "journal of record". However, this would need to be >confirmed to be quite sure. > >If that is the case, then in press is still possible by the end of >the month. I think. > >Which would be best at this point, for me to write and ask Steve >this, or would it be better for you to ask? I'm happy to do so, I >just want to act in the most time-effective and appropriate way. > >I apologize for the fact that it is coming right down to the wire. >The status right now is that I am waiting for final analytical >results from Caspar re: Pearson's r and CE results on all the >scenarios we have done. These results will go in an appendix table >and I have to write a brief text to go with them for >contextualization purposes--I already have in mind what I want to >say. The entire rest of the document is essentially done. > >Steve turned around the change from "in review" to "provisionally >accepted" within days last December after receiving back the final >independent re-review (it had been due a month earlier), so I can >imagine that he could potentially turn around the change from >"provisional acceptance" to "full acceptance" similarly quickly. > > >Please advise about who is best to contact Steve--and if me I will >get on it today. > > >Peace, Gene >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies >Alfred University > >________________________________ > >From: Jonathan Overpeck [mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu] >Sent: Fri 2/10/2006 12:39 PM >To: Wahl, Eugene R >Cc: Eystein Jansen; Keith Briffa; t.osborn@uea.ac.uk >Subject: RE: Wahl-Ammann paper and UAZ position > > > >Hi Gene - First the IPCC, then I'll send another email wrt UA Geography > >Based on your update (which is much appreciated), I'm not sure we'll >be able to cite either in the SOD due at the end of this month >(sections will have to be done this week, or earliest next week to >meet this deadline). The rule is that we can't cite any papers not in >press by end of Feb. > > From what you are saying, there isn't much chance for in press by the >end of the month? If this is not true, please let me, Keith, Tim and >Eystein know, and make sure you send the in press doc as soon as it >is officially in press (as in you have written confirmation). We have >to be careful on these issues. > >Thanks again, Peck > >>Hi Peck: >> >>Two quick things... >> >>1) Regarding the Wahl-Ammann (WA) Climatic Change paper...Caspar >>and I are in the very final stages of completing the requirements >>Steve Schneider set for bringing this paper into full (vs. >>provisional) acceptance. We have an internal goal of a week from >>now for resubmission. >> >>We have had an equally pressing deadline with Science re: our >>comment on the vonStorch et al. 2004 criticism of MBH [that was >>based on an improper (and undisclosed) detrending step], which has >>taken some extra work to be sure we have our mathematics exactly >>correct. We have been multitracking on both this and WA, and so far >>have been quite close to meeting our internal time goals. I feel the >>week time frame will be fairly accurate. >> >> >>2) I am aware of a position now open at UAZ in the Geography and >>Regional Development Dept. I think I make a good fit with the >>position profile--actually quite good--however, I have met >>roadblocks in geography departments before because my degree is not >>in geography. Geographers seem to have particular sensitivities to >>their discipline being "watered down". Also, the geography depts at >>some research grade institutions (UMN for example) require pretty > >heavy teaching loads, which makes a nice challenge to keep up with >>research--don't I know!! And finally, the position is subject to >>budgetary approval, which makes me wonder if there are significant, >>deeper budgetary issues that it would be good to know about. >> >>Do you have any read on this position and the budget issues? I have >>a lot of contacts there in climatology/earth system-related >>areas--including you, Malcolm Hughes, Tom Swetnam, Owen Davis, and >>also Julio Betancourt of the USGS--which is something that would be >>considered a strength for this position. From my perspective, the >>fit would be very good, but I don't want to invest effort in the >>application process if it is clear that not being a geography PhD is >>a stopper, or if there is some other significant red flag I should >>know about. Any thoughts you might have will be welcome. >> >>I'll be contacting Malcolm for his read also, and then talk to the >>search chair. >> >> >>Peace, Gene >>Dr. Eugene R. Wahl >>Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies >>Alfred University >> > 2538. 2006-02-10 ______________________________________________________ cc: Sarah Raper date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:35:22 +0000 from: Jonathan Gregory subject: Re: a thought on deltaQ2x to: Tim Osborn Dear Tim When I tried to do the extrapolation from constant 2xCO2 and 4xCO2 back to origin, it didn't really give sensible answers either. Possibly the forcings were too low then as well. This could happen if the effective climate sensitivity was changing, perhaps. In a standard "Gregory" plot of the HadCM3 4xCO2 run, for instance, climate sensitivity increases so the line of F vs T flattens out, and if you extrapolate back to the origin you consequently get a forcing which is too small. Maybe this kind of thing happens in all models. Given F = Q - lambda DT(t) = Q0(t) * f - lambda DT(t) where f is the forcing factor, what about doing a multiple linear regression of F on Q0(t) (the "profile") and DT? Of course it's probably rather degenerate. best wishes Jonathan 3310. 2006-02-10 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:05:44 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: RE: Wahl-Ammann paper and UAZ position to: "Wahl, Eugene R" Hi Eugene - this is good news... I hope. Please contact Steve and see if we will have "in press" status before the end of the month. He knows the drill, but also the downside of not being precise. Let me, Eystein and Keith know as soon as you know. Bit nuts right now, really appreciate your help. thanks, peck >Hi Peck: > >Well, as I have understood it in our communications with Steve, >final acceptance is equivalent to being in press for Climatic Change >because it is a "journal of record". However, this would need to be >confirmed to be quite sure. > >If that is the case, then in press is still possible by the end of >the month. I think. > >Which would be best at this point, for me to write and ask Steve >this, or would it be better for you to ask? I'm happy to do so, I >just want to act in the most time-effective and appropriate way. > >I apologize for the fact that it is coming right down to the wire. >The status right now is that I am waiting for final analytical >results from Caspar re: Pearson's r and CE results on all the >scenarios we have done. These results will go in an appendix table >and I have to write a brief text to go with them for >contextualization purposes--I already have in mind what I want to >say. The entire rest of the document is essentially done. > >Steve turned around the change from "in review" to "provisionally >accepted" within days last December after receiving back the final >independent re-review (it had been due a month earlier), so I can >imagine that he could potentially turn around the change from >"provisional acceptance" to "full acceptance" similarly quickly. > > >Please advise about who is best to contact Steve--and if me I will >get on it today. > > >Peace, Gene >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies >Alfred University > >________________________________ > >From: Jonathan Overpeck [mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu] >Sent: Fri 2/10/2006 12:39 PM >To: Wahl, Eugene R >Cc: Eystein Jansen; Keith Briffa; t.osborn@uea.ac.uk >Subject: RE: Wahl-Ammann paper and UAZ position > > > >Hi Gene - First the IPCC, then I'll send another email wrt UA Geography > >Based on your update (which is much appreciated), I'm not sure we'll >be able to cite either in the SOD due at the end of this month >(sections will have to be done this week, or earliest next week to >meet this deadline). The rule is that we can't cite any papers not in >press by end of Feb. > > From what you are saying, there isn't much chance for in press by the >end of the month? If this is not true, please let me, Keith, Tim and >Eystein know, and make sure you send the in press doc as soon as it >is officially in press (as in you have written confirmation). We have >to be careful on these issues. > >Thanks again, Peck > >>Hi Peck: >> >>Two quick things... >> >>1) Regarding the Wahl-Ammann (WA) Climatic Change paper...Caspar >>and I are in the very final stages of completing the requirements >>Steve Schneider set for bringing this paper into full (vs. >>provisional) acceptance. We have an internal goal of a week from >>now for resubmission. >> >>We have had an equally pressing deadline with Science re: our >>comment on the vonStorch et al. 2004 criticism of MBH [that was >>based on an improper (and undisclosed) detrending step], which has >>taken some extra work to be sure we have our mathematics exactly >>correct. We have been multitracking on both this and WA, and so far >>have been quite close to meeting our internal time goals. I feel the >>week time frame will be fairly accurate. >> >> >>2) I am aware of a position now open at UAZ in the Geography and >>Regional Development Dept. I think I make a good fit with the >>position profile--actually quite good--however, I have met >>roadblocks in geography departments before because my degree is not >>in geography. Geographers seem to have particular sensitivities to >>their discipline being "watered down". Also, the geography depts at >>some research grade institutions (UMN for example) require pretty > >heavy teaching loads, which makes a nice challenge to keep up with >>research--don't I know!! And finally, the position is subject to >>budgetary approval, which makes me wonder if there are significant, >>deeper budgetary issues that it would be good to know about. >> >>Do you have any read on this position and the budget issues? I have >>a lot of contacts there in climatology/earth system-related >>areas--including you, Malcolm Hughes, Tom Swetnam, Owen Davis, and >>also Julio Betancourt of the USGS--which is something that would be >>considered a strength for this position. From my perspective, the >>fit would be very good, but I don't want to invest effort in the >>application process if it is clear that not being a geography PhD is >>a stopper, or if there is some other significant red flag I should >>know about. Any thoughts you might have will be welcome. >> >>I'll be contacting Malcolm for his read also, and then talk to the >>search chair. >> >> >>Peace, Gene >>Dr. Eugene R. Wahl >>Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies >>Alfred University >> >>607-871-2604 > 3312. 2006-02-10 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:21:17 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Fwd: some figures at last! to: rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, joos , Eystein Jansen , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, Keith Briffa Hi Stefan and Fortunat: Attached are the draft figs that include proxy obs, simulations, and comparisons of the two. As you can see, Tim just sent them. Big job, but they look great in my eyes. See Tim's email below for more background info. We need fast feedback from you both, specifically: 1) any general comments on the figs - this is a crux set of figures and we need your eyes to look at them carefully 2) is it wise to keep the new EMIC run panel attached to the second figure as attached? I vote yes, but what do you think. It fits w/ the other panels pretty well. 3) either way, we need caption prose from you (perhaps Fortunat start, and Stefan edit, or vice versa if Stefan can start first) on the new EMIC panel. 4) also, we need a new para, or prose that can be added to a para, that describes the panel and it's implications as it informs our assessment. Keith will then integrate this into the section. I'm not sure of this, but perhaps you could start with a new question heading, and then have a short para to go under it - something like "What is the significance of the new reduced-amplitude estimates of past solar variability?" Of course, we need your feedback and prose asap. Please send to me, Eystein, Keith and Tim. Thanks in advance for the help. Best, peck >X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:00:19 +0000 >To: Jonathan Overpeck , > Eystein Jansen >From: Tim Osborn >Subject: some figures at last! >Cc: Keith Briffa >X-UEA-Spam-Score: -102.8 >X-UEA-Spam-Level: --------------------------------------------------- >X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO > >Dear Peck and Eystein, > >the attached word file contains the latest versions of two of our figures. > >First, is the reconstructions with many requests now done: linear >time scale, dotted early instrumental temperatures not solid line, >Oerlemans added, new panel showing shading for the overlapping >regions of temperature reconstructions. > >Second, is the forcings and models. Stendel ECHAM simulation added >(1500-2000). New ECHO-G Erik2 simulation just published in GRL from >Gonzalez-Ruoco et al. added (1000-1990). Reconstruction "envelope" >replaced by new shading of overlaps in the temperature >reconstructions. Correction of some labelling errors. Those runs >that did not include 20th century sulphate aerosol cooling are >dotted or dashed after 1900 (the two low ones also omitted CH4, N2O, >CFCs, O3, hence still cool despite omitting aerosol cooling). The >ECHO-G Erik1 simulation with the very out-of-equilibrium initial >conditions is dashed. Finally, the extra panel with the new EMIC >runs is included as panel (e), again with the new shading of >overlapping temperature reconstructions. > >Keith suggests sending to Stefan and Fortunat too for their views - >can you do that (they may now be gone for the weekend, of course). > >Best wishes and sorry this is late. Am I right in thinking that the >only other possible-TS figure is the location maps? Still working >on those (had very little time in last 2 days due to media etc. >attention re. Science paper). > >Cheers > >Tim > > > >Dr Timothy J Osborn > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\figures_2000yr_10feb20061.doc" 4577. 2006-02-10 ______________________________________________________ cc: Howard Cattle , Thorsten Kiefer date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:08:25 +0100 from: Christoph Kull subject: PAGES/CLIVAR workshop Wengen-Switzerland to: Sandy Tudhope , "Williams, Larry" , "Michael E. Mann" , Eduardo Zorita , Mark Cane , Francis Zwiers , Ricardo Villalba , Nick Graham , Heinz Wanner , Tim Osborn , Phil Jones , Keith Briffa , Jonathan Overpeck , "Wahl, Eugene R" , Hugues Goosse , Gavin Schmidt , jan.esper@wsl.ch, Janice Lough , Kim Cobb , Caspar Ammann , Michael Schulz , Eystein Jansen , Juerg Luterbacher Dear all, I would like to circulate some organizational information related to the upcoming PAGES/CLIVAR workshop in Wengen-Switzerland (June 7-10, 2006). - Travel itinerary: The workshop starts on Wednesday, 7 June in the early evening. We suggest that you arrive in "Wengen" on the 7th. Try to get a flight to Zurich Airport. Zurich Airport is connected to "Interlaken Ost" and "Wengen" by railway (Zurich railway station is in the airport itself - connections every half hour; some are direct, some via a change in "Bern"). You can buy the train ticket at the airport railway station. A ticket "Zurich" - "Wengen" (return) costs approx. CHF 150. Traveling time to Interlaken Ost is about two hours, through a lovely landscape. From "Interlaken Ost", another railway connects to "Lauterbrunnen" (20 mins), where a small train brings you to "Wengen" (15 mins). The Hotel "Regina" is situated just above the railway station: http://www.wengen.com/hotel/regina/ The total traveling time from "Zurich Airport" to "Wengen" is about 3.5 hours. Therefore, it would be ideal to arrive in "Zurich" on the morning of the 7th. Further information regarding the Swiss railways (including timetables) are available at: http://www.sbb.ch. - Accommodation in "Wengen": The PAGES office will take care of the hotel reservation. The workshop ends on Saturday 10th at noon. Therefore, if you are planning to return home immediately, an evening flight from "Zurich" would be suitable. However, please consider staying longer as we will we try to arrange a private mountain excursion on the 11th to the "Jungfraujoch". Details to follow. Furthermore, the HOLIVAR meeting starts on Monday 12th in "London" (UK)... - Funding: In general, PAGES/CLIVAR and EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) funds allow us to cover your travel and stay (full board) from June 7-10, provided you keep all your receipts for the reimbursement process and can organize a cheap flight. Additional nights in Wengen should be covered with private funding. If this arrangement causes any major troubles, please let me know as soon as possible. - Feedback: May I ask you to let me know your travel itinerary when available. Please also indicate how many nights you would like to stay in "Wengen" and if you need a double room because of an accompanying person. - Scientific Information: The organizing committee is working on the scientific details of the workshop. Further information will be available soon. I am looking forward to meeting you in June! All the best, thanks for attending, and greetings from the PAGES office in Bern! Have a nice weekend, Christoph -- Christoph Kull Science Officer PAGES IPO Sulgeneckstrasse 38 CH-3007 Bern Switzerland phone: +4131 312 31 53/33 fax: +4131 312 31 68 4661. 2006-02-10 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Sarah Raper" date: Fri Feb 10 13:59:10 2006 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: a thought on deltaQ2x to: Jonathan Gregory Thanks for data. Here are results for all 4xco2 runs. No time to think about it further today, nor time to (e.g.) exclude the flat part of the forcing, as you suggested. Some results *very* weird: ECHAM5 and NCAR PCM with NEGATIVE lambda - what's going on there? I will look into this next week. Will also estimate regression uncertainty. Cheers Tim At 13:32 10/02/2006, you wrote: Dear Tim Aha! I had wondered if it might be something assuming the time-profile, but had guessed that might require some more elaborate minimisation, not having worked through the eqns. Ingenious. I suppose a problem is that F/Qt tends to be rather small, since F tends to a small part of Q (heat uptake is less important than climate sensitivity). Also the part you want is the part with the increasing forcing, not the constant forcing. Maybe the 1pctto4x runs would work better. If I were you I would stop soon after stabilisation so that the regression isn't dominated by the cloud of values near the destination. I attach a new tar file in which I have used straight-line fits to the control segments instead of the control annual means themselves. In almost all cases this reduces the uncertainty on my fitted slopes, also attached. Best wishes Jonathan 4820. 2006-02-10 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Feb 10 17:42:59 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: paleo sensitivity paper accepted to: Gabi Hegerl , Jonathan Overpeck Gabi well done on this - you know as well as I, how it is increasingly a balance of lottery and bloody mindedness (by reviewers and necessarily authors) that finally decides on whether these things make it into these journals. We will now have no problem keeping the Crowley/Hegerl curve in the summary Figure - regardless of whether the other paper is accepted in time . But when it is , I would still prefer of course to cite that one for the source of the reconstruction. very best wishes Tim and I are having a bit of a nightmare trying to pull together recent GCM and EMIC runs that have been done following the New Zealand meeting - and until these are finalised we can not refine the details in the text. This rush is not the way considered and careful work is done. Keith We are At 15:50 10/02/2006, Gabi Hegerl wrote: Hi Peck and Keith, While I haven't heard yet from the J Climate paper, my other paper on estimating climate sensitivity from the last millennium is now in press with nature. I append the last version, but they are of course still fiddling with it (but saying changes now go via tech ed), eg change "last millennium" to "last seven centuries" in title. It has a bit on the forced response, see figure 1 and 2, and some tables of correlations between forcing and response in the supplement (since I knew the other one is not sure to make it, I hitched the supplement up a bit). Its more relevant for chapter 9 though. it also has the CH-blend recon attached to the supplement, but refers to the other paper for a detail description. After this 6month rollercoaster on both papers, and 3 iterations, I LOVE specialty journals (understandable process, predictable reviewers that make useful suggestions, etc). but, nice to get it in. Gabi -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, Box 90227 Duke University, Durham NC 27708 Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 email: hegerl@duke.edu, [1]http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 4587. 2006-02-12 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 17:03:27 -0500 from: Henry Pollack subject: Re: Fwd: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] SOD- template and FOD document to: Jonathan Overpeck Hi Peck, Eystein and Keith, Attached in Borehole SOD.doc is a 'rewrite' of the borehole stuff. You will recognize the 'rewrite', as it still addresses everything in the FOD draft sent to me, with much the same language. It is, however, an improvement in structure, and has a more balanced discussion. Keith, if you want more insight into why I have presented the material this way, I'll be happy to elaborate. The rewrite occupies lines 32-57 of page 6-30 SOD and lines 1-12 of page 6-31. Also attached is the full SOD template with the 'rewrite' and references inserted. It is not clear from your instructions that you wanted this to be done, but now you have it if you want it. Also attached are my replies to the reviewers of the FOD. I am sending everything today (Sunday), so everyone will get it as early as possible. Some additional comments in areas outside the narrowly defined 'borehole' section: In Figure 6.9b, I recommend removing the instrumental record prior to 1860, because it apparently represents only four European stations. The figure is captioned to represent the entire northern hemisphere. In section 6.6.2 Southern Hemisphere Temperature Variability page 6-32, lines 56-57: The two geothermal reconstructions shown, for southern Africa and Australia, do NOT indicate unusually warm conditions prevailing in the 20th century. Both reconstructions miss the rapid warming in the last two decades of the 20th century because many of the boreholes were logged prior to that excursion. The two reconstructions do match well the pre-1980 SAT trends. I discuss this in a paper now in review by J. Quaternary Sci., titled "Five centuries of climate change in Australia: the view from underground." The southern hemisphere is NOT discussed in Pollack and Smerdon (2004), which you have cited there. If you will find it helpful, I can scan the entire chapter and provide comments, but perhaps that could wait until you have passed the immediate deadline in front of you. Cheers, Henry ___ ___ Henry N. Pollack [ \ / ] Professor of Geophysics | \/ | Department of Geological Sciences |MICHIGAN| University of Michigan [___]\/[___] Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1005, U.S.A. Phone: 734-763-0084 FAX: 734-763-4690 e-mail: hpollack@umich.edu URL: www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~hpollack/ URL: www-personal.umich.edu/~hpollack/book.html ------------------------------------------------------------------- Quoting Jonathan Overpeck : > Hi Henry - yes, it's true, but that's why we all get things done. Thanks. > > We have a serious space problem with the chapter, and need to > generally reduce it's size. However, if you nee a couple more lines > to do it well, and to get the proper refs in there (there are > undoubtedly new ones?), you may do so. We can always cut later... (so > don't add more than just a few lines max). > > As soon as you're done, pls email to me, Eystein and Keith. The > sooner Keith can finish the complete section, the sooner we can all > look at it and edit. > > The NAS/NRC mtg is at a crappy time. I can't travel then since I'm > alone w/ the kids, but I've been discussing helping by phone if > possible. The problem is that March 3 (the day they really want my > input) is the deadline for the SOD. If it's anything like last time > (FOD), I won't have time but for a quick trip to the bathroom now and > then to recycle coffee. But, I'm glad to hear you're in the loop. I > might still be able to help, since we're trying to do this so it > isn't a madhouse at the very end. > > Best, peck > >> Hi Peck, >> >> Yes, I will be working weekends -- don't we always?? >> >> Are you attending the NAS/NRC hearing on surface temperature >> reconstructions on March 2? >> >> I will take you up on the invitation to (re)write the 40 lines of the >> borehole section. >> >> Cheers, >> Henry >> ___ ___ Henry N. Pollack >> [ \ / ] Professor of Geophysics >> | \/ | Department of Geological Sciences >> |MICHIGAN| University of Michigan >> [___]\/[___] Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1005, U.S.A. >> >> Phone: 734-763-0084 FAX: 734-763-4690 >> e-mail: hpollack@umich.edu >> URL: www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~hpollack/ >> URL: www-personal.umich.edu/~hpollack/book.html >> >> >> Quoting Jonathan Overpeck : >> >>> Hi Henry - see the notes below on how to best update your section >>> using the attached files (and comments you already have). >>> >>> Julie is flying to Germany tomorrow, so I'll be single-parenting and >>> my email will be at night on the weekend. If you have urgent need for >>> input, you can call me: >>> >>> 970-728-0780 (home) >>> 520-907-6480 (cell - only good if I'm in town - best to use home on >>> weekends, and cell weekdays) >>> >>> Thanks again, peck >>> >>>> X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >>>> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:59:33 +0100 >>>> To: wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu >>>> From: Eystein Jansen >>>> Subject: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] SOD- template and FOD document >>>> X-BeenThere: wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu >>>> List-Id: >>>> List-Help: >>>> List-Post: >>>> List-Subscribe: , >>>> >>>> List-Archive: >>>> List-Unsubscribe: >>>> , >>>> >>>> Sender: wg1-ar4-ch06-bounces@joss.ucar.edu >>>> >>>> Dear friends, >>>> In preparation for your rewriting of the FOD as SOD, we send you >>>> the following documents. >>>> 1. A new template for the FOD which is restructured so that the >>>> decisions on structure we made in Christchurch have been taken into >>>> account. We also send you the word version of the FOD which is the >>>> final version used for the review, in case you do not have this. >>>> This is the version for which the comments refer to. >>>> In the rewriting we would ask you to rewrite into the SOD template >>>> document, thus: >>>> 1. Find the relevant comment or section to be rewritten in the FOD. >>>> 2. Then the corresponding section in the SOD document, and rewrrite >>>> the text there. References should also be inserted into the SOD >>>> document. >>>> You have to work in parallel with both documents, but we do not see >>>> any way around this in order to arrive at a SOD without too many >>>> problems of technical sort. >>>> >>>> Cheers, and best luck. >>>> Peck and Eystein >>>> -- >>>> ______________________________________________________________ >>>> Eystein Jansen >>>> Professor/Director >>>> Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and >>>> Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen >>>> Allégaten 55 >>>> N-5007 Bergen >>>> NORWAY >>>> e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no >>>> Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 >>>> Fax: +47-55-584330 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list >>>> Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu >>>> http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jonathan T. Overpeck >>> Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>> Professor, Department of Geosciences >>> Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >>> >>> Mail and Fedex Address: >>> >>> Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>> 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>> University of Arizona >>> Tucson, AZ 85721 >>> direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>> fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>> http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>> http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ > > > -- > Jonathan T. Overpeck > Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth > Professor, Department of Geosciences > Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences > > Mail and Fedex Address: > > Institute for the Study of Planet Earth > 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor > University of Arizona > Tucson, AZ 85721 > direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 > fax: +1 520 792-8795 > http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ > http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ > > > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Boreholes SOD.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Ch06_SOD_1A2.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Pollack_comm.doc" 599. 2006-02-13 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:32:44 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] SOD boreholes to: Henry Pollack Henry, Great, thanks! (congrats on the AGU honor too - just saw it in EOS - well deserved) Keith, thanks for working this in as you think best. Best, peck >Hi Keith and Peck, > >Attached is the revised borehole piece, with some explicit mention of >uncertainty and some slight rephrasing in the first paragraph. > >Cheers, >Henry > ___ ___ Henry N. Pollack >[ \ / ] Professor of Geophysics > | \/ | Department of Geological Sciences > |MICHIGAN| University of Michigan >[___]\/[___] Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1005, U.S.A. > > Phone: 734-763-0084 FAX: 734-763-4690 > e-mail: hpollack@umich.edu > URL: www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~hpollack/ > URL: www-personal.umich.edu/~hpollack/book.html > > >Quoting Henry Pollack : > >> >>Hi Keith and Peck, >> >>OK, I will add a sentence about uncertainty, confidence limits of the >>borehole reconstruction. Keith, please send me the change you made >>'at the end' (mentioned in your message below), so I can see the best >>place to add the uncertainty sentence. >> >>Cheers, >>Henry >> >> >> ___ ___ Henry N. Pollack >>[ \ / ] Professor of Geophysics >> | \/ | Department of Geological Sciences >> |MICHIGAN| University of Michigan >>[___]\/[___] Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1005, U.S.A. >> >> Phone: 734-763-0084 FAX: 734-763-4690 >> e-mail: hpollack@umich.edu >> URL: www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~hpollack/ >> URL: www-personal.umich.edu/~hpollack/book.html >> >> >>Quoting Keith Briffa : >> >>>Henry >>>I understood that the previous draft was in fact going to CAs , so >>>sorry if you were out of the loop for a while. I am really happy >>>with your text , but would like some mention of the uncertainty to >>>go back in as we can not but the confidence limits in the Figure. >>>Could reconsider those one or two sentences that deal with this?I >>>have only changed one sentence a the end to make it read easier. >>>Thanks for this . >>>Keith >>># At 22:03 12/02/2006, you wrote: >>> >>>>Hi Peck, Eystein and Keith, >>>> >>>>Attached in Borehole SOD.doc is a 'rewrite' of the borehole stuff. >>>>You will recognize the 'rewrite', as it still addresses everything >>>>in >>>>the FOD draft sent to me, with much the same language. It is, >>>>however, an improvement in >>>>structure, and has a more balanced discussion. Keith, if you want >>>>more insight into why I >>>>have presented the material this way, I'll be happy to elaborate. >>>> >>>>The rewrite occupies lines 32-57 of page 6-30 SOD and lines 1-12 of >>>>page 6-31. >>>> >>>>Also attached is the full SOD template with the 'rewrite' and >>>>references inserted. It is not clear from your instructions that >>>>you wanted this to be done, but now you have it if you want it. >>>> >>>>Also attached are my replies to the reviewers of the FOD. >>>> >>>>I am sending everything today (Sunday), so everyone will get it as >>>>early as possible. >>>> >>>>Some additional comments in areas outside the narrowly defined >>>>'borehole' section: >>>> >>>>In Figure 6.9b, I recommend removing the instrumental record prior >>>>to 1860, because it >>>>apparently represents only four European stations. The figure is >>>>captioned to represent >>>>the entire northern hemisphere. >>>> >>>>In section 6.6.2 Southern Hemisphere Temperature Variability page >>>>6-32, lines 56-57: The >>>>two geothermal reconstructions shown, for southern Africa and >>>>Australia, do NOT indicate >>>>unusually warm conditions prevailing in the 20th century. Both >>>>reconstructions miss the >>>>rapid warming in the last two decades of the 20th century because >>>>many of the boreholes >>>>were logged prior to that excursion. The two reconstructions do >>>>match well the pre-1980 >>>>SAT trends. I discuss this in a paper now in review by J. >>>>Quaternary Sci., titled "Five >>>>centuries of climate change in Australia: the view from >>>>underground." The southern >>>>hemisphere is NOT discussed in Pollack and Smerdon (2004), which >>>>you have cited there. >>>> >>>>If you will find it helpful, I can scan the entire chapter and >>>>provide comments, but >>>>perhaps that could wait until you have passed the immediate >>>>deadline in front of you. >>>> >>>>Cheers, >>>>Henry >>>> >>>> >>>> ___ ___ Henry N. Pollack >>>>[ \ / ] Professor of Geophysics >>>> | \/ | Department of Geological Sciences >>>> |MICHIGAN| University of Michigan >>>>[___]\/[___] Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1005, U.S.A. >>>> >>>> Phone: 734-763-0084 FAX: 734-763-4690 >>>> e-mail: hpollack@umich.edu >>>> URL: www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~hpollack/ >>>> URL: www-personal.umich.edu/~hpollack/book.html >>>> >>>>------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>Quoting Jonathan Overpeck : >>>> >>>>>Hi Henry - yes, it's true, but that's why we all get things done. Thanks. >>>>> >>>>>We have a serious space problem with the chapter, and need to >>>>>generally reduce it's size. However, if you nee a couple more >>>>>lines to do it well, and to get the proper refs in there (there >>>>>are undoubtedly new ones?), you may do so. We can always cut >>>>>later... (so don't add more than just a few lines max). >>>>> >>>>>As soon as you're done, pls email to me, Eystein and Keith. The >>>>>sooner Keith can finish the complete section, the sooner we can >>>>>all look at it and edit. >>>>> >>>>>The NAS/NRC mtg is at a crappy time. I can't travel then since I'm >>>>>alone w/ the kids, but I've been discussing helping by phone if >>>>>possible. The problem is that March 3 (the day they really want my >>>>>input) is the deadline for the SOD. If it's anything like last >>>>>time (FOD), I won't have time but for a quick trip to the bathroom >>>>>now and then to recycle coffee. But, I'm glad to hear you're in >>>>>the loop. I might still be able to help, since we're trying to do >>>>>this so it isn't a madhouse at the very end. >>>>> >>>>>Best, peck >>>>> >>>>>>Hi Peck, >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes, I will be working weekends -- don't we always?? >>>>>> >>>>>>Are you attending the NAS/NRC hearing on surface temperature >>>>>>reconstructions on March 2? >>>>>> >>>>>>I will take you up on the invitation to (re)write the 40 lines of the >>>>>>borehole section. >>>>>> >>>>>>Cheers, >>>>>>Henry >>>>>> ___ ___ Henry N. Pollack >>>>>>[ \ / ] Professor of Geophysics >>>>>> | \/ | Department of Geological Sciences >>>>>> |MICHIGAN| University of Michigan >>>>>>[___]\/[___] Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1005, U.S.A. >>>>>> >>>>>> Phone: 734-763-0084 FAX: 734-763-4690 >>>>>> e-mail: hpollack@umich.edu >>>>>> URL: www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~hpollack/ >>>>>> URL: www-personal.umich.edu/~hpollack/book.html >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Quoting Jonathan Overpeck : >>>>>> >>>>>>>Hi Henry - see the notes below on how to best update your section >>>>>>>using the attached files (and comments you already have). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Julie is flying to Germany tomorrow, so I'll be single-parenting and >>>>>>>my email will be at night on the weekend. If you have urgent need for >>>>>>>input, you can call me: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>970-728-0780 (home) >>>>>>>520-907-6480 (cell - only good if I'm in town - best to use home on >>>>>>>weekends, and cell weekdays) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Thanks again, peck >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >>>>>>>>Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:59:33 +0100 >>>>>>>>To: wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu >>>>>>>>From: Eystein Jansen >>>>>>>>Subject: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] SOD- template and FOD document >>>>>>>>X-BeenThere: wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu >>>>>>>>List-Id: >>>>>>>>List-Help: >>>>>>>>List-Post: >>>>>>>>List-Subscribe: >>>>>>>>, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>List-Archive: >>>>>>>>List-Unsubscribe: >>>>>>>>, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Sender: wg1-ar4-ch06-bounces@joss.ucar.edu >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Dear friends, >>>>>>>>In preparation for your rewriting of the FOD as SOD, we send you >>>>>>>>the following documents. >>>>>>>>1. A new template for the FOD which is restructured so that the >>>>>>>>decisions on structure we made in Christchurch have been taken into >>>>>>>>account. We also send you the word version of the FOD which is the >>>>>>>>final version used for the review, in case you do not have this. >>>>>>>>This is the version for which the comments refer to. >>>>>>>>In the rewriting we would ask you to rewrite into the SOD template >>>>>>>>document, thus: >>>>>>>>1. Find the relevant comment or section to be rewritten in the FOD. >>>>>>>>2. Then the corresponding section in the SOD document, and rewrrite >>>>>>>>the text there. References should also be inserted into the SOD >>>>>>>>document. >>>>>>>>You have to work in parallel with both documents, but we do not see >>>>>>>>any way around this in order to arrive at a SOD without too many >>>>>>>>problems of technical sort. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Cheers, and best luck. >>>>>>>>Peck and Eystein >>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>______________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>Eystein Jansen >>>>>>>>Professor/Director >>>>>>>>Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and >>>>>>>>Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen >>>>>>>>Allégaten 55 >>>>>>>>N-5007 Bergen >>>>>>>>NORWAY >>>>>>>>e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no >>>>>>>>Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 >>>>>>>>Fax: +47-55-584330 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list >>>>>>>>Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu >>>>>>>>http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>Jonathan T. Overpeck >>>>>>>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>>>>>Professor, Department of Geosciences >>>>>>>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Mail and Fedex Address: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>>>>>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>>>>>>University of Arizona >>>>>>>Tucson, AZ 85721 >>>>>>>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>>>>>>fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>>>>>>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>>>>>>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>Jonathan T. Overpeck >>>>>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>>>Professor, Department of Geosciences >>>>>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >>>>> >>>>>Mail and Fedex Address: >>>>> >>>>>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>>>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>>>>University of Arizona >>>>>Tucson, AZ 85721 >>>>>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>>>>fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>>>>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>>>>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>-- >>>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/ >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Boreholes SOD 1.doc (WDBN/«IC») (001134E6) -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 1141. 2006-02-13 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:15:06 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: Fwd: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] SOD- template and FOD document to: Henry Pollack Hi Henry (and Keith) - thanks for the quick effort! Regarding your comments, here's some feedback - it's good Keith beat me too it. 1. For Fig. 6.9b, there is a new version that resulted in lots of discussion at our last meeting. Keith can elaborate when he has time (we're pushing him real hard now for the SOD text), but we agree the caption has to be clear. 2. I'm worried about your discussion of southern hemisphere records, and trust Keith will get it right. Too bad your paper isn't in press too - it would be nice to include. 3. Hope you can help Keith with uncertainty prose. We are over length and hence we can't have more figures (e.g., with confidence intervals shown for all data). Please help him work it into the SOD text. 4. It is unclear if we'll have time for review of the whole chapter, but I'm still hoping Keith will send you all of Section 6.6 to look at. That assumes he has it done today or very soon at least. The more people that can look at text the better, but we also have to get the draft done - it can then be reviewed, and we will make sure CAs get to review in a more timely fashion this time. Thanks again, Peck >Hi Peck, Eystein and Keith, > >Attached in Borehole SOD.doc is a 'rewrite' of the borehole stuff. You >will recognize the 'rewrite', as it still addresses everything in >the FOD draft sent to me, with much the same language. It is, however, >an improvement in >structure, and has a more balanced discussion. Keith, if you want more >insight into why I >have presented the material this way, I'll be happy to elaborate. > >The rewrite occupies lines 32-57 of page 6-30 SOD and lines 1-12 of page 6-31. > >Also attached is the full SOD template with the 'rewrite' and >references inserted. It is not clear from your instructions that you >wanted this to be done, but now you have it if you want it. > >Also attached are my replies to the reviewers of the FOD. > >I am sending everything today (Sunday), so everyone will get it as >early as possible. > >Some additional comments in areas outside the narrowly defined >'borehole' section: > >In Figure 6.9b, I recommend removing the instrumental record prior to >1860, because it >apparently represents only four European stations. The figure is >captioned to represent >the entire northern hemisphere. > >In section 6.6.2 Southern Hemisphere Temperature Variability page 6-32, >lines 56-57: The >two geothermal reconstructions shown, for southern Africa and >Australia, do NOT indicate >unusually warm conditions prevailing in the 20th century. Both >reconstructions miss the >rapid warming in the last two decades of the 20th century because many >of the boreholes >were logged prior to that excursion. The two reconstructions do match >well the pre-1980 >SAT trends. I discuss this in a paper now in review by J. Quaternary >Sci., titled "Five >centuries of climate change in Australia: the view from underground." >The southern >hemisphere is NOT discussed in Pollack and Smerdon (2004), which you >have cited there. > >If you will find it helpful, I can scan the entire chapter and provide >comments, but >perhaps that could wait until you have passed the immediate deadline in >front of you. > >Cheers, >Henry > > > ___ ___ Henry N. Pollack >[ \ / ] Professor of Geophysics > | \/ | Department of Geological Sciences > |MICHIGAN| University of Michigan >[___]\/[___] Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1005, U.S.A. > > Phone: 734-763-0084 FAX: 734-763-4690 > e-mail: hpollack@umich.edu > URL: www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~hpollack/ > URL: www-personal.umich.edu/~hpollack/book.html > >------------------------------------------------------------------- >Quoting Jonathan Overpeck : > >>Hi Henry - yes, it's true, but that's why we all get things done. Thanks. >> >>We have a serious space problem with the chapter, and need to >>generally reduce it's size. However, if you nee a couple more lines >>to do it well, and to get the proper refs in there (there are >>undoubtedly new ones?), you may do so. We can always cut later... (so >>don't add more than just a few lines max). >> >>As soon as you're done, pls email to me, Eystein and Keith. The >>sooner Keith can finish the complete section, the sooner we can all >>look at it and edit. >> >>The NAS/NRC mtg is at a crappy time. I can't travel then since I'm >>alone w/ the kids, but I've been discussing helping by phone if >>possible. The problem is that March 3 (the day they really want my >>input) is the deadline for the SOD. If it's anything like last time >>(FOD), I won't have time but for a quick trip to the bathroom now and >>then to recycle coffee. But, I'm glad to hear you're in the loop. I >>might still be able to help, since we're trying to do this so it >>isn't a madhouse at the very end. >> >>Best, peck >> >>>Hi Peck, >>> >>>Yes, I will be working weekends -- don't we always?? >>> >>>Are you attending the NAS/NRC hearing on surface temperature >>>reconstructions on March 2? >>> >>>I will take you up on the invitation to (re)write the 40 lines of the >>>borehole section. >>> >>>Cheers, >>>Henry >>> ___ ___ Henry N. Pollack >>>[ \ / ] Professor of Geophysics >>> | \/ | Department of Geological Sciences >>> |MICHIGAN| University of Michigan >>>[___]\/[___] Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1005, U.S.A. >>> >>> Phone: 734-763-0084 FAX: 734-763-4690 >>> e-mail: hpollack@umich.edu >>> URL: www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~hpollack/ >>> URL: www-personal.umich.edu/~hpollack/book.html >>> >>> >>>Quoting Jonathan Overpeck : >>> >>>>Hi Henry - see the notes below on how to best update your section >>>>using the attached files (and comments you already have). >>>> >>>>Julie is flying to Germany tomorrow, so I'll be single-parenting and >>>>my email will be at night on the weekend. If you have urgent need for >>>>input, you can call me: >>>> >>>>970-728-0780 (home) >>>>520-907-6480 (cell - only good if I'm in town - best to use home on >>>>weekends, and cell weekdays) >>>> >>>>Thanks again, peck >>>> >>>>>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >>>>>Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:59:33 +0100 >>>>>To: wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu >>>>>From: Eystein Jansen >>>>>Subject: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] SOD- template and FOD document >>>>>X-BeenThere: wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu >>>>>List-Id: >>>>>List-Help: >>>>>List-Post: >>>>>List-Subscribe: , >>>>> >>>>>List-Archive: >>>>>List-Unsubscribe: >>>>>, >>>>> >>>>>Sender: wg1-ar4-ch06-bounces@joss.ucar.edu >>>>> >>>>>Dear friends, >>>>>In preparation for your rewriting of the FOD as SOD, we send you >>>>>the following documents. >>>>>1. A new template for the FOD which is restructured so that the >>>>>decisions on structure we made in Christchurch have been taken into >>>>>account. We also send you the word version of the FOD which is the >>>>>final version used for the review, in case you do not have this. >>>>>This is the version for which the comments refer to. >>>>>In the rewriting we would ask you to rewrite into the SOD template >>>>>document, thus: >>>>>1. Find the relevant comment or section to be rewritten in the FOD. >>>>>2. Then the corresponding section in the SOD document, and rewrrite >>>>>the text there. References should also be inserted into the SOD >>>>>document. >>>>>You have to work in parallel with both documents, but we do not see >>>>>any way around this in order to arrive at a SOD without too many >>>>>problems of technical sort. >>>>> >>>>>Cheers, and best luck. >>>>>Peck and Eystein >>>>>-- >>>>>______________________________________________________________ >>>>>Eystein Jansen >>>>>Professor/Director >>>>>Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and >>>>>Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen >>>>>Allégaten 55 >>>>>N-5007 Bergen >>>>>NORWAY >>>>>e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no >>>>>Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 >>>>>Fax: +47-55-584330 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list >>>>>Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu >>>>>http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 >>>> >>>> >>>>-- >>>>Jonathan T. Overpeck >>>>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>>Professor, Department of Geosciences >>>>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >>>> >>>>Mail and Fedex Address: >>>> >>>>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>>>University of Arizona >>>>Tucson, AZ 85721 >>>>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>>>fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>>>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>>>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >> >> >>-- >>Jonathan T. Overpeck >>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>Professor, Department of Geosciences >>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >> >>Mail and Fedex Address: >> >>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>University of Arizona >>Tucson, AZ 85721 >>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >> >> > > > > > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Boreholes SOD.doc (WDBN/«IC») (001131FA) >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Ch06_SOD_1A 2.doc (WDBN/«IC») (001131FC) >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Pollack_comm.doc (WDBN/«IC») (00113211) -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 1421. 2006-02-13 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:45:18 -0500 from: Henry Pollack subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] SOD boreholes to: Keith Briffa , Jonathan Overpeck Hi Keith and Peck, Attached is the revised borehole piece, with some explicit mention of uncertainty and some slight rephrasing in the first paragraph. Cheers, Henry ___ ___ Henry N. Pollack [ \ / ] Professor of Geophysics | \/ | Department of Geological Sciences |MICHIGAN| University of Michigan [___]\/[___] Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1005, U.S.A. Phone: 734-763-0084 FAX: 734-763-4690 e-mail: hpollack@umich.edu URL: www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~hpollack/ URL: www-personal.umich.edu/~hpollack/book.html Quoting Henry Pollack : > > Hi Keith and Peck, > > OK, I will add a sentence about uncertainty, confidence limits of the > borehole reconstruction. Keith, please send me the change you made > 'at the end' (mentioned in your message below), so I can see the best > place to add the uncertainty sentence. > > Cheers, > Henry > > > ___ ___ Henry N. Pollack > [ \ / ] Professor of Geophysics > | \/ | Department of Geological Sciences > |MICHIGAN| University of Michigan > [___]\/[___] Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1005, U.S.A. > > Phone: 734-763-0084 FAX: 734-763-4690 > e-mail: hpollack@umich.edu > URL: www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~hpollack/ > URL: www-personal.umich.edu/~hpollack/book.html > > > Quoting Keith Briffa : > >> Henry >> I understood that the previous draft was in fact going to CAs , so >> sorry if you were out of the loop for a while. I am really happy >> with your text , but would like some mention of the uncertainty to >> go back in as we can not but the confidence limits in the Figure. >> Could reconsider those one or two sentences that deal with this?I >> have only changed one sentence a the end to make it read easier. >> Thanks for this . >> Keith >> # At 22:03 12/02/2006, you wrote: >> >>> Hi Peck, Eystein and Keith, >>> >>> Attached in Borehole SOD.doc is a 'rewrite' of the borehole stuff. >>> You will recognize the 'rewrite', as it still addresses everything >>> in >>> the FOD draft sent to me, with much the same language. It is, >>> however, an improvement in >>> structure, and has a more balanced discussion. Keith, if you want >>> more insight into why I >>> have presented the material this way, I'll be happy to elaborate. >>> >>> The rewrite occupies lines 32-57 of page 6-30 SOD and lines 1-12 of >>> page 6-31. >>> >>> Also attached is the full SOD template with the 'rewrite' and >>> references inserted. It is not clear from your instructions that >>> you wanted this to be done, but now you have it if you want it. >>> >>> Also attached are my replies to the reviewers of the FOD. >>> >>> I am sending everything today (Sunday), so everyone will get it as >>> early as possible. >>> >>> Some additional comments in areas outside the narrowly defined >>> 'borehole' section: >>> >>> In Figure 6.9b, I recommend removing the instrumental record prior >>> to 1860, because it >>> apparently represents only four European stations. The figure is >>> captioned to represent >>> the entire northern hemisphere. >>> >>> In section 6.6.2 Southern Hemisphere Temperature Variability page >>> 6-32, lines 56-57: The >>> two geothermal reconstructions shown, for southern Africa and >>> Australia, do NOT indicate >>> unusually warm conditions prevailing in the 20th century. Both >>> reconstructions miss the >>> rapid warming in the last two decades of the 20th century because >>> many of the boreholes >>> were logged prior to that excursion. The two reconstructions do >>> match well the pre-1980 >>> SAT trends. I discuss this in a paper now in review by J. >>> Quaternary Sci., titled "Five >>> centuries of climate change in Australia: the view from >>> underground." The southern >>> hemisphere is NOT discussed in Pollack and Smerdon (2004), which >>> you have cited there. >>> >>> If you will find it helpful, I can scan the entire chapter and >>> provide comments, but >>> perhaps that could wait until you have passed the immediate >>> deadline in front of you. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Henry >>> >>> >>> ___ ___ Henry N. Pollack >>> [ \ / ] Professor of Geophysics >>> | \/ | Department of Geological Sciences >>> |MICHIGAN| University of Michigan >>> [___]\/[___] Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1005, U.S.A. >>> >>> Phone: 734-763-0084 FAX: 734-763-4690 >>> e-mail: hpollack@umich.edu >>> URL: www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~hpollack/ >>> URL: www-personal.umich.edu/~hpollack/book.html >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Quoting Jonathan Overpeck : >>> >>>> Hi Henry - yes, it's true, but that's why we all get things done. Thanks. >>>> >>>> We have a serious space problem with the chapter, and need to >>>> generally reduce it's size. However, if you nee a couple more >>>> lines to do it well, and to get the proper refs in there (there >>>> are undoubtedly new ones?), you may do so. We can always cut >>>> later... (so don't add more than just a few lines max). >>>> >>>> As soon as you're done, pls email to me, Eystein and Keith. The >>>> sooner Keith can finish the complete section, the sooner we can >>>> all look at it and edit. >>>> >>>> The NAS/NRC mtg is at a crappy time. I can't travel then since I'm >>>> alone w/ the kids, but I've been discussing helping by phone if >>>> possible. The problem is that March 3 (the day they really want my >>>> input) is the deadline for the SOD. If it's anything like last >>>> time (FOD), I won't have time but for a quick trip to the bathroom >>>> now and then to recycle coffee. But, I'm glad to hear you're in >>>> the loop. I might still be able to help, since we're trying to do >>>> this so it isn't a madhouse at the very end. >>>> >>>> Best, peck >>>> >>>>> Hi Peck, >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I will be working weekends -- don't we always?? >>>>> >>>>> Are you attending the NAS/NRC hearing on surface temperature >>>>> reconstructions on March 2? >>>>> >>>>> I will take you up on the invitation to (re)write the 40 lines of the >>>>> borehole section. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Henry >>>>> ___ ___ Henry N. Pollack >>>>> [ \ / ] Professor of Geophysics >>>>> | \/ | Department of Geological Sciences >>>>> |MICHIGAN| University of Michigan >>>>> [___]\/[___] Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1005, U.S.A. >>>>> >>>>> Phone: 734-763-0084 FAX: 734-763-4690 >>>>> e-mail: hpollack@umich.edu >>>>> URL: www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~hpollack/ >>>>> URL: www-personal.umich.edu/~hpollack/book.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Quoting Jonathan Overpeck : >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Henry - see the notes below on how to best update your section >>>>>> using the attached files (and comments you already have). >>>>>> >>>>>> Julie is flying to Germany tomorrow, so I'll be single-parenting and >>>>>> my email will be at night on the weekend. If you have urgent need for >>>>>> input, you can call me: >>>>>> >>>>>> 970-728-0780 (home) >>>>>> 520-907-6480 (cell - only good if I'm in town - best to use home on >>>>>> weekends, and cell weekdays) >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks again, peck >>>>>> >>>>>>> X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >>>>>>> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:59:33 +0100 >>>>>>> To: wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu >>>>>>> From: Eystein Jansen >>>>>>> Subject: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] SOD- template and FOD document >>>>>>> X-BeenThere: wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu >>>>>>> List-Id: >>>>>>> List-Help: >>>>>>> List-Post: >>>>>>> List-Subscribe: >>>>>>> , >>>>>>> >>>>>>> List-Archive: >>>>>>> List-Unsubscribe: >>>>>>> , >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sender: wg1-ar4-ch06-bounces@joss.ucar.edu >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear friends, >>>>>>> In preparation for your rewriting of the FOD as SOD, we send you >>>>>>> the following documents. >>>>>>> 1. A new template for the FOD which is restructured so that the >>>>>>> decisions on structure we made in Christchurch have been taken into >>>>>>> account. We also send you the word version of the FOD which is the >>>>>>> final version used for the review, in case you do not have this. >>>>>>> This is the version for which the comments refer to. >>>>>>> In the rewriting we would ask you to rewrite into the SOD template >>>>>>> document, thus: >>>>>>> 1. Find the relevant comment or section to be rewritten in the FOD. >>>>>>> 2. Then the corresponding section in the SOD document, and rewrrite >>>>>>> the text there. References should also be inserted into the SOD >>>>>>> document. >>>>>>> You have to work in parallel with both documents, but we do not see >>>>>>> any way around this in order to arrive at a SOD without too many >>>>>>> problems of technical sort. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, and best luck. >>>>>>> Peck and Eystein >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> ______________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> Eystein Jansen >>>>>>> Professor/Director >>>>>>> Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and >>>>>>> Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen >>>>>>> Allégaten 55 >>>>>>> N-5007 Bergen >>>>>>> NORWAY >>>>>>> e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no >>>>>>> Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 >>>>>>> Fax: +47-55-584330 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list >>>>>>> Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu >>>>>>> http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Jonathan T. Overpeck >>>>>> Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>>>> Professor, Department of Geosciences >>>>>> Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >>>>>> >>>>>> Mail and Fedex Address: >>>>>> >>>>>> Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>>>> 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>>>>> University of Arizona >>>>>> Tucson, AZ 85721 >>>>>> direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>>>>> fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>>>>> http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>>>>> http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jonathan T. Overpeck >>>> Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>> Professor, Department of Geosciences >>>> Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >>>> >>>> Mail and Fedex Address: >>>> >>>> Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>> 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>>> University of Arizona >>>> Tucson, AZ 85721 >>>> direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>>> fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>>> http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>>> http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> 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/ >> >> >> >> > > > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Boreholes SOD1.doc" 2008. 2006-02-13 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Feb 13 16:03:57 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Draft conclusions for report to Netherlands Environment to: Martin Juckes Martin been through this and please see my comments in square brackets. Really am trying to get to the other stuff. Keith At 16:32 09/02/2006, you wrote: Hello, I need to send in a draft report to RIVM soon. The summary should lay out what we believe to be the state of knowledge on temperatures in the last millenium. I would be grateful for feedback on the text below. regards, Martin Summary IPCC (2001) concluded that ``The 1990s are likely to have been the warmest decade of the millennium in the Northern Hemisphere, and 1998 is likely to have been the warmest year," where ``likely'' implies a greater than 66\% probability [this implied a confidence level of between 66 and 95%] (this conclusion will be referred to below as ``C1''). The Northern Hemisphere temperatures are believed to have shown a gradual cooling trend from the start of the millenium until the mid 19th century, and a warming trend since then. Substantial interannual, decadal and centennial scale variability was superimposed on these trends. [In the Tar the focus was on Mannet al 1998,1999 and they did not show what I would call "substantial centennial" variability] The warming trend contains a signifcant natural component, but an anthropogenic contribution was clearly detectable towards the end of the 20th century. This conclusion was based on a wide range of results, including that of Mann et al., (1999). Since publication of the IPCC (2001) report there has been much criticism of the techniques used to estimate temperatures, particularly those used by Mann et al. The criticism of the latter work has drwan [drawn] attention to incomplete documentation of the wide range of data sources used and to incomplete description of some aspects of the analysis algorithm. [The situation has not been helped by the dis-information spread by certain sceptics , however, that in my opinion act deliberately to confuse the issue] The debate has attracted much public interest and generated considerable confusion. (C1) is sometimes paraphrased as ``there was no hemispheric wide Medieval Warm Period'', but this terminology leads to confusion: there is no agreed definition of what would constitute a `` Medieval Warm Period''. [Actually Martin I do not believe anyone says or believes that there was NO medieval warm period - merely that it is time transgressive , spatially poorly documented and , as you imply, not precisely defined or quantified. There was a period of relative warmth , but the question is how warm and when (actually that is two questions!). ] A second conclusion of the IPCC report, which is related to but distinct from (C1), is that current temperature trends have a signifcant anthropogenic component (referred to as ``C2'' below). Conclusion (C2) is based mainly on GCM simulations and is not directly addressed in this study. Conclusion (C1) is based mainly on the interpretation of proxy climate records: this is the specific issue addressed here. Reconstructions of past climates are also used to evaluate GCM simulations of those climates and hence to evaluate the GCMs: this provides some indirect input into conclusion (C2). The following concpetual [conceptual] model can help us to understand how studies of the past millenium can contribute to discussion of future climate change: Temperature anomaly- = [ ( climate sensitivity-) times ( sum of forcings-) ] plus ( natural variability-) This is a drastic simplification: the different ``forcings'' (solar variability, volcanic and other natural changes to atmospheric composition, anthropogenic changes to atmospheric composition) can not be wholly characterised by a single number: their influcence on the climate system is extremely complex and the response of the climate is neither instantaneous nor uniform. Nevertheless, scientists have found this simple conceptual model to be a useful basis for discussion. By testing the models against observed climate variability it can be dtermiend [determined] whether they have a climate sensitivity which is realistic. The problem is that the period of reliable, global measurements is too short to carry out this exercise comprehensively. [this begs the fascinating question of constitutes "realistic" climate sensitivity - given the problems in defining the concept to account for transience on different timescales - but your summary is good] In the last 5 years a number of studies using different techniques and different, though overlapping [suggest say something like "using some common input data" rather than use the word "overlapping"], data collections have re-inforced (C1), though they disagree, both with Mann et al. and among themselves, on other issues. In particular, there is a relatively wide range of estimates as to the magnitude of the cold anomaly in the 18th century (during the ``Little Ice Age''). [larger difference related to the cold of the 13th and 14th centuries] It is clear that regional temperature anomalies can be much larger than those on the hemispheric scale. IPCC (2001) did not suggest that current temperattures are above the extremes experienced by any region in the past thousand years. Recent modelling work has led to greater understanding of climate variability on different scales. A lot of discussion in the popular and electronic media, and also, to a limited extent, in the peer reviewed literature, neglects this crucial distinction between what is happening on the global and regional scales. [agree wholeheartedly] Data centres have improved the transparency with which data is [are] available and the quality of the information accompanying the data, recording its provenance has also improved. The use of a wide range of different data sources and different analysis techniques makes evaluation of the differences among published results difficult. Within this project we have subjected data collections from a variety of authors to several analysis techniques. It is found that the range of different results is still spanned by the results when a single analysis technique is used. This suggests that a priority for further work to reduce the uncertainty will be to improve understanding of the data. -- 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/ 2163. 2006-02-13 ______________________________________________________ cc: rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:40:50 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: need more than a caption to: joos , Keith Briffa , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, Eystein Jansen Hi Fortunat (and gang, Stefan, see last point) - just got a voice mail from Keith and he makes the good point that you'd be the best person for the caption for lowermost (2nd page) EMIC fig. This I just asked you for anyhow, so please proceed, knowing that Tim might be able to squeeze the new CLIMBER3 runs in too - how bad do we need them, in your estimation? Keith will also be sending us the Section 6.6 text tomorrow, and he'll have a place where we need to insert the assessment resulting from the new EMIC fig into the section text. I'm sending this email now to ask you to be ready for this - we'll need fast turnaround. Judging from Stefan's comments, you're the one for the job. Last issue for Fortunat and Stefan - the top of the 2nd page of the attached figs has the UNSMOOTHED volcanic forcing (Caspar's data) as well as the data smoothed as in the FOD to match the rest of the time series in this plot. QUESTION: does this look bad, distracting, too much, etc. ?? Susan wants the data some place, but we don't have a place other than here - but it isn't that elegant to have it on this series of plots. WHAT DO YOU THINK? thanks, peck -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\Chap6SODLast1200yrsDRAFTFeb10.pdf" 2188. 2006-02-13 ______________________________________________________ cc: Jonathan Overpeck , Stefan Rahmstorf , Anders Levermann , Eva Bauer , plattner@climate.unibe.ch, Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:20:14 +0100 from: Anders Levermann subject: Re: Millennium Simulations to: Fortunat Joos Dear all, here is the data from the Climber-3alpha simulations. I know they are too late, but perhaps there is still a way to include them. The structure of the files is the same as Eva's. The file names correspond to the ones you gave in the simulation protocol. Cheers, Anders Fortunat Joos wrote: > Dear all, > > Please find attached an update of the simulation protocol and input > data description. > > Kasper Plattner pointed out that I forgot the obvious. We need of > course a control run to correct for potential model drift. The readme > file has been modified accordingly adding a brief description on how > the control should be done. > > I am looking forward to any additional comments. Hope everything is > clear. > > Kasper is currently working to perform the simulation with the Bern2.5CC. > > Regards, Fortunat > > Fortunat Joos wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> I have now compiled the input data set and written a protocol how to >> perform the runs. It seems to me that it would make sense if we >> perform the simulations first with the Bern Model and with the >> Climber 2 model. We can then still decide if we need Climber 3. >> >> Please let me know if there are any questions. >> >> I could also provide files where the radiative forcing of solar, >> volcanoes and non-CO2-anthropogenic has been added together. >> >> With best wishes, >> >> Fortunat >> >> >> >> Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >> >>> Dear Eva and Fortunat - thanks for working on getting things moving. >>> It seems that the detailed forcing recommendations laid out below by >>> Fortunat build nicely on what Eva first suggested, and that going >>> with the forcing series suggested below by Foortunat (and the 6 >>> simulations) is going to be just right for the IPCC AR4 Chap 6 >>> needs. Does everyone agree? >>> >>> Thanks Fortunat for preparing/sharing the standard forcing series. >>> >>> Best, peck >>> >>>> Dear Eva, >>>> >>>> We are working on the forcing series and they should be ready by >>>> the end of the week. Stefan assured us that you can run this >>>> within a few hours. >>>> >>>> What we are preparing are the following series of radiative forcing >>>> in W/m2: >>>> >>>> a) RF from atmospheric constituents (well-mixed GHGs (CO2, CH4, >>>> N2O, many Halocarbons) tropo and strato Ozone, various >>>> anthropogenic aerosols) as used in the Bern CC TAR version and the >>>> TAR (see Joos et al., GBC, 2001; pdf is on my homepage and TAR >>>> appendix). >>>> b) volcanic from Crowley, Sci, 2000 >>>> c) solar based on Lean and Bard et al. >>>> >>>> For the solar we will prepare 3 combinations: >>>> >>>> c1) original serie from Lean (2005) provided to you already >>>> c2) Bard et al., Be-10 record linearly scaled to match the Maunder >>>> Minimum Average of Lean-AR4 >>>> c3) Bard et al., Be-10 scaled to a MM reduction of 0.25 permil, >>>> i.e. the low case in the Bard et, Tellus, publication corresponding >>>> to the Lean et al, 1995 scaling >>>> >>>> For the RF by atmospheric components two cases are foreseen: >>>> a1) standard case with reconstructed evolution over past 1150 years >>>> a2) RF kept at 1765 value after 1765, i.e. a simulation with >>>> natural forcings only. >>>> >>>> This will yield in total 6 simulations 3 over the full length from >>>> 850 AD to 2000 and 3 brach-off simulatons from 1765 with natural >>>> only forcing. >>>> >>>> An important point in IPCC is that things are published, consistent >>>> among chapters, and it helps if approaches are tracable to earlier >>>> accepted and approved IPCC work. The arguments for these series are >>>> as follows: >>>> >>>> a) Considering as many components relevant for RF as possible (more >>>> than just CO2). The series are fully compatible with TAR and that >>>> the setup is tracable to the TAR for the industrial era increase. >>>> The same series will be used in the projection chapter 10 for the >>>> SRES calculation >>>> >>>> b) volcanic: a widely cited record >>>> >>>> c) solar: c1) and c3) are published series; c2 follows the same >>>> approach and spirit as used to derive c3, i.e. scaling the Be-10 >>>> serie linearly with a given Maunder Minimum reduction. The impact >>>> of the 11-yr solar cycle can be looked at in the original Lean-AR4 >>>> serie. >>>> >>>> I hope this help. >>>> >>>> With kind regards, >>>> >>>> Fortunat >>>> >>>> Eva Bauer wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear Jonathan, dear Fortunat: >>>>> >>>>> Happy New Year! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Stefan, Anders and me just have discussed how to set up our >>>>> CLIMBER2/3alpha runs, to produce something useful for the IPCC WGI >>>>> chapter 6. This chapter appears to touch the impact on the NH >>>>> temperature related to low and high solar forcing. >>>>> >>>>> For a reasonable comparison, we think two 1000-year simulations >>>>> differing only by a low and a high solar forcing, conducted with both >>>>> CLIMBER models, would be ideal. To do so, we would have to extend the >>>>> solar forcing time series based on Lean (GRL, 2000) and on Wang et >>>>> al. (2005) distributed in previous e-mails back to the year 1000. >>>>> This >>>>> would require some splicing as was done, for instance, by Crowley. >>>>> >>>>> I'm thinking of some scaling applied to a series of Crowley (say the >>>>> data called Be10/Lean splice in Science, 2000) such that the >>>>> amplitude >>>>> of the solar variability from the 11-year cycle is conserved after >>>>> ~1720. I have to check but it appears that the variation in the TSI >>>>> due to the 11-year cycle contained in the Crowley series agrees >>>>> perfectly with the 11yr-cycle data in the file based on Lean (2000). >>>>> Before starting such an exercise I like to ask you what you think >>>>> about. We would be happy to receive your response quite soon to be >>>>> able to finish the calculations with our slow model in time for the >>>>> IPCC report. >>>>> >>>>> Could you please also comment on the other forcings we should >>>>> include, >>>>> namely the volcanic forcing and the CO2 forcing. For the present >>>>> study >>>>> we suggest to use the forcing as in Bauer et al (2000) but omitting >>>>> the land-use. This means, using the volcanic forcing from Crowley, >>>>> 2000 and the CO2 forcing based on Etheridge et al 1996 and Keeling >>>>> and >>>>> Whorf, 1996. (If you wish we can distribute these data series.) >>>>> >>>>> Also, thinking beyond the IPCC study, the model results may become >>>>> interesting enough to be discussed in a 3-model comparison study!? >>>>> >>>>> Looking forward to your reply. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes >>>>> >>>>> Eva >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Climate and Environmental Physics, >>>> Physics Institute, University of Bern >>>> Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern >>>> Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 >>>> Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Last Millennium Simulations for IPCC AR4 WG1 Chap 6 >--------------------------------------------------- > >F. Joos, >joos@climate.unibe.ch >18 Januar 2006 > >OVERVIEW >-------- > >A total of 7 simulations is planned. > >A control simulation without any forcing > >Two millennium-long simulations with solar forcing following Bard et al. with a Maunder Minimum reduction of 0.08 and 0.25 percent in total irradiance and volcanic and anthropogenic forcing included > >A simulation from 1610 to 1998 with solar forcing from Wang et al, 2005 and >volcanic and anthropogenic forcing included > >Three simulations from 1765 to 1998 with only solar and volcanic forcing included, but no anthropogenic forcings. These are branches from the above three simulation. > >A range of input data files have been prepeared. Each contains a header with additional descriptions of the data. > >Solar irradiance has been taken from Bard et al., Tellus, 1999 and from Wang, Lean, Shirley, JAp, 2005. > >It is estimated that the Maunder Minimum irradiance is reduce by 0.08 percent >relative to today and that the present irradiance is 1366 W/m2 from the Wang et al. data. > >A case with a Maunder Minimum reduction of 0.08 percent is calculated from the Bard et al. data by scaling the original Bard series appropriately. >The original Bard series are offset by 1.3 W/m2 in irradiance to bring them to >a present irradiance of 1366 W/m2. For this excercise we will utilize a Maunder >Minimum reduction in irradiance relative to today of 0.08 percent and of 0.25 percent (other cases with high MM reduction are included in the files). > >Irradiance has been converted to radiative forcing: RF= (IRR-1366)/4*0.7 > >Volcanic forcing is from Crowley Science, 2000, with albedo factored in (e.g. as for solar forcing). To avoid a cold start of the model, the serie is extended to 850 AD by mirroring the Crowley data from 1001 to 1150 to the period 850 to 1000. > >NonCO2 forcing is following TAR (updated for an error in tropo O3 in the TAR). > >CO2 is a spline through the Etheridge, JGR, 97 data and the Siegenthaler, TEllus, 2005 data. > > >INPUT FILES DESCRIPTION: >----------------------- > >It is recommended to linearly interpolate between data points. > >A1: Solar irradiance and radiative forcing following Bard from 850 to 2000 > >(Tag description) >solBard08 2. col: Maunder Minimum reduction of 0.08 percent >solBard25 3. col: Maunder Minimu reduction of 0.25 percent > >Note: data from Bard have been linearlz interplated on an annual time step > > files: > bard00tel_solar_RF_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out > bard00tel_solar_irradiance_offset-13_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out > > >A2: Solar irradiance and radiative forcing following Wang, Lean, Shirley, 2005 > from 1610 to 2004 > > annual resolution > >Tag: WLS-05 > > files: > wang05jastr_lean_RF_IPCC_chap6_Joos_11jan06.out > wang05jastr_lean_irradiance_IPCC_chap6_Joos_11jan06.out > >A3: CO2 concentration in ppm from 850 to 2000 > > annual resolution > >Tag: CO2 > file: co2_850-2000_splined_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out > >A4: volcanic forcing after Crowley from 1001 to 1998 AD, extended by artificial > data from 850 to 1000 AD by mirroring the forcing from 1000 to 1150 to the period 850 to 1000 > >Tag: volcCrow > > annual resolution > > file: crowley00sci_RFvolcanic_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan05.out > >A5: radiative forcing by non-CO2 agents > > annual resolution > >Tag: nonco2 > > files > rf_nonco2_1yr_1765_2000_individ_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out > rf_nonco2_1yr_850_2000_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out > > > >B) SIMULATIONS >----------------------- > >B1. 2 Long simulations from 850 AD to 1998 > >------- > >Simulation B1.1. tag: bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_850-1998 > >Solar forcing from Bard et al. with MM reduction of 0.08 percent, volcanic forcing and forcing from CO2 and other anthropogenic (non-CO2) agents. > >Start of simulation 850 AD >End of simulation: 1998 AD >initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar) > >Analysis period: 1001 AD to 1998 AD >start-up period: 850 to 1000 with artificial volcanic data > >-------- > >Simulation B1.2 tag: bard25_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_850-1998 > >as B1.1 but with solar forcing from Bard et al. reduced by 0.25 percent for the Maunder Minimum. > >Start of simulation 850 AD >End of simulation: 1998 AD >initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar) > >Analysis period: 1001 AD to 1998 AD >start-up period: 850 to 1000 with artificial volcanic data > >-------- > >Simulation B2: A simulation from 1610 to 1998 restarted from bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 > >With solar forcing from Wang et al., 2005, volcanic forci >ng and forcing from CO2 and other anthropogenic (non-CO2) agents. > >B2 tag: WLS-2005_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_1610-1998 > >Start of simulation: 1610 AD >End of simulation: 1998 AD >initial condition: restart from simulation B1.1. bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 > at year 1610 > >Analysis period: 1610 AD to 1998 AD > > >------- > >B3: 3 Simulations from 1765 to 1998 with natural forcing only > > non-CO2 radiative forcing is kept to zero > (except for volcanoes and solar) > > CO2 is kept at its 1765 value. > >Simulation B3.1: tag bard08_volcCrow_1765_1998 > >Start of simulation: 1765 AD >End of simulation: 1998 AD >initial condition: restart from simulation B1.1. bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 > at year 1765 > >Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD > >------- > >Simulation B3.2: tag bard25_volcCrow_1765_1998 > >Start of simulation: 1765 AD >End of simulation: 1998 AD >initial condition: restart from simulation B1.2. bard25_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 > at year 1765 > >Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD > >----- > >Simulation B3.1: tag WLS-2005_volcCrow_1765_1998 > >Start of simulation: 1765 AD >End of simulation: 1998 AD >initial condition: restart from simulation B2. WLS-2005_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 > at year 1765 > >Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD > >------- > >Simulation B4: tag ctrl_850-1998 > >Control simulation without any forcing > >Start of simulation 850 AD >End of simulation: 1998 AD >initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar) > >Analysis period: 850 to 1998 > > >OUTPUT >------ > >I guess minimal output is global and NH mean surface temperature. > > -- Anders Levermann phone: +49-331-288-2560 Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research fax: +49-331-288-2570 Telegraphenberg A26, 14473 Potsdam, Germany anders.levermann@pik-potsdam.de www.pik-potsdam.de/~anders Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\c3a_b1_1.dat" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\c3a_b1_2.dat" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\c3a_b2.dat" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\c3a_b3_1.dat" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\c3a_b3_2.dat" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\c3a_b3_3.dat" 2565. 2006-02-13 ______________________________________________________ cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:22:00 +0700 (KRAT) from: shishov@forest.akadem.ru subject: Meeting report to: "Tom Melvin" Dear Tom, I am sending draft workshop's report for PAGES (By preparation I have used a one page for WEB, and Keith words). If we will send this one to PAGES before February, 16, this report could be published in next issue of PAGES newspaper (or a bid latter). Could Keith with you correct this one? And, probably you will have another opinion about picture (Our workshop photo could be changed by 'hockey stick' or something else). Tom, paper about our workshop have been published in the Krasnoyarsk newspaper "City News (Gorodskie novosti)" by Tat'yana Kuznetsova (Issue 11, February, 3, 2006). This paper is called as "Climate is going to be crazy". Author quoted to Keith as CRU deputy director(about Global warming, "Hockey Stick" and last climate changes), me (about the workshop and increasing of catastrophic climate events) and Olga Solomina (about Kioto protocol) (I will ask Nata about full translation of this). Waiting for your answer. Vlad Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Meeting_report_PAGES.doc" 2625. 2006-02-13 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:45:18 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: your call to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith - I'm sorry I didn't pick up - my phone just said unidentified caller, and I am trying to just work and not talk to reporters etc. (another Arctic story last week). Next time warn me via email, and I'll get it. Really sorry about that. Anyhow, I think getting us the edited text tomorrow is fine. As you can see, I've tried to get Fortunat ready, and Henry too. Can you send the text straight to them both when you send it to me and Eystein? Yeah, the volcanic data issue is diplomatic. Don't know what to say. I don't think it looks that bad - good for folks to see the unsmoothed data. Wish we had room for more figs, though. Let's see what Eystein, Fortunat and Stefan think. Thanks, Peck -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 3230. 2006-02-13 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:01:39 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: RE: FW: Wahl and Ammann ms 3321 to: "Wahl, Eugene R" Thanks! Peck >Hi Peck: > >Yes, I agree that that is what Steve is saying. We are on it with all >we have. > > >Peace, Gene > >******************************* > >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies >Alfred University > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jonathan Overpeck [mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu] >Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 12:48 PM >To: Wahl, Eugene R >Cc: Eystein Jansen; Keith Briffa >Subject: Re: FW: Wahl and Ammann ms 3321 > >thanks Gene - let us know if you can get it in press. I think that's >what he's saying. Best, peck > >>Hi Peck and Caspar: >> >>Here is Steve Schneider's response to what "in press" means for >Climatic >>Change. It is hopeful. >> >>OK Caspar, here we go! Let's do it. >> >>Peace, Gene >> >> >>******************************* >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Stephen H Schneider [mailto:shs@stanford.edu] >>Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 1:56 AM >>To: Wahl, Eugene R >>Cc: katarina kivel >>Subject: RE: Wahl and Ammann ms 3321 >> >>your interpretation is fine--get me the revision soon so I have time to >>assess your responses in light of reviews in time! Look forward to >>recievieng it, Steve >> >> >>********************************** >> >>On Sat, 11 Feb 2006, Wahl, Eugene R wrote: >> >>> Hello Steve: >>> >>> Caspar and I expect to have the final manuscript to you in 7-10 days >>with all the revisions you requested in December. I have recently had >>some correspondance with Jonathan Overpeck about this, in his IPCC >role. >>He says that the paper needs to be in press by the end of February to >be >>acceptable to be cited in the SOD. >>> >>> He and I have communicated re: what "in press" means for Climatic >>Change, and I agreed to contact you to have a clear definition. What I >>have understood from our conversations before is that if you receive >the >>mss and move it from "provisionally accepted" status to "accepted", >then >>this can be considered in press, in light of CC being a journal of >>record. >>> >>> However, I recognize that this may not be a correct interpretation. >>If you can clarify, I'd be very grateful. Also, if I do have these >>definitions interpreted correctly--and if Caspar and I meet the target >>set above (paper to you by Feb 17-20)--is there any chance it might be >>fully "accepted" by the end of the month? I realize this is very >close, >>for which I accept all responsibility. And of course, I also fully >>recognize that this kind of timeline is very likely out of the realm of >>possibility for you. I mean no pressure in asking, I only want to get >>info to then bring back to Peck. >>> >>> I hope this finds you well, and look forward to your response. >>> >>> >>> Peace, Gene >>> Dr. Eugene R. Wahl >>> Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies >>> Alfred University >>> >>> 607-871-2604 >>> 1 Saxon Drive >>> Alfred, NY 14802 >>> >>> >> >>------ >>Stephen H. Schneider >>Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary >> Environmental Studies; >>Professor, Department of Biological Sciences; >>Co-Director, Center for Environmental Science and Policy at >>the Stanford Institute for International Studies >> >>Mailing Address: >> Stephen Schneider >>Dept. of Biological Sciences >>Gilbert Building >>371 Serra Mall >>Stanford University >>Stanford, CA 94305-5020 U.S.A. >> >>Tel: (650)725-9978 >>Fax: (650)725-4387 >>e-mail: shs@stanford.edu >>climate change website: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu >> (or: climatechange.net) >>cancer book website: patientfromhell.org > > >-- >Jonathan T. Overpeck >Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >Professor, Department of Geosciences >Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences > >Mail and Fedex Address: > >Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >University of Arizona >Tucson, AZ 85721 >direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >fax: +1 520 792-8795 >http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 3536. 2006-02-13 ______________________________________________________ cc: mitrie -- Anders Moberg , Eduardo Zorita , Jan Esper , Keith Briffa , Myles Allen , Nanne Weber , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 08:26:37 +0000 from: Martin Juckes subject: Re: Draft conclusions for report to Netherlands Environment to: hegerl@duke.edu Hi Gabi, I think you are right that all the results have overlapping error bars, and are consistent in that sense. The problem is that they do have different estimates of extreme temperatures and we don't know which is right (and simply taking the average is not a scientifically well justified option). I'll try to adjust the text to make it clear that known and quantified sources of error could be responsible for all the differences between the reconstructions, cheers, Martin On Friday 10 Feb 2006 03:57, hegerl@duke.edu wrote: > > the Northern Hemisphere, and 1998 is likely to have been the warmest 3949. 2006-02-13 ______________________________________________________ cc: joos , Eystein Jansen , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, Keith Briffa date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:53:26 +0100 from: Stefan Rahmstorf subject: Re: Fwd: some figures at last! to: Jonathan Overpeck Hi Peck, at first sight the figures look great. Am at home today but will look at them again tomorrow. Does the instrumental record go up to, including 2005? (Perhaps in the final version of the report it can even include the 2006 value?) I vote for keeping the EMIC panel. We now have sent the data for CLIMBER-3alpha, i.e. with 3D ocean GCM, which can also be included here. I propose Fortunat should draft the caption as he has worked a lot more on this than me (near zero), so he knows much better what the key points to mention in the caption are. O.k with you Fortunat? Cheers, Stefan 4498. 2006-02-13 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 08:01:03 -0500 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Re: IN CONFIDENCE - opinion sought to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith, I'm pretty sure they're just asking for a neutral discussion of the science that you've done that is relevant to the issues being reviewed by the committee (after all this is the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, not the U.S. Senate, etc). But I understand where you're coming from nonetheless. Perhaps you could suggest an alternate? Any possibility Tim could do this instead? He's less intimately involved w/ the paleo chapter of IPCC, so I think it might be less of a worry for him? Or Phil? Its your prerogative to suggest alternates, and I think they'll take your suggestions very seriously. My greatest fear is that McIntyre dominates the discussion. Its important that they hear from the legitimate scientists. Thanks, mike Keith Briffa wrote: > Mike > thanks for this but after a lot of soul searching this weekend , I > have decided to decline the invitation. Pressure of stuff here is > intense - but the real reason is that I really think it could be > politic to retreat into "neutral" mode , at least until after the IPCC > Report is out. I know you can argue this various ways but the sceptics > are starting to attack on this "non neutral" stance, and the less > public I am at the moment the better I think. Hope you do not think I > am a wimp here - just trying to go the way I think best. > best wishes > Keith > > At 17:14 09/02/2006, you wrote: > >> Hi Keith, >> >> I think you really *should* do this if you possibly can. The panel is >> entirely legititimate, and the report was requested by Sherwood >> Boehlert, who as you probably know has been very supportive of us in >> the whole Barton affair. The assumption is that an honest >> review of the science will buttress us against any attempt for Barton >> to continue his attacks (there is some indication that he hasn't >> given up yet). Especially, with the new Science article by you and >> Tim I think its really important that one of you attend, if at all >> possible. >> >> I'm scheduled to arrive Thursday March 2rd, and give a presentation >> friday morning March 2nd. I believe Malcolm is planning on >> participating, not sure about Ray. I would guess that Tom C and >> Caspar A have been invited as well, but haven't heard anything. >> >> The panel is solid. Gerry North should do a good job in chairing >> this, and the other members are all solid. Chrisy is the token >> skeptic, but there are many others to keep him in check: >> http://www4.nas.edu/webcr.nsf/8f6526d9731740728525663500684166/2dbbe64b5fe9981b8525710f007025b2?OpenDocument >> >> >> So I would encourage you to strongly reconsider! Let me know if you'd >> like to chat over the phone at all about any of this. My cell phone >> number is 814-876-0485. I teach in about an hour, for about 1.5 >> hours, but then free most of the day... >> >> mike >> >> Keith Briffa wrote: >> >>> Mike >>> IN STRICT CONFIDENCE I am sending this for your opinion. To be >>> frank, I am inclined to decline . What do think? >>> Presumably you and others are already in the frame? >>> Keith >>> >>> >>>> X-SBRS: None >>>> X-REMOTE-IP: 144.171.38.41 >>>> X-IronPort-AV: i="4.02,98,1139202000"; >>>> d="doc'32?scan'32,208,32"; a="8557254:sNHT39904420" >>>> Subject: Invitation to speak to the NRC Committee on Surface >>>> Temperature Reconstructions >>>> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 14:55:58 -0500 >>>> X-MS-Has-Attach: yes >>>> X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: >>>> Thread-Topic: Invitation to speak to the NRC Committee on Surface >>>> Temperature Reconstructions >>>> Thread-Index: >>>> AcYce3i/tURJ1nRBSbezvDYAmbiDhQAAJeAgAABmHeAAAFz5YAABterwAAAqT9AAKTmk4AAFcV2QAAGRMBAAADHXgALyVAvAAJatBwAAACel8AABGFiwAAGtjsAAXF4z0A== >>>> >>>> From: "Kraucunas, Ian" >>>> To: >>>> X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 >>>> X-UEA-Spam-Level: / >>>> X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO >>>> >>>> Dear Dr. Briffa, >>>> >>>> The National Research Council of The National Academies of the United >>>> States is empanelling a committee to study "Surface Temperature >>>> Reconstructions for the Past 1,000-2,000 Years". The committee >>>> will be >>>> asked to summarize the current scientific information on the >>>> temperature >>>> record over the past two millennia, describe the proxy records that >>>> have >>>> been used to reconstruct pre-instrumental climatic conditions, assess >>>> the methods employed to combine multiple proxy data over large spatial >>>> scales, evaluate the overall accuracy and precision of such >>>> reconstructions, and explain how central the debate over the >>>> paleoclimate temperature record is to the state of scientific >>>> knowledge >>>> on global climate change. I have attached the complete study proposal >>>> (Word document). >>>> >>>> Since this issue has been the subject of considerable controversy, we >>>> have taken great care to assemble an unbiased panel of scientific >>>> experts with the appropriate range of expertise to produce an >>>> authoritative report on the subject. The committee slate will be >>>> formally announced on Wednesday, but I can tell you that Jerry North >>>> (Texas A&M) will be chairing the committee, and NAS Members Mike >>>> Wallace, Karl Turekian, and Bob Dickinson will be on the panel, in >>>> addition to a half-dozen other scientists with expertise in >>>> statistics, >>>> climate variability, and several different types of paleoclimate proxy >>>> data. >>>> >>>> The committee would like to invite you to come to Washington DC on >>>> Thursday, March 2nd to speak about your extensive work with this area >>>> and to discuss your perspective on the issues noted above and in the >>>> study proposal. The committee will be familiar with the relevant >>>> peer-reviewed literature, but is also interested in any recently >>>> submitted or accepted papers. We will be inviting 8-10 other >>>> experts to >>>> speak; a complete agenda will be made available prior to the meeting, >>>> and the meeting will be open to the public. Speakers will be >>>> reimbursed >>>> for travel expenses and invited to stay for the entire open session of >>>> the meeting (which will include a reception on Thursday evening and a >>>> few speakers on Friday morning). >>>> >>>> Thank you in advance for your time and interest, I hope that you are >>>> available and willing to meet with our committee. If you are not >>>> available on March 2nd, we have a limited number of timeslots >>>> available >>>> on March 3rd. We are trying to finalize the meeting schedule by >>>> Friday >>>> so please let me know if there is a particularly convenient time >>>> that I >>>> could call you this week to discuss details and answer any >>>> questions you >>>> might have (or feel free to call me directly). >>>> >>>> Sincerely, >>>> >>>> Ian Kraucunas >>>> >>>> ~~~ >>>> Ian Kraucunas, Ph.D. >>>> Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate >>>> National Research Council of The National Academies >>>> 500 Fifth Street NW, Keck 705 >>>> Washington, DC 20001 >>>> Email: ikraucunas@nas.edu >>>> Phone: (202) 334-2546 >>>> Fax: (202) 334-3825 >> 5330. 2006-02-13 ______________________________________________________ cc: Stefan Rahmstorf , Anders Levermann , Eva Bauer , plattner@climate.unibe.ch, Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa , joos date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:20:39 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Fwd: Re: Millennium Simulations to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Hi Anders and Tim - It could be too late, but this is up to Tim. Can you get these data onto the new EMIC panel? I think it'd be worth it, but only if you and Keith can get everything else done first. Best make sure you have all the data needed, just in case. thanks Anders too. best, peck >X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:20:14 +0100 >From: Anders Levermann >Organization: PIK >X-Accept-Language: en-us, en >To: Fortunat Joos >Cc: Jonathan Overpeck , > Stefan Rahmstorf , > Anders Levermann , > Eva Bauer , plattner@climate.unibe.ch, > Eystein Jansen , > Keith Briffa >Subject: Re: Millennium Simulations > >Dear all, > >here is the data from the Climber-3alpha simulations. I know they >are too late, but >perhaps there is still a way to include them. The structure of the >files is the >same as Eva's. The file names correspond to the ones you gave in the >simulation >protocol. > >Cheers, >Anders > >Fortunat Joos wrote: > >>Dear all, >> >>Please find attached an update of the simulation protocol and input >>data description. >> >>Kasper Plattner pointed out that I forgot the obvious. We need of >>course a control run to correct for potential model drift. The >>readme file has been modified accordingly adding a brief >>description on how the control should be done. >> >>I am looking forward to any additional comments. Hope everything is clear. >> >>Kasper is currently working to perform the simulation with the Bern2.5CC. >> >>Regards, Fortunat >> >>Fortunat Joos wrote: >> >>>Dear all, >>> >>>I have now compiled the input data set and written a protocol how >>>to perform the runs. It seems to me that it would make sense if we >>>perform the simulations first with the Bern Model and with the >>>Climber 2 model. We can then still decide if we need Climber 3. >>> >>>Please let me know if there are any questions. >>> >>>I could also provide files where the radiative forcing of solar, >>>volcanoes and non-CO2-anthropogenic has been added together. >>> >>>With best wishes, >>> >>>Fortunat >>> >>> >>> >>>Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>> >>>>Dear Eva and Fortunat - thanks for working on getting things >>>>moving. It seems that the detailed forcing recommendations laid >>>>out below by Fortunat build nicely on what Eva first suggested, >>>>and that going with the forcing series suggested below by >>>>Foortunat (and the 6 simulations) is going to be just right for >>>>the IPCC AR4 Chap 6 needs. Does everyone agree? >>>> >>>>Thanks Fortunat for preparing/sharing the standard forcing series. >>>> >>>>Best, peck >>>> >>>>>Dear Eva, >>>>> >>>>>We are working on the forcing series and they should be ready by >>>>>the end of the week. Stefan assured us that you can run this >>>>>within a few hours. >>>>> >>>>>What we are preparing are the following series of radiative >>>>>forcing in W/m2: >>>>> >>>>>a) RF from atmospheric constituents (well-mixed GHGs (CO2, CH4, >>>>>N2O, many Halocarbons) tropo and strato Ozone, various >>>>>anthropogenic aerosols) as used in the Bern CC TAR version and >>>>>the TAR (see Joos et al., GBC, 2001; pdf is on my homepage and >>>>>TAR appendix). >>>>>b) volcanic from Crowley, Sci, 2000 >>>>>c) solar based on Lean and Bard et al. >>>>> >>>>>For the solar we will prepare 3 combinations: >>>>> >>>>>c1) original serie from Lean (2005) provided to you already >>>>>c2) Bard et al., Be-10 record linearly scaled to match the >>>>>Maunder Minimum Average of Lean-AR4 >>>>>c3) Bard et al., Be-10 scaled to a MM reduction of 0.25 permil, >>>>>i.e. the low case in the Bard et, Tellus, publication >>>>>corresponding to the Lean et al, 1995 scaling >>>>> >>>>>For the RF by atmospheric components two cases are foreseen: >>>>>a1) standard case with reconstructed evolution over past 1150 years >>>>>a2) RF kept at 1765 value after 1765, i.e. a simulation with >>>>>natural forcings only. >>>>> >>>>>This will yield in total 6 simulations 3 over the full length >>>>>from 850 AD to 2000 and 3 brach-off simulatons from 1765 with >>>>>natural only forcing. >>>>> >>>>>An important point in IPCC is that things are published, >>>>>consistent among chapters, and it helps if approaches are >>>>>tracable to earlier accepted and approved IPCC work. The >>>>>arguments for these series are as follows: >>>>> >>>>>a) Considering as many components relevant for RF as possible >>>>>(more than just CO2). The series are fully compatible with TAR >>>>>and that the setup is tracable to the TAR for the industrial era >>>>>increase. The same series will be used in the projection chapter >>>>>10 for the SRES calculation >>>>> >>>>>b) volcanic: a widely cited record >>>>> >>>>>c) solar: c1) and c3) are published series; c2 follows the same >>>>>approach and spirit as used to derive c3, i.e. scaling the Be-10 >>>>>serie linearly with a given Maunder Minimum reduction. The >>>>>impact of the 11-yr solar cycle can be looked at in the original >>>>>Lean-AR4 serie. >>>>> >>>>>I hope this help. >>>>> >>>>>With kind regards, >>>>> >>>>>Fortunat >>>>> >>>>>Eva Bauer wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Dear Jonathan, dear Fortunat: >>>>>> >>>>>>Happy New Year! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Stefan, Anders and me just have discussed how to set up our >>>>>>CLIMBER2/3alpha runs, to produce something useful for the IPCC WGI >>>>>>chapter 6. This chapter appears to touch the impact on the NH >>>>>>temperature related to low and high solar forcing. >>>>>> >>>>>>For a reasonable comparison, we think two 1000-year simulations >>>>>>differing only by a low and a high solar forcing, conducted with both >>>>>>CLIMBER models, would be ideal. To do so, we would have to extend the >>>>>>solar forcing time series based on Lean (GRL, 2000) and on Wang et >>>>>>al. (2005) distributed in previous e-mails back to the year 1000. This >>>>>>would require some splicing as was done, for instance, by Crowley. >>>>>> >>>>>>I'm thinking of some scaling applied to a series of Crowley (say the >>>>>>data called Be10/Lean splice in Science, 2000) such that the amplitude >>>>>>of the solar variability from the 11-year cycle is conserved after >>>>>>~1720. I have to check but it appears that the variation in the TSI >>>>>>due to the 11-year cycle contained in the Crowley series agrees >>>>>>perfectly with the 11yr-cycle data in the file based on Lean (2000). >>>>>>Before starting such an exercise I like to ask you what you think >>>>>>about. We would be happy to receive your response quite soon to be >>>>>>able to finish the calculations with our slow model in time for the >>>>>>IPCC report. >>>>>> >>>>>>Could you please also comment on the other forcings we should include, >>>>>>namely the volcanic forcing and the CO2 forcing. For the present study >>>>>>we suggest to use the forcing as in Bauer et al (2000) but omitting >>>>>>the land-use. This means, using the volcanic forcing from Crowley, >>>>>>2000 and the CO2 forcing based on Etheridge et al 1996 and Keeling and >>>>>>Whorf, 1996. (If you wish we can distribute these data series.) >>>>>> >>>>>>Also, thinking beyond the IPCC study, the model results may become >>>>>>interesting enough to be discussed in a 3-model comparison study!? >>>>>> >>>>>>Looking forward to your reply. >>>>>> >>>>>>Best wishes >>>>>> >>>>>>Eva >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>> >>>>> Climate and Environmental Physics, >>>>> Physics Institute, University of Bern >>>>> Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern >>>>> Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 >>>>> Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>Last Millennium Simulations for IPCC AR4 WG1 Chap 6 >>--------------------------------------------------- >> >>F. Joos, >>joos@climate.unibe.ch >>18 Januar 2006 >> >>OVERVIEW >>-------- >> >>A total of 7 simulations is planned. >>A control simulation without any forcing >> >>Two millennium-long simulations with solar forcing following Bard >>et al. with a Maunder Minimum reduction of 0.08 and 0.25 percent in >>total irradiance and volcanic and anthropogenic forcing included >>A simulation from 1610 to 1998 with solar forcing from Wang et al, >>2005 and volcanic and anthropogenic forcing included >> >>Three simulations from 1765 to 1998 with only solar and volcanic >>forcing included, but no anthropogenic forcings. These are branches >>from the above three simulation. >> >>A range of input data files have been prepeared. Each contains a >>header with additional descriptions of the data. >>Solar irradiance has been taken from Bard et al., Tellus, 1999 and >>from Wang, Lean, Shirley, JAp, 2005. >> >>It is estimated that the Maunder Minimum irradiance is reduce by 0.08 percent >>relative to today and that the present irradiance is 1366 W/m2 from >>the Wang et al. data. >> >>A case with a Maunder Minimum reduction of 0.08 percent is >>calculated from the Bard et al. data by scaling the original Bard >>series appropriately. >>The original Bard series are offset by 1.3 W/m2 in irradiance to >>bring them to a present irradiance of 1366 W/m2. For this excercise >>we will utilize a Maunder >>Minimum reduction in irradiance relative to today of 0.08 percent >>and of 0.25 percent (other cases with high MM reduction are >>included in the files). >> >>Irradiance has been converted to radiative forcing: RF= (IRR-1366)/4*0.7 >> Volcanic forcing is from Crowley Science, 2000, with albedo >>factored in (e.g. as for solar forcing). To avoid a cold start of >>the model, the serie is extended to 850 AD by mirroring the Crowley >>data from 1001 to 1150 to the period 850 to 1000. >>NonCO2 forcing is following TAR (updated for an error in tropo O3 >>in the TAR). >>CO2 is a spline through the Etheridge, JGR, 97 data and the >>Siegenthaler, TEllus, 2005 data. >> >> >>INPUT FILES DESCRIPTION: >>----------------------- >> >>It is recommended to linearly interpolate between data points. >> >>A1: Solar irradiance and radiative forcing following Bard from 850 to 2000 >>(Tag description) >>solBard08 2. col: Maunder Minimum reduction of 0.08 percent >>solBard25 3. col: Maunder Minimu reduction of 0.25 percent >> >>Note: data from Bard have been linearlz interplated on an annual time step >> files: >> bard00tel_solar_RF_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >> bard00tel_solar_irradiance_offset-13_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >> >> >>A2: Solar irradiance and radiative forcing following Wang, Lean, >>Shirley, 2005 >> from 1610 to 2004 annual resolution >>Tag: WLS-05 >> >> files: >> wang05jastr_lean_RF_IPCC_chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >> wang05jastr_lean_irradiance_IPCC_chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >> >>A3: CO2 concentration in ppm from 850 to 2000 >> >> annual resolution >>Tag: CO2 >> file: co2_850-2000_splined_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >> >>A4: volcanic forcing after Crowley from 1001 to 1998 AD, extended >>by artificial >> data from 850 to 1000 AD by mirroring the forcing from 1000 to >>1150 to the period 850 to 1000 >>Tag: volcCrow >> >> annual resolution >> file: crowley00sci_RFvolcanic_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan05.out >> >>A5: radiative forcing by non-CO2 agents >> annual resolution >>Tag: nonco2 >> >> files >> rf_nonco2_1yr_1765_2000_individ_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >> rf_nonco2_1yr_850_2000_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >> >> >> >>B) SIMULATIONS >>----------------------- >> >>B1. 2 Long simulations from 850 AD to 1998 >> >>------- >> >>Simulation B1.1. tag: bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_850-1998 >> >>Solar forcing from Bard et al. with MM reduction of 0.08 percent, >>volcanic forcing and forcing from CO2 and other anthropogenic >>(non-CO2) agents. >> >>Start of simulation 850 AD >>End of simulation: 1998 AD >>initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar) >> >>Analysis period: 1001 AD to 1998 AD >>start-up period: 850 to 1000 with artificial volcanic data >> >>-------- >> >>Simulation B1.2 tag: bard25_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_850-1998 >> >>as B1.1 but with solar forcing from Bard et al. reduced by 0.25 >>percent for the Maunder Minimum. >> >>Start of simulation 850 AD >>End of simulation: 1998 AD >>initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar) >> >>Analysis period: 1001 AD to 1998 AD >>start-up period: 850 to 1000 with artificial volcanic data >> >>-------- >> >>Simulation B2: A simulation from 1610 to 1998 restarted from >>bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 >> >>With solar forcing from Wang et al., 2005, volcanic forci >>ng and forcing from CO2 and other anthropogenic (non-CO2) agents. >> >>B2 tag: WLS-2005_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_1610-1998 >> >>Start of simulation: 1610 AD >>End of simulation: 1998 AD >>initial condition: restart from simulation B1.1. bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 >> at year 1610 >> >>Analysis period: 1610 AD to 1998 AD >> >> >>------- >> >>B3: 3 Simulations from 1765 to 1998 with natural forcing only >> >> non-CO2 radiative forcing is kept to zero (except >>for volcanoes and solar) >> >> CO2 is kept at its 1765 value. >> >>Simulation B3.1: tag bard08_volcCrow_1765_1998 >> >>Start of simulation: 1765 AD >>End of simulation: 1998 AD >>initial condition: restart from simulation B1.1. bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 >> at year 1765 >> >>Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD >> >>------- >> >>Simulation B3.2: tag bard25_volcCrow_1765_1998 >> >>Start of simulation: 1765 AD >>End of simulation: 1998 AD >>initial condition: restart from simulation B1.2. bard25_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 >> at year 1765 >> >>Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD >> >>----- >> >>Simulation B3.1: tag WLS-2005_volcCrow_1765_1998 >> >>Start of simulation: 1765 AD >>End of simulation: 1998 AD >>initial condition: restart from simulation B2. WLS-2005_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 >> at year 1765 >> >>Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD >> >>------- >> >>Simulation B4: tag ctrl_850-1998 >> >>Control simulation without any forcing >> >>Start of simulation 850 AD >>End of simulation: 1998 AD >>initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar) >> >>Analysis period: 850 to 1998 >> >> >>OUTPUT >>------ >> >>I guess minimal output is global and NH mean surface temperature. >> > >-- >Anders Levermann >phone: +49-331-288-2560 Potsdam Institute for >Climate Impact Research >fax: +49-331-288-2570 Telegraphenberg A26, 14473 >Potsdam, Germany >anders.levermann@pik-potsdam.de www.pik-potsdam.de/~anders > > > > > > > > > -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\c3a_b1_11.dat" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\c3a_b1_21.dat" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\c3a_b21.dat" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\c3a_b3_11.dat" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\c3a_b3_21.dat" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\c3a_b3_31.dat" 1341. 2006-02-14 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:54:44 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: your paper today to: peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk Hi Peter - thanks for your interesting question. I don't think we can rule out systematic bias in the proxies in the most recent decades, but random noise in the proxies is also capable of producing such a deviation, given that the noise could be autocorrelated and anyway we are working with 20-year smoothed results and the number of proxy records drops from 14 to 5 over the final few decades through to 1995 (the instrumental data are also included up to 2004, covering more of the warmest period). There's still more work to be done, but we really need more long proxies and more brought up to date. Cheers, Tim At 18:40 10/02/2006, you wrote: >Hi Tim, > >I enjoyed reading your paper in Science today. One issue I was >interested in was the separation in fig 3D between the instrumental data >and the proxy data. You comment in the paper that this could be expected >consequence of noise in the proxy records but naively it looks like >there might be something more systematic in the last few decades. Are >you able to rule out systematic non temperature effects on the proxies >in recent decades then ? > >Thanks ! >Peter > >-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Dr. Peter Stott Climate Scientist Met Office > Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research (Reading Unit) > Meteorology Building, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB > Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5613 Fax: +44 (0)118 378 5615 > Mobile: 07753880683 > E-mail:peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > NOTE WILL ALSO BE AT EXETER PART OF EACH WEEK >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 2003. 2006-02-14 ______________________________________________________ cc: Stefan Rahmstorf , Anders Levermann , Eva Bauer , plattner@climate.unibe.ch, Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa , joos , date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:53:47 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Millennium Simulations to: Tim Osborn Hi Tim and Fortunat: This looks nice (thanks) and my slight bias is that we should include the Climber3a results. What do you think, Fortunat? I think Stefan likes it based on his email. Regarding the reference period, I would side w/ Tim and Keith on using 1500-1899. We need to use the same ref period for everything on these two figs (obs and forcing/simulations), and I think the EMIC panel still convey's the main message. Keith/Tim/Fortunat - we have to resolve this FAST, so please weigh in more on this issue. Thanks. Regarding captions, yes, you should do all but the EMICS, and you should make sure you send to Stefan so he can help make sure it makes sense (e.g., the red/grey shading). We have asked Fortunat to do the EMIC caption. Can you do this Fortunat? Thanks. Best, Peck >Dear all, > >please see the attached diagram (both the same, >PDF or GIF) with all three EMICs on now. >Climber3a seems to lie between Climber2 and >Bern2.5CC mostly. Does it add to the message of >the figure to use all three? If so, please use >this version from now on, for drafting captions >etc. > >Nobody said much about the previous version, so >hopefully this indicates general agreement! I >didn't show the "Bard08" runs, because they were >so close to the runs I have labelled "WLS", but >of course in those runs the pre-1610 solar >forcing is Bard08 - so maybe the labels should >be altered to somehow indicate them, or this >could just be stated in the caption. > >Am I right that Keith and I need to provide an >updated caption for panels (a)-(d), but that >someone else will write a caption for the EMIC >panel (e)? > >Cheers > >Tim > >At 19:20 13/02/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>Hi Anders and Tim - It could be too late, but >>this is up to Tim. Can you get these data onto >>the new EMIC panel? I think it'd be worth it, >>but only if you and Keith can get everything >>else done first. Best make sure you have all >>the data needed, just in case. >> >>thanks Anders too. >> >>best, peck >> >>>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >>>Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:20:14 +0100 >>>From: Anders Levermann >>>Organization: PIK >>>X-Accept-Language: en-us, en >>>To: Fortunat Joos >>>Cc: Jonathan Overpeck , >>> Stefan Rahmstorf , >>> Anders Levermann , >>> Eva Bauer , plattner@climate.unibe.ch, >>> Eystein Jansen , >>> Keith Briffa >>>Subject: Re: Millennium Simulations >>> >>>Dear all, >>> >>>here is the data from the Climber-3alpha >>>simulations. I know they are too late, but >>>perhaps there is still a way to include them. >>>The structure of the files is the >>>same as Eva's. The file names correspond to >>>the ones you gave in the simulation >>>protocol. >>> >>>Cheers, >>>Anders >>> >>>Fortunat Joos wrote: >>> >>>>Dear all, >>>> >>>>Please find attached an update of the >>>>simulation protocol and input data >>>>description. >>>> >>>>Kasper Plattner pointed out that I forgot the >>>>obvious. We need of course a control run to >>>>correct for potential model drift. The readme >>>>file has been modified accordingly adding a >>>>brief description on how the control should >>>>be done. >>>> >>>>I am looking forward to any additional comments. Hope everything is clear. >>>> >>>>Kasper is currently working to perform the simulation with the Bern2.5CC. >>>> >>>>Regards, Fortunat >>>> >>>>Fortunat Joos wrote: >>>> >>>>>Dear all, >>>>> >>>>>I have now compiled the input data set and >>>>>written a protocol how to perform the runs. >>>>>It seems to me that it would make sense if >>>>>we perform the simulations first with the >>>>>Bern Model and with the Climber 2 model. We >>>>>can then still decide if we need Climber 3. >>>>> >>>>>Please let me know if there are any questions. >>>>> >>>>>I could also provide files where the >>>>>radiative forcing of solar, volcanoes and >>>>>non-CO2-anthropogenic has been added >>>>>together. >>>>> >>>>>With best wishes, >>>>> >>>>>Fortunat >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Dear Eva and Fortunat - thanks for working >>>>>>on getting things moving. It seems that the >>>>>>detailed forcing recommendations laid out >>>>>>below by Fortunat build nicely on what Eva >>>>>>first suggested, and that going with the >>>>>>forcing series suggested below by Foortunat >>>>>>(and the 6 simulations) is going to be just >>>>>>right for the IPCC AR4 Chap 6 needs. Does >>>>>>everyone agree? >>>>>> >>>>>>Thanks Fortunat for preparing/sharing the standard forcing series. >>>>>> >>>>>>Best, peck >>>>>> >>>>>>>Dear Eva, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>We are working on the forcing series and >>>>>>>they should be ready by the end of the >>>>>>>week. Stefan assured us that you can run >>>>>>>this within a few hours. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>What we are preparing are the following >>>>>>>series of radiative forcing in W/m2: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>a) RF from atmospheric constituents >>>>>>>(well-mixed GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, many >>>>>>>Halocarbons) tropo and strato Ozone, >>>>>>>various anthropogenic aerosols) as used in >>>>>>>the Bern CC TAR version and the TAR (see >>>>>>>Joos et al., GBC, 2001; pdf is on my >>>>>>>homepage and TAR appendix). >>>>>>>b) volcanic from Crowley, Sci, 2000 >>>>>>>c) solar based on Lean and Bard et al. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>For the solar we will prepare 3 combinations: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>c1) original serie from Lean (2005) provided to you already >>>>>>>c2) Bard et al., Be-10 record linearly >>>>>>>scaled to match the Maunder Minimum >>>>>>>Average of Lean-AR4 >>>>>>>c3) Bard et al., Be-10 scaled to a MM >>>>>>>reduction of 0.25 permil, i.e. the low >>>>>>>case in the Bard et, Tellus, publication >>>>>>>corresponding to the Lean et al, 1995 >>>>>>>scaling >>>>>>> >>>>>>>For the RF by atmospheric components two cases are foreseen: >>>>>>>a1) standard case with reconstructed evolution over past 1150 years >>>>>>>a2) RF kept at 1765 value after 1765, i.e. >>>>>>>a simulation with natural forcings only. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>This will yield in total 6 simulations 3 >>>>>>>over the full length from 850 AD to 2000 >>>>>>>and 3 brach-off simulatons from 1765 with >>>>>>>natural only forcing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>An important point in IPCC is that things >>>>>>>are published, consistent among chapters, >>>>>>>and it helps if approaches are tracable to >>>>>>>earlier accepted and approved IPCC work. >>>>>>>The arguments for these series are as >>>>>>>follows: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>a) Considering as many components relevant >>>>>>>for RF as possible (more than just CO2). >>>>>>>The series are fully compatible with TAR >>>>>>>and that the setup is tracable to the TAR >>>>>>>for the industrial era increase. The same >>>>>>>series will be used in the projection >>>>>>>chapter 10 for the SRES calculation >>>>>>> >>>>>>>b) volcanic: a widely cited record >>>>>>> >>>>>>>c) solar: c1) and c3) are published >>>>>>>series; c2 follows the same approach and >>>>>>>spirit as used to derive c3, i.e. scaling >>>>>>>the Be-10 serie linearly with a given >>>>>>>Maunder Minimum reduction. The impact of >>>>>>>the 11-yr solar cycle can be looked at in >>>>>>>the original Lean-AR4 serie. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I hope this help. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>With kind regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Fortunat >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Eva Bauer wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Dear Jonathan, dear Fortunat: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Happy New Year! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Stefan, Anders and me just have discussed how to set up our >>>>>>>>CLIMBER2/3alpha runs, to produce something useful for the IPCC WGI >>>>>>>>chapter 6. This chapter appears to touch the impact on the NH >>>>>>>>temperature related to low and high solar forcing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>For a reasonable comparison, we think two 1000-year simulations >>>>>>>>differing only by a low and a high solar forcing, conducted with both >>>>>>>>CLIMBER models, would be ideal. To do so, we would have to extend the >>>>>>>>solar forcing time series based on Lean (GRL, 2000) and on Wang et >>>>>>>>al. (2005) distributed in previous e-mails back to the year 1000. This >>>>>>>>would require some splicing as was done, for instance, by Crowley. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I'm thinking of some scaling applied to a series of Crowley (say the >>>>>>>>data called Be10/Lean splice in Science, 2000) such that the amplitude >>>>>>>>of the solar variability from the 11-year cycle is conserved after >>>>>>>>~1720. I have to check but it appears that the variation in the TSI >>>>>>>>due to the 11-year cycle contained in the Crowley series agrees >>>>>>>>perfectly with the 11yr-cycle data in the file based on Lean (2000). >>>>>>>>Before starting such an exercise I like to ask you what you think >>>>>>>>about. We would be happy to receive your response quite soon to be >>>>>>>>able to finish the calculations with our slow model in time for the >>>>>>>>IPCC report. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Could you please also comment on the other forcings we should include, >>>>>>>>namely the volcanic forcing and the CO2 forcing. For the present study >>>>>>>>we suggest to use the forcing as in Bauer et al (2000) but omitting >>>>>>>>the land-use. This means, using the volcanic forcing from Crowley, >>>>>>>>2000 and the CO2 forcing based on Etheridge et al 1996 and Keeling and >>>>>>>>Whorf, 1996. (If you wish we can distribute these data series.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Also, thinking beyond the IPCC study, the model results may become >>>>>>>>interesting enough to be discussed in a 3-model comparison study!? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Looking forward to your reply. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Best wishes >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Eva >>>>>>> >>>>>>>-- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Climate and Environmental Physics, >>>>>>> Physics Institute, University of Bern >>>>>>> Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern >>>>>>> Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 >>>>>>> Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>>Last Millennium Simulations for IPCC AR4 WG1 Chap 6 >>>>--------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>>F. Joos, >>>>joos@climate.unibe.ch >>>>18 Januar 2006 >>>> >>>>OVERVIEW >>>>-------- >>>> >>>>A total of 7 simulations is planned. >>>>A control simulation without any forcing >>>> >>>>Two millennium-long simulations with solar >>>>forcing following Bard et al. with a Maunder >>>>Minimum reduction of 0.08 and 0.25 percent in >>>>total irradiance and volcanic and >>>>anthropogenic forcing included >>>>A simulation from 1610 to 1998 with solar >>>>forcing from Wang et al, 2005 and volcanic >>>>and anthropogenic forcing included >>>> >>>>Three simulations from 1765 to 1998 with only >>>>solar and volcanic forcing included, but no >>>>anthropogenic forcings. These are branches >>>>from the above three simulation. >>>> >>>>A range of input data files have been >>>>prepeared. Each contains a header with >>>>additional descriptions of the data. >>>>Solar irradiance has been taken from Bard et >>>>al., Tellus, 1999 and from Wang, Lean, >>>>Shirley, JAp, 2005. >>>> >>>>It is estimated that the Maunder Minimum >>>>irradiance is reduce by 0.08 percent >>>>relative to today and that the present >>>>irradiance is 1366 W/m2 from the Wang et al. >>>>data. >>>> >>>>A case with a Maunder Minimum reduction of >>>>0.08 percent is calculated from the Bard et >>>>al. data by scaling the original Bard series >>>>appropriately. >>>>The original Bard series are offset by 1.3 >>>>W/m2 in irradiance to bring them to a present >>>>irradiance of 1366 W/m2. For this excercise >>>>we will utilize a Maunder >>>>Minimum reduction in irradiance relative to >>>>today of 0.08 percent and of 0.25 percent >>>>(other cases with high MM reduction are >>>>included in the files). >>>> >>>>Irradiance has been converted to radiative forcing: RF= (IRR-1366)/4*0.7 >>>> Volcanic forcing is from Crowley Science, >>>>2000, with albedo factored in (e.g. as for >>>>solar forcing). To avoid a cold start of the >>>>model, the serie is extended to 850 AD by >>>>mirroring the Crowley data from 1001 to 1150 >>>>to the period 850 to 1000. >>>>NonCO2 forcing is following TAR (updated for >>>>an error in tropo O3 in the TAR). >>>>CO2 is a spline through the Etheridge, JGR, >>>>97 data and the Siegenthaler, TEllus, 2005 >>>>data. >>>> >>>> >>>>INPUT FILES DESCRIPTION: >>>>----------------------- >>>> >>>>It is recommended to linearly interpolate between data points. >>>> >>>>A1: Solar irradiance and radiative forcing following Bard from 850 to 2000 >>>>(Tag description) >>>>solBard08 2. col: Maunder Minimum reduction >>>>of 0.08 percent solBard25 3. col: Maunder >>>>Minimu reduction of 0.25 percent >>>> >>>>Note: data from Bard have been linearlz interplated on an annual time step >>>> files: >>>> bard00tel_solar_RF_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>>> bard00tel_solar_irradiance_offset-13_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>>> >>>> >>>>A2: Solar irradiance and radiative forcing >>>>following Wang, Lean, Shirley, 2005 >>>> from 1610 to 2004 annual resolution >>>>Tag: WLS-05 >>>> >>>> files: >>>> wang05jastr_lean_RF_IPCC_chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>>> wang05jastr_lean_irradiance_IPCC_chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>>> >>>>A3: CO2 concentration in ppm from 850 to 2000 >>>> >>>> annual resolution >>>>Tag: CO2 >>>> file: co2_850-2000_splined_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>>> >>>>A4: volcanic forcing after Crowley from 1001 >>>>to 1998 AD, extended by artificial >>>> data from 850 to 1000 AD by mirroring the >>>>forcing from 1000 to 1150 to the period 850 >>>>to 1000 >>>>Tag: volcCrow >>>> >>>> annual resolution >>>> file: crowley00sci_RFvolcanic_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan05.out >>>> >>>>A5: radiative forcing by non-CO2 agents >>>> annual resolution >>>>Tag: nonco2 >>>> >>>> files >>>> rf_nonco2_1yr_1765_2000_individ_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>>> rf_nonco2_1yr_850_2000_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>B) SIMULATIONS >>>>----------------------- >>>> >>>>B1. 2 Long simulations from 850 AD to 1998 >>>> >>>>------- >>>> >>>>Simulation B1.1. tag: bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_850-1998 >>>> >>>>Solar forcing from Bard et al. with MM >>>>reduction of 0.08 percent, volcanic forcing >>>>and forcing from CO2 and other anthropogenic >>>>(non-CO2) agents. >>>> >>>>Start of simulation 850 AD >>>>End of simulation: 1998 AD >>>>initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar) >>>> >>>>Analysis period: 1001 AD to 1998 AD >>>>start-up period: 850 to 1000 with artificial volcanic data >>>> >>>>-------- >>>> >>>>Simulation B1.2 tag: bard25_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_850-1998 >>>> >>>>as B1.1 but with solar forcing from Bard et >>>>al. reduced by 0.25 percent for the Maunder >>>>Minimum. >>>> >>>>Start of simulation 850 AD >>>>End of simulation: 1998 AD >>>>initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar) >>>> >>>>Analysis period: 1001 AD to 1998 AD >>>>start-up period: 850 to 1000 with artificial volcanic data >>>> >>>>-------- >>>> >>>>Simulation B2: A simulation from 1610 to 1998 >>>>restarted from bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 >>>> >>>>With solar forcing from Wang et al., 2005, volcanic forci >>>>ng and forcing from CO2 and other anthropogenic (non-CO2) agents. >>>> >>>>B2 tag: WLS-2005_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_1610-1998 >>>> >>>>Start of simulation: 1610 AD >>>>End of simulation: 1998 AD >>>>initial condition: restart from simulation >>>>B1.1. bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 >>>> at year 1610 >>>> >>>>Analysis period: 1610 AD to 1998 AD >>>> >>>> >>>>------- >>>> >>>>B3: 3 Simulations from 1765 to 1998 with natural forcing only >>>> >>>> non-CO2 radiative forcing is kept to >>>>zero (except for volcanoes and solar) >>>> >>>> CO2 is kept at its 1765 value. >>>> >>>>Simulation B3.1: tag bard08_volcCrow_1765_1998 >>>> >>>>Start of simulation: 1765 AD >>>>End of simulation: 1998 AD >>>>initial condition: restart from simulation >>>>B1.1. bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 >>>> at year 1765 >>>> >>>>Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD >>>> >>>>------- >>>> >>>>Simulation B3.2: tag bard25_volcCrow_1765_1998 >>>> >>>>Start of simulation: 1765 AD >>>>End of simulation: 1998 AD >>>>initial condition: restart from simulation >>>>B1.2. bard25_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 >>>> at year 1765 >>>> >>>>Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD >>>> >>>>----- >>>> >>>>Simulation B3.1: tag WLS-2005_volcCrow_1765_1998 >>>> >>>>Start of simulation: 1765 AD >>>>End of simulation: 1998 AD >>>>initial condition: restart from simulation >>>>B2. WLS-2005_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 >>>> at year 1765 >>>> >>>>Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD >>>> >>>>------- >>>> >>>>Simulation B4: tag ctrl_850-1998 >>>> >>>>Control simulation without any forcing >>>> >>>>Start of simulation 850 AD >>>>End of simulation: 1998 AD >>>>initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar) >>>> >>>>Analysis period: 850 to 1998 >>>> >>>> >>>>OUTPUT >>>>------ >>>> >>>>I guess minimal output is global and NH mean surface temperature. >>> >>>-- >>>Anders Levermann >>>phone: +49-331-288-2560 >>>Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research >>>fax: +49-331-288-2570 >>>Telegraphenberg A26, 14473 Potsdam, Germany >>>anders.levermann@pik-potsdam.de www.pik-potsdam.de/~anders >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>-- >>Jonathan T. Overpeck >>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>Professor, Department of Geosciences >>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >> >>Mail and Fedex Address: >> >>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>University of Arizona >>Tucson, AZ 85721 >>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >> >> >> >> >> > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:modelsE.gif (GIFf/«IC») (00113719) >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:modelsE.pdf (PDF /«IC») (0011371A) >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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 2020. 2006-02-14 ______________________________________________________ cc: rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, Eystein Jansen , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, Keith Briffa date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:56:19 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: Fwd: some figures at last! to: Fortunat Joos Hi all - I commented on the reference period issue in my previous email, and hope we can resolve it today, or tomorrow at the latest? Tim and Keith should help convince Fortunat that their choice is strong. Tim - can you make the other changes suggested by Fortunat? Thanks, peck >Hi, > >I have now found the time to look over the figures. First >congratulations to this effort. Looks great! A tremendous job - I >assume many hours of work. > >I have, however, a few points > >1) The instrumental record - our best piece of information is >missing in panel e. Please add to the EMIC panel. > >2) I am not very enthusiastic to normalize model results with >respect to 1500-1899. The EMIC panel is to illustrate two points - >the difference between low and high solar forcing and with/without >anthropogenic forcing. > >I think panel e (EMIC panel) would be more informative in this >respect if all runs with anthropogenic forcing and the proxies are >normalized as in panel b) (19061-1990) and the runs without anth. >forcing start at the same point as the ones with anth. forcing > >I have no strong opinion on panel d. > >3) Please change Bern2.5c to Bern2.5CC > >Thanks for considering this. > >Best regards, > >Fortunat > >Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>Hi Stefan and Fortunat: Attached are the draft figs that include >>proxy obs, simulations, and comparisons of the two. As you can see, >>Tim just sent them. Big job, but they look great in my eyes. >> >>See Tim's email below for more background info. >> >>We need fast feedback from you both, specifically: >> >>1) any general comments on the figs - this is a crux set of figures >>and we need your eyes to look at them carefully >> >>2) is it wise to keep the new EMIC run panel attached to the second >>figure as attached? I vote yes, but what do you think. It fits w/ >>the other panels pretty well. >> >>3) either way, we need caption prose from you (perhaps Fortunat >>start, and Stefan edit, or vice versa if Stefan can start first) on >>the new EMIC panel. >> >>4) also, we need a new para, or prose that can be added to a para, >>that describes the panel and it's implications as it informs our >>assessment. Keith will then integrate this into the section. I'm >>not sure of this, but perhaps you could start with a new question >>heading, and then have a short para to go under it - something like >>"What is the significance of the new reduced-amplitude estimates of >>past solar variability?" >> >>Of course, we need your feedback and prose asap. Please send to me, >>Eystein, Keith and Tim. >> >>Thanks in advance for the help. Best, peck >> >>>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >>>Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:00:19 +0000 >>>To: Jonathan Overpeck , >>> Eystein Jansen >>>From: Tim Osborn >>>Subject: some figures at last! >>>Cc: Keith Briffa >>>X-UEA-Spam-Score: -102.8 >>>X-UEA-Spam-Level: --------------------------------------------------- >>>X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO >>> >>>Dear Peck and Eystein, >>> >>>the attached word file contains the latest versions of two of our figures. >>> >>>First, is the reconstructions with many requests now done: linear >>>time scale, dotted early instrumental temperatures not solid line, >>>Oerlemans added, new panel showing shading for the overlapping >>>regions of temperature reconstructions. >>> >>>Second, is the forcings and models. Stendel ECHAM simulation >>>added (1500-2000). New ECHO-G Erik2 simulation just published in >>>GRL from Gonzalez-Ruoco et al. added (1000-1990). Reconstruction >>>"envelope" replaced by new shading of overlaps in the temperature >>>reconstructions. Correction of some labelling errors. Those runs >>>that did not include 20th century sulphate aerosol cooling are >>>dotted or dashed after 1900 (the two low ones also omitted CH4, >>>N2O, CFCs, O3, hence still cool despite omitting aerosol cooling). >>>The ECHO-G Erik1 simulation with the very out-of-equilibrium >>>initial conditions is dashed. Finally, the extra panel with the >>>new EMIC runs is included as panel (e), again with the new shading >>>of overlapping temperature reconstructions. >>> >>>Keith suggests sending to Stefan and Fortunat too for their views >>>- can you do that (they may now be gone for the weekend, of >>>course). >>> >>>Best wishes and sorry this is late. Am I right in thinking that >>>the only other possible-TS figure is the location maps? Still >>>working on those (had very little time in last 2 days due to media >>>etc. attention re. Science paper). >>> >>>Cheers >>> >>>Tim >>> >>> >>> >>>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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >>>sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm >> >> >> > >-- > > Climate and Environmental Physics, > Physics Institute, University of Bern > Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern > Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 > Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 4134. 2006-02-14 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Feb 14 10:28:17 2006 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: striking photo on climate change to: "Carlos Peres" Dear Carlos, sorry, but I have not got any photos along the lines you mention. Regards Tim At 18:03 13/02/2006, Carlos Peres wrote: Dear Neil, David, Keith and Tim Our University of Chicago Press book on 'Emerging Threats to Tropical Forests' is coming out in the summer 2006 and we're currently working on the book cover design that will consist of a mosaic of photos. What we're REALLY missing is a photo that captures "climatic change", preferably in a tropical forest system, and I was wondering if you could help. Perhaps you could send me, or point me in the direction of, just one striking photo that shows climate change (e.g. smoke plumes etc) -- all photo credits will be acknowledged. Many thanks, Carlos ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~. Dr Carlos Peres Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Conservation School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom Tel: +44 1603 592549 Fax: +44 1603 591327 E-mail: [1]C.Peres@uea.ac.uk [2]http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/faculty/peresca.htm 4926. 2006-02-14 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:38:13 -0500 from: Gabi Hegerl subject: Re: forgot to: Tim Osborn Hi Tim, Take the criticism as a recognition - I attach my sens paper (last millennium in name changes now to last seven centuries, which is much more accurate). There is tons more to do on this, let me know how its going! Francis has some ideas, and the Bayesians think this could be done better. Keep in touch, this is a fun topic! Gabi Tim Osborn wrote: > Thanks Gabi. You may have noticed that we have been criticised by > certain sectors already! I hear from Keith (strictly under IPCC > business) that you have some success too with a paper using proxy > reconstructions to put constraints on climate sensitivity. Sounds > very interesting. We have a project that I will start on in May to > try to do just this! You've obviously beaten us to it and I can spend > the next year twiddling my thumbs ;-) > > Cheers > > Tim > > At 16:38 10/02/2006, you wrote: > >> congratulatons on the paper! >> >> Gabi >> >> -- >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School >> for the Environment and Earth Sciences, >> Box 90227 >> Duke University, Durham NC 27708 >> Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 >> email: hegerl@duke.edu, http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html >> > > 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ > sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, Box 90227 Duke University, Durham NC 27708 Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 email: hegerl@duke.edu, http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\hegerletal_sensitivity1.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\hegerletal_sensitivity_SI1.pdf" 4942. 2006-02-14 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:58:18 +0000 from: Martin Juckes subject: Re: Draft conclusions for report to Netherlands Environment to: Keith Briffa Kieth, thanks for those comments, I'll adjust the text. On the Medieval Warm Period: I was thinking of a statement in Jones et al. (1998), but what they actually said was that "their is little evidence for the Medieval Warm Period" -- so I suppose we should say that since then a bit more evidence for a modest warm anomaly has emerged. cheers, Martin On Monday 13 Feb 2006 16:03, you wrote: > Martin > been through this and please see my comments in square brackets. > > Really am trying to get to the other stuff. > Keith > At 16:32 09/02/2006, you wrote: > > >Hello, > > > >I need to send in a draft report to RIVM soon. The summary should lay out > >what we believe to be the state of knowledge on temperatures in the > >last millenium. > > > >I would be grateful for feedback on the text below. > > > >regards, > >Martin > > > > > >Summary > > > >IPCC (2001) concluded that ``The 1990s are likely to have been the > >warmest decade of the millennium in > >the Northern Hemisphere, and 1998 is likely to have been the warmest > >year," where ``likely'' implies a greater than 66\% probability > >[this implied a confidence level of between 66 and 95%] > >(this conclusion will be referred to below as ``C1''). > >The Northern Hemisphere temperatures are believed to have shown a > >gradual cooling trend from the start of the millenium until the > >mid 19th century, and a warming trend since then. Substantial > >interannual, decadal and centennial scale variability was superimposed > >on these trends. > > [In the Tar the focus was on Mannet al 1998,1999 and they did not > show what I would call "substantial centennial" variability] > > > The warming trend contains a signifcant natural component, > >but an anthropogenic contribution was clearly detectable towards the > >end of the 20th century. > > > >This conclusion was based on a wide range of results, > >including that of Mann et al., (1999). > >Since publication of the IPCC (2001) report there has been much criticism of > >the techniques used to estimate temperatures, particularly those > >used by Mann et al. > >The criticism of the latter work has drwan [drawn] attention to incomplete > >documentation of the wide range of data sources used and to incomplete > >description of some aspects of the analysis algorithm. > > [The situation has not been helped by the dis-information spread by > certain sceptics , however, that in my opinion act deliberately to > confuse the issue] > > >The debate has attracted much public interest and generated > >considerable confusion. > > > >(C1) is sometimes paraphrased as ``there was no hemispheric wide > >Medieval Warm Period'', but this > >terminology leads to confusion: there is no agreed definition of > >what would constitute > >a `` Medieval Warm Period''. > > [Actually Martin I do not believe anyone says or believes that there > was NO medieval warm period - merely that it > is time transgressive , spatially poorly documented and , as you > imply, not precisely defined or quantified. There > was a period of relative warmth , but the question is how warm and > when (actually that is two questions!). ] > > > >A second conclusion of the IPCC report, which is related to but > >distinct from (C1), is > >that current temperature trends have a signifcant anthropogenic > >component (referred to as ``C2'' below). > > > >Conclusion (C2) is based mainly on GCM simulations and is not > >directly addressed in this > >study. Conclusion (C1) is based mainly on > >the interpretation of proxy climate records: this is the specific > >issue addressed here. Reconstructions of past climates are also used > >to evaluate > >GCM simulations of those climates and hence to evaluate the GCMs: > >this provides some > >indirect input into conclusion (C2). > > > >The following concpetual [conceptual] model can help us > >to understand how studies of the past millenium can contribute to > >discussion of future climate change: > > > > Temperature anomaly- = [ ( climate sensitivity-) times ( sum of forcings-) ] > > plus ( natural variability-) > > > >This is a drastic simplification: the different ``forcings'' (solar > >variability, > >volcanic and other natural changes to atmospheric composition, > >anthropogenic changes > >to atmospheric composition) can not be wholly characterised by a > >single number: > >their influcence on the climate system is extremely complex and the response > >of the climate is neither instantaneous nor uniform. Nevertheless, > >scientists have found > >this simple conceptual model to be a useful basis for discussion. > > > >By testing the models > >against observed climate variability it can be dtermiend > >[determined] whether they > >have a climate sensitivity which is realistic. The problem is that > >the period of reliable, > >global measurements is too short to carry out this exercise comprehensively. > > [this begs the fascinating question of constitutes "realistic" > climate sensitivity - given the problems > in defining the concept to account for transience on different > timescales - but your summary is good] > > >In the last 5 years a number of studies using different techniques > >and different, > >though overlapping [suggest say something like "using some common > >input data" rather than use the word "overlapping"], data > >collections have re-inforced (C1), though they > >disagree, both with Mann et al. and among themselves, on other issues. In > >particular, there is a relatively wide range of estimates as to the magnitude > >of the cold anomaly in the 18th century (during the ``Little Ice Age''). > > > > >[larger difference related to the cold of the 13th and 14th centuries] > > > > >It is clear that regional temperature anomalies can be much larger than > >those on the hemispheric scale. IPCC (2001) did not suggest that > >current temperattures are above the extremes experienced by > >any region in the past thousand years. Recent modelling work has > >led to greater understanding of climate variability on different > >scales. A lot of discussion in the popular and electronic media, > >and also, to a limited extent, in the peer reviewed literature, > >neglects this crucial distinction between what is happening on the global > >and regional scales. [agree wholeheartedly] > > > >Data centres have improved the transparency with which data is [are] > >available and the > >quality of the information accompanying the data, recording its provenance has > >also improved. > > > >The use of a wide range of different data sources and different > >analysis techniques > >makes evaluation of the differences among published results difficult. > >Within this project we have subjected data collections from a variety of > >authors to several analysis techniques. > >It is found that the range of different results is still spanned by the > >results when a single analysis technique is used. > >This suggests that a priority for further work to reduce the uncertainty > >will be to improve understanding of the data. > > > > > -- > 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/ > > > 5339. 2006-02-14 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 08:28:03 +0100 from: Pål Svensson subject: RE: SUMMER TEMPERATURE VARIABILITY IN CENTRAL SCANDINAVIA DURING to: "Keith Briffa" Hi back Thanks for taking time to answer. My feeling is that the greatest contributor to worldwide temperature changes is the variation in solar influx on earth. You have both long and short timed circles. I am sure that you have taken all that into account, but I found this article today showing that not everybody does. http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/213/1 Best Paal -----Original Message----- From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 10 February 2006 14:57 To: Pål Svensson Subject: Re: SUMMER TEMPERATURE VARIABILITY IN CENTRAL SCANDINAVIA DURING THE LAST 3600 YEARS Hi Paal the quick answer is that we do wish to longer timescales - but this analysis tried to capture the spatial extent of warming over the whole Hemisphere - so we have to compromise between as wide a coverage as possible but going back as far as possible. Hence we settled on a compromise between coverage and length. Other analyses based on much fewer series do however indicate that these findings are probably still relevant for a longer period, though at present not based on sufficient coverage to justify publication. Cheers Keith At 13:24 10/02/2006, you wrote: >Hi Keith > >The article below was published today in a >norwegian newspaper saying that todays global >warming is the worst in the last 1200 years. > >My question is why just the last 1200 years? Why >don't you take the last 3.600 years? > >Best regards > >Paal Svensson > >Global oppvarming verre enn på 1.200 år >NTB <mailto:dn.no@dn.no> >Været er varmere over hele verden i dag enn i noen annen periode på 1.200 år. >Det heter det i en artikkel i tidsskriftet Science. >Studien har undersøkt endringer i årringer, >fossiler og iskjerner fra 14 steder på den >nordlige halvkule for å fastslå hvordan >temperaturendringene har artet seg siden året 800. > >Uvanlig høye temperaturer >Forskerne kom frem til at det 20. århundre >utmerket seg med uvanlig høye temperaturer. Den >nåværende varme perioden som ble innledet mot >slutten av det 20. århundret, er den lengste og >mest utbredte perioden med unormale temperaturer >siden det 9. århundret, skriver Timothy Osborn >og Keith Briffa ved East Anglia-universitetet i artikkelen. > >For å undersøke om varmeperioden er i >overensstemmelse med naturlige >temperatursvingninger, sammenlignet de den med >andre perioder i de siste 1.200 årene. > >Årringer >For å fastlegge klimasvingningene så forskerne >på årringene til gran- og furutrær i >Skandinavia, Sibir og Nord-Amerika, der brede >årringer indikerer varme år, og de undersøkte >kjerner som er boret ut av innlandsisen på >Grønland som viser hvilke år som er varmere enn andre. > >De benyttet seg også av kilder som dagbøker og >andre nedskrevne øyenvitneskildringer fra >middelalderen om uvanlige fenomener som >gjenfrosne kanaler i Belgia og Nederland. > >SUMMER TEMPERATURE VARIABILITY IN CENTRAL >SCANDINAVIA DURING THE LAST 3600 YEARS >HANS W. LINDERHOLM1, > >AND BJÖRN E. GUNNARSON > >ABSTRACT. A Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) >tree-ring width chronology from Jämtland, in the >central Scandinavian Mountains, built from >living and sub-fossil wood, covering the period >1632 BC to AD 2002, with a minor gap during AD >887-907, is presented. This is the first >multi-millennial tree-ring chronology from the >central parts of Fennoscandia. Pine growth in >this tree line environment is mainly limited by >summer temperatures, and hence the record can be >viewed as a temperature proxy. Using the >regional curve standardization (RCS) technique, >pine-growth variability on short and long time >scales was retained and subsequently summer >(June-August) temperatures were reconstructed >yielding information on temperature variability >during the last 3600 years. Several periods with >anomalously warm or cold summers were found: >450-550 BC (warm), AD 300-400 (cold), AD >900-1000 (the Medieval Warm Period, warm) and AD >1550-1900 (Little Ice Age, cold). The coldest >period was encountered in the fourth century AD >and the warmest period 450 to 550 BC. However, >the magnitude of these anomalies is uncertain >since the replication of trees in the Jämtland >record is low during those periods. The >twentieth century warming does not stand out as >an anomalous feature in the last 3600 years. Two >multi-millennial tree-ring chronologies from >Swedish and Finnish Lapland, which have >previously been used as summer temperature >proxies, agree well with the Jämtland record, >indicating that the latter is a good proxy of >local, but also regional, summer temperature variability. -- 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/ 5345. 2006-02-14 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:06:27 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Nice job! to: Lisa Graumlich , Dear Lisa, I'm glad that you enjoyed our paper. Apparently the feeling is not universal (we've had fairly tough criticism already)! Still, at least our paper is simple enough that most people should be able to evaluate which criticisms are justified and which are not, without needing a PhD in statistics. Best regards Tim At 19:53 10/02/2006, Lisa Graumlich wrote: >Dear Tim and Keith, > >It was fun to read your paper this morning. I appreciate your >careful analysis and really great graphics. Thank you for your >contributions in a time when solid science is needed and often maligned. > >Best wishes, Lisa > >-- >Lisa J. Graumlich >Executive Director, Big Sky Institute for Science and Natural History >Professor, Land Resources and Environmental Sciences >Montana State University >106 AJM Johnson Hall >Bozeman MT 59717 USA >406/994-5320 >406/994-5122 (fax) >www.bsi.montana.edu 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 775. 2006-02-15 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Feb 15 15:49:58 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Science paper to: Henry Pollack thanks Henry - sorry also about the ridiculous way the Paleo chapter is being rushed. I have found loads of errors /typos that crept in , and am working to fix - actually forgot about a lecture I was due to give this morning , and will be castigated by the students. Keith At 14:51 15/02/2006, you wrote: Hi Tim and Keith, Congratulations on your recent paper appearing in Science on 10 February 2006. I was one of the reviewers (see attached), and appreciated your approach to quantifying the spatial extent of climatic excursions. Cheers, Henry ___ ___ Henry N. Pollack [ \ / ] Professor of Geophysics | \/ | Department of Geological Sciences |MICHIGAN| University of Michigan [___]\/[___] Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1005, U.S.A. Phone: 734-763-0084 FAX: 734-763-4690 e-mail: hpollack@umich.edu URL: [1]www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~hpollack/ URL: www-personal.umich.edu/~hpollack/book.html -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 1274. 2006-02-15 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:36:51 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: three figures and captions to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Excellent, thanks. You want to send to the EMIC crew for comment, or should I do it? Might be best for you to go direct (cc to me and Eystein). Will forward to TSU now. thanks again, peck >Hi Peck, Eystein and Keith, > >finally... the other captions. Attached word file contains all three >figures and their captions as they currently stand. The first is the same >as what I sent a couple of hours ago. Note: > >(1) map of proxies should have the same caveat attached as before, that it >is not yet complete - it has Briffa et al. (2001), boreholes from Huang >and Pollack, Esper et al. (2002) and only a few from Mann et al. (1998) >which do not yet correctly disappear in the earlier periods. But I have >updated it to use different symbols, colours and sizes for the proxy >types. > >(2) for the forcings/models/reconstructions figure, I have again gone down >the tables route to try to keep the caption short. The tables could again >be referred to in the text if useful for that too. > >Cheers > >Tim > >Attachment converted: Macintosh >HD:ch6.6_sod_figures_ver03.doc (WDBN/«IC») >(00113E94) -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 1508. 2006-02-15 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tim Osborn , Jonathan Overpeck , Stefan Rahmstorf , Anders Levermann , Eva Bauer , Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa , oyvind.paasche@bjerknes.uib.no date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 11:53:55 +0100 from: Fortunat Joos subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Millennium Simulations to: plattner@climate.unibe.ch Hi everybody, Sorry for coming back on the issue of normalisation. We have just discussed this again. a) We expect the following comments in the next review: Panel b and c are normalized to 1960-1990. Why are the model panels d and e not normalised in the same way. Is this to 'cheat' and to make the model results look better? b) Another argument of normalising to the instrumental period is that we have good data, whereas preindustrial data are uncertain. c) It is hard for us to discern the impact of the high vs low solar forcing in the present panel e as the simulations have an offset both on the start and at their end. d) Similarly, we think that the simulations with/without anthropogenic forcing would be separated in a much clearer way by normalising to the instrumental record. Perhaps, we miss your point of view here? Would you mind to explain. As far as the colors are concerned, we would suggest to use similar colors for identical forced simulations. Tim's idea to relable the 'WLS' curve sound good. How about 'Bard08-WLS' With best regards, Fortunat and Kasper Gian-Kasper Plattner wrote: > Dear all, > > I have one comment with regard to the EMIC figure produced by Tim. Right > now, the colors chosen do not hold additional information for the reader > on which model or which forcing has been applied. For example, the > WLS-forced run for Bern2.5CC is given in red, while the CLIMBER-3a is in > blue; for the Bard2.5 run Bern2.5CC is in light-blue, while CLIMBER-3a > is in purple... I think that by grouping either the colors for the > individual models or for the individual forcing timeseries the figure > could become much more comprehensible. What about using e.g. dark red - > orange, dark blue - light blue, dark green - light green pairs to make > things easier to read? > > In addition, the model names in the legend need to be updated (Bern2.5c > --> Bern2.5CC, Climbr3a --> Climber3a). > > With best regards, > > Kasper > > > > > Fortunat Joos wrote: > >> O.k. EMIC caption noted. Can go with the 1500-1899 ref period. >> >> Stefan, Anders, and Eva can you provide me the appropriate references >> for your models and the official names. >> >> Regards, Fortunat >> >> Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >> >>> Hi Tim and Fortunat: This looks nice (thanks) and my slight bias is >>> that we should include the Climber3a results. What do you think, >>> Fortunat? I think Stefan likes it based on his email. >>> >>> Regarding the reference period, I would side w/ Tim and Keith on >>> using 1500-1899. We need to use the same ref period for everything on >>> these two figs (obs and forcing/simulations), and I think the EMIC >>> panel still convey's the main message. Keith/Tim/Fortunat - we have >>> to resolve this FAST, so please weigh in more on this issue. Thanks. >>> >>> Regarding captions, yes, you should do all but the EMICS, and you >>> should make sure you send to Stefan so he can help make sure it makes >>> sense (e.g., the red/grey shading). We have asked Fortunat to do the >>> EMIC caption. Can you do this Fortunat? Thanks. >>> >>> Best, Peck >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> please see the attached diagram (both the same, PDF or GIF) with all >>>> three EMICs on now. Climber3a seems to lie between Climber2 and >>>> Bern2.5CC mostly. Does it add to the message of the figure to use >>>> all three? If so, please use this version from now on, for drafting >>>> captions etc. >>>> >>>> Nobody said much about the previous version, so hopefully this >>>> indicates general agreement! I didn't show the "Bard08" runs, >>>> because they were so close to the runs I have labelled "WLS", but of >>>> course in those runs the pre-1610 solar forcing is Bard08 - so maybe >>>> the labels should be altered to somehow indicate them, or this could >>>> just be stated in the caption. >>>> >>>> Am I right that Keith and I need to provide an updated caption for >>>> panels (a)-(d), but that someone else will write a caption for the >>>> EMIC panel (e)? >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> At 19:20 13/02/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Anders and Tim - It could be too late, but this is up to Tim. >>>>> Can you get these data onto the new EMIC panel? I think it'd be >>>>> worth it, but only if you and Keith can get everything else done >>>>> first. Best make sure you have all the data needed, just in case. >>>>> >>>>> thanks Anders too. >>>>> >>>>> best, peck >>>>> >>>>>> X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >>>>>> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:20:14 +0100 >>>>>> From: Anders Levermann >>>>>> Organization: PIK >>>>>> X-Accept-Language: en-us, en >>>>>> To: Fortunat Joos >>>>>> Cc: Jonathan Overpeck , >>>>>> Stefan Rahmstorf , >>>>>> Anders Levermann , >>>>>> Eva Bauer , >>>>>> plattner@climate.unibe.ch, >>>>>> Eystein Jansen , >>>>>> Keith Briffa >>>>>> Subject: Re: Millennium Simulations >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> here is the data from the Climber-3alpha simulations. I know they >>>>>> are too late, but >>>>>> perhaps there is still a way to include them. The structure of the >>>>>> files is the >>>>>> same as Eva's. The file names correspond to the ones you gave in >>>>>> the simulation >>>>>> protocol. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Anders >>>>>> >>>>>> Fortunat Joos wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please find attached an update of the simulation protocol and >>>>>>> input data description. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kasper Plattner pointed out that I forgot the obvious. We need of >>>>>>> course a control run to correct for potential model drift. The >>>>>>> readme file has been modified accordingly adding a brief >>>>>>> description on how the control should be done. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am looking forward to any additional comments. Hope everything >>>>>>> is clear. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kasper is currently working to perform the simulation with the >>>>>>> Bern2.5CC. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, Fortunat >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fortunat Joos wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have now compiled the input data set and written a protocol >>>>>>>> how to perform the runs. It seems to me that it would make sense >>>>>>>> if we perform the simulations first with the Bern Model and with >>>>>>>> the Climber 2 model. We can then still decide if we need Climber 3. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please let me know if there are any questions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I could also provide files where the radiative forcing of solar, >>>>>>>> volcanoes and non-CO2-anthropogenic has been added together. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> With best wishes, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fortunat >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear Eva and Fortunat - thanks for working on getting things >>>>>>>>> moving. It seems that the detailed forcing recommendations laid >>>>>>>>> out below by Fortunat build nicely on what Eva first suggested, >>>>>>>>> and that going with the forcing series suggested below by >>>>>>>>> Foortunat (and the 6 simulations) is going to be just right for >>>>>>>>> the IPCC AR4 Chap 6 needs. Does everyone agree? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks Fortunat for preparing/sharing the standard forcing series. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, peck >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dear Eva, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We are working on the forcing series and they should be ready >>>>>>>>>> by the end of the week. Stefan assured us that you can run >>>>>>>>>> this within a few hours. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What we are preparing are the following series of radiative >>>>>>>>>> forcing in W/m2: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> a) RF from atmospheric constituents (well-mixed GHGs (CO2, >>>>>>>>>> CH4, N2O, many Halocarbons) tropo and strato Ozone, various >>>>>>>>>> anthropogenic aerosols) as used in the Bern CC TAR version and >>>>>>>>>> the TAR (see Joos et al., GBC, 2001; pdf is on my homepage and >>>>>>>>>> TAR appendix). >>>>>>>>>> b) volcanic from Crowley, Sci, 2000 >>>>>>>>>> c) solar based on Lean and Bard et al. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For the solar we will prepare 3 combinations: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> c1) original serie from Lean (2005) provided to you already >>>>>>>>>> c2) Bard et al., Be-10 record linearly scaled to match the >>>>>>>>>> Maunder Minimum Average of Lean-AR4 >>>>>>>>>> c3) Bard et al., Be-10 scaled to a MM reduction of 0.25 >>>>>>>>>> permil, i.e. the low case in the Bard et, Tellus, publication >>>>>>>>>> corresponding to the Lean et al, 1995 scaling >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For the RF by atmospheric components two cases are foreseen: >>>>>>>>>> a1) standard case with reconstructed evolution over past 1150 >>>>>>>>>> years >>>>>>>>>> a2) RF kept at 1765 value after 1765, i.e. a simulation with >>>>>>>>>> natural forcings only. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This will yield in total 6 simulations 3 over the full length >>>>>>>>>> from 850 AD to 2000 and 3 brach-off simulatons from 1765 with >>>>>>>>>> natural only forcing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> An important point in IPCC is that things are published, >>>>>>>>>> consistent among chapters, and it helps if approaches are >>>>>>>>>> tracable to earlier accepted and approved IPCC work. The >>>>>>>>>> arguments for these series are as follows: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> a) Considering as many components relevant for RF as possible >>>>>>>>>> (more than just CO2). The series are fully compatible with TAR >>>>>>>>>> and that the setup is tracable to the TAR for the industrial >>>>>>>>>> era increase. The same series will be used in the projection >>>>>>>>>> chapter 10 for the SRES calculation >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> b) volcanic: a widely cited record >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> c) solar: c1) and c3) are published series; c2 follows the >>>>>>>>>> same approach and spirit as used to derive c3, i.e. scaling >>>>>>>>>> the Be-10 serie linearly with a given Maunder Minimum >>>>>>>>>> reduction. The impact of the 11-yr solar cycle can be looked >>>>>>>>>> at in the original Lean-AR4 serie. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I hope this help. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> With kind regards, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fortunat >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Eva Bauer wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Dear Jonathan, dear Fortunat: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Happy New Year! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Stefan, Anders and me just have discussed how to set up our >>>>>>>>>>> CLIMBER2/3alpha runs, to produce something useful for the >>>>>>>>>>> IPCC WGI >>>>>>>>>>> chapter 6. This chapter appears to touch the impact on the NH >>>>>>>>>>> temperature related to low and high solar forcing. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For a reasonable comparison, we think two 1000-year simulations >>>>>>>>>>> differing only by a low and a high solar forcing, conducted >>>>>>>>>>> with both >>>>>>>>>>> CLIMBER models, would be ideal. To do so, we would have to >>>>>>>>>>> extend the >>>>>>>>>>> solar forcing time series based on Lean (GRL, 2000) and on >>>>>>>>>>> Wang et >>>>>>>>>>> al. (2005) distributed in previous e-mails back to the year >>>>>>>>>>> 1000. This >>>>>>>>>>> would require some splicing as was done, for instance, by >>>>>>>>>>> Crowley. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm thinking of some scaling applied to a series of Crowley >>>>>>>>>>> (say the >>>>>>>>>>> data called Be10/Lean splice in Science, 2000) such that the >>>>>>>>>>> amplitude >>>>>>>>>>> of the solar variability from the 11-year cycle is conserved >>>>>>>>>>> after >>>>>>>>>>> ~1720. I have to check but it appears that the variation in >>>>>>>>>>> the TSI >>>>>>>>>>> due to the 11-year cycle contained in the Crowley series agrees >>>>>>>>>>> perfectly with the 11yr-cycle data in the file based on Lean >>>>>>>>>>> (2000). >>>>>>>>>>> Before starting such an exercise I like to ask you what you >>>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>>> about. We would be happy to receive your response quite soon >>>>>>>>>>> to be >>>>>>>>>>> able to finish the calculations with our slow model in time >>>>>>>>>>> for the >>>>>>>>>>> IPCC report. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Could you please also comment on the other forcings we should >>>>>>>>>>> include, >>>>>>>>>>> namely the volcanic forcing and the CO2 forcing. For the >>>>>>>>>>> present study >>>>>>>>>>> we suggest to use the forcing as in Bauer et al (2000) but >>>>>>>>>>> omitting >>>>>>>>>>> the land-use. This means, using the volcanic forcing from >>>>>>>>>>> Crowley, >>>>>>>>>>> 2000 and the CO2 forcing based on Etheridge et al 1996 and >>>>>>>>>>> Keeling and >>>>>>>>>>> Whorf, 1996. (If you wish we can distribute these data series.) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Also, thinking beyond the IPCC study, the model results may >>>>>>>>>>> become >>>>>>>>>>> interesting enough to be discussed in a 3-model comparison >>>>>>>>>>> study!? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your reply. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best wishes >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Eva >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Climate and Environmental Physics, >>>>>>>>>> Physics Institute, University of Bern >>>>>>>>>> Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern >>>>>>>>>> Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 >>>>>>>>>> 87 42 >>>>>>>>>> Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Last Millennium Simulations for IPCC AR4 WG1 Chap 6 >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> F. Joos, >>>>>>> joos@climate.unibe.ch >>>>>>> 18 Januar 2006 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OVERVIEW >>>>>>> -------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A total of 7 simulations is planned. >>>>>>> A control simulation without any forcing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Two millennium-long simulations with solar forcing following Bard >>>>>>> et al. with a Maunder Minimum reduction of 0.08 and 0.25 percent >>>>>>> in total irradiance and volcanic and anthropogenic forcing included >>>>>>> A simulation from 1610 to 1998 with solar forcing from Wang et >>>>>>> al, 2005 and volcanic and anthropogenic forcing included >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Three simulations from 1765 to 1998 with only solar and volcanic >>>>>>> forcing included, but no anthropogenic forcings. These are >>>>>>> branches from the above three simulation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A range of input data files have been prepeared. Each contains a >>>>>>> header with additional descriptions of the data. >>>>>>> Solar irradiance has been taken from Bard et al., Tellus, 1999 >>>>>>> and from Wang, Lean, Shirley, JAp, 2005. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is estimated that the Maunder Minimum irradiance is reduce by >>>>>>> 0.08 percent >>>>>>> relative to today and that the present irradiance is 1366 W/m2 >>>>>>> from the Wang et al. data. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A case with a Maunder Minimum reduction of 0.08 percent is >>>>>>> calculated from the Bard et al. data by scaling the original Bard >>>>>>> series appropriately. >>>>>>> The original Bard series are offset by 1.3 W/m2 in irradiance to >>>>>>> bring them to a present irradiance of 1366 W/m2. For this >>>>>>> excercise we will utilize a Maunder >>>>>>> Minimum reduction in irradiance relative to today of 0.08 percent >>>>>>> and of 0.25 percent (other cases with high MM reduction are >>>>>>> included in the files). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Irradiance has been converted to radiative forcing: RF= >>>>>>> (IRR-1366)/4*0.7 >>>>>>> Volcanic forcing is from Crowley Science, 2000, with albedo >>>>>>> factored in (e.g. as for solar forcing). To avoid a cold start of >>>>>>> the model, the serie is extended to 850 AD by mirroring the >>>>>>> Crowley data from 1001 to 1150 to the period 850 to 1000. >>>>>>> NonCO2 forcing is following TAR (updated for an error in tropo O3 >>>>>>> in the TAR). >>>>>>> CO2 is a spline through the Etheridge, JGR, 97 data and the >>>>>>> Siegenthaler, TEllus, 2005 data. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> INPUT FILES DESCRIPTION: >>>>>>> ----------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is recommended to linearly interpolate between data points. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A1: Solar irradiance and radiative forcing following Bard from >>>>>>> 850 to 2000 >>>>>>> (Tag description) >>>>>>> solBard08 2. col: Maunder Minimum reduction of 0.08 percent >>>>>>> solBard25 3. col: Maunder Minimu reduction of 0.25 percent >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note: data from Bard have been linearlz interplated on an annual >>>>>>> time step >>>>>>> files: >>>>>>> bard00tel_solar_RF_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>>>>>> bard00tel_solar_irradiance_offset-13_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A2: Solar irradiance and radiative forcing following Wang, Lean, >>>>>>> Shirley, 2005 >>>>>>> from 1610 to 2004 annual resolution >>>>>>> Tag: WLS-05 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> files: >>>>>>> wang05jastr_lean_RF_IPCC_chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>>>>>> wang05jastr_lean_irradiance_IPCC_chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A3: CO2 concentration in ppm from 850 to 2000 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> annual resolution >>>>>>> Tag: CO2 >>>>>>> file: co2_850-2000_splined_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A4: volcanic forcing after Crowley from 1001 to 1998 AD, extended >>>>>>> by artificial >>>>>>> data from 850 to 1000 AD by mirroring the forcing from 1000 to >>>>>>> 1150 to the period 850 to 1000 >>>>>>> Tag: volcCrow >>>>>>> >>>>>>> annual resolution >>>>>>> file: crowley00sci_RFvolcanic_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan05.out >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A5: radiative forcing by non-CO2 agents >>>>>>> annual resolution >>>>>>> Tag: nonco2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> files >>>>>>> rf_nonco2_1yr_1765_2000_individ_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>>>>>> rf_nonco2_1yr_850_2000_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> B) SIMULATIONS >>>>>>> ----------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> B1. 2 Long simulations from 850 AD to 1998 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Simulation B1.1. tag: bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_850-1998 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Solar forcing from Bard et al. with MM reduction of 0.08 percent, >>>>>>> volcanic forcing and forcing from CO2 and other anthropogenic >>>>>>> (non-CO2) agents. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Start of simulation 850 AD >>>>>>> End of simulation: 1998 AD >>>>>>> initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Analysis period: 1001 AD to 1998 AD >>>>>>> start-up period: 850 to 1000 with artificial volcanic data >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Simulation B1.2 tag: bard25_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_850-1998 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> as B1.1 but with solar forcing from Bard et al. reduced by 0.25 >>>>>>> percent for the Maunder Minimum. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Start of simulation 850 AD >>>>>>> End of simulation: 1998 AD >>>>>>> initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Analysis period: 1001 AD to 1998 AD >>>>>>> start-up period: 850 to 1000 with artificial volcanic data >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Simulation B2: A simulation from 1610 to 1998 restarted from >>>>>>> bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With solar forcing from Wang et al., 2005, volcanic forci >>>>>>> ng and forcing from CO2 and other anthropogenic (non-CO2) agents. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> B2 tag: WLS-2005_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_1610-1998 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Start of simulation: 1610 AD >>>>>>> End of simulation: 1998 AD >>>>>>> initial condition: restart from simulation B1.1. >>>>>>> bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 >>>>>>> at year 1610 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Analysis period: 1610 AD to 1998 AD >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> B3: 3 Simulations from 1765 to 1998 with natural forcing only >>>>>>> >>>>>>> non-CO2 radiative forcing is kept to zero >>>>>>> (except for volcanoes and solar) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> CO2 is kept at its 1765 value. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Simulation B3.1: tag bard08_volcCrow_1765_1998 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Start of simulation: 1765 AD >>>>>>> End of simulation: 1998 AD >>>>>>> initial condition: restart from simulation B1.1. >>>>>>> bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 >>>>>>> at year 1765 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Simulation B3.2: tag bard25_volcCrow_1765_1998 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Start of simulation: 1765 AD >>>>>>> End of simulation: 1998 AD >>>>>>> initial condition: restart from simulation B1.2. >>>>>>> bard25_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 >>>>>>> at year 1765 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Simulation B3.1: tag WLS-2005_volcCrow_1765_1998 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Start of simulation: 1765 AD >>>>>>> End of simulation: 1998 AD >>>>>>> initial condition: restart from simulation B2. >>>>>>> WLS-2005_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 >>>>>>> at year 1765 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Simulation B4: tag ctrl_850-1998 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Control simulation without any forcing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Start of simulation 850 AD >>>>>>> End of simulation: 1998 AD >>>>>>> initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Analysis period: 850 to 1998 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OUTPUT >>>>>>> ------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I guess minimal output is global and NH mean surface temperature. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Anders Levermann >>>>>> phone: +49-331-288-2560 Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research >>>>>> fax: +49-331-288-2570 Telegraphenberg A26, 14473 Potsdam, Germany >>>>>> anders.levermann@pik-potsdam.de www.pik-potsdam.de/~anders >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Jonathan T. Overpeck >>>>> Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>>> Professor, Department of Geosciences >>>>> Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >>>>> >>>>> Mail and Fedex Address: >>>>> >>>>> Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>>> 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>>>> University of Arizona >>>>> Tucson, AZ 85721 >>>>> direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>>>> fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>>>> http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>>>> http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:modelsE.gif (GIFf/«IC») (00113719) >>>> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:modelsE.pdf (PDF /«IC») (0011371A) >>>> 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >>>> sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > -- Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ 1896. 2006-02-15 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:21:30 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: three figures and captions] to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Tim - Thanks. MWP fig/caption? As you can see, I've been working on Keith to upgrade the MWP findings (and much stronger case provided by your recent Science paper) to the exec summary bullets. Perhaps if we can get a figure we can all examine, it'll help decide if the data do indeed make it suspect that MWP warmth was as broadly synchronous as the 2nd half of the 20th century. I think you made that case already, but we want to be as clear with all the evidence as we can in the exec summary. Anyhow, thanks much for all the good stuff today. Really helps. best, peck >Dear all, > >please see message below and attachment that I sent to the CLAs earlier. >You might want to also comment, especially with regards to the EMIC panel >caption, but also comment on other panels/captions if you wish. I changed >the EMIC labels as requested and also the colours to group similar colours >for the two different solar forcings. All and Nat are still distinguished >by thick and thin lines. > >Best wishes > >Tim > >---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- >Subject: Re: three figures and captions >From: "Tim Osborn" >Date: Wed, February 15, 2006 9:59 pm >To: "Jonathan Overpeck" > "Keith Briffa" > "Eystein Jansen" >Cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Hi Peck, Eystein and Keith, > >finally... the other captions. Attached word file contains all three >figures and their captions as they currently stand. The first is the same >as what I sent a couple of hours ago. Note: > >(1) map of proxies should have the same caveat attached as before, that it >is not yet complete - it has Briffa et al. (2001), boreholes from Huang >and Pollack, Esper et al. (2002) and only a few from Mann et al. (1998) >which do not yet correctly disappear in the earlier periods. But I have >updated it to use different symbols, colours and sizes for the proxy >types. > >(2) for the forcings/models/reconstructions figure, I have again gone down >the tables route to try to keep the caption short. The tables could again >be referred to in the text if useful for that too. > >Cheers > >Tim > > > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh >HD:ch6.6_sod_figures_ver03 1.doc (WDBN/«IC») >(00113F0D) -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 1922. 2006-02-15 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 11:57:07 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Bullet debate number 2 to: Keith Briffa Hi again - as for bullet issue number 2, I agree that we don't need to go with the suggest stuff on solar/forcing, BUT, I agree w/ Susan that we should try to put more in the bullet about "Subsequent evidence" Would you pls send a new bullet that has your suggested changes below, and that includes something like: "Subsequent evidence, including x, y and z, reinforces this conclusion." Need to convince readers that there really has been an increase in knowledge - more evidence. What is it? The bullet can be longer if needed. Thanks, Peck Second Simply make "1000" "1300 years. " and delete "and unusually warm compared with the last 2000 years." It is certainly NOT our job to be discussing attribution in the 20th century - this is Chapter 9 - and we had no room (or any published material) to allow a discussion of relative forcing contributions in earlier time. Therefore a vague statement about "perhaps due to solar forcing" seems unjustified. Third I suggest this should be Taken together , the sparse evidence of Southern Hemisphere temperatures prior to the period of instrumental records indicates that overall warming has occurred during the last 350 years, but the even fewer longer regional records indicate earlier periods that are as warm, or warmer than, 20th century means. Fourth fine , though perhaps "warmth" instead of "warming"? and need to see EMIC text Fifth suggest delete Sixth suggest delete Peck, you have to consider that since the TAR , there has been a lot of argument re "hockey stick" and the real independence of the inputs to most subsequent analyses is minimal. True, there have been many different techniques used to aggregate and scale data - but the efficacy of these is still far from established. We should be careful not to push the conclusions beyond what we can securely justify - and this is not much other than a confirmation of the general conclusions of the TAR . We must resist being pushed to present the results such that we will be accused of bias - hence no need to attack Moberg . Just need to show the "most likely"course of temperatures over the last 1300 years - which we do well I think. Strong confirmation of TAR is a good result, given that we discuss uncertainty and base it on more data. Let us not try to over egg the pudding. For what it worth , the above comments are my (honestly long considered) views - and I would not be happy to go further . Of course this discussion now needs to go to the wider Chapter authorship, but do not let Susan (or Mike) push you (us) beyond where we know is right. -- Professor Keith Briffa, 2123. 2006-02-15 ______________________________________________________ cc: plattner@climate.unibe.ch, Jonathan Overpeck , Stefan Rahmstorf , Anders Levermann , Eva Bauer , Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa , oyvind.paasche@bjerknes.uib.no date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 09:33:56 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Millennium Simulations to: Fortunat Joos , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Hi Fortunat - great to see this, thanks. I would agree that it seems too long and that our goal should be to make the captions as easy to get into as possible, and save the detail on the two Tim figs for a TABLE (see previous email) and the interpretation detail for the main text para (or two, if you need) - can you create a "Question" subheading to help with the organization? Hoping Keith/Tim can have the caption done really soon, hopefully using the table idea. Thanks all, peck >Hi, > >Here attached a first draft of the caption for figure e) - the EMIC. > >TIM can you please give us the appropriate >number for the low-freq. NH T variability and >specify the smoothin. > >It is suggested that KEITH and TIM do a further >editing to get it consistent in the language >compared to the captions of panel a to d. > >I have included main conclusions of the >simulations. These could be removed if the >caption appears too long - Peck any opinion??. >Will wait with writing the para in the main text >until we have agreed the caption. > >Regards, Fortunat > >Tim Osborn wrote: >>Dear all, >> >>some points of clarification: >> >>(1) Reference period. >> >>Sorry for the confusion about the reference or >>anomalisation periods in these figure panels, >>which probably arises because we haven't yet >>sent round an updated figure caption (though >>the caption in the FOD is still almost correct). >> >>Just to clarify - no data have been >>"normalised", which I take to mean "scaled to >>have unit standard deviation as well as shifted >>to have zero mean" over some reference period. >> >>All data in all panels, including the forcings, >>NH temperature simulations and the shading for >>the NH temperature reconstructions from proxy >>data have been "anomalised" to have zero mean >>over the same reference period, 1500-1899. >>NONE of the panels or data have been anomalised >>to have zero mean over 1960-1990 or 1961-1990. >> >>I think there are a number of advantages in >>using the 1500-1899 reference period over >>1961-1990 reference period (longer references >>are always better where possible, because they >>are better defined and less sensitive to >>short-term "unusual" behaviour in a few series; >>differences in 20th century warming rates do >>not then result in a continued separation of >>the series for the previous 900 years; I think >>of climate as changing from pre-industrial >>conditions forward to the present-day climate, >>rather than working backwards from the present >>to the past, etc.). >> >>I can see only one advantage in using 1961-1990 >>reference period, and that is if we will also >>include the instrumental temperature record, >>which cannot easily be referenced to the >>1500-1899 period! But I'm not sure if we are >>to include instrumental data or not? >> >>I will try to recreate the entire figures with >>all panels and data referenced to 1961-1990 >>mean instead and you can see for yourselves >>(except the "natural forcings only" EMIC runs >>which must then be adjusted to match the "all >>forcings" EMIC runs prior to 1765 rather than >>being referenced to their 1961-1990 means). >> >>(2) We use 10 reconstructions to obtain the >>grey-shaded regions of overlap between them, >>but we obtain 20 steps of grey because we count >>separately the overlaps of the reconstructions' >>+- 2 standard error range and their +- 1 >>standard error range, thus giving more weight >>to the inner range as being more likely. >> >>(3) None of the models were forced with >>smoothed forcings, but we showed smoothed >>forcings for two reasons: >> >>first, there are a number of difference >>forcings used and it is very hard to plot them >>sensibly (distinguishable from each other) if >>they are unsmoothed - especially for the >>volcanoes, but also for the others (e.g. some >>solar forcings have the 11-year cycle, which >>has been smoothed out here for the same reason, >>and some anthropogenic forcings that have been >>diagnosed from the models rather than assumed >>to follow the IPCC's concentration-to-radiative >>forcing formulae also show shorter timescale >>noise which can be distracting if not smoothed). >> >>second, it is very difficult to judge the >>relative importance of the forcings if we show >>the volcanic forcings as unsmoothed, with very >>short-lived but large magnitude spikes. The >>30-year smoothing used allows a much clearer >>comparison of, say, the negative volcanic >>forcing during the Dalton Minimum period and >>the Dalton Minimum in the solar forcing itself >>- even on the 30-year time scale, volcanic >>forcing is clearly more important than solar >>forcing for this period. With unsmoothed >>spikes it would be impossible to tell! >> >>I will make the other changes requested >>(colours, labelling) and re-circulate the >>figure (hopefully two version with the two >>reference periods to compare). >> >>Cheers >> >>Tim >> >>At 10:53 15/02/2006, Fortunat Joos wrote: >> >>>Hi everybody, >>> >>>Sorry for coming back on the issue of >>>normalisation. We have just discussed this >>>again. >>> >>>a) We expect the following comments in the next review: >>> >>>Panel b and c are normalized to 1960-1990. >>>Why are the model panels d and e not >>>normalised in the same way. Is this to 'cheat' >>>and to make the model results look better? >>> >>>b) Another argument of normalising to the >>>instrumental period is that we have good data, >>>whereas preindustrial data are uncertain. >>> >>>c) It is hard for us to discern the impact of >>>the high vs low solar forcing in the present >>>panel e as the simulations have an offset both >>>on the start and at their end. >>> >>>d) Similarly, we think that the simulations >>>with/without anthropogenic forcing would be >>>separated in a much clearer way by normalising >>>to the instrumental record. >>> >>>Perhaps, we miss your point of view here? Would you mind to explain. >>> >>>As far as the colors are concerned, we would >>>suggest to use similar colors for identical >>>forced simulations. >>> >>>Tim's idea to relable the 'WLS' curve sound good. How about 'Bard08-WLS' >>> >>>With best regards, >>> >>>Fortunat and Kasper >>> >>>Gian-Kasper Plattner wrote: >>> >>>>Dear all, >>>>I have one comment with regard to the EMIC >>>>figure produced by Tim. Right now, the colors >>>>chosen do not hold additional information for >>>>the reader on which model or which forcing >>>>has been applied. For example, the WLS-forced >>>>run for Bern2.5CC is given in red, while the >>>>CLIMBER-3a is in blue; for the Bard2.5 run >>>>Bern2.5CC is in light-blue, while CLIMBER-3a >>>>is in purple... I think that by grouping >>>>either the colors for the individual models >>>>or for the individual forcing timeseries the >>>>figure could become much more comprehensible. >>>>What about using e.g. dark red - orange, dark >>>>blue - light blue, dark green - light green >>>>pairs to make things easier to read? >>>>In addition, the model names in the legend >>>>need to be updated (Bern2.5c --> Bern2.5CC, >>>>Climbr3a --> Climber3a). >>>>With best regards, >>>>Kasper >>>> >>>> >>>>Fortunat Joos wrote: >>>> >>>>>O.k. EMIC caption noted. Can go with the 1500-1899 ref period. >>>>> >>>>>Stefan, Anders, and Eva can you provide me >>>>>the appropriate references for your models >>>>>and the official names. >>>>> >>>>>Regards, Fortunat >>>>> >>>>>Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Hi Tim and Fortunat: This looks nice >>>>>>(thanks) and my slight bias is that we >>>>>>should include the Climber3a results. What >>>>>>do you think, Fortunat? I think Stefan >>>>>>likes it based on his email. >>>>>> >>>>>>Regarding the reference period, I would >>>>>>side w/ Tim and Keith on using 1500-1899. >>>>>>We need to use the same ref period for >>>>>>everything on these two figs (obs and >>>>>>forcing/simulations), and I think the EMIC >>>>>>panel still convey's the main message. >>>>>>Keith/Tim/Fortunat - we have to resolve >>>>>>this FAST, so please weigh in more on this >>>>>>issue. Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>>Regarding captions, yes, you should do all >>>>>>but the EMICS, and you should make sure you >>>>>>send to Stefan so he can help make sure it >>>>>>makes sense (e.g., the red/grey shading). >>>>>>We have asked Fortunat to do the EMIC >>>>>>caption. Can you do this Fortunat? Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>>Best, Peck >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>please see the attached diagram (both the >>>>>>>same, PDF or GIF) with all three EMICs on >>>>>>>now. Climber3a seems to lie between >>>>>>>Climber2 and Bern2.5CC mostly. Does it >>>>>>>add to the message of the figure to use >>>>>>>all three? If so, please use this version >>>>>>>from now on, for drafting captions etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Nobody said much about the previous >>>>>>>version, so hopefully this indicates >>>>>>>general agreement! I didn't show the >>>>>>>"Bard08" runs, because they were so close >>>>>>>to the runs I have labelled "WLS", but of >>>>>>>course in those runs the pre-1610 solar >>>>>>>forcing is Bard08 - so maybe the labels >>>>>>>should be altered to somehow indicate >>>>>>>them, or this could just be stated in the >>>>>>>caption. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Am I right that Keith and I need to >>>>>>>provide an updated caption for panels >>>>>>>(a)-(d), but that someone else will write >>>>>>>a caption for the EMIC panel (e)? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Cheers >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Tim >>>>>>> >>>>>>>At 19:20 13/02/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Hi Anders and Tim - It could be too late, >>>>>>>>but this is up to Tim. Can you get these >>>>>>>>data onto the new EMIC panel? I think >>>>>>>>it'd be worth it, but only if you and >>>>>>>>Keith can get everything else done first. >>>>>>>>Best make sure you have all the data >>>>>>>>needed, just in case. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>thanks Anders too. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>best, peck >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >>>>>>>>>Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:20:14 +0100 >>>>>>>>>From: Anders Levermann >>>>>>>>>Organization: PIK >>>>>>>>>X-Accept-Language: en-us, en >>>>>>>>>To: Fortunat Joos >>>>>>>>>Cc: Jonathan Overpeck , >>>>>>>>> Stefan Rahmstorf , >>>>>>>>> Anders Levermann , >>>>>>>>> Eva Bauer >>>>>>>>>, >>>>>>>>>plattner@climate.unibe.ch, >>>>>>>>> Eystein Jansen , >>>>>>>>> Keith Briffa >>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: Millennium Simulations >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Dear all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>here is the data from the Climber-3alpha >>>>>>>>>simulations. I know they are too late, >>>>>>>>>but >>>>>>>>>perhaps there is still a way to include >>>>>>>>>them. The structure of the files is the >>>>>>>>>same as Eva's. The file names correspond >>>>>>>>>to the ones you gave in the simulation >>>>>>>>>protocol. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Cheers, >>>>>>>>>Anders >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Fortunat Joos wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Dear all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Please find attached an update of the >>>>>>>>>>simulation protocol and input data >>>>>>>>>>description. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Kasper Plattner pointed out that I >>>>>>>>>>forgot the obvious. We need of course a >>>>>>>>>>control run to correct for potential >>>>>>>>>>model drift. The readme file has been >>>>>>>>>>modified accordingly adding a brief >>>>>>>>>>description on how the control should >>>>>>>>>>be done. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I am looking forward to any additional >>>>>>>>>>comments. Hope everything is clear. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Kasper is currently working to perform >>>>>>>>>>the simulation with the Bern2.5CC. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Regards, Fortunat >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Fortunat Joos wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Dear all, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I have now compiled the input data set and written a protocol how to perform the runs. It seems to me that it would make sense if we perform the simulations first with the Bern Model and with the Climber 2 model. We can then still decide if we need Climber 3. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Please let me know if there are any questions. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I could also provide files where the radiative forcing of solar, volcanoes and non-CO2-anthropogenic has been added together. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>With best wishes, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Fortunat >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Dear Eva and Fortunat - thanks for working on getting things moving. It seems that the detailed forcing recommendations laid out below by Fortunat build nicely on what Eva first suggested, and that going with the forcing series suggested below by Foortunat (and the 6 simulations) is going to be just right for the IPCC AR4 Chap 6 needs. Does everyone agree? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Thanks Fortunat for preparing/sharing the standard forcing series. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Best, peck >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Dear Eva, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>We are working on the forcing series and they should be ready by the end of the week. Stefan assured us that you can run this within a few hours. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>What we are preparing are the following series of radiative forcing in W/m2: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>a) RF from atmospheric constituents (well-mixed GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, many Halocarbons) tropo and strato Ozone, various anthropogenic aerosols) as used in the Bern CC TAR version and the TAR (see Joos et al., GBC, 2001; pdf is on my homepage and TAR appendix). >>>>>>>>>>>>>b) volcanic from Crowley, Sci, 2000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>c) solar based on Lean and Bard et al. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>For the solar we will prepare 3 combinations: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>c1) original serie from Lean (2005) provided to you already >>>>>>>>>>>>>c2) Bard et al., Be-10 record linearly scaled to match the Maunder Minimum Average of Lean-AR4 >>>>>>>>>>>>>c3) Bard et al., Be-10 scaled to a MM reduction of 0.25 permil, i.e. the low case in the Bard et, Tellus, publication corresponding to the Lean et al, 1995 scaling >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>For the RF by atmospheric components two cases are foreseen: >>>>>>>>>>>>>a1) standard case with reconstructed evolution over past 1150 years >>>>>>>>>>>>>a2) RF kept at 1765 value after 1765, i.e. a simulation with natural forcings only. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>This will yield in total 6 simulations 3 over the full length from 850 AD to 2000 and 3 brach-off simulatons from 1765 with natural only forcing. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>An important point in IPCC is that things are published, consistent among chapters, and it helps if approaches are tracable to earlier accepted and approved IPCC work. The arguments for these series are as follows: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>a) Considering as many components relevant for RF as possible (more than just CO2). The series are fully compatible with TAR and that the setup is tracable to the TAR for the industrial era increase. The same series will be used in the projection chapter 10 for the SRES calculation >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>b) volcanic: a widely cited record >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>c) solar: c1) and c3) are published series; c2 follows the same approach and spirit as used to derive c3, i.e. scaling the Be-10 serie linearly with a given Maunder Minimum reduction. The impact of the 11-yr solar cycle can be looked at in the original Lean-AR4 serie. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>I hope this help. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>With kind regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Fortunat >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Eva Bauer wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dear Jonathan, dear Fortunat: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Happy New Year! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stefan, Anders and me just have discussed how to set up our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>CLIMBER2/3alpha runs, to produce something useful for the IPCC WGI >>>>>>>>>>>>>>chapter 6. This chapter appears to touch the impact on the NH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>temperature related to low and high solar forcing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>For a reasonable comparison, we think two 1000-year simulations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>differing only by a low and a high solar forcing, conducted with both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>CLIMBER models, would be ideal. To do so, we would have to extend the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>solar forcing time series based on Lean (GRL, 2000) and on Wang et >>>>>>>>>>>>>>al. (2005) distributed in previous e-mails back to the year 1000. This >>>>>>>>>>>>>>would require some splicing as was done, for instance, by Crowley. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm thinking of some scaling applied to a series of Crowley (say the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>data called Be10/Lean splice in Science, 2000) such that the amplitude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>of the solar variability from the 11-year cycle is conserved after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>~1720. I have to check but it appears that the variation in the TSI >>>>>>>>>>>>>>due to the 11-year cycle contained in the Crowley series agrees >>>>>>>>>>>>>>perfectly with the 11yr-cycle data in the file based on Lean (2000). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Before starting such an exercise I like to ask you what you think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>about. We would be happy to receive your response quite soon to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>able to finish the calculations with our slow model in time for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>IPCC report. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Could you please also comment on the other forcings we should include, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>namely the volcanic forcing and the CO2 forcing. For the present study >>>>>>>>>>>>>>we suggest to use the forcing as in Bauer et al (2000) but omitting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>the land-use. This means, using the volcanic forcing from Crowley, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>2000 and the CO2 forcing based on Etheridge et al 1996 and Keeling and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Whorf, 1996. (If you wish we can distribute these data series.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Also, thinking beyond the IPCC study, the model results may become >>>>>>>>>>>>>>interesting enough to be discussed in a 3-model comparison study!? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Looking forward to your reply. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Best wishes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Eva >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Climate and Environmental Physics, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Physics Institute, University of Bern >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern >>>>>>>>>>>>> Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 >>>>>>>>>>>>> Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Last Millennium Simulations for IPCC AR4 WG1 Chap 6 >>>>>>>>>>--------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>F. Joos, >>>>>>>>>>joos@climate.unibe.ch >>>>>>>>>>18 Januar 2006 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>OVERVIEW >>>>>>>>>>-------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>A total of 7 simulations is planned. >>>>>>>>>>A control simulation without any forcing >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Two millennium-long simulations with >>>>>>>>>>solar forcing following Bard et al. >>>>>>>>>>with a Maunder Minimum reduction of >>>>>>>>>>0.08 and 0.25 percent in total >>>>>>>>>>irradiance and volcanic and >>>>>>>>>>anthropogenic forcing included >>>>>>>>>>A simulation from 1610 to 1998 with >>>>>>>>>>solar forcing from Wang et al, 2005 and >>>>>>>>>>volcanic and anthropogenic forcing >>>>>>>>>>included >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Three simulations from 1765 to 1998 >>>>>>>>>>with only solar and volcanic forcing >>>>>>>>>>included, but no anthropogenic >>>>>>>>>>forcings. These are branches from the >>>>>>>>>>above three simulation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>A range of input data files have been >>>>>>>>>>prepeared. Each contains a header with >>>>>>>>>>additional descriptions of the data. >>>>>>>>>>Solar irradiance has been taken from >>>>>>>>>>Bard et al., Tellus, 1999 and from >>>>>>>>>>Wang, Lean, Shirley, JAp, 2005. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>It is estimated that the Maunder >>>>>>>>>>Minimum irradiance is reduce by 0.08 >>>>>>>>>>percent >>>>>>>>>>relative to today and that the present >>>>>>>>>>irradiance is 1366 W/m2 from the Wang >>>>>>>>>>et al. data. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>A case with a Maunder Minimum reduction >>>>>>>>>>of 0.08 percent is calculated from the >>>>>>>>>>Bard et al. data by scaling the >>>>>>>>>>original Bard series appropriately. >>>>>>>>>>The original Bard series are offset by >>>>>>>>>>1.3 W/m2 in irradiance to bring them to >>>>>>>>>>a present irradiance of 1366 W/m2. For >>>>>>>>>>this excercise we will utilize a Maunder >>>>>>>>>>Minimum reduction in irradiance >>>>>>>>>>relative to today of 0.08 percent and >>>>>>>>>>of 0.25 percent (other cases with high >>>>>>>>>>MM reduction are included in the files). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Irradiance has been converted to >>>>>>>>>>radiative forcing: RF= (IRR-1366)/4*0.7 >>>>>>>>>> Volcanic forcing is from Crowley >>>>>>>>>>Science, 2000, with albedo factored in >>>>>>>>>>(e.g. as for solar forcing). To avoid a >>>>>>>>>>cold start of the model, the serie is >>>>>>>>>>extended to 850 AD by mirroring the >>>>>>>>>>Crowley data from 1001 to 1150 to the >>>>>>>>>>period 850 to 1000. >>>>>>>>>>NonCO2 forcing is following TAR >>>>>>>>>>(updated for an error in tropo O3 in >>>>>>>>>>the TAR). >>>>>>>>>>CO2 is a spline through the Etheridge, >>>>>>>>>>JGR, 97 data and the Siegenthaler, >>>>>>>>>>TEllus, 2005 data. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>INPUT FILES DESCRIPTION: >>>>>>>>>>----------------------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>It is recommended to linearly interpolate between data points. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>A1: Solar irradiance and radiative >>>>>>>>>>forcing following Bard from 850 to 2000 >>>>>>>>>>(Tag description) >>>>>>>>>>solBard08 2. col: Maunder Minimum >>>>>>>>>>reduction of 0.08 percent solBard25 >>>>>>>>>>3. col: Maunder Minimu reduction of >>>>>>>>>>0.25 percent >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Note: data from Bard have been linearlz >>>>>>>>>>interplated on an annual time step >>>>>>>>>> files: >>>>>>>>>> bard00tel_solar_RF_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>bard00tel_solar_irradiance_offset-13_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>A2: Solar irradiance and radiative >>>>>>>>>>forcing following Wang, Lean, Shirley, >>>>>>>>>>2005 >>>>>>>>>> from 1610 to 2004 annual resolution >>>>>>>>>>Tag: WLS-05 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> files: >>>>>>>>>> wang05jastr_lean_RF_IPCC_chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>>>>>>>>> wang05jastr_lean_irradiance_IPCC_chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>A3: CO2 concentration in ppm from 850 to 2000 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> annual resolution >>>>>>>>>>Tag: CO2 >>>>>>>>>> file: co2_850-2000_splined_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>A4: volcanic forcing after Crowley from >>>>>>>>>>1001 to 1998 AD, extended by artificial >>>>>>>>>> data from 850 to 1000 AD by >>>>>>>>>>mirroring the forcing from 1000 to 1150 >>>>>>>>>>to the period 850 to 1000 >>>>>>>>>>Tag: volcCrow >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> annual resolution >>>>>>>>>> file: crowley00sci_RFvolcanic_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan05.out >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>A5: radiative forcing by non-CO2 agents >>>>>>>>>> annual resolution >>>>>>>>>>Tag: nonco2 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> files >>>>>>>>>> rf_nonco2_1yr_1765_2000_individ_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>>>>>>>>> rf_nonco2_1yr_850_2000_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>B) SIMULATIONS >>>>>>>>>>----------------------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>B1. 2 Long simulations from 850 AD to 1998 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Simulation B1.1. tag: bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_850-1998 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Solar forcing from Bard et al. with MM >>>>>>>>>>reduction of 0.08 percent, volcanic >>>>>>>>>>forcing and forcing from CO2 and other >>>>>>>>>>anthropogenic (non-CO2) agents. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Start of simulation 850 AD >>>>>>>>>>End of simulation: 1998 AD >>>>>>>>>>initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Analysis period: 1001 AD to 1998 AD >>>>>>>>>>start-up period: 850 to 1000 with artificial volcanic data >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>-------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Simulation B1.2 tag: bard25_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_850-1998 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>as B1.1 but with solar forcing from >>>>>>>>>>Bard et al. reduced by 0.25 percent for >>>>>>>>>>the Maunder Minimum. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Start of simulation 850 AD >>>>>>>>>>End of simulation: 1998 AD >>>>>>>>>>initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Analysis period: 1001 AD to 1998 AD >>>>>>>>>>start-up period: 850 to 1000 with artificial volcanic data >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>-------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Simulation B2: A simulation from 1610 >>>>>>>>>>to 1998 restarted from >>>>>>>>>>bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>With solar forcing from Wang et al., 2005, volcanic forci >>>>>>>>>>ng and forcing from CO2 and other anthropogenic (non-CO2) agents. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>B2 tag: WLS-2005_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_1610-1998 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Start of simulation: 1610 AD >>>>>>>>>>End of simulation: 1998 AD >>>>>>>>>>initial condition: restart from simulation B1.1. >>>>>>>>>>bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 >>>>>>>>>> at year 1610 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Analysis period: 1610 AD to 1998 AD >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>B3: 3 Simulations from 1765 to 1998 with natural forcing only >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> non-CO2 radiative forcing is kept to zero >>>>>>>>>>(except for volcanoes and solar) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> CO2 is kept at its 1765 value. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Simulation B3.1: tag bard08_volcCrow_1765_1998 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Start of simulation: 1765 AD >>>>>>>>>>End of simulation: 1998 AD >>>>>>>>>>initial condition: restart from simulation B1.1. >>>>>>>>>>bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 >>>>>>>>>> at year 1765 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Simulation B3.2: tag bard25_volcCrow_1765_1998 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Start of simulation: 1765 AD >>>>>>>>>>End of simulation: 1998 AD >>>>>>>>>>initial condition: restart from simulation B1.2. >>>>>>>>>>bard25_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 >>>>>>>>>> at year 1765 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>----- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Simulation B3.1: tag WLS-2005_volcCrow_1765_1998 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Start of simulation: 1765 AD >>>>>>>>>>End of simulation: 1998 AD >>>>>>>>>>initial condition: restart from simulation B2. >>>>>>>>>>WLS-2005_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 >>>>>>>>>> at year 1765 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Simulation B4: tag ctrl_850-1998 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Control simulation without any forcing >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Start of simulation 850 AD >>>>>>>>>>End of simulation: 1998 AD >>>>>>>>>>initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Analysis period: 850 to 1998 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>OUTPUT >>>>>>>>>>------ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I guess minimal output is global and NH mean surface temperature. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>>Anders Levermann >>>>>>>>>phone: +49-331-288-2560 Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research >>>>>>>>>fax: +49-331-288-2570 Telegraphenberg A26, 14473 Potsdam, Germany >>>>>>>>>anders.levermann@pik-potsdam.de www.pik-potsdam.de/~anders >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>Jonathan T. Overpeck >>>>>>>>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>>>>>>Professor, Department of Geosciences >>>>>>>>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Mail and Fedex Address: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>>>>>>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>>>>>>>University of Arizona >>>>>>>>Tucson, AZ 85721 >>>>>>>>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>>>>>>>fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>>>>>>>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>>>>>>>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:modelsE.gif (GIFf/«IC») (00113719) >>>>>>>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:modelsE.pdf (PDF /«IC») (0011371A) >>>>>>>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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >>>>>>>sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >>>-- >>> >>> Climate and Environmental Physics, >>> Physics Institute, University of Bern >>> Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern >>> Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 >>> Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ >> >> >>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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >>sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm >> > >-- > > Climate and Environmental Physics, > Physics Institute, University of Bern > Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern > Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 > Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh >HD:caption_figure_emic_#113B6F.doc (WDBN/«IC») >(00113B6F) -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 2777. 2006-02-15 ______________________________________________________ cc: Jonathan Overpeck , Stefan Rahmstorf , Anders Levermann , Eva Bauer , Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa ,oyvind.paasche@bjerknes.uib.no date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:42:33 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Millennium Simulations to: Fortunat Joos ,plattner@climate.unibe.ch Dear all, I have redone all plots for the two alternative baseline periods - see attached PDF. Please look at them on the screen as well as printing them, because with some printers you can hardly see the paler greys and the yellow lines whereas they seem quite bright on my screen. Page 1 is 1500-1899. Page 2 is 1961-1990. Mine and Keith's opinion: 1500-1899 looks better for panels (a), (c) and (d). They look equally as good for panel (c). For panel (e) we are unsure and below are some arguments for and against. [Obviously I can tidy up the 1961-1990 version a bit more, in terms of labelling etc., though it is clearly going to be tricky to find gaps for the key and titles and the vertical scale of panel (d) would need to be changed/extended a bit and then wouldn't match the scale I used for panel (e). So 1961-1990 is a bit harder to get everything looking good and consistent.] At first we thought that the new 1961-1990 version of panel (e) looked better for the reason that there is clearer separation between the "all forcings" (thick lines) and the "natural-only forcings" (thin lines) in the early 20th century. On closer inspection, however, we then were swayed back to the 1500-1899 version of panel (e), because the reason for the clearer separation of the "Nat" and "All" runs in 1961-1990 version is that the stronger solar forcing runs (dark and pale blue and green) are pushed downwards. But pushing them downwards means that during the "Little Ice Age" period these runs (especially the dark and pale blue ones) are clearly in the bottom part of the range of the reconstructions relative to 1961-1990 - and the question is why should we say that the "Nat" runs cannot capture the first phase of 20th century warming when we have started them from cooler conditions, purely on the basis of the amount of warming achieved in the other runs by the time the reference period is reached. This seems harder to defend. It relates back to my earlier comments about (1) using as long a reference period as possible; and (2) thinking about climate changing from the relative stable period, rather than going backwards from the present period with its strong transient changes. Views please? If the decision is made to go with 1961-1990, then Keith suggests sticking with 1500-1899 for panels (a)-(d) as before, and make the new EMIC runs (currently panel (e)) into a stand-alone figure with 1961-1990 baseline. Views required urgently! Cheers Tim Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\modelsA-E_2versions.pdf" 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 3456. 2006-02-15 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:36:46 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: Bullet debate number 2 to: Eystein Jansen thanks. Agree on the attribution front, but what about being more specific (at least a little) about what the "subsequent evidence" is. Is there really anything new that gives us more confidence? Keith? Eystein? thx, peck Hi, I think this version of bullett two is best: o The TAR pointed to the "exceptional warmth of the late 20th century, relative to the past 1000 years". Subsequent evidence reinforces this conclusion. Indeed, it is very likely that average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were warmer than any other 50-year period in the last 500 years. It is also likely that this was the warmest period in the past 1300 years . The uneven coverage and characteristics of the proxy data mean that these conclusions are most robust over summer, extra-tropical, land areas. I agree with Keith we cannot enter into the attibution aspects that Susan alludes to. Eystein At 11:57 -0700 15-02-06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: Hi again - as for bullet issue number 2, I agree that we don't need to go with the suggest stuff on solar/forcing, BUT, I agree w/ Susan that we should try to put more in the bullet about "Subsequent evidence" Would you pls send a new bullet that has your suggested changes below, and that includes something like: "Subsequent evidence, including x, y and z, reinforces this conclusion." Need to convince readers that there really has been an increase in knowledge - more evidence. What is it? The bullet can be longer if needed. Thanks, Peck Second Simply make "1000" "1300 years. " and delete "and unusually warm compared with the last 2000 years." It is certainly NOT our job to be discussing attribution in the 20th century - this is Chapter 9 - and we had no room (or any published material) to allow a discussion of relative forcing contributions in earlier time. Therefore a vague statement about "perhaps due to solar forcing" seems unjustified. Third I suggest this should be Taken together , the sparse evidence of Southern Hemisphere temperatures prior to the period of instrumental records indicates that overall warming has occurred during the last 350 years, but the even fewer longer regional records indicate earlier periods that are as warm, or warmer than, 20th century means. Fourth fine , though perhaps "warmth" instead of "warming"? and need to see EMIC text Fifth suggest delete Sixth suggest delete Peck, you have to consider that since the TAR , there has been a lot of argument re "hockey stick" and the real independence of the inputs to most subsequent analyses is minimal. True, there have been many different techniques used to aggregate and scale data - but the efficacy of these is still far from established. We should be careful not to push the conclusions beyond what we can securely justify - and this is not much other than a confirmation of the general conclusions of the TAR . We must resist being pushed to present the results such that we will be accused of bias - hence no need to attack Moberg . Just need to show the "most likely"course of temperatures over the last 1300 years - which we do well I think. Strong confirmation of TAR is a good result, given that we discuss uncertainty and base it on more data. Let us not try to over egg the pudding. For what it worth , the above comments are my (honestly long considered) views - and I would not be happy to go further . Of course this discussion now needs to go to the wider Chapter authorship, but do not let Susan (or Mike) push you (us) beyond where we know is right. -- 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/ -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ -- ______________________________________________________________ Eystein Jansen Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen Allégaten 55 N-5007 Bergen NORWAY e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 Fax: +47-55-584330 -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 3853. 2006-02-15 ______________________________________________________ cc: plattner@climate.unibe.ch, Tim Osborn , Jonathan Overpeck , Anders Levermann , Eva Bauer , Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa , oyvind.paasche@bjerknes.uib.no date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:47:25 +0100 from: Stefan Rahmstorf subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Millennium Simulations to: Fortunat Joos Hi all, as you may remember from Christchurch, I've been uneasy with this normalisation as well, for similar reasons as Kaspar and Fortunat. I did then accept it mainly as a way to show the Von Storch correction from Tim's paper more easily. However, now I have looked at it again and have second thoughts. It would be wrong to have such a crucial figure of the report compromised by one flawed model run - Von Storch et al. simply made a serious mistake initialising their run in medieval times with modern high CO2 values, causing a lasting downward drift of ~0.5 ºC over the millennium. That's simply not good scientific practice to have done it this way. One option would be to simply leave out this run, stating in the text that we don't show it as it is affected by a major drift problem, citing Tim's paper. By the time the report appears, this will be generally accepted in the community, not just because of Tim's paper. It would be good to see the alternative - I think for the other models, it would actually look no worse than the present figure, and it would avoid all those question about the different normalisation. I tend to disagree with point (d) of Fortunat: for the runs with only natural forcings, it would seem more logical to me if they are identical with the full forcing runs in the preindustrial era, and then branch off later (perhaps as dotted lines - but same colour as full forcing for each model). We could say in the caption that the dotted lines are not normalised in mid-20th C because they don't attempt to simulate 20th C climate properly, they are just shown for comparison. Regards, Stefan -- To reach me directly please use: rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de (My former addresses @pik-potsdam.de are read by my assistant Brigitta.) Stefan Rahmstorf www.ozean-klima.de www.realclimate.org 4400. 2006-02-15 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:19:51 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: bullet debate #4 to #6 to: Keith Briffa Keith and Eystein - Ah, it's getting easier... Ok on # 4 - change made as suggested, thanks Ok on #5 if Eystein agrees that we can delete the bullet on how unprecedented recent Euro warmth (I think it's ok to delete, since it's regional) Ok on #6 - your text makes the statement "In most multi-centennial length coral series, the late 20th century is warmer than any time in the last 100-300 years." BUT, this statement is based on isotopic records (mostly). I think the statement is true and that unpublished work will end up supporting it. Thus, by removing it from the Exec Summary, we're deleting it mostly to save space, or because we don't have much confidence in what is written in the text? Just want to make sure both of you are ok with deleting this bullet. And... we won't let Susan push us to say things that are not supportable. I don't think she's doing that at all, but rather just trying to get our bullets more clear to the non-specialist. Although her solutions aren't all great (e.g., the idea of working solar into the first bullet), she is right that we can't be too vague. If we choose that route, we're going to have to defend our stance better than we have done so far. Also, given the import of these bullets, we need to take the extra time to think through all options. Thanks for putting up w/ me and this process. best, peck Fourth fine , though perhaps "warmth" instead of "warming"? and need to see EMIC text Fifth suggest delete Sixth suggest delete Peck, you have to consider that since the TAR , there has been a lot of argument re "hockey stick" and the real independence of the inputs to most subsequent analyses is minimal. True, there have been many different techniques used to aggregate and scale data - but the efficacy of these is still far from established. We should be careful not to push the conclusions beyond what we can securely justify - and this is not much other than a confirmation of the general conclusions of the TAR . We must resist being pushed to present the results such that we will be accused of bias - hence no need to attack Moberg . Just need to show the "most likely"course of temperatures over the last 1300 years - which we do well I think. Strong confirmation of TAR is a good result, given that we discuss uncertainty and base it on more data. Let us not try to over egg the pudding. For what it worth , the above comments are my (honestly long considered) views - and I would not be happy to go further . Of course this discussion now needs to go to the wider Chapter authorship, but do not let Susan (or Mike) push you (us) beyond where we know is right. -- 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/ -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 4761. 2006-02-15 ______________________________________________________ cc: Jonathan Overpeck , Stefan Rahmstorf , Anders Levermann , Eva Bauer , Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa , oyvind.paasche@bjerknes.uib.no, Fortunat Joos , plattner@climate.unibe.ch date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:06:20 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Millennium Simulations to: Tim Osborn Hi Tim et al - Now that I see both (thanks Tim), I strongly prefer 1500-1899. In addition to the reasons spelled out by Tim, I like agree with the point made by Tim a while back - that we're a paleo chapter and it makes sense to see the climate as evolving naturally until the 20th century when anthro forcing starts to push the system out of the natural envelop of variability. The natural forcing only runs, just carry on as they had for the previous 900 years. It is a compelling way to view what the anthro forcing is doing to the system. Moreover, I think it would be confusing to use one ref period for a-d, and a different one for e. So, unless someone can really sway me and Eystein, I say we move forward w/ the fig as originally envisioned by Tim, but with the suggested changes to colors and labels. Thanks, Peck >Dear all, > >I have redone all plots for the two alternative >baseline periods - see attached PDF. Please >look at them on the screen as well as printing >them, because with some printers you can hardly >see the paler greys and the yellow lines whereas >they seem quite bright on my screen. > >Page 1 is 1500-1899. Page 2 is 1961-1990. > >Mine and Keith's opinion: > >1500-1899 looks better for panels (a), (c) and >(d). They look equally as good for panel (c). >For panel (e) we are unsure and below are some >arguments for and against. > >[Obviously I can tidy up the 1961-1990 version a >bit more, in terms of labelling etc., though it >is clearly going to be tricky to find gaps for >the key and titles and the vertical scale of >panel (d) would need to be changed/extended a >bit and then wouldn't match the scale I used for >panel (e). So 1961-1990 is a bit harder to get >everything looking good and consistent.] > >At first we thought that the new 1961-1990 >version of panel (e) looked better for the >reason that there is clearer separation between >the "all forcings" (thick lines) and the >"natural-only forcings" (thin lines) in the >early 20th century. > >On closer inspection, however, we then were >swayed back to the 1500-1899 version of panel >(e), because the reason for the clearer >separation of the "Nat" and "All" runs in >1961-1990 version is that the stronger solar >forcing runs (dark and pale blue and green) are >pushed downwards. But pushing them downwards >means that during the "Little Ice Age" period >these runs (especially the dark and pale blue >ones) are clearly in the bottom part of the >range of the reconstructions relative to >1961-1990 - and the question is why should we >say that the "Nat" runs cannot capture the first >phase of 20th century warming when we have >started them from cooler conditions, purely on >the basis of the amount of warming achieved in >the other runs by the time the reference period >is reached. This seems harder to defend. It >relates back to my earlier comments about (1) >using as long a reference period as possible; >and (2) thinking about climate changing from the >relative stable period, rather than going >backwards from the present period with its >strong transient changes. > >Views please? > >If the decision is made to go with 1961-1990, >then Keith suggests sticking with 1500-1899 for >panels (a)-(d) as before, and make the new EMIC >runs (currently panel (e)) into a stand-alone >figure with 1961-1990 baseline. > >Views required urgently! > >Cheers > >Tim > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh >HD:modelsA-E_2versions.pdf (PDF /«IC») (00113BD7) >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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 4871. 2006-02-15 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Feb 15 16:43:41 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: bullets to: jto@u.arizona.edu Peck do not think you will like what I say here , but I am going to give straight answers to your questions. First The new draft says enough in the text now about "far-less-accurately dated" and "low-resolution proxy records that can not be rigorously calibrated" in relation to this paper (Moberg et al.) . It is not appropriate to single the one series out for specific criticism in the summary . The use of the word "only" implies we do not believe it. Mike Mann's suggestion begs a lot of questions about what constitutes "significantly warmer". You need to have a Null Hypothesis to test . If you mean would the estimates in Moberg and the other reconstructions (during medieval time) show significantly different means using a t-test - then of course not , but this tells us nothing other than they are not likely samples from totally different populations - an almost impossible test to pass given the wide uncertainties on all reconstructions . Incidentally, we do not have formal (calibration ) uncertainties for Moberg anyway (just boot-strapped uncertainty on the average low-frequency curve). I think the vagueness is necessary - "suggests slightly" and is appropriate. I would not call out The results of Tim and my paper either. It is just an aside in the Medieval box at present , perhaps with a Figure to accompany the original if you agree, but without more text in the Chapter , which I do not consider appropriate, it should not be highlighted as a bullet. Second Simply make "1000" "1300 years. " and delete "and unusually warm compared with the last 2000 years." It is certainly NOT our job to be discussing attribution in the 20th century - this is Chapter 9 - and we had no room (or any published material) to allow a discussion of relative forcing contributions in earlier time. Therefore a vague statement about "perhaps due to solar forcing" seems unjustified. Third I suggest this should be Taken together , the sparse evidence of Southern Hemisphere temperatures prior to the period of instrumental records indicates that overall warming has occurred during the last 350 years, but the even fewer longer regional records indicate earlier periods that are as warm, or warmer than, 20th century means. Fourth fine , though perhaps "warmth" instead of "warming"? and need to see EMIC text Fifth suggest delete Sixth suggest delete Peck, you have to consider that since the TAR , there has been a lot of argument re "hockey stick" and the real independence of the inputs to most subsequent analyses is minimal. True, there have been many different techniques used to aggregate and scale data - but the efficacy of these is still far from established. We should be careful not to push the conclusions beyond what we can securely justify - and this is not much other than a confirmation of the general conclusions of the TAR . We must resist being pushed to present the results such that we will be accused of bias - hence no need to attack Moberg . Just need to show the "most likely"course of temperatures over the last 1300 years - which we do well I think. Strong confirmation of TAR is a good result, given that we discuss uncertainty and base it on more data. Let us not try to over egg the pudding. For what it worth , the above comments are my (honestly long considered) views - and I would not be happy to go further . Of course this discussion now needs to go to the wider Chapter authorship, but do not let Susan (or Mike) push you (us) beyond where we know is right. -- 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/ 1048. 2006-02-16 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:49:58 +0000 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Bullet debate number 1 to: Eystein Jansen , Jonathan Overpeck Dear Peck and Eystein I have to come back again on this. FIRST Happy with first sentence. Then following largely on a suggestion made by Tim , I suggest The additional variability implies mainly cooler temperatures (predominantly in the 12th-14th, 17th and 19th centuries) and only one new reconstruction suggests slightly warmer conditions (in the 11th century), but well within the uncertainty range indicated in the TAR. Failing this, I suggest we omit everything after the first closing bracket. SECOND Now suggest insert the bit about our work (Tim and I) in the second point - after the sentence ending "1300 years." That is.. The regional extent of Northern Hemisphere warmth was very likely greater during the 20th century than in any other century during the last 1300 years. Will finish corrections to my text tomorrow - but hope Fortunat has checked it all, and is doing a paragraph on the EMICS still? cheers Keith At 23:19 15/02/2006, Eystein Jansen wrote: >Hi, >I think we should avoid discussing the Moberg et >al results in the exec. bullet. I also think we >need to have a statement about the MWP in the >bullet, and I cannot really understand why the >most central conclusion from the very nice >recent Osborn et al. Science paper cannot be >highlighted in the first bullet. My suggestion is: >o Some of the post-TAR studies indicate >greater multi-centennial Northern Hemisphere >temperature variability than was shown in the >TAR, due to the particular proxies used, and the >specific statistical methods of processing >and/or scaling them to represent past >temperatures. The additional variability implies >cooler temperatures, predominantly during the >12th to 14th, the 17th, and the 19th centuries. >The warmer period in the 11th century is in >general agreement with the results shown in the >TAR. Consideration of the regional records of >temperature for the 11th century indicate that >it is unlikely that the spatial extent of >warming during this time period was as >significant as in the second half of the 20th century. > >Cheers, >Eystein > > > > >At 11:46 -0700 15-02-06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>Hi Keith (and Eystein - we need your opinion) - >>thanks for the quick response. I think it >>easier (imagining the mess of email that could >>result) if we focus on one bullet/email. So >>I'll start w/ the first, and hope that Eystein can also weigh in. >> >>With regard to the first one below, I agree >>that we can leave statistics out of it. Good point. >> >>But, I think we must at least address Susan's >>concern. To do otherwise would be >>counterproductive. She makes sense. I think >>your MWP results is quite appropriate - they >>were published in Science, and in my reading of >>the paper, you are convincing. If it's in the >>chapter, it makes sense to draw on it for the >>exec summary. Please defend more convincingly, >>or suggest an alternative way to deal with >>Susan's concern - what is the significance (not >>statistical) of this one record being warmer? We need to say it. >> >>If you really want to leave as is, please write >>your response in a way that I can forward to >>Susan - we can't ignore he comment in this >>case, because other (me, at least) think it >>makes sense. So we have to convince her too - >>this is big stuff for the AR4, and will be in >>the TS/SPM. We can't be as vague as the current bullet is. >> >>And as for the MWP box fig, I think it should >>be as you suggest - combine the existing fig w/ >>the new one from Tim and your paper. I think >>Tim might already be working on it? >> >>Sorry to be a tough guy, but this bullet needs to be more clear. >> >>Thanks, peck >>>Peck >>>do not think you will like what I say here , >>>but I am going to give straight answers to your questions. >>> >>>First >>> >>>The new draft says enough in the text now >>>about "far-less-accurately dated" and >>>"low-resolution proxy records that can not be >>>rigorously calibrated" in relation to this >>>paper (Moberg et al.) . It is not appropriate >>>to single the one series out for specific >>>criticism in the summary . The use of the word >>>"only" implies we do not believe it. Mike >>>Mann's suggestion begs a lot of questions >>>about what constitutes "significantly warmer". >>>You need to have a Null Hypothesis to test . >>>If you mean would the estimates in Moberg and >>>the other reconstructions (during medieval >>>time) show significantly different means using >>>a t-test - then of course not , but this tells >>>us nothing other than they are not likely >>>samples from totally different populations - >>>an almost impossible test to pass given the >>>wide uncertainties on all reconstructions . >>>Incidentally, we do not have formal >>>(calibration ) uncertainties for Moberg anyway >>>(just boot-strapped uncertainty on the average low-frequency curve). >>> >>>I think the vagueness is necessary - >>>"suggests slightly" and is appropriate. >>> >>>I would not call out The results of Tim and my >>>paper either. It is just an aside in the >>>Medieval box at present , perhaps with a >>>Figure to accompany the original if you agree, >>>but without more text in the Chapter , which I >>>do not consider appropriate, it should not be highlighted as a bullet. >> >>-- >>Jonathan T. Overpeck >>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>Professor, Department of Geosciences >>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >> >>Mail and Fedex Address: >> >>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>University of Arizona >>Tucson, AZ 85721 >>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ > > > >-- >______________________________________________________________ >Eystein Jansen >Professor/Director >Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and >Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen >Allégaten 55 >N-5007 Bergen >NORWAY >e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no >Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 >Fax: +47-55-584330 -- 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/ 3599. 2006-02-16 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:38:33 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: quick question to: Keith Briffa ,Gabi Hegerl Hi Gabi, Oerlemans data is attached. Note that this is his "global" estimate (we really wanted NH only) and also note that I "digitised" the errors from his figure, because WDC-Paleo only had his central estimates, not his errors, in their archive. Cheers Tim At 17:46 13/02/2006, Keith Briffa wrote: >Gabi >we will now include the Oerlemann's curve among the the many in our >reconstruction Figure . I would not consider it necessary for you to >do the same. I am sending the numbers if you do wish to. Correction >- can not find them - will have to ask Tim to send tomorrow (he has >left) - note though that they refer only to Global coverage and >have not been calculated separately for individual hemispheres . We >are putting only brief text describing the curve and pointing out >uncertainty due to attempts to allow for different response times >(and no attempt to allow these to change with time) and ignoring >uncertainty associated with assuming constant precipitation >influence on volume changes. Will lift this largely from Chapter 4 first draft. >was invited to talk to the Committee - but declined - now being >attacked by the sceptics for my lack of independence - they say I >should not be a CLA , reviewing my own work , on Chapter 6. I felt >this would only aggravate the situation. best wishes >Keith > > >At 15:50 13/02/2006, you wrote: >>Hi Keith, >> >>Do you guys still have Oerlemann's reconstruction spinning on your >>disk within easy access? >>Susan suggested to include it into the detection figure. >>I also seem to recall there were some reservations about it, but I >>dont remember what it was... >>so would be happy to be illuminated (tell me to read chapter 6 >>rather than personal illumination >>is ok though, I know you are struggling just as we are!). >>Are you going to this DC thing in 3 weeks? (NCR panel meeting?) >> >> >>Gabi >> >>-- >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\oerlemans2005errors.dat" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\oerlemans2005_orig.dat" 4473. 2006-02-16 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 00:19:18 +0100 from: Eystein Jansen subject: Re: Bullet debate number 1 to: Jonathan Overpeck , Keith Briffa Hi, I think we should avoid discussing the Moberg et al results in the exec. bullet. I also think we need to have a statement about the MWP in the bullet, and I cannot really understand why the most central conclusion from the very nice recent Osborn et al. Science paper cannot be highlighted in the first bullet. My suggestion is: o Some of the post-TAR studies indicate greater multi-centennial Northern Hemisphere temperature variability than was shown in the TAR, due to the particular proxies used, and the specific statistical methods of processing and/or scaling them to represent past temperatures. The additional variability implies cooler temperatures, predominantly during the 12th to 14th, the 17th, and the 19th centuries. The warmer period in the 11th century is in general agreement with the results shown in the TAR. Consideration of the regional records of temperature for the 11th century indicate that it is unlikely that the spatial extent of warming during this time period was as significant as in the second half of the 20th century. Cheers, Eystein At 11:46 -0700 15-02-06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: Hi Keith (and Eystein - we need your opinion) - thanks for the quick response. I think it easier (imagining the mess of email that could result) if we focus on one bullet/email. So I'll start w/ the first, and hope that Eystein can also weigh in. With regard to the first one below, I agree that we can leave statistics out of it. Good point. But, I think we must at least address Susan's concern. To do otherwise would be counterproductive. She makes sense. I think your MWP results is quite appropriate - they were published in Science, and in my reading of the paper, you are convincing. If it's in the chapter, it makes sense to draw on it for the exec summary. Please defend more convincingly, or suggest an alternative way to deal with Susan's concern - what is the significance (not statistical) of this one record being warmer? We need to say it. If you really want to leave as is, please write your response in a way that I can forward to Susan - we can't ignore he comment in this case, because other (me, at least) think it makes sense. So we have to convince her too - this is big stuff for the AR4, and will be in the TS/SPM. We can't be as vague as the current bullet is. And as for the MWP box fig, I think it should be as you suggest - combine the existing fig w/ the new one from Tim and your paper. I think Tim might already be working on it? Sorry to be a tough guy, but this bullet needs to be more clear. Thanks, peck Peck do not think you will like what I say here , but I am going to give straight answers to your questions. First The new draft says enough in the text now about "far-less-accurately dated" and "low-resolution proxy records that can not be rigorously calibrated" in relation to this paper (Moberg et al.) . It is not appropriate to single the one series out for specific criticism in the summary . The use of the word "only" implies we do not believe it. Mike Mann's suggestion begs a lot of questions about what constitutes "significantly warmer". You need to have a Null Hypothesis to test . If you mean would the estimates in Moberg and the other reconstructions (during medieval time) show significantly different means using a t-test - then of course not , but this tells us nothing other than they are not likely samples from totally different populations - an almost impossible test to pass given the wide uncertainties on all reconstructions . Incidentally, we do not have formal (calibration ) uncertainties for Moberg anyway (just boot-strapped uncertainty on the average low-frequency curve). I think the vagueness is necessary - "suggests slightly" and is appropriate. I would not call out The results of Tim and my paper either. It is just an aside in the Medieval box at present , perhaps with a Figure to accompany the original if you agree, but without more text in the Chapter , which I do not consider appropriate, it should not be highlighted as a bullet. -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ -- ______________________________________________________________ Eystein Jansen Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen Allégaten 55 N-5007 Bergen NORWAY e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 Fax: +47-55-584330 4637. 2006-02-16 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:59:51 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Science paper to: Henry Pollack ,Keith Briffa Thanks for you congratulations, Henry, and also for your helpful review. Sorry that our response to your main concern (about the need to consider *causes* of warming/cooling) was limited to a paragraph at the end of the supplementary information, but we were space-limited! Best regards Tim At 14:51 15/02/2006, Henry Pollack wrote: >Hi Tim and Keith, > >Congratulations on your recent paper appearing in Science on 10 >February 2006. I was one of the reviewers (see attached), and >appreciated your approach to quantifying the spatial extent of >climatic excursions. > >Cheers, >Henry > > ___ ___ Henry N. Pollack >[ \ / ] Professor of Geophysics > | \/ | Department of Geological Sciences > |MICHIGAN| University of Michigan >[___]\/[___] Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1005, U.S.A. > > Phone: 734-763-0084 FAX: 734-763-4690 > e-mail: hpollack@umich.edu > URL: www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~hpollack/ > URL: www-personal.umich.edu/~hpollack/book.html > > > > > > 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 1125. 2006-02-17 ______________________________________________________ cc: joos date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:15:28 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Robust Findings/ Key Uncertainties Table V3 to: Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen Hi Keith and Eystein - good additions. Thanks. You can see how I edited them in the attached. The only tought issue was Eystein's proposed key uncertaintly on ocean circulation. I think it would be awkward to have multiple abrupt change uncertainties listed (our list is already pretty long in general), so I combined your suggested bullet w/ the existing one (to include drought and other types of abrupt change: "The mechanisms of abrupt climate change (for example, in ocean circulation and drought frequency) are not well understood, nor are the key climate thresholds that, when crossed, could trigger an acceleration in regional climate change." If either of you thinks we can improve further, pls track changes edit the attached. Thanks again, Peck -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Chap6RobustKeyTableV3.doc" 3571. 2006-02-17 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 19:19:22 +0100 from: Eystein Jansen subject: Re: Figures - urgent to: Jonathan Overpeck , Keith Briffa I am in agreement with Keith, Peck, - that will be the best updated fig. Thanks again Tim for the stamina! Eystein At 10:19 -0700 17-02-06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >Hi - I agree w/ Keith. Makes sense to show all >the data, and I should have said "just like" 3B, >sorry. > >Look forward to seeing this one and the new caption too. Thanks! >best, peck > >>I suggest we go with the new (second one >>attached in Tim's message) , with the section >>from the Science paper under it. >>Keith >> >>At 17:00 17/02/2006, Tim Osborn wrote: >>>Hi Peck and Eystein, >>> >>>just working on this MWP box fig update. Just >>>trying to clarify what is wanted. >>> >>>The old MWP box fig had 8 series on it. 7 of >>>these were straight from our recent Science >>>paper anyway, and the 8th was the average of 2 >>>more from the Science paper. The other 5 in >>>the paper (making a total of 7+2+5 = 14 >>>series) were not used in the old MWP box fig, >>>as they are too short to cover the MWP period. >>> >>>(1) Are you asking me to use exactly the 14 >>>series from the Science paper, overlaid like >>>in the old MWP fig or, if space permits, >>>plotted like fig 1 in our Science paper. And >>>then add below the exact fig 3B of our paper >>>(you say "3b-like" which implied maybe some >>>changes). >>> >>>(2) Or do you want to stick with the original >>>8 series, and then have the exact fig 3B from >>>our paper, which wouldn't correspond exactly >>>to the 8 series above because it would be >>>based on the 14. >>> >>>(3) Or do you want to stick with the original >>>8 series, and then show a panel similar to our >>>fig 3B, but *recalculated* using just the 8 >>>series shown? >>> >>>So many questions! ;-) >>> >>>I attached the original MWP fig (8 series), >>>plus a new one from option (1) above (14 >>>series, looks a bit of a mess, also I removed >>>the "composite mean" which might have been >>>agreed in New Zealand?). >>> >>>Cheers >>> >>>Tim >>> >>>At 05:28 02/02/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>>>Hi Tim and Keith - I have some feedback on >>>>the MWP box fig, but would to first ask that >>>>you update us (me and Eystein) about the >>>>status of your other figs. We have a >>>>particularly urgent need to see those that >>>>are likely to be elevated to the TS (Tech >>>>Summary) - a big deal for paleo. Can you >>>>promise us these by the end of this week, >>>>Monday at the latest? Again, see my emails of >>>>Dec for details. >>>> >>>>It would be great to see a new MWP box fig >>>>asap too, but this isn't as high priority as >>>>the TS figs. Eystein and I agree with both >>>>Susan and Martin that it would be good to see >>>>a new MWP box fig that was a hybrid of the >>>>old fig concept and the new Fig 3b from your >>>>Science paper. It would be good to have two >>>>versions - if space allows, we go with the >>>>first, otherwise the 2nd: >>>> >>>>Both would have your 3b-like plot, and both >>>>would have all the normalized time series >>>>that were used to create the 3b plot (i.e., >>>>those in Fig. 1 of your paper). >>>> >>>>Version 1 - has all the input series stacked >>>>on top of each other as in your Fig. 1, with >>>>the summary Fig 3b-like plot below. >>>> >>>>Version 2 - is the same, but the input series >>>>are all on the same axis like in the FOD MWP >>>>box fig. >>>> >>>>Now, if you think Version 1 plus caption >>>>would be smaller than Version 2 plus caption, >>>>no need for Version 2. Ditto if Version 1 >>>>plus caption was only a little bigger than V >>>>2 plus caption. >>>> >>>>Again, thanks for getting all of your new >>>>figs to us asap, particularly those targeted >>>>for TS consideration. >>>> >>>>Many thanks, Peck >>>>-- >>>>Jonathan T. Overpeck >>>>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>>Professor, Department of Geosciences >>>>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >>>> >>>>Mail and Fedex Address: >>>> >>>>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>>>University of Arizona >>>>Tucson, AZ 85721 >>>>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>>>fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>>>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>>>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >>>sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm >> >>-- >>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/ > > >-- >Jonathan T. Overpeck >Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >Professor, Department of Geosciences >Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences > >Mail and Fedex Address: > >Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >University of Arizona >Tucson, AZ 85721 >direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >fax: +1 520 792-8795 >http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ -- ______________________________________________________________ Eystein Jansen Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen Allégaten 55 N-5007 Bergen NORWAY e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 Fax: +47-55-584330 3934. 2006-02-17 ______________________________________________________ cc: ":"@email.arizona.edu date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:10:19 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: URGENT review requested to: Fortunat Joos Hi Fortunat - excellent suggestions, thanks. Not sure if Chap 8 will trump our "models can simulate response to past forcing" entry, but it's worth a try. The attached reflects your suggestions. Keith and Eystein - if you want to weigh in, pls use track changes to do so on the attached, updated, table. Will send to TSU this aft, my time. Thanks! Peck >Hi Peck, > >here my edits. > >Suggest to add on or two new bullets in the 1. >column and replace one bullet by another in the >uncertainty column. > >Cheers,fj > >Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>Hi Eystein, Keith and Fortunat - this is a >>special request for help from the Euro team, so >>I know I have solid feedback by the time I get >>to work tomorrow am. Please respond asap (using >>track changes if you can). >> >>1) Tomorrow I have to send the TSU our Robust >>Findings and Key Uncertainties Table. I have >>attached this table. Please edit, and if you >>think a Finding or Uncertainty is missing, >>please suggest exactly how you think it should >>be worded, and, if it is a Finding, suggest >>which existing one it should replace (I suspect >>they don't want more, but we could try). Please >>keep in mind this table will be part of the TS >>(not our chapter), and they must be VERY policy >>relevant - this is not the place for things a >>policy maker would not understand. Also, we >>need to use plainer English than in our Exec >>Summary bullets. >> >>2) I also attach the latest Exec Summary, with >>the latest from Keith and Fortunat (e.g., >>reordered as you suggested). I will send this >>in to the TSU tomorrow too, so if you want to >>read and edit (PLEASE USE TRACK CHANGES), >>that'll help too, but this is less important >>than working on the Robust/Key table. >> >>Many thanks! Cheers, peck >> > >-- > > Climate and Environmental Physics, > Physics Institute, University of Bern > Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern > Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 > Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh >HD:overpeck_Chap6Robust#1156AA.doc (WDBN/«IC») >(001156AA) -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Chap6RobustKeyTableV2.doc" 359. 2006-02-21 ______________________________________________________ cc: Valerie.Masson@cea.fr,olgasolomina@yandex.ru,ricardo@lab.cricyt.edu.ar date: Tue Feb 21 17:51:04 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: latest draft of 2000-year section text to: jto@u.arizona.edu Hi Valerie and Olgar and Ricardo (have also sent to others) People here is what I currently have for the 2000 text. IT DOES NOT INCLUDE FORTUNAT'S LATEST BULLET (in his last email _ - or any others because it needs stitching in with the rest of the text. There is , of course , a need to re-sort the Figure numbers and check them all and cross-referencing. The bits highlighted in yellow need attention . It needs you guys to do a read through and especially check your own bits . I do not know how to go about doing references now - as some have gone , and LOTS more come from Ricardo, Fortunat, Henry etc in their prior submissions. SO !! Is it best to read this and then ask Oyvind to incorporate all previous and recently sent references into the list - and then eliminate the ones not called out? Advice. I a lecturing first thing tomorrow - but then could look at comments . Note that I am reasonably happy that everything i s covered as regards referees' comments - EXCEPT the issue of no recent proxy coverage (last 20 years) general issues about problems with apparent recent responses of proxies to climate - observed or assumed (ie CO2 fertilization) - there was some talk of a intro section on these issues (for trees only?) - or some Table - I confess I do not know what was decided. At least here is something to stitch in to main text with all recent stuff so we can then review and continue from a common playing field. Keith -- 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/ 842. 2006-02-21 ______________________________________________________ cc: Fortunat Joos , plattner@climate.unibe.ch, Jonathan Overpeck , Stefan Rahmstorf , Anders Levermann , Eva Bauer , Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:26:54 +0100 from: Anders Levermann subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Millennium Simulations to: Tim Osborn Dear Tim, Tim Osborn wrote: > Dear all, > > after talking with Keith about the exact wording to use in the text to > describe how the stronger solar forcing assumption raises the > variability of the simulated temperatures, I've realized that it might > be misleading to say that the standard deviation of natural > variability of NH temperature is 58-72% higher if the strong solar > forcing is assumed than if the weak solar forcing is assumed. The > reason is that these figures refer only to the natural variability > that is *forced* (unless these models have internally-generated > variability -- inspection of the control runs for Bern2.5CC and > Climber2 suggests that they don't). If internally-generated > variability had a standard deviation (for 30-year smoothed NH > temperatures) of, say, 0.08 K (from HadCM3), then the stronger solar > case would have total natural variability only 28-40% greater than the > weaker solar case. > > Is this right? If so, should we just change the text to indicate that > we only mean natural variability due to external forcings? This is probably a good idea. However, since also c3a doesnot have internal variability, none of the used models does and thus the percentage that you give refers to both forced and overall variability. With respect to your calculation for the HadCM3: If other models have internal variability that would also show in the forced simulations, I guess. This would increase the standard deviation not only of the control but also of the forced simulation. Apart from non-linear effects (which might be there, of course) this shouldn't change the result (i.e. the percentage) to much. Or am I missing something here ? Cheers, Anders > > Cheers > > Tim > > At 15:23 20/02/2006, Fortunat Joos wrote: > >> Thanks Tim. This sounds good. >> >> Tim Osborn wrote: >> >>> At 15:23 15/02/2006, Fortunat Joos wrote: >>> >>>> TIM can you please give us the appropriate number for the low-freq. >>>> NH T variability and specify the smoothin. >>> >>> >>> Hi Fortunat, >>> for the smoothing actually used on the Climber2/3a/Bern2.5CC figure >>> (30-year smoothing), these are the standard deviations of the >>> simulated NH temperatures for the "only natural forcings runs": >>> Bard08-WLS Bard25 Ratio of standard deviations >>> Bern 0.103 0.177 1.72 >>> Clm2 0.078 0.123 1.58 >>> Clm3a 0.092 0.147 1.60 >>> So, the multi-decadal variability in NH surface air temperature is >>> between 58% and 72% greater under the stronger solar forcing >>> (Bard25) than under the weaker solar forcing (Bard08-WLS). >>> This can go in the text where Fortunat indicated. OK everyone? >>> Cheers >>> Tim >>> >>> 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >>> sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm >> >> >> -- >> >> Climate and Environmental Physics, >> Physics Institute, University of Bern >> Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern >> Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 >> Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ > > > 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ > sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > > -- Anders Levermann phone: +49-331-288-2560 Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research fax: +49-331-288-2570 Telegraphenberg A26, 14473 Potsdam, Germany anders.levermann@pik-potsdam.de www.pik-potsdam.de/~anders 1772. 2006-02-21 ______________________________________________________ cc: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no,Fortunat Joos , Stefan Rahmstorf , Tim Osborn ,drind@giss.nasa.gov, Henry Pollack date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:45:14 +0000 from: Keith Briffa subject: latest draft of 2000-year section text to: jto@u.arizona.edu People here is what I currently have for the 2000 text. IT DOES NOT INCLUDE FORTUNAT'S LATEST BULLET (in his last email _ - or any others because it needs stitching in with the rest of the text. There is , of course , a need to re-sort the Figure numbers and check them all and cross-referencing. The bits highlighted in yellow need attention . It needs you guys to do a read through and especially check your own bits . I do not know how to go about doing references now - as some have gone , and LOTS more come from Ricardo, Fortunat, Henry etc in their prior submissions. SO !! Is it best to read this and then ask Oyvind to incorporate all previous and recently sent references into the list - and then eliminate the ones not called out? Advice. I a lecturing first thing tomorrow - but then could look at comments . Note that I am reasonably happy that everything i s covered as regards referees' comments - EXCEPT the issue of no recent proxy coverage (last 20 years) general issues about problems with apparent recent responses of proxies to climate - observed or assumed (ie CO2 fertilization) - there was some talk of a intro section on these issues (for trees only?) - or some Table - I confess I do not know what was decided. At least here is something to stitch in to main text with all recent stuff so we can then review and continue from a common playing field. Keith -- 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/ Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\2000bitKRB3_Ch06_SOD_1A_gst.doc" 2048. 2006-02-21 ______________________________________________________ cc: date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:25:13 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: MWP fig to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen Hi Tim - Eystein and I just got off the phone and one of the two figs that is still unaccounted for is the MWP one you've been working on. Can you send tomorrow at the latest? Please send to Øyvind too. Many thanks, Peck -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 2331. 2006-02-21 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Eystein Jansen" , "Keith Briffa" date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:25:32 -0500 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: Wahl and Ammann Climatic Change article on MBH to: "Jonathan Overpeck" Hello all: The re-revised mss. of the Wahl-Ammann article on the MBH-MM controversy is now to Stephen Schneider of Climatic Change for his approval. It is possible that we might hear from him within days. If so, and the decision is full approval of "in press" status, I will let you all know immediately. At that time I also will send the mss. itself. Peace, Gene ******************************* Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 1 Saxon Drive Alfred NY, 14802 607.871.2604 -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Overpeck [mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 12:48 PM To: Wahl, Eugene R Cc: Eystein Jansen; Keith Briffa Subject: Re: FW: Wahl and Ammann ms 3321 thanks Gene - let us know if you can get it in press. I think that's what he's saying. Best, peck >Hi Peck and Caspar: > >Here is Steve Schneider's response to what "in press" means for Climatic >Change. It is hopeful. > >OK Caspar, here we go! Let's do it. > >Peace, Gene > > >******************************* > >-----Original Message----- >From: Stephen H Schneider [mailto:shs@stanford.edu] >Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 1:56 AM >To: Wahl, Eugene R >Cc: katarina kivel >Subject: RE: Wahl and Ammann ms 3321 > >your interpretation is fine--get me the revision soon so I have time to >assess your responses in light of reviews in time! Look forward to >recievieng it, Steve > > >********************************** > >On Sat, 11 Feb 2006, Wahl, Eugene R wrote: > >> Hello Steve: >> >> Caspar and I expect to have the final manuscript to you in 7-10 days >with all the revisions you requested in December. I have recently had >some correspondance with Jonathan Overpeck about this, in his IPCC role. >He says that the paper needs to be in press by the end of February to be >acceptable to be cited in the SOD. >> >> He and I have communicated re: what "in press" means for Climatic >Change, and I agreed to contact you to have a clear definition. What I >have understood from our conversations before is that if you receive the >mss and move it from "provisionally accepted" status to "accepted", then >this can be considered in press, in light of CC being a journal of >record. >> >> However, I recognize that this may not be a correct interpretation. >If you can clarify, I'd be very grateful. Also, if I do have these >definitions interpreted correctly--and if Caspar and I meet the target >set above (paper to you by Feb 17-20)--is there any chance it might be >fully "accepted" by the end of the month? I realize this is very close, >for which I accept all responsibility. And of course, I also fully >recognize that this kind of timeline is very likely out of the realm of >possibility for you. I mean no pressure in asking, I only want to get >info to then bring back to Peck. >> >> I hope this finds you well, and look forward to your response. >> >> >> Peace, Gene >> Dr. Eugene R. Wahl >> Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies >> Alfred University >> >> 607-871-2604 >> 1 Saxon Drive >> Alfred, NY 14802 >> >> > >------ >Stephen H. Schneider >Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary > Environmental Studies; >Professor, Department of Biological Sciences; >Co-Director, Center for Environmental Science and Policy at >the Stanford Institute for International Studies > >Mailing Address: > Stephen Schneider >Dept. of Biological Sciences >Gilbert Building >371 Serra Mall >Stanford University >Stanford, CA 94305-5020 U.S.A. > >Tel: (650)725-9978 >Fax: (650)725-4387 >e-mail: shs@stanford.edu >climate change website: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu > (or: climatechange.net) >cancer book website: patientfromhell.org -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 2723. 2006-02-21 ______________________________________________________ cc: plattner@climate.unibe.ch, Jonathan Overpeck , Stefan Rahmstorf , Anders Levermann , Eva Bauer , Eystein Jansen , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, joos date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:20:37 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Millennium Simulations to: Keith Briffa Many thanks. >now working on stitching all bits together (thanks Fortunat for your >text) - and , (other than final refs which are a mess!) the 2000 >year section should come by tomorrow evening my time - still having >to juggle University and teaching/committee crap) . Keith > > >At 16:33 20/02/2006, Tim Osborn wrote: >>Dear all, >> >>after talking with Keith about the exact wording to use in the text >>to describe how the stronger solar forcing assumption raises the >>variability of the simulated temperatures, I've realized that it >>might be misleading to say that the standard deviation of natural >>variability of NH temperature is 58-72% higher if the strong solar >>forcing is assumed than if the weak solar forcing is assumed. The >>reason is that these figures refer only to the natural variability >>that is *forced* (unless these models have internally-generated >>variability -- inspection of the control runs for Bern2.5CC and >>Climber2 suggests that they don't). If internally-generated >>variability had a standard deviation (for 30-year smoothed NH >>temperatures) of, say, 0.08 K (from HadCM3), then the stronger >>solar case would have total natural variability only 28-40% greater >>than the weaker solar case. >> >>Is this right? If so, should we just change the text to indicate >>that we only mean natural variability due to external forcings? >> >>Cheers >> >>Tim >> >>At 15:23 20/02/2006, Fortunat Joos wrote: >>>Thanks Tim. This sounds good. >>> >>>Tim Osborn wrote: >>>>At 15:23 15/02/2006, Fortunat Joos wrote: >>>> >>>>>TIM can you please give us the appropriate number for the >>>>>low-freq. NH T variability and specify the smoothin. >>>> >>>>Hi Fortunat, >>>>for the smoothing actually used on the Climber2/3a/Bern2.5CC >>>>figure (30-year smoothing), these are the standard deviations of >>>>the simulated NH temperatures for the "only natural forcings >>>>runs": >>>> Bard08-WLS Bard25 Ratio of standard deviations >>>>Bern 0.103 0.177 1.72 >>>>Clm2 0.078 0.123 1.58 >>>>Clm3a 0.092 0.147 1.60 >>>>So, the multi-decadal variability in NH surface air temperature >>>>is between 58% and 72% greater under the stronger solar forcing >>>>(Bard25) than under the weaker solar forcing (Bard08-WLS). >>>>This can go in the text where Fortunat indicated. OK everyone? >>>>Cheers >>>>Tim >>>> >>>>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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >>>>sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm >>> >>>-- >>> >>> Climate and Environmental Physics, >>> Physics Institute, University of Bern >>> Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern >>> Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 >>> Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ >> >>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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >>sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > >-- >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/ -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 4174. 2006-02-21 ______________________________________________________ cc: jto@u.arizona.edu, eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no, Fortunat Joos , Tim Osborn , drind@giss.nasa.gov, Henry Pollack date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:15:54 +0100 from: Stefan Rahmstorf subject: Re: latest draft of 2000-year section text to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith, will try to look at your text asap. Concerning the issue of the drift in the Von Storch run: they now have at least one paper plus one submitted comment where they redid their model run without the drift, they call this ECHO-G II, the version with drift is now ECHO-G I. I think this argues for leaving the ECHO-G I curve out of the graphs, and just having one sentence in the text stating this is not shown as it was found to drift, and has been superseded. It is an outlier that messes up the graph, and if it is known and even acknowledged by its authors that it is a model artifact, why show it in IPCC? Stefan 4796. 2006-02-21 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:58:38 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: Wahl and Ammann Climatic Change article on MBH to: "Wahl, Eugene R" Hi Gene - might be better to send the ms now - at least to Keith, since final text is being worked out now. Fingers crossed, thanks, peck >Hello all: > >The re-revised mss. of the Wahl-Ammann article on the MBH-MM controversy >is now to Stephen Schneider of Climatic Change for his approval. > >It is possible that we might hear from him within days. If so, and the >decision is full approval of "in press" status, I will let you all know >immediately. At that time I also will send the mss. itself. > >Peace, Gene > > >******************************* > >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies >Alfred University > >1 Saxon Drive >Alfred NY, 14802 > >607.871.2604 > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jonathan Overpeck [mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu] >Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 12:48 PM >To: Wahl, Eugene R >Cc: Eystein Jansen; Keith Briffa >Subject: Re: FW: Wahl and Ammann ms 3321 > >thanks Gene - let us know if you can get it in press. I think that's >what he's saying. Best, peck > >>Hi Peck and Caspar: >> >>Here is Steve Schneider's response to what "in press" means for >Climatic >>Change. It is hopeful. >> >>OK Caspar, here we go! Let's do it. >> >>Peace, Gene >> >> >>******************************* >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Stephen H Schneider [mailto:shs@stanford.edu] >>Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 1:56 AM >>To: Wahl, Eugene R >>Cc: katarina kivel >>Subject: RE: Wahl and Ammann ms 3321 >> >>your interpretation is fine--get me the revision soon so I have time to >>assess your responses in light of reviews in time! Look forward to >>recievieng it, Steve >> >> >>********************************** >> >>On Sat, 11 Feb 2006, Wahl, Eugene R wrote: >> >>> Hello Steve: >>> >>> Caspar and I expect to have the final manuscript to you in 7-10 days >>with all the revisions you requested in December. I have recently had >>some correspondance with Jonathan Overpeck about this, in his IPCC >role. >>He says that the paper needs to be in press by the end of February to >be >>acceptable to be cited in the SOD. >>> >>> He and I have communicated re: what "in press" means for Climatic >>Change, and I agreed to contact you to have a clear definition. What I >>have understood from our conversations before is that if you receive >the >>mss and move it from "provisionally accepted" status to "accepted", >then >>this can be considered in press, in light of CC being a journal of >>record. >>> >>> However, I recognize that this may not be a correct interpretation. >>If you can clarify, I'd be very grateful. Also, if I do have these >>definitions interpreted correctly--and if Caspar and I meet the target >>set above (paper to you by Feb 17-20)--is there any chance it might be >>fully "accepted" by the end of the month? I realize this is very >close, >>for which I accept all responsibility. And of course, I also fully >>recognize that this kind of timeline is very likely out of the realm of >>possibility for you. I mean no pressure in asking, I only want to get >>info to then bring back to Peck. >>> >>> I hope this finds you well, and look forward to your response. >>> >>> >>> Peace, Gene >>> Dr. Eugene R. Wahl >>> Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies >>> Alfred University >>> >>> 607-871-2604 >>> 1 Saxon Drive >>> Alfred, NY 14802 >>> >>> >> >>------ >>Stephen H. Schneider >>Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary >> Environmental Studies; >>Professor, Department of Biological Sciences; >>Co-Director, Center for Environmental Science and Policy at >>the Stanford Institute for International Studies >> >>Mailing Address: >> Stephen Schneider >>Dept. of Biological Sciences >>Gilbert Building >>371 Serra Mall >>Stanford University >>Stanford, CA 94305-5020 U.S.A. >> >>Tel: (650)725-9978 >>Fax: (650)725-4387 >>e-mail: shs@stanford.edu >>climate change website: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu >> (or: climatechange.net) >>cancer book website: patientfromhell.org > > >-- >Jonathan T. Overpeck >Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >Professor, Department of Geosciences >Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences > >Mail and Fedex Address: > >Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >University of Arizona >Tucson, AZ 85721 >direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >fax: +1 520 792-8795 >http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 5084. 2006-02-21 ______________________________________________________ cc: , "Brohan, Philip" , date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:37:10 -0000 from: "Rob Wilson" subject: Re: Fw: 2005JC003188R Decision Letter to: , "Tim Osborn" Thanks Tim, am working my way through the comments Have also re-read Mike Evans 2002 paper. I am frustrated with the associate editors comments. He seems to be overtly defending Mike's reconstruction which are quite different in nature - i.e. he reconstructed 2 spatial fields - the 1st being ENSO related and the 2nd being probably related to the PDO although it is not clear form the text. The coral data-sets are also quite different, with only ~ 4 series being common to both studies. In fact, many of the coral series used by Mike did not pass my screening process. Lastly, the only statistic use by Mike for validation is the correlation coefficient. I like to think I have been a little more robust at least in this regard. I need to diplomatically word all this. I never wanted to criticise Mike's work in anyway way. It was for that reason that I made little mention to it initially. anyway, I hope to get a more cleaner version done by early next week. will keep you all posted Rob. PS. do you have the FORTRAN code for Ed Cook's SSA software? ----- Original Message ----- From: [1]Tim Osborn To: [2]Rob Wilson ; [3]Sandy.Tudhope@ed.ac.uk Cc: [4]K.briffa@uea.ac.uk ; [5]Brohan, Philip ; [6]simon.tett@metoffice.com Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 3:00 PM Subject: Re: Fw: 2005JC003188R Decision Letter Hi Rob et al., seems like there are many points to address - some reasonable, some rather picky. Some easy things to do... change "all time scales" to "annual to centennial time scales", minor inconsistencies pointed out. Near the end the comments get a bit picky/stupid. e.g. "according to CE reconstruction is less skillful than climatology". Doesn't RE assume "climatology" (== calibration period mean) while CE compares the skill against the assumption that the mean over the verification period is known (which of course it isn't known for a general period outside the instrumental period)? And I really don't think your average reader will be confused into thinking that you calibrated using observations before 1840! Though wording could be changed to "the explained variance of the reconstruction using records available before 1840 us quite low" or something similar that fits the flow of the sentence. Also, earlier on, isn't it obvious from the editor's own description of the method that you can indeed estimate verification errors for all "nests", including those available during the instrumental period, and thus it is obvious why verification statistics can cover this entire period in Figure 2C,D. The editor just needs to think about things a bit more! The description of the calibration method can be written in the way that is requested, I'm sure. The difficulty is actually in countering the criticisms that (1) the reconstruction error obtained by regression may no longer be appropriate after the "inflation" step, (2) the use of calibration period residuals rather than verification period residuals to provide the error bars (though here the editor contradicts this suggestion by pointing out that the verification errors apply to no period other than the verification period, but if you assume the same for the calibration errors then where can you get the errors from?). Hope these quick comments help, Cheers Tim At 11:41 18/02/2006, Rob Wilson wrote: >Greetings All, >have just been away for a week to return to this reply from JGR. >Have only gone through it quickly, but we obviously have a fussy >associate editor to please. >Should have gone for 'atmospheres' rather than 'oceans'. > >will go through it properly on Monday. >Hope you are around over the next few days or so. > >regards >Rob >PS. have used this e-mail address as the Uni server seems to be down > >----- Original Message ----- >From: <[7]mailto:jgr-oceans@agu.org>jgr-oceans@agu.org >To: <[8]mailto:rob.wilson@ed.ac.uk>rob.wilson@ed.ac.uk >Cc: <[9]mailto:rob.dendro@virgin.net>rob.dendro@virgin.net >Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 8:06 PM >Subject: 2005JC003188R Decision Letter > >Dear Dr. Wilson: > >Thank you for submitting your manuscript "250-years of reconstructed >and modeled tropical temperatures" [Paper #2005JC003188R]. > >I am in agreement with the associate editor and the reviewers that >your revisions fail to adequately address the original concerns >about the reconstruction methodologies. If you want to convey that >this is somehow far superior to earlier reconstructions of SST, then >it is only fair that readers of JGR get a very very clear >description of the methods used and a convincing argument as to why >the reconstruction is better than prior published reports on such >reconstructions. Please heed the detailed comments and carefully >address each of the comments with appropriate revisions and clear >responses. I will be obliged to reject the manuscript if you do not >address these concerns since the main claim of an improved >reconstruction of historic temperatures is not scientifically >rigorous enough for publication in JGR-Oceans. > >Please submit your revised manuscript by March 28, 2006. If you do >not plan to submit a revision, or if you cannot do so in the time >allotted, I would be grateful if you could let me know as soon as >possible. > >Please review the Important Links to JGR Information attached below >before uploading your revised manuscript. > >When you are ready to submit your revision, please use the link >below. > ><<[10]http://jgr-oceans-submit.agu.org/cgi-bin/main.plex?el=A7D3BjvY2B7CcrO6I3A9KGXg2FZ afNJvsZyA2JF0mAZ>http://jgr-oceans-submit.agu.org/cgi-bin/main.plex?el=A7D3BjvY2B7CcrO6I 3A9KGXg2FZafNJvsZyA2JF0mAZ> > > >Sincerely, > >Raghu Murtugudde >Editor, Journal of Geophysical Research - Oceans > >--------------------IMPORTANT PUBLICATION INFORMATION--------------------- >To ensure prompt publication: > >1. Follow file format guidelines >2. Provide a color option >3. Combine figure parts or provide separate captions >4. Provide copyright permissions for reprinted figures and tables >5. Sign and send copyright transfer agreement >6. A formal estimate will be sent to you a few weeks after acceptance. > >For information on all of the above items, see Tools for Authors at ><[11]http://www.agu.org/pubs/inf4aus.html>http://www.agu.org/pubs/inf4aus.html. >If you have any questions, reply >to this e-mail. > >A manuscript tracking tool is available for you to to track the >status of your article after acceptance: ><[12]http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/ms_status/ms_status.cgi>http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/ms_s tatus/ms_status.cgi > > >Adobe Acrobat Reader is available, free, on the internet at the >following URL: ><[13]http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html>http://www.adobe.com/prodinde x/acrobat/readstep.html > > >************************************END************************************* > > >Reviewer Comments > >Associate Editor(Comments): > >The authors adequately addressed many of the reviewers' >remarks and requests for revisions. > >However, there are significant outstanding issues detailed >below. The paper needs a thorough revision to become >acceptable. > >1. The paper lacks a clear description of the reconstruction >technique. From the text, figures, tables, and the authors' >responses, one can guess that the following approach was >used, in order to produce the main ("full period") >reconstruction that the authors use for model comparison and >interpretation: (1) for each year before 1870 the subset of >coral records for which this year's value is available >("nest") is identified; (2) standardized values of the >"nest" records are averaged together for each year for which >the entire nest is available; (3) a linear regression of the >nest values is performed on the instrumental annual tropical >SST averages for the period 1897-1981 (or its subperiod for >which the nest values are available); (4) the obtained >linear regression formula for that nest is tested on the >period 1870-1896, and the verification statistics is >derived; (5) the reconstruction of the target year is >performed using the same linear regression for this nest, >and the "verification" statistics is attributed to this >year. > >Very small percentage of the readers will be able to >understand this procedure from the paper in its current >form. There are a few reasons for that: (a) the paper lacks >an explicit coherent description of this procedure, (b) the >additional "inflation" of the reconstruction (p.9, lines >2-3) is performed, but neither the explicit formula for it >is given, nor how this inflation affects the reconstruction >error in verification is discussed, (c) it would seem >natural to use the verification error for the error bars, >but it appears that the authors are using the calibration >error, although no adequate description is given, (d) the >authors are taking a lot of liberty with using verification >statistics - unlike error bar estimates these are not >supposed to be attributed to the periods other than those >for which they were computed, or at least it is highly >unusual to do that, (e) what values are given as coral >reconstructions for the instrumental period is not >explained: calibration values for corresponding nests? (f) >why "verification" statistics in Fig 2C,D cover the entire >calibration period is unclear, (g) the presence of the >specific calibration formula in the upper right corner of >Fig 2 is very confusing in the context of this work, but the >authors failed to take any action despite the hint from >Reviewer 2 (remark 3.3). > >The authors have to provide an unambigous description of all >aspects of their reconstruction procedure. But all >additional information they provide about their >reconstruction should help the reader to understand the main >message, rather than to get confused or completely drowned >under the confusing information flow. Therefore the >"split-period" calibrations need to be reported only if they >help to deliver the main message, which is not the case in >the present version. Same with statistics: a lot of it is >reported, but what purpose it serves is unclear. All >statistics more complicated than correlation coefficient >needs to be explicitly defined, to make the presentation >unambigous. In their reply, the authors call Durbin-Watson >statistic "standard". Well it's not for JGR-Oceans, where at >least since 1994 it's never been used (in the entire body of >all AGU journals it was only about 15 times). Same with sign >test: the readers of JGR-Oceans should not be expected to >have dendroclimatological textbooks by Cook and Kairiukstis >or by Fritts in their posesion in order to look up and >interpret the authors' results. Some of these statistics >are only introduced in table captions, and in a puzzling >way, e.g. Table 2A, lines 3-4: LIN r = correlation of linear >trend in residual series. What is meant here is probably the >correlationcoefficient of residual with the time variable, >but in any case, LIN r is not a good notation. > >2. The authors resisted the gentle insistence of Reviewer 2 >(remark 5.1) on quantifying the role of trends in the >model-reconstruction intercomparison. To put it more >bluntly, the significant correlations reported on p.11 and >Table 3 are only significant because of the long term >trends. If the 50- or 100-year the trends were subtracted, >no significant correlation of residuals would be >left. Trends themselves have such a small numbers of degrees >of freedom (6, if separate trends are computed for 50 yr >periods), that reported correlations are not significant for >them. Therefore the authors' claim in conclusions of "a >strong mutual agreement between the reconstruction and two >global coupled-climate models" (p.14, lines 21-22) is not >properly supported by the presented results and most likely >incorrect. The authors have to change somehow their line of >argument about model-data consistency to make it correct and >acceptable for publication. > >3. The authors claim to develop "first coral-based, large >scale temperature reconstruction, exclusive to the tropics, >that represents past SST variability at all time-scales." >First, how can it possibly do this at "all" time-scales and >what scales other reconstructions of similar length exclude? >Second, why Evans et al 2002 reconstruction doesn't count? >In general, the authors seem to operate with understanding >that their reconstruction is superior to that by Evans et al >2002 (e.g. their reply to remark 3.4 by Reviewer 2). The >basis for that is unclear, since they use a simpler >technique, a simlar coral data set, and they only try to >reconstruct the tropical mean, rather than the entire >field. The actual advantages of their product compared with >earlier works need to be made clear in the paper. > >4. The revision seems to have been made in a great haste, so >that the changes the authors made often result in >inconsistencies with the surrounding text. > >Abstract, lines 14-16: this sentence is grammatically >incorrect. > >p.4, line 15: raw records are not data transforms > >p.4 lines 18-19 and p.5 lines 11-12 are in conflict. Logical >way to present the material is to say that 16 records passed >the screening, but then 2 of them were excluded for that and >this reason. > >p.6, line 7: MTA is mentioned here, but it is only in the >captions to Table 2 that it is explained that MTA is a >combined mean of MAI and TAR. This is inappropriate use of >caption, not to mention that (1) TAR is called MaiTar in the >Table header, (2) the number of records is reduced to 13 >now, to confuse the reader further. > >p. 7, line 6: add "here" after "was used" to break the false >attribution of this sentence to Evans et al 1998 work. > >p.8, line 5. ST abbreviation intoduced earlier is not used >here. > >p.8 lines 9-11: "calculated" used twice. > >p.8 line 20 - p.9 line 5. Ambigous, confusing description of >the crucial part of the procedure. > > >p.9, lines 6-18. (1) attribution of the statistics to the >entire nest record creates very bad effects here: "prior to >1840, the explained calibration vatiance is quite low". For >a reader who hasn't internalize the authors approach, the >reference to calibration before 1840 will be shocking. (2) >Strictly speaking, for the entire period before 1850 the >reconstruction has less skill than climatology, according to >CE in the Figure 2B. The authors have to deal with a >complicated task of explaining that to the reader, while >also arguing that since after 1750 the CE is a bit better >that before 1750, they chose to use the reconstruction after >1750 for comparison with the models. (The Reviewer 1 was >concerned about this too in the first remark). > >p.9, line 19: ". . . appear improved" compared to what? > >p.15, lines 19-21. Again, it needs to be explained better >what is the contribution of the present paper to evaluating >the potential for reconstructing large scale tropical >temperatures from a network of coral proxies, as compared to >Evans et al papers, where this task seems to have been >accomplished before from a few different angles. > >p.24, line 1: "Simple zero order OLS regression" is not >simple: what does zero order mean in this context? > >p.24, line 5. "model residual" is confusing, because the >only models called so in the paper are GCMs. But here >"model" denotes a linear regression model. > >Page 41. Table S1. (1) it would be helpful to explain that >left part of these tables are calibration statistics and >right are verification statistics. (2) What is aR^2: >"multiple" correlation coefficient? Is R different from r? >(3) Why full-period verification statistics are missing for >nests after 1879? > > > > > > > > > > > > Dr Timothy J Osborn Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK e-mail: [14]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk phone: +44 1603 592089 fax: +44 1603 507784 web: [15]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: [16]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 4273. 2006-02-22 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Eystein Jansen" date: Wed Feb 22 08:53:55 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: RE: Wahl and Ammann Climatic Change article on MBH to: "Wahl, Eugene R" , "Jonathan Overpeck" Thanks for this Eugene. It has been very difficult in drafting the 2000-year section text for us to get the balance between too much concentration on the controversy as you call it and the need to describe subsequent work. Sounds like your paper is an important one to signpost in the text. best wishes Keith At 00:26 22/02/2006, Wahl, Eugene R wrote: OK: Here is the mss. Yes, fingers crossed. Note, this is not for general dissemination until actually "in press". The article is quite long, due to all the MM issues we address and the extensive discussions concerning use of validation measures we get into. As a first pass, the Abstract, Discussion, and Summary would be good places to start. Peace, Gene ******************************* Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 1 Saxon Drive Alfred NY, 14802 607.871.2604 -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Overpeck [[1]mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 3:59 PM To: Wahl, Eugene R Cc: Keith Briffa; Eystein Jansen Subject: Re: Wahl and Ammann Climatic Change article on MBH Hi Gene - might be better to send the ms now - at least to Keith, since final text is being worked out now. Fingers crossed, thanks, peck >Hello all: > >The re-revised mss. of the Wahl-Ammann article on the MBH-MM controversy >is now to Stephen Schneider of Climatic Change for his approval. > >It is possible that we might hear from him within days. If so, and the >decision is full approval of "in press" status, I will let you all know >immediately. At that time I also will send the mss. itself. > >Peace, Gene > -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 1757. 2006-02-23 ______________________________________________________ cc: jto@u.arizona.edu, Valerie.Masson@cea.fr, olgasolomina@yandex.ru, ricardo@lab.cricyt.edu.ar, Eystein Jansen date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:02:00 +0100 from: Valérie Masson-Delmotte subject: Re: latest draft of 2000-year section text to: Keith Briffa Dear Keith, A few rapid comments on the section 6.6 revised text. I have enjoyed reading it, more concise, less defensive and key conclusions appear more solid. Sometimes the text is written in the past tense, sometimes in the present tense : it could be homogenised. Please remove the sentence page 6-15 "The paleohydrologic record of North America is the most complete and diverse of any of the world in part due to the proximity to many well equipped labs but also due to the concern of the frequent change in drought, flood...". This has nothing to do in a scientific assesment (equipement versus motivation). The same motivation should hold true for all tropical areas! It would be worth to discuss in one paragraph somewhere (possibly together with the text page 6-6 about the proxies) the methods of tree ring standardisation which seem to have changed over time and lead to larger low frequency signals in the tree ring width based reconstructions. Comments on the structure : 6.6.1 I think that the italic question for the section does not work. I suggest to add sub questions such as : What do early instrumental records tell us? (p6-2, lines 7 to 39) What new reconstruction efforts have been conducted since TAR for NH temperatures (6-2 lines 41 to 6-6 25) What are the main sources of uncertainties in large scale climate reconstructions (6-6 lines 27 to 49) - should refer to the section introduction / description of proxies What do NH temperature reconstructions tell us (6-6 lines 51 to 6-8 line 5) Regarding climate forcings and simulations (6.6.3 and 6.6.4) there must be a cross verification with chapter 9, have you looked at their revised text? The title 6.6.3 includes too much refereence to modelling. They have been also statistical efforts to relate forcings and respondes (not only physical models) which have to be mentioned. Then modelling should be in 6.6.4 only. Another way could be to combine both in one section : 6.6.3 would be model-data comparisons with 1) forcings and 2) simulations versus reconstructions. Section 6.6.5 is too long compared to the # of studies conducted here. Minor comments : 6-3 2 line 20 add "North European records" line 27 and onwards I think that Boehm reconstruction should be cited around the Alps back to 1780 (it really deserves to be cited). line 33 Chuine et al puts the French heat wave in a 700 perspective with grape harvest dates, which could be mentioned. line 36 shorten to "detailed changes in various climate forcings" line 44 : what are the documentary sources incorporated by Mann? I understand essentially early instrumental records. 6-3 line 49 : this paragraph is a bit vague. Maybe mention more clearly areas where no data are available. Goosse et al GRL 2004 used a synthesis of Antarctica data + simulations to discuss the pb of phase with Antarctica and could be mentioned. I suggest to replace "assimilated" which has a special meaning for meteorologists by "combined" 6-4 line 9 change"are" to "is" line 16 : how many such long records are available (= what are "very few"?) 6-3 line 39 : is it the rapidity of the 20th c warming or the level of late 20th c temperatures that have to be discusssed? 6-5 line 8 use reconstruction, not "series". I understand that one series is one proxy record and a mixture of records with various statistical methods is a reconstruction. Line 31 : add "many of the individual annually resolved proxy series". 6-6 line 30 change "over a fixed calendar based time window such as J-A or J-D" to "over a specific season" 6-8 line 29 : I propose to change the text about tropical ice cores. There are few strongly temperature-sensitive proxies from tropical latitudes. Water stable isotope records from high latitude tropical glaciers where first used as temperature proxies but recent calibration and modelling studies have confirmed that tropical precipitation isotopic composition is mostly sensitive to precipitation changes ("amount effect") at seasonal to decadal time scales both in south America and south Tibet. References : *Hoffmann G*, *Ramirez E*, Taupin JD, et al. Coherent isotope history of Andean ice cores over the last century GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 30 (4): Art. No. 1179 FEB 25 2003 *Vuille M*, Werner M, Bradley RS, et al. Stable isotopes in precipitation in the Asian monsoon region JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES 110 (D23): Art. No. D23108 DEC 8 2005 By the way, in the same paragraph, you cite tropical glacier retreat as caused by temperature changes. I suggest to refer to chapter 3 on this topic because many studies have also shown that precipitation / relative humidity / albedo effects can be very important for tropical glacier mass balance (see for instance Vincent et al, Comptes rendus Geosciences 2005). Page 6-8, ground surface temperatures : are there tropical records available that could be explicitely discussed? The problem of calibration mentioned line 29 (lack of the last decades of the 20th century) also holds true for many of the long tree ring records... should it be explicitely highlighted here? 6-9 : line 9-10, what is a "much longer warm period", I do not understand. I think that this could be shortened. I still suffer that Antarctica is not mentioned at all. In Goosse et al 2004 I made a stack of 6 records from East Antarctica. There is also one good borehole record from Law Dome (Dahl Jensen Annals of Glacio 1998) showing the same features. 6-10 line 28 : I do not think that it is appropriate to discuss the Solanki paper here. 6-10 and 11 : why mix volcanic and anthropogenic sulface aerosols rather than 2 sections? Why not discuss changes in surface occupation (land use) in the forcings for the last millenium at least in one sentence? 6-12, lines 38 and onwards : it seems that this is attribution and detection and should be a summary of chapter 9 or just a cross reference to chapter 9. Section 6.6.5 (6-12 and 13) is too long compared to the studies cited. Maybe Fortunat could help to make this section more punchy. Should the PhD thesis of MacFarling Meure be cited in this assessment? Remove "the best known aspects of the records" Refer to chapter XX for biogeochemical cycles The last paragraph is probably redondant with respect to the carbon cycle climate feedback discussed in that chapter. Page 6-14 line 43 : redundancy in this paragraph. Does the coldest European winter have to be discussed in such detail? I would skip this (remove line mid 42 to beg of 45 and keep the last sentence of the paragraph which basically says the same thing. The section on Asian monsoon variability is not focused on the last 2000 years but on millenial variability => mix with 6.4? Why not cite the Tibet ice core records here (ex Dasuopu 18O which should be a local precip record). There are also high res speleothem records with high resolution. Ramesh should help on this paragraph. I hope that you find this useful, congratulations for the large improvements of this section and taking into account a record number of comments... Valérie. 4329. 2006-02-24 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:31:20 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: RE: Invitation to speak to the U.S. NRC Committee on Surface to: "Kraucunas, Ian" Dear Ian, I would be happy to respond to written questions after the meeting (depending, of course, on the extent of such questions -- not wanting to make an open-ended commitment). I have attached one paper that is currently in press with Climate Dynamics. It's relevance to the topic is indirect, in that it discusses issues related to the ECHO-G "Erik" model simulation used in the pseudo-proxy study of von Storch et al. (2004). In our conclusions we note the relevance of our work in this way: "Though our results do not discount the bias in climate reconstructions identified by von Storch et al. (2004), which is an inherent property of the reconstruction methods, it is likely that the magnitude of this bias depends on the magnitude of long-term temperature variability (Osborn and Briffa 2004). If the ECHO-G Erik run overestimates this, then the bias in climate reconstructions found by von Storch et al. (2004) will also be overestimated." I don't have any other submitted/accepted material to provide. Best regards Tim At 16:48 17/02/2006, you wrote: >Tim, > >Thank you for the reply. I am sorry that you will not be able to speak >to the committee, and again I apologize for the short notice. If the >committee has any questions that it feels you are uniquely qualified to >answer, would you perhaps be willing to respond to written questions >after our meeting? As I mentioned in my previous message, the committee >would also be interested in any recently submitted or accepted papers >that you feel might be relevant. > >Again, thanks for your time, >Ian > >-----Original Message----- >From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 11:01 AM >To: Kraucunas, Ian >Subject: Re: Invitation to speak to the U.S. NRC Committee on Surface >Temperature Reconstructions > >Dear Dr. Ian Kraucunas, > >thank you for the very interesting invitation to speak at the NRC >committee meeting. Unfortunately I am declining the invitation. The >primary reason is that it would be difficult for me to commit time to >it at a very busy time for me, in the final two months of a >three-and-a-half-year multi-national project that I am >coordinating. The time necessary to do it justice, in terms of >preparation of material and attending the meeting itself, is more >than I have available. > >Best regards > >Tim > >At 19:48 16/02/2006, you wrote: > >Dear Dr. Osborn, > > > >The National Research Council of The National Academies of the United > >States is empanelling a committee to study "Surface Temperature > >Reconstructions for the Past 1,000-2,000 Years". The committee will be > >asked to summarize the current scientific information on the >temperature > >record over the past two millennia, describe the proxy records that >have > >been used to reconstruct pre-instrumental climatic conditions, assess > >the methods employed to combine multiple proxy data over large spatial > >scales, evaluate the overall accuracy and precision of such > >reconstructions, and explain how central the debate over the > >paleoclimate temperature record is to the state of scientific knowledge > >on global climate change. I have attached the complete study proposal > >(Word document). > > > >Since this issue has been the subject of considerable controversy, we > >have taken great care to assemble an unbiased panel of scientific > >experts with the appropriate range of expertise to produce an > >authoritative report on the subject. Jerry North (Texas A&M >University) > >will be chairing the committee, and NAS Members Mike Wallace, Karl > >Turekian, and Bob Dickinson will be on the panel, in addition to a > >half-dozen other scientists with expertise in statistics, climate > >variability, and several different types of paleoclimate proxy data. > >The full committee slate is available at the following website: > >http://www4.nas.edu/webcr.nsf/CommitteeDisplay/BASC-U-06-01-A > > > >The committee would like to invite you to come to Washington DC on > >Thursday, March 2nd to speak about your extensive work in this area and > >to discuss your perspective on the issues noted above and in the study > >proposal. The committee will be familiar with the relevant > >peer-reviewed literature, including your recent paper with Dr. Briffa >in > >Science, but is also interested in any recently submitted or accepted > >papers. We will be inviting 10-11 other experts to speak; a complete > >agenda will be made available prior to the meeting, and the meeting >will > >be open to the public. Speakers will be reimbursed for travel expenses > >and invited to stay for the entire open session of the meeting (which > >will include a reception on Thursday evening and a few speakers on > >Friday morning). > > > >Thank you in advance for your time and interest, I hope that you are > >available and willing to meet with our committee on such short notice. > >Please let me know if there is a convenient time that I could call you > >tomorrow (Friday) to discuss details and answer any questions you might > >have (or feel free to call me directly). > > > >Sincerely, > > > >Ian Kraucunas > > > >~~~ > >Ian Kraucunas, Ph.D. > >Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate > >National Research Council of The National Academies > >500 Fifth Street NW, Keck 705 > >Washington, DC 20001 > >Email: ikraucunas@nas.edu > >Phone: (202) 334-2546 > >Fax: (202) 334-3825 > > > >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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 348. 2006-02-27 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:37:03 -0500 from: Gabi Hegerl subject: Re: [Fwd: CCNet SPECIAL: NAS CLIMATE PANEL: INDEPENDENT EXPERTS to: Keith Briffa yes, I do, Peck sent something. have a good morning! Gabi Keith Briffa wrote: > Gabi > I believe you have all these now - but may send another (minor edits) > version later > Keith > At 17:08 25/02/2006, you wrote: > >> I see what you are saying (look below). >> Does not look like the perfect place to show up borderline prepared >> due to the IPCC >> panic, sigh. >> Keith, would you mind swinging the last millennium section+figures by >> so I can make >> sure we don't step on your turf? I think we are ok, but it would be >> good to check. >> I can send you ours on monday. >> >> Gabi >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: CCNet SPECIAL: NAS CLIMATE PANEL: INDEPENDENT EXPERTS OR >> KANGAROO COURT? >> Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:30:43 -0000 >> From: Peiser, Benny >> >> To: cambridge-conference >> >> >> >> >> >> CCNet SPECIAL - 25 February 2006 >> NAS CLIMATE PANEL: INDEPENDENT EXPERTS OR KANGAROO COURT? >> >> >> >> >> If the House of Commerce Committee would like to have additional >> information >> regarding the state of scientific knowledge in the area of research >> being >> conducted by Drs Mann, Hughes, and Bradley, the National Academy of >> Sciences >> would be willing to create an independent expert panel (according to our >> standard rigorous study process) to assess the state of scientific >> knowledge >> in this area. >> --Ralph J Cicerone, NAS President, 15 July 2005 >> >> >> >> It appeared that the issue was not going to go away by itself. We >> thought this >> was an appropriate way to get an assessment of the science. >> --David Goldston, NAS science committee chief of staff, 10 >> February 2006 >> >> >> >> Larry Neal, deputy staff director for Mr. Barton's committee, said in >> a statement >> that because "combating climate change is a breathtakingly expensive >> prospect," >> it deserved closer study, and that the academy was "unlikely" to >> address all of >> Mr. Barton's concerns. Mr. Barton has already sought a separate >> analysis of the >> hockey stick led by statistician Edward Wegman of George Mason >> University, people >> familiar with the matter said. >> --Anatonio Regalado, The Wall Street Journal, 10 February 2006 >> >> >> We are writing to protest three of the appointments to the Panel >> because of bias, >> lack of objectivity and/or conflict of interest and to protest the >> failure of the >> Panel as presently constituted to meet policies of the National >> Academy of Sciences >> (NAS) regarding committee composition and balance. >> --Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, 17 February 2006 >> >> >> >> I'd say NAS is on a path to make a hash of it. I am getting sick of >> watching government >> violate its own procedures so that it may reach predetermined >> conclusions for the good >> of the people. Procedures are there to protect the process. How can >> there be a good >> outcome without a good process? >> --John G. Bell, Climate Audit, 24 February 2006 >> >> >> >> I have no doubt that there are members of Barton's staff who are >> watching all this. If >> it turns out to be a Kangaroo Court, I'll bet NAS will be called to >> task by some politicians. >> I think this is an excellent opportunity to get some facts out on the >> table, and I am >> hopeful about the outcome. >> --jae, Climate Audit, 25 February >> >> >> >> (1) NAS SCHEDULE >> Steve McIntyre, 24 February 2006 >> >> (2) LETTER TO NAS ON PANEL COMPOSITION AND BALANCE >> Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, 17 February 2006 >> >> (3) NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES TO REFEREE CLIMATE-CHANGE FIGHT >> Anatonio Regalado, The Wall Street Journal, 10 February 2006 >> >> (4) CCNet AND CLIMATE CHANGE COVERAGE >> Geological Society of India >> >> >> ============= >> (1) NAS SCHEDULE >> >> Steve McIntyre, 24 February 2006 >> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=551 >> >> Here's the appearance schedule. There are 10 presentations. Hughes >> and Mann each get a separate speaking slot while Ross and I are >> combined into one. It's a pretty blue-chip set of speakers. >> >> We get the last speaking spot on Thursday at the end of a long day, >> just before cocktails. Hughes and Mann get to wrap with two spots on >> Friday, Mann getting the last word. >> >> NAS has added a new member to the panel. (BTW three of the panel are >> either current or past UCAR trustees: North, Turekian and Dickinson, >> added to the two UCAR employees - Otto-Bliesen and Nychka.) It is a >> statistician, Peter Bloomfield of North Carolina State, who has a >> lengthy resume with many interesting-looking papers. Bloomfield is a >> coauthor with Nychka in several publications. He is cited in two >> pers. comms. in Briffa et al [Holocene 2002] where Briffa describes >> how they went about estimating confidence intervals for their MXD >> reconstruction - you know, the one where they chop off the period >> after 1960. Out of all the statisticians in the world, why would they >> pick one who consulted on confidence intervals for one of the Hockey >> Team studies? >> >> Needless to say, they've paid no attention so far to any of our >> suggestions or comments on composition and balance. I wonder how they >> actually go about considering panel composition and balance. Anyway, >> it should be interesting. >> >> Schedule >> Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the past >> 1,000-2,000 Years: Synthesis of Current Understanding and Challenges >> for the Future >> >> Meeting #1 Open Session Agenda >> March 2-3, 2006 >> The National Academy of Sciences Building >> 2100 C St. N.W., Washington, D.C. >> >> Thursday March 2, 2006 (Lecture Room) >> >> 8:30 A.M. Continental breakfast >> 9:00 A.M. Welcome and introductions >> 9:15 A.M. Invited Speaker: Henry Pollack (Michigan) >> 10:00 A.M. Invited Speaker: Daniel Schrag (Harvard) >> 10:45 A.M. Break >> 11:00 A.M. Invited Speaker: Richard Alley (Penn State) >> 11:45 A.M. Invited Speaker: Jürg Luterbacher (Bern) >> 12:30 P.M. Lunch >> 1:30 P.M. Invited Speaker: Rosanne D'Arrigo (Lamont) >> 2:15 P.M. Invited Speaker: Gabriele Hegerl (Duke) >> 3:00 P.M. Break >> 3:15 P.M. Invited Speaker: Hans von Storch (GKSS) >> 4:00 P.M. Invited Speaker: Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (Guelph) >> 4:45 P.M. Break >> 5:00 P.M. Open discussion >> 5:30 P.M. Reception >> >> Friday March 3, 2006 (Lecture Room) >> 8:30 A.M. Continental breakfast >> 9:00 A.M. Invited Speaker: Malcolm Hughes (Arizona) >> 9:45 A.M. Invited Speaker: Michael Mann (Penn State) >> 10:30 A.M. Wrap-up / discussion >> 11:00 A.M. Adjourn to closed session >> >> =========== >> (2) LETTER TO NAS ON PANEL COMPOSITION AND BALANCE >> >> Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, 17 February 2006 >> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=534 >> >> The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has presumably been criticized >> in the past for the >> composition of panels (from the evidence of the mere existence of the >> 1997 law on committee >> balance and composition). This law and resulting policies provide for >> a comment period on >> proposed committees. Ross and I have exercised our rights under this >> policy and today sent >> the following letter to NAS. >> >> ------ >> We are writing to protest three of the appointments to the Panel >> because of bias, lack of >> objectivity and/or conflict of interest and to protest the failure of >> the Panel as presently >> constituted to meet policies of the National Academy of Sciences >> (NAS) regarding committee >> composition and balance. We have suggested several alternatives whose >> appointment would at >> least partly mitigate these problems. >> >> Dr. Otto-Bliesner >> >> The "Policy on Committee Composition and Balance and Conflicts of >> Interest for Committees Used >> in the Development of Reports", a policy statement of the National >> Academy of Science (NAS) >> issued in compliance with section 15 of the federal Advisory >> Committee Act, provides explicit >> statements about the issues of bias, lack of objectivity and conflict >> of interest. It states, >> with respect to conflict of interest: >> >> It is essential that the work of committees of the institution >> used in the development >> of reports not be compromised by any significant conflict of >> interest. For this purpose, >> the term "conflict of interest" means any financial or other >> interest which conflicts with >> the service of the individual because it (1) could significantly >> impair the individual's >> objectivity or (2) could create an unfair competitive advantage >> for any person or >> organization. Except for those situations in which the >> institution determines that a >> conflict of interest is unavoidable and promptly and publicly >> discloses the conflict of >> interest, no individual can be appointed to serve (or continue to >> serve) on a committee of >> the institution used in the development of reports if the >> individual has a conflict of >> interest that is relevant to the functions to be performed. [bold >> in original] >> >> and, with respect to bias and lack of objectivity: >> >> Finally, it is essential that the work of committees that are >> used by the institution in >> the development of reports not be compromised by issues of bias >> and lack of objectivity. ... >> Questions of lack of objectivity and bias ordinarily relate to >> views stated or positions >> taken that are largely intellectually motivated or that arise >> from the close identification >> or association of an individual with a particular point of view >> or the positions or >> perspectives of a particular group >> >> The Panel is obviously going to have to consider our various >> criticisms of Mann et al. and will >> undoubtedly hear reference to a national Media Advisory by UCAR in >> May 2005 declaring that UCAR >> employee Caspar Ammann had shown that our various criticisms were >> "unfounded". This press release >> has been relied upon in material presented to the U.S. Congress by >> Sir John Houghton of IPCC, >> by Dr Mann and by the European Geophysical Union. Ammann has advised >> one of us that he has used >> these two unpublished articles in his annual employment review at UCAR. >> >> One of the proposed panellists, Dr Otto-Bliesner, has not only been a >> frequent coauthor and >> presenter with Ammann, but is Ammann's immediate supervisor at UCAR >> (see >> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/paleo/images/Bette1.jpg). >> As such, she has presumably >> considered Ammann's articles on our work in the course of carrying >> out Ammann's annual review. >> We presume that she would have been involved in preparing and/or >> approving the UCAR press >> release on Ammann's work last May. In addition, last year, she >> co-authored an article with >> Bradley (of Mann, Bradley and Hughes) and served on a committee with >> him. It appears to us >> that her association with Ammann rises to a conflict of interest >> within NAS policy, but, in >> the alternative, her associations with Ammann and Bradley certainly >> rise to bias and lack of >> objectivity. While she is undoubtedly a meritorious person, the field >> of candidates is not so >> limited that her participation in the panel is necessary to its >> functioning and indeed her >> continued participation might well diminish the actual and/or >> perceived ability of the panel >> to provide objective advice. For example, *** would be an equally >> competent alternate without >> the accompanying problems of bias, lack of objectivity and conflict >> of interest. >> >> Dr. Nychka >> >> Another proposed panellist, Dr Nychka, also a UCAR employee, is >> listed at Ammann's webpage as >> presently collaborating not only with Ammann, but with Mann >> (see >> http://www.assessment.ucar.edu/paleo/past_stationarity.html). >> This ongoing collaboration >> certainly creates the appearance of a "close identification or >> association of an individual >> with a particular point of view or the positions or perspectives of a >> particular group". Again, >> while Nychka is undoubtedly a meritorious person, the field of >> candidates is not so limited >> that he is irreplaceable on the panel and indeed his continued >> participation might well >> diminish both the actual ability and the perceived ability of the >> panel to provide objective >> advice. >> >> Dr. Cuffey >> >> We are also concerned about apparent bias and lack of objectivity in >> a third proposed panellist, >> Dr Cuffey, who in a newspaper op-ed recently wrote: >> >> Mounting evidence has forced an end to any serious scientific >> debate on whether humans are >> causing global warming. This is an event of historical >> significance, but one obscured from >> public view by the arcane technical literature and the noise >> generated by perpetual >> partisans. (see >> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/10/09/ING5FF2U031.DTL&type=printable >> ) >> >> The panel is being asked to consider the "historical significance" of >> present climate change. A >> panellist who has a priori dismissed questions on the matter, some of >> which are necessarily >> quite technical, as being "arcane" and "noise generated by perpetual >> partisans" can be >> "reasonably perceived to be unwilling, to consider other perspectives >> or relevant evidence to >> the contrary" as defined in NAS policy. >> >> Lack of Appropriate Expertise on Proposed Panel >> >> NAS policies require NAS committees to achieve standards of >> composition and balance. The >> brochure "Ensuring Independent, Objective Advice" advertises that NAS >> committees provide" >> >> "An appropriate range of expertise for the task. The committee >> must include experts with >> the specific expertise and experience needed to address the >> study's statement of task. >> One of the strengths of the National Academies is the tradition >> of bringing together >> recognized experts from diverse disciplines and backgrounds who >> might not otherwise >> collaborate. These diverse groups are encouraged to conceive new >> ways of thinking about a >> problem." >> >> The NAS policy statement "Policy On Committee Composition And Balance >> And Conflicts Of Interest" >> states: >> >> For example, if a particular study requires the expertise of >> microbiologists, epidemiologists, >> statistical experts, and others with broader public health >> expertise, the significant >> omission of any required discipline from the committee might >> seriously compromise the >> quality of the committee's analysis and judgments, even though it >> is clear to all that the >> committee is composed of highly qualified and distinguished >> individuals. Even within a >> particular discipline, there may be very important differences >> and distinctions within the >> field, or regarding the particular subject matter to be >> addressed, that require careful >> consideration in the committee composition and appointment >> process.... >> >> In our opinion, the committee as presently composed fails to comply >> with this policy on several >> counts: >> >> 1. Without implying that any of the panellists are not "qualified and >> distinguished individuals" >> within the meaning of NAS policy, to our knowledge, none of the >> panellists would be regarded >> as experts in assessing statistical significance in multivariate >> models using highly >> autocorrelated time series, a central topics in the debate. While >> the panellists have all >> published articles that pertain to, or use, climate statistics, >> the issues currently being >> disputed call for specialist input. NAS policy requires attention >> to "important differences >> and distinctions within the field". We suggest that *** or *** >> would be qualified candidates >> in this respect. >> >> 2. To our knowledge, none of the panellists would be regarded as >> experts in the area of >> replication policy. The entire topic of replicability has been one >> of the most prominent >> aspects of disputes surrounding millennial paleoclimate studies. >> Indeed, it was only after >> Dr Mann was quoted on the front page of the Wall Street Journal as >> saying that he would not >> be "intimidated" into disclosing his algorithm that millennial >> reconstructions attracted the >> interest of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and, >> subsequently, the House Science >> Committee and National Academy of Science. Expertise in this area >> requires familiarity with >> journal policies, statistical methods, software evaluation, and >> the current literature on >> replication experiments. We suggest that *** would be a qualified >> candidate in this respect. >> >> 3. The issue of disclosure adequacy and possible omission of material >> results has also been one >> of the most prominent aspects of the debate. Last summer, the >> House Energy and Commerce >> Committee sent questions to Drs Mann, Bradley and Hughes regarding >> the omission of material >> results, such as the cross-validation R2 statistic and the impact >> of bristlecone pines. The >> President of the National Academy of Science wrote to the House >> Energy and Commerce Committee >> stating that a congressional committee was an inappropriate forum >> for the investigation of >> such matters and that a NAS expert panel would be more >> appropriate. We presume that the >> present panel has been composed at least in part in response to >> this initiative by the >> President of NAS. However, the panel as presently composed lacks >> any obvious expertise in >> this area. We suggest that NAS consider one or more of the members >> of the commission chaired >> by Kenneth Ryan on Integrity and Misconduct in Research as >> panellists. >> >> We further refer to the following NAS policy: >> >> A balance of perspectives. Having the right expertise is not >> sufficient for success. It is >> also essential to evaluate the overall composition of the >> committee in terms of different >> experiences and perspectives. The goal is to ensure that the >> relevant points of view are, >> in the National Academies' judgment, reasonably balanced so that >> the committee can carry >> out its charge objectively and credibly. >> >> and elsewhere: >> >> For some studies, for example, it may be important to have an >> "industrial" perspective or >> an "environmental" perspective. This is not because such >> individuals are "representatives" >> of industrial or environmental interests, because no one is >> appointed by the institution to >> a study committee to represent a particular point of view or >> special interest. Rather it is >> because such individuals, through their particular knowledge and >> experience, are often >> vital to achieving an informed, comprehensive, and authoritative >> understanding and analysis >> of the specific problems and potential solutions to be considered >> by the committee. >> >> Aside from the particular expertise of *** and ***, our own >> criticisms of paleoclimate practices >> and policies are very much influenced by our own experiences in >> handling economic and business >> data. Analysis of time series data is a common issue for economics >> and paleoclimatology. Many >> issues studied by econometricians are highly pertinent to >> paleoclimate applications and yet >> come from points of view that are different, and different in ways >> that the panel will find >> constructive to consider. In our view, econometrics has superior >> methodologies to paleoclimatology >> in addressing problems of spurious inference and data mining in the >> presence of strong >> autocorrelation and integrated processes. Paleoclimatologists, >> including even some of the >> panelists, have applied some econometric methods, but that is no >> substitute for the "point of >> view" or for up-to-date specialization. >> >> Stephen McIntyre >> Ross McKitrick >> >> ========== >> (3) NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES TO REFEREE CLIMATE-CHANGE FIGHT >> >> The Wall Street Journal, 10 February 2006 >> http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113953482702870250-lL0PQujuK91SekAUig_yMlPDBuY_20070209.html?mod=public_home_us_inside_today >> >> >> Scientists' Group Agrees To Congressional Request to Study >> Temperature-History Charting >> >> By ANTONIO REGALADO >> >> The Wall Street Journal, 10 February 2006 >> >> Seeking to resolve a scientific dispute that has taken on a rancorous >> political edge, the >> National Academy of Sciences said it had agreed to a request from >> Congress to assess how well >> researchers understand the history of temperatures on earth. >> >> The study by the academy, an independent advisory body based in >> Washington, will focus on the >> "hockey stick," a chart of past temperatures that critics say is >> inaccurate. The graph gets its >> name because of the sudden, blade-like rise of recent temperatures >> compared with past epochs. >> >> The controversy took a sharp political turn in July when Rep. Joe >> Barton (R., Texas), head of >> the House Energy and Commerce Committee, launched a probe into the >> work of three climate >> specialists who generated the graph, including Michael Mann, now a >> professor at Pennsylvania >> State University. >> >> Mr. Barton's inquiry drew a rebuke from several scientific societies >> as well as fellow Republican >> Sherwood Boehlert of New York, chairman of the House Committee on >> Science, who called it a >> blatant effort to intimidate global-warming researchers. >> >> After Mr. Barton didn't respond to an offer to jointly bring the >> issue to the National Academy, >> Mr. Boehlert independently asked for a review in November, science >> committee chief of staff >> David Goldston said. "It appeared that the issue was not going to go >> away by itself. We thought >> this was an appropriate way to get an assessment of the science," Mr. >> Goldston said in an >> interview. >> >> Larry Neal, deputy staff director for Mr. Barton's committee, said in >> a statement that because >> "combating climate change is a breathtakingly expensive prospect," it >> deserved closer study, >> and that the academy was "unlikely" to address all of Mr. Barton's >> concerns. >> >> Mr. Barton has already sought a separate analysis of the hockey stick >> led by statistician Edward >> Wegman of George Mason University, people familiar with the matter >> said. Dr. Wegman couldn't be >> reached yesterday. >> >> Using records stored in ice, tree rings, and coral reefs, scientists >> including Dr. Mann have >> estimated that current air temperatures exceed any in the past 1,000 >> years. Such findings are >> not only evidence for man-made global warming, but also underlie >> predictions of future temperature >> rises. >> >> An 11-member academy panel will now study the accuracy and importance >> of such research, in >> particular the work of Dr. Mann, whose hockey-stick graph was >> included in a report issued by >> the United Nations in 2001. An academy spokesman said the report >> would be completed in about >> four months. >> >> Dr. Mann's critics, including two amateur Canadian climate >> researchers, say his work contains >> serious inaccuracies. Dr. Mann has denied that, but the debate has >> prompted several climate >> researchers to take a fresh look at temperature reconstructions. >> >> While some recent publications have found fault with the hockey stick >> and similar studies, >> others have sought to rebut critics. >> >> The debate comes as many scientists express growing alarm over the >> warming trend. The planet >> has warmed more than one degree over the past century, and recent >> heating is widely blamed on >> greenhouse gases emitted by the burning of coal, oil and natural gas. >> >> More than 150 countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, an >> international agreement to slash >> gas emissions by 2012. The U.S. hasn't signed the treaty, which the >> Bush administration has >> said is ineffective and would slow economic growth. >> >> Write to Antonio Regalado at >> antonio.regalado@wsj.com >> >> Copyright 2006, The Wall Street Journal >> >> >> ======= LETTERS ======= >> >> (4) CCNet AND CLIMATE CHANGE COVERAGE >> >> Geological Society of India >> >> >> Dr. Peiser, >> >> A few months ago I sent you a short note of appreciation of the >> excellent and balanced way in >> which you are covering recent developments on subjects like climate >> change, asteroid impacts, >> mass extinction etc. In a recent issue (CCNet, 33/6, 20th February >> 2006) I find a criticism >> leveled against you for not giving publicity to views that are not in >> agreement with your own. >> This is an unfair criticism. You have been very impartial in setting >> out all views. We could >> not have obtained a clear picture on different view points in any >> other Journal. We all owe you >> a deep debt of gratitude for the excellent service you are rendering >> the cause of science. >> >> B P Radhakrishna, President, Geological Society of India >> >> ---------------- >> CCNet is a scholarly electronic network edited by Benny Peiser. To >> subscribe >> or unsubscribe, send an e-mail to >> listserver@livjm.ac.uk >> ("subscribe cambridge-conference" / "unsubscribe cambridge-conference"). >> Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and >> educational use only. >> The attached information may not be copied or reproduced for any >> other purposes >> without prior permission of the copyright holders. DISCLAIMER: The >> opinions, >> beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the articles and texts and in >> other CCNet >> contributions do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and >> viewpoints >> of the editor. >> http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Gabriele Hegerl >> Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, >> Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, >> Box 90227 >> Duke University, Durham NC 27708 >> Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 >> email: hegerl@duke.edu, >> http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html > > > -- > 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/ > -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, Box 90227 Duke University, Durham NC 27708 Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 email: hegerl@duke.edu, http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html 1465. 2006-02-27 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:34:31 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: latest (as of time and date)draft of 2000 bit to: Øyvind Paasche Hi Keith and Øyvind - I agree, this is great, and your priorities are on target. I'll prepare to help on those non-temp subsections after you take a look at the (especially the North Atlantic/NAO one - which is closer to your strength than mine, I suspect). As for captions, they're in the Figs/Captions Worddoc that Øyvind sent on the 24th. Thanks to Øyvind for doing the references job as suggested by Keith. Best, peck >Keith - I'll see what I can do. Nice going with 6.6. > >Cheers, >Øyvind > >>Peck and all >>here is version containing all Fortunat, >>Valerie and Henry comments that are feasible to >>do. PLEASE NOTE (at Valerie's suggestion) the >>renaming of sections - which need to be >>reproduced on contents page. >>As for Figure captions , I am lost as I tried >>to follow Fortunat , but do not think he has it >>right - and our printer here has died (til >>tomorrow ) so can not see definitive list. >>Tomorrow , with the full version and look at >>the Figures I will sort this - do we have a >>full list of Figure captions as a separate file? >>I will look at the regional stuff tomorrow Peck >>- but I suspect it is all weak and I can not >>really help it much now.Please look also >>yourself but I think at this stage we need to >>go with what we have. >>More important tomorrow , is for me to go >>through what Gabi sent and check for >>consistency. >> >>As for overall things not done - as I said >>before , we have not really covered issue of >>possible CO2 fertilization and "decline " issue >>in trees , but this can not get done without a >>early section rewrite , and I have to think >>about where to say that lots of proxies do not >>come up to the present - but again - more >>important now to get all figures correctly >>called out ,cross references to other Chapters >>consistently called out, and especially >>references sorted. >> >>How about Oyvind gets everyone now to check >>that all refs in their sections are included in >>list - and mark in our colour , on the list, >>which are called out in these sections (just by >>shading them . Then we can check what is not >>needed and what is still missing. >>I have to go home now but will work on final >>consolidated draft when it returns asap >>tomorrow from Oyvind (with most up to date >>reference list if you can Oyvind - (thank >>goodness you are helping) >>cheers >>Keith >> >> >> >>-- >>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/ >> >>Attachment converted: Øyvind:Keith2000section.doc (WDBN/«IC») (003B260C) > > >-- >Dr. Øyvind Paasche >Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research/ >Department of Earth Science >University of Bergen >Allé gt. 55 >N-5007, Bergen >Norway >Phone direct: +47 55583297 >Cell phone: +47 93048919 >E-mail: oyvind.paasche@bjerknes.uib.no -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 1935. 2006-02-27 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , joos , Valerie Masson-Delmotte , Bette Otto-Bleisner , rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, Dominique Raynaud , cddhr@giss.nasa.gov, Eystein Jansen , oyvind.paasche@bjerknes.uib.no date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:10:42 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: IMPORTANT Revising the SOD to: Valerie.Masson@cea.fr Hi Valerie, Keith and gang - Lastest Exec Summary is attached. If you haven't edited, this is the one to use. Just for the record, here's what I did with Keith/Valerie's suggestions for the exec summary: accepted them all (perhaps with a tweak or two), except: 1) kept "pre-Quaternary" instead of "ancient" - the latter is too vague. 2) the LIG ice sheet/sea level bullet wasn't changed as much as you'd like because it is the result of lots of cross-chapter word tweaking with Susan Solomon, Chap 10, Chap 5 and WGII. I did add "south" since that's where the large-scale retreat likely took place. I left the reference to fast sea level rise based on the papers cited (or to be - need to check) in the text. Again, this last line was subject to much negotiation w/ other chapters and WGII. 3) I kept the sulfate bullet, but did rewrite because it was confusing. This bullet is likely linked to the TS/SPM, so it's pretty important. 4) kept the monsoon bullet in the last 2000 years section, since that's when the change referred to likely happened. I'm thinking about deleting this bullet, however, since the evidence isn't as strong as that behind other bullets. (btw, Keith - sorry I forgot to delete that phrase about solar and volcanic forcing in the 20th century - glad Valerie caught it) Thanks, Peck >Dear all, > >Please find attached my suggestions for the exec >summary - the rest to follow within 1 hour. > >Peck, could you and Julie work on the link >between the paleo ENSO section and the chapter >dealing with the realism of ENSO in the climate >models + also mention the past ENSO data from >New Zealand and Australia ? These were requests >from reviewers that I could not handle. (2 >sentences to add, page 6-28, section 6.5.3) > >Valérie. > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh >HD:Ch06_SOD_ExecSumV5-VMD.doc (WDBN/«IC») >(00118876) -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Ch06_SOD_ExecSumV6.doc" 2069. 2006-02-27 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:21:25 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: IMPORTANT Revising the SOD to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith - just want to make sure you let me know (soon) if you can do some integration work on ALL sections of 6.6, or if you'll need me to do those non-temperature sections. I prefer you do it, obviously, but if you need to leave some to me, I'll find the time somewhere. I'll remove the monsoon bullet from the exec summary, but think we might have to keep the section, perhaps shortened. Thanks, Peck >Peck >I vote to remove the monsoon bullet. > >At 18:10 27/02/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>Hi Valerie, Keith and gang - Lastest Exec >>Summary is attached. If you haven't edited, >>this is the one to use. Just for the record, >>here's what I did with Keith/Valerie's >>suggestions for the exec summary: accepted them >>all (perhaps with a tweak or two), except: >> >>1) kept "pre-Quaternary" instead of "ancient" - the latter is too vague. >> >>2) the LIG ice sheet/sea level bullet wasn't >>changed as much as you'd like because it is the >>result of lots of cross-chapter word tweaking >>with Susan Solomon, Chap 10, Chap 5 and WGII. I >>did add "south" since that's where the >>large-scale retreat likely took place. I left >>the reference to fast sea level rise based on >>the papers cited (or to be - need to check) in >>the text. Again, this last line was subject to >>much negotiation w/ other chapters and WGII. >> >>3) I kept the sulfate bullet, but did rewrite >>because it was confusing. This bullet is likely >>linked to the TS/SPM, so it's pretty important. >> >>4) kept the monsoon bullet in the last 2000 >>years section, since that's when the change >>referred to likely happened. I'm thinking about >>deleting this bullet, however, since the >>evidence isn't as strong as that behind other >>bullets. >> >>(btw, Keith - sorry I forgot to delete that >>phrase about solar and volcanic forcing in the >>20th century - glad Valerie caught it) >> >>Thanks, Peck >> >>>Dear all, >>> >>>Please find attached my suggestions for the >>>exec summary - the rest to follow within 1 >>>hour. >>> >>>Peck, could you and Julie work on the link >>>between the paleo ENSO section and the chapter >>>dealing with the realism of ENSO in the >>>climate models + also mention the past ENSO >>>data from New Zealand and Australia ? These >>>were requests from reviewers that I could not >>>handle. (2 sentences to add, page 6-28, >>>section 6.5.3) >>> >>>Valérie. >>> >>> >>>Attachment converted: Macintosh >>>HD:Ch06_SOD_ExecSumV5-VMD.doc (WDBN/«IC») >>>(00118876) >> >> >>-- >>Jonathan T. Overpeck >>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>Professor, Department of Geosciences >>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >> >>Mail and Fedex Address: >> >>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>University of Arizona >>Tucson, AZ 85721 >>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >> > >-- >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/ -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 2306. 2006-02-27 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , joos , Bette Otto-Bleisner , rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, Dominique Raynaud , cddhr@giss.nasa.gov, Eystein Jansen , oyvind.paasche@bjerknes.uib.no date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:31:14 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: IMPORTANT Revising the SOD to: Valerie.Masson@cea.fr Hi all - thanks Valerie for your suggestions. I would like it if each section leader (David 6.3; Bette 6.4, followed by Dom tomorrow, and Keith, 6.6) would look at what Valerie proposes for your sections and make the appropriate revisions or not. I know this sounds like a broken record, but we have to cut a couple pages. Valerie's analysis is worthwhile, and I think section 6.4 really has to come down in size. Sorry. Bette, can you pick up where Valerie left off with respect to sea level. Eystein was going to work on that, but I think you should give it a shot so we don't put him back in the hospital (I think he's coming home today, shich is good). Keith's section is much harder to cut, due to the very high visibility of that section, and the clear directives from Susan and reviewers to do as Keith has done regarding temp change of the last 1300 years. We might be able to cut some of the latter subsections in that section - Keith, please weigh in! Others too. Note that our Exec Summary is still deemed by some as too long, so getting rid of some less important bullets and the prose that supports them might be a good way to go - thus our chapter would cover less, but still do the job really well with what we do cover. If Susan or reviewers want cut material back it, well, we'll get more pages. But, we have to come in close to 35 final pages this time around. Please let me know if the above plan won't work, and thanks for this final effort towards the SOD. thanks, Peck thanks, Peck >Dear all > >Please find comments on the draft. > >Today there are 13 pages for the glacial >interglacial time scale (most for the LGM in >fact), 6 for the Holocene and 15 for the past >2000 years (if I am correct). > >- I suggest to shorten slightly the ancient climate part > >- I suggest to shorten slighlty the LGM >model-data comparison part (a bit less precision >in the regional orders of magnitude is I think >acceptable) > >- Some of the sea level section has to be >shortned. I tried to do so for the first half. >For the end of this section page 22 there is >some critical material that cannot be let like >this (including criticism of flaws in some >reconstructions etc). >The bottom of page 6-22 and top of 6-23 has some >overlap with the section on the last >interglacial period => could be combined. > >- Keith should have received my comments on 6.6. > >I hope that this will be useful. I have lined >what I think should be removed and also coloured >some writing / editing mistakes + suggestions. > >For rapid events of the last ice age in >Greenland I attach a review paper that could be >cited for the amplitude of DO events (synthesis >of all available amplitudes of temperature). >Papers by Huber cover a few events + >Severinghaus only the deglaciation. > > >Valérie. > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:cras2005.pdf (PDF /«IC») (001188A8) -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 2684. 2006-02-27 ______________________________________________________ cc: Peter Lemke date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:16:44 +0100 (MET) from: Georg Kaser subject: IPCC Ch4.5 to: Olga Solomina , "Keith Briffa,cru (Climatic Research Unit)" Dear Olga and Keith, find attached the present state of chapter 4.5 on glaciers and ice caps. We have now entirely removed the MWP and LIA discussion and I hope you have been able to cover this. I also hope that you have been able to implement the Oerlemans temperature curve as we had agreed. If I have missed to supply you with anything I should have, please apologize and let me know. With best wishes, Georg Georg Kaser ------------------------------------------------- Institut fuer Geographie Innrain 52 A-6020 INNSBRUCK AUSTRIA Tel: ++43 512 507 5407 Fax: ++43 512 507 2895 http://meteo9.uibk.ac.at/IceClim/CRYO/cryo_a.html Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Ch54_SOD_Text+figs.doc" 3158. 2006-02-27 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:15:16 +0100 from: Fortunat Joos subject: Re: Fwd: Re: latest draft of 2000-year section text to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith, I do not think that action is needed. The statements following the text on Solanki says that others (muscheler et al.) have found at three periods of equally or higher solar activity in the past than today. I have not read the paper by Svaldgaard and I do not have the time to do right now, but may consider it for the final round this summer. Cheers,fj PS: thanks for the edits on my draft text. Keith Briffa wrote: > >> Fortunat > > > can you quickly read and comment on Henry's remarks re the solar > forcing - second half of this message attached - as I trying to > incorporate other comments from Valerie > thanks > Keith > > > >> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:16:09 -0500 >> From: Henry Pollack >> To: Keith Briffa >> Cc: jto@u.arizona.edu, eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no >> Subject: Re: latest draft of 2000-year section text >> User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.0.4) >> X-Remote-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; >> rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 Firefox/1.0.7 >> X-IMP-Server: 141.211.144.237 >> X-Originating-IP: 141.211.197.134 >> X-Originating-User: hpollack >> X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 >> X-UEA-Spam-Level: / >> X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO >> >> Hi Keith, >> >> Thanks for sending the latest draft of the last 2000 years. I have >> read the entire section, but my comments (attached) are mostly (but >> not entirely) about the borehole stuff. >> >> Cheers, >> Henry >> >> ___ ___ Henry N. Pollack >> [ \ / ] Professor of Geophysics >> | \/ | Department of Geological Sciences >> |MICHIGAN| University of Michigan >> [___]\/[___] Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1005, U.S.A. >> >> Phone: 734-763-0084 FAX: 734-763-4690 >> e-mail: hpollack@umich.edu >> URL: www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~hpollack/ >> URL: www-personal.umich.edu/~hpollack/book.html >> >> >> Quoting Keith Briffa : >> >>> People >>> here is what I currently have for the 2000 text. IT DOES NOT INCLUDE >>> FORTUNAT'S LATEST BULLET (in his last email _ - or any others because >>> it needs stitching in with the rest of the text. There is , of course >>> , a need to re-sort the Figure numbers and check them all and >>> cross-referencing. The bits highlighted in yellow need attention . It >>> needs you guys to do a read through and especially check your own >>> bits . I do not know how to go about doing references now - as some >>> have gone , and LOTS more come from Ricardo, Fortunat, Henry etc in >>> their prior submissions. SO !! Is it best to read this and then ask >>> Oyvind to incorporate all previous and recently sent references into >>> the list - and then eliminate the ones not called out? Advice. I a >>> lecturing first thing tomorrow - but then could look at comments . >>> Note that I am reasonably happy that everything i s covered as >>> regards referees' comments - EXCEPT the issue of >>> no recent proxy coverage (last 20 years) >>> general issues about problems with apparent recent responses of >>> proxies to climate - observed or assumed (ie CO2 fertilization) - >>> there was some talk of a intro section on these issues (for trees >>> only?) - or some Table - I confess I do not know what was decided. >>> At least here is something to stitch in to main text with all recent >>> stuff so we can then review and continue from a common playing field. >>> Keith >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 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/ -- Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ 4412. 2006-02-27 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:25:17 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: the monsoon bullet to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith - I'm loosing it... sorry. Upon closer inspection, I think that monsoon bullet is a keeper - I remember that this is one of those things that we were asked to do way back when - to make our chapter relevant to policy makers in a wider part of the globe. We could move it to the Holocene section as suggested by Valerie, and remove ref to "late" (Holocene). best, peck -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 4858. 2006-02-27 ______________________________________________________ cc: Olga Solomina , Peter Lemke , jto@u.arizona.edu date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:09:24 +0100 (MET) from: Georg Kaser subject: Re: IPCC Ch4.5 to: Keith Briffa Dear Keith, have many thanks. I am glad you can keep this. The paragraph looks fine for me although we had some comments on the Vincent findings saying: "I am not sure I agree with this statement. Vincent et al. (2005, cited in the chapter) guess a 25% precipitation increase in the 1760-1830 period compared to the 20th century average and this is based on a simple model (degree-days) to explain glaciers extent. However, Casty et al. (Temperature and precipitation variabiltiy in the european Alps since 1500, Int. J. Climatology, in press) find no such precipitation increase in the observations.The 2 results are thus in conflict. [Christophe GENTHON]" Does anyone know the Casty paper? Valerie may have an insight to this Inner French discussion. Sorry that I had not forwarded this to you earlier. Regards, Georg Georg Kaser ------------------------------------------------- Institut fuer Geographie Innrain 52 A-6020 INNSBRUCK AUSTRIA Tel: ++43 512 507 5407 Fax: ++43 512 507 2895 http://meteo9.uibk.ac.at/IceClim/CRYO/cryo_a.html On Mon, 27 Feb 2006, Keith Briffa wrote: > Georg > we have included the Oerlamans curve and modified a piece of text from your > original text . that is > > Oerlemanns (2005) has constructed a temperature history for the globe based > on 169 glacier-length records. He uses simplified glacier dynamics that > incorporate specific response time and climate sensitivity estimates for each > glacier. The reconstruction suggests that moderate global warming occurred > after the middle of the 19th century, with about 0.6 degree C warming by the > middle of the 20th century. Following a 25-year cooling, temperatures rose > again after 1970, though much regional and high-frequency variability is > superimposed on this overall interpretation. However, this approach does not > allow for changing glacier sensitivity over time, which may limit the > information before 1900. Analyses of glacier mass balances, volume changes, > and length variations along with temperature records in the western European > Alps (Vincent et al., 2005) indicate that between 1760 and 1830, glacier > advance was driven by precipitation that was 25% above the 20th century > average ,while there was little difference in average temperatures. Glacier > retreat after 1830 was related to reduced winter precipitation and the > influence of summer warming only became effective at the beginning of the > 20th century. In southern Norway, early 18th century glacier advances can be > attributed to increased winter precipitation rather than cold temperatures > (Nesje and Dahl, 2003). > > For now this is all we can manage and we are discussing the need to cut our > Chapter further - but this will at least remain > thanks > Keith > > At 16:16 27/02/2006, Georg Kaser wrote: >> Dear Olga and Keith, >> >> find attached the present state of chapter 4.5 on glaciers and ice caps. We >> have now entirely removed the MWP and LIA discussion and I hope you have >> been able to cover this. I also hope that you have been able to implement >> the Oerlemans temperature curve as we had agreed. If I have missed to >> supply you with anything I should have, please apologize and let me know. >> >> With best wishes, >> Georg >> >> Georg Kaser >> ------------------------------------------------- >> Institut fuer Geographie >> Innrain 52 >> A-6020 INNSBRUCK >> AUSTRIA >> Tel: ++43 512 507 5407 >> Fax: ++43 512 507 2895 >> http://meteo9.uibk.ac.at/IceClim/CRYO/cryo_a.html >> > > -- > 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/ > 553. 2006-02-28 ______________________________________________________ cc: jto@u.arizona.edu, Eystein Jansen , Pascale Braconnot , francis date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:59:44 -0500 from: Gabi Hegerl subject: Re: [Fwd: [Wg1-ar4-ch09] section 9.3] to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith et al., I was trying to give you a call on this, but can't reach you - let me know if and when is a good time, teaching later this morning. The LGM and early holocene is meant from our side that we refer to you for all the details, and summarize the findings and why they are encouraging. The one aspect of the LGM we have in more detail is the two pdf estimates (annan and schneider von deimling), which I think is ok. And that mainstream sensitivity OAGCMs seem to do ok. Similar for the mid Holocene. For the last 1000 yrs, it was my understanding that you guys talk about the reconstructions, the forcings, and individual periods in the last 1000 yrs, and about the runs done with the forcings. In that, we definitely need to go with your terminology, sorry about the medieval warm period, that just didn't percolate down to us yet! As to response to forcing and detection and attribution, as well as what forcings explains what, what caused the early 20th century warming, and climate sensitivity, what forcing do we detect where etc, role of solar, volcanic and greenhouse gases relative to each other, I thought this was for chapter 9 to talk about. I am happy to cross reference you more on other stuff, and delete where you think we should for example not reference references, but chapter 6, unless its in these attribution questions. Is that still ok? So please let me know where you are concerned in detail, and then lets see what to do about the overlap Gabi Keith Briffa wrote: > Gabi > it is difficult to be precise as regards comments , mainly because > there do seem, as it turns out, to be large areas of overlap between > our discussion of the simulations, forcings, and consistency with the > CO2 record in what you sent. In some places you cite selected > references and occasional cross references to Chapter 6 , but this > could probably be much more frequent and perhaps specific with regard > to particular sections and Figures (and you could as a consequence > remove text if you wished - but I see no problem if not, other than > repetition , as there are no contradictory statements to ours as far > as I can see) . I make these remarks mostly with regard to out last > 2000 year section. > The only only one gripe with the text that I have is your reference to > the medieval period being a 500-year warm period . In fact we go to > some trouble to discuss the ambiguity of the concept in our Box 6.4 > and describe the timing of the warm periods .I think you should not > perpetuate the term in the vague context that you do. At present , I > am not certain of our final Figure order as I hope to rearrange the > later ones yet again. Anyway , you have pretty much the final draft I > believe of Chapter 6 and can , as no doubt you would anyway, take or > leave my opinions. Best wishes > Keith > > > At 18:10 27/02/2006, you wrote: > >> p.s. since I am going to a meeting on thursday (hockeystick revisited) >> we are trying to be down to bookkeeping and really minor stuff by >> thursday, >> so if you have suggestions, but wednesday would be best - SORRY! >> >> Gabi >> >> Gabi Hegerl wrote: >> >>> Hi Keith, Peck and Bette, >>> >>> Here is our preindustrial section. I think our chapters merge fine >>> here, I don't >>> see too much overlap, but it wouldn't hurt if you check either. >>> I will also send the sensitivity section to Bette in a few hours. >>> If you have changes, please use track changes. Francis, I have >>> accepted all >>> changes in this and removed comments no longer relevant >>> >>> Gabi >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: [Wg1-ar4-ch09] section 9.3 >>> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:22:32 -0500 >>> From: Crowley_Hegerl >>> To: >>> >>> >>> Hi chapter 9 authors, >>> >>> This is the preindustrial section 9.3 for final crosschecking. >>> Please get back to us (using my work email or this list) by >>> Wednesday at the latest. >>> It has some questions and things to check for Pascale (thanks for >>> all the help with this >>> Already, did you see Bette’s latest LGM numbers and the updated >>> terminology? – I’ll >>> Also send ch6 draft which I got this morning). >>> >>> And one for Nathan on circulation stuff, there was a comment we were >>> not sure about. >>> Would be great of course if others have a chance to check, too. >>> >>> ALL: PLEASE ACCEPT ALL CHANGES before you make more changes. Otherwise >>> It will be close to impossible to trace! >>> >>> Good morning everybody >>> >>> Gabi and Francis >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> Gabriele Hegerl >>> Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, >>> Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, >>> Box 90227 >>> Duke University, Durham NC 27708 >>> Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 >>> email: hegerl@duke.edu, >>> http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html >>> >> >> >> -- >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Gabriele Hegerl >> Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, >> Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, >> Box 90227 >> Duke University, Durham NC 27708 >> Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 >> email: hegerl@duke.edu, >> http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html > > > -- > Professor Keith Briffa, > Climatic Research Unit > University of East Anglia > Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > > Phone: +44-1603-593909 > Fax: +44-1603-507784 > > -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, Box 90227 Duke University, Durham NC 27708 Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 email: hegerl@duke.edu, http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html 711. 2006-02-28 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Keith Briffa" , "Eystein Jansen" , "Caspar Ammann" , rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, Eystein Jansen date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:50:28 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Fwd: RE: Wahl Ritson Ammann Science article on vonStorch 04 to: "Wahl, Eugene R" Eugene - quite timely. Keith and Tim are doing the final revision tomorrow, and we've actually been debating if the vonStorch issue was handled just right. thx, peck >X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >Subject: RE: Wahl Ritson Ammann Science article on vonStorch 04 >Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:38:06 -0500 >Thread-Topic: Wahl Ritson Ammann Science article on vonStorch 04 >Thread-Index: AcY3ZrWjPf6A8R9vTWeSE3GvqmgKLAFLDcogAACcoIA= >From: "Wahl, Eugene R" >To: "Jonathan Overpeck" >Cc: "Keith Briffa" , > "Eystein Jansen" , > "Caspar Ammann" > >Sorry, I sent the message without the text. [The "send" button is next >to the "insert" button on my software!!] Here it is. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Wahl, Eugene R >Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 1:32 PM >To: 'Jonathan Overpeck' >Cc: Keith Briffa; Eystein Jansen; 'Caspar Ammann' >Subject: RE: Wahl Ritson Ammann Science article on vonStorch 04 > >Hello Jonathan, Keith, and Eystein: > >I don't yet have any word from Steve Schneider concerning the >Wahl-Ammann article on the MBH/MM issues... > >...HOWEVER, here is something that slipped under my radar screen, about >which I should have made you aware previously. I've attached the >ACCEPTED version of the Wahl-Ritson-Ammann comment article on the >vonStorch et al. 2004 Science paper. This the article that criticizes >MBH for very large low-frequency amplitude losses. The final acceptance >from Science just came TODAY, and is copied below. > >In this comment article (specifically requested to be expanded to 1000 >words by the Science editors), we note that the calibration and >verification performance of the MBH method as implemented in VS04 show >really poor LF fidelity--which cannot happen if the MBH method is >implemented according to its original form. We note this, which is >explained by a significant omission on the part of VS04 in implementing >the MBH methodology (a detrending step that was only disclosed later >last year in a conference proceedings paper). We also comment on >physical and statistical reasons why detrending is not appropriate in >this context. We conclude that the large amplitude losses VS04 claims >are simply not correct. > >I am imagining that this contextualization of the VS04 critique would >also be relevant for your chapter, and it can now be considered "in >press" as the from our Science correspondent notes below. I would think >this acceptance makes it "citable". If not, I understand. > > >NOTE THAT THIS ARTICLE IS SUBJECT TO THE USUAL SCIENCE EMBARGO RULES. I >DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS MEANS CITATION IS EMBARGOED. (Cf. 5th >paragraph in copied message below, which supports citation.) > > >Peace, Gene > >******************************* > >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies >Alfred University > >607.871.2604 > > >********************** copied message below ******************** > > >February 28, 2006 received 10:31 am EST > >Dear Dr. Wahl, > >Below is the formal acceptance of your manuscript. The paper is >technically not "in press" yet, though I assume that either "accepted" >or "in press" would be acceptable. > > >Dear Dr. Wahl, > >We are pleased to accept your revised Technical Comment on the paper by >von Storch et al. for publication. > >The text of your comment will be edited to conform to *Science* style >guidelines. Before publication you will receive galley proofs for >author corrections. Please return the marked and corrected proofs, by >fax or overnight express, within 48 hours of receipt. > >For authors with NIH grants intending to deposit the accepted version of >their paper on PubMed Central, the following text must be displayed as a >footnote with an asterisk to the manuscript title: > >"This manuscript has been accepted for publication in Science. This >version has not undergone final editing. Please refer to the complete >version of record at http://www.sciencemag.org/. This manuscript may >not be reproduced or used in any manner that does not fall within the >fair use provisions of the Copyright Act without the prior, written >permission of AAAS." > >As noted in our License for Publication, the manuscript cannot be posted >sooner than 6 months after final publication of the paper in Science. > >As you know, the full text of technical comments and responses appears >on our website, Science Online, with abstracts published in the Letters >section of the print *Science*. > >Thanks for your patience during this long process, and thanks for >publishing in *Science*. > >Sincerely, > >Tara S. Marathe >Associate Online Editor, Science >tmarathe@aaas.org > >*********************** end copied message ****************** > >Content-Type: application/msword; > name="1120866RevisedText.doc" >Content-Description: 1120866RevisedText.doc >Content-Disposition: attachment; > filename="1120866RevisedText.doc" > > >Content-Type: image/jpeg; > name="1120866Fig.jpg" >Content-Description: 1120866Fig.jpg >Content-Disposition: attachment; > filename="1120866Fig.jpg" > -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\1120866RevisedText1.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\1120866Fig1.jpg" 790. 2006-02-28 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Keith Briffa" , "Eystein Jansen" , "Caspar Ammann" date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:42:42 -0500 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: Wahl Ammann Climatic Change article on MBH/MM to: "Jonathan Overpeck" Hello all: Good news this day. The Wahl-Ammann paper also has been given fully accepted status today by Stephen Schneider. I copy his affirmation of this below, and after that his remark from earlier this month regarding this status being equivalent to "in press". I hope this meets the deadline of before March 1 for citation. Peace, Gene ********************************* first copied message ************************************** RE: provision of Wahl and Ammann ms 3321 to NAS committee Stephen H Schneider [shs@stanford.edu] You replied on 2/28/2006 9:33 PM. Follow up To: Wahl, Eugene R Cc: katarina kivel Hello from Sydney. I have now read your responses the the rereviewer and am satisfied you have done more than an adequate job. The paper is now accepted and you can post it where you wish with that designation. Let me know if there is anything else to do. Congratulations, Steve ********************************* second copied message ************************************** RE: Wahl and Ammann ms 3321 Stephen H Schneider [shs@stanford.edu] You replied on 2/28/2006 7:06 PM. Follow up To: Wahl, Eugene R Cc: katarina kivel your interpretation is fine--get me the revision soon so I have time to assess your responses in light of reviews in time! Look forward to recievieng it, Steve On Sat, 11 Feb 2006, Wahl, Eugene R wrote: > Hello Steve: > > Caspar and I expect to have the final manuscript to you in 7-10 days with all the revisions you requested in December. I have recently had some correspondance with Jonathan Overpeck about this, in his IPCC role. He says that the paper needs to be in press by the end of February to be acceptable to be cited in the SOD. [I had thought that we had passed all chance for citation in the next IPCC report back in December, but Peck has made it known to me this is not so.] > > He and I have communicated re: what "in press" means for Climatic Change, and I agreed to contact you to have a clear definition. What I have understood from our conversations before is that if you receive the mss and move it from "provisionally accepted" status to "accepted", then this can be considered in press, in light of CC being a journal of record. > > Peace, Gene > Dr. Eugene R. Wahl > Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies > Alfred University > *************************** end of copied messages ********************* Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 607-871-2604 1 Saxon Drive Alfred, NY 14802 905. 2006-02-28 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Keith Briffa" , "Eystein Jansen" , "Caspar Ammann" date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:32:19 -0500 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: Wahl Ritson Ammann Science article on vonStorch 04 to: "Jonathan Overpeck" Hello Jonathan, Keith, and Eystein: I don't yet have any word from Steve Schneider concerning the Wahl-Ammann article on the MBH/MM issues... ...HOWEVER, here is something that slipped under my radar screen, about which I should have made you aware previously. I've attached the ACCEPTED version of the Wahl-Ritson-Ammann comment article on the vonStorch et al. 2004 Science paper. This the article that criticizes MBH for very large low-frequency amplitude losses. The final acceptance from Science just came today, and is copied below. In this comment article (specifically requested to be expanded to 1000 words by the Science editors), we note that the calibration and verification performance of the MBH method as implemented in VS04 show really poor LF fidelity--which cannot happen if the MBH method is implemented according to its original form. We note this, which is explained by a significant omission on the part of VS04 in implementing the MBH methodology (a detrending step that was only disclosed later last year in a conference proceedings paper). We also comment on physical and statistical reasons why detrending is not appropriate in this context. We conclude that the large amplitude losses VS04 claims are simply not correct. I am imagining that this contextualization of the VS04 critique would also be relevant for your chapter, and it can now be considered "in press" as the from our Science correspondent notes below. I would think this acceptance makes it "citable". If not, I understand. NOTE THAT THIS ARTICLE IS SUBJECT TO THE USUAL SCIENCE EMBARGO RULES. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS MEANS CITATION IS EMBARGOED. (Cf. 4th paragraph in copied message below that supports citation.) Peace, Gene ******************************* Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 607.871.2604 ********************** copied message below ******************** Dear Dr. Wahl, Below is the formal acceptance of your manuscript. The paper is technically not "in press" yet, though I assume that either "accepted" or "in press" would be acceptable. Dear Dr. Wahl, We are pleased to accept your revised Technical Comment on the paper by von Storch et al. for publication. The text of your comment will be edited to conform to *Science* style guidelines. Before publication you will receive galley proofs for author corrections. Please return the marked and corrected proofs, by fax or overnight express, within 48 hours of receipt. For authors with NIH grants intending to deposit the accepted version of their paper on PubMed Central, the following text must be displayed as a footnote with an asterisk to the manuscript title: "This manuscript has been accepted for publication in Science. This version has not undergone final editing. Please refer to the complete version of record at http://www.sciencemag.org/. This manuscript may not be reproduced or used in any manner that does not fall within the fair use provisions of the Copyright Act without the prior, written permission of AAAS." As noted in our License for Publication, the manuscript cannot be posted sooner than 6 months after final publication of the paper in Science. As you know, the full text of technical comments and responses appears on our website, Science Online, with abstracts published in the Letters section of the print *Science*. Thanks for your patience during this long process, and thanks for publishing in *Science*. Sincerely, Tara S. Marathe Associate Online Editor, Science tmarathe@aaas.org *********************** end copied message ****************** 1190. 2006-02-28 ______________________________________________________ cc: jto@u.arizona.edu, Eystein Jansen , Pascale Braconnot , francis , Keith Briffa date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:49:07 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: [Fwd: [Wg1-ar4-ch09] section 9.3] to: Gabi Hegerl Hi Keith, Gabi and gang - thanks for the cross-chapter dialog/effort so far. What worries me a lot, is that we're basically out of time for any substantial changes. I suggest Gabi and Keith work overtime to 1) make sure the two chapters are consistent and do not contradict each other (this is the most important thing), and 2) that redundancy is reduced and replaced w/ cross-referencing to the extent possible (with chap 6 ceding to 9 on the detection/attribution issues to the extent possible). I fear time might be too short to do a good job w/ this former task, so Keith, put all you've got into it, and whatever is left over will have to get dealt with after SOD. The main thing is that the two chapters do not contradict one another. This is up to Gabi and Keith to ensure. Thanks, peck >Hi Keith et al., > >I was trying to give you a call on this, but can't reach you - let >me know if and when is a >good time, teaching later this morning. > >The LGM and early holocene is meant from our side that we refer to >you for all the details, and summarize >the findings and why they are encouraging. The one aspect of the LGM >we have in more detail is the >two pdf estimates (annan and schneider von deimling), which I think is ok. >And that mainstream sensitivity OAGCMs seem to do ok. > >Similar for the mid Holocene. > >For the last 1000 yrs, >it was my understanding that you guys talk about the >reconstructions, the forcings, and individual periods >in the last 1000 yrs, and about the runs done with the forcings. >In that, we definitely need to go with your terminology, sorry about >the medieval warm >period, that just didn't percolate down to us yet! >As to response to forcing and detection and attribution, as well as >what forcings explains what, >what caused the early 20th century warming, and climate sensitivity, >what forcing do we detect where etc, role of solar, >volcanic and greenhouse gases relative to each other, I thought this >was for chapter 9 to talk about. I am happy to cross reference you >more on other stuff, and delete >where you think we should for example not reference references, but >chapter 6, unless its in these >attribution questions. > >Is that still ok? So please let me know where you are concerned in >detail, and then lets see what to do >about the overlap > >Gabi > > >Keith Briffa wrote: > >>Gabi >>it is difficult to be precise as regards comments , mainly because >>there do seem, as it turns out, to be large areas of overlap >>between our discussion of the simulations, forcings, and >>consistency with the CO2 record in what you sent. In some places >>you cite selected references and occasional cross references to >>Chapter 6 , but this could probably be much more frequent and >>perhaps specific with regard to particular sections and Figures >>(and you could as a consequence remove text if you wished - but I >>see no problem if not, other than repetition , as there are no >>contradictory statements to ours as far as I can see) . I make >>these remarks mostly with regard to out last 2000 year section. >>The only only one gripe with the text that I have is your reference >>to the medieval period being a 500-year warm period . In fact we go >>to some trouble to discuss the ambiguity of the concept in our Box >>6.4 and describe the timing of the warm periods .I think you should >>not perpetuate the term in the vague context that you do. At >>present , I am not certain of our final Figure order as I hope to >>rearrange the later ones yet again. Anyway , you have pretty much >>the final draft I believe of Chapter 6 and can , as no doubt you >>would anyway, take or leave my opinions. Best wishes >>Keith >> >> >>At 18:10 27/02/2006, you wrote: >> >>>p.s. since I am going to a meeting on thursday (hockeystick revisited) >>>we are trying to be down to bookkeeping and really minor stuff by thursday, >>>so if you have suggestions, but wednesday would be best - SORRY! >>> >>>Gabi >>> >>>Gabi Hegerl wrote: >>> >>>>Hi Keith, Peck and Bette, >>>> >>>>Here is our preindustrial section. I think our chapters merge >>>>fine here, I don't >>>>see too much overlap, but it wouldn't hurt if you check either. >>>>I will also send the sensitivity section to Bette in a few hours. >>>>If you have changes, please use track changes. Francis, I have accepted all >>>>changes in this and removed comments no longer relevant >>>> >>>>Gabi >>>> >>>>-------- Original Message -------- >>>>Subject: [Wg1-ar4-ch09] section 9.3 >>>>Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:22:32 -0500 >>>>From: Crowley_Hegerl >>>>To: >>>> >>>> >>>>Hi chapter 9 authors, >>>> >>>>This is the preindustrial section 9.3 for final crosschecking. >>>>Please get back to us (using my work email or this list) by >>>>Wednesday at the latest. >>>>It has some questions and things to check for Pascale (thanks for >>>>all the help with this >>>>Already, did you see Bette's latest LGM numbers and the updated >>>>terminology? - I'll >>>>Also send ch6 draft which I got this morning). >>>> >>>>And one for Nathan on circulation stuff, there was a comment we >>>>were not sure about. >>>>Would be great of course if others have a chance to check, too. >>>> >>>>ALL: PLEASE ACCEPT ALL CHANGES before you make more changes. Otherwise >>>>It will be close to impossible to trace! >>>> >>>>Good morning everybody >>>> >>>>Gabi and Francis >>>> >>>> >>>>-- >>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>Gabriele Hegerl >>>>Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, >>>>Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, >>>>Box 90227 >>>>Duke University, Durham NC 27708 >>>>Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 >>>>email: hegerl@duke.edu, >>>>http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html >>>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>Gabriele Hegerl >>>Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, >>>Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, >>>Box 90227 >>>Duke University, Durham NC 27708 >>>Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 >>>email: hegerl@duke.edu, >>>http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html >> >> >>-- >>Professor Keith Briffa, >>Climatic Research Unit >>University of East Anglia >>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. >> >>Phone: +44-1603-593909 >>Fax: +44-1603-507784 >> > >-- >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas >School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, >Box 90227 >Duke University, Durham NC 27708 >Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 email: hegerl@duke.edu, >http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 3245. 2006-02-28 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , jto@u.arizona.edu, eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no, Fortunat Joos , drind@giss.nasa.gov date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:32:25 +0100 from: Stefan Rahmstorf subject: Re: latest draft of 2000-year section text to: Tim Osborn Hi Tim, my simplistic interpretation as an outside observer of this field is: VS04 published a high-profile analysis in Science concluding that the performance of the MBH method is disastrously bad. Subsequently, VS in the media called the MBH result "nonsense", accused Nature of putting their sales interests above peer review when publishing MBH, and called the IPCC "stupid" and "irresponsible" for highlighting the results of MBH. This had *major* political impact - I know this e.g. from EU negotiators who were confronted with this stuff by their US colleagues. Then it turns out that they implemented the method incorrectly. If it is done as MBH did, variance is still somewhat underestimated in the same pseudoproxy test, but only a little, within the error bars given by MBH and shown by IPCC. Certainly nothing dramatic - one could conclude that the method works reasonably well but needs improvement. This would have been a technical discussion with not much political impact. What VS and their colleagues are doing now, rather than publishing a correction of their mistake, is saying: "well, but if we add a lot more noise, or use red noise, then the MBH method is still quite bad..." The question here is: should our IPCC chapter say something to correct the wrong impression which had the political impact, namely that the MBH method is disastrously bad? This is not the same as the legitimate discussion about the real errors in proxy reconstructions, which accepts that these reconstructions have some errors but are still quite useful, rather than being "nonsense". Cheers, Stefan -- To reach me directly please use: [1]rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de (My former addresses @pik-potsdam.de are read by my assistant Brigitta.) Stefan Rahmstorf [2]www.ozean-klima.de [3]www.realclimate.org 3345. 2006-02-28 ______________________________________________________ cc: jto@u.arizona.edu, Eystein Jansen , Pascale Braconnot , francis date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:44:43 -0500 from: Gabi Hegerl subject: Re: [Fwd: [Wg1-ar4-ch09] section 9.3] to: Keith Briffa Hi all, SOunds good - I will try to edit some more cross chapter references in, and we will also definitely change the terminology (Francis, would you mind putting a note into the mastercopy top of 9.3 to remind me - medieval warm period terminology to consolidate with terminology in box in chapter 6). Will put on my todo list. Peck overtime wrt what? :))) (Tom only sees my back in evenings these days staring at the screen) Gabi Keith Briffa wrote: > Gabi > absolutely no problem in what you say - our discussion of relative > importance of specific forcing and attribution is limited to probably > 2 vague sentences that describe the EMIC panel. I have just found that > somehow one lot of editing I did on an earlier version has all > disappeared and NOW I have a major job to re-edit so I am not sure > that I can be specific re suggestions - but I do not think some > repetition is necessarily a problem . Let's see how I get on. Cheers > Keith > At 15:59 28/02/2006, Gabi Hegerl wrote: > >> Hi Keith et al., >> >> I was trying to give you a call on this, but can't reach you - let me >> know if and when is a >> good time, teaching later this morning. >> >> The LGM and early holocene is meant from our side that we refer to >> you for all the details, and summarize >> the findings and why they are encouraging. The one aspect of the LGM >> we have in more detail is the >> two pdf estimates (annan and schneider von deimling), which I think >> is ok. >> And that mainstream sensitivity OAGCMs seem to do ok. >> >> Similar for the mid Holocene. >> >> For the last 1000 yrs, >> it was my understanding that you guys talk about the reconstructions, >> the forcings, and individual periods >> in the last 1000 yrs, and about the runs done with the forcings. >> In that, we definitely need to go with your terminology, sorry about >> the medieval warm >> period, that just didn't percolate down to us yet! >> As to response to forcing and detection and attribution, as well as >> what forcings explains what, >> what caused the early 20th century warming, and climate sensitivity, >> what forcing do we detect where etc, role of solar, >> volcanic and greenhouse gases relative to each other, I thought this >> was for chapter 9 to talk about. I am happy to cross reference you >> more on other stuff, and delete >> where you think we should for example not reference references, but >> chapter 6, unless its in these >> attribution questions. >> >> Is that still ok? So please let me know where you are concerned in >> detail, and then lets see what to do >> about the overlap >> >> Gabi >> >> >> Keith Briffa wrote: >> >>> Gabi >>> it is difficult to be precise as regards comments , mainly because >>> there do seem, as it turns out, to be large areas of overlap between >>> our discussion of the simulations, forcings, and consistency with >>> the CO2 record in what you sent. In some places you cite selected >>> references and occasional cross references to Chapter 6 , but this >>> could probably be much more frequent and perhaps specific with >>> regard to particular sections and Figures (and you could as a >>> consequence remove text if you wished - but I see no problem if not, >>> other than repetition , as there are no contradictory statements to >>> ours as far as I can see) . I make these remarks mostly with regard >>> to out last 2000 year section. >>> The only only one gripe with the text that I have is your reference >>> to the medieval period being a 500-year warm period . In fact we go >>> to some trouble to discuss the ambiguity of the concept in our Box >>> 6.4 and describe the timing of the warm periods .I think you should >>> not perpetuate the term in the vague context that you do. At present >>> , I am not certain of our final Figure order as I hope to rearrange >>> the later ones yet again. Anyway , you have pretty much the final >>> draft I believe of Chapter 6 and can , as no doubt you would anyway, >>> take or leave my opinions. Best wishes >>> Keith >>> >>> >>> At 18:10 27/02/2006, you wrote: >>> >>>> p.s. since I am going to a meeting on thursday (hockeystick revisited) >>>> we are trying to be down to bookkeeping and really minor stuff by >>>> thursday, >>>> so if you have suggestions, but wednesday would be best - SORRY! >>>> >>>> Gabi >>>> >>>> Gabi Hegerl wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Keith, Peck and Bette, >>>>> >>>>> Here is our preindustrial section. I think our chapters merge fine >>>>> here, I don't >>>>> see too much overlap, but it wouldn't hurt if you check either. >>>>> I will also send the sensitivity section to Bette in a few hours. >>>>> If you have changes, please use track changes. Francis, I have >>>>> accepted all >>>>> changes in this and removed comments no longer relevant >>>>> >>>>> Gabi >>>>> >>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>> Subject: [Wg1-ar4-ch09] section 9.3 >>>>> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:22:32 -0500 >>>>> From: Crowley_Hegerl >>>>> To: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi chapter 9 authors, >>>>> >>>>> This is the preindustrial section 9.3 for final crosschecking. >>>>> Please get back to us (using my work email or this list) by >>>>> Wednesday at the latest. >>>>> It has some questions and things to check for Pascale (thanks for >>>>> all the help with this >>>>> Already, did you see Bette’s latest LGM numbers and the updated >>>>> terminology? ­ I’ll >>>>> Also send ch6 draft which I got this morning). >>>>> >>>>> And one for Nathan on circulation stuff, there was a comment we >>>>> were not sure about. >>>>> Would be great of course if others have a chance to check, too. >>>>> >>>>> ALL: PLEASE ACCEPT ALL CHANGES before you make more changes. >>>>> Otherwise >>>>> It will be close to impossible to trace! >>>>> >>>>> Good morning everybody >>>>> >>>>> Gabi and Francis >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>> Gabriele Hegerl >>>>> Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, >>>>> Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, >>>>> Box 90227 >>>>> Duke University, Durham NC 27708 >>>>> Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 >>>>> email: hegerl@duke.edu, >>>>> http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>> Gabriele Hegerl >>>> Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, >>>> Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, >>>> Box 90227 >>>> Duke University, Durham NC 27708 >>>> Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 >>>> email: hegerl@duke.edu, >>>> http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Professor Keith Briffa, >>> Climatic Research Unit >>> University of East Anglia >>> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. >>> >>> Phone: +44-1603-593909 >>> Fax: +44-1603-507784 >>> >> >> -- >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School >> for the Environment and Earth Sciences, >> Box 90227 >> Duke University, Durham NC 27708 >> Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 >> email: hegerl@duke.edu, http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html >> > > -- > 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/ > -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, Box 90227 Duke University, Durham NC 27708 Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 email: hegerl@duke.edu, http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html 3448. 2006-02-28 ______________________________________________________ cc: wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:49:57 -0500 from: "W.R Peltier" subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Revision deadlines to: Bette Otto-Bliesner , Jonathan Overpeck I agree that there are huge problems with the reference list---in particular none of those in my final text on sea level have been incororated---Dick At 12:37 PM 28/02/2006, Bette Otto-Bliesner wrote: >Hi all, > >Yes I am leaving in a few hours for a National Academy committee >in Washington. I should have email but not much time to check it. >I will send a final marked-up draft of 6.4 later today. After >that any additional changes are best to go directly to Dominique, >Peck, Eystein, and Oyvind. I am not sure how we fix the references >that did not get included appropriately in EndNote. > >Bette > >On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: > >>Hi all - Thanks for the flurry of all the >>revisions, revisions of revisions, etc. The >>chapter is much better for all the work since >>Friday. If you have any final input, please send >>to the appropriate section leader by the end of >>today US time. >> >>All section leads should try to get Øyvind, >>Eystein and me your final sections ready to >>cut/paste into the master by end of tomorrow at >>the latest (US time). All outstanding references >>need to be dealt with by then too. >> >>Section leads at this point are down to single people >> >>Exec Summ, Sec 6.1 and 6.2 - Peck >>6.3 - David >>6.4 - Valerie >>6.5 - Bette (she may need everything TODAY - confirm to entire list if true) >>6.6 - Keith (text) Tim (captions) cc all to both >>And cc all to me, Øyvind and Eysten so we can track what's going on. >> >>Thanks, Peck >> >> > >-- >______________________________________________ >Bette L. Otto-Bliesner >Climate Change Research >National Center for Atmospheric Research >1850 Table Mesa Drive / P.O. Box 3000 >Boulder, Colorado 80307 >Phone: 303-497-1723 >Fax: 303-497-1348 >Email: ottobli@ncar.ucar.edu >______________________________________________ > >_______________________________________________ >Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list >Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu >http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 Prof W.R Peltier Dept of Physics, University of Toronto 60 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA, M5S 1A7 Tel (416)-978-2938 Fax (416)-978-8905 email peltier@atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 3634. 2006-02-28 ______________________________________________________ cc: jto@u.arizona.edu,eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no, Fortunat Joos ,drind@giss.nasa.gov date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:10:45 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: latest draft of 2000-year section text to: Stefan Rahmstorf , Keith Briffa Hi Stefan, our (Keith and mine) understanding of this issue is that Burger et al. (2006, Tellus, already published and therefore citable) already point out the von Storch et al. (2004) mistake in implementing the Mann et al. (1998) method. But we haven't stated this (or cited the Science in press comment) because Burger et al. also demonstrate that when they implement the method without the detrending step (i.e., following the Mann et al. approach more accurately than von Storch et al. did) then the bias is still there, though of smaller magnitude than von Storch et al. (2004) suggested. Given that we already say that the extent of any bias is uncertain, it does not seem necessary to go into the details any further by discussing the implementation by von Storch et al. of the Mann et al. method. Finally, I think (though here it is less clear from their paper and I am relying on my recollection of talking to Gerd Burger) that Burger et al. also show that the amount of noise von Storch et al. added to create the pseudo-proxies yields a pseudo-reconstruction that has much better verification skill than obtained by Mann et al. (1998) for their real reconstruction. If they increase the noise added (deteriorating the "skill" of the pseudo-proxies) until they get similar verification statistics as Mann et al. report, then the size of the bias gets bigger. In fact, the bias they obtain with the higher noise but "correct" no-detrending method is actually very similar to the bias von Storch et al. reported with lower noise but incorrect detrending method! So where does that leave us? I don't think there's room to put all this in. Of course the magnitude of the bias cannot be determined from any pseudo-proxy simulation anyway, and will be different for different models. We'd be interested to know if your (or others on the cc list) interpretation of Burger et al. (2006) is significantly different to this. Cheers Tim At 16:42 28/02/2006, Stefan Rahmstorf wrote: >Hi Keith and others, > >attached is the draft Keith sent on 21 Feb of the 2000-year section, >with comments and edits (grey) from me. > >I note that Von Storch et al. 2004 is cited without it being >mentioned that they did not implement the Mann et al. method >correctly - by detrending before calibration, the performance of the >method was greatly degraded in their model. I guess you left this >out because the comment to Science showing this is still in press? >Will it be added once this has been published? I think it is a major >point, as it was such a high-profile paper - Von Storch's contention >that the "hockey stick" is "nonsense" (cited in the US Senate) is >based on a mistake. > >Cheers, Stefan > >-- >To reach me directly please use: rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de >(My former addresses @pik-potsdam.de are read by my assistant Brigitta.) > >Stefan Rahmstorf >www.ozean-klima.de >www.realclimate.org > > > 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 3809. 2006-02-28 ______________________________________________________ cc: Gabi Hegerl date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:57:46 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: [Fwd: [Wg1-ar4-ch09] section 9.3] to: Keith Briffa Hi Gabi and Keith - thanks for the coordination efforts. Keith raises the issue of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), and I think it is critical that we don't give a vague or poorly coordinated view on that period. In the MWP box, Keith does an excellent job saying what it was and wasn't. I'm not sure you've seen the figure that goes with it Gabi, but it is attached with all the figs (we're updating the captions and the one missing fig, but the rest are final, including all of Keith's (Tim's) figs. Box 6.4 Fig 1 is the MWP fig. Thanks, Peck >Gabi >it is difficult to be precise as regards >comments , mainly because there do seem, as it >turns out, to be large areas of overlap between >our discussion of the simulations, forcings, and >consistency with the CO2 record in what you >sent. In some places you cite selected >references and occasional cross references to >Chapter 6 , but this could probably be much more >frequent and perhaps specific with regard to >particular sections and Figures (and you could >as a consequence remove text if you wished - but >I see no problem if not, other than repetition , >as there are no contradictory statements to ours >as far as I can see) . I make these remarks >mostly with regard to out last 2000 year section. >The only only one gripe with the text that I >have is your reference to the medieval period >being a 500-year warm period . In fact we go to >some trouble to discuss the ambiguity of the >concept in our Box 6.4 and describe the timing >of the warm periods .I think you should not >perpetuate the term in the vague context that >you do. At present , I am not certain of our >final Figure order as I hope to rearrange the >later ones yet again. Anyway , you have pretty >much the final draft I believe of Chapter 6 and >can , as no doubt you would anyway, take or >leave my opinions. Best wishes >Keith > > >At 18:10 27/02/2006, you wrote: >>p.s. since I am going to a meeting on thursday (hockeystick revisited) >>we are trying to be down to bookkeeping and really minor stuff by thursday, >>so if you have suggestions, but wednesday would be best - SORRY! >> >>Gabi >> >>Gabi Hegerl wrote: >>>Hi Keith, Peck and Bette, >>> >>>Here is our preindustrial section. I think our >>>chapters merge fine here, I don't >>>see too much overlap, but it wouldn't hurt if you check either. >>>I will also send the sensitivity section to Bette in a few hours. >>>If you have changes, please use track changes. Francis, I have accepted all >>>changes in this and removed comments no longer relevant >>> >>>Gabi >>> >>>-------- Original Message -------- >>>Subject: [Wg1-ar4-ch09] section 9.3 >>>Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:22:32 -0500 >>>From: Crowley_Hegerl >>>To: >>> >>> >>>Hi chapter 9 authors, >>> >>>This is the preindustrial section 9.3 for final crosschecking. >>>Please get back to us (using my work email or >>>this list) by Wednesday at the latest. >>>It has some questions and things to check for >>>Pascale (thanks for all the help with this >>>Already, did you see Bette’s latest LGM >>>numbers and the updated terminology? – I’ll >>>Also send ch6 draft which I got this morning). >>> >>>And one for Nathan on circulation stuff, there >>>was a comment we were not sure about. >>>Would be great of course if others have a chance to check, too. >>> >>>ALL: PLEASE ACCEPT ALL CHANGES before you make more changes. Otherwise >>>It will be close to impossible to trace! >>> >>>Good morning everybody >>> >>>Gabi and Francis >>> >>> >>>-- >>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>Gabriele Hegerl >>>Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, >>>Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, >>>Box 90227 >>>Duke University, Durham NC 27708 >>>Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 >>>email: >>>hegerl@duke.edu, >>>http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html >>> >> >> >>-- >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>Gabriele Hegerl >>Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, >>Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, >>Box 90227 >>Duke University, Durham NC 27708 >>Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 >>email: hegerl@duke.edu, >>http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html > >-- >Professor Keith Briffa, >Climatic Research Unit >University of East Anglia >Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > >Phone: +44-1603-593909 >Fax: +44-1603-507784 -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Chap6SODdraftfigs.doc" 4242. 2006-02-28 ______________________________________________________ cc: jto@u.arizona.edu, eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no, Fortunat Joos , Tim Osborn , drind@giss.nasa.gov date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:42:47 +0100 from: Stefan Rahmstorf subject: Re: latest draft of 2000-year section text to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith and others, attached is the draft Keith sent on 21 Feb of the 2000-year section, with comments and edits (grey) from me. I note that Von Storch et al. 2004 is cited without it being mentioned that they did not implement the Mann et al. method correctly - by detrending before calibration, the performance of the method was greatly degraded in their model. I guess you left this out because the comment to Science showing this is still in press? Will it be added once this has been published? I think it is a major point, as it was such a high-profile paper - Von Storch's contention that the "hockey stick" is "nonsense" (cited in the US Senate) is based on a mistake. Cheers, Stefan -- To reach me directly please use: rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de (My former addresses @pik-potsdam.de are read by my assistant Brigitta.) Stefan Rahmstorf www.ozean-klima.de www.realclimate.org Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\2000bitKRB3_Ch06_SOD_1A_gst_rahmstorf.doc" 4699. 2006-02-28 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Keith Briffa" , "Eystein Jansen" date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:23:25 -0500 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: Wahl Ritson Ammann Science article on vonStorch 04 to: "Jonathan Overpeck" Hello Jonathan, Keith, and Eystein: I want to make a reminder about the embargo for release of the WRA Science comment article. Please do not disseminate this article to anyone else, or discuss it publically until it is actually published, which I know Science wants to do soon. I still believe citation is appropriate, and I have asked for clarification on this from the editors. I will let you know what/if I hear from them. FYI, this issue is also related to the NAS committee looking into last millenium surface temperature reconstructions this week, as I think you are aware. Today, the NAS staff person working with this committee said he talked to Jesse Smith of Science about this article, who mentioned he could say nothing, but referred the staff person to me. I was not really sure what this meant, and so I did not say anything specific on this myself, to ensure that I would not be in conflict with the embargo. That is where it stands in that arena for now. As you saw in the message from Steve Schneider that I copied to you, however, there is no embargo of any kind on use of the Climatic Change article. Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 607-871-2604 1 Saxon Drive Alfred, NY 14802 5218. 2006-02-28 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, cddhr@giss.nasa.gov, joos , Eystein Jansen date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:21:28 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: latest draft of 2000-year section text to: Tim Osborn Hi Tim, Keith and Stefan - We certainly can't get into the details of the debate, both for space reasons, and because K & T have gotten us away from the more "defensive" impression our FOD gave reviewers and others. Although I share Stefan's concern that we almost have to hammer the misinformation to death, I think we'll be ok dealing with it succinctly, and focusing on the bigger picture - Mann et al., and all the controversy is history - we know much more now, and it makes for stronger statements. Keith and Tim have done a nice job balancing all this, and we have to hope that all the Mann et al controversy will start sounding as dated as it is. I know I make that point pretty clearly when I talk to the media. BUT, I leave it to Keith and Tim to tweak the discussion to reflect Stafan's concern as appropriate. thanks, Peck >Hi Stefan, > >our (Keith and mine) understanding of this issue is that Burger et >al. (2006, Tellus, already published and therefore citable) already >point out the von Storch et al. (2004) mistake in implementing the >Mann et al. (1998) method. But we haven't stated this (or cited the >Science in press comment) because Burger et al. also demonstrate >that when they implement the method without the detrending step >(i.e., following the Mann et al. approach more accurately than von >Storch et al. did) then the bias is still there, though of smaller >magnitude than von Storch et al. (2004) suggested. Given that we >already say that the extent of any bias is uncertain, it does not >seem necessary to go into the details any further by discussing the >implementation by von Storch et al. of the Mann et al. method. > >Finally, I think (though here it is less clear from their paper and >I am relying on my recollection of talking to Gerd Burger) that >Burger et al. also show that the amount of noise von Storch et al. >added to create the pseudo-proxies yields a pseudo-reconstruction >that has much better verification skill than obtained by Mann et al. >(1998) for their real reconstruction. If they increase the noise >added (deteriorating the "skill" of the pseudo-proxies) until they >get similar verification statistics as Mann et al. report, then the >size of the bias gets bigger. In fact, the bias they obtain with >the higher noise but "correct" no-detrending method is actually very >similar to the bias von Storch et al. reported with lower noise but >incorrect detrending method! So where does that leave us? I don't >think there's room to put all this in. Of course the magnitude of >the bias cannot be determined from any pseudo-proxy simulation >anyway, and will be different for different models. > >We'd be interested to know if your (or others on the cc list) >interpretation of Burger et al. (2006) is significantly different to >this. > >Cheers > >Tim > >At 16:42 28/02/2006, Stefan Rahmstorf wrote: >>Hi Keith and others, >> >>attached is the draft Keith sent on 21 Feb of the 2000-year >>section, with comments and edits (grey) from me. >> >>I note that Von Storch et al. 2004 is cited without it being >>mentioned that they did not implement the Mann et al. method >>correctly - by detrending before calibration, the performance of >>the method was greatly degraded in their model. I guess you left >>this out because the comment to Science showing this is still in >>press? Will it be added once this has been published? I think it is >>a major point, as it was such a high-profile paper - Von Storch's >>contention that the "hockey stick" is "nonsense" (cited in the US >>Senate) is based on a mistake. >> >>Cheers, Stefan >> >>-- >>To reach me directly please use: rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de >>(My former addresses @pik-potsdam.de are read by my assistant Brigitta.) >> >>Stefan Rahmstorf >>www.ozean-klima.de >>www.realclimate.org >> >> > >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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 1333. 2006-03-01 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Mar 1 07:42:10 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: RE: Wahl Ritson Ammann Science article on vonStorch 04 to: "Wahl, Eugene R" noted and understood Keith At 04:23 01/03/2006, you wrote: Hello Jonathan, Keith, and Eystein: I want to make a reminder about the embargo for release of the WRA Science comment article. Please do not disseminate this article to anyone else, or discuss it publically until it is actually published, which I know Science wants to do soon. I still believe citation is appropriate, and I have asked for clarification on this from the editors. I will let you know what/if I hear from them. FYI, this issue is also related to the NAS committee looking into last millenium surface temperature reconstructions this week, as I think you are aware. Today, the NAS staff person working with this committee said he talked to Jesse Smith of Science about this article, who mentioned he could say nothing, but referred the staff person to me. I was not really sure what this meant, and so I did not say anything specific on this myself, to ensure that I would not be in conflict with the embargo. That is where it stands in that arena for now. As you saw in the message from Steve Schneider that I copied to you, however, there is no embargo of any kind on use of the Climatic Change article. Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 607-871-2604 1 Saxon Drive Alfred, NY 14802 -- 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/ 1671. 2006-03-01 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 09:11:15 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Fwd: Re: latest draft of 2000-year section text to: Keith Briffa , TBaumgar@CICESE.MX, TRBaumgartner@UCSD.Edu Just to you - seems you could go a little further and be more clear as Stefan suggests. Not a major change. Your call, though. Thanks, Peck X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 15:55:41 +0100 From: Stefan Rahmstorf X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Fortunat Joos Cc: Jonathan Overpeck , Tim Osborn , Keith Briffa , cddhr@giss.nasa.gov, Eystein Jansen Subject: Re: latest draft of 2000-year section text X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de login:a55186a74a9492274b66220889845b72 Hi all, let me add to Fortunat that I feel Keith and Tim have done a tremendous job in very thorny terrain. And I agree with Peck - science has moved way past the "hockey stick" debate, and it is great how our chapter shows that. Nevertheless, we should remember that the Von Storch et al. (2004) critique was a fundamental methodological critique that applies to *all* (or at least most) proxy reconstructions - it is not just a Storch vs. Mann quarrel (although it is that as well, of course). Hence it is worth mentioning their error, else this could still call the entirety of our conclusions from that section into question. Currently, our draft just says: At present, the extent of any such bias in specific reconstructions is uncertain This is true, but leaves in my view slightly too much room for interpretation - like, it would still encompass the interpretation that the bias of all reconstructions is desastrous, so they are all "nonsense" in Von Storch's words. What about saying something along the lines: "At present, the extent of any such bias in specific reconstructions is uncertain, although probably not as large as suggested by Von Storch et al. (2004), whose work was affected by a calibration error (Wahl, Ritson and Amman, 2006)." Regards, Stefan p.s. Tim: Are you convinced the more recent papers by the VS group use the correct calibration? In those curves that are intended to show the pseudoproxies perform poorly even when calibrated correctly, as long as you add a lot more noise, I wonder why the pseudoproxies perform poorly even within the calibration interval, where they now should be calibrated to properly reproduce the 20th C warming trend, and they don't? -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 2129. 2006-03-01 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 08:53:37 -0500 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: Wahl Ammann Climatic Change article on MBH/MM to: "Keith Briffa" Hello Keith: We are very happy to be able to formally contribute. Meeting the deadline has been very satisfying. Best !!! in your IPCC work. Peace, Gene ________________________________ From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wed 3/1/2006 2:41 AM To: Wahl, Eugene R; Jonathan Overpeck Cc: Eystein Jansen; Caspar Ammann Subject: RE: Wahl Ammann Climatic Change article on MBH/MM great - thanks for this Eugene. Reference definitely included Keith At 02:42 01/03/2006, Wahl, Eugene R wrote: >Hello all: > >Good news this day. The Wahl-Ammann paper also has been given fully >accepted status today by Stephen Schneider. I copy his affirmation >of this below, and after that his remark from earlier this month >regarding this status being equivalent to "in press". I hope this >meets the deadline of before March 1 for citation. > >Peace, Gene > > >********************************* first copied message >************************************** > >RE: provision of Wahl and Ammann ms 3321 to NAS committee >Stephen H Schneider [shs@stanford.edu] > You replied on 2/28/2006 9:33 PM. > Follow up >To: Wahl, Eugene R >Cc: katarina kivel > >Hello from Sydney. I have now read your responses the the rereviewer and >am satisfied you have done more than an adequate job. The paper is now >accepted and you can post it where you wish with that designation. Let me >know if there is anything else to do. Congratulations, Steve > > > >********************************* second copied message >************************************** > >RE: Wahl and Ammann ms 3321 >Stephen H Schneider [shs@stanford.edu] > You replied on 2/28/2006 7:06 PM. > Follow up >To: Wahl, Eugene R >Cc: katarina kivel > >your interpretation is fine--get me the revision soon so I have time to >assess your responses in light of reviews in time! Look forward to >recievieng it, Steve > >On Sat, 11 Feb 2006, Wahl, Eugene R wrote: > > > Hello Steve: > > > > Caspar and I expect to have the final manuscript to you in 7-10 > days with all the revisions you requested in December. I have > recently had some correspondance with Jonathan Overpeck about this, > in his IPCC role. He says that the paper needs to be in press by > the end of February to be acceptable to be cited in the SOD. [I > had thought that we had passed all chance for citation in the next > IPCC report back in December, but Peck has made it known to me this is not so.] > > > > He and I have communicated re: what "in press" means for Climatic > Change, and I agreed to contact you to have a clear > definition. What I have understood from our conversations before > is that if you receive the mss and move it from "provisionally > accepted" status to "accepted", then this can be considered in > press, in light of CC being a journal of record. > > > > Peace, Gene > > Dr. Eugene R. Wahl > > Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies > > Alfred University > > > >*************************** end of copied messages ********************* > >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies >Alfred University > >607-871-2604 >1 Saxon Drive >Alfred, NY 14802 > > -- 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/ 2386. 2006-03-01 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 17:13:10 -0000 from: "Susie Hodge" subject: Global warming to: Dear Keith Hope you don't mind my emailing you. I'm an author and am writing a book for children (age 11-14) on Global Warming for Ticktock Media Ltd. The book is to have a feature on each spread, which will explain either specialist research projects or the job of a specialist scientist. If you have the time - and please don't spend long! Can you please give me a little bit of information on any of the following? 1. What your job is 2. How you got into it - the career path for someone taking your specialisation 3. What specialist projects are you working on re: global warming 4. What equipment and skills do you use? 5. Are your answers instant or do they involve days or even years of analysis? 6. Is your current work part of a long-term ongoing programme? 7. How many of you work on the same thing? 8. Any amazing/unexpected discoveries? 9. Likes/dislikes relating to your work 10. Most important work on this area? Plus/or anything else that you think children of 11-14 should know on the subject! As I say, if you don't have time, or if you don't want to be named in a book, I completely understand. If you can answer any of those things though, thank you in advance! Thank you for your time anyway and good luck with your work. Best wishes Susie (Hodge) 3307. 2006-03-01 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Mar 1 16:54:01 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Fwd: Re: latest draft of 2000-year section text to: Jonathan Overpeck will do At 16:11 01/03/2006, you wrote: Just to you - seems you could go a little further and be more clear as Stefan suggests. Not a major change. Your call, though. Thanks, Peck X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 15:55:41 +0100 From: Stefan Rahmstorf X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Fortunat Joos Cc: Jonathan Overpeck , Tim Osborn , Keith Briffa , cddhr@giss.nasa.gov, Eystein Jansen Subject: Re: latest draft of 2000-year section text X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de login:a55186a74a9492274b66220889845b72 Hi all, let me add to Fortunat that I feel Keith and Tim have done a tremendous job in very thorny terrain. And I agree with Peck - science has moved way past the "hockey stick" debate, and it is great how our chapter shows that. Nevertheless, we should remember that the Von Storch et al. (2004) critique was a fundamental methodological critique that applies to *all* (or at least most) proxy reconstructions - it is not just a Storch vs. Mann quarrel (although it is that as well, of course). Hence it is worth mentioning their error, else this could still call the entirety of our conclusions from that section into question. Currently, our draft just says: At present, the extent of any such bias in specific reconstructions is uncertain This is true, but leaves in my view slightly too much room for interpretation - like, it would still encompass the interpretation that the bias of all reconstructions is desastrous, so they are all "nonsense" in Von Storch's words. What about saying something along the lines: "At present, the extent of any such bias in specific reconstructions is uncertain, although probably not as large as suggested by Von Storch et al. (2004), whose work was affected by a calibration error (Wahl, Ritson and Amman, 2006)." Regards, Stefan p.s. Tim: Are you convinced the more recent papers by the VS group use the correct calibration? In those curves that are intended to show the pseudoproxies perform poorly even when calibrated correctly, as long as you add a lot more noise, I wonder why the pseudoproxies perform poorly even within the calibration interval, where they now should be calibrated to properly reproduce the 20th C warming trend, and they don't? -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 [1]http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ [2]http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 4351. 2006-03-01 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , jto@u.arizona.edu, eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no, Fortunat Joos , drind@giss.nasa.gov, rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 09:07:28 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: latest draft of 2000-year section text to: Tim Osborn All - yes, it's great that the Wahl et al papers (both in Science, and in CChange) were accepted this week. These both help clarify the issues. Thanks, peck >Hi again Stefan, > >I'm sympathetic to many of these points that you make. Obviously >only the scientific literature can be covered in the chapter, rather >than the interpretation or testimony that appeared elsewhere. Given >that the bias appears real, though of unknown magnitude, I think we >should include a citation to the new comment (Wahl et al.) along >with the existing citations that are given at the end of the >existing text that states that the extent of the bias is uncertain. > >Cheers > >Tim > >At 17:32 28/02/2006, Stefan Rahmstorf wrote: >>Hi Tim, >> >>my simplistic interpretation as an outside observer of this field is: >> >>VS04 published a high-profile analysis in Science concluding that >>the performance of the MBH method is disastrously bad. >>Subsequently, VS in the media called the MBH result "nonsense", >>accused Nature of putting their sales interests above peer review >>when publishing MBH, and called the IPCC "stupid" and >>"irresponsible" for highlighting the results of MBH. This had >>*major* political impact - I know this e.g. from EU negotiators who >>were confronted with this stuff by their US colleagues. >> >>Then it turns out that they implemented the method incorrectly. If >>it is done as MBH did, variance is still somewhat underestimated in >>the same pseudoproxy test, but only a little, within the error bars >>given by MBH and shown by IPCC. Certainly nothing dramatic - one >>could conclude that the method works reasonably well but needs >>improvement. This would have been a technical discussion with not >>much political impact. >> >>What VS and their colleagues are doing now, rather than publishing >>a correction of their mistake, is saying: "well, but if we add a >>lot more noise, or use red noise, then the MBH method is still >>quite bad..." >> >>The question here is: should our IPCC chapter say something to >>correct the wrong impression which had the political impact, namely >>that the MBH method is disastrously bad? This is not the same as >>the legitimate discussion about the real errors in proxy >>reconstructions, which accepts that these reconstructions have some >>errors but are still quite useful, rather than being "nonsense". >> >>Cheers, Stefan >> >>-- >>To reach me directly please use: >>rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de >>(My former addresses @pik-potsdam.de are read by my assistant Brigitta.) >> >>Stefan Rahmstorf >>www.ozean-klima.de >>www.realclimate.org > >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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 4544. 2006-03-01 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Mar 1 07:37:36 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Fwd: RE: Wahl Ritson Ammann Science article on vonStorch 04 to: Tim Osborn Subject: RE: Wahl Ritson Ammann Science article on vonStorch 04 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:32:19 -0500 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Wahl Ritson Ammann Science article on vonStorch 04 Thread-Index: AcY3ZrWjPf6A8R9vTWeSE3GvqmgKLAFLDcog From: "Wahl, Eugene R" To: "Jonathan Overpeck" Cc: "Keith Briffa" , "Eystein Jansen" , "Caspar Ammann" X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Hello Jonathan, Keith, and Eystein: I don't yet have any word from Steve Schneider concerning the Wahl-Ammann article on the MBH/MM issues... ...HOWEVER, here is something that slipped under my radar screen, about which I should have made you aware previously. I've attached the ACCEPTED version of the Wahl-Ritson-Ammann comment article on the vonStorch et al. 2004 Science paper. This the article that criticizes MBH for very large low-frequency amplitude losses. The final acceptance from Science just came today, and is copied below. In this comment article (specifically requested to be expanded to 1000 words by the Science editors), we note that the calibration and verification performance of the MBH method as implemented in VS04 show really poor LF fidelity--which cannot happen if the MBH method is implemented according to its original form. We note this, which is explained by a significant omission on the part of VS04 in implementing the MBH methodology (a detrending step that was only disclosed later last year in a conference proceedings paper). We also comment on physical and statistical reasons why detrending is not appropriate in this context. We conclude that the large amplitude losses VS04 claims are simply not correct. I am imagining that this contextualization of the VS04 critique would also be relevant for your chapter, and it can now be considered "in press" as the from our Science correspondent notes below. I would think this acceptance makes it "citable". If not, I understand. NOTE THAT THIS ARTICLE IS SUBJECT TO THE USUAL SCIENCE EMBARGO RULES. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS MEANS CITATION IS EMBARGOED. (Cf. 4th paragraph in copied message below that supports citation.) Peace, Gene ******************************* Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 607.871.2604 ********************** copied message below ******************** Dear Dr. Wahl, Below is the formal acceptance of your manuscript. The paper is technically not "in press" yet, though I assume that either "accepted" or "in press" would be acceptable. Dear Dr. Wahl, We are pleased to accept your revised Technical Comment on the paper by von Storch et al. for publication. The text of your comment will be edited to conform to *Science* style guidelines. Before publication you will receive galley proofs for author corrections. Please return the marked and corrected proofs, by fax or overnight express, within 48 hours of receipt. For authors with NIH grants intending to deposit the accepted version of their paper on PubMed Central, the following text must be displayed as a footnote with an asterisk to the manuscript title: "This manuscript has been accepted for publication in Science. This version has not undergone final editing. Please refer to the complete version of record at [1]http://www.sciencemag.org/. This manuscript may not be reproduced or used in any manner that does not fall within the fair use provisions of the Copyright Act without the prior, written permission of AAAS." As noted in our License for Publication, the manuscript cannot be posted sooner than 6 months after final publication of the paper in Science. As you know, the full text of technical comments and responses appears on our website, Science Online, with abstracts published in the Letters section of the print *Science*. Thanks for your patience during this long process, and thanks for publishing in *Science*. Sincerely, Tara S. Marathe Associate Online Editor, Science tmarathe@aaas.org *********************** end copied message ****************** -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 5020. 2006-03-02 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Susan Solomon" date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 23:51:03 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Fwd: gabi's 1500-year reconstruction to: Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa Hi guys - great timing here for this message from Francis, and I don't think we can (or should) do anything. It seems Gabi's recon is in press, and that's the way it is. I suspect Gabi's J Clim paper will come out before the TOD too, but since it's in press in Nature, it's published. I don't think the IPCC has to provide anything beyond the report - in fact, I'm almost sure Susan made this point to me/a bigger group already. I'll cc this to her, just so she know's what might be coming, but I think we're fine. M&M can get Congress to ask the FBI to secret Gabi away forever for doing her science the accepted way. Seriously, it's up to her to make things available as appropriate. Of course, I could be too sleep-deprived too. Am I correct in my assessment? I don't feel like calling Gabi at 2am (her time) to discuss making changes (e.g., to text, let along figs) that it's too late to make anyhow. I'll respond to Francis after I hear from you. Anyhow, I'm just about to send the full SOD text back to Norway for final minor editing. It looks good. Best, peck X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:11:24 -0800 From: Francis Zwiers To: Jonathan Overpeck Cc: Gabi Hegerl Subject: gabi's 1500-year reconstruction Hi Peck, I just got a call from Gabi, who spent the day in Washington at that NAS panel on the hockey stick. She doesn't have access to e-mail today, and so asked me to convey a message. McIntyre and McKittrick were there, and seem to have left Gabi with the strong impression that they will be insisting on having access to supporting data, etc., used to build reconstructions. Gabi says that this is making her nervous, wants to make sure that you are aware of the status of her reconstruction, and wants to be sure that you are comfortable with continuing to use it in Ch 6. She says that if you feel it necessary to exclude her reconstruction from your SOD of Ch 6, you should do so. The reconstruction is used in her Nature paper on sensitivity, which has been accepted, but the Nature paper does not describe the reconstruction or the supporting data in any detail. There is a paper under review at J. Climate that does do that (which is cited in the Nature paper), but unfortunately, an editorial decision is still pending. I hope that I've conveyed her message correctly. If you have a few minutes, it might be a good idea to give Gabi a call on her cell at bit later this evening (919 451 2773). Cheers, Francis PS - hope things are progressing with your chapter. Things are a bit hectic here! -- Francis Zwiers, Chief Canadian Ctr for Climate Modelling and Analysis Climate Research Division, Environment Canada c/o University of Victoria PO Box 1700, STN CSC Victoria, BC V8W 2Y2 Phone: (250)363-8229 Fax: (250)363-8247 Web: [1]http://www.cccma.bc.ec.gc.ca -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 666. 2006-03-03 ______________________________________________________ cc: Francis Zwiers , Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa , "Susan Solomon" date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 11:09:13 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: gabi's 1500-year reconstruction to: Gabi Hegerl Hi Gabi - I suspect part of their goal is to distract/exhaust the scientists. But, that won't work in the long run, and if they keep making poorly reasoned assertions, the resultonly make the science more clear and strong to the general audience. So, keep up the good work. Best, peck Thanks Peck - as soon as the nature paper comes out, I'll then just reply positively to supporting data requests by the Macs, even though they do strange things to reonstrctions. (Tom just doing Crowley-Lowery without Bristlecone pines since they showed what they think that looks like which was totally uncredible (removing one of ~10 simply averaged stdized records can not dramatically change the appearance of the curve , and definitely not kill the trend at the end if nearly all series show it!) Gabi Jonathan Overpeck wrote: Re: gabi's 1500-year reconstruction Hi Francis (and Gabi when you get back on email) - got your email in the middle of the night, and figured Gabi didn't need a call even later her time. Basically, since it's published in Nature (in press), it seems fine to keep it in our chapter. M&M will have to go to original authors for the supporting material they require - the IPCC isn't set up to do that for the thousands of publications we have to access. Of course, we hope the J.Clim paper is in press soon too. Obviously quite worthy. I have cc'd Susan Solomon too, so she has an inkling of the issues raised. Thanks and hope your final push is going well. At this stage, Chap 6 is pretty much done, except for tidying up those pesky references. Best, peck Hi Peck, I just got a call from Gabi, who spent the day in Washington at that NAS panel on the hockey stick. She doesn't have access to e-mail today, and so asked me to convey a message. McIntyre and McKittrick were there, and seem to have left Gabi with the strong impression that they will be insisting on having access to supporting data, etc., used to build reconstructions. Gabi says that this is making her nervous, wants to make sure that you are aware of the status of her reconstruction, and wants to be sure that you are comfortable with continuing to use it in Ch 6. She says that if you feel it necessary to exclude her reconstruction from your SOD of Ch 6, you should do so. The reconstruction is used in her Nature paper on sensitivity, which has been accepted, but the Nature paper does not describe the reconstruction or the supporting data in any detail. There is a paper under review at J. Climate that does do that (which is cited in the Nature paper), but unfortunately, an editorial decision is still pending. I hope that I've conveyed her message correctly. If you have a few minutes, it might be a good idea to give Gabi a call on her cell at bit later this evening (919 451 2773). Cheers, Francis PS - hope things are progressing with your chapter. Things are a bit hectic here! -- Francis Zwiers, Chief Canadian Ctr for Climate Modelling and Analysis Climate Research Division, Environment Canada c/o University of Victoria PO Box 1700, STN CSC Victoria, BC V8W 2Y2 Phone: (250)363-8229 Fax: (250)363-8247 Web: [1]http://www.cccma.bc.ec.gc.ca -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 [2]http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ [3]http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, Box 90227 Duke University, Durham NC 27708 Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 email: [4]hegerl@duke.edu, [5]http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 1008. 2006-03-03 ______________________________________________________ cc: , Eystein Jansen date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 10:26:00 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: ref to: Keith Briffa Hi Ø - see attached (hoppefully endnote friendly) for Lonnie ref for that one needed in 6.6 (highlighted below by Keith). Note sure this is the best one, but it's good enough for SOD best, peck >Peck (and Oyvind) >can you ask Lonnie which ref(s) to cite in the >bit I said needed one ? ie refering to oxygen >isotopes in tropical ice cores being interpreted >as temperature only evidence. A good review type >paper is likely best - or if not then I suggest >Thompson et al 1986 , on Quelccaya in Science? >Tim is sending final Figure versions now and >then we will have to be off to leave you guys to >it . Good luck > >-- >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/ -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Thompson review ref.doc" 2013. 2006-03-03 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Mar 3 16:57:36 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: photographs and other visuals for Science to: Jonathan Overpeck Peck we do need to say something , but as I said in an earlier message , not without more consideration. We should not write something curt on this - ditto the Co2 possible fertilisation . In the push to do all this other stuff , we have had to leave it - to discuss later how to include an uncertainty issues bit about recent environmental mess ups . The D'arrigo paper is not convincing , but we have to do some work to show why , instead of just saying this . The divergence issue is NOT universal , and not unrelated to very recent period bias arising from processing methods . It is VERY LIKELY not the threshold problem D'Arrigo thinks it is. We need money here to work on this and losing our last application to Europe has messed us up. For now we can not include anything. I will work on text for the next iteration. At 16:05 03/03/2006, you wrote: Hi Richard - this issue is one that we refer to in our key uncertainty table. I believe Keith Briffa was one of the first to write about it, and it is an important issue. I haven't seen R's paper or results myself, but I bet Keith has. I'm cc'ing this to him to see what he thinks. thanks, peck Know anything about the "divergence problem" in tree rings? R D'arrigo talked to the NRC yesterday. I didn't get to talk to her afterward, but it looked to me that they have redrilled a bunch of the high-latitude tree rings that underlie almost all of the high-res reconstructions, and the tree rings are simply missing the post-1970s warming, with reasonably high confidence. She didn't seem too worried, but she apparently has a paper just out in JGR. It looked to me like she had pretty well killed the hockey stick in public forum--they go out and look for the most-sensitive trees at the edge of the treeline, flying over lots and lots of trees that are lesss sensitive but quite nearby, and when things get a little warmer, the most-sensitive trees aren't anymore, and so the trees miss the extreme warming of the recent times, and can't reliably be counted as catching the extreme warmth of the MWP if there was extreme warmth then. Because as far as I can tell the hockey stick really was a tree-ring record, regardless of how it was labelled as multiproxy, this looks to me to be a really big deal. And, a big deal that may bite your chapter... --Richard -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 [1]http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ [2]http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 3576. 2006-03-03 ______________________________________________________ cc: , Eystein Jansen date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 17:44:06 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: URGENT - need those final figs to: Jonathan Overpeck ,Keith Briffa Dear Peck, Eystain, Oyvind and Keith, Here are the final figures. I've made the changes direct to the latest figures/tables document that I have (from Tuesday I think). In case these need to be cut and pasted into a later version, here is a list of everything I have changed: (1) New figure and updated caption for proxy location maps fig. 6.11. I've now finished these with proxies from all studies shown on the reconstruction graph and table. I can change symbols, colours, sizes if you want. (2) New figure for reconstructions fig. 6.10. I spotted a mistake in the legend and have put a corrected figure into the file. The caption has not changed. (3) New figure and updated caption for forcings/models fig. 6.13. I've removed the spiky volcanic series and also removed the sentence describing the spiky series from the caption. Note that I also corrected a mistake in the legend, so if ever you decide to go back to the spiky version you will need to get a new one from me rather than reverting back to the old one. (4) New figure for MWP box, fig. 1. I've labelled each panel (a) and (b). (5) Table 6.1 minor corrections. I've added the top line of the table "Instrumental temperatures" which had somehow got lost during cutting/pasting. I also corrected the table borders (just a line at the top and the bottom, and no other lines required). (6) Table 6.3 very minor corrections. I corrected the table borders (just a line at the top and the bottom, and no other lines required). Best regards Tim At 18:43 02/03/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >Hi Tim and Keith - Keith indicated yesterday that you'd be sending >updated figs. Especially the 3 map fig (Fig 6.11 in revised text) >and the one with the raw volc spikes that Keith just hates (Fig. 6.13 . > >We need these really soon (!), WITH updated captions. > >thx, peck >-- >Jonathan T. Overpeck >Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >Professor, Department of Geosciences >Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences > >Mail and Fedex Address: > >Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >University of Arizona >Tucson, AZ 85721 >direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >fax: +1 520 792-8795 >http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\WG1AR4_Figs&Captions_OP_5_osborn.doc" 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 4071. 2006-03-03 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Mar 3 17:33:31 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: our last chat to: hakan.grudd@dendrolab.se Hakan I have been thinking a lot about what you said , re the "Briffa Bodge" in relation to the density analysis of the Tornetrask data, and the analysis you are doing with new , recent density data. You implied that you might pass this buy me. I am going to be a bit cheeky and suggest that perhaps , given my stake in this stuff, I could do some more and possibly be considered as a co-author if I can do anything of use . This issue , and the wider "divergence " problem will become a bigger story than you might imagine , and I have a personal interest in keeping in touch (and being seen to be in touch) with this issue as it develops further. Anyway , if I can help, I am anxious to. cheers Keith -- 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/ 692. 2006-03-06 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 10:49:49 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: lovelock's new book to: cru.internal@uea The press office are looking for someone willing to comment to the press (Newsweek) about James Lovelock's new book. Anyone read it or know a bit about it? Are we all going to die?????? If you are interested in responding, please phone Simon Dunford at the press office on x2203. Cheers Tim 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 1368. 2006-03-07 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 12:02:12 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Fwd: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Chapter 6 glossary edited version to: cddhr@giss.nasa.gov, Eystein Jansen , rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, Bette Otto-Bleisner , joos , Dominique Raynaud , "James Zachos" , Valerie Masson-Delmotte , Keith Briffa , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Hi folks - seems the listserv is down again. Please take a look at the attached draft chap 6 glossary and send comments to me and David Rind today if you have any (Jim Z - hope you can look at the way we've butchered the preQ defns). Eystein and I would like to send to TSU tonight if we can. Thanks, Peck Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 11:45:06 -0700 To: David Rind From: Jonathan Overpeck Subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Chapter 6 glossary edited version Cc: Bcc: wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu, fons_baede@hetnet.nl X-Attachments: :Macintosh HD:329718:Chapter 6 glossaryJTO.doc: Hi David (and those who have contributed) - thanks! I've attached a revised version, with my edited sections highlighted in yellow. I've tried to update some definitions to be more accurate (agree w/ Stefan, by the way, regarding D/O events), and also to standardize mention of time intervals. Also, I don't think we want to cite the sources you have cited, since these were only the sources used to get going. I think many of the definitions are updated significantly by our team. If you get any other feedback today, great. Please forward me and Eystein your final version at the end of the day, and we'll send to the TSU (and Fons). If you get no additional input, just let us know and we can send in the attached version w/ the yellow shading removed. Thanks again, Peck -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Chapter 6 glossaryJTO.doc" 4241. 2006-03-07 ______________________________________________________ cc: edwardcook , , "David Frank" , "Jan Esper" , "Tim Osborn" , , "Brian Luckman" , "Andrea Wilson" , "rosanne" , "Watson,Emma [Ontario]" , "Gordon Jacoby" , "Brohan, Philip" date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 17:44:46 +0700 from: edwardcook subject: Re: Emailing: Rob's Hockey Sticks to: "Rob Wilson" Hi Rob, You are a masochist. Maybe Tom Melvin has it right: "Controversy about which bull caused mess not relevent. The possibility that the results in all cases were heap of dung has been missed by commentators." Cheers, Ed On Mar 7, 2006, at 5:20 PM, Rob Wilson wrote: Greetings All, I thought you might be interested in these results. The wonderful thing about being paid properly (i.e. not by the hour) is that I have time to play. The whole Macintyre issue got me thinking about over-fitting and the potential bias of screening against the target climate parameter. Therefore, I thought I'd play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could 'reconstruct' northern hemisphere temperatures. I first generated 1000 random time-series in Excel - I did not try and approximate the persistence structure in tree-ring data. The autocorrelation therefore of the time-series was close to zero, although it did vary between each time-series. Playing around therefore with the AR persistent structure of these time-series would make a difference. However, as these series are generally random white noise processes, I thought this would be a conservative test of any potential bias. I then screened the time-series against NH mean annual temperatures and retained those series that correlated at the 90% C.L. 48 series passed this screening process. Using three different methods, I developed a NH temperature reconstruction from these data: 1. simple mean of all 48 series after they had been normalised to their common period 2. Stepwise multiple regression 3. Principle component regression using a stepwise selection process. The results are attached. Interestingly, the averaging method produced the best results, although for each method there is a linear trend in the model residuals - perhaps an end-effect problem of over-fitting. The reconstructions clearly show a 'hockey-stick' trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about. It is certainly worrying, but I do not think that it is a problem so long as one screens against LOCAL temperature data and not large scale temperature where trend dominates the correlation. I guess this over-fitting issue will be relevant to studies that rely more on trend coherence rather than inter-annual coherence. It would be interesting to do a similar analysis against the NAO or PDO indices. However, I should work on other things. Thought you'd might find it interesting though. comments welcome Rob ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Rob Wilson Research Fellow School of GeoSciences, Grant Institute, Edinburgh University, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JW, Scotland, U.K. Tel: 01968 670752 Publication List: [1]http://freespace.virgin.net/rob.dendro/Publications.html ".....I have wondered about trees. They are sensitive to light, to moisture, to wind, to pressure. Sensitivity implies sensation. Might a man feel into the soul of a tree for these sensations? If a tree were capable of awareness, this faculty might prove useful. " "The Miracle Workers" by Jack Vance ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1983. 2006-03-08 ______________________________________________________ cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 11:55:46 -0500 (EST) from: subject: divergence to: jto@u.arizona.edu Peck--Thanks. The big issue may be that you don't just have to convince me now; if the NRC committee comes out as being strongly negative on the hockey stick owing to RD'A's talk, then the divergence between IPCC and NRC will be a big deal in the future regardless. The NRC committee is accepting comments now (I don't know for how long)... As I noted, my observations of the NRC committee members suggest rather strongly to me that they now have serious doubts about tree-rings as paleothermometers (and I do, too...at least until someone shows me why this divergence problem really doesn't matter). --Richard 2817. 2006-03-08 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 08:20:22 -0500 from: Peter Bloomfield subject: Re: Greetings to: Keith Briffa On 03/08/2006 07:17:31 AM Wed, Keith Briffa wrote: > Peter > First, I echo your greeting. Not quite sure which "Holocene " > you are referring to, but perhaps the Special Issue Volume 12 > Issue 6, though I was not aware that anyone had even registered > its existence. Actually, the journal itself, and your role as founding member--though the special issue is certainly getting some attention! > I am aware of your involvement in the Committee and glad to > hear of it. Sorry I was bogged down here > with IPCC stuff and so unable to attend. > You will come to realise that McIntyre and Mc Kitrick and > neither fair or objective in their self-appointed roles as > so-called "arbiters" of the palaeo work. > I have heard that they are casting aspersions on your own > objectivity , on the grounds I believe, that I once cited your > advice as a "personal communication". > If this causes you a problem , then I apologise, but the > "logic" of their position is non existent. > In a paper in the aforementioned Holocene special issue , > published in 2002 , I do indeed acknowledge your help "as > follows > " We are grateful to Peter Bloomfield for discussions of > reconstruction uncertainty". This refers to a typed note sent > to "Phil and Keith" , dated 19th December 1990 , which > contained notes on calculating confidence levels on > reconstructed time series . I can send a photocopy if you would > like to see it. That's what I needed--no need for a copy. I read the appendix where you cited those expressions, and that brought the content pretty much back to mind. > Tim Osborn and I drew on these notes (as acknowledged in the > paper) when discussing the uncertainties on reconstructed > Northern Hemisphere time series. I realise that I did not draw > this to your attention at the time - but in fact , I think I > did consider this, but did not know your whereabouts (having > heard some rumour that you had left science to seek your > fortune in the realms of the money markets?). Ah, yes, /that/ was something completely different--and not yet entirely over, but that's a story for a more convivial occasion. > In fact, I would very much like to discuss issues of > reconstruction uncertainty and the efficacy of different > regression approaches again with you, as this is now , as you > will have gleaned, an important subject in the context of > global warmth and its likely precedence. > > We are working on this issue and would be happy to pass some > stuff by you for comment. > However, if this endangers your position as a member of the > Committee , no problem. I'd be glad to see anything you'd like to get a reaction to--but as you note, it should probably be left until this committee completes its task. Perhaps we could get together some time and talk about the whole issue. Best, Peter 4214. 2006-03-08 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 19:27:35 +0100 from: Håkan Grudd subject: Re: Torne paper to: Keith Briffa Yes, let's make sure that we are in the forefront of this issue. I realize this is a hot matter from the reactions I've had from a few people. When I met with Jan Esper in Mallorca a couple of weeks ago, he and his team of "hungry beavers" talked much about making a tour in the North to update density series. Torneträsk is already updated, so I think (hope) that I talked them out of it for the moment, but this is really central for future work: Updating and improving existing chronologies. Fieldwork in Jämtland and Torneträsk is top priority for me and Björn when snow starts to melt. Håkan Keith Briffa wrote: > Hakan > this issue is going to become big business scientifically , and > whatever you (we ) do , we need to work on it on the future. > > Keith > > At 15:20 08/03/2006, you wrote: > >> Hi Keith, >> this manuscript that I am working on is supposed to be one of four >> papers in my thesis: >> >> I. Grudd, H., Briffa, K.R., Karlén, W., Bartholin, T.S., Jones, P.D. >> and Kromer, B. 2002. A 7400-year tree-ring chronology in northern >> Swedish Lapland: natural climatic variability expressed on annual to >> millennial timescales. The Holocene 12, 657-665. >> >> II. Grudd, H. Manuscript. Torneträsk tree-ring width and density AD >> 500 – 2004: A test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year >> reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers. (to be) Submitted. >> >> III. Grudd, H., Briffa, K.R., Gunnarson, B.E. and Linderholm, H.W. >> 2000. Swedish tree rings provide new evidence in support of a major, >> widespread environmental disruption in 1628 BC. Geophysical Research >> Letters, 27(18), 2957-2960. >> >> IV. Roig, F.A., Le-Quesne, C., Boninsegna, J.A., Briffa, K.R., Lara, >> A., Grudd, H., Jones, P.D. and Villagran, C. 2001. Climate >> variability 50,000 years ago in mid-latitude Chile as reconstructed >> from tree rings. Nature, 410, 567-570. >> >> I have Paper II as a near-finished manuscript. Three papers are >> published and this fourth one will (should) appear in the thesis as a >> submitted manuscript. According to my supervisors it is important >> that I have one paper where I am single author. This is a bit rigid >> and I believe it is old-fashioned thinking, but I have no time to >> argue with them. The date for defending the thesis is fixed to June 9 >> (2006!) and ten weeks before that date it has to be in a final form. >> So, end of March is the deadline. >> >> I do see the point of what you are saying about being involved and >> co-authoring this paper. I have no problem what so ever with that and >> I want to collaborate, but given the time schedule for finalizing my >> thesis I can not include new analyses in this manuscript. So what to >> do!? >> >> You need to read it and give me some advice. I am sure you will have >> a lot of comments :) >> >> Having it printed in the thesis is not the same as publishing it in a >> journal: There may be some possibilities in between if we time it right. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Håkan >> >> (at present in Stockholm, Phone 0046 8 674 7591) >> >> >> >> > > -- > 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/ 4650. 2006-03-08 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 16:20:14 +0100 from: Håkan Grudd subject: Torne paper to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk Hi Keith, this manuscript that I am working on is supposed to be one of four papers in my thesis: I. Grudd, H., Briffa, K.R., Karlén, W., Bartholin, T.S., Jones, P.D. and Kromer, B. 2002. A 7400-year tree-ring chronology in northern Swedish Lapland: natural climatic variability expressed on annual to millennial timescales. The Holocene 12, 657-665. II. Grudd, H. Manuscript. Torneträsk tree-ring width and density AD 500 - 2004: A test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers. (to be) Submitted. III. Grudd, H., Briffa, K.R., Gunnarson, B.E. and Linderholm, H.W. 2000. Swedish tree rings provide new evidence in support of a major, widespread environmental disruption in 1628 BC. Geophysical Research Letters, 27(18), 2957-2960. IV. Roig, F.A., Le-Quesne, C., Boninsegna, J.A., Briffa, K.R., Lara, A., Grudd, H., Jones, P.D. and Villagran, C. 2001. Climate variability 50,000 years ago in mid-latitude Chile as reconstructed from tree rings. Nature, 410, 567-570. I have Paper II as a near-finished manuscript. Three papers are published and this fourth one will (should) appear in the thesis as a submitted manuscript. According to my supervisors it is important that I have one paper where I am single author. This is a bit rigid and I believe it is old-fashioned thinking, but I have no time to argue with them. The date for defending the thesis is fixed to June 9 (2006!) and ten weeks before that date it has to be in a final form. So, end of March is the deadline. I do see the point of what you are saying about being involved and co-authoring this paper. I have no problem what so ever with that and I want to collaborate, but given the time schedule for finalizing my thesis I can not include new analyses in this manuscript. So what to do!? You need to read it and give me some advice. I am sure you will have a lot of comments :) Having it printed in the thesis is not the same as publishing it in a journal: There may be some possibilities in between if we time it right. Cheers, Håkan (at present in Stockholm, Phone 0046 8 674 7591) 1336. 2006-03-09 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 13:48:31 +0000 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Climate Audit to: Eystein Jansen , Jonathan Overpeck Dear All, A lot of good points raised by the horizontal Eystein. Keith is hoping to do something on the recent tree growth issue. What this sad crowd (nice words - I'll use the phrase again) don't realise is that the satellite data now agree with the surface. This is said in Ch 3 and will come home more forcefully once the CCSP report on vertical temperature trends comes out. This should be April or May according to Tom Karl who is overseeing it all. I say should as it apparently has to be approved by the White House! Peck will know why this is and the expertise of the people doing the approval! I can say for certain (100% - not any probable word that IPCC would use) is that the surface temperature data are correct. McIntyre is determined and the blog does influence people, unfortuately the media. As you say as issues are partially closed, they will move on to others. Cheers Phil At 12:50 09/03/2006, Eystein Jansen wrote: >Hi Phil, thanks for the greetings. The back is status quo-like, so today >the neurosurgeons concluded I need a surgery to take care of the hernia >that creates the pains. Will take place in a week or two, and I will be >out of work for a month afterwards, but should be up and going in good >time for Wengen and for LA4. > >One side effect of being stranded and in horisontal working mode is more >time to browse the net, thus I have monitored the Climate Audit page. >Looking at the discussions after the NAS panel meeting we should expect >focus now to be sidetracked from PC-analyses and over to the issue of bad >proxies and divergence from temperature in the last 50 years. Thus this >last aspect needs to be tackled more candidly in AR4 than in the SOD, and >we need to discuss how to do this, soon. The Key expert here is Keith and >I guess we should be able to assess the situation based on his and >D´Arrigo´s work and the expertise at hand. >The rather sad crowd of followers who put their confused ideas onto the >blog is one thing - they can´t make up their mind if tree-rings are >correct over the past 50 years and the Instrumental data wrong (UHI story) >or vice versa. The more important aspect is that the blog is now used a >lot by media and McIntyre has immediate access to the international media >in the form of being one of the key players in terms of paleoclimate, >ironocally enough. He is extremely determined, has his skewed viewpoints >and is of course very pompous, but the blog is effective for his goals. > >Cheers, >Eystein > >At 08:39 +0000 09-03-06, Phil Jones wrote: >> Peck, >> I should stop looking at these sites. Was just looking during a >> break yesterday pm. >> >> Spent part of yesterday going through the TS and SPM and >> sent some comments in, only to be told they weren't specific >> enough by Susan. Probably the last time I waste my time >> doing that. I knew she had an agenda, but I hadn't fully >> realised how extensive it was. >> >> We need to revisit AR4 at some stage. Let's talk about this >> over some beers at the Wengen meeting - to decide if we do >> anything at the Bergen one. I'm sure Susan is aware of most >> of the issues....... well, I'd like to believe that. The trouble is >> that the blog sites keep promoting the same arguments, it just >> doesn't seem to matter how we try and respond - they are oblivious >> to it. One issue we could discuss is data availability. Keith says >> you're going to make all your series (in the plots available). This >> should be across all chapters if done. This is a load of work, but >> they'll just say it isn't enough. So, impossible to win, or even get a >> draw. >> >> Keith is hoping to do something re Rosanne, but like all >> of us we're not finding the time. There are a load of things >> we want to write, but responding (even reading) all this >> rubbish takes time. >> >> Hope you're better Eystein ! Looking forward to Bergen - partly >> as we're closer then to seeing the back of IPCC! >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> >> >> >>At 23:15 08/03/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>>Hi Phil - I'm not a big blog guy - not enough time, nor good enough >>>internet here. So, I'm not following the audit junk. Am I nuts? >>> >>>And, I'm not sure I understand what's going to happen when the AR4 comes >>>out. Should we have some discussion on this - as a broader group w/ >>>Susan - in Norway? Or is some other strategy advised? >>> >>>What fun... >>> >>>I'm hearing about D'Arrigo's splash from other sources (Richard Alley) - >>>hope Keith et al., have good counter arguments. >>> >>>best, peck >>> >>>>>>> Caspar, >>>> I guess you've seen the site in the last day or so. >>>> Did you give them your CC paper to post up and attack? >>>> They clearly shouldn't have it. >>>> >>>> There are some funny things (#32 on the verification r*r revealed), >>>> but much has gone beyond that. >>>> >>>> D'Arrigo's Cherry Pie - where did Briffa graduate from! >>>> Keith's web page isn't up-to-date as he's a professor now! >>>> >>>> I'm the greatest hoarder of climate information! >>>> >>>> It's the pages on Mike that are no longer funny. >>>> >>>> Peck - do you think Susan really understands what will >>>> happen when the AR4 comes out? >>>> >>>> I heard from Jerry North thinks they will have a report >>>> from the NAS meeting by April. >>>> >>>> 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 >>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>>-- >>>Jonathan T. Overpeck >>>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>Professor, Department of Geosciences >>>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >>> >>>Mail and Fedex Address: >>> >>>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>>University of Arizona >>>Tucson, AZ 85721 >>>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>>fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>>http://www.ispe.arizona.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 >>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >-- >______________________________________________________________ >Eystein Jansen >Professor/Director >Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and >Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen >Allégaten 55 >N-5007 Bergen >NORWAY >e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no >Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 >Fax: +47-55-584330 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3869. 2006-03-09 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen , date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 22:15:38 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: urgent reminder to: cddhr@giss.nasa.gov, Bette Otto-Bleisner , Dominique Raynaud , rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, joos , Valerie Masson-Delmotte , Keith Briffa , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, "Ricardo Villalba" Hi all - if you haven't done so already, PLEASE quickly (tomorrow if possible) send pdf's of all "in press" papers that were cited in your sections of the chap 6 SOD to Øyvind. The TSU is getting a tad impatient to have these. Also, same holds true for eps versions of all figures. Once the TSU has everything, I suspect we'll see our final SOD posted for us to look at, to hold, and be happy (I hope) with. Except for Keith, who has to now worry about recent tree-ring divergence from climate and what it means for chap 6.... he'll update us all soon enough. (thanks, Keith) best, peck and Eystein -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 3234. 2006-03-10 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 22:50:43 -0500 (EST) from: subject: Divergence to: drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu, jto@u.arizona.edu, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk Ed et al.--This is getting a little unmanageable in a hurry, I fear--there are now two or three overlapping emailing lists active, and my original words have been muddied. I am not on the committee, and I clearly never said that I know what the committee is thinking or doing. I did say that based on my impression of the questions asked in public by the committee (or more properly, by some members of the committee...) that I felt that they had some serious issues, and that I don't expect that they will provide a strong endorsement of the tree-ring based millennial reconstructions. Rosanne did not emphasize the divergence problem, and sought to play it down as something that might have several explanations but that did not upset the basic reconstructions, so her presentation was in line with your emails. She did show her data, and the folks in the meeting room saw the divergence in those data. Despite assurances from Ed and Keith, I must admit that I still don't get it. The NRC committee is looking at a number of issues, but the one that is most publicly noted is to determine whether, and with what confidence, we can say that recent temperatures have emerged from the band of natural variability over the last millennium or two. Millennial reconstructions with high time resolution are mostly tree-ring based, mostly northern hemisphere, and as I understand it, some are correlated to mean-annual temperatures and others to seasonal temperatures. The performance of the tree-ring paleothermometry is central. Taking the recent instrumental record and the tree-ring record and joining them yields a dramatic picture, with rather high confidence that recent times are anomalously warm. Taking strictly the tree-ring record and omitting the instrumental record yields a less-dramatic picture and a lower confidence that the recent temperatures are anomalous. When a big difference is evident between recent and a millennium ago, small errors don't matter; the more similar they are, the more important become possible small issues regarding CO2 fertilization, nitrogen fertilization (or ozone inhibition on the other side...). Unless the "divergence problem" can be confidently ascribed to some cause that was not active a millennium ago, then the comparison between tree rings from a millennium ago and instrumental records from the last decades does not seem to be justified, and the confidence level in the anomalous nature of the recent warmth is lowered. This is further complicated by the possible small influence of CO2 fertilization. Ignoring for a moment the reasons for the controversy, the motivations of some of the participants, the relative scientific unimportance of the answer (this is about icons, not science), the implications if the skeptics are actually right (the climate may be more sensitive than we thought, because forcings are not revised if the thermometry is revised, so global warming may be worse than we thought), and any other extraneous issues, I believe that: --There will be a lot of press and blog coverage of this issue when the NRC report comes out; --People will look closely at how the IPCC and NRC agree/disagree on this; --There is a reasonable likelihood that the basic thrust of the IPCC and NRC will agree, but that the details of wording and confidence may be somewhat different, and that this difference could be amplified greatly by the political process in ways that would be used to damage the IPCC. For what it's worth, I also am not fully reassured by the emails that have come through. Ed gives a very nice statement of what might have been done procedurally, but none of this was done, the time for the committee is very tight (the report is to be done by the time we meet in Norway, I believe...), and unless some of you provide input to the committee, they probably have a large fraction of their information already. (I believe that you can make statements to the committee by email; statements will be posted on a public web site and used by the committee.) Keith says that the issues are complicated (undoubtedly correct), that he has unpublished data making the case stronger, and that "virtually all long tree-ring reconstructions that contribute to the various reconstructions, are NOT affected by this. Most show good coherence with temperature at local levels in recent decades." I was just looking at some of the recent Mann et al. papers, and at the Osborn and Briffa paper from this year. In that one, as nearly as I can tell, there are 14 long records, of which 2 extend to 2000, 8 end in the early to mid 1990s, 1 in the early to mid 1980s, 2 in the early to mid 1970s, and one in the late 1940s. That looks to be a pretty small data set by the time you get into the strongest part of the instrumental warming. If some of the records, or some other records such as Rosanne's new ones, show "divergence", then I believe it casts doubt on the use of joined tree-ring/instrumental records, and I don't believe that I have yet heard why this interpretation is wrong. I'm open to hearing what I have screwed up. Please note, I have no direct stake in this! I went to the meeting, I spoke, I'm done. But, I think you have a problem coming, that it involves the IPCC and particularly chapter 6 and paleo generally, that I really should let Susan know what is going on (if you've seen all the increasingly publicly disseminated emails, you know the story). I'd rather go back to teaching and research and raising money and advising students and all of that, but I'm trying to be helpful. Casting aspersions on Rosanne, on the NRC panel, or on me for that matter is not going to solve the underlying problem. Regards--Richard 1055. 2006-03-11 ______________________________________________________ cc: edwardcook , ralley@geosc.psu.edu date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 09:36:13 +0700 from: edwardcook subject: Re: divergence problem, nrc committee to: Keith Briffa , Jonathan Overpeck , Richard Alley Hi Keith, Jonathan, and Richard, I heard about this controversy over some of Rosanne's presentation at the NRC Workshop just last night from Keith. It caught me by surprise I must admit. This is highly regrettable because it simply further obfuscates an already controversial and incompletely described topic: How do we reconstruct large-scale temperatures over the past 1000 years from (mostly) tree rings and what are the limitations? As you probably know, I was originally invited to give a talk on The Topic (a scientific version of the The Troubles in Northern Ireland) that Rosanne gave before the NRC panel. However, the NRC was not willing to fly me from Bangkok for the meeting in DC. At the time, I more or less said cest le vie and was even a bit relieved. In retrospect, I should have paid my own way there. This is not to say that Rosanne was necessarily wrong in what she presented. Rather, I would have emphasized things differently and put the divergence issue in its proper context as a far less significant part of my presentation on the The Topic, similar to what Keith has written here. I agree with Keith that it is honestly not the overriding issue with respect to The Topic, even if it is still not well understood. It is an interesting scientific problem for sure, but as Keith has indicated, it probably contributes relatively little to the NH temperature reconstructions made to date. But instead of enlightenment, we get obfuscation. The fact that the NRC panel has apparently come away with the notion that divergence places all of the NH temperature reconstructions in jeopardy is in my opinion just plain wrong. I have previously discussed the divergence issue in passing with Jeff Severinghaus, Conrad Hughen, and others (it was also brought up at the Mt Cook meeting, Richard), and have also touched on it in my QSR paper that reviewed the Esper et al. work and tried to clear up some of the misunderstanding and misinterpretation of that paper. (The QSR paper also sharpened the meaning of the Esper et al. work and corrected some sloppy wording on my part in the original paper.) There are many more far more important issues that the NRC panel could have latched on to, but divergence is not one of them. It is more of a red herring than anything else. I recommended that Keith give a talk to the NRC panel in my place because, in my estimation, he is the only other person in the world who can discuss in a totally objective way the hockystick and other reconstructions of past temperatures at the methodological level that is really at the heart of all the controversy, e.g. the hockeystick. So the NRC panel in my opinion probably has not received the level of information that it needs to make a truly informed recommendation. That is my opinion and is not intended to belittle Rosannes contribution. I simply would have emphasized things differently and made sure that the NRC panel didnt get side-tracked by the divergence issue vis-a-vis The Topic. So this whole mess looks like it could be a grossly unfair debacle for tree rings if the NRC panel mistakenly goes down the divergence path as the most important issue. That it is surely not! I honestly think the NRC should have commissioned a white paper by Keith and me (perhaps one or two others) on The Topic that would be sent out for extensive review to all NRC participants and others who are experts (and skeptics) in the field. The paper would be published in a form similar to invited papers in certain journals that include at the back of the paper a series of detailed comments and rejoinders. This way, critics can't hide behind blogs, obscure journals, and complaints that they can't get their work published because of the biased peer review system. They would have to express their opinions and criticisms in an open form that is directly associated with the paper and published that way for all to see with our rejoinders. Unfortunately, this would be a very big job that would take a couple years to complete and publish. However, I dont know how else to deal with the information, misinformation, misunderstanding, and biased accusations that infuse the The Topic with such controversy. At the end of the day, some opinions will never change, but I do believe that a completely open evaluation is needed. The NRC has made a noble effort in this regard, but it appears to be inadequate and incomplete in my opinion. Since I was not there, I may be wrong on that account, but it doesn't sound that way to me. Cheers, Ed On Mar 11, 2006, at 1:06 AM, Keith Briffa wrote: Peck as promised, my brief response to Richard and yourself . I would appreciate it if you would forward to those you think relevant thanks ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Richard, Peck and others First let me make it clear that as I did not attend the Committee meeting I am not able to comment specifically on the details of Rosanne DArrigos presentation, though I am aware of her papers with various co-authors related to an apparent divergence in the recent (circa post 1970 ) trends in tree-growth and temperature changes as recorded in instrumental data, at near tree-line sites in the Canadian Arctic. There are also other papers dealing with changing growth responses to climate in North American trees. I have co-authored a paper in Nature on the reduced response to warming as seen in tree-ring densitometric data at high-latitude sites around the Northern Hemisphere, increasingly apparent in the last 30 years or so. This subject is not directly addressed in the current SOD Chapter 6, though some generic reference of the possibility of recent environmental changes affecting proxies is made ,as Peck said in his earlier response. First, it is important to note that the phenomena is complicated because it is not clearly identifiable as a ubiquitous problem. Rather it is a mix of possible regionally distinct indications, a possible mix of phenomena that is almost certainly in part due to the methodological aspects of the way tree-ring series are produced. This applies to my own work, but also very likely to other work. The reason we did not discuss it in detail in our Chapter is that the evidence is at present, in part contradictory, and not well defined. Giving it too much space would be tantamount to building a straw man at this stage; one that would then necessitate complicated details and space to knock down. The implications at this stage for the hockey stick and other reconstructions, contrary to Richards conclusions, are not great. That is because virtually all long tree-ring reconstructions that contribute to the various reconstructions, are NOT affected by this. Most show good coherence with temperature at local levels in recent decades. This is not true for one series (based on the density data). As theses are our data, I am able to say that initial unpublished work will show that the problem can be mitigated with the use of new, and again unpublished, chronology construction methods. In the case of the work by Rosanne and colleagues, I offer my educated opinion that the phenomenon they describe is likely also, at least in part, a chronology construction issue. I am not saying that this is a full explanation, and certainly there is the possibility of increased moisture stress on these trees, but at present the issue is still being defined and explored. As the issue needs more work, this is only an opinion, and until there is peer-reviewed and published evidence as to the degree of methodological uncertainty , it is not appropriate to criticize this or other work . For my part, I have been very busy, lately with teaching and IPCC commitments, but we will do some work on this now, though again lack of funds to support a research assistant do not help. The matter is important but I do not believe that the facts yet support Rosannes contention, in her Global Biogeochemical Cycles paper (Vol. 18, GB3021, doi:10.1029/2004GB002249, 2004) that an optimum physiological threshold has been consistently exceeded at a site in the Yukon. This conclusion should certainly not be taken as indicating a widespread threshold exceedence. It was my call not to overplay the importance of the divergence issue, knowing the subtlety of the issues. We did always intend to have a brief section about the assumption of uniformitarianism in proxy interpretation , including mention of the possible direct carbon dioxide fertilization effect on tree growth (equally controversial), but it will conclude that here as well , there is no strong evidence of any major real-world effect. This and the divergence problem are not well defined, sufficiently studied, or quantified to be worthy of too much concern at this point. The uncertainty estimates we calibrate when interpreting many tree-ring series will likely incorporate the possibility of some bias in our estimates of past warmth, but these are wide anyway. This does not mean that temperatures were necessarily at the upper extreme of the reconstruction uncertainty range, any more than they may have been at the bottom. The real problem is a lack of widespread (and non-terrestrial) proxies for defining the level of early warmth, and the vital need to up-date and study the responses of proxies in very recent times as is stated in our Chapter. We will mention the issues to which Richard refers in a future draft, but it is my opinion that this will not weaken our conclusions. best wishes Keith At 15:50 08/03/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: Hi Richard - thanks for checking in. I got an email from Keith Briffa that indicates the situation isn't as bad as Rosanne might make it sound. Rather than dropping bombs (your language) I suggest we figure it out a bit more first. So, I'm going to cc this email to Keith and Eystein, and then forward Keith's email to you. Then, I'm hoping that Keith can help you and me figure this out before we potentially over react. As you say, it's clearly a concern that needs to be dealt with, but is it a bomb? I'm not yet convinced. Many thanks for your concern and willingness to check w/ me first. best, peck Peck--I almost sent this to Susan tonight, copied to you, but then thought I had better run it by you first, quickly. I think that Susan has to be notified--I fear that the tree-ring reconstructions really are in bad shape, and that the IPCC and chapter 6 have a big problem coming up. I'll be in the office tomorrow if you want to call--814-863-1700--but I want to notify Susan soon.--Richard Greetings. I was down and talked to the NRC "hockey stick" committee last week. (Preparation for that is one of my excuses for slow performance during IPCC crunch time. Also, please excuse my slang, but I will call the Mann reconstruction, and similar curves, the "hockey stick".) Based solely on what I heard there, I think it likely that the committee will end up casting grave doubts on the hockey stick, and on all of the reconstructions since. In turn, this may raise issues for Chapter 6. Several points may arise, but Rosanne D'Arrigo's presentation and her very recent paper (co-authored by Rob Wilson and Gordon Jacoby, and attached, in case you're interested) are prominent. She has led a wonderful piece of work, updating many of the tree-ring data series at least into the late 1990s, and using both traditional and improved paths for data reduction. In the abstract, they state "Although we conclude, as found elsewhere, that recent warming has been substantial relative to natural fluctuations of the past millennium, we also note that owing to the spatially heterogeneous nature of the MWP, and its different timing within different regions, present palaeoclimatic methodologies will likely "flatten out" estimates for this period relative to twentieth century warming, which expresses a more homogenous global "fingerprint". Therefore we stress that presently available paleoclimatic reconstructions are inadequate for making specific inferences, at hemispheric scales, about MWP warmth relative to the present anthropogenic period and that such comparisons can only still be made at the local/regional scale." More striking to me, the recent updates show that the tree rings are no longer tracking the instrumental record. "An apparent decrease in temperature sensitiviy for many northern sites... is evident in our reconstructions, with divergence from instrumental temperatures after ~1986... the divergence between the tree-ring and instrumental data results in weakening of calibration results and failed verification statistics". In her remarks to the committee (which was in open session, so these are public), she described their sampling near the northern limit of trees. As I heard, they fly over long reaches of trees that, experience shows her, would have relatively weak correlation to temperature, to find the special grove of stressed, gnarly trees with high temperature sensitivity. If the highly-temperature-sensitive region is so restricted, it seems reasonable to speculate that a given site might move from being in that region to being out of it with warming, and one might also speculate that a similar shift could have occurred across a previous warm interval. Regardless of the origin of this "divergence problem" of the tree-ring records diverging from the instrumental record over the most recent, large warming, the questions from the committee suggested to me that the members were highly focused on the divergence. (Roseanne seemed to downplay it as something that requires further study and could have many origins but is not highly damaging to the broader picture, but I believe based on their questions that at least some committee members were not convinced.) Between her overall assessment and the divergence problem, I doubt that the NRC panel can now return any strong endorsement of the hockey stick, or of any other reconstruction of the last millennium. Although the reconstructions have been labeled as "multi-parameter", they have primarily been tree-ring based. It of course is possible that I'm completely confused, or that something new will come out. (There was in progress an Arctic-centered few-decadal reconstruction that used much broader indicators than tree rings, but I do not know the status--Peck?) Sorry to be dropping bombs. I'm only dropping it on you two, and I will shut up unless asked to say something further, but I thought that this is potentially sufficiently large to merit a quick note. Best--Richard Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:2005JD006352.pdf (PDF /«IC») (0011CBB8) -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 [1]http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ [2]http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email: [4]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152 ================================== 1661. 2006-03-11 ______________________________________________________ cc: edwardcook , Jonathan Overpeck , Keith Briffa , ralley@geosc.psu.edu date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 12:16:12 +0700 from: edwardcook subject: Re: Divergence to: Richard Alley Hi Richard, Thanks for the email. I admit to having thought you were on the NRC committee. I now stand corrected. I also hope you did not read into my email any unfair criticism of Rosanne, the NRC panel, or you for that matter. Certainly, none was intended and I tried to carefully word-smith my email to avoid any such suggestion. Perhaps I could have done better. I recognize the potentially serious implications of the divergence issue with IPCC etc. I also appreciate the concern you note about it possibly happening in the MWP or some similar past warm period. In my QSR paper I noted that when the northern chronologies were compared to the southern chronologies (QSR Fig. 6) used in the Esper et al. paper, the northern ones showed a clear downturn or divergence in the latter part of the 20th century and this did not show up in the southern chronologies. Yet back 1000 years in the past, no such clear separation between north and south was indicated. In fact, the late-20th century divergence is unique in the data back to AD 800. This, I argued, suggested an unspecified anthropogenic (i.e. pollution) cause for the 20th century divergence in the northern chronologies. Hence, the temperature estimates prior to about 1970 were probably reasonably accurate given the data and methods used. Until we understand the cause(s) of the 20th century divergence, I think that anthropogenic agents should be the working hypothesis for explaining it, not the other way around, because I have not seen evidence to support the other side of the argument. I do indeed appreciate your help here. Obviously I have a vested interest in seeing that tree rings are treated fairly, but I am quite open to the science pointing the way with regards to how the divergence issue affects the use of tree rings as records of past temperature. If someone can show that divergence has happened in the past in a large-scale sense as that for the 20th century, I will be happy to look at the evidence. Otherwise, I think we should err on the side of "no past divergence". Cheers, Ed On Mar 11, 2006, at 10:50 AM, <[1]ralley@geosc.psu.edu> <[2]ralley@geosc.psu.edu> wrote: Casting aspersions on Rosanne, on the NRC panel, or on me for that matter is not going to solve the underlying problem. ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email: [3]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152 ================================== 3733. 2006-03-11 ______________________________________________________ cc: mmanning@al.noaa.gov, ssolomon@al.noaa.gov date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 15:27:19 -0500 (EST) from: subject: NRC and IPCC millennial temperatures to: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no, joos@climate.unibe.ch, jto@u.arizona.edu, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, ottobli@ncar.ucar.edu, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, ricardo@lab.cricyt.edu.ar Friends in the IPCC WG1 AR4-- My impression is that, for good reasons, the US NRC panel looking at the record of temperatures over the last millennium or two is not going to strongly endorse the ability of proxies to detect warming above the level of a millennium ago, and that a careful re-examination of the Chapter 6 wording and its representation in the TS and SPM would be wise. Some of you have seen some of the discussion that follows, in some of the rapid-fire emails over the last day or two, but I'd like to clarify a little. Please note that I am NOT on the NRC committee, do not speak for them, and have no "inside" knowledge of what they are doing. I was asked to testify to them, and I heard remarks from some other speakers and questions from the committee in public forum. I did NOT represent the IPCC to the committee, either; I stated that although I was proud to be participating with the IPCC, I absolutely was not speaking for, representing, or presaging anything in the IPCC. (I was, however, favorably quite impressed with the NRC committee and their efforts.) Someone else may have a different impression of what went on; this is mine. Among the presentations, involving borehole temperatures, corals, glaciers and ice cores, and historical records, that which to me seemed to interest the committee most was from Rosanne d'Arrigo, who reported (among many other things) on a just-published study in which northern tree-ring sites were revisited and updated, and in which many of those sites failed to track the recent warming documented instrumentally. She did not make a big deal out of this, but several of the questions afterward from the committee focused on this "divergence" problem. (And to note, Rosanne did not discover the divergence problem, which has been around and discussed for a while; her testimony, including the recent large effort to update some tree-ring records, stirred interest from some committee members.) I would also note that one of the committee members was asking each presenter whether the presenter believed that temperatures could be reconstructed for 1000 years ago within 0.5 C, and that the presenters were answering with some qualified version of "no". My guess is that the NRC committee will put these things together, find some papers on ozone damage and CO2 fertilization, consider Rosanne's statement that the preferred temperature-sensitive trees are rare and in restricted places (and thus that a prolonged warming could easily move those trees out of the sensitive band), and conclude that tree-ring reconstructions include larger errors than are returned by any of the formal statistics from calibration or aggregation of records, and thus that there is less confidence than previously believed in the relative warmth of recent versus Medieval times. I also consider it possible that they will point out the difficulty of using a composite temperature history consisting of proxy and instrumental data if some of the proxy data do not track the more-recent part of the instrumental data. The IPCC must be the IPCC, not the NRC. But, if the IPCC and NRC look very different, there will be much comment, and we will have to be very sure. More importantly, I believe that real issues are raised here, and that better discussion of this should be included in chapter 6, and probably brought forward at least into the TS. I know I'm not in chapter 6, I know I'm not a tree-ring expert, and I know I'm sticking my nose in where it might not belong or be welcome. But the flurry of emails in the last couple of days has not convinced me that this one can be ignored; indeed, I am more convinced that there exist issues that the IPCC must discuss more thoroughly. My impression of the status (and my thoughts about what chapter 6 might say) from a whole lot of quick reading, your emails, and the testimony and questions I heard, is along the lines of: --> The TAR highlighted a temperature history composited from multi-proxy paleoclimatic indicators plus the instrumental record, showing anomalous recent warmth, with the recent warmth emerging well above the 95% confidence interval for the last millennium. --> The multi-proxy paleoclimatic indicators reflect tree-ring results more than any other source. --> Tree-ring records are responsive to many factors, and great care and effort go into isolating the temperature signal from other signals. --> Tree-ring data, in common with essentially all paleoclimatic data, are not collected in a continually updated "operational" fashion analogous to that used for meteorological data, so the data sets end at different times; data used in the multi-proxy reconstructions cited in the TAR ended between the 1990s and the 1940s. This difficulty motivated the need to include instrumental as well as proxy data in the reconstructions. --> In those data, there was some suggestion of non-temperature influences on the tree-ring reconstructions; in particular, some of the most-recent records did not record the full amplitude of the instrumental warming. This has come to be known as the "divergence" issue. --> Much research has been conducted since the TAR, and additional evidence of divergence has emerged in some records, causing some aggregated reconstructions from proxy records to show less warming than does the instrumental record. --> There are many hypotheses for non-temperature influences on tree-ring records, including: (i) recent damage (as by ozone); (ii) recent fertilization (as by CO2); and (iii) decreasing sensitivity of tree-ring growth to temperature with increasing temperature (once it's warm enough, the trees are primarily responsive to other things). The nature of these and their timing relative to the interval in which tree-ring data were calibrated to instrumental records would control the effects on climate reconstructions. In general: (i) would mean that recent warmth is underestimated but warmth from a millennium ago is not; (ii) would mean that recent warmth is overestimated but warmth from a millennium ago is not; and (iii) would mean that both recent warmth and warmth from a millennium ago are underestimated. --> Various arguments have been advanced to support (i), (ii), or (iii), with many workers in the field favoring (i). Nonetheless, further characterizing recent non-temperature influences on tree-ring growth remains an open research question, and no broad consensus has emerged on (i), (ii), (iii), or something else. --> These considerations do not affect the conclusion that recent warmth is anomalous over the last few centuries; the strong correlations of the proxy data with temperature over the instrumental record, and the strong tree-ring signals, are evident. --> These considerations do not affect the best estimate that recent warmth is greater than that of a millennium ago; the central estimate from proxy data of latter-twentieth-century warmth is still above that of a millennium ago, with greater spatial conherence recently in the signal. --> These considerations do somewhat affect the confidence that can be attached to the best estimate of recent warmth versus that of a millennium ago. If the paleoclimatic data could be confidently be interpreted as paleotemperatures, then joining the paleoclimatic and instrumental records would be appropriate, and the recent warmth would clearly be anomalous over the last millennium and beyond. By demonstrating that some tree-ring series chosen for temperature sensitivity are not fully reflecting temperature changes, the divergence issue widens the error bars and so reduces confidence in the comparison between recent and earlier warmth. --Richard Richard B. Alley Evan Pugh Professor Department of Geosciences, and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute The Pennsylvania State University 517 Deike Building University Park, PA 16802, USA ph. 814-863-1700 fax 814-863-7823 email rba6@psu.edu 2635. 2006-03-13 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:29:34 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: NRC study to: drdendro@ldgo.columbia.edu, Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen Hi Ed and Keith - I hate to say it, but Richard's take on the political aspects of the NRC vs. IPCC reports seem worth some extra effort. Since you were both invited to speak with the NRC committee, I would suggest that you both (together or separately) submit formal comments asap. I don't know when the comment period starts or ends, but I'm guessing you have to work fast. I'm also thinking that you two might want to get out a peer-reviewed paper on the topic really soon too. I worry that the hole will continue to deepen for dendroclimate if you two don't act to clarify what we know/don't know, and when it is safe (and why) to use dendroclimate data to address the issue of long-term variation in temperature. Please don't construe my suggestions or comments as pro/con dendro, but rather just as someone who wants the truth - whatever it is - to be communicated clearly, and as best we know it. But, I do think that if Richard is suspect, dendro has a real problem. He doesn't have a personal bias in this, and is clearly trying harder than most to understand what's really going on with climate and the proxies. Effort now might save time later. Also, are you both going to be at the Swiss mtg in June? We really have to get this all ironed out better before the next (last) draft of the IPCC AR4. Thanks, Peck -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 2516. 2006-03-14 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 21:29:28 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: NRC Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions to: edwardcook Hi Ed (and Keith) - this looks good. For what it's worth, here are some comments: 1. I agree Keith should send in an independent letter by email too (I'd put both on letterhead or at least include as pdf attachments, so email forwarding wouldn't have the chance of messing it up) . 2. I would say right up front - first line that you'd like your letter (s) to go to all committee members, if possible with a cc to you. Don't leave any wriggle room. 3. cc to G. North and B. Otto-Bliesner - again, so there is no doubt that this gets to everyone 4. no need to mention IPCC. Focus on the science and the NRC review. Don't want to introduce extra politics. Thanks both for doing this - I agree there is a real need to ensure that the panel has the science from the experts. Best, peck Hi everyone, Here is a draft of what I want to quickly send to Ian Kraucunas, Ph.D. Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate National Research Council of The National Academies 500 Fifth Street NW, Keck 705 Washington, DC 20001 Email: ikraucunas@nas.edu Phone: (202) 334-2546 Fax: (202) 334-3825 He originally invited me to talk before the NRC. I do not have any other information on who to send it too. Please let me know what you think, but don't be too pedantic or critical at this stage. I get the feeling we have very little time to make an impact on the NRC committee and its report. I personally think that I am correct as far as I can take the argument. Let me know if I should send this on to Richard as well. Ed Dear Ian, I have heard via emails and telephone conversations about some rather serious developments that could have an unfairly negative impact on the use of tree rings for reconstructing past climate and the upcoming IPCC assessment, especially that related to surface temperatures. Apparently as part of her talk Rosanne D'Arrigo mentioned the phenomenon of "divergence" between instrumental temperatures and tree growth in the latter few decades of the 20th century. The large-scale nature of this phenomenon was first described in Nature by Keith Briffa back in 1998 (Briffa et al., 1998) and to this day its cause is not well understood at all. A number of hypotheses have been mentioned, which range from natural (climatic change) to anthropogenic (i.e. pollution related), but the actual cause is still unknown. Somewhat alarmingly, it is my impression now the the NRC committee members and other influential participants of the meeting have come to the conclusion that the observed 20th century "divergence" calls into serious question the value of the tree-ring reconstructions of temperatures over the past millennium. The implicit assumption being made is that the "divergence" is being caused by climatic change related to 20th century warming, conditions that could have also prevailed back during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) some 800-1000 years in the past. If this were the case, then the concerns of the committee would be justified. However, the available evidence does not support such a conclusion. In a paper I published in Quaternary Science Reviews in 2004 (Cook et al., 2004), I reviewed the properties and interpretation of the tree-ring data used in the Esper et al. (2002) paper published in Science. The reasonably well distributed set of tree-ring data in both boreal and more temperate latititude sites around the Northern Hemisphere allowed me to split up the data into sub-regional ensembles, including 8 sites in the 55-70° north band and 6 sites in the 30-55° south band. The purpose was to show the overall robustness of the multi-centennial temperature signal in the tree-ring data. This plot from the QSR paper is attached below as is the paper itself. In his 1998 paper, Briffa showed that the divergence was largely restricted to the region covered by the north band described in Cook et al. (2004). Consistent with that finding, the north ensemble mean shown below reveals a serious downturn in growth after about 1950. This is an expression of the "divergence" that has been described first by Briffa and also by D'Arrigo in her NRC talk. In contrast, the south ensemble mean shows the opposite, i.e. a substantial growth increase which is much more consistent with 20th century warming. If one than follows the plots back in time, all of the sub-region ensemble means track each other remarkably well at multi-centennial time scales even when they enter the putative MWP 800-1000 years ago. In fact, at no time prior to the 20th century is there separation between north and south that is remotely comparable to that found after ca. 1950. This result suggests that no large-scale "divergence" of the order found during the 20th century occurred during the MWP even though that period is suggested to have been somewhat warmer than average overall. This result clearly refutes the argument that "divergence" of the kind noted in the 20th century happened in the past. It also suggests a unique anthropogenic cause to the 20th century divergence. I am not aware of ANY evidence that demonstrates the occurrence of large-scale "divergence" in the past. It is therefore unjustified to call into question the use of tree rings for reconstructing temperatures over the past millennium based on a naive extrapolation of growth "divergence" into the past when it appears to be unique to the 20th century. The NRC committee members must be made aware of this if their report is to have the necessary scientific credibility that is expected of it. Sincerely, Edward R. Cook References Briffa, K.R., Schweingruber, F.H., Jones, P.D., Osborn, T.J., Shiyatov, S.G., Vaganov, E.A. 1998. Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes. Nature 391: 678-682. Esper, J., Cook, E.R., Schweingruber, F.H. 2002. Low-frequency signals in long tree-ring chronologies for reconstructing past temperature variability. Science 295: 2250-2253. Cook, E.R., Esper, J., D'Arrigo, R.D. 2004. Extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere land temperature variability over the past 1000 years. Quaternary Science Reviews 23(20-22): 2063-2074. ? ? Hi everyone, Here is a draft of what I want to quickly send to Ian Kraucunas, Ph.D. Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate National Research Council of The National Academies 500 Fifth Street NW, Keck 705 Washington, DC 20001 Email: [1]ikraucunas@nas.edu Phone: (202) 334-2546 Fax: (202) 334-3825 He originally invited me to talk before the NRC. I do not have any other information on who to send it too. Please let me know what you think, but don't be too pedantic or critical at this stage. I get the feeling we have very little time to make an impact on the NRC committee and its report. I personally think that I am correct as far as I can take the argument. Let me know if I should send this on to Richard as well. Ed Dear Ian, I have heard via emails and telephone conversations about some rather serious developments that could have an unfairly negative impact on the use of tree rings for reconstructing past climate and the upcoming IPCC assessment, especially that related to surface temperatures. Apparently as part of her talk Rosanne D'Arrigo mentioned the phenomenon of "divergence" between instrumental temperatures and tree growth in the latter few decades of the 20th century. The large-scale nature of this phenomenon was first described in Nature by Keith Briffa back in 1998 (Briffa et al., 1998) and to this day its cause is not well understood at all. A number of hypotheses have been mentioned, which range from natural (climatic change) to anthropogenic (i.e. pollution related), but the actual cause is still unknown. Somewhat alarmingly, it is my impression now the the NRC committee members and other influential participants of the meeting have come to the conclusion that the observed 20th century "divergence" calls into serious question the value of the tree-ring reconstructions of temperatures over the past millennium. The implicit assumption being made is that the "divergence" is being caused by climatic change related to 20th century warming, conditions that could have also prevailed back during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) some 800-1000 years in the past. If this were the case, then the concerns of the committee would be justified. However, the available evidence does not support such a conclusion. In a paper I published in Quaternary Science Reviews in 2004 (Cook et al., 2004), I reviewed the properties and interpretation of the tree-ring data used in the Esper et al. (2002) paper published in Science. The reasonably well distributed set of tree-ring data in both boreal and more temperate latititude sites around the Northern Hemisphere allowed me to split up the data into sub-regional ensembles, including 8 sites in the 55-70° north band and 6 sites in the 30-55° south band. The purpose was to show the overall robustness of the multi-centennial temperature signal in the tree-ring data. This plot from the QSR paper is attached below as is the paper itself. In his 1998 paper, Briffa showed that the divergence was largely restricted to the region covered by the north band described in Cook et al. (2004). Consistent with that finding, the north ensemble mean shown below reveals a serious downturn in growth after about 1950. This is an expression of the "divergence" that has been described first by Briffa and also by D'Arrigo in her NRC talk. In contrast, the south ensemble mean shows the opposite, i.e. a substantial growth increase which is much more consistent with 20th century warming. If one than follows the plots back in time, all of the sub-region ensemble means track each other remarkably well at multi-centennial time scales even when they enter the putative MWP 800-1000 years ago. In fact, at no time prior to the 20th century is there separation between north and south that is remotely comparable to that found after ca. 1950. This result suggests that no large-scale "divergence" of the order found during the 20th century occurred during the MWP even though that period is suggested to have been somewhat warmer than average overall. This result clearly refutes the argument that "divergence" of the kind noted in the 20th century happened in the past. It also suggests a unique anthropogenic cause to the 20th century divergence. I am not aware of ANY evidence that demonstrates the occurrence of large-scale "divergence" in the past. It is therefore unjustified to call into question the use of tree rings for reconstructing temperatures over the past millennium based on a naive extrapolation of growth "divergence" into the past when it appears to be unique to the 20th century. The NRC committee members must be made aware of this if their report is to have the necessary scientific credibility that is expected of it. Sincerely, Edward R. Cook References Briffa, K.R., Schweingruber, F.H., Jones, P.D., Osborn, T.J., Shiyatov, S.G., Vaganov, E.A. 1998. Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes. Nature 391: 678-682. Esper, J., Cook, E.R., Schweingruber, F.H. 2002. Low-frequency signals in long tree-ring chronologies for reconstructing past temperature variability. Science 295: 2250-2253. Cook, E.R., Esper, J., D'Arrigo, R.D. 2004. Extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere land temperature variability over the past 1000 years. Quaternary Science Reviews 23(20-22): 2063-2074. Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:2004_Cook_QSR 1.pdf (PDF /«IC») (0011FEF2) Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Cook_QSR_Fig6.gif (GIFf/«IC») (0011FEF5) -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 4814. 2006-03-14 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Mar 14 15:03:01 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: NRC Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions to: edwardcook Ed agree with your remarks here - was not suggesting you integrated my comments - just forward my message to North . However , if standardisation issue too hand-wavy now , just forget it and send yours . Agree particularly with your remarks re Alley. Very frustrating but am now having to catch up loads of stuff left when working on IPCC so teaching etc must take precedence over trying to fashion careful statements Keith At 13:36 14/03/2006, you wrote: Hi Keith, Given the rather different ways we have expressed ourselves, I thing it is best if we organize it as an Ed Cook followed by Keith Briffa thing or vice versa. That way we can each say exactly what we want and it relieves the burden of integrating it all into something that sounds like a formal paper. We don't have time for that now. A formal paper can come later. I also want to be sure that relevant points are referenced. I am not sure it helps our case if we just throw out the issue of standardization without any clear demonstration why it matters with respect to divergence. It opens up a huge quagmire that really requires explicit tests and demonstrations to make the point. Otherwise, the committee may think we are simply in reaction mode trying to salvage a bad situation by throwing out anything we can to save the day. What I wrote was "fine as far as it goes", but it was explicitly intended to target one obvious weakness in the pro- divergence school, e.g. that they have absolutely no evidence that it ever happened in the past. Rather the only available published evidence points in exactly the opposite direction. For all the august scientists on the committee and those invited speakers, I am shocked and dismayed that they would so uncritically accept divergence as an argument for throwing tree rings out the window. It is incredibly unscientific, if not anti-scientific, in the way they have reacted. I will certainly be happy to tell them that if it is necessary. Guys like Richard Alley may sound like they are trying to be fair, but the truth is they are not because they refuse to acknowledge their ignorance of the subject and are too uncritical in their extrapolations of facile information into the past. It is so patently absurd. I also question what Gerry North was thinking when he gave McIntyre an extra 30 minutes of time to rabbit on about how everyone else is dishonest and wrong. That was shameful. So I have no confidence that this NRC committee will ever give tree rings a fair shake. Ed On Mar 14, 2006, at 7:51 PM, Keith Briffa wrote: Fine as far as it goes - the additional issue , of the wide uncertainty associated with medieval period warmth estimates is also relevant , as are the points I made re many series not exhibiting this problem , and those that do , potentially effected by standardisation issues. I would simply ask that my previous message be include with yours when you send this Ed Keith At 10:13 14/03/2006, edwardcook wrote: Hi everyone, Here is a draft of what I want to quickly send to Ian Kraucunas, Ph.D. Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate National Research Council of The National Academies 500 Fifth Street NW, Keck 705 Washington, DC 20001 Email: ikraucunas@nas.edu Phone: (202) 334-2546 Fax: (202) 334-3825 He originally invited me to talk before the NRC. I do not have any other information on who to send it too. Please let me know what you think, but don't be too pedantic or critical at this stage. I get the feeling we have very little time to make an impact on the NRC committee and its report. I personally think that I am correct as far as I can take the argument. Let me know if I should send this on to Richard as well. Ed Dear Ian, I have heard via emails and telephone conversations about some rather serious developments that could have an unfairly negative impact on the use of tree rings for reconstructing past climate and the upcoming IPCC assessment, especially that related to surface temperatures. Apparently as part of her talk Rosanne D'Arrigo mentioned the phenomenon of "divergence" between instrumental temperatures and tree growth in the latter few decades of the 20th century. The large-scale nature of this phenomenon was first described in Nature by Keith Briffa back in 1998 (Briffa et al., 1998) and to this day its cause is not well understood at all. A number of hypotheses have been mentioned, which range from natural (climatic change) to anthropogenic (i.e. pollution related), but the actual cause is still unknown. Somewhat alarmingly, it is my impression now the the NRC committee members and other influential participants of the meeting have come to the conclusion that the observed 20th century "divergence" calls into serious question the value of the tree-ring reconstructions of temperatures over the past millennium. The implicit assumption being made is that the "divergence" is being caused by climatic change related to 20th century warming, conditions that could have also prevailed back during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) some 800-1000 years in the past. If this were the case, then the concerns of the committee would be justified. However, the available evidence does not support such a conclusion. In a paper I published in Quaternary Science Reviews in 2004 (Cook et al., 2004), I reviewed the properties and interpretation of the tree-ring data used in the Esper et al. (2002) paper published in Science. The reasonably well distributed set of tree-ring data in both boreal and more temperate latititude sites around the Northern Hemisphere allowed me to split up the data into sub-regional ensembles, including 8 sites in the 55-70° north band and 6 sites in the 30-55° south band. The purpose was to show the overall robustness of the multi-centennial temperature signal in the tree-ring data. This plot from the QSR paper is attached below as is the paper itself. In his 1998 paper, Briffa showed that the divergence was largely restricted to the region covered by the north band described in Cook et al. (2004). Consistent with that finding, the north ensemble mean shown below reveals a serious downturn in growth after about 1950. This is an expression of the "divergence" that has been described first by Briffa and also by D'Arrigo in her NRC talk. In contrast, the south ensemble mean shows the opposite, i.e. a substantial growth increase which is much more consistent with 20th century warming. If one than follows the plots back in time, all of the sub-region ensemble means track each other remarkably well at multi-centennial time scales even when they enter the putative MWP 800-1000 years ago. In fact, at no time prior to the 20th century is there separation between north and south that is remotely comparable to that found after ca. 1950. This result suggests that no large-scale "divergence" of the order found during the 20th century occurred during the MWP even though that period is suggested to have been somewhat warmer than average overall. This result clearly refutes the argument that "divergence" of the kind noted in the 20th century happened in the past. It also suggests a unique anthropogenic cause to the 20th century divergence. I am not aware of ANY evidence that demonstrates the occurrence of large-scale "divergence" in the past. It is therefore unjustified to call into question the use of tree rings for reconstructing temperatures over the past millennium based on a naive extrapolation of growth "divergence" into the past when it appears to be unique to the 20th century. The NRC committee members must be made aware of this if their report is to have the necessary scientific credibility that is expected of it. Sincerely, Edward R. Cook References Briffa, K.R., Schweingruber, F.H., Jones, P.D., Osborn, T.J., Shiyatov, S.G., Vaganov, E.A. 1998. Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes. Nature 391: 678-682. Esper, J., Cook, E.R., Schweingruber, F.H. 2002. Low-frequency signals in long tree-ring chronologies for reconstructing past temperature variability. Science 295: 2250-2253. Cook, E.R., Esper, J., D'Arrigo, R.D. 2004. Extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere land temperature variability over the past 1000 years. Quaternary Science Reviews 23(20-22): 2063-2074.   Hi everyone, Here is a draft of what I want to quickly send to Ian Kraucunas, Ph.D. Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate National Research Council of The National Academies 500 Fifth Street NW, Keck 705 Washington, DC 20001 Email: <[1]mailto:ikraucunas@nas.edu>ikraucunas@nas.edu Phone: (202) 334-2546 Fax: (202) 334-3825 He originally invited me to talk before the NRC. I do not have any other information on who to send it too. Please let me know what you think, but don't be too pedantic or critical at this stage. I get the feeling we have very little time to make an impact on the NRC committee and its report. I personally think that I am correct as far as I can take the argument. Let me know if I should send this on to Richard as well. Ed Dear Ian, I have heard via emails and telephone conversations about some rather serious developments that could have an unfairly negative impact on the use of tree rings for reconstructing past climate and the upcoming IPCC assessment, especially that related to surface temperatures. Apparently as part of her talk Rosanne D'Arrigo mentioned the phenomenon of "divergence" between instrumental temperatures and tree growth in the latter few decades of the 20th century. The large-scale nature of this phenomenon was first described in Nature by Keith Briffa back in 1998 (Briffa et al., 1998) and to this day its cause is not well understood at all. A number of hypotheses have been mentioned, which range from natural (climatic change) to anthropogenic (i.e. pollution related), but the actual cause is still unknown. Somewhat alarmingly, it is my impression now the the NRC committee members and other influential participants of the meeting have come to the conclusion that the observed 20th century "divergence" calls into serious question the value of the tree-ring reconstructions of temperatures over the past millennium. The implicit assumption being made is that the "divergence" is being caused by climatic change related to 20th century warming, conditions that could have also prevailed back during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) some 800-1000 years in the past. If this were the case, then the concerns of the committee would be justified. However, the available evidence does not support such a conclusion. In a paper I published in Quaternary Science Reviews in 2004 (Cook et al., 2004), I reviewed the properties and interpretation of the tree-ring data used in the Esper et al. (2002) paper published in Science. The reasonably well distributed set of tree-ring data in both boreal and more temperate latititude sites around the Northern Hemisphere allowed me to split up the data into sub-regional ensembles, including 8 sites in the 55-70° north band and 6 sites in the 30-55° south band. The purpose was to show the overall robustness of the multi-centennial temperature signal in the tree-ring data. This plot from the QSR paper is attached below as is the paper itself. In his 1998 paper, Briffa showed that the divergence was largely restricted to the region covered by the north band described in Cook et al. (2004). Consistent with that finding, the north ensemble mean shown below reveals a serious downturn in growth after about 1950. This is an expression of the "divergence" that has been described first by Briffa and also by D'Arrigo in her NRC talk. In contrast, the south ensemble mean shows the opposite, i.e. a substantial growth increase which is much more consistent with 20th century warming. If one than follows the plots back in time, all of the sub-region ensemble means track each other remarkably well at multi-centennial time scales even when they enter the putative MWP 800-1000 years ago. In fact, at no time prior to the 20th century is there separation between north and south that is remotely comparable to that found after ca. 1950. This result suggests that no large-scale "divergence" of the order found during the 20th century occurred during the MWP even though that period is suggested to have been somewhat warmer than average overall. This result clearly refutes the argument that "divergence" of the kind noted in the 20th century happened in the past. It also suggests a unique anthropogenic cause to the 20th century divergence. I am not aware of ANY evidence that demonstrates the occurrence of large-scale "divergence" in the past. It is therefore unjustified to call into question the use of tree rings for reconstructing temperatures over the past millennium based on a naive extrapolation of growth "divergence" into the past when it appears to be unique to the 20th century. The NRC committee members must be made aware of this if their report is to have the necessary scientific credibility that is expected of it. Sincerely, Edward R. Cook References Briffa, K.R., Schweingruber, F.H., Jones, P.D., Osborn, T.J., Shiyatov, S.G., Vaganov, E.A. 1998. Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes. Nature 391: 678-682. Esper, J., Cook, E.R., Schweingruber, F.H. 2002. Low-frequency signals in long tree-ring chronologies for reconstructing past temperature variability. Science 295: 2250-2253. Cook, E.R., Esper, J., D'Arrigo, R.D. 2004. Extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere land temperature variability over the past 1000 years. Quaternary Science Reviews 23(20-22): 2063-2074. -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 5163. 2006-03-14 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 00:32:37 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: NRC study to: edwardcook Hi Ed - thanks for trying to fit something in quick for the NRC group. I'm not sure about Richard's full motives, but I think he has his heart in the right place - that the NRC Committee might have gotten the impression he did, and this will be reflected in their report, perhaps in a way that is even less satisfactory to you and Keith. And, this report will likely have enormous political potential. It needs to get things as right as possible from the start. So... time well spent on the part of you and Keith. Thanks much, peck Hi Peck, Being in Bangkok, on to PACLIM, on to CONCORD in Mendoza, back to Bangkok, and back to NY on May 1 makes it difficult for me to do much, but I will do what I can to salvage a bad situation. The longish emails I sent out to you all contain much of what I would write. The main point to make, one that Richard seems to be totally oblivious to, is that there is no evidence for loss of sensitivity prior to the 20th century in a large-scale NH sense like that seen in the 20th century. On the other hand, there is evidence that there was not a loss of sensitivity in a large-scale NH sense in my QSR paper (Fig. 6). I acknowledge the weakness in the data prior to about 1200, but even so the regional comparisons only show divergence between north and south in the 20th century, with none indicated during the putative MWP. So why is Richard and the NRC panel apparently stating without evidence that divergence probably is a problem in the past and, therefore, tree rings cannot be trusted to reconstruct past temperatures? It is honestly unscientific when the only evidence that I have seen refutes that premise, and it plays unfairly into McIntyre's hand. I almost admit to being very irritated that Richard should anoint himself as the arbitrator of this debate. He knows nothing substantive about tree rings. In that sense, he is just like Ray Bradley. Cheers, Ed On Mar 14, 2006, at 6:29 AM, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: Hi Ed and Keith - I hate to say it, but Richard's take on the political aspects of the NRC vs. IPCC reports seem worth some extra effort. Since you were both invited to speak with the NRC committee, I would suggest that you both (together or separately) submit formal comments asap. I don't know when the comment period starts or ends, but I'm guessing you have to work fast. I'm also thinking that you two might want to get out a peer-reviewed paper on the topic really soon too. I worry that the hole will continue to deepen for dendroclimate if you two don't act to clarify what we know/don't know, and when it is safe (and why) to use dendroclimate data to address the issue of long-term variation in temperature. Please don't construe my suggestions or comments as pro/con dendro, but rather just as someone who wants the truth - whatever it is - to be communicated clearly, and as best we know it. But, I do think that if Richard is suspect, dendro has a real problem. He doesn't have a personal bias in this, and is clearly trying harder than most to understand what's really going on with climate and the proxies. Effort now might save time later. Also, are you both going to be at the Swiss mtg in June? We really have to get this all ironed out better before the next (last) draft of the IPCC AR4. Thanks, Peck -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 [1]http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ [2]http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 1880. 2006-03-15 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:40:32 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: Fwd: Comment on NRC Workshop to: edwardcook Great! Any chance Keith can follow up with an independent document? Think this would be very helpful, and save much effort down the line. Thanks again, peck Hi guys, Gerry North has what I sent. Hopefully it will have a positive impact. Cheers, Ed Begin forwarded message: From: "Gerald R. North" <[1]g-north@tamu.edu> Date: March 15, 2006 9:17:16 PM GMT+07:00 To: edwardcook <[2]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu> Cc: Ian Kraucunas <[3]IKraucunas@nas.edu>, Bette Otto-Bliesner <[4]ottobli@ucar.edu>, Mike Wallace <[5]wallace@atmos.washington.edu> Subject: Re: Comment on NRC Workshop Dear Dr. Cook, Your information will be distributed to the entire committee, and it will be given full consideration in our discussions. Your additional information does add to what Dr. D'Arrigo said in her excellent presentation to the Committee. Sincerely, Gerald R. North On Mar 15, 2006, at 6:23 AM, edwardcook wrote: Ian Kraucunas, Ph.D. Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate National Research Council of The National Academies 500 Fifth Street NW, Keck 705 Washington, DC 20001 Dear Dr. Kraucunas, I request that this document (also attached as Cook_NRC.pdf) and the attached scientific paper (2001_Cook_QSR.pdf) be forwarded to all NRC committee members who participated in the recent NRC workshop "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 2,000 Years: Synthesis of Current Understanding and Challenges for the Future", ideally with a cc to me when this is done. I have heard via emails and telephone conversations about a serious concern raised about tree rings by some committee members and invited participants at the NRC workshop. This concern could have an unfairly negative impact on the use of tree rings for reconstructing past climate, especially that related to surface air temperatures, hence my letter to you and the committee. As part of her talk, Dr. Rosanne D'Arrigo mentioned the discovery of "divergence" between instrumental temperatures and tree growth during the last few decades of the 20th century at selected boreal sites in the Northern Hemisphere. The affected trees systematically under-responded to increasing temperatures, i.e. they grew more slowly than they should have based on a well-fitted linear response model applied to the data prior to the onset of "divergence". The large-scale occurrence of this change in responsiveness has also been described by Keith Briffa (Briffa et al., 1998) in Nature. A number of hypotheses have been proposed to explain it, which range from natural (climatic change) to anthropogenic (pollution related), but the actual cause is still unknown. This phenomenon needed to be mentioned by Dr. D'Arrigo, but it appears to have taken on a level of specious importance that is not justified by the evidence. Perhaps not surprisingly, but also somewhat alarmingly, it is my understanding that some NRC committee members and other influential participants have come to the conclusion that the observed 20th century "divergence" calls into serious question the value of the tree-ring reconstructions of temperatures over the past millennium. The implicit assumption apparently being made is that the "divergence" being caused by environmental conditions in the 20th century could have also prevailed back during times like the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) some 800-1000 years in the past. If this were the case, then the concern raised by some at the workshop would be justified. However, the available evidence does not support such a conclusion. In a paper I published in Quaternary Science Reviews in 2004 (Cook et al., 2004), I reviewed the properties and interpretation of the tree-ring data used in the Esper et al. (2002) paper published in Science. The reasonably well distributed set of tree-ring data in both boreal and more temperate latitude sites around the Northern Hemisphere allowed me to split up the data into sub-regional ensembles, including 8 sites in the 55-70° north band and 6 sites in the 30-55° south band. The purpose was to demonstrate the overall robustness of the multi-centennial temperature signal in the tree-ring data. This plot from the QSR paper is embedded below and the paper is sent being sent as an attachment. The importance of this plot to the "divergence" debate follows next. In their paper, Briffa et al. (1998) showed that the "divergence" between tree growth and temperatures was largely restricted to the region covered by the north band described in Cook et al. (2004). Consistent with that finding, the north ensemble mean shown below (blue curve) reveals a serious downturn in growth after about 1950. This is an expression of the large-scale "divergence" described by Briffa et al. (1998) and also by Dr. D'Arrigo in her NRC talk. In contrast, the south ensemble mean (red curve) shows the opposite growth trajectory after 1950, i.e. a substantial growth increase that is much more consistent with 20th century warming. If one then follows the plots back in time, all sub-region ensemble means track each other remarkably well at multi-centennial time scales even when they enter the putative MWP 800-1000 years ago. In fact, at no time prior to the 20th century is there a separation between north and south that is at all comparable to that found after 1950. This result indicates that no large-scale "divergence" of the order found during the 20th century occurred during the MWP even though that period is suggested to have been somewhat warmer than average overall. It thus refutes the argument that "divergence" of the kind found in the 20th century could very well have happened in the past, thus implying that tree rings cannot produce reliable reconstructions of past temperatures. It also supports the existence of an admittedly unknown anthropogenic cause of the 20th century "divergence". The lack of any known cause is unfortunate, but this would be true regardless of how the importance of "divergence" is interpreted. I am not aware of ANY evidence that demonstrates the occurrence of large-scale "divergence" between tree growth and climate prior to the 20th century. Indeed, the available evidence indicates just the opposite. In my opinion it is therefore unjustified to call into question the use of tree rings for reconstructing temperatures over the past millennium based on a naïve and inappropriate extrapolation of the growth "divergence" problem into the past when it appears to be unique to the 20th century. The NRC committee members must consider this in their report if it is to have the necessary scientific credibility that is expected of it. References Briffa, K.R., Schweingruber, F.H., Jones, P.D., Osborn, T.J., Shiyatov, S.G., Vaganov, E.A. 1998. Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes. Nature 391: 678-682. Esper, J., Cook, E.R., Schweingruber, F.H. 2002. Low-frequency signals in long tree-ring chronologies for reconstructing past temperature variability. Science 295: 2250-2253. Cook, E.R., Esper, J., D'Arrigo, R.D. 2004. Extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere land temperature variability over the past 1000 years. Quaternary Science Reviews 23(20-22): 2063-2074. Sincerely, Edward R. Cook ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email: [6]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152 ================================== <2004_Cook_QSR.pdf> -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 4529. 2006-03-16 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:46:29 -0000 from: "Rob Wilson" subject: Re: Emailing: Info for Keith to: "Keith Briffa" Morning Keith, no problem As I said, I want to play around with shorter published reconstructions that show no divergence at the local scale and see what an alternative NH recon might look like. I have a feeling that the resultant independent series will still show a divergence against NH temps. That begs the question "why cant we model recent warming at large scales?" will keep you posted with my play although it might be several weeks as I have other priorities Rob ----- Original Message ----- From: [1]Keith Briffa To: [2]Rob Wilson Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:19 AM Subject: Re: Emailing: Info for Keith Thanks Rob I need to digest these - but I am in no way trying to trash anything - just trying to be ready for the "misguided" onslaught that will follow the IPCC Chapter (and possibly US Academy's Committee outcome). I will get back in touch when we decide where to go. Thanks again Keith At 15:50 14/03/2006, you wrote: >Hi Keith, >here's the info you asked for. >I did this in a bit of a rush so I hope it is understandable. > >I hope you don't use this information to trash our JGR paper. >Gordon and Rosanne would kill me. > >Rob >PS. all figure are in temperature anomalies except the last one >which is in normalised standard deviations. -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 4990. 2006-03-19 ______________________________________________________ date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 16:53:00 -0500 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Re: Trees to: Richard Alley Hi Richard, Thanks for your email, and for your earnest views. There was indeed considerable discussion of thes issues on friday, the day after your talk. Both Malcolm Hughes and I discussed these issues in some detail with the committee. Please feel free to take a look at the presentation I gave to the committee: [1]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/lectures/lectures.html There is no doubt that there are issues with the potential non-stationarity of tree responses to climate, and this introduces caveats. As I pointed out to the committee, these issues were actually stressed in our '99 article which produced the millennial temperature reconstruction, the title of which was (emphasis added) "[2]Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations". The underlying assumption of our own work has always been that each of the proxies have their own potential problems, and "multiproxy" approaches are probably the most robust. I don't have a particular axe to grind about any particular proxy, and recognize that there are some pretty serious potential problems with all proxies, including ice core delta o18 (as you're aware, these are not clean paleotemperature proxies at all), and Sr/Ca or o18 from corals. There is a good discussion of the strengths and weaknesses in all of the proxies in Jones and Mann (2004): Jones, P.D., Mann, M.E., [3]Climate Over Past Millennia, Reviews of Geophysics, 42, RG2002, doi: 10.1029/2003RG000143, 2004. I won't try to defend Rosanne D'Arrigo's analysis, because frankly many in the tree-ring community feel it was not very good work.You should be aware that her selection criteria were not as rigorous as those used by other researchers, and the conclusions she comes to reflect only the data and standardization methods she used--they don't speak for many other, in my mind, more careful studies. If you want the views of the leading experts in this community, I would refer you to my colleagues Malcolm Hughes and Keith Briffa, who have been carefully researching these issues for decades. With your permission, I'd like to forward your email to them for a more informed response--would that be ok? >From the questions asked by the community, I really only sensed from one individual the sort of extreme tree-ring skepticism that you describe. And I frankly think the individual proved himself to be not especially informed. The committee appeared to be convinced by the responses I provided to that individual. In short (and please see my presentation for further information) I made the following points: 1) multiproxy reconstructions that don't use tree-ring information at all for the long-term variability (Moberg et al, 2005) agree w/ all other (roughly a dozen now) reconstructions that late 20th century warmth is anomalous in the context of the past 2000 years at the hemispheric scale. This is one key point (i.e, the take home conclusion doesn't depend on tree-rings at all!). Another point I made is that the criticism (by some) that tree-rings underestimate the low-frequency variability is seriously challenged by the fact that temperature reconstructions based on data such as northern hemisphere glacier mass balance inversions (i.e. Oerlemans et al, 2005) show less hemispheric LIA cooling than many of the purely tree-ring based reconstructions. Another point I made in response to this line of criticism is that many of the long-term tree-ring series used in these reconstructions (see e.g. the recent Science article by Osborn and Briffa) show late 20th century conditions that are unprecedented in at least a millennial context. That is to say, if there is some upper temperature threshold in the past beyond which trees do not record, they do not appear to have encountered that threshold prior to the late 20th century, because the most positive anomalies in more than a thousand years are encountered in the last 20th century for most regions. The Osborn and Briffa science paper (attached) shows that the conclusion of anomalous 20th century warmth is spatially robust in a pan-hemispheric data set, it does not just reflect one region (in fact, they show that their conclusion of anomalous late 20th century warmth is robust to the elimination of any three data series used). Of course, Lonnie Thompson comes to the same conclusion using composites of his tropical ice cores. i.e., that the late 20th century behavior is anomalous in a greater-than-millennial context. Of course, tropical ice core delta o18 is difficult to defend as a pure paleothermometer too, but in this case it is difficult to see where non-climatic impacts could enter into the anomalous late 20th century behavior. So, in short, while the issues you mention are real (and have been emphasized by those actually working in this area for decades, as well as by us in all of our key publications), the primary conclusions (i.e. that late 20th century warmth is robust in at least a millennial context) appears robust, and is common to reconstructions whether or not they use tree-rings to reconstruct the low-frequency variability. . There is yet another study (embargoed right now in Science) that comes precisely to this same conclusion yet again. I'll actually be quite surprised if the committee comes to a *different* conclusion from that. Nonetheless, I appreciate your comments and your concerns, and your message does highlight a few issues which would be useful for us to clarify for the committee in case there is still any misunderstanding of the key points I have raised. As I said, I'd like to be able to forward your message to Keith and Malcolm, if this is ok w/ you, so that they can provide a perhaps even better informed response to the criticisms you raise. So please let me know if that would be ok... thanks, mike Richard Alley wrote: Mike--Just a quick follow-up on what I was saying Wednesday. Reconstruction of temperatures for the last millennium is not my problem, I'm not doing anything with it, I have no ax to grind, and I'm not tapped into the deliberations of the NRC committee. But, I think it is highly likely that the committee will end up casting doubts on the use of tree rings as paleothermometers. (I actually don't expect the committee to get very excited about supposed issues with EOF/PCA or similar statistical red herrings; I think the committee will focus on the indicators rather than on the methods of aggregating the indicators.) (I also rather expect that the committee will ask some pointed questions of the ground-temperature paleothermometers, and especially of groundwater-motion signals.) The triggering issue was the "divergence" problem as raised by Rosanne D'Arrigo, that a spatially and temporally complex difference has arisen between many of the long tree-ring records and the instrumental record more recently than the calibration period in many cases. This has been in the literature for a while, as you know much better than I do, and was not highlighted by Rosanne in her talk, but some committee members jumped on it in questions, and she was not convincing that trees were thermometers when it was warm a millennium ago but are not thermometers when it is warm now. She mentioned the existence of hypotheses (ozone or other pollution damage, for example), and I believe she tried some of the arguments about spatial coherence/incoherence of divergence versus nondivergence and of recent warmth versus medieval warmth, but overall was not convincing to me. (I'm happy to go into details as to why the arguments were not convincing, insofar as I captured the arguments, but they were not convincing to me, and looking around the committee room, I don't think they were convincing to important members of the committee.) Under one of my other hats, I raised this issue in a very non-public way with one individual and a request to keep it quiet, but my questions were rather quickly circulated well beyond and elicited some fairly warm replies from some well-respected tree-ring people--I am undoubtedly persona non grata in some quarters right now. But, having read the arguments, I still find them non-convincing. I don't believe the tree-ring community knows with any confidence whether there is a pollution signal, whether there could have been CO2 fertilization during the calibration period and falling off since in the way CO2 fertilization seems to behave in natural systems, whether there is now moisture stress or a snow-cover signal, whether the most-temperature-sensitive trees simply become less temperature-sensitive when temperatures become sufficiently high, or whether something else is going on. Clearly, if some of these are correct, then the "divergence problem" has no bearing on thermometry of a millennium ago; if others are correct, then thermometry of a millennium ago is affected. Nor do I believe that the community has nearly enough data to dismiss the recent signal as just a northern problem, or as being so anomalous in spatial pattern as to demonstrate that it must be anthropogenic. (The Cook-Esper 2004 QSR paper shows the North and South reconstructions as being about 5 normal deviates apart now but much closer medieval, but the east and west are close now and were over 3 normal deviates apart in the medieval, so it seems a stretch to argue that the recent must be anthropogenically anomalous for non-climatic reasons.) My suspicion is that the committee will end up noting that the peak twentieth century warmth in most reconstructions exceeds that of the tenth/eleventh century interval, and thus that recent warmth being higher is the leading estimate; however, the confidence in that may not rise much above 50%. I will be surprised if the committee is much friendlier to the millennial reconstructions than that, although I obviously could be completely off base. I don't want to stir up trouble, I don't want to piss off the tree-ring people yet again, but I do think that the tree-ring workers (and by association, all of us who do climate change) have a serious problem, and have not answered it very well yet. If better answers are out there, I hope that they come out soon. --Richard -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [4]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [5]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\OsbornBriffaScience06.pdf" 71. 2006-03-20 ______________________________________________________ cc: Malcolm Hughes date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 13:55:44 -0500 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: [Fwd: Re: Trees] to: Jonathan Overpeck , Keith Briffa FYI, Mike From: "Michael E. Mann" Reply-To: mann@psu.edu Organization: Dept. of Meteorology, Penn State University To: Richard Alley Subject: Re: Trees References: Hi Richard, Thanks, that sounds reasonable. Let me respond to one point, though. I rebuked Cuffey for asking the wrong question. I pointed out to him that we certainly don't know the GLOBAL mean temperature anomaly very well, and nobody has ever claimed we do (this is the question he asked everyone). There is very little information at all in the Southern Hemisphere on which to base any conclusion. So I told him that of course the answer to that question is *no* and it would be surprising if anyone answered otherwise. But, as I proceeded to point out, that's the wrong question. I pointed out that a far more sensible question is, "do we know the relative temperature anomaly for the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE to within that accuracy, and that we almost certainly do know that. I pointed to a comparison of about a dozen different reconstructions, at least one of them based entirely on non-tree ring information, all of which agree within about 0.2 C on average temperature of the 11th century relative to the late 20th century, and suggested that this reflects a reasonable estimate of the uncertainty, though some of the reconstructions are not entirely independent, so the non-independence needs to be taken into account in estimating the true uncertainty--but that this is almost certainly smaller than about 0.2C given the multiple estimates that roughly agree. I then pointed out that we don't need the global temperature to draw conclusions about the relative roles of different natural and anthropogenic forcings, because the models tell us that the NH alone is a good proxy for the response of the climate system to estimated forcings over the past 1000 years, and that the simulations (also about a dozen now) look very much like the reconstructions, within estimated uncertainties. I could be wrong, but I thought I sensed that the panel was quite satisfied with my answer (and my correction of Cuffey) and that they also probably recognized, in the context of my explanation, that Cuffey had been asking speakers the wrong question! I must confess I was not impressed by Cuffey's questions. I thought the other panel members asked more insightful questions. But that's just my view. talk later, mike The question by Richard Alley wrote: Mike--Thanks. Comments embedded, I hope. On 3/19/06 4:53 PM, "Michael E. Mann" [1] wrote: Hi Richard, Thanks for your email, and for your earnest views. There was indeed considerable discussion of thes issues on friday, the day after your talk. Both Malcolm Hughes and I discussed these issues in some detail with the committee. Please feel free to take a look at the presentation I gave to the committee: [2]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/lectures/lectures.html Quite nice. Thanks. There is no doubt that there are issues with the potential non-stationarity of tree responses to climate, and this introduces caveats. As I pointed out to the committee, these issues were actually stressed in our '99 article which produced the millennial temperature reconstruction, the title of which was (emphasis added) "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations ". The underlying assumption of our own work has always been that each of the proxies have their own potential problems, and "multiproxy" approaches are probably the most robust. I don't have a particular axe to grind about any particular proxy, and recognize that there are some pretty serious potential problems with all proxies, including ice core delta o18 (as you're aware, these are not clean paleotemperature proxies at all), and Sr/Ca or o18 from corals. There is a good discussion of the strengths and weaknesses in all of the proxies in Jones and Mann (2004): Jones, P.D., Mann, M.E., Climate Over Past Millennia, Reviews of Geophysics, 42, RG2002, doi: 10.1029/2003RG000143, 2004. Agreed completely on value of multiproxy. And yes, a lot of my earlier work was on figuring out how much of the isotopic signal in ice cores is temperature and not other things. The reassuring result was that all the big stuff is temperature, although with a rather bizarrely unexpected calibration. Of the little stuff, stack several cores and you get up toward order of half of the variance being temperature with the rest left for something else. The devil is in the details of when big meets little, as well as what calibration to use. But, there is a pile of data from the 3% of the globe that is ice sheets that have not been assembled properly. I've been trying in a quiet way to do what is possible so that the recommendations are forward-going; if the recommendations are appropriate, who knows, maybe money will become available to get someone to pull the data together. I won't try to defend Rosanne D'Arrigo's analysis, because frankly many in the tree-ring community feel it was not very good work.You should be aware that her selection criteria were not as rigorous as those used by other researchers, and the conclusions she comes to reflect only the data and standardization methods she used--they don't speak for many other, in my mind, more careful studies. If you want the views of the leading experts in this community, I would refer you to my colleagues Malcolm Hughes and Keith Briffa, who have been carefully researching these issues for decades. With your permission, I'd like to forward your email to them for a more informed response--would that be ok? My comments may not be ideally suited for Keith. When I sent inquiry to Overpeck (who coincidentally happens to be one of the convening lead authors of the IPCC paleoclimate chapter), he promptly sent it to several others including Keith. Keith's reassurances were among those that I found less than reassuring--Rosanne probably screwed it up, there are some unpublished data that make it look better. (Unfortunately, in my switch from my old Sun to my new G4, I can't find that message and a couple of related ones. I fear that I will repeat this statement a few times in the near future--what was supposed to be an afternoon changeover took three weeks, and a lot of things were in limbo during the interim. I'm now trying to adapt a file system that developed on Suns since 1988 to a different computer...). Ed Cook was also on the list; I can't for the life of me remember whether Malcolm was or not. So fine to send there, and to Keith if you'd like, but it will probably insult him, and I would hate to do that. >From the questions asked by the community, I really only sensed from one individual the sort of extreme tree-ring skepticism that you describe. And I frankly think the individual proved himself to be not especially informed. The committee appeared to be convinced by the responses I provided to that individual. In short (and please see my presentation for further information) I made the following points: 1) multiproxy reconstructions that don't use tree-ring information at all for the long-term variability (Moberg et al, 2005) agree w/ all other (roughly a dozen now) reconstructions that late 20th century warmth is anomalous in the context of the past 2000 years at the hemispheric scale. This is one key point (i.e, the take home conclusion doesn't depend on tree-rings at all!). Another point I made is that the criticism (by some) that tree-rings underestimate the low-frequency variability is seriously challenged by the fact that temperature reconstructions based on data such as northern hemisphere glacier mass balance inversions (i.e. Oerlemans et al, 2005) show less hemispheric LIA cooling than many of the purely tree-ring based reconstructions. Another point I made in response to this line of criticism is that many of the long-term tree-ring series used in these reconstructions (see e.g. the recent Science article by Osborn and Briffa) show late 20th century conditions that are unprecedented in at least a millennial context. That is to say, if there is some upper temperature threshold in the past beyond which trees do not record, they do not appear to have encountered that threshold prior to the late 20th century, because the most positive anomalies in more than a thousand years are encountered in the last 20th century for most regions. The Osborn and Briffa science paper (attached) shows that the conclusion of anomalous 20th century warmth is spatially robust in a pan-hemispheric data set, it does not just reflect one region (in fact, they show that their conclusion of anomalous late 20th century warmth is robust to the elimination of any three data series used). Of course, Lonnie Thompson comes to the same conclusion using composites of his tropical ice cores. i.e., that the late 20th century behavior is anomalous in a greater-than-millennial context. Of course, tropical ice core delta o18 is difficult to defend as a pure paleothermometer too, but in this case it is difficult to see where non-climatic impacts could enter into the anomalous late 20th century behavior. I had read Osborn and Briffa with great interest when it came out. I attach my talk; Lonnie's data figured prominently. His isotopic ratios have always worried me; he personally is coauthor on a paper pointing out that whatever they are, they probably aren't temperature. I am more optimistic than that, but not much. And his beautiful stack that looks so much like the instrumental record is almost entirely a couple of cores. But what he does have are i) the loss of annual layering in Quelccaya after more than a millennium; ii) the appearance of melt at the top of Kilimanjaro after more than 10 millennia; and iii) the appearance of organic matter from one of the outlets of Quelccaya after more than 5 millennia. Unfortunately, (iii) is not published yet, (ii) is not as well published as it should be (he noted the appearance of melt in the paper, but the slide I showed is from him and not published, and the details of the physical nature of the cores are not out there), and (iii) is also not published--his papers note the existence of the annual layers and then their loss in isotopes, but the actual deepest level reached is not in the papers but given as a personal communication. The difficulty of spending your life at high altitude or publishing Science papers is that the mundane parts don't come out so easily. So, in short, while the issues you mention are real (and have been emphasized by those actually working in this area for decades, as well as by us in all of our key publications), the primary conclusions (i.e. that late 20th century warmth is robust in at least a millennial context) appears robust, and is common to reconstructions whether or not they use tree-rings to reconstruct the low-frequency variability. . There is yet another study (embargoed right now in Science) that comes precisely to this same conclusion yet again. I'll actually be quite surprised if the committee comes to a *different* conclusion from that. Nonetheless, I appreciate your comments and your concerns, and your message does highlight a few issues which would be useful for us to clarify for the committee in case there is still any misunderstanding of the key points I have raised. I surely hope you're right, but I would wager a beer that they are less favorable than you'd like. I don't know how you answered, but all the people I heard were asked the same thing: Do we know the temperature of a millennium ago within 0.5 C? All gave some qualified version of "no". As I said, I'd like to be able to forward your message to Keith and Malcolm, if this is ok w/ you, so that they can provide a perhaps even better informed response to the criticisms you raise. So please let me know if that would be ok... As noted above, I want to get the science right, and if you think appropriate, go ahead. But, I fear that Keith will view them as insulting, and I don't want to do that. thanks, mike Thank you. Also as noted above, I don't have time for this... But it is interesting. --Richard -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: [3]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [4]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 4459. 2006-03-21 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Tim Osborn" date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:30:17 -0000 (GMT) from: "Tim Osborn" subject: [Fwd: Response to Wahl, Ritson and Ammann] to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk Keith - I've not read the attachment from home, but here it is for IPCC purposes (if relevant). - Tim ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Response to Wahl, Ritson and Ammann From: "Eduardo Zorita" Date: Mon, March 20, 2006 5:27 pm To: "Osborn; Tim" -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Tim, enclosed is the final version of our response to the comment by Wahl et al to the Storch04 paper. It is now under review. I am not quite sure what is the policy of Science concerning such manuscripts and IPCC Reports. Cheers eduardo Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\storch_response_to_wahl.doc" 1702. 2006-03-22 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:49:57 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: EXTREMELY URGENT: SO&P report to: philip.brohan@metoffice.gov.uk Hi Philip, thanks for this input to the soap report. Cheers Tim At 10:37 14/03/2006, you wrote: >Hi Tim. > > Another victory for EU bureaucracy. Here's what you asked for from us - >let me know if you need anything else. > >We didn't encounter any unexpected difficulties, or change our plans. > >We've one extra non-peer reviewed report: >Hadley Centre GMR milestone report III.A.3, "Evaluating simulated >climate variability and climate response to forcings using the paleo >reconstructions", September 2005. >This will form part of Deliverable 14. > >We've worked on 2 workpackages > >Workpackage 4: > >We have presented some preliminary results of >intercomparison between simulations and instrumental temperatures. We >have taken account of observational uncertainty as well as chaotic >climate variability in this analysis. We found that simulated Southern >Hemisphere temperatures during the mid and early 20\th century were too >warm compared to observations. An optimal detection analysis >showed some discrepancy between simulation and HadCRUT3 though mainly >in the response to natural forcings rather than in the response to >well-mixed greenhouse gases. > >We have analysed the statistical methods used to reconstruct past >temperatures from proxy data and shown that there are still considerable >uncertainties in reconstructing past climate and to reduce these will >require good estimates of proxy uncertainties. Even so, we have done >comparisons between simulated and reconstructed temperatures, and our >preliminary results suggest that HadCM3 has less multi-decadal >variability than any of the paleo-reconstructions have. This could be >because HadCM3 lacks sufficient internal or chaotic multi-decadal >variability, that the forcing used is too small on multi-decadal >timescales or that HadCM3 is not sufficiently sensitive to the forcing >applied. > >Workpackage 5 > >We have completed the calculations and analysis of sea level changes >based on the simulations of the last 500 years carried out using the >HadCM3 AOGCM with anthropogenic and natural (solar and volcanic) >forcings. Simulated contributions to global-mean sea-level rise during >recent decades due to thermal expansion (the largest term) and to mass >loss from glaciers and ice caps agree within uncertainties with >observational estimates of these terms, but their sum falls short of the >observed rate of sea level rise. This discrepancy has been found in >previous studies; a completely satisfactory explanation of 20th-century >sea-level rise is lacking. The model suggests that the apparent onset of >sea level rise and glacier retreat during the first part of the 19th >century was due to natural forcing. The rate of sea level rise was >larger during the 20th century than during the previous centuries >because of anthropogenic forcing, but decreasing natural forcing during >the second half of the 20th century tended to offset the anthropogenic >acceleration in the rate. Volcanic eruptions cause rapid falls in sea >level, followed by recovery over several decades. The model shows >substantially less decadal variability in sea level and its thermal >expansion component than 20th-century observations indicate, either >because it does not generate sufficient ocean internal variability, or >because the observational analyses overestimate the variability. > >Regards, > > Philip > >On Fri, 2006-03-10 at 10:56, Tim Osborn wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > we have had a very bad message from the CEC project officer who now > > deals with SO&P (Riccardo Casale, who took over from Hans > > Brelen). See the exchange of emails below. > > > > The result is that a written scientific and management report is > > required after all for the 3rd year of SO&P even though a final > > report is also due in just a few months. > > > > Not only that, but he requires it by 16 March -- next Thursday! > > >---------- CUT -------------- > >-- >Philip Brohan, Climate Scientist >Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research >Tel: +44 (0)1392 884574 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 >Global climate data sets are available from http://www.hadobs.org 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 876. 2006-03-23 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 12:56:25 +0000 from: simon.tett@metoffice.gov.uk subject: Chat to: Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn Keith & Tim, are you around today? I'd like your current views on the following statement: "The rate and scale of 20th century warming has probably been unprecedented for at least the last 1,000 years" I'm a bit nervous about this! [I think I might try and rewrite it to "The magnitude of late 20th century temperatures has probably been..."] Defra want to use this for their briefings. Simon -- Dr Simon Tett Managing Scientist, Data development and applications. Met Office Hadley Centre (Reading Unit) Meteorology Building, University of Reading Reading RG6 6BB Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5614 Fax +44 (0)118 378 5615 Mobile: +44-(0)77 538 80696 I work in Exeter about 2 days/week. E-mail: simon.tett@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk 4034. 2006-03-23 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, Eystein Jansen , , Bette Otto-Bleisner , Melinda Marquis , averyt@ucar.edu, ssolomon@al.noaa.gov date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 13:17:44 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: SUPER URGENT IPCC help needed to: Martin Manning Sounds good Martin. Keith, Tim - are you out there? Please help by ensuring we're doing the right thing w Fig 6.13 and table 6.2 Hi Peck Thanks for the provisional "go ahead" - we can (and so will) wait till Monday before changing the master copy of the chapter here. Regards Martin At 11:16 AM 3/23/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: Hi Martin - this seems ok to me. I hope we hear from Tim and Keith - they are the key folks on this one. If we don't hear from them, then we go with what you have done. Seems quite reasonable to me, and I'm sorry we caused the TSU this extra work. Thanks again, Peck X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:11:36 -0700 To: Jonathan Overpeck , Keith Briffa , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, Eystein Jansen , , Bette Otto-Bleisner , Melinda Marquis From: Martin Manning Subject: Re: SUPER URGENT IPCC help needed Cc: ssolomon@al.noaa.gov, averyt@ucar.edu Dear Jonathan Thanks for trying to sort this out quickly for us and for the information that the Ammann et al paper is not available. Susan and I have discussed your two options and have to say that we can not agree to option 1 in the circumstances. Although the Jones and Mann (2004) paper shows the NCAR simulation, the key point is that it cites it as "C. Ammann et al private communication 2003". So in effect option 1 would be bringing in material that was not peer reviewed and not even separately documented. Anyone wanting to discredit your chapter would highlight the fact that you appear to be depending on work done in 2003 that had still not been peer-reviewed. Option 2 is the only way to meet the standard that we have set all along of basing the assessment very firmly on peer reviewed literature. Kristen Averyt found that she could edit the EPS files that you had sent us earlier for Fig 6.13 and take out the curves in question labelled AJS2006. The result is attached. If you can confirm that this edited figure looks correct we are now proposing to drop that into your chapter in place of the original one. We would also remove the [S4] row in Table 6.2 referring to this study. We would also of course use the edited version of the figure in the TS (Fig TS-26 in current draft). If you can see any other implications of this approach to resolving the problem that we need to be aware of please let me know. If the author team wants to provide a redrawn figure that might be an improvement on the attached version we can still wait until Monday morning for that. Best regards Martin At 04:25 PM 3/22/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: Hi Keith and Tim - need FAST help. Figure 6.13, and Table 6.2 cite Amman et al., for the CSM curve. Since this paper doesn't yet exist in "in press" form (I checked w/ Bette, who is a co-author), we have two choices. I think choice one below could be ok, but want to have confirmation from Keith or Tim, and it it's not ok, (NOTE) Tim and Keith need to get new Fig and Table to Melinda and Martin at the TSU by Monday. Option 1: we can cite Jones, P.D., and M.E. Mann, 2004: Climate over past millennia. Reviews of Geophysics, 42(2) - this paper (already in references - there is hope!) has the CSM simulation in its Fig 8, but of course it's not the idea original reference describing the simulation. Option 2: we (Tim) creates new fig 6.13, and Table 6.2 without any reference to this simulation. PLEASE NOTE - if Keith and Tim (or Martin) feels we must go w/ option 2, Tim has to send the new fig and table to TSU (Melinda Marguis and Martin) by Monday AM at the absolute latest. Thanks for your quick help, Peck -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ -- Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov ** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory Phone: +1 303 497 4479 325 Broadway, DSRC R/AL8 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 Boulder, CO 80305, USA -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ -- Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov ** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory Phone: +1 303 497 4479 325 Broadway, DSRC R/AL8 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 Boulder, CO 80305, USA -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 2957. 2006-03-24 ______________________________________________________ cc: Martin Manning , Jonathan Overpeck , Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen , , Bette Otto-Bleisner , Melinda Marquis date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 10:34:59 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: SUPER URGENT IPCC help needed to: Tim Osborn Tim - thanks for the feedback. You make good points, but we'll leave it to the TSU to decide which way to go. Omitting the Ammann CSM run doesn't change the fig implications, so they might want to just remove one nitpicky thing that some governments and experts could complain about. Since it is SOD, I'd go with your option, however. Thanks again, peck >Dear all, > >we (Keith and I) agree that it isn't appropriate >to cite only Jones and Mann (2004) as a >reference for the NCAR CSM curves in figure 6.13. > >Another alternative to deleting the curves, >however, would be to reference Mann, Rutherford, >Wahl and Ammann (2005), which should already be >in the reference list. This might be an >appropriate reference because it includes Ammann >as a co-author and provides a more information >about the simulation than Jones and Mann (2004). >However it still relies upon the submitted >Ammann et al. paper as the main reference -- so >maybe still not good enough? I've attached a >PDF of Mann et al. (2005) for you to consider. > >From earlier discussions (and perhaps also in >relation to chapters using new model runs of >future climate), I thought that a new >unpublished run with an existing published model >under published forcing might be allowed (in the >same way that updated 2005 or 2006 instrumental >temperatures could be included, even if not >published, providing they were compiled >following the procedures described in an earlier >paper). For instance, the EMIC runs we included >as an extra panel probably fall in this >category. Maybe the CSM run falls in this >category too? Have other runs with this model >been published? And the forcing used in this >run was presented in Goosse et al. (2005; GRL >32, L06710, again it includes Ammann as a >co-author) as well as in Jones and Mann (2004). >So, maybe CSM can be included under this >reasoning? > >I don't want to sound as if we are arguing >strenuously to keep the CSM curves in the figure >-- if the preferred decision is to drop it, then >so be it. If so, then the modified figure looks >ok. > >Cheers > >Tim > >At 02:11 23/03/2006, Martin Manning wrote: >>Dear Jonathan >> >>Thanks for trying to sort this out quickly for >>us and for the information that the Ammann et >>al paper is not available. >> >>Susan and I have discussed your two options and >>have to say that we can not agree to option 1 >>in the circumstances. Although the Jones and >>Mann (2004) paper shows the NCAR simulation, >>the key point is that it cites it as "C. Ammann >>et al private communication 2003". So in effect >>option 1 would be bringing in material that was >>not peer reviewed and not even separately >>documented. Anyone wanting to discredit your >>chapter would highlight the fact that you >>appear to be depending on work done in 2003 >>that had still not been peer-reviewed. >> >>Option 2 is the only way to meet the standard >>that we have set all along of basing the >>assessment very firmly on peer reviewed >>literature. >> >>Kristen Averyt found that she could edit the >>EPS files that you had sent us earlier for Fig >>6.13 and take out the curves in question >>labelled AJS2006. The result is attached. >> >>If you can confirm that this edited figure >>looks correct we are now proposing to drop that >>into your chapter in place of the original one. >>We would also remove the [S4] row in Table 6.2 >>referring to this study. We would also of >>course use the edited version of the figure in >>the TS (Fig TS-26 in current draft). >> >>If you can see any other implications of this >>approach to resolving the problem that we need >>to be aware of please let me know. If the >>author team wants to provide a redrawn figure >>that might be an improvement on the attached >>version we can still wait until Monday morning >>for that. >> >>Best regards >>Martin >> >>At 04:25 PM 3/22/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>>Hi Keith and Tim - need FAST help. Figure >>>6.13, and Table 6.2 cite Amman et al., for the >>>CSM curve. Since this paper doesn't yet exist >>>in "in press" form (I checked w/ Bette, who is >>>a co-author), we have two choices. I think >>>choice one below could be ok, but want to have >>>confirmation from Keith or Tim, and it it's >>>not ok, (NOTE) Tim and Keith need to get new >>>Fig and Table to Melinda and Martin at the TSU >>>by Monday. >>> >>>Option 1: we can cite Jones, P.D., and M.E. >>>Mann, 2004: Climate over past millennia. >>>Reviews of Geophysics, 42(2) - this paper >>>(already in references - there is hope!) has >>>the CSM simulation in its Fig 8, but of course >>>it's not the idea original reference >>>describing the simulation. >>> >>>Option 2: we (Tim) creates new fig 6.13, and >>>Table 6.2 without any reference to this >>>simulation. >>> >>>PLEASE NOTE - if Keith and Tim (or Martin) >>>feels we must go w/ option 2, Tim has to send >>>the new fig and table to TSU (Melinda Marguis >>>and Martin) by Monday AM at the absolute >>>latest. >>> >>>Thanks for your quick help, Peck >>> >>> >>>-- >>> >>>Jonathan T. Overpeck >>>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>Professor, Department of Geosciences >>>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >>> >>>Mail and Fedex Address: >>> >>>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>>University of Arizona >>>Tucson, AZ 85721 >>>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>>fax: +1 520 792-8795http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >> >>-- >>Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov >>** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address >>Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit >>NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory Phone: +1 303 497 4479 >>325 Broadway, DSRC R/AL8 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 >>Boulder, CO 80305, USA > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:mann 2005 >pseudoproxy 1.pdf (PDF /«IC») (00121DD9) >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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 237. 2006-03-29 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 14:36:50 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Proxy time series to: "Gustafson, Diane" Dear Diane / Mike / NRC Committee, At 22:18 28/03/2006, Gustafson, Diane wrote: >Dear Tim: > >Our National Research Council Committee on Surface Temperature >Reconstructions has been considering your paper with Keith Briffa >published in a recent issue of Science. Could you please elaborate >on your criterion for selecting the proxy time series included in >the analysis. We are interested in how you computed the correlation >between the proxy time series and local temperature time series. Is >the correlation based on filtered or detrended time series? How >would you counter the potential criticism that your selection method >tends to favor proxy time series that show a strong 20th century warming? > >It would be most helpful for us if you could reply in time for us to >consider your response at our meeting tomorrow morning. Thanks in >advance for your help. > >Mike Wallace We (Tim Osborn and Keith Briffa) will first respond to these specific questions about our recent Science paper. In addition, copied below are some further comments by Keith Briffa on issues related to tree-ring proxy records, that may be of interest to the committee. The primary purpose of our paper was to implement an alternative, and possibly complementary, method of proxy-data analysis to the methods used in most previously published reconstructions of past NH temperature variations. We did not want to introduce an entirely new selection of proxy records (even if this were possible), because that would obscure whether differences in our conclusions, compared with published work, arose from our method or a different selection of proxy records. We decided, therefore, to make use of as many of the individual records used in almost all the previously published NH temperature reconstructions, excluding any records for which an indication of at least partial temperature sensitivity was lacking. So, very low resolution records for which comparison with instrumental temperatures is problematic were excluded. We used records specifically from Mann and Jones (2003) and Esper et al. (2002). In addition we included records from Mann et al. (2003), which I think just adds the van Engelen documentary record from the Low Countries in Europe, because the others were already in the Mann and Jones set. We excluded duplicates, and our paper explains which series we used where duplicates were present. We did not average the Tornetrask, Yamal and Taimyr tree-ring records as done by Mann and Jones, because we could see no reason not to use them as individual series. The series used by Mann and Jones had already been correlated with their local instrumental temperatures -- using decadally-smoothed, non-detrended, values -- so we accepted this as an indication of some temperature sensitivity. For the other series, we calculated our own correlations against local instrumental temperatures, trying both annual-mean or summer-mean temperatures. In our paper's supplementary information, we state that we used the HadCRUT2 temperatures for this purpose, which combines land air temperatures with SST observations. In fact, we used the CRUTEM2 land-only temperature data set for this purpose. These should be identical where the proxy locations are not coastal. For these correlations, we did not filter the data, nor did we detrend it, and we used the *full* period of overlap between the proxy record and the available instrumental record. We excluded records that did not show a *positive* correlation with their local temperatures. The remaining set includes most of the long, high resolution records used by others, such as Moberg et al., Crowley and Lowery, Hegerl et al., Mann, Bradley and Hughes, etc. as well as by Mann and Jones and Esper et al. The final question, regarding the selection method favouring records that show a strong 20th century warming trend, is a more philosophical issue. As stated above, we did not actually use strongly selective criteria, preferring to use those records that others had previously used and only eliminating those that were clearly lacking in temperature sensitivity. To some extent, therefore, the question is then directed towards the studies whose selection of data we used. Certainly we did not look through a whole host of possibilities and just pick those with a strong upward trend in the last century! And we don't think the scientists whose work we selected from would have done this either. There are very few series to choose from that are >500 years long and are from proxy types/locations where temperature sensitivity might be expected. It would be entirely the wrong impression to think that there are 140 such a priori suitable possible series, and that we picked (either explicitly or implicitly) just those 10% that happened by chance to exhibit upward 20th century trends. The correlation with local temperature is an entirely appropriate factor to consider when selecting data; these could be computed using detrended data, though for those that we calculated, our use of unfiltered data means that the trend is unlikely to dominate the correlation. One would need to inspect the trend in the temperature data at each location to evaluate how much influence it would have on the results; but in locations where a strong upward trend is present, it would be right to exclude proxy records that did not reproduce it, though also correct that a proxy shouldn't be included solely on the basis of it having the trend, especially where the proxy resolution is sufficient to test its ability to capture shorter term fluctuations. Finally, note that our method has not selected only those records with a strong 20th century warming trend. Of the 14 proxies selected (see our figure 1), 7(!) do not have strong upward 20th century trends: Quebec, Chesapeake Bay, W Greenland, Tirol, Tornetrask, Mangazeja, and Taimyr. Our method gives equal weight to all records, so it should not be biased towards a single record, or a small number of records, that do show strong upward trends. Here are the additional comments on tree-ring issues: I would also like to take the opportunity, if you will allow, to comment briefly on some reports that have reached me concerning the contribution made by Rosanne D'Arrigo to your Committee. Apparently, this is being interpreted by some as reflecting adversely on the validity of numerous temperature reconstructions that involve significant dependence on tree-ring data. This is related to Rosanne's focus in her presentation on the apparent difference between measured temperatures and tree growth in recent decades - a so-called "divergence" problem. First let me make it clear that as I did not attend the Committee meeting I am not able to comment specifically on the details of Rosanne D'Arrigo's actual presentation, though I am aware of her papers with various co-authors related to this "divergence" in the recent (circa post 1970 ) trends in tree-growth and temperature changes as recorded in instrumental data, at near tree-line sites in the Canadian Arctic. There are also other papers dealing with 'changing growth responses' to climate in North American trees. I have co-authored a paper in Nature on the reduced response to warming as seen in tree-ring densitometric data at high-latitude sites around the Northern Hemisphere, increasingly apparent in the last 30 years or so. First, it is important to note that the phenomena is complicated because it is not clearly identifiable as a ubiquitous problem. Rather it is a mix of possible regionally distinct indications, a possible mix of phenomena that is almost certainly in part due to the methodological aspects of the way tree-ring series are produced. This applies to my own work, but also very likely to other work. The implications at this stage for the 'hockey stick' and other reconstructions are not great. That is because virtually all long tree-ring reconstructions that contribute to the various reconstructions, are NOT affected by this. Most show good coherence with temperature at local levels in recent decades. This is not true for one series (based on the density data). As these are our data, I am able to say that initial unpublished work will show that the "problem" can be mitigated with the use of new, and again unpublished, chronology construction methods. In the case of the work by Rosanne and colleagues, I offer my educated opinion that the phenomenon they describe is likely also, at least in part, a chronology construction issue. I am not saying that this is a full explanation, and certainly there is the possibility of increased moisture stress on these trees, but at present the issue is still being defined and explored. As the issue needs more work, this is only an opinion, and until there is peer-reviewed and published evidence as to the degree of methodological uncertainty , it is not appropriate to criticize this or other work . For my part, I have been very busy, lately with teaching and IPCC commitments, but we will do some work on this now, though again lack of funds to support a research assistant do not help. The matter is important but I do not believe that the facts yet support Rosanne's contention, in her Global Biogeochemical Cycles paper (Vol. 18, GB3021, doi:10.1029/2004GB002249, 2004) that an optimum physiological threshold has been consistently exceeded at a site in the Yukon. This conclusion should certainly not be taken as indicating a widespread threshold exceedence. It was my call not to "overplay" the importance of the divergence issue, knowing the subtlety of the issues, in the fortcoming IPCC Chapter 6 draft. We did always intend to have a brief section about the assumption of uniformitarianism in proxy interpretation , including mention of the possible direct carbon dioxide fertilization effect on tree growth (equally controversial), but it is likely to conclude that here as well , there is no strong evidence of any major real-world effect. This and the divergence problem are not well defined, sufficiently studied, or quantified to be worthy of too much concern at this point. The uncertainty estimates we calibrate when interpreting many tree-ring series will likely incorporate the possibility of some bias in our estimates of past warmth, but these are wide anyway. This does not mean that temperatures were necessarily at the upper extreme of the reconstruction uncertainty range 1000 years ago, any more than they may have been at the bottom. The real problem is a lack of widespread (and non-terrestrial) proxies for defining the level of early warmth, and the vital need to up-date and study the responses of proxies in very recent times. Best regards, Tim Osborn and Keith Briffa -- 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/ 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 2571. 2006-03-30 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:18:00 +0200 (MET DST) from: Eduardo Zorita subject: Re: Response to Wahl et al in Science to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk (Tim Osborn) Tim, yes, I also found it strange. We noticed that Amman and Wahl cited their Science comment as accepted in their manuscript that is now in press in Climatic Change. Personally I think it is convenient that this clarification gets published but I am somewhat disapointed by the fact that a very similar content was submitted by Buerger and Cubasch about one year ago and it was not even sent to reviewers (it is the paper that finally appeared in Tellus). I think that comment was of much higher quality than Wahl´s. Science knew of the Tellus paper, since we cite it in our response. So actually there is scientifically nothing new in this exchange, but it will be published in Science... Anyway, I am happy to have more time now for more productive work and hope that Ritson doe not bomb me with more mails in the future eduardo > Thanks for letting us know, Eduardo. It is strange that Science > accepted the Wahl et al. comment before yours; we were told of this > on 28-Feb and that is why you will notice, if you get to see the > latest IPCC draft, that Wahl et al. is cited but your response is not > cited! This will look strange, given that they will be published > together. Maybe it can be changed later? > > Cheers > > Tim > > At 11:31 29/03/2006, Eduardo Zorita wrote: > >Dear Tim, > > > >the comment by Wahl, Ritson and Amman and our response have been now > >accepted for > >publication in Science > > > >eduardo > > 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ > sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > 1658. 2006-03-31 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:57:01 +0100 from: Tom Melvin subject: Re: 1750-present temperature reconstruction to: "Rob Wilson" Rob, We have been working on a northern Eurasia reconstruction which is being drafted. Keith wants to publish a review of the sensitivity problem and again it is in the drafting stage. Hopefully both will ready to submit by the end of April. Both papers partly depend on procedures from my thesis (and subsequent developments) and depend on us also publishing descriptions of these new methods and the programs (or procedures) and several documents are being developed. Until the definitive reconstructions are ready i.e. the ones used in the papers we do not have new temperature reconstructions to give you. The programs you enquired about earlier are still not in a state for general release. Some are Fortran procedures but not suitable to use as a "black box" due to arbitrary slope problems. A problem with reconstruction using samples from living trees is overcoming the segment length curse and, because of this, the sensitivity loss is not proven or demonstrated by most of the papers discussing the sensitivity issue. The problem of selecting data that shows no sensitivity loss becomes one of selecting a processing method capable of demonstrating such loss. The Scandinavian sites (mine to 1997 and 2000, and Keiths to 198? ) are on ITRDB, as raw measures which cover the 1750 onwards period if you wish to use them. I have some pith estimates. Thanks for the Dawson temperature data. It looked different to our data (CRU dataset) but the problem appears to be that the US data and Canadian data have been differently homogenised. Examining the sensitivity problem at TTHH may best involve RCS type methods (but needs sub-fossil data and pith estimates for "heart rot" trees). Also care will be needed because the mean ring width of the update chronology (with rings after 1976) appears 20% lower than that of the original trees over their common period. An Alaskan earthquake in which Dawson and surrounding tree sites sink into the ocean, but backdated by a century, might remove these current problems! Tom Melvin At 16:34 13/03/2006, you wrote: >Hi Tom [and Keith], >I am mulling over an idea of developing a completely independent NH >temperature reconstruction using relatively short data-sets to >compare with existing NH recons. > >I am focusing on the 1750-present period ONLY. > >I was wondering if you have any data (recons) from Scandinavia that >would be relevant to this exercise. > >I am only interested with data that show NO sensitivity loss in the >recent period. > >Pickings are surprisingly meagre. Of published temperature >reconstructions that go into the 1990s, I have my work from BC >(Canada), Buentgen's recons from the Alps, and a recon from >Kamchatka by Greg Wiles. > >Brian may have new data from the Yukon, and there are some >interesting new data-sets from Japan. > >However, I have not yet looked at the Scandinavian region. >I know your data have been submitted to the ITRDB, but if you have >any specific reconstructions, that would make my life much easier. > >it is only an idea at the moment, but this may parallel work that >Keith is currently doing addressing the sensitivity issue. > >hope you can help >regards >Rob >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >Dr. Rob Wilson >Research Fellow >School of GeoSciences, >Grant Institute, >Edinburgh University, >West Mains Road, >Edinburgh EH9 3JW, >Scotland, U.K. >Tel: 01968 670752 > >Publication List: >http://freespace.virgin.net/rob.dendro/Publications.html > >".....I have wondered about trees. > >They are sensitive to light, to moisture, to wind, to pressure. >Sensitivity implies sensation. Might a man feel into the soul of a tree >for these sensations? If a tree were capable of awareness, this faculty >might prove useful. " > >"The Miracle Workers" by Jack Vance >----------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Melvin Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593161 Fax: +44-1603-507784 3952. 2006-03-31 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eduardo Zorita , hegerl@duke.edu, Jan Esper , Keith Briffa , Myles Allen , Nanne Weber , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 16:08:09 +0100 from: Martin Juckes subject: A new draft to: Anders Moberg Hello, a new draft is attached. I've shortened a lot of the discussion and added a few more results. There is now a table showing the coherence of each of 34 proxy records which extend back to 1000 -- this answers a suggestion by McIntyre and McKitrick that MBH's N. American PC1 is a statistical outlier -- it isn't. I think one of the figures in the previous version I sent round had a slight error in that I was using a composite of proxies: for the Mann et al. proxy collections this included principal component series with arbitrary sign. I have now made sure that the sign is determined by the correlation with temperature. The draft is still rough in places, but I think it is more readable and compact now. I'll be away for two weeks: if people can get comments back to me within the next 3 weeks, I'd like to submit it soon after that. An obvious next step would be to do a reconstruction using all the 32 long proxy records, but I haven't done that yet because there are sampling issues to deal with. cheers, Martin Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\cpd-2006-xxxx.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\cpd-2006-xxxx.tex" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; name="cpd-2006-xxxx.bbl" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="cpd-2006-xxxx.bbl" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by balin.rl.ac.uk id k2VF4xxb029885 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\cpd-2006-xxxx.bbl" 3048. 2006-04-05 ______________________________________________________ cc: mmanning@al.noaa.gov,solomon@al.noaa.gov date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:44:23 +0100 from: Andrew Manning subject: Global warming in TIME magazine to: env.all@uea.ac.uk Dear All, perhaps of interest, there is a 30+ page article in this week's TIME magazine on global warming. The title, splashed out over the cover is "Be worried, be very worried". For me the most disappointing statistic in the whole article was this: in a poll (which I suspect was an American poll), 85% of respondents now believe that global warming is happening, but, 64% of respondents believe that scientists have "a lot of disgreement" about global warming. Somewhat depressing that despite the best efforts of IPCC and others, we scientists are still seen as a dithering, chaotic, and disagreeing lot... Cheers, Andrew 5292. 2006-04-06 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 12:45:16 +0100 from: Tom Melvin subject: Re Hakan to: Keith Keith, I read Hakan's draft and find problems. Would it be possible for you to ask Hakan to send his updated (and original) measures, TRW, MXD and Pith estimates for testing purposes? The problem is that the update chronology appears to have a different growth rate to the original and this removes the growth increase of the modern century and hides the sensitivity problem. Both feature in Hakan's conclusions. Mean MXD for old trees of 0.58 is considered similar to the mean for new trees at 0.57, but considering the slope of the RCS curve and the mean age of the constituent rings the new data should have a much larger mean density than the old data. The presumption that the MXD chronology is "correct" and that the TRW chronology has excess slope over the modern period (Figures 4 and 9) may be wrong. Signal-Free methods and BFM would offer a second opinion. They managed to reduce the excesses of the few < 50 old, very fast growing trees, of the 2002 paper Tornetrask chronology. I have a few detailed comments I will let you have later. The MXD data would be useful to the "Sensitivity" review paper if Hakan is happy for it to be used. Tom Tom Melvin Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593161 Fax: +44-1603-507784 2206. 2006-04-07 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 11:47:55 +0200 from: Håkan Grudd subject: Tornetrask data to: Keith Briffa , t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk Attached you'll find three files: Torne1,5k_AD.c (TRW data ) MXD05_dated.c (MXD data) MXD_PO.prn (text file with MXD pith offset in same order as data file) Talk to you on Monday, Håkan 288=N 169=I 00TB0059 -2(26F3.0)~ 95146152134153138 99130101126149175172153149133108159127150168165155156120149 99132134133131123126108147140136135135 92121143 82102144151119129 86 71100 81 73 62 80 65 66 73 47 69118101 90 83 80 80 83 66 55 91 94 96 92 83 65 76 91101 73 97 95104106121 81 70 87103 78 71 77 60 59 87 85 66 47102 66 34 67 35 75 71 77 70 65 78 66 72 78 64 51 64 80105 84 97108105 90 78 77 57 48 50 68 72 75 52 72 46 62 44 59 35 68 69 54 54 62 52 49 62 60 47 50 34 39 44 30 48 49 46 41 34 37 28 22 43 15 27 25 33 41 33 38 19 34 64 35 37 32 37 33 42 44 45 54 49 43 48 55 41 37 45 38 51 62 55 52 64 41 33 43 54 36 44 47 65 34 41 30 30 44 40 41 41 36 41 33 48 48 51 40 35 66 37 37 46 49 73 47 43 48 46 70 48 47 56 55 73 70 76 81 66 40103 81 61 56 75 57 62 49 67 74 75 67 77 96 58 35 69 74 60 73 72 70 80 74 82 63 48 54 44 66 54 50 46 42 64 77101 68 78 80 68 71 66 78 60 54 64 64 53 57 70 281=N 170=I 00TB041Z -2(26F3.0)~ 52119119173172128109178208210187206239193208213211197236237289252218172203155 249193218165140178146192249237219232218276300192207229229144160160123176204167 175233142136152107 95146109122131 98100 99 71 75133144163145131136146128130 89 119120118119120111101108112114 78 95 98 91119109113 75101 85 70 97 47 96 93 78 54 54 61 74 68 72 74 63 59 75 89 69 68 74 83 79 51 80 89 87 85 85 87 84 84 67 63 72 68 69 44 72 69 75 64 60 63 52 77 79 58 79 57 78 75 71 73 81 71 50 47 47 46 50 60 35 64 55 56 61 63 56 41 44 78 57 42 59 53 42 39 33 33 47 47 38 37 50 34 44 43 38 36 36 32 39 41 35 26 29 39 34 37 26 37 28 31 30 33 35 26 27 30 28 32 19 27 24 20 25 29 34 28 23 27 24 27 19 14 13 23 17 15 17 29 30 29 27 44 43 98125102124103144134143127 83 85 92 86 66 80 93 82 47 56 66 67 57 89103137167 163147153138139122 85113101 84 87 61 87 75 79 86 89 94 76 90 78 291=N 176=I 00TB112Z -2(26F3.0)~ 4340. 2006-04-12 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 15:13:12 +0200 from: Kurt Nicolussi subject: data to: Tom Melvin , Keith Briffa Hi Tom, during the last month we were not always lazy, e.g. we also measured new Pinus cembra samples and added new tree-ring series to the group of sub-fossil samples of the last c. 2000 years. Now this group of tree-ring series from subfossil Pinus cembra series contains 390 series (about 10% more than the old group). The list with the pith off-sets is attached too. Best regards Kurt 50 BER02_M.FH 50 BER03_M.FH 0 BER04_M.FH 0 BER05_M.FH 0 BER06_M.FH 0 BER07_M.FH 30 BER08_M.FH 0 BER13_M.FH 12 BER14_M.FH 5 BER15_M.FH 0 BRS01_M.FH 0 BRS02_M.FH 9 BRS03_M.FH 0 BRS04_M.FH 0 BRS05_M.FH 0 BRS06_M.FH 0 BRS07_M.FH 0 BRS08_M.FH 0 BRS09_KM.FH 39 EBA01_KM.FH 0 EBA33_M.FH 0 G01SMG2M.FH 9 G02SMG1M.FH 1 G08_M.FH 9 G17NEU_M.FH 34 G23NE_KM.FH 29 G24_M.FH 0 G25_M.FH 0 G26_M.FH 0 G27_M.FH 69 G28_M.FH 0 G29NEU_M.FH 39 G35_M.FH 0 G38_M.FH 0 G45_M.FH 0 G48_M.FH 10 G49_M.FH 0 G50SMG5M.FH 0 G51_M.FH 9 G52_M.FH 19 G53_M.FH 49 G54_M.FH 0 G55_M.FH 69 G56_M.FH 79 G58_KM.FH 0 G59_M.FH 30 G60_KM.FH 5 G64_M.FH 0 G71_M.FH 0 G72_M.FH 19 G73_M.FH 0 G74_M.FH 0 ggua24km.fh 0 ggua26_m.fh 100 ggua27_m.fh 0 GLI20_1M.FH 59 GLI21_M.FH 0 GLI28_KM.FH 60 GLI29_M.FH 24 GLI37_M.FH 0 GLI38_M.FH 0 GLI40_M.FH 0 GLI41_M.FH 10 GLI48_M.FH 29 GP011_M.FH 0 GP020_M.FH 3 GP021_M.FH 0 GP025_KM.FH 0 GP026_M.FH 0 GP059_M.FH 0 GP061_M.FH 0 GP062_M.FH 19 GP090_M.FH 0 GP107_M.FH 19 GP109_M.FH 0 GP115_1M.FH 255 GP115_2M.FH 0 GP141_M.FH 0 GP60100M.FH 0 GX40_KM.FH 0 hib03_m.fh 1 hib04_m.fh 6 hib05_m.fh 25 hib09_m.fh 0 hib33_m.fh 19 hib62_m.fh 0 KOA12_M.FH 0 KOA29_M.FH 0 KOA32_M.FH 0 kofl04_m.fh 0 kofl05_m.fh 0 kofl06_m.fh 199 LFS00_M.FH 39 LFS01_M.FH 29 LFS03_M.FH 49 LFS12_M.FH 0 lzr01_m.fh 39 MAZA01_M.FH 34 MAZA02_M.FH 99 MAZA04_M.FH 5 MAZA05_M.FH 46 MAZA06KM.FH 49 maza07km2.fh 89 MAZB33_M.FH 8 MAZB34_M.FH 59 MAZB37_M.FH 79 MAZB45_M.FH 39 MAZB47_M.FH 139 MAZB48KM.FH 79 mazb49_m.fh 99 MAZB55_M.FH 239 MAZB56KM.FH 69 MAZB57_M.FH 0 MAZB59_M.FH 59 MAZB60_M.FH 134 MAZB61KM.FH 159 MAZB70_M.FH 0 MAZC03_M.FH 0 MAZC04_M.FH 0 MAZC05_M.FH 0 MAZC06_M.FH 64 MAZC09_M.FH 39 MAZC10KM.FH 119 MAZC13_M.FH 0 MAZE02_M.FH 0 MAZE03_M.FH 0 MAZE04KM.FH 84 MAZE10_M.FH 99 MAZE11_M.FH 0 MAZE19_M.FH 49 MAZE20_M.FH 0 MAZE24_M.FH 0 MAZE28_M.FH 0 MAZE32_M.FH 39 maze37_m.fh 39 MAZE38_M.FH 69 MAZE39_M.FH 1 MAZE41_M.FH 0 MAZE43_M.FH 0 maze44_m.fh 0 MAZE45_M.FH 0 MAZE46_M.FH 0 maze50km.fh 16 MAZE52_M.FH 0 MAZE61_M.FH 1 MAZE62KM.FH 3 MAZE63_M.FH 0 MAZE67_M.FH 0 MAZF01_M.FH 45 MIS005_M.FH 45 MIS007_M.FH 0 MIS008_M.FH 90 MIS010_M.FH 50 MIS011_M.FH 40 MIS014_M.FH 35 MIS015_M.FH 30 MIS016_M.FH 0 MIS022_M.FH 0 MIS023_M.FH 25 MIS024_M.FH 0 MIS025_M.FH 0 MIS026_M.FH 20 MIS027_M.FH 0 MIS028_M.FH 0 MIS029_M.FH 0 MIS030_M.FH 74 MIS032_M.FH 0 MIS033_M.FH 0 MIS034_M.FH 0 MIS035_M.FH 0 MIS036_M.FH 50 MIS037_M.FH 98 MIS038KM.FH 2 MIS039_M.FH 0 MIS040_M.FH 0 MIS041_M.FH 0 MIS042KM.FH 0 MIS043_M.FH 0 MIS044_M.FH 0 MIS045_M.FH 0 MIS046KM.FH 0 MIS047_M.FH 50 MIS049KM.FH 0 MIS051_M.FH 0 MIS052_M.FH 0 MIS053_M.FH 0 MIS055_M.FH 0 MIS057_M.FH 0 MIS058_M.FH 40 MIS059_M.FH 45 MIS060KM.FH 20 MIS061_M.FH 0 MIS062_M.FH 30 MIS063_M.FH 0 MIS064_M.FH 25 MIS065_M.FH 15 MIS066_M.FH 10 MIS067_M.FH 0 MIS068_M.FH 0 MIS069_M.FH 0 MIS070_M.FH 0 MIS071_M.FH 40 MIS073KM.FH 70 MIS074_M.FH 0 MIS075KM.FH 0 MIS077_M.FH 90 MIS078_M.FH 20 MIS080_M.FH 30 MIS081_M.FH 50 MIS082_M.FH 40 MIS083_M.FH 0 MIS084_M.FH 19 MIS091_M.FH 0 MIS092_M.FH 0 MIS094_M.FH 0 MIS095_M.FH 296 MIS106_M.FH 0 MIS107_M.FH 0 MIS108_M.FH 0 MIS109_M.FH 0 MIS110KM.FH 0 MIS111_M.FH 0 MIS112_M.FH 0 MIS114_M.FH 0 MIS115_M.FH 0 MIS116_M.FH 2 MIS199_M.FH 169 RSA02_M.FH 0 RSA03_M.FH 0 RSA04_M.FH 0 RSA05_M.FH 0 RSA07_M.FH 99 RSA09_KM.FH 11 RSA11_M.FH 0 RSA12_M.FH 0 RSA13_M.FH 69 RSA17_M.FH 4 RSA18_M.FH 19 RSA19_M.FH 49 RSA20_KM.FH 69 RSA22_M.FH 34 RSA24_M.FH 59 RSA25_M.FH 24 RSA28_M.FH 24 RSA29_M.FH 39 RSA30_M.FH 79 RSA31_M.FH 39 RSA35_M.FH 0 RSA36_M.FH 229 RSA37_M.FH 69 RSA38_M.FH 64 RSA39_M.FH 139 RSA40_M.FH 109 RSA41_M.FH 19 RSA42_M.FH 63 RSA52_KM.FH 99 RSA54_M.FH 149 RSA56_M.FH 3 RSA57_M.FH 39 RSA58_M.FH 9 RSA59_M.FH 0 RSA60_M.FH 9 RSA63_M.FH 89 RSA66_M.FH 89 RSA69_M.FH 9 RSA71_M.FH 0 RSA73_M.FH 149 RSA74_M.FH 0 SMG04_M.FH 0 SOS01_M.FH 9 SOS02_M.FH 59 SSM015_M.FH 99 SSM021_M.FH 0 SSM022_M.FH 14 SSM034_M.FH 0 SSM035_M.FH 49 SSM036_M.FH 19 SSM037_M.FH 3 SSM040KM.FH 9 SSM042_M.FH 0 SSM043_M.FH 0 SSM044_M.FH 0 SSM045_M.FH 0 SSM057_M.FH 0 SSM087_M.FH 0 SSM088_M.FH 51 SSM121_M.FH 0 SSM123_M.FH 0 SSM124_M.FH 0 SSM125_M.FH 0 SSM211_M.FH 39 SSM303_M.FH 0 SSM304_M.FH 0 SSM308_M.FH 0 SSM311_M.FH 24 SSM315_M.FH 0 SSM317_M.FH 0 SSM322_M.FH 0 SSM324_M.FH 0 SSM351_M.FH 0 SSM353_M.FH 0 SSM354_M.FH 0 SSM355_M.FH 24 SSM358_M.FH 0 SSM398_M.FH 21 SSM401_M.FH 11 SSM433_M.FH 0 TAH12_M.FH 0 TAH13_M.FH 0 TAH21_M.FH 0 TAH22_M.FH 0 TAH24_M.FH 4 TAH25_M.FH 0 TAH26_M.FH 74 TAH27_M.FH 39 TAH29_M.FH 32 TAH30_KM.FH 80 TAH31_M.FH 0 TAH32_M.FH 19 TAH33_M.FH 2 TAH34_KM.FH 25 TAH35_KM.FH 0 TAH37_M.FH 29 TAH39_M.FH 0 TAH40_M.FH 0 TAH41_M.FH 0 TAH42_M.FH 79 UGB01_M.FH 39 UGB02_M.FH 29 UGB03_M.FH 0 ulfi26_m.fh 0 ulfi68_m.fh 0 WTL3_M.FH 39 WTL4_M.FH 0 WTL5_M.FH 0 WTL6_M.FH 0 WTL7_M.FH 20 WTL8_M.FH 59 Z01X04GM.FH 79 Z01X05GM.FH 9 Z01X06GM.FH 99 Z01X17GM.FH 49 Z01X28GM.FH 99 Z01X29GM.FH 4 Z01X30GM.FH 0 ZAR006_M.FH 0 ZAR007_M.FH 149 ZAR008_M.FH 0 ZAR009_M.FH 49 ZAR012_M.FH 49 ZAR013_M.FH 0 ZAR145_M.FH 0 zar206_km.fh 0 zar208_m.fh 0 zar210_m.fh 0 zar211_m.fh 39 ZTS05_M.FH 49 ZTS08_M.FH 9 ZTS14_M.FH 99 ZTS22_M.FH 0 ZTS23_M.FH 39 ZTS25_KM.FH 0 ZTS27_M.FH 19 ZTS35_M.FH 0 ZTS39_M.FH 69 ZTS40_M.FH 0 ZTS42_M.FH 49 ZTS43_M.FH 34 ZTS44_M.FH 0 ZTS45_M.FH 0 ZTS46_M.FH 0 ZTS47_M.FH 9 ZTS48_M.FH 0 ZTS49_M.FH 24 ZTS51_M.FH 0 ZTS52_M.FH 7 ZTS53_M.FH 24 ZTS54_M.FH 0 zufa03_m.fh 29 zufb01_m.fh 9 zufb03_m.fh 0 zufb06_m.fh 89 zufc02_m.fh 1 zufc14_m.fh 79 zufd01_m.fh 19 zufd03_m.fh 17 zufd04_m.fh 1 zufe02_m.fh 6 zufe03_m.fh 0 zufr04_m.fh  ber02_m 1556 1395 1655 1835 1480 ber02_m 1560 1885 2670 2740 1720 2618 2063 1603 1673 1723 1525 ber02_m 1570 1875 1638 2563 1740 1538 1710 1578 1630 1068 893 ber02_m 1580 993 1080 1240 1800 1243 1088 1248 1045 515 755 ber02_m 1590 775 518 600 568 590 558 378 440 515 333 b 198. 2006-04-13 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 09:38:32 -0700 from: Journal of Climate CEA subject: JCLIM Request to Review a Comment/Reply (JCLI-1333/1427) to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Dear Dr. Osborn, I am writing to ask if you would be so kind as to provide me some advice as to the suitability of publishing the attached Comment and Reply in the Notes and Correspondence section of the Journal of Climate. In particular, I am writing to ask if you would consider the following questions in your review. 1) Do you think that the comment submitted by Zorita et al. contains material which is of sufficient interest to the readership of the Journal of Climate to warrant its publication. 2) If the answer to 1) is yes, are there any specific recommendations / comments that you would like to see addressed in the COMMENT prior to our considering its publication. 3) If the answer to 1) is yes, are there any specific recommendations / comments that you would like to see addressed in the REPLY prior to our considering its publication. 4) Do you have any overall recommendations you have for the authors of the Comment/Reply? As you might surmise, the authors of the REPLY have recommended that the COMMENT be rejected outright. I sincerely appreciate your assistance with a review of this exchange. While I recognize that you are very busy and that this review will take some time, I hope you agree with me as to the importance of peer review prior to publication of scientific discourse. Yours sincerely Andrew Weaver Chief Editor of the Journal of Climate ********************* Comment Details: ********************* JCLI - 1333 Title - Comment to 'Testing the fidelity of methods used in proxy- based reconstructions of past climate' Authors - Eduardo Zorita, Fidel Gonzalez-Rouco, Hans von Storch Reviewer link: http://www.ametsoc.org/reviewer/viewer.cfm?id=12863-5211 Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\20060125091230156-2864.pdf" ********************* Reply Details: ********************* JCLI - 1427 Title - Reply to Comment by Zorita et al on Mann, Rutherford, Wahl and Ammann ‘05 Authors - Michael E. Mann, Scott Rutherford, Eugene Wahl, Caspar Ammann Reviewer link: http://www.ametsoc.org/reviewer/viewer.cfm?id=13835-8273 Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\20060331103403578-3479.pdf" **CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT OF THIS MESSAGE WOULD BE APPRECIATED.** ======================================================= Ms. Laura Buttner Chief Editorial Assistant, Journal of Climate School of Earth and Ocean Sciences University of Victoria PO Box 3055, Victoria, BC V8W 3P6 Canada Phone: +1 250 472 4005 Fax: +1 250 472 4004 jclim@uvic.ca 920. 2006-04-13 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , Phil Jones date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 08:56:00 -0400 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Re: PAGES/CLIVAR workshop - scientific program! to: Christoph Kull , Heinz Wanner Hi Christoph, Hi Christoph, Unfortunately, there is still a problem here. There might have been some miscommunication, the title of my "theme" isn't quite right. It should be: 1) Spatial patterns of past climate change, a global/large-scale view. The current title for "1" is way too restrictive, and almost none of our participates would fall under the theme "1" as you currently word it. Thanks in advance for sending out a revised email w/ the corrected title, Mike Christoph Kull wrote: >Dear all, >Time is running and I quickly would like to inform you on the scientific >program of the Wengen Workshop and some related duties... >As already announced, the scientific organizing committee decided to focus >on the listed four major themes (below), guided by Mike, Phil, Keith and >Heinz. We would like to stimulate discussions on important scientific >aspects and problems with brief (!) contributions, presented by the >participants and followed by extended discussions. >Following the presentations, it is planned that the working groups prepare >short synthesis and outlook paragraphs. Those will be discussed in the >plenum and will be used for a first draft of the planned follow-up peer >review publication of the whole group. > >Themes: >1) Methods of multiproxy reconstruction - a hemispheric/global view (Mike >Mann) >2) Forcing and modeling (Phil Jones) >3) Model/data comparison (Keith Briffa) >4) Spatial patterns of past climate change -a regional synoptic view (Heinz >Wanner) > >We now ask you to think of a topic for your short contribution and to assign >it to one of the above themes. Your contribution can be about your own >relevant results or can more generally discuss important issues you think >are blurred or not clearly understood yet. > >In order to stay focused and short, we limit the contributions to 4 slides. >This should result in oral presentations of max. 10 mins plus additional 5 >mins of immediate discussion. This allows to have short sessions with >extended discussion time afterwards. > >Please let me know a tentative title and your group preference at the latest >by May 15 - thanks a lot! > >all the best and greetings from Bern! >Cheers, >Christoph > > -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 3191. 2006-04-18 ______________________________________________________ cc: jto@u.arizona.edu, eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 16:26:27 -0400 from: Henry Pollack subject: IPCC FAR draft to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith (and Peck and Eystein), I have recently been sent the current draft of the IPCC FAR by the US Global Change Research Program, asking for comments on the draft. This is the first time I have seen this product since we were feverishly exchanging e-mails in February. Let me call to your attention some small but not insignificant corrections to be made to the next draft. Page 6-33, Section 6.6.1.2, line 22. The title of this section (in italics) should be changed to "What do ground surface temperature reconstructions derived from subsurface temperature measurements tell us?" Page 6-33, lines 49 and 52, there is a reference (Smerdon et al., in press). This paper has now been published, so substitute "2006" for "in press", and in the list of references the citation should include the following: J. Geophys. Res. 111, D07101, doi:10.1029/2004JD005578 Page 6-34, lines 43 and 44. This section is dealing with the southern hemisphere. The sentence "...these both indicate unusually warm conditions prevailing in the 20th century (Pollack and Smerdon, 2004)" , and the reference therein, are both incorrect. The ground surface temperature changes over the last 500 years DO NOT indicate unusually warm conditions prevailing in the 20th century in Australia and southern Africa. This is because the unusually warm conditions developed late in the century, after most of the boreholes had already been logged. What the borehole reconstruction for Australia does show is very good correspondence with the Cook et al (2000) reconstruction for Tasmania and the Cook et al. (2002) recon for New Zealand. The Australia work is described in a manuscript “Five centuries of Climate Change in Australia: The View from Underground” by Pollack, Huang and Smerdon now under review in the Journal of Quaternary Science. The Africa work is unpublished. Is this e-mail to you sufficient to activate these changes? Or should I submit these comments to the US Government Review Panel? If I am to submit to the latter, they require all comments to be filed by May 9. Cheers, Henry ___ ___ Henry N. Pollack [ \ / ] Professor of Geophysics | \/ | Department of Geological Sciences |MICHIGAN| University of Michigan [___]\/[___] Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1005, U.S.A. Phone: 734-763-0084 FAX: 734-763-4690 e-mail: hpollack@umich.edu URL: www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~hpollack/ URL: www-personal.umich.edu/~hpollack/book.html 3910. 2006-04-18 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 15:32:11 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: IPCC FAR draft to: Henry Pollack Hi Henry - thanks for the email. Just earlier today, Eystein and I were soliciting approval from our team on how to best get feedback from chapter authors - Lead Authors and Contributing Authors alike. Since we're all authors, it isn't appropriate to comment officially as expert reviewers, but rather to work as a team to take expert reviews - AND chapter 6 author feedback - and use them to create a better finalo draft. One key, as promised earlier, is to have a process that makes sure we get all comments and are able to respond to them. The other key is that we ensure time to allow the needed debate. Eystein and I are going to ask LAs (including Keith) to do there work sooner in the draft cycle than before so that we have the time for this. So... I would suggest you keep these comments in a safe place for a bit longer, and then send them in to the Eystein and I when we ask (should be in the next week). Note that the current draft has only officially been available for a bit over a week (indeed, I didn't see it until today since the IPCC TSU had to check for all sorts of things after we submitted it over a month ago), and we won't be working on the new draft until June. So we have time to be thoughtful and complete in the feedback gathering process. Is this ok? Seems more suitable than giving review via the gov process on your own work (you are an author of our chapter). Also, I can anticipate one thing that is going to come up again, and that I don't think we had your feedback on (nor Keith's). What about the borehole recons that you and colleagues have done extending back beyond the last couple centuries. I don't have my paper pdf collection here, but I believe you have some recons going back many centuries. Does this need more attention in the chapter? Thanks for being proactive and quick to send feedback. We'll be sending our email to all CA's soon, if you're willing to wait a couple more days. Thanks, peck >Hi Keith (and Peck and Eystein), > >I have recently been sent the current draft of the IPCC FAR by the US >Global Change Research Program, asking for comments on the draft. This >is the first time I have seen this product since we were feverishly >exchanging e-mails in February. Let me call to your attention some >small but not insignificant corrections to be made to the next draft. > >Page 6-33, Section 6.6.1.2, line 22. The title of this section (in >italics) should be changed to "What do ground surface temperature >reconstructions derived from subsurface temperature measurements tell >us?" > >Page 6-33, lines 49 and 52, there is a reference (Smerdon et al., in press). >This paper has now been published, so substitute "2006" for "in press", >and in the list of references the citation should include the following: > >J. Geophys. Res. 111, D07101, doi:10.1029/2004JD005578 > >Page 6-34, lines 43 and 44. This section is dealing with the southern >hemisphere. The sentence "...these both indicate unusually warm >conditions prevailing in the 20th century (Pollack and Smerdon, 2004)" >, and the reference therein, are both incorrect. > >The ground surface temperature changes over the last 500 years DO NOT >indicate unusually warm conditions prevailing in the 20th century in >Australia and southern Africa. This is because the unusually warm >conditions developed late in the century, after most of the boreholes >had already been logged. What the borehole reconstruction for >Australia does show is very good correspondence with the Cook et al >(2000) reconstruction for Tasmania and the Cook et al. (2002) recon for >New Zealand. The Australia work is described in a manuscript “Five >centuries of Climate Change in Australia: The View from Underground” by >Pollack, Huang and Smerdon now under review in the Journal of >Quaternary Science. The Africa work is unpublished. > >Is this e-mail to you sufficient to activate these changes? Or should I >submit these comments to the US Government Review Panel? If I am to >submit to the latter, they require all comments to be filed by May 9. > >Cheers, >Henry > > > ___ ___ Henry N. Pollack >[ \ / ] Professor of Geophysics > | \/ | Department of Geological Sciences > |MICHIGAN| University of Michigan >[___]\/[___] Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1005, U.S.A. > > Phone: 734-763-0084 FAX: 734-763-4690 > e-mail: hpollack@umich.edu > URL: www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~hpollack/ > URL: www-personal.umich.edu/~hpollack/book.html -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 4996. 2006-04-18 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Henry Pollack" , Eystein Jansen date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 15:38:25 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: IPCC FAR draft to: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk Hi Keith and Henry - since most (all but Henry?) would not be using the gov review system, and because the IPCC has a policy of not permitting authors (LA or CA) to be expert reviewers of their own chapter (makes sense when you think about it), I think the system that all CA's should be encouraged to use is the chapter 6 process which - unlike for the first order draft - will explicitly ask for comments for the second order draft. Keith - see my email sent earlier today asking for your input on how we'll do this. If Henry wants to submit via the gov process, no harm done, but it would be good to get the comments in our process too. Main thing is that we (Keith and team) deal with them. best, peck >Hi Henry (and Peck) >can not respond in detail as away from my main computer for as couple of >days - suggest best to submit comments directly to make sure they are in >the system and we can reconsider and deal later. Cheers >Keith > > >> Hi Keith (and Peck and Eystein), >> >> I have recently been sent the current draft of the IPCC FAR by the US >> Global Change Research Program, asking for comments on the draft. This >> is the first time I have seen this product since we were feverishly >> exchanging e-mails in February. Let me call to your attention some >> small but not insignificant corrections to be made to the next draft. >> >> Page 6-33, Section 6.6.1.2, line 22. The title of this section (in >> italics) should be changed to "What do ground surface temperature >> reconstructions derived from subsurface temperature measurements tell >> us?" >> >> Page 6-33, lines 49 and 52, there is a reference (Smerdon et al., in >> press). >> This paper has now been published, so substitute "2006" for "in press", >> and in the list of references the citation should include the following: >> >> J. Geophys. Res. 111, D07101, doi:10.1029/2004JD005578 >> >> Page 6-34, lines 43 and 44. This section is dealing with the southern >> hemisphere. The sentence "...these both indicate unusually warm >> conditions prevailing in the 20th century (Pollack and Smerdon, 2004)" >> , and the reference therein, are both incorrect. >> >> The ground surface temperature changes over the last 500 years DO NOT >> indicate unusually warm conditions prevailing in the 20th century in >> Australia and southern Africa. This is because the unusually warm >> conditions developed late in the century, after most of the boreholes >> had already been logged. What the borehole reconstruction for >> Australia does show is very good correspondence with the Cook et al >> (2000) reconstruction for Tasmania and the Cook et al. (2002) recon for >> New Zealand. The Australia work is described in a manuscript “Five >> centuries of Climate Change in Australia: The View from Underground” by >> Pollack, Huang and Smerdon now under review in the Journal of >> Quaternary Science. The Africa work is unpublished. >> >> Is this e-mail to you sufficient to activate these changes? Or should I >> submit these comments to the US Government Review Panel? If I am to >> submit to the latter, they require all comments to be filed by May 9. >> >> Cheers, >> Henry >> >> >> ___ ___ Henry N. Pollack >> [ \ / ] Professor of Geophysics >> | \/ | Department of Geological Sciences >> |MICHIGAN| University of Michigan >> [___]\/[___] Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1005, U.S.A. >> >> Phone: 734-763-0084 FAX: 734-763-4690 >> e-mail: hpollack@umich.edu >> URL: www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~hpollack/ >> URL: www-personal.umich.edu/~hpollack/book.html >> >> >> >> >> -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 2441. 2006-04-19 ______________________________________________________ cc: wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 08:43:52 +0200 from: Fortunat Joos subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Chapter 6 Contributing authors plus other to: Jonathan Overpeck Hi Peck and Eystein, Bergen Hotels are reserved from Saturday to Saturday. > 4) we need to be more proactive in letting our CA's see the Chap 6 SOD, > and soliciting comments. Since the CA's can serve as expert reviewers on > the chapter they authored, we propose that we (Eystein and Peck) send > the attached versions to each CA with a note that we want them to have a > SOD copy to check, and that we'd appreciate any comments by the first of > June. We will ask that all comments be organized major section by > section, so that we can then get the chap. 6 LA responsible for each > major section the comments. Does anyone think this is a bad plan, or a > plan that could be improved? Obviously, we have to say we're sorry for > not listing all the CAs on the SOD, but that this will be fixed. In > order to make sure we don't make the situation worse, PLEASE SEND me the > name AND email of each CA, so we can ensure our master list is what > Øyvind and the TSU have. In our email to CA's, we will also list all of > these. > I think it is an excellent idea to invite all the contributors to the review process and thank them for their contribution they have made so far. However, the suggested plan is very difficult as it bypass the official review process and the Review Editors. This has the potential to cause a lot of trouble with some that do not like IPCC as we do. We need to be very careful on procedural grounds. I suggest that you check with Susan on this point, but to me it seems mandatory that comments are sent through the official web page. It might be preferable if the CA get a mail that points out their important role so far in the process and pointing them to the IPCC reviewer's page. As an extra service, one could think of attaching the pdf (or the word document) of our chapter and the exceel review sheet, but making it very clear that the comments have to be send to IPCC and not to chap 6. Here the list of Contributing Authors from my side: Katsumi Matsumoto helped with glacial CO2 Raimund Muscheler helped with solar Eric Monnin monnin@climate.unibe.ch Renato Spahni spahni@climate.unibe.ch helped with the ice core data synchronisation EMICS last millennium modellers: Gian-Kasper Plattner Anders Leverman levermann@pik-potsdam.de Eva Bauer bauer@pik-potsdam.de There are also people that have provided some data or other 'minor' things during the process. I believe that it would be very useful to contact these, although they will not be listed as contributing authors. In particular one should mention that they have contributed to the development of the SOD and previous drafts and that the chapter 6 team wants to thank them. Have provided their published sulfate data: Hubertus Fischer Mathias Bigler bigler@gfy.ku.dk Emilian Castellano emiliano.castellano@unifi.it Eric Wolf EWWO@bas.ac.uk Roberto Udisti roberto.udisti@unifi.it Margrit Schwikowski margit.schwikowski@psi.ch Dan Murphy Daniel.M.Murphy@noaa.gov Have provided published GHG data: David.Etheridge@csiro.au provided published solar forcing data judith Lean jlean@ssd5.nrl.navy.mil provided N-isotope temperature and sediment data for abrupt event figure: Markus Leuenberger mleu@climate.unibe.ch Trond Dokken Trond.Dokken@bjerknes.uib.no Provided some help with abrupt event figure Thomas Blunier tblunier@climate.unibe.ch 5) what about LA's reviewing our own chapter? Since we can't expert > review our chapter, we propose that each chap 6 LA do the same as we are > requesting of the CA's. Although most of you have already commented all > you wanted to on the SOD, there may be some issues you want to make sure > we don't forget about as we start to deal with the next/last draft of > the chapter. Is this plan a good one? This sounds good. > > Ok, that's plenty for today. Again, thanks for working to free up time > this summer (and likely early fall) for the next draft - we are close to > a truly ground-breaking document, and we want to make sure the next > draft is flawless. > > Best, Peck and Eystein > > > >> Hi Fortunat, this must be an error inflicted in the final stages of >> the SOD. All FOD CAs should have been listed also in the SOD. We will >> ensure this is redone for the final version. >> >> Best wishes, >> Eystein >> >> >> At 08:58 +0200 18-04-06, Fortunat Joos wrote: >> >>> Hi Peck and Eystein, >>> >>> Any idea why some listed as CA for the FOD are not listed anymore as >>> contributing authors in the SOD? >>> >>> This creates awkward situations as some have indicated to the >>> outside world job interviews, NSF proposals) that they serve(d) as >>> contributing author. >>> >>> My suggestion is to include all in the final list of contributing >>> authors that have contributed to the FOD or SOD. >>> >>> Cheers, Fortunat >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Climate and Environmental Physics, >>> Physics Institute, University of Bern >>> Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern >>> Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 >>> Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ >> >> >> >> -- >> ______________________________________________________________ >> Eystein Jansen >> Professor/Director >> Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and >> Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen >> Allégaten 55 >> N-5007 Bergen >> NORWAY >> e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no >> Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 >> Fax: +47-55-584330 > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list > Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu > http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 -- Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 5207. 2006-04-19 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:01:02 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Update on review of IPCC SOD to: Henry Pollack Hi Henry - just got an update, and it looks like we WILL be able to ask all CA's (i.e., you) to be official expert reviewers of our Chap 6 SOD. You'll be getting an invite from the TSU (HQ) soon. Thanks in advance for your time on this important task. Best, peck >Hi Keith (and Peck and Eystein), > >I have recently been sent the current draft of the IPCC FAR by the US >Global Change Research Program, asking for comments on the draft. This >is the first time I have seen this product since we were feverishly >exchanging e-mails in February. Let me call to your attention some >small but not insignificant corrections to be made to the next draft. > >Page 6-33, Section 6.6.1.2, line 22. The title of this section (in >italics) should be changed to "What do ground surface temperature >reconstructions derived from subsurface temperature measurements tell >us?" > >Page 6-33, lines 49 and 52, there is a reference (Smerdon et al., in press). >This paper has now been published, so substitute "2006" for "in press", >and in the list of references the citation should include the following: > >J. Geophys. Res. 111, D07101, doi:10.1029/2004JD005578 > >Page 6-34, lines 43 and 44. This section is dealing with the southern >hemisphere. The sentence "...these both indicate unusually warm >conditions prevailing in the 20th century (Pollack and Smerdon, 2004)" >, and the reference therein, are both incorrect. > >The ground surface temperature changes over the last 500 years DO NOT >indicate unusually warm conditions prevailing in the 20th century in >Australia and southern Africa. This is because the unusually warm >conditions developed late in the century, after most of the boreholes >had already been logged. What the borehole reconstruction for >Australia does show is very good correspondence with the Cook et al >(2000) reconstruction for Tasmania and the Cook et al. (2002) recon for >New Zealand. The Australia work is described in a manuscript “Five >centuries of Climate Change in Australia: The View from Underground” by >Pollack, Huang and Smerdon now under review in the Journal of >Quaternary Science. The Africa work is unpublished. > >Is this e-mail to you sufficient to activate these changes? Or should I >submit these comments to the US Government Review Panel? If I am to >submit to the latter, they require all comments to be filed by May 9. > >Cheers, >Henry > > > ___ ___ Henry N. Pollack >[ \ / ] Professor of Geophysics > | \/ | Department of Geological Sciences > |MICHIGAN| University of Michigan >[___]\/[___] Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1005, U.S.A. > > Phone: 734-763-0084 FAX: 734-763-4690 > e-mail: hpollack@umich.edu > URL: www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~hpollack/ > URL: www-personal.umich.edu/~hpollack/book.html -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 2758. 2006-04-21 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:01:44 +0100 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: Re: Request for advice: Climate change publishing proposal to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:20:41 +0100 To: SPidgeon@wiley.com From: Phil Jones Subject: Re: Request for advice: Climate change publishing proposal Dear Sean, Here are a few quick thoughts from over the Easter break. Most climatologists would say that there are too many journals. An issue with your new one is that there is one called Climate Change published now by Springer (was Kluwer). Maybe there is a slightly different emphasis, but it doesn't appear that different. I probably wouldn't find the journal that useful. I don't do much teaching and have no say on what the UEA library buys. If I suggest anything, I then am asked to say what shouldn't be bought. The 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC will be published early in 2007. Some thoughts on your text: 1. Even 1.5 deg C by 2100 is 2.5 times the change in the 20th century, so if quite a large change. 2. No idea what the 4th bullet point in section 3 means. I understand all the words, but not together. The IPCC process is very demanding for the 100's of scientists involved. I'm not sure many of the good people will have the time to write the numbers of papers you are envisaging. Cheers Phil At 14:26 13/04/2006, you wrote: Dear Dr Jones: I am writing to you in my capacity as Editorial Director in the science publishing division at John Wiley & Sons. I wonder if you would be so kind as to let me have your thoughts on the attached proposal for a new scholarly publication in the field of climate change. In return, I will be happy to offer you free books to the value of $100 from the Wiley list (see [1]www.wiley.com). In particular, I am interested in your answers to the following questions: 1. Do you support the need for a publication of this type? 2. Do you think the proposed structure is appropriate? Would you modify it in any way? 3. Are there key topics that do not seem to be captured in the proposal? 4. Would you, personally, find this publication useful in your work? 5. Would you encourage your institution's library to purchase it, and would you recommend the online or the print version? 6. Would you recommend it to your students, and would it be helpful as supporting material in any courses that you teach? 7. Any other thoughts on the proposal? 8. Would you be interested in participating in this project? 9. Can you suggest other reviewers to whom I should send the proposal? Many thanks in advance for your help. Kind regards, Sean Pidgeon Editorial Director Major Reference Works John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, MS 8-02 Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774 phone: 201 748 5815 fax: 201 748 6825 e-mail: spidgeon@wiley.com 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1755. 2006-04-24 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:03:56 +0100 from: Michael Hughes subject: HOLIVAR2006 Abstracts - Theme 3 to: Keith Briffa , zoli@uni-bremen.de, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Can you please try and return any comments to me by end Wednesday 26th April? If you have no comments please reply anyway so I know you've got this email. Cheers Mike Dear Theme Leader / Poster Presenter All the HOLIVAR2006 abstracts are now in. Attached is a Word document containing abstracts for this theme - a summary of theme, poster codes, titles and authors are given below. There are 30 abstracts in this theme. These abstracts are currently being edited - you do not need to edit them. Keith & Bernd - please look at the poster titles and check that they are in the appropriate theme. Please notify using reply-all to this email of any suggested changes. Tim - if you wish to obtain figures or graphics for a particular poster that you wish to highlight in the poster introduction please contact the first author using their email addresses contained within the abstract. Please note that you might want to assemble a small powerpoint presentation to introduce the posters and highlight any outstanding work. ALL abstracts can be found here: http://www.holivar2006.org/abstracts/viewabstract.php Regards, Michael Hughes m.hughes@ucl.ac.uk -- Environmental Change Research Centre University College London Pearson Building, Gower Street London, WC1E 6BT, UK Tel +44 (0)20 7679 0546 Fax +44 (0)20 7679 0565 http://www.ecrc.ucl.ac.uk Theme 3 Climate Variability in the Last 2000 Years This theme is concerned with the assembly and integration of many types of continuous palaeoclimate records covering the last 2000 years that are absolutely dated and can be calibrated against instrumental climate records and compared directly with models. Keynote Talks in this theme: Michael E. Mann - Reconstructions of climate over the past two millennia Hugues Goosse - Simulating the climate of the last two millennia: the role of internal and forced variability ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T3-001 (24) Reconstructing past temperature variations: mathematical grounds and some results. D.M. Sonechkin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T3-002 (26) The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in Gulf of Mexico sediments. Julie N. Richey, Richard Z. Poore, Benjamin P. Flower and Terrence M. Quinn ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T3-003 (32) A 800-year record of summer temperature in northern Fennoscandia inferred from sedimentary diatoms. A. Korhola, J. Weckström, P. Erästö and L. Holmström ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T3-004 (35) Little Ice Age sand invasion of the Ho Bugt salt marshes in western Denmark during low relative sea level. Katie Szkornik, Roland Gehrels and Andrew Murray ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T3-005 (38) Simultaneous or sucked-in? Testing the timing of radiocarbon-dated climate events between sites. Maarten Blaauw, J Andrés Christen, Dmitri Mauquoy, Bas van Geel and Johannes van der Plicht ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T3-006 (40) Late Holocene climate change in Estonia based on pollen and loss-on-ignition data from two annually laminated lakes. A. Poska, H, Seppä, L. Saarse, S. Veski and E. Niinemets ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T3-007 (42) Climate change or human induced environmental degradation? A multi-proxy reconstruction of Late Holocene environmental variability in western Uganda. Julius B. Lejju ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T3-008 (46) A 1000-year climate history from an Alpine ice core? Michael Sigl, David Bolius, Theo Jenk, Margit Schwikowski and Heinz W. Gäggeler, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T3-009 (52) Diatom responses to 20th century climate warming in lakes from the northern Urals, Russia. Nadia Solovieva, Vivienne Jones, John H.B. Birks and Peter Appleby ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T3-010 (55) Proxy Indicated Humid LIA Climate in the Arid China. Jianhui Chen, Fa-hu Chen, Bao Yang and Xiaozhong Huang ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T3-011 (60) Mediterranean climate palaeoreconstruction in the last 2000 years: Zoñar Lake, Southern Spain. Martín-Puertas, C., Valero-Garcés, B.L., Mata Campo, M.P., Moreno-Caballud, A., González-Sampériz, P. and González-Barrios, A.J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T3-012 (64) Climatic variability in arid central Asia over the last 2000 years documented by Bosten Lake, China. Xiao-zhong Huang, Fa-hu Chen, Jonathan A Holmes, Jia-wu Zhang and Jian-hui Chen ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T3-013 (65) A wet phase in the South Peruvian coastal desert (14°30’ S) during the Little Ice Age period. Unkel, Ingmar, Kromer, B., Wagner, G.A., Eitel, B. and Wacker, L. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T3-014 (67) Multi-proxy reconstruction of Holocene environmental changes at Lake Vuolep Njakajaure (Abisko National Park, northern Sweden). Christian Bigler, Lena Barnekow, Markus L. Heinrichs, Peter Rosén, Jan Karlsson, Roland I. Hall, and Ingemar Renberg ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T3-015 (73) 1000 years of climate variability in central Asia: assessing the evidence using Lake Baikal (Russia) diatom assemblages and the application of a diatom-inferred model of snow cover on the lake. Anson W. Mackay, Ryves, D.B., Battarbee, R.W., Flower, R.J., Jewson, D., Rioual, P. and Sturm, M. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T3-016 (75) Climatic changes in Subarctic Eurasia based on millennial tree-ring chronologies. O.V. Sidorova, M.M. Naurzbaev and E.A. Vaganov ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T3-017 (83) Alkenone SST record of increased northwest African upwelling during the 20th century. H. V. McGregor, M. Dima, S. Mulitza and H.W. Fischer ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T3-019 (92) Ice in caves: a valuable tool for Holocene palaeoclimatic reconstructions. A. Per&#;oiu, B.P. Onac, Z. Kern and I. Forizs ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T3-020 (95) Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) and Little Ice Age Type Events (LIATES) in the South-Central Andes of Chile. L. von Gunten, C. Salvetti and M. Grosjean ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T3-021 (96) Regional multi-proxy climate reconstruction based on tree-rings, ice cores, lake sediments and peat profiles: a calibration exercise. C. Kamenik, B. Ammann, C. Bigler, A. Blass, A.L. Carnelli, J. Esper, M. Grosjean, T.M. Jenk, I. Larocque,0, R. Niederer, N. Riedwyl, R. Schreier, M. Schwikowski, and H. Wanner, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T3-022 (101) Recent effects of climate forcing on Lake Malawi surface temperatures: A possible shift in tropical climate response. Powers, L.A., T.C. Johnson, J.P. Werne, I.S. Castañeda, E.C. Hopmans, J.S. Sinninghe Damsté and S. Schouten ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T3-023 (104) Environmental change in western Uganda during the last 1200 years from multiproxy palaeolimnological archives. Keely Mills and David Ryves ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T3-024 (109) Late Holocene environmental changes derived from peat multi-proxy data in Männikjärve bog (Estonia) with possible indications for climate change. Ãœ. Sillasoo, E. Karofeld, D. Mauquoy, A. Blundell, D. Charman, M. Blaauw, J.R.G. Daniell, P. Toms, J. Newberry and F.M. Chambers ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T3-025 (116) Fennoscandian Summer temperatures since AD 442 reconstructed from a tree-ring network. Hans W. Linderholm, Anders Moberg, Isabelle Gouriand, Deliang Chen and Barbara Wolfarth ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T3-026 (123) Variations in near-bottom flow speeds of Iceland-Scotland Overflow Water during the last two centuries. Karin P. Boessenkool, Ian R. Hall and H. Elderfield ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T3-027 (128) Stability of the arctic oscillation-temperature signal over the last millennium. Julie M. Jones and Martin Widmann ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T3-029 (135) Oxygen isotope ratios of water and biogenic silica in a remote mountain lake: on the importance of seasonality in palaeoclimate interpretation. Jonathan J. Tyler, Melanie J. Leng, Vivienne J. Jones, Richard W. Battarbee, Hilary Sloane and Carol Arrowsmith ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T3-030 (139) Interpreting Paleoydrologic and Plaeoclimatic Conditions on Sub-Tropical North America During the Late Holocene Through the Comparison of Speleothem and Lake Geochemical Proxy Records. D. J. Hollander, L. Soto, J. Polk, P. Van Beynen and K. Maasch ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T3-031 (153) Greenland Climate over the past 2000 years as seen from ice cores. Katrine Krogh Andersen, Marie-Louise Siggaard-Andersen, Bo M. Vinther, Sune O. Rasmussen, Peter D. Ditlevsen, Sigfus Johnsen and Henrik B. Clausen ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T3-032 (155) Invasion of anthropogenic CO2 recorded in stable isotopes of planktonic foraminifera from the northern Gulf of Aqaba, Red Sea. Saber Al-Rousan, Jürgen Pätzold, Salim Al-Moghrabi and Gerold Wefer 4245. 2006-04-24 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 22:28:11 +0100 (BST) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: [Fwd: Weekend activity by climate change deniers] to: c.goodess@uea.ac.uk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk Clare, Maybe mention that Carter admits here he's not a climate expert. He didn't say that on R4 on Friday. Phil ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Weekend activity by climate change deniers From: "Ward, Bob" Date: Mon, April 24, 2006 12:43 pm To: "Ward, Bob" "Mitchell, John FB \(Chief Scientist\)" Tim.Palmer@ecmwf.int "john mitchell" john.houghton@jri.org.uk "Alam, Tanzeed" "Garthwaite, Rachel" "Heap, Richard" "Quinn, Rachel" "Windebank, Sue" "Pope, Vicky" "Phil Jones" "Kingston, Clare" -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am forwarding Bob Carter's responses below to some points I put to him last Friday after his interview on the 'Today' programme (thanks again to Phil Jones for agreeing to go head-to-head with Carter). I would be grateful for views on whether it is worth responding to any of these points, or whether we should just note them to prepare for any further encounters in the future. Carter was also a signatory to a joint letter published in 'The Sunday Telegraph' at the weekend, which criticised the President of the Royal Society for describing the evidence of man's contribution to climate change as "compelling". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?menuId=1593&menuItemId=-1&view=DISPLAYCONTENT&grid=P8&targetRule=0 You will see that most of the signatories also signed the open letter to the Canadian Prime Minister that was published in the 'Financial Post' a few weeks ago, calling on him to reject Canada's Kyoto targets. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605 Many of them are also members of the 'Friends of Science' pressure group that was set up a couple of years ago to oppose Canada's Kyoto commitments. David Adam, the environment correspondent for 'The Guardian', spoke to a representative for them last week - he denied that they ahd organised the letter to the Canadian PM, although they had helped to collect signatures. They also admitted that they receive funding from the Canadian oil industry, a fact that is conspicuously not mentioned on their website. They produced a slick DVD about their views which was distributed a few weeks ago to the Canadian media (and some in the UK as well) by one of Canada's leading PR companies. http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=2 Bob Ward Senior Manager Policy Communication Royal Society 6-9 Carlton House Terrace London SW1Y 5AG Tel: +44 (0) 20 7451 2516 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7451 2615 Mobile: +44 (0) 7811 320346 -----Original Message----- From: Bob Carter [mailto:bob.carter@jcu.edu.au] Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 00:31 To: Ward, Bob Subject: Global warming Dear Mr Ward, Thank you for writing again. Here are my answers to your questions. Q1. As I understand it, you believe that the overall annual trend of global average temperate will not continue upwards over the next few years. A1. I neither disbelieve it nor believe it: que sera, sera. ----------------------------------------------------------- Reading the tea leaves, however, (a) all deterministic models say that temperature should start increasing again: but then they would say that, wouldn't they?; and (b) other, empirical and Lorenzian, computer models say that temperature will go down; (c) a glance at the decadal-scale patterning exhibited by the ancient climate record also suggests that temperature is due to cycle down. Q2. I was a bit surprised that you didn't mention in your article that 1998 was the warmest year since records began in 1861 and that it was an El Nino year. ------------------------------------------------------------ A1. I didn't mention it because it is not relevant to the factual statement I make, and question I pose. Which is: global average temperature has not increased in the 7 years since 1998, yet anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have continued their growth. How come? Q3. Do you really not think that the fact that 2005 was the second warmest year on record and that eight of the ten warmest years have occurred since 1995 suggest that the warming trend has continued ..... ----------------------------------------------------------- A3. These facts - which to my astonishment are endlessly repeated as a mantra in the press - are simply irrelevant. Given that the late 20th century warming trend at the moment appears to mark the culmination of recovery from the Little Ice Age, of course "8/10 of the warmest years" will cluster around the turnaround point. And this is supposed to be an argument for AGW? Q4. ..... and that a new record is likely to be set during the next El Nino year, if not before? ------------------------------------------------------------ That depends on all sorts of factors that neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can foresee. It largely hinges upon whether 1998 really was the culmination of the post-LIA warming. If not, then one can expect a slightly higher temperature to register during one or another forthcoming El Nino. Q5. During your interview, you appeared to accept that global average temperature increased by 0.6 centigrade degrees during the 20th century and that concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been increasing since the Industrial Revolution due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. However, you do not believe that the rise in carbon dioxide has been a major cause of the rise in temperature which you think is due almost entirely to natural factors. Is that an accurate summary of your views? ------------------------------------------------------------ A5. Yes, though of course with caveats. One of which is that even the best extended global temperature curves based on direct measurements (CRU, GISS) are known to be biased and in conflict with one another (this is not a criticism of their authors, whose herculean efforts I admire, but a statement of fact), i.e. we do not know how accurate is the estimate of a 0.6C rise during the 20th century. But, for the purposes of discussion, it is the best estimate that we have. And yes, I do not know of any substantial evidence that the rise in human emissions was the prime cause of 20th century temperature changes, including that overall rise: indeed, the opposite conclusion seems more probable, which is that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have no measurable effect (and please note that that doesn't mean "no effect"). Q6. I was also surprised to hear you be so scathing in your interview about computer simulations of climate trends (or "computer games" as you described it). ----------------------------------------------------------- A6. Not being expert in this area, I rely upon advice from those who are. They tell me (i) that none of the major GCMs are validated, and (ii) neither do they have any forecasting skill, (iii) that is precisely why they are termed "scenarios", and (iv) therefore, it is quite improper to use them in the public domain - as for instance Sir David King does - as if they were predictions. In Australia (we're a large country) the situation is worsened by continual use of models to make regional climate "predictions", which are then endlessly trumpeted by GW evangelists and the press. Not one modelling expert that I know of believes that there is any useful predictive value in regional climate models. Q7. Do you really reject the computer simulations of the recent past climate, reviewed for instance by Jones and Mann (Reviews of Geophysics, volume 42, 2004) which apear to show that the recent warming can only be explained by a combination of natural factors and the rise in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activities? They appear to show good agreement with the instrumental record and proxy data and appear to be based on fairly robust methodologies. ------------------------------------------------------------ A7. Such papers are simply exercises in technologically advanced, but scientifically naive, curve-fitting. Of course the model hindcasts agree with the empirical data; years of tinkering by some very intelligent people have gone into making them fit! Those who maintain that they understand enough about the physics of climate change to specify it all in a model exhibit astonishing hubris. They also reveal a lack of imagination regarding the many factors and feedbacks that effect climate that are not included in their models - some for the very good reason that they haven't been discovered yet. Q8. Are there any model results that you think are more accurate? ----------------------------------------------------------- A8. So far as I know, no-one has any reason to choose one GCM as superior to another. Though all serve a strong heuristic value (which is exactly why they are appropriately described as "games"), they are simply not appropriate for use as predictors of the real world. Many of their devotees are living in an imaginary world of virtual reality. As well summed up by Richard Lindzen: " "The GCM models are just experimental tools, and now these tools are (being) forced to make predictions that they are not able to ..... There is nothing wrong with the GCM modellers, they do the best job they are able to. The problem is that too many people believe in the unreliable predictions. The problem is thus not scientific, it is political." I hope these comments help lessen your puzzlement a bit. My own puzzlement has less to do with the intricacies of the science, challenging and important though they are. Rather, I am puzzled as to why the Royal Society - of all bodies - chooses to take a public stance of advocacy on behalf of the AGW cause. Kind regards. Professor R.M. Carter Marine Geophysical Laboratory James Cook University Townsville, Qld. 4811 AUSTRALIA Phone: +61-7-4781-4397 Fax:   +61-7-4781-4334 Home:  +61-7-4775-1268 Mobile: 0419-701-139 Web home page: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/ ---- Original message ---- >Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 18:32:19 +0100 >From: "Ward, Bob" >Subject: RE: Request for reprint >To: "Bob Carter" > >Dear Professor Carter, > >Many thanks for sending me this information. > >I am still a bit puzzled by a few things contained in your article and mentioned during your interview this morning on BBC radio. > >As I understand it, you believe that the overall annual trend of global average temperate will not continue upwards over the next few years. I was a bit surprised that you didn't mention in your article that 1998 was the warmest year since records began in 1861 and that it was an El Nino year. Do you really not think that the fact that 2005 was the second warmest year on record and that eight of the ten warmest years have occurred since 1995 suggest that the warming trend has continued, and that a new record is likely to be set during the next El Nino year, if not before? > >During your interview, you appeared to accept that global average temperature increased by 0.6 centigrade degrees during the 20th century and that concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been increasing since the Industrial Revolution due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. However, you do not believe that the rise in carbon dioxide has been a major cause of the rise in temperature which you think is due almost entirely to natural factors. Is that an accurate summary of your views? > >I was also surprised to hear you be so scathing in your interview about computer simulations of climate trends (or "computer games" as you described it). Do you really reject the computer simulations of the recent past climate, reviewed for instance by Jones and Mann (Reviews of Geophysics, volume 42, 2004) which apear to show that the recent warming can only be explained by a combination of natural factors and the rise in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activities? They appear to show good agreement with the instrumental record and proxy data and appear to be based on fairly robust methodologies. Are there any model results that you think are more accurate? > >Best wishes, > >Bob Ward >Senior Manager >Policy Communication >Royal Society >6-9 Carlton House Terrace >London >SW1Y 5AG > >Tel: +44 (0) 20 7451 2516 >Fax: +44 (0) 20 7451 2615 >Mobile: +44 (0) 7811 320346 > >-----Original Message----- >From: Bob Carter [mailto:bob.carter@jcu.edu.au] >Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 20:19 >To: Ward, Bob >Subject: Re: Request for reprint > > >Dear Mr Ward, > >Thank you for your interest in my recent Opinion piece in the Telegraph. > >Of course, the piece was not based upon my own original research but rather on generally known and long-established public material. To the best of my knowledge, none of the factual information given is new or (in contrast to the opinions) controversial. > >Other opinion pieces that I have written, similarly based on widely known material, are posted at: > >http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_1.htm > >My professional interest is not in modern climate change per se, but in the stratigraphic interpretation of ancient environments and climates. You can find reprints of various papers at: > >http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_4.htm > >and pdf's of the more recent ones are available there for downloading. Should you wish for a copy of any of my earlier publications, just let me know and I shall gladly send one. > >Thanks again for writing. > >Kind regards, > > >Bob Carter > >Professor R.M. Carter >Marine Geophysical Laboratory >James Cook University >Townsville, Qld. 4811 >AUSTRALIA > >Phone: +61-7-4781-4397 >Fax:   +61-7-4781-4334 >Home:  +61-7-4775-1268 >Mobile: 0419-701-139 > >Web home page: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/ > > >---- Original message ---- >>Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:19:30 +0100 >>From: "Ward, Bob" >>Subject: Request for reprint >>To: >> >> Dear Professor Carter, >> >> I was interested to read your recent article in 'The >> Sunday Telegraph' here in the UK. You presented a >> number of interesting points, although of course >> your conclusions are greatly at odds with those of >> the majority of climate researchers. I was wondering >> whether you had produced any journal papers that set >> out your views in greater detail which you could >> kindly send to me? >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Bob Ward >> Senior Manager >> Policy Communication >> Royal Society >> 6-9 Carlton House Terrace >> London >> SW1Y 5AG >> >> Tel: +44 (0) 20 7451 2516 >> Fax: +44 (0) 20 7451 2615 >> Mobile: +44 (0) 7811 320346 >> >> ****************************************************************************** >> The information contained in this e-mail is >> confidential and may also be subject to legal >> privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) >> named above. If you are not named above as a >> recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, >> forward or otherwise use the information contained >> in this e-mail. 1193. 2006-04-26 ______________________________________________________ cc: Jonathan Gregory , Keith Briffa ,s.raper@mmu.ac.uk, simon.tett@metoffice.gov.uk date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 15:25:40 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Erik Sea Level curve (fwd) to: "Lowe, Jason" Further to the problems with drift in both the ECHO-G ocean temperatures and the near-surface air temperature in regions of accumulating snow, and given the shortage of remaining SOAP time, I propose to drop analysis of ECHO-G sea level as unlikely to produce useful results. I will talk to the ECHO-G groups about this, but as none were down on the list to do any sea level work anyway, I doubt that they will mind. Is that ok with you? Cheers Tim 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 439. 2006-04-28 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 16:14:10 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: Standardization uncertainty for tree-ring series to: Keith Briffa ,Tom Melvin Tom, copied below is an email from Philip Brohan that describes his ideas about quantifying uncertainty. Keith and I probably need to talk with you about some specific issues (i.e., what type of RCS), but I thought I'd forward the basic plan anyway so that you can think about the logistics of doing it. If you calculated the RCS curve and then *subsequently* did a bootstrap calculation (where you sample with replacement, as described below) using the standardized indices to develop regional chronologies, then you would probably get a similar uncertainty to what you already obtained using the standard deviation of the individual core values. But the difference here is that the bootstrapping is done *prior* to the creation of the RCS curves, and thus the RCS curves will be different for each bootstrap iteration. The idea being that this will help to quantify uncertainty in the RCS curves themselves, and how this carries over into chronology uncertainty. What do you think, both about whether this really will quantify RCS uncertainty, and whether this is easy to implement? Cheers Tim At 16:02 26/04/2006, philip.brohan@metoffice.gov.uk wrote: >Keith, Tim. > > At our meeting last Wednesday I agreed to specify exactly what needed >to be done to make uncertainty estimates for standardisation of the >tree-ring data. > > Suppose we are making a proxy series from n cores. From those n cores >we can make an RCS age correction curve, and a mean proxy series (the >average of the cores after applying the age correction curve to each >one?). These are the best-estimate values for the age-correction curve >and the proxy series. > > We also need bootstrap estimates of the age correction curve and the >mean proxy series. To make a bootstrap estimate: sample, with >replacement, from the n cores until you have a set of n samples. (Some >of the cores will be in this sample once, some several times, and some >not at all). From this set of n samples, make an age correction curve >and a mean proxy series as before. These are the bootstrap estimates. > > We need a lot of bootstrap estimates. I'd like 1000 - 100 will probably >do at a pinch. So please can you make these and send me the 1001 age >correction curves and 1001 mean proxy series. > > I will do something similar with the instrumental series, and we can >then make bootstrap estimates of the regression uncertainty and the >uncertainty in the reconstructed temperatures. > >Cheers, > > Philip > >-- >Philip Brohan, Climate Scientist >Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research >Tel: +44 (0)1392 884574 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 >Global climate data sets are available from http://www.hadobs.org 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 1710. 2006-04-28 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Apr 28 17:04:18 2006 from: Tim Osborn subject: Fwd: Re: Ruherford et al 2005 to: Keith Briffa And here's a separate email from McIntyre. I'm not sure that we can tell Science that we do *not* want to issue a correction to our paper and at the same time tell McIntyre that he cannot make public the fact that we used CRUTEM2v rather than HadCRUT2 as I stated in the online supplement. Perhaps we should wait and see if Science are happy with us not issuing a correction; if they are happy with this, then I guess McIntyre should be allowed to make public our response, even though he will no doubt gloat and make hay with it. Cheers Tim From: "Steve McIntyre" To: "Tim Osborn" Subject: Re: Ruherford et al 2005 Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:47:13 -0400 Dear Tim, Since the network had been published in a number of different articles, I presumed that the identification of the sites would not be an onerous task. I originally requested this information from Schweingruber in 2004, so it's not a new request. Science has forwarded your response, but said that this information should not be made public without going back to you. I can't think why you would object, but for the record, could you confirm that the information may be distributed. Thanks, Steve McIntyre ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Osborn" To: "Steve McIntyre" Cc: "Andrew Weaver" ; "Keith Briffa" Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 10:08 AM Subject: Re: Ruherford et al 2005 > Dear Steve, > > I have just finished responding to Science about your latest request > to them concerning our recent paper, so I can now turn to your > request copied below. > > I can answer your first request immediately: > > The MXD data used in Rutherford et al. were *derived* from the > Schweingruber network, but aren't actually the raw site-by-site data > values. The reason why we didn't use the latter is that the > site-by-site MXD chronologies have only been processed using a > "traditional" approach to standardization that removes low-frequency > climate variations. Our age-band decomposition approach (Briffa et > al., 2001, JGR), which retains more low-frequency variability, had > only been applied at the regional-average level. So we gridded the > site-by-site chronologies onto a 5x5 grid and added to each grid box > the "missing" regional-scale low-frequency information identified by > comparing the age-band and traditionally-standardized results at a > regional scale. > > I will respond with information and/or data to your requests (2)-(4) soon. > > Regards > > Tim > > At 19:37 18/04/2006, Steve McIntyre wrote: > >Dear Tim, I presume that the sites used in the MXD network in > >Rutherford et al., Journal of Climate 2005 came from the > >SChweingruber network. Could you provide me with (1) confirmation as > >to whether this is the case; (2) identification of the sites; (3) > >the protocol for site selection from the larger Schweingruber > >network; (4) a URL for any data or dataversions not available in the > >Schweingruber network at WDCP. Regards, Steve McIntyre > > 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: [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ > sunclock: [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > 2079. 2006-04-28 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:49:32 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: recent exchange in Science, Wahl et al, Storch et al to: Eduardo Zorita , gerd.buerger@mail.met.fu-berlin.de,Julie.Jones@gkss.de, cubasch@zedat.fu-berlin.de,simon.tett@metoffice.gov.uk, philip.brohan@metoffice.gov.uk,storch@gkss.de, Keith Briffa ,fidelgr@fis.ucm.es Thanks for the reprints of the comment/reply, Eduardo, which are indeed interesting. Did you already see the article just posted at realclimate.org which discusses these papers (and also mentions Burger and Cubasch, 2005): http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/a-correction-with-repercussions/ Seems rather biased and the tone is certainly not constructive. I really hope that the discussion of bias in reconstructions will proceed in a much more constructive way at the PAGES/CLIVAR meeting in Wengen in June, which will be attended by me, Keith, Eduardo and some of the authors of this realclimate.org article. We will do our best to ensure that it is constructive and good-spirited! Cheers Tim 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 4385. 2006-04-28 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eduardo Zorita , gerd.buerger@mail.met.fu-berlin.de, Julie.Jones@gkss.de, cubasch@zedat.fu-berlin.de, simon.tett@metoffice.gov.uk, Philip Brohan , Hans von Storch , Keith Briffa , fidelgr@fis.ucm.es date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:03:32 +0100 from: simon.tett@metoffice.gov.uk subject: Re: recent exchange in Science, Wahl et al, Storch et al to: Tim Osborn Hi Tim, Eduardo pointed me at it as well. I did find it rather an attack. Even contemplated adding a comment but decided I did not have enough time to do it as I was writing a briefing note for Defra on the comments. I've attached it! Simon On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 11:49, Tim Osborn wrote: > Thanks for the reprints of the comment/reply, Eduardo, which are > indeed interesting. > > Did you already see the article just posted at realclimate.org which > discusses these papers (and also mentions Burger and Cubasch, 2005): > > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/a-correction-with-repercussions/ > > Seems rather biased and the tone is certainly not constructive. > > I really hope that the discussion of bias in reconstructions will > proceed in a much more constructive way at the PAGES/CLIVAR meeting > in Wengen in June, which will be attended by me, Keith, Eduardo and > some of the authors of this realclimate.org article. We will do our > best to ensure that it is constructive and good-spirited! > > Cheers > > Tim > > 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ > sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm -- Dr Simon Tett Managing Scientist, Data development and applications. Met Office Hadley Centre (Reading Unit) Meteorology Building, University of Reading Reading RG6 6BB Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5614 Fax +44 (0)118 378 5615 Mobile: +44-(0)77 538 80696 I work in Exeter about 2 days/week. E-mail: simon.tett@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=wahl_brief.txt Content-Type: text/plain; name=wahl_brief.txt; charset= Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\wahl_brief.txt" 4998. 2006-04-28 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:21:13 +0200 from: Eduardo Zorita subject: recent exchange in Science, Wahl et al, Storch et al to: jsmerdon-at-ldeo.columbia.edu@gkss.de, Christoph.Matulla@ec.gc.ca, hugo@stfx.ca, esper@wsl.ch, weber@knmi.nl, M.N.Juckes@rl.ac.uk, rob.wilson@ed.ac.uk, anders.moberg@natgeo.su.se, mcrok@natutech.nl, gerd.buerger@mail.met.fu-berlin.de, Susanne.Bauer@gkss.de, hgs@astr.ucl.ac.be, guiot@cerege.fr, xoplaki@giub.unibe.ch, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, kaspar@dkrz.de, fischer-bruns@dkrz.de, claussen@pik-potsdam.de, juerg@giub.unibe.ch, wanner@giub.unibe.ch, Martin.Widmann@gkss.de, Julie.Jones@gkss.de, cubasch@zedat.fu-berlin.de, fzwiers@ec.gc.ca Perhaps interesting for you. best wishes eduardo Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\wahl_et_al_06.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\storch_et_al_06.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\press_release_storch06.pdf" 3782. 2006-05-01 ______________________________________________________ cc: Thorsten Kiefer , Christoph Kull date: Mon, 01 May 2006 13:15:37 +0200 from: Michelle Kaufmann subject: PAGES / CLIVAR workshop to: Wengen Dear Participant, This email contains information related to your travel grant to attend the PAGES/CLIVAR workshop on Past Millennia Variability in Wengen - Switzerland (June 7 to 10). Please read it carefully! Thanks to EPRI and PAGES, we are able to financially cover your travel (economy airfare, ground transportation) as well as hotel costs and food during the conference. Please note, you MUST have a receipt for each item you wish to claim, except food. Hotel costs and food (June 7 to 10) are directly paid by the organizers. AFTER THE MEETING, please send me the following things by 30 JUNE 2006: 1. Completed travel claim form. A blank form is attached to this email. It is very important to fill in the form carefully, especially your bank details. I cannot make payments without a Bank SWIFT or BIC number. 2. Statement from your travel agent showing your travel schedule and the cost of your ticket. 3. Your ORIGINAL flight ticket (Boarding passes). 4. ORIGINAL receipts for ground transport. Please keep a copy of what you send me in case your claim gets lost in the mail. In special cases, if you do not have the money to pay for the flight ticket, it is possible to receive payment for this before the meeting. Please contact me if you need this. Furthermore, if your travel itinerary requires a supplementary night, please contact us well in advance (if not already done) in order to organize the respective details. !!! I would be grateful if you could send me your cost estimate until 7 MAY 2006 so that I can prepare a budget. Thanks. The funding you are receiving is available thanks to EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) and Swiss and US National Science Foundations. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Best Regards Michelle Kaufmann -------------------------------------------------- Michelle Kaufmann Finance / Office Manager PAGES IPO Sulgeneckstr. 38, 3007 Bern, Switzerland Tel: +41 31 312 31 33 Fax: +41 31 312 31 68 http://www.pages-igbp.org http://www.pages-igbp.org/ppeople/staff/kaufmann.html ------------------------------------------------------ This mail was sent through IMP at http://mail.unibe.ch Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\TravelClaimFormNew.pdf" 4513. 2006-05-04 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu May 4 10:32:13 2006 from: Tim Osborn subject: Fwd: JCLIM Request to Review a Comment/Reply (JCLI-1333/1427) to: Keith Briffa To: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk From: Journal of Climate CEA Subject: JCLIM Request to Review a Comment/Reply (JCLI-1333/1427) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 09:38:32 -0700 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.749.3) Dear Dr. Osborn, I am writing to ask if you would be so kind as to provide me some advice as to the suitability of publishing the attached Comment and Reply in the Notes and Correspondence section of the Journal of Climate. In particular, I am writing to ask if you would consider the following questions in your review. 1) Do you think that the comment submitted by Zorita et al. contains material which is of sufficient interest to the readership of the Journal of Climate to warrant its publication. 2) If the answer to 1) is yes, are there any specific recommendations / comments that you would like to see addressed in the COMMENT prior to our considering its publication. 3) If the answer to 1) is yes, are there any specific recommendations / comments that you would like to see addressed in the REPLY prior to our considering its publication. 4) Do you have any overall recommendations you have for the authors of the Comment/Reply? As you might surmise, the authors of the REPLY have recommended that the COMMENT be rejected outright. I sincerely appreciate your assistance with a review of this exchange. While I recognize that you are very busy and that this review will take some time, I hope you agree with me as to the importance of peer review prior to publication of scientific discourse. Yours sincerely Andrew Weaver Chief Editor of the Journal of Climate ********************* Comment Details: ********************* JCLI - 1333 Title - Comment to 'Testing the fidelity of methods used in proxy- based reconstructions of past climate' Authors - Eduardo Zorita, Fidel Gonzalez-Rouco, Hans von Storch Reviewer link: [1]http://www.ametsoc.org/reviewer/viewer.cfm?id=12863-5211 ********************* Reply Details: ********************* JCLI - 1427 Title - Reply to Comment by Zorita et al on Mann, Rutherford, Wahl and Ammann 05 Authors - Michael E. Mann, Scott Rutherford, Eugene Wahl, Caspar Ammann Reviewer link: [2]http://www.ametsoc.org/reviewer/viewer.cfm?id=13835-8273 **CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT OF THIS MESSAGE WOULD BE APPRECIATED.** ======================================================= Ms. Laura Buttner Chief Editorial Assistant, Journal of Climate School of Earth and Ocean Sciences University of Victoria PO Box 3055, Victoria, BC V8W 3P6 Canada Phone: +1 250 472 4005 Fax: +1 250 472 4004 jclim@uvic.ca 43. 2006-05-05 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , Heinz Wanner , Phil Jones , Thorsten Kiefer date: Fri, 05 May 2006 08:41:56 -0400 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Re: FW: Wengen workshop to: Christoph Kull Dear All, Frankly, this is a blessing in disguise. As you may remember, I was very upset earlier when the invitation went out to Zorita even though as far as I had understood, we had agreed not to invite and his name was not on the list we had agreed too. I believe that the field is more than adequately covered by those attending, and I would definitely not support any effort to recruit a proxy for Von Storch or Zorita at this point, or even to ask Zorita to change his mind. mike Christoph Kull wrote: >Dear all, >Two days ago I got the short message (below) from Eduardo Zorita claiming >that he will not be able to join the Wengen workshop. I didn't get a reply >on a subsequent email asking about some more information and - if possible - >a reconsideration of the decision etc.... >Does anybody of you have more details? >I am a bit concerned due to the fact that we decided to have a broad >representation of working groups and expertise. We shouldn't loose the GKSS >participation. >Could possibly someone of you try to contact him? > >All the best, thanks a lot and have a nice weekend! >Christoph > > -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 1572. 2006-05-08 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 08 May 2006 11:09:37 +0100 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: Palaeoclimate to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Keith, Tim, Conclusions quite strong, but says recent warming unprecedented in the Holocene. Phil >From: david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk >X-IronPort-AV: i="4.05,100,1146441600"; > d="pdf'?scan'208"; a="13191617:sNHT1828490624" >Subject: Palaeoclimate >To: Simon Tett , Philip Brohan > >Cc: Phil Jones >X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 >Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 10:41:41 +0100 >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 May 2006 09:42:01.0120 (UTC) >FILETIME=[A7FB8A00:01C67283] > >Simon, Philip > >This paper supports the unprecedented nature of recent temperatures in a >multi-millennial perspective. > >David >-- >David E Parker >A2_W052 Met Office FitzRoy Road EXETER EX1 3PB UK >email: david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk >Tel: +44-1392-886649 Fax: +44-1392-885681 > >Global climate data sets are available from http://hadobs.org > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Viau_etal_JGR20060506.pdf" 1017. 2006-05-10 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 10 May 2006 07:24:43 -0600 (MDT) from: wigley@ucar.edu subject: [Fwd: CCNet: "COLLAPSE TO NEAR ZERO?" EUROPE'S CARBON CREDITS MAY to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk Keith, See the last item. Why don't you just give these people the raw data? Are you hiding something -- your apparent refusal to be forthcoming sure makes it look as though you are. Tom. ========== ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: CCNet: "COLLAPSE TO NEAR ZERO?" EUROPE'S CARBON CREDITS MAY SOON BECOME WORTHLESS From: "Peiser, Benny" Date: Wed, May 10, 2006 4:50 am To: "cambridge-conference" -------------------------------------------------------------------------- CCNet 73/06 - 10 May 2006 "COLLAPSE TO NEAR ZERO?" EUROPE'S CARBON CREDITS MAY SOON BECOME WORTHLESS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Europe next week will likely reveal a key flaw in its flagship strategy to tackle climate change -- a net surplus of pollution permits, says Louis Redshaw, Head of Environmental Markets at Barclays Capital. The price of permits -- or carbon credits -- could then fall as low as 5 euros, having already collapsed to 12 euros on Monday from a peak of 31 euros three weeks ago, Redshaw said. Such a price fall would almost certainly trigger further drops in power prices across Europe. Ultimately the balance of emissions and permits would only become clear at the end of the first phase of the EU trading scheme in 2007, and only then could the price collapse to near zero, he said. --Gerard Wynn, Reuters, 9 May 2006 Australia has not signed onto the Kyoto accord on greenhouse-gas emissions, and Harper's environment minister, Rona Ambrose, has made it clear that this government will do nothing much to honour the old Liberal signature on that deal. Still, Harper and Ambrose have promised detailed environmental policies by fall, including plans for controlling - nobody has said reducing - greenhouse-gas emissions. So Howard's visit could be an opportunity for Canada to announce plans for adherence to the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, a sort of club for Kyoto skeptics. --The Montreal Gazette, 10 May 2006 New research calls into question the linkage between major Atlantic hurricanes and global warming. That is one of the conclusions from a University of Virginia study to appear in the May 10, 2006 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters. Unlike prior studies, the U.Va. climatologists specifically examined water temperatures along the path of each storm, providing a more precise picture of the tropical environment involved in each hurricane's development. They found that increasing water temperatures can account for only about half of the increase in strong hurricanes over the past 25 years; therefore the remaining storminess increase must be related to other factors. --AScribe Newswire, 9 May 2006 (1) "COLLAPSE TO NEAR ZERO?" EUROPE'S CARBON CREDITS MAY SOON BECOME WORTHLESS Gerard Wynn, Reuters, 9 May 2006 (2) MEDIA SPECULATION: CANADA TO JOIN ASIA-PACIFIC CLIMATE PACT? The Montreal Gazette, 10 May 2006 (3) NEW STUDY QUESTIONS LINKAGE BETWEEN MAJOR HURRICANES AND GLOBAL WARMING AScribe Newswire, 9 May 2006 (4) SEA-SURFACE TEMPERATURES AND TROPICAL CYCLONES IN THE ATLANTIC BASIN Patrick J. Michaels et al. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 10 May 2006 (5) RIVER DISCHARGE TO THE ARCTIC OCEAN: 1964-2000 CO2 Science Magazine, 10 May 2006 (6) A PAN-ARCTIC EVALUATION OF CHANGES IN RIVER DISCHARGE, 1964-2000 James W. McClelland et al., GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, 2006 (7) GLOBAL WARMING AND EL NINOS CO2 Science Magazine, 10 May 2006 (8) RARE-EVENT EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS (REPP) Andy Smith (9) ASTEROIDS & HYDROGEN-BORON FUSION Mark Bahner (10) AND FINALLY: SCIENCE SHENANGIGANS GO ON Steve McIntyre, 9 May 2006 =========== (1) "COLLAPSE TO NEAR ZERO?" EUROPE'S CARBON CREDITS MAY SOON BECOME WORTHLESS Reuters, 9 May 2006 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/36274/story.htm By Gerard Wynn LONDON - Europe next week will likely reveal a key flaw in its flagship strategy to tackle climate change -- a net surplus of pollution permits, says Louis Redshaw, Head of Environmental Markets at Barclays Capital. The price of permits -- or carbon credits -- could then fall as low as 5 euros, having already collapsed to 12 euros on Monday from a peak of 31 euros three weeks ago, Redshaw said. Such a price fall would almost certainly trigger further drops in power prices across Europe. The European Union last year handed its heavy industry the tradeable credits at the launch of its carbon market to cut emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide (CO2). Crucially for the market to work there had to be fewer credits than actual emissions, to drive pollution cuts, but this is now looking unlikely. "Based on the trend we're seeing we'd expect the whole market to be long in year 1," Redshaw said. A UBS report last Friday also saw the market long on credits. Already a clutch of EU countries have reported their 2005 carbon emissions, and all but Spain revealed emissions below their permit quota, triggering the recent price collapse. The European Commission will publish data on remaining countries on May 15. Redshaw saw a price fall to as low as 5 euros a possibility, but did not expect a complete collapse yet because of continuing uncertainty about future energy and therefore carbon demand. At the end of every financial year companies included in the scheme, such as power producers, have to balance their books, having one carbon credit for every tonne of emissions. Some are happy to buy at present prices, despite the bearish news of credit surpluses and a possible price collapse, just in case for example a cold winter increases demand for power and pushes carbon credit prices back up. "Buying carbon now is a hedging strategy. (And) There's still plenty of value -- you can make margins on producing electricity (at a 12 euro carbon price)," said Redshaw. HEDGE Ultimately the balance of emissions and permits would only become clear at the end of the first phase of the EU trading scheme in 2007, and only then could the price collapse to near zero, he said. The market is currently awaiting news from big economies such as Germany, Britain and Italy to discover the overall EU carbon market position for 2005, whether or not it is in surplus. But according to Redshaw the near to medium-term prospects for carbon credit prices depended on how long it took power firms to hedge themselves fully. "When they stop buying there could be more weakness," he said. Copyright 2006, Reuters ============ (2) MEDIA SPECULATION: CANADA TO JOIN ASIA-PACIFIC CLIMATE PACT? The Montreal Gazette, 10 May 2006 http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=048162c0-c0e1-49f8-a2cb-860d9e8bcbeb A left-centre political party, in office for 13 long years, had grown tired and unfocused and was ethically challenged. So it was no surprise when a resurgent conservative party won the national election. And so it was, in 1996, that John Howard became prime minister of Australia. He's still in the job today, at 66, and next week he will visit Canada. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has invited the Australian leader to address a joint session of Parliament, a rare honour. This visit might be an opportunity for Canadians to learn some more about the foreign policy of the Harper government. We hope so, because except on Afghanistan and relations with the United States, we still know little about the new government's view of our place in the world. In Howard, our prime minister has a potential mentor, not to say a soul mate. The Australian leader is charisma-free, holds firmly to free-market ideas and has abundant confidence in his own intellectual ability. Sound familiar? During last winter's election campaign, a Toronto newspaper reported that Brian Loughnane, a senior official of Howard's Liberal Party, had been advising Harper's Conservatives. Howard has won four straight elections - and, riding high in the polls, is expected to stick around for a fifth - on the basis of support from what he calls "mainstream Australians" in the "mortgage belt" - the Antipodean version of the suburban soccer moms (and dads) who voted for Harper. Australia has not signed onto the Kyoto accord on greenhouse-gas emissions, and Harper's environment minister, Rona Ambrose, has made it clear that this government will do nothing much to honour the old Liberal signature on that deal. Still, Harper and Ambrose have promised detailed environmental policies by fall, including plans for controlling - nobody has said reducing - greenhouse-gas emissions. So Howard's visit could be an opportunity for Canada to announce plans for adherence to the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, a sort of club for Kyoto skeptics. Members are Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and the United States. The partnership emphasizes commercially viable technological solutions, an approach critics denounce as insufficiently rigorous. That's probably correct - governments will have to lead if the world has any hope of slowing the pace of climate change. But look again at that membership list: These are countries that produce serious quantities of greenhouse gases as well as other pollutants. Howard is said to be a convert to belief in the urgency of climate-change action; perhaps Harper, too, will be convinced by the evidence. In any case, Canadians are waiting to learn more about the Harper government's priorities and methods in dealing with the rest of the world, and not least Asia, where so much seems to be happening these days. Prime Minister Howard's visit should serve to remind Harper that despite his famous focus on his five domestic priorities, there's a big complicated world out there. © The Gazette (Montreal) 2006 ============ (3) NEW STUDY QUESTIONS LINKAGE BETWEEN MAJOR HURRICANES AND GLOBAL WARMING AScribe Newswire, 9 May 2006 http://newswire.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/behold.pl?ascribeid=20060509.142304&time=14%2053%20PDT&year=2006&public=0 CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va., May 9 (AScribe Newswire) -- New research calls into question the linkage between major Atlantic hurricanes and global warming. That is one of the conclusions from a University of Virginia study to appear in the May 10, 2006 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters. In recent years, a large number of severe Atlantic hurricanes have fueled a debate as to whether global warming is responsible. Because high sea-surface temperatures fuel tropical cyclones, this linkage seems logical. In fact, within the past year, several hurricane researchers have correlated basin-wide warming trends with increasing hurricane severity and have implicated a greenhouse-warming cause. But unlike these prior studies, the U.Va. climatologists specifically examined water temperatures along the path of each storm, providing a more precise picture of the tropical environment involved in each hurricane's development. They found that increasing water temperatures can account for only about half of the increase in strong hurricanes over the past 25 years; therefore the remaining storminess increase must be related to other factors. "It is too simplistic to only implicate sea surface temperatures in the dramatic increase in the number of major hurricanes," said lead author Patrick Michaels, U.Va. professor of environmental sciences and director of the Virginia Climatology Office. For a storm to reach the status of a major hurricane, a very specific set of atmospheric conditions must be met within the region of the storm's development, and only one of these factors is sufficiently high sea-surface temperatures. The authors found that the ultimate strength of a hurricane is not directly linked to the underlying water temperatures. Instead, they found that a temperature threshold, 89 degrees Fahrenheit, must be crossed before a weak tropical cyclone has the potential to become a monster hurricane. Once the threshold is crossed, water temperature is no longer an important factor. "At that point, other factors take over, such as the vertical wind profile, and atmospheric temperature and moisture gradients," Michaels said. While there has been extensive recent discussion about whether or not human-induced global warming is currently playing a role in the increased frequency and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes, Michaels downplays this impact, at least for the current climate. "The projected impacts of global warming on Atlantic hurricanes are minor compared with the major changes that we have observed over the past couple of years," Michaels said. He points instead to naturally varying components of the tropical environment as being the primary reason for the recent enhanced activity. "Some aspects of the tropical environment have evolved much differently than they were expected to under the assumption that only increasing greenhouse gases were involved. This leads me to believe that natural oscillations have also been responsible for what we have seen," Michaels said. But what if sea-surface temperatures continue to rise into the future, if the world continues to warm from an enhancing greenhouse effect? "In the future we may expect to see more major hurricanes," Michaels said, "but we don't expect the ones that do form to be any stronger than the ones that we have seen in the past." Michaels' co-authors are Robert E. Davis, associate professor of environmental sciences and Paul C. Knappenberger, former U.Va. graduate student in environmental sciences. Reference: Michaels, P. J., P. C. Knappenberger, and R. E. Davis, 2006. Sea-surface temperatures and tropical cyclones in the Atlantic basin. Geophysical Research Letters, 33, doi:10.1029/2006GL025757. CONTACTS: Dr. Patrick Michaels, 434-825-6981, pjm8x@virginia.edu Fariss Samarrai, U.Va. News, 434-924-3778, samarrai@virginia.edu =========== (4) SEA-SURFACE TEMPERATURES AND TROPICAL CYCLONES IN THE ATLANTIC BASIN GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L09708, doi:10.1029/2006GL025757, 2006 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL025757.shtml Sea-surface temperatures and tropical cyclones in the Atlantic basin Patrick J. Michaels Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA Cato Institute, Washington, D. C., USA Paul C. Knappenberger New Hope Environmental Services, Inc., Charlottesville, Virginia, USA Robert E. Davis Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA Abstract Whereas there is a significant relationship between overall sea-surface temperature (SST) and tropical cyclone intensity, the relationship is much less clear in the upper range of SST normally associated with these storms. There, we find a step-like, rather than a continuous, influence of SST on cyclone strength, suggesting that there exists a SST threshold that must be exceeded before tropical cyclones develop into major hurricanes. Further, we show that the SST influence varies markedly over time, thereby indicating that other aspects of the tropical environment are also critically important for tropical cyclone intensification. These findings highlight the complex nature of hurricane development and weaken the notion of a simple cause-and-effect relationship between rising SST and stronger Atlantic hurricanes. Received 12 January 2006; accepted 29 March 2006; published 10 May 2006. ============ (5) RIVER DISCHARGE TO THE ARCTIC OCEAN: 1964-2000 CO2 Science Magazine, 10 May 2006 http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N19/C1.jsp Reference McClelland, J.W., Dery, S.J., Peterson, B.J., Holmes, R.M. and Wood, E.F. 2006. A pan-arctic evaluation of changes in river discharge during the latter half of the 20th century. Geophysical Research Letters 33: 10.1029/2006GL025753. Background The authors note that "increasing freshwater inputs may slow North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW) formation, a major driver of [the] Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (MOC)," and that "a slowing or cessation of [the] MOC in response to global warming could lead to relative cooling in some regions and amplified warming in others," perhaps the most significant of which phenomena is a postulated failure of the Gulf Stream that is often claimed to have the potential to dramatically cool much of Europe. The question they thus consider within the context of their research is: "How may changes in arctic and subarctic river discharge affect [the Atlantic] MOC?" What was done In a study designed to provide some perspective on the issue, McClelland et al. analyzed discharge records of 16 Eurasian and 56 North American rivers over the period 1964-2000. Of these rivers, all Eurasian ones and 14 of the North American ones flow directly into the Arctic Ocean, while the other 42 North American rivers flow into the Hudson, James and Ungava Bays (HJUBs). What was learned The five researchers determined that "discharge to the Arctic Ocean increased by 5.6 km3/yr/yr during 1964-2000, the net result of a large increase from Eurasia moderated by a small decrease from North America," but that "discharge to Hudson/James/Ungava Bays decreased by 2.5 km3/yr/yr during 1964-2000." What it means McClelland et al. say they "expect decreasing river discharge to Hudson, James, and Ungava Bays and increasing river discharge to the Arctic Ocean to have opposing effects on NADW formation," which leads us to ask: How significant is the net result for the maintenance of the Atlantic MOC? The researchers go on to say that "the observed changes in river discharge over 1964-2000 amount to an increase of about 0.007 Sv to the Arctic Ocean and a decrease of about 0.003 Sv to HJUBs by the end of the record," and that "these values are relatively small compared to the ~0.1 Sv [increase] that lead[s] to abrupt reductions in NADW formation in a variety of models (Clark et al., 2002; Rahmstorf, 2002)." McClelland et al. are right on the mark in this assessment. In fact, the net increase in freshwater discharge to the Arctic Ocean that is revealed by their analysis to have occurred between 1964 and 2000 amounts to only about 4% of the "tipping point" value that is predicted by some climate models to lead to an abrupt Atlantic MOC reduction. Hence, there is little cause for alarm in their findings. In addition, it has recently been noted by Wunsch that the models that predict decreases in, or even a cessation of, NADW formation and the Atlantic MOC are still too crude to be given much credence. In fact, he reports that depending on how the mixing coefficients are modified, fresh water additions can actually increase the North Atlantic mass circulation (Nilsson et al., 2003). In conclusion, the totality of these several observations suggests that all of the hype surrounding the subject of a Gulf Stream shutdown due to a warming-induced increase in freshwater input to the Arctic Ocean is without a sound basis in either observation or theory. 3102. 2006-05-10 ______________________________________________________ cc: wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu date: Wed, 10 May 2006 10:23:18 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Expert review of IPCC WG1 Chapter 6 Second Order to: barnola@lgge.obs.ujf-grenoble.fr, bauer@pik-potsdam.de, mac59@columbia.edu, jcole@geo.arizona.edu, drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu, Elsa.Cortijo@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr, Trond.Dokken@bjerknes.uib.no, fleitman@geo.umass.edu, gzt@loess.llqg.ac.cn, khodri@budu.ldgo.columbia.edu, labeyrie@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr, levermann@pik-potsdam.de, oyvind.lie@bjerknes.uib.no, marie-france.loutre@uclouvain.be, katsumi@umn.edu, monnin@climate.unibe.ch, thompson.4@osu.edu, dmuhs@usgs.gov, raimund@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, parrenin@ujf-grenoble.fr, hpollack@umich.edu, oyvind.paasche@bjerknes.uib.no, plattner@climate.unibe.ch, stott@usc.edu, spahni@climate.unibe.ch, thompson.3@osu.edu, Claire.waelbroeck@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr, GWILES@wooster.edu, jzachos@emerald.ucsc.edu Dear Contributing Authors (CAs) of Chapter 6 - It is a bit embarrassing for us to have waited this long to contact you all as a group, but as you can imagine, the whole IPCC process has been a blur. As you all probably understand, the IPCC process relies heavily on the labors of many who are not compensated in any way to help provide the best assessment of knowledge regarding climate change. You have all been working with one or more Lead Authors of Chapter 6 Paleoclimate (the first such chapter in IPCC history!), and your labors have helped generate what we hope is a strong second order draft (SOD) of our chapter. The next draft (TOD) will be the final draft and will be published next winter (2007). Thus, we have time to make the final product even better than it already is. MOST important at this point is careful expert review of the SOD. You should all of received a formal email invitation (from the IPCC WGI Technical Service Unit) to serve as expert reviewers of our chapter (and indeed, the entire WGI SOD, if you are so inclined). But, please take a close look at our current Chapter 6, and give us feedback through the formal process. We especially need your feedback on those sections relevant to your specific contributions, but also on the entire chapter if you have time. Other chapters with paleo that might be of interest are Chapters 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9. Chapters 10 and 11 draw on paleo in some ways. Note that the DEADLINE is June 2, and that IPCC deadlines are for real (as we've learned the hard way!). Please note that the chapter is technically still too long - the IPCC leadership has been impressed with what we've done, and has given us more space than originally allocated, but we don't expect to grow further. Indeed, we need to make the chapter even tighter and shorter, so any comments on what could be shortened will be appreciated. As we all know, there are insights from paleo that are worth getting out, but that we chose not to include. We had tough choices to make, and hopefully, we have focused on those aspects of paleo science that are most relevant to policy makers. Our chapter should NOT be viewed as a review, and in this light, we need to focus primarily on the recent and most state-of-the-art references, rather than the whole chain of papers that led us to this point - only in really key areas can we cite the "classic" paper. Also, some important issues, such as model evaluation, climate sensitivity and climate change detection are supposed to be covered in other chapters (8, 9 and 9, respectively). And, all assessment of future change should be in chapters 10 and 11. In the rush (you can't believe how intense the last minute editing and formatting are w/ each draft), we left some names off the SOD Contributing Author list on the first page of our chapter. For this, we are truly sorry. We are also thankful that this isn't the final draft, and promise to get it right next time! As best we know from our Lead Author (LA) team, all of the Chapter 6 CA's are on the attached list, and all got formal invitations to be formal expert reviewers. Since our connections with some CAs comes via LAs, we've also cc'd this email to LAs to make sure no one is still off the CA list. Of course, if you feel you shouldn't be a CA of Chapter 6, or have any other issues, please let us know. Our goal is to have a final document that is recognized within our community, and throughout the broader climate change community, as accurate and definitive. Again, your help is MUCH appreciated. It is great to have you on the Chapter 6 team. Don't forget that the DEADLINE for expert review is June 2. Many thanks, Eystein Jansen and Jonathan Overpeck Coordinating Lead Authors, Chapter 6 -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 6 CLAs.doc" _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 167. 2006-05-12 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri May 12 15:29:43 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: FW: Bradley to: "Maher, Barbara" all that comes immediately to mind is his ability to leave some colleagues with more than their share of the cumulative wine bill on certain trips in South Africa - though you might say something of his sterling work in the development of the IGBP PAGES , which exemplifies his wide understanding of climate and paleoclimate evidence , and gives him a unique ability to integrate and synthesise the evidence of climate change . Seriously he does have a very wide range of expertise in the analysis of instrumental, lake sediment, ice data- though unfortunately only a passing acquaintance with tree-ring data . glad your paper got sorted eventually cheers Keith At 15:03 12/05/2006, you wrote: HI Keith Howre you? Hot day down in Norridge? Can you kindly see the request below re. Ray Bradleys hon degree, to which your official invite letter will be winging its way to you this coming week. Could you poss. Email me some pithy comments along the lines of Olivers request? Thanks a lot Barbara PS Got some v. nice comments re. my just-out Holocene paper! ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Oliver Westall [[1]mailto:o.westall@lancaster.ac.uk] Sent: 11 May 2006 10:22 To: Maher, Barbara Subject: Bradley Barbara Im turning my mind to Ray Bradleys honorary degree in July. Of course, I will rely on you for the hard facts of his scientific contribution, along with anyone else you feel might be helpful. I have a brief note he has provided himself, but what I will be looking for is an informed judgement on his real contribution, which is so often entirely obscured by numbers of publications and so on. But beyond that, I will really be looking for people who actually know him well, so that I can bring a personal touch to the proceedings. Are you in that slot or do you know anyone who is in the UK? And, of course, I will want to know what I should say in my remarks to advance the interests of Lancasters research in this area. It would be nice to have a lunch or other meeting some time but you might feel it easier to write something out. Please dont polish it up as I will want to use my own final text and of course, you wont want to spend too much time fiddling with it. Let me know how you feel. O Oliver Westall Lancaster University Management School Lancaster LA1 4YX 01524-594219 (and voice mail) 01524-791566 07866 457538 -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 3458. 2006-05-18 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen date: Thu, 18 May 2006 15:58:25 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: ipcc chapter 6 draft to: "Neil Roberts" Hi Neil - Thanks for your interest in providing feedback on the draft chap 6 Second Order Draft. Since the IPCC has very strict rules about all this, I'm going to ask them (the IPCC) to send you an official invitation to review, along with the process - formal, but highly efficient - to follow. If you could send your comments in that way it would be a great help. We've been asked to keep everything squeaky clean, and not to get comments informally. Thanks! Peck >Dear Jonathan > >Please excuse me for writing direct, but Keith Briffa suggested it >would be simplest. I have looked through the draft chapter 6 and >find it an impressive document. However, bullet 4 on page 6.2, >starting "global mean cooling and warming....." strikes me as >incorrect and misleading. > >Whereas the mean rate of temperature change over the Pleistocene may >have been >10 times slower than that projected for the next century, >there is clear evidence that for specific major climatic >transitions, global (or at least hemispheric) temperature changes in >the past have been at least as rapid as those projected by climate >model simulations and incorporated in the last IPCC report. The >most obvious case in point is the global warming at the start of the >Holocene, ca. 11.5 ka BP. Russell Coope, more than 20 years ago, >showed from beetles that UK temperatures rose faster than could be >dated within the errors of 14C dating. Subsequently this was >confirmed by Greeland ice cores based on layer counting (full >glacial to interglacial in less than 100 years), and by the Cariacos >basin marine record. I have worked on varved lake records from both >the tropics (Roberts et al Nature 1993 366, 146-148) and the >Mediterranean (Roberts et al The Holocene, 2001, 11, 719-734) where >this climate transition was accomplished in substantially less than >a century. In short, several independent lines of evidence show >that the climate system has been capable of flipping from one >meta-stable state to another, very different one over timescales >that could be experienced by a single human lifetime. This is not >an unimportant conclusion in terms of the potential for non-linear >responses of future climate to GHG forcing. > >I also looked for supporting argument for bullet 4 later in chapter >6, but found nothing of substance. > >In short, this particular bullet seems in need of critical >reassessment before the definitive version of the next IPCC reprot >emerges. > >Thanks in anticipation and best egards > >Neil -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 4515. 2006-05-21 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Sun, 21 May 2006 22:07:00 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: URGENT - Wahl & Amman paper to: Bette Otto-Bliesner Hi Keith and Tim - can you pls illuminate us on the issue raised by Martin Manning below? This is pretty urgent. Thanks, Peck >Peck, > >I think it might be best to ask Keith what version of this paper he >used to write his section of Chapter 6. That seems to be the >question that >Martin is asking. I will also ask Caspar if he knows when I see him on >Monday. > >Bette > >On Sat, 20 May 2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: > >>Hi Martin - We'll look into this asap. I'll cc to Caspar and Gene >>to see if they can clarify the situation and make sure we have the >>correct version. I'll also cc Bette since she may see Caspar around >>NCAR and make sure he know's we are trying to clarify things with >>his paper. >> >>More soon, thx, Peck >> >>>Dear Eystein and Jonathan >>> >>>It has been pointed out to us by a reviewer that the version of >>>the Wahl and Amman paper (accepted by Climatic Change) on our >>>review web site differs from the version that is available >>>publicly from the NCAR web site at: >>> >>>[ >>>http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimaticChange_inPress.pdf >>>] >>> >>>Although the differences are not (in my view) substantial, the >>>paper on the NCAR web site is apparently dated Feb 24th (i.e. >>>before the date of final submission of the SOD), it has additional >>>figures and data, and the running header says "Feb 24, .... in >>>press". >>> >>>Could you please clarify which of the two versions of this paper >>>would reflect most accurately the status of the paper as used by >>>the Chapter 6 team when preparing the SOD. That has been our basis >>>for deciding on which version to include on our reviewer web pages >>>up until now, but we are >now >>>reconsidering whether to also include updated versions of >>>unpublished papers as well. If you have any thoughts on that >>>please let me know. >>> >>>Best regards >>>Martin >>> >>>-- >>>Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov >>>** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address >>>Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit >>>NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory Phone: +1 303 497 4479 >>>325 Broadway, DSRC R/CSD8 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 >>>Boulder, CO 80305, USA >> >> >> > >-- >______________________________________________ >Bette L. Otto-Bliesner >Climate Change Research >National Center for Atmospheric Research >1850 Table Mesa Drive / P.O. Box 3000 >Boulder, Colorado 80307 >Phone: 303-497-1723 >Fax: 303-497-1348 >Email: ottobli@ncar.ucar.edu >______________________________________________ -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 3285. 2006-05-22 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon May 22 15:02:10 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Fwd: Summary synthesis paper on divergence to: Tim Osborn ,t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk just for info - do not reply to him To: t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk, From: Keith Briffa Subject: Fwd: Summary synthesis paper on divergence Reply-To: "Rob Wilson" From: "Rob Wilson" To: "Keith Briffa" Subject: Summary synthesis paper on divergence Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 11:39:58 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-Edinburgh-Scanned: at lawnmarket.ucs.ed.ac.uk with MIMEDefang 2.33, Sophie, Sophos Anti-Virus X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.33 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Hi Keith, the other day when you phoned me, you stated that you were also writing (or planning to) a summary synthesis on the divergence issue. It seems in my mind that the palaeo community does not need two of these papers. I was wondering if it would be worth considering collaborating on just one paper - with Rosanne and you being the primary authors? Our current version is ~6000 words, but is far from complete. I am also aware that we all have different ideas on this issue, but I think we all agree that it is most likely anthropogenically driven to a certain extent. I have also told Rosanne that you are writing a rebuttal paper to her 2004 GRL piece. In light of this, we need some discussion about this whole TTHH issue in the paper as well and Rosanne is happy to do this. We do not mind if you want to do your own paper, but I personally feel that combining all our ideas and experience together, a much better single paper would be the product. what do you think? regards Rob -- 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/ 3801. 2006-05-22 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Bette Otto-Bleisner" , "Eystein Jansen" , "Caspar Ammann" ,Keith Briffa date: Mon, 22 May 2006 09:44:42 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: RE: Wahl & Amman paper to: Jonathan Overpeck , "Wahl, Eugene R" Dear all, the UCAR version is the one to use as that is going to be closest to what actually appears. I think that we looked at this version in late February when revising the text and thus I hope that the text we wrote is consistent with this final UCAR version, and therefore that this version "reflects most accurately the status of the paper as used by the Chapter 6 team when preparing the SOD". To be certain, we should extract the sentences that relate to this paper from the SOD and check with Gene/Caspar that they are consistent with their paper, but I can't find a copy of the *final* SOD to do this. Cheers Tim At 05:58 22/05/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >Hi Gene - thanks for the update. If Tim/Keith/Caspar want to add >anything (or Martin ask for more clarification), please cc to the >entire list on this email. Sounds like the UCAR version is the one >to consider "official" (right everyone?). > >Thanks again, Peck > >>Hello Peck, Martin, Bette, Eystein, Caspar: >> >>I just double checked the UCAR website version with the pdf version >>I have, and they are identical with the exception that the >>supplemental tables (Tables 1S and 2S), and supplemental figure >>caption and figure (Figure 1S) are placed at the very end of the >>document in the UCAR version. The content is identical in both versions. >> >>The text (including tables and figure captions) of the UCAR pdf is >>also identical to the WORD text that I sent to Peck, Keith Briffa, >>and Eyestein Jansen on February 24. There was a version sent on >>February 21, which the February 24 version superceded. There were >>3 words changed on p. 17, and some changes made to Appendix 1 in >>the February 24 version. Perhaps this difference between the 2/21 >>and 2/24 versions is the cause of the differences that Martin has >>seen. [Note: I would have sent the graphics separately with these >>versions, and I did not keep copies of the sent files in my email >>account -- to deal with memory limits in the system here. Thus, I >>cannot confirm exactly which graphic files are associated with the >>February 24 version. My apologies.] >> >>In summary, the UCAR website pdf document should be considered the >>official one that is "accepted/in press". Formal notification of >>acceptance from Stephen Schneider at Climatic Change came on >>February 28. The article is still in this status. >> >>Let me know if I can help clarify things futher. Please note that >>I will be in Boulder starting May 27, to be a visiting scholar at >>NCAR for a month. I will be keeping up with email from there. >> >> >>Peace, Gene >>Dr. Eugene R. Wahl >>Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies >>Alfred University >> >>607-871-2604 >>1 Saxon Drive >>Alfred, NY 14802 >>________________________________ >> >>From: Jonathan Overpeck [mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu] >>Sent: Sat 5/20/2006 8:39 PM >>To: Martin Manning >>Cc: Bette Otto-Bleisner; Eystein Jansen; Caspar Ammann; Wahl, Eugene R >>Subject: Re: Wahl & Amman paper >> >>Hi Martin - We'll look into this asap. I'll cc to Caspar and Gene >>to see if they can clarify the situation and make sure we have the >>correct version. I'll also cc Bette since she may see Caspar around >>NCAR and make sure he know's we are trying to clarify things with his paper. >> >>More soon, thx, Peck >> >> >> Dear Eystein and Jonathan >> >> It has been pointed out to us by a reviewer that the >> version of the Wahl and Amman paper (accepted by Climatic Change) >> on our review web site differs from the version that is available >> publicly from the NCAR web site at: >> >> >> [ >> >>http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimaticChange_inPress.pdf >> >> ] >> >> >> Although the differences are not (in my view) substantial, >> the paper on the NCAR web site is apparently dated Feb 24th (i.e. >> before the date of final submission of the SOD), it has additional >> figures and data, and the running header says "Feb 24, .... in press". >> >> Could you please clarify which of the two versions of this >> paper would reflect most accurately the status of the paper as >> used by the Chapter 6 team when preparing the SOD. That has been >> our basis for deciding on which version to include on our reviewer >> web pages up until now, but we are now reconsidering whether to >> also include updated versions of unpublished papers as well. If >> you have any thoughts on that please let me know. >> >> Best regards >> Martin >> >> >> -- >> Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov >> ** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address >> Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit >> NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory Phone: +1 >> 303 497 4479 >> 325 Broadway, DSRC R/CSD8 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 >> Boulder, CO 80305, USA >> >> >> >>-- >>Jonathan T. Overpeck >>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>Professor, Department of Geosciences >>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >> >>Mail and Fedex Address: >> >>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>University of Arizona >>Tucson, AZ 85721 >>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ > > >-- >Jonathan T. Overpeck >Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >Professor, Department of Geosciences >Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences > >Mail and Fedex Address: > >Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >University of Arizona >Tucson, AZ 85721 >direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >fax: +1 520 792-8795 >http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 4596. 2006-05-22 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Bette Otto-Bleisner" , "Eystein Jansen" , , "Keith Briffa" date: Mon, 22 May 2006 19:05:53 -0400 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: Wahl & Amman paper -- NCAR pdf is correct version to: "Martin Manning" , "Jonathan Overpeck" , "Caspar Ammann" Hello all: Yes, Martin, the paper you sent today is indeed an old version, and should be replaced by the NCAR pdf version. This old version sent today is actually older than the Feb 21 version I mentioned yesterday (see below), and has no relevance in terms of the text that is accepted/in press with Climatic Change as of February 28, 2006. As I mentioned yesterday (see below), the text of the UCAR pdf is identical to the WORD version I sent to Peck, Keith, and Eyestein on February 24. Peace, Gene ******************************* Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Wahl, Eugene R Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 6:49 PM To: Wahl, Eugene R Subject: Sent by Martin Manning -- Wahl & Amman paper --with old version ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Martin Manning [mailto:mmanning@al.noaa.gov] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 12:19 PM To: Jonathan Overpeck; Caspar Ammann Cc: Bette Otto-Bleisner; Eystein Jansen; Wahl, Eugene R; t.osborn@uea.ac.uk; Keith Briffa Subject: Re: Wahl & Amman paper Dear Peck et al Thanks for clearing this up. The bottom line is that the version of this paper on the UCAR site is fine. Unfortunately though, the one we have on the IPCC WG1 web site is not! I am attaching a copy of that for clarity. The metadata in this PDF file indicate that it was created by Oyvind Paasche from a Word document in early March when we were asking the chapter teams to provide copies of the unpublished literature. It seems that Oyvind worked from an earlier and significantly shorter version - less text, fewer tables and the figures are different - as you can see in the attached. Although to repeat my earlier statement the conclusions of this earlier draft do not appear to me to be substantially different. Based on what we now know, the TSU should add the NCAR version of the paper to our review web site and we will do that today. Thanks Martin At 07:58 AM 5/22/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: Thanks all who have commented. Below is the likely final word unless Martin needs more clarification. Seem ok, Martin? Sorry for the confusion. Guess some reviewers are running out of substantive issues, so that might be a sign that we're getting close to the final draft... Best, Peck >From Caspar: Dear all, yes the UCAR version can be considered the "official" one. I changed the order of pages because I needed to separate the "primary content" of the paper from its "supplement"; thus I moved tables xS, figure 1S and its caption to the end. Everything else is identical. >From Keith: "the differences are as I understand , insubstantial and not pertinent to the interpretation used in preparing the draft." and Gene: Wahl, Eugene R wrote: Hello Peck, Martin, Bette, Eystein, Caspar: I just double checked the UCAR website version with the pdf version I have, and they are identical with the exception that the supplemental tables (Tables 1S and 2S), and supplemental figure caption and figure (Figure 1S) are placed at the very end of the document in the UCAR version. The content is identical in both versions. The text (including tables and figure captions) of the UCAR pdf is also identical to the WORD text that I sent to Peck, Keith Briffa, and Eyestein Jansen on February 24. There was a version sent on February 21, which the February 24 version superceded. There were 3 words changed on p. 17, and some changes made to Appendix 1 in the February 24 version. Perhaps this difference between the 2/21 and 2/24 versions is the cause of the differences that Martin has seen. [Note: I would have sent the graphics separately with these versions, and I did not keep copies of the sent files in my email account -- to deal with memory limits in the system here. Thus, I cannot confirm exactly which graphic files are associated with the February 24 version. My apologies.] In summary, the UCAR website pdf document should be considered the official one that is "accepted/in press". Formal notification of acceptance from Stephen Schneider at Climatic Change came on February 28. The article is still in this status. Let me know if I can help clarify things futher. Please note that I will be in Boulder starting May 27, to be a visiting scholar at NCAR for a month. I will be keeping up with email from there. Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 607-871-2604 1 Saxon Drive Alfred, NY 14802 ________________________________ From: Jonathan Overpeck [[1] mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu] Sent: Sat 5/20/2006 8:39 PM To: Martin Manning Cc: Bette Otto-Bleisner; Eystein Jansen; Caspar Ammann; Wahl, Eugene R Subject: Re: Wahl & Amman paper Hi Martin - We'll look into this asap. I'll cc to Caspar and Gene to see if they can clarify the situation and make sure we have the correct version. I'll also cc Bette since she may see Caspar around NCAR and make sure he know's we are trying to clarify things with his paper. More soon, thx, Peck Dear Eystein and Jonathan It has been pointed out to us by a reviewer that the version of the Wahl and Amman paper (accepted by Climatic Change) on our review web site differs from the version that is available publicly from the NCAR web site at: [ [2]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimaticChange_inPress.pdf <[3]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimaticChange_inPress.pd f> ] Although the differences are not (in my view) substantial, the paper on the NCAR web site is apparently dated Feb 24th (i.e. before the date of final submission of the SOD), it has additional figures and data, and the running header says "Feb 24, .... in press". Could you please clarify which of the two versions of this paper would reflect most accurately the status of the paper as used by the Chapter 6 team when preparing the SOD. That has been our basis for deciding on which version to include on our reviewer web pages up until now, but we are now reconsidering whether to also include updated versions of unpublished papers as well. If you have any thoughts on that please let me know. Best regards Martin -- Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov ** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory Phone: +1 303 497 4479 325 Broadway, DSRC R/CSD8 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 Boulder, CO 80305, USA -- Caspar M. Ammann National Center for Atmospheric Research Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology 1850 Table Mesa Drive Boulder, CO 80307-3000 email: ammann@ucar.edu tel: 303-497-1705 fax: 303-497-1348 -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 [4]http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ [5]http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ -- Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov ** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory Phone: +1 303 497 4479 325 Broadway, DSRC R/CSD8 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 Boulder, CO 80305, USA 1746. 2006-05-24 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed May 24 14:48:23 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: BP briefing to: peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk Peter I will chat to Tim about this - we have a versions of these that are not identical and so could be shown . Will get back to you soon Keith At 14:05 24/05/2006, you wrote: Dear Tim and Keith I have to give a presentation to senior BP Executives next Wednesday (list is Steven E. Koonin Chief Scientist Joseph P. Merlini, Director Strategic Cooperation Chris J. Mottershead, Distinguished Advisor, Energy & the Environment John K. Wells, Vice President Environment Duncan G.M. Eggar, Senior Business Advisor & Team Leader -Sustainable Mobility) answering amongst other questions the following question "Many papers published in the past few years show that the MBH record very likely under-estimates temperature variability over the past 1500 years. Presumably the GCMs were able to reproduce (or were tuned to) the low MBH variability. How do they have to be modified to reproduce the greater variability? What implications does that have for attribution and predictions going forward?" Figures 6.10 and Fig 6.13 of the IPCC AR4 would be useful but of course they are still under wraps. Alternatively the latest equivalent I have is from Mann et al, EOS, 84, 256-258, 2003 but this does not include series like Moberg 2005. Do you know whether there is a more recent equivalent published like Fig 6.10 and 6.13 ? Many thanks for any help or pointers, Peter -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dr. Peter Stott Climate Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research (Reading Unit) Meteorology Building, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5613 Fax: +44 (0)118 378 5615 Mobile: 07753880683 E-mail:peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk [1]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk NOTE WILL ALSO BE AT EXETER PART OF EACH WEEK ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 2304. 2006-05-24 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 24 May 2006 14:05:17 +0100 from: peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk subject: BP briefing to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk Dear Tim and Keith I have to give a presentation to senior BP Executives next Wednesday (list is Steven E. Koonin Chief Scientist Joseph P. Merlini, Director Strategic Cooperation Chris J. Mottershead, Distinguished Advisor, Energy & the Environment John K. Wells, Vice President Environment Duncan G.M. Eggar, Senior Business Advisor & Team Leader -Sustainable Mobility) answering amongst other questions the following question "Many papers published in the past few years show that the MBH record very likely under-estimates temperature variability over the past 1500 years. Presumably the GCMs were able to reproduce (or were tuned to) the low MBH variability. How do they have to be modified to reproduce the greater variability? What implications does that have for attribution and predictions going forward?" Figures 6.10 and Fig 6.13 of the IPCC AR4 would be useful but of course they are still under wraps. Alternatively the latest equivalent I have is from Mann et al, EOS, 84, 256-258, 2003 but this does not include series like Moberg 2005. Do you know whether there is a more recent equivalent published like Fig 6.10 and 6.13 ? Many thanks for any help or pointers, Peter -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dr. Peter Stott Climate Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research (Reading Unit) Meteorology Building, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5613 Fax: +44 (0)118 378 5615 Mobile: 07753880683 E-mail:peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk NOTE WILL ALSO BE AT EXETER PART OF EACH WEEK ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 3813. 2006-05-24 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa date: Wed May 24 16:51:51 2006 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: BP briefing to: peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk Peter - I've discussed with Keith and attach a few PPT slides. Hopefully they are of some use. They are: (1) A composite of various NH temperature reconstructions done by us pre-Moberg, but then Science added the Moberg series and published it again (without telling us or acknowledging us would you believe!). (2) A composite of various simulated NH temperature time series published recently by us (a month or so ago in Clim. Dyn.). (3-4) These show the envelope of reconstructions in grey, then overlaid in red by the envelope of model simulations. Useful showing model consistency with the real world. Not yet published. Please don't give to anyone else, but feel free to use it for your presentation if you want. (5-11) Set of slides from our recent Science paper, hopefully self explanatory. Feel free to use or not use any of this material as you see fit. It would be nice to know, however, if you do use any of it. Cheers Tim At 14:05 24/05/2006, you wrote: Dear Tim and Keith I have to give a presentation to senior BP Executives next Wednesday (list is Steven E. Koonin Chief Scientist Joseph P. Merlini, Director Strategic Cooperation Chris J. Mottershead, Distinguished Advisor, Energy & the Environment John K. Wells, Vice President Environment Duncan G.M. Eggar, Senior Business Advisor & Team Leader -Sustainable Mobility) answering amongst other questions the following question "Many papers published in the past few years show that the MBH record very likely under-estimates temperature variability over the past 1500 years. Presumably the GCMs were able to reproduce (or were tuned to) the low MBH variability. How do they have to be modified to reproduce the greater variability? What implications does that have for attribution and predictions going forward?" Figures 6.10 and Fig 6.13 of the IPCC AR4 would be useful but of course they are still under wraps. Alternatively the latest equivalent I have is from Mann et al, EOS, 84, 256-258, 2003 but this does not include series like Moberg 2005. Do you know whether there is a more recent equivalent published like Fig 6.10 and 6.13 ? Many thanks for any help or pointers, Peter -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dr. Peter Stott Climate Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research (Reading Unit) Meteorology Building, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5613 Fax: +44 (0)118 378 5615 Mobile: 07753880683 E-mail:peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk [1]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk NOTE WILL ALSO BE AT EXETER PART OF EACH WEEK ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1593. 2006-05-25 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 25 May 2006 12:43:13 -0400 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Re: expert review comments on AR4 to: Keith Briffa thanks a bunch Keith, yes, lets definitely discuss in Switzerland. Perhaps you, Tim, Phil, and I (maybe more, but I think this would be just right) could get together over a few beers and really have an honest open discussion of where we can sort out the real issues (of which there are many) from the specious ones (of which there are also many!). Especially, see the latest RealClimate article by David Ritson, its also relevant to the discussion even though it is of course not true peer-reviewed literature: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/how-red-are-my-proxies/ My guess is that anything that the 4 of us all can find consensus on, is probably a good reflection of what the consensus is within the leaders in this field, and you could certaintly use that as ammunition in your deliberations with Peck and Susan... see you soon, mike Keith Briffa wrote: > Hi Mike > thanks for these comments and especially thanks for your remarks on > the effort of trying to produce a balanced picture of the current > state of things in the IPCC Chapter 6. In fact , I know that it is > already out of date and I am going to get particularly lambasted for > not discussing problems with recent tree responses to warming and > potential problems wit CO2 fertilization - I may have to add even more > text yet .You are absolutely correct that we had unreasonable trouble > from Susan , who was not as "hands off" as she might have been. I will > certainly study your comments carefully - as I always do . I would > rather reserve comment on the Crowley reconstruction til I speak > personally to you. I really hope that we can get an atmosphere of > constructive discussion that , I believe, must include some discussion > of the sceptics . Look forward to those drinks and some time away from > the mad house of teaching/exam marking etc. See you soon > > best wishes > Keith > > At 18:08 24/05/2006, you wrote: > >> Hi Keith, >> >> I wanted you to have an advance copy of the comments I'll be >> submitting on the final draft of the AR4. I commend you for the >> excellent work you've done and the tough battle I know you have had >> to fight. I don't envy it, and you know the tough battles I've been >> through. >> >> Confidentially, I do have a number of specific concerns mostly in >> the area of discussions of where things actually now stand in terms >> of some of the earlier criticisms. I believe that the discussion is >> still out of date, given what has been shown in recent publications, >> including Wahl and Ammann (Science). Also, and I don't think this is >> the only place you're going to hear this from, there are deep >> problems w/ Hegerl et al '06, particularly the claims of what TLS can >> do, which are egregiously incorrect. There is a comment in review in >> Nature (not me, but I can promise you, by someone who understands the >> statistical issues involved better than anyone else in our community) >> that is very critical. I think its unwise for the TAR to >> uncritically accept the claims made, particularly given that the >> actual J. Climate paper was in limbo at least at the time the most >> recent draft was finalized. I believe that disqualifies it for >> consideration for AR4, no? >> >> Also, I think it is an absolute travesty that figure 6.10 isn't being >> shown in the SPM. I think that is unforgiveable, and there should be >> an effort to over-ride that decision (I would suspect that is Susan >> Solomon's doing?), >> >> I hope we can discuss these things (and much else) over a few beers >> in Switzerland. Looking forward to seeing you soon, >> >> mike >> >> -- >> Michael E. Mann >> Associate Professor >> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) >> >> Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 >> 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 >> The Pennsylvania State University email: >> mann@psu.edu >> University Park, PA 16802-5013 >> >> http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm >> >> > > -- > 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/ -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 3601. 2006-05-30 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 30 May 2006 09:16:05 +0100 from: "Sheppard Sylvia \(SCI\) ks918" subject: FW: Climate Conference, Saturday June 3rd to: -----Original Message----- From: Phil Thornhill [mailto:info@campaigncc.org] Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 3:33 PM To: info@campaigncc.org Subject: Climate Conference, Saturday June 3rd Campaign against Climate Change CLIMATE CONFERENCE, Saturday June 3^rd at the London School of Economics, Houghton Street WC2 (Holborn or Temple tube) 9.45 am - 6.00 pm THIS YEAR'S BUMPER CLIMATE CONFERENCE !!! Speakers include Caroline Lucas MEP, Norman Baker MP, Mark Lynas, George Marshall (COIN), Aubrey Meyer (GCI), Jason Torrance (Transport 2000), Jeremy Leggett (Solar Century), Goksen Sahin (Istanbul Climate Campaign), Prof Peter Wadhams (Ocean Physics, Cambridge), Dr Peter Challoner (National Oceanography Centre), David Fleming (on `Domestic Tradable Quotas'), Prof Fergus Nicol & Prof Sue Roaf (Environmental Architecture), John Stewart (Airport Watch), Rebecca Lush (Roadblock)... and from Tearfund, Practical Action, RSPB, Sustrans, FOE, Greenpeace, Camp for Climate Action, Rising Tide, Christian Ecology, IFEES (Islamic Ecology), TREC, Slower Speeds, Communications Workers' Union.... and the ones Ive forgotten to mention !!! Workshops on How bad, how fast will the climate crisis get ?; Alternative Energy Sources and Solutions; Climate Change and Development; Climate Change Biodiversity Loss & Deforestation; CC & transport; CC, Faith & Spirituality; CC & Aviation; Is there a Corporate Enemy & if so who ?; Carbon Trading; Low Emissions Housing; What can we do in our own lives ?; Building a Global Campaign; CC & the Unions; Do we have to sacrifice living standards to fight CC ?; The Big Ask; Contraction and Convergence. Also a session on `Building for Britain's biggest ever climate demo on November 4^th' !!! Check out the full program at [1]www.campaigncc.org !! Conference is free (donations appreciated !) and ticketless : just turn up ! 637. 2006-05-31 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed May 31 16:57:50 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: manuscript to: Peter Huybers Hi Peter will try to read over the next few days - busy marking exams and preparing EC proposal stuff etc at the moment . Thanks for the chance to see it best wishes Keith At 15:26 30/05/2006, you wrote: Dear Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, and Tim Osborn, Attached is a manuscript dealing with the frequency dependence of hemispheric temperature reconstructions. The manuscript depends heavily on many of your individual or joint previous publications, and while not completely original, I hope it adds something through being comprehensive and focussed. I would like to submit this manuscript in the coming week, but if you find the time, would appreciate any feedback or comments you might have. Sincerely, Peter Huybers -------------------------------------- Peter Huybers Harvard University and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution phuybers@whoi.edu [1]http://www.mit.edu/~phuybers/ --------------------------------------- -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 1168. 2006-06-06 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Jun 6 13:58:45 2006 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Wengen meeting to: Eduardo Zorita Dear Eduardo, sorry I didn't get a chance to respond to your email till now, but I know that Keith already did pass on our regrets about this situation. I think that the meeting will be poorer for your absence, but also understand your concern about how constructive/defensive the discussion might be. The meeting starts tomorrow and, as usual, I am short of time and so only now finishing my presentation. I have been allocated just 10 minutes and 4 slides! There is probably no one who will show *critical* results regarding bias in reconstruction methods using pseudo-proxies. I thought that maybe I should therefore include 1 or 2 slides from SO&P pseudo-proxy work and maybe have some in backup for the discussion. The von Storch et al. (2004) work is of course "public domain", so I could show those. But would you be happy for me to show something from your SO&P meeting talk at the last meeting in Bern? You had some slides in the presentation showing (1) how similar Erik-2 and CSM are; (2) pseudo-proxy results from Erik-2 for detrended, non-detrended and non-detrended+longer-calibration period. Would you be happy for me to show these? I understand if you would prefer that I didn't, given that they are not yet published. But I guess the second one is very similar to the figures in your response to Wahl et al. that is published, except the former used Erik-2 and the latter used Erik-1. Anyway, I will be happy to show any of these if you will allow. Or if you prefer, then I will show only figures that have been published. Sorry for the short notice..., hopefully you are able to reply soon. Cheers Tim At 22:31 03/05/2006, you wrote: Dear Tim, dear Keith, I am writing to inform you that I have reconsidered my acceptance to attend the Wengen meeting. In the last days I have convinced myself that under the present circumstances a constructive discussion on reconstruction methods is unfortunately not possible. We have another exchange on the last Journal of Climate paper by Mann et al, which is now under review. Even the editor of J. of Climate found adequate to tell us that all inflammatory comments in their response would have to be eventually deleted. Even considering the considerable pressure that he has is exposed to in American politics, I think Michael Mann is unable of any constructive discussion. I am very grateful for your invitation to this meeting and I hope that we can continue our collaboration in other ocasion. Best wishes eduardo 3620. 2006-06-06 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Jun 6 14:30:55 2006 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: HOLIVAR poster session 3 to: "Sonechkin D.M." Thanks! Tim At 11:15 31/05/2006, you wrote: Dear Tim, I shall show a new technique of tree-ring-based reconstruction with an illustration on the known Tornetrask tree-ring set (this research is in collaboration with my colleague Nina Datsenko from HydroMeteoCenter of Russia, and with H.grudd and a. Moberg from the Stockholm University). The essence consists of the use a new index dR(t)*R(t)-Mean(dR(100)*R(100)) where dR(t) - ring width of the year t, R(t) - the inner radius of this ring, Mean(dR(100)*R(100)) - mean value of the product for 100-year old trees calculated for consequent time intervals of 200 or 500 years in their length. This quantity is a characteristic of general environmental conditions during respective time intervals, and so it admits to represent lower-frequency responses of trees to varying climatic and environmental conditions. Note, our index is similar to the know basal area increment index, but it is robust to deviations of the stem geometry from ideal circle. Our index is age-insensitive for mature trees (.100 year old). The first of attached reconstruction (they cover more than the latest 2000 y) is created with use all mature trees from the Tornetrsk set. One can see that the MWP and the Roman warm epoch were warmer then the current climate. But one can see some delta-like peaks in the reconstruction by the reasn of poor sampling for respective time moments. Therefore, the second and third reconstruction are created with use the only cases when more than 3 or 5 tree-rings exist for a year. All peaks are absent in the third reconstruction, but some gaps exist. Green line shown in the third reconstruction represent an estimation of temperature variations BP published by a Swedish paleoclimatologist Moerner (1976). He used dO18 in sediments of the Tingstedetrask lake (Gotland). One can see the third reconstruction cartch rather well the manycentennial temperature variations indeed. Dmitry Sonechkin Tim Osborn wrote: Hi everyone, sorry for the mass posting, but as there are so many of you I couldn't send out individual requests. I have the honor of introducing the poster session for theme 3 (Climate variability in the last 2000 years) of the HOLIVAR conference, for which you are all listed as presenting posters. In my 15 minute slot I will try to mention as many of your posters as possible, or at least groupings of those in common themes. It would be nice if I could show a figure from many of the posters to induce the audience's curiosity so that they go and find out more from you/your poster. Obviously I wouldn't have time to explain anything in detail. If you would be willing, then please send me one figure from your poster (JPEG, GIF, PNG, PDF etc. including caption) and I will try to include it. If you have not yet made your poster, then it does not matter too much if you send a figure which is not identical to your final choice for your poster... as I said it is just to whet the audience's appetite. Best regards Tim Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow 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: [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 893. 2006-06-08 ______________________________________________________ cc: peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk, Keith Briffa date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 08:41:58 +0100 from: peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk subject: Re: BP briefing to: Tim Osborn Hi Tim, Than you very much for your material. My brief was to keep it brief (and I had 4 disparate topics to cover) so I included only one of your ppt slides - the one showing the models overlying the reconstructions. However it turned out that the Chief Scientist of BP knows a lot about this particular subject (thank goodness I'd done my homework !) including keeping up to date with the latest published literature, so he asked lots of questions and we had a good discussion in which I was able to fill him in on some of the latest developments. The ipcc discussion in chap 6 of the AR4 was also very helpful for my preparation ! There was a very interesting discussion at the end of the meeting. BP would like scientists to come up with a target and then their CE can go and sell it to World leaders. In the meantime they'll carry on running their business maximising profit for their shareholders according to the business environment they're operating in. Cheers, Peter On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 16:51, Tim Osborn wrote: > Peter - I've discussed with Keith and attach a few PPT > slides. Hopefully they are of some use. They are: > > (1) A composite of various NH temperature reconstructions done by us > pre-Moberg, but then Science added the Moberg series and published it > again (without telling us or acknowledging us would you believe!). > > (2) A composite of various simulated NH temperature time series > published recently by us (a month or so ago in Clim. Dyn.). > > (3-4) These show the envelope of reconstructions in grey, then > overlaid in red by the envelope of model simulations. Useful showing > model consistency with the real world. Not yet published. Please > don't give to anyone else, but feel free to use it for your > presentation if you want. > > (5-11) Set of slides from our recent Science paper, hopefully self explanatory. > > Feel free to use or not use any of this material as you see fit. It > would be nice to know, however, if you do use any of it. > > Cheers > > Tim > > At 14:05 24/05/2006, you wrote: > >Dear Tim and Keith > > > >I have to give a presentation to senior BP Executives next Wednesday > >(list is > >Steven E. Koonin Chief Scientist > >Joseph P. Merlini, Director Strategic Cooperation > >Chris J. Mottershead, Distinguished Advisor, Energy & the Environment > >John K. Wells, Vice President Environment > >Duncan G.M. Eggar, Senior Business Advisor & Team Leader -Sustainable > >Mobility) > >answering amongst other questions the following question > > > >"Many papers published in the past few years show that the MBH record > >very likely under-estimates temperature variability over the past 1500 > >years. Presumably the GCMs were able to reproduce (or were tuned to) > >the low MBH variability. How do they have to be modified to reproduce > >the greater variability? What implications does that have for > >attribution and predictions going forward?" > > > >Figures 6.10 and Fig 6.13 of the IPCC AR4 would be useful but of course > >they are still under wraps. Alternatively the latest equivalent I have > >is from Mann et al, EOS, 84, 256-258, 2003 but this does not include > >series like Moberg 2005. Do you know whether there is a more recent > >equivalent published like Fig 6.10 and 6.13 ? > > > >Many thanks for any help or pointers, > >Peter > > > >-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Dr. Peter Stott Climate Scientist Met Office > > Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research (Reading Unit) > > Meteorology Building, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB > > Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5613 Fax: +44 (0)118 378 5615 > > Mobile: 07753880683 > > E-mail:peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > > NOTE WILL ALSO BE AT EXETER PART OF EACH WEEK > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow > 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ > sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm -- 2430. 2006-06-08 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 17:16:25 +0100 from: "Janice Darch" subject: Commission launch ‘You Control C limate Change’ Awareness to: ,  Subscriber Services banner [1]My News | [2]My Profile | [3]Bookmark this page | [4]My Researcher Page Search ____________________ [5][Search_normal.gif] [6]Advanced Search UKRO Logo [7]Home > [8]Subscriber Services > [9]Information Services > My News navigation bar [10]navigation fp7 button navigation bar [11]navigation fp6 button navigation bar [12]navigation fp5 button navigation bar [13]navigation non-framework button navigation bar navigation information services button navigation bar [14]navigation events button navigation bar [15]navigation brussels info button navigation bar [16]navigation ukro info button navigation bar Commission launch `You Control Climate Change' Awareness Campaign FP No Information type News Created 2006-06-05 Summary The European Commission launched the European `You control climate change' awareness raising campaign in the UK today, which challenges individuals to make small changes to their daily routine in order significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The campaign website offers lots of easy, practical tips. It aims to give people a sense of personal responsibility and empower them to contribute to the fight climate change, since EU households are responsible for 16% of the total EU greenhouse gas emissions. The slogan is `Turn down. Switch off. Recycle. Walk. Change.'. In the UK DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) also launched a national climate change initiative on the 24th May, called `Tomorrow's Climate, Today's Challenge', which aims to explain climate change in order to help people tackle the problem. Article WHY DID THE EU LAUNCH THE CAMPAIGN? Combating climate change is an EU priority and one of today's biggest challenges. To succeed, all sectors of society (industry, transport, agriculture, households) have to make a contribution. Surveys show that preventing climate change is important to Europe's citizens, but many feel helpless and think that their actions do not have any impact. The Commission aims to demonstrate to EU citizens how individuals can help fight climate change by simple everyday actions, collectively leading to significant overall reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. It aims to: * improve awareness and understanding of climate change amongst citizens; * demonstrate that daily activities can collectively make a big difference and that each individual has a role to play in the fight against climate change; and * motivate citizens to undertake these small, significant changes to their daily routine (such as remembering to lower the home's thermostat, switching off the TV rather than putting it on standby, recycling and walking more often) INDIVIDUALS CONTRIBUTION: Households are directly responsible for about 16% of EU greenhouse gas emissions. Each EU citizen is responsible for 11 tonnes of (mainly CO2) greenhouse gas emissions per year. Households use almost 1/3 of the energy consumed in the EU, and private cars are responsible for roughly half of the transport emissions, so individuals directly influence these emissions. People can also help by reducing waste by recycling or composting - it costs ten times less energy to recycle an aluminum can than to produce a new one. Last but not least, citizens can push for the structural changes needed to achieve a low-carbon society, for example the increased use of renewable energy sources. COMMISSION LAUNCH: President of the Commission, Jose Barroso and Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas launched the 4.7 million campaign: * Barroso said: `For the Commission action against climate change is a priority. This campaign complements and reinforces our political and legislative efforts. It makes clear to which extent we all are responsible for climate change and what individuals can and need to do to limit this threat.' * Dimas commented: `People may say that their individual behaviour does not matter; I say on the contrary: Households in the EU count for a large part of the EU's total greenhouse gas emissions, so each of us has a role to play in bringing down emissions. Our campaign will provide citizens with information about climate change and their role in combating it. Doing the right thing is not as difficult as it seems.' They also unveiled a giant poster in Brussels showing the Earth in the universe, with a thermostat attached to it measuring its rising temperature. It reads `You control climate change. Turn down. Switch off. Recycle. Walk.' Other giant posters and outdoor advertising are also being unveiled in all other EU capitals. Secondary school pupils will also be encouraged to sign a pledge to reduce their CO2 emissions, and to track their progress. The campaign website will be available permanently, whilst the campaign itself will be carried out mainly in June, September and November 2006. CAMPAIGN WEBSITE: The campaign website explains climate change and its effects and gives 50 tips how to reduce emissions, ranging from turning down the heating by 1ºC (up to 10% of the energy used for heating saved) to avoiding the stand-by mode of TV sets, stereos and computers (10% of the energy they use saved) and printing double-sided (up to 50% of paper saved). A carbon calculator shows the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions saved by each action. There is also a power-saving computer screen saver which can be downloaded. Further information Campaign website for `You control climate change' at: [17]http://www.climatechange.eu.com Commission website on climate change: [18]http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/climat/home_en.htm EU Press Pack - Climate Change: [19]http://europa.eu/press_room/presspacks/climate/index_en.htm UK website 'Tomorrow's Climate, Today's Challenge' at: [20]http://www.climatechallenge.gov.uk and [21]http://ec.europa.eu/environment/networks/newsflash/newsflash24_com_climate.pdf Sources EU press releases IP/06/684 of 29/05/2006 and MEMO/06/218 of 29/05/2006 available at: [22]http://europa.eu/rapid/ Print article Print this article Embedded Content: left_subscr24.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,01354147 Embedded Content: Search_normal24.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,3f2df517 Embedded Content: ukrosmall24.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,41ea81ef Embedded Content: subs_nav0024.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,076deb24 Embedded Content: subs_nav0824.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,076dec54 Embedded Content: subs_nav0124.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,076deb4a Embedded Content: subs_nav0224.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,076deb70 Embedded Content: subs_nav0324.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,076deb96 Embedded Content: subs_nav04_on24.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,0bc8eb1a Embedded Content: subs_nav0524.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,076debe2 Embedded Content: subs_nav0624.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,076dec08 Embedded Content: subs_nav0724.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,076dec2e Embedded Content: print24.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,25cf2dd6 5259. 2006-06-12 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Jun 12 15:31:15 2006 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Fwd: well done Laura to: Clare Goodess Hi Clare [your email copied below didn't appear to be cc'd to cru.internal, which I guess you meant to do by starting "dear all".] I did know about the CRU things, I just wasn't sure if this was part of the same bid as Tyndall. Evidently it is. I am on holiday in Devon from 19-Aug to 3-Sep, but I can help after that (or is it over by then?) or in advance with preparation of material. Cheers Tim At 13:37 12/06/2006, you wrote: Dear all CRU was named as one of the partners in the application. (Though this is the first I've heard that it was successful!) As well as tree-rings, it is planned to incorporate an updated global temperature animation and probably some additional poster displays on CRU's work. I have already asked people to put 2/3 September in their diaries - as the exhibition needs to be fully staffed that weekend. It runs for a month in total, from 19th August. Now that the money is there, I assume planning will start in earnest, so will keep CRU informed - and ask for help where necessary. Clare At 12:15 12/06/2006, you wrote: Dear all, some might be interested in this, either for general interest about the BA Science festival, or because "the influential role of UEA" must surely include CRU... is anyone in CRU therefore involved in putting this display together? Cheers Tim From: "asher minns" To: Subject: well done Laura Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 12:06:11 +0100 I generally keep our occasional comms successes quiet, but my purpose here is to trumpet LAURA's successful £16,000 application to Defra's communicating climate change fund for an exhibition stand to engage with local people during the Science Festival. The display at the Cathedral will show the influential role of UEA in international climate change research. A very well done to Laura. -- Asher Minns, Communication Manager Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research ph 07880 547843 or 01865 275867 Tyndall Centre Oxford Oxford University Centre for the Environment South Parks Road Oxford OX1 3QY Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow 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: [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm Dr Clare Goodess Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: +44 -1603 592875 Fax: +44 -1603 507784 Web: [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ [4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm 3269. 2006-06-14 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 18:34:24 +0100 from: Andrew Manning subject: very important website to: env.all@uea.ac.uk Dear All, the EU Commission has started a major new initiative of both public awareness and public action on climate change. Please tell all your colleagues, friends and family, especially those outside of science/academia about this website (offered in 19 languages!!): http://www.climatechange.eu.com/ and a UK-specific one: http://www.climatechallenge.gov.uk/ Andrew 2709. 2006-06-15 ______________________________________________________ cc: Sandy Tudhope , Francis Zwiers , Ricardo Villalba , Nick Graham , Tim Osborn , "Wahl, Eugene R" , Hugues Goosse , Gavin Schmidt , , Janice Lough , Kim Cobb , Caspar Ammann , Michael Schulz , Juerg Luterbacher , "Michael E. Mann" , Heinz Wanner , Keith Briffa , Phil Jones , Nadja Riedwyl , Thorsten Kiefer , Howard Cattle , Eystein Jansen , Andrew Weaver , "Williams, Larry" , Julie Brigham-Grette , Leah Christen , Urs Neu , david.m.anderson@noaa.gov date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:37:24 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: PAGES/CLIVAR workshop - outcome! to: Christoph Kull Hi Christoph - it would be good to update the wording on the "data-related workshop" to make it clear that the primary focus of the workshop would be on understanding, communicating, and reducing uncertainty in proxy climate reconstructions. I thought the workshop in Wengen was outstanding in highlighting how far we've come with statistical reconstruction methods, and in understanding the relatively minor biases that they have. This made it clear that what is really needed now is more work towards the goal of reduced uncertainties in the proxies, as well as better communication of the uncertainties so that interdisciplinary use of the proxy data is improved. Of course, I also agree with those assembled that we could use this data uncertainty workshop to also make sure the PAGES/CLIVAR paleo data management efforts have the other foci and community support needed to achieve the goals of PAGES and CLIVAR. In this way, the proposed workshop would be the kind of decadal community status check and refinement effort that all long term endeavors should have. I'm going to cc this to Dave Anderson at the WDC-Paleo in Boulder so he knows what is up - I suggest PAGES work with him (and others) to help make sure the workshop gets the funding support it will need. Of course, others in the community will have to help too. I think it is also worth letting the PAGES/CLIVAR data management leaders like Dave know that the community thinks very highly of what they are doing and only wants to help them get even more community support (and data!) in the future, and in ways that are even more helpful to the community using the data. Anyhow - just a couple thoughts. Thanks again, Peck >Dear all, >Thanks a lot for the open discussions in Wengen! >Attached, you will find a summary list of the outcome as discussed on >Saturday morning. > >Main issues to move on include: >- summary publication >- workshop reports (EOS, PAGES/CLIVAR/EPRI Newsletters) >- setup of a modeling/reconstruction experiment >- start of planning for a "data related workshop" > >May I ask you (those who not already did it) to provide me some summary >slides from your presentation, including an extended caption. Larry Williams >will use them afterwards reporting to EPRI. > >All the best, thanks a lot and have a nice weekend! >Cheers, >Christoph > >-- >Christoph Kull >Science Officer >PAGES IPO >Sulgeneckstrasse 38 >CH-3007 Bern >Switzerland > >phone: +4131 312 31 53/33 >fax: +4131 312 31 68 > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Outcome1.doc (WDBN/«IC») (0013A5CA) -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 1098. 2006-06-21 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen , Jouzel@lsce.saclay.cea.fr, Keith Briffa , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:57:03 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: Review comments to: john mitchell Hi John - thanks. I'll cc to Keith and Tim too, and we'll be sure to discuss these in Bergen. I'll be on my normal email to the extent we have time to be check email - experience suggests it's tough. But... we'll try to keep an eye on email. See you soon, best, peck Hi Eystein, Jon, I am in Geneva at the WMO EC meeting,so I have not had a lot of time to look at the SOD comments. I can not get to Bergen before Tuesday. I had a quick look at the comments on the hockey stick and include below the questions I think need to be addressed which I hope will help the discussions. I do tbelieve we need a clear answer to the skeptics . I have also copied these comments to Jean. Please let me know that you have received this, and what email address I can contact you at in Bergen¨. With best wishes John 1. There needs to be a clear statement of why the instrumental and proxy data are shown on the same graph. The issue of why we dont show the proxy data for the last few decades ( they dont show continued warming) but assume that they are valid for early warm periods needs to be explained. 2 . There are number of methodological issues which need a clear response. There are two aspects to this. First , in relation to the TAR and MBA which seems to be the obsession of certain reviewers. Secondly (and this I believe this is the main priority for us) in relation to conclusions we make in the chapter We should make it clear where our comments apply to only MBH (if that is appropriate) , and where they apply to the overall findings of the chapter. Our response should consider all the issues for both MBH and the overall chapter conclusions a. The role of bristlecone pine data Is it reliable? Is it necessary to include this data to arrive at the conclusion that recent warmth is unprecedented? b. Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no. It is not clear how robust and significant the more recent approaches are. 3. The chapter notes that new data has been included, but we dont say how much or is this is substantial or minor. The impression I have that the amount added is minor, but I cant tell. 4. The Esper et al and Moburg et al data both show increased variance, but the temporal patterns are quite different. We need to say why the discrepancy does not undermine our conclusions of greater cooling in the Little Ice Age. 5. I have not had time to check the original chapter, but the comments give the impression that the recent 50 yr warming is unprecedented over the last 500years (seems reasonable) and elsewhere over the last 1000years (less clear) John FB Mitchell 13 De Vitre Green Wokingham RG40 1SE Tel 01189 782936 jfbmitchell@yahoo.co.uk john.f.mitchell@metoffice.com ___________________________________________________________________________________ Like being first? Check out the [1]all-new Yahoo! Mail today. -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 4638. 2006-06-21 ______________________________________________________ cc: "'C Gardner'" date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:07:09 +0100 from: "Samantha Jones" subject: EU FP6 grants to: , , I am aware that a number of staff in the Science Faculty hold EU FP6 research project grants, as does the Tyndall Centre. When we applied for these grants, unfortunately we were not advised of the EU directive which prohibits using their grants to reimburse certain forms of tax incurred on project activities. I think part of the problem was that at the time of our applications, the directive was still under development so its implications were by no means clear. As both of our FP6 grants are large, this means we are now faced with significant tax costs which we had not known would have to be budgeted from other sources. Clearly we cannot charge these costs to other, non-EU research grants held by the Tyndall Centre as these have been awarded for separate activities. I am aware that UEA and other organisations have been lobbying the EU to change its frustrating directive but any movement on this in the short term is unlikely. I would be interested to know how other holders of FP6 project grants are funding unavoidable tax incurred on project activities. Any advice you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Thank you Samantha Samantha Jones Senior Administrator Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Zuckerman Institute for Connective Environmental Research School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ Norfolk UK 01603 593903 [1]http://www.tyndall.ac.uk 653. 2006-06-22 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Jun 22 20:01:58 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Fwd: Surface temps pdf and release to: Andy Revkin Hi Andy really short on time - stopped by office to pick up passport/tickets before leave for Bergen tomorrow am. Obviously not seen the report - hope Phil will pick up and bring. In meantime, in response to your questions At 03:47 22/06/2006, you wrote: hi keith, hope all's well. the nat academies NRC committee report on hockey stick is out as of 11 a.m. Washington time thursday. i've attached presuming you'll respect the embargo. i'm hoping you can provide some input (they cite you guys several times) on some of the lessons of this saga. if you can weigh in by quotable email by midday our time, that'd be super. feel free to pick 1 or 2 below (ideally last one, particularly)> 1) the report says the 'principal component analysis' method Mann et al used for parts of calcs is "not recommended" but goes on to say it does not seem to unduly influence results on hemisphere estimates. any idea why they concluded it is not recommended? No - and I do not necessarily agree. There are options to be chosen , as with all methods, but the latest version of the Mann et al software (REGEM) seems to work as well as other approaches , provided the input data are well dispersed and of good quality. I believe the Committee may have been premature in concluding this , as further work needs to be done (and is being done , especially involving the use of pseudo proxy data taken from model simulations). I would also add that a number of widely publicised critics of the early methods may not turn out to be as significant as previously thought . I believe we will make progress in the near future on resolving some of these debates but we do not yet know enough to jump to conclusions that may be overly dismissive of previous work. 2) they made gentle point about data sharing, but don't get specific. is this always a sticky issue? The situation is not ideal but the reasons are often to do with logistics rather than any desire to withhold data for "suspicious" reasons. 3) they have a very low confidence in any findings on pre 900 A.D. (global average) climate. fair? Yes 4) are there general lessons in the way this has played out? is it possible, in the end, to use existing proxies meainngfully back beyond a certain time span? Do not understand the question really. I certainly believe proxies can be used to provide much information for periods before the most recent millennium. However, what is lacking , ultimately, is not methodological know how, but rather a good distribution of accurate proxies, for which the uncertainties are well understood and quantified. I would be the first to acknowledge the data are relatively poor (certainly when compared to the quality and quantity of 20th century instrumental data). It is not surprising that there remain large uncertainties in our estimates of past temperature . These uncertainties are generally widely recognized. Nevertheless, I believe current interpretations of the body of evidence is generally reasonable, and it is justified to conclude that 20th century warmth is likely to be unprecedented , even over the last 1000 years, given the evidence currently to hand. To narrow uncertainties , we require much greater effort in gathering widespread data; establishing robust estimates of regional climate variability and a major effort to update and improve (by better replication) existing series of know value. finally, if the curve had not become so iconic, would we be having this discussion? Probably yes - I would not have chosen in the original TAR Summary to highlight this one curve - but we should not forget that the considerable uncertainty associated with it was shown . However it was always likely hat this curve would be challenged from a scientific point of view - as is correct - as new data and different reconstruction methods are adopted . The conclusions regarding the reality of unusual warming have certainly not been overturned since then , however. In fact, many subsequent analyses seem to reinforce this. So do not let scientific development (and sceptic misinformation ) obscure this important message. This is not to say that future work will not overturn this - but we can only conclude to the best of knowledge at any one time. thanks for helping with this, (sent a note to tim o as well) Happy for you to quote any or all of this andy Keith X-SBRS: None X-REMOTE-IP: 144.171.38.42 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.06,162,1149480000"; d="pdf'?scan'208,217"; a="11668797:sNHT1957461184" Subject: Surface temps pdf and release Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:11:09 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Surface temps pdf and release thread-index: AcaVTU7Qlxyh6OYYRdqAEXQPuz7m0w== From: "Kearney, William" To: X-NYTOriginatingHost: nat-hq-gate-01.nytimes.com, 199.181.175.221 Briefing is at 11 tomorrow here at 2100 C St. NW, hope to see you here. <> Date: June 22, 2006 Contacts: Bill Kearney, Director of Media Relations Megan Petty, Media Relations Assistant Office of News and Public Information 202-334-2138; e-mail EMBARGOED: NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE BEFORE 11 A.M. EDT THURSDAY, JUNE 22 'High Confidence' That Planet Is Warmest in 400 Years; Less Confidence in Temperature Reconstructions Prior to 1600 WASHINGTON -- There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new report from the National Research Council. Less confidence can be placed in proxy-based reconstructions of surface temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600, said the committee that wrote the report, although the available proxy evidence does indicate that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than during any other 25-year period since 900. Very little confidence can be placed in statements about average global surface temperatures prior to A.D. 900 because the proxy data for that time frame are sparse, the committee added. Scientists rely on proxies to reconstruct paleoclimatic surface temperatures because geographically widespread records of temperatures measured with instruments date back only about 150 years. Other proxies include corals, ocean and lake sediments, ice cores, cave deposits, and documentary sources, such as historic drawings of glaciers. The globally averaged warming of about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) that instruments have recorded during the last century is also reflected in proxy data for that time period, the committee noted. The report was requested by Congress after a controversy arose last year over surface temperature reconstructions published by climatologist Michael Mann and his colleagues in the late 1990s. The researchers concluded that the warming of the Northern Hemisphere in the last decades of the 20th century was unprecedented in the past thousand years. In particular, they concluded that the 1990s were the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year. Their graph depicting a rise in temperatures at the end of a long era became known as the "hockey stick." The Research Council committee found the Mann team's conclusion that warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last thousand years to be plausible, but it had less confidence that the warming was unprecedented prior to 1600; fewer proxies -- in fewer locations -- provide temperatures for periods before then. Because of larger uncertainties in temperature reconstructions for decades and individual years, and because not all proxies record temperatures for such short timescales, even less confidence can be placed in the Mann team's conclusions about the 1990s, and 1998 in particular. The committee noted that scientists' reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures for the past thousand years are generally consistent. The reconstructions show relatively warm conditions centered around the year 1000, and a relatively cold period, or "Little Ice Age," from roughly 1500 to 1850. The exact timing of warm episodes in the medieval period may have varied by region, and the magnitude and geographical extent of the warmth is uncertain, the committee said. None of the reconstructions indicates that temperatures were warmer during medieval times than during the past few decades, the committee added. The scarcity of precisely dated proxy evidence for temperatures before 1600, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, is the main reason there is less confidence in global reconstructions dating back further than that. Other factors that limit confidence include the short length of the instrumental record, which is used to calibrate and validate reconstructions, and the possibility that the relationship between proxy data and local surface temperatures may have varied over time. It also is difficult to estimate a mean global temperature using data from a limited number of sites. On the other hand, confidence in large-scale reconstructions is boosted by the fact that the proxies on which they are based generally exhibit strong correlations with local environmental conditions. Confidence increases further when multiple independent lines of evidence point to the same general phenomenon, such as the Little Ice Age. Collecting additional proxy data, especially for years before 1600 and for areas where the current data are relatively sparse, would increase our understanding of temperature variations over the last 2,000 years, the report says. In addition, improving access to data on which published temperature reconstructions are based would boost confidence in the results. The report also notes that new analytical methods, or more careful use of existing methods, might help circumvent some of the current limitations associated with large-scale reconstructions. The committee pointed out that surface temperature reconstructions for periods before the Industrial Revolution -- when levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases were much lower -- are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that current warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence. The National Research Council is the principal operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. It is a private, nonprofit institution that provides science and technology advice under a congressional charter. A committee roster follows. Copies of Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years will be available from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at [1]http://www.nap.edu. Reporters may obtain a pre-publication copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above). [ This news release and report are available at [2]http://national-academies.org ] NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL Division on Earth and Life Studies Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 2,000 Years: Synthesis of Current Understanding and Challenges for the Future Gerald R. North (chair) Distinguished Professor of Meteorology and Oceanography and Harold J. Haynes Endowed Chair in Geosciences Texas A&M University College Station Franco Biondi Associate Professor of Physical Geography University of Nevada Reno Peter Bloomfield Professor of Statistics and of Financial Mathematics North Carolina State University Raleigh John R. Christy Professor of Atmospheric Science, and Director Earth System Science Center University of Alabama Huntsville Kurt M. Cuffey Professor of Geography University of California Berkeley Robert E. Dickinson^1,2 Professor School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta Ellen R.M. Druffel Professor of Earth System Science University of California Irvine Douglas Nychka Senior Scientist National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder, Colo. Bette Otto-Bliesner Scientist Climate and Global Dynamics Division; Head Paleoclimate Group; and Deputy Head Climate Change Research Section National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder, Colo. Neil Roberts Head School of Geography University of Plymouth Plymouth, United Kingdom Karl K. Turekian^1 Sterling Professor of Geology and Geophysics Yale University New Haven, Conn. John M. Wallace^1 Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, and Director Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean University of Washington Seattle RESEARCH COUNCIL STAFF Ian Kraucunas Study Director ^ ^1 Member, National Academy of Sciences ^2 Member, National Academy of Engineering Bill Kearney Director of Media Relations Office of News & Public Information The National Academies 2101 Constitution Ave. NW #182 Washington, DC 20418 202-334-2144 [3]wkearney@nas.edu ANDREW C. REVKIN The New York Times / Environment 229 West 43d St., NY NY 10036 phone: 212-556-7326 / e-mail: revkin@nytimes.com / fax: 509-357-0965 Arctic book: The North Pole Was Here: [4]www.nytimes.com/learning/globalwarming Amazon book: The Burning Season [5]www.islandpress.org/burning Acoustic-roots band: [6]www.myspace.com/unclewade -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [7]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 3994. 2006-06-22 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 00:03:52 +0200 from: Eystein Jansen subject: Re: Review comments to: john mitchell , eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no, jto@u.arizona.edu Dear John, I got your comments. With the internet connection at the venue, you can use our normal email addresses s to get in touch with us here. I will make sure your selected comments are brought into the discussion at an early stage. See you soon. Best wishes, Eystein At 19:40 +0100 21-06-06, john mitchell wrote: Hi Eystein, Jon, I am in Geneva at the WMO EC meeting,so I have not had a lot of time to look at the SOD comments. I can not get to Bergen before Tuesday. I had a quick look at the comments on the hockey stick and include below the questions I think need to be addressed which I hope will help the discussions. I do tbelieve we need a clear answer to the skeptics . I have also copied these comments to Jean. Please let me know that you have received this, and what email address I can contact you at in Bergen¨. With best wishes John 1. There needs to be a clear statement of why the instrumental and proxy data are shown on the same graph. The issue of why we dont show the proxy data for the last few decades ( they dont show continued warming) but assume that they are valid for early warm periods needs to be explained. 2 . There are number of methodological issues which need a clear response. There are two aspects to this. First , in relation to the TAR and MBA which seems to be the obsession of certain reviewers. Secondly (and this I believe this is the main priority for us) in relation to conclusions we make in the chapter We should make it clear where our comments apply to only MBH (if that is appropriate) , and where they apply to the overall findings of the chapter. Our response should consider all the issues for both MBH and the overall chapter conclusions a. The role of bristlecone pine data Is it reliable? Is it necessary to include this data to arrive at the conclusion that recent warmth is unprecedented? b. Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no. It is not clear how robust and significant the more recent approaches are. 3. The chapter notes that new data has been included, but we dont say how much or is this is substantial or minor. The impression I have that the amount added is minor, but I cant tell. 4. The Esper et al and Moburg et al data both show increased variance, but the temporal patterns are quite different. We need to say why the discrepancy does not undermine our conclusions of greater cooling in the Little Ice Age. 5. I have not had time to check the original chapter, but the comments give the impression that the recent 50 yr warming is unprecedented over the last 500years (seems reasonable) and elsewhere over the last 1000years (less clear) John FB Mitchell 13 De Vitre Green Wokingham RG40 1SE Tel 01189 782936 jfbmitchell@yahoo.co.uk john.f.mitchell@metoffice.com ___________________________________________________________________________________ Like being first? Check out the [1]all-new Yahoo! Mail today. -- ______________________________________________________________ Eystein Jansen Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen Allégaten 55 N-5007 Bergen NORWAY e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 Fax: +47-55-584330 1911. 2006-06-23 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa date: Fri Jun 23 16:35:28 2006 from: Tim Osborn subject: report back from PAGES/CLIVAR Wengen meeting to: simon.tett@metoffice.gov.uk, philip.brohan@metoffice.gov.uk, Eduardo Zorita , Gerd Bürger Hi Simon, Philip, Eduardo & Gerd (cc Keith), I thought you might be interested in a brief report back from the recent Wengen meeting, specifically about how SO&P-funded work on pseudo-proxies was covered and related hockey-stick issues. **Please don't circulate this further, because it is just my personal viewpoint** Thanks for letting me show some of your material. I skipped over some graphs I took from Philip's regression presentation at the SO&P meeting because Francis Zwiers covered forward/inverse/total least squares before me. I did show some results from Eduardo, including pseudo-proxy results from Erik-II. And I showed a figure from Gerd's "many flavours" pseudo-proxy paper. The meeting included fairly intensive discussions about many issues, and this included some discussion of von Storch et al. (2004, 2006), Wahl et al. (2006), Mann et al. (2005), Burger and Cubasch (2005) and Burger et al. (2006). Generally the discussion was quite open, with only a few disdainful remarks made about the work of people not there -- certainly not enough to distract from useful discussions. In general, most people accepted that the MBH method could, in some situations, result in biased reconstructions with too little low-frequency. I'm not sure how much Mike Mann accepted this, but it was reinforced by findings shown by Eugene Wahl that indicated some bias in their CSM pseudo-proxy studies, and particularly by Francis Zwiers who looked to have almost completely replicated the von Storch et al. results with respect to the MBH method (though he emphasised the preliminary nature of his work and he may not have implemented the MBH method correctly... we'll have to wait and see). Mike showed many detailed psuedo-proxy tests of the RegEM method and these seemed quite convincing in showing little problem with that method... it does assume equal error in both instrumental and proxies, so it should show less bias than other methods that wrongly put all the error in the instrumental record (i.e., "typical" regression). So... there was some confusion about how the MBH method can be biased but the RegEM not be biased (in pseudo-proxy tests) yet they give the same results for the real proxies. Mike thought it might be the ECHO-G vs CSM differences, but I argued against this and was supported by Caspar Ammann and Eugene Wahl who did not think that the character of the model runs was a big factor in explaining different results. There was limited discussion of trend/detrend and white/red noise pseudo-proxy issues. Many seemed to think that if pseudo-proxy studies showed that detrending definitely caused a problem, then this was a reason not to detrend. The alternative of finding a method that worked with detrended data was not really discussed. The discussion was fairly constructive and for the most part friendly. Eugene Wahl in particular seemed keen to "build bridges" within the community. I should also mention two of the workshop outcomes. The first is that a paper is being planned based on the things discussed at the workshop and covering many issues from proxy data, forcings, model simulations and reconstructions. I hope that the authorship of this might be wider than just the participants of the workshop, but we will have to wait and see who else is asked to contribute. The second is that we should set up a "climate reconstruction challenge". The idea would be to use a simulation (*not* of the last 1000 years, so none of us know the expected answer) and provide some data from a "calibration period" and some "pseudo-proxies" from the full period and make these public so that anyone could attempt to make a reconstruction using their favoured method(s). The true model NH temperature series would be kept secret for 6 months or so. Thus it would be a "blind" test and after attempts had been submitted they would be evaluated against the true result to assess which methods were most successful. Caspar Ammann will probably provide the simulation, so he wouldn't take part in making any reconstructions. He would keep the details secret from all others so that any one, including MBH, you and us, could enter the challenge. Finally, it was asked whether the model runs that have so far been used for pseudo-proxy studies (NCAR CSM, ECHO-G Erik-I, HadCM3, maybe ECHO-G Erik-II?) might be made publicly available for shared use, so results are less model dependent. This would just be the surface air temperature fields from the runs, not all the other variables. What do you think, Simon and Eduardo? If you are happy with this then they could get them from the SO&P website, so no need for data extraction on your part. Hope you find this summary interesting. It's just my opinions. I've cc'd this to Keith in case he wants to say anything different! Cheers Tim 2942. 2006-06-23 ______________________________________________________ cc: ,k.briffa@uea.ac.uk date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 09:32:23 +0100 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: Surface temps,, under embargo., seeking reaction, analysis to: "Wahl, Eugene R" ,,, Dear All, Won't have a chance to read this report in detail as off to Bergen for IPCC tomorrow. Had a quick scan last night. One thing that is very odd is their statement about less confidence is the warmth of the 1990s and the year 1998, cf their higher confidence in the warmth of the last few decades compared to the last 400 and 1000 years. The second statement wouldn't be possible without the 1990s and 1998. The greater errors on individual years cf decades and eventually centuries in the instrumental record is wrong. They haven't read Jones et al. (1997) properly. Some errors cancel but the biases don't. This will become clearer when Brohan et al. (2006) eventually appears in JGR. Apart from 2005, 1998 is warmer than all other instrumental years. Also they should have referenced Jones et al (2003) on the seasonal differences in long instrumental records and documentary series, when discussing Figure 2.2. Seems as though they have completely ignored the likelihood (certainty) of different seasonal rates of change in the past. Cheers Phil At 02:07 22/06/2006, Wahl, Eugene R wrote: >Hello Ray, Phil, Mike, Caspar: > >Here are three sets of thoughts I sent just now to Andy Revkin on the NAS >report. [I asked him to use these for his own purposes only for now, and >not to cite.] > >Hello Andy: > >Thanks for forwarding the pre-release to me. I have looked it over and >think you have done a fair job of characterizing the committee's work and >conclusions. > >The one thing I have particular issue with is somewhat technical, and >possibly not germane therefore to your article, but I want to give it to >you in any case. This has to do with the issue of "spurious Principal >Components" cited on pp. 86-87 of the report. The analysis there that >replicates the work of McIntyre and McKitrick in this regard I think is >insufficient. I do not argue what is given, but there is more information >that we have in my article with Caspar Ammann on this that I believe >should have been cited, and was left out. In short, we have showed that >whether one uses the MBH centering convention (over the period 1902-1980) >for Principal Component caluclation or over the entire length of a set of >proxy records (600 years in the example) makes virtually no difference in >the resulting reconstruction (on the order of 0.05 deg C) in the MBH >framework. All the different centering conventions do is to spread the >actual climate signal differently across the range of the principal >components, and as long as an adequate number of them are retained, then >the impact on the reconstructions is nearly zero. The issue raised by MM >in this regard actually hinges on whether the proxy data going into the >Principal Component caluclations are first normalized (divided by the >standard deviation) or not, given the method of Principal Component >calculation MM employed. If not, then a larger number of Principal >Components needs to be retained, but even in this case if the appropriate >number IS retained, then the resulting reconstruction is unchanged. > >Along with the abstract case the committee shows, they should also have >included this empirical information -- which was available to them in our >paper. They have, in this particular situation, helped maintain confusion >in this regard, rather than reduce it. That is a bit frustrating, >although overall I think they have done a decent job. > >Thanks for all your hard work on covering this issue so well. > > >Hi Andy: > >Two other thoughts. > >1) In my estimation, the committee also did something of a disservice by >not noting that, although the MBH-type reconstruction does have poor >year-to-year validation performance before the 19th century according to >the validation instrumental data used (it captures mean offsets from 20th >century temperatures though), other indirect tests of year-to-year >performance of the reconstruction show very good performance. This is >also shown in the Wahl and Ammann paper that the committee cited in a >number of places on other issues. For example, the MBH reconstructions >into the 18th century for Europe have very good r^2 relationship with the >reconstructions done by Juerg Luterbacher and colleagues for Europe, based >on a completely separate proxy data set mostly driven by instrumental >temperature records. Also, the MBH method as used by Von Storch et al. in >their model-based work shows extremely good year-to-year performance in >general, even though we (Wahl, Ritson, and Ammann, 2006) took some issue >with the results VS et al show in terms of lower frequency loss of >"amplitude" by MBH. > >I'm left with a vague impression that the Wahl and Ammann (in press) paper >was somewhat selectively (or possibly myopically) cited; in any case I >feel strongly this way concerning the Principal Component issue I wrote >about in my last message. > > >2) I think the committee also missed the mark to a degree by their >emplasis on the usefulness of the CE statistic over the RE >statistic. This is on pp. 88-91 of the text (same pages reference as for >(1) above). They don't emphasize that RE rewards detection of a >difference in mean between the calibration and validation periods, which >CE cannot -- by construction -- detect. A CE value near 0 in validation >DOES indicate that year-to-year tracking is very poor, but this does not >say whether the detection of the difference in means is occuring or >not. So, as with my last message, I don't so much argue with what the >committee did say, but rather find a sense of incompletion that I think is >unfortunate. > > >Peace, Gene >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies >Alfred University > >607-871-2604 >1 Saxon Drive >Alfred, NY 14802 > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4305. 2006-06-23 ______________________________________________________ cc: Christoph Kull , Keith Briffa date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 11:23:15 -0600 from: Caspar Ammann subject: Re: climate reconstruction challenge to: Tim Osborn Hi Tim, just back from the various trips and meetings, most recently Breckenridge and the CCSM workshop until yesterday. This coincided with the release of the NRC report... Thanks Tim for getting in touch with Simon and Eduardo. And I would think it would be excellent if you would be on the reconstruction side of things here. We really need to make sure that all the reconstruction groups (the ones that show up in the spaghetti-graph) also provide reconstructions for the Challenge. By the way, Mike Mann is fine with the participation of the german group in this as he has spoken now favorably on the project. I think the separation you point at is absolutely crucial. So, as I indicated in Wengen, I would suggest that we could organize a small group of modelers to define the concepts of the experiments, and then make these happen completely disconnected from standard data-centers. A Pseudo-Proxy group should then develop concepts of how to generate pseudo-proxy series and tell the modelers where they need what data. But what they do is not communicated to the modelers. Based The underlying concept as well as the technical procedure of how we approach the pseudo-proxies should be made public, so that everybody knows what we are dealing with. We could do this under the PAGES-CLIVAR intersection umbrella to better ensure that the groups are held separate and to give this a more official touch. Below a quick draft, we should iterate on this and then contact people for the various groups. So long and have a good trip to Norway, Caspar Here a very quick and simple structural draft we can work from: (all comments welcome, no hesitations to shoot hard!) Primary Goals: - cross-verification of various emulations of same reconstruction technique using same input data - comparison of skill at various time scales of different techniques if fed with identical pseudo-proxy data - sensitivities of hemispheric estimates to noise, network density - identify skill of resolving regional climate anomalies - isolate forced from unforced signal - identify questionable, non-consistent proxies - modelers try to identify climate parameters and noise structure over calibration period from pseudo-proxies Number of experiments: - available published runs - available unpublished, or available reordered runs - CORE EXPERIMENTS OF CHALLENGE: 1-3 brand new experiments ^one experiment should look technically realistic: trend in calibration, and relatively reasonable past (very different phasing) ^one experiment should have no trend in calibration at all, but quite accentuated variations before ^...one could have relatively realistic structure but contains a large landuse component (we could actually do some science here...) Pseudo-Proxies and "instrumental-data": - provide CRU-equivallent instrumental data (incl. some noise) that is degrading in time - provide annually resolved network of pseudo proxies ((we could even provide a small set of ~5 very low resolution records with some additional uncertainty in time)) - 2 networks: one "high" resolution (100 records), one "low" resolution (20), though only one network available for any single model experiment to avoid "knowledge-tuning", or through time separation: first 500-years only low-red, then second 500-years with both. - pseudo-proxies vary in representation in climate (temperature, precip, combination), time (annual, seasonal) and space (grid-point, small region) Organization of three separate and isolated groups, and first steps: - Modeler group to decide on concept of target climates, forcing series. Provide only network information to Proxy-Group (People? Ammann, Zorita, Tett, Schmidt, Graham, Cobb, Goosse...). - Pseudo-proxy group to decide on selection of networks, and representation of individual proxies to mimic somewhat real world situation, but develop significant noise (blue-white-red) concepts, non-stationarity, and potential "human disturbance" (People? Brohan, Schweingruber, Wolff, Thompson, Overpeck/Cole, Huybers, Anderson, ...). - Reconstruction group getting ready for input file structures: netCDF for "instrumental", ascii-raw series for pseudo-proxy series. Decide common metrics and reconstruction targets given theoretical pseudo-proxy network information. (People: everybody else) Direct science from this: (important!) - Forced versus internal variations in climate simulations (Modelers) - Review and catalog of pseudo-proxy generation: Noise and stationarity in climate proxy records, problems with potential human/land use influence (Proxy Group) - Detection methods and systematic uncertainty estimates (Reconstruction Group) Tim Osborn wrote: > Hi Caspar and Christoph, > > I just wanted to let you know that: > > (1) I have emailed Simon Tett (for HadCM3) and Eduardo Zorita (for > ECHO-G Erik-I, not sure about Erik-II) to ask if they would be > prepared for surface temperature fields to be made available from > their model runs and placed on a pseudo-proxy website for use in > pseudo-proxy studies. I'll let you know their response. > > (2) In Wengen I suggested that Philip Brohan, a colleague of Simon > Tett, might be interested in creating pseduo-proxies from the output > of Caspar's secret model simulation, because of Philip's interest in > statistical error models (e.g. in the error model he just published of > the instrumental temperature record, HadCRUT3). I have emailed Philip > to ask him if he would be interested. Again, I'll let you know his > response. > > With regard to the "climate reconstruction challenge", Keith and I > were wondering how it is going to be run. Obviously some kind of > organising group would be useful to ensure it is designed to be as > scientifically useful an experiment as possible. Yet there needs to > be a clear distinction between provided experimental design advice > (and things like convening EGU sessions) and having too much knowledge > of the setup that would prevent such people from taking part in the > challenge. Keith and I would be interested in the former, but would > also like to keep our distance and take part in the challenge. I'm > not sure that it was clear in Wengen exactly who is to organise this all. > > Cheers > > Tim > > Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow > 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ > sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > > **Norwich -- City for Science: > **Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006 > > -- Caspar M. Ammann National Center for Atmospheric Research Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology 1850 Table Mesa Drive Boulder, CO 80307-3000 email: ammann@ucar.edu tel: 303-497-1705 fax: 303-497-1348 269. 2006-06-28 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa ,jason.lowe@metoffice.gov.uk, jonathan.gregory@metoffice.gov.uk date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 17:01:18 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Simulation data, missing 1900 trend? to: Alex Wright , Orson van de PLassche Hi Alex, As far as I know the data are correct. The sea level patterns came from Jason Lowe, and I guess Jonathan Gregory was also involved in diagnosing them from the HadCM3 model. But the extraction/manipulation of the data is all my doing, so blame me not them if I've done something wrong. However I have followed instructions from Jason in doing this, so hopefully I have done it ok. I have included the global thermal expansion and global glacier melt changes in the regional/local data that I sent you. I have computed zonal means of sea level change from 'nat' and 'all', and plotted these (and also plotted 'all' minus 'nat' to isolate the anthropogenic component, 'anthro'). PDFs of these three are attached. All changes are expressed as anomalies from the 1500-1549 mean of the 'nat' run (with 'all' adjusted to have the same local means as 'nat' over the 1750-1799 period). You will see that in the 'all' zonal means, there is a clear and strong rise in sea level between 60S and 50N. Little increase is simulated south of 60S (and I asked Jason why there is data at the South Pole, but he didn't reply... of course we should just ignore those values!). However, you will see that there is little overall trend between 55N and 80N, which of course if where most of the data I sent you have come from! It is higher than the 1500-1549 mean after 1980, but no higher than the 1850-1900 period, which is why there appears to be little sea level rise. Whether the multi-decadal large variations in sea level in these northern mid to high latitudes are caused by regional oceanic warming and cooling due to either (i) regional sulphate aerosol cooling; or (ii) internal variations of the ocean circulation; or (iii) errors in model or data extraction, I cannot tell. I think probably not (iii) [thought Jason I did raise some queries about the global-mean of the pattern files showing larger variations than I expected, which you were going to check when you had time]. The 'nat' zonal means show multi-decadal variations in this region, whether due to internal ocean circulation changes or volcanic/solar forcing I don't know (I'd guess at the former). So it is probably ok. And the time series I extracted for you are consistent with the zonal mean of the data. Such is the difficulty of interpreting *regional* sea level changes I guess. I look forward to hearing how you interpret the comparison of these changes with your palaeo and tide gauge series! Cheers Tim At 14:11 28/06/2006, you wrote: >HI Simon, > >Have you looked at the simulation data at all? >It is almost as if the sea-level trend from 1900 is missing from >these regional simulations, when compared to the global mean sea >level change.... >I guess I need to know if the glacier melt model is included etc... >Would you happen to know who submitted these runs to the database? >I think I should check with them first before spending days (which I >don't have) assimilating the data > >Cheers >Alex Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\slzon_all.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\slzon_anthro.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\slzon_nat.pdf" Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm **Norwich -- City for Science: **Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006 2892. 2006-06-28 ______________________________________________________ cc: Alex Wright , Orson van de PLassche , Keith Briffa , jason.lowe@metoffice.gov.uk date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 22:20:47 +0100 from: Jonathan Gregory subject: Re: Simulation data, missing 1900 trend? to: Tim Osborn Dear Tim and Alex > Little increase is simulated south of 60S This is generally the case in models, and we think in HadCM3 it is mainly because thermal expansivity is low at cold temperatures. > due to either (i) regional sulphate aerosol cooling; or > (ii) internal variations of the ocean circulation (ii) is more likely than (i) but it also depends on where the heat is taken up and stored in the ocean. > Such is the difficulty of interpreting *regional* sea level changes Yes. Given that regional changes from models tend to disagree, comparing any given place with the global mean is reasonable. However the local changes may give an indication of the multidecadal variability you might expect to see. Best wishes Jonathan 5291. 2006-06-29 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tim Osborn , Keith Briffa date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 06:43:40 -0600 from: Caspar Ammann subject: Re: climate reconstruction challenge to: Christoph Kull Hi Christoph, sounds excellent. 20th is a good target with three weeks left. Let me launch one full round to solicit comments and ideas, and then I can send you what we have to build the web site. I'll check with Mike about having him fold this into the report. Cheers Caspar Christoph Kull wrote: > Dear Caspar and Tim, > Thanks for putting this issue forward!! > PAGES/CLIVAR may help communicating this challenge to the community. > > We will be able to setup the website with the data sets and the call etc.: > - let me know what you need! It would be best for us to have first a simple > "word document with the structure, headings and text. We will then produce a > "hidden site" that can be updated and finalized before it will go public > online. > > We will be able to announce the challenge to the community via the > Newsletter and e-news: > - we need a respective experiment description. > - the next Newsletter is going to be published by end of July. Can you > provide me this information by the 20th? This would also fit with the > planned announcement in the workshop report for EOS...Mike will draft this > report. > I suggest to directly contact him for an incorporation of this call. > > All the best, thanks a lot and greetings from Bern, > Christoph > > > On 23.06.2006 19:23, "Caspar Ammann" wrote: > > >> Hi Tim, >> >> just back from the various trips and meetings, most recently >> Breckenridge and the CCSM workshop until yesterday. This coincided with >> the release of the NRC report... >> >> Thanks Tim for getting in touch with Simon and Eduardo. And I would >> think it would be excellent if you would be on the reconstruction side >> of things here. We really need to make sure that all the reconstruction >> groups (the ones that show up in the spaghetti-graph) also provide >> reconstructions for the Challenge. By the way, Mike Mann is fine with >> the participation of the german group in this as he has spoken now >> favorably on the project. >> >> I think the separation you point at is absolutely crucial. So, as I >> indicated in Wengen, I would suggest that we could organize a small >> group of modelers to define the concepts of the experiments, and then >> make these happen completely disconnected from standard data-centers. A >> Pseudo-Proxy group should then develop concepts of how to generate >> pseudo-proxy series and tell the modelers where they need what data. But >> what they do is not communicated to the modelers. Based >> >> The underlying concept as well as the technical procedure of how we >> approach the pseudo-proxies should be made public, so that everybody >> knows what we are dealing with. We could do this under the PAGES-CLIVAR >> intersection umbrella to better ensure that the groups are held separate >> and to give this a more official touch. Below a quick draft, we should >> iterate on this and then contact people for the various groups. >> >> So long and have a good trip to Norway, >> Caspar >> >> >> >> >> Here a very quick and simple structural draft we can work from: (all >> comments welcome, no hesitations to shoot hard!) >> >> >> Primary Goals: >> >> - cross-verification of various emulations of same reconstruction >> technique using same input data >> - comparison of skill at various time scales of different techniques if >> fed with identical pseudo-proxy data >> - sensitivities of hemispheric estimates to noise, network density >> - identify skill of resolving regional climate anomalies >> - isolate forced from unforced signal >> - identify questionable, non-consistent proxies >> - modelers try to identify climate parameters and noise structure over >> calibration period from pseudo-proxies >> >> >> Number of experiments: >> >> - available published runs >> - available unpublished, or available reordered runs >> - CORE EXPERIMENTS OF CHALLENGE: 1-3 brand new experiments >> ^one experiment should look technically realistic: trend in >> calibration, and relatively reasonable past (very different phasing) >> ^one experiment should have no trend in calibration at all, but >> quite accentuated variations before >> ^...one could have relatively realistic structure but contains a >> large landuse component (we could actually do some science here...) >> >> >> >> Pseudo-Proxies and "instrumental-data": >> >> - provide CRU-equivallent instrumental data (incl. some noise) that is >> degrading in time >> - provide annually resolved network of pseudo proxies ((we could even >> provide a small set of ~5 very low resolution records with some >> additional uncertainty in time)) >> - 2 networks: one "high" resolution (100 records), one "low" resolution >> (20), though only one network available for any single model experiment >> to avoid "knowledge-tuning", or through time separation: first 500-years >> only low-red, then second 500-years with both. >> - pseudo-proxies vary in representation in climate (temperature, precip, >> combination), time (annual, seasonal) and space (grid-point, small region) >> >> >> >> Organization of three separate and isolated groups, and first steps: >> >> - Modeler group to decide on concept of target climates, forcing series. >> Provide only network information to Proxy-Group (People? Ammann, Zorita, >> Tett, Schmidt, Graham, Cobb, Goosse...). >> - Pseudo-proxy group to decide on selection of networks, and >> representation of individual proxies to mimic somewhat real world >> situation, but develop significant noise (blue-white-red) concepts, >> non-stationarity, and potential "human disturbance" (People? Brohan, >> Schweingruber, Wolff, Thompson, Overpeck/Cole, Huybers, Anderson, ...). >> - Reconstruction group getting ready for input file structures: netCDF >> for "instrumental", ascii-raw series for pseudo-proxy series. Decide >> common metrics and reconstruction targets given theoretical pseudo-proxy >> network information. (People: everybody else) >> >> >> >> Direct science from this: (important!) >> >> - Forced versus internal variations in climate simulations (Modelers) >> - Review and catalog of pseudo-proxy generation: Noise and stationarity >> in climate proxy records, problems with potential human/land use >> influence (Proxy Group) >> - Detection methods and systematic uncertainty estimates (Reconstruction >> Group) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Tim Osborn wrote: >> >>> Hi Caspar and Christoph, >>> >>> I just wanted to let you know that: >>> >>> (1) I have emailed Simon Tett (for HadCM3) and Eduardo Zorita (for >>> ECHO-G Erik-I, not sure about Erik-II) to ask if they would be >>> prepared for surface temperature fields to be made available from >>> their model runs and placed on a pseudo-proxy website for use in >>> pseudo-proxy studies. I'll let you know their response. >>> >>> (2) In Wengen I suggested that Philip Brohan, a colleague of Simon >>> Tett, might be interested in creating pseduo-proxies from the output >>> of Caspar's secret model simulation, because of Philip's interest in >>> statistical error models (e.g. in the error model he just published of >>> the instrumental temperature record, HadCRUT3). I have emailed Philip >>> to ask him if he would be interested. Again, I'll let you know his >>> response. >>> >>> With regard to the "climate reconstruction challenge", Keith and I >>> were wondering how it is going to be run. Obviously some kind of >>> organising group would be useful to ensure it is designed to be as >>> scientifically useful an experiment as possible. Yet there needs to >>> be a clear distinction between provided experimental design advice >>> (and things like convening EGU sessions) and having too much knowledge >>> of the setup that would prevent such people from taking part in the >>> challenge. Keith and I would be interested in the former, but would >>> also like to keep our distance and take part in the challenge. I'm >>> not sure that it was clear in Wengen exactly who is to organise this all. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow >>> 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >>> sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm >>> >>> **Norwich -- City for Science: >>> **Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006 >>> >>> >>> > > -- Caspar M. Ammann National Center for Atmospheric Research Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology 1850 Table Mesa Drive Boulder, CO 80307-3000 email: ammann@ucar.edu tel: 303-497-1705 fax: 303-497-1348 1670. 2006-06-30 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:12:24 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Post-LA4 - the next steps to: wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu Hi Chap 6 Friends - the sun is starting to set on the fjord and the TS/SPM mtg is over. Thanks again for all your time and effort at the LA4, and also for agreeing to prepare the next draft of the report quickly, so we have enough time to ensure a polished final draft that fits TSU expectations. The next step includes: 1. Checking the attached executive summary bullets. Please note that we can no longer change the meaning of the bullets (except in extraordinary circumstances perhaps - since we reached consensus on those in the attached). However, if you see glaring problems with the way the meaning is communicated, please let us know. Otherwise, please write your assigned section text to support the bullets. Note that some bullets have been changed somewhat to support (and be in) the SPM, or to help clarify the meaning we agreed upon, but no meaning has been changed. 2. Please follow Valerie's lead and quickly circulate your edited sections, figures, tables and references to the LA team (plus relevant CAs), so that you can get us your review responses, finished revised text, figures, tables and references to us by **** July 17th ****. Please follow these guidelines: a. Send the text in a file which only contains your sub-chapter. b. Mark sections which have been changed with yellow. c. Mark sections which have been deleted with a strikethrough d. Write new references in at the bottom of the text using IPCC format. e. List deleted references below with a strikethrough ----------------------------- - Øyvind will work on the references now and check the list provided from the TSU. - We have agreed to not use EndNote for the rest of the work. The ref. list is almost complete anyway, and we will just add the new ones, delete those that will be taken out. - Please DO NOT use track changes or ENDNOTE (hooray!). 3. If you have any comments for the following sections, pls send to us for consideration during redrafting next week: 6.1, 6.2 (excepting 6.2.2) and 6.7. 4. Please send an email as soon as you can with your travel and vacation dates, and the extent to which we can expect to reach you while on these travel and vacation dates. Thanks. If you have any questions, please let us know. Thanks again, Peck and Eystein PS - paleo was strengthened and expanded somewhat in the SPM, but for now, no new figures do to space restrictions. There is an expectation that we might have to insert new figs (e.g., EPICA and the millennia NH temp recon figure) upon request at the Plenary in Feburary, but we'll worry about that later. -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Chapter 6ExecSumBulletsLFinalV1.doc" _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 2665. 2006-06-30 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa ,jason.lowe@metoffice.gov.uk, jonathan.gregory@metoffice.gov.uk date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 17:08:06 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Global vs Regional data, a question of mm? to: Alex Wright Keith, Jason and Jonathan - I've attached the figure that Alex sent comparing sea level from HadCM3 near Connecticut with global sea level, because of his concerns (copied below) about the differences. Hi Alex, I've just repeated this for Connecticut(Wright) series that I sent you and it looks to be correct. The units of both local and regional are definitely mm. I think that it really is the result of global averaging (or looking at it the other way, the effect of regional/local variability superimposed on the global changes). But the local sea level goes down!! The reason I think is changes in the Atlantic THC which seem to be reflected closely in the sea level off the east coast of the US. Please see attached PDF, series 5 is Connecticut sea level from 'all', and series 1 is THC/MOC from 'all' (multiplied by minus 30). The big sea level drop after 1900 is clearly related to a big increase in Atlantic THC then. See THC time series from 'all' and 'nat' here: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/projects/soap/pw/data/model/hadcm3/hadcm3_moc.htm So, units are correct and cause seems to be big variations in this region related to ocean circulation changes. So... eastern US may not be good in this model for estimating global sea level, but perhaps useful for monitoring THC (but there are *many* caveats that limit this use in the real world!). Cheers Tim At 14:44 30/06/2006, you wrote: >Hi Tim, > >Last Q for today..... probably...... >Attached is a comparison between Global vs Regional (for Connecticut >as an example, all are pretty much the same) simulated SL. >As you can see, the difference is quite..... striking. >My biggest concern is the scale, they are both supposed to be in mm, >however I would hazard a guess that this is not the case for the >regional data set. >Any thing I may have missed???? >Unless this really IS the result of globally averaging the data sets!!! > >Cheers >Alex > > > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Global sim vs CT mm.jpg" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\moc_vs_connectivcutsealevel.pdf" Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm **Norwich -- City for Science: **Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006 5293. 2006-06-30 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.d.davies@uea.ac.uk date: Fri Jun 30 12:00:37 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: FW: Meeting with Head science British Council Russia to: Mike Hulme , "Churchill Jacqui Mrs \(VCO\) k153" , , "Hulme Mike Prof \(TYN\) f037" , "Minns Asher Mr \(TYN\) e177" , "Haxeltine Alex Dr \(TYN\) e897" Sorry for late response as only today back from IPCC meeting in Bergen. I am not available 1st August either - but potentially interested in continuing some level of association with BC and forestry institutes in Ekaterinburg and Krasnoyarsk - though strictly in relation to natural/anthropogenic influences on climate/forest growth only. I would be happy if Asher responds and meets them on our behalf also. Keith At 11:20 29/06/2006, Mike Hulme wrote: Dear Jacqui and others, Oleg Eletskiy has sent almost identical email letters to all of us so it is not clear whether he will get lots of different replies or one co-ordinated one. From my position I am on leave on 1 August so cannot meet him. More broadly for the Tyndall Centre, Russia is not one of our main target countries for collaboration (cf. Brazil or China). We have done a lot with the BC in the past (ZeroCarbonCity campaign) in lots of countries (including Russia) and indeed through our Tyndall colleagues in Manchester sought out funding (BC?) for UK-Russian science collaboration in 2004 following Sir David King's visit to Moscow. Tyndall Centre would more likely have interest in Russia through our partners in Sussex (Watson) and Manchester (Anderson) who are working on energy case studies, and possibly might include Russian in them. So my suggestion is that Asher Minns co-ordinates a Tyndall response to Oleg along the above lines, including an offer to meet them in London, but that UEA should co-ordinate their own response to Oleg (but it cannot include me for 1 August). Thanks, Mike At 14:42 28/06/2006, Churchill Jacqui Mrs \(VCO\) k153 wrote: Dear All, Trevor Davies has asked me to pass on the e-mail below he has received from Oleg Eletskiy. Trevor would like to meet with them if possible, although he currently has a trip to China scheduled during the first 2 weeks of August. Could you let me know if you would be available to meet with them on 1st August. I will not respond to them until I have heard from you. Looking forward to hearing from you soon. Regards, JACQUI ************************************** Jacqui Churchill PA to: Pro-Vice-Chancellor - Academic Pro-Vice-Chancellor - Research & Knowledge Transfer Vice-Chancellor's Office University of East Anglia NORWICH NR4 7TJ Telephone: +44 (0)1603 592735 Fax: +44 (0)1603 507753 **************************************** Norwich - City for Science: hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006 ----- Original Message ----- From: [1]Eletskiy, Oleg (Russia) To: [2]cred@uea.ac.uk Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 1:47 PM Subject: Meeting with Head science British Council Russia Dear Prof Trevor Davies, British Council, science and technology unit, had design a programmes for Climate Change agenda for Russia and Energy efficiency for 2006/2008. These programmes both combine the public events for general audience and more specific workshops and meeting for scientists. Our aim is to establish a long term relationships between scientists in UK and Russia and to assist Russian researches in searching the information or partners in UK for joint projects and vice versa. Head of the science and technology unit Marina Sokolova, will be visiting the UK with the intention to hold meetings with the key players in the field of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. The purpose of the visit is to discuss the plans of the British Council activity in Russia and to identify the partners for the joint projects from the British side, to sustain good links with the leading organizations for the further scientific cooperation. We will be very grateful for you if you could meet Marina and me on 1^st of August. During our visit to Norwich we also would like to meet your colleagues: Prof Keith Briffa, Prof Mike Hulme, Asher Minns, Alex Haxeltine. Thank you in advance, Will be waiting from you, Best Regards, Oleg Eletskiy Science Officer Science Unit British Council 109189, Russia, Moscow Ulitsa Nikoloyamskaya, 1 T +7 095 782 0200 F +7 095 782 0201 [3]Oleg.Eletskiy@britishcouncil.ru Creating opportunity for people worldwide [4]www.britishcouncil.ru This message is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it.The British Council accepts no liability for loss or damage caused by software viruses and you are advised to carry out a virus check on any attachments contained in this message. Our purpose is to build mutually beneficial relationships between people in the UK and other countries and to increase appreciation of the UK's creative ideas and achievements. The British Council is registered in England as a charity. -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 5282. 2006-07-03 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 08:32:31 +0100 from: "Mick Kelly" subject: RE: Third Year Dissertation to: "'Keith Briffa'" Keith It's not worth the effort updating them. The programs use the climate data in binary format. Tom would be better off starting from scratch. I can provide code anyway and he can hack. But I really don't have time to get involved helping. Other point here is that CRU gridded precip doesn't show any clear signal. I've done this analysis. The volcanic effect is essentially radiative with little effect on circulation. So this would be a pretty frustrating project. Might be worth looking at winter warming dimension as there could be a high lat precip effect related to the circulation change. I'd suggest a re-think, otherwise this is going to involve a lot of effort for no result. But let me know and I'll pass the code to Tom. Mick ____________________________________________ Mick Kelly Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom Tel: 44-1603-592091 Fax: 44-1603-507784 Email: m.kelly@uea.ac.uk Web: http://www.tiempocyberclimate.org/ ____________________________________________ > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: 30 June 2006 11:54 > To: m.kelly@uea.ac.uk > Subject: RE: Third Year Dissertation > > > Mick > is it possible you could forward to Tom to update? > Keith > > At 09:10 29/06/2006, you wrote: > >Jodie > > > >I'm sorry, I can't help with this as the programs are well > out of date > >and to get them working again would be well beyond the scope of a > >dissertation project. My time is limited as I leave the > university early > >next year. > > > >Mick > > > >____________________________________________ > > > >Mick Kelly Climatic Research Unit > >School of Environmental Sciences > >University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ > >United Kingdom > >Tel: 44-1603-592091 Fax: 44-1603-507784 > >Email: m.kelly@uea.ac.uk > >Web: http://www.tiempocyberclimate.org/ > >____________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jodie.Davis@uea.ac.uk [mailto:Jodie.Davis@uea.ac.uk] > > > Sent: 21 June 2006 16:15 > > > To: M.Kelly@uea.ac.uk > > > Subject: Third Year Dissertation > > > > > > > > > Hello > > > > > > I'm in my second year and have chosen the subject on which i > > > would like to > > > do my dissertation. My adviser for my dissertation is Keith > > > Briffa and he > > > said to email you as he would like to collaborate with you on > > > this topic. > > > My dissertation is looking into large scale volcanic > > > eruptions to see if > > > they have any affect on precipitation.To do this i will > need to handle > > > large data sets and wondered of you could possibly help > me with the > > > computer programme that i will need to use to do this.I will > > > be looking at > > > data from the instrumental period and also use tree ring > data for the > > > earlier volcanoes.I plan on using the same techniques as you > > > did in your > > > paper on the spatial response of the climate due to large volcanic > > > eruptions. > > > If you could help me at all with this i would be very grateful. > > > > > > Thank you > > > > > > Jodie Davis > > > > > > > > -- > 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/ 4081. 2006-07-04 ______________________________________________________ cc: Bette Otto-Bliesner , Keith Briffa ,Jonathan Overpeck date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 10:21:33 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: hockey stick to: Stefan Rahmstorf At 18:46 03/07/2006, you wrote: >To the hockey game experts - you might have seen my exchange with >von Storch in Science this week, and be interested in my comments to >their Response available here: http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/vscomment.html > >Cheers, Stefan Thanks for the email, Stefan. You make some interesting points and it's another useful opportunity to highlight the error in the von Storch et al. implementation of the MBH method. I think, however, that in places you are confusing (or at least not properly distinguishing) the issues of bias and of random error. They really need to be considered independently. The main thrust of your letter appears to be that the size of the bias indicated by von Storch et al. for the HadCM3 simulation is no larger than the random uncertainty error published by MBH. But this bias (if it exists at all) is present *as well as* the random uncertainty error. So, regardless of whether any bias is larger or smaller than the published random error, if the bias exists it will affect both the reconstruction central value and the reconstruction uncertainty range. Please don't take this email to mean that I agree with all of von Storch et al.'s reply, and disagree with all of your points, because I don't. I just think that the issue of whether different error components are smaller or larger than each other is a red herring... ideally we should not ignore any error components. In practise we can ignore any components that are shown to be always negligible. The calibration bias has been shown to be negligible in some situations and for some methods; we need to do more work to find those methods for which the bias can be shown to be negligible in all reasonable situations, or if this is not easily possible, then we would have to accept that bias might exist and then quantify its likely magnitude. Best wishes Tim Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm **Norwich -- City for Science: **Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006 874. 2006-07-05 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa , "Ricardo Villalba" date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 14:46:45 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Fwd: Borehole in the Southern Hemisphere to: hpollack@umich.edu Hi Henry - hope you're having a nice summer. I just got back from the IPCC mtg where we made plans for generating the final draft of our paleo chapter. One question that came up is whether we can show (in Fig 6.12 - southern hemisphere climate records of the last millennium) your borehole recon for southern Africa. As you can see below, Jason Smerdon has told our SH lead, Ricardo Villalba that the recon we've used is not yet published. The question for you is whether we can/should use a version that IS published, We feel your recon is an important one to show as it represents a region not represented by other good reconstructions. But, we don't want to use something that has proven to be wrong. We appreciate your input on this issue. Also, if there is a published recon that we can use, would you pls send the recon (guess it's only one value per century, right?) and the ref we should cite? As you can imagine, we're under a tough time constraint, so if you can let us know as soon as you can, that would be great. Many thanks, Peck >X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >From: "Ricardo Villalba" >To: "Keith R. Briffa" , > "Jonathan Overpeck" >Subject: Borehole in the Southern Hemisphere >Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 06:00:20 -0300 > >Hi Keith and Peck, >Please, find below a copy of the message that I got from Jason Smerdon, >regarding the South African borehole record. It looks that the record as it >is shown in Figure 6.12 has not been published, however former versions of >the South African reconstruction have been included in at least two papers. >Please, let me know your impressions to proceed with this matter. Cheers, >Ricardo > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jason Smerdon" >To: "Ricardo Villalba" >Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 8:09 PM >Subject: Re: Publication in JQR > > >> Hi Ricardo, >> >> I believe that you are referring to the reconstruction from the Southern >> Africa holes that we provided to Tim Osborn. That reconstruction has not >> been published as a time series as it is shown in Tim's figure. I >> believe, however, that the same reconstruction was published as a >> histogram in the following reference: >> >> Huang S, Pollack HN, Shen PY. 2000. Temperature trends over the last five >> centuries reconstructed from borehole temperatures. Nature 403: 756-758. >> >> The only thing that might be different is the number of holes that were >> used, but I don't think that part of the dataset has been updated since >> Huang's 2000 paper. To confirm this I would encourage you to contact > > Henry Pollack at hpollack@umich.edu. He will know for sure. A similar >> reconstruction using a subset of the Southern Africa holes is referenced >> in the Australian paper: >> >> Tyson PD, Mason SJ, Jones MQW, Cooper GRJ. 1998. Global warming and >> geothermal profiles: The surface rock temperature response in South >> Africa. Geophysical Research Letters 25: 2711-2714. >> >> But the reconstruction will of course not be exactly equal to the larger >> Southern African reconstruction that we provided for Tim. I hope this >> helps and let me know if I can be of any further assistance. >> >> Jason >> >> On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Ricardo Villalba wrote: >> >> > Dear Jason, >> > Thanks for the preprint. Do you know if the South African borehole >records >> > has been published? Thanks, >> > RIcardo >> > >> >> -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 1559. 2006-07-05 ______________________________________________________ cc: Orson van de Plassche , Jonathan Gregory , "Tett, Simon" , "Lowe, Jason" , Keith Briffa date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:14:59 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Attaching All250 to Nat500 runs to: Alex Wright At 13:45 05/07/2006, Alex Wright wrote: >Its great that the results are really being discussed now, but I am >going to 'pause' with any further 'figures/comparisons until a >'consensus' is reached on the issues Tim/Simon have brought up with >regards to model output. Simon... any disagreement/suggestions for improvement with how I extracted the sea level data? > > Yes you can clearly see the difference between Nat500 and All250 > MOC, though my question remains, what is it specifically about the > All250 forcings that produces this response? I'm not sure that it is a forced response. It might just be internal variability that could have happened at any time or in either run, but just happened to occur in the all250 run. Simon discusses this issue on page 12 of the paper (not the sea level paper, but the one titled "The impact of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings on Climate and Hydrology since 1550." See top right section. The size of this MOC change is near the limit of what might be expected by internal variability, and it is unclear whether forcings were important or not. Possibly they were, but I'm not sure which ones! Cheers Tim Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm **Norwich -- City for Science: **Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006 2860. 2006-07-06 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 15:12:38 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Fwd: [Wg1-ar4-er] IPCC Working Group I Guidelines to: wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu Hi all - if you didn't get this already, this is worth looking at. As we discussed in Bergen, however, we would prefer to keep the addition of new references to a minimum EXCEPT where 1) really needed to update our assessment as it stands 2) the addition doesn't mean a widening of our assessment - we don't want to add any new issues that haven't been reviewed Please try extra hard not to include any of your own new publications unless REALLY needed, and if you add references, see if you can DELETE some already being cited in our chapter. Remember that we still have to reduce our chapter size by a significant 5 pages. Thanks, Peck and Eystein >X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 09:29:56 -0600 >From: IPCC-WG1 >X-Accept-Language: en-us, en >To: wg1-ar4-er@joss.ucar.edu >Subject: [Wg1-ar4-er] IPCC Working Group I Guidelines Document on > Publication Deadlines >X-BeenThere: wg1-ar4-er@joss.ucar.edu >List-Id: >List-Unsubscribe: , > >List-Archive: >List-Post: >List-Help: >List-Subscribe: , > >Sender: wg1-ar4-er-bounces@joss.ucar.edu > >Dear Colleague, > >Following the Government and Expert review of the Working Group I >contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the attached >guidelines are being provided to clarify how recent scientific >literature related to review comments may be included in the final >draft. Please feel free to distribute this information among your >colleagues. > >Thank you for your interest in the work of the IPCC. > >Best regards, >WG1 TSU > >-- >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >IPCC WGI TSU >NOAA Chemical Sciences Division >325 Broadway DSRC CSD08 >Boulder, CO 80305, USA >Phone: +1 303 497 7072 >Fax: +1 303 497 5686/5628 >Email: ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov > > > >_______________________________________________ >Wg1-ar4-er mailing list >Wg1-ar4-er@joss.ucar.edu >http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-er -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\RecentLiterature-Final 1.pdf" _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 1655. 2006-07-07 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 15:22:07 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Fwd: Additional In-Press Papers to: Keith Briffa , joos , rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, Eystein Jansen , "Ricardo Villalba" Hi last millennium fans - as you can see below, we're going to get some papers to consider from the IPCC WGI's recent announcement that we're considering recent papers. Please note the guidance below, and (important) please add new papers only if really key AND (hopefully) if you can cut other references to make room. Although Keith et al (all on this email) should hopefully reduce the length of section 6.6 by more space than the new larger Fig. 6.14 adds, we should also be looking at the refs hard to make sure we're only citing those we really need. Speaking of the new 6.14 - it is the one we discussed at the meeting in Bergen. The bottom panel will be the old panel e from 6.13 (i.e., the IMIC millennium runs), with a new top panel showing a condensed (space wise) view of the forcing series that went into the EMIC runs. Fortunat was at the SPM/TS mtg where we discussed this more, and he's the one with the data that Tim needs to incorporate into the new figure (deleting panel e from the Fig 6.13). I'm hoping that this email can also get Tim and Fortunat working on this fig asap so we can see it, and also make sure we cut more than enough text to make room for it's expanded size. Thanks all, and esp Tim and Fortunat for working on the figs - would really like to have them done and ready for the SPM/TS team (and Susan) to look at asap. Best, Peck X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 14:41:44 -0600 From: IPCC-WG1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Jonathan Overpeck , Eystein Jansen Subject: Additional In-Press Papers Dear CLAs Please find attached additional paper(s) that are relevant to your chapter and have been submitted in response to our most recent guidelines for consideration of papers published in 2006 following the expert and government review. A separate spreadsheet file is attached listing: the submitter, file name of the paper, its acceptance date, and the chapter and section which the submitter feels is relevant. As discussed in Bergen, please note the following: * inclusion of additional papers in the final draft should not open up any substantive issues that were not in the second draft and so not previously reviewed; * additional papers should only be used where in the view of the LAs doing so provides a more balanced coverage of scientific views; * we anticipate that a quick reading of the abstract of each paper will enable a decision consistent with this and we would not encourage any lengthy consideration by the LA team. One additional point to keep in mind is that this most recent adjustment of our publication deadlines should not be perceived by others as a device for allowing the LAs to reference more of their own papers. We trust that you and your team will be both objective and vigilant when deciding to include or reject papers in this respect. Best regards, WG1 TSU -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ IPCC WGI TSU NOAA Chemical Sciences Division 325 Broadway DSRC CSD08 Boulder, CO 80305, USA Phone: +1 303 497 7072 Fax: +1 303 497 5686/5628 Email: [1]ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\AddPubs_Ch06_07July06.xls" Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\Bauer&Claussen.pdf" 2479. 2006-07-07 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Alex Wright" , "Orson van de Plassche" , "Lowe, Jason" , "Keith Briffa" date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 15:28:19 +0100 from: "Tett, Simon" subject: RE: Attaching All250 to Nat500 runs to: "Tim Osborn" , "Jonathan Gregory" J^2 (mainly), I have data from a run with the correct land-sfc fields. We can see if there is a difference in the global sea-level in that run relative to a 100 year period from Natural500. S Dr Simon Tett Managing Scientist, Data development and applications. Met Office Hadley Centre (Reading Unit) Meteorology Building, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5614 Fax +44 (0)118 378 5615 Mobex: +44-(0)1392 886886 E-mail: simon.tett@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Global climate data sets are available from http://www.hadobs.org -----Original Message----- From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 2:39 PM To: Jonathan Gregory; Tett, Simon Cc: Alex Wright; Orson van de Plassche; Lowe, Jason; Keith Briffa Subject: Re: Attaching All250 to Nat500 runs At 17:07 06/07/2006, Jonathan Gregory wrote: > > Yes! switch from Nat500 to All250 in 1750. > > Simon >Yes, I agree. OK, so we (Alex and I) can now drop the adjustment of means for comparing/plotting the all250 as a smooth branch away from the nat500 for the local sea level curves that I sent to Alex. It still makes sense though to use a common reference period for comparing different locations, so the subtraction of the 1500-1549 mean of nat500 from both nat500 and all250 would be appropriate (please say if you disagree Jonathan/Simon or anyone else). For plotting the global curves an adjustment must still be made to make all250 branch smoothly off from nat500 in the year 1750 because the global-mean thermal expansion file that I was sent has values near -4 mm at the start of all250, but +4 mm around 1750 in nat500. If this adjustment is not made, then all250 does not branch off smoothly from nat500 in 1750, but has an 8mm jump. I don't know *why* this adjustment must be made because, as both Simon and Jonathan said, all250 begins from nat500 in 1750. But the version of the data that I was sent has a very clear difference in mean levels between the two runs in this period. > > if the "rigid_lid_pressure" local > > sea level deviations data are at consistent absolute levels (are > > they, Jason?), > >The global average of those fields should be zero by construction, and >if not it is meaningless anyway and should be subtracted (as you did). Unfortunately the global average of these fields is nowhere near zero, as I queried earlier with Jason. Please see attached global-mean of the rigid_lid_pressures. It varies quite considerably. The range is about 800 hPa, or 80 mm after conversion, and the mean is about 6000 hPa, or 600 mm. I just subtracted this global-mean series from each grid box series. I'm pretty sure that this was the right thing to do, but I was worried by the unexpected magnitude of the mean and variation of this global-mean series. Can you reassure me that it's ok? I appreciate that you all have other things on your plates and also appreciate your time spent helping with this sea level stuff. All I need is to get to the point where we are confident in going ahead and using this data without worrying that we will have to redo our analyses if it turns out something is wrong later. I think we're virtually at that point, and then I can stop bugging you all! Cheers and thanks for your help, Tim 4084. 2006-07-07 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tim Osborn date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:17:43 +0200 from: Fortunat Joos subject: [Fwd: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Follow-up from Christchurch, RF for last to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith, here as promised the forcing files as used to drive the EMIC to make the new forcing figure for the TS and the chap 6. These files have already been sent to you (e-mail form January 18, 2006). With best regards, Fortunat -- Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ Delivered-To: joos@climate.unibe.ch Return-Path: Received: from [130.92.143.62] (phkup312.unibe.ch [::ffff:130.92.143.62]) (SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by phkup10 with esmtp; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:50:01 +0100 id 000774D1.43CE71B9.00007199 Message-ID: <43CE7314.40200@climate.unibe.ch> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:55:48 +0100 From: Fortunat Joos Organization: University of Bern User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_phkup10-29081-1137603002-0001-2" To: Jonathan Overpeck CC: Stefan Rahmstorf , Anders Levermann , Eva Bauer , plattner@climate.unibe.ch, Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa Subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Follow-up from Christchurch, RF for last millennium References: <43A7680A.9090404@ozean-klima.de> <43A89A68.6060702@ozean-klima.de> <43AA0D0D.3080809@ozean-klima.de> <43AA58B3.4010206@climate.unibe.ch> <43C3C66E.4010506@pik-potsdam.de> <43C3DE95.2050900@climate.unibe.ch> In-Reply-To: Dear all, I have now compiled the input data set and written a protocol how to perform the runs. It seems to me that it would make sense if we perform the simulations first with the Bern Model and with the Climber 2 model. We can then still decide if we need Climber 3. Please let me know if there are any questions. I could also provide files where the radiative forcing of solar, volcanoes and non-CO2-anthropogenic has been added together. With best wishes, Fortunat Jonathan Overpeck wrote: > Dear Eva and Fortunat - thanks for working on getting things moving. It > seems that the detailed forcing recommendations laid out below by > Fortunat build nicely on what Eva first suggested, and that going with > the forcing series suggested below by Foortunat (and the 6 simulations) > is going to be just right for the IPCC AR4 Chap 6 needs. Does everyone > agree? > > Thanks Fortunat for preparing/sharing the standard forcing series. > > Best, peck > >> Dear Eva, >> >> We are working on the forcing series and they should be ready by the >> end of the week. Stefan assured us that you can run this within a few >> hours. >> >> What we are preparing are the following series of radiative forcing in >> W/m2: >> >> a) RF from atmospheric constituents (well-mixed GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, >> many Halocarbons) tropo and strato Ozone, various anthropogenic >> aerosols) as used in the Bern CC TAR version and the TAR (see Joos et >> al., GBC, 2001; pdf is on my homepage and TAR appendix). >> b) volcanic from Crowley, Sci, 2000 >> c) solar based on Lean and Bard et al. >> >> For the solar we will prepare 3 combinations: >> >> c1) original serie from Lean (2005) provided to you already >> c2) Bard et al., Be-10 record linearly scaled to match the Maunder >> Minimum Average of Lean-AR4 >> c3) Bard et al., Be-10 scaled to a MM reduction of 0.25 permil, i.e. >> the low case in the Bard et, Tellus, publication corresponding to the >> Lean et al, 1995 scaling >> >> For the RF by atmospheric components two cases are foreseen: >> a1) standard case with reconstructed evolution over past 1150 years >> a2) RF kept at 1765 value after 1765, i.e. a simulation with natural >> forcings only. >> >> This will yield in total 6 simulations 3 over the full length from 850 >> AD to 2000 and 3 brach-off simulatons from 1765 with natural only >> forcing. >> >> An important point in IPCC is that things are published, consistent >> among chapters, and it helps if approaches are tracable to earlier >> accepted and approved IPCC work. The arguments for these series are as >> follows: >> >> a) Considering as many components relevant for RF as possible (more >> than just CO2). The series are fully compatible with TAR and that the >> setup is tracable to the TAR for the industrial era increase. The same >> series will be used in the projection chapter 10 for the SRES calculation >> >> b) volcanic: a widely cited record >> >> c) solar: c1) and c3) are published series; c2 follows the same >> approach and spirit as used to derive c3, i.e. scaling the Be-10 serie >> linearly with a given Maunder Minimum reduction. The impact of the >> 11-yr solar cycle can be looked at in the original Lean-AR4 serie. >> >> I hope this help. >> >> With kind regards, >> >> Fortunat >> >> Eva Bauer wrote: >> >>> >>> Dear Jonathan, dear Fortunat: >>> >>> Happy New Year! >>> >>> >>> Stefan, Anders and me just have discussed how to set up our >>> CLIMBER2/3alpha runs, to produce something useful for the IPCC WGI >>> chapter 6. This chapter appears to touch the impact on the NH >>> temperature related to low and high solar forcing. >>> >>> For a reasonable comparison, we think two 1000-year simulations >>> differing only by a low and a high solar forcing, conducted with both >>> CLIMBER models, would be ideal. To do so, we would have to extend the >>> solar forcing time series based on Lean (GRL, 2000) and on Wang et >>> al. (2005) distributed in previous e-mails back to the year 1000. This >>> would require some splicing as was done, for instance, by Crowley. >>> >>> I'm thinking of some scaling applied to a series of Crowley (say the >>> data called Be10/Lean splice in Science, 2000) such that the amplitude >>> of the solar variability from the 11-year cycle is conserved after >>> ~1720. I have to check but it appears that the variation in the TSI >>> due to the 11-year cycle contained in the Crowley series agrees >>> perfectly with the 11yr-cycle data in the file based on Lean (2000). >>> Before starting such an exercise I like to ask you what you think >>> about. We would be happy to receive your response quite soon to be >>> able to finish the calculations with our slow model in time for the >>> IPCC report. >>> >>> Could you please also comment on the other forcings we should include, >>> namely the volcanic forcing and the CO2 forcing. For the present study >>> we suggest to use the forcing as in Bauer et al (2000) but omitting >>> the land-use. This means, using the volcanic forcing from Crowley, >>> 2000 and the CO2 forcing based on Etheridge et al 1996 and Keeling and >>> Whorf, 1996. (If you wish we can distribute these data series.) >>> >>> Also, thinking beyond the IPCC study, the model results may become >>> interesting enough to be discussed in a 3-model comparison study!? >>> >>> Looking forward to your reply. >>> >>> Best wishes >>> >>> Eva >>> >> >> -- >> >> Climate and Environmental Physics, >> Physics Institute, University of Bern >> Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern >> Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 >> Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ > > > -- Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ Last Millennium Simulations for IPCC AR4 WG1 Chap 6 --------------------------------------------------- F. Joos, joos@climate.unibe.ch 18 Januar 2006 OVERVIEW -------- A total of 6 simulations is planned. Two millennium-long simulations with solar forcing following Bard et al. with a Maunder Minimum reduction of 0.08 and 0.25 percent in total irradiance and volcanic and anthropogenic forcing included A simulation from 1610 to 1998 with solar forcing from Wang et al, 2005 and volcanic and anthropogenic forcing included Three simulations from 1765 to 1998 with only solar and volcanic forcing included, but no anthropogenic forcings. These are branches from the above three simulation. A range of input data files have been prepeared. Each contains a header with additional descriptions of the data. Solar irradiance has been taken from Bard et al., Tellus, 1999 and from Wang, Lean, Shirley, JAp, 2005. It is estimated that the Maunder Minimum irradiance is reduce by 0.08 percent relative to today and that the present irradiance is 1366 W/m2 from the Wang et al. data. A case with a Maunder Minimum reduction of 0.08 percent is calculated from the Bard et al. data by scaling the original Bard series appropriately. The original Bard series are offset by 1.3 W/m2 in irradiance to bring them to a present irradiance of 1366 W/m2. For this excercise we will utilize a Maunder Minimum reduction in irradiance relative to today of 0.08 percent and of 0.25 percent (other cases with high MM reduction are included in the files). Irradiance has been converted to radiative forcing: RF= (IRR-1366)/4*0.7 Volcanic forcing is from Crowley Science, 2000, with albedo factored in (e.g. as for solar forcing). To avoid a cold start of the model, the serie is extended to 850 AD by mirroring the Crowley data from 1001 to 1150 to the period 850 to 1000. NonCO2 forcing is following TAR (updated for an error in tropo O3 in the TAR). CO2 is a spline through the Etheridge, JGR, 97 data and the Siegenthaler, TEllus, 2005 data. INPUT FILES DESCRIPTION: ----------------------- It is recommended to linearly interpolate between data points. A1: Solar irradiance and radiative forcing following Bard from 850 to 2000 (Tag description) solBard08 2. col: Maunder Minimum reduction of 0.08 percent solBard25 3. col: Maunder Minimu reduction of 0.25 percent Note: data from Bard have been linearlz interplated on an annual time step files: bard00tel_solar_RF_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out bard00tel_solar_irradiance_offset-13_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out A2: Solar irradiance and radiative forcing following Wang, Lean, Shirley, 2005 from 1610 to 2004 annual resolution Tag: WLS-05 files: wang05jastr_lean_RF_IPCC_chap6_Joos_11jan06.out wang05jastr_lean_irradiance_IPCC_chap6_Joos_11jan06.out A3: CO2 concentration in ppm from 850 to 2000 annual resolution Tag: CO2 file: co2_850-2000_splined_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out A4: volcanic forcing after Crowley from 1001 to 1998 AD, extended by artificial data from 850 to 1000 AD by mirroring the forcing from 1000 to 1150 to the period 850 to 1000 Tag: volcCrow annual resolution file: crowley00sci_RFvolcanic_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan05.out A5: radiative forcing by non-CO2 agents annual resolution Tag: nonco2 files rf_nonco2_1yr_1765_2000_individ_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out rf_nonco2_1yr_850_2000_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out B) SIMULATIONS ----------------------- B1. 2 Long simulations from 850 AD to 1998 ------- Simulation B1.1. tag: bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_850-1998 Solar forcing from Bard et al. with MM reduction of 0.08 percent, volcanic forcing and forcing from CO2 and other anthropogenic (non-CO2) agents. Start of simulation 850 AD End of simulation: 1998 AD initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar) Analysis period: 1001 AD to 1998 AD start-up period: 850 to 1000 with artificial volcanic data -------- Simulation B1.2 tag: bard25_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_850-1998 as B1.1 but with solar forcing from Bard et al. reduced by 0.25 percent for the Maunder Minimum. Start of simulation 850 AD End of simulation: 1998 AD initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar) Analysis period: 1001 AD to 1998 AD start-up period: 850 to 1000 with artificial volcanic data -------- Simulation B2: A simulation from 1610 to 1998 restarted from bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 With solar forcing from Wang et al., 2005, volcanic forci ng and forcing from CO2 and other anthropogenic (non-CO2) agents. B2 tag: WLS-2005_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_1610-1998 Start of simulation: 1610 AD End of simulation: 1998 AD initial condition: restart from simulation B1.1. bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 at year 1610 Analysis period: 1610 AD to 1998 AD ------- B3: 3 Simulations from 1765 to 1998 with natural forcing only non-CO2 radiative forcing is kept to zero (except for volcanoes and solar) CO2 is kept at its 1765 value. Simulation B3.1: tag bard08_volcCrow_1765_1998 Start of simulation: 1765 AD End of simulation: 1998 AD initial condition: restart from simulation B1.1. bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 at year 1765 Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD ------- Simulation B3.2: tag bard25_volcCrow_1765_1998 Start of simulation: 1765 AD End of simulation: 1998 AD initial condition: restart from simulation B1.2. bard25_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 at year 1765 Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD ----- Simulation B3.1: tag WLS-2005_volcCrow_1765_1998 Start of simulation: 1765 AD End of simulation: 1998 AD initial condition: restart from simulation B2. WLS-2005_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2 at year 1765 Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD OUTPUT ------ I guess minimal output is global and NH mean surface temperature. # # ----------------------------------------- # Radiative forcing by individual non-CO2 agents # for industrial period in W/m2 # ----------------------------------------- # # # Date: 13/10/2005 # Time: 17.30 # # # prepared by # Fortunat Joos # Climate and Environmental Physics # Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern # joos@climate.unibe.ch # # with fortran code: nonco2_radforc.f # Version March 2001 # Code for future concentrations # provided by Michael Prather # # # components included: # CH4, N2O, Stratospheric O3, Tropospheric O3, # direct and indirect sulfate aerosol, # direct fossil and biomass burning aerosols (BC+OC), # CFC-11,CFC-12,CFC-113,CFC-114,CFC-115,CCl4,CH3CCl3, # HFC-22,HCFC-141b,HCFC-142b,HCFC-123,CF3Br,CF2BrCl, # CF4 C2F6 C4F10 SF6 HFC-23 HFC-32 HFC-125 HFC-134a, # HFC-143a HFC-152a HFC-227ea HFC-245ca HFC-43-10mee # stratospheric H2O from CH4 # # original file: # ~/ipcc_tar/sres/radforc_sres_apr01/output/ghg+rf_all_1765_2100_1yr_13oct05.out # # # Radiative forcing in W/m2 for scenario # -------------------------------------- # # Sum(non-CO2) N2O Montreal Gases Tropo-O3 S-indirect Strato-H2O # YEAR CH4 13 HaloC Strato-O3 S-direct OC+BC (FF+BB) 1765.50 -0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.001 0.000 1766.50 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.001 0.000 1767.50 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.001 0.000 1768.50 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.001 0.000 1769.50 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.001 0.000 1770.50 0.001 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.001 0.000 1771.50 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.001 0.000 1772.50 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.001 0.000 1773.50 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.001 0.000 1774.50 0.003 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.001 0.000 2001.00 370.0077 ######################################################################################## # NOTE: DATA FROM YEAR 850 TO 1000 ARE ARTIFICIAL (MIRROR OF DATA FROM yr 1001 to 1150) # USE 850 to 1000 AD data only for initialisaton ######################################################################################## # #RADIATIVE FORCING BY VOLCANOES AFTER CROWLEY, Science, 2000 #------------------------------------------------------------ # # NOTE: RADIATIVE FORCING IN THIS FILE INCLUDES ALBEDO EFFECT. # IN THE NUMBERS BELOW AN ALBEDO OF 30% HAS BEEN FACTORED IN. # IF THE MODEL ACCOUNTS FOR ALBEDO THEN THE NUMBERS NEED TO BE MULTIPLIED BY 1./0.7 # # file modified by # Fortunat Joos # Climate and Environmental Physics # Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern # joos@climate.unibe.ch # ORIGINAL MESSAGE FROM CROWLEY: # ------------------------------ # # Hi All, # # some of you have requested the forcing time series used in last years # Science paper. I referred you to a NOAA website. But I now realize there # may be incomplete information in the explanations, in the sense that the # solar and tropospheric aerosol forcing was listed as net radiative forcing # after accounting for the 30% albedo of the earths atmosphere. some 1D ebm # do not exlicitly consider the albedo term, but virtually all other models # so. # # In order to ensure that everyone is on the same page with respect to # evaluating the forcing terms I use I am sending each of you an ftp address # where you can download estimates of volcano, solar, greenhouse gas,and # tropospheric (1000-1998) using total forcing prior to accounting for the # planetary albedo. # # The ftp address is: # # anonymous FTP to stommel.tamu.edu # cd incoming/FORCING # get forc-total-4.12.01.txt # # a few other comments - # # all units are in W/m**2 # # hl in volc time series refers to the fact that eruptions of unknown origin # have been assigned a high latitude (hl) origin. There are "tails" to most # of the large eruptions that were determined based on the estimated # e-folding time of the aerosols as being about 1 year # # Sol.Be10 refers to the Beryllium 10 measurements of Bard et al but scaled # by me to the Lean et al changes over the last 400 years. After further # reflection I think the Be10 may be the most reliable of the solar indices. # # GHG refers to greenhouse gases # # Aer refers to tropospheric aerosols # # sorry about any confusion the prior data may have caused, regards, Tom # # Thomas J. Crowley # Dept. of Oceanography # Texas A&M University # College Station, TX 77843-3146 # 979-845-0795 # 979-847-8879 (fax) # 979-845-6331 (alternate fax) # ######################################################################################## # NOTE: DATA FROM YEAR 850 TO 1000 ARE ARTIFICIAL (MIRROR OF DATA FROM yr 1001 to 1150) # USE 850 to 1000 AD data only for initialisaton ######################################################################################## ########################################################################## # HERE converted from original file: forc-total-4.12.01.txt # WITH Planetary Albedo factored in: volc multiplied by 0.7 ########################################################################### #Year Vol.hl.cct 850.50 0.0000 4989. 2006-07-07 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 12:44:43 -0600 (MDT) from: ottobli@ucar.edu subject: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] IPCC Figure 6.6 - Last Interglacial to: wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu Dear All, There are several issues to discuss and resolve concerning the last interglacial figure (6.6) in our chapter. Right panel: This panel shows the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) minimal extent and ice thickness for the last interglacial. It is an average of the minimal configurations of the GIS from three published results - Tarasov and Peltier (2003), Lhomme et al. (2005), and Otto-Bliesner et al. (2006). The colored dots represent an assessment of ice core observations on whether ice disappeared at these ice core sites during some point in the LIG, which I would like your views on: * White - Ice remained through LIG: N(NGRIP), S(Summit-GRIP and GISP2) R(Renland) * Black - Ice disappeared during some time in the LIG: A(Agassiz), De(Devon) * Gray - Status of LIG ice at these sites is unresolved: C(Camp Century)?, D(Dye3)? Any additional references that I should include in the figure legend would also be useful. Left panel: This panel shows the summer (JJA) surface temperature change from 2 proxy compilations and an average of 2 model simulations. The data represents proxy estimates of peak summer warmth. Susan wanted the model panel to be an average of results from more than one model. The two simulations available for this average are CCSM, 130ka minus present(1990), published in Otto-Bliesner et al. (2006); and ECHO-G, 125ka minus preindustrial, published in Kaspar et al. (2005) [except using the preindustrial simulation from the IPCC database rather than the preindustrial simulation used in Kaspar et al. because of a problem with snow buildup and very cold temperatures over Greenland in the Kaspar et al. preindustrial simulation]. We had rationalized at the time of the SOD that these two modeling group results are roughly comparable for computing Arctic summer surface temperature anomalies based on the following forcing effects: CCSM ECHO-G --------------------- --------------------- 130ka 1990 R.F. 125ka PI R.F. CO2 280 355 -1.27 270 280 -0.19 CH4 600 1714 -0.53 630 700 -0.05 N2O Pres Pres 0 260 265 ~0 del Solar (incoming divided by 4 times 0.7) 69N,MJJ +8.12 +6.95 69N,JJA +1.25 +4.88 I do not really like averaging these two modeling results although we can argue that this is somewhat justified based on the comparable GHG+Solar radiative forcings for Arctic May-Jun-Jul (but not so for Jun-Jul-Aug). Notice also the teardrop pattern of temperature anomalies in northern Greenland, which are a feature of the ECHO-G differences. The results from CCSM alone can be seen in the left panel of Figure TS-24 which is not yet the multi-model figure. Averaging the two models also makes answering comment 6-1060 problematic. Should we keep the left panel as a multi-model average? Bette _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 1149. 2006-07-10 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 03:52:43 -0400 from: "W.R. Peltier" subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] IPCC Figure 6.6 - Last Interglacial to: ottobli@ucar.edu, wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu Hi Bette, Of course the left panel should be kept as a multi-model average. It would appear to be the best way to emphasize commonality and thereby to minimize divergence. Cheers Dick At 02:44 PM 07/07/2006, ottobli@ucar.edu wrote: >Dear All, > >There are several issues to discuss and resolve concerning the last >interglacial figure (6.6) in our chapter. > >Right panel: This panel shows the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) minimal extent >and ice thickness for the last interglacial. It is an average of the >minimal configurations of the GIS from three published results - Tarasov >and Peltier (2003), Lhomme et al. (2005), and Otto-Bliesner et al. (2006). >The colored dots represent an assessment of ice core observations on >whether ice disappeared at these ice core sites during some point in the >LIG, which I would like your views on: > >* White - Ice remained through LIG: N(NGRIP), S(Summit-GRIP and GISP2) >R(Renland) >* Black - Ice disappeared during some time in the LIG: A(Agassiz), De(Devon) >* Gray - Status of LIG ice at these sites is unresolved: C(Camp Century)?, >D(Dye3)? > >Any additional references that I should include in the figure legend would >also be useful. > >Left panel: This panel shows the summer (JJA) surface temperature change >from 2 proxy compilations and an average of 2 model simulations. The data >represents proxy estimates of peak summer warmth. Susan wanted the model >panel to be an average of results from more than one model. The two >simulations available for this average are CCSM, 130ka minus >present(1990), published in Otto-Bliesner et al. (2006); and ECHO-G, 125ka >minus preindustrial, published in Kaspar et al. (2005) [except using the >preindustrial simulation from the IPCC database rather than the >preindustrial simulation used in Kaspar et al. because of a problem with >snow buildup and very cold temperatures over Greenland in the Kaspar et >al. >preindustrial simulation]. We had rationalized at the time of the SOD that >these two modeling group results are roughly comparable for computing >Arctic summer surface temperature anomalies based on the following forcing >effects: > > CCSM ECHO-G > --------------------- --------------------- > 130ka 1990 R.F. 125ka PI R.F. >CO2 280 355 -1.27 270 280 -0.19 >CH4 600 1714 -0.53 630 700 -0.05 >N2O Pres Pres 0 260 265 ~0 > >del Solar (incoming divided by 4 times 0.7) >69N,MJJ +8.12 +6.95 >69N,JJA +1.25 +4.88 > >I do not really like averaging these two modeling results although we can >argue that this is somewhat justified based on the comparable GHG+Solar >radiative forcings for Arctic May-Jun-Jul (but not so for Jun-Jul-Aug). >Notice also the teardrop pattern of temperature anomalies in northern >Greenland, which are a feature of the ECHO-G differences. The results from >CCSM alone can be seen in the left panel of Figure TS-24 which is not yet >the multi-model figure. Averaging the two models also makes answering >comment 6-1060 problematic. Should we keep the left panel as a multi-model >average? > >Bette > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list >Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu >http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 1937. 2006-07-10 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa , Ricardo Villalba , Jason Smerdon , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:41:39 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: Borehole in the Southern Hemisphere to: Henry Pollack Hi Henry - many thanks. We can keep the southern Africa curves (yours and instrumental). Great, thanks. I'm sorry that we're not tracking everything perfectly - this process involves lots of juggling. AND, we have to make sure we get things right. Thanks again, Peck >Hi Peck et al, > >Thanks for your note about the Africa borehole reconstructions, along >with the correspondence with Jason Smerdon. In my e-mail to you on >April 18,2006 I had indicated that the African work was unpublished. >However, I had forgotten that the Nature paper by Huang, Pollack and >Shen (Temperature trends over the past five centuries reconstructed >from borehole temperatures, Nature 403, pp 756-758, 2000) actually >showed the reconstructions for both southern Africa and Australia as >bar graphs of century-long changes in Figure 3 of that paper. The >figure displaying both the Africa and Australia borehole >reconstructions that appears in the FAR draft (Figure 6.12? or was it >6.11?) shows temperature vs. time for five centuries, a display that >differs from the bar-graphs in the Nature paper only in format, not >data. > >Inasmuch as there have been no additions to the datasets since that >paper, it seems that we can correctly say that the reconstructions for >southern Africa and Australia have both been published in the Nature >(2000) paper. There is nothing "wrong" or outdated with either of those >reconstructions. We have, in addition, a newer and more expansive paper >about Australia alone (discussing the same reconstruction as appeared >in the Nature paper), now in press in the Journal of Quaternary >Science. This paper was already mentioned in the e-mail of April 18, >2006, which I will paste at the end of this message. > >Other questions? > >Cheers, >Henry > > ___ ___ Henry N. Pollack >[ \ / ] Professor of Geophysics > | \/ | Department of Geological Sciences > |MICHIGAN| University of Michigan >[___]\/[___] Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1005, U.S.A. > > Phone: 734-763-0084 FAX: 734-763-4690 > e-mail: hpollack@umich.edu > URL: www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~hpollack/ > URL: www-personal.umich.edu/~hpollack/book.html >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >e-mail of April 18, 2006: > >Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 16:26:27 -0400 [04/18/2006 04:26:27 PM EDT] >From: Henry Pollack Add to Address book >(hpollack@umich.edu) United States >To: Keith Briffa >Cc: jto@u.arizona.edu, eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no >Subject: IPCC FAR draft >Headers: Show All Headers >Hi Keith (and Peck and Eystein), > >I have recently been sent the current draft of the IPCC FAR by the US >Global Change >Research Program, asking for comments on the draft. This is the first >time I have seen >this product since we were feverishly exchanging e-mails in February. >Let me call to your >attention some small but not insignificant corrections to be made to >the next draft. > >Page 6-33, Section 6.6.1.2, line 22. The title of this section (in >italics) should be >changed to "What do ground surface temperature reconstructions derived >from subsurface >temperature measurements tell us?" > >Page 6-33, lines 49 and 52, there is a reference (Smerdon et al., in press). >This paper has now been published, so substitute "2006" for "in press", >and in the list >of references the citation should include the following: > >J. Geophys. Res. 111, D07101, doi:10.1029/2004JD005578 > >Page 6-34, lines 43 and 44. This section is dealing with the southern >hemisphere. The >sentence "...these both indicate unusually warm conditions prevailing >in the 20th century >(Pollack and Smerdon, 2004)" , and the reference therein, are both incorrect. > >The ground surface temperature changes over the last 500 years DO NOT >indicate unusually >warm conditions prevailing in the 20th century in Australia and >southern Africa. This is >because the unusually warm conditions developed late in the century, >after most of the >boreholes had already been logged. What the borehole reconstruction >for Australia does >show is very good correspondence with the Cook et al (2000) >reconstruction for Tasmania >and the Cook et al. (2002) recon for New Zealand. The Australia work is >described in a >manuscript “Five centuries of Climate Change in Australia: The View >from Underground” by >Pollack, Huang and Smerdon now under review in the Journal of >Quaternary Science. The >Africa work is unpublished. > >Is this e-mail to you sufficient to activate these changes? Or should I >submit these >comments to the US Government Review Panel? If I am to submit to the >latter, they require >all comments to be filed by May 9. > >Cheers, >Henry > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Quoting Jonathan Overpeck : > >>Hi Henry - hope you're having a nice summer. I just got back from the >>IPCC mtg where we made plans for generating the final draft of our >>paleo chapter. One question that came up is whether we can show (in >>Fig 6.12 - southern hemisphere climate records of the last >>millennium) your borehole recon for southern Africa. As you can see >>below, Jason Smerdon has told our SH lead, Ricardo Villalba that the >>recon we've used is not yet published. The question for you is >>whether we can/should use a version that IS published, We feel your >>recon is an important one to show as it represents a region not >>represented by other good reconstructions. But, we don't want to use >>something that has proven to be wrong. >> >>We appreciate your input on this issue. Also, if there is a published >>recon that we can use, would you pls send the recon (guess it's only >>one value per century, right?) and the ref we should cite? >> >>As you can imagine, we're under a tough time constraint, so if you >>can let us know as soon as you can, that would be great. >> >>Many thanks, Peck >> >>>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >>>From: "Ricardo Villalba" >>>To: "Keith R. Briffa" , >>> "Jonathan Overpeck" >>>Subject: Borehole in the Southern Hemisphere >>>Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 06:00:20 -0300 >>> >>>Hi Keith and Peck, >>>Please, find below a copy of the message that I got from Jason Smerdon, >>>regarding the South African borehole record. It looks that the record as it >>>is shown in Figure 6.12 has not been published, however former versions of >>>the South African reconstruction have been included in at least two papers. >>>Please, let me know your impressions to proceed with this matter. Cheers, >>>Ricardo >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: "Jason Smerdon" >>>To: "Ricardo Villalba" >>>Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 8:09 PM >>>Subject: Re: Publication in JQR >>> >>>> Hi Ricardo, >>>> >>>> I believe that you are referring to the reconstruction from the Southern >>>> Africa holes that we provided to Tim Osborn. That reconstruction has not >>>> been published as a time series as it is shown in Tim's figure. I >>>> believe, however, that the same reconstruction was published as a >>>> histogram in the following reference: >>>> >>>> Huang S, Pollack HN, Shen PY. 2000. Temperature trends over the last five >>>> centuries reconstructed from borehole temperatures. Nature 403: 756-758. >>>> >>>> The only thing that might be different is the number of holes that were >>>> used, but I don't think that part of the dataset has been updated since >>>> Huang's 2000 paper. To confirm this I would encourage you to contact >>> > Henry Pollack at hpollack@umich.edu. He will know for sure. A similar >>>> reconstruction using a subset of the Southern Africa holes is referenced >>>> in the Australian paper: >>>> >>>> Tyson PD, Mason SJ, Jones MQW, Cooper GRJ. 1998. Global warming and >>>> geothermal profiles: The surface rock temperature response in South >>>> Africa. Geophysical Research Letters 25: 2711-2714. >>>> >>>> But the reconstruction will of course not be exactly equal to the larger >>>> Southern African reconstruction that we provided for Tim. I hope this >>>> helps and let me know if I can be of any further assistance. >>>> >>>> Jason >>>> >>>> On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Ricardo Villalba wrote: >>>> >>>> > Dear Jason, >>>> > Thanks for the preprint. Do you know if the South African borehole >>>records >>>> > has been published? Thanks, >>>> > RIcardo >>>> > >>>> >> >> >>-- >>Jonathan T. Overpeck >>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>Professor, Department of Geosciences >>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >> >>Mail and Fedex Address: >> >>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>University of Arizona >>Tucson, AZ 85721 >>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 3422. 2006-07-10 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa , Ricardo Villalba , Jason Smerdon date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:36:08 -0400 from: Henry Pollack subject: Re: Borehole in the Southern Hemisphere to: Jonathan Overpeck Hi Peck et al, Thanks for your note about the Africa borehole reconstructions, along with the correspondence with Jason Smerdon. In my e-mail to you on April 18,2006 I had indicated that the African work was unpublished. However, I had forgotten that the Nature paper by Huang, Pollack and Shen (Temperature trends over the past five centuries reconstructed from borehole temperatures, Nature 403, pp 756-758, 2000) actually showed the reconstructions for both southern Africa and Australia as bar graphs of century-long changes in Figure 3 of that paper. The figure displaying both the Africa and Australia borehole reconstructions that appears in the FAR draft (Figure 6.12? or was it 6.11?) shows temperature vs. time for five centuries, a display that differs from the bar-graphs in the Nature paper only in format, not data. Inasmuch as there have been no additions to the datasets since that paper, it seems that we can correctly say that the reconstructions for southern Africa and Australia have both been published in the Nature (2000) paper. There is nothing "wrong" or outdated with either of those reconstructions. We have, in addition, a newer and more expansive paper about Australia alone (discussing the same reconstruction as appeared in the Nature paper), now in press in the Journal of Quaternary Science. This paper was already mentioned in the e-mail of April 18, 2006, which I will paste at the end of this message. Other questions? Cheers, Henry ___ ___ Henry N. Pollack [ \ / ] Professor of Geophysics | \/ | Department of Geological Sciences |MICHIGAN| University of Michigan [___]\/[___] Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1005, U.S.A. Phone: 734-763-0084 FAX: 734-763-4690 e-mail: hpollack@umich.edu URL: www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~hpollack/ URL: www-personal.umich.edu/~hpollack/book.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- e-mail of April 18, 2006: Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 16:26:27 -0400 [04/18/2006 04:26:27 PM EDT] From: Henry Pollack Add to Address book (hpollack@umich.edu) United States To: Keith Briffa Cc: jto@u.arizona.edu, eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no Subject: IPCC FAR draft Headers: Show All Headers Hi Keith (and Peck and Eystein), I have recently been sent the current draft of the IPCC FAR by the US Global Change Research Program, asking for comments on the draft. This is the first time I have seen this product since we were feverishly exchanging e-mails in February. Let me call to your attention some small but not insignificant corrections to be made to the next draft. Page 6-33, Section 6.6.1.2, line 22. The title of this section (in italics) should be changed to "What do ground surface temperature reconstructions derived from subsurface temperature measurements tell us?" Page 6-33, lines 49 and 52, there is a reference (Smerdon et al., in press). This paper has now been published, so substitute "2006" for "in press", and in the list of references the citation should include the following: J. Geophys. Res. 111, D07101, doi:10.1029/2004JD005578 Page 6-34, lines 43 and 44. This section is dealing with the southern hemisphere. The sentence "...these both indicate unusually warm conditions prevailing in the 20th century (Pollack and Smerdon, 2004)" , and the reference therein, are both incorrect. The ground surface temperature changes over the last 500 years DO NOT indicate unusually warm conditions prevailing in the 20th century in Australia and southern Africa. This is because the unusually warm conditions developed late in the century, after most of the boreholes had already been logged. What the borehole reconstruction for Australia does show is very good correspondence with the Cook et al (2000) reconstruction for Tasmania and the Cook et al. (2002) recon for New Zealand. The Australia work is described in a manuscript “Five centuries of Climate Change in Australia: The View from Underground” by Pollack, Huang and Smerdon now under review in the Journal of Quaternary Science. The Africa work is unpublished. Is this e-mail to you sufficient to activate these changes? Or should I submit these comments to the US Government Review Panel? If I am to submit to the latter, they require all comments to be filed by May 9. Cheers, Henry ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quoting Jonathan Overpeck : > Hi Henry - hope you're having a nice summer. I just got back from the > IPCC mtg where we made plans for generating the final draft of our > paleo chapter. One question that came up is whether we can show (in > Fig 6.12 - southern hemisphere climate records of the last > millennium) your borehole recon for southern Africa. As you can see > below, Jason Smerdon has told our SH lead, Ricardo Villalba that the > recon we've used is not yet published. The question for you is > whether we can/should use a version that IS published, We feel your > recon is an important one to show as it represents a region not > represented by other good reconstructions. But, we don't want to use > something that has proven to be wrong. > > We appreciate your input on this issue. Also, if there is a published > recon that we can use, would you pls send the recon (guess it's only > one value per century, right?) and the ref we should cite? > > As you can imagine, we're under a tough time constraint, so if you > can let us know as soon as you can, that would be great. > > Many thanks, Peck > > >> X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >> From: "Ricardo Villalba" >> To: "Keith R. Briffa" , >> "Jonathan Overpeck" >> Subject: Borehole in the Southern Hemisphere >> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 06:00:20 -0300 >> >> Hi Keith and Peck, >> Please, find below a copy of the message that I got from Jason Smerdon, >> regarding the South African borehole record. It looks that the record as it >> is shown in Figure 6.12 has not been published, however former versions of >> the South African reconstruction have been included in at least two papers. >> Please, let me know your impressions to proceed with this matter. Cheers, >> Ricardo >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Jason Smerdon" >> To: "Ricardo Villalba" >> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 8:09 PM >> Subject: Re: Publication in JQR >> >> >>> Hi Ricardo, >>> >>> I believe that you are referring to the reconstruction from the Southern >>> Africa holes that we provided to Tim Osborn. That reconstruction has not >>> been published as a time series as it is shown in Tim's figure. I >>> believe, however, that the same reconstruction was published as a >>> histogram in the following reference: >>> >>> Huang S, Pollack HN, Shen PY. 2000. Temperature trends over the last five >>> centuries reconstructed from borehole temperatures. Nature 403: 756-758. >>> >>> The only thing that might be different is the number of holes that were >>> used, but I don't think that part of the dataset has been updated since >>> Huang's 2000 paper. To confirm this I would encourage you to contact >> > Henry Pollack at hpollack@umich.edu. He will know for sure. A similar >>> reconstruction using a subset of the Southern Africa holes is referenced >>> in the Australian paper: >>> >>> Tyson PD, Mason SJ, Jones MQW, Cooper GRJ. 1998. Global warming and >>> geothermal profiles: The surface rock temperature response in South >>> Africa. Geophysical Research Letters 25: 2711-2714. >>> >>> But the reconstruction will of course not be exactly equal to the larger >>> Southern African reconstruction that we provided for Tim. I hope this >>> helps and let me know if I can be of any further assistance. >>> >>> Jason >>> >>> On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Ricardo Villalba wrote: >>> >>> > Dear Jason, >>> > Thanks for the preprint. Do you know if the South African borehole >> records >>> > has been published? Thanks, >>> > RIcardo >>> > >>> >>> > > > -- > Jonathan T. Overpeck > Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth > Professor, Department of Geosciences > Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences > > Mail and Fedex Address: > > Institute for the Study of Planet Earth > 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor > University of Arizona > Tucson, AZ 85721 > direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 > fax: +1 520 792-8795 > http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ > http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ > > > 3812. 2006-07-12 ______________________________________________________ cc: "'Clare Goodess'" , date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:35:38 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: From Cromer to Kyoto- funding secured- input deadlines to: "Laura Middleton" ,, ,"'Mike Salmon'" , "'Tom Melvin'" Hi Laura, although I do have some information about CRU's input, mainly in the form of a sketchy outline(!), I was hoping that you would know more specifically what is required from us/me. This applies particularly to the draft text, because I am aware that it must somehow follow a storyline about Sally and her Grandad and without knowing how this story unfolds I wouldn't know the context for the text. The graphs are a bit easier because I have a clearer view of what is required. Millennial: (1) I'll send you a graph of NH temperatures for last 1000 yrs. (2) Maybe a graph with cold spikes after volcanic eruptions. (3) I can send a map of tree-ring locations. (4) For pictures, how big do they need to be? I have some good ones but they will be quite grainy/pixellated if blown up to large sizes. Can you give me an *approximate* indication of the size they will need to be, in cm x cm ? Tom is sorting out the hands-on cores and equipment I think. Instrumental: (1) Mike Salmon has sent the animation to Aurelie already. (2) Aurelie requested two maps showing pattern of annual temperature change in recent past and in the future. I can produce these fairly easily, but as they aren't in the original outline, I just wanted to know if they will be replacing anything else? (3) I'll talk with Phil about the other things (global record, attribution plot). Sound ok? Cheers Tim At 21:53 07/07/2006, Laura Middleton wrote: >Hi CRU folk, >You will be pleased to know that I don't need all of the info for the >exhibit right away. However, I will need the draft text, some of the key >graphs by the 19th July. This date coincides with both Sarah and Claire >being on leave, so I hope this is ok. > >See the attached document for more details. With best wishes, Laura > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Please note that I work on THURSDAYS & FRIDAYS >Laura Middleton, >Science Communication Officer, >The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, >Zuckerman Institute for Connective Environmental Research, >School of Environmental Sciences, >University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK >www.tyndall.ac.uk , Ph: +44 (0)1603 593905, Fax +44 (0)1603 593901 > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Clare Goodess [mailto:C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: 30 June 2006 13:54 >To: Laura.Middleton@uea.ac.uk >Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: RE: From Cromer to Kyoto- funding secured > > > >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16 > >Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 13:27:36 +0100 > >To: Clare Goodess ,d.viner@uea.ac.uk > >From: Tim Osborn > >Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: From Cromer to Kyoto- funding secured > > > >yes > > > >At 13:06 30/06/2006, Clare Goodess wrote: > >>Tim/David > >> > >>I never mentioned your names to Laura! (except Tim with respect to > >>inputs on millennial stuff) > >> > >>Are either of you willing/able to help out if needed in July? > >> > >>Clare > >> > >> > >> > >>>From: "Laura Middleton" > >>>To: "'Clare Goodess'" > >>>Subject: RE: From Cromer to Kyoto- funding secured > >>>Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 11:28:46 +0100 > >>>Organization: Tyndall - University of East Anglia > >>>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 > >>> > >>>HI Claire, > >>>Thanks for this. That's great. I will contact Sarah next week, in absence >of > >>>her I could try Tim O or Dave V perhaps? Laura > >>> > >>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>>Please note that I work on MONDAYS & FRIDAYS > >>>Laura Middleton, > >>>Science Communication Officer, > >>>The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, > >>>Zuckerman Institute for Connective Environmental Research, > >>>School of Environmental Sciences, > >>>University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK > >>>www.tyndall.ac.uk , Ph: +44 (0)1603 593905, Fax +44 (0)1603 593901 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>-----Original Message----- > >>>From: Clare Goodess [mailto:C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk] > >>>Sent: 27 June 2006 19:19 > >>>To: Laura Middleton > >>>Cc: s.keeley@uea.ac.uk > >>>Subject: Fwd: From Cromer to Kyoto- funding secured > >>> > >>>Hi Laura > >>> > >>>Please find attached outline of CRU's contribution to the exhibition. > >>> > >>>And as you can see from the forwarded email, I'm trying to find > >>>someone to take over from me. Unfortunately the person I'd thought > >>>of (Sarah Keeley) will herself be away 5 to 26 July, which is when I > >>>guess most of the work will have to be done. She is, however, > >>>willing to help out, outside of these dates. > >>> > >>> > >>> >Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 19:15:09 +0100 > >>> >To: cru.internal@uea.ac.uk > >>> >From: Clare Goodess > >>> >Subject: Fwd: From Cromer to Kyoto- funding secured > >>> > > >>> >Dear all > >>> > > >>> >Please find attached the proposal for the cathedral climate change > >>> >exhibition which will run from 19 August. > >>> > > >>> >Laura was waiting to hear if the bid to DEFRA was successful (it > >>> >was) before starting planning for the exhibition, so time is now > >>> >very short. Tom Melvin and I went to a meeting about it on Friday > >>> >afternoon. Following that, I've produced a document outlining CRU's > >>> >contribution (attached). > >>> > > >>> >Tom will co-ordinate the tree-ring and Holocene exhibits, but since > >>> >I will be away from next tuesday until the end of July, it would be > >>> >great if someone else in CRU could take over co-ordination of our > >>> >input. This will involved liaising with Laura and some of the > >>> >Tyndall students who will be working on the exhibition, chasing up > >>> >figures/graphics/photos etc., maybe drafting a little text, and > >>> >commenting on text/design etc. etc. Please let me know as soon as > >>> >possible if you are interested in this - or would like to contribute > >>> >to the exhibition preparations in any other way. Offers from staff > >>> >and/or students all welcome! > >>> > > >>> >Laura hasn't yet got a deadline by which the exhibition > >>> >printers/manufacturers and designers will need input - but I guess > >>> >this is going to be pretty soon! Certainly I think most of the work > >>> >will have to be done by the end of July. > >>> > > >>> >Thanks, Clare > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>>Dr Clare Goodess > >>>Climatic Research Unit > >>>School of Environmental Sciences > >>>University of East Anglia > >>>Norwich > >>>NR4 7TJ > >>>UK > >>> > >>>Tel: +44 -1603 592875 > >>>Fax: +44 -1603 507784 > >>>Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ > >>> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm > >> > >>Dr Clare Goodess > >>Climatic Research Unit > >>School of Environmental Sciences > >>University of East Anglia > >>Norwich > >>NR4 7TJ > >>UK > >> > >>Tel: +44 -1603 592875 > >>Fax: +44 -1603 507784 > >>Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ > >> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm > >> > > > >Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow > >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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ > >sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > > > >**Norwich -- City for Science: > >**Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006 > >Dr Clare Goodess >Climatic Research Unit >School of Environmental Sciences >University of East Anglia >Norwich >NR4 7TJ >UK > >Tel: +44 -1603 592875 >Fax: +44 -1603 507784 >Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm > > > > Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm **Norwich -- City for Science: **Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006 3602. 2006-07-13 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones ,Mike Salmon , Keith Briffa ,Clare Goodess , "Aurelie Persechino" , date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:36:23 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: BA festival - Global Warming to: "Laura Middleton" Dear Laura, here is the next graph for the BA exhibit. This one is from the IPCC TAR 2001 summary for policymakers (fig SPM-2) if you want to read the detailed caption. This is the "attribution modelling plot" listed under the "Instrumental climate record" part of the CRU outline. Some explanation of this graph: ----------------------- The purpose is to see if we can understand the causes of past temperature changes (the measured/observed changes are shown in red in all cases). The grey band in each panel are the range of temperatures simulated by a climate model. In the top left, the climate model is responding only to natural changes in the sun's output and volcanic "dust". It is clear that the observed warming cannot be explained by these natural changes. In the top right, the climate model is responding only to human-related changes ("anthropogenic"), principally increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. The overall amount of observed warming appears to be explained by these human-related effects, but the timing of when the warming took place is not explained by these human-related effects alone. In the bottom panel, the climate model is responding to both natural and human-related changes. It provides an excellent explanation of the observed changes in temperature. ----------------------- Cheers Tim Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\understandingpastwarming.png" Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm **Norwich -- City for Science: **Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006 335. 2006-07-14 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Jul 14 15:09:53 2006 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: [Fwd: Research Grant Reference: NE/E002412/1 - Research Grant to: N.Gillett@uea.ac.uk Hi Nathan, thanks for offering to help out. I plan to write a reponse on Monday and will then give it to you for editing. In the meantime, if you have any views on what main points we should emphasize, then please let me know. Note we've also just received comments from a 4th referee, which is also very favourable but I'm not quite sure how to respond to their only major recommendation. Cheers Tim At 21:08 12/07/2006, you wrote: Hi Tim, Looks like the review comments on the project are pretty favourable - this is good news. I'm happy to help out with the responses in any way you want. Cheers, Nathan ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Research Grant Reference: NE/E002412/1 - Research Grant Assessments for Comment From: jrog@nerc.ac.uk Date: Tue, July 11, 2006 4:42 pm To: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Cc: n.gillett@uea.ac.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Dr Osborn PROJECT TITLE: Identification of changing precipitation extremes and attribution to atmopsheric, oceanic and climatic changes Your application for the above Research Grant will be considered at the Flood Risk from Extreme Events (FREE) meeting. Referee comments have now been obtained on the application, and have included the following points to which you have been invited to respond. These comments are presented to you for clarification and do not represent any pre-judgement of the outcome of your application, and may be untypical of the general tone of review received. Should you wish to respond to the points raised by the referees, please do so by 18 July 2006 to allow us to include your response in the papers sent to the panel reviewing your application. We realise that this is a short period of time and would encourage you to submit your response by e-mail. Please make sure that you include your grant reference number. Please note that NERC is now introducing a page restriction on the length of your response. Your reply should be as concise as possible and must not exceed an average of one side of A4 for each referee assessment. For example, should you receive 3 sets of referee comments, your response should not exceed 3 sides of A4, with a minimum text font size 12. Please note that any response longer than the page limit will not be put to the Panel Meeting. This e-mail has been copied to all the Investigators on the application in case the Principal Investigator (PI) is out of contact. However, please note that we can only accept one response to these comments (preferably from the PI) - not one from each Investigator contacted. Should we receive further referee comments we will endeavour to forward these to you for comment before the meeting. Please note however, that these late comments may have alternative deadlines for response, due to meeting paper reproduction schedules, which you should attempt to meet wherever possible. No guarantee can be made that late responses will be included in the main set of meeting papers. Yours sincerely Jan Rogers Research Grants Team NERC Tel: (01793) 411574 Fax: (01793) 411545 E-Mail: JROG@wpo.nerc.ac.uk Please refer to [1]http://www.nerc.ac.uk/funding/contacts.shtml if you need to contact individuals within NERC. Referee A Sound, carefully planned scientific methodology, enabling the advancement of scientific understanding in this topic area. I view this research to be a fundamental step in refining our ability to use, with confidence, regional projections of precipitation (both mean and extreme) based on R and G CMs: as stated in the research, simulated projections of precipitation are quite uncertain - therefore focused investigation into a comparison of the mechanisms of extreme real-world and simulated rainfall is an obvious prerequisite to then using model projections to inform policy/planning decisions. The proposal to compare relationships within a variety of climate models, and the investigation of SSTs as a driver, provides an option to extend this (or subsequent) research to benefit the seasonal-to-decadal forecasting community. However, I note this is note a stated primary goal of the research. Particular merit should be noted to the naming of specific end users (both personnel and institutions). This would suggest that knowledge transfer to appropriate partners has been carefully considered and seems an important component of the research plan. Moreover, the proposal seem to indicate that some correspondence has occurred to investigate the usefulness of proposed work, so that the proposal could be tailored to benefit stakeholders. Again this is worthy of merit. I am confident that the stated objectives can be met and that the named applicants are suitable to carry out the research. Questions/hypothesis are clearly defined. I am not aware of duplicate research. I do not see flaws in the proposed scientific method. Presumably, having identified which R or G CMs most resemble the real world (in terms of humidity-circulation-precipitation relationships) and identifying the causes of any changes, the actual projected precipitation changes themselves from those models most successfully validated would be explicitly flagged to the user community-either in the literature or other avenues which might be more accessible to non-technical stakeholders? (The proposal does state that validation results could be used to weight individual models in forthcoming ensemble-type probabilistic predictions, but what about the distribution/dissemination of existing data?) I do not think that any of the resources requested are insufficiently justified. Referee B I think there is very good potential for this project to enhance the body of knowledge on the causes of regional precipitation variations observed over the past several decades. The PI's are highly experienced in the analysis of precipitation and circulation variability and in climate change detection, and they have world-class reputations in these areas. They propose to work in a part of the world where adequate data are available, where models have relatively good performance in simulating precipitation and its extremes, and where circulation/precipitation relationships have been well studied. I would therefore expect an important incremental step in knowledge. I would also expect wider applications for the study of precipitation elsewhere in the world, for application in statistical downscaling (e.g., by better informing which circulation predictors should be included in downscaling), and for application in impacts research (e.g., through the improvement of weather generators that are based on downscaling results). What are the proposal's particular weaknesses? I worry a bit that the PIs may encounter some difficulties in interpretation given that multiple proximal causes of precipitation change such as circulation and humidity change may themselves be linked, and may both be linked to anthropogenic forcing. Nonetheless, it may well be the case that S/N ratios can be enhanced in this way. I think the implications for changes in flooding risk will have to be carefully considered. One could imagine the evaluation of change in flooding risk conditional upon certain circulation influences which in turn are affected by external forcing. However, I think considerable care will be required in selecting the appropriate covariates, and in developing appropriate statistical models that do not over extend the available data resources. I didn't see much in the proposal that worries about this aspect of the research, so I must assume that all of the statistical models will be properly cross-validated. Perhaps an initial step would be to conduct a perfect model study to consider what kinds of relationships might be identifiable and the extent to which statistical models describing these relationships that do not over-fit the available data resources can be built. These are first-rate researchers with excellent statistical skills who will definitely provide a useful increment on understanding of influences on precipitation extremes and flooding. There is however non-negligible risk associated with the study of external influence on precipitation extremes given the weak signal-to-noise ratio. Success in this regard hinges on whether the disaggregation strategy will be successful. I think the request for resources was well justified. I perceive it as being basically bare bones, seeking support for a post-doctoral fellow. Given the complexity and scope of the work envisioned, it would not be reasonable to try to proceed with studentships. I would also anticipate that the pdf will get excellent supervision by the PIs. Referee C The greatest strength of this proposal is its combination of sophisticated statistical techniques for the analysis of extremes with analysis of the atmospheric factors that are related to precipitation. It is not enough to know how what changes GCMs and RCMs predict for future precipitation; it is also useful to know how well they simulate variability in the factors that affect precipitation, and how well they simulation the relationships between these factors and different aspects of the distribution of precipitation. The separation of the analysis of GCM and RCM output into these two parts will allow the proposed study to gain useful information about what these models do well and what they do not, and to use what the models do well to inform projections of future variability and change in precipitation extremes. The approach is novel, as covariates are not yet widely used to estimate GEV or GPD parameters in extreme value analysis, and the PI and co-PI have the expertise in precipitation and atmospheric processes needed to find proper covariates to use for these extreme value distribution parameters. The approach to isolate the variability in precipitation due to variability in the large-scale atmospheric circulation, developed in part by the PI, is also novel and appropriate, as it is expected to allow the detection of climate change signals in the residual once the part due to circulation variability has been removed. In addition, the project is set up well to succeed. The PI and co-PI have expertise in both atmospheric processes and extreme value theory, so they are well-suited to lead a project that integrates knowledge and techniques from both disciplines, which is required for such a project to succeed. The proposal is well thought out, addressing important issues in the application of extreme value theory to the relationships between precipitation and atmospheric properties, considering methods of testing the ability of RCMs and GCMs to simulate precipitation, and the use of techniques developed in this project to the detection of precipitation changes associated with anthropogenic forcing. The PI and co-PI also have established collaborations with individuals and groups who are well-suited to use the products of this project (such as simulated time series of precipitation to be used to drive streamflow models at CEH) in applications that are more directly beneficial to the general public. The weakest aspect of the proposal is the method proposed to relate SST variability to extreme precipitation. While the rest of the proposal deals well with the climate system processes that relate the large scale atmospheric circulation with precipitation, a direct link between SST variability and extreme precipitation by using metrics of particular SST patterns as covariates in GEV/GPD models appears to miss the dynamics that is likely to be involved in this relationship. Instead, it is more likely that SST will affect atmospheric circulation or temperature, which will then influence precipitation extremes. Thus, I would prefer to see the use of some variety of atmospheric or climate model, or even empirically derived relationships, to first relate SST variability to variability in the atmospheric circulation, which is then related to the distribution of extreme precipitation, rather than looking for a direct SST-precipitation relationship. This is hinted at by the final sentence of the "Method and approach" section, but should be clarified. Otherwise, the approaches proposed are well-suited to the problem of understanding the causes of variability and change in extreme precipitation. I am impressed by the links that the PI and co-PI have made with researchers in other organizations that will be able to provide input to and use the products of this project. The clearest benefit is from the link to NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, which will utilize hydrology model to produce streamflow estimates from simulated precipitation time series to produce information that has more directly applicable benefits than what the PI and co-PI can produce on their own. It also seems that the Hadley Centre collaborators are sufficiently engaged to provide two-way discussions with the PI and co-PI on the direction of this project. It seems that the amount of time that the PI and co-PI are charging to the project is minimal. The expertise of the PI and co-PI does seem critical for the successful completion of this project, so their involvement at least at the level that they are charging to the project appears well-justified, and I expect that they will spend more time on the project than they are charging. In addition, the amount of time budgeted for the project, to be primarily carried out by a postdoctoral scientist, seems reasonable; at the very least, it does not seem to be less time that is needed. -- This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system. 2765. 2006-07-14 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen , Valerie Masson-Delmotte , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, Keith Briffa date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 16:46:20 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: Borehole in the Southern Hemisphere to: Henry Pollack Hi again Henry - I've attached an 1997 paper of your's and wonder if you could shed some up-to-date insights on how to best interpret. In particular: 1) it has been pointed out to us that the result in this paper argue for a globally warm period during the middle Holocene that was warmer than today. Our assessment (i.e., Figure 6.9) indicates that there was likely no period during the Holocene that was warmer around the global than the late 20th century. Especially outside of the tropics, there were periods warmer than today during the Holocene, but these regionally warm periods were not synchronous - at least at the centennial scale we can examine with proxy data. Thus, although Huang et al. 1997, indicates greater mean annual global warmth, it was unlike the synchronous global warming of the late 20th century. Plus, we believe the warmth of the Holocene was driven by orbital forcing, and that what we see makes sense in that regard. Huang et al, 1997 can be explained perhaps (this is a question) by the heavy borehole coverage in the Northern mid- to high-latitudes? We also know that proxy data shown in Fig 6.9 also indicate more warming (again, not synchronous) in Southern Hem mid-latitudes - where there are also many boreholes. Obviously, another issue is that the boreholes don't give the same temporal resolution as the other proxy records we synthesized/assessed, and at least in your paper, there isn't regional information either. So - the point is not (unless you suggest otherwise) that Huang et al 97 is wrong, but rather than within the limits of the data, it is compatible with what the higher-resolution, regionally-specific, multi-proxy data are showing in Fig 6.9, and that there was likely no period during the Holocene that was warmer synchronously around the global than the during the late 20th century. Do you agree with this, and is our reasoning accurate and complete? 2) Huang et al 1997 also shows evidence for warmth within the last 500-1000 years that was greater than during the 20th century AND a cool minima 200 years ago. Both of these are highlighted in your abstract, and both seem incompatible with other evidence. For example, your own more recent work has shown the coolest temperatures to be about 500 years ago. We didn't think it was within our focus to comment on these issues, but we are being asked to by reviewers, and it would be good to have your help in addressing these issues - hopefully in our responses to review comments rather than in our main text (which has to be shortened). Many thanks for your help with this paper and the issues it raises. Best, Peck -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\huang1997GRLHoloceneBoreholes.pdf" 3708. 2006-07-14 ______________________________________________________ cc: Valerie Masson-Delmotte date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:20:26 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: figure issues to: Keith Briffa , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, "Ricardo Villalba" , Eystein Jansen Hi all - including Eystein, whom I haven't been able to talk with on these issues yet: 1) I'd like to get your status report on Fig. 6.12 - based on feedback from Henry Pollack, we will keep the borehole curves and corresponding instrumental data. I believe we are also going to add the new recon from Law Dome - Valerie was going to send. Do you have everything needed for this figure revision? 2) Since we met in Bergen, I have received feedback from many about our MWP box, and would like to float the idea that we delete the bottom (Osborn and Briffa) panel. I know this is shocking coming from me (I think O&B, 2006 is a paper of the year contender!), but I have become convinced that it will be too much of a lightening rod for what it gives us. We still show the data in the top panel, which conveys the same thing (although in a much less sophisticated way!), and we still back up with citations to O&B2006. BUT, we hopefully avoid a possible intense focus on methodological focus on the fig, and the criticism that it's LA work that hasn't been thoroughly vetted. This focus (i.e., from skeptics and those inclined to listen to them for political reasons) is stupid, but we want to keep readers focused on the science and not on the politically-generated flak. I think we can do this just as well without the O&B06 figure, assuming we still cite the findings of the O&B06 paper, but just don't show the figure. We also save space - not the reason for my suggestion, but a good thing given what Keith and Tim need to add in response to issue like divergence etc. Obviously, was the biggest fan and pusher for the figure to be included, and I'm sorry to be suggesting otherwise now. Does this make sense? Thanks, Peck -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 984. 2006-07-16 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Keith Briffa" , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, "Ricardo Villalba" , "Eystein Jansen" , "Valerie Masson-Delmotte" date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:25:40 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: figure issues to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Thanks Tim - Valerie is doing field work until Wed, but indicated that she should be checking email some. I can't remember what the Law dome temp recon was, but I think it was a quantitative recon. Maybe Eystein, Keith or Ricardo remembers. Please still refer to Osborn and Briffa - it's important to include the points you did in the paper. Thank again, Peck >Hi all, > >(1) I'm happy to add an appropriate Law Dome record (presumably O18?) to >the SH figure. I just need the data from Valerie. > >(2) I agree that dropping the panel from Osborn & Briffa will help on >various fronts, including saving space and avoiding criticisms of IPCC >authors pushing their own newly published work. No problem at all. The >text in the MWP will need only very minor changes (basically just drop the >call-out to the figure panel that will no longer be there, and check it >still makes sense). Ok, Keith? > >Cheers > >Tim > >On Sat, July 15, 2006 12:20 am, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >> Hi all - including Eystein, whom I haven't been able to talk with on >> these issues yet: >> >> 1) I'd like to get your status report on Fig. 6.12 - based on >> feedback from Henry Pollack, we will keep the borehole curves and >> corresponding instrumental data. I believe we are also going to add >> the new recon from Law Dome - Valerie was going to send. Do you have >> everything needed for this figure revision? >> >> 2) Since we met in Bergen, I have received feedback from many about >> our MWP box, and would like to float the idea that we delete the >> bottom (Osborn and Briffa) panel. I know this is shocking coming from >> me (I think O&B, 2006 is a paper of the year contender!), but I have >> become convinced that it will be too much of a lightening rod for >> what it gives us. We still show the data in the top panel, which >> conveys the same thing (although in a much less sophisticated way!), >> and we still back up with citations to O&B2006. BUT, we hopefully >> avoid a possible intense focus on methodological focus on the fig, >> and the criticism that it's LA work that hasn't been thoroughly >> vetted. This focus (i.e., from skeptics and those inclined to listen >> to them for political reasons) is stupid, but we want to keep readers >> focused on the science and not on the politically-generated flak. I >> think we can do this just as well without the O&B06 figure, assuming >> we still cite the findings of the O&B06 paper, but just don't show >> the figure. We also save space - not the reason for my suggestion, >> but a good thing given what Keith and Tim need to add in response to >> issue like divergence etc. >> >> Obviously, was the biggest fan and pusher for the figure to be >> included, and I'm sorry to be suggesting otherwise now. >> >> Does this make sense? >> >> Thanks, Peck >> -- >> Jonathan T. Overpeck >> Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >> Professor, Department of Geosciences >> Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >> >> Mail and Fedex Address: >> >> Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >> 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >> University of Arizona >> Tucson, AZ 85721 >> direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >> fax: +1 520 792-8795 >> http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >> http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >> -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 1056. 2006-07-17 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Ricardo Villalba" , Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen , Valerie Masson-Delmotte date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:33:46 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: Special instructions/timing adjustment to: Tim Osborn Hi Tim et al (especially Valerie) - again, sorry for the confusion, but hopefully the emails sent and forwarded from Valerie and me this evening helps figure this out. I think we're going with borehole for Law Dome, but you guys need to confirm it's the way to go. I'm cc'ing to Valerie in the hope she can try to provide more guidance in this - with a confirmation that it's the best way to go and will stand up to criticism. If we have multiple conflicting temp recons from Law Dome, and one can't be shown from the literature as being the best, then we should state that, and show neither - just an idea. BUT, I think Valerie was pretty sure the borehole was best. She should be more available in a day or so. Thanks all, cheers, Peck >Hi all, > >I'm halfway through these changes and will get the revised figures >out to you probably tomorrow, except maybe the SH one, because: > >I'm not sure if the van Ommen (pers. comm.) data shown by Jones & >Mann and suggested by Riccardo are the data to use or not. Is it >published properly? I've seen the last 700 years of the Law Dome >18O record published, so perhaps we should show just the period >since 1300 AD? That period appears in: > >Mayewski PA, Maasch KA, White JWC, et al. >A 700 year record of Southern Hemisphere extratropical climate variability >ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY 39: 127-132 2004 > >and > >Goodwin ID, van Ommen TD, Curran MAJ, et al. >Mid latitude winter climate variability in the South Indian and >southwest Pacific regions since 1300 AD >CLIMATE DYNAMICS 22 (8): 783-794 JUL 2004 > >See below for some more comments in respect to individual figures. > >At 21:36 30/06/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>Figure 6.10. >>1. shade the connection between the top and middle panels > >yes > >>2. remove the dotted (long instrumental) curve from the middle panel > >yes > >>3. replace the red shaded region in the bottom panel with the >>grey-scale one used in Fig 6.13 > >yes > >>4. label only every increment of 10 in the grey-scale bar (formally >>color) in the bottom panel > >yes > >>5. Increase font sizes for axis numbering and axis labeling - all >>are too small. You can figure out the best size by reducing figs to >>likely page size minus margins. We guess the captions need to be >>bigger by a couple increments at least. > >yes > >>Figure 6.11. >> >>1. This one is in pretty good shape except that Ricardo has to >>determine if S. African boreholes need to be removed. > >I think Henry said they were published and could stay > >>Figure 6.12 >> >>1. again, please delete S. African borehole if Ricardo indicates >>it's still not published. > >I think Henry said they could stay. > >>2. consider adding Law Dome temperature record - Ricardo is >>investigating, but perhaps Keith/Tim can help figure out if it's >>valid to include. Feel free to check with Valerie on this too, as >>she seems to know these data at least a little > >Already discussed above. > >>3. also, please increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10 - >>probably better to use bold fonts > >You are right that I've mixed bold and non-bold. When reduced to >small size, the non-bold actually read more clearly than the bold, I >think, so I'll standardise on non-bold. It's not possible to >completely standardise on the size, because each figure I provide >might be scaled by different amounts. I don't know final figure >size, so will make a good guess. Should be ok. > >>Figure 6.13 >> >>1. we are going to split the existing 6.13 into two figure. The >>first is 100% Tim's fig., and is just an upgrade of the existing >>6.13 a-d, with the only changes being: >>1a. delete the old ECHO-G red dashed line curve in panel d, and > >Keith says this was discussed and rejected, so I should keep old ECHO-G in? > >>1b. please also increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10 >>and 12 - please use bold fonts. > >ok, as discussed above. > >>2. The existing 6.13e is going to become a new 6.14, with the >>addition of a new forcings panel "a" on top of the existing panel e >>(which becomes 6.14b). To make this happen, Tim and Fortunat have >>to coordinate, as Tim has the forcing data (and knows what we what) >>and Tim has the existing figure. We suspect it will be easier for >>Fortunat to give Tim data and layout advice, and for Tim to make a >>figure that matches the other figs he's doing. PLEASE NOTE that >>this fig can't be as large as the existing 6.13a-d, but needs to be >>more compact to permit its inclusion. > >done. > >Cheers > >Tim > > >Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow >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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > >**Norwich -- City for Science: >**Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006 -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 1570. 2006-07-17 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Keith Briffa" , , "Eystein Jansen" , "Valerie Masson-Delmotte" date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:08:12 -0300 from: "Ricardo Villalba" subject: Re: figure issues to: , "Jonathan Overpeck" Dear All, Please, find attached a PowerPoint File comparing the Law Dome and Tasmania temperature reconstructions. This figure is from Jones and Mann (2004) Review in Geophysics. However, there is not information in this paper indicating how the quantitative reconstruction from Low Dome was developed. Jones and Mann (2004) just indicated that for a 24-year common period between temperature and Low Dome isotopic records the correlation is r = 0.46. For some periods in the past, temperature variations at Low Dome are 3 or more time warmer than present (and Tasmania too), which makes this record suspicious and happy to the skeptics (McIntyre) who push to include it in the assessment. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the original references. I guess Valerie mentioned a new reconstruction using the Low Dome isotope records. Is that true? Best regards, Ricardo ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Overpeck" To: Cc: "Keith Briffa" ; ; "Ricardo Villalba" ; "Eystein Jansen" ; "Valerie Masson-Delmotte" Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 12:25 AM Subject: Re: figure issues > Thanks Tim - Valerie is doing field work until Wed, but indicated > that she should be checking email some. I can't remember what the Law > dome temp recon was, but I think it was a quantitative recon. Maybe > Eystein, Keith or Ricardo remembers. > > Please still refer to Osborn and Briffa - it's important to include > the points you did in the paper. > > Thank again, Peck > > >Hi all, > > > >(1) I'm happy to add an appropriate Law Dome record (presumably O18?) to > >the SH figure. I just need the data from Valerie. > > > >(2) I agree that dropping the panel from Osborn & Briffa will help on > >various fronts, including saving space and avoiding criticisms of IPCC > >authors pushing their own newly published work. No problem at all. The > >text in the MWP will need only very minor changes (basically just drop the > >call-out to the figure panel that will no longer be there, and check it > >still makes sense). Ok, Keith? > > > >Cheers > > > >Tim > > > >On Sat, July 15, 2006 12:20 am, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: > >> Hi all - including Eystein, whom I haven't been able to talk with on > >> these issues yet: > >> > >> 1) I'd like to get your status report on Fig. 6.12 - based on > >> feedback from Henry Pollack, we will keep the borehole curves and > >> corresponding instrumental data. I believe we are also going to add > >> the new recon from Law Dome - Valerie was going to send. Do you have > >> everything needed for this figure revision? > >> > >> 2) Since we met in Bergen, I have received feedback from many about > >> our MWP box, and would like to float the idea that we delete the > >> bottom (Osborn and Briffa) panel. I know this is shocking coming from > >> me (I think O&B, 2006 is a paper of the year contender!), but I have > >> become convinced that it will be too much of a lightening rod for > >> what it gives us. We still show the data in the top panel, which > >> conveys the same thing (although in a much less sophisticated way!), > >> and we still back up with citations to O&B2006. BUT, we hopefully > >> avoid a possible intense focus on methodological focus on the fig, > >> and the criticism that it's LA work that hasn't been thoroughly > >> vetted. This focus (i.e., from skeptics and those inclined to listen > >> to them for political reasons) is stupid, but we want to keep readers > >> focused on the science and not on the politically-generated flak. I > >> think we can do this just as well without the O&B06 figure, assuming > >> we still cite the findings of the O&B06 paper, but just don't show > >> the figure. We also save space - not the reason for my suggestion, > >> but a good thing given what Keith and Tim need to add in response to > >> issue like divergence etc. > >> > >> Obviously, was the biggest fan and pusher for the figure to be > >> included, and I'm sorry to be suggesting otherwise now. > >> > >> Does this make sense? > >> > >> Thanks, Peck > >> -- > >> Jonathan T. Overpeck > >> Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth > >> Professor, Department of Geosciences > >> Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences > >> > >> Mail and Fedex Address: > >> > >> Institute for the Study of Planet Earth > >> 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor > >> University of Arizona > >> Tucson, AZ 85721 > >> direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 > >> fax: +1 520 792-8795 > >> http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ > >> http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ > >> > > > -- > Jonathan T. Overpeck > Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth > Professor, Department of Geosciences > Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences > > Mail and Fedex Address: > > Institute for the Study of Planet Earth > 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor > University of Arizona > Tucson, AZ 85721 > direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 > fax: +1 520 792-8795 > http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ > http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ > > Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\low dome.ppt" 1647. 2006-07-17 ______________________________________________________ cc: joos , Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:23:31 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: new fig 6.14 to: Tim Osborn Hi Tim (and Fortunat especially) - this is looking nice. I agree that the MOST important thing is for Fortunat to check to make sure everything is calculated/plotted as it should be. After that, here's my feedback... 1) I agree option 1 is much preferred, with the caveat that it would be good to see a version with raw annual volc histogram spikes underneath the smoothed volcanic forcing. The reason is that the CLAs of the TS want them, and I agree it helps demonstrate even more that we know a great deal about forced climate variability prior to the last century. Can you pls make such a version for us to check? 2) for the color bar showing shades of grey, I think the goal is to have the same grey scaling in ALL of the figs (the revised 6.10, the revised 6.13 [same as old, minus panel e], and the new 6.14). This means no more red shading in 6.10. In all of these, it was suggested (and we agreed in Bergen) that the grey scale bar have about half as many intervals labeled - only label intervals of 10 rather than 5. Next... yes, it would be good to have the grey scale bar in each of the figs, but we can save in the captions by referring back to the 6.10 caption, since they'll all be the same now. OK? 3) ok to plot for only the last 1000 years 4) colors seem ok - suggest you add another color to the smoothed volcanic once it's superimposed on the annual peaks. So, please bing Fortunat until you know you have his blessing - the recent solar is strange, was it really supposed to be flat post 1961. Should we try to update the model runs? (Question is for Fotunat) Thanks! Peck >Hi Peck, Eystein and Fortunat, > >I've drafted two versions of the new fig 6.14, >comprising a new panel showing the forcing used >in the EMIC runs, plus the old fig 6.13e panel >showing the EMIC simulated NH temperatures. >Keith has seen them already. > >First you should know what I did, so that you >(especially Fortunat) can check that what I did >was appropriate: > >(1) For the volcanic forcing, I simply took the >volcanic RF forcing from Fortunat's file and >applied the 30-year smoothing before plotting it. > >(2) For the solar forcing there are 2 curves. >For the first, I took the Bard 0.25% column from >Fortunat's RF file. For the second, I took the >Bard 0.08% column from Fortunat's RF file from >1001 to 1609, and then appended the WLS RF >forcing from 1610 to 1998. Then I smoothed the >combined record. NOTE that for the Bard0.25%, >the line is flat from 1961 onwards which >probably isn't realistic, even though that is >what was used in the model runs. > >(3) For the "all other forcings" there are 2 >curves. For the first, I took the CO2 >concentrations provided by Fortunat, then used >the "standard" IPCC formula from the TAR (in >fact the first of the three options for CO2 in >IPCC TAR Table 6.2) to convert this to a >radiative forcing. I then added this to the >non-CO2 radiative forcings data from Fortunat's >file, to get the total radiative forcing. For >the second, I replaced all values after 1765 >with the 1765 value (for the natural forcings >case). Then I smoothed the combined record (as >in fig 6.13c, I only applied a 10-year smoothing >when plotting the "all other forcings", because >it is fairly smooth anyway and using a high >smoothing results in lower final values when >there is a strong trend at the end of a time >series). > >Now, some comments on the figures themselves >(please print them and refer to them when >reading this): > >(1) File 'chap6_f6.14_option1.pdf' is strongly >preferred by Keith and me. This shows the three >forcing components separately, which helps with >understanding the individual causes of specific >warming and cooling periods. I have managed to >reduce the size of this considerably, compared >to the equivalent panel in fig 6.13, because >with only a few series on it I could squeeze >them together more and also reduce the range of >the vertical axes. > >(2) Although we don't prefer it, I have also >made 'chap6_f6.14_option2.pdf' which is even >smaller by only showing the sum of all the >forcings in the top panel. > >Which version do you prefer? Please let me know >so I can make final changes only to the >preferred version. > >Some more comments: > >(1) Fig 6.14b was originally Fig 6.13e. When it >was part of that figure, the colour bar showing >the shades of grey used to depict the >overlapping ranges of the published temperature >reconstructions was only on Fig 6.13d. Do you >think I should now also add it to the EMIC panel >(6.14b), now that it is in a separate figure? >It will be a bit of a squeeze because of the >legend that is already in 6.14b. > >(2) Another carry over from when 6.14b was part >of 6.13, is that the time range of all panels >had to match (900-2010). Now that the EMICs are >in a separate figure, I could start them in year >1000, which is when the forcing and simulations >begin. Unless you want 6.13 and 6.14 to remain >comparable? Again please comment/decide. > >(3) I wasn't sure what colours to use for the >forcing series. In option 1, the volcanic and >other forcings apply to all runs, so I chose >black (with thick/thin used to distinguish the >"all" forcings from the "natural-only" forcings >(basically the thin flat line in "all other >forcings). The cyan-green-blue runs used strong >solar forcing, so I used blue for that forcing. >The red-orange-brown runs used weak solar >forcing, so I used brown for that forcing. >Sound ok? > >Sorry for the long email, but I wanted to get >everything explained to avoid too many >iterations. > >Please let me know your decisions/comments on >these questions, or on any other aspects of the >new figure. > >Cheers > >Tim > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh >HD:chap6_f6.14_option1.pdf (PDF /«IC») (00141908) >Attachment converted: Macintosh >HD:chap6_f6.14_option2.pdf (PDF /«IC») (0014190F) >Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow >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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > >**Norwich -- City for Science: >**Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006 -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 4494. 2006-07-17 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Keith Briffa" , , "Eystein Jansen" , "Valerie Masson-Delmotte" , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:00:41 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: figure issues to: "Ricardo Villalba" Hi Ricardo and gang - the email I just forwarded to you is what Valerie sent to us back in June - you'll need to read all the papers to make sure, but I think the borehold recon is the reliable one, or at least that is what Valerie is suggesting. BUT, please read all she sent to make sure we get this one right. Thanks! Peck >Dear All, > >Please, find attached a PowerPoint File comparing the Law Dome and Tasmania >temperature reconstructions. This figure is from Jones and Mann (2004) >Review in Geophysics. However, there is not information in this paper >indicating how the quantitative reconstruction from Low Dome was developed. >Jones and Mann (2004) just indicated that for a 24-year common period >between temperature and Low Dome isotopic records the correlation is r = >0.46. For some periods in the past, temperature variations at Low Dome are >3 or more time warmer than present (and Tasmania too), which makes this >record suspicious and happy to the skeptics (McIntyre) who push to include >it in the assessment. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the original >references. I guess Valerie mentioned a new reconstruction using the Low >Dome isotope records. Is that true? > >Best regards, > >Ricardo > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Jonathan Overpeck" >To: >Cc: "Keith Briffa" ; ; "Ricardo >Villalba" ; "Eystein Jansen" >; "Valerie Masson-Delmotte" > >Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 12:25 AM >Subject: Re: figure issues > > >> Thanks Tim - Valerie is doing field work until Wed, but indicated >> that she should be checking email some. I can't remember what the Law >> dome temp recon was, but I think it was a quantitative recon. Maybe >> Eystein, Keith or Ricardo remembers. >> >> Please still refer to Osborn and Briffa - it's important to include >> the points you did in the paper. >> >> Thank again, Peck >> >> >Hi all, >> > >> >(1) I'm happy to add an appropriate Law Dome record (presumably O18?) to >> >the SH figure. I just need the data from Valerie. >> > >> >(2) I agree that dropping the panel from Osborn & Briffa will help on >> >various fronts, including saving space and avoiding criticisms of IPCC >> >authors pushing their own newly published work. No problem at all. The >> >text in the MWP will need only very minor changes (basically just drop >the >> >call-out to the figure panel that will no longer be there, and check it >> >still makes sense). Ok, Keith? >> > >> >Cheers >> > >> >Tim >> > >> >On Sat, July 15, 2006 12:20 am, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >> >> Hi all - including Eystein, whom I haven't been able to talk with on >> >> these issues yet: >> >> >> >> 1) I'd like to get your status report on Fig. 6.12 - based on >> >> feedback from Henry Pollack, we will keep the borehole curves and >> >> corresponding instrumental data. I believe we are also going to add >> >> the new recon from Law Dome - Valerie was going to send. Do you have >> >> everything needed for this figure revision? >> >> >> >> 2) Since we met in Bergen, I have received feedback from many about >> >> our MWP box, and would like to float the idea that we delete the >> >> bottom (Osborn and Briffa) panel. I know this is shocking coming from >> >> me (I think O&B, 2006 is a paper of the year contender!), but I have >> >> become convinced that it will be too much of a lightening rod for >> >> what it gives us. We still show the data in the top panel, which >> >> conveys the same thing (although in a much less sophisticated way!), >> >> and we still back up with citations to O&B2006. BUT, we hopefully >> >> avoid a possible intense focus on methodological focus on the fig, >> >> and the criticism that it's LA work that hasn't been thoroughly > > >> vetted. This focus (i.e., from skeptics and those inclined to listen >> >> to them for political reasons) is stupid, but we want to keep readers >> >> focused on the science and not on the politically-generated flak. I >> >> think we can do this just as well without the O&B06 figure, assuming >> >> we still cite the findings of the O&B06 paper, but just don't show >> >> the figure. We also save space - not the reason for my suggestion, >> >> but a good thing given what Keith and Tim need to add in response to >> >> issue like divergence etc. >> >> >> >> Obviously, was the biggest fan and pusher for the figure to be >> >> included, and I'm sorry to be suggesting otherwise now. >> >> >> >> Does this make sense? >> >> >> >> Thanks, Peck >> >> -- >> >> Jonathan T. Overpeck >> >> Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >> >> Professor, Department of Geosciences >> >> Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >> >> >> >> Mail and Fedex Address: >> >> >> >> Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >> >> 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >> >> University of Arizona >> >> Tucson, AZ 85721 >> >> direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >> >> fax: +1 520 792-8795 >> >> http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >> >> http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jonathan T. Overpeck >> Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >> Professor, Department of Geosciences >> Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >> >> Mail and Fedex Address: >> >> Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >> 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >> University of Arizona >> Tucson, AZ 85721 >> direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >> fax: +1 520 792-8795 >> http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >> http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >> >> > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:low dome.ppt (SLD3/«IC») (00141914) -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 4595. 2006-07-17 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen , joos date: Mon Jul 17 15:08:48 2006 from: Tim Osborn subject: new fig 6.14 to: Jonathan Overpeck , Keith Briffa Hi Peck, Eystein and Fortunat, I've drafted two versions of the new fig 6.14, comprising a new panel showing the forcing used in the EMIC runs, plus the old fig 6.13e panel showing the EMIC simulated NH temperatures. Keith has seen them already. First you should know what I did, so that you (especially Fortunat) can check that what I did was appropriate: (1) For the volcanic forcing, I simply took the volcanic RF forcing from Fortunat's file and applied the 30-year smoothing before plotting it. (2) For the solar forcing there are 2 curves. For the first, I took the Bard 0.25% column from Fortunat's RF file. For the second, I took the Bard 0.08% column from Fortunat's RF file from 1001 to 1609, and then appended the WLS RF forcing from 1610 to 1998. Then I smoothed the combined record. NOTE that for the Bard0.25%, the line is flat from 1961 onwards which probably isn't realistic, even though that is what was used in the model runs. (3) For the "all other forcings" there are 2 curves. For the first, I took the CO2 concentrations provided by Fortunat, then used the "standard" IPCC formula from the TAR (in fact the first of the three options for CO2 in IPCC TAR Table 6.2) to convert this to a radiative forcing. I then added this to the non-CO2 radiative forcings data from Fortunat's file, to get the total radiative forcing. For the second, I replaced all values after 1765 with the 1765 value (for the natural forcings case). Then I smoothed the combined record (as in fig 6.13c, I only applied a 10-year smoothing when plotting the "all other forcings", because it is fairly smooth anyway and using a high smoothing results in lower final values when there is a strong trend at the end of a time series). Now, some comments on the figures themselves (please print them and refer to them when reading this): (1) File 'chap6_f6.14_option1.pdf' is strongly preferred by Keith and me. This shows the three forcing components separately, which helps with understanding the individual causes of specific warming and cooling periods. I have managed to reduce the size of this considerably, compared to the equivalent panel in fig 6.13, because with only a few series on it I could squeeze them together more and also reduce the range of the vertical axes. (2) Although we don't prefer it, I have also made 'chap6_f6.14_option2.pdf' which is even smaller by only showing the sum of all the forcings in the top panel. Which version do you prefer? Please let me know so I can make final changes only to the preferred version. Some more comments: (1) Fig 6.14b was originally Fig 6.13e. When it was part of that figure, the colour bar showing the shades of grey used to depict the overlapping ranges of the published temperature reconstructions was only on Fig 6.13d. Do you think I should now also add it to the EMIC panel (6.14b), now that it is in a separate figure? It will be a bit of a squeeze because of the legend that is already in 6.14b. (2) Another carry over from when 6.14b was part of 6.13, is that the time range of all panels had to match (900-2010). Now that the EMICs are in a separate figure, I could start them in year 1000, which is when the forcing and simulations begin. Unless you want 6.13 and 6.14 to remain comparable? Again please comment/decide. (3) I wasn't sure what colours to use for the forcing series. In option 1, the volcanic and other forcings apply to all runs, so I chose black (with thick/thin used to distinguish the "all" forcings from the "natural-only" forcings (basically the thin flat line in "all other forcings). The cyan-green-blue runs used strong solar forcing, so I used blue for that forcing. The red-orange-brown runs used weak solar forcing, so I used brown for that forcing. Sound ok? Sorry for the long email, but I wanted to get everything explained to avoid too many iterations. Please let me know your decisions/comments on these questions, or on any other aspects of the new figure. Cheers Tim 596. 2006-07-18 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Jul 18 12:43:48 2006 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: new fig 6.14 to: Fortunat Joos , Jonathan Overpeck , Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen Hi all, thanks for the responses, Peck and Fortunat. I drafted the new figure 6.14 following as closely as possible the approach used for the original forcing/simulation figure (now 6.13). This is why I smoothed all series and used a common anomalisation period for all curves across all panels. It can greatly help to interpret why the simulated temperature responds in the way it does, because the zero (or "normal" level) is comparable across plots and because the strengths of different forcings can be compared *on the same timescale* as the simulated temperatures are shown. And, for 6.13, with so many different forcings and models shown, it would have been impossible to use unsmoothed series without making the individual curves indistinguishable (or indeed fitting them into such a compact figure). Now that the EMIC panels are separate from the original 6.13, we do have the opportunity to make different presentational choices. But I think, nevertheless, that some of the reasons for (i) proportional scaling, (ii) common anomalisation period; and (iii) smoothing to achieve presentation on comparable time scales, that held for 6.13 probably also hold in 6.14. However, I also appreciate the points raised by Fortunat, specifically that (i) it is nice to be able to compare the magnitude of the 11-yr solar cycles with the magnitude of the low-frequency solar variations; and (ii) that using a modern reference period removes the interpretation that we don't even know the forcing today. So we have various advantages and disadvantages of different presentational choices, and no set of choices will satisfy all these competing demands. One thing that I am particularly perturbed about is Fortunat's implication that to show smoothed forcings would be scientifically dishonest. I disagree (and I was also upset by your choice of wording). If it were dishonest to show smoothed data, then presumably the same holds for 6.13 (but its impossible to distinguish all the different volcanic forcings if shown unsmoothed), but also to every other graphic... should I be showing the EMIC simulated temperatures without smoothing too, so you can see the individual yearly responses to the volcanic spikes? But annual means are formed from the temperatures simulated on the model timesteps, so we still wouldn't be showing results that had not been post-processed. Most climate models, even GCMs, respond in a quasi-linear way, such that the smoothed response to unsmooth forcing is very similar to the response to smooth forcing. So if we are interested in the temperature response on time scales of 30 years and longer, it seems entirely appropriate (and better for interpretation/comparison of forcings) to show the forcings on this time scale too, because the forcing variations on those time scales are the ones that are driving the temperature response (even though the forcing may be intermittent like volcanoes or have 11-yr cycles like solar). The choice of smoothing / no smoothing is not, therefore, anything to do with honesty/dishonesty, but is purely a presentational choice that can made accordingly to what the purpose of the figure is. Here our purpose seems to be long-term climate changes, rather than response to individual volcanoes or to the 11-yr solar cycle. So the position is: (1) smoothing or no smoothing: there are arguments for both choices, though clearly I prefer smoothing and Fortunat prefers no smoothing. I could make a figure which kept the smooth lines but put the raw annual histogram volcanic spikes underneath in pale grey, as Peck requested anyway (and possibly put the 11-yr solar cycles in pale brown underneath the smoothed brown solar series). This would be a compromise but the main problem is that the scale of the largest volcanic spikes would far exceed the scale I am using to show the smoothed series (so the panel is not large enough to do this)! (2) pre-industrial or present-day anomalisation reference period: again there are arguments for both choices. Whatever we choose, I firmly believe it should be the same for *all* curves in this figure (which can make a dramatic difference). (3) exaggeration of solar scale or proportional vertical scales: this is the one that I have the firmest opinion about. I see no reason to exaggerate the scale of the solar forcings relative to volcanic or anthropogenic forcings. The difference between the forcings looks clear enough in the version of the figure that I made. Exaggerating it will wrongly make the Bard 2.5% case look (at first glance) bigger than the anthropogenic forcing, and make it look more important than volcanic forcing. I'll hold off from making any more versions till decisions are made on these issues. Cheers Tim At 09:01 18/07/2006, Fortunat Joos wrote: Hi Tim and co, Thanks for the figure. I like the figure showing the model results and the general outline/graphic style. However, I am concerned about what is shown in the forcing figure. 1) Volcanic panel: I strongly believe that we should show what was used by the model and not some 40 year smoothed curves for volcanic forcing or any other forcing. So please use the original data file. Scientific honesty demands to show what was used and not something post-processed. 2) solar panel: 2a) We must show the Wang-Lean-Shirley data on the original resolution as used to drive the models. In this way, we also illustrate the magnitude of the 11-yr annual cycle in comparison with the background trend. The record being flat, apart from the 11-yr cycle, during the last decades is a reality. 2b) Do not apply any smooting to the Bard data. Just use them as they are and how they were published by Bard and used in the model. 2c) It is fine to supress the Bard 0.08 case after 1610 (not done in my figure version) 2d) the emphasis of the figure is on the solar forcing differences. So, please show solar somewhat overproportional in comparison to volcanic and other forcings. 3) other forcings: again no smoothing needed here. It would be hard to defend a double smoothing. 4)- normalisation of solar forcing to some period mean. If the different solar forcings disagree for today as in your option, we may send the signal that we do not even know solar forcing today. Thus, I slightly prefer to have the same mean forcing values for all solar records during the last few decades as shown in the attached version. However, I also can see some arguments for other normalisations. To illustrate points 1 to 4, I have prepared and attached a version of the forcing panel. other points - Your choice of colors is fine - time range 1000-2000 AD is fine - suggest to remove the text from the y-labels except the units W/m2. Sorry for this additional comments coming a bit late. However, I did not realise that you planned to smoothed the model input data in any way. With best wishes, Fortunat Tim Osborn wrote: Hi Peck, Eystein and Fortunat, I've drafted two versions of the new fig 6.14, comprising a new panel showing the forcing used in the EMIC runs, plus the old fig 6.13e panel showing the EMIC simulated NH temperatures. Keith has seen them already. First you should know what I did, so that you (especially Fortunat) can check that what I did was appropriate: (1) For the volcanic forcing, I simply took the volcanic RF forcing from Fortunat's file and applied the 30-year smoothing before plotting it. (2) For the solar forcing there are 2 curves. For the first, I took the Bard 0.25% column from Fortunat's RF file. For the second, I took the Bard 0.08% column from Fortunat's RF file from 1001 to 1609, and then appended the WLS RF forcing from 1610 to 1998. Then I smoothed the combined record. NOTE that for the Bard0.25%, the line is flat from 1961 onwards which probably isn't realistic, even though that is what was used in the model runs. (3) For the "all other forcings" there are 2 curves. For the first, I took the CO2 concentrations provided by Fortunat, then used the "standard" IPCC formula from the TAR (in fact the first of the three options for CO2 in IPCC TAR Table 6.2) to convert this to a radiative forcing. I then added this to the non-CO2 radiative forcings data from Fortunat's file, to get the total radiative forcing. For the second, I replaced all values after 1765 with the 1765 value (for the natural forcings case). Then I smoothed the combined record (as in fig 6.13c, I only applied a 10-year smoothing when plotting the "all other forcings", because it is fairly smooth anyway and using a high smoothing results in lower final values when there is a strong trend at the end of a time series). Now, some comments on the figures themselves (please print them and refer to them when reading this): (1) File 'chap6_f6.14_option1.pdf' is strongly preferred by Keith and me. This shows the three forcing components separately, which helps with understanding the individual causes of specific warming and cooling periods. I have managed to reduce the size of this considerably, compared to the equivalent panel in fig 6.13, because with only a few series on it I could squeeze them together more and also reduce the range of the vertical axes. (2) Although we don't prefer it, I have also made 'chap6_f6.14_option2.pdf' which is even smaller by only showing the sum of all the forcings in the top panel. Which version do you prefer? Please let me know so I can make final changes only to the preferred version. Some more comments: (1) Fig 6.14b was originally Fig 6.13e. When it was part of that figure, the colour bar showing the shades of grey used to depict the overlapping ranges of the published temperature reconstructions was only on Fig 6.13d. Do you think I should now also add it to the EMIC panel (6.14b), now that it is in a separate figure? It will be a bit of a squeeze because of the legend that is already in 6.14b. (2) Another carry over from when 6.14b was part of 6.13, is that the time range of all panels had to match (900-2010). Now that the EMICs are in a separate figure, I could start them in year 1000, which is when the forcing and simulations begin. Unless you want 6.13 and 6.14 to remain comparable? Again please comment/decide. (3) I wasn't sure what colours to use for the forcing series. In option 1, the volcanic and other forcings apply to all runs, so I chose black (with thick/thin used to distinguish the "all" forcings from the "natural-only" forcings (basically the thin flat line in "all other forcings). The cyan-green-blue runs used strong solar forcing, so I used blue for that forcing. The red-orange-brown runs used weak solar forcing, so I used brown for that forcing. Sound ok? Sorry for the long email, but I wanted to get everything explained to avoid too many iterations. Please let me know your decisions/comments on these questions, or on any other aspects of the new figure. Cheers Tim 1004. 2006-07-18 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:22:26 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: new fig 6.14 to: Fortunat Joos Hi all - Thanks for all the Euro-dialog before I even got to my computer - lots of good issues raised, and glad the misunderstanding got cleared up. Eystein and I can't connect easily today, so I'm going to take a stab at the CLA compromise, guessing that he'll concur. If not, he can clarify. 1) We really do need to see the original forcing (spikes for volc, higher freq for solar), so that should be a given. If Tim can do his usual graphical magic and get a smoothed version in there too, that's ok, but I think Fortunat is correct that this new 6.14 gives us a chance to show data differently (and in a way that the TS team really would like). BUT, to show a smoothed curve, perhaps behind? (or whatever looks best and makes it easy to see the more raw data) the more raw data, would be a nice way to connect 6.14 with 6.13, and also make the points that Tim points out - especially highlighting the obvious link between forcing and response prior to 1900. This last point is key for the TS too. BUT, please don't make the more raw data hard to see - they are a KEY part of this fig, especially in the TS. So... go for it Tim - I suggest some annotation for those peaks that are too large to plot - perhaps an asterisk with a note in the caption that "*volcanic forcing peaks larger than XXX are truncated for plotting purposes" or something like that. 2) the nomalisation reference period should be consistent between all of the associated figs, so I'd stick with with you've been doing Tim. Otherwise, it will be too confusing. 3) as to whether forcing should be proportional. As long as the scaling (y-axis labeling) is explicit we can be flexible here in order to make sure viewers can see all of the smoothed and unsmoothed forcing data clearly. That is the key, and we can relax the need to have them all proportional in this fig. Bottom line is that the forcing data we present should have the ability to see the differences in solar clearly - as Fortunat's mock-up plot does. This is driven more from the TS, but that's ok - we get serious play in the TS. Hope this provides enough for Tim to go with, and as always, if you want to provide some options, that's fine. Fortunat - you'll need write the caption - hopefully keeping it as brief as possible by citing the earlier captions in the report. thanks all! best, Peck -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 1468. 2006-07-18 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Jul 18 15:20:51 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: confidential to: "Wahl, Eugene R" , Gene I am taking the liberty (confidentially) to send you a copy of the reviewers comments (please keep these to yourself) of the last IPCC draft chapter. I am concerned that I am not as objective as perhaps I should be and would appreciate your take on the comments from number 6-737 onwards , that relate to your reassessment of the Mann et al work. I have to consider whether the current text is fair or whether I should change things in the light of the sceptic comments. In practise this brief version has evolved and there is little scope for additional text , but I must put on record responses to these comments - any confidential help , opinions are appreciated . I have only days now to complete this revision and response. note that the sub heading 6.6 the last 2000 years is page 27 line35 on the original (commented) draft. Cheers Keith -- 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/ 1774. 2006-07-18 ______________________________________________________ cc: Jonathan Overpeck , Eystein Jansen date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:13:19 +0100 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: new fig 6.14 to: Fortunat Joos ,Tim Osborn Fortunat et al My opinions were consistent with Tim's expression - we discussed his response. The importance of consistency between different modelling Figures ( time response of filters and in the absolute magnitude of forcing scale) are the most important aspects. To start showing apparently different volcanic spikes (in the sulphate and EMIC Figure ) will lead to confusion also. Ultimately we should remember that the point of this Figure is to show that you can not get simulated temperatures to match observations without anthropogenic forcing - not to show proportional responses to different solar or volcanic events. cheers Keith At 13:45 18/07/2006, Fortunat Joos wrote: >Dear Tim, > >Sorry, that was a very careless and a totally inappropriate choice >of words. I seriously apologize. Of course smoothing is not >dishonest (I do it also all the time). To the contrary, I very much >apreciate all your hard work to do these figures. I know that it is >very time consuming from own experience ... (that is perhaps why I >did not reflect on my wording when writing the e-mail). What I >wanted to say is that if one has the opportunity to show >directly what forcing was used by the model than I very much prefer >to do so. I hope there remains no misunderstanding. I realize now >that I should have used more modest wording at various places. > >Let us see what Eystein, Peck and Keith are thinking about it. > >With best wishes, Fortunat > >Tim Osborn wrote: >>Hi all, >>thanks for the responses, Peck and Fortunat. >>I drafted the new figure 6.14 following as closely as possible the >>approach used for the original forcing/simulation figure (now 6.13). >>This is why I smoothed all series and used a common anomalisation >>period for all curves across all panels. It can greatly help to >>interpret why the simulated temperature responds in the way it >>does, because the zero (or "normal" level) is comparable across >>plots and because the strengths of different forcings can be >>compared *on the same timescale* as the simulated temperatures are >>shown. And, for 6.13, with so many different forcings and models >>shown, it would have been impossible to use unsmoothed series >>without making the individual curves indistinguishable (or indeed >>fitting them into such a compact figure). >>Now that the EMIC panels are separate from the original 6.13, we do >>have the opportunity to make different presentational choices. But >>I think, nevertheless, that some of the reasons for (i) >>proportional scaling, (ii) common anomalisation period; and (iii) >>smoothing to achieve presentation on comparable time scales, that >>held for 6.13 probably also hold in 6.14. >>However, I also appreciate the points raised by Fortunat, >>specifically that (i) it is nice to be able to compare the >>magnitude of the 11-yr solar cycles with the magnitude of the >>low-frequency solar variations; and (ii) that using a modern >>reference period removes the interpretation that we don't even know >>the forcing today. >>So we have various advantages and disadvantages of different >>presentational choices, and no set of choices will satisfy all >>these competing demands. >>One thing that I am particularly perturbed about is Fortunat's >>implication that to show smoothed forcings would be scientifically >>dishonest. I disagree (and I was also upset by your choice of >>wording). If it were dishonest to show smoothed data, then >>presumably the same holds for 6.13 (but its impossible to >>distinguish all the different volcanic forcings if shown >>unsmoothed), but also to every other graphic... should I be showing >>the EMIC simulated temperatures without smoothing too, so you can >>see the individual yearly responses to the volcanic spikes? But >>annual means are formed from the temperatures simulated on the >>model timesteps, so we still wouldn't be showing results that had >>not been post-processed. Most climate models, even GCMs, respond >>in a quasi-linear way, such that the smoothed response to unsmooth >>forcing is very similar to the response to smooth forcing. So if >>we are interested in the temperature response on time scales of 30 >>years and longer, it seems entirely appropriate (and better for >>interpretation/comparison of forcings) to show the forcings on this >>time scale too, because the forcing variations on those time scales >>are the ones that are driving the temperature response (even though >>the forcing may be intermittent like volcanoes or have 11-yr cycles >>like solar). >>The choice of smoothing / no smoothing is not, therefore, anything >>to do with honesty/dishonesty, but is purely a presentational >>choice that can made accordingly to what the purpose of the figure >>is. Here our purpose seems to be long-term climate changes, rather >>than response to individual volcanoes or to the 11-yr solar cycle. >>So the position is: >>(1) smoothing or no smoothing: there are arguments for both >>choices, though clearly I prefer smoothing and Fortunat prefers no >>smoothing. I could make a figure which kept the smooth lines but >>put the raw annual histogram volcanic spikes underneath in pale >>grey, as Peck requested anyway (and possibly put the 11-yr solar >>cycles in pale brown underneath the smoothed brown solar >>series). This would be a compromise but the main problem is that >>the scale of the largest volcanic spikes would far exceed the scale >>I am using to show the smoothed series (so the panel is not large >>enough to do this)! >>(2) pre-industrial or present-day anomalisation reference period: >>again there are arguments for both choices. Whatever we choose, I >>firmly believe it should be the same for *all* curves in this >>figure (which can make a dramatic difference). >>(3) exaggeration of solar scale or proportional vertical scales: >>this is the one that I have the firmest opinion about. I see no >>reason to exaggerate the scale of the solar forcings relative to >>volcanic or anthropogenic forcings. The difference between the >>forcings looks clear enough in the version of the figure that I >>made. Exaggerating it will wrongly make the Bard 2.5% case look >>(at first glance) bigger than the anthropogenic forcing, and make >>it look more important than volcanic forcing. >>I'll hold off from making any more versions till decisions are made >>on these issues. >>Cheers >>Tim >>At 09:01 18/07/2006, Fortunat Joos wrote: >> >>>Hi Tim and co, >>> >>>Thanks for the figure. I like the figure showing the model results >>>and the general outline/graphic style. >>> >>>However, I am concerned about what is shown in the forcing figure. >>> >>>1) Volcanic panel: I strongly believe that we should show what was >>>used by the model and not some 40 year smoothed curves for >>>volcanic forcing or any other forcing. So please use the original >>>data file. Scientific honesty demands to show what was used and >>>not something post-processed. >>> >>>2) solar panel: >>>2a) We must show the Wang-Lean-Shirley data on the original >>>resolution as used to drive the models. In this way, we also >>>illustrate the magnitude of the 11-yr annual cycle in comparison >>>with the background trend. The record being flat, apart from the >>>11-yr cycle, during the last decades is a reality. >>>2b) Do not apply any smooting to the Bard data. Just use them as >>>they are and how they were published by Bard and used in the model. >>>2c) It is fine to supress the Bard 0.08 case after 1610 (not done >>>in my figure version) >>>2d) the emphasis of the figure is on the solar forcing >>>differences. So, please show solar somewhat overproportional in >>>comparison to volcanic and other forcings. >>> >>>3) other forcings: again no smoothing needed here. It would be >>>hard to defend a double smoothing. >>> >>>4)- normalisation of solar forcing to some period mean. If the >>>different solar forcings disagree for today as in your option, we >>>may send the signal that we do not even know solar forcing today. >>>Thus, I slightly prefer to have the same mean forcing values for >>>all solar records during the last few decades as shown in the >>>attached version. However, I also can see some arguments for other >>>normalisations. >>> >>>To illustrate points 1 to 4, I have prepared and attached a >>>version of the forcing panel. >>> >>>other points >>> >>>- Your choice of colors is fine >>>- time range 1000-2000 AD is fine >>>- suggest to remove the text from the y-labels except the units W/m2. >>> >>>Sorry for this additional comments coming a bit late. However, I >>>did not realise that you planned to smoothed the model input data in any way. >>> >>>With best wishes, >>> >>>Fortunat >>> >>>Tim Osborn wrote: >>> >>>>Hi Peck, Eystein and Fortunat, >>>>I've drafted two versions of the new fig 6.14, comprising a new >>>>panel showing the forcing used in the EMIC runs, plus the old fig >>>>6.13e panel showing the EMIC simulated NH temperatures. Keith >>>>has seen them already. >>>>First you should know what I did, so that you (especially >>>>Fortunat) can check that what I did was appropriate: >>>>(1) For the volcanic forcing, I simply took the volcanic RF >>>>forcing from Fortunat's file and applied the 30-year smoothing >>>>before plotting it. >>>>(2) For the solar forcing there are 2 curves. For the first, I >>>>took the Bard 0.25% column from Fortunat's RF file. For the >>>>second, I took the Bard 0.08% column from Fortunat's RF file from >>>>1001 to 1609, and then appended the WLS RF forcing from 1610 to >>>>1998. Then I smoothed the combined record. NOTE that for the >>>>Bard0.25%, the line is flat from 1961 onwards which probably >>>>isn't realistic, even though that is what was used in the model runs. >>>>(3) For the "all other forcings" there are 2 curves. For the >>>>first, I took the CO2 concentrations provided by Fortunat, then >>>>used the "standard" IPCC formula from the TAR (in fact the first >>>>of the three options for CO2 in IPCC TAR Table 6.2) to convert >>>>this to a radiative forcing. I then added this to the non-CO2 >>>>radiative forcings data from Fortunat's file, to get the total >>>>radiative forcing. For the second, I replaced all values after >>>>1765 with the 1765 value (for the natural forcings case). Then I >>>>smoothed the combined record (as in fig 6.13c, I only applied a >>>>10-year smoothing when plotting the "all other forcings", because >>>>it is fairly smooth anyway and using a high smoothing results in >>>>lower final values when there is a strong trend at the end of a time series). >>>>Now, some comments on the figures themselves (please print them >>>>and refer to them when reading this): >>>>(1) File 'chap6_f6.14_option1.pdf' is strongly preferred by Keith >>>>and me. This shows the three forcing components separately, >>>>which helps with understanding the individual causes of specific >>>>warming and cooling periods. I have managed to reduce the size >>>>of this considerably, compared to the equivalent panel in fig >>>>6.13, because with only a few series on it I could squeeze them >>>>together more and also reduce the range of the vertical axes. >>>>(2) Although we don't prefer it, I have also made >>>>'chap6_f6.14_option2.pdf' which is even smaller by only showing >>>>the sum of all the forcings in the top panel. >>>>Which version do you prefer? Please let me know so I can make >>>>final changes only to the preferred version. >>>>Some more comments: >>>>(1) Fig 6.14b was originally Fig 6.13e. When it was part of that >>>>figure, the colour bar showing the shades of grey used to depict >>>>the overlapping ranges of the published temperature >>>>reconstructions was only on Fig 6.13d. Do you think I should now >>>>also add it to the EMIC panel (6.14b), now that it is in a >>>>separate figure? It will be a bit of a squeeze because of the >>>>legend that is already in 6.14b. >>>>(2) Another carry over from when 6.14b was part of 6.13, is that >>>>the time range of all panels had to match (900-2010). Now that >>>>the EMICs are in a separate figure, I could start them in year >>>>1000, which is when the forcing and simulations begin. Unless >>>>you want 6.13 and 6.14 to remain comparable? Again please comment/decide. >>>>(3) I wasn't sure what colours to use for the forcing series. In >>>>option 1, the volcanic and other forcings apply to all runs, so I >>>>chose black (with thick/thin used to distinguish the "all" >>>>forcings from the "natural-only" forcings (basically the thin >>>>flat line in "all other forcings). The cyan-green-blue runs used >>>>strong solar forcing, so I used blue for that forcing. The >>>>red-orange-brown runs used weak solar forcing, so I used brown >>>>for that forcing. Sound ok? >>>>Sorry for the long email, but I wanted to get everything >>>>explained to avoid too many iterations. >>>>Please let me know your decisions/comments on these questions, or >>>>on any other aspects of the new figure. >>>>Cheers >>>>Tim >> >> >>Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow >>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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >>sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm >>**Norwich -- City for Science: >>**Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006 > >-- > > Climate and Environmental Physics, > Physics Institute, University of Bern > Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern > Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 > Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ -- 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/ 3092. 2006-07-18 ______________________________________________________ cc: Ricardo Villalba , Keith Briffa , Valerie Masson-Delmotte , Eystein Jansen date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:30:36 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: Law Dome figure to: Tim Osborn Hi Tim, Ricardo and friends - your suggestion to leave the figure unchanged makes sense to me. Of course, we need to discuss the Law Dome ambiguity clearly and BRIEFLY in the text, and also in the response to "expert" review comments (sometimes, it is hard to use that term "expert"...). Ricardo, Tim and Keith - can you take care of this please. Nice resolution, thanks. best, Peck >Hi all, > >(1) Jones/Mann showed (and Mann/Jones used in >their reconstruction) an isotope record from Law >Dome that is probably O18 (they say "oxygen >isotopes"). This has a "cold" present-day and >"warm" MWP (indeed relatively "warm" throughout >the 1000-1750 period). The review comments from >sceptics wanted us to show this for obvious >reasons. But its interpretation is ambiguous >and I think (though I'm not certain) that it has >been used to indicate atmospheric circulation >changes rather than temperature changes by some >authors (Souney et al., JGR, 2002). > >(2) Goosse et al. showed Deuterium excess as an >indicator of Southern Ocean SST (rather than >local temperature). Goosse et al. also showed a >composite of 4 Antarctic ice core records (3 >deuterium, 1 O18). Neither of these comes up to >the 20th century making plotting on the same >scale as observed temperature rather tricky! > >(3) Dahl-Jensen showed the temperatures obtained >by inverting the borehole temperature profiles. >This has a colder MWP relative to the recent >period, which shows strong recent warming. > >I have data from (1) and now from (3) too, but >not from (2) though I could ask Hugues Goosse >for (2). Anyway, (1) and (2) aren't calibrated >reconstructions like the others in the Southern >Hemisphere figure, so plotting them would alter >the nature of the figure. > >But if we show only (3) then we will be accused >of (cherry-)picking that (and not showing (1) as >used by Mann/Jones) because it showed what we >wanted/expected. > >Can I, therefore, leave the SH figure unchanged >and can we just discuss the Law Dome ambiguities >in the text? > >Cheers > >Tim > >At 02:41 18/07/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>Hi Tim, Ricardo and Keith - Valerie just >>reminded me that she sent this to us all (minus >>Tim) back in June. There is plenty below for >>discussion in the text, and the Law Dome >>borehole data can be obtained at the site below >>(http://www.nbi.ku.dk/side95613.htm). This is >>the record that should be added to the SH >>figure. >> >>Thanks, Peck >> >>>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >>>Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 12:44:50 +0200 >>>From: Valérie Masson-Delmotte >>>Reply-To: Valerie.Masson@cea.fr >>>Organization: LSCE >>>To: Jonathan Overpeck , >>> Ricardo Villalba , >>> Keith Briffa >>>Subject: (pas de sujet) >>> >>>Dear Ricardo and Peck, >>> >>>Here are the references for the Law Dome temperature discussion : >>> >>>* stack of Antarctic ice cores and Law Dome >>>deuterium excess profile (showing large >>>changes in moisture source) >>> >>>Title: *A late medieval warm period in the >>>Southern Ocean as a delayed response to >>>external forcing?* >>>Author(s): *Goosse H* >>>, >>>*Masson-Delmotte V* >>>, >>>Renssen H >>>, >>>Delmotte M >>>, >>>Fichefet T >>>, >>>Morgan V >>>, >>>van Ommen T >>>, >>>Khim BK >>>, >>>Stenni B >>> >>>Source: GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 31 (6): Art. No. L06203 MAR 17 2004 >>>Document Type: Article >>>Language: English >>>Abstract: On the basis of long simulations >>>performed with a three-dimensional climate >>>model, we propose an interhemispheric climate >>>lag mechanism, involving the long-term memory >>>of deepwater masses. Warm anomalies, formed in >>>the North Atlantic when warm conditions >>>prevail at surface, are transported by the >>>deep ocean circulation towards the Southern >>>Ocean. There, the heat is released because of >>>large scale upwelling, maintaining warm >>>conditions and inducing a lagged response of >>>about 150 years compared to the Northern >>>Hemisphere. Model results and observations >>>covering the first half of the second >>>millenium suggest a delay between the >>>temperature evolution in the Northern >>>Hemisphere and in the Southern Ocean. The >>>mechanism described here provides a reasonable >>>hypothesis to explain such an interhemipsheric >>>lag. >>>KeyWords Plus: CLIMATE-CHANGE; ICE CORE; LAW >>>DOME; TEMPERATURES; ANTARCTICA; PALEOCLIMATE; >>>CIRCULATION; MILLENNIUM; RECORDS; SIGNAL >>> >>>* borehole temperature profile from Law Dome : >>>Title: *Monte Carlo inverse modelling of the >>>Law Dome (Antarctica) temperature profile* >>>Author(s): *DahlJensen D* >>>, >>>Morgan VI >>>, >>>Elcheikh A >>> >>>Source: ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY, VOL 29, 1999 >>>ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY 29: 145-150 1999 >>>Document Type: Article >>>Language: English >>> >>>Abstract: The temperature profile in the 1200 >>>m deep Dome Summit South (DSS) borehole near >>>the summit of Law Dome, Antarctica, was >>>measured in 1996, 3 years after the >>>termination of the deep drilling. >>> >>>The temperature profile contains information >>>on past surface temperature over the last 4 >>>ka. This temperature history is determined by >>>the use of a Monte Carlo inverse method in >>>which no constraints are placed on the unknown >>>temperature history and no solution is assumed >>>to be unique. The temperature history is >>>obtained from a selection of equally >>>well-fitting solutions by a statistical >>>treatment. >>> >>>The results show that solutions covering the >>>last 4 ka have a well-developed central value, >>>a most likely temperature history. The >>>temperature record has two well-developed >>>minima at: AD 1250 and 1850. From 1850 to the >>>present, temperatures have gradually increased >>>by 0.7 K. The reconstructed temperatures are >>>compared with the stable oxygen isotope >>>(delta(18)O) from the DSS ice core. >>> >>>=> The inversed temperature data are available on the GFY web site at : >>>http://www.nbi.ku.dk/side95613.htm, go to "Dye >>>3, GRIP, Law Dome temperature reconstructed >>>from borehole measurements" >>> >>>* Regarding the calibration issue there are several publications : >>>- seasonal calibration between 18O and T : >>> >>>[van Ommen and Morgan, 1997a] >>> >>> >>>Tas D. van Ommen and Vin Morgan. Calibrating >>>the ice core paleothermometer using >>>seasonality. J. Geophys. Res., >>>102(D8):9351-9357, 1997, [AAD Cat. Ref. 7488]. >>> >>>[van Ommen and Morgan, 1997b] >>> >>> >>>Tas D. van Ommen and Vin Morgan. Correction to >>>"Calibrating the ice core paleothermometer >>>using seasonality". J. Geophys. Res., >>>102(D25):30,165, 1997, [AAD Cat. Ref. 8236]. >>> >>>- decadal calibration from a high resolution >>>ice core (using deuterium excess) >>> >>>*Recent southern Indian Ocean climate >>>variability inferred from a Law Dome ice core: >>>new insights for the interpretation of coastal >>>Antarctic isotopic records* >>>V. Masson-Delmotte ^A1 , M. Delmotte ^A1 A4 , >>>V. Morgan ^A2 , D. Etheridge ^A3 , T. van >>>Ommen ^A2 , S. Tartarin ^A1 , G. Hoffmann >>> >>>Stable isotopes in water have been measured >>>along a very high accumulation ice core from >>>Law Dome on the east Antarctic coast. These >>>enable a detailed comparison of the isotopic >>>records over sixty years (1934-1992) with >>>local (Antarctic station data) and remote >>>meteorological observations (atmospheric >>>reanalyses and sea-surface temperature >>>estimates) on a seasonal to inter-annual time >>>scale. Using both observations and isotopic >>>atmospheric general circulation model (GCM) >>>results, we quantify the relationships between >>>stable isotopes (d ^18 O, dD and deuterium >>>excess; /d/ = dD -8 × d ^18 O) with site and >>>source temperature at seasonal and decadal >>>time scales, showing the large imprint of >>>source conditions on Law Dome isotopes. These >>>calibrations provide new insights for the >>>quantitative interpretation of temporal >>>isotopic fluctuations from coastal Antarctic >>>ice cores. An abrupt change in the local >>>meridional atmospheric circulation is clearly >>>identified from Law Dome deuterium excess >>>during the 1970s and analysed using GCM >>>simulations. >>> >>> >>> >>>Valérie. >> >> >>-- >>Jonathan T. Overpeck >>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>Professor, Department of Geosciences >>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >> >>Mail and Fedex Address: >> >>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>University of Arizona >>Tucson, AZ 85721 >>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ > >Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow >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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > >**Norwich -- City for Science: >**Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006 -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 3507. 2006-07-18 ______________________________________________________ cc: Jonathan Overpeck , Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:01:32 +0200 from: Fortunat Joos subject: Re: new fig 6.14 to: Tim Osborn Hi Tim and co, Thanks for the figure. I like the figure showing the model results and the general outline/graphic style. However, I am concerned about what is shown in the forcing figure. 1) Volcanic panel: I strongly believe that we should show what was used by the model and not some 40 year smoothed curves for volcanic forcing or any other forcing. So please use the original data file. Scientific honesty demands to show what was used and not something post-processed. 2) solar panel: 2a) We must show the Wang-Lean-Shirley data on the original resolution as used to drive the models. In this way, we also illustrate the magnitude of the 11-yr annual cycle in comparison with the background trend. The record being flat, apart from the 11-yr cycle, during the last decades is a reality. 2b) Do not apply any smooting to the Bard data. Just use them as they are and how they were published by Bard and used in the model. 2c) It is fine to supress the Bard 0.08 case after 1610 (not done in my figure version) 2d) the emphasis of the figure is on the solar forcing differences. So, please show solar somewhat overproportional in comparison to volcanic and other forcings. 3) other forcings: again no smoothing needed here. It would be hard to defend a double smoothing. 4)- normalisation of solar forcing to some period mean. If the different solar forcings disagree for today as in your option, we may send the signal that we do not even know solar forcing today. Thus, I slightly prefer to have the same mean forcing values for all solar records during the last few decades as shown in the attached version. However, I also can see some arguments for other normalisations. To illustrate points 1 to 4, I have prepared and attached a version of the forcing panel. other points - Your choice of colors is fine - time range 1000-2000 AD is fine - suggest to remove the text from the y-labels except the units W/m2. Sorry for this additional comments coming a bit late. However, I did not realise that you planned to smoothed the model input data in any way. With best wishes, Fortunat Tim Osborn wrote: > Hi Peck, Eystein and Fortunat, > > I've drafted two versions of the new fig 6.14, comprising a new panel > showing the forcing used in the EMIC runs, plus the old fig 6.13e panel > showing the EMIC simulated NH temperatures. Keith has seen them already. > > First you should know what I did, so that you (especially Fortunat) can > check that what I did was appropriate: > > (1) For the volcanic forcing, I simply took the volcanic RF forcing from > Fortunat's file and applied the 30-year smoothing before plotting it. > > (2) For the solar forcing there are 2 curves. For the first, I took the > Bard 0.25% column from Fortunat's RF file. For the second, I took the > Bard 0.08% column from Fortunat's RF file from 1001 to 1609, and then > appended the WLS RF forcing from 1610 to 1998. Then I smoothed the > combined record. NOTE that for the Bard0.25%, the line is flat from > 1961 onwards which probably isn't realistic, even though that is what > was used in the model runs. > > (3) For the "all other forcings" there are 2 curves. For the first, I > took the CO2 concentrations provided by Fortunat, then used the > "standard" IPCC formula from the TAR (in fact the first of the three > options for CO2 in IPCC TAR Table 6.2) to convert this to a radiative > forcing. I then added this to the non-CO2 radiative forcings data from > Fortunat's file, to get the total radiative forcing. For the second, I > replaced all values after 1765 with the 1765 value (for the natural > forcings case). Then I smoothed the combined record (as in fig 6.13c, I > only applied a 10-year smoothing when plotting the "all other forcings", > because it is fairly smooth anyway and using a high smoothing results in > lower final values when there is a strong trend at the end of a time > series). > > Now, some comments on the figures themselves (please print them and > refer to them when reading this): > > (1) File 'chap6_f6.14_option1.pdf' is strongly preferred by Keith and > me. This shows the three forcing components separately, which helps > with understanding the individual causes of specific warming and cooling > periods. I have managed to reduce the size of this considerably, > compared to the equivalent panel in fig 6.13, because with only a few > series on it I could squeeze them together more and also reduce the > range of the vertical axes. > > (2) Although we don't prefer it, I have also made > 'chap6_f6.14_option2.pdf' which is even smaller by only showing the sum > of all the forcings in the top panel. > > Which version do you prefer? Please let me know so I can make final > changes only to the preferred version. > > Some more comments: > > (1) Fig 6.14b was originally Fig 6.13e. When it was part of that > figure, the colour bar showing the shades of grey used to depict the > overlapping ranges of the published temperature reconstructions was only > on Fig 6.13d. Do you think I should now also add it to the EMIC panel > (6.14b), now that it is in a separate figure? It will be a bit of a > squeeze because of the legend that is already in 6.14b. > > (2) Another carry over from when 6.14b was part of 6.13, is that the > time range of all panels had to match (900-2010). Now that the EMICs > are in a separate figure, I could start them in year 1000, which is when > the forcing and simulations begin. Unless you want 6.13 and 6.14 to > remain comparable? Again please comment/decide. > > (3) I wasn't sure what colours to use for the forcing series. In option > 1, the volcanic and other forcings apply to all runs, so I chose black > (with thick/thin used to distinguish the "all" forcings from the > "natural-only" forcings (basically the thin flat line in "all other > forcings). The cyan-green-blue runs used strong solar forcing, so I > used blue for that forcing. The red-orange-brown runs used weak solar > forcing, so I used brown for that forcing. Sound ok? > > Sorry for the long email, but I wanted to get everything explained to > avoid too many iterations. > > Please let me know your decisions/comments on these questions, or on any > other aspects of the new figure. > > Cheers > > Tim > Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow > 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ > sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > > **Norwich -- City for Science: > **Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006 -- Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\forcings_SolVolcAnth_LastMillennium_IPCC_ch06_17jun06.pdf" 4016. 2006-07-18 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:57:38 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Law Dome figure to: Jonathan Overpeck , Ricardo Villalba , Keith Briffa , Valerie Masson-Delmotte , Eystein Jansen Hi all, (1) Jones/Mann showed (and Mann/Jones used in their reconstruction) an isotope record from Law Dome that is probably O18 (they say "oxygen isotopes"). This has a "cold" present-day and "warm" MWP (indeed relatively "warm" throughout the 1000-1750 period). The review comments from sceptics wanted us to show this for obvious reasons. But its interpretation is ambiguous and I think (though I'm not certain) that it has been used to indicate atmospheric circulation changes rather than temperature changes by some authors (Souney et al., JGR, 2002). (2) Goosse et al. showed Deuterium excess as an indicator of Southern Ocean SST (rather than local temperature). Goosse et al. also showed a composite of 4 Antarctic ice core records (3 deuterium, 1 O18). Neither of these comes up to the 20th century making plotting on the same scale as observed temperature rather tricky! (3) Dahl-Jensen showed the temperatures obtained by inverting the borehole temperature profiles. This has a colder MWP relative to the recent period, which shows strong recent warming. I have data from (1) and now from (3) too, but not from (2) though I could ask Hugues Goosse for (2). Anyway, (1) and (2) aren't calibrated reconstructions like the others in the Southern Hemisphere figure, so plotting them would alter the nature of the figure. But if we show only (3) then we will be accused of (cherry-)picking that (and not showing (1) as used by Mann/Jones) because it showed what we wanted/expected. Can I, therefore, leave the SH figure unchanged and can we just discuss the Law Dome ambiguities in the text? Cheers Tim At 02:41 18/07/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >Hi Tim, Ricardo and Keith - Valerie just reminded me that she sent >this to us all (minus Tim) back in June. There is plenty below for >discussion in the text, and the Law Dome borehole data can be >obtained at the site below (http://www.nbi.ku.dk/side95613.htm). >This is the record that should be added to the SH figure. > >Thanks, Peck > >>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >>Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 12:44:50 +0200 >>From: Valérie Masson-Delmotte >>Reply-To: Valerie.Masson@cea.fr >>Organization: LSCE >>To: Jonathan Overpeck , >> Ricardo Villalba , >> Keith Briffa >>Subject: (pas de sujet) >> >>Dear Ricardo and Peck, >> >>Here are the references for the Law Dome temperature discussion : >> >>* stack of Antarctic ice cores and Law Dome deuterium excess >>profile (showing large changes in moisture source) >> >>Title: *A late medieval warm period in the Southern Ocean as a >>delayed response to external forcing?* >>Author(s): *Goosse H* >>, >>*Masson-Delmotte V* >>, >>Renssen H >>, >>Delmotte M >>, >>Fichefet T >>, >>Morgan V >>, >>van Ommen T >>, >>Khim BK >>, >>Stenni B >> >>Source: GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 31 (6): Art. No. L06203 MAR 17 2004 >>Document Type: Article >>Language: English >>Abstract: On the basis of long simulations performed with a >>three-dimensional climate model, we propose an interhemispheric >>climate lag mechanism, involving the long-term memory of deepwater >>masses. Warm anomalies, formed in the North Atlantic when warm >>conditions prevail at surface, are transported by the deep ocean >>circulation towards the Southern Ocean. There, the heat is released >>because of large scale upwelling, maintaining warm conditions and >>inducing a lagged response of about 150 years compared to the >>Northern Hemisphere. Model results and observations covering the >>first half of the second millenium suggest a delay between the >>temperature evolution in the Northern Hemisphere and in the >>Southern Ocean. The mechanism described here provides a reasonable >>hypothesis to explain such an interhemipsheric lag. >>KeyWords Plus: CLIMATE-CHANGE; ICE CORE; LAW DOME; TEMPERATURES; >>ANTARCTICA; PALEOCLIMATE; CIRCULATION; MILLENNIUM; RECORDS; SIGNAL >> >>* borehole temperature profile from Law Dome : >>Title: *Monte Carlo inverse modelling of the Law Dome (Antarctica) >>temperature profile* >>Author(s): *DahlJensen D* >>, >>Morgan VI >>, >>Elcheikh A >> >>Source: ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY, VOL 29, 1999 ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY 29: >>145-150 1999 >>Document Type: Article >>Language: English >> >>Abstract: The temperature profile in the 1200 m deep Dome Summit >>South (DSS) borehole near the summit of Law Dome, Antarctica, was >>measured in 1996, 3 years after the termination of the deep drilling. >> >>The temperature profile contains information on past surface >>temperature over the last 4 ka. This temperature history is >>determined by the use of a Monte Carlo inverse method in which no >>constraints are placed on the unknown temperature history and no >>solution is assumed to be unique. The temperature history is >>obtained from a selection of equally well-fitting solutions by a >>statistical treatment. >> >>The results show that solutions covering the last 4 ka have a >>well-developed central value, a most likely temperature history. >>The temperature record has two well-developed minima at: AD 1250 >>and 1850. From 1850 to the present, temperatures have gradually >>increased by 0.7 K. The reconstructed temperatures are compared >>with the stable oxygen isotope (delta(18)O) from the DSS ice core. >> >>=> The inversed temperature data are available on the GFY web site at : >>http://www.nbi.ku.dk/side95613.htm, go to "Dye 3, GRIP, Law Dome >>temperature reconstructed from borehole measurements" >> >>* Regarding the calibration issue there are several publications : >>- seasonal calibration between 18O and T : >> >>[van Ommen and Morgan, 1997a] >> >> >>Tas D. van Ommen and Vin Morgan. Calibrating the ice core >>paleothermometer using seasonality. J. Geophys. Res., >>102(D8):9351-9357, 1997, [AAD Cat. Ref. 7488]. >> >>[van Ommen and Morgan, 1997b] >> >> >>Tas D. van Ommen and Vin Morgan. Correction to "Calibrating the ice >>core paleothermometer using seasonality". J. Geophys. Res., >>102(D25):30,165, 1997, [AAD Cat. Ref. 8236]. >> >>- decadal calibration from a high resolution ice core (using >>deuterium excess) >> >>*Recent southern Indian Ocean climate variability inferred from a >>Law Dome ice core: new insights for the interpretation of coastal >>Antarctic isotopic records* >>V. Masson-Delmotte ^A1 , M. Delmotte ^A1 A4 , V. Morgan ^A2 , D. >>Etheridge ^A3 , T. van Ommen ^A2 , S. Tartarin ^A1 , G. Hoffmann >> >>Stable isotopes in water have been measured along a very high >>accumulation ice core from Law Dome on the east Antarctic coast. >>These enable a detailed comparison of the isotopic records over >>sixty years (1934-1992) with local (Antarctic station data) and >>remote meteorological observations (atmospheric reanalyses and >>sea-surface temperature estimates) on a seasonal to inter-annual >>time scale. Using both observations and isotopic atmospheric >>general circulation model (GCM) results, we quantify the >>relationships between stable isotopes (d ^18 O, dD and deuterium >>excess; /d/ = dD -8 × d ^18 O) with site and source temperature at >>seasonal and decadal time scales, showing the large imprint of >>source conditions on Law Dome isotopes. These calibrations provide >>new insights for the quantitative interpretation of temporal >>isotopic fluctuations from coastal Antarctic ice cores. An abrupt >>change in the local meridional atmospheric circulation is clearly >>identified from Law Dome deuterium excess during the 1970s and >>analysed using GCM simulations. >> >> >> >>Valérie. > > >-- >Jonathan T. Overpeck >Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >Professor, Department of Geosciences >Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences > >Mail and Fedex Address: > >Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >University of Arizona >Tucson, AZ 85721 >direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >fax: +1 520 792-8795 >http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm **Norwich -- City for Science: **Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006 4068. 2006-07-18 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tim Osborn , Jonathan Overpeck , Eystein Jansen date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 16:20:16 +0200 from: Fortunat Joos subject: Re: new fig 6.14 to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith, Thanks. My concerns comes from the following. I am not convinced that one gets the same response when forcing a model with smoothed volcanic forcing instead with the spikes. I suspect that the ocean will gain more heat in the later case due to the longer time to respond to the forcing. However, this remains to be tested, but nobody has done this as far as I know. In other words, postprocessing the output of a model forced with high resolution data does not necessarily give the same results as forcing the model with smoothed input. There is a chance to get different results. That is why I prefer to show the real forcing, i.e. the volcanic spikes. As long as nobody has done such tests run I would prefer to be scientifically on the save side with the figure. Sorry, but this is my modellers view on this. Forcings do not need to be on the same scale here. We know that temporarily volcanic forcing, albeit negative, is much larger than anthropogenic forcing. Why should we hide this well-know fact? Sceptics my call on this. Readers of our chapter are hopefully able to interpret the y-axis. The TS-team (in this case neither me nor Peck) asked us to show the volcanic spikes. A point of the figure is to show the implication of low solar forcing (WLS versus Bard) that is why I prefer to blow the solar panel somewhat up. We have varied solar forcing between the different runs. Of course the point about the natural forcing only simulation not able to get the 20th century warming is very important. Indeed, I believe that this important conclusion is underscoored if we make it very clear that we have varied solar forcing over a wide range (by a factor of 3). It would also be nice to show the 11-yr solar cycle that is in the data (sun spots, but also 14C). As far as normalisation of the forcing is concerned. I have no strong opinion. There is a consistency issue with chapter 2 where radiative forcing is always defined relative to 1750 (1750==0). This point may especially be important for the TS. There is also the issue about agreement over recent decades. This is why I slightly prefer to normalize the forcing to be zero around 1750. The sulfur figure will show volcanic spikes. We have agreed in Bergen that we add a sentence to the caption to point out that sulfate deposition may strongly vary regionally. I think we have with fig 13 and 14 now the opportunity to convey to the readers the same information in two different ways. Perhaps, we should not miss this opportunity. In any case, we will find a solution and then go forward. Cheers, Fortunat Keith Briffa wrote: > Fortunat et al > My opinions were consistent with Tim's expression - we discussed his > response. The importance of consistency between different modelling > Figures ( time response of filters and in the absolute magnitude of > forcing scale) are the most important aspects. To start showing > apparently different volcanic spikes (in the sulphate and EMIC Figure ) > will lead to confusion also. Ultimately we should remember that the > point of this Figure is to show that you can not get simulated > temperatures to match observations without anthropogenic forcing - not > to show proportional responses to different solar or volcanic events. > cheers > Keith > > At 13:45 18/07/2006, Fortunat Joos wrote: > >> Dear Tim, >> >> Sorry, that was a very careless and a totally inappropriate choice of >> words. I seriously apologize. Of course smoothing is not dishonest (I >> do it also all the time). To the contrary, I very much apreciate all >> your hard work to do these figures. I know that it is very time >> consuming from own experience ... (that is perhaps why I did not >> reflect on my wording when writing the e-mail). What I wanted to say >> is that if one has the opportunity to show directly what forcing was >> used by the model than I very much prefer to do so. I hope there >> remains no misunderstanding. I realize now that I should have used >> more modest wording at various places. >> >> Let us see what Eystein, Peck and Keith are thinking about it. >> >> With best wishes, Fortunat >> >> Tim Osborn wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> thanks for the responses, Peck and Fortunat. >>> I drafted the new figure 6.14 following as closely as possible the >>> approach used for the original forcing/simulation figure (now 6.13). >>> This is why I smoothed all series and used a common anomalisation >>> period for all curves across all panels. It can greatly help to >>> interpret why the simulated temperature responds in the way it does, >>> because the zero (or "normal" level) is comparable across plots and >>> because the strengths of different forcings can be compared *on the >>> same timescale* as the simulated temperatures are shown. And, for >>> 6.13, with so many different forcings and models shown, it would have >>> been impossible to use unsmoothed series without making the >>> individual curves indistinguishable (or indeed fitting them into such >>> a compact figure). >>> Now that the EMIC panels are separate from the original 6.13, we do >>> have the opportunity to make different presentational choices. But I >>> think, nevertheless, that some of the reasons for (i) proportional >>> scaling, (ii) common anomalisation period; and (iii) smoothing to >>> achieve presentation on comparable time scales, that held for 6.13 >>> probably also hold in 6.14. >>> However, I also appreciate the points raised by Fortunat, >>> specifically that (i) it is nice to be able to compare the magnitude >>> of the 11-yr solar cycles with the magnitude of the low-frequency >>> solar variations; and (ii) that using a modern reference period >>> removes the interpretation that we don't even know the forcing today. >>> So we have various advantages and disadvantages of different >>> presentational choices, and no set of choices will satisfy all these >>> competing demands. >>> One thing that I am particularly perturbed about is Fortunat's >>> implication that to show smoothed forcings would be scientifically >>> dishonest. I disagree (and I was also upset by your choice of >>> wording). If it were dishonest to show smoothed data, then >>> presumably the same holds for 6.13 (but its impossible to distinguish >>> all the different volcanic forcings if shown unsmoothed), but also to >>> every other graphic... should I be showing the EMIC simulated >>> temperatures without smoothing too, so you can see the individual >>> yearly responses to the volcanic spikes? But annual means are formed >>> from the temperatures simulated on the model timesteps, so we still >>> wouldn't be showing results that had not been post-processed. Most >>> climate models, even GCMs, respond in a quasi-linear way, such that >>> the smoothed response to unsmooth forcing is very similar to the >>> response to smooth forcing. So if we are interested in the >>> temperature response on time scales of 30 years and longer, it seems >>> entirely appropriate (and better for interpretation/comparison of >>> forcings) to show the forcings on this time scale too, because the >>> forcing variations on those time scales are the ones that are driving >>> the temperature response (even though the forcing may be intermittent >>> like volcanoes or have 11-yr cycles like solar). >>> The choice of smoothing / no smoothing is not, therefore, anything to >>> do with honesty/dishonesty, but is purely a presentational choice >>> that can made accordingly to what the purpose of the figure is. Here >>> our purpose seems to be long-term climate changes, rather than >>> response to individual volcanoes or to the 11-yr solar cycle. >>> So the position is: >>> (1) smoothing or no smoothing: there are arguments for both choices, >>> though clearly I prefer smoothing and Fortunat prefers no smoothing. >>> I could make a figure which kept the smooth lines but put the raw >>> annual histogram volcanic spikes underneath in pale grey, as Peck >>> requested anyway (and possibly put the 11-yr solar cycles in pale >>> brown underneath the smoothed brown solar series). This would be a >>> compromise but the main problem is that the scale of the largest >>> volcanic spikes would far exceed the scale I am using to show the >>> smoothed series (so the panel is not large enough to do this)! >>> (2) pre-industrial or present-day anomalisation reference period: >>> again there are arguments for both choices. Whatever we choose, I >>> firmly believe it should be the same for *all* curves in this figure >>> (which can make a dramatic difference). >>> (3) exaggeration of solar scale or proportional vertical scales: this >>> is the one that I have the firmest opinion about. I see no reason to >>> exaggerate the scale of the solar forcings relative to volcanic or >>> anthropogenic forcings. The difference between the forcings looks >>> clear enough in the version of the figure that I made. Exaggerating >>> it will wrongly make the Bard 2.5% case look (at first glance) bigger >>> than the anthropogenic forcing, and make it look more important than >>> volcanic forcing. >>> I'll hold off from making any more versions till decisions are made >>> on these issues. >>> Cheers >>> Tim >>> At 09:01 18/07/2006, Fortunat Joos wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Tim and co, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the figure. I like the figure showing the model results >>>> and the general outline/graphic style. >>>> >>>> However, I am concerned about what is shown in the forcing figure. >>>> >>>> 1) Volcanic panel: I strongly believe that we should show what was >>>> used by the model and not some 40 year smoothed curves for volcanic >>>> forcing or any other forcing. So please use the original data file. >>>> Scientific honesty demands to show what was used and not something >>>> post-processed. >>>> >>>> 2) solar panel: >>>> 2a) We must show the Wang-Lean-Shirley data on the original >>>> resolution as used to drive the models. In this way, we also >>>> illustrate the magnitude of the 11-yr annual cycle in comparison >>>> with the background trend. The record being flat, apart from the >>>> 11-yr cycle, during the last decades is a reality. >>>> 2b) Do not apply any smooting to the Bard data. Just use them as >>>> they are and how they were published by Bard and used in the model. >>>> 2c) It is fine to supress the Bard 0.08 case after 1610 (not done in >>>> my figure version) >>>> 2d) the emphasis of the figure is on the solar forcing differences. >>>> So, please show solar somewhat overproportional in comparison to >>>> volcanic and other forcings. >>>> >>>> 3) other forcings: again no smoothing needed here. It would be hard >>>> to defend a double smoothing. >>>> >>>> 4)- normalisation of solar forcing to some period mean. If the >>>> different solar forcings disagree for today as in your option, we >>>> may send the signal that we do not even know solar forcing today. >>>> Thus, I slightly prefer to have the same mean forcing values for all >>>> solar records during the last few decades as shown in the attached >>>> version. However, I also can see some arguments for other >>>> normalisations. >>>> >>>> To illustrate points 1 to 4, I have prepared and attached a version >>>> of the forcing panel. >>>> >>>> other points >>>> >>>> - Your choice of colors is fine >>>> - time range 1000-2000 AD is fine >>>> - suggest to remove the text from the y-labels except the units W/m2. >>>> >>>> Sorry for this additional comments coming a bit late. However, I did >>>> not realise that you planned to smoothed the model input data in any >>>> way. >>>> >>>> With best wishes, >>>> >>>> Fortunat >>>> >>>> Tim Osborn wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Peck, Eystein and Fortunat, >>>>> I've drafted two versions of the new fig 6.14, comprising a new >>>>> panel showing the forcing used in the EMIC runs, plus the old fig >>>>> 6.13e panel showing the EMIC simulated NH temperatures. Keith has >>>>> seen them already. >>>>> First you should know what I did, so that you (especially Fortunat) >>>>> can check that what I did was appropriate: >>>>> (1) For the volcanic forcing, I simply took the volcanic RF forcing >>>>> from Fortunat's file and applied the 30-year smoothing before >>>>> plotting it. >>>>> (2) For the solar forcing there are 2 curves. For the first, I >>>>> took the Bard 0.25% column from Fortunat's RF file. For the >>>>> second, I took the Bard 0.08% column from Fortunat's RF file from >>>>> 1001 to 1609, and then appended the WLS RF forcing from 1610 to >>>>> 1998. Then I smoothed the combined record. NOTE that for the >>>>> Bard0.25%, the line is flat from 1961 onwards which probably isn't >>>>> realistic, even though that is what was used in the model runs. >>>>> (3) For the "all other forcings" there are 2 curves. For the >>>>> first, I took the CO2 concentrations provided by Fortunat, then >>>>> used the "standard" IPCC formula from the TAR (in fact the first of >>>>> the three options for CO2 in IPCC TAR Table 6.2) to convert this to >>>>> a radiative forcing. I then added this to the non-CO2 radiative >>>>> forcings data from Fortunat's file, to get the total radiative >>>>> forcing. For the second, I replaced all values after 1765 with the >>>>> 1765 value (for the natural forcings case). Then I smoothed the >>>>> combined record (as in fig 6.13c, I only applied a 10-year >>>>> smoothing when plotting the "all other forcings", because it is >>>>> fairly smooth anyway and using a high smoothing results in lower >>>>> final values when there is a strong trend at the end of a time >>>>> series). >>>>> Now, some comments on the figures themselves (please print them and >>>>> refer to them when reading this): >>>>> (1) File 'chap6_f6.14_option1.pdf' is strongly preferred by Keith >>>>> and me. This shows the three forcing components separately, which >>>>> helps with understanding the individual causes of specific warming >>>>> and cooling periods. I have managed to reduce the size of this >>>>> considerably, compared to the equivalent panel in fig 6.13, because >>>>> with only a few series on it I could squeeze them together more and >>>>> also reduce the range of the vertical axes. >>>>> (2) Although we don't prefer it, I have also made >>>>> 'chap6_f6.14_option2.pdf' which is even smaller by only showing the >>>>> sum of all the forcings in the top panel. >>>>> Which version do you prefer? Please let me know so I can make >>>>> final changes only to the preferred version. >>>>> Some more comments: >>>>> (1) Fig 6.14b was originally Fig 6.13e. When it was part of that >>>>> figure, the colour bar showing the shades of grey used to depict >>>>> the overlapping ranges of the published temperature reconstructions >>>>> was only on Fig 6.13d. Do you think I should now also add it to >>>>> the EMIC panel (6.14b), now that it is in a separate figure? It >>>>> will be a bit of a squeeze because of the legend that is already in >>>>> 6.14b. >>>>> (2) Another carry over from when 6.14b was part of 6.13, is that >>>>> the time range of all panels had to match (900-2010). Now that the >>>>> EMICs are in a separate figure, I could start them in year 1000, >>>>> which is when the forcing and simulations begin. Unless you want >>>>> 6.13 and 6.14 to remain comparable? Again please comment/decide. >>>>> (3) I wasn't sure what colours to use for the forcing series. In >>>>> option 1, the volcanic and other forcings apply to all runs, so I >>>>> chose black (with thick/thin used to distinguish the "all" forcings >>>>> from the "natural-only" forcings (basically the thin flat line in >>>>> "all other forcings). The cyan-green-blue runs used strong solar >>>>> forcing, so I used blue for that forcing. The red-orange-brown >>>>> runs used weak solar forcing, so I used brown for that forcing. >>>>> Sound ok? >>>>> Sorry for the long email, but I wanted to get everything explained >>>>> to avoid too many iterations. >>>>> Please let me know your decisions/comments on these questions, or >>>>> on any other aspects of the new figure. >>>>> Cheers >>>>> Tim >>> >>> >>> >>> Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow >>> 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >>> sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm >>> **Norwich -- City for Science: >>> **Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006 >> >> >> -- >> >> Climate and Environmental Physics, >> Physics Institute, University of Bern >> Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern >> Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 >> Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ > > > -- > 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/ -- Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ 4502. 2006-07-18 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen , Valerie Masson-Delmotte , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, Keith Briffa , "Ricardo Villalba" date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:50:19 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: Huang, et al GRL 24, 1997 to: Henry Pollack Hi Henry - excellent feedback, thanks. I think it should be easy for Valerie (Holocene issues in 6.5) and Keith/Tim.Ricardo (last 2k, section 6.6) to deal with the 'expert' review issues regarding this paper. It sounds to me like that is the place for discussion of this paper, rather than in the text itself. BUT, it is important that the responses to review comments be thorough and convincing - Valerie and Keith - please update your responses in this respect. thanks all, Peck >Hi Peck and others, > >Attached is a brief discussion of the subject >paper and the questions you have asked me to >address. Let me know if you need additional >clarification. > >Cheers, >Henry > > ___ ___ Henry N. Pollack >[ \ / ] Professor of Geophysics > | \/ | Department of Geological Sciences > |MICHIGAN| University of Michigan >[___]\/[___] Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1005, U.S.A. > > Phone: 734-763-0084 FAX: 734-763-4690 > e-mail: hpollack@umich.edu > URL: www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~hpollack/ > URL: www-personal.umich.edu/~hpollack/book.html > > >Quoting Jonathan Overpeck : > >>Hi again Henry - I've attached an 1997 paper of >>your's and wonder if you could shed some >>up-to-date insights on how to best interpret. >>In particular: >> >>1) it has been pointed out to us that the >>result in this paper argue for a globally warm >>period during the middle Holocene that was >>warmer than today. Our assessment (i.e., Figure >>6.9) indicates that there was likely no period >>during the Holocene that was warmer around the >>global than the late 20th century. Especially >>outside of the tropics, there were periods >>warmer than today during the Holocene, but >>these regionally warm periods were not >>synchronous - at least at the centennial scale >>we can examine with proxy data. Thus, although >>Huang et al. 1997, indicates greater mean >>annual global warmth, it was unlike the >>synchronous global warming of the late 20th >>century. >> >>Plus, we believe the warmth of the Holocene was >>driven by orbital forcing, and that what we see >>makes sense in that regard. Huang et al, 1997 >>can be explained perhaps (this is a question) >>by the heavy borehole coverage in the Northern >>mid- to high-latitudes? We also know that proxy >>data shown in Fig 6.9 also indicate more >>warming (again, not synchronous) in Southern >>Hem mid-latitudes - where there are also many >>boreholes. >> >>Obviously, another issue is that the boreholes >>don't give the same temporal resolution as the >>other proxy records we synthesized/assessed, >>and at least in your paper, there isn't >>regional information either. >> >>So - the point is not (unless you suggest >>otherwise) that Huang et al 97 is wrong, but >>rather than within the limits of the data, it >>is compatible with what the higher-resolution, >>regionally-specific, multi-proxy data are >>showing in Fig 6.9, and that there was likely >>no period during the Holocene that was warmer >>synchronously around the global than the during >>the late 20th century. Do you agree with this, >>and is our reasoning accurate and complete? >> >>2) Huang et al 1997 also shows evidence for >>warmth within the last 500-1000 years that was >>greater than during the 20th century AND a cool >>minima 200 years ago. Both of these are >>highlighted in your abstract, and both seem >>incompatible with other evidence. For example, >>your own more recent work has shown the coolest >>temperatures to be about 500 years ago. >> >>We didn't think it was within our focus to >>comment on these issues, but we are being asked >>to by reviewers, and it would be good to have >>your help in addressing these issues - >>hopefully in our responses to review comments >>rather than in our main text (which has to be >>shortened). >> >>Many thanks for your help with this paper and the issues it raises. >> >>Best, Peck >> >> >> >>-- >>Jonathan T. Overpeck >>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>Professor, Department of Geosciences >>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >> >>Mail and Fedex Address: >> >>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>University of Arizona >>Tucson, AZ 85721 >>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ > > > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:GRL 1997.doc (WDBN/«IC») (00141CBF) -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 4700. 2006-07-18 ______________________________________________________ cc: Jonathan Overpeck , Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:45:32 +0200 from: Fortunat Joos subject: Re: new fig 6.14 to: Tim Osborn Dear Tim, Sorry, that was a very careless and a totally inappropriate choice of words. I seriously apologize. Of course smoothing is not dishonest (I do it also all the time). To the contrary, I very much apreciate all your hard work to do these figures. I know that it is very time consuming from own experience ... (that is perhaps why I did not reflect on my wording when writing the e-mail). What I wanted to say is that if one has the opportunity to show directly what forcing was used by the model than I very much prefer to do so. I hope there remains no misunderstanding. I realize now that I should have used more modest wording at various places. Let us see what Eystein, Peck and Keith are thinking about it. With best wishes, Fortunat Tim Osborn wrote: > Hi all, > > thanks for the responses, Peck and Fortunat. > > I drafted the new figure 6.14 following as closely as possible the > approach used for the original forcing/simulation figure (now 6.13). > This is why I smoothed all series and used a common anomalisation period > for all curves across all panels. It can greatly help to interpret why > the simulated temperature responds in the way it does, because the zero > (or "normal" level) is comparable across plots and because the strengths > of different forcings can be compared *on the same timescale* as the > simulated temperatures are shown. And, for 6.13, with so many different > forcings and models shown, it would have been impossible to use > unsmoothed series without making the individual curves indistinguishable > (or indeed fitting them into such a compact figure). > > Now that the EMIC panels are separate from the original 6.13, we do have > the opportunity to make different presentational choices. But I think, > nevertheless, that some of the reasons for (i) proportional scaling, > (ii) common anomalisation period; and (iii) smoothing to achieve > presentation on comparable time scales, that held for 6.13 probably also > hold in 6.14. > > However, I also appreciate the points raised by Fortunat, specifically > that (i) it is nice to be able to compare the magnitude of the 11-yr > solar cycles with the magnitude of the low-frequency solar variations; > and (ii) that using a modern reference period removes the interpretation > that we don't even know the forcing today. > > So we have various advantages and disadvantages of different > presentational choices, and no set of choices will satisfy all these > competing demands. > > One thing that I am particularly perturbed about is Fortunat's > implication that to show smoothed forcings would be scientifically > dishonest. I disagree (and I was also upset by your choice of > wording). If it were dishonest to show smoothed data, then presumably > the same holds for 6.13 (but its impossible to distinguish all the > different volcanic forcings if shown unsmoothed), but also to every > other graphic... should I be showing the EMIC simulated temperatures > without smoothing too, so you can see the individual yearly responses to > the volcanic spikes? But annual means are formed from the temperatures > simulated on the model timesteps, so we still wouldn't be showing > results that had not been post-processed. Most climate models, even > GCMs, respond in a quasi-linear way, such that the smoothed response to > unsmooth forcing is very similar to the response to smooth forcing. So > if we are interested in the temperature response on time scales of 30 > years and longer, it seems entirely appropriate (and better for > interpretation/comparison of forcings) to show the forcings on this time > scale too, because the forcing variations on those time scales are the > ones that are driving the temperature response (even though the forcing > may be intermittent like volcanoes or have 11-yr cycles like solar). > > The choice of smoothing / no smoothing is not, therefore, anything to do > with honesty/dishonesty, but is purely a presentational choice that can > made accordingly to what the purpose of the figure is. Here our purpose > seems to be long-term climate changes, rather than response to > individual volcanoes or to the 11-yr solar cycle. > > So the position is: > > (1) smoothing or no smoothing: there are arguments for both choices, > though clearly I prefer smoothing and Fortunat prefers no smoothing. I > could make a figure which kept the smooth lines but put the raw annual > histogram volcanic spikes underneath in pale grey, as Peck requested > anyway (and possibly put the 11-yr solar cycles in pale brown underneath > the smoothed brown solar series). This would be a compromise but the > main problem is that the scale of the largest volcanic spikes would far > exceed the scale I am using to show the smoothed series (so the panel is > not large enough to do this)! > > (2) pre-industrial or present-day anomalisation reference period: again > there are arguments for both choices. Whatever we choose, I firmly > believe it should be the same for *all* curves in this figure (which can > make a dramatic difference). > > (3) exaggeration of solar scale or proportional vertical scales: this is > the one that I have the firmest opinion about. I see no reason to > exaggerate the scale of the solar forcings relative to volcanic or > anthropogenic forcings. The difference between the forcings looks clear > enough in the version of the figure that I made. Exaggerating it will > wrongly make the Bard 2.5% case look (at first glance) bigger than the > anthropogenic forcing, and make it look more important than volcanic > forcing. > > I'll hold off from making any more versions till decisions are made on > these issues. > > Cheers > > Tim > > At 09:01 18/07/2006, Fortunat Joos wrote: > >> Hi Tim and co, >> >> Thanks for the figure. I like the figure showing the model results and >> the general outline/graphic style. >> >> However, I am concerned about what is shown in the forcing figure. >> >> 1) Volcanic panel: I strongly believe that we should show what was >> used by the model and not some 40 year smoothed curves for volcanic >> forcing or any other forcing. So please use the original data file. >> Scientific honesty demands to show what was used and not something >> post-processed. >> >> 2) solar panel: >> 2a) We must show the Wang-Lean-Shirley data on the original resolution >> as used to drive the models. In this way, we also illustrate the >> magnitude of the 11-yr annual cycle in comparison with the background >> trend. The record being flat, apart from the 11-yr cycle, during the >> last decades is a reality. >> 2b) Do not apply any smooting to the Bard data. Just use them as they >> are and how they were published by Bard and used in the model. >> 2c) It is fine to supress the Bard 0.08 case after 1610 (not done in >> my figure version) >> 2d) the emphasis of the figure is on the solar forcing differences. >> So, please show solar somewhat overproportional in comparison to >> volcanic and other forcings. >> >> 3) other forcings: again no smoothing needed here. It would be hard to >> defend a double smoothing. >> >> 4)- normalisation of solar forcing to some period mean. If the >> different solar forcings disagree for today as in your option, we may >> send the signal that we do not even know solar forcing today. >> Thus, I slightly prefer to have the same mean forcing values for all >> solar records during the last few decades as shown in the attached >> version. However, I also can see some arguments for other normalisations. >> >> To illustrate points 1 to 4, I have prepared and attached a version of >> the forcing panel. >> >> other points >> >> - Your choice of colors is fine >> - time range 1000-2000 AD is fine >> - suggest to remove the text from the y-labels except the units W/m2. >> >> Sorry for this additional comments coming a bit late. However, I did >> not realise that you planned to smoothed the model input data in any way. >> >> With best wishes, >> >> Fortunat >> >> Tim Osborn wrote: >> >>> Hi Peck, Eystein and Fortunat, >>> I've drafted two versions of the new fig 6.14, comprising a new panel >>> showing the forcing used in the EMIC runs, plus the old fig 6.13e >>> panel showing the EMIC simulated NH temperatures. Keith has seen >>> them already. >>> First you should know what I did, so that you (especially Fortunat) >>> can check that what I did was appropriate: >>> (1) For the volcanic forcing, I simply took the volcanic RF forcing >>> from Fortunat's file and applied the 30-year smoothing before >>> plotting it. >>> (2) For the solar forcing there are 2 curves. For the first, I took >>> the Bard 0.25% column from Fortunat's RF file. For the second, I >>> took the Bard 0.08% column from Fortunat's RF file from 1001 to 1609, >>> and then appended the WLS RF forcing from 1610 to 1998. Then I >>> smoothed the combined record. NOTE that for the Bard0.25%, the line >>> is flat from 1961 onwards which probably isn't realistic, even though >>> that is what was used in the model runs. >>> (3) For the "all other forcings" there are 2 curves. For the first, >>> I took the CO2 concentrations provided by Fortunat, then used the >>> "standard" IPCC formula from the TAR (in fact the first of the three >>> options for CO2 in IPCC TAR Table 6.2) to convert this to a radiative >>> forcing. I then added this to the non-CO2 radiative forcings data >>> from Fortunat's file, to get the total radiative forcing. For the >>> second, I replaced all values after 1765 with the 1765 value (for the >>> natural forcings case). Then I smoothed the combined record (as in >>> fig 6.13c, I only applied a 10-year smoothing when plotting the "all >>> other forcings", because it is fairly smooth anyway and using a high >>> smoothing results in lower final values when there is a strong trend >>> at the end of a time series). >>> Now, some comments on the figures themselves (please print them and >>> refer to them when reading this): >>> (1) File 'chap6_f6.14_option1.pdf' is strongly preferred by Keith and >>> me. This shows the three forcing components separately, which helps >>> with understanding the individual causes of specific warming and >>> cooling periods. I have managed to reduce the size of this >>> considerably, compared to the equivalent panel in fig 6.13, because >>> with only a few series on it I could squeeze them together more and >>> also reduce the range of the vertical axes. >>> (2) Although we don't prefer it, I have also made >>> 'chap6_f6.14_option2.pdf' which is even smaller by only showing the >>> sum of all the forcings in the top panel. >>> Which version do you prefer? Please let me know so I can make final >>> changes only to the preferred version. >>> Some more comments: >>> (1) Fig 6.14b was originally Fig 6.13e. When it was part of that >>> figure, the colour bar showing the shades of grey used to depict the >>> overlapping ranges of the published temperature reconstructions was >>> only on Fig 6.13d. Do you think I should now also add it to the EMIC >>> panel (6.14b), now that it is in a separate figure? It will be a bit >>> of a squeeze because of the legend that is already in 6.14b. >>> (2) Another carry over from when 6.14b was part of 6.13, is that the >>> time range of all panels had to match (900-2010). Now that the EMICs >>> are in a separate figure, I could start them in year 1000, which is >>> when the forcing and simulations begin. Unless you want 6.13 and >>> 6.14 to remain comparable? Again please comment/decide. >>> (3) I wasn't sure what colours to use for the forcing series. In >>> option 1, the volcanic and other forcings apply to all runs, so I >>> chose black (with thick/thin used to distinguish the "all" forcings >>> from the "natural-only" forcings (basically the thin flat line in >>> "all other forcings). The cyan-green-blue runs used strong solar >>> forcing, so I used blue for that forcing. The red-orange-brown runs >>> used weak solar forcing, so I used brown for that forcing. Sound ok? >>> Sorry for the long email, but I wanted to get everything explained to >>> avoid too many iterations. >>> Please let me know your decisions/comments on these questions, or on >>> any other aspects of the new figure. >>> Cheers >>> Tim > > > > > Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow > 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ > sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > > **Norwich -- City for Science: > **Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006 > -- Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ 4140. 2006-07-19 ______________________________________________________ cc: Jonathan Overpeck , Ricardo Villalba , Eystein Jansen , cddhr@giss.nasa.gov, Keith Briffa , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:16:00 +0200 from: Fortunat Joos subject: Re: Gavin Smchmidt'comment to: David Rind Hi, What we agreed was actually to keep line 25 to line 34 on p 6-35 and not just until line 30. (As well line 50, p-36 line 2-7). The sentence on line 32/33 that there is general agreement in the evolution of the different proxies is important as there is in general much confusion about this and this is a chapter 6 statement covering the whole millennium. The sentence also links nicely to the next sentence on line 50. Yes, as agreed in Bergen delete the other parts if chapter 2 indeed is going to cover it. I have not done so in my revision as I wanted to hear what chap 2 is doing before deleting. Peck, in total we will delete 22 line. Note that I have also squezzed out a few line in the sulfur section. Making progress! Regards, Fortunat David Rind wrote: > Jonathan, > > > Keith and I discussed this at the meeting; basically what we need to > keep is: > > P. 6-25, lines 25-30, first sentence on line 50, and P. 6-26 the first > paragraph (lines 2-7). > > > All the rest is discussed in one form or another in Chapter 2, pp. 55-56. > > Concerning the volcanic forcing, there isn't nearly as much overlap, and > Chapter 6 did not have very much anyway - I think it would be useful to > keep what's there, adding just a reference to Chapter 2 (add: "see also > Chapter 2", at the end of line 26). (I'm assuming that Fig. 6-13a still > includes the solar and volcanic forcing). > > David > > > At 11:40 AM -0600 7/18/06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: > >> Hi David - it's good to know you can get to work before someone, even >> if they live in Europe. >> >> Your plan sounds good, and is it safe to assume that you will be >> making sure Chap 2 gets the right material from chap 6, and that we >> can thus pare our discussion of past solar and volcanic forcing down >> to a minimum? Can you give us an update of what they will not cover >> that we should (i.e., looking at section 6.6)? >> >> Many thanks, Peck >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> [It's a sad state of affairs if I'm the one who gets to work sooner! >>> (regardless of the time difference).] >>> >>> What is discussed below is basically what we thought in response to >>> Gavin's comment - that we would basically cross-reference chap 2, >>> where the primary discussion would occur. It's consistent with >>> chapter 2's general discussion of how forcings have changed over >>> time, and would seem odd if chapter 2 left out past solar and >>> volcanic forcing. Chapter 2 should feel free to utilize anything that >>> existed in Chapter 6 on these issues to complement their discussion, >>> if the need arises. Once that is finalized, Chapter 6 can then make >>> the proper cross-references. >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>> At 10:26 AM -0600 7/18/06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Ricardo - good points. We did discuss this in Bergen, and David >>>> Rind (as a Chap 2 CA) was going to help make sure we kept things >>>> covered in chap 2, while cutting our solar and volcanic discussions >>>> in chap 6. The key will be cross-referencing chap 2 carefully. So, >>>> Keith, Ricardo and David - please interact to figure out how to work >>>> this efficiently. Perhaps David could comment first since he's at >>>> work sooner. >>>> >>>> Thanks... Best, Peck >>>> >>>>> Hi all! >>>>> >>>>> In comment 6-811, Gavin Schmidt points out that our sections >>>>> >>>>> 6.6.3.1 Solar forcing >>>>> >>>>> 6.6.3.2 Volcanic forcing >>>>> >>>>> largely replicate the discussion in Chap. 2 on the same topics. I >>>>> checked >>>>> Chap. 2, and they provide a large (almost 8 pages in the SOD) >>>>> discussion >>>>> mainly on solar and but also on volcanic forcings. Gavin suggests >>>>> that only >>>>> the implementation issues should be discussed in our chapter and >>>>> leave the >>>>> most general information in Chapter 2. We can substantially short our >>>>> section following his advice. Please, find below the outline of the >>>>> sections in Chap. 2 dealing with solar and volcanic forcings. Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Ricardo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2.7 Natural Forcings >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2.7.1 Solar Variability >>>>> >>>>> 2.7.1.1 Direct observations of solar irradiance >>>>> >>>>> 2.7.1.1.1 Satellite measurements of total solar irradiance >>>>> >>>>> 2.7.1.1.2 Observed decadal trends and variability >>>>> >>>>> 2.7.1.1.3 Measurements of solar spectral irradiance >>>>> >>>>> 2.7.1.2 Estimating past solar radiative forcing >>>>> >>>>> 2.7.1.2.1 Reconstructions of past variations in solar irradiance >>>>> >>>>> 2.7.1.2.2 Implications for solar radiative forcing >>>>> >>>>> 2.7.1.3 Indirect effects of solar variability >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2.7.2 Explosive Volcanic Activity >>>>> >>>>> 2.7.2.1 Radiative effects of volcanic aerosols >>>>> >>>>> 2.7.2.2 Thermal, dynamic and chemistry perturbations forced by >>>>> volcanic >>>>> aerosols >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Tim Osborn" >>>>> To: "Jonathan Overpeck" ; "Keith Briffa" >>>>> >>>>> Cc: "Eystein Jansen" ; "Ricardo Villalba" >>>>> ; "joos" >>>>> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 12:25 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: Special instructions/timing adjustment >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm halfway through these changes and will get the revised figures >>>>>> out to you probably tomorrow, except maybe the SH one, because: >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure if the van Ommen (pers. comm.) data shown by Jones & >>>>>> Mann and suggested by Riccardo are the data to use or not. Is it >>>>>> published properly? I've seen the last 700 years of the Law Dome >>>>>> 18O >>>>>> record published, so perhaps we should show just the period since >>>>>> 1300 AD? That period appears in: >>>>>> >>>>>> Mayewski PA, Maasch KA, White JWC, et al. >>>>>> A 700 year record of Southern Hemisphere extratropical climate >>>>>> variability >>>>>> ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY 39: 127-132 2004 >>>>>> >>>>>> and >>>>>> >>>>>> Goodwin ID, van Ommen TD, Curran MAJ, et al. >>>>>> Mid latitude winter climate variability in the South Indian and >>>>>> southwest Pacific regions since 1300 AD >>>>>> CLIMATE DYNAMICS 22 (8): 783-794 JUL 2004 >>>>>> >>>>>> See below for some more comments in respect to individual figures. >>>>>> >>>>>> At 21:36 30/06/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>>>>> >Figure 6.10. >>>>>> >1. shade the connection between the top and middle panels >>>>>> >>>>>> yes >>>>>> >>>>>> >2. remove the dotted (long instrumental) curve from the middle >>>>>> panel >>>>>> >>>>>> yes >>>>>> >>>>>> >3. replace the red shaded region in the bottom panel with the >>>>>> >grey-scale one used in Fig 6.13 >>>>>> >>>>>> yes >>>>>> >>>>>> >4. label only every increment of 10 in the grey-scale bar (formally >>>>>> >color) in the bottom panel >>>>>> >>>>>> yes >>>>>> >>>>>> >5. Increase font sizes for axis numbering and axis labeling - all >>>>>> >are too small. You can figure out the best size by reducing figs to >>>>>> >likely page size minus margins. We guess the captions need to be >>>>>> >bigger by a couple increments at least. >>>>>> >>>>>> yes >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >Figure 6.11. >>>>>> > >>>>>> >1. This one is in pretty good shape except that Ricardo has to >>>>>> >determine if S. African boreholes need to be removed. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think Henry said they were published and could stay >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>> >Figure 6.12 >>>>>> > >>>>>> >1. again, please delete S. African borehole if Ricardo indicates >>>>>> >it's still not published. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think Henry said they could stay. >>>>>> >>>>>> >2. consider adding Law Dome temperature record - Ricardo is >>>>>> >investigating, but perhaps Keith/Tim can help figure out if it's >>>>>> >valid to include. Feel free to check with Valerie on this too, as >>>>>> >she seems to know these data at least a little >>>>>> >>>>>> Already discussed above. >>>>>> >>>>>> >3. also, please increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10 - >>>>>> >probably better to use bold fonts >>>>>> >>>>>> You are right that I've mixed bold and non-bold. When reduced to >>>>>> small size, the non-bold actually read more clearly than the bold, I >>>>>> think, so I'll standardise on non-bold. It's not possible to >>>>>> completely standardise on the size, because each figure I provide >>>>>> might be scaled by different amounts. I don't know final figure >>>>>> size, so will make a good guess. Should be ok. >>>>>> >>>>>> >Figure 6.13 >>>>>> > >>>>>> >1. we are going to split the existing 6.13 into two figure. The >>>>>> >first is 100% Tim's fig., and is just an upgrade of the existing >>>>>> >6.13 a-d, with the only changes being: >>>>>> >1a. delete the old ECHO-G red dashed line curve in panel d, and >>>>>> >>>>>> Keith says this was discussed and rejected, so I should keep old >>>>>> ECHO-G >>>>> >>>>> in? >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >1b. please also increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10 >>>>>> >and 12 - please use bold fonts. >>>>>> >>>>>> ok, as discussed above. >>>>>> >>>>>> >2. The existing 6.13e is going to become a new 6.14, with the >>>>>> >addition of a new forcings panel "a" on top of the existing panel e >>>>>> >(which becomes 6.14b). To make this happen, Tim and Fortunat >>>>>> have to >>>>>> >coordinate, as Tim has the forcing data (and knows what we what) >>>>>> and >>>>>> >Tim has the existing figure. We suspect it will be easier for >>>>>> >Fortunat to give Tim data and layout advice, and for Tim to make a >>>>>> >figure that matches the other figs he's doing. PLEASE NOTE that >>>>>> this >>>>>> >fig can't be as large as the existing 6.13a-d, but needs to be more >>>>>> >compact to permit its inclusion. >>>>>> >>>>>> done. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers >>>>>> >>>>>> Tim >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow >>>>>> 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >>>>>> sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm >>>>>> >>>>>> **Norwich -- City for Science: >>>>>> **Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006 >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jonathan T. Overpeck >>>> Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>> Professor, Department of Geosciences >>>> Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >>>> >>>> Mail and Fedex Address: >>>> >>>> Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>> 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>>> University of Arizona >>>> Tucson, AZ 85721 >>>> direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>>> fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>>> http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>>> http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >>> >>> >>> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jonathan T. Overpeck >> Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >> Professor, Department of Geosciences >> Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >> >> Mail and Fedex Address: >> >> Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >> 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >> University of Arizona >> Tucson, AZ 85721 >> direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >> fax: +1 520 792-8795 >> http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >> http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ > > > -- Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ 4379. 2006-07-19 ______________________________________________________ cc: joos , Ricardo Villalba , Eystein Jansen , cddhr@giss.nasa.gov, Keith Briffa , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:06:29 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Fwd: Re: Gavin Smchmidt'comment to: cddhr@giss.nasa.gov David - can you comment, help? thx, Peck >X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >X-Virus-checked: by University of Berne >Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:51:05 +0200 >From: Fortunat Joos >Organization: University of Bern >X-Accept-Language: en-us, en >To: Jonathan Overpeck >Cc: Ricardo Villalba , > Eystein Jansen , cddhr@giss.nasa.gov, > Keith Briffa , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk >Subject: Re: Gavin Smchmidt'comment > > > >Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>Hi Fortunat - Glad you're on this, and thanks for helping us get it >>right. I agree we need assurance from Chap 2 (David, can you make >>sure we've got it) that the deleted issues are, indeed, covered in >>Chap 2. > >In particular, I am not sure that chap 2 covers the Solanki et al. issue > >> >>thanks again, Peck >> >>>Hi, >>> >>>What we agreed was actually to keep line 25 to line 34 on p 6-35 >>>and not just until line 30. (As well line 50, p-36 line 2-7). >>> >>>The sentence on line 32/33 that there is general agreement in the >>>evolution of the different proxies is important as there is in >>>general much confusion about this and this is a chapter 6 >>>statement covering the whole millennium. The sentence also links >>>nicely to the next sentence on line 50. Yes, as agreed in Bergen >>>delete the other parts if chapter 2 indeed is going to cover it. I >>>have not done so in my revision as I wanted to hear what chap 2 is >>>doing before deleting. >>> >>>Peck, in total we will delete 22 line. Note that I have also >>>squezzed out a few line in the sulfur section. Making progress! >>> >>>Regards, Fortunat >>> >>>David Rind wrote: >>> >>>>Jonathan, >>>> >>>> >>>>Keith and I discussed this at the meeting; basically what we need >>>>to keep is: >>>> >>>>P. 6-25, lines 25-30, first sentence on line 50, and P. 6-26 the >>>>first paragraph (lines 2-7). >>>> >>>> >>>>All the rest is discussed in one form or another in Chapter 2, pp. 55-56. >>>> >>>>Concerning the volcanic forcing, there isn't nearly as much >>>>overlap, and Chapter 6 did not have very much anyway - I think it >>>>would be useful to keep what's there, adding just a reference to >>>>Chapter 2 (add: "see also Chapter 2", at the end of line 26). >>>>(I'm assuming that Fig. 6-13a still includes the solar and >>>>volcanic forcing). >>>> >>>>David >>>> >>>> >>>>At 11:40 AM -0600 7/18/06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hi David - it's good to know you can get to work before someone, >>>>>even if they live in Europe. >>>>> >>>>>Your plan sounds good, and is it safe to assume that you will be >>>>>making sure Chap 2 gets the right material from chap 6, and that >>>>>we can thus pare our discussion of past solar and volcanic >>>>>forcing down to a minimum? Can you give us an update of what >>>>>they will not cover that we should (i.e., looking at section >>>>>6.6)? >>>>> >>>>>Many thanks, Peck >>>>> >>>>>>Hi All, >>>>>> >>>>>>[It's a sad state of affairs if I'm the one who gets to work >>>>>>sooner! (regardless of the time difference).] >>>>>> >>>>>>What is discussed below is basically what we thought in >>>>>>response to Gavin's comment - that we would basically >>>>>>cross-reference chap 2, where the primary discussion would >>>>>>occur. It's consistent with chapter 2's general discussion of >>>>>>how forcings have changed over time, and would seem odd if >>>>>>chapter 2 left out past solar and volcanic forcing. Chapter 2 >>>>>>should feel free to utilize anything that existed in Chapter 6 >>>>>>on these issues to complement their discussion, if the need >>>>>>arises. Once that is finalized, Chapter 6 can then make the >>>>>>proper cross-references. >>>>>> >>>>>>David >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>At 10:26 AM -0600 7/18/06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Hi Ricardo - good points. We did discuss this in Bergen, and >>>>>>>David Rind (as a Chap 2 CA) was going to help make sure we >>>>>>>kept things covered in chap 2, while cutting our solar and >>>>>>>volcanic discussions in chap 6. The key will be >>>>>>>cross-referencing chap 2 carefully. So, Keith, Ricardo and >>>>>>>David - please interact to figure out how to work this >>>>>>>efficiently. Perhaps David could comment first since he's at >>>>>>>work sooner. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Thanks... Best, Peck >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Hi all! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In comment 6-811, Gavin Schmidt points out that our sections >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>6.6.3.1 Solar forcing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>6.6.3.2 Volcanic forcing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>largely replicate the discussion in Chap. 2 on the same >>>>>>>>topics. I checked >>>>>>>>Chap. 2, and they provide a large (almost 8 pages in the SOD) >>>>>>>>discussion >>>>>>>>mainly on solar and but also on volcanic forcings. Gavin >>>>>>>>suggests that only >>>>>>>>the implementation issues should be discussed in our chapter >>>>>>>>and leave the >>>>>>>>most general information in Chapter 2. We can substantially short our >>>>>>>>section following his advice. Please, find below the outline of the >>>>>>>>sections in Chap. 2 dealing with solar and volcanic forcings. Cheers, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Ricardo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>2.7 Natural Forcings >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>2.7.1 Solar Variability >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>2.7.1.1 Direct observations of solar irradiance >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>2.7.1.1.1 Satellite measurements of total solar irradiance >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>2.7.1.1.2 Observed decadal trends and variability >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>2.7.1.1.3 Measurements of solar spectral irradiance >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>2.7.1.2 Estimating past solar radiative forcing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>2.7.1.2.1 Reconstructions of past variations in solar irradiance >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>2.7.1.2.2 Implications for solar radiative forcing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>2.7.1.3 Indirect effects of solar variability >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>2.7.2 Explosive Volcanic Activity >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>2.7.2.1 Radiative effects of volcanic aerosols >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>2.7.2.2 Thermal, dynamic and chemistry perturbations forced by volcanic >>>>>>>>aerosols >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>From: "Tim Osborn" >>>>>>>>To: "Jonathan Overpeck" ; "Keith Briffa" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Cc: "Eystein Jansen" ; "Ricardo Villalba" >>>>>>>>; "joos" >>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 12:25 PM >>>>>>>>Subject: Re: Special instructions/timing adjustment >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm halfway through these changes and will get the revised figures >>>>>>>>> out to you probably tomorrow, except maybe the SH one, because: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure if the van Ommen (pers. comm.) data shown by Jones & >>>>>>>>> Mann and suggested by Riccardo are the data to use or not. Is it >>>>>>>>> published properly? I've seen the last 700 years of the Law Dome 18O >>>>>>>>> record published, so perhaps we should show just the period since >>>>>>>>> 1300 AD? That period appears in: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Mayewski PA, Maasch KA, White JWC, et al. >>>>>>>>> A 700 year record of Southern Hemisphere extratropical >>>>>>>>>climate variability >>>>>>>>> ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY 39: 127-132 2004 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Goodwin ID, van Ommen TD, Curran MAJ, et al. >>>>>>>>> Mid latitude winter climate variability in the South Indian and >>>>>>>>> southwest Pacific regions since 1300 AD >>>>>>>>> CLIMATE DYNAMICS 22 (8): 783-794 JUL 2004 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> See below for some more comments in respect to individual figures. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> At 21:36 30/06/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>>>>>>>> >Figure 6.10. >>>>>>>>> >1. shade the connection between the top and middle panels >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> yes >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >2. remove the dotted (long instrumental) curve from the middle panel >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> yes >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >3. replace the red shaded region in the bottom panel with the >>>>>>>>> >grey-scale one used in Fig 6.13 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> yes >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >4. label only every increment of 10 in the grey-scale bar (formally >>>>>>>>> >color) in the bottom panel >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> yes >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >5. Increase font sizes for axis numbering and axis labeling - all >>>>>>>>> >are too small. You can figure out the best size by reducing figs to >>>>>>>>> >likely page size minus margins. We guess the captions need to be >>>>>>>>> >bigger by a couple increments at least. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> yes >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >Figure 6.11. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >1. This one is in pretty good shape except that Ricardo has to >>>>>>>>> >determine if S. African boreholes need to be removed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think Henry said they were published and could stay >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >Figure 6.12 >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >1. again, please delete S. African borehole if Ricardo indicates >>>>>>>>> >it's still not published. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think Henry said they could stay. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >2. consider adding Law Dome temperature record - Ricardo is >>>>>>>>> >investigating, but perhaps Keith/Tim can help figure out if it's >>>>>>>>> >valid to include. Feel free to check with Valerie on this too, as >>>>>>>>> >she seems to know these data at least a little >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Already discussed above. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >3. also, please increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10 - >>>>>>>>> >probably better to use bold fonts >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are right that I've mixed bold and non-bold. When reduced to >>>>>>>>> small size, the non-bold actually read more clearly than the bold, I >>>>>>>>> think, so I'll standardise on non-bold. It's not possible to >>>>>>>>> completely standardise on the size, because each figure I provide >>>>>>>>> might be scaled by different amounts. I don't know final figure >>>>>>>>> size, so will make a good guess. Should be ok. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >Figure 6.13 >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >1. we are going to split the existing 6.13 into two figure. The >>>>>>>>> >first is 100% Tim's fig., and is just an upgrade of the existing >>>>>>>>> >6.13 a-d, with the only changes being: >>>>>>>>> >1a. delete the old ECHO-G red dashed line curve in panel d, and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Keith says this was discussed and rejected, so I should >>>>>>>>>keep old ECHO-G >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>in? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >1b. please also increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10 >>>>>>>>> >and 12 - please use bold fonts. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ok, as discussed above. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >2. The existing 6.13e is going to become a new 6.14, with the >>>>>>>>> >addition of a new forcings panel "a" on top of the existing panel e >>>>>>>>> >(which becomes 6.14b). To make this happen, Tim and Fortunat have to >>>>>>>>> >coordinate, as Tim has the forcing data (and knows what we what) and >>>>>>>>> >Tim has the existing figure. We suspect it will be easier for >>>>>>>>> >Fortunat to give Tim data and layout advice, and for Tim to make a >>>>>>>>> >figure that matches the other figs he's doing. PLEASE NOTE that this >>>>>>>>> >fig can't be as large as the existing 6.13a-d, but needs to be more >>>>>>>>> >compact to permit its inclusion. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> done. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Tim >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow >>>>>>>>> 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >>>>>>>>> sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **Norwich -- City for Science: >>>>>>>>> **Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>Jonathan T. Overpeck >>>>>>>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>>>>>Professor, Department of Geosciences >>>>>>>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Mail and Fedex Address: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>>>>>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>>>>>>University of Arizona >>>>>>>Tucson, AZ 85721 >>>>>>>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>>>>>>fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>>>>>>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>>>>>>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>-- >>>>>>/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >>>>>> >>>>>>/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>Jonathan T. Overpeck >>>>>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>>>Professor, Department of Geosciences >>>>>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >>>>> >>>>>Mail and Fedex Address: >>>>> >>>>>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>>>>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>>>>University of Arizona >>>>>Tucson, AZ 85721 >>>>>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>>>>fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>>>>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>>>>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>-- >>> >>> Climate and Environmental Physics, >>> Physics Institute, University of Bern >>> Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern >>> Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 >>> Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ >> >> >> > >-- > > Climate and Environmental Physics, > Physics Institute, University of Bern > Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern > Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 > Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 81. 2006-07-20 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:26:31 -0400 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: confidential to: "Keith Briffa" Hi Keith: I have been travelling in a remote area of southern Colorado without internet access from Monday until just now. I'm still several hours from Boulder, and need to get there before evening (it is 13:45 local time). I will look over your materials tonight and get back to you then, but please find copied below a message I sent to a contact at the Pew Trust for Global Climate Change in Washington on Monday, before I left for S. Colorado. It concerns perspective requested in relation to US House hearing that occurred yesterday. I am very glad to converse with you on this, as I had decided for my part to initiate communication for the reasons I will now outline. From my perspective, the skeptic perspective is actually getting scientifically uncritical FOSTERING lately. I say this in regard to the US National Academy of Science (NAS) report released last month, and also the Energy and Environment Committee hearings in Washington, yesterday. In both cases the NAS spokespersons highlighted the Mann et al. way of calculating PCs of ITRDB proxies from N. America (centered and standardized in relation to the calibration period mean and SD rather than the full time series length) as a significant mistake in method, related to the"hockey stick" shape of the reconstruction. However, in neither case, and also not in the NAS report, did they cite the Wahl-Ammann (WA) results that this alteration from "standard" practice, when put into the actual WA reconstruction algorithm, actually makes extremely little difference in the actual reconstruction--0.05 degrees over 1400-1449 (the period in which this is relevant). Any other effect on the reconstruction is due not to the reference period for centering/standardizing, but rather whether the data are standardized (MBH) or not (MM). It seems that this examination has been entirely overlooked by the NAS (it was again yesterday by Gerald North in front of the House committee), and this is essentially due to lack of reading WA fully. I know this for a fact from one of the NAS authors, with whom I spoke about this issue directly on June 22. The NAS authors did cite WA in several other regards, almost entirely focusing on the most MBH-critical portions of WA, and ignoring important contextualizing we made of some of these criticial results. So there is a brief synopsis until I can look over what you sent carefully. I think this is a key issue that needs to be CORRECTLY dealt with by the IPCC. [In my mind there is no justification for the NAS overlooking it, and then continuing to do so a month later, even after I made the direct author explicitly aware of this ommission.] The skeptical perspective is valuable and important, but it is not scientifically valid to give it weight that, objectively, it does not merit. PLEASE LOOK OVER THE COPIED TEXT BELOW...IT ALSO HAS THE EXACT REFERENCES IN THE WAHL-AMMANN PAPER THAT DEAL WITH THESE ISSUES, AND THE "IN PRESS" TEXT IS ATTACHED. Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University ********************* START OF COPIED MESSAGE ***************** DELETED IS A PORTION OF THE MESSAGE THAT IS NOT RELEVANT IN THIS CONTEXT ... 2) ...continuing...MBH used the calibration period (1902-1980) to get the means and SDs to center and normalize all their data because they were using 11 different lengths of proxy data to make their final product. As I understand it, they decided it was better to use one common period for this purpose, so that everything was centered/scaled according to the same standard, rather than 11 different sets of standards. That this was therefore a rational response to a perplexing issue is often lost in all the noise about their standardization practice. 3) The PC1 of the NAm ITRDB data is only one of 22 proxies used in the 1400-1449 reconstruction segment, and thus not the only information that went into the reconstruction. That it had a hockey-stick shape did mean that it projected strongly onto the instrumental PC1 that was the reconstruction target. [This reconstructed instrumental PC1 was then plugged back into the UDV' (singular value decomposition, SVD) formula as the U matrix, to yield the temperature field reconstruction, from which the N Hemisphere average was calculated]. 4) HERE IS THE REAL MEAT ON THIS ISSUE...Wahl-Ammann (attached) have shown that the entire issue of the N. American ITRDB proxy PCs retained and differing standardization conventions leads to NEARLY IDENTICAL reconstructions in ALL situations, as long as the reconstructions are taken to convergence. That is, we started with 2 NAm ITRDB PCs across the differing conventions--plugging them into the MBH reconstruction--and then did the same up to five PCs. In all cases (including the main MBH emulation itself), the reconstructions essentially converged. This is just what should be expected from first principles--the underlying data is the same in all cases, and the different centering and PC calculation conventions (using variance/covariance or correlation matrix to do SVD) should only have the impact of translating the underlying patterns ACTUALLY in the data differently across the rank ordering of PCs. Thus, by making sure to check for convergence [a "due dillegence" procedure, to utilize MM-type usage], one can make sure all the patterns in the data are being utilized. MOST IMPORTANT RESULT IS IN THIS PARAGRAPH In the case (a) of MBH with (correlation matrix with calibration period standardization), PCs1-2 are enough to get the converged result. Using the stated method (b) from MM 2005 Energy and Environment (correlation matrix with full-period standardization), PCs1-2 yield the converged result. Using the method (c) MM 2005 EE actually used in their code (variance/covariance matrix with full-period centering but NO standardization), PCs1-4 lead to the converged result. Note that there actually is an offset of 0.05 degrees (MBH is cooler, by the way) between (a) and (b) over 1400-1449, which is the true BIAS that the MBH standardization convention ACTUALLY ADDS. (c) requires more PCs for convergence because using the var-cov matrix rather than the correlation matirx on unstandardized data means that the first one or two PCs will be capturing the differences in variance across the proxies input into the process, which in fact vary by a factor of about 13. In effect, the PC algorithm in this case is first standardizing, and only then capturing signal. MM have made a big deal about the hockey stick pattern being shifted to the 4th PC in this case, but in fact it is a necessary result of their procedure, not some true degrading of this signal's importance. All of this is set forth on pp 22-25 (outline of analysis) and 30-32 (results) of WA. Not one word of it is mentioned in the Wegman report, which is highly misleading, as it has been publically available since March!! WA is accepted/in press and is publically available. Note that it has yet to go through final galley corrections. ********************* END OF COPIED MESSAGE *************** ________________________________ From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tue 7/18/2006 10:20 AM To: Wahl, Eugene R Subject: confidential Gene I am taking the liberty (confidentially) to send you a copy of the reviewers comments (please keep these to yourself) of the last IPCC draft chapter. I am concerned that I am not as objective as perhaps I should be and would appreciate your take on the comments from number 6-737 onwards , that relate to your reassessment of the Mann et al work. I have to consider whether the current text is fair or whether I should change things in the light of the sceptic comments. In practise this brief version has evolved and there is little scope for additional text , but I must put on record responses to these comments - any confidential help , opinions are appreciated . I have only days now to complete this revision and response. note that the sub heading 6.6 the last 2000 years is page 27 line35 on the original (commented) draft. Cheers Keith -- 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/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\wahlammann_climaticchange2006.pdf" 572. 2006-07-21 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:39:25 -0400 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: confidential to: "Keith Briffa" Hi Keith: I'm sorry that there is a bit to digest...although I know it is just a result of the nature of things. By the way, copied below is a synopsis that I sent this morning to a person in DC who is working on all this with regard to the House of Representative hearings. Evidently, there is to be at least one more hearing next week, and Mike Mann will go. The person I sent this to is trying to understand the importance of the proxy PC issues --especially how, no matter what way the PC extraction is done, the reconstructions converge if the structures actually present in the data are not tossed out by truncating the number retained PCs at a too low level. What I've copied is this synopsis. I think it is straightforward -- maybe a bit dense, but at least brief. Also, let me know if I can help on the issue of RE vs r^2. I could write a few brief sentences as something for you to look at if you would like. Wahl-Ammann show very clearly that there is objectively demonstrated skill at the low-frequency level of the verification period mean for all the MBH segments, although the earlier MBH segments do have really low r^2 values (indicating very little skill at the interannual level). Our argument that to throw out the reconstruction completely based on the fastest varying frequency, when it has objectively demonstrable meaning at lower frequencies, is to me quite reasonable. That it is some how entirely ad hoc, as McIntyre claims in one (more?) of his comments, is neither logical nor factual in my perspective. The idea of frequency dependent skill/non-skill is not new to the literature, and the independent re-reviewer that Steve Schneider had look over Wahl-Ammann said s/he had experienced this issue in his/her work. G. ****************************** COPIED TEXT ****************************** What it boils down to in the end is as follows: 1) The different reference periods used to calculate proxy PCs from N. America (calibration only for MBH, full period for MM) only have the effect of re-arranging how the hockey stick shape appears across the rank ordering of PCs. In MBH it is concentrated in PC1. In the full-period method, it is spread over PCs 1 and 2. If one adds PCs 1 and 2 (either arithmetically or as vectors) from either convention, you get an essentially IDENTICAL time series, only the amplitudes are a bit different. [Note that the input data were centered AND standardized before being put into the PC calculation algorithm. This is important, as shown below.] WHEN ACTUALLY USED IN THE RECONSTRUCTION, THE DIFFERENCE IS MINISCULE -- MBH is colder over 1400-1449 by 0.05 degrees! 2) IF the data are centered but NOT standardized and are input into in a PCA algorithm using the variance-covariance matrix and not the correlation matrix (the way MM did it), then the hockey stick shape shows up in PC4. MM in fact reported this first in their 2005 Energy and Environment article. In effect, the first two PCs are ARE ACTING TO DO THE STANDARDIZING OF THE DATA not done as a pre-processing step. [When the correlation matrix is used instead in the PCA algorithm, then the standardization is in effect done by the algorithm, because all the correlations are "standardized" by construction--they all range between 0 and 1.] When 4 PCs from this calculation method are used rather than 2 PCs calculated as above, then the RECONSTRUCTION CONVERGES TO THE SAME AS ABOVE. 3) Thus, all the different "flavors" for PC extraction have essentially no effect on reconstruction when one does the exercise of adding PCs sequentially from 2 to 5 for any flavor. In the case of (1), the reconstructions converge by the second PC. In the case of (2), they converge by PC4. They don't change with higher order PCs added. THIS SHOULD BE EXPECTED FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES. That is, the same underlying information is there in all cases, it is only how the structures present in these data are spread across the rank order of PCs, as explained. The simple exercise of taking the reconstructions to convergence across the number of PCs used shows this clearly. 4) In fact, MM essentially say all this in the 2005 EE article--INCLUDING ABOUT THE RECONSTRUCTION RESULTS -- but they strongly claim that the movement of the hockey stick shape to the 4th PC shows it is not a leading pattern of variance as MBH claim, and thus should not be used. This might be logical if their analysis was an apples-apples comparison, but it is not, due to the PCA method they use and applying it on NON-standardized data. THESE TWO DIFFERENCES (which one can only fully get from their actual code, not in the articles published) DRIVE THEIR ENTIRE ARGUMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. What they do not say is that convergence to something like the MBH result is expectable, and indeed MUST happen given the data used, because the hockey stick shape is actually IN the data, it is NOT an artifact of PC calculation procedure. 5) FINALLY, note that all of this rests on the foundation that keeping the bristlecone pine records in the data is appropriate, which Caspar and I find can be reasonable presumption. If one believes that the bristlecone data should be removed, then the 1400-1449 reconstruction does not pass verification testing with the RE statistic, and the MBH reconstruction should commence from 1450 on out. Although there are a number of reasons to keep the bristlecone data in, maybe the most compelling reason they are a NON-ISSUE is that, over the common period of overlap (1450-1980), the reconstruction based on using them from 1400-1980 is very close to the reconstruction based on omitting them from 1450-1980. Since the issues about the bristlecone response to climate are primarily about 1850 onwards, especially 1900 onwards [KEITH -- PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF I AM NOT ACCURATE IN THIS], there is no reason to expect that their behavior during 1400-1449 is in any way anomalous to their behavior from 1450-1850. Thus, THERE IS NO REASON TO THINK THAT THE BRISTLECONES ARE SOMEHOW MAKING THE 1400-1449 SEGMENT OF THE MBH RECONSTRUCTION BE INAPPROPRIATELY SKEWED. ****************************** END OF COPIED TEXT ******************* Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 607-871-2604 1 Saxon Drive Alfred, NY 14802 ________________________________ From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Fri 7/21/2006 4:51 AM To: Wahl, Eugene R Subject: RE: confidential Gene thanks a lot for this - I need to digest and I will come back to you. thanks again Keith 779. 2006-07-21 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Jul 21 09:51:45 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: RE: confidential to: "Wahl, Eugene R" Gene thanks a lot for this - I need to digest and I will come back to you. thanks again Keith At 09:23 21/07/2006, you wrote: Hi Keith: I hope you are well in all this!! I have done my best this evening to digest the issues you asked me to look at, and to give perspective on them. Here is what I can offer at this point. 1) Thoughts and perspective concerning the reviewer's comments per se. These are coded in blue and are in the "Notes" column between pages 103 and 122 inclusive. It got to the point that I could not be exhaustive, given the very lengthy set of review thoughts, so I am also attaching a review article Caspar and I plan to submit to Climatic Change in the next few days. [The idea is that this would accompany the Wahl-Ammann article, to summarize and amplify on it -- given all the proper and non-proper interpretation WA has received and the need for subsequent analysis that WA only lightly touches on. Steve Schneider is aware that it is coming.] I think a read through this, especially the part on PCs and Bristlecones, can say about all I might offer additionally. It is not lengthy. Please note that this Ammann-Wahl text is sent strictly confidentially -- it should not be cited or mentioned in any form, and MUST not be transmitted without permission. However, I am more than happy to send it for your use, because it succinctly summarizes what we have found on all the issues that have come up re: MBH. As you can see, we agree at some level with some of the criticisms raised by MM and others, but we do not find that they invalidate MBH in any substantial way. 2) I have added a brief suggested alteration to page 6-3 of the draft text you sent, to take into account the fact Wahl-Ammann decidely settles the issue concerning how proxy PC calculations impact the MBH style reconstruction. These changes are encoded using WORD's "Track Changes" feature. I did not get into suggesting how that paragraph might otherwise be rewritten. You can see more generally where Caspar and I have gone in the attached text, and how our work relates generally to the MM, von Storch, etc. "examinations" of MBH. Thinking further, the "Validation Thresholds and Measures of Merit" and "Amplitude Issues" sections might also be well worth a look. The former will help you see how over-strong and one-sided are the arguments Steven McIntyre puts forth in this area. (Cf. Wahl-Ammann Appendix 1 also on this topic -- McIntyre strongly avoids, or simply chastizes as ad hoc, the false negative issues at lower frequencies that we raise concerning the use of r2.) He has done with the IPCC just what he did in reviewing the Wahl-Ammann paper--and indeed in all his efforts--write volumes of very strongly worded, one-sided critiques, which can take a lot of time to see through and then respond to. I hope what we have written can help you in this way. I note that Mike Mann, Richard Alley, and others have written response comments, which would be useful for getting perspective also. Finally, note also that I corrected the reference to Wahl, Ritson, Ammann (Wahl et al., 2006) on page 6-6, and put the correct publication information in the reference section. I hope this all helps. I would be happy to do my best to answer any further questions you might have. All the best, and Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 607-871-2604 1 Saxon Drive Alfred, NY 14802 ________________________________ From: Keith Briffa [[1]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tue 7/18/2006 10:20 AM To: Wahl, Eugene R Subject: confidential Gene I am taking the liberty (confidentially) to send you a copy of the reviewers comments (please keep these to yourself) of the last IPCC draft chapter. I am concerned that I am not as objective as perhaps I should be and would appreciate your take on the comments from number 6-737 onwards , that relate to your reassessment of the Mann et al work. I have to consider whether the current text is fair or whether I should change things in the light of the sceptic comments. In practise this brief version has evolved and there is little scope for additional text , but I must put on record responses to these comments - any confidential help , opinions are appreciated . I have only days now to complete this revision and response. note that the sub heading 6.6 the last 2000 years is page 27 line35 on the original (commented) draft. Cheers Keith -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 2829. 2006-07-21 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Jul 21 19:00:20 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: RE: confidential to: "Wahl, Eugene R" Gene your comments have been really useful and reassuring that I am not doing MM a disservice. I will use some sections of your text in my comments that will be eventually archived so hope this is ok with you. I will keep the section in the chapter very brief - but will cite all the papers to avoid claims of bias. I really would like to discuss the whole issue of the reconstruction differences at a later , less stressful time. I completely accept the arguments about the limitation in the r2 and the value of capturing longer-term variance . I think I will have to stop now as the temp and humidity are killing here. Thanks a lot again Keith At 18:39 21/07/2006, you wrote: Hi Keith: I'm sorry that there is a bit to digest...although I know it is just a result of the nature of things. By the way, copied below is a synopsis that I sent this morning to a person in DC who is working on all this with regard to the House of Representative hearings. Evidently, there is to be at least one more hearing next week, and Mike Mann will go. The person I sent this to is trying to understand the importance of the proxy PC issues --especially how, no matter what way the PC extraction is done, the reconstructions converge if the structures actually present in the data are not tossed out by truncating the number retained PCs at a too low level. What I've copied is this synopsis. I think it is straightforward -- maybe a bit dense, but at least brief. Also, let me know if I can help on the issue of RE vs r^2. I could write a few brief sentences as something for you to look at if you would like. Wahl-Ammann show very clearly that there is objectively demonstrated skill at the low-frequency level of the verification period mean for all the MBH segments, although the earlier MBH segments do have really low r^2 values (indicating very little skill at the interannual level). Our argument that to throw out the reconstruction completely based on the fastest varying frequency, when it has objectively demonstrable meaning at lower frequencies, is to me quite reasonable. That it is some how entirely ad hoc, as McIntyre claims in one (more?) of his comments, is neither logical nor factual in my perspective. The idea of frequency dependent skill/non-skill is not new to the literature, and the independent re-reviewer that Steve Schneider had look over Wahl-Ammann said s/he had experienced this issue in his/her work. G. ****************************** COPIED TEXT ****************************** What it boils down to in the end is as follows: 1) The different reference periods used to calculate proxy PCs from N. America (calibration only for MBH, full period for MM) only have the effect of re-arranging how the hockey stick shape appears across the rank ordering of PCs. In MBH it is concentrated in PC1. In the full-period method, it is spread over PCs 1 and 2. If one adds PCs 1 and 2 (either arithmetically or as vectors) from either convention, you get an essentially IDENTICAL time series, only the amplitudes are a bit different. [Note that the input data were centered AND standardized before being put into the PC calculation algorithm. This is important, as shown below.] WHEN ACTUALLY USED IN THE RECONSTRUCTION, THE DIFFERENCE IS MINISCULE -- MBH is colder over 1400-1449 by 0.05 degrees! 2) IF the data are centered but NOT standardized and are input into in a PCA algorithm using the variance-covariance matrix and not the correlation matrix (the way MM did it), then the hockey stick shape shows up in PC4. MM in fact reported this first in their 2005 Energy and Environment article. In effect, the first two PCs are ARE ACTING TO DO THE STANDARDIZING OF THE DATA not done as a pre-processing step. [When the correlation matrix is used instead in the PCA algorithm, then the standardization is in effect done by the algorithm, because all the correlations are "standardized" by construction--they all range between 0 and 1.] When 4 PCs from this calculation method are used rather than 2 PCs calculated as above, then the RECONSTRUCTION CONVERGES TO THE SAME AS ABOVE. 3) Thus, all the different "flavors" for PC extraction have essentially no effect on reconstruction when one does the exercise of adding PCs sequentially from 2 to 5 for any flavor. In the case of (1), the reconstructions converge by the second PC. In the case of (2), they converge by PC4. They don't change with higher order PCs added. THIS SHOULD BE EXPECTED FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES. That is, the same underlying information is there in all cases, it is only how the structures present in these data are spread across the rank order of PCs, as explained. The simple exercise of taking the reconstructions to convergence across the number of PCs used shows this clearly. 4) In fact, MM essentially say all this in the 2005 EE article--INCLUDING ABOUT THE RECONSTRUCTION RESULTS -- but they strongly claim that the movement of the hockey stick shape to the 4th PC shows it is not a leading pattern of variance as MBH claim, and thus should not be used. This might be logical if their analysis was an apples-apples comparison, but it is not, due to the PCA method they use and applying it on NON-standardized data. THESE TWO DIFFERENCES (which one can only fully get from their actual code, not in the articles published) DRIVE THEIR ENTIRE ARGUMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. What they do not say is that convergence to something like the MBH result is expectable, and indeed MUST happen given the data used, because the hockey stick shape is actually IN the data, it is NOT an artifact of PC calculation procedure. 5) FINALLY, note that all of this rests on the foundation that keeping the bristlecone pine records in the data is appropriate, which Caspar and I find can be reasonable presumption. If one believes that the bristlecone data should be removed, then the 1400-1449 reconstruction does not pass verification testing with the RE statistic, and the MBH reconstruction should commence from 1450 on out. Although there are a number of reasons to keep the bristlecone data in, maybe the most compelling reason they are a NON-ISSUE is that, over the common period of overlap (1450-1980), the reconstruction based on using them from 1400-1980 is very close to the reconstruction based on omitting them from 1450-1980. Since the issues about the bristlecone response to climate are primarily about 1850 onwards, especially 1900 onwards [KEITH -- PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF I AM NOT ACCURATE IN THIS], there is no reason to expect that their behavior during 1400-1449 is in any way anomalous to their behavior from 1450-1850. Thus, THERE IS NO REASON TO THINK THAT THE BRISTLECONES ARE SOMEHOW MAKING THE 1400-1449 SEGMENT OF THE MBH RECONSTRUCTION BE INAPPROPRIATELY SKEWED. ****************************** END OF COPIED TEXT ******************* Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 607-871-2604 1 Saxon Drive Alfred, NY 14802 ________________________________ From: Keith Briffa [[1]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Fri 7/21/2006 4:51 AM To: Wahl, Eugene R Subject: RE: confidential Gene thanks a lot for this - I need to digest and I will come back to you. thanks again Keith -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 3241. 2006-07-21 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 04:23:24 -0400 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: confidential to: "Keith Briffa" Hi Keith: I hope you are well in all this!! I have done my best this evening to digest the issues you asked me to look at, and to give perspective on them. Here is what I can offer at this point. 1) Thoughts and perspective concerning the reviewer's comments per se. These are coded in blue and are in the "Notes" column between pages 103 and 122 inclusive. It got to the point that I could not be exhaustive, given the very lengthy set of review thoughts, so I am also attaching a review article Caspar and I plan to submit to Climatic Change in the next few days. [The idea is that this would accompany the Wahl-Ammann article, to summarize and amplify on it -- given all the proper and non-proper interpretation WA has received and the need for subsequent analysis that WA only lightly touches on. Steve Schneider is aware that it is coming.] I think a read through this, especially the part on PCs and Bristlecones, can say about all I might offer additionally. It is not lengthy. Please note that this Ammann-Wahl text is sent strictly confidentially -- it should not be cited or mentioned in any form, and MUST not be transmitted without permission. However, I am more than happy to send it for your use, because it succinctly summarizes what we have found on all the issues that have come up re: MBH. As you can see, we agree at some level with some of the criticisms raised by MM and others, but we do not find that they invalidate MBH in any substantial way. 2) I have added a brief suggested alteration to page 6-3 of the draft text you sent, to take into account the fact Wahl-Ammann decidely settles the issue concerning how proxy PC calculations impact the MBH style reconstruction. These changes are encoded using WORD's "Track Changes" feature. I did not get into suggesting how that paragraph might otherwise be rewritten. You can see more generally where Caspar and I have gone in the attached text, and how our work relates generally to the MM, von Storch, etc. "examinations" of MBH. Thinking further, the "Validation Thresholds and Measures of Merit" and "Amplitude Issues" sections might also be well worth a look. The former will help you see how over-strong and one-sided are the arguments Steven McIntyre puts forth in this area. (Cf. Wahl-Ammann Appendix 1 also on this topic -- McIntyre strongly avoids, or simply chastizes as ad hoc, the false negative issues at lower frequencies that we raise concerning the use of r2.) He has done with the IPCC just what he did in reviewing the Wahl-Ammann paper--and indeed in all his efforts--write volumes of very strongly worded, one-sided critiques, which can take a lot of time to see through and then respond to. I hope what we have written can help you in this way. I note that Mike Mann, Richard Alley, and others have written response comments, which would be useful for getting perspective also. Finally, note also that I corrected the reference to Wahl, Ritson, Ammann (Wahl et al., 2006) on page 6-6, and put the correct publication information in the reference section. I hope this all helps. I would be happy to do my best to answer any further questions you might have. All the best, and Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 607-871-2604 1 Saxon Drive Alfred, NY 14802 ________________________________ From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tue 7/18/2006 10:20 AM To: Wahl, Eugene R Subject: confidential Gene I am taking the liberty (confidentially) to send you a copy of the reviewers comments (please keep these to yourself) of the last IPCC draft chapter. I am concerned that I am not as objective as perhaps I should be and would appreciate your take on the comments from number 6-737 onwards , that relate to your reassessment of the Mann et al work. I have to consider whether the current text is fair or whether I should change things in the light of the sceptic comments. In practise this brief version has evolved and there is little scope for additional text , but I must put on record responses to these comments - any confidential help , opinions are appreciated . I have only days now to complete this revision and response. note that the sub heading 6.6 the last 2000 years is page 27 line35 on the original (commented) draft. Cheers Keith -- 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/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\AW_Editorial_July15.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\AR4SOR_BatchAB_Ch06_ERW_comments.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Ch06_SOD_Text_TSU_FINAL_2000_12jul06_ERW_suggestions.doc" 3756. 2006-07-21 ______________________________________________________ cc: Fortunat Joos date: Fri Jul 21 16:58:29 2006 from: Keith Briffa to: Jonathan Overpeck ,Eystein Jansen , Is any body out there - any chance of call her in next half hour - or at home later 44 1953 8510 - Peck? Peck and Eystein OK I am still struggling . I will not be able to get stuff to you til tuesday I reckon - masses of typing and having to re-read and consult with others (Henry will get back to me early next week) on the borehole stuff. Discussing stuff with Eugene Wahl (confidentially) and still need to check corrections and balance text. Tim still working on Figures. We are doing best to get stuff back asap - but if I have to incorporate Ricardo's stuff and put into version by Fortunat , it is getting more complicated. Fortunat should do edits relating to the rationalising of the forcing text (as per Gavin comment - or has he already?) . Best if Oyvind puts the lot together then. Keith -- 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/ 4917. 2006-07-22 ______________________________________________________ date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 00:08:05 -0400 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: confidential to: "Keith Briffa" Hi Keith: Glad to help. (!) If I could get a chance to look over the sections of my text you would post to the comments before you do, I would appreciate it. If this is a burden/problem let me know and we'll work it out. If it is anything from the Wahl-Ammann paper, of course that is fine to use at once since it is publicly available. There will only be exceedingly minor/few changes in the galleys, including a footnote pointing to the extended RE benchmarking analysis contained in the Ammann-Wahl review article. What I am concerned about for the time being is that nothing in the review article shows up anywhere. It is just going in, and confidentiality is important. The only exception to this are the points I make in my blue comments in the big review file on page 104, concerning the MM way of benchmarking the RE statistic. Those comments are fine to repeat at this point. [Please excuse my hesitance in this way.] Actually, all the other blue comments I made in the big review file are also fine to use at once. Again, if this request is in any way a problem, let me know and we'll figure out something. Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University ________________________________ From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Fri 7/21/2006 2:00 PM To: Wahl, Eugene R Subject: RE: confidential Gene your comments have been really useful and reassuring that I am not doing MM a disservice. I will use some sections of your text in my comments that will be eventually archived so hope this is ok with you. I will keep the section in the chapter very brief - but will cite all the papers to avoid claims of bias. I really would like to discuss the whole issue of the reconstruction differences at a later , less stressful time. I completely accept the arguments about the limitation in the r2 and the value of capturing longer-term variance . I think I will have to stop now as the temp and humidity are killing here. Thanks a lot again Keith At 18:39 21/07/2006, you wrote: >Hi Keith: > >I'm sorry that there is a bit to digest...although I know it is just >a result of the nature of things. > >By the way, copied below is a synopsis that I sent this morning to a >person in DC who is working on all this with regard to the House of >Representative hearings. Evidently, there is to be at least one >more hearing next week, and Mike Mann will go. The person I sent >this to is trying to understand the importance of the proxy PC >issues --especially how, no matter what way the PC extraction is >done, the reconstructions converge if the structures actually >present in the data are not tossed out by truncating the number >retained PCs at a too low level. What I've copied is this >synopsis. I think it is straightforward -- maybe a bit dense, but >at least brief. > >Also, let me know if I can help on the issue of RE vs r^2. I could >write a few brief sentences as something for you to look at if you >would like. Wahl-Ammann show very clearly that there is objectively >demonstrated skill at the low-frequency level of the verification >period mean for all the MBH segments, although the earlier MBH >segments do have really low r^2 values (indicating very little skill >at the interannual level). Our argument that to throw out the >reconstruction completely based on the fastest varying frequency, >when it has objectively demonstrable meaning at lower frequencies, >is to me quite reasonable. That it is some how entirely ad hoc, as >McIntyre claims in one (more?) of his comments, is neither logical >nor factual in my perspective. The idea of frequency dependent >skill/non-skill is not new to the literature, and the independent >re-reviewer that Steve Schneider had look over Wahl-Ammann said s/he >had experienced this issue in his/her work. G. > > >****************************** COPIED TEXT ****************************** > >What it boils down to in the end is as follows: > >1) The different reference periods used to calculate proxy PCs from >N. America (calibration only for MBH, full period for MM) only have >the effect of re-arranging how the hockey stick shape appears across >the rank ordering of PCs. In MBH it is concentrated in PC1. In the >full-period method, it is spread over PCs 1 and 2. If one adds PCs >1 and 2 (either arithmetically or as vectors) from either >convention, you get an essentially IDENTICAL time series, only the >amplitudes are a bit different. [Note that the input data were >centered AND standardized before being put into the PC calculation >algorithm. This is important, as shown below.] > WHEN ACTUALLY USED IN THE RECONSTRUCTION, THE DIFFERENCE > IS MINISCULE -- MBH is colder over 1400-1449 by 0.05 degrees! > >2) IF the data are centered but NOT standardized and are input into >in a PCA algorithm using the variance-covariance matrix and not the >correlation matrix (the way MM did it), then the hockey stick shape >shows up in PC4. MM in fact reported this first in their 2005 >Energy and Environment article. In effect, the first two PCs are >ARE ACTING TO DO THE STANDARDIZING OF THE DATA not done as a >pre-processing step. [When the correlation matrix is used instead >in the PCA algorithm, then the standardization is in effect done by >the algorithm, because all the correlations are "standardized" by >construction--they all range between 0 and 1.] > When 4 PCs from this calculation method are used rather > than 2 PCs calculated as above, then the RECONSTRUCTION CONVERGES > TO THE SAME AS ABOVE. > >3) Thus, all the different "flavors" for PC extraction have >essentially no effect on reconstruction when one does the exercise >of adding PCs sequentially from 2 to 5 for any flavor. In the case >of (1), the reconstructions converge by the second PC. In the case >of (2), they converge by PC4. They don't change with higher order PCs added. > THIS SHOULD BE EXPECTED FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES. That is, > the same underlying information is there in all cases, it is only > how the structures present in these data are spread across the rank > order of PCs, as explained. The simple exercise of taking the > reconstructions to convergence across the number of PCs used shows > this clearly. > >4) In fact, MM essentially say all this in the 2005 EE >article--INCLUDING ABOUT THE RECONSTRUCTION RESULTS -- but they >strongly claim that the movement of the hockey stick shape to the >4th PC shows it is not a leading pattern of variance as MBH claim, >and thus should not be used. This might be logical if their >analysis was an apples-apples comparison, but it is not, due to the >PCA method they use and applying it on NON-standardized data. > THESE TWO DIFFERENCES (which one can only fully get > from their actual code, not in the articles published) DRIVE THEIR > ENTIRE ARGUMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. What they do not say is > that convergence to something like the MBH result is expectable, > and indeed MUST happen given the data used, because the hockey > stick shape is actually IN the data, it is NOT an artifact of PC > calculation procedure. > > >5) FINALLY, note that all of this rests on the foundation that >keeping the bristlecone pine records in the data is appropriate, >which Caspar and I find can be reasonable presumption. If one >believes that the bristlecone data should be removed, then the >1400-1449 reconstruction does not pass verification testing with the >RE statistic, and the MBH reconstruction should commence from 1450 on out. > >Although there are a number of reasons to keep the bristlecone data >in, maybe the most compelling reason they are a NON-ISSUE is that, >over the common period of overlap (1450-1980), the reconstruction >based on using them from 1400-1980 is very close to the >reconstruction based on omitting them from 1450-1980. Since the >issues about the bristlecone response to climate are primarily about >1850 onwards, especially 1900 onwards [KEITH -- PLEASE LET ME KNOW >IF I AM NOT ACCURATE IN THIS], there is no reason to expect that >their behavior during 1400-1449 is in any way anomalous to their >behavior from 1450-1850. Thus, THERE IS NO REASON TO THINK THAT THE >BRISTLECONES ARE SOMEHOW MAKING THE 1400-1449 SEGMENT OF THE MBH >RECONSTRUCTION BE INAPPROPRIATELY SKEWED. > > >****************************** END OF COPIED TEXT ******************* > >Peace, Gene >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies >Alfred University > >607-871-2604 >1 Saxon Drive >Alfred, NY 14802 > >________________________________ > >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Fri 7/21/2006 4:51 AM >To: Wahl, Eugene R >Subject: RE: confidential > > > >Gene >thanks a lot for this - I need to digest and I will come back to you. > >thanks again >Keith -- 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/ 160. 2006-07-24 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:23:55 -0400 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: confidential to: "Keith Briffa" Hi Keith: I will look at these tomorrow night. [I have a grant proposal due by EOB tomorrow, and have to put all my effort into getting it right. My ability to move on from Alfred may hinge on it being accepted. I'm planning a new effort for truncated EOF and RegEM reconstructions of temperature, precipiatation and SLP for Western North America (25-55 N and 100-125 W, further W for SLP. I want to make use of the new tree ring series (including seeing if they help or harm calibrations) to push farther back than before, and the new HadCRU 0.5 degree gridded data to enhance spatial resolution. It's a bit along the lines of what Luterbacher et al. have been doing in Europe, although not entirely as the long instrumental and documentary evidence are not there--but there are a lot more dendro data. I've done a good bit of looking back to the Fritts et al. work and your work, and talked with Malcolm whether he sees this as being a worthwhile new effort. He said he thought so--especially to see what the new, more updated series might add/"subtract", and another highlight is a really careful look at how the TEOF and RegEM methods would compare at the regional level. I won't be doing PDSI, e.g., as Cook et al. and Zhang et al. have done a great job of this in the past few years. If you have any comments, let me know. I hadn't thought about asking you, which I really should have done, and its late now, and you are buried, I know. So, no worries if comment is out of the question !! Sorry, it just slipped in between all the other stuff-- [[[redacted: family]]] ] Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 607-871-2604 1 Saxon Drive Alfred, NY 14802 ________________________________ From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Mon 7/24/2006 3:16 PM To: Wahl, Eugene R Subject: RE: confidential Gene here is where I am up to now with my responses (still a load to do) - you can see that I have "borrowed (stolen)" from 2 of your responses in a significant degree - please assure me that this OK (and will not later be obvious) hopefully. You will get the whole text(confidentially again ) soon. You could also see that I hope to be fair to Mike - but he can be a little unbalanced in his remarks sometime - and I have had to disagree with his interpretations of some issues also. Please do not pass these on to anyone at all. Keith Will pass all comments to you before they are fixed in stone- nothing from review article will be mentioned. Really grateful to you - thanks Keith At 05:08 22/07/2006, you wrote: >Hi Keith: > >Glad to help. (!) > >If I could get a chance to look over the sections of my text you >would post to the comments before you do, I would appreciate it. If >this is a burden/problem let me know and we'll work it out. > >If it is anything from the Wahl-Ammann paper, of course that is fine >to use at once since it is publicly available. There will only be >exceedingly minor/few changes in the galleys, including a footnote >pointing to the extended RE benchmarking analysis contained in the >Ammann-Wahl review article. > >What I am concerned about for the time being is that nothing in the >review article shows up anywhere. It is just going in, and >confidentiality is important. The only exception to this are the >points I make in my blue comments in the big review file on page >104, concerning the MM way of benchmarking the RE statistic. Those >comments are fine to repeat at this point. [Please excuse my >hesitance in this way.] > >Actually, all the other blue comments I made in the big review file >are also fine to use at once. > > >Again, if this request is in any way a problem, let me know and >we'll figure out something. > > >Peace, Gene >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies >Alfred University > >________________________________ > >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Fri 7/21/2006 2:00 PM >To: Wahl, Eugene R >Subject: RE: confidential > >Gene >your comments have been really useful and reassuring that I am not >doing MM a disservice. I will use some sections of your text in my >comments that will be eventually archived so hope this is ok with >you. I will keep the section in the chapter very brief - but will >cite all the papers to avoid claims of bias. I really would like to >discuss the whole issue of the reconstruction differences at a later >, less stressful time. I completely accept the arguments about the >limitation in the r2 and the value of capturing longer-term variance >. I think I will have to stop now as the temp and humidity are killing here. > >Thanks a lot again > >Keith > >At 18:39 21/07/2006, you wrote: > >Hi Keith: > > > >I'm sorry that there is a bit to digest...although I know it is just > >a result of the nature of things. > > > >By the way, copied below is a synopsis that I sent this morning to a > >person in DC who is working on all this with regard to the House of > >Representative hearings. Evidently, there is to be at least one > >more hearing next week, and Mike Mann will go. The person I sent > >this to is trying to understand the importance of the proxy PC > >issues --especially how, no matter what way the PC extraction is > >done, the reconstructions converge if the structures actually > >present in the data are not tossed out by truncating the number > >retained PCs at a too low level. What I've copied is this > >synopsis. I think it is straightforward -- maybe a bit dense, but > >at least brief. > > > >Also, let me know if I can help on the issue of RE vs r^2. I could > >write a few brief sentences as something for you to look at if you > >would like. Wahl-Ammann show very clearly that there is objectively > >demonstrated skill at the low-frequency level of the verification > >period mean for all the MBH segments, although the earlier MBH > >segments do have really low r^2 values (indicating very little skill > >at the interannual level). Our argument that to throw out the > >reconstruction completely based on the fastest varying frequency, > >when it has objectively demonstrable meaning at lower frequencies, > >is to me quite reasonable. That it is some how entirely ad hoc, as > >McIntyre claims in one (more?) of his comments, is neither logical > >nor factual in my perspective. The idea of frequency dependent > >skill/non-skill is not new to the literature, and the independent > >re-reviewer that Steve Schneider had look over Wahl-Ammann said s/he > >had experienced this issue in his/her work. G. > > > > > >****************************** COPIED TEXT ****************************** > > > >What it boils down to in the end is as follows: > > > >1) The different reference periods used to calculate proxy PCs from > >N. America (calibration only for MBH, full period for MM) only have > >the effect of re-arranging how the hockey stick shape appears across > >the rank ordering of PCs. In MBH it is concentrated in PC1. In the > >full-period method, it is spread over PCs 1 and 2. If one adds PCs > >1 and 2 (either arithmetically or as vectors) from either > >convention, you get an essentially IDENTICAL time series, only the > >amplitudes are a bit different. [Note that the input data were > >centered AND standardized before being put into the PC calculation > >algorithm. This is important, as shown below.] > > WHEN ACTUALLY USED IN THE RECONSTRUCTION, THE DIFFERENCE > > IS MINISCULE -- MBH is colder over 1400-1449 by 0.05 degrees! > > > >2) IF the data are centered but NOT standardized and are input into > >in a PCA algorithm using the variance-covariance matrix and not the > >correlation matrix (the way MM did it), then the hockey stick shape > >shows up in PC4. MM in fact reported this first in their 2005 > >Energy and Environment article. In effect, the first two PCs are > >ARE ACTING TO DO THE STANDARDIZING OF THE DATA not done as a > >pre-processing step. [When the correlation matrix is used instead > >in the PCA algorithm, then the standardization is in effect done by > >the algorithm, because all the correlations are "standardized" by > >construction--they all range between 0 and 1.] > > When 4 PCs from this calculation method are used rather > > than 2 PCs calculated as above, then the RECONSTRUCTION CONVERGES > > TO THE SAME AS ABOVE. > > > >3) Thus, all the different "flavors" for PC extraction have > >essentially no effect on reconstruction when one does the exercise > >of adding PCs sequentially from 2 to 5 for any flavor. In the case > >of (1), the reconstructions converge by the second PC. In the case > >of (2), they converge by PC4. They don't change with higher order > PCs added. > > THIS SHOULD BE EXPECTED FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES. That is, > > the same underlying information is there in all cases, it is only > > how the structures present in these data are spread across the rank > > order of PCs, as explained. The simple exercise of taking the > > reconstructions to convergence across the number of PCs used shows > > this clearly. > > > >4) In fact, MM essentially say all this in the 2005 EE > >article--INCLUDING ABOUT THE RECONSTRUCTION RESULTS -- but they > >strongly claim that the movement of the hockey stick shape to the > >4th PC shows it is not a leading pattern of variance as MBH claim, > >and thus should not be used. This might be logical if their > >analysis was an apples-apples comparison, but it is not, due to the > >PCA method they use and applying it on NON-standardized data. > > THESE TWO DIFFERENCES (which one can only fully get > > from their actual code, not in the articles published) DRIVE THEIR > > ENTIRE ARGUMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. What they do not say is > > that convergence to something like the MBH result is expectable, > > and indeed MUST happen given the data used, because the hockey > > stick shape is actually IN the data, it is NOT an artifact of PC > > calculation procedure. > > > > > >5) FINALLY, note that all of this rests on the foundation that > >keeping the bristlecone pine records in the data is appropriate, > >which Caspar and I find can be reasonable presumption. If one > >believes that the bristlecone data should be removed, then the > >1400-1449 reconstruction does not pass verification testing with the > >RE statistic, and the MBH reconstruction should commence from 1450 on out. > > > >Although there are a number of reasons to keep the bristlecone data > >in, maybe the most compelling reason they are a NON-ISSUE is that, > >over the common period of overlap (1450-1980), the reconstruction > >based on using them from 1400-1980 is very close to the > >reconstruction based on omitting them from 1450-1980. Since the > >issues about the bristlecone response to climate are primarily about > >1850 onwards, especially 1900 onwards [KEITH -- PLEASE LET ME KNOW > >IF I AM NOT ACCURATE IN THIS], there is no reason to expect that > >their behavior during 1400-1449 is in any way anomalous to their > >behavior from 1450-1850. Thus, THERE IS NO REASON TO THINK THAT THE > >BRISTLECONES ARE SOMEHOW MAKING THE 1400-1449 SEGMENT OF THE MBH > >RECONSTRUCTION BE INAPPROPRIATELY SKEWED. > > > > > >****************************** END OF COPIED TEXT ******************* > > > >Peace, Gene > >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl > >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies > >Alfred University > > > >607-871-2604 > >1 Saxon Drive > >Alfred, NY 14802 > > > >________________________________ > > > >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] > >Sent: Fri 7/21/2006 4:51 AM > >To: Wahl, Eugene R > >Subject: RE: confidential > > > > > > > >Gene > >thanks a lot for this - I need to digest and I will come back to you. > > > >thanks again > >Keith > >-- >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 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/ 1496. 2006-07-24 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:33:01 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: MWP box figure to: Tim Osborn Hi again Tim et al - looks good to me. Obviously, you and Keith need to nail the divergence issue in the text, and also refer to it in the caption for this fig, but otherwise, it's looking good. Thanks, Peck >Hi again, > >attached is the new MWP box figure. > >We reverted back to the figure used in the FOD >because the decision to drop the panel from >Osborn & Briffa (2006) meant that we were able >to show a different selection of curves in the >remaining panel from those we used in our paper. >This allowed us to drop the shorter series that >didn't span the medieval period, simplifying the >figure and also dealing with a number of review >comments that had been made about those series. > >The only differences from the FOD figure are >that the font is now consistent with the others >figures, the composite mean series has been >removed, and the figure has been shrunk >vertically to save space. > >Cheers > >Tim > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:chap6_box6.4_f1.pdf (PDF /«IC») (00143489) >Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow >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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > >**Norwich -- City for Science: >**Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006 -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 1786. 2006-07-24 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, Eystein Jansen , "Ricardo Villalba" date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:14:57 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: solar and Law Dome GHG reference to: Fortunat Joos Hi Fortunat and Keith - thanks for keeping close track of the volcanic and solar forcing aspects of 6.6, including coordination w/ Chap 2. The more you can do at this stage, Keith, the better (i.e., mystery changes), but there will be time to update re: chap 2 later. Thanks again! Peck >Hi, > >Three points: > >- Reference to MacFarling Meure already changed in my revision. > >- solar: It will probably not be a big deal to delete a few lines, >when we have seen what chap 2 is doing. > >- Note that I am away for two weeks from July 29 to August 12, but I >have time to work on remaining issues during the second half of >August. > >With best wishes, Fortunat > >Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>Hi all - we probably have to cite this one, no? Thx, Peck >> >>>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >>>Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 11:07:59 -0600 >>>To: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no, jto@u.arizona.edu >>>From: Martin Manning >>>Subject: Fwd: Law Dome GHG reference >>>Cc: Melinda Marquis , ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov >>> >>>Hi Eystein, Peck >>> >>>The following from Dave Etheridge gives the citation for the >>>published version of the MacFarling Meure et al paper. Not sure if >>>you are switching to citing the GRL paper in preference to >>>MacFarling Meure's thesis - but if you are here is the right >>>reference. >>> >>>Cheers >>>Martin >>> >>>>DomainKey-Signature: s=email; d=csiro.au; c=nofws; q=dns; >>>>b=QFtbAVZCd84qWm9oHqL5Q+VatZDVO/wqkH4eZVeBGcwDj6LT57x2oyOdHwNvJZy8jbW0qelqAUxaZvAcwNqCdAvbK9kTL2qq3KXA2S21EvnS2a+f7LIXMAZdllfm2vAa; >>>>X-IronPort-AV: i="4.07,164,1151848800"; >>>> d="pdf'?scan'208,217"; a="103465294:sNHT485096344" >>>>Subject: Law Dome GHG reference >>>>Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 11:57:05 +1000 >>>>X-MS-Has-Attach: yes >>>>X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: >>>>Thread-Topic: Law Dome GHG reference >>>>Thread-Index: AcasaPcmdL+xIxSPRpytWeF8iOx2pg== >>>>From: >>>>To: , , >>>>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jul 2006 01:57:05.0834 (UTC) >>>>FILETIME=[F7AA30A0:01C6AC68] >>>>X-Rcpt-To: >>>>X-DPOP: Version number supressed >>>> >>>>Some of you were asking about this paper for IPCC AR4. It is now >>>>published (today) in GRL. A pdf is attached. >>>> >>>>Regards >>>> >>>>David >>>> >>>>MacFarling Meure, C., Etheridge, D., Trudinger, C., Steele, P., >>>>Langenfelds, R., van Ommen, T., Smith, A. and Elkins, J. (2006). >>>>The Law Dome CO2, CH4 and N2O Ice Core Records Extended to 2000 >>>>years BP. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, No. 14, L14810 >>>>10.1029/2006GL026152. >>>> >>>>http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0614/2006GL026152/2006GL026152.pdf >>>> >>>><<2000yr_CO2CH4N2O_MacFarlingMeure_GRL.pdf>> >>>> >>>>Dr David Etheridge >>>>CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research >>>>Private Bag 1 (street address: 107-121 Station St.) >>>>Aspendale, Victoria 3195, Australia >>>>phone (61) 3 9239 4590 FAX (61) 3 9239 4444 >>>>email: david.etheridge@csiro.au >>>> >>>>website: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/ >>>> >>>-- >>>Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov >>>** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address >>>Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit >>>NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory Phone: +1 303 497 4479 >>>325 Broadway, DSRC R/CSD8 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 >>>Boulder, CO 80305, USA >>> >> >> > >-- > > Climate and Environmental Physics, > Physics Institute, University of Bern > Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern > Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 > Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 2060. 2006-07-24 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 15:06:44 -0400 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: confidential to: "Keith Briffa" Thanks to you Keith, for all the huge volume of work you have done/are doing on this -- even before it became a special target for review. I'll be happy to look over the materials. Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 607-871-2604 1 Saxon Drive Alfred, NY 14802 ________________________________ From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Mon 7/24/2006 2:40 PM To: Wahl, Eugene R Subject: RE: confidential Will pass all comments to you before they are fixed in stone- nothing from review article will be mentioned. Really grateful to you - thanks Keith At 05:08 22/07/2006, you wrote: >Hi Keith: > >Glad to help. (!) > >If I could get a chance to look over the sections of my text you >would post to the comments before you do, I would appreciate it. If >this is a burden/problem let me know and we'll work it out. > >If it is anything from the Wahl-Ammann paper, of course that is fine >to use at once since it is publicly available. There will only be >exceedingly minor/few changes in the galleys, including a footnote >pointing to the extended RE benchmarking analysis contained in the >Ammann-Wahl review article. > >What I am concerned about for the time being is that nothing in the >review article shows up anywhere. It is just going in, and >confidentiality is important. The only exception to this are the >points I make in my blue comments in the big review file on page >104, concerning the MM way of benchmarking the RE statistic. Those >comments are fine to repeat at this point. [Please excuse my >hesitance in this way.] > >Actually, all the other blue comments I made in the big review file >are also fine to use at once. > > >Again, if this request is in any way a problem, let me know and >we'll figure out something. > > >Peace, Gene >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies >Alfred University > >________________________________ > >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Fri 7/21/2006 2:00 PM >To: Wahl, Eugene R >Subject: RE: confidential > >Gene >your comments have been really useful and reassuring that I am not >doing MM a disservice. I will use some sections of your text in my >comments that will be eventually archived so hope this is ok with >you. I will keep the section in the chapter very brief - but will >cite all the papers to avoid claims of bias. I really would like to >discuss the whole issue of the reconstruction differences at a later >, less stressful time. I completely accept the arguments about the >limitation in the r2 and the value of capturing longer-term variance >. I think I will have to stop now as the temp and humidity are killing here. > >Thanks a lot again > >Keith > >At 18:39 21/07/2006, you wrote: > >Hi Keith: > > > >I'm sorry that there is a bit to digest...although I know it is just > >a result of the nature of things. > > > >By the way, copied below is a synopsis that I sent this morning to a > >person in DC who is working on all this with regard to the House of > >Representative hearings. Evidently, there is to be at least one > >more hearing next week, and Mike Mann will go. The person I sent > >this to is trying to understand the importance of the proxy PC > >issues --especially how, no matter what way the PC extraction is > >done, the reconstructions converge if the structures actually > >present in the data are not tossed out by truncating the number > >retained PCs at a too low level. What I've copied is this > >synopsis. I think it is straightforward -- maybe a bit dense, but > >at least brief. > > > >Also, let me know if I can help on the issue of RE vs r^2. I could > >write a few brief sentences as something for you to look at if you > >would like. Wahl-Ammann show very clearly that there is objectively > >demonstrated skill at the low-frequency level of the verification > >period mean for all the MBH segments, although the earlier MBH > >segments do have really low r^2 values (indicating very little skill > >at the interannual level). Our argument that to throw out the > >reconstruction completely based on the fastest varying frequency, > >when it has objectively demonstrable meaning at lower frequencies, > >is to me quite reasonable. That it is some how entirely ad hoc, as > >McIntyre claims in one (more?) of his comments, is neither logical > >nor factual in my perspective. The idea of frequency dependent > >skill/non-skill is not new to the literature, and the independent > >re-reviewer that Steve Schneider had look over Wahl-Ammann said s/he > >had experienced this issue in his/her work. G. > > > > > >****************************** COPIED TEXT ****************************** > > > >What it boils down to in the end is as follows: > > > >1) The different reference periods used to calculate proxy PCs from > >N. America (calibration only for MBH, full period for MM) only have > >the effect of re-arranging how the hockey stick shape appears across > >the rank ordering of PCs. In MBH it is concentrated in PC1. In the > >full-period method, it is spread over PCs 1 and 2. If one adds PCs > >1 and 2 (either arithmetically or as vectors) from either > >convention, you get an essentially IDENTICAL time series, only the > >amplitudes are a bit different. [Note that the input data were > >centered AND standardized before being put into the PC calculation > >algorithm. This is important, as shown below.] > > WHEN ACTUALLY USED IN THE RECONSTRUCTION, THE DIFFERENCE > > IS MINISCULE -- MBH is colder over 1400-1449 by 0.05 degrees! > > > >2) IF the data are centered but NOT standardized and are input into > >in a PCA algorithm using the variance-covariance matrix and not the > >correlation matrix (the way MM did it), then the hockey stick shape > >shows up in PC4. MM in fact reported this first in their 2005 > >Energy and Environment article. In effect, the first two PCs are > >ARE ACTING TO DO THE STANDARDIZING OF THE DATA not done as a > >pre-processing step. [When the correlation matrix is used instead > >in the PCA algorithm, then the standardization is in effect done by > >the algorithm, because all the correlations are "standardized" by > >construction--they all range between 0 and 1.] > > When 4 PCs from this calculation method are used rather > > than 2 PCs calculated as above, then the RECONSTRUCTION CONVERGES > > TO THE SAME AS ABOVE. > > > >3) Thus, all the different "flavors" for PC extraction have > >essentially no effect on reconstruction when one does the exercise > >of adding PCs sequentially from 2 to 5 for any flavor. In the case > >of (1), the reconstructions converge by the second PC. In the case > >of (2), they converge by PC4. They don't change with higher order > PCs added. > > THIS SHOULD BE EXPECTED FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES. That is, > > the same underlying information is there in all cases, it is only > > how the structures present in these data are spread across the rank > > order of PCs, as explained. The simple exercise of taking the > > reconstructions to convergence across the number of PCs used shows > > this clearly. > > > >4) In fact, MM essentially say all this in the 2005 EE > >article--INCLUDING ABOUT THE RECONSTRUCTION RESULTS -- but they > >strongly claim that the movement of the hockey stick shape to the > >4th PC shows it is not a leading pattern of variance as MBH claim, > >and thus should not be used. This might be logical if their > >analysis was an apples-apples comparison, but it is not, due to the > >PCA method they use and applying it on NON-standardized data. > > THESE TWO DIFFERENCES (which one can only fully get > > from their actual code, not in the articles published) DRIVE THEIR > > ENTIRE ARGUMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. What they do not say is > > that convergence to something like the MBH result is expectable, > > and indeed MUST happen given the data used, because the hockey > > stick shape is actually IN the data, it is NOT an artifact of PC > > calculation procedure. > > > > > >5) FINALLY, note that all of this rests on the foundation that > >keeping the bristlecone pine records in the data is appropriate, > >which Caspar and I find can be reasonable presumption. If one > >believes that the bristlecone data should be removed, then the > >1400-1449 reconstruction does not pass verification testing with the > >RE statistic, and the MBH reconstruction should commence from 1450 on out. > > > >Although there are a number of reasons to keep the bristlecone data > >in, maybe the most compelling reason they are a NON-ISSUE is that, > >over the common period of overlap (1450-1980), the reconstruction > >based on using them from 1400-1980 is very close to the > >reconstruction based on omitting them from 1450-1980. Since the > >issues about the bristlecone response to climate are primarily about > >1850 onwards, especially 1900 onwards [KEITH -- PLEASE LET ME KNOW > >IF I AM NOT ACCURATE IN THIS], there is no reason to expect that > >their behavior during 1400-1449 is in any way anomalous to their > >behavior from 1450-1850. Thus, THERE IS NO REASON TO THINK THAT THE > >BRISTLECONES ARE SOMEHOW MAKING THE 1400-1449 SEGMENT OF THE MBH > >RECONSTRUCTION BE INAPPROPRIATELY SKEWED. > > > > > >****************************** END OF COPIED TEXT ******************* > > > >Peace, Gene > >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl > >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies > >Alfred University > > > >607-871-2604 > >1 Saxon Drive > >Alfred, NY 14802 > > > >________________________________ > > > >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] > >Sent: Fri 7/21/2006 4:51 AM > >To: Wahl, Eugene R > >Subject: RE: confidential > > > > > > > >Gene > >thanks a lot for this - I need to digest and I will come back to you. > > > >thanks again > >Keith > >-- >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 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/ 2536. 2006-07-24 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 09:05:55 +0100 from: "Sheppard Sylvia \(SCI\) ks918" subject: FW: RE: Simulating the economy - FAO Mr Vaughan - effects of to: -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Jones [mailto:jeremyjessop@yahoo.co.uk] Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 3:22 PM To: David Searby; Angus Tavner1; Angus Tavner2; Angus Tavner3; Terry Thomas; Peter Toy; ClimaticResearch Unit; Vince Yallop; Enquiries MetOffice; Rosemary Moore; Heather Needle; Green Party; Tim Pitt; ChrisnKen Price; Amos Race; Look East; Rachel Frampton; Norwich Greens; Barbara Hacker; Katharine Hamnett; Liz Jones; Lucy Kimbell; maclaines@parliament.uk; PetenCris Black; Anne Broadhurst; Tinho Da-Cruz; earls@parliament.uk; The Independent Subject: Fwd: RE: Simulating the economy - FAO Mr Vaughan - effects of climate Thought this might be of interest. Please just ignore, if not. JJ. Fwd of response from HM Treasury to query about simultion of economic collapse because of climate problems. Jeremy Jones. --- "Vaughan, Nicholas" wrote: > Subject: RE: Simulating the economy - FAO Mr Vaughan - effects of > climate > Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:24:02 +0100 > From: "Vaughan, Nicholas" > To: "Jeremy Jones" , "Enquiries, CEU" > > CC: "Vaughan, Nicholas" > > Dear Mr Jones, > > Thank you for your e-mail, I manage the Treasury model and have been > asked to reply. > > As we discussed previously the Treasury model is primarily a model of > the economic activity described and recorded in the UK National > Accounts, as such it is not well suited to modelling the impact of > climate change. > > However, the Treasury does take climate change very seriously. The > Chancellor announced on 19 July 2005 that he had asked Sir Nick Stern > to lead a major review of the economics of climate change, to > understand more comprehensively the nature of the economic challenges > and how they can be met, in the UK and globally. > > You can find out more about the Stern Review from the Treasury > website: > > http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk./independent_reviews/stern_review_economic s_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm > > As to modelling any economic collapse that might follow changes in the > climate I can state that to the best of my knowledge no such modelling > has been undertaken with the Treasury model. > > Moreover, any such modelling would require a very large set of extreme > assumptions, and a great deal of judgement would have to be brought to > bear alongside those assumptions in building or using any model to > investigate these issues. This means the results of any such work > would be extraordinarily uncertain and highly subjective. Apologies > that I am unable to assist you further in such modelling. > > On a specific point you should note that estimates of crop yields and > production are produced by the Dept for Environment, Food and Rural > Affairs, some of these estimates are published in Table 6.2 in the > Monthly Digest of Statistics. I include a link to the latest issue: > > http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/MD_June_2006/md_j une_2006.pdf > > I hope this is useful. > > Yours sincerely, > > Nicholas Vaughan > HM Treasury > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Jones [mailto:jeremyjessop@yahoo.co.uk] > Sent: 18 July 2006 17:36 > To: Enquiries, CEU > Subject: Simulating the economy - FAO Mr Vaughan - effects of climate > > > _Re: MODELLING ECONOMIC COLLAPSE_ > > > Hi! > > I wonder whether you can help me? > > I was in touch with a Mr Vaughan, about January 2005, on the subject > of modelling the economy. He very kindly emailed me a list of > variables covered in The Treasury's simulation. Sadly, since then, I > seem to have deleted the correspondence from my email system, and, > without researchign through notebooks, I may not be able to find his > address. > > I have a question for him (or whoever now works in that position). I > am, essentially, curious about modelling economic collapse. > > I have been watching the weather for some years, now, at a very > amateur level. Over the last few years, we have seen worsening > incidence of what, at first, I > called 'summer mist', but which it may be more appropriate to call 'haze', or > perhaps 'summer smog' (as I believe the BBC referred to it, recently). > > Also, I have been seeing curious effects on the rain. We now sometimes > (though not always) get two sizes of raindrops forming. Ordinary > large-sized drops that > fall properly, and small drops that are so small that they are buffeted > around > by gusts of wind, and do not fall properly. Also, we have had mists of these > smaller 'raindrops' pass over us - miles and miles of air filled with them. > > This is a very worrying development! > > Have a look at my web site for a video clip of the rain, together with > a still photo showing 'vector' trails left by the various raindrops > (using a flash > photo) - large drops, long tail, vertical; small drops, short tail, > every which way. > > See: http://www.jeremyjones.0catch.com > > All of which may seem to have little to do with the economy, however, > I am worried that we are getting to the stage where we may find that > our crops become stunted or damaged, or do not ripen, etc, by one or > another effect. Perhaps the water will not touch ground, perhaps it > will filter too much sun, perhaps, if this is all caused by UV, they > will scorch. Perhaps the aerosol particles formed by the UV will > poison us or the crops. Etc. > > If this is the case, then when this becomes clear, there are likely to > be some fairly serious implications for the financial world. I am > curious to know whether you have studied this using the Treasury model > of the economy. And, if > so, what results you get. > > To maybe add to the weight of what I have seen, a couple of satellites > were put into orbit a month or so ago specifically to study the > formation of aerosols and clouds, etc. See my site for a link to this. > > Also, if you take a look around a selection of webcams across the UK > on a day when it is hazy with you, you are very likely to find that it > is hazy in many other places. > > And, as far as I can tell, haze is also visible in many distance shots > on news programmes, etc, in various parts of the world, now, on a > routine basis. > > As is this was not bad enough, it turns out that the Met Office > changed the way it measured visibility in 1997, going from looking out > of the window to 'see how far they could see', to using instruments > that provide a 'spot reading' of > the visibility (or, I suppose, transmissibility) of air at that spot. It is, > therefore, impossible to produce a valid comparison of data from before 97 > with > data after 97. See my site for links to University of East Anglia Climatic > Research Unit, etc. > > So, all in all, I am getting to the stage where I see planetary > end-game, and would very much like to know what we can expect, and in > what order. > > At the point at which the general public concludes that severe > disruption is inevitable, we are very likely to get panic. > > Some of the webcams - eg: Shoreham airport, show that one of the > effects that might finally precipitate this is transport - if it gets > to the stage when pilots simply refuse to take off, as it is too foggy > to see, or it becomes too dangerous to drive, for the same reason, > something must give. If have no idea what the precedent is for this, > with the 1956 Clean Air Act, and what stage things had to get to then, > but Act there was. > > Or, if nothing else, if crop yields go down, we will certainly see the > farmers bleat! It might be interesting to look at yields over time, > over the last few years, or possibly projections for this year. > > Hoping you are able to rise to the challenge! > > Jeremy Jones. > > > > > > > Jeremy Jones > Flat 307 > Parmentergate Court > St John Street > Norwich > NR1 1PF > jeremyjessop@yahoo.co.uk > http://www.jeremyjones.0catch.com > 01603 610 760 > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > Copy addresses and emails from any email account to Yahoo! Mail - quick, easy > and free. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/trueswitch2.html > > PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET. On > entering the GSI, this email was scanned for viruses by the Government > Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by > Cable & Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. In case of problems, > please call your organisational IT Helpdesk. The MessageLabs Anti > Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve the CSIA Claims > Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government > quality mark initiative for information security products and > services. For more information about this please visit > www.cctmark.gov.uk > > ********************************************************************** > If you have received this email and it was not intended for you, > please let us know, and then delete it. Please treat our > information in confidence, as you would expect us to treat yours. > > All Treasury information systems may be monitored to ensure > that they are operating correctly. Furthermore, the content of > emails and other data on these systems may be examined, > in exceptional circumstances, for the purpose of investigating > or detecting any unauthorised use. > > > > The original of this email was scanned for viruses by Government > Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by > Cable & Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. On leaving the GSI > this email was certified virus free. The MessageLabs Anti Virus > Service is the first managed service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested > Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality > mark initiative for information security products and services. For > more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk > Jeremy Jones Flat 307 Parmentergate Court St John Street Norwich NR1 1PF jeremyjessop@yahoo.co.uk http://www.jeremyjones.0catch.com 01603 610 760 ___________________________________________________________ Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html 4537. 2006-07-24 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Jul 24 20:16:19 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: RE: confidential to: "Wahl, Eugene R" Gene here is where I am up to now with my responses (still a load to do) - you can see that I have "borrowed (stolen)" from 2 of your responses in a significant degree - please assure me that this OK (and will not later be obvious) hopefully. You will get the whole text(confidentially again ) soon. You could also see that I hope to be fair to Mike - but he can be a little unbalanced in his remarks sometime - and I have had to disagree with his interpretations of some issues also. Please do not pass these on to anyone at all. Keith Will pass all comments to you before they are fixed in stone- nothing from review article will be mentioned. Really grateful to you - thanks Keith At 05:08 22/07/2006, you wrote: Hi Keith: Glad to help. (!) If I could get a chance to look over the sections of my text you would post to the comments before you do, I would appreciate it. If this is a burden/problem let me know and we'll work it out. If it is anything from the Wahl-Ammann paper, of course that is fine to use at once since it is publicly available. There will only be exceedingly minor/few changes in the galleys, including a footnote pointing to the extended RE benchmarking analysis contained in the Ammann-Wahl review article. What I am concerned about for the time being is that nothing in the review article shows up anywhere. It is just going in, and confidentiality is important. The only exception to this are the points I make in my blue comments in the big review file on page 104, concerning the MM way of benchmarking the RE statistic. Those comments are fine to repeat at this point. [Please excuse my hesitance in this way.] Actually, all the other blue comments I made in the big review file are also fine to use at once. Again, if this request is in any way a problem, let me know and we'll figure out something. Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University ________________________________ From: Keith Briffa [[1]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Fri 7/21/2006 2:00 PM To: Wahl, Eugene R Subject: RE: confidential Gene your comments have been really useful and reassuring that I am not doing MM a disservice. I will use some sections of your text in my comments that will be eventually archived so hope this is ok with you. I will keep the section in the chapter very brief - but will cite all the papers to avoid claims of bias. I really would like to discuss the whole issue of the reconstruction differences at a later , less stressful time. I completely accept the arguments about the limitation in the r2 and the value of capturing longer-term variance . I think I will have to stop now as the temp and humidity are killing here. Thanks a lot again Keith At 18:39 21/07/2006, you wrote: >Hi Keith: > >I'm sorry that there is a bit to digest...although I know it is just >a result of the nature of things. > >By the way, copied below is a synopsis that I sent this morning to a >person in DC who is working on all this with regard to the House of >Representative hearings. Evidently, there is to be at least one >more hearing next week, and Mike Mann will go. The person I sent >this to is trying to understand the importance of the proxy PC >issues --especially how, no matter what way the PC extraction is >done, the reconstructions converge if the structures actually >present in the data are not tossed out by truncating the number >retained PCs at a too low level. What I've copied is this >synopsis. I think it is straightforward -- maybe a bit dense, but >at least brief. > >Also, let me know if I can help on the issue of RE vs r^2. I could >write a few brief sentences as something for you to look at if you >would like. Wahl-Ammann show very clearly that there is objectively >demonstrated skill at the low-frequency level of the verification >period mean for all the MBH segments, although the earlier MBH >segments do have really low r^2 values (indicating very little skill >at the interannual level). Our argument that to throw out the >reconstruction completely based on the fastest varying frequency, >when it has objectively demonstrable meaning at lower frequencies, >is to me quite reasonable. That it is some how entirely ad hoc, as >McIntyre claims in one (more?) of his comments, is neither logical >nor factual in my perspective. The idea of frequency dependent >skill/non-skill is not new to the literature, and the independent >re-reviewer that Steve Schneider had look over Wahl-Ammann said s/he >had experienced this issue in his/her work. G. > > >****************************** COPIED TEXT ****************************** > >What it boils down to in the end is as follows: > >1) The different reference periods used to calculate proxy PCs from >N. America (calibration only for MBH, full period for MM) only have >the effect of re-arranging how the hockey stick shape appears across >the rank ordering of PCs. In MBH it is concentrated in PC1. In the >full-period method, it is spread over PCs 1 and 2. If one adds PCs >1 and 2 (either arithmetically or as vectors) from either >convention, you get an essentially IDENTICAL time series, only the >amplitudes are a bit different. [Note that the input data were >centered AND standardized before being put into the PC calculation >algorithm. This is important, as shown below.] > WHEN ACTUALLY USED IN THE RECONSTRUCTION, THE DIFFERENCE > IS MINISCULE -- MBH is colder over 1400-1449 by 0.05 degrees! > >2) IF the data are centered but NOT standardized and are input into >in a PCA algorithm using the variance-covariance matrix and not the >correlation matrix (the way MM did it), then the hockey stick shape >shows up in PC4. MM in fact reported this first in their 2005 >Energy and Environment article. In effect, the first two PCs are >ARE ACTING TO DO THE STANDARDIZING OF THE DATA not done as a >pre-processing step. [When the correlation matrix is used instead >in the PCA algorithm, then the standardization is in effect done by >the algorithm, because all the correlations are "standardized" by >construction--they all range between 0 and 1.] > When 4 PCs from this calculation method are used rather > than 2 PCs calculated as above, then the RECONSTRUCTION CONVERGES > TO THE SAME AS ABOVE. > >3) Thus, all the different "flavors" for PC extraction have >essentially no effect on reconstruction when one does the exercise >of adding PCs sequentially from 2 to 5 for any flavor. In the case >of (1), the reconstructions converge by the second PC. In the case >of (2), they converge by PC4. They don't change with higher order PCs added. > THIS SHOULD BE EXPECTED FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES. That is, > the same underlying information is there in all cases, it is only > how the structures present in these data are spread across the rank > order of PCs, as explained. The simple exercise of taking the > reconstructions to convergence across the number of PCs used shows > this clearly. > >4) In fact, MM essentially say all this in the 2005 EE >article--INCLUDING ABOUT THE RECONSTRUCTION RESULTS -- but they >strongly claim that the movement of the hockey stick shape to the >4th PC shows it is not a leading pattern of variance as MBH claim, >and thus should not be used. This might be logical if their >analysis was an apples-apples comparison, but it is not, due to the >PCA method they use and applying it on NON-standardized data. > THESE TWO DIFFERENCES (which one can only fully get > from their actual code, not in the articles published) DRIVE THEIR > ENTIRE ARGUMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. What they do not say is > that convergence to something like the MBH result is expectable, > and indeed MUST happen given the data used, because the hockey > stick shape is actually IN the data, it is NOT an artifact of PC > calculation procedure. > > >5) FINALLY, note that all of this rests on the foundation that >keeping the bristlecone pine records in the data is appropriate, >which Caspar and I find can be reasonable presumption. If one >believes that the bristlecone data should be removed, then the >1400-1449 reconstruction does not pass verification testing with the >RE statistic, and the MBH reconstruction should commence from 1450 on out. > >Although there are a number of reasons to keep the bristlecone data >in, maybe the most compelling reason they are a NON-ISSUE is that, >over the common period of overlap (1450-1980), the reconstruction >based on using them from 1400-1980 is very close to the >reconstruction based on omitting them from 1450-1980. Since the >issues about the bristlecone response to climate are primarily about >1850 onwards, especially 1900 onwards [KEITH -- PLEASE LET ME KNOW >IF I AM NOT ACCURATE IN THIS], there is no reason to expect that >their behavior during 1400-1449 is in any way anomalous to their >behavior from 1450-1850. Thus, THERE IS NO REASON TO THINK THAT THE >BRISTLECONES ARE SOMEHOW MAKING THE 1400-1449 SEGMENT OF THE MBH >RECONSTRUCTION BE INAPPROPRIATELY SKEWED. > > >****************************** END OF COPIED TEXT ******************* > >Peace, Gene >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies >Alfred University > >607-871-2604 >1 Saxon Drive >Alfred, NY 14802 > >________________________________ > >From: Keith Briffa [[2]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Fri 7/21/2006 4:51 AM >To: Wahl, Eugene R >Subject: RE: confidential > > > >Gene >thanks a lot for this - I need to digest and I will come back to you. > >thanks again >Keith -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 5240. 2006-07-24 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Jul 24 19:40:01 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: RE: confidential to: "Wahl, Eugene R" Will pass all comments to you before they are fixed in stone- nothing from review article will be mentioned. Really grateful to you - thanks Keith At 05:08 22/07/2006, you wrote: Hi Keith: Glad to help. (!) If I could get a chance to look over the sections of my text you would post to the comments before you do, I would appreciate it. If this is a burden/problem let me know and we'll work it out. If it is anything from the Wahl-Ammann paper, of course that is fine to use at once since it is publicly available. There will only be exceedingly minor/few changes in the galleys, including a footnote pointing to the extended RE benchmarking analysis contained in the Ammann-Wahl review article. What I am concerned about for the time being is that nothing in the review article shows up anywhere. It is just going in, and confidentiality is important. The only exception to this are the points I make in my blue comments in the big review file on page 104, concerning the MM way of benchmarking the RE statistic. Those comments are fine to repeat at this point. [Please excuse my hesitance in this way.] Actually, all the other blue comments I made in the big review file are also fine to use at once. Again, if this request is in any way a problem, let me know and we'll figure out something. Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University ________________________________ From: Keith Briffa [[1]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Fri 7/21/2006 2:00 PM To: Wahl, Eugene R Subject: RE: confidential Gene your comments have been really useful and reassuring that I am not doing MM a disservice. I will use some sections of your text in my comments that will be eventually archived so hope this is ok with you. I will keep the section in the chapter very brief - but will cite all the papers to avoid claims of bias. I really would like to discuss the whole issue of the reconstruction differences at a later , less stressful time. I completely accept the arguments about the limitation in the r2 and the value of capturing longer-term variance . I think I will have to stop now as the temp and humidity are killing here. Thanks a lot again Keith At 18:39 21/07/2006, you wrote: >Hi Keith: > >I'm sorry that there is a bit to digest...although I know it is just >a result of the nature of things. > >By the way, copied below is a synopsis that I sent this morning to a >person in DC who is working on all this with regard to the House of >Representative hearings. Evidently, there is to be at least one >more hearing next week, and Mike Mann will go. The person I sent >this to is trying to understand the importance of the proxy PC >issues --especially how, no matter what way the PC extraction is >done, the reconstructions converge if the structures actually >present in the data are not tossed out by truncating the number >retained PCs at a too low level. What I've copied is this >synopsis. I think it is straightforward -- maybe a bit dense, but >at least brief. > >Also, let me know if I can help on the issue of RE vs r^2. I could >write a few brief sentences as something for you to look at if you >would like. Wahl-Ammann show very clearly that there is objectively >demonstrated skill at the low-frequency level of the verification >period mean for all the MBH segments, although the earlier MBH >segments do have really low r^2 values (indicating very little skill >at the interannual level). Our argument that to throw out the >reconstruction completely based on the fastest varying frequency, >when it has objectively demonstrable meaning at lower frequencies, >is to me quite reasonable. That it is some how entirely ad hoc, as >McIntyre claims in one (more?) of his comments, is neither logical >nor factual in my perspective. The idea of frequency dependent >skill/non-skill is not new to the literature, and the independent >re-reviewer that Steve Schneider had look over Wahl-Ammann said s/he >had experienced this issue in his/her work. G. > > >****************************** COPIED TEXT ****************************** > >What it boils down to in the end is as follows: > >1) The different reference periods used to calculate proxy PCs from >N. America (calibration only for MBH, full period for MM) only have >the effect of re-arranging how the hockey stick shape appears across >the rank ordering of PCs. In MBH it is concentrated in PC1. In the >full-period method, it is spread over PCs 1 and 2. If one adds PCs >1 and 2 (either arithmetically or as vectors) from either >convention, you get an essentially IDENTICAL time series, only the >amplitudes are a bit different. [Note that the input data were >centered AND standardized before being put into the PC calculation >algorithm. This is important, as shown below.] > WHEN ACTUALLY USED IN THE RECONSTRUCTION, THE DIFFERENCE > IS MINISCULE -- MBH is colder over 1400-1449 by 0.05 degrees! > >2) IF the data are centered but NOT standardized and are input into >in a PCA algorithm using the variance-covariance matrix and not the >correlation matrix (the way MM did it), then the hockey stick shape >shows up in PC4. MM in fact reported this first in their 2005 >Energy and Environment article. In effect, the first two PCs are >ARE ACTING TO DO THE STANDARDIZING OF THE DATA not done as a >pre-processing step. [When the correlation matrix is used instead >in the PCA algorithm, then the standardization is in effect done by >the algorithm, because all the correlations are "standardized" by >construction--they all range between 0 and 1.] > When 4 PCs from this calculation method are used rather > than 2 PCs calculated as above, then the RECONSTRUCTION CONVERGES > TO THE SAME AS ABOVE. > >3) Thus, all the different "flavors" for PC extraction have >essentially no effect on reconstruction when one does the exercise >of adding PCs sequentially from 2 to 5 for any flavor. In the case >of (1), the reconstructions converge by the second PC. In the case >of (2), they converge by PC4. They don't change with higher order PCs added. > THIS SHOULD BE EXPECTED FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES. That is, > the same underlying information is there in all cases, it is only > how the structures present in these data are spread across the rank > order of PCs, as explained. The simple exercise of taking the > reconstructions to convergence across the number of PCs used shows > this clearly. > >4) In fact, MM essentially say all this in the 2005 EE >article--INCLUDING ABOUT THE RECONSTRUCTION RESULTS -- but they >strongly claim that the movement of the hockey stick shape to the >4th PC shows it is not a leading pattern of variance as MBH claim, >and thus should not be used. This might be logical if their >analysis was an apples-apples comparison, but it is not, due to the >PCA method they use and applying it on NON-standardized data. > THESE TWO DIFFERENCES (which one can only fully get > from their actual code, not in the articles published) DRIVE THEIR > ENTIRE ARGUMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. What they do not say is > that convergence to something like the MBH result is expectable, > and indeed MUST happen given the data used, because the hockey > stick shape is actually IN the data, it is NOT an artifact of PC > calculation procedure. > > >5) FINALLY, note that all of this rests on the foundation that >keeping the bristlecone pine records in the data is appropriate, >which Caspar and I find can be reasonable presumption. If one >believes that the bristlecone data should be removed, then the >1400-1449 reconstruction does not pass verification testing with the >RE statistic, and the MBH reconstruction should commence from 1450 on out. > >Although there are a number of reasons to keep the bristlecone data >in, maybe the most compelling reason they are a NON-ISSUE is that, >over the common period of overlap (1450-1980), the reconstruction >based on using them from 1400-1980 is very close to the >reconstruction based on omitting them from 1450-1980. Since the >issues about the bristlecone response to climate are primarily about >1850 onwards, especially 1900 onwards [KEITH -- PLEASE LET ME KNOW >IF I AM NOT ACCURATE IN THIS], there is no reason to expect that >their behavior during 1400-1449 is in any way anomalous to their >behavior from 1450-1850. Thus, THERE IS NO REASON TO THINK THAT THE >BRISTLECONES ARE SOMEHOW MAKING THE 1400-1449 SEGMENT OF THE MBH >RECONSTRUCTION BE INAPPROPRIATELY SKEWED. > > >****************************** END OF COPIED TEXT ******************* > >Peace, Gene >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies >Alfred University > >607-871-2604 >1 Saxon Drive >Alfred, NY 14802 > >________________________________ > >From: Keith Briffa [[2]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Fri 7/21/2006 4:51 AM >To: Wahl, Eugene R >Subject: RE: confidential > > > >Gene >thanks a lot for this - I need to digest and I will come back to you. > >thanks again >Keith -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 1300. 2006-07-25 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa , Ricardo Villalba , Valerie Masson-Delmotte date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:50:56 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: new version of fig 6.11 to: Jonathan Overpeck Hi Peck and Eystein, attached is a new version of fig 6.11 showing the proxy locations. I sent one last week, but please replace that with this one. In response to some of the review comments, we decided to show all proxies that have been used to reconstruct NH or SH temperature in the reconstructions shown in the other figures. Previously we had only shown those that were probably temperature-sensitive, thus excluding many Mann et al. (1998) precipitation-sensitive records, which we now include. Also, we had previously only shown series from the SH that are shown in fig 6.12, but now we've also included the SH series used by Mann et al. (1998, 1999) and Mann and Jones (2003). I think that all the diagrams from me are now complete. The captions need some work, however, which I'll do with Keith's input first. Keith, rather than me, will probably send these when they are complete, because I'm away Wed-Fri this week. Cheers Tim Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\chap6_f61.11.pdf" Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm **Norwich -- City for Science: **Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006 4079. 2006-07-26 ______________________________________________________ cc: jto@u.arizona.edu date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:52:38 +0200 from: Eystein Jansen subject: Re: latest me,fortunat,ricardo bit to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith, thanks, will put it together with the rest. Looking forward to read through it. If I understood Tim´s email correctly we will get the revised captions text from you rather than him? Cheers, Eystein >Guys >here is what I understand you want from me - >revised text (only up Table of Key Findings etc) >- ie not touched refs (understand Oyvind will >put them in - most are given in text) >Tim sending Table and Figure captions >separately. I am sending the text with my, >Fortunat's and Ricardo's changes all integrated >- with minor edits of mine added to them. >I understand that Oyvind will sort this out and >insert in final Chapter. I am also sending (as a >separate email) my responses (as they currently >stand) to most of my comments ( F indicates that >Fortunat has answered that one even though it is >blue - and has sent his comments already for >incorporation ) . Henry helped me out with a few >borehole comments. I will also send my edited >version of Ricardo's reponses that I tweeked - >ignore if wish) . I know I have not done all >comments yet but the remaining ones can be done >tomorrow I hope and any changes needed put on >next draft. I do not expect many - and I was not >clear whether Peck wanted to respond to the >regional (US) precip related ones anyway >(currently blank)? >I have added in the rather large paragraph on >the tree-ring issues in response to several >comments - I know you will scream at the size >but I think we need to put it in and then get >Ricardo's and Ed's comments back as well as all >other CLAs and CAs. I think Oyvind has enough >to virtually put the whole thing together and I >am here in case of problems all week. >Cheers >Keith > > >-- >Professor Keith Briffa, >Climatic Research Unit >University of East Anglia >Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > >Phone: +44-1603-593909 >Fax: +44-1603-507784 > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh >HD:Ch06_SOD_Text_TSU_FI#2C20E2.doc (WDBN/«IC») >(002C20E2) -- ______________________________________________________________ Eystein Jansen Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen Allégaten 55 N-5007 Bergen NORWAY e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 Fax: +47-55-584330 1464. 2006-07-27 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 02:16:43 -0400 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: confidential to: "Keith Briffa" Hi Keith: Here is the text with my comments. I will go over the "stolen" parts (highlighted in blue outline) for a final time tomorrow morning, but I wanted to get this to you ASAP. The main new point I have to make is added in bold/blue font on pp. 101-103. I question the way the response to the comment there is currently worded, as it seems to imply that the divergence issue really does invalidate any dendro-based reconstructions before about 1850--which I imagine is not what you would like to say. I give a series of arguments against this as a general conclusion. Maybe I got over-bold in doing so, as in my point (1) I'm examining issues that are at the very core of your expertise! Excuse me that one, but I decided to jump in anyway. Let me know if I got it wrong in any way! There are other quite minor suggestions (mostly focused on referencing other responses in a few places) that are also in bold/blue. These go on into the "120's" in terms of page numbers. This is really a lot of work you've taken on, and I REALLY appreciate what you and the others are doing! [I've also been a lot involved with helping to get a person from the Pew Center for Global Climate Change ready to testify in front of the House Energy and Environment Committee tomorrow. That is why I couldn't get this done and sent to you earlier today. Send Mike Mann and Jay Gulledge (Pew Center) all good thoughts for strength and clarity.] NB -- "r" towards the end of the filename stands for my middle initial. Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 607-871-2604 1 Saxon Drive Alfred, NY 14802 ________________________________ From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Mon 7/24/2006 3:16 PM To: Wahl, Eugene R Subject: RE: confidential Gene here is where I am up to now with my responses (still a load to do) - you can see that I have "borrowed (stolen)" from 2 of your responses in a significant degree - please assure me that this OK (and will not later be obvious) hopefully. You will get the whole text(confidentially again ) soon. You could also see that I hope to be fair to Mike - but he can be a little unbalanced in his remarks sometime - and I have had to disagree with his interpretations of some issues also. Please do not pass these on to anyone at all. Keith Will pass all comments to you before they are fixed in stone- nothing from review article will be mentioned. Really grateful to you - thanks Keith At 05:08 22/07/2006, you wrote: >Hi Keith: > >Glad to help. (!) > >If I could get a chance to look over the sections of my text you >would post to the comments before you do, I would appreciate it. If >this is a burden/problem let me know and we'll work it out. > >If it is anything from the Wahl-Ammann paper, of course that is fine >to use at once since it is publicly available. There will only be >exceedingly minor/few changes in the galleys, including a footnote >pointing to the extended RE benchmarking analysis contained in the >Ammann-Wahl review article. > >What I am concerned about for the time being is that nothing in the >review article shows up anywhere. It is just going in, and >confidentiality is important. The only exception to this are the >points I make in my blue comments in the big review file on page >104, concerning the MM way of benchmarking the RE statistic. Those >comments are fine to repeat at this point. [Please excuse my >hesitance in this way.] > >Actually, all the other blue comments I made in the big review file >are also fine to use at once. > > >Again, if this request is in any way a problem, let me know and >we'll figure out something. > > >Peace, Gene >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies >Alfred University > >________________________________ > >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Fri 7/21/2006 2:00 PM >To: Wahl, Eugene R >Subject: RE: confidential > >Gene >your comments have been really useful and reassuring that I am not >doing MM a disservice. I will use some sections of your text in my >comments that will be eventually archived so hope this is ok with >you. I will keep the section in the chapter very brief - but will >cite all the papers to avoid claims of bias. I really would like to >discuss the whole issue of the reconstruction differences at a later >, less stressful time. I completely accept the arguments about the >limitation in the r2 and the value of capturing longer-term variance >. I think I will have to stop now as the temp and humidity are killing here. > >Thanks a lot again > >Keith > >At 18:39 21/07/2006, you wrote: > >Hi Keith: > > > >I'm sorry that there is a bit to digest...although I know it is just > >a result of the nature of things. > > > >By the way, copied below is a synopsis that I sent this morning to a > >person in DC who is working on all this with regard to the House of > >Representative hearings. Evidently, there is to be at least one > >more hearing next week, and Mike Mann will go. The person I sent > >this to is trying to understand the importance of the proxy PC > >issues --especially how, no matter what way the PC extraction is > >done, the reconstructions converge if the structures actually > >present in the data are not tossed out by truncating the number > >retained PCs at a too low level. What I've copied is this > >synopsis. I think it is straightforward -- maybe a bit dense, but > >at least brief. > > > >Also, let me know if I can help on the issue of RE vs r^2. I could > >write a few brief sentences as something for you to look at if you > >would like. Wahl-Ammann show very clearly that there is objectively > >demonstrated skill at the low-frequency level of the verification > >period mean for all the MBH segments, although the earlier MBH > >segments do have really low r^2 values (indicating very little skill > >at the interannual level). Our argument that to throw out the > >reconstruction completely based on the fastest varying frequency, > >when it has objectively demonstrable meaning at lower frequencies, > >is to me quite reasonable. That it is some how entirely ad hoc, as > >McIntyre claims in one (more?) of his comments, is neither logical > >nor factual in my perspective. The idea of frequency dependent > >skill/non-skill is not new to the literature, and the independent > >re-reviewer that Steve Schneider had look over Wahl-Ammann said s/he > >had experienced this issue in his/her work. G. > > > > > >****************************** COPIED TEXT ****************************** > > > >What it boils down to in the end is as follows: > > > >1) The different reference periods used to calculate proxy PCs from > >N. America (calibration only for MBH, full period for MM) only have > >the effect of re-arranging how the hockey stick shape appears across > >the rank ordering of PCs. In MBH it is concentrated in PC1. In the > >full-period method, it is spread over PCs 1 and 2. If one adds PCs > >1 and 2 (either arithmetically or as vectors) from either > >convention, you get an essentially IDENTICAL time series, only the > >amplitudes are a bit different. [Note that the input data were > >centered AND standardized before being put into the PC calculation > >algorithm. This is important, as shown below.] > > WHEN ACTUALLY USED IN THE RECONSTRUCTION, THE DIFFERENCE > > IS MINISCULE -- MBH is colder over 1400-1449 by 0.05 degrees! > > > >2) IF the data are centered but NOT standardized and are input into > >in a PCA algorithm using the variance-covariance matrix and not the > >correlation matrix (the way MM did it), then the hockey stick shape > >shows up in PC4. MM in fact reported this first in their 2005 > >Energy and Environment article. In effect, the first two PCs are > >ARE ACTING TO DO THE STANDARDIZING OF THE DATA not done as a > >pre-processing step. [When the correlation matrix is used instead > >in the PCA algorithm, then the standardization is in effect done by > >the algorithm, because all the correlations are "standardized" by > >construction--they all range between 0 and 1.] > > When 4 PCs from this calculation method are used rather > > than 2 PCs calculated as above, then the RECONSTRUCTION CONVERGES > > TO THE SAME AS ABOVE. > > > >3) Thus, all the different "flavors" for PC extraction have > >essentially no effect on reconstruction when one does the exercise > >of adding PCs sequentially from 2 to 5 for any flavor. In the case > >of (1), the reconstructions converge by the second PC. In the case > >of (2), they converge by PC4. They don't change with higher order > PCs added. > > THIS SHOULD BE EXPECTED FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES. That is, > > the same underlying information is there in all cases, it is only > > how the structures present in these data are spread across the rank > > order of PCs, as explained. The simple exercise of taking the > > reconstructions to convergence across the number of PCs used shows > > this clearly. > > > >4) In fact, MM essentially say all this in the 2005 EE > >article--INCLUDING ABOUT THE RECONSTRUCTION RESULTS -- but they > >strongly claim that the movement of the hockey stick shape to the > >4th PC shows it is not a leading pattern of variance as MBH claim, > >and thus should not be used. This might be logical if their > >analysis was an apples-apples comparison, but it is not, due to the > >PCA method they use and applying it on NON-standardized data. > > THESE TWO DIFFERENCES (which one can only fully get > > from their actual code, not in the articles published) DRIVE THEIR > > ENTIRE ARGUMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. What they do not say is > > that convergence to something like the MBH result is expectable, > > and indeed MUST happen given the data used, because the hockey > > stick shape is actually IN the data, it is NOT an artifact of PC > > calculation procedure. > > > > > >5) FINALLY, note that all of this rests on the foundation that > >keeping the bristlecone pine records in the data is appropriate, > >which Caspar and I find can be reasonable presumption. If one > >believes that the bristlecone data should be removed, then the > >1400-1449 reconstruction does not pass verification testing with the > >RE statistic, and the MBH reconstruction should commence from 1450 on out. > > > >Although there are a number of reasons to keep the bristlecone data > >in, maybe the most compelling reason they are a NON-ISSUE is that, > >over the common period of overlap (1450-1980), the reconstruction > >based on using them from 1400-1980 is very close to the > >reconstruction based on omitting them from 1450-1980. Since the > >issues about the bristlecone response to climate are primarily about > >1850 onwards, especially 1900 onwards [KEITH -- PLEASE LET ME KNOW > >IF I AM NOT ACCURATE IN THIS], there is no reason to expect that > >their behavior during 1400-1449 is in any way anomalous to their > >behavior from 1450-1850. Thus, THERE IS NO REASON TO THINK THAT THE > >BRISTLECONES ARE SOMEHOW MAKING THE 1400-1449 SEGMENT OF THE MBH > >RECONSTRUCTION BE INAPPROPRIATELY SKEWED. > > > > > >****************************** END OF COPIED TEXT ******************* > > > >Peace, Gene > >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl > >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies > >Alfred University > > > >607-871-2604 > >1 Saxon Drive > >Alfred, NY 14802 > > > >________________________________ > > > >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] > >Sent: Fri 7/21/2006 4:51 AM > >To: Wahl, Eugene R > >Subject: RE: confidential > > > > > > > >Gene > >thanks a lot for this - I need to digest and I will come back to you. > > > >thanks again > >Keith > >-- >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 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/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\AR4SOR_BatchAB_Ch06-KRB-r-look.doc" 2411. 2006-07-27 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 23:36:50 -0400 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: confidential to: "Keith Briffa" Hi Keith: I have gone over the two responses. With the Barton House committee hearing today, I got to it only tonight, and want one more chance to look things over, which WILL be tomorrow morning, first thing. I hope the delays are OK, I've been assuming so, but please tell me if they are any problem. Mike did a good work today--I think he represented himself and the science of paleoclimatology well. Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 607-871-2604 1 Saxon Drive Alfred, NY 14802 5138. 2006-07-27 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:37:26 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Fwd: Additional papers to: Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa Hi Eystein and Keith - what do you think of this doc and Martin's email. Anything in this report, Keith, that needs to be cited? I agree w/ Martin's analysis. thanks, peck X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:31:15 -0600 To: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no, jto@u.arizona.edu From: Martin Manning Subject: Additional papers Cc: ssolomon@al.noaa.gov, ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov Dear Eystein and Peck Among the contributions to "additional papers" that met our final deadline of July 24th, we received a submission of the Wegman report. I imagine that you are aware of this report but am attaching a copy here just in case. We did not include this in the additional papers that we have sent you so far because, unlike the others, it has not been accepted by a scientific journal and there seem to be conflicting accounts as to whether it has been peer-reviewed or not. The Wegman report could be cited in the WG1-AR4 under IPCC rules but we would suggest that, in considering whether there is any merit in doing so, your primary consideration should be whether or not it includes additional scientific points or analyses that are not covered by literature that is already cited from the peer reviewed journals. We also received a copy of the recent NAS report on surface temperature reconstructions but, as we know you already have that, we did not forward another copy to you. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns and good luck with completing the final draft of your chapter. Regards Martin -- Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov ** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory Phone: +1 303 497 4479 325 Broadway, DSRC R/CSD8 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 Boulder, CO 80305, USA -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Wegman_etal.pdf" 1196. 2006-07-28 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:32:58 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Fwd: Additional In-Press Papers to: wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu Hi Chap 6 LA's - here is another batch of papers from the TSU to be considered using the guidelines provided below - we don't want to add citations just to make our ref list more complete. Thanks, Peck and Eystein X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:25:25 -0600 From: IPCC-WG1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Jonathan Overpeck , Eystein Jansen Subject: Additional In-Press Papers Dear CLAs Please find attached additional paper(s) that are relevant to your chapter and have been submitted in response to our most recent guidelines for consideration of papers published in 2006 following the expert and government review. A separate spreadsheet file is attached listing: the submitter, file name of the paper, its acceptance date, and the chapter and section which the submitter feels is relevant. As discussed in Bergen, please note the following: * inclusion of additional papers in the final draft should not open up any substantive issues that were not in the second draft and so not previously reviewed; * additional papers should only be used where in the view of the LAs doing so provides a more balanced coverage of scientific views; * we anticipate that a quick reading of the abstract of each paper will enable a decision consistent with this and we would not encourage any lengthy consideration by the LA team. One additional point to keep in mind is that this most recent adjustment of our publication deadlines should not be perceived by others as a device for allowing the LAs to reference more of their own papers. We trust that you and your team will be both objective and vigilant when deciding to include or reject papers in this respect. Best regards, WG1 TSU -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ IPCC WGI TSU NOAA Chemical Sciences Division 325 Broadway DSRC CSD08 Boulder, CO 80305, USA Phone: +1 303 497 7072 Fax: +1 303 497 5686/5628 Email: [1]ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Hegerl_etal.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\AddPubs_Ch06_24July06.xls" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Schneider_etal.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\SchneiderVonDemling_etal.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Thompson_etal.pdf" _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 1758. 2006-07-28 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:28:26 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: Fwd: Additional papers to: Eystein Jansen Makes sense to me. More soon, best, peck Hi, in my opinion, there is nothing new in the Wegman report. In addition it seems that it is not peer reviewed, in contrast to the NAS report. The views concerning centering and other technical issues are referred to in the litterature (M&M, von Storch, Wahl/Amman, Rutherford) hence I don´t think it is required for our work. Cheers, Eystein At 14:37 -0600 27-07-06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: Hi Eystein and Keith - what do you think of this doc and Martin's email. Anything in this report, Keith, that needs to be cited? I agree w/ Martin's analysis. thanks, peck X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:31:15 -0600 To: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no, jto@u.arizona.edu From: Martin Manning Subject: Additional papers Cc: ssolomon@al.noaa.gov, ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov Dear Eystein and Peck Among the contributions to "additional papers" that met our final deadline of July 24th, we received a submission of the Wegman report. I imagine that you are aware of this report but am attaching a copy here just in case. We did not include this in the additional papers that we have sent you so far because, unlike the others, it has not been accepted by a scientific journal and there seem to be conflicting accounts as to whether it has been peer-reviewed or not. The Wegman report could be cited in the WG1-AR4 under IPCC rules but we would suggest that, in considering whether there is any merit in doing so, your primary consideration should be whether or not it includes additional scientific points or analyses that are not covered by literature that is already cited from the peer reviewed journals. We also received a copy of the recent NAS report on surface temperature reconstructions but, as we know you already have that, we did not forward another copy to you. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns and good luck with completing the final draft of your chapter. Regards Martin -- Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov ** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory Phone: +1 303 497 4479 325 Broadway, DSRC R/CSD8 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 Boulder, CO 80305, USA -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Wegman_etal 1.pdf (PDF /«IC») (002C6F31) -- ______________________________________________________________ Eystein Jansen Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen Allégaten 55 N-5007 Bergen NORWAY e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 Fax: +47-55-584330 -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 1949. 2006-07-28 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Jul 28 12:13:35 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: RE: confidential to: "Wahl, Eugene R" Gene all fine with delay - do not rush too much as we have a week or so at least to finalise comments - cheers Keith At 04:36 28/07/2006, you wrote: Hi Keith: I have gone over the two responses. With the Barton House committee hearing today, I got to it only tonight, and want one more chance to look things over, which WILL be tomorrow morning, first thing. I hope the delays are OK, I've been assuming so, but please tell me if they are any problem. Mike did a good work today--I think he represented himself and the science of paleoclimatology well. Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 607-871-2604 1 Saxon Drive Alfred, NY 14802 -- 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/ 3999. 2006-07-28 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:29:28 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: Fwd: Additional papers to: Keith Briffa Thanks. We're in agreement. Best, Peck >we should not cite Wegman - the new tree bit does cite the NAS >report , but was not sure of official citation. cheers >Keith > >At 21:37 27/07/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>Hi Eystein and Keith - what do you think of this doc and Martin's >>email. Anything in this report, Keith, that needs to be cited? I >>agree w/ Martin's analysis. >> >>thanks, peck >> >>>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >>>Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:31:15 -0600 >>>To: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no, jto@u.arizona.edu >>>From: Martin Manning >>>Subject: Additional papers >>>Cc: ssolomon@al.noaa.gov, ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov >>>Dear Eystein and Peck >>> >>>Among the contributions to "additional papers" that met our final >>>deadline of July 24th, we received a submission of the Wegman >>>report. I imagine that you are aware of this report but am >>>attaching a copy here just in case. >>> >>>We did not include this in the additional papers that we have sent >>>you so far because, unlike the others, it has not been accepted by >>>a scientific journal and there seem to be conflicting accounts as >>>to whether it has been peer-reviewed or not. The Wegman report >>>could be cited in the WG1-AR4 under IPCC rules but we would >>>suggest that, in considering whether there is any merit in doing >>>so, your primary consideration should be whether or not it >>>includes additional scientific points or analyses that are not >>>covered by literature that is already cited from the peer reviewed >>>journals. >>> >>>We also received a copy of the recent NAS report on surface >>>temperature reconstructions but, as we know you already have that, >>>we did not forward another copy to you. >>> >>>Let me know if you have any questions or concerns and good luck >>>with completing the final draft of your chapter. >>> >>>Regards >>>Martin >>>-- >>>Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov >>>** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address >>>Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit >>>NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory Phone: +1 303 497 4479 >>>325 Broadway, DSRC R/CSD8 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 >>>Boulder, CO 80305, USA >>> >> >> >> >>-- >>Jonathan T. Overpeck >>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>Professor, Department of Geosciences >>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >> >>Mail and Fedex Address: >> >>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>University of Arizona >>Tucson, AZ 85721 >>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ > >-- >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/ -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 4512. 2006-07-28 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:21:03 +0100 from: "Mitchell, John FB \(Chief Scientist\)" subject: RE: IPCC to: "Keith Briffa" If you could it would be useful Thanks John Professor John Mitchell OBE FRS Chief Scientist, Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel. +44(0)1392884604 Fax:+44 (0) 870 9005050 E-mail: john.f.mitchell@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk -----Original Message----- From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 28 July 2006 12:16 To: Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist) Subject: Re: IPCC sent what I had to Eystein earlier in week - do you wish to see mine separately? Not may left and nothing of "significance" cheers Keith Keith At 11:43 28/07/2006, you wrote: >Hi Keith > >How are the revisions going to chapter 6? > >John -- 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/ 4782. 2006-07-28 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Jul 28 12:10:55 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Fwd: Additional papers to: Jonathan Overpeck , Eystein Jansen we should not cite Wegman - the new tree bit does cite the NAS report , but was not sure of official citation. cheers Keith At 21:37 27/07/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: Hi Eystein and Keith - what do you think of this doc and Martin's email. Anything in this report, Keith, that needs to be cited? I agree w/ Martin's analysis. thanks, peck X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:31:15 -0600 To: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no, jto@u.arizona.edu From: Martin Manning Subject: Additional papers Cc: ssolomon@al.noaa.gov, ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov Dear Eystein and Peck Among the contributions to "additional papers" that met our final deadline of July 24th, we received a submission of the Wegman report. I imagine that you are aware of this report but am attaching a copy here just in case. We did not include this in the additional papers that we have sent you so far because, unlike the others, it has not been accepted by a scientific journal and there seem to be conflicting accounts as to whether it has been peer-reviewed or not. The Wegman report could be cited in the WG1-AR4 under IPCC rules but we would suggest that, in considering whether there is any merit in doing so, your primary consideration should be whether or not it includes additional scientific points or analyses that are not covered by literature that is already cited from the peer reviewed journals. We also received a copy of the recent NAS report on surface temperature reconstructions but, as we know you already have that, we did not forward another copy to you. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns and good luck with completing the final draft of your chapter. Regards Martin -- Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov ** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory Phone: +1 303 497 4479 325 Broadway, DSRC R/CSD8 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 Boulder, CO 80305, USA -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 [1]http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ [2]http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 3554. 2006-07-30 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Keith Briffa" , "Ricardo Villalba" , ValÈrie Masson-Delmotte , , "Eystein Jansen" , "Jonathan Overpeck" date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:44:57 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: Thompson et al, 2006 paper to include to: "Olga Solomina" Hi Olga - it is not too late to ask these good questions. Glaciers can, of course, be affected by both temp and precip changes, so the question is really for Valerie (land) and Eystein (ocean) - are the land and ocean data from the tropics strong enough to outweigh what the glaciers are saying about tropical temps earlier in the Holocene? Lonnie's Figure 8 (see attached) presents Hauscaran and Kilimanjaro data that suggest early to mid warmth in tropical South America and Africa that is (if the O-isotopes are temp) greater than today. Personally, I'm quite unsure that these are reliable temperature records, BUT if we want to make that case, we have to be convincing. What do terrestrial and ocean temp data say? Thanks Olga for sending the proposed revised text - I think Eystein is putting finishing touches on the next draft for LA etc. review. Best, Peck ¤ Hello everybody, I attach here a version of glacier box and suggestions (in red) how to include there the reference to the new Thompson et al., 2006 paper. In this relation - I am getting more and more concern about our statement that the Early Holocene was cool in the tropics - this paper shows that it was, actually, warm - ice core evidences+glaciers were smaller than now in the tropical Andes. The glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere (Porter, 2000, review paper) were also smaller than at least in the Neoglacial. We do not cite Porter's paper for the reason that we actually do not know how to explain this - orbital reason does not work for the SH, but if we do cite it (which is fair) we have to say that during the Early to Mid Holocene glaciers were smaller than later in both Northen, and Southern Hemisphere, including the tropics, which would contradict to our statement in the Holocene chapter and the bullet. It is probably too late to rise these questions, but still just to draw your attention. I am going to Kamchatka tomorrow, but will be avaliable by e-mail from time to time. All the best, olga ----- Original Message ----- From: [1]Jonathan Overpeck To: [2]Olga Solomina Cc: [3]Eystein Jansen ; [4]oyvind.paasche@bjerknes.uib.no Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 3:42 AM Subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Fwd: Additional In-Press Papers Hi Olga - I agree, and hope that you and òyvind make sure you include it in the next round of edits, which will begin very soon. We have all of the new text and Eystein is assembling for authors to check. This same new draft will be the one that Eystein and I work on to achieve more consistency and the proper length. Although we've cut some text already, some received has grown too. So... think about a way to include the reference to Lonnie's work without lengthening if you can. OK? Many thanks, Peck Hi Peck, Lonnie's paper is a very good one and suitable for the glacier box. If it is still possible I would add this reference. olga ----- Original Message ----- From: [5]Jonathan Overpeck To: [6]wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 6:32 PM Subject: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Fwd: Additional In-Press Papers Hi Chap 6 LA's - here is another batch of papers from the TSU to be considered using the guidelines provided below - we don't want to add citations just to make our ref list more complete. Thanks, Peck and Eystein X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:25:25 -0600 From: IPCC-WG1 <[7]ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov> X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Jonathan Overpeck , Eystein Jansen Subject: Additional In-Press Papers Dear CLAs Please find attached additional paper(s) that are relevant to your chapter and have been submitted in response to our most recent guidelines for consideration of papers published in 2006 following the expert and government review. A separate spreadsheet file is attached listing: the submitter, file name of the paper, its acceptance date, and the chapter and section which the submitter feels is relevant. As discussed in Bergen, please note the following: * inclusion of additional papers in the final draft should not open up any substantive issues that were not in the second draft and so not previously reviewed; * additional papers should only be used where in the view of the LAs doing so provides a more balanced coverage of scientific views; * we anticipate that a quick reading of the abstract of each paper will enable a decision consistent with this and we would not encourage any lengthy consideration by the LA team. One additional point to keep in mind is that this most recent adjustment of our publication deadlines should not be perceived by others as a device for allowing the LAs to reference more of their own papers. We trust that you and your team will be both objective and vigilant when deciding to include or reject papers in this respect. Best regards, WG1 TSU -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ IPCC WGI TSU NOAA Chemical Sciences Division 325 Broadway DSRC CSD08 Boulder, CO 80305, USA Phone: +1 303 497 7072 Fax: +1 303 497 5686/5628 Email: [8]ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Glaciers 30 july so.doc (WDBN/«IC») (00148B9A) -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Thompson_etalPNAS2006Abrupt.pdf" 30. 2006-07-31 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:41:02 -0400 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: confidential to: "Keith Briffa" Hi Keith: I appreciate that you never intended me to spend so much time. Thanks for the thought. Really, the responsibility is essentially mine for this, as I've wanted to be as sure as I can that what I say is appropriate, given the heavy scrutiny all these issues get. Its quite possible I get over-concerned, but given the way things are, its not an easy thing to gauge. I want to be really precise, but not overly technical. So no worries. Please find attached my final thoughts on the the responses to the comments. The sections that I've gone over carefully are highlighted in blue, with the most important changes from the last versions in blue/bold font. No meaning has been altered. Feel free to use them as is now. NB, I didn't intend the portion on "divergence" as a potential response, but as my thoughts just to you on the issue. I'll get to the text you sent later tonight. Thanks a lot for letting me see it. Best in everything!! Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 607-871-2604 1 Saxon Drive Alfred, NY 14802 ________________________________ From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Mon 7/31/2006 10:29 AM To: Wahl, Eugene R Subject: RE: confidential First Gene - let me say that I never intended that you should spend so much time on this - though I really appreciate your take on these points. The one you highlight here - correctly warns me that in succumbing to the temptation to be lazy in the sense of the brief answer that I have provided - I do give an implied endorsement of the sense of the whole comment. This is not, of course what I intended. I simply meant to agree that some reference to the "divergence" issue was necessitated . I will revise the reply to say briefly that I do not agree with the interpretation of the reviewer. I am attaching what I have done (see blue highlighting) to the section in response to comments (including the addition of the needed extra section on the "tree-ring issues" called for by several people). I have had no feedback yet on this as it has not been generally circulated , but thought you might like to see it. PLEASE REMEMBER that this is "for your eyes only " . Please do NOT feel that I am asking /expecting you to go through this in any detail - but given the trouble you have taken,I thought it reasonable to give you a private look. Cheers Keith At 07:16 27/07/2006, you wrote: >Hi Keith: > >Here is the text with my comments. I will go over the "stolen" >parts (highlighted in blue outline) for a final time tomorrow >morning, but I wanted to get this to you ASAP. The main new point I >have to make is added in bold/blue font on pp. 101-103. I question >the way the response to the comment there is currently worded, as it >seems to imply that the divergence issue really does invalidate any >dendro-based reconstructions before about 1850--which I imagine is >not what you would like to say. I give a series of arguments >against this as a general conclusion. Maybe I got over-bold in >doing so, as in my point (1) I'm examining issues that are at the >very core of your expertise! Excuse me that one, but I decided to >jump in anyway. Let me know if I got it wrong in any way! > >There are other quite minor suggestions (mostly focused on >referencing other responses in a few places) that are also in >bold/blue. These go on into the "120's" in terms of page numbers. > >This is really a lot of work you've taken on, and I REALLY >appreciate what you and the others are doing! > >[I've also been a lot involved with helping to get a person from the >Pew Center for Global Climate Change ready to testify in front of >the House Energy and Environment Committee tomorrow. That is why I >couldn't get this done and sent to you earlier today. Send Mike >Mann and Jay Gulledge (Pew Center) all good thoughts for strength and clarity.] > > >NB -- "r" towards the end of the filename stands for my middle initial. > > >Peace, Gene >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies >Alfred University > >607-871-2604 >1 Saxon Drive >Alfred, NY 14802 > >________________________________ > >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Mon 7/24/2006 3:16 PM >To: Wahl, Eugene R >Subject: RE: confidential > > > > > >Gene >here is where I am up to now with my responses (still a load to do) - >you can see that I have "borrowed (stolen)" from 2 of your responses >in a significant degree - please assure me that this OK (and will not >later be obvious) hopefully. >You will get the whole text(confidentially again ) soon. You could >also see that I hope to be fair to Mike - but he can be a little >unbalanced in his remarks sometime - and I have had to disagree with >his interpretations of some issues also. > >Please do not pass these on to anyone at all. >Keith > > > >Will pass all comments to you before they are fixed in stone- nothing >from review article will be mentioned. >Really grateful to you - thanks >Keith > >At 05:08 22/07/2006, you wrote: > >Hi Keith: > > > >Glad to help. (!) > > > >If I could get a chance to look over the sections of my text you > >would post to the comments before you do, I would appreciate it. If > >this is a burden/problem let me know and we'll work it out. > > > >If it is anything from the Wahl-Ammann paper, of course that is fine > >to use at once since it is publicly available. There will only be > >exceedingly minor/few changes in the galleys, including a footnote > >pointing to the extended RE benchmarking analysis contained in the > >Ammann-Wahl review article. > > > >What I am concerned about for the time being is that nothing in the > >review article shows up anywhere. It is just going in, and > >confidentiality is important. The only exception to this are the > >points I make in my blue comments in the big review file on page > >104, concerning the MM way of benchmarking the RE statistic. Those > >comments are fine to repeat at this point. [Please excuse my > >hesitance in this way.] > > > >Actually, all the other blue comments I made in the big review file > >are also fine to use at once. > > > > > >Again, if this request is in any way a problem, let me know and > >we'll figure out something. > > > > > >Peace, Gene > >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl > >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies > >Alfred University > > > >________________________________ > > > >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] > >Sent: Fri 7/21/2006 2:00 PM > >To: Wahl, Eugene R > >Subject: RE: confidential > > > >Gene > >your comments have been really useful and reassuring that I am not > >doing MM a disservice. I will use some sections of your text in my > >comments that will be eventually archived so hope this is ok with > >you. I will keep the section in the chapter very brief - but will > >cite all the papers to avoid claims of bias. I really would like to > >discuss the whole issue of the reconstruction differences at a later > >, less stressful time. I completely accept the arguments about the > >limitation in the r2 and the value of capturing longer-term variance > >. I think I will have to stop now as the temp and humidity are killing here. > > > >Thanks a lot again > > > >Keith > > > >At 18:39 21/07/2006, you wrote: > > >Hi Keith: > > > > > >I'm sorry that there is a bit to digest...although I know it is just > > >a result of the nature of things. > > > > > >By the way, copied below is a synopsis that I sent this morning to a > > >person in DC who is working on all this with regard to the House of > > >Representative hearings. Evidently, there is to be at least one > > >more hearing next week, and Mike Mann will go. The person I sent > > >this to is trying to understand the importance of the proxy PC > > >issues --especially how, no matter what way the PC extraction is > > >done, the reconstructions converge if the structures actually > > >present in the data are not tossed out by truncating the number > > >retained PCs at a too low level. What I've copied is this > > >synopsis. I think it is straightforward -- maybe a bit dense, but > > >at least brief. > > > > > >Also, let me know if I can help on the issue of RE vs r^2. I could > > >write a few brief sentences as something for you to look at if you > > >would like. Wahl-Ammann show very clearly that there is objectively > > >demonstrated skill at the low-frequency level of the verification > > >period mean for all the MBH segments, although the earlier MBH > > >segments do have really low r^2 values (indicating very little skill > > >at the interannual level). Our argument that to throw out the > > >reconstruction completely based on the fastest varying frequency, > > >when it has objectively demonstrable meaning at lower frequencies, > > >is to me quite reasonable. That it is some how entirely ad hoc, as > > >McIntyre claims in one (more?) of his comments, is neither logical > > >nor factual in my perspective. The idea of frequency dependent > > >skill/non-skill is not new to the literature, and the independent > > >re-reviewer that Steve Schneider had look over Wahl-Ammann said s/he > > >had experienced this issue in his/her work. G. > > > > > > > > >****************************** COPIED TEXT ****************************** > > > > > >What it boils down to in the end is as follows: > > > > > >1) The different reference periods used to calculate proxy PCs from > > >N. America (calibration only for MBH, full period for MM) only have > > >the effect of re-arranging how the hockey stick shape appears across > > >the rank ordering of PCs. In MBH it is concentrated in PC1. In the > > >full-period method, it is spread over PCs 1 and 2. If one adds PCs > > >1 and 2 (either arithmetically or as vectors) from either > > >convention, you get an essentially IDENTICAL time series, only the > > >amplitudes are a bit different. [Note that the input data were > > >centered AND standardized before being put into the PC calculation > > >algorithm. This is important, as shown below.] > > > WHEN ACTUALLY USED IN THE RECONSTRUCTION, THE DIFFERENCE > > > IS MINISCULE -- MBH is colder over 1400-1449 by 0.05 degrees! > > > > > >2) IF the data are centered but NOT standardized and are input into > > >in a PCA algorithm using the variance-covariance matrix and not the > > >correlation matrix (the way MM did it), then the hockey stick shape > > >shows up in PC4. MM in fact reported this first in their 2005 > > >Energy and Environment article. In effect, the first two PCs are > > >ARE ACTING TO DO THE STANDARDIZING OF THE DATA not done as a > > >pre-processing step. [When the correlation matrix is used instead > > >in the PCA algorithm, then the standardization is in effect done by > > >the algorithm, because all the correlations are "standardized" by > > >construction--they all range between 0 and 1.] > > > When 4 PCs from this calculation method are used rather > > > than 2 PCs calculated as above, then the RECONSTRUCTION CONVERGES > > > TO THE SAME AS ABOVE. > > > > > >3) Thus, all the different "flavors" for PC extraction have > > >essentially no effect on reconstruction when one does the exercise > > >of adding PCs sequentially from 2 to 5 for any flavor. In the case > > >of (1), the reconstructions converge by the second PC. In the case > > >of (2), they converge by PC4. They don't change with higher order > > PCs added. > > > THIS SHOULD BE EXPECTED FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES. That is, > > > the same underlying information is there in all cases, it is only > > > how the structures present in these data are spread across the rank > > > order of PCs, as explained. The simple exercise of taking the > > > reconstructions to convergence across the number of PCs used shows > > > this clearly. > > > > > >4) In fact, MM essentially say all this in the 2005 EE > > >article--INCLUDING ABOUT THE RECONSTRUCTION RESULTS -- but they > > >strongly claim that the movement of the hockey stick shape to the > > >4th PC shows it is not a leading pattern of variance as MBH claim, > > >and thus should not be used. This might be logical if their > > >analysis was an apples-apples comparison, but it is not, due to the > > >PCA method they use and applying it on NON-standardized data. > > > THESE TWO DIFFERENCES (which one can only fully get > > > from their actual code, not in the articles published) DRIVE THEIR > > > ENTIRE ARGUMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. What they do not say is > > > that convergence to something like the MBH result is expectable, > > > and indeed MUST happen given the data used, because the hockey > > > stick shape is actually IN the data, it is NOT an artifact of PC > > > calculation procedure. > > > > > > > > >5) FINALLY, note that all of this rests on the foundation that > > >keeping the bristlecone pine records in the data is appropriate, > > >which Caspar and I find can be reasonable presumption. If one > > >believes that the bristlecone data should be removed, then the > > >1400-1449 reconstruction does not pass verification testing with the > > >RE statistic, and the MBH reconstruction should commence from 1450 on out. > > > > > >Although there are a number of reasons to keep the bristlecone data > > >in, maybe the most compelling reason they are a NON-ISSUE is that, > > >over the common period of overlap (1450-1980), the reconstruction > > >based on using them from 1400-1980 is very close to the > > >reconstruction based on omitting them from 1450-1980. Since the > > >issues about the bristlecone response to climate are primarily about > > >1850 onwards, especially 1900 onwards [KEITH -- PLEASE LET ME KNOW > > >IF I AM NOT ACCURATE IN THIS], there is no reason to expect that > > >their behavior during 1400-1449 is in any way anomalous to their > > >behavior from 1450-1850. Thus, THERE IS NO REASON TO THINK THAT THE > > >BRISTLECONES ARE SOMEHOW MAKING THE 1400-1449 SEGMENT OF THE MBH > > >RECONSTRUCTION BE INAPPROPRIATELY SKEWED. > > > > > > > > >****************************** END OF COPIED TEXT ******************* > > > > > >Peace, Gene > > >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl > > >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies > > >Alfred University > > > > > >607-871-2604 > > >1 Saxon Drive > > >Alfred, NY 14802 > > > > > >________________________________ > > > > > >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] > > >Sent: Fri 7/21/2006 4:51 AM > > >To: Wahl, Eugene R > > >Subject: RE: confidential > > > > > > > > > > > >Gene > > >thanks a lot for this - I need to digest and I will come back to you. > > > > > >thanks again > > >Keith > > > >-- > >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 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 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/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\AR4SOR_BatchAB_Ch06-KRB-r-look1.doc" 289. 2006-07-31 ______________________________________________________ cc: Olga Solomina , Keith Briffa , Ricardo Villalba , ValÈrie Masson-Delmotte , Oyvind.Paasche@bjerknes.uib.no, Eystein Jansen date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:42:03 +0200 from: Valérie Masson-Delmotte subject: Re: Thompson et al, 2006 paper to include to: Jonathan Overpeck Thanks Olga. It seems to me that there is still a large uncertainty about the temperature versus precipitation effect on these tropical glaciers. Other indications from south America are related to lake levels with contrasted views in the low versus highlands. Several references suggest that there is the end of a wet period after the early Holocene in tropical south America ; this is expected to induce an increase of 18O signals. One review was conducted several years ago within the PEPI project (http://wwwpaztcn.wr.usgs.gov/pcaw/ and references herein). I think that the state of the art is that we have no reliable proxy record that is sensivite to temperature only on the tropical lands for the Holocene; therefore the statement that was written for the Holocene was based on areas of the tropical oceans where SST reconstructions were published. Do we have to write more explicitely about the uncertainty? Valérie. Jonathan Overpeck a écrit : > Hi Olga - it is not too late to ask these good questions. Glaciers > can, of course, be affected by both temp and precip changes, so the > question is really for Valerie (land) and Eystein (ocean) - are the > land and ocean data from the tropics strong enough to outweigh what > the glaciers are saying about tropical temps earlier in the Holocene? > Lonnie's Figure 8 (see attached) presents Hauscaran and Kilimanjaro > data that suggest early to mid warmth in tropical South America and > Africa that is (if the O-isotopes are temp) greater than today. > Personally, I'm quite unsure that these are reliable temperature > records, BUT if we want to make that case, we have to be convincing. > What do terrestrial and ocean temp data say? > > Thanks Olga for sending the proposed revised text - I think Eystein is > putting finishing touches on the next draft for LA etc. review. > > Best, Peck > > >> ¤ >> Hello everybody, >> >> I attach here a version of glacier box and suggestions (in red) how >> to include there the reference to the new Thompson et al., 2006 paper. >> >> In this relation - I am getting more and more concern about our >> statement that the Early Holocene was cool in the tropics - this >> paper shows that it was, actually, warm - ice core evidences+glaciers >> were smaller than now in the tropical Andes. The glaciers in the >> Southern Hemisphere (Porter, 2000, review paper) were also smaller >> than at least in the Neoglacial. We do not cite Porter's paper for >> the reason that we actually do not know how to explain this - orbital >> reason does not work for the SH, but if we do cite it (which is fair) >> we have to say that during the Early to Mid Holocene glaciers were >> smaller than later in both Northen, and Southern Hemisphere, >> including the tropics, which would contradict to our statement in the >> Holocene chapter and the bullet. It is probably too late to rise >> these questions, but still just to draw your attention. >> >> I am going to Kamchatka tomorrow, but will be avaliable by e-mail >> from time to time. >> >> All the best, >> olga >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> *From:* Jonathan Overpeck >> >> *To:* Olga Solomina >> >> *Cc:* Eystein Jansen ; >> oyvind.paasche@bjerknes.uib.no >> >> >> *Sent:* Sunday, July 30, 2006 3:42 AM >> >> *Subject:* Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Fwd: Additional In-Press Papers >> >> >> Hi Olga - I agree, and hope that you and òyvind make sure you >> include it in the next round of edits, which will begin very >> soon. We have all of the new text and Eystein is assembling for >> authors to check. This same new draft will be the one that >> Eystein and I work on to achieve more consistency and the proper >> length. Although we've cut some text already, some received has >> grown too. So... think about a way to include the reference to >> Lonnie's work without lengthening if you can. >> >> >> OK? Many thanks, Peck >> >> >>> Hi Peck, >> >> >> >> Lonnie's paper is a very good one and suitable for the >> glacier box. If it is still possible I would add this reference. >> >> >> >> olga >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> *From:* Jonathan Overpeck >> >> *To:* wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu >> >> >> *Sent:* Friday, July 28, 2006 6:32 PM >> >> *Subject:* [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Fwd: Additional In-Press Papers >> >> >> Hi Chap 6 LA's - here is another batch of papers from the >> TSU to be considered using the guidelines provided below >> - we don't want to add citations just to make our ref >> list more complete. >> >> Thanks, Peck and Eystein >> >> >>> X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >>> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:25:25 -0600 >>> From: IPCC-WG1 >> > >>> X-Accept-Language: en-us, en >> >> To: Jonathan Overpeck , >> Eystein Jansen >> Subject: Additional In-Press Papers >> >> Dear CLAs >> >> Please find attached additional paper(s) that are >> relevant to your chapter and have been submitted in >> response to our most recent guidelines for >> consideration of papers published in 2006 following >> the expert and government review. A separate >> spreadsheet file is attached listing: the submitter, >> file name of the paper, its acceptance date, and the >> chapter and section which the submitter feels is >> relevant. >> >> As discussed in Bergen, please note the following: >> * inclusion of additional papers in the final draft >> should not open up any substantive issues that were >> not in the second draft and so not previously reviewed; >> * additional papers should only be used where in the >> view of the LAs doing so provides a more balanced >> coverage of scientific views; >> * we anticipate that a quick reading of the abstract >> of each paper will enable a decision consistent with >> this and we would not encourage any lengthy >> consideration by the LA team. >> >> One additional point to keep in mind is that this >> most recent adjustment of our publication deadlines >> should not be perceived by others as a device for >> allowing the LAs to reference more of their own >> papers. We trust that you and your team will be both >> objective and vigilant when deciding to include or >> reject papers in this respect. >> >> Best regards, >> WG1 TSU >> >> -- >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> IPCC WGI TSU >> NOAA Chemical Sciences Division >> 325 Broadway DSRC CSD08 >> Boulder, CO 80305, USA >> Phone: +1 303 497 7072 >> Fax: +1 303 497 5686/5628 >> Email: ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jonathan T. Overpeck >> Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >> Professor, Department of Geosciences >> Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >> >> Mail and Fedex Address: >> >> Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >> 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >> University of Arizona >> Tucson, AZ 85721 >> direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >> fax: +1 520 792-8795 >> http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >> http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list >> Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu >> http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jonathan T. Overpeck >> Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >> Professor, Department of Geosciences >> Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >> >> Mail and Fedex Address: >> >> Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >> 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >> University of Arizona >> Tucson, AZ 85721 >> direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >> fax: +1 520 792-8795 >> http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >> http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >> >> >> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Glaciers 30 july so.doc >> (WDBN/«IC») (00148B9A) > > > -- > > Jonathan T. Overpeck > Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth > Professor, Department of Geosciences > Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences > > Mail and Fedex Address: > > Institute for the Study of Planet Earth > 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor > University of Arizona > Tucson, AZ 85721 > direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 > fax: +1 520 792-8795 > http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ > http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 436. 2006-07-31 ______________________________________________________ cc: Raimund Muscheler date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:12:02 +0200 from: Ian Snowball subject: Re: Holocene Forum article enquiry to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, J.A.Matthews@swansea.ac.uk, frank@maryoldfield.wanadoo.co.uk Dear John, Keith and Frank. I'll wait until I hear from John Matthews (or who ever has the power to make a decision) before I send any additional information, other than what follows below. Otherwise we will have started an E-mail circus that can get out of hand! I'm happy to send the second set of Geology reviews to the person who handles the review process. But, I must point out that Raimund Muscheler and I agree with 90% of the positive and negative comments made by the reviewers. Our second Geology submission compared a Phi reconstruction based on one relative palaeointensity curve to (i) our reconstruction based on the archaeomagnetic data set and (ii) the group sunspot number reconstruction by Solanki et al. (which also used the archaeomagnetic data set). Usoskin et al. (GRL) then published something that was similar to the revision we were working on, in which we use a geomagnetic field model to obtain another reconstruction (except that Usoskin et al. didn't properly consider the errors in geomagnetic field data and the model is not as good as most people are led to believe. That is another story). What we offer is a review of the long term solar activity reconstructions. We will objectively point out their differences and similarities and, most importantly, what features can't be explained by errors. It is VERY important to understand that any chronological offsets in geomagnetic field data and the 14C data will produce false changes in solar activity. This problem really hasn't been mentioned along with any of the published reconstructions! regards, Ian. At 11:10 AM 7/31/2006, Keith Briffa wrote: >Do not wish to jump the gun - but the subject is an important one and I >for one consider it to be just the sort subject we should be soliciting >papers on - I would be happy to handle the review process - which would >benefit from seeing the other reviews in detail if the authors are >prepared to show them. Then additional reviewers could be found to >supplement them. I can think of other review articles we could solicit >also - but this can wait >best wishes >Keith > >At 08:37 30/07/2006, Ian Snowball wrote: >>Dear John, >> >>I attach a letter in pdf format. The letter explains why Raimund >>Muscheler and I would like to write a Holocene Forum article about >>geomagnetic field uncertainties and their influence on solar activity >>reconstructions. >> >>I've "cc'd" this E-mail to Frank Oldfield and Keith Briffa. >> >>With best wishes, >> >>Ian. >> >>Ian Snowball (Docent/Associate Professor) >>GeoBiosphere Science Centre >>Department of Geology - Quaternary Sciences >>Lund University >>Sölvegatan 12 >>SE-223 62 Lund >>Sweden >>Tel. +46 (0) 46 222 3952 >>Fax. +46 (0) 46 222 4830 >>Mob. +46 (0) 70 676 3915 >> >> >> > >-- >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/ 635. 2006-07-31 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:09:01 +0100 from: "Quaternary Science Reviews" subject: Reviewer Invitation for JQSR-D-06-00143 to: Ms. Ref. No.: JQSR-D-06-00143 Title: On the 'Divergence Problem' in Northern Forests: A Review of the Tree-Ring Evidence and Possible Causes Quaternary Science Reviews Dear Prof Keith Briffa, You are invited to review the above-mentioned manuscript that has been submitted for publication in Quaternary Science Reviews. The abstract is attached below. Are you available to provide the review? PLEASE DO NOT USE YOUR E-MAIL "REPLY" OPTION TO RESPOND TO THIS INVITATION. Instead, please respond online at http://ees.elsevier.com/jqsr/. You will need to login as a Reviewer: Your username is: KBriffa-255 Your password is: briffa5873 Please select the "New Invitations" link on your Main Menu, then choose to "Accept" or "Decline" this invitation, as appropriate. If you accept this invitation, I would be very grateful if you would return your review by Sep 11, 2006. You may submit your comments online at the above URL. There you will find spaces for confidential comments to the editor, comments for the author and a report form to be completed. To assist you in the reviewing process, I am delighted to offer you full access to Scopus* for 30 days. With Scopus you can search for related articles, references and papers by the same author. You may also use Scopus for your own purposes at any time during the 30-day period. If you already use Scopus at your institute, having this 30 day full access means that you will also be able to access Scopus from home. Access instructions will follow once you have accepted this invitation to review *Scopus is the world's largest abstract and citation database of research information and quality internet sources. With kind regards, Claude Hillaire-Marcel Editor Quaternary Science Reviews ABSTRACT: An anomalous reduction in forest growth and temperature sensitivity has been detected in tree-ring width and density records from many circumpolar northern latitude sites since around the middle 20th century. This phenomenon, also known as the "divergence problem", is expressed as an offset between warmer instrumental temperatures and their underestimation in reconstruction models based on tree rings. The divergence problem has significant implications for large-scale patterns of forest growth, the global carbon cycle, and the development of paleoclimatic reconstructions based on tree-ring records from northern forests. Herein we review the current literature that has been published on the divergence problem to date, and assess its possible causes and implications. The causes, however, are not well understood and are difficult to test due to the existence of a number of covarying environmental factors that may potentially impact recent tree growth. These possible causes include temperature-induced drought stress, nonlinear thresholds or time-dependent responses to recent warming, delayed snowmelt and related changes in seasonality, and differential growth response to maximum, minimum and mean temperatures. Another possible cause of the divergence that is proposed herein is 'global dimming', a phenomenon that has appeared, in recent decades, to decrease the amount of solar radiation available for photosynthesis and plant growth on a large scale. Increased dimming is due to globally increasing concentrations of air pollution that reduce the transparency of the atmosphere and affect cloud properties. It is theorized that the dimming phenomenon should have a relatively greater impact on tree growth at higher northern latitudes, which is consistent with what has been observed from the tree-ring record. Additional potential causes include "end effect" problems that can emerge in standardization and chronology development, and biases in instrumental target data and its modeling. Although limited evidence suggests that the divergence is anthropogenic in nature and restricted to the recent decades of the 20th century, more research is needed to confirm these observations. ****************************************** For any technical queries about using EES, please contact Elsevier Reviewer Support at reviewersupport@elsevier.com 919. 2006-07-31 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:43:10 +0400 from: "Olga Solomina" subject: Re: Thompson et al, 2006 paper to include to: "Jonathan Overpeck" , "Keith Briffa" , "Ricardo Villalba" , , "Eystein Jansen" , Valйrie Masson-Delmotte  Dear Valerie, Eysten and Peck, Many thanks for your comments. It looks like what we have now is the best that we can get. Sorry for the panic! I am leaving to Kamchatka in a few hours - will be quiet for a while. Regards, olga ----- Original Message ----- From: [1]Jonathan Overpeck To: [2]Olga Solomina Cc: [3]Keith Briffa ; [4]Ricardo Villalba ; [5]ValIrie Masson-Delmotte ; [6]Oyvind.Paasche@bjerknes.uib.no ; [7]Eystein Jansen ; [8]Jonathan Overpeck Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 3:44 AM Subject: Re: Thompson et al, 2006 paper to include Hi Olga - it is not too late to ask these good questions. Glaciers can, of course, be affected by both temp and precip changes, so the question is really for Valerie (land) and Eystein (ocean) - are the land and ocean data from the tropics strong enough to outweigh what the glaciers are saying about tropical temps earlier in the Holocene? Lonnie's Figure 8 (see attached) presents Hauscaran and Kilimanjaro data that suggest early to mid warmth in tropical South America and Africa that is (if the O-isotopes are temp) greater than today. Personally, I'm quite unsure that these are reliable temperature records, BUT if we want to make that case, we have to be convincing. What do terrestrial and ocean temp data say? Thanks Olga for sending the proposed revised text - I think Eystein is putting finishing touches on the next draft for LA etc. review. Best, Peck ¤ Hello everybody, I attach here a version of glacier box and suggestions (in red) how to include there the reference to the new Thompson et al., 2006 paper. In this relation - I am getting more and more concern about our statement that the Early Holocene was cool in the tropics - this paper shows that it was, actually, warm - ice core evidences+glaciers were smaller than now in the tropical Andes. The glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere (Porter, 2000, review paper) were also smaller than at least in the Neoglacial. We do not cite Porter's paper for the reason that we actually do not know how to explain this - orbital reason does not work for the SH, but if we do cite it (which is fair) we have to say that during the Early to Mid Holocene glaciers were smaller than later in both Northen, and Southern Hemisphere, including the tropics, which would contradict to our statement in the Holocene chapter and the bullet. It is probably too late to rise these questions, but still just to draw your attention. I am going to Kamchatka tomorrow, but will be avaliable by e-mail from time to time. All the best, olga ----- Original Message ----- From: [9]Jonathan Overpeck To: [10]Olga Solomina Cc: [11]Eystein Jansen ; [12]oyvind.paasche@bjerknes.uib.no Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 3:42 AM Subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Fwd: Additional In-Press Papers Hi Olga - I agree, and hope that you and tyvind make sure you include it in the next round of edits, which will begin very soon. We have all of the new text and Eystein is assembling for authors to check. This same new draft will be the one that Eystein and I work on to achieve more consistency and the proper length. Although we've cut some text already, some received has grown too. So... think about a way to include the reference to Lonnie's work without lengthening if you can. OK? Many thanks, Peck Hi Peck, Lonnie's paper is a very good one and suitable for the glacier box. If it is still possible I would add this reference. olga ----- Original Message ----- From: [13]Jonathan Overpeck To: [14]wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 6:32 PM Subject: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Fwd: Additional In-Press Papers Hi Chap 6 LA's - here is another batch of papers from the TSU to be considered using the guidelines provided below - we don't want to add citations just to make our ref list more complete. Thanks, Peck and Eystein X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:25:25 -0600 From: IPCC-WG1 <[15]ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov> X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Jonathan Overpeck , Eystein Jansen Subject: Additional In-Press Papers Dear CLAs Please find attached additional paper(s) that are relevant to your chapter and have been submitted in response to our most recent guidelines for consideration of papers published in 2006 following the expert and government review. A separate spreadsheet file is attached listing: the submitter, file name of the paper, its acceptance date, and the chapter and section which the submitter feels is relevant. As discussed in Bergen, please note the following: * inclusion of additional papers in the final draft should not open up any substantive issues that were not in the second draft and so not previously reviewed; * additional papers should only be used where in the view of the LAs doing so provides a more balanced coverage of scientific views; * we anticipate that a quick reading of the abstract of each paper will enable a decision consistent with this and we would not encourage any lengthy consideration by the LA team. One additional point to keep in mind is that this most recent adjustment of our publication deadlines should not be perceived by others as a device for allowing the LAs to reference more of their own papers. We trust that you and your team will be both objective and vigilant when deciding to include or reject papers in this respect. Best regards, WG1 TSU -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ IPCC WGI TSU NOAA Chemical Sciences Division 325 Broadway DSRC CSD08 Boulder, CO 80305, USA Phone: +1 303 497 7072 Fax: +1 303 497 5686/5628 Email: [16]ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Glaciers 30 july so.doc (WDBN/«IC») (00148B9A) -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 3065. 2006-07-31 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Jul 31 15:29:42 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: RE: confidential to: "Wahl, Eugene R" First Gene - let me say that I never intended that you should spend so much time on this - though I really appreciate your take on these points. The one you highlight here - correctly warns me that in succumbing to the temptation to be lazy in the sense of the brief answer that I have provided - I do give an implied endorsement of the sense of the whole comment. This is not, of course what I intended. I simply meant to agree that some reference to the "divergence" issue was necessitated . I will revise the reply to say briefly that I do not agree with the interpretation of the reviewer. I am attaching what I have done (see blue highlighting) to the section in response to comments (including the addition of the needed extra section on the "tree-ring issues" called for by several people). I have had no feedback yet on this as it has not been generally circulated , but thought you might like to see it. PLEASE REMEMBER that this is "for your eyes only " . Please do NOT feel that I am asking /expecting you to go through this in any detail - but given the trouble you have taken,I thought it reasonable to give you a private look. Cheers Keith At 07:16 27/07/2006, you wrote: Hi Keith: Here is the text with my comments. I will go over the "stolen" parts (highlighted in blue outline) for a final time tomorrow morning, but I wanted to get this to you ASAP. The main new point I have to make is added in bold/blue font on pp. 101-103. I question the way the response to the comment there is currently worded, as it seems to imply that the divergence issue really does invalidate any dendro-based reconstructions before about 1850--which I imagine is not what you would like to say. I give a series of arguments against this as a general conclusion. Maybe I got over-bold in doing so, as in my point (1) I'm examining issues that are at the very core of your expertise! Excuse me that one, but I decided to jump in anyway. Let me know if I got it wrong in any way! There are other quite minor suggestions (mostly focused on referencing other responses in a few places) that are also in bold/blue. These go on into the "120's" in terms of page numbers. This is really a lot of work you've taken on, and I REALLY appreciate what you and the others are doing! [I've also been a lot involved with helping to get a person from the Pew Center for Global Climate Change ready to testify in front of the House Energy and Environment Committee tomorrow. That is why I couldn't get this done and sent to you earlier today. Send Mike Mann and Jay Gulledge (Pew Center) all good thoughts for strength and clarity.] NB -- "r" towards the end of the filename stands for my middle initial. Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 607-871-2604 1 Saxon Drive Alfred, NY 14802 ________________________________ From: Keith Briffa [[1]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Mon 7/24/2006 3:16 PM To: Wahl, Eugene R Subject: RE: confidential Gene here is where I am up to now with my responses (still a load to do) - you can see that I have "borrowed (stolen)" from 2 of your responses in a significant degree - please assure me that this OK (and will not later be obvious) hopefully. You will get the whole text(confidentially again ) soon. You could also see that I hope to be fair to Mike - but he can be a little unbalanced in his remarks sometime - and I have had to disagree with his interpretations of some issues also. Please do not pass these on to anyone at all. Keith Will pass all comments to you before they are fixed in stone- nothing from review article will be mentioned. Really grateful to you - thanks Keith At 05:08 22/07/2006, you wrote: >Hi Keith: > >Glad to help. (!) > >If I could get a chance to look over the sections of my text you >would post to the comments before you do, I would appreciate it. If >this is a burden/problem let me know and we'll work it out. > >If it is anything from the Wahl-Ammann paper, of course that is fine >to use at once since it is publicly available. There will only be >exceedingly minor/few changes in the galleys, including a footnote >pointing to the extended RE benchmarking analysis contained in the >Ammann-Wahl review article. > >What I am concerned about for the time being is that nothing in the >review article shows up anywhere. It is just going in, and >confidentiality is important. The only exception to this are the >points I make in my blue comments in the big review file on page >104, concerning the MM way of benchmarking the RE statistic. Those >comments are fine to repeat at this point. [Please excuse my >hesitance in this way.] > >Actually, all the other blue comments I made in the big review file >are also fine to use at once. > > >Again, if this request is in any way a problem, let me know and >we'll figure out something. > > >Peace, Gene >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies >Alfred University > >________________________________ > >From: Keith Briffa [[2]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Fri 7/21/2006 2:00 PM >To: Wahl, Eugene R >Subject: RE: confidential > >Gene >your comments have been really useful and reassuring that I am not >doing MM a disservice. I will use some sections of your text in my >comments that will be eventually archived so hope this is ok with >you. I will keep the section in the chapter very brief - but will >cite all the papers to avoid claims of bias. I really would like to >discuss the whole issue of the reconstruction differences at a later >, less stressful time. I completely accept the arguments about the >limitation in the r2 and the value of capturing longer-term variance >. I think I will have to stop now as the temp and humidity are killing here. > >Thanks a lot again > >Keith > >At 18:39 21/07/2006, you wrote: > >Hi Keith: > > > >I'm sorry that there is a bit to digest...although I know it is just > >a result of the nature of things. > > > >By the way, copied below is a synopsis that I sent this morning to a > >person in DC who is working on all this with regard to the House of > >Representative hearings. Evidently, there is to be at least one > >more hearing next week, and Mike Mann will go. The person I sent > >this to is trying to understand the importance of the proxy PC > >issues --especially how, no matter what way the PC extraction is > >done, the reconstructions converge if the structures actually > >present in the data are not tossed out by truncating the number > >retained PCs at a too low level. What I've copied is this > >synopsis. I think it is straightforward -- maybe a bit dense, but > >at least brief. > > > >Also, let me know if I can help on the issue of RE vs r^2. I could > >write a few brief sentences as something for you to look at if you > >would like. Wahl-Ammann show very clearly that there is objectively > >demonstrated skill at the low-frequency level of the verification > >period mean for all the MBH segments, although the earlier MBH > >segments do have really low r^2 values (indicating very little skill > >at the interannual level). Our argument that to throw out the > >reconstruction completely based on the fastest varying frequency, > >when it has objectively demonstrable meaning at lower frequencies, > >is to me quite reasonable. That it is some how entirely ad hoc, as > >McIntyre claims in one (more?) of his comments, is neither logical > >nor factual in my perspective. The idea of frequency dependent > >skill/non-skill is not new to the literature, and the independent > >re-reviewer that Steve Schneider had look over Wahl-Ammann said s/he > >had experienced this issue in his/her work. G. > > > > > >****************************** COPIED TEXT ****************************** > > > >What it boils down to in the end is as follows: > > > >1) The different reference periods used to calculate proxy PCs from > >N. America (calibration only for MBH, full period for MM) only have > >the effect of re-arranging how the hockey stick shape appears across > >the rank ordering of PCs. In MBH it is concentrated in PC1. In the > >full-period method, it is spread over PCs 1 and 2. If one adds PCs > >1 and 2 (either arithmetically or as vectors) from either > >convention, you get an essentially IDENTICAL time series, only the > >amplitudes are a bit different. [Note that the input data were > >centered AND standardized before being put into the PC calculation > >algorithm. This is important, as shown below.] > > WHEN ACTUALLY USED IN THE RECONSTRUCTION, THE DIFFERENCE > > IS MINISCULE -- MBH is colder over 1400-1449 by 0.05 degrees! > > > >2) IF the data are centered but NOT standardized and are input into > >in a PCA algorithm using the variance-covariance matrix and not the > >correlation matrix (the way MM did it), then the hockey stick shape > >shows up in PC4. MM in fact reported this first in their 2005 > >Energy and Environment article. In effect, the first two PCs are > >ARE ACTING TO DO THE STANDARDIZING OF THE DATA not done as a > >pre-processing step. [When the correlation matrix is used instead > >in the PCA algorithm, then the standardization is in effect done by > >the algorithm, because all the correlations are "standardized" by > >construction--they all range between 0 and 1.] > > When 4 PCs from this calculation method are used rather > > than 2 PCs calculated as above, then the RECONSTRUCTION CONVERGES > > TO THE SAME AS ABOVE. > > > >3) Thus, all the different "flavors" for PC extraction have > >essentially no effect on reconstruction when one does the exercise > >of adding PCs sequentially from 2 to 5 for any flavor. In the case > >of (1), the reconstructions converge by the second PC. In the case > >of (2), they converge by PC4. They don't change with higher order > PCs added. > > THIS SHOULD BE EXPECTED FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES. That is, > > the same underlying information is there in all cases, it is only > > how the structures present in these data are spread across the rank > > order of PCs, as explained. The simple exercise of taking the > > reconstructions to convergence across the number of PCs used shows > > this clearly. > > > >4) In fact, MM essentially say all this in the 2005 EE > >article--INCLUDING ABOUT THE RECONSTRUCTION RESULTS -- but they > >strongly claim that the movement of the hockey stick shape to the > >4th PC shows it is not a leading pattern of variance as MBH claim, > >and thus should not be used. This might be logical if their > >analysis was an apples-apples comparison, but it is not, due to the > >PCA method they use and applying it on NON-standardized data. > > THESE TWO DIFFERENCES (which one can only fully get > > from their actual code, not in the articles published) DRIVE THEIR > > ENTIRE ARGUMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. What they do not say is > > that convergence to something like the MBH result is expectable, > > and indeed MUST happen given the data used, because the hockey > > stick shape is actually IN the data, it is NOT an artifact of PC > > calculation procedure. > > > > > >5) FINALLY, note that all of this rests on the foundation that > >keeping the bristlecone pine records in the data is appropriate, > >which Caspar and I find can be reasonable presumption. If one > >believes that the bristlecone data should be removed, then the > >1400-1449 reconstruction does not pass verification testing with the > >RE statistic, and the MBH reconstruction should commence from 1450 on out. > > > >Although there are a number of reasons to keep the bristlecone data > >in, maybe the most compelling reason they are a NON-ISSUE is that, > >over the common period of overlap (1450-1980), the reconstruction > >based on using them from 1400-1980 is very close to the > >reconstruction based on omitting them from 1450-1980. Since the > >issues about the bristlecone response to climate are primarily about > >1850 onwards, especially 1900 onwards [KEITH -- PLEASE LET ME KNOW > >IF I AM NOT ACCURATE IN THIS], there is no reason to expect that > >their behavior during 1400-1449 is in any way anomalous to their > >behavior from 1450-1850. Thus, THERE IS NO REASON TO THINK THAT THE > >BRISTLECONES ARE SOMEHOW MAKING THE 1400-1449 SEGMENT OF THE MBH > >RECONSTRUCTION BE INAPPROPRIATELY SKEWED. > > > > > >****************************** END OF COPIED TEXT ******************* > > > >Peace, Gene > >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl > >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies > >Alfred University > > > >607-871-2604 > >1 Saxon Drive > >Alfred, NY 14802 > > > >________________________________ > > > >From: Keith Briffa [[3]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] > >Sent: Fri 7/21/2006 4:51 AM > >To: Wahl, Eugene R > >Subject: RE: confidential > > > > > > > >Gene > >thanks a lot for this - I need to digest and I will come back to you. > > > >thanks again > >Keith > >-- >Professor Keith Briffa, >Climatic Research Unit >University of East Anglia >Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > >Phone: +44-1603-593909 >Fax: +44-1603-507784 > >[4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [6]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 3177. 2006-07-31 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Jul 31 14:03:02 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Reviewer comments and responses -thanks to: Henry Pollack Henry I am happy to send the version of my section as is - please realise it may change as other comments come later - but really happy for you to look at it as is for now. I am attavching the relevant bit - please ignore strange format of corrections and colour labelling. Thanks Keith At 13:49 31/07/2006, you wrote: Hi Keith, You mention below wanting me to have a look at the 'final text'. I am leaving for a couple of weeks of field work on August 3, and will not have e-mail access. If you have something ready now, I can look at it before departing. Cheers, Henry ___ ___ Henry N. Pollack [ \ / ] Professor of Geophysics | \/ | Department of Geological Sciences |MICHIGAN| University of Michigan [___]\/[___] Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1005, U.S.A. Phone: 734-763-0084 FAX: 734-763-4690 e-mail: hpollack@umich.edu URL: [1]www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~hpollack/ URL: www-personal.umich.edu/~hpollack/book.html Quoting Keith Briffa : Received and dealt with - surprisingly only minor differences in our opinions but grateful for your authoritative remarks - some of which used directly and all of which read in detail. You will get the final full text soon - so you need to re-read the Subsurface Section as it is not exactly worded as you suggested as have had to incorporate stuff from Ricardo's responses also. Very best wishes Henry Keith At 15:47 24/07/2006, you wrote: Hi Keith, Attached you will find my perspectives on the Review Comments on the Second-Order Draft. Unfortunately, neither the page numbers nor the line numbers in the review comments correspond to the Second-Order Draft document that you sent. The 20 line offset to which you called my attention offers no resolution. I think that the problem has arisen because you sent me only a part of Chapter 6, and the software numbered the pages of that part beginning with 1 instead of whatever page it actually was in the full sequence of Chapter 6. So, my perspectives and comments will simply refer to the comment number given in the 15 June 2006 Batch AB document you sent, and the line numbers referred to therein. I know this is a bit of a pain in the behind, but it is the best I can do given both the pagination and line number offsets. Cheers, Henry ___ ___ Henry N. Pollack [ \ / ] Professor of Geophysics | \/ | Department of Geological Sciences |MICHIGAN| University of Michigan [___]\/[___] Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1005, U.S.A. Phone: 734-763-0084 FAX: 734-763-4690 e-mail: hpollack@umich.edu URL: [2]www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~hpollack/ URL: www-personal.umich.edu/~hpollack/book.html -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 3282. 2006-07-31 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Jul 31 10:12:49 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Thompson et al, 2006 paper to include to: "Olga Solomina" sorry to but in, but the issue is important. We should not be stating too positively that the tropics were cool. The full uncertainty should be reflected in the text, by adding a few along the lines that Olga suggests here. Keith At 17:33 30/07/2006, you wrote:  Hello everybody, I attach here a version of glacier box and suggestions (in red) how to include there the reference to the new Thompson et al., 2006 paper. In this relation - I am getting more and more concern about our statement that the Early Holocene was cool in the tropics - this paper shows that it was, actually, warm - ice core evidences+glaciers were smaller than now in the tropical Andes. The glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere (Porter, 2000, review paper) were also smaller than at least in the Neoglacial. We do not cite Porter's paper for the reason that we actually do not know how to explain this - orbital reason does not work for the SH, but if we do cite it (which is fair) we have to say that during the Early to Mid Holocene glaciers were smaller than later in both Northen, and Southern Hemisphere, including the tropics, which would contradict to our statement in the Holocene chapter and the bullet. It is probably too late to rise these questions, but still just to draw your attention. I am going to Kamchatka tomorrow, but will be avaliable by e-mail from time to time. All the best, olga ----- Original Message ----- From: [1]Jonathan Overpeck To: [2]Olga Solomina Cc: [3]Eystein Jansen ; [4]oyvind.paasche@bjerknes.uib.no Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 3:42 AM Subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Fwd: Additional In-Press Papers Hi Olga - I agree, and hope that you and Шyvind make sure you include it in the next round of edits, which will begin very soon. We have all of the new text and Eystein is assembling for authors to check. This same new draft will be the one that Eystein and I work on to achieve more consistency and the proper length. Although we've cut some text already, some received has grown too. So... think about a way to include the reference to Lonnie's work without lengthening if you can. OK? Many thanks, Peck Hi Peck, Lonnie's paper is a very good one and suitable for the glacier box. If it is still possible I would add this reference. olga ----- Original Message ----- From: [5]Jonathan Overpeck To: [6]wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 6:32 PM Subject: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Fwd: Additional In-Press Papers Hi Chap 6 LA's - here is another batch of papers from the TSU to be considered using the guidelines provided below - we don't want to add citations just to make our ref list more complete. Thanks, Peck and Eystein X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:25:25 -0600 From: IPCC-WG1 <[7]ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov> X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Jonathan Overpeck , Eystein Jansen Subject: Additional In-Press Papers Dear CLAs Please find attached additional paper(s) that are relevant to your chapter and have been submitted in response to our most recent guidelines for consideration of papers published in 2006 following the expert and government review. A separate spreadsheet file is attached listing: the submitter, file name of the paper, its acceptance date, and the chapter and section which the submitter feels is relevant. As discussed in Bergen, please note the following: * inclusion of additional papers in the final draft should not open up any substantive issues that were not in the second draft and so not previously reviewed; * additional papers should only be used where in the view of the LAs doing so provides a more balanced coverage of scientific views; * we anticipate that a quick reading of the abstract of each paper will enable a decision consistent with this and we would not encourage any lengthy consideration by the LA team. One additional point to keep in mind is that this most recent adjustment of our publication deadlines should not be perceived by others as a device for allowing the LAs to reference more of their own papers. We trust that you and your team will be both objective and vigilant when deciding to include or reject papers in this respect. Best regards, WG1 TSU -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ IPCC WGI TSU NOAA Chemical Sciences Division 325 Broadway DSRC CSD08 Boulder, CO 80305, USA Phone: +1 303 497 7072 Fax: +1 303 497 5686/5628 Email: [8]ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 [9]http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ [10]http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ _________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu [11]http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 [12]http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ [13]http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [14]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 3992. 2006-07-31 ______________________________________________________ cc: Olga Solomina , Keith Briffa , Ricardo Villalba , ValÈrie Masson-Delmotte , Oyvind.Paasche@bjerknes.uib.no date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:52:02 +0200 from: Eystein Jansen subject: Re: Thompson et al, 2006 paper to include to: Valerie.Masson@cea.fr, Jonathan Overpeck Hi Olga, I agree with Valerie that the ice core evidence is ambiguous. I would personally place more weight on the alkenone data, which is a reasonable well calibrated SST proxy. Foraminifer transfer function based SSTs and some Mg/Ca results that are available suggest a similar picture as far as I know. Of course it is possible and plausible that the tropical oceans are behaving in a non consistent manner and not all areas are showing the same signal, but a sizeable portion appear to do so in order to conclude as we do in the chapter in my opinion. Some signals may be due to changes in in trade wind induced coastal upwelling strength, but there are enough cores with alkenone data outside of these areas. If we were to say more about the uncertainties it may be the fact that proxies are seasonally skewed. My conclusion is to let the chapter say what we say at the moment. Cheers, Eystein At 09:42 +0200 31-07-06, Valérie Masson-Delmotte wrote: >Thanks Olga. > >It seems to me that there is still a large >uncertainty about the temperature versus >precipitation effect on these tropical glaciers. >Other indications from south America are related >to lake levels with contrasted views in the low >versus highlands. >Several references suggest that there is the end >of a wet period after the early Holocene in >tropical south America ; this is expected to >induce an increase of 18O signals. >One review was conducted several years ago >within the PEPI project >(http://wwwpaztcn.wr.usgs.gov/pcaw/ and >references herein). >I think that the state of the art is that we >have no reliable proxy record that is sensivite >to temperature only on the tropical lands for >the Holocene; therefore the statement that was >written for the Holocene was based on areas of >the tropical oceans where SST reconstructions >were published. >Do we have to write more explicitely about the uncertainty? > >Valérie. > >Jonathan Overpeck a écrit : >>Hi Olga - it is not too late to ask these good >>questions. Glaciers can, of course, be affected >>by both temp and precip changes, so the >>question is really for Valerie (land) and >>Eystein (ocean) - are the land and ocean data >>from the tropics strong enough to outweigh what >>the glaciers are saying about tropical temps >>earlier in the Holocene? Lonnie's Figure 8 >>(see attached) presents Hauscaran and >>Kilimanjaro data that suggest early to mid >>warmth in tropical South America and Africa >>that is (if the O-isotopes are temp) greater >>than today. Personally, I'm quite unsure that >>these are reliable temperature records, BUT if >>we want to make that case, we have to be >>convincing. What do terrestrial and ocean temp >>data say? >> >>Thanks Olga for sending the proposed revised >>text - I think Eystein is putting finishing >>touches on the next draft for LA etc. review. >> >>Best, Peck >> >>>¤ >>>Hello everybody, >>> I attach here a version of glacier box and >>>suggestions (in red) how to include there the >>>reference to the new Thompson et al., 2006 >>>paper. >>> In this relation - I am getting more and more >>>concern about our statement that the Early >>>Holocene was cool in the tropics - this paper >>>shows that it was, actually, warm - ice core >>>evidences+glaciers were smaller than now in >>>the tropical Andes. The glaciers in the >>>Southern Hemisphere (Porter, 2000, review >>>paper) were also smaller than at least in the >>>Neoglacial. We do not cite Porter's paper for >>>the reason that we actually do not know how to >>>explain this - orbital reason does not work >>>for the SH, but if we do cite it (which is >>>fair) we have to say that during the Early to >>>Mid Holocene glaciers were smaller than later >>>in both Northen, and Southern Hemisphere, >>>including the tropics, which would contradict >>>to our statement in the Holocene chapter and >>>the bullet. It is probably too late to rise >>>these questions, but still just to draw your >>>attention. >>> I am going to Kamchatka tomorrow, but will be >>>avaliable by e-mail from time to time. >>> All the best, >>>olga >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> >>> *From:* Jonathan Overpeck >>> >>> *To:* Olga Solomina >>> >>> *Cc:* Eystein Jansen ; >>> oyvind.paasche@bjerknes.uib.no >>> >>> >>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 30, 2006 3:42 AM >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Fwd: Additional In-Press Papers >>> >>> >>> Hi Olga - I agree, and hope that you and òyvind make sure you >>> include it in the next round of edits, which will begin very >>> soon. We have all of the new text and Eystein is assembling for >>> authors to check. This same new draft will be the one that >>> Eystein and I work on to achieve more consistency and the proper >>> length. Although we've cut some text already, some received has >>> grown too. So... think about a way to include the reference to >>> Lonnie's work without lengthening if you can. >>> >>> >>> OK? Many thanks, Peck >>> >>>> Hi Peck, >>> >>> >>> >>> Lonnie's paper is a very good one and suitable for the >>> glacier box. If it is still possible I would add this reference. >>> >>> >>> >>> olga >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> >>> *From:* Jonathan Overpeck >>> >>> *To:* wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu >>> >>> >>> *Sent:* Friday, July 28, 2006 6:32 PM >>> >>> *Subject:* [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Fwd: Additional In-Press Papers >>> >>> >>> Hi Chap 6 LA's - here is another batch of papers from the >>> TSU to be considered using the guidelines provided below >>> - we don't want to add citations just to make our ref >>> list more complete. >>> >>> Thanks, Peck and Eystein >>> >>>> X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >>>> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:25:25 -0600 >>>> From: IPCC-WG1 >>> > >>>> X-Accept-Language: en-us, en >>> >>> To: Jonathan Overpeck , >>> Eystein Jansen >>> Subject: Additional In-Press Papers >>> >>> Dear CLAs >>> >>> Please find attached additional paper(s) that are >>> relevant to your chapter and have been submitted in >>> response to our most recent guidelines for >>> consideration of papers published in 2006 following >>> the expert and government review. A separate >>> spreadsheet file is attached listing: the submitter, >>> file name of the paper, its acceptance date, and the >>> chapter and section which the submitter feels is >>> relevant. >>> >>> As discussed in Bergen, please note the following: >>> * inclusion of additional papers in the final draft >>> should not open up any substantive issues that were >>> not in the second draft and so not previously reviewed; >>> * additional papers should only be used where in the >>> view of the LAs doing so provides a more balanced >>> coverage of scientific views; >>> * we anticipate that a quick reading of the abstract >>> of each paper will enable a decision consistent with >>> this and we would not encourage any lengthy >>> consideration by the LA team. >>> >>> One additional point to keep in mind is that this >>> most recent adjustment of our publication deadlines >>> should not be perceived by others as a device for >>> allowing the LAs to reference more of their own >>> papers. We trust that you and your team will be both >>> objective and vigilant when deciding to include or >>> reject papers in this respect. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> WG1 TSU >>> >>> -- >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> IPCC WGI TSU >>> NOAA Chemical Sciences Division >>> 325 Broadway DSRC CSD08 >>> Boulder, CO 80305, USA >>> Phone: +1 303 497 7072 >>> Fax: +1 303 497 5686/5628 >>> Email: ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Jonathan T. Overpeck >>> Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>> Professor, Department of Geosciences >>> Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >>> >>> Mail and Fedex Address: >>> >>> Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>> 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>> University of Arizona >>> Tucson, AZ 85721 >>> direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>> fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>> http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>> http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >>> >>> >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list >>> Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu >>> http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Jonathan T. Overpeck >>> Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>> Professor, Department of Geosciences >>> Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >>> >>> Mail and Fedex Address: >>> >>> Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>> 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>> University of Arizona >>> Tucson, AZ 85721 >>> direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>> fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>> http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>> http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >>> >>> >>>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Glaciers 30 >>>july so.doc (WDBN/«IC») (00148B9A) >> >> >>-- >> Jonathan T. Overpeck >>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>Professor, Department of Geosciences >>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >> >>Mail and Fedex Address: >> >>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>University of Arizona >>Tucson, AZ 85721 >>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ -- ______________________________________________________________ Eystein Jansen Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen Allégaten 55 N-5007 Bergen NORWAY e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 Fax: +47-55-584330 1153. 2006-08-01 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tim Osborn , jto@u.arizona.edu,Fortunat Joos ,Valerie.Masson@cea.fr,Ricardo Villalba date: Tue Aug 1 15:48:34 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Urgent Re: latest version of my responses to: Eystein Jansen Dear all attached is my latest (currently definitive) version of the responses to the "sky-blue-highlighted" comments on text and Figures. PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE HAVE CHANGED IN VARIOUS PLACES FROM WHAT I SENT EARLIER AS WELL AS BEING UPDATED. I would suggest that they be cut and pasted into the document rather than just including the new ones. Sorry , but I had to reconsider a number of responses and edit others to remove typos etc. Even though marked in blue - a few were not relevant to me. Two have been marked with "Valerie " - (6-1072, 6-1073) . Those marked PECK (6-862 through 6-868; ie 7 comments) are best dealt with by he. The comment 6-1110 is for Stefan. The comments marked F are those I sent from Fortunat before and I also sent the edited version of Ricardo's. The two outstanding ones he marked for me/Tim are here (6-818 and 6-819) 6-818 Noted - this issue will be reviewed , though the discussion of forcings must come before that of comparison of simulation results. 6-819 Noted - the text is intended to provide examples only and will be modified to refer to Table 6.2 , where details of all simulations used are provided. I think that should be OK as far as my stuff goes. I will send minor changes to text (separate message) that have arisen in dealing with final comments. Cheers Keith At 10:37 01/08/2006, Eystein Jansen wrote: Hi Keith, could you send me responses to the reviewers´s comments received on the figures for 6.6? The Batch i received only had responses for the comments to the main text. This relates to comment 1074 and onwards. Only quite few comments. We need to send the comments responses file to the TSU by the week-end so this is urgent. Hope you have time.. Cheers, Eystein -- ______________________________________________________________ Eystein Jansen Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen Allégaten 55 N-5007 Bergen NORWAY e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 Fax: +47-55-584330 -- 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/ 2969. 2006-08-01 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Susan Solomon" , Eystein Jansen date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:05:40 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: response to your question to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith - thanks. This makes sense to me. I'll cc Susan so she understands the issue better, and also can advise on any strategy we should adopt to make sure we communicate effectively. thanks again best, peck >Peck, > >The TAR was, in my opinion, wrong to say >anything about the precedence (or lack thereof) >of the warmth of the individual year 1998. > >The reason is that all reconstructions have very >wide uncertainty ranges bracketing >individual-year estimates of part temperature. >Given this, it is hard to dismiss the >possibility that individual years in the past >did exceed the measured 1998 value. These errors >on the individual years are so wide as to make >any comparison with the 1998 measured value very >problematic, especially when you consider that >most reconstructions do not include it in their >calibration range (curtailed predictor network >in recent times) and the usual estimates of >uncertainty calculated from calibration (or >verification) residual variances would not >provide a good estimate of the likely error >associated with it even if data did exist. > >I suspect that many/most reconstructions of NH >annual mean temperature have greater fidelity at >decadal to multidecadal timescales (based on >examination of the covariance spectrum of the >actual and estimated data over the calibration >period. This is the reason many studies >implicitly (Hegerl et al.,) or explicitly (Esper >et a;., Cook et al.) choose to calibrate >directly against decadally-smoothed data. > >The exception is the Briffa et al (tree-ring >density network based) reconstruction back to ~ >1400. This has probably the best year-to-year >fidelity – but for summer land only and does not >go back anyway to the MWP. > >We are on much safer grounds focusing on >decadal/multi-decadal timescales and so this is >where we place the emphasis. As for the ‘warmest >decade’ – this is likely to be the 1990s or the >last 10 years – but again, the proxies do not >cover this period, and we do anyway state that >post 1980 is the warmest period – which I think >is fair enough. > > >-- >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/ -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 4209. 2006-08-01 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de, hegerl@duke.edu, esper@wsl.ch, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, weber@knmi.nl, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 14:27:28 +0100 from: Martin Juckes subject: Another draft -- hopefully ready for submission to: Anders Hello All, here is another draft. I've added a new reconstruction, using 19 independent proxies series from Jones et al., Mann et al., Esper et al. and Moberg et al. This gives a good fit to the calibration data, such that 2 recent years exceed the maximum pre-industrial estimate by 4 sigma levels. I've included this because without it I found it hard to draw precise and useful conclusions from the 4 partially overlapping reconstructions I had done before. cheers, Martin Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\mitrie.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\mitrie.tex" 4441. 2006-08-01 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Aug 1 13:55:54 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Urgent Re: latest version of my responses to: "Mitchell, John FB \(Chief Scientist\)" John FYI also Dear all attached is my latest (currently definitive) version of the responses to the "sky-blue-highlighted" comments on text and Figures. PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE HAVE CHANGED IN VARIOUS PLACES FROM WHAT I SENT EARLIER AS WELL AS BEING UPDATED. I would suggest that they be cut and pasted into the document rather than just including the new ones. Sorry , but I had to reconsider a number of responses and edit others to remove typos etc. Even though marked in blue - a few were not relevant to me. Two have been marked with "Valerie " - (6-1072, 6-1073) . Those marked PECK (6-862 through 6-868; ie 7 comments) are best dealt with by he. The comment 6-1110 is for Stefan. The comments marked F are those I sent from Fortunat before and I also sent the edited version of Ricardo's. The two outstanding ones he marked for me/Tim are here (6-818 and 6-819) 6-818 Noted - this issue will be reviewed , though the discussion of forcings must come before that of comparison of simulation results. 6-819 Noted - the text is intended to provide examples only and will be modified to refer to Table 6.2 , where details of all simulations used are provided. I think that should be OK as far as my stuff goes. I will send minor changes to text (separate message) that have arisen in dealing with final comments. Cheers Keith At 10:37 01/08/2006, Eystein Jansen wrote: Hi Keith, could you send me responses to the reviewers´s comments received on the figures for 6.6? The Batch i received only had responses for the comments to the main text. This relates to comment 1074 and onwards. Only quite few comments. We need to send the comments responses file to the TSU by the week-end so this is urgent. Hope you have time.. Cheers, Eystein -- ______________________________________________________________ Eystein Jansen Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen Allégaten 55 N-5007 Bergen NORWAY e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 Fax: +47-55-584330 -- 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/ 4098. 2006-08-03 ______________________________________________________ cc: Alex Wright , Orson van de Plassche , simon.tett@metoffice.gov.uk, jason.lowe@metoffice.gov.uk, j.m.gregory@reading.ac.uk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 10:41:08 +0100 from: simon.tett@metoffice.gov.uk subject: Re: soap sea level report to: Tim Osborn Hi Tim et al, this seems good to me. Not sure why I am a co-author as did not do anything.... (maybe that is why I am #6). A summary would be good. Here is my suggestion. 1) Global sea-level controlled by climate forcings. 2) No acceleration in All because of slow recovery from Tambora + anthropogenic forcings. 3) All simulation has significantly less sea-level rise than do obs. 4) North Atlantic sea-level is strongly influenced by AMOC. 5) Tropical sea-level rise strongly correlated with global sea-level suggesting we should focus our paleo sea-level data collection efforts here. 6) Limited sites suitable for paleo-sea level and they don't show much skill! Simon On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 16:52, Tim Osborn wrote: > Dear all, > > please find attached the virtually complete SO&P sea level report > (this is a deliverable report specifically about sea level in models > and in palaeo records and their comparison; a shorter version is > being included in the SO&P project final report). The reference list > needs to be completed (thanks for the partial list provided, Alex), > but apart from that it is finished, unless anyone wishes to comment further? > > I have included all our names as authors. > > This is only for internal SO&P and EU purposes and will be > password-protected on the website. > > However, out of all the SO&P deliverable reports I think this one is > closest to being publishable (we would obviously need to consider the > completion of Alex's thesis before publishing something containing > his new data). So please take a look at it from a publication point > of view and let me know if you agree. Admittedly it doesn't > represent a single well-defined and completed piece of work, but > nevertheless contains some interesting results and interpretations. > > Best regards and many thanks for your help, > > Tim > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow > 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ > sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > > **Norwich -- City for Science: > **Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006 -- Dr Simon Tett Managing Scientist, Data development and applications. Met Office Hadley Centre (Reading Unit) Meteorology Building, University of Reading Reading RG6 6BB Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5614 Fax +44 (0)118 378 5615 Mobile: +44-(0)77 538 80696 I work in Exeter about 2 days/week. E-mail: simon.tett@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk 1218. 2006-08-04 ______________________________________________________ cc: Anders , Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de, hegerl@duke.edu, esper@wsl.ch, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, weber@knmi.nl, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 09:18:24 +0100 from: Anders Moberg subject: McIntyre, McKitrick & MITRIE ... to: Martin Juckes Dear Martin and all others, Having read the new manuscript, I would like to draw the attention of all of you to the section about McIntyre&McKitrick vs Mann et al. I am not entirely happy with this section. It may be that I am not fully updated about all details on their dispute, but it appears to be some mistakes in this section of our manuscript. Therefore, I ask all of you to check how this section can be improved and clarified. This is very important! If we refer incorrectly to the MM-Mann dispute, I am convinced that all of us will be involved in lengthy frustrating e-mail discussions later on. I anticipiate this from personal experience! Let's do our best to avoid this. The problematic bit of text starts on p. 16, para 4: ("The failure of MM2003 ... is partly due to a misunderstanding of the stepwise reconstruction method") and slightly below: ("MM2003 only calculate principal components for the period when all chronologies are present"). I read through the MM2003 paper yesterday. From what is written there, on p. 763-765, it appears that they were well aware of the stepwise method. On p. 763, about at the middle of the page, they write: "Following the description of MBH98 ... our construction is done piecewise for each of the periods listed in Table 8, using the roster of proxies available through the period and the selection of TPCs for each period listed in Table 8". This is clearly at odds to what is written in our manuscript. Has it been documented somewhere else that MM2003, despite what they wrote, really misunderstood the stepwise technique? If it is so, we need to insert a reference. If this is not the case, we need to omit the lines about the misunderstanding. We also need to explain better why the MM2003 calculations differ from MBH. Moreover, our sentence ("MM2003 only calculate principal components for the period when all chronologies are present") imply that MM2003 only calculated PCs for the period 1820-1971, as this would be the period when all chronologies are present according to the MM2003 Table 8. Obviously, they calculated PCs beyond 1820, as their calculations actually extend back to 1400. The problem continues in the legend to our Fig. 2. (" Each of the 212 data series is shown ... The red rectangle indicates the single block used by MM2003, neglecting all data prior to 1619"). The last sentence is inconsistent with the information in MM2003 in three ways; a) MM2003 clearly show in their Table 8 that they analysed the same blocks of data as MBH. b) The year 1619 as a starting point of a data block is inconsistent with MM Table 8. Where does the year 1619 come from? It is not mentioned anywhere in MM2003. c). The red block implies that MM2003 made calculations back only to 1619, but they did back to 1400. Moreover, the numbers given in the graph of our Fig. 2 indicate that the total number of series is 211, whereas the text in the legend and also in the main text on p. 16 says 212. Which number is correct? I suppose that some of you others will know this subject much better than I. I have just read the MM2003 paper, and find our reference to it to be inconsistent with it. I hope you all can make efforts to make this bit crystal clear. If not, I fear we will get problems! Finally, I would like to draw your attention to the related sentence in our conclusions on p. 26: ("Papers which claim to refute ... have been reviewed and found to contain serious flaws"). Are all of you happy with this statement? Would it sound better with a somewhat less offending sentence, something like: "Papers which claim to refute ... have been reviewed and found to essentially contribute with insignificant information that does not affect the consensus, and even to include some flaws." I attach the MM2003 paper. I will send some comments to the other parts of the text in a separate mail. Cheers, Anders Martin Juckes wrote: > Hello All, > > here is another draft. I've added a new reconstruction, using 19 independent > proxies series from Jones et al., Mann et al., Esper et al. and Moberg et al. > This gives a good fit to the calibration data, such that 2 recent years exceed > the maximum pre-industrial estimate by 4 sigma levels. I've included this > because without it I found it hard to draw precise and useful conclusions > from the 4 partially overlapping reconstructions I had done before. > > cheers, > Martin > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > \documentclass[cpd,11pt]{egu} > > \input macs > \voffset 5cm > \hoffset 1.5cm > > \begin{document} > > \title > {\bf Millennial Temperature Reconstruction Intercomparison and Evaluation > } > > \runningtitle{Millennial Temperature} > \runningauthor{M.~N.~Juckes et al} > \author{Martin Juckes$^{(1)}$, > Myles Allen$^{(2)}$, > Keith Briffa$^{(3)}$, > Jan Esper$^{(4)}$, > Gabi Hegerl$^{(5)}$, > Anders Moberg$^{(6)}$, > Tim Osborn$^{(3)}$, > Nanne Weber$^{(7)}$, > Eduardo Zorita$^{(8)}$} > \correspondence{Martin Juckes (M.N.Juckes@rl.ac.uk)} > \affil{ > British Atmospheric Data Centre, SSTD, > Rutherford Appleton Laboratory > Chilton, Didcot, > Oxfordshire, OX11 0QX, > United Kingdom > } > > \affil{1: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, > 2: University of Oxford, > 3: University of East Anglia, > 4: Swiss Federal Research Institute, > 5: Duke University, > 6: Stockholm University, > 7: Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), > 8: GKSS Research Centre > } > \date{Manuscript version from 31 Oct 2005 } > \msnumber{xxxxxx} > > \pubyear{} > \pubvol{} > \pubnum{} > > \received{} > %\pubacpd{} % ONLY applicable to ACP > \revised{} > \accepted{} > > \firstpage{1} > > \maketitle > > \begin{abstract} > There has been considerable recent interest in paleoclimate reconstructions of the temperature history of > the last millennium. A wide variety of techniques have been used. > The interrelation among the techniques is sometimes unclear, as different studies often > use distinct data sources as well as distinct methodologies. > Recent work is reviewed with an aim to clarifying the import of > the different approaches. > A range of proxy data collections used by different authors are passed > through two reconstruction algorithms: firstly, inverse regression and, > secondly, compositing followed by variance matching. > It is found that the first method tends to give large weighting to > a small number of proxies and that the second approach is more robust > to varying proxy input. > A reconstruction using 19 proxy records extending back to 1000AD shows a > maximum pre-industrial temperature of 0.227K (relative to the 1866 to 1970 mean). > The standard error on this estimate, based on the residual in the calibration > period is 0.149K. Two recent years (1998 and 2005) have exceeded the pre-industrial > estimated maximum by more than 4 standard errors. > \end{abstract} > > > %%\openup 1\jot > > \introduction\label{sec:intro} > > The climate of the last millennium has been the subject of much > debate in recent years, both in the scientific literature > and in the popular media. > This paper reviews reconstructions of past temperature, > on the global, hemispheric, or near-hemispheric scale, by > \citet{jones_etal1998} [JBB1998], > \citet{mann_etal1998a} [MBH1998], > \citet{mann_etal1999} [MBH1999], > \citet{huang_etal2000} [HPS2000], > \citet{crowley_lowery2000} [CL2000], > \citet{briffa_etal2001} [BOS2001], > \citet{esper_etal2002b} [ECS2002], > \citet{mann_jones2003} [MJ2003], > \citet{moberg_etal2005} [MSH2005], > \citet{oerlemans2005} [OER2005], > \citet{hegerl_etal2006+} [HCA2006]. > %%The criticism > %%directed at them (mainly MBH1999) by \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2003} [MM2003] and others. > > > Climate variability can be partitioned into contributions from > internal variability of the climate system and response to forcings, > which the forcings being further partitioned in natural and > anthropogenic. > The dominant change in forcing in the late 20th century > arises from human impact in the form of > greenhouse gases \citep[primarily carbon dioxide, methane and > chloro-fluoro carbons:][]{IPCC2001}. > The changes in concentration of these gases in the atmosphere > are well documented and their radiative properties which reduce, > for a given temperature difference, radiative loss of heat to space > from the mid and lower troposphere > \citep[for carbon dioxide, this was first documented by][]{arrhenius1896} > are beyond dispute. > > However, there remains some uncertainty on two issues: > firstly, how much of the observed change is due to greenhouse forcing as > opposed to natural forcing and internal variability; > secondly, how significant, compared to past natural changes, are the > changes which we now observe and expect in the future? > > The first question is not answered by the IPCC conclusion cited above because > that conclusion only compares the anthropogenic forcing of the late 20th century > with the natural forcings of the same period. Further back in the past, it is > harder to make definitive statements about the amplitude of variability in natural > forcings. The second question reflects the uncertainty in the response of the > climate system to a given change in forcing. In the last century both the > variations in forcing and the variations in response have been measured with > some detail, yet there remains uncertainty about the contribution of > natural variability to the observed temperature fluctuations. > In both cases, investigation is hampered by the fact that > estimates of global mean temperature based on reliable direct measurements > are only available from 1856 onwards \citep{jones_etal1986}. > > Climate models are instrumental in addressing both questions, > but they are still burdened with > some level of uncertainty and there is a need for more detailed knowledge > of the behaviour of the actual climate on multi-centennial timescales > both in order to evaluate the climate models and in order to address the > above questions directly. > > The scientific basis for proxy based climate reconstructions may be stated simply: there are > a number of physical indicators > which contain information about the past environmental variability. > As these are not direct measurements, the term proxy is used. > > > \citet{jones_mann2004} review evidence for climate change in > the past millennium and conclude that there had been a > global mean cooling since the 11th century > until the warming period initiated in the 19th century, but the issue remains > controversial. This paper reviews recent contributions and evaluates the impact > of different methods and different data collections used. > > Section 2 discusses recent contributions, which have developed a range of new > methods to address aspects of the problem. > Section 3 discusses the technique used by MBH1998/9 > in more detail in the context of criticism by \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2003} > (hereafter MM2003). > Section 4 presents some new results using the data collections from 5 recent studies. > > > \section{A survey of recent reconstructions} > > This section gives brief reviews of recent > contributions, displayed in Fig.~1. > Of these, 5 are estimates of the Northern Hemisphere mean temperature > (MBH1999, HPS2000, CL2000, MSH2005, HCA2006), > 2 of the Northern Hemisphere extra tropical mean temperature (BOS2001, ECS2002) > and 3 of the global mean temperature (JBB1998, MJ2003, OER2005). > All, except the inherently low resolution reconstructions of HPS2000 and OER2005, > have been smoothed with a 40 year running mean. > With the exception of HPS2000 and OER2005, the reconstructions > use partly overlapping methods and data, so they > cannot be viewed as independent from a statistical viewpoint. > In addition to exploiting a range of different data sources, > the above works also use a range of techniques. > The subsections below cover different scientific themes, > ordered according to the date of key publications. > Some reconstructions which do not extend all the way > back to 1000AD are included because of their > importance in addressing specific issues. > The extent to which the global, northern hemisphere and northern hemisphere > extratropical reconstructions might be expected to agree > is discussed in Sect.~2.10 below. > > \subsection{High-resolution paleoclimate records} > > \citet{jones_etal1998} [JBB1998] present the first annually resolved > reconstructions of temperatures back to 1000AD, using > a composite of standardised 10 proxies for the northern hemisphere and 7 for the southern, > with variance damped in the early part of the series to account for the > lower numbers of proxies present (6 series extend back to 1000AD), following \citet{osborn_etal1997}. > The composites are > scaled by variance matching (Appendix A) against the annual mean summer temperatures for 1931-1960. > Climate models are also employed to investigate the temperature coherency > between proxy sites and it is shown that there are strong large scale > coherencies in the proxy data which are not reproduced by > the climate model. An evaluation of each individual > proxy series against instrumental data from 1881 to 1980 > shows that tree-rings and historical reconstructions > are more closely related to temperature than those > from corals and ice-cores. > > With regard to the temperatures of the last millennium, > the primary conclusion of JBB1998 is that > the twentieth century was the warmest of the millennium. > There is clear evidence of a cool period from 1500 to 1900, > but no strong ``Medieval Warm Period" [MWP] (though the second warmest > century in the northern hemisphere reconstruction is > the 11th). The MWP is discussed further in Sect.~2.4 below. > > JBB1998 draw attention to the limitations of some of the proxies > on longer timescales (see Sect.~3.5 below). > Homogeneity of the data record and > its relation with temperature may not be guaranteed on longer timescale. > This is an important issue, since > many climate reconstructions assume a constant relationship between > temperature anomalies and the proxy indicators > (there are also problems associated with timescale-dependency in the > relationship which are discussed further in Sect.~2.6 below). > > MJ2003 include some additional proxy series and extend to study period back a > further millennium and conclude that the late 20th century warmth > is unprecedented in the last two millennia. > > \subsection{Climate field reconstruction} > > \citet{mann_etal1999} published > the first reconstruction of the last thousand years northern hemispheric mean > temperature which included objective error bars, > based on the analysis of the residuals in the calibration period. > The authors concluded not only > that their estimate of the temperature over the whole period 1000AD to 1860AD > was colder than the late twentieth century, but also that 95\% certainty limits > were below the last decade of the twentieth century. > The methods they used were presented in MBH1998 > which described a reconstruction back to 1400AD. > > MBH1998 use a collection of 415 proxy time indicators, many more than used in \citet{jones_etal1998}, > but many of these are too close geographically to be considered > as independent, so they are combined into a smaller number of representative > series. > The number of proxies also decreases significantly with age: > only 22 independent proxies extend back to 1400AD, > and, in > MBH1999, 12 extend back to 1000AD (7 in the Northern Hemisphere). > MBH1998 and MBH1999 have been the subject of much debate since the latter was cited > in the IPCC (2001) report, though the IPCC > conclusions\footnote{\citet{IPCC2001} concluded that > ``The 1990s are likely to have been the warmest decade of the millennium in > the Northern Hemisphere, and 1998 is likely to have been the warmest > year," where ``likely'' implies a greater than 66\% probability. > Since 2001 it has been recognised that there is a need to explicitly > distinguish between an expression of confidence, as made by the IPCC in this quote, > which should include expert assessment of the robustness of statistical methods > employed, and simple citation of the results of statistical test. > In the language of > \citet{manning_etal2004} we can say that MBH1999 carried out statistical > tests which concluded that the 1990s have been the warmest decade of the > millenium with 95\% likelihood, while IPCC (2001), after assessing all > available evidence had a 66\% confidence in the same statement.} > were weaker than those of MBH1999. > > This work also differ from Jones et al. (1998) in using spatial patterns of temperature > variability rather than hemispheric mean temperatures. In this way the study aims > to exploit proxies which are related to temperature indirectly: for > instance, changes in temperature may be associated with changes in > wind and rainfall which might affect proxies more strongly than > temperature. Since wind and rainfall are correlated with > changes in temperature patterns, it is argued, there may be important non-local > correlations between proxies and temperature. > > Different modes of atmospheric variability are evaluated through an > Empirical Orthogonal Function [EOF] analysis of the time period 1902 to 1980, > expressing the global field as a sum of spatial patterns (the EOFs) multiplied by > Principal Components (PCs -- representing the temporal evolution). > Earlier instrumental data are too sparse to be used for this purpose: > instead they are used in a validation calculation to determine how > many EOFs should be included in the reconstruction. > Time series for each mode of variability are then reconstructed from the proxy data using > a optimal least squares inverse regression. > > Finally, the skill of the regression of each PC is tested using the > 1856 to 1901 validation data. > Prior to 1450AD it is determined that only > one PC can be reconstructed with > any accuracy. This means that the main advantage of the > Climate Field Reconstruction method does not apply at earlier dates. > The methodology will be discussed further in Sect.~3 below. > > The reconstructed temperature evolution (Fig.~1) is rather less variable than that of Jones et al. (1998), > but the differences are not statistically significant. > The overall picture is of gradual cooling until the mid 19th century, > followed by rapid warming matching that evaluated by the earlier work. > > \subsection{Borehole temperatures} > > \citet{huang_etal2000} [HPS2000] estimate northern hemisphere temperatures > back to 1500AD using > measurements made in 453 boreholes (their paper also presents global and > southern hemisphere results using an additional 163 southern hemisphere boreholes). > The reconstruction is included here, even though it does not extend back to 1000AD, > because it has the advantage of being completely > independent of the other reconstructions shown. > Temperature fluctuations at the surface propagate slowly downwards, so that measurements > made in the boreholes at depth contain a record of past surface temperature fluctuations. > HPS2000 used measurements down to around 300m. > The diffuse nature of the temperature anomaly means that short time scale fluctuations > cannot be resolved. Prior to the 20th century, the typical resolution is about 100 years. > > \citet{mann_etal2003} analyse the impact of changes in land use and snow cover > on borehole temperature reconstructions and conclude that > it results in significant errors. > This conclusions has been refuted by > \citet{pollack_smerdon2004} (on statistical grounds), \citet{gonzalez-rouco_etal2003} > (using climate simulations) and \citet{huang2004} (using an expanded network of 696 > boreholes in the northern hemisphere). > > \subsection{Medieval Warm Period} > > Despite much discussion > \citep[e.g.][]{hughes_diaz1994, bradley_etal2003}, there is no clear quantitative > understanding of what is meant by the ``Medieval Warm Period'' [MWP]. > \citet{crowley_lowery2000} > [CL2000] discuss the evidence for a global MWP, which they interpret as > a period of unusual warmth in the 11th century. All the reconstructions > of the 11th century temperature shown > in Fig.~1 estimate that century to have been warmer than most of the > past millennium. However, the question of practical importance is not > whether it was warmer than the 12th to 19th centuries, which is > generally accepted, but whether it was a period of comparable > warmth to the late 20th century. MBH1999 concluded, with 95\% confidence, that > this was not so. CL2000 revisit the question > using 15 proxy records, of which 9 were not used in the studies > described above. Several of the series used have extremely low temporal resolution. > %%CL2000 sought to select tree ring chronologies with consistent quality > %%throughout their length, as measured by the "sample replication" > %%\citep{cook_etal2004}. > %%[check usage of "sample replication" -- cook etal (QSR) is available from Jan's website]] > > They draw attention to the spatial localization of the MWP in their proxy series: > it is strong in North America, North Atlantic and Western Europe, but not > clearly present elsewhere. Periods of unusual warmth > do occur in other regions, but these are short and asynchronous. > > Their estimate of northern hemispheric temperature over the past millennium is consistent > with the works discussed above. They conclude that the occurrence of decades of > temperatures similar to those of the late 20th century cannot be unequivocally ruled > out, but that there is, on the other hand, no evidence to support the claims > that such an extended period of large-scale warmth occurred. > > \citet{soon_baliunas2003} carry out an analysis of local climate reconstructions. > They evaluate the number of such reconstructions which show (a) a sustained ``climate > anomaly" during 800-1300AD, (b) a sustained ``climate > anomaly" during 1300-1900AD and (c) > their most anomalous 50 year period in the 20th century. > Their definition of a ``sustained climate anomaly" is 50 years of warmth, > wetness or dryness for (a) and (c) and 50 years of coolness, wetness > or dryness in (b). > It should be noted that they do not carry out evaluations which allow direct comparison between > the 20th century and earlier times: > they compare the number of extremes occurring in the 20th century with the > number of anomalies occurring in periods of 3 and 4 centuries in the past. > Both the use of sampling periods of differing length and different selection criteria make interpretation > of their results problematic. > They have also been criticised for interpreting > regional extremes which occur at distinct times as being indicative of a global > climate extremes \citep{jones_mann2004}. This issue is discussed further in > Sect.~2.9 below. > \citet{osborn_briffa2006} perform a systematic analysis along the lines of \citet{soon_baliunas2003} > and conclude that the proxy records alone, by-passing the problem of proxy calibration > against instrumental temperatures, show an unprecedented anomaly in the 20th century. > > \subsection{Segment length curse} > > \citet{briffa_etal2001} and \citet{briffa_etal2002} discuss the impact of > the ``segment length curse'' \citep{cook_etal1995a, briffa_etal1996, briffa2000} on > temperature reconstructions from tree rings. > Tree rings have been shown to have much greater sensitivity > than other proxies on short timescales (JBB1998), but there is a concern that this may not > be true on longer timescales. Tree ring chronologies are often made up of > composites of many trees of different ages at one site. > The width of the annual growth ring > depends not only on environmental factors but also on the age of the > tree. The age dependency on growth is often removed by subtracting > a growth curve from the tree ring data for each tree. This process, > done empirically, will not only remove age related trends but also any environmental > trends which span the entire life of the tree. > \citet{briffa_etal2001} use a more sophisticated method > (Age Band Decomposition [ABD], which > forms separate chronologies from tree rings in different age bands, > and then averages all the age-band chronologies) > to construct northern hemisphere > temperatures back to 1400AD, and show that > a greater degree of long term variability is preserved. > The reconstruction lies between those > of MBH1999 and JBB1998, showing the cold 17th century of the former, > but the relatively mild 19th century of the latter. > > The potential impact of the segment length limitations is analysed further > by \citet{esper_etal2002b, esper_etal2003}, using `Regional Curve Standardisation' (RCS) > \citep{briffa_etal1992}. > In RCS composite growth curves (different curves reflecting > different categories of growth behaviour) are obtained from all the trees > in a region and this, rather than a fitted curve, is subtracted > from each individual series. Whereas ABD circumvents the need to > subtract a growth curve, RCS seeks to evaluate a growth curve which > is not contaminated by climate signals. > The ECS2002 analysis agrees well with that of MBH1999 on short > time scales, but has greater centennial variability \citep{esper_etal2004}. > ECS2002 suggest that this may be partly due to the lack of tropical proxies > in their work, which they suggest should be regarded as an extratropical > Northern Hemisphere estimate. The extratropics are known to have > greater variability than the tropics. > %[check]:from eduardo:: Table 1 in MBH GRL 99 --add ref?? > However, it has to be also noted that among the proxies used by MBH1999 > (12 in total), just 2 of them are located in the tropics, both at one location > (see table 1 below). > > \citet{cook_etal2004} study the data used by ECS2002 and pay particular attention > to potential loss of quality in the earlier parts of tree-ring chronologies > when a relatively small number of tree samples are available. Their analysis > suggests that tree ring chronologies prior to 1200AD should be treated with > caution. > > \subsection{Separating timescales} > > \citet{moberg_etal2005} follow BOS2001 and ECS2002 in trying to address > the ``segment length curse'', but rather than trying to improve the > tree-ring chronologies by improving the standardizations, > they discard low frequency component of the tree-ring data, > and replace this with low-frequency information from proxies with lower temporal resolution. > A wavelet analysis is used to filter different temporal scales. > > Each individual proxy series is first scaled to unit variance and then wavelet transformed. > Averaging of the wavelet transforms is made separately for tree ring data > and the low-resolution data. > The average wavelet transform of tree-ring data for timescales less than 80 > years is combined with the averaged wavelet transform of the low-resolution data for > timescales longer than 80 years to form one single wavelet transform covering all timescales. > This composite wavelet transform is inverted to create a dimensionless temperature > reconstruction, which is calibrated against the instrumental record of > northern hemisphere mean temperatures, AD 1856-1979, using a variance matching method. > > Unfortunately, the calibration period is too short to independently calibrate the > low frequency component. The variance matching represents a form of cross-calibration. > In all calibrations against instrumental data, the long period (multi-centennial) > response is determined by a calibration which is dominated by > sub-centennial variance. The MSH2005 approach makes this explicit and > shows a level of centennial variability which is much larger than in > MBH1999 reconstruction and > similar to that in simulations of the past millennium with two > different climate models, ECHO-G \citep{storch_etal2004} and NCAR CSM > (``Climate System Model'') \citep{mann_etal2005}. > > \subsection{Glacial advance and retreat} > > \citet{oerlemans2005} provides another independent estimate of the global mean temperature > over the last 460 years from an analysis of glacial advance and retreat. > As with the bore hole based estimate of HPS2000, this work uses a > physically based model rather than an empirical calibration. > The resulting curve lies within the > range spanned by the high-resolution proxies, roughly midway between > the MBH1999 Climate Field Reconstruction and the HPS2000 bore hole estimate. > > Unlike the borehole estimate, but consistent with most other works presented > here, this analysis shows a cooling trend prior to 1850, related to glacial > advances over that period. > It should be noted that > the technique used to generate the bore hole estimate \citep{pollack_etal1998} > assumes a constant temperature prior to 1500AD. The > absence of a cooling trend after this date may be influenced by this > boundary condition. > > \subsection{Regression techniques} > > Many of the reconstructions listed above depend on empirical relationships > between proxy records and temperature. \citet{storch_etal2004} suggest > that the regression technique used by MBH1999 > under-represents\footnote{This is sometimes referred to as ``underestimating'', > which will mean the same thing to many people, but something slightly different > to statisticians. Any statistical model (that is, a set of assumptions about the > noise characteristics of the data being examined) will deliver estimates of > an expected value and variability. The variability of the expected value is > not generally the same as the expected value of the variability.} > the variability of past climate. > This conclusion is drawn after a applying a method similar to that of MBH1999 to output from a > climate model using a set of pseudo-proxies: time series generated from > the model output and degraded with noise which is intended to match the noise > characteristics of actual proxies. > \citet{mann_etal2005} use the same approach and arrive at a different conclusion: > namely, that their regression technique is sound. > \citet{mann_etal2005} show several implementations of their > Climate Field Reconstruction Method in the CSM simulation, using different levels > of white noise in their synthetic pseudo proxies. > For a case of pseudo-proxies with a realistic signal-to-noise ratio of 0.5, they use > a calibration period (1856-1980) which is longer than that > used in MBH1998 and MBH1999 (1901-1980). > It turns out that the difference in the length of the calibration period is critical > for the skill of the method (Zorita, personal communication et al., submitted). > % (I think you can refer to Buerger et al 2006 here. Check with Eduardo if this is OK. > % By the way, update the reference list: Tellus, 58A, 227-235) [AM] > > There is some uncertainty about the true nature of noise on the proxies, and > on the instrumental record, as will be discussed further below. > The optimal least squares estimation technique of MBH1998 effectively > neglects the uncertainties in the proxy data relative to uncertainties > in the temperature. > Instead, > \citet{hegerl_etal2006+} use total least squares regression \citep{allen_stott2003, adcock1878}. > This approach > allows the partitioning of noise between instrumental temperatures > and proxy records to be estimated, on the assumption that the instrumental > noise is known. \citet{hegerl_etal2006+} show that this approach leads to greater variability in the reconstruction. > > \citet{rutherford_etal2005} take a different view. They compare reconstructions > from 1400AD to present using a regularised expectation maximisation technique \citep{schneider2001} > and the MBH1998 climate field reconstruction method and find only minor differences. > Standard regression techniques assume that we have a calibration period, in which > both sets of variables are measured, and a reconstruction (or prediction) period > in which one variable is estimated, by regression, from the other. > The climate reconstruction problem is more complex: > there are hundreds of instrumental records > which are all of different lengths, and similar numbers of proxy records, > also of varying length. The expectation maximisation technique > \citep{little_rubin1987} > is well suited to deal with this: instead of imposing an > artificial separation between a calibration period and a reconstruction > period, it fills in the gaps in a way which exploits all data present. > Regularised expectation maximisation is a generalisation > developed by \citet{schneider2001} to deal with ill posed problems. > Nevertheless, there is still a simple regression equation at the heart of the technique. > That used by \citet{rutherford_etal2005} is similar to that used by > %new: corrected > MBH1998, so the issue raised by \citet{hegerl_etal2006+} is unanswered. > > \subsection{Natural variability and forcings} > > Global temperature can fluctuate through internally generated variability of > the climate system (as in the El Ni\~no phenomenon), through > variability in natural forcings (solar insolation, volcanic aerosols, > natural changes to greenhouse gas concentrations) and human changes. > Reconstructions of variations in the external forcings for the last > millenium have been > put forward \citep{crowley2000}, although recent studies have > suggested a lower amplitude > of low-frequency solar forcing \citep{lean_etal2002, foukal_etal2004}. > > Analysis of reconstructed temperatures of MBH1999 and CL2000 and > simulated temperatures using reconstructed solar and volcanic forcings > shows that changes in the forcings can explain the reconstructed long > term cooling through most of the millenium > and the warming in the late 19th century \citep{crowley2000}. > The relatively cool climate in the second half of the 19th century may be > attributable to cooling from deforestation \citep{bauer_etal2003}. > \citet{hegerl_etal2003} analyse the correlations between four > reconstructions (MBH1999, BOS2001, ECS2002, and a modified version of > CL2000) > and estimated forcings \citep{crowley2000}. > They find that that natural forcing, particularly by > volcanism, explains a substantial fraction of decadal variance. > Greenhouse gas forcing is detectable > with high significance levels in all analyzed reconstructions except > MSH2005, which ends in 1925. > \citet{weber2005b} carries out a similar analysis with a wider range > of reconstructions. It is shown that the regression of reconstructed > global temperatures on the forcings has a similar dependence on timescale > as regressions derived from the climate model. The role of solar forcing is > found to be larger for longer timescales, whereas volcanic forcing dominates > for decadal timescales. > The trend component over the period 1000 to 1850 is, however, in all > reconstructions larger than the trend implied by the forcings. > > The methods employed by > \citet{hegerl_etal2006+} attribute about a third of the early 20th > century warming, sometimes > more, in high-variance reconstructions to greenhouse gas forcing. > These results indicate that enhanced variability in the past does not > make it more difficult to detect greenhouse warming, since a large > fraction of the variability can be attributed to external forcing. > Quantifying the influence of external forcing on the proxy records is > therefore more relevant to understanding climate variability and its > causes than determining if past periods were possibly as warm as the > 20th century. > > \citet{goosse_etal2005} investigate the role of internal variability using > an ensemble of 25 climate model simulations of the last millennium > and forcing estimates from \citet{crowley2000}. > They conclude that internal variability dominates local and regional > scale temperature anomalies, implying that most of the variations > experienced by a region such as Europe over the last millennium could > be caused by internal variability. On the hemispheric and global scale, > however, the forcing dominates. > This agrees with results from a long > solar-forced model simulation by \citet{weber_etal2004}. > %%similar This reinforces similar statements made by JOS1998. [where does this come from?] > \citet{goosse_etal2005} > make the new point, that noise can lead to regional temperature anomalies > peaking at different times to the forcing, so that disagreements in > timing between proxy series should not necessarily be interpreted as > meaning there is no common forcing. > > \subsection{The long view} > > The past sections have drawn attention to the problems of calibrating > temperature reconstructions using a relatively short > period over which instrumental records are available. > For longer reconstructions, with lower temporal resolution, > other methods are available. Pollen > reconstructions of climate match the ecosystem types with those > currently occurring at different latitudes. The changes in > ecosystem can then be mapped to the temperatures at which > they now occur \citep[e.g.][]{bernabo1981, gajewski1988}. > These reconstructions cannot resolve decadal variability, > but they provide an independent estimate of local low-frequency > temperature variations. The results of \citet{weber_etal2004} > and > \citet{goosse_etal2005} suggest that such estimates > centennial mean temperatures can provide some information about > global mean anomalies, as they strongly reflect the external forcings on > centennial and longer timescales. However, there has, as yet, > been no detailed intercomparison between the pollen based > reconstructions and the higher resolution reconstructions. > > > \section{Critics of the IPCC consensus on millennial temperatures} > > The temperature reconstructions described in the previous section > represent (including their respective differences and similarities) > the scientific consensus, based on objective analysis > of proxy data sources which are sensitive to temperature. > Nevertheless, there are many who are strongly attached to the view that past > temperature variations were significantly larger and that, consequently, > the warming trend seen in recent decades should not be considered > as unusual. > > > The criticism has been directed mainly at the \citet{mann_etal1998a, mann_etal1999} > work. > Therefore, this section focuses mainly on this criticism. > %new > Though some of the critics identify the consensus with the MBH1998 work, > this is not the case: the consensus rests on a broader body of work, and > as formulated by IPCC2001 is less strong than the conclusions of > MBH1998 (Sect.~3.2). > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2003} [MM2003] > criticize MBH1998 on many counts, some related to deficiencies > in the description of the data used and possible irregularities in the data > themselves. These issues have been largely resolved in \citet{mann_etal2004}. > %%\footnote{ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MANNETAL1998}. > > As noted above, the MBH1998 analysis is considerably more complex than others, > and uses a greater volume of data. > There are 3 main stages of the algorithm: (1) sub-sampling of > regions with disproportionate numbers of proxies, (2) regression, > (3) validation and uncertainty estimates. > > Stage (1) is necessary because some parts of the globe, particularly > North America and Northern Europe, have a disproportionate number of > proxy records. Other authors have dealt with this by using only > a small selection of the available data or using regional > averages \citep[BOS2001;][]{hegerl_etal2006+}. MBH1998 > use a principal component analysis to extract the common signal from the records in > densely sampled regions. > > The failure of MM2003 to replicate the MBH1998 results is partly due to > a misunderstanding of the stepwise reconstruction method. MBH1998 use > different subsets of their proxy database for different time periods. > This allows more data to be used for more recent periods. > > For example, Fig.~2 illustrates > how the stepwise approach applies to the North American tree ring network. > Of the total of 212 chronologies, only 66 extend back beyond 1400AD. > MM2003 only calculate principal components for the period when all > chronologies are present. Similarly, MBH1998 use one principal > component calculated from 6 drought sensitive tree-rings chronologies from South West Mexico > and this data is omitted in MM2003. > %%[is this clear now?? (AM)]] > %new > %%Table 7 of MM2003 indicates only 20 series for the region, as the > %%supplementary information provided with MBH2003 omitted 2 > %%\citep{mann_etal2004}. > %endnew > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005a} [MM2005] continue the criticism of the techniques > used by MBH1998 and introduce a ``hockey stick index": defined in terms of the ratio > of the variance at the end of a time series > to the variance over the remainder of the series. > MM2005 argue that the way in which > a principal component analysis is carried out in MBH generates an artificial > bias towards a high ``hockey-stick index" and that the statistical significance of > the MBH results may be lower that originally estimated. > > The issue arises because the tree ring chronologies are standardized: > this involves subtracting a mean and dividing by a variance. > MBH1998 use the mean and variance of the detrended series evaluated > over the calibration period. MM2005 are of the view that this is > incorrect. > They suggest that each series should be standardised with respect to the > mean and variance its full length. > > The code used by MM2005 is not, at the time of writing available, > but the code fragments included in the text imply > that their calculation used data which had been > centred (mean removed) but had not been normalized to unit variance (standardised). > Figure 3 shows the effect of the changes, applied to the > North American tree ring sub-network of the data used by MBH1998, > using those chronologies which extend back to 1400AD. > The calculation used here does not precisely reproduce the archived MBH1998 > result, but the differences may be due to small differences in > mathematical library routines used to do the decomposition. > The effect of replacing the MBH1998 approach with centering and > standardising on the whole time series is small, the effect of > omitting the standardisation as in MM2005 is much larger: > this omission causes the 20th century trend to be removed from the > first principal component. > > \citet{storch_zorita2005} look at some of the claims made in MM2005 > and analyses them in the context of a climate simulation. > They find the impact of the modifications suggested by McIntyre and McKitrick to > be minor. > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005b} clarify their original claim, stating that the > standardisation technique used by MBH98 does not create the ``hockey-stick" structure > but does ``steer" the selection of this structure in principal component > analysis. > > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005c} [MM2005c] revisit the MM2003 work and correct > their earlier error by taking the stepwise reconstruction technique into account. > They assert that the results of MM2003, which show a 15th century > reconstruction 0.5K warmer than found by MBH1998, > are reproduced with only minor changes to the MBH1998 proxy data base. > Examination of the relevant figures, however, shows that this is not entirely > true. The MM2005c predictions for > the 15th century are 0.3K warmer than the MBH1998 > result: this is still significant, but, unlike the discredited MM2003 result, it > would not make the 15th century the warmest on record. > > MM20005c and \citet{wahl_ammann2005} both find that > excluding the north American bristlecone pine data from the proxy > data base removes the skill from the 15th century reconstructions. > MM2005c justify this removal on the grounds that the first principal component > of the North American proxies, which is dominated by the > bristlecone pines, is a statistical outlier with respect to the joint distribution > of $R^2$ and the difference in mean between 1400 to 1450 and 1902 to 1980. > %%first ref to table 1 > Table 1, which lists a range of proxies extending back to 1000, > shows that the North American first principal component (``ITRDB [pc01]'' in that table) > is not an outlier > in terms of its coherence with northern hemispheric mean temperature from 1856 to 1980. > > \begin{table}[t] > \small > %% output from mitrie/pylib/multi_r2.py, editted > \begin{tabular}{|p{7.0cm}|r|r|l|r|l|} > \hline > Name & Lat. & Lon. & Id & $R^2$ & Type \cr > \hline > GRIP: borehole temperature (degC) (Greenland)$^1$ & 73 & -38 & *,Mo & 0.67 & [IC] \cr > China: composite (degC)$^2$ & 30 & 105 & *,Mo & 0.63 & [MC] \cr > Taymir (Russia) & 72 & 102 & He & 0.60 & [TR C] \cr > Eastern Asia & 35 & 110 & He & 0.58 & [TR C] \cr > Polar Urals$^3$ & 65 & 67 & Es, Ma & 0.51 & [TR] \cr > Tornetraesk (Sweden)$^4$ & 58 & 21 & Mo & 0.50 & [TR] \cr > ITRDB [pc01] & 40 & -110 & Ma & 0.49 & [TR PC] \cr > Mongolia & 50 & 100 & He & 0.46 & [TR C] \cr > Arabian Sea: Globigerina bull$^5$ & 18 & 58 & *,Mo & 0.45 & [CL] \cr > Western Siberia & 60 & 60 & He & 0.44 & [TR C] \cr > Northern Norway & 65 & 15 & He & 0.44 & [TR C] \cr > Upper Wright (USA)$^6$ & 38 & -119 & *,Es & 0.43 & [TR] \cr > Shihua Cave: layer thickness (degC) (China)$^7$ & 40 & 116 & *,Mo & 0.42 & [SP] \cr > Western Greenland & 75 & -45 & He & 0.40 & \cr > Quelcaya 2 [do18] (Peru)$^8$ & -14 & -71 & *,Ma & 0.37 & [IC] \cr > Boreal (USA)$^6$ & 35 & -118 & *,Es & 0.32 & [TR] \cr > Tornetraesk (Sweden)$^9$ & 58 & 21 & *,Es & 0.31 & [TR] \cr > Taymir (Russia)$^{10}$ & 72 & 102 & *,Es, Mo & 0.30 & [TR] \cr > Fennoscandia$^{11}$ & 68 & 23 & *,Jo,Ma & 0.28 & [TR] \cr > Yamal (Russia)$^{12}$ & 70 & 70 & *,Mo & 0.28 & [TR] \cr > Northern Urals (Russia)$^{13}$ & 66 & 65 & *,Jo & 0.27 & [TR] \cr > \hline > \end{tabular} > \caption{Continued overleaf.} > \end{table} > > \renewcommand{\thetable}{\arabic{table}} > \addtocounter{table}{-1} > \begin{table}[t] > \small > \begin{tabular}{|p{7.0cm}|r|r|l|r|l|} > \hline > Name & Lat. & Lon. & Id & $R^2$ & Type \cr > \hline > ITRDB [pc02] & 42 & -108 & Ma & 0.21 & [TR PC] \cr > Lenca (Chile)$^{14}$ & -41 & -72 & Jo & 0.18 & [TR] \cr > Crete (Greenland)$^{15}$ & 71 & -36 & *,Jo & 0.16 & [IC] \cr > Methuselah Walk (USA) & 37 & -118 & *,Mo & 0.14 & [TR] \cr > Greenland stack$^{15}$ & 77 & -60 & Ma & 0.13 & [IC] \cr > Morocco & 33 & -5 & *,Ma & 0.13 & [TR] \cr > North Patagonia$^{16}$ & -38 & -68 & Ma & 0.08 & [TR] \cr > Indian Garden (USA) & 39 & -115 & *,Mo & 0.04 & [TR] \cr > Tasmania$^{17}$ & -43 & 148 & Ma & 0.04 & [TR] \cr > ITRDB [pc03] & 44 & -105 & Ma & -0.03 & [TR PC] \cr > Chesapeake Bay: Mg/Ca (degC) (USA)$^{18}$ & 38 & -76 & *,Mo & -0.07 & [SE] \cr > Quelcaya 2 [accum] (Peru)$^{8}$ & -14 & -71 & *,Ma & -0.14 & [IC] \cr > France & 44 & 7 & *,Ma & -0.17 & [TR] \cr > \hline > \end{tabular} > \caption{(continued) > The primary reference for each data set is indicated by the superscript in the first column as > follows: > 1: \citep{dahl-jensen_etal1998}, 2: \citet{yang_etal2002}, 3: \citet{shiyatov1993}, 4: \citet{grudd_etal2002}, 5: \citet{gupta_etal2003}, > 6: \citet{lloyd_graumlich1997}, 7: \citet{tan_etal2003}, 8: \citet{thompson1992}, > 9: \citet{bartholin_karlen1983}, 10: \citet{naurzbaev_vaganov1999}, 11: \citet{briffa_etal1992}, > 12: \citet{hantemirov_shiyatov2002}, 13: \citet{briffa_etal1995}, 14: \citet{lara_villalba1993}, > 15: \citet{fisher_etal1996}, 16: \citet{boninsegna1992}, 17: \citet{cook_etal1991}, 18: \citet{cronin_etal2003}. > the "Id" in column 4 refers to the reconstructions in which the data were used. > The type of proxy is indicated in column 6:: tree-ring [TR], tree-ring composite [TR C], > tree-ring principle component [TR PC], coral [CL], sediment [SE], ice core [IC], > multi-proxy composite [MC]. The 19 proxy series marked with a "*" in column 4 are used in the > ``Union'' reconstruction. > } > \end{table} > > \citep[][; MM2005c]{briffa_osborn1999} suggest that > rising CO$_2$ levels may have contributed significantly to the > 19th and 20th century increase in growth rate in some trees, > particularly the bristlecone pines, but such an > effect has not been reproduced in controlled experiments with mature trees > \citep{korner_etal2005}. > > Once a time series purporting to represent past temperature has been obtained, > the final, and perhaps, most important, step is to verify its > and estimate uncertainty limits. This is discussed further in the next section. > > \section{Varying methods vs. varying data} > > One factor which complicates the evaluation of the various reconstructions is > that different authors have varied both method and data collections. Here we will > run a representative set of proxy data collections through two algorithms: > inverse regression and scaled composites. These two methods, and the different > statistical models from which they may be derived, are explained in the > Appendix A. > > Esper et al. (2005) investigated the differing calibration approaches used in the recent literature, including > regression and scaling techniques, and concluded that the methodological differences in calibration result in differences > in the reconstructed temperature amplitude/variance of about 0.5K. > This magnitude is equivalent to the mean annual temperature change for the Northern Hemisphere reported in the last > IPCC report for the 1000-1998 period. > \citet{burger_etal2006} take another approach and investigate a family of 32 different regression algorithms > derived by adjusting 5 binary switches, using pseudo-proxy data. > They show that these choices, which > have all been defended in the literature, can lead to a wide variety of different > reconstructions given the same data. > They also point out that the uncertainty is greater when we > attempt to estimate the climate of periods which lie outside the range experienced > during the calibration period. The relevance of this point to the last millennium is > under debate: the glacier based temperature estimates of OER2005 suggest that the > coldest northern hemisphere mean temperatures occurred close to the start of > the instrumental record, in the 19th century. The borehole reconstructions, > however, imply that there were colder temperatures experienced in the 16th to 18th centuries. > For the question as to whether the warmth of the latter part of the calibration > period has been experienced in the past, however, > this particular issue is not directly relevant. > > As noted above, much of the MBH1999 algorithm is irrelevant to reconstructions > prior to AD 1450, because before that date the data only suffice, > according to estimates in that paper, to determine one degree of freedom. > Hence, we will only look at direct evaluation of the hemispheric mean temperature. > > Several authors have evaluated composites and calibrated those composites > against instrumental temperature. Many of the composites contain more samples in later > periods, so that the calibration may be dominated by samples which do > not extend into the distant past. Here, we will restrict attention to > records which span the entire reconstruction period. > The data series used are listed in table 1. > > \subsection{Proxy data quality issues} > > As noted previously, their has been especially strong criticism of > MBH1998, 1999, partly concerning some aspects of their data collection. > Figures 4 and 5 show reconstructions made using the MBH1999 and MBH1998 data respectively. > Regression against northern hemispheric mean temperature from 1856 to 1980 is used > instead of regression against principal components of > temperature from 1902 to 1980. There are differences, but key features remain. > MM2003 draw attention to the fact that one time series, > ``CANA036" in the ITRDB classification, contributed > by Gasp\'e, appears twice in the MBH1998 database. > This error is corrected in the red dashed curve of Fig.~5, > which is almost identical to the green curve, which retains the duplication. > > \subsection{Reconstruction using a union of proxy collections} > > The following subsection will discuss a range of reconstructions using different > data collections. The first 5 of these collections are defined as those proxies used by > JBB1998, MBH1999, ECS2002, MSH2005 and HCA2006, respectively, which extend back to 1000AD. > These will be referred to below as the JBB, MBH, ECS, MSH, HCA composites below > to distinguish them from the composites used in the published articles, which include > additional, shorter, proxy data series. > Finally there is a `Union' composite made using 19 independent northern > hemisphere proxy series marked with ``*" in table 1. Apart from the China composite > record, all the data used are individual series. The PCs used by MBH1999 have been > omitted in favour of individual series used in other studies. > Two southern hemisphere tropical series, both from the Quelcaya glacier, Peru, > are included ensure adequate representation of tropical temperatures. > This 'Union' collection contains 11 tree-ring series, 4 ice-cores, and one each of > coral, speleothem, lake sediment and a composite record including historical data. > > \subsection{Intercomparison of proxy collections} > > Figure 6 shows reconstructions back to 1000AD using > composites of proxies and variance matching [CVM] (for the proxy > principal components in the MBH1998, MBH1999 data collections the sign > is arbitrary: these series have, where necessary, had the sign reversed so that > they have a positive correlation with the northern hemisphere > temperature record). > Surprisingly, the `Union' does not lie in the range spanned by the other reconstructions, > and reaches colder temperatures than any of them. It does, however, fit the calibration period > data better than any of the sub-collections. > > The reconstructions shown in Fig.~7 use the same data is used: this time > using inverse regression [INVR] (Appendix A), as used by MBH1998 > (the method used here differs from that of MBH1998 in using northern hemisphere > temperature to calibrate against, having a longer calibration period, > and reconstructing only a single variable instead of multiple EOFs). > The spread of values is substantially increased relative to the CVM reconstruction. > > With INVR, only one reconstruction (that using the ECS2001 > data) shows temperatures warmer than the mid 20th century. > The inverse regression technique applies weights to the > individual proxies which are proportional to the > correlation between the proxies and the calibration temperature > signature. > For this time series the 5 proxies are weighted as: > 1.7 (Boreal); 2.9 (Polar Urals); 1.7 (Taymir); 1.8 (Tornetraesk); and 2.3 (Upper Wright). > Firstly, it should be noted that this collection samples North America and the > Eurasian arctic only. The bias towards the arctic is strengthened by the weights > generated by the inverse regression algorithm, such that the reconstruction has poor geographical coverage. > > The MBH1999 and HPS2000 published reconstructions are shown in Fig.~6 for comparison: the MBH1999 > reconstruction lies near the centre of the spread of estimates, while the HPS2000 reconstruction > is generally at the lower bound. > > Much of the current debate revolves around the level of > centennial scale variability in the past. > The CVM results generally suggest > a low variance scenario comparable to MBH1999. The inverse regression > results, however, suggest greater variability. It should be noted > that the MBH1999 inverse regression result use greater volumes of > data for recent centuries, so that the difference in Fig.~7 between the > dashed red curve and the full green curve in the 17th > century is mainly due to reduced proxy data input in the latter > (there is also a difference because MBH1999 used inverse regression > against temperature principle components rather than northern hemisphere > mean temperature as here). > > Table 2 shows the cross correlations of the reconstructions in Fig.~6, > for high pass (upper right) and low pass (lower left) components > of the series, with low pass being defined by a 40 year running mean. > The low pass components are highly correlated. > > \begin{table}[t] > %% output from mitrie/pylib/pp.py > \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|} > \hline > & Ma & Mo & Es & Jo & He & Union\cr > \hline > Ma & -- & 14\% & 25\% & 60\% & 20\% & 61\% \cr > Mo & 69\% & -- & 37\% & 11\% & 13\% & 60\% \cr > Es & 64\% & 77\% & -- & 14\% & 36\% & 57\% \cr > Jo & 62\% & 51\% & 46\% & -- & 11\% & 35\% \cr > He & 72\% & 75\% & 85\% & 53\% & -- & 26\% \cr > Union & 67\% & 71\% & 62\% & 45\% & 84\% & -- \cr > \hline > \end{tabular} > \caption{Cross correlations between reconstructions from > different proxy data bases: Mann et al (Ma), Moberg et al (Mo), > Esper et al (Es), Jones et al (Jo), Hegerl et al (He). > Lower left block correspond to low pass filtered series, > upper right to high pass filtered.} > \end{table} > > The significance of the correlations between these five proxy data samples > and the instrumental temperature data during the calibration period (1856-1980) > has been evaluated using a Monte-Carlo simulation > with (1) a first order Markov model and (2) random time series > which reproduces the lag correlation structure of the data samples (see Appendix A). > Figure 8 shows the lag correlations. The instrumental record had a pronounced > anti-correlation on the 40 year time-scale. This may be an artifact of the short > data record, but it is retained in the significance calculation as the best available > estimate which is independent of the proxies. > The `Union' composite shows multi-centennial correlations which are not present in the other data. > The MBH and JBB composites clearly underestimate the decadal scale correlations, while > the HCA and 'Union' composites overestimate it. > %%first ref to table 3 > Results are shown in table 3. > If the full lag correlation structure of the data were known, it would be true, > as argued by MM2005, that the first order approach generally > leads to an overestimate of significance. Here, however, we only have a > estimated correlation structure based on a small sample. Using this finite > sample correlation is likely to overestimate long-term correlations and hence > lead to an underestimate of significance. Nevertheless, results are presented here > to provide a cautious estimate of significance. > For the MBH and JBB composites, which have short lag-correlations, the difference > between the two methods is minimal. For other composites there is a substantial difference. > In all cases the $R^2$ values exceed the 99\% significance level. When > detrended data are used the $R^2$ values are lower, but still above the 95\% > level -- with the exception of the Hegerl et al. data. This data has only decadal > resolution, so the lower significance in high frequency variability is to be expected. > > > \begin{table}[t] > %% output from mitrie/pylib/sum_ac.py > \begin{tabular}{|l||c|c||c|c||c||c|p{1.1cm}|} > \hline > Source & $R^2_{95|h}$ & $R^2_{95|AR}$ & $R^2$ & $R^2_{detr}$ & $\sigma$ & Signif. & Signif. (detrended) \cr > \hline > Mann et al. & 0.205 & 0.170 & 0.463 & 0.286 & 0.186 & 99.99\% & 98.75\%\cr > \hline > Moberg et al., (hi+lo)/2 & 0.225 & 0.183 & 0.418 & 0.338 & 0.153 & 99.87\% & 99.25\%\cr > \hline > Esper et al. & 0.335 & 0.220 & 0.613 & 0.412 & 0.158 & 99.96\% & 98.11\%\cr > \hline > Jones et al. & 0.187 & 0.180 & 0.371 & 0.274 & 0.203 & 99.93\% & 99.17\%\cr > \hline > Hegerl et al. & 0.440 & 0.266 & 0.618 & 0.357 & 0.133 & 99.56\% & 90.13\%\cr > \hline > Union & 0.337 & 0.236 & 0.655 & 0.414 & 0.149 & 99.98\% & 97.91\%\cr > \hline > \end{tabular} > \caption{ > $R^2$ values evaluated using the Northern Hemisphere mean temperature (1856 to 1980) and various > proxy records. > Columns 2 and 3 show $R^2$ values for the 95\% significance > levels, evaluated using a Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 realisations. In columns > 2, 7 and 8 the full lag-correlation structure of the data is used, in column > 3 a first order auto-regressive model is used, based on the lag one auto-correlation. > Column 4 shows the $R^2$ value obtained from the data and column 5 shows the same > using detrended data. > Column 6 shows the standard error (root-mean-square residual) from the calibration > period. Columns 7 and 8 show significance levels, estimated using > Monte Carlo simulations as in column 2, for the full and detrended $R^2$ values. > } > \end{table} > > Figure 9 plots this reconstruction, > with the instrumental data > in the calibration period. > The composite tracks the changes in northern hemisphere temperature well, > capturing the steep rise between 1910 and 1950 and much of the decadal > scale variability. This is reflected in the significance scores (Tab.~3) > which are high both for the full series and for the detrended series. > The highest temperature in the reconstructed data, relative to the 1866-1970 mean is > 0.227K in 1091AD. This temperature was first exceeded in the instrumental record in 1878, > again in 1937 and frequently thereafter. The instrumental record has not gone below this level since 1986. > Taking $\sigma=0.149$ as the root-mean-square residual in the calibration period > 1990 is the first year when the 1091 maximum was exceed by $2\sigma$. > This happened again in 1995 and every year since 1997. > 1998 and every year since 2001 have exceeded the preindustrial maximum by $3\sigma$. > > \conclusions\label{sec:end} > > There is general agreement that global temperatures cooled > over the majority of the last millennium and have risen sharply > since 1850. In this respect, the recent literature has not produced > any change to the conclusions of JBB1998, though there remains > substantial uncertainty about the magnitude of centennial scale variability > superimposed over longer term trends. > > The IPCC 2001 conclusion that temperatures of the past millennium > are unlikely to have been as warm, at any time prior to the 20th > century, as the last decades of the 20th century is supported > by subsequent research and by the results obtained here. > > The greatest range of disagreement among independent > assessments occurs during the coolest centuries, from 1500 to > 1900, when the departure from recent climate conditions > was strongest and may have been outside the range of > temperatures experienced during the later > instrumental period. > > There are many areas of uncertainty and disagreement within > the broad consensus outlined above, and also some who > dissent from that consensus. Papers which claim to refute the > IPCC2001 conclusion on the climate of the past millennium have been > reviewed and found to contain serious flaws. > > A major area of uncertainty concerns the accuracy of the long time-scale > variability in the reconstructions. This is particularly > so for timescale of a century and longer. There does not appear to be any > doubt that the proxy records would capture rapid change on > a 10 to 50 year time scale such as we have experienced in recent decades. > > Using two different reconstruction methods on a range of proxy data > collections, we have found that inverse regression > tends to give large weighting to > a small number of proxies and that the relatively simple > approach of compositing all the series and using variance matching to > calibrate the result gives more robust estimates. > > A new reconstruction made with a composite of 19 proxies extending back > to 1000AD fits the instrumental record to within a standard error of 0.149K. > This reconstruction gives a maximum pre-industrial temperature of 0.227K > relative to the 1866 to 1970AD mean. The maximum temperature from the > instrumental record is 0.841K, over 4 standard errors larger. > > The reconstructions evaluated in this study show considerable disagreement > during the 16th century. The new 19 proxy reconstruction implies 21-year mean > temperatures close to 0.6K below the 1866 to 1970AD mean. As this reconstruction > only used data extending back to 1000AD, there is a considerable volume of 16th century > data which has not been used. This will be a focus if future research. > > {\bf Acknowledgments} > > This work was funded by the Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency (RIVM) as part of the > Dutch Scientific Assessment and Policy Analysis (WAB) programme. > Additional funding was provided as follows: > from the UK Natural Environment Research Council for M.N. Juckes, > from the Swedish Research Council for A. Moberg. > > \vfill\eject > > \def\thesection{A} > {\bf Appendix A: Regression methods} > > Ideally, the statistical analysis method would be determined by the > known characteristics of the problem. Unfortunately, the error > characteristics of the proxy data are not sufficiently well > quantified to make the choice clear. > This appendix describes two methods and the statistical models which can be > used to motivate them. > > \subsection{Inverse regression [INVR]} > > Suppose $x_{ik}$, $i=1,N_{pr}$, $k=1,L$ is a set of $N_{pr}$ > standardised proxy records of length $L$ and that we are trying > to obtain an estimate $\hat{y_i}$ of a quantity $y_i$ which is > known only in a calibration period ($i\in C$). > > Several ``optimal" estimates of $y_i$ can be obtained, depending on > the hypothesised relation between the proxies and $y$. > > Inverse regression follows from the model > $$ > \beta_i y_k + {\cal N} > = > x_{ik} > $$ > where $\cal N$ is a noise process, independent between proxies. > It follows that optimal estimate for the coefficients $\beta_i$ are > $$ > \hat{\beta_i} = {\sum_{k\in C} x_{ik} y_k \over \sum{k\in C} y_k^2 } > . > $$ > Given these coefficients, the optimal estimate of the $y_k$ outside > the calibration period is > $$ > \hat{y_k} = { \sum_i \hat{\beta_i} x_{ik} \over \sum_i \hat{\beta_i}^2 }. > $$ > > \subsection{Composite plus variance matching [CVM]} > > This method is rather easier. It starts out from the hypothesis that different > proxies represent different parts of the globe. A proxy for the global mean > is then obtained as a simple average of the proxies: > $$ > \overline{x_k} = N_{pr}^{-1} \sum_i x_{ik} > . > $$ > > Suppose > $$ > \overline{x_k} = \beta y_k + {\cal N} > , > $$ > then an optimal estimate of $\beta$ is easily derived as > $\hat\beta = \sum_{k\in C} x_k y_k/\sum_{k\in C} y_k^2$. > However, $y^*_k = \hat\beta^{-1} x_k$ is not an optimal estimate > of $y_k$. > > Because of the added noise, $\overline{x_k}$ is generally an overestimate > of $\beta y_k$. To correct for this we should use: > $$ > \beta y_k^* = \overline{x_k} > \sqrt{ \left( \beta^2 \sigma^2_y \over \beta^2 \sigma^2_y + \sigma_{\cal N}^2 \right) } > , > $$ > where $\sigma^2_y$ and $\sigma_{\cal N}^2$ are the expected variance of $y$ and the > respectively. > This leads to an estimate: > $$ > y_k^* = \overline{x_k} \left( \sigma_y \over \sigma_x \right) > . > $$ > This is known as the variance matching method because it matches the > variance of the reconstruction with that of observations over > the calibration period. > > \def\thesection{B} > \setcounter{subsection}{0} > {\bf Appendix B: Statistical tests} > > > \subsection{Tests for linear relationships} > > The simplest test for a linear relationship is the anomaly correlation > (also known as: Pearson Correlation, Pearson's product moment correlation, $R^2$, > product mean test): > \be > R = { \overline{ y^\prime x^\prime } \over > \sqrt{ \overline{ y^{\prime2} } \, \overline{ x^{\prime2} } } } > \ee > where the over-bar represents a mean over the data the test is being applied to, > and a prime a departure from the mean > \citep{pearson1896}. > > The significance of an anomaly correlation can be estimated using the > $t$ statistic: > \be > t = {R \sqrt{n-2} \over \sqrt{1-R^2} } > \ee > where $n$ is the sample size (for independent variables). > Two Gaussian variables will produce a $t$ statistics which obeys the > Student's t-distribution of $n-2$ degrees of freedom. > > Ideally, if the noise affecting all the $x$ and $y$ values is independent, > $n$ is simply the number of measurements. This is unlikely to be the case, > so an estimate of $n$ is needed. The Monte-Carlo approach is more > flexible: a large sample of random sequences with specified correlation > structures is created, and the frequency with which the specified > $R$ coefficient is exceeded can then be used to estimate its significance. > > \subsection{Lag correlations} > > Following \citet{hosking1984}, a random time series with a specified > lag correlation structure is obtained from the partial correlation coefficients, > which are generated using Levinson-Durbin regression. > > It is, however, not possible to generate a sequence matching an arbitrarily > specified correlation structure and there is no guarantee that an > estimate of the correlation structure obtained from a small sample will > be realizable. It is found that the Levinson-Durbin regression diverges > when run with the lag correlation functions generated from the \citet{jones_etal1986} > northern hemisphere temperature record and also that from the HCA composite. > > For the northern hemisphere temperature record, this is resolved by truncating the regression after $n=50$. > The sample lag-correlation coefficients are, in any case, unreliable beyind this point. > Truncating the regression results in a random sequence with a lag correlation fitting that > specified up to lag 50 and then decaying. > For the HCA composite, the sample lag-correlation, $C(n)$, is scaled by $\exp( - 0.0001 n )$, > where $n$ is the lag in years. > > {\bf Appendix C: Acronyms} > > Table 4 shows a list of acronyms used in this paper. > \begin{table} > \begin{tabular}{|l|p{12cm}|} > \hline > ABD & Age Band Decomposition tree ring standardisation method \cr > \hline > CSM & Climate System Model: A coupled ocean-atmosphere climate model produced by NCAR, > http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/csm/ \cr > \hline > CFM & Climate Field Reconstruction: method for reconstructing spatial structures > of past climate variables using proxy data \cr > \hline > CVM & Composite plus Variance Matching reconstruction method \cr > \hline > ECHO-G & Hamburg coupled ocean-atmosphere climate model \cr > \hline > EOF & Empirical Orthogonal Component \cr > \hline > INVR & Inverse Regression reconstruction method \cr > \hline > IPCC & The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established by the > World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) > to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. It is open to all Members of the UN and of WMO. \cr > \hline > ITRDB & International Tree-Ring Data Bank, maintained by the NOAA Paleoclimatology > Program and World Data Center for Paleoclimatology (www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo) \cr > \hline > MWP & Medieval Warm Period \cr > \hline > PC & Principal Component \cr > \hline > RCS & Regional Curve Standardisation tree ring standardisation method \cr > \hline > \end{tabular} > \caption{Acronyms used in the text} > \end{table} > > \bibliographystyle{egu}% > \bibliography{citations,extras} > > \vfill\eject > \begin{figure*}[h] > %% produced by idl/mitrie/plot_recon.pro > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f01}} > \caption{\label{fig:1} > Various reconstructions. With mean of 1900 to 1960 removed. > } > \end{figure*} > > \vfill\eject > \begin{figure*}[h] > %% produced by idl/paleo/mbh_70.pro > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f02}} > \caption{\label{fig:2} > Data blocks for PC calculation by MBH1998. Each of the 212 data series is shown as a horizontal > line over the time period covered. The dashed blue rectangles indicate some of the blocks of data > used by MBH1998 for their proxy principal component calculation, using fewer series for longer time > periods. The red rectangle indicates the single block used by MM2003, neglecting all data prior > to 1619. > } > \end{figure*} > > > \vfill\eject > \begin{figure*}[h] > %% produced by pylib/do_eof.py > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f03}} > \caption{\label{fig:3} > First Principal Component of the North American proxy record collection, following MBH1998. > The black line is the MBH1998 archived version. > The other lines differ only in the method of standardisation of series prior to calculation of the > principal components. > Red: calculated following the MBH1998 method, the individual series have the mean of the calibration > period removed and are normalised by the variance of the detrended series over that period; > Blue: with the mean of the whole series removed, and normalised with the variance of the whole series. > Green: mean removed but no normalisation. > } > \end{figure*} > > > \vfill\eject > \begin{figure*}[h] > %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f13}} > \caption{\label{fig:4} > Reconstruction back to 1000, calibrated on 1856 to 1980 northern hemisphere temperature, > using the MBH1999 proxy data collection. > The MBH1999 NH reconstruction and the Jones et al. (1986) instrumental data are shown for comparison. > All data have been smoothed with a 21-year running mean. > } > \end{figure*} > > > \vfill\eject > \begin{figure*}[h] > %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f12}} > \caption{\label{fig:5} > As Fig.~4, but using the MBH1998 data collection back to 1400AD. > } > \end{figure*} > > \vfill\eject > \begin{figure*}[h] > %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f10}} > \caption{\label{fig:6} > Reconstruction back to 1000AD, calibrated on 1856 to 1980 northern hemisphere temperature, > using a composite and variance matching, > for a variety of different data collections. > The MBH1999 and HPS2000 NH reconstructions and the Jones et al. (1998) instrumental > data are shown for comparison. > Graphs have been smoothed with a 21-year running mean and centered on 1866 to 1970. > The maximum of the 'Union' reconstruction in the pre-industrial period (0.227K, 1091AD) is shown > by a short cyan bar, the maximum of the instrumental record (0.841K, 1998AD) is shown as a > short purple bar. > } > \end{figure*} > > \vfill\eject > \begin{figure*}[h] > %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f11}} > \caption{\label{fig:7} > As Fig.~6, except using inverse regression. > } > \end{figure*} > > \vfill\eject > \begin{figure*}[h] > %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f14}} > \caption{\label{fig:8} > Lag correlations for proxy composites and instrumental record (gray). > } > \end{figure*} > > \vfill\eject > \begin{figure*}[h] > %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f09}} > \caption{\label{fig:9} > The ``Union'' reconstruction, using `composite plus variance scaling', for the > calibration period. Also shown is the level of the maximum plus two standard errors. > The Jones and Mann instrumental data is plotted as a dashed line. > } > \end{figure*} > > \end{document} > diliberate bad speling > > \vfill\eject > > {\it\small > Both these questions could be answered by a detailed knowledge of the > climate and its forcings over the past 1000 years, but the detailed > instrumental record only extends back to 1856. Hence ... [[]] > > %%The motivation for the study of past climate variability is twofold: > Current projections of future climate change are still burdened with > some level of uncertainty, even within a particular scenario of future > greenhouse concentrations. Although all climate models simulate an > increase of global temperatures in this century, the range of warming > simulated by different models still covers a wide range \citep{IPCC2001}. > A much pursued goal is to reduce this uncertainty range. > A question is whether warming of magnitude similar to that observed in the > 19th and 20th centuries, very likely caused at least to a large part by > anthropogenic greenhouse gas, has also occurred in the preindustrial recent past, > when, to a large extent, only natural forcings of the climate system were active. > > {\small\it Reconstructions of the climate of the past millennium can help us to > answer the second point by describing the magnitude of > global temperature fluctuations in the past and can address the first > point by helping to quantify the climate sensitivity: the > ratio of the response to the forcing.} > Progress in both questions can be achieved through the analysis > of reconstructions and simulations of the climate of the past millennium: > firstly, > we wish to know whether current high global temperatures are > within the range of natural variability. Secondly, we wish to > evaluate the skill and reliability of climate models. > %%The rise in global mean temperatures since then is > Therefore, some form of empirical reconstruction based on early-instrumental > records, documentary evidence and proxy data is needed. > %%On the other hand, > %%the global warming observed in the past 2 centuries may be partly > %%due to the recovery from an extended > %%period of anomalously low temperatures which was reflected > %%in a large number of indirect European records. > %%[omit above sentence (AM)??] > %%[justify "recovery" (JE)??] > %%[was it really gradual (JE)] > %%"gradual deleted": jones and mann suggest that hemispheric mean cooling trend > %% is "relatively steady" in contrast to more episodic cooling in Europe, > %% but esper etal (2002) suggests that attributing this difference to > %% hemisphere vs. europe is wrong, it might be whole hemisphere vs. extra-tropical, > %% or it might be failure to resolve variability. > %[check]: copied from Gabi's email -- needs clearing up. > %%However, some unsolved questions will remain. > %%For instance, the climate sensitivity may depend on the nature of the external > %%forcing (greenhouse gas, solar irradiance, etc), so that an estimation > %%of past climate sensitivity has still to be considered with some care. > %%There are indeed indications that climate sensitivity to changes in solar > %%forcing is lower than to changes to greenhouse gas forcing > %%\citep{tett_etal2005+, joshi_etal2003}. > %%[ be more precise -- (i.e. in terms of $K W^-1 m^2$ ??)]] > %%::joshi etal show a 0-20% difference between sensitivity to solar forcing > %%compared to CO2 forcing. This is much less than variability in sensitivity > %%among models. > %%[this is not really relevant if the difference in climate sensitivity between > %%forcings is much less than that between, say, models] > > A wide range of proxy > data sources which have been exploited for this problem > \citep[reviewed in][]{jones_mann2004}. > Tree rings are a particularly important source of information > within the time frame of the last millennium. The precise dating which > is provided by the annual growth rings allows anomalous growth > rates to be compared reliably with historical events. > However, its not straightforward to retrieve the climate variability > at timescales that exceed the typical life span of a tree (see Sect.~2.5 below). > Statistical regression against instrumental temperature data is often used > because the majority of proxy records cannot be directly related to temperature > by deterministic models > (two exceptions, reconstructions obtained from borehole temperatures > and those based on glacial advance and retreat, are discussed below). > Appendix A gives mathematical details of some basic statistical measures. > The measures of skill used by MBH1998, MBH1999 are the > $R^2$ test, which measures the degree of coherence between two data > sets, and the ``Reduction of Error'' (RE) statistic, which measures the > effectiveness of one series (typically a model or prediction) > in explaining the total (i.e. including the mean) variance in another (the verification data). > > The statistical tests on these measures of skill are described > in many text books, and their application is straight forward > when all sources of noise contaminating the > data are well characterised. The difficulty which arises > in many applications, including climate reconstructions, is that > the noise has significant but poorly characterised correlations. > %%[is this true for tests of skill -- probably not for analytical tests of RE]] > } > \vfill\eject > \vfill \eject > > The B\"urger et al. analyses use a collection of pseudo-proxies created from > pseudo observations of a climate simulation with added white noise. > This is a pragmatic approach -- there is little reliable information about > the true nature of the noise spectrum. It has been suggested that bristlecone pines > in N. America have an anomalous growth trend in the 20th century which is > coherent among that species. The inverse regression algorithm can give large > weight to individual proxies and negative weight to others: this may be > correct in some circumstances, but in others it could amplify the error. > The composite approach, on the other hand, is robust: > simply taking the mean of the available proxies does not rely on > specific assumptions about the noise spectrum. > > \vfill\eject > \begin{figure*}[h] > %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{figz/c_var_nh_reconc_10_1000_c}} > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{figs/cpd-2006-xxxx-f04}} > \caption{\label{fig:1} > As Fig.~7, except > using composite and variance matching. > } > \end{figure*} > > \vfill\eject > > \begin{figure*}[h] > %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{figz/c_var_nh_reconc_10_1000_c}} > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{figs/cpd-2006-xxxx-f04}} > \caption{\label{fig:1} > The ``Union'' reconstruction, using `composite plus variance scaling', for the > calibration period. Also shown is the level of the maximum plus two standard errors. > The Jones and Mann instrumental data is plotted as a dashed line. > } > \end{figure*} > > > > Willmott, C.J., 1981. On the validation of models. Phys. Geog., 2, 184-194 > > > {\bf A2: Principal Components} > > Principal component analysis is a standard technique for reducing the > volume of data while attempting to retain as much of the variability > of the original data as possible. > > Stage (2) establishes an empirical link between the proxy records and > temperature. In MBH1998 inverse least squares regression of the > proxy network against the principal components of the measured temperature field, > over the period 1902 to 1980, is used. > > Stage (3), the verification stage, determines how many, if any, of the > reconstructed time series for the principal components can be > considered to have some descriptive value. This is done by evaluating the > fit of the implied fields to the observations in the verification period, 1856 to 1901. > The northern hemisphere mean temperature is calculated from the > The uncertainties are calculated from the residuals to the fit in the calibration period. > > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005c} assert that the fact that omission of data > led to a different result demonstrates that the method is unreliable. > This would be true if the computation of a time series were the > end point of the analysis. However, the need to verify the computed series > was recognised by MBH1998. This is discussed further below. > > \subsubsection{Spurious metaphors} > > The term ``hockey-stick" has become widely used, particularly in the US > media, to refer to the temperature history implied by the MBH1999 > temperature reconstruction. It did not originally apply to the reconstruction > itself, which has a relatively minor temperature increase in the early > 20th century, but rather to the combination of this series with the > more recent observed temperature trends: the combination shows > a dramatic increase in the 20th century, substantially greater than anything > that occurred in the past millennium. > The first attempt to attach any scientific meaning to the phrase > was with the introduction of a ``hockey stick index'' > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005a} (hereafter MM2005). > This index is defined in terms of the ratio of the variance at the end of a time series > to the variance over the remainder of the series. > MM2005 argue that the way in which > a principal component analysis is carried out in MBH generates an artificial > bias towards a high ``hockey-stick index" and that the statistical significance of > the MBH results may be lower that originally estimated. > %% and that this is responsible for the > %%shape in the MBH temperature reconstruction. > %%Martin: I think that what MM05 indicate is that "hockey-stick may arise from random time series more easlily as previously thought, when using the decentered PCs. I am not sure if they make this decentering responsible for the final output in MBH. > %% > \subsection{Validation} > > As noted above, MM2003 have shown that removing data > degrades the result, as might be expected. > Among the adjustments which they characterize as ``corrections'' was the > omission of the 3 principal components mentioned above. > In fact, 70\% of the 90 time series extending back to > 1400 are omitted from their analysis. > > In principle, it would be possible to estimate the accuracy of > reconstructions calculated by regression from the data in the > calibration period. However, this calculation can easily be biased > by unreliable assumptions about the noise covariances within > the calibration period. > MBH1998, 1999 follow a more robust approach, using independent > data from a validation period (1856 to 1901) to, > firstly, determine whether a reconstruction has any relation to temperature > and, secondly, estimate the error variance. > > MM2003, however, omitted the validation phase. > \citep{wahl_ammann2005} have carried out a detailed investigation > of the robustness of the MBH1998 technique to address this > and many other issues. They find that the MM2003 series fails the > validation tests used by MBH1998. > > As an illustration of the robustness of the reconstruction, > figures 5 and 6 shows a reconstructions made using the MBH1999 and MBH1998 data respectively. > Regression against northern hemispheric mean temperature is used > instead of regression against principal components of > temperature. There are differences, but key features remain. > [[more details in appendix and/or supplementary materials]] > MM2003 draw attention to the fact that one time series, > ``CANA036" in the ITRDB classification, contributed > by Gasp\'e, appears twice in the MBH1998 database. > This error is corrected in the red dashed curve of Fig.~5, > which is almost identical to the green curve, which retains the duplication. > > With our simplification of the method it is possible > to use the entire instrumental record for calibration. > This leaves no data for validation, but the difference > between this and a reconstruction based on a shorter > period gives some idea of the robustness. > Figure 4b shows the result. > > Finally, MM question the calculation of uncertainty limits. > This depends on the number of degrees of freedom > assigned to the data. MM state that the standard method used > by MBH is wrong, and that a lower number of degrees of > freedom is appropriate because of long range correlations in > the data. MBH use the lag-one autocorrelation to estimate > the degrees of freedom. > > In all such tests it is necessary to remember the distinction between the > sample correlation, which one is forced to deal with, and > the actual correlation, we cannot know exactly. For this reason > it is generally unwise to use methods which rely on statistics > which cannot be estimated robustly in a small sample. > > MM05 also confuse the auto-correlation structure of the tree-ring data, > which are known to have an environmental signal with correlations > on at least the decadal time-scale, with the auto-correlation of the > residuals which should be used in estimating the noise structure. > \vfill\eject > \begin{figure*}[h] > %% produced by idl/paleo/mbh_70.pro > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f03}} > \caption{\label{fig:1} > Data blocks for PC calculation by MBH. > } > \end{figure*} > > > > \subsection{Natural variability and forcings} > > Global temperature can fluctuate through natural internal variability of > the climate system (as in the El Ni\~no phenomenon), through > variability in natural forcings (solar insolation, volcanic aerosols, > natural changes to greenhouse gas concentrations) and human changes. > > Analysis of the physical links between the estimated temperature changes > of the past millennium and estimated variations in the > different forcing mechanisms can give improve our understanding of those > mechanisms and help to validate the estimated temperature and > > \citet{goosse_etal2005} investigate the role of natural variability using > an ensemble of 25 climate model simulations of the last millennium > and forcing estimates from \citet{crowley2000}. > They conclude that natural variability dominates local and regional > scale temperature anomalies, implying that most of the variations > experienced by a region such as Europe over the last millennium could > be caused by natural variability. On the hemispheric and global scale, however, the > external forcing dominates. > This reinforces similar statements made by JOS1998. \citet{goosse_etal2005} > make the new point, that noise can lead to regional temperature anomalies > peaking at different times to the forcing, so that disagreements in > timing between proxy series should not necessarily be interpreted as meaning there > is no common forcing. > > Analysis of natural climate forcings \citep{crowley2000} > show that changes in atmospheric aerosol content due to changes > in volcanic activity and changes in solar irradiance > can explain this long term cooling through most of the millenium, > shown by paleoclimate reconstructions, > and the observed warming in the late 19th century. > \citet{hegerl_etal2003} analyse the correlations between four > reconstructions (MBH1999, BOS2001, ECS2002, and a modified version of CL2000) > and estimated forcings \citep{crowley2000}. > They find that that natural forcing, particularly by > volcanism, explains a substantial fraction of decadal variance, also in > new high-variance reconstructions. Greenhouse gas forcing is detectable > with high significance level in all analyzed reconstructions analyzed. > \citet{weber2005b} carries out a similar analysis with a wider range > of reconstructions. > It is shown that the correlation between reconstructed > global temperatures and forcings are similar to those derived from > the ECBILT climate model \citep{opsteegh_etal1998}. > The trend component over the period 1000 to 1850 is, however, larger in the > reconstructions compared to the forcings. > > The methods employed by > \citet{hegerl_etal2006+} attribute about a third of the early 20th century warming, sometimes > more, in high-variance reconstructions to greenhouse gas forcing. > These results indicate that enhanced variability in the past does not > make it more difficult to detect greenhouse warming, since a large > fraction of the variability can be attributed to external forcing. > Quantifying the influence of external forcing on the proxy records is > therefore more relevant to understanding climate variability and its > causes than determining if past periods were possibly as warm as the > 20th century. > > The dominance of volcanic forcing over solar variability found in some of the > above studies is consistent with recent questioning of the > magnitude of low-frequency solar forcing \citep{lean_etal2002, foukal_etal2004}. > \subsection{Tests of skill in reconstructions} > > RE: Reduction of Error > > \be > RE = 1. - { \overline{ (y- \hat y^\prime)^2 } \over > \overline{ y^2 } } > \ee > > -- Anders Moberg Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology Stockholm University SE-106 91 Stockholm Sweden Phone: +46 (0)8 6747814 Fax: +46 (0) 8 164818 www.geo.su.se anders.moberg@natgeo.su.se Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\McIntyre2003.pdf" 1750. 2006-08-04 ______________________________________________________ cc: Anders , Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de, hegerl@duke.edu, esper@wsl.ch, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, weber@knmi.nl, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:07:37 +0100 from: Anders Moberg subject: Re: Another draft -- hopefully ready for submission to: Martin Juckes Hi again Martin, Here are my comments to the rest of the paper. Overall, the paper is fine and therea are many good points, but I have also found a number of minor details, including some technical problems and errors. The list below is quite long, but most things are very easily corrected. Cheers, Anders p 4, para 1. Jones and Mann (2004) did not really conclude that "there had been a global mean cooling since the 11th century until the warming period initiated in the 19th century". Having looked at p. 31 in MJ04 (their conclusions), I suggest the following formulation of para 1: Jones and Mann (2004) review evidence for climate change in the past two millennia and conclude that the 20th century has seen the greatest temperature change within any century in this period. The coolest centuries appear to have been the 15th, 17th, and 19th centuries. They also raise concerns about the traditional view of a "Medieval Warm Period" and a "Little Ice Age", and they recommend that these terms should be avoided. Issues about climate changes in the last millennium remain controversial. This paper reviews different contributions and evaluates the impact of different methods and different data collections used. p 4, last line. Section 2.10 does not discuss "the extent to which the global ... might be expected to agree". Delete this sentence. p 5, line 6-7. ... by variance matching (Appendix A) against the HEMISPHERIC annual mean ... p 5, last para. MJ2003 did not produce a high-resolution record, so it should not be mentioned in section 2.1. Better to move it to section 2.4 as that section deals much with low-resolution records, and there make a more appropriate description of what MJ2003 does: they present the first attempt to reconstruct NH temperatures over nearly the entire past two millennia, by combining selected low- and high-resolution proxies. They attempted this also for the SH, but conclude that data are very scarce. They conclude that the late 20th century warmth is unprecedented for at least roughly the last two millennia for the NH. p 8, para 2. Mann et al. (2003) discuss the impact of ... (use 'discuss' rather than 'analyse'). Two lines below: This conclusion (not conclusions) p 8, line -8. Several of the series have only centennial temporal resolution ("extremely low" is too imprecise) p 9, last 3 lines before section 2.5. Osborn and Briffa (2006) perform a systematic analysis along the lines of Soon and Baliunas (2003), using a quantitative method that by-passes the problem of proxy calibration against instrumental temperatures, and conclude that the proxy records alone show an unprecedented anomaly in the 20th century. p 10, line 7-8. ... showing the cold 17th century of the LATTER, but the relatively mild 19th century of the FORMER. p 11, para 3, line 2. The variance matching thus represents ... (insert 'thus') p 12, footnote. The footnote never explains what "underestimation" and "underrepresenation" actually mean. Hence the difference between these concepts are not explained. At least I do not understand it... p 13, line 4-5. Here you could possibly also mention that Hegerl demonstrate this in a new 1500-year long record that is related to the earlier work by CL2000. Moreover, in Figure 1 you show the Hegerl series back only to around 1500. Data back to 1251 are availabe on the Nature website as supplementary data to Gabi's new paper there. Gabi could maybe even let you use the data back to 558 in Figure 1??? p 13, last line before section 2.9. What do you mean when you say that the issue raised by Hegerl et al is "unanswered"? p 14, lines 6-11. There appears to be some mix here of results from Hegerl et al 2003 and 2006+ here. I suggest you write: Hegerl et al. (2003) use a "fingerprint" detection algorithm (which is a regression technique) to search for the presence of radiative forcing signals in four temperature reconstructions (MBH1999, BOS201, ECS2002, and a modified version of CL2000, using the estimated forcings by Crowley (2000). Later, Hegerl et al. (2006+) undertake a similar analysis where MBH1999 and CL2000 are replaced by MSH2005 and HCA2006. They find that natural forcing ... p 15, line 5 before section 3. ... suggest that such estimates of centennial ... (insert 'of') two lines down: After ... centennial and longer timescales, insert the following sentence: One pollen record was also included in the MSH2005 reconstruction. p 17, line 5. ... may be lower THAN originally estimated. p 17, line 11-12. Replace "the code fragments included in the text" with simply "their" p 19, Table 1. What does R² mean here? Correlation between each series and the NH annual mean temperature?? If so, over which period? And how is it calculated in the cases of low-resolution series. p 19, Table 1. The Arabian Sea series from Mo is not a CL (coral) series. It is a marine sediment record of the foraminifera Globigerina Bulloides. It should thus be labeled [SE]. (I attach the supplementary info from our Nature paper for information) p 20, Table 1. What do the negative R²-values mean? It has to be explained. Correlation with instrumental NH temperatures? For which period? How are low-res records treated? p 20, Table 1. The table caption needs a first sentence that says what the table is about. Something like: A selection of millennial temperature proxy records used in different NH temperature reconstructions. p 20, Table 1. Add "speleothem [SP]" to the list of proxy types (The Shihua cave record is an SP) p 21, line 2. The sentence "The relevance of this point ... is under debate" is strange. It is immediately preceded by a sentence saying that Burger et al point out that the uncertainty is larger when estimating temperatures beyond the range of the instrumental record. Why is the relevance of this point under debate? And how does OER2005 results relate to it? p 21, last line before Section 4.1. Insert before the last sentence: "Two such periods are considered, one starts in 1000AD, the other in 1400AD." p 21, last two lines. There is no green curve at all in Fig. 5. Does the red dashed curve in Fig. 5 show MBH98 after Gaspé correction? If so, this should be stated in the figure caption. p 22, lines 6-7. ... in the published articles, which in some cases include additional, shorter, proxy data series. (insert 'in some cases') After the same sentence, it would be useful to write how many proxy series each of the five collections contain. Moreover, I wonder about how you treat the MSH data. In a previous manuscript you wrote that you calculated (hi+lo)/2. This is also indicated in Fig 8, but nowhere in the text. By the way, how did you treat individual proxy series that end before 1980? p 22, last two lines before section 4.3. ... 11 tree-ring series, 4 ice-cores, one speleothem record, two sediment records and a composite ... (i.e. no coral, but instead two sediments) p 22, line 2 in section 4.3. After [CVM] insert "(Appendix A)". Why does the Union series show much larger low-frequency variability than all the others? Is it only because of the beter fit with calibration data? p 23, line 1. ... the ECS2001 data) shows earlier temperatures ... (insert 'earlier') p 23, para 2, line 1. Figs. 6-7 (not just 6) p 24, Table 2. Why not using the three-letter acronyms defined on p 22? I suggest you delete the %-signs, and instead write "Cross correlations (x100) ... " in the caption. p 24, line 7. ... Results from the significance calculations are shown in table 3. (insert "from the significance calculations", because otherwise the reader expects to find results from the autocorrelations also in table 3 - at least I was a little confused) p 25, Table 3. Use the three-letter acronyms here too. p 25, line 1. Figure 9 plots the Union reconstruction ... (replace "this" with "the Union", otherwise the reader expects to see the Hegerl reconstruction, which is mentioned at the end of the previous sentence.) p 26, line 1 of section 5. I think the first sentence could be stated more appropriately. As written, it sort of implies that there was a cooling trend until 1850, and then a rapid warming. This sounds like the hockey-stick shape, but some of the reviewed series do not fit into this description. I don't think the sentence is wrong, but slightly misleading. Maybe you could consider changing this sentence in a way that better fits the conclusions by Jones and Mann (2004), as mentioned above. p 27, line 2. Insert the years when the maxima occurred: ... maximum pre-industrial temperature in 1091AD of 0.22K ... the instrumental record in 1998 is 0.841 K... Martin Juckes wrote: > Hello All, > > here is another draft. I've added a new reconstruction, using 19 independent > proxies series from Jones et al., Mann et al., Esper et al. and Moberg et al. > This gives a good fit to the calibration data, such that 2 recent years exceed > the maximum pre-industrial estimate by 4 sigma levels. I've included this > because without it I found it hard to draw precise and useful conclusions > from the 4 partially overlapping reconstructions I had done before. > > cheers, > Martin > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > \documentclass[cpd,11pt]{egu} > > \input macs > \voffset 5cm > \hoffset 1.5cm > > \begin{document} > > \title > {\bf Millennial Temperature Reconstruction Intercomparison and Evaluation > } > > \runningtitle{Millennial Temperature} > \runningauthor{M.~N.~Juckes et al} > \author{Martin Juckes$^{(1)}$, > Myles Allen$^{(2)}$, > Keith Briffa$^{(3)}$, > Jan Esper$^{(4)}$, > Gabi Hegerl$^{(5)}$, > Anders Moberg$^{(6)}$, > Tim Osborn$^{(3)}$, > Nanne Weber$^{(7)}$, > Eduardo Zorita$^{(8)}$} > \correspondence{Martin Juckes (M.N.Juckes@rl.ac.uk)} > \affil{ > British Atmospheric Data Centre, SSTD, > Rutherford Appleton Laboratory > Chilton, Didcot, > Oxfordshire, OX11 0QX, > United Kingdom > } > > \affil{1: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, > 2: University of Oxford, > 3: University of East Anglia, > 4: Swiss Federal Research Institute, > 5: Duke University, > 6: Stockholm University, > 7: Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), > 8: GKSS Research Centre > } > \date{Manuscript version from 31 Oct 2005 } > \msnumber{xxxxxx} > > \pubyear{} > \pubvol{} > \pubnum{} > > \received{} > %\pubacpd{} % ONLY applicable to ACP > \revised{} > \accepted{} > > \firstpage{1} > > \maketitle > > \begin{abstract} > There has been considerable recent interest in paleoclimate reconstructions of the temperature history of > the last millennium. A wide variety of techniques have been used. > The interrelation among the techniques is sometimes unclear, as different studies often > use distinct data sources as well as distinct methodologies. > Recent work is reviewed with an aim to clarifying the import of > the different approaches. > A range of proxy data collections used by different authors are passed > through two reconstruction algorithms: firstly, inverse regression and, > secondly, compositing followed by variance matching. > It is found that the first method tends to give large weighting to > a small number of proxies and that the second approach is more robust > to varying proxy input. > A reconstruction using 19 proxy records extending back to 1000AD shows a > maximum pre-industrial temperature of 0.227K (relative to the 1866 to 1970 mean). > The standard error on this estimate, based on the residual in the calibration > period is 0.149K. Two recent years (1998 and 2005) have exceeded the pre-industrial > estimated maximum by more than 4 standard errors. > \end{abstract} > > > %%\openup 1\jot > > \introduction\label{sec:intro} > > The climate of the last millennium has been the subject of much > debate in recent years, both in the scientific literature > and in the popular media. > This paper reviews reconstructions of past temperature, > on the global, hemispheric, or near-hemispheric scale, by > \citet{jones_etal1998} [JBB1998], > \citet{mann_etal1998a} [MBH1998], > \citet{mann_etal1999} [MBH1999], > \citet{huang_etal2000} [HPS2000], > \citet{crowley_lowery2000} [CL2000], > \citet{briffa_etal2001} [BOS2001], > \citet{esper_etal2002b} [ECS2002], > \citet{mann_jones2003} [MJ2003], > \citet{moberg_etal2005} [MSH2005], > \citet{oerlemans2005} [OER2005], > \citet{hegerl_etal2006+} [HCA2006]. > %%The criticism > %%directed at them (mainly MBH1999) by \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2003} [MM2003] and others. > > > Climate variability can be partitioned into contributions from > internal variability of the climate system and response to forcings, > which the forcings being further partitioned in natural and > anthropogenic. > The dominant change in forcing in the late 20th century > arises from human impact in the form of > greenhouse gases \citep[primarily carbon dioxide, methane and > chloro-fluoro carbons:][]{IPCC2001}. > The changes in concentration of these gases in the atmosphere > are well documented and their radiative properties which reduce, > for a given temperature difference, radiative loss of heat to space > from the mid and lower troposphere > \citep[for carbon dioxide, this was first documented by][]{arrhenius1896} > are beyond dispute. > > However, there remains some uncertainty on two issues: > firstly, how much of the observed change is due to greenhouse forcing as > opposed to natural forcing and internal variability; > secondly, how significant, compared to past natural changes, are the > changes which we now observe and expect in the future? > > The first question is not answered by the IPCC conclusion cited above because > that conclusion only compares the anthropogenic forcing of the late 20th century > with the natural forcings of the same period. Further back in the past, it is > harder to make definitive statements about the amplitude of variability in natural > forcings. The second question reflects the uncertainty in the response of the > climate system to a given change in forcing. In the last century both the > variations in forcing and the variations in response have been measured with > some detail, yet there remains uncertainty about the contribution of > natural variability to the observed temperature fluctuations. > In both cases, investigation is hampered by the fact that > estimates of global mean temperature based on reliable direct measurements > are only available from 1856 onwards \citep{jones_etal1986}. > > Climate models are instrumental in addressing both questions, > but they are still burdened with > some level of uncertainty and there is a need for more detailed knowledge > of the behaviour of the actual climate on multi-centennial timescales > both in order to evaluate the climate models and in order to address the > above questions directly. > > The scientific basis for proxy based climate reconstructions may be stated simply: there are > a number of physical indicators > which contain information about the past environmental variability. > As these are not direct measurements, the term proxy is used. > > > \citet{jones_mann2004} review evidence for climate change in > the past millennium and conclude that there had been a > global mean cooling since the 11th century > until the warming period initiated in the 19th century, but the issue remains > controversial. This paper reviews recent contributions and evaluates the impact > of different methods and different data collections used. > > Section 2 discusses recent contributions, which have developed a range of new > methods to address aspects of the problem. > Section 3 discusses the technique used by MBH1998/9 > in more detail in the context of criticism by \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2003} > (hereafter MM2003). > Section 4 presents some new results using the data collections from 5 recent studies. > > > \section{A survey of recent reconstructions} > > This section gives brief reviews of recent > contributions, displayed in Fig.~1. > Of these, 5 are estimates of the Northern Hemisphere mean temperature > (MBH1999, HPS2000, CL2000, MSH2005, HCA2006), > 2 of the Northern Hemisphere extra tropical mean temperature (BOS2001, ECS2002) > and 3 of the global mean temperature (JBB1998, MJ2003, OER2005). > All, except the inherently low resolution reconstructions of HPS2000 and OER2005, > have been smoothed with a 40 year running mean. > With the exception of HPS2000 and OER2005, the reconstructions > use partly overlapping methods and data, so they > cannot be viewed as independent from a statistical viewpoint. > In addition to exploiting a range of different data sources, > the above works also use a range of techniques. > The subsections below cover different scientific themes, > ordered according to the date of key publications. > Some reconstructions which do not extend all the way > back to 1000AD are included because of their > importance in addressing specific issues. > The extent to which the global, northern hemisphere and northern hemisphere > extratropical reconstructions might be expected to agree > is discussed in Sect.~2.10 below. > > \subsection{High-resolution paleoclimate records} > > \citet{jones_etal1998} [JBB1998] present the first annually resolved > reconstructions of temperatures back to 1000AD, using > a composite of standardised 10 proxies for the northern hemisphere and 7 for the southern, > with variance damped in the early part of the series to account for the > lower numbers of proxies present (6 series extend back to 1000AD), following \citet{osborn_etal1997}. > The composites are > scaled by variance matching (Appendix A) against the annual mean summer temperatures for 1931-1960. > Climate models are also employed to investigate the temperature coherency > between proxy sites and it is shown that there are strong large scale > coherencies in the proxy data which are not reproduced by > the climate model. An evaluation of each individual > proxy series against instrumental data from 1881 to 1980 > shows that tree-rings and historical reconstructions > are more closely related to temperature than those > from corals and ice-cores. > > With regard to the temperatures of the last millennium, > the primary conclusion of JBB1998 is that > the twentieth century was the warmest of the millennium. > There is clear evidence of a cool period from 1500 to 1900, > but no strong ``Medieval Warm Period" [MWP] (though the second warmest > century in the northern hemisphere reconstruction is > the 11th). The MWP is discussed further in Sect.~2.4 below. > > JBB1998 draw attention to the limitations of some of the proxies > on longer timescales (see Sect.~3.5 below). > Homogeneity of the data record and > its relation with temperature may not be guaranteed on longer timescale. > This is an important issue, since > many climate reconstructions assume a constant relationship between > temperature anomalies and the proxy indicators > (there are also problems associated with timescale-dependency in the > relationship which are discussed further in Sect.~2.6 below). > > MJ2003 include some additional proxy series and extend to study period back a > further millennium and conclude that the late 20th century warmth > is unprecedented in the last two millennia. > > \subsection{Climate field reconstruction} > > \citet{mann_etal1999} published > the first reconstruction of the last thousand years northern hemispheric mean > temperature which included objective error bars, > based on the analysis of the residuals in the calibration period. > The authors concluded not only > that their estimate of the temperature over the whole period 1000AD to 1860AD > was colder than the late twentieth century, but also that 95\% certainty limits > were below the last decade of the twentieth century. > The methods they used were presented in MBH1998 > which described a reconstruction back to 1400AD. > > MBH1998 use a collection of 415 proxy time indicators, many more than used in \citet{jones_etal1998}, > but many of these are too close geographically to be considered > as independent, so they are combined into a smaller number of representative > series. > The number of proxies also decreases significantly with age: > only 22 independent proxies extend back to 1400AD, > and, in > MBH1999, 12 extend back to 1000AD (7 in the Northern Hemisphere). > MBH1998 and MBH1999 have been the subject of much debate since the latter was cited > in the IPCC (2001) report, though the IPCC > conclusions\footnote{\citet{IPCC2001} concluded that > ``The 1990s are likely to have been the warmest decade of the millennium in > the Northern Hemisphere, and 1998 is likely to have been the warmest > year," where ``likely'' implies a greater than 66\% probability. > Since 2001 it has been recognised that there is a need to explicitly > distinguish between an expression of confidence, as made by the IPCC in this quote, > which should include expert assessment of the robustness of statistical methods > employed, and simple citation of the results of statistical test. > In the language of > \citet{manning_etal2004} we can say that MBH1999 carried out statistical > tests which concluded that the 1990s have been the warmest decade of the > millenium with 95\% likelihood, while IPCC (2001), after assessing all > available evidence had a 66\% confidence in the same statement.} > were weaker than those of MBH1999. > > This work also differ from Jones et al. (1998) in using spatial patterns of temperature > variability rather than hemispheric mean temperatures. In this way the study aims > to exploit proxies which are related to temperature indirectly: for > instance, changes in temperature may be associated with changes in > wind and rainfall which might affect proxies more strongly than > temperature. Since wind and rainfall are correlated with > changes in temperature patterns, it is argued, there may be important non-local > correlations between proxies and temperature. > > Different modes of atmospheric variability are evaluated through an > Empirical Orthogonal Function [EOF] analysis of the time period 1902 to 1980, > expressing the global field as a sum of spatial patterns (the EOFs) multiplied by > Principal Components (PCs -- representing the temporal evolution). > Earlier instrumental data are too sparse to be used for this purpose: > instead they are used in a validation calculation to determine how > many EOFs should be included in the reconstruction. > Time series for each mode of variability are then reconstructed from the proxy data using > a optimal least squares inverse regression. > > Finally, the skill of the regression of each PC is tested using the > 1856 to 1901 validation data. > Prior to 1450AD it is determined that only > one PC can be reconstructed with > any accuracy. This means that the main advantage of the > Climate Field Reconstruction method does not apply at earlier dates. > The methodology will be discussed further in Sect.~3 below. > > The reconstructed temperature evolution (Fig.~1) is rather less variable than that of Jones et al. (1998), > but the differences are not statistically significant. > The overall picture is of gradual cooling until the mid 19th century, > followed by rapid warming matching that evaluated by the earlier work. > > \subsection{Borehole temperatures} > > \citet{huang_etal2000} [HPS2000] estimate northern hemisphere temperatures > back to 1500AD using > measurements made in 453 boreholes (their paper also presents global and > southern hemisphere results using an additional 163 southern hemisphere boreholes). > The reconstruction is included here, even though it does not extend back to 1000AD, > because it has the advantage of being completely > independent of the other reconstructions shown. > Temperature fluctuations at the surface propagate slowly downwards, so that measurements > made in the boreholes at depth contain a record of past surface temperature fluctuations. > HPS2000 used measurements down to around 300m. > The diffuse nature of the temperature anomaly means that short time scale fluctuations > cannot be resolved. Prior to the 20th century, the typical resolution is about 100 years. > > \citet{mann_etal2003} analyse the impact of changes in land use and snow cover > on borehole temperature reconstructions and conclude that > it results in significant errors. > This conclusions has been refuted by > \citet{pollack_smerdon2004} (on statistical grounds), \citet{gonzalez-rouco_etal2003} > (using climate simulations) and \citet{huang2004} (using an expanded network of 696 > boreholes in the northern hemisphere). > > \subsection{Medieval Warm Period} > > Despite much discussion > \citep[e.g.][]{hughes_diaz1994, bradley_etal2003}, there is no clear quantitative > understanding of what is meant by the ``Medieval Warm Period'' [MWP]. > \citet{crowley_lowery2000} > [CL2000] discuss the evidence for a global MWP, which they interpret as > a period of unusual warmth in the 11th century. All the reconstructions > of the 11th century temperature shown > in Fig.~1 estimate that century to have been warmer than most of the > past millennium. However, the question of practical importance is not > whether it was warmer than the 12th to 19th centuries, which is > generally accepted, but whether it was a period of comparable > warmth to the late 20th century. MBH1999 concluded, with 95\% confidence, that > this was not so. CL2000 revisit the question > using 15 proxy records, of which 9 were not used in the studies > described above. Several of the series used have extremely low temporal resolution. > %%CL2000 sought to select tree ring chronologies with consistent quality > %%throughout their length, as measured by the "sample replication" > %%\citep{cook_etal2004}. > %%[check usage of "sample replication" -- cook etal (QSR) is available from Jan's website]] > > They draw attention to the spatial localization of the MWP in their proxy series: > it is strong in North America, North Atlantic and Western Europe, but not > clearly present elsewhere. Periods of unusual warmth > do occur in other regions, but these are short and asynchronous. > > Their estimate of northern hemispheric temperature over the past millennium is consistent > with the works discussed above. They conclude that the occurrence of decades of > temperatures similar to those of the late 20th century cannot be unequivocally ruled > out, but that there is, on the other hand, no evidence to support the claims > that such an extended period of large-scale warmth occurred. > > \citet{soon_baliunas2003} carry out an analysis of local climate reconstructions. > They evaluate the number of such reconstructions which show (a) a sustained ``climate > anomaly" during 800-1300AD, (b) a sustained ``climate > anomaly" during 1300-1900AD and (c) > their most anomalous 50 year period in the 20th century. > Their definition of a ``sustained climate anomaly" is 50 years of warmth, > wetness or dryness for (a) and (c) and 50 years of coolness, wetness > or dryness in (b). > It should be noted that they do not carry out evaluations which allow direct comparison between > the 20th century and earlier times: > they compare the number of extremes occurring in the 20th century with the > number of anomalies occurring in periods of 3 and 4 centuries in the past. > Both the use of sampling periods of differing length and different selection criteria make interpretation > of their results problematic. > They have also been criticised for interpreting > regional extremes which occur at distinct times as being indicative of a global > climate extremes \citep{jones_mann2004}. This issue is discussed further in > Sect.~2.9 below. > \citet{osborn_briffa2006} perform a systematic analysis along the lines of \citet{soon_baliunas2003} > and conclude that the proxy records alone, by-passing the problem of proxy calibration > against instrumental temperatures, show an unprecedented anomaly in the 20th century. > > \subsection{Segment length curse} > > \citet{briffa_etal2001} and \citet{briffa_etal2002} discuss the impact of > the ``segment length curse'' \citep{cook_etal1995a, briffa_etal1996, briffa2000} on > temperature reconstructions from tree rings. > Tree rings have been shown to have much greater sensitivity > than other proxies on short timescales (JBB1998), but there is a concern that this may not > be true on longer timescales. Tree ring chronologies are often made up of > composites of many trees of different ages at one site. > The width of the annual growth ring > depends not only on environmental factors but also on the age of the > tree. The age dependency on growth is often removed by subtracting > a growth curve from the tree ring data for each tree. This process, > done empirically, will not only remove age related trends but also any environmental > trends which span the entire life of the tree. > \citet{briffa_etal2001} use a more sophisticated method > (Age Band Decomposition [ABD], which > forms separate chronologies from tree rings in different age bands, > and then averages all the age-band chronologies) > to construct northern hemisphere > temperatures back to 1400AD, and show that > a greater degree of long term variability is preserved. > The reconstruction lies between those > of MBH1999 and JBB1998, showing the cold 17th century of the former, > but the relatively mild 19th century of the latter. > > The potential impact of the segment length limitations is analysed further > by \citet{esper_etal2002b, esper_etal2003}, using `Regional Curve Standardisation' (RCS) > \citep{briffa_etal1992}. > In RCS composite growth curves (different curves reflecting > different categories of growth behaviour) are obtained from all the trees > in a region and this, rather than a fitted curve, is subtracted > from each individual series. Whereas ABD circumvents the need to > subtract a growth curve, RCS seeks to evaluate a growth curve which > is not contaminated by climate signals. > The ECS2002 analysis agrees well with that of MBH1999 on short > time scales, but has greater centennial variability \citep{esper_etal2004}. > ECS2002 suggest that this may be partly due to the lack of tropical proxies > in their work, which they suggest should be regarded as an extratropical > Northern Hemisphere estimate. The extratropics are known to have > greater variability than the tropics. > %[check]:from eduardo:: Table 1 in MBH GRL 99 --add ref?? > However, it has to be also noted that among the proxies used by MBH1999 > (12 in total), just 2 of them are located in the tropics, both at one location > (see table 1 below). > > \citet{cook_etal2004} study the data used by ECS2002 and pay particular attention > to potential loss of quality in the earlier parts of tree-ring chronologies > when a relatively small number of tree samples are available. Their analysis > suggests that tree ring chronologies prior to 1200AD should be treated with > caution. > > \subsection{Separating timescales} > > \citet{moberg_etal2005} follow BOS2001 and ECS2002 in trying to address > the ``segment length curse'', but rather than trying to improve the > tree-ring chronologies by improving the standardizations, > they discard low frequency component of the tree-ring data, > and replace this with low-frequency information from proxies with lower temporal resolution. > A wavelet analysis is used to filter different temporal scales. > > Each individual proxy series is first scaled to unit variance and then wavelet transformed. > Averaging of the wavelet transforms is made separately for tree ring data > and the low-resolution data. > The average wavelet transform of tree-ring data for timescales less than 80 > years is combined with the averaged wavelet transform of the low-resolution data for > timescales longer than 80 years to form one single wavelet transform covering all timescales. > This composite wavelet transform is inverted to create a dimensionless temperature > reconstruction, which is calibrated against the instrumental record of > northern hemisphere mean temperatures, AD 1856-1979, using a variance matching method. > > Unfortunately, the calibration period is too short to independently calibrate the > low frequency component. The variance matching represents a form of cross-calibration. > In all calibrations against instrumental data, the long period (multi-centennial) > response is determined by a calibration which is dominated by > sub-centennial variance. The MSH2005 approach makes this explicit and > shows a level of centennial variability which is much larger than in > MBH1999 reconstruction and > similar to that in simulations of the past millennium with two > different climate models, ECHO-G \citep{storch_etal2004} and NCAR CSM > (``Climate System Model'') \citep{mann_etal2005}. > > \subsection{Glacial advance and retreat} > > \citet{oerlemans2005} provides another independent estimate of the global mean temperature > over the last 460 years from an analysis of glacial advance and retreat. > As with the bore hole based estimate of HPS2000, this work uses a > physically based model rather than an empirical calibration. > The resulting curve lies within the > range spanned by the high-resolution proxies, roughly midway between > the MBH1999 Climate Field Reconstruction and the HPS2000 bore hole estimate. > > Unlike the borehole estimate, but consistent with most other works presented > here, this analysis shows a cooling trend prior to 1850, related to glacial > advances over that period. > It should be noted that > the technique used to generate the bore hole estimate \citep{pollack_etal1998} > assumes a constant temperature prior to 1500AD. The > absence of a cooling trend after this date may be influenced by this > boundary condition. > > \subsection{Regression techniques} > > Many of the reconstructions listed above depend on empirical relationships > between proxy records and temperature. \citet{storch_etal2004} suggest > that the regression technique used by MBH1999 > under-represents\footnote{This is sometimes referred to as ``underestimating'', > which will mean the same thing to many people, but something slightly different > to statisticians. Any statistical model (that is, a set of assumptions about the > noise characteristics of the data being examined) will deliver estimates of > an expected value and variability. The variability of the expected value is > not generally the same as the expected value of the variability.} > the variability of past climate. > This conclusion is drawn after a applying a method similar to that of MBH1999 to output from a > climate model using a set of pseudo-proxies: time series generated from > the model output and degraded with noise which is intended to match the noise > characteristics of actual proxies. > \citet{mann_etal2005} use the same approach and arrive at a different conclusion: > namely, that their regression technique is sound. > \citet{mann_etal2005} show several implementations of their > Climate Field Reconstruction Method in the CSM simulation, using different levels > of white noise in their synthetic pseudo proxies. > For a case of pseudo-proxies with a realistic signal-to-noise ratio of 0.5, they use > a calibration period (1856-1980) which is longer than that > used in MBH1998 and MBH1999 (1901-1980). > It turns out that the difference in the length of the calibration period is critical > for the skill of the method (Zorita, personal communication et al., submitted). > % (I think you can refer to Buerger et al 2006 here. Check with Eduardo if this is OK. > % By the way, update the reference list: Tellus, 58A, 227-235) [AM] > > There is some uncertainty about the true nature of noise on the proxies, and > on the instrumental record, as will be discussed further below. > The optimal least squares estimation technique of MBH1998 effectively > neglects the uncertainties in the proxy data relative to uncertainties > in the temperature. > Instead, > \citet{hegerl_etal2006+} use total least squares regression \citep{allen_stott2003, adcock1878}. > This approach > allows the partitioning of noise between instrumental temperatures > and proxy records to be estimated, on the assumption that the instrumental > noise is known. \citet{hegerl_etal2006+} show that this approach leads to greater variability in the reconstruction. > > \citet{rutherford_etal2005} take a different view. They compare reconstructions > from 1400AD to present using a regularised expectation maximisation technique \citep{schneider2001} > and the MBH1998 climate field reconstruction method and find only minor differences. > Standard regression techniques assume that we have a calibration period, in which > both sets of variables are measured, and a reconstruction (or prediction) period > in which one variable is estimated, by regression, from the other. > The climate reconstruction problem is more complex: > there are hundreds of instrumental records > which are all of different lengths, and similar numbers of proxy records, > also of varying length. The expectation maximisation technique > \citep{little_rubin1987} > is well suited to deal with this: instead of imposing an > artificial separation between a calibration period and a reconstruction > period, it fills in the gaps in a way which exploits all data present. > Regularised expectation maximisation is a generalisation > developed by \citet{schneider2001} to deal with ill posed problems. > Nevertheless, there is still a simple regression equation at the heart of the technique. > That used by \citet{rutherford_etal2005} is similar to that used by > %new: corrected > MBH1998, so the issue raised by \citet{hegerl_etal2006+} is unanswered. > > \subsection{Natural variability and forcings} > > Global temperature can fluctuate through internally generated variability of > the climate system (as in the El Ni\~no phenomenon), through > variability in natural forcings (solar insolation, volcanic aerosols, > natural changes to greenhouse gas concentrations) and human changes. > Reconstructions of variations in the external forcings for the last > millenium have been > put forward \citep{crowley2000}, although recent studies have > suggested a lower amplitude > of low-frequency solar forcing \citep{lean_etal2002, foukal_etal2004}. > > Analysis of reconstructed temperatures of MBH1999 and CL2000 and > simulated temperatures using reconstructed solar and volcanic forcings > shows that changes in the forcings can explain the reconstructed long > term cooling through most of the millenium > and the warming in the late 19th century \citep{crowley2000}. > The relatively cool climate in the second half of the 19th century may be > attributable to cooling from deforestation \citep{bauer_etal2003}. > \citet{hegerl_etal2003} analyse the correlations between four > reconstructions (MBH1999, BOS2001, ECS2002, and a modified version of > CL2000) > and estimated forcings \citep{crowley2000}. > They find that that natural forcing, particularly by > volcanism, explains a substantial fraction of decadal variance. > Greenhouse gas forcing is detectable > with high significance levels in all analyzed reconstructions except > MSH2005, which ends in 1925. > \citet{weber2005b} carries out a similar analysis with a wider range > of reconstructions. It is shown that the regression of reconstructed > global temperatures on the forcings has a similar dependence on timescale > as regressions derived from the climate model. The role of solar forcing is > found to be larger for longer timescales, whereas volcanic forcing dominates > for decadal timescales. > The trend component over the period 1000 to 1850 is, however, in all > reconstructions larger than the trend implied by the forcings. > > The methods employed by > \citet{hegerl_etal2006+} attribute about a third of the early 20th > century warming, sometimes > more, in high-variance reconstructions to greenhouse gas forcing. > These results indicate that enhanced variability in the past does not > make it more difficult to detect greenhouse warming, since a large > fraction of the variability can be attributed to external forcing. > Quantifying the influence of external forcing on the proxy records is > therefore more relevant to understanding climate variability and its > causes than determining if past periods were possibly as warm as the > 20th century. > > \citet{goosse_etal2005} investigate the role of internal variability using > an ensemble of 25 climate model simulations of the last millennium > and forcing estimates from \citet{crowley2000}. > They conclude that internal variability dominates local and regional > scale temperature anomalies, implying that most of the variations > experienced by a region such as Europe over the last millennium could > be caused by internal variability. On the hemispheric and global scale, > however, the forcing dominates. > This agrees with results from a long > solar-forced model simulation by \citet{weber_etal2004}. > %%similar This reinforces similar statements made by JOS1998. [where does this come from?] > \citet{goosse_etal2005} > make the new point, that noise can lead to regional temperature anomalies > peaking at different times to the forcing, so that disagreements in > timing between proxy series should not necessarily be interpreted as > meaning there is no common forcing. > > \subsection{The long view} > > The past sections have drawn attention to the problems of calibrating > temperature reconstructions using a relatively short > period over which instrumental records are available. > For longer reconstructions, with lower temporal resolution, > other methods are available. Pollen > reconstructions of climate match the ecosystem types with those > currently occurring at different latitudes. The changes in > ecosystem can then be mapped to the temperatures at which > they now occur \citep[e.g.][]{bernabo1981, gajewski1988}. > These reconstructions cannot resolve decadal variability, > but they provide an independent estimate of local low-frequency > temperature variations. The results of \citet{weber_etal2004} > and > \citet{goosse_etal2005} suggest that such estimates > centennial mean temperatures can provide some information about > global mean anomalies, as they strongly reflect the external forcings on > centennial and longer timescales. However, there has, as yet, > been no detailed intercomparison between the pollen based > reconstructions and the higher resolution reconstructions. > > > \section{Critics of the IPCC consensus on millennial temperatures} > > The temperature reconstructions described in the previous section > represent (including their respective differences and similarities) > the scientific consensus, based on objective analysis > of proxy data sources which are sensitive to temperature. > Nevertheless, there are many who are strongly attached to the view that past > temperature variations were significantly larger and that, consequently, > the warming trend seen in recent decades should not be considered > as unusual. > > > The criticism has been directed mainly at the \citet{mann_etal1998a, mann_etal1999} > work. > Therefore, this section focuses mainly on this criticism. > %new > Though some of the critics identify the consensus with the MBH1998 work, > this is not the case: the consensus rests on a broader body of work, and > as formulated by IPCC2001 is less strong than the conclusions of > MBH1998 (Sect.~3.2). > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2003} [MM2003] > criticize MBH1998 on many counts, some related to deficiencies > in the description of the data used and possible irregularities in the data > themselves. These issues have been largely resolved in \citet{mann_etal2004}. > %%\footnote{ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MANNETAL1998}. > > As noted above, the MBH1998 analysis is considerably more complex than others, > and uses a greater volume of data. > There are 3 main stages of the algorithm: (1) sub-sampling of > regions with disproportionate numbers of proxies, (2) regression, > (3) validation and uncertainty estimates. > > Stage (1) is necessary because some parts of the globe, particularly > North America and Northern Europe, have a disproportionate number of > proxy records. Other authors have dealt with this by using only > a small selection of the available data or using regional > averages \citep[BOS2001;][]{hegerl_etal2006+}. MBH1998 > use a principal component analysis to extract the common signal from the records in > densely sampled regions. > > The failure of MM2003 to replicate the MBH1998 results is partly due to > a misunderstanding of the stepwise reconstruction method. MBH1998 use > different subsets of their proxy database for different time periods. > This allows more data to be used for more recent periods. > > For example, Fig.~2 illustrates > how the stepwise approach applies to the North American tree ring network. > Of the total of 212 chronologies, only 66 extend back beyond 1400AD. > MM2003 only calculate principal components for the period when all > chronologies are present. Similarly, MBH1998 use one principal > component calculated from 6 drought sensitive tree-rings chronologies from South West Mexico > and this data is omitted in MM2003. > %%[is this clear now?? (AM)]] > %new > %%Table 7 of MM2003 indicates only 20 series for the region, as the > %%supplementary information provided with MBH2003 omitted 2 > %%\citep{mann_etal2004}. > %endnew > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005a} [MM2005] continue the criticism of the techniques > used by MBH1998 and introduce a ``hockey stick index": defined in terms of the ratio > of the variance at the end of a time series > to the variance over the remainder of the series. > MM2005 argue that the way in which > a principal component analysis is carried out in MBH generates an artificial > bias towards a high ``hockey-stick index" and that the statistical significance of > the MBH results may be lower that originally estimated. > > The issue arises because the tree ring chronologies are standardized: > this involves subtracting a mean and dividing by a variance. > MBH1998 use the mean and variance of the detrended series evaluated > over the calibration period. MM2005 are of the view that this is > incorrect. > They suggest that each series should be standardised with respect to the > mean and variance its full length. > > The code used by MM2005 is not, at the time of writing available, > but the code fragments included in the text imply > that their calculation used data which had been > centred (mean removed) but had not been normalized to unit variance (standardised). > Figure 3 shows the effect of the changes, applied to the > North American tree ring sub-network of the data used by MBH1998, > using those chronologies which extend back to 1400AD. > The calculation used here does not precisely reproduce the archived MBH1998 > result, but the differences may be due to small differences in > mathematical library routines used to do the decomposition. > The effect of replacing the MBH1998 approach with centering and > standardising on the whole time series is small, the effect of > omitting the standardisation as in MM2005 is much larger: > this omission causes the 20th century trend to be removed from the > first principal component. > > \citet{storch_zorita2005} look at some of the claims made in MM2005 > and analyses them in the context of a climate simulation. > They find the impact of the modifications suggested by McIntyre and McKitrick to > be minor. > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005b} clarify their original claim, stating that the > standardisation technique used by MBH98 does not create the ``hockey-stick" structure > but does ``steer" the selection of this structure in principal component > analysis. > > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005c} [MM2005c] revisit the MM2003 work and correct > their earlier error by taking the stepwise reconstruction technique into account. > They assert that the results of MM2003, which show a 15th century > reconstruction 0.5K warmer than found by MBH1998, > are reproduced with only minor changes to the MBH1998 proxy data base. > Examination of the relevant figures, however, shows that this is not entirely > true. The MM2005c predictions for > the 15th century are 0.3K warmer than the MBH1998 > result: this is still significant, but, unlike the discredited MM2003 result, it > would not make the 15th century the warmest on record. > > MM20005c and \citet{wahl_ammann2005} both find that > excluding the north American bristlecone pine data from the proxy > data base removes the skill from the 15th century reconstructions. > MM2005c justify this removal on the grounds that the first principal component > of the North American proxies, which is dominated by the > bristlecone pines, is a statistical outlier with respect to the joint distribution > of $R^2$ and the difference in mean between 1400 to 1450 and 1902 to 1980. > %%first ref to table 1 > Table 1, which lists a range of proxies extending back to 1000, > shows that the North American first principal component (``ITRDB [pc01]'' in that table) > is not an outlier > in terms of its coherence with northern hemispheric mean temperature from 1856 to 1980. > > \begin{table}[t] > \small > %% output from mitrie/pylib/multi_r2.py, editted > \begin{tabular}{|p{7.0cm}|r|r|l|r|l|} > \hline > Name & Lat. & Lon. & Id & $R^2$ & Type \cr > \hline > GRIP: borehole temperature (degC) (Greenland)$^1$ & 73 & -38 & *,Mo & 0.67 & [IC] \cr > China: composite (degC)$^2$ & 30 & 105 & *,Mo & 0.63 & [MC] \cr > Taymir (Russia) & 72 & 102 & He & 0.60 & [TR C] \cr > Eastern Asia & 35 & 110 & He & 0.58 & [TR C] \cr > Polar Urals$^3$ & 65 & 67 & Es, Ma & 0.51 & [TR] \cr > Tornetraesk (Sweden)$^4$ & 58 & 21 & Mo & 0.50 & [TR] \cr > ITRDB [pc01] & 40 & -110 & Ma & 0.49 & [TR PC] \cr > Mongolia & 50 & 100 & He & 0.46 & [TR C] \cr > Arabian Sea: Globigerina bull$^5$ & 18 & 58 & *,Mo & 0.45 & [CL] \cr > Western Siberia & 60 & 60 & He & 0.44 & [TR C] \cr > Northern Norway & 65 & 15 & He & 0.44 & [TR C] \cr > Upper Wright (USA)$^6$ & 38 & -119 & *,Es & 0.43 & [TR] \cr > Shihua Cave: layer thickness (degC) (China)$^7$ & 40 & 116 & *,Mo & 0.42 & [SP] \cr > Western Greenland & 75 & -45 & He & 0.40 & \cr > Quelcaya 2 [do18] (Peru)$^8$ & -14 & -71 & *,Ma & 0.37 & [IC] \cr > Boreal (USA)$^6$ & 35 & -118 & *,Es & 0.32 & [TR] \cr > Tornetraesk (Sweden)$^9$ & 58 & 21 & *,Es & 0.31 & [TR] \cr > Taymir (Russia)$^{10}$ & 72 & 102 & *,Es, Mo & 0.30 & [TR] \cr > Fennoscandia$^{11}$ & 68 & 23 & *,Jo,Ma & 0.28 & [TR] \cr > Yamal (Russia)$^{12}$ & 70 & 70 & *,Mo & 0.28 & [TR] \cr > Northern Urals (Russia)$^{13}$ & 66 & 65 & *,Jo & 0.27 & [TR] \cr > \hline > \end{tabular} > \caption{Continued overleaf.} > \end{table} > > \renewcommand{\thetable}{\arabic{table}} > \addtocounter{table}{-1} > \begin{table}[t] > \small > \begin{tabular}{|p{7.0cm}|r|r|l|r|l|} > \hline > Name & Lat. & Lon. & Id & $R^2$ & Type \cr > \hline > ITRDB [pc02] & 42 & -108 & Ma & 0.21 & [TR PC] \cr > Lenca (Chile)$^{14}$ & -41 & -72 & Jo & 0.18 & [TR] \cr > Crete (Greenland)$^{15}$ & 71 & -36 & *,Jo & 0.16 & [IC] \cr > Methuselah Walk (USA) & 37 & -118 & *,Mo & 0.14 & [TR] \cr > Greenland stack$^{15}$ & 77 & -60 & Ma & 0.13 & [IC] \cr > Morocco & 33 & -5 & *,Ma & 0.13 & [TR] \cr > North Patagonia$^{16}$ & -38 & -68 & Ma & 0.08 & [TR] \cr > Indian Garden (USA) & 39 & -115 & *,Mo & 0.04 & [TR] \cr > Tasmania$^{17}$ & -43 & 148 & Ma & 0.04 & [TR] \cr > ITRDB [pc03] & 44 & -105 & Ma & -0.03 & [TR PC] \cr > Chesapeake Bay: Mg/Ca (degC) (USA)$^{18}$ & 38 & -76 & *,Mo & -0.07 & [SE] \cr > Quelcaya 2 [accum] (Peru)$^{8}$ & -14 & -71 & *,Ma & -0.14 & [IC] \cr > France & 44 & 7 & *,Ma & -0.17 & [TR] \cr > \hline > \end{tabular} > \caption{(continued) > The primary reference for each data set is indicated by the superscript in the first column as > follows: > 1: \citep{dahl-jensen_etal1998}, 2: \citet{yang_etal2002}, 3: \citet{shiyatov1993}, 4: \citet{grudd_etal2002}, 5: \citet{gupta_etal2003}, > 6: \citet{lloyd_graumlich1997}, 7: \citet{tan_etal2003}, 8: \citet{thompson1992}, > 9: \citet{bartholin_karlen1983}, 10: \citet{naurzbaev_vaganov1999}, 11: \citet{briffa_etal1992}, > 12: \citet{hantemirov_shiyatov2002}, 13: \citet{briffa_etal1995}, 14: \citet{lara_villalba1993}, > 15: \citet{fisher_etal1996}, 16: \citet{boninsegna1992}, 17: \citet{cook_etal1991}, 18: \citet{cronin_etal2003}. > the "Id" in column 4 refers to the reconstructions in which the data were used. > The type of proxy is indicated in column 6:: tree-ring [TR], tree-ring composite [TR C], > tree-ring principle component [TR PC], coral [CL], sediment [SE], ice core [IC], > multi-proxy composite [MC]. The 19 proxy series marked with a "*" in column 4 are used in the > ``Union'' reconstruction. > } > \end{table} > > \citep[][; MM2005c]{briffa_osborn1999} suggest that > rising CO$_2$ levels may have contributed significantly to the > 19th and 20th century increase in growth rate in some trees, > particularly the bristlecone pines, but such an > effect has not been reproduced in controlled experiments with mature trees > \citep{korner_etal2005}. > > Once a time series purporting to represent past temperature has been obtained, > the final, and perhaps, most important, step is to verify its > and estimate uncertainty limits. This is discussed further in the next section. > > \section{Varying methods vs. varying data} > > One factor which complicates the evaluation of the various reconstructions is > that different authors have varied both method and data collections. Here we will > run a representative set of proxy data collections through two algorithms: > inverse regression and scaled composites. These two methods, and the different > statistical models from which they may be derived, are explained in the > Appendix A. > > Esper et al. (2005) investigated the differing calibration approaches used in the recent literature, including > regression and scaling techniques, and concluded that the methodological differences in calibration result in differences > in the reconstructed temperature amplitude/variance of about 0.5K. > This magnitude is equivalent to the mean annual temperature change for the Northern Hemisphere reported in the last > IPCC report for the 1000-1998 period. > \citet{burger_etal2006} take another approach and investigate a family of 32 different regression algorithms > derived by adjusting 5 binary switches, using pseudo-proxy data. > They show that these choices, which > have all been defended in the literature, can lead to a wide variety of different > reconstructions given the same data. > They also point out that the uncertainty is greater when we > attempt to estimate the climate of periods which lie outside the range experienced > during the calibration period. The relevance of this point to the last millennium is > under debate: the glacier based temperature estimates of OER2005 suggest that the > coldest northern hemisphere mean temperatures occurred close to the start of > the instrumental record, in the 19th century. The borehole reconstructions, > however, imply that there were colder temperatures experienced in the 16th to 18th centuries. > For the question as to whether the warmth of the latter part of the calibration > period has been experienced in the past, however, > this particular issue is not directly relevant. > > As noted above, much of the MBH1999 algorithm is irrelevant to reconstructions > prior to AD 1450, because before that date the data only suffice, > according to estimates in that paper, to determine one degree of freedom. > Hence, we will only look at direct evaluation of the hemispheric mean temperature. > > Several authors have evaluated composites and calibrated those composites > against instrumental temperature. Many of the composites contain more samples in later > periods, so that the calibration may be dominated by samples which do > not extend into the distant past. Here, we will restrict attention to > records which span the entire reconstruction period. > The data series used are listed in table 1. > > \subsection{Proxy data quality issues} > > As noted previously, their has been especially strong criticism of > MBH1998, 1999, partly concerning some aspects of their data collection. > Figures 4 and 5 show reconstructions made using the MBH1999 and MBH1998 data respectively. > Regression against northern hemispheric mean temperature from 1856 to 1980 is used > instead of regression against principal components of > temperature from 1902 to 1980. There are differences, but key features remain. > MM2003 draw attention to the fact that one time series, > ``CANA036" in the ITRDB classification, contributed > by Gasp\'e, appears twice in the MBH1998 database. > This error is corrected in the red dashed curve of Fig.~5, > which is almost identical to the green curve, which retains the duplication. > > \subsection{Reconstruction using a union of proxy collections} > > The following subsection will discuss a range of reconstructions using different > data collections. The first 5 of these collections are defined as those proxies used by > JBB1998, MBH1999, ECS2002, MSH2005 and HCA2006, respectively, which extend back to 1000AD. > These will be referred to below as the JBB, MBH, ECS, MSH, HCA composites below > to distinguish them from the composites used in the published articles, which include > additional, shorter, proxy data series. > Finally there is a `Union' composite made using 19 independent northern > hemisphere proxy series marked with ``*" in table 1. Apart from the China composite > record, all the data used are individual series. The PCs used by MBH1999 have been > omitted in favour of individual series used in other studies. > Two southern hemisphere tropical series, both from the Quelcaya glacier, Peru, > are included ensure adequate representation of tropical temperatures. > This 'Union' collection contains 11 tree-ring series, 4 ice-cores, and one each of > coral, speleothem, lake sediment and a composite record including historical data. > > \subsection{Intercomparison of proxy collections} > > Figure 6 shows reconstructions back to 1000AD using > composites of proxies and variance matching [CVM] (for the proxy > principal components in the MBH1998, MBH1999 data collections the sign > is arbitrary: these series have, where necessary, had the sign reversed so that > they have a positive correlation with the northern hemisphere > temperature record). > Surprisingly, the `Union' does not lie in the range spanned by the other reconstructions, > and reaches colder temperatures than any of them. It does, however, fit the calibration period > data better than any of the sub-collections. > > The reconstructions shown in Fig.~7 use the same data is used: this time > using inverse regression [INVR] (Appendix A), as used by MBH1998 > (the method used here differs from that of MBH1998 in using northern hemisphere > temperature to calibrate against, having a longer calibration period, > and reconstructing only a single variable instead of multiple EOFs). > The spread of values is substantially increased relative to the CVM reconstruction. > > With INVR, only one reconstruction (that using the ECS2001 > data) shows temperatures warmer than the mid 20th century. > The inverse regression technique applies weights to the > individual proxies which are proportional to the > correlation between the proxies and the calibration temperature > signature. > For this time series the 5 proxies are weighted as: > 1.7 (Boreal); 2.9 (Polar Urals); 1.7 (Taymir); 1.8 (Tornetraesk); and 2.3 (Upper Wright). > Firstly, it should be noted that this collection samples North America and the > Eurasian arctic only. The bias towards the arctic is strengthened by the weights > generated by the inverse regression algorithm, such that the reconstruction has poor geographical coverage. > > The MBH1999 and HPS2000 published reconstructions are shown in Fig.~6 for comparison: the MBH1999 > reconstruction lies near the centre of the spread of estimates, while the HPS2000 reconstruction > is generally at the lower bound. > > Much of the current debate revolves around the level of > centennial scale variability in the past. > The CVM results generally suggest > a low variance scenario comparable to MBH1999. The inverse regression > results, however, suggest greater variability. It should be noted > that the MBH1999 inverse regression result use greater volumes of > data for recent centuries, so that the difference in Fig.~7 between the > dashed red curve and the full green curve in the 17th > century is mainly due to reduced proxy data input in the latter > (there is also a difference because MBH1999 used inverse regression > against temperature principle components rather than northern hemisphere > mean temperature as here). > > Table 2 shows the cross correlations of the reconstructions in Fig.~6, > for high pass (upper right) and low pass (lower left) components > of the series, with low pass being defined by a 40 year running mean. > The low pass components are highly correlated. > > \begin{table}[t] > %% output from mitrie/pylib/pp.py > \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|} > \hline > & Ma & Mo & Es & Jo & He & Union\cr > \hline > Ma & -- & 14\% & 25\% & 60\% & 20\% & 61\% \cr > Mo & 69\% & -- & 37\% & 11\% & 13\% & 60\% \cr > Es & 64\% & 77\% & -- & 14\% & 36\% & 57\% \cr > Jo & 62\% & 51\% & 46\% & -- & 11\% & 35\% \cr > He & 72\% & 75\% & 85\% & 53\% & -- & 26\% \cr > Union & 67\% & 71\% & 62\% & 45\% & 84\% & -- \cr > \hline > \end{tabular} > \caption{Cross correlations between reconstructions from > different proxy data bases: Mann et al (Ma), Moberg et al (Mo), > Esper et al (Es), Jones et al (Jo), Hegerl et al (He). > Lower left block correspond to low pass filtered series, > upper right to high pass filtered.} > \end{table} > > The significance of the correlations between these five proxy data samples > and the instrumental temperature data during the calibration period (1856-1980) > has been evaluated using a Monte-Carlo simulation > with (1) a first order Markov model and (2) random time series > which reproduces the lag correlation structure of the data samples (see Appendix A). > Figure 8 shows the lag correlations. The instrumental record had a pronounced > anti-correlation on the 40 year time-scale. This may be an artifact of the short > data record, but it is retained in the significance calculation as the best available > estimate which is independent of the proxies. > The `Union' composite shows multi-centennial correlations which are not present in the other data. > The MBH and JBB composites clearly underestimate the decadal scale correlations, while > the HCA and 'Union' composites overestimate it. > %%first ref to table 3 > Results are shown in table 3. > If the full lag correlation structure of the data were known, it would be true, > as argued by MM2005, that the first order approach generally > leads to an overestimate of significance. Here, however, we only have a > estimated correlation structure based on a small sample. Using this finite > sample correlation is likely to overestimate long-term correlations and hence > lead to an underestimate of significance. Nevertheless, results are presented here > to provide a cautious estimate of significance. > For the MBH and JBB composites, which have short lag-correlations, the difference > between the two methods is minimal. For other composites there is a substantial difference. > In all cases the $R^2$ values exceed the 99\% significance level. When > detrended data are used the $R^2$ values are lower, but still above the 95\% > level -- with the exception of the Hegerl et al. data. This data has only decadal > resolution, so the lower significance in high frequency variability is to be expected. > > > \begin{table}[t] > %% output from mitrie/pylib/sum_ac.py > \begin{tabular}{|l||c|c||c|c||c||c|p{1.1cm}|} > \hline > Source & $R^2_{95|h}$ & $R^2_{95|AR}$ & $R^2$ & $R^2_{detr}$ & $\sigma$ & Signif. & Signif. (detrended) \cr > \hline > Mann et al. & 0.205 & 0.170 & 0.463 & 0.286 & 0.186 & 99.99\% & 98.75\%\cr > \hline > Moberg et al., (hi+lo)/2 & 0.225 & 0.183 & 0.418 & 0.338 & 0.153 & 99.87\% & 99.25\%\cr > \hline > Esper et al. & 0.335 & 0.220 & 0.613 & 0.412 & 0.158 & 99.96\% & 98.11\%\cr > \hline > Jones et al. & 0.187 & 0.180 & 0.371 & 0.274 & 0.203 & 99.93\% & 99.17\%\cr > \hline > Hegerl et al. & 0.440 & 0.266 & 0.618 & 0.357 & 0.133 & 99.56\% & 90.13\%\cr > \hline > Union & 0.337 & 0.236 & 0.655 & 0.414 & 0.149 & 99.98\% & 97.91\%\cr > \hline > \end{tabular} > \caption{ > $R^2$ values evaluated using the Northern Hemisphere mean temperature (1856 to 1980) and various > proxy records. > Columns 2 and 3 show $R^2$ values for the 95\% significance > levels, evaluated using a Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 realisations. In columns > 2, 7 and 8 the full lag-correlation structure of the data is used, in column > 3 a first order auto-regressive model is used, based on the lag one auto-correlation. > Column 4 shows the $R^2$ value obtained from the data and column 5 shows the same > using detrended data. > Column 6 shows the standard error (root-mean-square residual) from the calibration > period. Columns 7 and 8 show significance levels, estimated using > Monte Carlo simulations as in column 2, for the full and detrended $R^2$ values. > } > \end{table} > > Figure 9 plots this reconstruction, > with the instrumental data > in the calibration period. > The composite tracks the changes in northern hemisphere temperature well, > capturing the steep rise between 1910 and 1950 and much of the decadal > scale variability. This is reflected in the significance scores (Tab.~3) > which are high both for the full series and for the detrended series. > The highest temperature in the reconstructed data, relative to the 1866-1970 mean is > 0.227K in 1091AD. This temperature was first exceeded in the instrumental record in 1878, > again in 1937 and frequently thereafter. The instrumental record has not gone below this level since 1986. > Taking $\sigma=0.149$ as the root-mean-square residual in the calibration period > 1990 is the first year when the 1091 maximum was exceed by $2\sigma$. > This happened again in 1995 and every year since 1997. > 1998 and every year since 2001 have exceeded the preindustrial maximum by $3\sigma$. > > \conclusions\label{sec:end} > > There is general agreement that global temperatures cooled > over the majority of the last millennium and have risen sharply > since 1850. In this respect, the recent literature has not produced > any change to the conclusions of JBB1998, though there remains > substantial uncertainty about the magnitude of centennial scale variability > superimposed over longer term trends. > > The IPCC 2001 conclusion that temperatures of the past millennium > are unlikely to have been as warm, at any time prior to the 20th > century, as the last decades of the 20th century is supported > by subsequent research and by the results obtained here. > > The greatest range of disagreement among independent > assessments occurs during the coolest centuries, from 1500 to > 1900, when the departure from recent climate conditions > was strongest and may have been outside the range of > temperatures experienced during the later > instrumental period. > > There are many areas of uncertainty and disagreement within > the broad consensus outlined above, and also some who > dissent from that consensus. Papers which claim to refute the > IPCC2001 conclusion on the climate of the past millennium have been > reviewed and found to contain serious flaws. > > A major area of uncertainty concerns the accuracy of the long time-scale > variability in the reconstructions. This is particularly > so for timescale of a century and longer. There does not appear to be any > doubt that the proxy records would capture rapid change on > a 10 to 50 year time scale such as we have experienced in recent decades. > > Using two different reconstruction methods on a range of proxy data > collections, we have found that inverse regression > tends to give large weighting to > a small number of proxies and that the relatively simple > approach of compositing all the series and using variance matching to > calibrate the result gives more robust estimates. > > A new reconstruction made with a composite of 19 proxies extending back > to 1000AD fits the instrumental record to within a standard error of 0.149K. > This reconstruction gives a maximum pre-industrial temperature of 0.227K > relative to the 1866 to 1970AD mean. The maximum temperature from the > instrumental record is 0.841K, over 4 standard errors larger. > > The reconstructions evaluated in this study show considerable disagreement > during the 16th century. The new 19 proxy reconstruction implies 21-year mean > temperatures close to 0.6K below the 1866 to 1970AD mean. As this reconstruction > only used data extending back to 1000AD, there is a considerable volume of 16th century > data which has not been used. This will be a focus if future research. > > {\bf Acknowledgments} > > This work was funded by the Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency (RIVM) as part of the > Dutch Scientific Assessment and Policy Analysis (WAB) programme. > Additional funding was provided as follows: > from the UK Natural Environment Research Council for M.N. Juckes, > from the Swedish Research Council for A. Moberg. > > \vfill\eject > > \def\thesection{A} > {\bf Appendix A: Regression methods} > > Ideally, the statistical analysis method would be determined by the > known characteristics of the problem. Unfortunately, the error > characteristics of the proxy data are not sufficiently well > quantified to make the choice clear. > This appendix describes two methods and the statistical models which can be > used to motivate them. > > \subsection{Inverse regression [INVR]} > > Suppose $x_{ik}$, $i=1,N_{pr}$, $k=1,L$ is a set of $N_{pr}$ > standardised proxy records of length $L$ and that we are trying > to obtain an estimate $\hat{y_i}$ of a quantity $y_i$ which is > known only in a calibration period ($i\in C$). > > Several ``optimal" estimates of $y_i$ can be obtained, depending on > the hypothesised relation between the proxies and $y$. > > Inverse regression follows from the model > $$ > \beta_i y_k + {\cal N} > = > x_{ik} > $$ > where $\cal N$ is a noise process, independent between proxies. > It follows that optimal estimate for the coefficients $\beta_i$ are > $$ > \hat{\beta_i} = {\sum_{k\in C} x_{ik} y_k \over \sum{k\in C} y_k^2 } > . > $$ > Given these coefficients, the optimal estimate of the $y_k$ outside > the calibration period is > $$ > \hat{y_k} = { \sum_i \hat{\beta_i} x_{ik} \over \sum_i \hat{\beta_i}^2 }. > $$ > > \subsection{Composite plus variance matching [CVM]} > > This method is rather easier. It starts out from the hypothesis that different > proxies represent different parts of the globe. A proxy for the global mean > is then obtained as a simple average of the proxies: > $$ > \overline{x_k} = N_{pr}^{-1} \sum_i x_{ik} > . > $$ > > Suppose > $$ > \overline{x_k} = \beta y_k + {\cal N} > , > $$ > then an optimal estimate of $\beta$ is easily derived as > $\hat\beta = \sum_{k\in C} x_k y_k/\sum_{k\in C} y_k^2$. > However, $y^*_k = \hat\beta^{-1} x_k$ is not an optimal estimate > of $y_k$. > > Because of the added noise, $\overline{x_k}$ is generally an overestimate > of $\beta y_k$. To correct for this we should use: > $$ > \beta y_k^* = \overline{x_k} > \sqrt{ \left( \beta^2 \sigma^2_y \over \beta^2 \sigma^2_y + \sigma_{\cal N}^2 \right) } > , > $$ > where $\sigma^2_y$ and $\sigma_{\cal N}^2$ are the expected variance of $y$ and the > respectively. > This leads to an estimate: > $$ > y_k^* = \overline{x_k} \left( \sigma_y \over \sigma_x \right) > . > $$ > This is known as the variance matching method because it matches the > variance of the reconstruction with that of observations over > the calibration period. > > \def\thesection{B} > \setcounter{subsection}{0} > {\bf Appendix B: Statistical tests} > > > \subsection{Tests for linear relationships} > > The simplest test for a linear relationship is the anomaly correlation > (also known as: Pearson Correlation, Pearson's product moment correlation, $R^2$, > product mean test): > \be > R = { \overline{ y^\prime x^\prime } \over > \sqrt{ \overline{ y^{\prime2} } \, \overline{ x^{\prime2} } } } > \ee > where the over-bar represents a mean over the data the test is being applied to, > and a prime a departure from the mean > \citep{pearson1896}. > > The significance of an anomaly correlation can be estimated using the > $t$ statistic: > \be > t = {R \sqrt{n-2} \over \sqrt{1-R^2} } > \ee > where $n$ is the sample size (for independent variables). > Two Gaussian variables will produce a $t$ statistics which obeys the > Student's t-distribution of $n-2$ degrees of freedom. > > Ideally, if the noise affecting all the $x$ and $y$ values is independent, > $n$ is simply the number of measurements. This is unlikely to be the case, > so an estimate of $n$ is needed. The Monte-Carlo approach is more > flexible: a large sample of random sequences with specified correlation > structures is created, and the frequency with which the specified > $R$ coefficient is exceeded can then be used to estimate its significance. > > \subsection{Lag correlations} > > Following \citet{hosking1984}, a random time series with a specified > lag correlation structure is obtained from the partial correlation coefficients, > which are generated using Levinson-Durbin regression. > > It is, however, not possible to generate a sequence matching an arbitrarily > specified correlation structure and there is no guarantee that an > estimate of the correlation structure obtained from a small sample will > be realizable. It is found that the Levinson-Durbin regression diverges > when run with the lag correlation functions generated from the \citet{jones_etal1986} > northern hemisphere temperature record and also that from the HCA composite. > > For the northern hemisphere temperature record, this is resolved by truncating the regression after $n=50$. > The sample lag-correlation coefficients are, in any case, unreliable beyind this point. > Truncating the regression results in a random sequence with a lag correlation fitting that > specified up to lag 50 and then decaying. > For the HCA composite, the sample lag-correlation, $C(n)$, is scaled by $\exp( - 0.0001 n )$, > where $n$ is the lag in years. > > {\bf Appendix C: Acronyms} > > Table 4 shows a list of acronyms used in this paper. > \begin{table} > \begin{tabular}{|l|p{12cm}|} > \hline > ABD & Age Band Decomposition tree ring standardisation method \cr > \hline > CSM & Climate System Model: A coupled ocean-atmosphere climate model produced by NCAR, > http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/csm/ \cr > \hline > CFM & Climate Field Reconstruction: method for reconstructing spatial structures > of past climate variables using proxy data \cr > \hline > CVM & Composite plus Variance Matching reconstruction method \cr > \hline > ECHO-G & Hamburg coupled ocean-atmosphere climate model \cr > \hline > EOF & Empirical Orthogonal Component \cr > \hline > INVR & Inverse Regression reconstruction method \cr > \hline > IPCC & The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established by the > World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) > to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. It is open to all Members of the UN and of WMO. \cr > \hline > ITRDB & International Tree-Ring Data Bank, maintained by the NOAA Paleoclimatology > Program and World Data Center for Paleoclimatology (www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo) \cr > \hline > MWP & Medieval Warm Period \cr > \hline > PC & Principal Component \cr > \hline > RCS & Regional Curve Standardisation tree ring standardisation method \cr > \hline > \end{tabular} > \caption{Acronyms used in the text} > \end{table} > > \bibliographystyle{egu}% > \bibliography{citations,extras} > > \vfill\eject > \begin{figure*}[h] > %% produced by idl/mitrie/plot_recon.pro > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f01}} > \caption{\label{fig:1} > Various reconstructions. With mean of 1900 to 1960 removed. > } > \end{figure*} > > \vfill\eject > \begin{figure*}[h] > %% produced by idl/paleo/mbh_70.pro > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f02}} > \caption{\label{fig:2} > Data blocks for PC calculation by MBH1998. Each of the 212 data series is shown as a horizontal > line over the time period covered. The dashed blue rectangles indicate some of the blocks of data > used by MBH1998 for their proxy principal component calculation, using fewer series for longer time > periods. The red rectangle indicates the single block used by MM2003, neglecting all data prior > to 1619. > } > \end{figure*} > > > \vfill\eject > \begin{figure*}[h] > %% produced by pylib/do_eof.py > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f03}} > \caption{\label{fig:3} > First Principal Component of the North American proxy record collection, following MBH1998. > The black line is the MBH1998 archived version. > The other lines differ only in the method of standardisation of series prior to calculation of the > principal components. > Red: calculated following the MBH1998 method, the individual series have the mean of the calibration > period removed and are normalised by the variance of the detrended series over that period; > Blue: with the mean of the whole series removed, and normalised with the variance of the whole series. > Green: mean removed but no normalisation. > } > \end{figure*} > > > \vfill\eject > \begin{figure*}[h] > %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f13}} > \caption{\label{fig:4} > Reconstruction back to 1000, calibrated on 1856 to 1980 northern hemisphere temperature, > using the MBH1999 proxy data collection. > The MBH1999 NH reconstruction and the Jones et al. (1986) instrumental data are shown for comparison. > All data have been smoothed with a 21-year running mean. > } > \end{figure*} > > > \vfill\eject > \begin{figure*}[h] > %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f12}} > \caption{\label{fig:5} > As Fig.~4, but using the MBH1998 data collection back to 1400AD. > } > \end{figure*} > > \vfill\eject > \begin{figure*}[h] > %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f10}} > \caption{\label{fig:6} > Reconstruction back to 1000AD, calibrated on 1856 to 1980 northern hemisphere temperature, > using a composite and variance matching, > for a variety of different data collections. > The MBH1999 and HPS2000 NH reconstructions and the Jones et al. (1998) instrumental > data are shown for comparison. > Graphs have been smoothed with a 21-year running mean and centered on 1866 to 1970. > The maximum of the 'Union' reconstruction in the pre-industrial period (0.227K, 1091AD) is shown > by a short cyan bar, the maximum of the instrumental record (0.841K, 1998AD) is shown as a > short purple bar. > } > \end{figure*} > > \vfill\eject > \begin{figure*}[h] > %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f11}} > \caption{\label{fig:7} > As Fig.~6, except using inverse regression. > } > \end{figure*} > > \vfill\eject > \begin{figure*}[h] > %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f14}} > \caption{\label{fig:8} > Lag correlations for proxy composites and instrumental record (gray). > } > \end{figure*} > > \vfill\eject > \begin{figure*}[h] > %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f09}} > \caption{\label{fig:9} > The ``Union'' reconstruction, using `composite plus variance scaling', for the > calibration period. Also shown is the level of the maximum plus two standard errors. > The Jones and Mann instrumental data is plotted as a dashed line. > } > \end{figure*} > > \end{document} > diliberate bad speling > > \vfill\eject > > {\it\small > Both these questions could be answered by a detailed knowledge of the > climate and its forcings over the past 1000 years, but the detailed > instrumental record only extends back to 1856. Hence ... [[]] > > %%The motivation for the study of past climate variability is twofold: > Current projections of future climate change are still burdened with > some level of uncertainty, even within a particular scenario of future > greenhouse concentrations. Although all climate models simulate an > increase of global temperatures in this century, the range of warming > simulated by different models still covers a wide range \citep{IPCC2001}. > A much pursued goal is to reduce this uncertainty range. > A question is whether warming of magnitude similar to that observed in the > 19th and 20th centuries, very likely caused at least to a large part by > anthropogenic greenhouse gas, has also occurred in the preindustrial recent past, > when, to a large extent, only natural forcings of the climate system were active. > > {\small\it Reconstructions of the climate of the past millennium can help us to > answer the second point by describing the magnitude of > global temperature fluctuations in the past and can address the first > point by helping to quantify the climate sensitivity: the > ratio of the response to the forcing.} > Progress in both questions can be achieved through the analysis > of reconstructions and simulations of the climate of the past millennium: > firstly, > we wish to know whether current high global temperatures are > within the range of natural variability. Secondly, we wish to > evaluate the skill and reliability of climate models. > %%The rise in global mean temperatures since then is > Therefore, some form of empirical reconstruction based on early-instrumental > records, documentary evidence and proxy data is needed. > %%On the other hand, > %%the global warming observed in the past 2 centuries may be partly > %%due to the recovery from an extended > %%period of anomalously low temperatures which was reflected > %%in a large number of indirect European records. > %%[omit above sentence (AM)??] > %%[justify "recovery" (JE)??] > %%[was it really gradual (JE)] > %%"gradual deleted": jones and mann suggest that hemispheric mean cooling trend > %% is "relatively steady" in contrast to more episodic cooling in Europe, > %% but esper etal (2002) suggests that attributing this difference to > %% hemisphere vs. europe is wrong, it might be whole hemisphere vs. extra-tropical, > %% or it might be failure to resolve variability. > %[check]: copied from Gabi's email -- needs clearing up. > %%However, some unsolved questions will remain. > %%For instance, the climate sensitivity may depend on the nature of the external > %%forcing (greenhouse gas, solar irradiance, etc), so that an estimation > %%of past climate sensitivity has still to be considered with some care. > %%There are indeed indications that climate sensitivity to changes in solar > %%forcing is lower than to changes to greenhouse gas forcing > %%\citep{tett_etal2005+, joshi_etal2003}. > %%[ be more precise -- (i.e. in terms of $K W^-1 m^2$ ??)]] > %%::joshi etal show a 0-20% difference between sensitivity to solar forcing > %%compared to CO2 forcing. This is much less than variability in sensitivity > %%among models. > %%[this is not really relevant if the difference in climate sensitivity between > %%forcings is much less than that between, say, models] > > A wide range of proxy > data sources which have been exploited for this problem > \citep[reviewed in][]{jones_mann2004}. > Tree rings are a particularly important source of information > within the time frame of the last millennium. The precise dating which > is provided by the annual growth rings allows anomalous growth > rates to be compared reliably with historical events. > However, its not straightforward to retrieve the climate variability > at timescales that exceed the typical life span of a tree (see Sect.~2.5 below). > Statistical regression against instrumental temperature data is often used > because the majority of proxy records cannot be directly related to temperature > by deterministic models > (two exceptions, reconstructions obtained from borehole temperatures > and those based on glacial advance and retreat, are discussed below). > Appendix A gives mathematical details of some basic statistical measures. > The measures of skill used by MBH1998, MBH1999 are the > $R^2$ test, which measures the degree of coherence between two data > sets, and the ``Reduction of Error'' (RE) statistic, which measures the > effectiveness of one series (typically a model or prediction) > in explaining the total (i.e. including the mean) variance in another (the verification data). > > The statistical tests on these measures of skill are described > in many text books, and their application is straight forward > when all sources of noise contaminating the > data are well characterised. The difficulty which arises > in many applications, including climate reconstructions, is that > the noise has significant but poorly characterised correlations. > %%[is this true for tests of skill -- probably not for analytical tests of RE]] > } > \vfill\eject > \vfill \eject > > The B\"urger et al. analyses use a collection of pseudo-proxies created from > pseudo observations of a climate simulation with added white noise. > This is a pragmatic approach -- there is little reliable information about > the true nature of the noise spectrum. It has been suggested that bristlecone pines > in N. America have an anomalous growth trend in the 20th century which is > coherent among that species. The inverse regression algorithm can give large > weight to individual proxies and negative weight to others: this may be > correct in some circumstances, but in others it could amplify the error. > The composite approach, on the other hand, is robust: > simply taking the mean of the available proxies does not rely on > specific assumptions about the noise spectrum. > > \vfill\eject > \begin{figure*}[h] > %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{figz/c_var_nh_reconc_10_1000_c}} > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{figs/cpd-2006-xxxx-f04}} > \caption{\label{fig:1} > As Fig.~7, except > using composite and variance matching. > } > \end{figure*} > > \vfill\eject > > \begin{figure*}[h] > %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{figz/c_var_nh_reconc_10_1000_c}} > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{figs/cpd-2006-xxxx-f04}} > \caption{\label{fig:1} > The ``Union'' reconstruction, using `composite plus variance scaling', for the > calibration period. Also shown is the level of the maximum plus two standard errors. > The Jones and Mann instrumental data is plotted as a dashed line. > } > \end{figure*} > > > > Willmott, C.J., 1981. On the validation of models. Phys. Geog., 2, 184-194 > > > {\bf A2: Principal Components} > > Principal component analysis is a standard technique for reducing the > volume of data while attempting to retain as much of the variability > of the original data as possible. > > Stage (2) establishes an empirical link between the proxy records and > temperature. In MBH1998 inverse least squares regression of the > proxy network against the principal components of the measured temperature field, > over the period 1902 to 1980, is used. > > Stage (3), the verification stage, determines how many, if any, of the > reconstructed time series for the principal components can be > considered to have some descriptive value. This is done by evaluating the > fit of the implied fields to the observations in the verification period, 1856 to 1901. > The northern hemisphere mean temperature is calculated from the > The uncertainties are calculated from the residuals to the fit in the calibration period. > > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005c} assert that the fact that omission of data > led to a different result demonstrates that the method is unreliable. > This would be true if the computation of a time series were the > end point of the analysis. However, the need to verify the computed series > was recognised by MBH1998. This is discussed further below. > > \subsubsection{Spurious metaphors} > > The term ``hockey-stick" has become widely used, particularly in the US > media, to refer to the temperature history implied by the MBH1999 > temperature reconstruction. It did not originally apply to the reconstruction > itself, which has a relatively minor temperature increase in the early > 20th century, but rather to the combination of this series with the > more recent observed temperature trends: the combination shows > a dramatic increase in the 20th century, substantially greater than anything > that occurred in the past millennium. > The first attempt to attach any scientific meaning to the phrase > was with the introduction of a ``hockey stick index'' > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005a} (hereafter MM2005). > This index is defined in terms of the ratio of the variance at the end of a time series > to the variance over the remainder of the series. > MM2005 argue that the way in which > a principal component analysis is carried out in MBH generates an artificial > bias towards a high ``hockey-stick index" and that the statistical significance of > the MBH results may be lower that originally estimated. > %% and that this is responsible for the > %%shape in the MBH temperature reconstruction. > %%Martin: I think that what MM05 indicate is that "hockey-stick may arise from random time series more easlily as previously thought, when using the decentered PCs. I am not sure if they make this decentering responsible for the final output in MBH. > %% > \subsection{Validation} > > As noted above, MM2003 have shown that removing data > degrades the result, as might be expected. > Among the adjustments which they characterize as ``corrections'' was the > omission of the 3 principal components mentioned above. > In fact, 70\% of the 90 time series extending back to > 1400 are omitted from their analysis. > > In principle, it would be possible to estimate the accuracy of > reconstructions calculated by regression from the data in the > calibration period. However, this calculation can easily be biased > by unreliable assumptions about the noise covariances within > the calibration period. > MBH1998, 1999 follow a more robust approach, using independent > data from a validation period (1856 to 1901) to, > firstly, determine whether a reconstruction has any relation to temperature > and, secondly, estimate the error variance. > > MM2003, however, omitted the validation phase. > \citep{wahl_ammann2005} have carried out a detailed investigation > of the robustness of the MBH1998 technique to address this > and many other issues. They find that the MM2003 series fails the > validation tests used by MBH1998. > > As an illustration of the robustness of the reconstruction, > figures 5 and 6 shows a reconstructions made using the MBH1999 and MBH1998 data respectively. > Regression against northern hemispheric mean temperature is used > instead of regression against principal components of > temperature. There are differences, but key features remain. > [[more details in appendix and/or supplementary materials]] > MM2003 draw attention to the fact that one time series, > ``CANA036" in the ITRDB classification, contributed > by Gasp\'e, appears twice in the MBH1998 database. > This error is corrected in the red dashed curve of Fig.~5, > which is almost identical to the green curve, which retains the duplication. > > With our simplification of the method it is possible > to use the entire instrumental record for calibration. > This leaves no data for validation, but the difference > between this and a reconstruction based on a shorter > period gives some idea of the robustness. > Figure 4b shows the result. > > Finally, MM question the calculation of uncertainty limits. > This depends on the number of degrees of freedom > assigned to the data. MM state that the standard method used > by MBH is wrong, and that a lower number of degrees of > freedom is appropriate because of long range correlations in > the data. MBH use the lag-one autocorrelation to estimate > the degrees of freedom. > > In all such tests it is necessary to remember the distinction between the > sample correlation, which one is forced to deal with, and > the actual correlation, we cannot know exactly. For this reason > it is generally unwise to use methods which rely on statistics > which cannot be estimated robustly in a small sample. > > MM05 also confuse the auto-correlation structure of the tree-ring data, > which are known to have an environmental signal with correlations > on at least the decadal time-scale, with the auto-correlation of the > residuals which should be used in estimating the noise structure. > \vfill\eject > \begin{figure*}[h] > %% produced by idl/paleo/mbh_70.pro > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f03}} > \caption{\label{fig:1} > Data blocks for PC calculation by MBH. > } > \end{figure*} > > > > \subsection{Natural variability and forcings} > > Global temperature can fluctuate through natural internal variability of > the climate system (as in the El Ni\~no phenomenon), through > variability in natural forcings (solar insolation, volcanic aerosols, > natural changes to greenhouse gas concentrations) and human changes. > > Analysis of the physical links between the estimated temperature changes > of the past millennium and estimated variations in the > different forcing mechanisms can give improve our understanding of those > mechanisms and help to validate the estimated temperature and > > \citet{goosse_etal2005} investigate the role of natural variability using > an ensemble of 25 climate model simulations of the last millennium > and forcing estimates from \citet{crowley2000}. > They conclude that natural variability dominates local and regional > scale temperature anomalies, implying that most of the variations > experienced by a region such as Europe over the last millennium could > be caused by natural variability. On the hemispheric and global scale, however, the > external forcing dominates. > This reinforces similar statements made by JOS1998. \citet{goosse_etal2005} > make the new point, that noise can lead to regional temperature anomalies > peaking at different times to the forcing, so that disagreements in > timing between proxy series should not necessarily be interpreted as meaning there > is no common forcing. > > Analysis of natural climate forcings \citep{crowley2000} > show that changes in atmospheric aerosol content due to changes > in volcanic activity and changes in solar irradiance > can explain this long term cooling through most of the millenium, > shown by paleoclimate reconstructions, > and the observed warming in the late 19th century. > \citet{hegerl_etal2003} analyse the correlations between four > reconstructions (MBH1999, BOS2001, ECS2002, and a modified version of CL2000) > and estimated forcings \citep{crowley2000}. > They find that that natural forcing, particularly by > volcanism, explains a substantial fraction of decadal variance, also in > new high-variance reconstructions. Greenhouse gas forcing is detectable > with high significance level in all analyzed reconstructions analyzed. > \citet{weber2005b} carries out a similar analysis with a wider range > of reconstructions. > It is shown that the correlation between reconstructed > global temperatures and forcings are similar to those derived from > the ECBILT climate model \citep{opsteegh_etal1998}. > The trend component over the period 1000 to 1850 is, however, larger in the > reconstructions compared to the forcings. > > The methods employed by > \citet{hegerl_etal2006+} attribute about a third of the early 20th century warming, sometimes > more, in high-variance reconstructions to greenhouse gas forcing. > These results indicate that enhanced variability in the past does not > make it more difficult to detect greenhouse warming, since a large > fraction of the variability can be attributed to external forcing. > Quantifying the influence of external forcing on the proxy records is > therefore more relevant to understanding climate variability and its > causes than determining if past periods were possibly as warm as the > 20th century. > > The dominance of volcanic forcing over solar variability found in some of the > above studies is consistent with recent questioning of the > magnitude of low-frequency solar forcing \citep{lean_etal2002, foukal_etal2004}. > \subsection{Tests of skill in reconstructions} > > RE: Reduction of Error > > \be > RE = 1. - { \overline{ (y- \hat y^\prime)^2 } \over > \overline{ y^2 } } > \ee > > -- Anders Moberg Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology Stockholm University SE-106 91 Stockholm Sweden Phone: +46 (0)8 6747814 Fax: +46 (0) 8 164818 www.geo.su.se anders.moberg@natgeo.su.se Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\moberg_suppl_note.doc" 3123. 2006-08-04 ______________________________________________________ cc: Anders , Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de, hegerl@duke.edu, esper@wsl.ch, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, weber@knmi.nl, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 10:45:44 +0100 from: Martin Juckes subject: Re: McIntyre, McKitrick & MITRIE ... to: Anders Moberg Dear Anders and others, I agree that some clarification is needed here: there is a distinction to be made between the use of different proxies in the inverse regression, which MM2003 followed, and the use of different selections of proxies to Principal Components for the different steps, which they did not follow. The key section in MM2003 is 2 (i). It is claimed that MBH98 calculated 28 proxy PCs and that 16 started prior to available data. In Table 7 they state that the "Available Period" for data from North American tree-rings as 1619-1971. We all know that there was plenty of such data available prior to this period. In fact, MBH98 used a total of 52 proxy PCs, with a maximum of 28 in any one time period. The supplementary data for MM2003 (which is clearer than that for MBH1998) makes it clear that they did not recalculate the proxy PCs for different steps of the reconstruction, but simply selected proxies from a table of 112: 84 raw proxies plus 28 proxy PCs calculated in 5 sub-regions for periods when ALL the data in those sub-regions was available. MM2005 (Energy and Environment) correct this error (without admitting to it), and claim that centering of the proxies is a major issue. However, the published code fragments suggest that they omitted the standardisation of the proxies, and their results can only be replicated by imitting standardisation. The "centering" issue is thus a red-gherring which conveniently diverts attention away from the serious flaw in their 2003 paper. MM2003 at no point mention the number of proxies going into the 1400-1450 step of their reconstruction. An unpublished manuscript does acknowledge that no North American PC was used for th 1400-1450 reconstruction (that is, the first revision of the manuscript acknowledges this omission [attached]: the first submission, which is also available from McIntyre's web-site, makes no reference to the fact they were omitted and implies that only the method of calculation is an issue -- I guess they can get that kind of thing past some editors but not others). I'll get some supplementary information on this together to submit with the manuscript. The numbers on figure 2 need correcting -- thanks for pointing that out. I think that the statement that there is no North American tree-ring data prior to 1619 is a "serious" flaw and that we should say so. The McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) Energy and Environment paper claims that they reproduce their 2003 result while including the North American proxy data, but it is abundantly obvious from looking at the figures in the two papers that this is untrue: their 2003 reconstruction showed 1400-1450 as 0.3K warmer than 1950, whereas their 2005 reconstruction estimates 1400-1450 to be about the same as 1950. In terms of MBH1998 error bars, MM2003 disagreed with MBH1998 by 3 sigma, MM2005 disagrees by 1.5 sigma. It appears that this disagreement is largely due to the failure to standardsie the proxies. Both this technical flaw and the inaccurate reference to their own work are, I think, serious. I can understand the reservations about getting into a long dispute. That is one reason why I have simplified the new calculations used: not using any temperature PCs and not doing any stepwise reconstruction leads to considerable simplification. cheers, Martin On Friday 04 August 2006 09:18, Anders Moberg wrote: > Dear Martin and all others, > > Having read the new manuscript, I would like to draw the attention of > all of you to the section about McIntyre&McKitrick vs Mann et al. I am > not entirely happy with this section. It may be that I am not fully > updated about all details on their dispute, but it appears to be some > mistakes in this section of our manuscript. Therefore, I ask all of you > to check how this section can be improved and clarified. This is very > important! If we refer incorrectly to the MM-Mann dispute, I am > convinced that all of us will be involved in lengthy frustrating e-mail > discussions later on. I anticipiate this from personal experience! Let's > do our best to avoid this. > > The problematic bit of text starts on p. 16, para 4: ("The failure of > MM2003 ... is partly due to a misunderstanding of the stepwise > reconstruction method") and slightly below: ("MM2003 only calculate > principal components for the period when all chronologies are present"). > > I read through the MM2003 paper yesterday. From what is written there, > on p. 763-765, it appears that they were well aware of the stepwise > method. On p. 763, about at the middle of the page, they write: > "Following the description of MBH98 ... our construction is done > piecewise for each of the periods listed in Table 8, using the roster of > proxies available through the period and the selection of TPCs for each > period listed in Table 8". > > This is clearly at odds to what is written in our manuscript. Has it > been documented somewhere else that MM2003, despite what they wrote, > really misunderstood the stepwise technique? If it is so, we need to > insert a reference. If this is not the case, we need to omit the lines > about the misunderstanding. We also need to explain better why the > MM2003 calculations differ from MBH. > > Moreover, our sentence ("MM2003 only calculate principal components for > the period when all chronologies are present") imply that MM2003 only > calculated PCs for the period 1820-1971, as this would be the period > when all chronologies are present according to the MM2003 Table 8. > Obviously, they calculated PCs beyond 1820, as their calculations > actually extend back to 1400. > > The problem continues in the legend to our Fig. 2. (" Each of the 212 > data series is shown ... The red rectangle indicates the single block > used by MM2003, neglecting all data prior to 1619"). The last sentence > is inconsistent with the information in MM2003 in three ways; a) MM2003 > clearly show in their Table 8 that they analysed the same blocks of data > as MBH. b) The year 1619 as a starting point of a data block is > inconsistent with MM Table 8. Where does the year 1619 come from? It is > not mentioned anywhere in MM2003. c). The red block implies that MM2003 > made calculations back only to 1619, but they did back to 1400. > > Moreover, the numbers given in the graph of our Fig. 2 indicate that the > total number of series is 211, whereas the text in the legend and also > in the main text on p. 16 says 212. Which number is correct? > > I suppose that some of you others will know this subject much better > than I. I have just read the MM2003 paper, and find our reference to it > to be inconsistent with it. I hope you all can make efforts to make this > bit crystal clear. If not, I fear we will get problems! > > Finally, I would like to draw your attention to the related sentence in > our conclusions on p. 26: ("Papers which claim to refute ... have been > reviewed and found to contain serious flaws"). Are all of you happy with > this statement? Would it sound better with a somewhat less offending > sentence, something like: > > "Papers which claim to refute ... have been reviewed and found to > essentially contribute with insignificant information that does not > affect the consensus, and even to include some flaws." > > I attach the MM2003 paper. > > I will send some comments to the other parts of the text in a separate mail. > > Cheers, > Anders > > > > Martin Juckes wrote: > > Hello All, > > > > here is another draft. I've added a new reconstruction, using 19 independent > > proxies series from Jones et al., Mann et al., Esper et al. and Moberg et al. > > This gives a good fit to the calibration data, such that 2 recent years exceed > > the maximum pre-industrial estimate by 4 sigma levels. I've included this > > because without it I found it hard to draw precise and useful conclusions > > from the 4 partially overlapping reconstructions I had done before. > > > > cheers, > > Martin > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > \documentclass[cpd,11pt]{egu} > > > > \input macs > > \voffset 5cm > > \hoffset 1.5cm > > > > \begin{document} > > > > \title > > {\bf Millennial Temperature Reconstruction Intercomparison and Evaluation > > } > > > > \runningtitle{Millennial Temperature} > > \runningauthor{M.~N.~Juckes et al} > > \author{Martin Juckes$^{(1)}$, > > Myles Allen$^{(2)}$, > > Keith Briffa$^{(3)}$, > > Jan Esper$^{(4)}$, > > Gabi Hegerl$^{(5)}$, > > Anders Moberg$^{(6)}$, > > Tim Osborn$^{(3)}$, > > Nanne Weber$^{(7)}$, > > Eduardo Zorita$^{(8)}$} > > \correspondence{Martin Juckes (M.N.Juckes@rl.ac.uk)} > > \affil{ > > British Atmospheric Data Centre, SSTD, > > Rutherford Appleton Laboratory > > Chilton, Didcot, > > Oxfordshire, OX11 0QX, > > United Kingdom > > } > > > > \affil{1: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, > > 2: University of Oxford, > > 3: University of East Anglia, > > 4: Swiss Federal Research Institute, > > 5: Duke University, > > 6: Stockholm University, > > 7: Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), > > 8: GKSS Research Centre > > } > > \date{Manuscript version from 31 Oct 2005 } > > \msnumber{xxxxxx} > > > > \pubyear{} > > \pubvol{} > > \pubnum{} > > > > \received{} > > %\pubacpd{} % ONLY applicable to ACP > > \revised{} > > \accepted{} > > > > \firstpage{1} > > > > \maketitle > > > > \begin{abstract} > > There has been considerable recent interest in paleoclimate reconstructions of the temperature history of > > the last millennium. A wide variety of techniques have been used. > > The interrelation among the techniques is sometimes unclear, as different studies often > > use distinct data sources as well as distinct methodologies. > > Recent work is reviewed with an aim to clarifying the import of > > the different approaches. > > A range of proxy data collections used by different authors are passed > > through two reconstruction algorithms: firstly, inverse regression and, > > secondly, compositing followed by variance matching. > > It is found that the first method tends to give large weighting to > > a small number of proxies and that the second approach is more robust > > to varying proxy input. > > A reconstruction using 19 proxy records extending back to 1000AD shows a > > maximum pre-industrial temperature of 0.227K (relative to the 1866 to 1970 mean). > > The standard error on this estimate, based on the residual in the calibration > > period is 0.149K. Two recent years (1998 and 2005) have exceeded the pre-industrial > > estimated maximum by more than 4 standard errors. > > \end{abstract} > > > > > > %%\openup 1\jot > > > > \introduction\label{sec:intro} > > > > The climate of the last millennium has been the subject of much > > debate in recent years, both in the scientific literature > > and in the popular media. > > This paper reviews reconstructions of past temperature, > > on the global, hemispheric, or near-hemispheric scale, by > > \citet{jones_etal1998} [JBB1998], > > \citet{mann_etal1998a} [MBH1998], > > \citet{mann_etal1999} [MBH1999], > > \citet{huang_etal2000} [HPS2000], > > \citet{crowley_lowery2000} [CL2000], > > \citet{briffa_etal2001} [BOS2001], > > \citet{esper_etal2002b} [ECS2002], > > \citet{mann_jones2003} [MJ2003], > > \citet{moberg_etal2005} [MSH2005], > > \citet{oerlemans2005} [OER2005], > > \citet{hegerl_etal2006+} [HCA2006]. > > %%The criticism > > %%directed at them (mainly MBH1999) by \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2003} [MM2003] and others. > > > > > > Climate variability can be partitioned into contributions from > > internal variability of the climate system and response to forcings, > > which the forcings being further partitioned in natural and > > anthropogenic. > > The dominant change in forcing in the late 20th century > > arises from human impact in the form of > > greenhouse gases \citep[primarily carbon dioxide, methane and > > chloro-fluoro carbons:][]{IPCC2001}. > > The changes in concentration of these gases in the atmosphere > > are well documented and their radiative properties which reduce, > > for a given temperature difference, radiative loss of heat to space > > from the mid and lower troposphere > > \citep[for carbon dioxide, this was first documented by][]{arrhenius1896} > > are beyond dispute. > > > > However, there remains some uncertainty on two issues: > > firstly, how much of the observed change is due to greenhouse forcing as > > opposed to natural forcing and internal variability; > > secondly, how significant, compared to past natural changes, are the > > changes which we now observe and expect in the future? > > > > The first question is not answered by the IPCC conclusion cited above because > > that conclusion only compares the anthropogenic forcing of the late 20th century > > with the natural forcings of the same period. Further back in the past, it is > > harder to make definitive statements about the amplitude of variability in natural > > forcings. The second question reflects the uncertainty in the response of the > > climate system to a given change in forcing. In the last century both the > > variations in forcing and the variations in response have been measured with > > some detail, yet there remains uncertainty about the contribution of > > natural variability to the observed temperature fluctuations. > > In both cases, investigation is hampered by the fact that > > estimates of global mean temperature based on reliable direct measurements > > are only available from 1856 onwards \citep{jones_etal1986}. > > > > Climate models are instrumental in addressing both questions, > > but they are still burdened with > > some level of uncertainty and there is a need for more detailed knowledge > > of the behaviour of the actual climate on multi-centennial timescales > > both in order to evaluate the climate models and in order to address the > > above questions directly. > > > > The scientific basis for proxy based climate reconstructions may be stated simply: there are > > a number of physical indicators > > which contain information about the past environmental variability. > > As these are not direct measurements, the term proxy is used. > > > > > > \citet{jones_mann2004} review evidence for climate change in > > the past millennium and conclude that there had been a > > global mean cooling since the 11th century > > until the warming period initiated in the 19th century, but the issue remains > > controversial. This paper reviews recent contributions and evaluates the impact > > of different methods and different data collections used. > > > > Section 2 discusses recent contributions, which have developed a range of new > > methods to address aspects of the problem. > > Section 3 discusses the technique used by MBH1998/9 > > in more detail in the context of criticism by \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2003} > > (hereafter MM2003). > > Section 4 presents some new results using the data collections from 5 recent studies. > > > > > > \section{A survey of recent reconstructions} > > > > This section gives brief reviews of recent > > contributions, displayed in Fig.~1. > > Of these, 5 are estimates of the Northern Hemisphere mean temperature > > (MBH1999, HPS2000, CL2000, MSH2005, HCA2006), > > 2 of the Northern Hemisphere extra tropical mean temperature (BOS2001, ECS2002) > > and 3 of the global mean temperature (JBB1998, MJ2003, OER2005). > > All, except the inherently low resolution reconstructions of HPS2000 and OER2005, > > have been smoothed with a 40 year running mean. > > With the exception of HPS2000 and OER2005, the reconstructions > > use partly overlapping methods and data, so they > > cannot be viewed as independent from a statistical viewpoint. > > In addition to exploiting a range of different data sources, > > the above works also use a range of techniques. > > The subsections below cover different scientific themes, > > ordered according to the date of key publications. > > Some reconstructions which do not extend all the way > > back to 1000AD are included because of their > > importance in addressing specific issues. > > The extent to which the global, northern hemisphere and northern hemisphere > > extratropical reconstructions might be expected to agree > > is discussed in Sect.~2.10 below. > > > > \subsection{High-resolution paleoclimate records} > > > > \citet{jones_etal1998} [JBB1998] present the first annually resolved > > reconstructions of temperatures back to 1000AD, using > > a composite of standardised 10 proxies for the northern hemisphere and 7 for the southern, > > with variance damped in the early part of the series to account for the > > lower numbers of proxies present (6 series extend back to 1000AD), following \citet{osborn_etal1997}. > > The composites are > > scaled by variance matching (Appendix A) against the annual mean summer temperatures for 1931-1960. > > Climate models are also employed to investigate the temperature coherency > > between proxy sites and it is shown that there are strong large scale > > coherencies in the proxy data which are not reproduced by > > the climate model. An evaluation of each individual > > proxy series against instrumental data from 1881 to 1980 > > shows that tree-rings and historical reconstructions > > are more closely related to temperature than those > > from corals and ice-cores. > > > > With regard to the temperatures of the last millennium, > > the primary conclusion of JBB1998 is that > > the twentieth century was the warmest of the millennium. > > There is clear evidence of a cool period from 1500 to 1900, > > but no strong ``Medieval Warm Period" [MWP] (though the second warmest > > century in the northern hemisphere reconstruction is > > the 11th). The MWP is discussed further in Sect.~2.4 below. > > > > JBB1998 draw attention to the limitations of some of the proxies > > on longer timescales (see Sect.~3.5 below). > > Homogeneity of the data record and > > its relation with temperature may not be guaranteed on longer timescale. > > This is an important issue, since > > many climate reconstructions assume a constant relationship between > > temperature anomalies and the proxy indicators > > (there are also problems associated with timescale-dependency in the > > relationship which are discussed further in Sect.~2.6 below). > > > > MJ2003 include some additional proxy series and extend to study period back a > > further millennium and conclude that the late 20th century warmth > > is unprecedented in the last two millennia. > > > > \subsection{Climate field reconstruction} > > > > \citet{mann_etal1999} published > > the first reconstruction of the last thousand years northern hemispheric mean > > temperature which included objective error bars, > > based on the analysis of the residuals in the calibration period. > > The authors concluded not only > > that their estimate of the temperature over the whole period 1000AD to 1860AD > > was colder than the late twentieth century, but also that 95\% certainty limits > > were below the last decade of the twentieth century. > > The methods they used were presented in MBH1998 > > which described a reconstruction back to 1400AD. > > > > MBH1998 use a collection of 415 proxy time indicators, many more than used in \citet{jones_etal1998}, > > but many of these are too close geographically to be considered > > as independent, so they are combined into a smaller number of representative > > series. > > The number of proxies also decreases significantly with age: > > only 22 independent proxies extend back to 1400AD, > > and, in > > MBH1999, 12 extend back to 1000AD (7 in the Northern Hemisphere). > > MBH1998 and MBH1999 have been the subject of much debate since the latter was cited > > in the IPCC (2001) report, though the IPCC > > conclusions\footnote{\citet{IPCC2001} concluded that > > ``The 1990s are likely to have been the warmest decade of the millennium in > > the Northern Hemisphere, and 1998 is likely to have been the warmest > > year," where ``likely'' implies a greater than 66\% probability. > > Since 2001 it has been recognised that there is a need to explicitly > > distinguish between an expression of confidence, as made by the IPCC in this quote, > > which should include expert assessment of the robustness of statistical methods > > employed, and simple citation of the results of statistical test. > > In the language of > > \citet{manning_etal2004} we can say that MBH1999 carried out statistical > > tests which concluded that the 1990s have been the warmest decade of the > > millenium with 95\% likelihood, while IPCC (2001), after assessing all > > available evidence had a 66\% confidence in the same statement.} > > were weaker than those of MBH1999. > > > > This work also differ from Jones et al. (1998) in using spatial patterns of temperature > > variability rather than hemispheric mean temperatures. In this way the study aims > > to exploit proxies which are related to temperature indirectly: for > > instance, changes in temperature may be associated with changes in > > wind and rainfall which might affect proxies more strongly than > > temperature. Since wind and rainfall are correlated with > > changes in temperature patterns, it is argued, there may be important non-local > > correlations between proxies and temperature. > > > > Different modes of atmospheric variability are evaluated through an > > Empirical Orthogonal Function [EOF] analysis of the time period 1902 to 1980, > > expressing the global field as a sum of spatial patterns (the EOFs) multiplied by > > Principal Components (PCs -- representing the temporal evolution). > > Earlier instrumental data are too sparse to be used for this purpose: > > instead they are used in a validation calculation to determine how > > many EOFs should be included in the reconstruction. > > Time series for each mode of variability are then reconstructed from the proxy data using > > a optimal least squares inverse regression. > > > > Finally, the skill of the regression of each PC is tested using the > > 1856 to 1901 validation data. > > Prior to 1450AD it is determined that only > > one PC can be reconstructed with > > any accuracy. This means that the main advantage of the > > Climate Field Reconstruction method does not apply at earlier dates. > > The methodology will be discussed further in Sect.~3 below. > > > > The reconstructed temperature evolution (Fig.~1) is rather less variable than that of Jones et al. (1998), > > but the differences are not statistically significant. > > The overall picture is of gradual cooling until the mid 19th century, > > followed by rapid warming matching that evaluated by the earlier work. > > > > \subsection{Borehole temperatures} > > > > \citet{huang_etal2000} [HPS2000] estimate northern hemisphere temperatures > > back to 1500AD using > > measurements made in 453 boreholes (their paper also presents global and > > southern hemisphere results using an additional 163 southern hemisphere boreholes). > > The reconstruction is included here, even though it does not extend back to 1000AD, > > because it has the advantage of being completely > > independent of the other reconstructions shown. > > Temperature fluctuations at the surface propagate slowly downwards, so that measurements > > made in the boreholes at depth contain a record of past surface temperature fluctuations. > > HPS2000 used measurements down to around 300m. > > The diffuse nature of the temperature anomaly means that short time scale fluctuations > > cannot be resolved. Prior to the 20th century, the typical resolution is about 100 years. > > > > \citet{mann_etal2003} analyse the impact of changes in land use and snow cover > > on borehole temperature reconstructions and conclude that > > it results in significant errors. > > This conclusions has been refuted by > > \citet{pollack_smerdon2004} (on statistical grounds), \citet{gonzalez-rouco_etal2003} > > (using climate simulations) and \citet{huang2004} (using an expanded network of 696 > > boreholes in the northern hemisphere). > > > > \subsection{Medieval Warm Period} > > > > Despite much discussion > > \citep[e.g.][]{hughes_diaz1994, bradley_etal2003}, there is no clear quantitative > > understanding of what is meant by the ``Medieval Warm Period'' [MWP]. > > \citet{crowley_lowery2000} > > [CL2000] discuss the evidence for a global MWP, which they interpret as > > a period of unusual warmth in the 11th century. All the reconstructions > > of the 11th century temperature shown > > in Fig.~1 estimate that century to have been warmer than most of the > > past millennium. However, the question of practical importance is not > > whether it was warmer than the 12th to 19th centuries, which is > > generally accepted, but whether it was a period of comparable > > warmth to the late 20th century. MBH1999 concluded, with 95\% confidence, that > > this was not so. CL2000 revisit the question > > using 15 proxy records, of which 9 were not used in the studies > > described above. Several of the series used have extremely low temporal resolution. > > %%CL2000 sought to select tree ring chronologies with consistent quality > > %%throughout their length, as measured by the "sample replication" > > %%\citep{cook_etal2004}. > > %%[check usage of "sample replication" -- cook etal (QSR) is available from Jan's website]] > > > > They draw attention to the spatial localization of the MWP in their proxy series: > > it is strong in North America, North Atlantic and Western Europe, but not > > clearly present elsewhere. Periods of unusual warmth > > do occur in other regions, but these are short and asynchronous. > > > > Their estimate of northern hemispheric temperature over the past millennium is consistent > > with the works discussed above. They conclude that the occurrence of decades of > > temperatures similar to those of the late 20th century cannot be unequivocally ruled > > out, but that there is, on the other hand, no evidence to support the claims > > that such an extended period of large-scale warmth occurred. > > > > \citet{soon_baliunas2003} carry out an analysis of local climate reconstructions. > > They evaluate the number of such reconstructions which show (a) a sustained ``climate > > anomaly" during 800-1300AD, (b) a sustained ``climate > > anomaly" during 1300-1900AD and (c) > > their most anomalous 50 year period in the 20th century. > > Their definition of a ``sustained climate anomaly" is 50 years of warmth, > > wetness or dryness for (a) and (c) and 50 years of coolness, wetness > > or dryness in (b). > > It should be noted that they do not carry out evaluations which allow direct comparison between > > the 20th century and earlier times: > > they compare the number of extremes occurring in the 20th century with the > > number of anomalies occurring in periods of 3 and 4 centuries in the past. > > Both the use of sampling periods of differing length and different selection criteria make interpretation > > of their results problematic. > > They have also been criticised for interpreting > > regional extremes which occur at distinct times as being indicative of a global > > climate extremes \citep{jones_mann2004}. This issue is discussed further in > > Sect.~2.9 below. > > \citet{osborn_briffa2006} perform a systematic analysis along the lines of \citet{soon_baliunas2003} > > and conclude that the proxy records alone, by-passing the problem of proxy calibration > > against instrumental temperatures, show an unprecedented anomaly in the 20th century. > > > > \subsection{Segment length curse} > > > > \citet{briffa_etal2001} and \citet{briffa_etal2002} discuss the impact of > > the ``segment length curse'' \citep{cook_etal1995a, briffa_etal1996, briffa2000} on > > temperature reconstructions from tree rings. > > Tree rings have been shown to have much greater sensitivity > > than other proxies on short timescales (JBB1998), but there is a concern that this may not > > be true on longer timescales. Tree ring chronologies are often made up of > > composites of many trees of different ages at one site. > > The width of the annual growth ring > > depends not only on environmental factors but also on the age of the > > tree. The age dependency on growth is often removed by subtracting > > a growth curve from the tree ring data for each tree. This process, > > done empirically, will not only remove age related trends but also any environmental > > trends which span the entire life of the tree. > > \citet{briffa_etal2001} use a more sophisticated method > > (Age Band Decomposition [ABD], which > > forms separate chronologies from tree rings in different age bands, > > and then averages all the age-band chronologies) > > to construct northern hemisphere > > temperatures back to 1400AD, and show that > > a greater degree of long term variability is preserved. > > The reconstruction lies between those > > of MBH1999 and JBB1998, showing the cold 17th century of the former, > > but the relatively mild 19th century of the latter. > > > > The potential impact of the segment length limitations is analysed further > > by \citet{esper_etal2002b, esper_etal2003}, using `Regional Curve Standardisation' (RCS) > > \citep{briffa_etal1992}. > > In RCS composite growth curves (different curves reflecting > > different categories of growth behaviour) are obtained from all the trees > > in a region and this, rather than a fitted curve, is subtracted > > from each individual series. Whereas ABD circumvents the need to > > subtract a growth curve, RCS seeks to evaluate a growth curve which > > is not contaminated by climate signals. > > The ECS2002 analysis agrees well with that of MBH1999 on short > > time scales, but has greater centennial variability \citep{esper_etal2004}. > > ECS2002 suggest that this may be partly due to the lack of tropical proxies > > in their work, which they suggest should be regarded as an extratropical > > Northern Hemisphere estimate. The extratropics are known to have > > greater variability than the tropics. > > %[check]:from eduardo:: Table 1 in MBH GRL 99 --add ref?? > > However, it has to be also noted that among the proxies used by MBH1999 > > (12 in total), just 2 of them are located in the tropics, both at one location > > (see table 1 below). > > > > \citet{cook_etal2004} study the data used by ECS2002 and pay particular attention > > to potential loss of quality in the earlier parts of tree-ring chronologies > > when a relatively small number of tree samples are available. Their analysis > > suggests that tree ring chronologies prior to 1200AD should be treated with > > caution. > > > > \subsection{Separating timescales} > > > > \citet{moberg_etal2005} follow BOS2001 and ECS2002 in trying to address > > the ``segment length curse'', but rather than trying to improve the > > tree-ring chronologies by improving the standardizations, > > they discard low frequency component of the tree-ring data, > > and replace this with low-frequency information from proxies with lower temporal resolution. > > A wavelet analysis is used to filter different temporal scales. > > > > Each individual proxy series is first scaled to unit variance and then wavelet transformed. > > Averaging of the wavelet transforms is made separately for tree ring data > > and the low-resolution data. > > The average wavelet transform of tree-ring data for timescales less than 80 > > years is combined with the averaged wavelet transform of the low-resolution data for > > timescales longer than 80 years to form one single wavelet transform covering all timescales. > > This composite wavelet transform is inverted to create a dimensionless temperature > > reconstruction, which is calibrated against the instrumental record of > > northern hemisphere mean temperatures, AD 1856-1979, using a variance matching method. > > > > Unfortunately, the calibration period is too short to independently calibrate the > > low frequency component. The variance matching represents a form of cross-calibration. > > In all calibrations against instrumental data, the long period (multi-centennial) > > response is determined by a calibration which is dominated by > > sub-centennial variance. The MSH2005 approach makes this explicit and > > shows a level of centennial variability which is much larger than in > > MBH1999 reconstruction and > > similar to that in simulations of the past millennium with two > > different climate models, ECHO-G \citep{storch_etal2004} and NCAR CSM > > (``Climate System Model'') \citep{mann_etal2005}. > > > > \subsection{Glacial advance and retreat} > > > > \citet{oerlemans2005} provides another independent estimate of the global mean temperature > > over the last 460 years from an analysis of glacial advance and retreat. > > As with the bore hole based estimate of HPS2000, this work uses a > > physically based model rather than an empirical calibration. > > The resulting curve lies within the > > range spanned by the high-resolution proxies, roughly midway between > > the MBH1999 Climate Field Reconstruction and the HPS2000 bore hole estimate. > > > > Unlike the borehole estimate, but consistent with most other works presented > > here, this analysis shows a cooling trend prior to 1850, related to glacial > > advances over that period. > > It should be noted that > > the technique used to generate the bore hole estimate \citep{pollack_etal1998} > > assumes a constant temperature prior to 1500AD. The > > absence of a cooling trend after this date may be influenced by this > > boundary condition. > > > > \subsection{Regression techniques} > > > > Many of the reconstructions listed above depend on empirical relationships > > between proxy records and temperature. \citet{storch_etal2004} suggest > > that the regression technique used by MBH1999 > > under-represents\footnote{This is sometimes referred to as ``underestimating'', > > which will mean the same thing to many people, but something slightly different > > to statisticians. Any statistical model (that is, a set of assumptions about the > > noise characteristics of the data being examined) will deliver estimates of > > an expected value and variability. The variability of the expected value is > > not generally the same as the expected value of the variability.} > > the variability of past climate. > > This conclusion is drawn after a applying a method similar to that of MBH1999 to output from a > > climate model using a set of pseudo-proxies: time series generated from > > the model output and degraded with noise which is intended to match the noise > > characteristics of actual proxies. > > \citet{mann_etal2005} use the same approach and arrive at a different conclusion: > > namely, that their regression technique is sound. > > \citet{mann_etal2005} show several implementations of their > > Climate Field Reconstruction Method in the CSM simulation, using different levels > > of white noise in their synthetic pseudo proxies. > > For a case of pseudo-proxies with a realistic signal-to-noise ratio of 0.5, they use > > a calibration period (1856-1980) which is longer than that > > used in MBH1998 and MBH1999 (1901-1980). > > It turns out that the difference in the length of the calibration period is critical > > for the skill of the method (Zorita, personal communication et al., submitted). > > % (I think you can refer to Buerger et al 2006 here. Check with Eduardo if this is OK. > > % By the way, update the reference list: Tellus, 58A, 227-235) [AM] > > > > There is some uncertainty about the true nature of noise on the proxies, and > > on the instrumental record, as will be discussed further below. > > The optimal least squares estimation technique of MBH1998 effectively > > neglects the uncertainties in the proxy data relative to uncertainties > > in the temperature. > > Instead, > > \citet{hegerl_etal2006+} use total least squares regression \citep{allen_stott2003, adcock1878}. > > This approach > > allows the partitioning of noise between instrumental temperatures > > and proxy records to be estimated, on the assumption that the instrumental > > noise is known. \citet{hegerl_etal2006+} show that this approach leads to greater variability in the reconstruction. > > > > \citet{rutherford_etal2005} take a different view. They compare reconstructions > > from 1400AD to present using a regularised expectation maximisation technique \citep{schneider2001} > > and the MBH1998 climate field reconstruction method and find only minor differences. > > Standard regression techniques assume that we have a calibration period, in which > > both sets of variables are measured, and a reconstruction (or prediction) period > > in which one variable is estimated, by regression, from the other. > > The climate reconstruction problem is more complex: > > there are hundreds of instrumental records > > which are all of different lengths, and similar numbers of proxy records, > > also of varying length. The expectation maximisation technique > > \citep{little_rubin1987} > > is well suited to deal with this: instead of imposing an > > artificial separation between a calibration period and a reconstruction > > period, it fills in the gaps in a way which exploits all data present. > > Regularised expectation maximisation is a generalisation > > developed by \citet{schneider2001} to deal with ill posed problems. > > Nevertheless, there is still a simple regression equation at the heart of the technique. > > That used by \citet{rutherford_etal2005} is similar to that used by > > %new: corrected > > MBH1998, so the issue raised by \citet{hegerl_etal2006+} is unanswered. > > > > \subsection{Natural variability and forcings} > > > > Global temperature can fluctuate through internally generated variability of > > the climate system (as in the El Ni\~no phenomenon), through > > variability in natural forcings (solar insolation, volcanic aerosols, > > natural changes to greenhouse gas concentrations) and human changes. > > Reconstructions of variations in the external forcings for the last > > millenium have been > > put forward \citep{crowley2000}, although recent studies have > > suggested a lower amplitude > > of low-frequency solar forcing \citep{lean_etal2002, foukal_etal2004}. > > > > Analysis of reconstructed temperatures of MBH1999 and CL2000 and > > simulated temperatures using reconstructed solar and volcanic forcings > > shows that changes in the forcings can explain the reconstructed long > > term cooling through most of the millenium > > and the warming in the late 19th century \citep{crowley2000}. > > The relatively cool climate in the second half of the 19th century may be > > attributable to cooling from deforestation \citep{bauer_etal2003}. > > \citet{hegerl_etal2003} analyse the correlations between four > > reconstructions (MBH1999, BOS2001, ECS2002, and a modified version of > > CL2000) > > and estimated forcings \citep{crowley2000}. > > They find that that natural forcing, particularly by > > volcanism, explains a substantial fraction of decadal variance. > > Greenhouse gas forcing is detectable > > with high significance levels in all analyzed reconstructions except > > MSH2005, which ends in 1925. > > \citet{weber2005b} carries out a similar analysis with a wider range > > of reconstructions. It is shown that the regression of reconstructed > > global temperatures on the forcings has a similar dependence on timescale > > as regressions derived from the climate model. The role of solar forcing is > > found to be larger for longer timescales, whereas volcanic forcing dominates > > for decadal timescales. > > The trend component over the period 1000 to 1850 is, however, in all > > reconstructions larger than the trend implied by the forcings. > > > > The methods employed by > > \citet{hegerl_etal2006+} attribute about a third of the early 20th > > century warming, sometimes > > more, in high-variance reconstructions to greenhouse gas forcing. > > These results indicate that enhanced variability in the past does not > > make it more difficult to detect greenhouse warming, since a large > > fraction of the variability can be attributed to external forcing. > > Quantifying the influence of external forcing on the proxy records is > > therefore more relevant to understanding climate variability and its > > causes than determining if past periods were possibly as warm as the > > 20th century. > > > > \citet{goosse_etal2005} investigate the role of internal variability using > > an ensemble of 25 climate model simulations of the last millennium > > and forcing estimates from \citet{crowley2000}. > > They conclude that internal variability dominates local and regional > > scale temperature anomalies, implying that most of the variations > > experienced by a region such as Europe over the last millennium could > > be caused by internal variability. On the hemispheric and global scale, > > however, the forcing dominates. > > This agrees with results from a long > > solar-forced model simulation by \citet{weber_etal2004}. > > %%similar This reinforces similar statements made by JOS1998. [where does this come from?] > > \citet{goosse_etal2005} > > make the new point, that noise can lead to regional temperature anomalies > > peaking at different times to the forcing, so that disagreements in > > timing between proxy series should not necessarily be interpreted as > > meaning there is no common forcing. > > > > \subsection{The long view} > > > > The past sections have drawn attention to the problems of calibrating > > temperature reconstructions using a relatively short > > period over which instrumental records are available. > > For longer reconstructions, with lower temporal resolution, > > other methods are available. Pollen > > reconstructions of climate match the ecosystem types with those > > currently occurring at different latitudes. The changes in > > ecosystem can then be mapped to the temperatures at which > > they now occur \citep[e.g.][]{bernabo1981, gajewski1988}. > > These reconstructions cannot resolve decadal variability, > > but they provide an independent estimate of local low-frequency > > temperature variations. The results of \citet{weber_etal2004} > > and > > \citet{goosse_etal2005} suggest that such estimates > > centennial mean temperatures can provide some information about > > global mean anomalies, as they strongly reflect the external forcings on > > centennial and longer timescales. However, there has, as yet, > > been no detailed intercomparison between the pollen based > > reconstructions and the higher resolution reconstructions. > > > > > > \section{Critics of the IPCC consensus on millennial temperatures} > > > > The temperature reconstructions described in the previous section > > represent (including their respective differences and similarities) > > the scientific consensus, based on objective analysis > > of proxy data sources which are sensitive to temperature. > > Nevertheless, there are many who are strongly attached to the view that past > > temperature variations were significantly larger and that, consequently, > > the warming trend seen in recent decades should not be considered > > as unusual. > > > > > > The criticism has been directed mainly at the \citet{mann_etal1998a, mann_etal1999} > > work. > > Therefore, this section focuses mainly on this criticism. > > %new > > Though some of the critics identify the consensus with the MBH1998 work, > > this is not the case: the consensus rests on a broader body of work, and > > as formulated by IPCC2001 is less strong than the conclusions of > > MBH1998 (Sect.~3.2). > > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2003} [MM2003] > > criticize MBH1998 on many counts, some related to deficiencies > > in the description of the data used and possible irregularities in the data > > themselves. These issues have been largely resolved in \citet{mann_etal2004}. > > %%\footnote{ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MANNETAL1998}. > > > > As noted above, the MBH1998 analysis is considerably more complex than others, > > and uses a greater volume of data. > > There are 3 main stages of the algorithm: (1) sub-sampling of > > regions with disproportionate numbers of proxies, (2) regression, > > (3) validation and uncertainty estimates. > > > > Stage (1) is necessary because some parts of the globe, particularly > > North America and Northern Europe, have a disproportionate number of > > proxy records. Other authors have dealt with this by using only > > a small selection of the available data or using regional > > averages \citep[BOS2001;][]{hegerl_etal2006+}. MBH1998 > > use a principal component analysis to extract the common signal from the records in > > densely sampled regions. > > > > The failure of MM2003 to replicate the MBH1998 results is partly due to > > a misunderstanding of the stepwise reconstruction method. MBH1998 use > > different subsets of their proxy database for different time periods. > > This allows more data to be used for more recent periods. > > > > For example, Fig.~2 illustrates > > how the stepwise approach applies to the North American tree ring network. > > Of the total of 212 chronologies, only 66 extend back beyond 1400AD. > > MM2003 only calculate principal components for the period when all > > chronologies are present. Similarly, MBH1998 use one principal > > component calculated from 6 drought sensitive tree-rings chronologies from South West Mexico > > and this data is omitted in MM2003. > > %%[is this clear now?? (AM)]] > > %new > > %%Table 7 of MM2003 indicates only 20 series for the region, as the > > %%supplementary information provided with MBH2003 omitted 2 > > %%\citep{mann_etal2004}. > > %endnew > > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005a} [MM2005] continue the criticism of the techniques > > used by MBH1998 and introduce a ``hockey stick index": defined in terms of the ratio > > of the variance at the end of a time series > > to the variance over the remainder of the series. > > MM2005 argue that the way in which > > a principal component analysis is carried out in MBH generates an artificial > > bias towards a high ``hockey-stick index" and that the statistical significance of > > the MBH results may be lower that originally estimated. > > > > The issue arises because the tree ring chronologies are standardized: > > this involves subtracting a mean and dividing by a variance. > > MBH1998 use the mean and variance of the detrended series evaluated > > over the calibration period. MM2005 are of the view that this is > > incorrect. > > They suggest that each series should be standardised with respect to the > > mean and variance its full length. > > > > The code used by MM2005 is not, at the time of writing available, > > but the code fragments included in the text imply > > that their calculation used data which had been > > centred (mean removed) but had not been normalized to unit variance (standardised). > > Figure 3 shows the effect of the changes, applied to the > > North American tree ring sub-network of the data used by MBH1998, > > using those chronologies which extend back to 1400AD. > > The calculation used here does not precisely reproduce the archived MBH1998 > > result, but the differences may be due to small differences in > > mathematical library routines used to do the decomposition. > > The effect of replacing the MBH1998 approach with centering and > > standardising on the whole time series is small, the effect of > > omitting the standardisation as in MM2005 is much larger: > > this omission causes the 20th century trend to be removed from the > > first principal component. > > > > \citet{storch_zorita2005} look at some of the claims made in MM2005 > > and analyses them in the context of a climate simulation. > > They find the impact of the modifications suggested by McIntyre and McKitrick to > > be minor. > > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005b} clarify their original claim, stating that the > > standardisation technique used by MBH98 does not create the ``hockey-stick" structure > > but does ``steer" the selection of this structure in principal component > > analysis. > > > > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005c} [MM2005c] revisit the MM2003 work and correct > > their earlier error by taking the stepwise reconstruction technique into account. > > They assert that the results of MM2003, which show a 15th century > > reconstruction 0.5K warmer than found by MBH1998, > > are reproduced with only minor changes to the MBH1998 proxy data base. > > Examination of the relevant figures, however, shows that this is not entirely > > true. The MM2005c predictions for > > the 15th century are 0.3K warmer than the MBH1998 > > result: this is still significant, but, unlike the discredited MM2003 result, it > > would not make the 15th century the warmest on record. > > > > MM20005c and \citet{wahl_ammann2005} both find that > > excluding the north American bristlecone pine data from the proxy > > data base removes the skill from the 15th century reconstructions. > > MM2005c justify this removal on the grounds that the first principal component > > of the North American proxies, which is dominated by the > > bristlecone pines, is a statistical outlier with respect to the joint distribution > > of $R^2$ and the difference in mean between 1400 to 1450 and 1902 to 1980. > > %%first ref to table 1 > > Table 1, which lists a range of proxies extending back to 1000, > > shows that the North American first principal component (``ITRDB [pc01]'' in that table) > > is not an outlier > > in terms of its coherence with northern hemispheric mean temperature from 1856 to 1980. > > > > \begin{table}[t] > > \small > > %% output from mitrie/pylib/multi_r2.py, editted > > \begin{tabular}{|p{7.0cm}|r|r|l|r|l|} > > \hline > > Name & Lat. & Lon. & Id & $R^2$ & Type \cr > > \hline > > GRIP: borehole temperature (degC) (Greenland)$^1$ & 73 & -38 & *,Mo & 0.67 & [IC] \cr > > China: composite (degC)$^2$ & 30 & 105 & *,Mo & 0.63 & [MC] \cr > > Taymir (Russia) & 72 & 102 & He & 0.60 & [TR C] \cr > > Eastern Asia & 35 & 110 & He & 0.58 & [TR C] \cr > > Polar Urals$^3$ & 65 & 67 & Es, Ma & 0.51 & [TR] \cr > > Tornetraesk (Sweden)$^4$ & 58 & 21 & Mo & 0.50 & [TR] \cr > > ITRDB [pc01] & 40 & -110 & Ma & 0.49 & [TR PC] \cr > > Mongolia & 50 & 100 & He & 0.46 & [TR C] \cr > > Arabian Sea: Globigerina bull$^5$ & 18 & 58 & *,Mo & 0.45 & [CL] \cr > > Western Siberia & 60 & 60 & He & 0.44 & [TR C] \cr > > Northern Norway & 65 & 15 & He & 0.44 & [TR C] \cr > > Upper Wright (USA)$^6$ & 38 & -119 & *,Es & 0.43 & [TR] \cr > > Shihua Cave: layer thickness (degC) (China)$^7$ & 40 & 116 & *,Mo & 0.42 & [SP] \cr > > Western Greenland & 75 & -45 & He & 0.40 & \cr > > Quelcaya 2 [do18] (Peru)$^8$ & -14 & -71 & *,Ma & 0.37 & [IC] \cr > > Boreal (USA)$^6$ & 35 & -118 & *,Es & 0.32 & [TR] \cr > > Tornetraesk (Sweden)$^9$ & 58 & 21 & *,Es & 0.31 & [TR] \cr > > Taymir (Russia)$^{10}$ & 72 & 102 & *,Es, Mo & 0.30 & [TR] \cr > > Fennoscandia$^{11}$ & 68 & 23 & *,Jo,Ma & 0.28 & [TR] \cr > > Yamal (Russia)$^{12}$ & 70 & 70 & *,Mo & 0.28 & [TR] \cr > > Northern Urals (Russia)$^{13}$ & 66 & 65 & *,Jo & 0.27 & [TR] \cr > > \hline > > \end{tabular} > > \caption{Continued overleaf.} > > \end{table} > > > > \renewcommand{\thetable}{\arabic{table}} > > \addtocounter{table}{-1} > > \begin{table}[t] > > \small > > \begin{tabular}{|p{7.0cm}|r|r|l|r|l|} > > \hline > > Name & Lat. & Lon. & Id & $R^2$ & Type \cr > > \hline > > ITRDB [pc02] & 42 & -108 & Ma & 0.21 & [TR PC] \cr > > Lenca (Chile)$^{14}$ & -41 & -72 & Jo & 0.18 & [TR] \cr > > Crete (Greenland)$^{15}$ & 71 & -36 & *,Jo & 0.16 & [IC] \cr > > Methuselah Walk (USA) & 37 & -118 & *,Mo & 0.14 & [TR] \cr > > Greenland stack$^{15}$ & 77 & -60 & Ma & 0.13 & [IC] \cr > > Morocco & 33 & -5 & *,Ma & 0.13 & [TR] \cr > > North Patagonia$^{16}$ & -38 & -68 & Ma & 0.08 & [TR] \cr > > Indian Garden (USA) & 39 & -115 & *,Mo & 0.04 & [TR] \cr > > Tasmania$^{17}$ & -43 & 148 & Ma & 0.04 & [TR] \cr > > ITRDB [pc03] & 44 & -105 & Ma & -0.03 & [TR PC] \cr > > Chesapeake Bay: Mg/Ca (degC) (USA)$^{18}$ & 38 & -76 & *,Mo & -0.07 & [SE] \cr > > Quelcaya 2 [accum] (Peru)$^{8}$ & -14 & -71 & *,Ma & -0.14 & [IC] \cr > > France & 44 & 7 & *,Ma & -0.17 & [TR] \cr > > \hline > > \end{tabular} > > \caption{(continued) > > The primary reference for each data set is indicated by the superscript in the first column as > > follows: > > 1: \citep{dahl-jensen_etal1998}, 2: \citet{yang_etal2002}, 3: \citet{shiyatov1993}, 4: \citet{grudd_etal2002}, 5: \citet{gupta_etal2003}, > > 6: \citet{lloyd_graumlich1997}, 7: \citet{tan_etal2003}, 8: \citet{thompson1992}, > > 9: \citet{bartholin_karlen1983}, 10: \citet{naurzbaev_vaganov1999}, 11: \citet{briffa_etal1992}, > > 12: \citet{hantemirov_shiyatov2002}, 13: \citet{briffa_etal1995}, 14: \citet{lara_villalba1993}, > > 15: \citet{fisher_etal1996}, 16: \citet{boninsegna1992}, 17: \citet{cook_etal1991}, 18: \citet{cronin_etal2003}. > > the "Id" in column 4 refers to the reconstructions in which the data were used. > > The type of proxy is indicated in column 6:: tree-ring [TR], tree-ring composite [TR C], > > tree-ring principle component [TR PC], coral [CL], sediment [SE], ice core [IC], > > multi-proxy composite [MC]. The 19 proxy series marked with a "*" in column 4 are used in the > > ``Union'' reconstruction. > > } > > \end{table} > > > > \citep[][; MM2005c]{briffa_osborn1999} suggest that > > rising CO$_2$ levels may have contributed significantly to the > > 19th and 20th century increase in growth rate in some trees, > > particularly the bristlecone pines, but such an > > effect has not been reproduced in controlled experiments with mature trees > > \citep{korner_etal2005}. > > > > Once a time series purporting to represent past temperature has been obtained, > > the final, and perhaps, most important, step is to verify its > > and estimate uncertainty limits. This is discussed further in the next section. > > > > \section{Varying methods vs. varying data} > > > > One factor which complicates the evaluation of the various reconstructions is > > that different authors have varied both method and data collections. Here we will > > run a representative set of proxy data collections through two algorithms: > > inverse regression and scaled composites. These two methods, and the different > > statistical models from which they may be derived, are explained in the > > Appendix A. > > > > Esper et al. (2005) investigated the differing calibration approaches used in the recent literature, including > > regression and scaling techniques, and concluded that the methodological differences in calibration result in differences > > in the reconstructed temperature amplitude/variance of about 0.5K. > > This magnitude is equivalent to the mean annual temperature change for the Northern Hemisphere reported in the last > > IPCC report for the 1000-1998 period. > > \citet{burger_etal2006} take another approach and investigate a family of 32 different regression algorithms > > derived by adjusting 5 binary switches, using pseudo-proxy data. > > They show that these choices, which > > have all been defended in the literature, can lead to a wide variety of different > > reconstructions given the same data. > > They also point out that the uncertainty is greater when we > > attempt to estimate the climate of periods which lie outside the range experienced > > during the calibration period. The relevance of this point to the last millennium is > > under debate: the glacier based temperature estimates of OER2005 suggest that the > > coldest northern hemisphere mean temperatures occurred close to the start of > > the instrumental record, in the 19th century. The borehole reconstructions, > > however, imply that there were colder temperatures experienced in the 16th to 18th centuries. > > For the question as to whether the warmth of the latter part of the calibration > > period has been experienced in the past, however, > > this particular issue is not directly relevant. > > > > As noted above, much of the MBH1999 algorithm is irrelevant to reconstructions > > prior to AD 1450, because before that date the data only suffice, > > according to estimates in that paper, to determine one degree of freedom. > > Hence, we will only look at direct evaluation of the hemispheric mean temperature. > > > > Several authors have evaluated composites and calibrated those composites > > against instrumental temperature. Many of the composites contain more samples in later > > periods, so that the calibration may be dominated by samples which do > > not extend into the distant past. Here, we will restrict attention to > > records which span the entire reconstruction period. > > The data series used are listed in table 1. > > > > \subsection{Proxy data quality issues} > > > > As noted previously, their has been especially strong criticism of > > MBH1998, 1999, partly concerning some aspects of their data collection. > > Figures 4 and 5 show reconstructions made using the MBH1999 and MBH1998 data respectively. > > Regression against northern hemispheric mean temperature from 1856 to 1980 is used > > instead of regression against principal components of > > temperature from 1902 to 1980. There are differences, but key features remain. > > MM2003 draw attention to the fact that one time series, > > ``CANA036" in the ITRDB classification, contributed > > by Gasp\'e, appears twice in the MBH1998 database. > > This error is corrected in the red dashed curve of Fig.~5, > > which is almost identical to the green curve, which retains the duplication. > > > > \subsection{Reconstruction using a union of proxy collections} > > > > The following subsection will discuss a range of reconstructions using different > > data collections. The first 5 of these collections are defined as those proxies used by > > JBB1998, MBH1999, ECS2002, MSH2005 and HCA2006, respectively, which extend back to 1000AD. > > These will be referred to below as the JBB, MBH, ECS, MSH, HCA composites below > > to distinguish them from the composites used in the published articles, which include > > additional, shorter, proxy data series. > > Finally there is a `Union' composite made using 19 independent northern > > hemisphere proxy series marked with ``*" in table 1. Apart from the China composite > > record, all the data used are individual series. The PCs used by MBH1999 have been > > omitted in favour of individual series used in other studies. > > Two southern hemisphere tropical series, both from the Quelcaya glacier, Peru, > > are included ensure adequate representation of tropical temperatures. > > This 'Union' collection contains 11 tree-ring series, 4 ice-cores, and one each of > > coral, speleothem, lake sediment and a composite record including historical data. > > > > \subsection{Intercomparison of proxy collections} > > > > Figure 6 shows reconstructions back to 1000AD using > > composites of proxies and variance matching [CVM] (for the proxy > > principal components in the MBH1998, MBH1999 data collections the sign > > is arbitrary: these series have, where necessary, had the sign reversed so that > > they have a positive correlation with the northern hemisphere > > temperature record). > > Surprisingly, the `Union' does not lie in the range spanned by the other reconstructions, > > and reaches colder temperatures than any of them. It does, however, fit the calibration period > > data better than any of the sub-collections. > > > > The reconstructions shown in Fig.~7 use the same data is used: this time > > using inverse regression [INVR] (Appendix A), as used by MBH1998 > > (the method used here differs from that of MBH1998 in using northern hemisphere > > temperature to calibrate against, having a longer calibration period, > > and reconstructing only a single variable instead of multiple EOFs). > > The spread of values is substantially increased relative to the CVM reconstruction. > > > > With INVR, only one reconstruction (that using the ECS2001 > > data) shows temperatures warmer than the mid 20th century. > > The inverse regression technique applies weights to the > > individual proxies which are proportional to the > > correlation between the proxies and the calibration temperature > > signature. > > For this time series the 5 proxies are weighted as: > > 1.7 (Boreal); 2.9 (Polar Urals); 1.7 (Taymir); 1.8 (Tornetraesk); and 2.3 (Upper Wright). > > Firstly, it should be noted that this collection samples North America and the > > Eurasian arctic only. The bias towards the arctic is strengthened by the weights > > generated by the inverse regression algorithm, such that the reconstruction has poor geographical coverage. > > > > The MBH1999 and HPS2000 published reconstructions are shown in Fig.~6 for comparison: the MBH1999 > > reconstruction lies near the centre of the spread of estimates, while the HPS2000 reconstruction > > is generally at the lower bound. > > > > Much of the current debate revolves around the level of > > centennial scale variability in the past. > > The CVM results generally suggest > > a low variance scenario comparable to MBH1999. The inverse regression > > results, however, suggest greater variability. It should be noted > > that the MBH1999 inverse regression result use greater volumes of > > data for recent centuries, so that the difference in Fig.~7 between the > > dashed red curve and the full green curve in the 17th > > century is mainly due to reduced proxy data input in the latter > > (there is also a difference because MBH1999 used inverse regression > > against temperature principle components rather than northern hemisphere > > mean temperature as here). > > > > Table 2 shows the cross correlations of the reconstructions in Fig.~6, > > for high pass (upper right) and low pass (lower left) components > > of the series, with low pass being defined by a 40 year running mean. > > The low pass components are highly correlated. > > > > \begin{table}[t] > > %% output from mitrie/pylib/pp.py > > \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|} > > \hline > > & Ma & Mo & Es & Jo & He & Union\cr > > \hline > > Ma & -- & 14\% & 25\% & 60\% & 20\% & 61\% \cr > > Mo & 69\% & -- & 37\% & 11\% & 13\% & 60\% \cr > > Es & 64\% & 77\% & -- & 14\% & 36\% & 57\% \cr > > Jo & 62\% & 51\% & 46\% & -- & 11\% & 35\% \cr > > He & 72\% & 75\% & 85\% & 53\% & -- & 26\% \cr > > Union & 67\% & 71\% & 62\% & 45\% & 84\% & -- \cr > > \hline > > \end{tabular} > > \caption{Cross correlations between reconstructions from > > different proxy data bases: Mann et al (Ma), Moberg et al (Mo), > > Esper et al (Es), Jones et al (Jo), Hegerl et al (He). > > Lower left block correspond to low pass filtered series, > > upper right to high pass filtered.} > > \end{table} > > > > The significance of the correlations between these five proxy data samples > > and the instrumental temperature data during the calibration period (1856-1980) > > has been evaluated using a Monte-Carlo simulation > > with (1) a first order Markov model and (2) random time series > > which reproduces the lag correlation structure of the data samples (see Appendix A). > > Figure 8 shows the lag correlations. The instrumental record had a pronounced > > anti-correlation on the 40 year time-scale. This may be an artifact of the short > > data record, but it is retained in the significance calculation as the best available > > estimate which is independent of the proxies. > > The `Union' composite shows multi-centennial correlations which are not present in the other data. > > The MBH and JBB composites clearly underestimate the decadal scale correlations, while > > the HCA and 'Union' composites overestimate it. > > %%first ref to table 3 > > Results are shown in table 3. > > If the full lag correlation structure of the data were known, it would be true, > > as argued by MM2005, that the first order approach generally > > leads to an overestimate of significance. Here, however, we only have a > > estimated correlation structure based on a small sample. Using this finite > > sample correlation is likely to overestimate long-term correlations and hence > > lead to an underestimate of significance. Nevertheless, results are presented here > > to provide a cautious estimate of significance. > > For the MBH and JBB composites, which have short lag-correlations, the difference > > between the two methods is minimal. For other composites there is a substantial difference. > > In all cases the $R^2$ values exceed the 99\% significance level. When > > detrended data are used the $R^2$ values are lower, but still above the 95\% > > level -- with the exception of the Hegerl et al. data. This data has only decadal > > resolution, so the lower significance in high frequency variability is to be expected. > > > > > > \begin{table}[t] > > %% output from mitrie/pylib/sum_ac.py > > \begin{tabular}{|l||c|c||c|c||c||c|p{1.1cm}|} > > \hline > > Source & $R^2_{95|h}$ & $R^2_{95|AR}$ & $R^2$ & $R^2_{detr}$ & $\sigma$ & Signif. & Signif. (detrended) \cr > > \hline > > Mann et al. & 0.205 & 0.170 & 0.463 & 0.286 & 0.186 & 99.99\% & 98.75\%\cr > > \hline > > Moberg et al., (hi+lo)/2 & 0.225 & 0.183 & 0.418 & 0.338 & 0.153 & 99.87\% & 99.25\%\cr > > \hline > > Esper et al. & 0.335 & 0.220 & 0.613 & 0.412 & 0.158 & 99.96\% & 98.11\%\cr > > \hline > > Jones et al. & 0.187 & 0.180 & 0.371 & 0.274 & 0.203 & 99.93\% & 99.17\%\cr > > \hline > > Hegerl et al. & 0.440 & 0.266 & 0.618 & 0.357 & 0.133 & 99.56\% & 90.13\%\cr > > \hline > > Union & 0.337 & 0.236 & 0.655 & 0.414 & 0.149 & 99.98\% & 97.91\%\cr > > \hline > > \end{tabular} > > \caption{ > > $R^2$ values evaluated using the Northern Hemisphere mean temperature (1856 to 1980) and various > > proxy records. > > Columns 2 and 3 show $R^2$ values for the 95\% significance > > levels, evaluated using a Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 realisations. In columns > > 2, 7 and 8 the full lag-correlation structure of the data is used, in column > > 3 a first order auto-regressive model is used, based on the lag one auto-correlation. > > Column 4 shows the $R^2$ value obtained from the data and column 5 shows the same > > using detrended data. > > Column 6 shows the standard error (root-mean-square residual) from the calibration > > period. Columns 7 and 8 show significance levels, estimated using > > Monte Carlo simulations as in column 2, for the full and detrended $R^2$ values. > > } > > \end{table} > > > > Figure 9 plots this reconstruction, > > with the instrumental data > > in the calibration period. > > The composite tracks the changes in northern hemisphere temperature well, > > capturing the steep rise between 1910 and 1950 and much of the decadal > > scale variability. This is reflected in the significance scores (Tab.~3) > > which are high both for the full series and for the detrended series. > > The highest temperature in the reconstructed data, relative to the 1866-1970 mean is > > 0.227K in 1091AD. This temperature was first exceeded in the instrumental record in 1878, > > again in 1937 and frequently thereafter. The instrumental record has not gone below this level since 1986. > > Taking $\sigma=0.149$ as the root-mean-square residual in the calibration period > > 1990 is the first year when the 1091 maximum was exceed by $2\sigma$. > > This happened again in 1995 and every year since 1997. > > 1998 and every year since 2001 have exceeded the preindustrial maximum by $3\sigma$. > > > > \conclusions\label{sec:end} > > > > There is general agreement that global temperatures cooled > > over the majority of the last millennium and have risen sharply > > since 1850. In this respect, the recent literature has not produced > > any change to the conclusions of JBB1998, though there remains > > substantial uncertainty about the magnitude of centennial scale variability > > superimposed over longer term trends. > > > > The IPCC 2001 conclusion that temperatures of the past millennium > > are unlikely to have been as warm, at any time prior to the 20th > > century, as the last decades of the 20th century is supported > > by subsequent research and by the results obtained here. > > > > The greatest range of disagreement among independent > > assessments occurs during the coolest centuries, from 1500 to > > 1900, when the departure from recent climate conditions > > was strongest and may have been outside the range of > > temperatures experienced during the later > > instrumental period. > > > > There are many areas of uncertainty and disagreement within > > the broad consensus outlined above, and also some who > > dissent from that consensus. Papers which claim to refute the > > IPCC2001 conclusion on the climate of the past millennium have been > > reviewed and found to contain serious flaws. > > > > A major area of uncertainty concerns the accuracy of the long time-scale > > variability in the reconstructions. This is particularly > > so for timescale of a century and longer. There does not appear to be any > > doubt that the proxy records would capture rapid change on > > a 10 to 50 year time scale such as we have experienced in recent decades. > > > > Using two different reconstruction methods on a range of proxy data > > collections, we have found that inverse regression > > tends to give large weighting to > > a small number of proxies and that the relatively simple > > approach of compositing all the series and using variance matching to > > calibrate the result gives more robust estimates. > > > > A new reconstruction made with a composite of 19 proxies extending back > > to 1000AD fits the instrumental record to within a standard error of 0.149K. > > This reconstruction gives a maximum pre-industrial temperature of 0.227K > > relative to the 1866 to 1970AD mean. The maximum temperature from the > > instrumental record is 0.841K, over 4 standard errors larger. > > > > The reconstructions evaluated in this study show considerable disagreement > > during the 16th century. The new 19 proxy reconstruction implies 21-year mean > > temperatures close to 0.6K below the 1866 to 1970AD mean. As this reconstruction > > only used data extending back to 1000AD, there is a considerable volume of 16th century > > data which has not been used. This will be a focus if future research. > > > > {\bf Acknowledgments} > > > > This work was funded by the Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency (RIVM) as part of the > > Dutch Scientific Assessment and Policy Analysis (WAB) programme. > > Additional funding was provided as follows: > > from the UK Natural Environment Research Council for M.N. Juckes, > > from the Swedish Research Council for A. Moberg. > > > > \vfill\eject > > > > \def\thesection{A} > > {\bf Appendix A: Regression methods} > > > > Ideally, the statistical analysis method would be determined by the > > known characteristics of the problem. Unfortunately, the error > > characteristics of the proxy data are not sufficiently well > > quantified to make the choice clear. > > This appendix describes two methods and the statistical models which can be > > used to motivate them. > > > > \subsection{Inverse regression [INVR]} > > > > Suppose $x_{ik}$, $i=1,N_{pr}$, $k=1,L$ is a set of $N_{pr}$ > > standardised proxy records of length $L$ and that we are trying > > to obtain an estimate $\hat{y_i}$ of a quantity $y_i$ which is > > known only in a calibration period ($i\in C$). > > > > Several ``optimal" estimates of $y_i$ can be obtained, depending on > > the hypothesised relation between the proxies and $y$. > > > > Inverse regression follows from the model > > $$ > > \beta_i y_k + {\cal N} > > = > > x_{ik} > > $$ > > where $\cal N$ is a noise process, independent between proxies. > > It follows that optimal estimate for the coefficients $\beta_i$ are > > $$ > > \hat{\beta_i} = {\sum_{k\in C} x_{ik} y_k \over \sum{k\in C} y_k^2 } > > . > > $$ > > Given these coefficients, the optimal estimate of the $y_k$ outside > > the calibration period is > > $$ > > \hat{y_k} = { \sum_i \hat{\beta_i} x_{ik} \over \sum_i \hat{\beta_i}^2 }. > > $$ > > > > \subsection{Composite plus variance matching [CVM]} > > > > This method is rather easier. It starts out from the hypothesis that different > > proxies represent different parts of the globe. A proxy for the global mean > > is then obtained as a simple average of the proxies: > > $$ > > \overline{x_k} = N_{pr}^{-1} \sum_i x_{ik} > > . > > $$ > > > > Suppose > > $$ > > \overline{x_k} = \beta y_k + {\cal N} > > , > > $$ > > then an optimal estimate of $\beta$ is easily derived as > > $\hat\beta = \sum_{k\in C} x_k y_k/\sum_{k\in C} y_k^2$. > > However, $y^*_k = \hat\beta^{-1} x_k$ is not an optimal estimate > > of $y_k$. > > > > Because of the added noise, $\overline{x_k}$ is generally an overestimate > > of $\beta y_k$. To correct for this we should use: > > $$ > > \beta y_k^* = \overline{x_k} > > \sqrt{ \left( \beta^2 \sigma^2_y \over \beta^2 \sigma^2_y + \sigma_{\cal N}^2 \right) } > > , > > $$ > > where $\sigma^2_y$ and $\sigma_{\cal N}^2$ are the expected variance of $y$ and the > > respectively. > > This leads to an estimate: > > $$ > > y_k^* = \overline{x_k} \left( \sigma_y \over \sigma_x \right) > > . > > $$ > > This is known as the variance matching method because it matches the > > variance of the reconstruction with that of observations over > > the calibration period. > > > > \def\thesection{B} > > \setcounter{subsection}{0} > > {\bf Appendix B: Statistical tests} > > > > > > \subsection{Tests for linear relationships} > > > > The simplest test for a linear relationship is the anomaly correlation > > (also known as: Pearson Correlation, Pearson's product moment correlation, $R^2$, > > product mean test): > > \be > > R = { \overline{ y^\prime x^\prime } \over > > \sqrt{ \overline{ y^{\prime2} } \, \overline{ x^{\prime2} } } } > > \ee > > where the over-bar represents a mean over the data the test is being applied to, > > and a prime a departure from the mean > > \citep{pearson1896}. > > > > The significance of an anomaly correlation can be estimated using the > > $t$ statistic: > > \be > > t = {R \sqrt{n-2} \over \sqrt{1-R^2} } > > \ee > > where $n$ is the sample size (for independent variables). > > Two Gaussian variables will produce a $t$ statistics which obeys the > > Student's t-distribution of $n-2$ degrees of freedom. > > > > Ideally, if the noise affecting all the $x$ and $y$ values is independent, > > $n$ is simply the number of measurements. This is unlikely to be the case, > > so an estimate of $n$ is needed. The Monte-Carlo approach is more > > flexible: a large sample of random sequences with specified correlation > > structures is created, and the frequency with which the specified > > $R$ coefficient is exceeded can then be used to estimate its significance. > > > > \subsection{Lag correlations} > > > > Following \citet{hosking1984}, a random time series with a specified > > lag correlation structure is obtained from the partial correlation coefficients, > > which are generated using Levinson-Durbin regression. > > > > It is, however, not possible to generate a sequence matching an arbitrarily > > specified correlation structure and there is no guarantee that an > > estimate of the correlation structure obtained from a small sample will > > be realizable. It is found that the Levinson-Durbin regression diverges > > when run with the lag correlation functions generated from the \citet{jones_etal1986} > > northern hemisphere temperature record and also that from the HCA composite. > > > > For the northern hemisphere temperature record, this is resolved by truncating the regression after $n=50$. > > The sample lag-correlation coefficients are, in any case, unreliable beyind this point. > > Truncating the regression results in a random sequence with a lag correlation fitting that > > specified up to lag 50 and then decaying. > > For the HCA composite, the sample lag-correlation, $C(n)$, is scaled by $\exp( - 0.0001 n )$, > > where $n$ is the lag in years. > > > > {\bf Appendix C: Acronyms} > > > > Table 4 shows a list of acronyms used in this paper. > > \begin{table} > > \begin{tabular}{|l|p{12cm}|} > > \hline > > ABD & Age Band Decomposition tree ring standardisation method \cr > > \hline > > CSM & Climate System Model: A coupled ocean-atmosphere climate model produced by NCAR, > > http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/csm/ \cr > > \hline > > CFM & Climate Field Reconstruction: method for reconstructing spatial structures > > of past climate variables using proxy data \cr > > \hline > > CVM & Composite plus Variance Matching reconstruction method \cr > > \hline > > ECHO-G & Hamburg coupled ocean-atmosphere climate model \cr > > \hline > > EOF & Empirical Orthogonal Component \cr > > \hline > > INVR & Inverse Regression reconstruction method \cr > > \hline > > IPCC & The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established by the > > World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) > > to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. It is open to all Members of the UN and of WMO. \cr > > \hline > > ITRDB & International Tree-Ring Data Bank, maintained by the NOAA Paleoclimatology > > Program and World Data Center for Paleoclimatology (www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo) \cr > > \hline > > MWP & Medieval Warm Period \cr > > \hline > > PC & Principal Component \cr > > \hline > > RCS & Regional Curve Standardisation tree ring standardisation method \cr > > \hline > > \end{tabular} > > \caption{Acronyms used in the text} > > \end{table} > > > > \bibliographystyle{egu}% > > \bibliography{citations,extras} > > > > \vfill\eject > > \begin{figure*}[h] > > %% produced by idl/mitrie/plot_recon.pro > > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f01}} > > \caption{\label{fig:1} > > Various reconstructions. With mean of 1900 to 1960 removed. > > } > > \end{figure*} > > > > \vfill\eject > > \begin{figure*}[h] > > %% produced by idl/paleo/mbh_70.pro > > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f02}} > > \caption{\label{fig:2} > > Data blocks for PC calculation by MBH1998. Each of the 212 data series is shown as a horizontal > > line over the time period covered. The dashed blue rectangles indicate some of the blocks of data > > used by MBH1998 for their proxy principal component calculation, using fewer series for longer time > > periods. The red rectangle indicates the single block used by MM2003, neglecting all data prior > > to 1619. > > } > > \end{figure*} > > > > > > \vfill\eject > > \begin{figure*}[h] > > %% produced by pylib/do_eof.py > > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f03}} > > \caption{\label{fig:3} > > First Principal Component of the North American proxy record collection, following MBH1998. > > The black line is the MBH1998 archived version. > > The other lines differ only in the method of standardisation of series prior to calculation of the > > principal components. > > Red: calculated following the MBH1998 method, the individual series have the mean of the calibration > > period removed and are normalised by the variance of the detrended series over that period; > > Blue: with the mean of the whole series removed, and normalised with the variance of the whole series. > > Green: mean removed but no normalisation. > > } > > \end{figure*} > > > > > > \vfill\eject > > \begin{figure*}[h] > > %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py > > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f13}} > > \caption{\label{fig:4} > > Reconstruction back to 1000, calibrated on 1856 to 1980 northern hemisphere temperature, > > using the MBH1999 proxy data collection. > > The MBH1999 NH reconstruction and the Jones et al. (1986) instrumental data are shown for comparison. > > All data have been smoothed with a 21-year running mean. > > } > > \end{figure*} > > > > > > \vfill\eject > > \begin{figure*}[h] > > %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py > > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f12}} > > \caption{\label{fig:5} > > As Fig.~4, but using the MBH1998 data collection back to 1400AD. > > } > > \end{figure*} > > > > \vfill\eject > > \begin{figure*}[h] > > %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py > > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f10}} > > \caption{\label{fig:6} > > Reconstruction back to 1000AD, calibrated on 1856 to 1980 northern hemisphere temperature, > > using a composite and variance matching, > > for a variety of different data collections. > > The MBH1999 and HPS2000 NH reconstructions and the Jones et al. (1998) instrumental > > data are shown for comparison. > > Graphs have been smoothed with a 21-year running mean and centered on 1866 to 1970. > > The maximum of the 'Union' reconstruction in the pre-industrial period (0.227K, 1091AD) is shown > > by a short cyan bar, the maximum of the instrumental record (0.841K, 1998AD) is shown as a > > short purple bar. > > } > > \end{figure*} > > > > \vfill\eject > > \begin{figure*}[h] > > %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py > > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f11}} > > \caption{\label{fig:7} > > As Fig.~6, except using inverse regression. > > } > > \end{figure*} > > > > \vfill\eject > > \begin{figure*}[h] > > %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py > > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f14}} > > \caption{\label{fig:8} > > Lag correlations for proxy composites and instrumental record (gray). > > } > > \end{figure*} > > > > \vfill\eject > > \begin{figure*}[h] > > %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py > > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f09}} > > \caption{\label{fig:9} > > The ``Union'' reconstruction, using `composite plus variance scaling', for the > > calibration period. Also shown is the level of the maximum plus two standard errors. > > The Jones and Mann instrumental data is plotted as a dashed line. > > } > > \end{figure*} > > > > \end{document} > > diliberate bad speling > > > > \vfill\eject > > > > {\it\small > > Both these questions could be answered by a detailed knowledge of the > > climate and its forcings over the past 1000 years, but the detailed > > instrumental record only extends back to 1856. Hence ... [[]] > > > > %%The motivation for the study of past climate variability is twofold: > > Current projections of future climate change are still burdened with > > some level of uncertainty, even within a particular scenario of future > > greenhouse concentrations. Although all climate models simulate an > > increase of global temperatures in this century, the range of warming > > simulated by different models still covers a wide range \citep{IPCC2001}. > > A much pursued goal is to reduce this uncertainty range. > > A question is whether warming of magnitude similar to that observed in the > > 19th and 20th centuries, very likely caused at least to a large part by > > anthropogenic greenhouse gas, has also occurred in the preindustrial recent past, > > when, to a large extent, only natural forcings of the climate system were active. > > > > {\small\it Reconstructions of the climate of the past millennium can help us to > > answer the second point by describing the magnitude of > > global temperature fluctuations in the past and can address the first > > point by helping to quantify the climate sensitivity: the > > ratio of the response to the forcing.} > > Progress in both questions can be achieved through the analysis > > of reconstructions and simulations of the climate of the past millennium: > > firstly, > > we wish to know whether current high global temperatures are > > within the range of natural variability. Secondly, we wish to > > evaluate the skill and reliability of climate models. > > %%The rise in global mean temperatures since then is > > Therefore, some form of empirical reconstruction based on early-instrumental > > records, documentary evidence and proxy data is needed. > > %%On the other hand, > > %%the global warming observed in the past 2 centuries may be partly > > %%due to the recovery from an extended > > %%period of anomalously low temperatures which was reflected > > %%in a large number of indirect European records. > > %%[omit above sentence (AM)??] > > %%[justify "recovery" (JE)??] > > %%[was it really gradual (JE)] > > %%"gradual deleted": jones and mann suggest that hemispheric mean cooling trend > > %% is "relatively steady" in contrast to more episodic cooling in Europe, > > %% but esper etal (2002) suggests that attributing this difference to > > %% hemisphere vs. europe is wrong, it might be whole hemisphere vs. extra-tropical, > > %% or it might be failure to resolve variability. > > %[check]: copied from Gabi's email -- needs clearing up. > > %%However, some unsolved questions will remain. > > %%For instance, the climate sensitivity may depend on the nature of the external > > %%forcing (greenhouse gas, solar irradiance, etc), so that an estimation > > %%of past climate sensitivity has still to be considered with some care. > > %%There are indeed indications that climate sensitivity to changes in solar > > %%forcing is lower than to changes to greenhouse gas forcing > > %%\citep{tett_etal2005+, joshi_etal2003}. > > %%[ be more precise -- (i.e. in terms of $K W^-1 m^2$ ??)]] > > %%::joshi etal show a 0-20% difference between sensitivity to solar forcing > > %%compared to CO2 forcing. This is much less than variability in sensitivity > > %%among models. > > %%[this is not really relevant if the difference in climate sensitivity between > > %%forcings is much less than that between, say, models] > > > > A wide range of proxy > > data sources which have been exploited for this problem > > \citep[reviewed in][]{jones_mann2004}. > > Tree rings are a particularly important source of information > > within the time frame of the last millennium. The precise dating which > > is provided by the annual growth rings allows anomalous growth > > rates to be compared reliably with historical events. > > However, its not straightforward to retrieve the climate variability > > at timescales that exceed the typical life span of a tree (see Sect.~2.5 below). > > Statistical regression against instrumental temperature data is often used > > because the majority of proxy records cannot be directly related to temperature > > by deterministic models > > (two exceptions, reconstructions obtained from borehole temperatures > > and those based on glacial advance and retreat, are discussed below). > > Appendix A gives mathematical details of some basic statistical measures. > > The measures of skill used by MBH1998, MBH1999 are the > > $R^2$ test, which measures the degree of coherence between two data > > sets, and the ``Reduction of Error'' (RE) statistic, which measures the > > effectiveness of one series (typically a model or prediction) > > in explaining the total (i.e. including the mean) variance in another (the verification data). > > > > The statistical tests on these measures of skill are described > > in many text books, and their application is straight forward > > when all sources of noise contaminating the > > data are well characterised. The difficulty which arises > > in many applications, including climate reconstructions, is that > > the noise has significant but poorly characterised correlations. > > %%[is this true for tests of skill -- probably not for analytical tests of RE]] > > } > > \vfill\eject > > \vfill \eject > > > > The B\"urger et al. analyses use a collection of pseudo-proxies created from > > pseudo observations of a climate simulation with added white noise. > > This is a pragmatic approach -- there is little reliable information about > > the true nature of the noise spectrum. It has been suggested that bristlecone pines > > in N. America have an anomalous growth trend in the 20th century which is > > coherent among that species. The inverse regression algorithm can give large > > weight to individual proxies and negative weight to others: this may be > > correct in some circumstances, but in others it could amplify the error. > > The composite approach, on the other hand, is robust: > > simply taking the mean of the available proxies does not rely on > > specific assumptions about the noise spectrum. > > > > \vfill\eject > > \begin{figure*}[h] > > %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py > > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{figz/c_var_nh_reconc_10_1000_c}} > > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{figs/cpd-2006-xxxx-f04}} > > \caption{\label{fig:1} > > As Fig.~7, except > > using composite and variance matching. > > } > > \end{figure*} > > > > \vfill\eject > > > > \begin{figure*}[h] > > %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py > > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{figz/c_var_nh_reconc_10_1000_c}} > > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{figs/cpd-2006-xxxx-f04}} > > \caption{\label{fig:1} > > The ``Union'' reconstruction, using `composite plus variance scaling', for the > > calibration period. Also shown is the level of the maximum plus two standard errors. > > The Jones and Mann instrumental data is plotted as a dashed line. > > } > > \end{figure*} > > > > > > > > Willmott, C.J., 1981. On the validation of models. Phys. Geog., 2, 184-194 > > > > > > {\bf A2: Principal Components} > > > > Principal component analysis is a standard technique for reducing the > > volume of data while attempting to retain as much of the variability > > of the original data as possible. > > > > Stage (2) establishes an empirical link between the proxy records and > > temperature. In MBH1998 inverse least squares regression of the > > proxy network against the principal components of the measured temperature field, > > over the period 1902 to 1980, is used. > > > > Stage (3), the verification stage, determines how many, if any, of the > > reconstructed time series for the principal components can be > > considered to have some descriptive value. This is done by evaluating the > > fit of the implied fields to the observations in the verification period, 1856 to 1901. > > The northern hemisphere mean temperature is calculated from the > > The uncertainties are calculated from the residuals to the fit in the calibration period. > > > > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005c} assert that the fact that omission of data > > led to a different result demonstrates that the method is unreliable. > > This would be true if the computation of a time series were the > > end point of the analysis. However, the need to verify the computed series > > was recognised by MBH1998. This is discussed further below. > > > > \subsubsection{Spurious metaphors} > > > > The term ``hockey-stick" has become widely used, particularly in the US > > media, to refer to the temperature history implied by the MBH1999 > > temperature reconstruction. It did not originally apply to the reconstruction > > itself, which has a relatively minor temperature increase in the early > > 20th century, but rather to the combination of this series with the > > more recent observed temperature trends: the combination shows > > a dramatic increase in the 20th century, substantially greater than anything > > that occurred in the past millennium. > > The first attempt to attach any scientific meaning to the phrase > > was with the introduction of a ``hockey stick index'' > > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005a} (hereafter MM2005). > > This index is defined in terms of the ratio of the variance at the end of a time series > > to the variance over the remainder of the series. > > MM2005 argue that the way in which > > a principal component analysis is carried out in MBH generates an artificial > > bias towards a high ``hockey-stick index" and that the statistical significance of > > the MBH results may be lower that originally estimated. > > %% and that this is responsible for the > > %%shape in the MBH temperature reconstruction. > > %%Martin: I think that what MM05 indicate is that "hockey-stick may arise from random time series more easlily as previously thought, when using the decentered PCs. I am not sure if they make this decentering responsible for the final output in MBH. > > %% > > \subsection{Validation} > > > > As noted above, MM2003 have shown that removing data > > degrades the result, as might be expected. > > Among the adjustments which they characterize as ``corrections'' was the > > omission of the 3 principal components mentioned above. > > In fact, 70\% of the 90 time series extending back to > > 1400 are omitted from their analysis. > > > > In principle, it would be possible to estimate the accuracy of > > reconstructions calculated by regression from the data in the > > calibration period. However, this calculation can easily be biased > > by unreliable assumptions about the noise covariances within > > the calibration period. > > MBH1998, 1999 follow a more robust approach, using independent > > data from a validation period (1856 to 1901) to, > > firstly, determine whether a reconstruction has any relation to temperature > > and, secondly, estimate the error variance. > > > > MM2003, however, omitted the validation phase. > > \citep{wahl_ammann2005} have carried out a detailed investigation > > of the robustness of the MBH1998 technique to address this > > and many other issues. They find that the MM2003 series fails the > > validation tests used by MBH1998. > > > > As an illustration of the robustness of the reconstruction, > > figures 5 and 6 shows a reconstructions made using the MBH1999 and MBH1998 data respectively. > > Regression against northern hemispheric mean temperature is used > > instead of regression against principal components of > > temperature. There are differences, but key features remain. > > [[more details in appendix and/or supplementary materials]] > > MM2003 draw attention to the fact that one time series, > > ``CANA036" in the ITRDB classification, contributed > > by Gasp\'e, appears twice in the MBH1998 database. > > This error is corrected in the red dashed curve of Fig.~5, > > which is almost identical to the green curve, which retains the duplication. > > > > With our simplification of the method it is possible > > to use the entire instrumental record for calibration. > > This leaves no data for validation, but the difference > > between this and a reconstruction based on a shorter > > period gives some idea of the robustness. > > Figure 4b shows the result. > > > > Finally, MM question the calculation of uncertainty limits. > > This depends on the number of degrees of freedom > > assigned to the data. MM state that the standard method used > > by MBH is wrong, and that a lower number of degrees of > > freedom is appropriate because of long range correlations in > > the data. MBH use the lag-one autocorrelation to estimate > > the degrees of freedom. > > > > In all such tests it is necessary to remember the distinction between the > > sample correlation, which one is forced to deal with, and > > the actual correlation, we cannot know exactly. For this reason > > it is generally unwise to use methods which rely on statistics > > which cannot be estimated robustly in a small sample. > > > > MM05 also confuse the auto-correlation structure of the tree-ring data, > > which are known to have an environmental signal with correlations > > on at least the decadal time-scale, with the auto-correlation of the > > residuals which should be used in estimating the noise structure. > > \vfill\eject > > \begin{figure*}[h] > > %% produced by idl/paleo/mbh_70.pro > > \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f03}} > > \caption{\label{fig:1} > > Data blocks for PC calculation by MBH. > > } > > \end{figure*} > > > > > > > > \subsection{Natural variability and forcings} > > > > Global temperature can fluctuate through natural internal variability of > > the climate system (as in the El Ni\~no phenomenon), through > > variability in natural forcings (solar insolation, volcanic aerosols, > > natural changes to greenhouse gas concentrations) and human changes. > > > > Analysis of the physical links between the estimated temperature changes > > of the past millennium and estimated variations in the > > different forcing mechanisms can give improve our understanding of those > > mechanisms and help to validate the estimated temperature and > > > > \citet{goosse_etal2005} investigate the role of natural variability using > > an ensemble of 25 climate model simulations of the last millennium > > and forcing estimates from \citet{crowley2000}. > > They conclude that natural variability dominates local and regional > > scale temperature anomalies, implying that most of the variations > > experienced by a region such as Europe over the last millennium could > > be caused by natural variability. On the hemispheric and global scale, however, the > > external forcing dominates. > > This reinforces similar statements made by JOS1998. \citet{goosse_etal2005} > > make the new point, that noise can lead to regional temperature anomalies > > peaking at different times to the forcing, so that disagreements in > > timing between proxy series should not necessarily be interpreted as meaning there > > is no common forcing. > > > > Analysis of natural climate forcings \citep{crowley2000} > > show that changes in atmospheric aerosol content due to changes > > in volcanic activity and changes in solar irradiance > > can explain this long term cooling through most of the millenium, > > shown by paleoclimate reconstructions, > > and the observed warming in the late 19th century. > > \citet{hegerl_etal2003} analyse the correlations between four > > reconstructions (MBH1999, BOS2001, ECS2002, and a modified version of CL2000) > > and estimated forcings \citep{crowley2000}. > > They find that that natural forcing, particularly by > > volcanism, explains a substantial fraction of decadal variance, also in > > new high-variance reconstructions. Greenhouse gas forcing is detectable > > with high significance level in all analyzed reconstructions analyzed. > > \citet{weber2005b} carries out a similar analysis with a wider range > > of reconstructions. > > It is shown that the correlation between reconstructed > > global temperatures and forcings are similar to those derived from > > the ECBILT climate model \citep{opsteegh_etal1998}. > > The trend component over the period 1000 to 1850 is, however, larger in the > > reconstructions compared to the forcings. > > > > The methods employed by > > \citet{hegerl_etal2006+} attribute about a third of the early 20th century warming, sometimes > > more, in high-variance reconstructions to greenhouse gas forcing. > > These results indicate that enhanced variability in the past does not > > make it more difficult to detect greenhouse warming, since a large > > fraction of the variability can be attributed to external forcing. > > Quantifying the influence of external forcing on the proxy records is > > therefore more relevant to understanding climate variability and its > > causes than determining if past periods were possibly as warm as the > > 20th century. > > > > The dominance of volcanic forcing over solar variability found in some of the > > above studies is consistent with recent questioning of the > > magnitude of low-frequency solar forcing \citep{lean_etal2002, foukal_etal2004}. > > \subsection{Tests of skill in reconstructions} > > > > RE: Reduction of Error > > > > \be > > RE = 1. - { \overline{ (y- \hat y^\prime)^2 } \over > > \overline{ y^2 } } > > \ee > > > > > > -- > > Anders Moberg > Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology > Stockholm University > SE-106 91 Stockholm > Sweden > > Phone: +46 (0)8 6747814 > Fax: +46 (0) 8 164818 > www.geo.su.se > anders.moberg@natgeo.su.se > > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\MM.resub.pdf" 4676. 2006-08-04 ______________________________________________________ cc: Anders , Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de, hegerl@duke.edu, esper@wsl.ch, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, weber@knmi.nl, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 12:15:50 +0100 from: Anders Moberg subject: Re: McIntyre, McKitrick & MITRIE ... to: Martin Juckes Dear Martin, Thanks for the clarifications! You have certainly dug much deeper into this than me. I understand that what you have written about MM in the manuscript is essentially correct, but it also needs to be crystal clear to the reader. I think many potential readers would really appreciate a clear description of the different components in the MM-MBH dispute, because many (including me) wonder what this is about. Yes, it should be pointed out if MM work has serious flaws. I agree that we should say these are serious, but it was not clear from just reading the manuscript that we had found any "serious" flaws. Some clarifications would help here. How about the following modified formulation of the sentence in the conclusions? "Papers which claim to refute ... have been reviewed and found to essentially contribute with insignificant or irrelevant information that does not affect the consensus, and also to include serious flaws." Cheers, Anders Martin Juckes wrote: > Dear Anders and others, > > I agree that some clarification is needed here: there is a distinction to be > made between the use of different proxies in the inverse regression, which > MM2003 followed, and the use of different selections of proxies to Principal > Components for the different steps, which they did not follow. The key > section in MM2003 is 2 (i). It is claimed that MBH98 calculated 28 proxy PCs > and that 16 started prior to available data. In Table 7 they state that the > "Available Period" for data from North American tree-rings as 1619-1971. We > all know that there was plenty of such data available prior to this period. > > In fact, MBH98 used a total of 52 proxy PCs, with a maximum of 28 in any one > time period. > > The supplementary data for MM2003 (which is clearer than that for MBH1998) > makes it clear that they did not recalculate the proxy PCs for different > steps of the reconstruction, but simply selected proxies from a table of 112: > 84 raw proxies plus 28 proxy PCs calculated in 5 sub-regions for periods when > ALL the data in those sub-regions was available. > > MM2005 (Energy and Environment) correct this error (without admitting to it), > and claim that centering of the proxies is a major issue. However, the > published code fragments suggest that they omitted the standardisation of the > proxies, and their results can only be replicated by imitting > standardisation. The "centering" issue is thus a red-gherring which > conveniently diverts attention away from the serious flaw in their 2003 > paper. MM2003 at no point mention the number of proxies going into the > 1400-1450 step of their reconstruction. An unpublished manuscript does > acknowledge that no North American PC was used for th 1400-1450 > reconstruction (that is, the first revision of the manuscript acknowledges > this omission [attached]: the first submission, which is also available from > McIntyre's web-site, makes no reference to the fact they were omitted and > implies that only the method of calculation is an issue -- I guess they can > get that kind of thing past some editors but not others). > > I'll get some supplementary information on this together to submit with the > manuscript. > > The numbers on figure 2 need correcting -- thanks for pointing that out. > > I think that the statement that there is no North American tree-ring data > prior to 1619 is a "serious" flaw and that we should say so. > > The McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) Energy and Environment paper claims that > they reproduce their 2003 result while including the North American proxy > data, but it is abundantly obvious from looking at the figures in the two > papers that this is untrue: their 2003 reconstruction showed 1400-1450 as > 0.3K warmer than 1950, whereas their 2005 reconstruction estimates 1400-1450 > to be about the same as 1950. In terms of MBH1998 error bars, MM2003 > disagreed with MBH1998 by 3 sigma, MM2005 disagrees by 1.5 sigma. > It appears that this disagreement is largely due to the failure to standardsie > the proxies. Both this technical flaw and the inaccurate reference to their > own work are, I think, serious. > > I can understand the reservations about getting into a long dispute. That is > one reason why I have simplified the new calculations used: not using any > temperature PCs and not doing any stepwise reconstruction leads to > considerable simplification. > > cheers, > Martin > > On Friday 04 August 2006 09:18, Anders Moberg wrote: > >> Dear Martin and all others, >> >> Having read the new manuscript, I would like to draw the attention of >> all of you to the section about McIntyre&McKitrick vs Mann et al. I am >> not entirely happy with this section. It may be that I am not fully >> updated about all details on their dispute, but it appears to be some >> mistakes in this section of our manuscript. Therefore, I ask all of you >> to check how this section can be improved and clarified. This is very >> important! If we refer incorrectly to the MM-Mann dispute, I am >> convinced that all of us will be involved in lengthy frustrating e-mail >> discussions later on. I anticipiate this from personal experience! Let's >> do our best to avoid this. >> >> The problematic bit of text starts on p. 16, para 4: ("The failure of >> MM2003 ... is partly due to a misunderstanding of the stepwise >> reconstruction method") and slightly below: ("MM2003 only calculate >> principal components for the period when all chronologies are present"). >> >> I read through the MM2003 paper yesterday. From what is written there, >> on p. 763-765, it appears that they were well aware of the stepwise >> method. On p. 763, about at the middle of the page, they write: >> "Following the description of MBH98 ... our construction is done >> piecewise for each of the periods listed in Table 8, using the roster of >> proxies available through the period and the selection of TPCs for each >> period listed in Table 8". >> >> This is clearly at odds to what is written in our manuscript. Has it >> been documented somewhere else that MM2003, despite what they wrote, >> really misunderstood the stepwise technique? If it is so, we need to >> insert a reference. If this is not the case, we need to omit the lines >> about the misunderstanding. We also need to explain better why the >> MM2003 calculations differ from MBH. >> >> Moreover, our sentence ("MM2003 only calculate principal components for >> the period when all chronologies are present") imply that MM2003 only >> calculated PCs for the period 1820-1971, as this would be the period >> when all chronologies are present according to the MM2003 Table 8. >> Obviously, they calculated PCs beyond 1820, as their calculations >> actually extend back to 1400. >> >> The problem continues in the legend to our Fig. 2. (" Each of the 212 >> data series is shown ... The red rectangle indicates the single block >> used by MM2003, neglecting all data prior to 1619"). The last sentence >> is inconsistent with the information in MM2003 in three ways; a) MM2003 >> clearly show in their Table 8 that they analysed the same blocks of data >> as MBH. b) The year 1619 as a starting point of a data block is >> inconsistent with MM Table 8. Where does the year 1619 come from? It is >> not mentioned anywhere in MM2003. c). The red block implies that MM2003 >> made calculations back only to 1619, but they did back to 1400. >> >> Moreover, the numbers given in the graph of our Fig. 2 indicate that the >> total number of series is 211, whereas the text in the legend and also >> in the main text on p. 16 says 212. Which number is correct? >> >> I suppose that some of you others will know this subject much better >> than I. I have just read the MM2003 paper, and find our reference to it >> to be inconsistent with it. I hope you all can make efforts to make this >> bit crystal clear. If not, I fear we will get problems! >> >> Finally, I would like to draw your attention to the related sentence in >> our conclusions on p. 26: ("Papers which claim to refute ... have been >> reviewed and found to contain serious flaws"). Are all of you happy with >> this statement? Would it sound better with a somewhat less offending >> sentence, something like: >> >> "Papers which claim to refute ... have been reviewed and found to >> essentially contribute with insignificant information that does not >> affect the consensus, and even to include some flaws." >> >> I attach the MM2003 paper. >> >> I will send some comments to the other parts of the text in a separate mail. >> >> Cheers, >> Anders >> >> >> >> Martin Juckes wrote: >> >>> Hello All, >>> >>> here is another draft. I've added a new reconstruction, using 19 >>> > independent > >>> proxies series from Jones et al., Mann et al., Esper et al. and Moberg et >>> > al. > >>> This gives a good fit to the calibration data, such that 2 recent years >>> > exceed > >>> the maximum pre-industrial estimate by 4 sigma levels. I've included this >>> because without it I found it hard to draw precise and useful conclusions >>> from the 4 partially overlapping reconstructions I had done before. >>> >>> cheers, >>> Martin >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> \documentclass[cpd,11pt]{egu} >>> >>> \input macs >>> \voffset 5cm >>> \hoffset 1.5cm >>> >>> \begin{document} >>> >>> \title >>> {\bf Millennial Temperature Reconstruction Intercomparison and Evaluation >>> } >>> >>> \runningtitle{Millennial Temperature} >>> \runningauthor{M.~N.~Juckes et al} >>> \author{Martin Juckes$^{(1)}$, >>> Myles Allen$^{(2)}$, >>> Keith Briffa$^{(3)}$, >>> Jan Esper$^{(4)}$, >>> Gabi Hegerl$^{(5)}$, >>> Anders Moberg$^{(6)}$, >>> Tim Osborn$^{(3)}$, >>> Nanne Weber$^{(7)}$, >>> Eduardo Zorita$^{(8)}$} >>> \correspondence{Martin Juckes (M.N.Juckes@rl.ac.uk)} >>> \affil{ >>> British Atmospheric Data Centre, SSTD, >>> Rutherford Appleton Laboratory >>> Chilton, Didcot, >>> Oxfordshire, OX11 0QX, >>> United Kingdom >>> } >>> >>> \affil{1: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, >>> 2: University of Oxford, >>> 3: University of East Anglia, >>> 4: Swiss Federal Research Institute, >>> 5: Duke University, >>> 6: Stockholm University, >>> 7: Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), >>> 8: GKSS Research Centre >>> } >>> \date{Manuscript version from 31 Oct 2005 } >>> \msnumber{xxxxxx} >>> >>> \pubyear{} >>> \pubvol{} >>> \pubnum{} >>> >>> \received{} >>> %\pubacpd{} % ONLY applicable to ACP >>> \revised{} >>> \accepted{} >>> >>> \firstpage{1} >>> >>> \maketitle >>> >>> \begin{abstract} >>> There has been considerable recent interest in paleoclimate >>> > reconstructions of the temperature history of > >>> the last millennium. A wide variety of techniques have been used. >>> The interrelation among the techniques is sometimes unclear, as different >>> > studies often > >>> use distinct data sources as well as distinct methodologies. >>> Recent work is reviewed with an aim to clarifying the import of >>> the different approaches. >>> A range of proxy data collections used by different authors are passed >>> through two reconstruction algorithms: firstly, inverse regression and, >>> secondly, compositing followed by variance matching. >>> It is found that the first method tends to give large weighting to >>> a small number of proxies and that the second approach is more robust >>> to varying proxy input. >>> A reconstruction using 19 proxy records extending back to 1000AD shows a >>> maximum pre-industrial temperature of 0.227K (relative to the 1866 to 1970 >>> > mean). > >>> The standard error on this estimate, based on the residual in the >>> > calibration > >>> period is 0.149K. Two recent years (1998 and 2005) have exceeded the >>> > pre-industrial > >>> estimated maximum by more than 4 standard errors. >>> \end{abstract} >>> >>> >>> %%\openup 1\jot >>> >>> \introduction\label{sec:intro} >>> >>> The climate of the last millennium has been the subject of much >>> debate in recent years, both in the scientific literature >>> and in the popular media. >>> This paper reviews reconstructions of past temperature, >>> on the global, hemispheric, or near-hemispheric scale, by >>> \citet{jones_etal1998} [JBB1998], >>> \citet{mann_etal1998a} [MBH1998], >>> \citet{mann_etal1999} [MBH1999], >>> \citet{huang_etal2000} [HPS2000], >>> \citet{crowley_lowery2000} [CL2000], >>> \citet{briffa_etal2001} [BOS2001], >>> \citet{esper_etal2002b} [ECS2002], >>> \citet{mann_jones2003} [MJ2003], >>> \citet{moberg_etal2005} [MSH2005], >>> \citet{oerlemans2005} [OER2005], >>> \citet{hegerl_etal2006+} [HCA2006]. >>> %%The criticism >>> %%directed at them (mainly MBH1999) by \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2003} >>> > [MM2003] and others. > >>> Climate variability can be partitioned into contributions from >>> internal variability of the climate system and response to forcings, >>> which the forcings being further partitioned in natural and >>> anthropogenic. >>> The dominant change in forcing in the late 20th century >>> arises from human impact in the form of >>> greenhouse gases \citep[primarily carbon dioxide, methane and >>> chloro-fluoro carbons:][]{IPCC2001}. >>> The changes in concentration of these gases in the atmosphere >>> are well documented and their radiative properties which reduce, >>> for a given temperature difference, radiative loss of heat to space >>> from the mid and lower troposphere >>> \citep[for carbon dioxide, this was first documented by][]{arrhenius1896} >>> are beyond dispute. >>> >>> However, there remains some uncertainty on two issues: >>> firstly, how much of the observed change is due to greenhouse forcing as >>> opposed to natural forcing and internal variability; >>> secondly, how significant, compared to past natural changes, are the >>> changes which we now observe and expect in the future? >>> >>> The first question is not answered by the IPCC conclusion cited above >>> > because > >>> that conclusion only compares the anthropogenic forcing of the late 20th >>> > century > >>> with the natural forcings of the same period. Further back in the past, it >>> > is > >>> harder to make definitive statements about the amplitude of variability in >>> > natural > >>> forcings. The second question reflects the uncertainty in the response of >>> > the > >>> climate system to a given change in forcing. In the last century both the >>> variations in forcing and the variations in response have been measured >>> > with > >>> some detail, yet there remains uncertainty about the contribution of >>> natural variability to the observed temperature fluctuations. >>> In both cases, investigation is hampered by the fact that >>> estimates of global mean temperature based on reliable direct measurements >>> are only available from 1856 onwards \citep{jones_etal1986}. >>> >>> Climate models are instrumental in addressing both questions, >>> but they are still burdened with >>> some level of uncertainty and there is a need for more detailed knowledge >>> of the behaviour of the actual climate on multi-centennial timescales >>> both in order to evaluate the climate models and in order to address the >>> above questions directly. >>> >>> The scientific basis for proxy based climate reconstructions may be stated >>> > simply: there are > >>> a number of physical indicators >>> which contain information about the past environmental variability. >>> As these are not direct measurements, the term proxy is used. >>> >>> >>> \citet{jones_mann2004} review evidence for climate change in >>> the past millennium and conclude that there had been a >>> global mean cooling since the 11th century >>> until the warming period initiated in the 19th century, but the issue >>> > remains > >>> controversial. This paper reviews recent contributions and evaluates the >>> > impact > >>> of different methods and different data collections used. >>> >>> Section 2 discusses recent contributions, which have developed a range of >>> > new > >>> methods to address aspects of the problem. >>> Section 3 discusses the technique used by MBH1998/9 >>> in more detail in the context of criticism by >>> > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2003} > >>> (hereafter MM2003). >>> Section 4 presents some new results using the data collections from 5 >>> > recent studies. > >>> >>> >>> \section{A survey of recent reconstructions} >>> >>> This section gives brief reviews of recent >>> contributions, displayed in Fig.~1. >>> Of these, 5 are estimates of the Northern Hemisphere mean temperature >>> (MBH1999, HPS2000, CL2000, MSH2005, HCA2006), >>> 2 of the Northern Hemisphere extra tropical mean temperature (BOS2001, >>> > ECS2002) > >>> and 3 of the global mean temperature (JBB1998, MJ2003, OER2005). >>> All, except the inherently low resolution reconstructions of HPS2000 and >>> > OER2005, > >>> have been smoothed with a 40 year running mean. >>> With the exception of HPS2000 and OER2005, the reconstructions >>> use partly overlapping methods and data, so they >>> cannot be viewed as independent from a statistical viewpoint. >>> In addition to exploiting a range of different data sources, >>> the above works also use a range of techniques. >>> The subsections below cover different scientific themes, >>> ordered according to the date of key publications. >>> Some reconstructions which do not extend all the way >>> back to 1000AD are included because of their >>> importance in addressing specific issues. >>> The extent to which the global, northern hemisphere and northern >>> > hemisphere > >>> extratropical reconstructions might be expected to agree >>> is discussed in Sect.~2.10 below. >>> >>> \subsection{High-resolution paleoclimate records} >>> >>> \citet{jones_etal1998} [JBB1998] present the first annually resolved >>> reconstructions of temperatures back to 1000AD, using >>> a composite of standardised 10 proxies for the northern hemisphere and 7 >>> > for the southern, > >>> with variance damped in the early part of the series to account for the >>> lower numbers of proxies present (6 series extend back to 1000AD), >>> > following \citet{osborn_etal1997}. > >>> The composites are >>> scaled by variance matching (Appendix A) against the annual mean summer >>> > temperatures for 1931-1960. > >>> Climate models are also employed to investigate the temperature coherency >>> between proxy sites and it is shown that there are strong large scale >>> coherencies in the proxy data which are not reproduced by >>> the climate model. An evaluation of each individual >>> proxy series against instrumental data from 1881 to 1980 >>> shows that tree-rings and historical reconstructions >>> are more closely related to temperature than those >>> from corals and ice-cores. >>> >>> With regard to the temperatures of the last millennium, >>> the primary conclusion of JBB1998 is that >>> the twentieth century was the warmest of the millennium. >>> There is clear evidence of a cool period from 1500 to 1900, >>> but no strong ``Medieval Warm Period" [MWP] (though the second warmest >>> century in the northern hemisphere reconstruction is >>> the 11th). The MWP is discussed further in Sect.~2.4 below. >>> >>> JBB1998 draw attention to the limitations of some of the proxies >>> on longer timescales (see Sect.~3.5 below). >>> Homogeneity of the data record and >>> its relation with temperature may not be guaranteed on longer timescale. >>> This is an important issue, since >>> many climate reconstructions assume a constant relationship between >>> temperature anomalies and the proxy indicators >>> (there are also problems associated with timescale-dependency in the >>> relationship which are discussed further in Sect.~2.6 below). >>> >>> MJ2003 include some additional proxy series and extend to study period >>> > back a > >>> further millennium and conclude that the late 20th century warmth >>> is unprecedented in the last two millennia. >>> >>> \subsection{Climate field reconstruction} >>> >>> \citet{mann_etal1999} published >>> the first reconstruction of the last thousand years northern hemispheric >>> > mean > >>> temperature which included objective error bars, >>> based on the analysis of the residuals in the calibration period. >>> The authors concluded not only >>> that their estimate of the temperature over the whole period 1000AD to >>> > 1860AD > >>> was colder than the late twentieth century, but also that 95\% certainty >>> > limits > >>> were below the last decade of the twentieth century. >>> The methods they used were presented in MBH1998 >>> which described a reconstruction back to 1400AD. >>> >>> MBH1998 use a collection of 415 proxy time indicators, many more than used >>> > in \citet{jones_etal1998}, > >>> but many of these are too close geographically to be considered >>> as independent, so they are combined into a smaller number of >>> > representative > >>> series. >>> The number of proxies also decreases significantly with age: >>> only 22 independent proxies extend back to 1400AD, >>> and, in >>> MBH1999, 12 extend back to 1000AD (7 in the Northern Hemisphere). >>> MBH1998 and MBH1999 have been the subject of much debate since the latter >>> > was cited > >>> in the IPCC (2001) report, though the IPCC >>> conclusions\footnote{\citet{IPCC2001} concluded that >>> ``The 1990s are likely to have been the warmest decade of the millennium >>> > in > >>> the Northern Hemisphere, and 1998 is likely to have been the warmest >>> year," where ``likely'' implies a greater than 66\% probability. >>> Since 2001 it has been recognised that there is a need to explicitly >>> distinguish between an expression of confidence, as made by the IPCC in >>> > this quote, > >>> which should include expert assessment of the robustness of statistical >>> > methods > >>> employed, and simple citation of the results of statistical test. >>> In the language of >>> \citet{manning_etal2004} we can say that MBH1999 carried out statistical >>> tests which concluded that the 1990s have been the warmest decade of the >>> millenium with 95\% likelihood, while IPCC (2001), after assessing all >>> available evidence had a 66\% confidence in the same statement.} >>> were weaker than those of MBH1999. >>> >>> This work also differ from Jones et al. (1998) in using spatial patterns >>> > of temperature > >>> variability rather than hemispheric mean temperatures. In this way the >>> > study aims > >>> to exploit proxies which are related to temperature indirectly: for >>> instance, changes in temperature may be associated with changes in >>> wind and rainfall which might affect proxies more strongly than >>> temperature. Since wind and rainfall are correlated with >>> changes in temperature patterns, it is argued, there may be important >>> > non-local > >>> correlations between proxies and temperature. >>> >>> Different modes of atmospheric variability are evaluated through an >>> Empirical Orthogonal Function [EOF] analysis of the time period 1902 to >>> > 1980, > >>> expressing the global field as a sum of spatial patterns (the EOFs) >>> > multiplied by > >>> Principal Components (PCs -- representing the temporal evolution). >>> Earlier instrumental data are too sparse to be used for this purpose: >>> instead they are used in a validation calculation to determine how >>> many EOFs should be included in the reconstruction. >>> Time series for each mode of variability are then reconstructed from the >>> > proxy data using > >>> a optimal least squares inverse regression. >>> >>> Finally, the skill of the regression of each PC is tested using the >>> 1856 to 1901 validation data. >>> Prior to 1450AD it is determined that only >>> one PC can be reconstructed with >>> any accuracy. This means that the main advantage of the >>> Climate Field Reconstruction method does not apply at earlier dates. >>> The methodology will be discussed further in Sect.~3 below. >>> >>> The reconstructed temperature evolution (Fig.~1) is rather less variable >>> > than that of Jones et al. (1998), > >>> but the differences are not statistically significant. >>> The overall picture is of gradual cooling until the mid 19th century, >>> followed by rapid warming matching that evaluated by the earlier work. >>> >>> \subsection{Borehole temperatures} >>> >>> \citet{huang_etal2000} [HPS2000] estimate northern hemisphere temperatures >>> back to 1500AD using >>> measurements made in 453 boreholes (their paper also presents global and >>> southern hemisphere results using an additional 163 southern hemisphere >>> > boreholes). > >>> The reconstruction is included here, even though it does not extend back >>> > to 1000AD, > >>> because it has the advantage of being completely >>> independent of the other reconstructions shown. >>> Temperature fluctuations at the surface propagate slowly downwards, so >>> > that measurements > >>> made in the boreholes at depth contain a record of past surface >>> > temperature fluctuations. > >>> HPS2000 used measurements down to around 300m. >>> The diffuse nature of the temperature anomaly means that short time scale >>> > fluctuations > >>> cannot be resolved. Prior to the 20th century, the typical resolution is >>> > about 100 years. > >>> \citet{mann_etal2003} analyse the impact of changes in land use and snow >>> > cover > >>> on borehole temperature reconstructions and conclude that >>> it results in significant errors. >>> This conclusions has been refuted by >>> \citet{pollack_smerdon2004} (on statistical grounds), >>> > \citet{gonzalez-rouco_etal2003} > >>> (using climate simulations) and \citet{huang2004} (using an expanded >>> > network of 696 > >>> boreholes in the northern hemisphere). >>> >>> \subsection{Medieval Warm Period} >>> >>> Despite much discussion >>> \citep[e.g.][]{hughes_diaz1994, bradley_etal2003}, there is no clear >>> > quantitative > >>> understanding of what is meant by the ``Medieval Warm Period'' [MWP]. >>> \citet{crowley_lowery2000} >>> [CL2000] discuss the evidence for a global MWP, which they interpret as >>> a period of unusual warmth in the 11th century. All the reconstructions >>> of the 11th century temperature shown >>> in Fig.~1 estimate that century to have been warmer than most of the >>> past millennium. However, the question of practical importance is not >>> whether it was warmer than the 12th to 19th centuries, which is >>> generally accepted, but whether it was a period of comparable >>> warmth to the late 20th century. MBH1999 concluded, with 95\% confidence, >>> > that > >>> this was not so. CL2000 revisit the question >>> using 15 proxy records, of which 9 were not used in the studies >>> described above. Several of the series used have extremely low temporal >>> > resolution. > >>> %%CL2000 sought to select tree ring chronologies with consistent quality >>> %%throughout their length, as measured by the "sample replication" >>> %%\citep{cook_etal2004}. >>> %%[check usage of "sample replication" -- cook etal (QSR) is available >>> > from Jan's website]] > >>> They draw attention to the spatial localization of the MWP in their proxy >>> > series: > >>> it is strong in North America, North Atlantic and Western Europe, but not >>> clearly present elsewhere. Periods of unusual warmth >>> do occur in other regions, but these are short and asynchronous. >>> >>> Their estimate of northern hemispheric temperature over the past >>> > millennium is consistent > >>> with the works discussed above. They conclude that the occurrence of >>> > decades of > >>> temperatures similar to those of the late 20th century cannot be >>> > unequivocally ruled > >>> out, but that there is, on the other hand, no evidence to support the >>> > claims > >>> that such an extended period of large-scale warmth occurred. >>> >>> \citet{soon_baliunas2003} carry out an analysis of local climate >>> > reconstructions. > >>> They evaluate the number of such reconstructions which show (a) a >>> > sustained ``climate > >>> anomaly" during 800-1300AD, (b) a sustained ``climate >>> anomaly" during 1300-1900AD and (c) >>> their most anomalous 50 year period in the 20th century. >>> Their definition of a ``sustained climate anomaly" is 50 years of warmth, >>> wetness or dryness for (a) and (c) and 50 years of coolness, wetness >>> or dryness in (b). >>> It should be noted that they do not carry out evaluations which allow >>> > direct comparison between > >>> the 20th century and earlier times: >>> they compare the number of extremes occurring in the 20th century with the >>> number of anomalies occurring in periods of 3 and 4 centuries in the past. >>> Both the use of sampling periods of differing length and different >>> > selection criteria make interpretation > >>> of their results problematic. >>> They have also been criticised for interpreting >>> regional extremes which occur at distinct times as being indicative of a >>> > global > >>> climate extremes \citep{jones_mann2004}. This issue is discussed further >>> > in > >>> Sect.~2.9 below. >>> \citet{osborn_briffa2006} perform a systematic analysis along the lines of >>> > \citet{soon_baliunas2003} > >>> and conclude that the proxy records alone, by-passing the problem of proxy >>> > calibration > >>> against instrumental temperatures, show an unprecedented anomaly in the >>> > 20th century. > >>> \subsection{Segment length curse} >>> >>> \citet{briffa_etal2001} and \citet{briffa_etal2002} discuss the impact of >>> the ``segment length curse'' \citep{cook_etal1995a, briffa_etal1996, >>> > briffa2000} on > >>> temperature reconstructions from tree rings. >>> Tree rings have been shown to have much greater sensitivity >>> than other proxies on short timescales (JBB1998), but there is a concern >>> > that this may not > >>> be true on longer timescales. Tree ring chronologies are often made up of >>> composites of many trees of different ages at one site. >>> The width of the annual growth ring >>> depends not only on environmental factors but also on the age of the >>> tree. The age dependency on growth is often removed by subtracting >>> a growth curve from the tree ring data for each tree. This process, >>> done empirically, will not only remove age related trends but also any >>> > environmental > >>> trends which span the entire life of the tree. >>> \citet{briffa_etal2001} use a more sophisticated method >>> (Age Band Decomposition [ABD], which >>> forms separate chronologies from tree rings in different age bands, >>> and then averages all the age-band chronologies) >>> to construct northern hemisphere >>> temperatures back to 1400AD, and show that >>> a greater degree of long term variability is preserved. >>> The reconstruction lies between those >>> of MBH1999 and JBB1998, showing the cold 17th century of the former, >>> but the relatively mild 19th century of the latter. >>> >>> The potential impact of the segment length limitations is analysed further >>> by \citet{esper_etal2002b, esper_etal2003}, using `Regional Curve >>> > Standardisation' (RCS) > >>> \citep{briffa_etal1992}. >>> In RCS composite growth curves (different curves reflecting >>> different categories of growth behaviour) are obtained from all the trees >>> in a region and this, rather than a fitted curve, is subtracted >>> from each individual series. Whereas ABD circumvents the need to >>> subtract a growth curve, RCS seeks to evaluate a growth curve which >>> is not contaminated by climate signals. >>> The ECS2002 analysis agrees well with that of MBH1999 on short >>> time scales, but has greater centennial variability >>> > \citep{esper_etal2004}. > >>> ECS2002 suggest that this may be partly due to the lack of tropical >>> > proxies > >>> in their work, which they suggest should be regarded as an extratropical >>> Northern Hemisphere estimate. The extratropics are known to have >>> greater variability than the tropics. >>> %[check]:from eduardo:: Table 1 in MBH GRL 99 --add ref?? >>> However, it has to be also noted that among the proxies used by MBH1999 >>> (12 in total), just 2 of them are located in the tropics, both at one >>> > location > >>> (see table 1 below). >>> >>> \citet{cook_etal2004} study the data used by ECS2002 and pay particular >>> > attention > >>> to potential loss of quality in the earlier parts of tree-ring >>> > chronologies > >>> when a relatively small number of tree samples are available. Their >>> > analysis > >>> suggests that tree ring chronologies prior to 1200AD should be treated >>> > with > >>> caution. >>> >>> \subsection{Separating timescales} >>> >>> \citet{moberg_etal2005} follow BOS2001 and ECS2002 in trying to address >>> the ``segment length curse'', but rather than trying to improve the >>> tree-ring chronologies by improving the standardizations, >>> they discard low frequency component of the tree-ring data, >>> and replace this with low-frequency information from proxies with lower >>> > temporal resolution. > >>> A wavelet analysis is used to filter different temporal scales. >>> >>> Each individual proxy series is first scaled to unit variance and then >>> > wavelet transformed. > >>> Averaging of the wavelet transforms is made separately for tree ring data >>> and the low-resolution data. >>> The average wavelet transform of tree-ring data for timescales less than >>> > 80 > >>> years is combined with the averaged wavelet transform of the >>> > low-resolution data for > >>> timescales longer than 80 years to form one single wavelet transform >>> > covering all timescales. > >>> This composite wavelet transform is inverted to create a dimensionless >>> > temperature > >>> reconstruction, which is calibrated against the instrumental record of >>> northern hemisphere mean temperatures, AD 1856-1979, using a variance >>> > matching method. > >>> Unfortunately, the calibration period is too short to independently >>> > calibrate the > >>> low frequency component. The variance matching represents a form of >>> > cross-calibration. > >>> In all calibrations against instrumental data, the long period >>> > (multi-centennial) > >>> response is determined by a calibration which is dominated by >>> sub-centennial variance. The MSH2005 approach makes this explicit and >>> shows a level of centennial variability which is much larger than in >>> MBH1999 reconstruction and >>> similar to that in simulations of the past millennium with two >>> different climate models, ECHO-G \citep{storch_etal2004} and NCAR CSM >>> (``Climate System Model'') \citep{mann_etal2005}. >>> >>> \subsection{Glacial advance and retreat} >>> >>> \citet{oerlemans2005} provides another independent estimate of the global >>> > mean temperature > >>> over the last 460 years from an analysis of glacial advance and retreat. >>> As with the bore hole based estimate of HPS2000, this work uses a >>> physically based model rather than an empirical calibration. >>> The resulting curve lies within the >>> range spanned by the high-resolution proxies, roughly midway between >>> the MBH1999 Climate Field Reconstruction and the HPS2000 bore hole >>> > estimate. > >>> Unlike the borehole estimate, but consistent with most other works >>> > presented > >>> here, this analysis shows a cooling trend prior to 1850, related to >>> > glacial > >>> advances over that period. >>> It should be noted that >>> the technique used to generate the bore hole estimate >>> > \citep{pollack_etal1998} > >>> assumes a constant temperature prior to 1500AD. The >>> absence of a cooling trend after this date may be influenced by this >>> boundary condition. >>> >>> \subsection{Regression techniques} >>> >>> Many of the reconstructions listed above depend on empirical relationships >>> between proxy records and temperature. \citet{storch_etal2004} suggest >>> that the regression technique used by MBH1999 >>> under-represents\footnote{This is sometimes referred to as >>> > ``underestimating'', > >>> which will mean the same thing to many people, but something slightly >>> > different > >>> to statisticians. Any statistical model (that is, a set of assumptions >>> > about the > >>> noise characteristics of the data being examined) will deliver estimates >>> > of > >>> an expected value and variability. The variability of the expected value >>> > is > >>> not generally the same as the expected value of the variability.} >>> the variability of past climate. >>> This conclusion is drawn after a applying a method similar to that of >>> > MBH1999 to output from a > >>> climate model using a set of pseudo-proxies: time series generated from >>> the model output and degraded with noise which is intended to match the >>> > noise > >>> characteristics of actual proxies. >>> \citet{mann_etal2005} use the same approach and arrive at a different >>> > conclusion: > >>> namely, that their regression technique is sound. >>> \citet{mann_etal2005} show several implementations of their >>> Climate Field Reconstruction Method in the CSM simulation, using different >>> > levels > >>> of white noise in their synthetic pseudo proxies. >>> For a case of pseudo-proxies with a realistic signal-to-noise ratio of >>> > 0.5, they use > >>> a calibration period (1856-1980) which is longer than that >>> used in MBH1998 and MBH1999 (1901-1980). >>> It turns out that the difference in the length of the calibration period >>> > is critical > >>> for the skill of the method (Zorita, personal communication et al., >>> > submitted). > >>> % (I think you can refer to Buerger et al 2006 here. Check with Eduardo if >>> > this is OK. > >>> % By the way, update the reference list: Tellus, 58A, 227-235) [AM] >>> >>> There is some uncertainty about the true nature of noise on the proxies, >>> > and > >>> on the instrumental record, as will be discussed further below. >>> The optimal least squares estimation technique of MBH1998 effectively >>> neglects the uncertainties in the proxy data relative to uncertainties >>> in the temperature. >>> Instead, >>> \citet{hegerl_etal2006+} use total least squares regression >>> > \citep{allen_stott2003, adcock1878}. > >>> This approach >>> allows the partitioning of noise between instrumental temperatures >>> and proxy records to be estimated, on the assumption that the instrumental >>> noise is known. \citet{hegerl_etal2006+} show that this approach leads to >>> > greater variability in the reconstruction. > >>> \citet{rutherford_etal2005} take a different view. They compare >>> > reconstructions > >>> from 1400AD to present using a regularised expectation maximisation >>> > technique \citep{schneider2001} > >>> and the MBH1998 climate field reconstruction method and find only minor >>> > differences. > >>> Standard regression techniques assume that we have a calibration period, >>> > in which > >>> both sets of variables are measured, and a reconstruction (or prediction) >>> > period > >>> in which one variable is estimated, by regression, from the other. >>> The climate reconstruction problem is more complex: >>> there are hundreds of instrumental records >>> which are all of different lengths, and similar numbers of proxy records, >>> also of varying length. The expectation maximisation technique >>> \citep{little_rubin1987} >>> is well suited to deal with this: instead of imposing an >>> artificial separation between a calibration period and a reconstruction >>> period, it fills in the gaps in a way which exploits all data present. >>> Regularised expectation maximisation is a generalisation >>> developed by \citet{schneider2001} to deal with ill posed problems. >>> Nevertheless, there is still a simple regression equation at the heart of >>> > the technique. > >>> That used by \citet{rutherford_etal2005} is similar to that used by >>> %new: corrected >>> MBH1998, so the issue raised by \citet{hegerl_etal2006+} is unanswered. >>> >>> \subsection{Natural variability and forcings} >>> >>> Global temperature can fluctuate through internally generated variability >>> > of > >>> the climate system (as in the El Ni\~no phenomenon), through >>> variability in natural forcings (solar insolation, volcanic aerosols, >>> natural changes to greenhouse gas concentrations) and human changes. >>> Reconstructions of variations in the external forcings for the last >>> millenium have been >>> put forward \citep{crowley2000}, although recent studies have >>> suggested a lower amplitude >>> of low-frequency solar forcing \citep{lean_etal2002, foukal_etal2004}. >>> >>> Analysis of reconstructed temperatures of MBH1999 and CL2000 and >>> simulated temperatures using reconstructed solar and volcanic forcings >>> shows that changes in the forcings can explain the reconstructed long >>> term cooling through most of the millenium >>> and the warming in the late 19th century \citep{crowley2000}. >>> The relatively cool climate in the second half of the 19th century may be >>> attributable to cooling from deforestation \citep{bauer_etal2003}. >>> \citet{hegerl_etal2003} analyse the correlations between four >>> reconstructions (MBH1999, BOS2001, ECS2002, and a modified version of >>> CL2000) >>> and estimated forcings \citep{crowley2000}. >>> They find that that natural forcing, particularly by >>> volcanism, explains a substantial fraction of decadal variance. >>> Greenhouse gas forcing is detectable >>> with high significance levels in all analyzed reconstructions except >>> MSH2005, which ends in 1925. >>> \citet{weber2005b} carries out a similar analysis with a wider range >>> of reconstructions. It is shown that the regression of reconstructed >>> global temperatures on the forcings has a similar dependence on timescale >>> as regressions derived from the climate model. The role of solar forcing >>> > is > >>> found to be larger for longer timescales, whereas volcanic forcing >>> > dominates > >>> for decadal timescales. >>> The trend component over the period 1000 to 1850 is, however, in all >>> reconstructions larger than the trend implied by the forcings. >>> >>> The methods employed by >>> \citet{hegerl_etal2006+} attribute about a third of the early 20th >>> century warming, sometimes >>> more, in high-variance reconstructions to greenhouse gas forcing. >>> These results indicate that enhanced variability in the past does not >>> make it more difficult to detect greenhouse warming, since a large >>> fraction of the variability can be attributed to external forcing. >>> Quantifying the influence of external forcing on the proxy records is >>> therefore more relevant to understanding climate variability and its >>> causes than determining if past periods were possibly as warm as the >>> 20th century. >>> >>> \citet{goosse_etal2005} investigate the role of internal variability using >>> an ensemble of 25 climate model simulations of the last millennium >>> and forcing estimates from \citet{crowley2000}. >>> They conclude that internal variability dominates local and regional >>> scale temperature anomalies, implying that most of the variations >>> experienced by a region such as Europe over the last millennium could >>> be caused by internal variability. On the hemispheric and global scale, >>> however, the forcing dominates. >>> This agrees with results from a long >>> solar-forced model simulation by \citet{weber_etal2004}. >>> %%similar This reinforces similar statements made by JOS1998. [where does >>> > this come from?] > >>> \citet{goosse_etal2005} >>> make the new point, that noise can lead to regional temperature anomalies >>> peaking at different times to the forcing, so that disagreements in >>> timing between proxy series should not necessarily be interpreted as >>> meaning there is no common forcing. >>> >>> \subsection{The long view} >>> >>> The past sections have drawn attention to the problems of calibrating >>> temperature reconstructions using a relatively short >>> period over which instrumental records are available. >>> For longer reconstructions, with lower temporal resolution, >>> other methods are available. Pollen >>> reconstructions of climate match the ecosystem types with those >>> currently occurring at different latitudes. The changes in >>> ecosystem can then be mapped to the temperatures at which >>> they now occur \citep[e.g.][]{bernabo1981, gajewski1988}. >>> These reconstructions cannot resolve decadal variability, >>> but they provide an independent estimate of local low-frequency >>> temperature variations. The results of \citet{weber_etal2004} >>> and >>> \citet{goosse_etal2005} suggest that such estimates >>> centennial mean temperatures can provide some information about >>> global mean anomalies, as they strongly reflect the external forcings on >>> centennial and longer timescales. However, there has, as yet, >>> been no detailed intercomparison between the pollen based >>> reconstructions and the higher resolution reconstructions. >>> >>> >>> \section{Critics of the IPCC consensus on millennial temperatures} >>> >>> The temperature reconstructions described in the previous section >>> represent (including their respective differences and similarities) >>> the scientific consensus, based on objective analysis >>> of proxy data sources which are sensitive to temperature. >>> Nevertheless, there are many who are strongly attached to the view that >>> > past > >>> temperature variations were significantly larger and that, consequently, >>> the warming trend seen in recent decades should not be considered >>> as unusual. >>> >>> >>> The criticism has been directed mainly at the \citet{mann_etal1998a, >>> > mann_etal1999} > >>> work. >>> Therefore, this section focuses mainly on this criticism. >>> %new >>> Though some of the critics identify the consensus with the MBH1998 work, >>> this is not the case: the consensus rests on a broader body of work, and >>> as formulated by IPCC2001 is less strong than the conclusions of >>> MBH1998 (Sect.~3.2). >>> \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2003} [MM2003] >>> criticize MBH1998 on many counts, some related to deficiencies >>> in the description of the data used and possible irregularities in the >>> > data > >>> themselves. These issues have been largely resolved in >>> > \citet{mann_etal2004}. > >>> %%\footnote{ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MANNETAL1998}. >>> >>> As noted above, the MBH1998 analysis is considerably more complex than >>> > others, > >>> and uses a greater volume of data. >>> There are 3 main stages of the algorithm: (1) sub-sampling of >>> regions with disproportionate numbers of proxies, (2) regression, >>> (3) validation and uncertainty estimates. >>> >>> Stage (1) is necessary because some parts of the globe, particularly >>> North America and Northern Europe, have a disproportionate number of >>> proxy records. Other authors have dealt with this by using only >>> a small selection of the available data or using regional >>> averages \citep[BOS2001;][]{hegerl_etal2006+}. MBH1998 >>> use a principal component analysis to extract the common signal from the >>> > records in > >>> densely sampled regions. >>> >>> The failure of MM2003 to replicate the MBH1998 results is partly due to >>> a misunderstanding of the stepwise reconstruction method. MBH1998 use >>> different subsets of their proxy database for different time periods. >>> This allows more data to be used for more recent periods. >>> >>> For example, Fig.~2 illustrates >>> how the stepwise approach applies to the North American tree ring network. >>> Of the total of 212 chronologies, only 66 extend back beyond 1400AD. >>> MM2003 only calculate principal components for the period when all >>> chronologies are present. Similarly, MBH1998 use one principal >>> component calculated from 6 drought sensitive tree-rings chronologies from >>> > South West Mexico > >>> and this data is omitted in MM2003. >>> %%[is this clear now?? (AM)]] >>> %new >>> %%Table 7 of MM2003 indicates only 20 series for the region, as the >>> %%supplementary information provided with MBH2003 omitted 2 >>> %%\citep{mann_etal2004}. >>> %endnew >>> \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005a} [MM2005] continue the criticism of the >>> > techniques > >>> used by MBH1998 and introduce a ``hockey stick index": defined in terms of >>> > the ratio > >>> of the variance at the end of a time series >>> to the variance over the remainder of the series. >>> MM2005 argue that the way in which >>> a principal component analysis is carried out in MBH generates an >>> > artificial > >>> bias towards a high ``hockey-stick index" and that the statistical >>> > significance of > >>> the MBH results may be lower that originally estimated. >>> >>> The issue arises because the tree ring chronologies are standardized: >>> this involves subtracting a mean and dividing by a variance. >>> MBH1998 use the mean and variance of the detrended series evaluated >>> over the calibration period. MM2005 are of the view that this is >>> incorrect. >>> They suggest that each series should be standardised with respect to the >>> mean and variance its full length. >>> >>> The code used by MM2005 is not, at the time of writing available, >>> but the code fragments included in the text imply >>> that their calculation used data which had been >>> centred (mean removed) but had not been normalized to unit variance >>> > (standardised). > >>> Figure 3 shows the effect of the changes, applied to the >>> North American tree ring sub-network of the data used by MBH1998, >>> using those chronologies which extend back to 1400AD. >>> The calculation used here does not precisely reproduce the archived >>> > MBH1998 > >>> result, but the differences may be due to small differences in >>> mathematical library routines used to do the decomposition. >>> The effect of replacing the MBH1998 approach with centering and >>> standardising on the whole time series is small, the effect of >>> omitting the standardisation as in MM2005 is much larger: >>> this omission causes the 20th century trend to be removed from the >>> first principal component. >>> >>> \citet{storch_zorita2005} look at some of the claims made in MM2005 >>> and analyses them in the context of a climate simulation. >>> They find the impact of the modifications suggested by McIntyre and >>> > McKitrick to > >>> be minor. >>> \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005b} clarify their original claim, stating that >>> > the > >>> standardisation technique used by MBH98 does not create the >>> > ``hockey-stick" structure > >>> but does ``steer" the selection of this structure in principal component >>> analysis. >>> >>> \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005c} [MM2005c] revisit the MM2003 work and >>> > correct > >>> their earlier error by taking the stepwise reconstruction technique into >>> > account. > >>> They assert that the results of MM2003, which show a 15th century >>> reconstruction 0.5K warmer than found by MBH1998, >>> are reproduced with only minor changes to the MBH1998 proxy data base. >>> Examination of the relevant figures, however, shows that this is not >>> > entirely > >>> true. The MM2005c predictions for >>> the 15th century are 0.3K warmer than the MBH1998 >>> result: this is still significant, but, unlike the discredited MM2003 >>> > result, it > >>> would not make the 15th century the warmest on record. >>> >>> MM20005c and \citet{wahl_ammann2005} both find that >>> excluding the north American bristlecone pine data from the proxy >>> data base removes the skill from the 15th century reconstructions. >>> MM2005c justify this removal on the grounds that the first principal >>> > component > >>> of the North American proxies, which is dominated by the >>> bristlecone pines, is a statistical outlier with respect to the joint >>> > distribution > >>> of $R^2$ and the difference in mean between 1400 to 1450 and 1902 to 1980. >>> %%first ref to table 1 >>> Table 1, which lists a range of proxies extending back to 1000, >>> shows that the North American first principal component (``ITRDB [pc01]'' >>> > in that table) > >>> is not an outlier >>> in terms of its coherence with northern hemispheric mean temperature from >>> > 1856 to 1980. > >>> \begin{table}[t] >>> \small >>> %% output from mitrie/pylib/multi_r2.py, editted >>> \begin{tabular}{|p{7.0cm}|r|r|l|r|l|} >>> \hline >>> Name & Lat. & Lon. & Id & $R^2$ & Type \cr >>> \hline >>> GRIP: borehole temperature (degC) (Greenland)$^1$ & 73 & -38 & *,Mo & >>> > 0.67 & [IC] \cr > >>> China: composite (degC)$^2$ & 30 & 105 & *,Mo & 0.63 & >>> > [MC] \cr > >>> Taymir (Russia) & 72 & 102 & He & 0.60 & [TR >>> > C] \cr > >>> Eastern Asia & 35 & 110 & He & 0.58 & [TR >>> > C] \cr > >>> Polar Urals$^3$ & 65 & 67 & Es, Ma & 0.51 >>> > & [TR] \cr > >>> Tornetraesk (Sweden)$^4$ & 58 & 21 & Mo & 0.50 & >>> > [TR] \cr > >>> ITRDB [pc01] & 40 & -110 & Ma & 0.49 & [TR >>> > PC] \cr > >>> Mongolia & 50 & 100 & He & 0.46 & [TR >>> > C] \cr > >>> Arabian Sea: Globigerina bull$^5$ & 18 & 58 & *,Mo & 0.45 & >>> > [CL] \cr > >>> Western Siberia & 60 & 60 & He & 0.44 & [TR >>> > C] \cr > >>> Northern Norway & 65 & 15 & He & 0.44 & [TR >>> > C] \cr > >>> Upper Wright (USA)$^6$ & 38 & -119 & *,Es & 0.43 & >>> > [TR] \cr > >>> Shihua Cave: layer thickness (degC) (China)$^7$ & 40 & 116 & *,Mo & >>> > 0.42 & [SP] \cr > >>> Western Greenland & 75 & -45 & He & 0.40 & >>> > \cr > >>> Quelcaya 2 [do18] (Peru)$^8$ & -14 & -71 & *,Ma & 0.37 & >>> > [IC] \cr > >>> Boreal (USA)$^6$ & 35 & -118 & *,Es & 0.32 & >>> > [TR] \cr > >>> Tornetraesk (Sweden)$^9$ & 58 & 21 & *,Es & 0.31 & >>> > [TR] \cr > >>> Taymir (Russia)$^{10}$ & 72 & 102 & *,Es, Mo & >>> > 0.30 & [TR] \cr > >>> Fennoscandia$^{11}$ & 68 & 23 & *,Jo,Ma & >>> > 0.28 & [TR] \cr > >>> Yamal (Russia)$^{12}$ & 70 & 70 & *,Mo & 0.28 >>> > & [TR] \cr > >>> Northern Urals (Russia)$^{13}$ & 66 & 65 & *,Jo & 0.27 >>> > & [TR] \cr > >>> \hline >>> \end{tabular} >>> \caption{Continued overleaf.} >>> \end{table} >>> >>> \renewcommand{\thetable}{\arabic{table}} >>> \addtocounter{table}{-1} >>> \begin{table}[t] >>> \small >>> \begin{tabular}{|p{7.0cm}|r|r|l|r|l|} >>> \hline >>> Name & Lat. & Lon. & Id & $R^2$ & Type \cr >>> \hline >>> ITRDB [pc02] & 42 & -108 & Ma & 0.21 & [TR >>> > PC] \cr > >>> Lenca (Chile)$^{14}$ & -41 & -72 & Jo & 0.18 & [TR] \cr >>> Crete (Greenland)$^{15}$ & 71 & -36 & *,Jo & 0.16 >>> > & [IC] \cr > >>> Methuselah Walk (USA) & 37 & -118 & *,Mo & 0.14 & >>> > [TR] \cr > >>> Greenland stack$^{15}$ & 77 & -60 & Ma & 0.13 & >>> > [IC] \cr > >>> Morocco & 33 & -5 & *,Ma & 0.13 & >>> > [TR] \cr > >>> North Patagonia$^{16}$ & -38 & -68 & Ma & 0.08 & >>> > [TR] \cr > >>> Indian Garden (USA) & 39 & -115 & *,Mo & 0.04 & >>> > [TR] \cr > >>> Tasmania$^{17}$ & -43 & 148 & Ma & 0.04 & >>> > [TR] \cr > >>> ITRDB [pc03] & 44 & -105 & Ma & -0.03 & [TR >>> > PC] \cr > >>> Chesapeake Bay: Mg/Ca (degC) (USA)$^{18}$ & 38 & -76 & *,Mo & -0.07 >>> > & [SE] \cr > >>> Quelcaya 2 [accum] (Peru)$^{8}$ & -14 & -71 & *,Ma & -0.14 >>> > & [IC] \cr > >>> France & 44 & 7 & *,Ma & -0.17 & >>> > [TR] \cr > >>> \hline >>> \end{tabular} >>> \caption{(continued) >>> The primary reference for each data set is indicated by the superscript in >>> > the first column as > >>> follows: >>> 1: \citep{dahl-jensen_etal1998}, 2: \citet{yang_etal2002}, 3: >>> > \citet{shiyatov1993}, 4: \citet{grudd_etal2002}, 5: \citet{gupta_etal2003}, > >>> 6: \citet{lloyd_graumlich1997}, 7: \citet{tan_etal2003}, 8: >>> > \citet{thompson1992}, > >>> 9: \citet{bartholin_karlen1983}, 10: \citet{naurzbaev_vaganov1999}, 11: >>> > \citet{briffa_etal1992}, > >>> 12: \citet{hantemirov_shiyatov2002}, 13: \citet{briffa_etal1995}, 14: >>> > \citet{lara_villalba1993}, > >>> 15: \citet{fisher_etal1996}, 16: \citet{boninsegna1992}, 17: >>> > \citet{cook_etal1991}, 18: \citet{cronin_etal2003}. > >>> the "Id" in column 4 refers to the reconstructions in which the data were >>> > used. > >>> The type of proxy is indicated in column 6:: tree-ring [TR], tree-ring >>> > composite [TR C], > >>> tree-ring principle component [TR PC], coral [CL], sediment [SE], ice core >>> > [IC], > >>> multi-proxy composite [MC]. The 19 proxy series marked with a "*" in >>> > column 4 are used in the > >>> ``Union'' reconstruction. >>> } >>> \end{table} >>> >>> \citep[][; MM2005c]{briffa_osborn1999} suggest that >>> rising CO$_2$ levels may have contributed significantly to the >>> 19th and 20th century increase in growth rate in some trees, >>> particularly the bristlecone pines, but such an >>> effect has not been reproduced in controlled experiments with mature trees >>> \citep{korner_etal2005}. >>> >>> Once a time series purporting to represent past temperature has been >>> > obtained, > >>> the final, and perhaps, most important, step is to verify its >>> and estimate uncertainty limits. This is discussed further in the next >>> > section. > >>> \section{Varying methods vs. varying data} >>> >>> One factor which complicates the evaluation of the various reconstructions >>> > is > >>> that different authors have varied both method and data collections. Here >>> > we will > >>> run a representative set of proxy data collections through two algorithms: >>> inverse regression and scaled composites. These two methods, and the >>> > different > >>> statistical models from which they may be derived, are explained in the >>> Appendix A. >>> >>> Esper et al. (2005) investigated the differing calibration approaches used >>> > in the recent literature, including > >>> regression and scaling techniques, and concluded that the methodological >>> > differences in calibration result in differences > >>> in the reconstructed temperature amplitude/variance of about 0.5K. >>> This magnitude is equivalent to the mean annual temperature change for the >>> > Northern Hemisphere reported in the last > >>> IPCC report for the 1000-1998 period. >>> \citet{burger_etal2006} take another approach and investigate a family of >>> > 32 different regression algorithms > >>> derived by adjusting 5 binary switches, using pseudo-proxy data. >>> They show that these choices, which >>> have all been defended in the literature, can lead to a wide variety of >>> > different > >>> reconstructions given the same data. >>> They also point out that the uncertainty is greater when we >>> attempt to estimate the climate of periods which lie outside the range >>> > experienced > >>> during the calibration period. The relevance of this point to the last >>> > millennium is > >>> under debate: the glacier based temperature estimates of OER2005 suggest >>> > that the > >>> coldest northern hemisphere mean temperatures occurred close to the start >>> > of > >>> the instrumental record, in the 19th century. The borehole >>> > reconstructions, > >>> however, imply that there were colder temperatures experienced in the 16th >>> > to 18th centuries. > >>> For the question as to whether the warmth of the latter part of the >>> > calibration > >>> period has been experienced in the past, however, >>> this particular issue is not directly relevant. >>> >>> As noted above, much of the MBH1999 algorithm is irrelevant to >>> > reconstructions > >>> prior to AD 1450, because before that date the data only suffice, >>> according to estimates in that paper, to determine one degree of freedom. >>> Hence, we will only look at direct evaluation of the hemispheric mean >>> > temperature. > >>> Several authors have evaluated composites and calibrated those composites >>> against instrumental temperature. Many of the composites contain more >>> > samples in later > >>> periods, so that the calibration may be dominated by samples which do >>> not extend into the distant past. Here, we will restrict attention to >>> records which span the entire reconstruction period. >>> The data series used are listed in table 1. >>> >>> \subsection{Proxy data quality issues} >>> >>> As noted previously, their has been especially strong criticism of >>> MBH1998, 1999, partly concerning some aspects of their data collection. >>> Figures 4 and 5 show reconstructions made using the MBH1999 and MBH1998 >>> > data respectively. > >>> Regression against northern hemispheric mean temperature from 1856 to 1980 >>> > is used > >>> instead of regression against principal components of >>> temperature from 1902 to 1980. There are differences, but key features >>> > remain. > >>> MM2003 draw attention to the fact that one time series, >>> ``CANA036" in the ITRDB classification, contributed >>> by Gasp\'e, appears twice in the MBH1998 database. >>> This error is corrected in the red dashed curve of Fig.~5, >>> which is almost identical to the green curve, which retains the >>> > duplication. > >>> \subsection{Reconstruction using a union of proxy collections} >>> >>> The following subsection will discuss a range of reconstructions using >>> > different > >>> data collections. The first 5 of these collections are defined as those >>> > proxies used by > >>> JBB1998, MBH1999, ECS2002, MSH2005 and HCA2006, respectively, which extend >>> > back to 1000AD. > >>> These will be referred to below as the JBB, MBH, ECS, MSH, HCA composites >>> > below > >>> to distinguish them from the composites used in the published articles, >>> > which include > >>> additional, shorter, proxy data series. >>> Finally there is a `Union' composite made using 19 independent northern >>> hemisphere proxy series marked with ``*" in table 1. Apart from the China >>> > composite > >>> record, all the data used are individual series. The PCs used by MBH1999 >>> > have been > >>> omitted in favour of individual series used in other studies. >>> Two southern hemisphere tropical series, both from the Quelcaya glacier, >>> > Peru, > >>> are included ensure adequate representation of tropical temperatures. >>> This 'Union' collection contains 11 tree-ring series, 4 ice-cores, and one >>> > each of > >>> coral, speleothem, lake sediment and a composite record including >>> > historical data. > >>> \subsection{Intercomparison of proxy collections} >>> >>> Figure 6 shows reconstructions back to 1000AD using >>> composites of proxies and variance matching [CVM] (for the proxy >>> principal components in the MBH1998, MBH1999 data collections the sign >>> is arbitrary: these series have, where necessary, had the sign reversed so >>> > that > >>> they have a positive correlation with the northern hemisphere >>> temperature record). >>> Surprisingly, the `Union' does not lie in the range spanned by the other >>> > reconstructions, > >>> and reaches colder temperatures than any of them. It does, however, fit >>> > the calibration period > >>> data better than any of the sub-collections. >>> >>> The reconstructions shown in Fig.~7 use the same data is used: this time >>> using inverse regression [INVR] (Appendix A), as used by MBH1998 >>> (the method used here differs from that of MBH1998 in using northern >>> > hemisphere > >>> temperature to calibrate against, having a longer calibration period, >>> and reconstructing only a single variable instead of multiple EOFs). >>> The spread of values is substantially increased relative to the CVM >>> > reconstruction. > >>> With INVR, only one reconstruction (that using the ECS2001 >>> data) shows temperatures warmer than the mid 20th century. >>> The inverse regression technique applies weights to the >>> individual proxies which are proportional to the >>> correlation between the proxies and the calibration temperature >>> signature. >>> For this time series the 5 proxies are weighted as: >>> 1.7 (Boreal); 2.9 (Polar Urals); 1.7 (Taymir); 1.8 (Tornetraesk); and 2.3 >>> > (Upper Wright). > >>> Firstly, it should be noted that this collection samples North America and >>> > the > >>> Eurasian arctic only. The bias towards the arctic is strengthened by the >>> > weights > >>> generated by the inverse regression algorithm, such that the >>> > reconstruction has poor geographical coverage. > >>> The MBH1999 and HPS2000 published reconstructions are shown in Fig.~6 for >>> > comparison: the MBH1999 > >>> reconstruction lies near the centre of the spread of estimates, while the >>> > HPS2000 reconstruction > >>> is generally at the lower bound. >>> >>> Much of the current debate revolves around the level of >>> centennial scale variability in the past. >>> The CVM results generally suggest >>> a low variance scenario comparable to MBH1999. The inverse regression >>> results, however, suggest greater variability. It should be noted >>> that the MBH1999 inverse regression result use greater volumes of >>> data for recent centuries, so that the difference in Fig.~7 between the >>> dashed red curve and the full green curve in the 17th >>> century is mainly due to reduced proxy data input in the latter >>> (there is also a difference because MBH1999 used inverse regression >>> against temperature principle components rather than northern hemisphere >>> mean temperature as here). >>> >>> Table 2 shows the cross correlations of the reconstructions in Fig.~6, >>> for high pass (upper right) and low pass (lower left) components >>> of the series, with low pass being defined by a 40 year running mean. >>> The low pass components are highly correlated. >>> >>> \begin{table}[t] >>> %% output from mitrie/pylib/pp.py >>> \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|} >>> \hline >>> & Ma & Mo & Es & Jo & He & Union\cr >>> \hline >>> Ma & -- & 14\% & 25\% & 60\% & 20\% & 61\% \cr >>> Mo & 69\% & -- & 37\% & 11\% & 13\% & 60\% \cr >>> Es & 64\% & 77\% & -- & 14\% & 36\% & 57\% \cr >>> Jo & 62\% & 51\% & 46\% & -- & 11\% & 35\% \cr >>> He & 72\% & 75\% & 85\% & 53\% & -- & 26\% \cr >>> Union & 67\% & 71\% & 62\% & 45\% & 84\% & -- \cr >>> \hline >>> \end{tabular} >>> \caption{Cross correlations between reconstructions from >>> different proxy data bases: Mann et al (Ma), Moberg et al (Mo), >>> Esper et al (Es), Jones et al (Jo), Hegerl et al (He). >>> Lower left block correspond to low pass filtered series, >>> upper right to high pass filtered.} >>> \end{table} >>> >>> The significance of the correlations between these five proxy data samples >>> and the instrumental temperature data during the calibration period >>> > (1856-1980) > >>> has been evaluated using a Monte-Carlo simulation >>> with (1) a first order Markov model and (2) random time series >>> which reproduces the lag correlation structure of the data samples (see >>> > Appendix A). > >>> Figure 8 shows the lag correlations. The instrumental record had a >>> > pronounced > >>> anti-correlation on the 40 year time-scale. This may be an artifact of >>> > the short > >>> data record, but it is retained in the significance calculation as the >>> > best available > >>> estimate which is independent of the proxies. >>> The `Union' composite shows multi-centennial correlations which are not >>> > present in the other data. > >>> The MBH and JBB composites clearly underestimate the decadal scale >>> > correlations, while > >>> the HCA and 'Union' composites overestimate it. >>> %%first ref to table 3 >>> Results are shown in table 3. >>> If the full lag correlation structure of the data were known, it would be >>> > true, > >>> as argued by MM2005, that the first order approach generally >>> leads to an overestimate of significance. Here, however, we only have a >>> estimated correlation structure based on a small sample. Using this finite >>> sample correlation is likely to overestimate long-term correlations and >>> > hence > >>> lead to an underestimate of significance. Nevertheless, results are >>> > presented here > >>> to provide a cautious estimate of significance. >>> For the MBH and JBB composites, which have short lag-correlations, the >>> > difference > >>> between the two methods is minimal. For other composites there is a >>> > substantial difference. > >>> In all cases the $R^2$ values exceed the 99\% significance level. When >>> detrended data are used the $R^2$ values are lower, but still above the >>> > 95\% > >>> level -- with the exception of the Hegerl et al. data. This data has only >>> > decadal > >>> resolution, so the lower significance in high frequency variability is to >>> > be expected. > >>> \begin{table}[t] >>> %% output from mitrie/pylib/sum_ac.py >>> \begin{tabular}{|l||c|c||c|c||c||c|p{1.1cm}|} >>> \hline >>> Source & $R^2_{95|h}$ & $R^2_{95|AR}$ & $R^2$ & $R^2_{detr}$ & $\sigma$ & >>> > Signif. & Signif. (detrended) \cr > >>> \hline >>> Mann et al. & 0.205 & 0.170 & 0.463 & 0.286 & 0.186 & 99.99\% & >>> > 98.75\%\cr > >>> \hline >>> Moberg et al., (hi+lo)/2 & 0.225 & 0.183 & 0.418 & 0.338 & 0.153 & >>> > 99.87\% & 99.25\%\cr > >>> \hline >>> Esper et al. & 0.335 & 0.220 & 0.613 & 0.412 & 0.158 & 99.96\% & >>> > 98.11\%\cr > >>> \hline >>> Jones et al. & 0.187 & 0.180 & 0.371 & 0.274 & 0.203 & 99.93\% & >>> > 99.17\%\cr > >>> \hline >>> Hegerl et al. & 0.440 & 0.266 & 0.618 & 0.357 & 0.133 & 99.56\% & >>> > 90.13\%\cr > >>> \hline >>> Union & 0.337 & 0.236 & 0.655 & 0.414 & 0.149 & 99.98\% & 97.91\%\cr >>> \hline >>> \end{tabular} >>> \caption{ >>> $R^2$ values evaluated using the Northern Hemisphere mean temperature >>> > (1856 to 1980) and various > >>> proxy records. >>> Columns 2 and 3 show $R^2$ values for the 95\% significance >>> levels, evaluated using a Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 realisations. >>> > In columns > >>> 2, 7 and 8 the full lag-correlation structure of the data is used, in >>> > column > >>> 3 a first order auto-regressive model is used, based on the lag one >>> > auto-correlation. > >>> Column 4 shows the $R^2$ value obtained from the data and column 5 shows >>> > the same > >>> using detrended data. >>> Column 6 shows the standard error (root-mean-square residual) from the >>> > calibration > >>> period. Columns 7 and 8 show significance levels, estimated using >>> Monte Carlo simulations as in column 2, for the full and detrended $R^2$ >>> > values. > >>> } >>> \end{table} >>> >>> Figure 9 plots this reconstruction, >>> with the instrumental data >>> in the calibration period. >>> The composite tracks the changes in northern hemisphere temperature well, >>> capturing the steep rise between 1910 and 1950 and much of the decadal >>> scale variability. This is reflected in the significance scores (Tab.~3) >>> which are high both for the full series and for the detrended series. >>> The highest temperature in the reconstructed data, relative to the >>> > 1866-1970 mean is > >>> 0.227K in 1091AD. This temperature was first exceeded in the instrumental >>> > record in 1878, > >>> again in 1937 and frequently thereafter. The instrumental record has not >>> > gone below this level since 1986. > >>> Taking $\sigma=0.149$ as the root-mean-square residual in the calibration >>> > period > >>> 1990 is the first year when the 1091 maximum was exceed by $2\sigma$. >>> This happened again in 1995 and every year since 1997. >>> 1998 and every year since 2001 have exceeded the preindustrial maximum by >>> > $3\sigma$. > >>> \conclusions\label{sec:end} >>> >>> There is general agreement that global temperatures cooled >>> over the majority of the last millennium and have risen sharply >>> since 1850. In this respect, the recent literature has not produced >>> any change to the conclusions of JBB1998, though there remains >>> substantial uncertainty about the magnitude of centennial scale >>> > variability > >>> superimposed over longer term trends. >>> >>> The IPCC 2001 conclusion that temperatures of the past millennium >>> are unlikely to have been as warm, at any time prior to the 20th >>> century, as the last decades of the 20th century is supported >>> by subsequent research and by the results obtained here. >>> >>> The greatest range of disagreement among independent >>> assessments occurs during the coolest centuries, from 1500 to >>> 1900, when the departure from recent climate conditions >>> was strongest and may have been outside the range of >>> temperatures experienced during the later >>> instrumental period. >>> >>> There are many areas of uncertainty and disagreement within >>> the broad consensus outlined above, and also some who >>> dissent from that consensus. Papers which claim to refute the >>> IPCC2001 conclusion on the climate of the past millennium have been >>> reviewed and found to contain serious flaws. >>> >>> A major area of uncertainty concerns the accuracy of the long time-scale >>> variability in the reconstructions. This is particularly >>> so for timescale of a century and longer. There does not appear to be any >>> doubt that the proxy records would capture rapid change on >>> a 10 to 50 year time scale such as we have experienced in recent decades. >>> >>> Using two different reconstruction methods on a range of proxy data >>> collections, we have found that inverse regression >>> tends to give large weighting to >>> a small number of proxies and that the relatively simple >>> approach of compositing all the series and using variance matching to >>> calibrate the result gives more robust estimates. >>> >>> A new reconstruction made with a composite of 19 proxies extending back >>> to 1000AD fits the instrumental record to within a standard error of >>> > 0.149K. > >>> This reconstruction gives a maximum pre-industrial temperature of 0.227K >>> relative to the 1866 to 1970AD mean. The maximum temperature from the >>> instrumental record is 0.841K, over 4 standard errors larger. >>> >>> The reconstructions evaluated in this study show considerable disagreement >>> during the 16th century. The new 19 proxy reconstruction implies 21-year >>> > mean > >>> temperatures close to 0.6K below the 1866 to 1970AD mean. As this >>> > reconstruction > >>> only used data extending back to 1000AD, there is a considerable volume of >>> > 16th century > >>> data which has not been used. This will be a focus if future research. >>> >>> {\bf Acknowledgments} >>> >>> This work was funded by the Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency >>> > (RIVM) as part of the > >>> Dutch Scientific Assessment and Policy Analysis (WAB) programme. >>> Additional funding was provided as follows: >>> from the UK Natural Environment Research Council for M.N. Juckes, >>> from the Swedish Research Council for A. Moberg. >>> >>> \vfill\eject >>> >>> \def\thesection{A} >>> {\bf Appendix A: Regression methods} >>> >>> Ideally, the statistical analysis method would be determined by the >>> known characteristics of the problem. Unfortunately, the error >>> characteristics of the proxy data are not sufficiently well >>> quantified to make the choice clear. >>> This appendix describes two methods and the statistical models which can >>> > be > >>> used to motivate them. >>> >>> \subsection{Inverse regression [INVR]} >>> >>> Suppose $x_{ik}$, $i=1,N_{pr}$, $k=1,L$ is a set of $N_{pr}$ >>> standardised proxy records of length $L$ and that we are trying >>> to obtain an estimate $\hat{y_i}$ of a quantity $y_i$ which is >>> known only in a calibration period ($i\in C$). >>> >>> Several ``optimal" estimates of $y_i$ can be obtained, depending on >>> the hypothesised relation between the proxies and $y$. >>> >>> Inverse regression follows from the model >>> $$ >>> \beta_i y_k + {\cal N} >>> = >>> x_{ik} >>> $$ >>> where $\cal N$ is a noise process, independent between proxies. >>> It follows that optimal estimate for the coefficients $\beta_i$ are >>> $$ >>> \hat{\beta_i} = {\sum_{k\in C} x_{ik} y_k \over \sum{k\in C} y_k^2 } >>> . >>> $$ >>> Given these coefficients, the optimal estimate of the $y_k$ outside >>> the calibration period is >>> $$ >>> \hat{y_k} = { \sum_i \hat{\beta_i} x_{ik} \over \sum_i \hat{\beta_i}^2 }. >>> $$ >>> >>> \subsection{Composite plus variance matching [CVM]} >>> >>> This method is rather easier. It starts out from the hypothesis that >>> > different > >>> proxies represent different parts of the globe. A proxy for the global >>> > mean > >>> is then obtained as a simple average of the proxies: >>> $$ >>> \overline{x_k} = N_{pr}^{-1} \sum_i x_{ik} >>> . >>> $$ >>> >>> Suppose >>> $$ >>> \overline{x_k} = \beta y_k + {\cal N} >>> , >>> $$ >>> then an optimal estimate of $\beta$ is easily derived as >>> $\hat\beta = \sum_{k\in C} x_k y_k/\sum_{k\in C} y_k^2$. >>> However, $y^*_k = \hat\beta^{-1} x_k$ is not an optimal estimate >>> of $y_k$. >>> >>> Because of the added noise, $\overline{x_k}$ is generally an overestimate >>> of $\beta y_k$. To correct for this we should use: >>> $$ >>> \beta y_k^* = \overline{x_k} >>> \sqrt{ \left( \beta^2 \sigma^2_y \over \beta^2 \sigma^2_y + \sigma_{\cal >>> > N}^2 \right) } > >>> , >>> $$ >>> where $\sigma^2_y$ and $\sigma_{\cal N}^2$ are the expected variance of >>> > $y$ and the > >>> respectively. >>> This leads to an estimate: >>> $$ >>> y_k^* = \overline{x_k} \left( \sigma_y \over \sigma_x \right) >>> . >>> $$ >>> This is known as the variance matching method because it matches the >>> variance of the reconstruction with that of observations over >>> the calibration period. >>> >>> \def\thesection{B} >>> \setcounter{subsection}{0} >>> {\bf Appendix B: Statistical tests} >>> >>> >>> \subsection{Tests for linear relationships} >>> >>> The simplest test for a linear relationship is the anomaly correlation >>> (also known as: Pearson Correlation, Pearson's product moment correlation, >>> > $R^2$, > >>> product mean test): >>> \be >>> R = { \overline{ y^\prime x^\prime } \over >>> \sqrt{ \overline{ y^{\prime2} } \, \overline{ x^{\prime2} } } } >>> \ee >>> where the over-bar represents a mean over the data the test is being >>> > applied to, > >>> and a prime a departure from the mean >>> \citep{pearson1896}. >>> >>> The significance of an anomaly correlation can be estimated using the >>> $t$ statistic: >>> \be >>> t = {R \sqrt{n-2} \over \sqrt{1-R^2} } >>> \ee >>> where $n$ is the sample size (for independent variables). >>> Two Gaussian variables will produce a $t$ statistics which obeys the >>> Student's t-distribution of $n-2$ degrees of freedom. >>> >>> Ideally, if the noise affecting all the $x$ and $y$ values is independent, >>> $n$ is simply the number of measurements. This is unlikely to be the case, >>> so an estimate of $n$ is needed. The Monte-Carlo approach is more >>> flexible: a large sample of random sequences with specified correlation >>> structures is created, and the frequency with which the specified >>> $R$ coefficient is exceeded can then be used to estimate its significance. >>> >>> \subsection{Lag correlations} >>> >>> Following \citet{hosking1984}, a random time series with a specified >>> lag correlation structure is obtained from the partial correlation >>> > coefficients, > >>> which are generated using Levinson-Durbin regression. >>> >>> It is, however, not possible to generate a sequence matching an >>> > arbitrarily > >>> specified correlation structure and there is no guarantee that an >>> estimate of the correlation structure obtained from a small sample will >>> be realizable. It is found that the Levinson-Durbin regression diverges >>> when run with the lag correlation functions generated from the >>> > \citet{jones_etal1986} > >>> northern hemisphere temperature record and also that from the HCA >>> > composite. > >>> For the northern hemisphere temperature record, this is resolved by >>> > truncating the regression after $n=50$. > >>> The sample lag-correlation coefficients are, in any case, unreliable >>> > beyind this point. > >>> Truncating the regression results in a random sequence with a lag >>> > correlation fitting that > >>> specified up to lag 50 and then decaying. >>> For the HCA composite, the sample lag-correlation, $C(n)$, is scaled by >>> > $\exp( - 0.0001 n )$, > >>> where $n$ is the lag in years. >>> >>> {\bf Appendix C: Acronyms} >>> >>> Table 4 shows a list of acronyms used in this paper. >>> \begin{table} >>> \begin{tabular}{|l|p{12cm}|} >>> \hline >>> ABD & Age Band Decomposition tree ring standardisation method \cr >>> \hline >>> CSM & Climate System Model: A coupled ocean-atmosphere climate model >>> > produced by NCAR, > >>> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/csm/ \cr >>> \hline >>> CFM & Climate Field Reconstruction: method for reconstructing spatial >>> > structures > >>> of past climate variables using proxy data \cr >>> \hline >>> CVM & Composite plus Variance Matching reconstruction method \cr >>> \hline >>> ECHO-G & Hamburg coupled ocean-atmosphere climate model \cr >>> \hline >>> EOF & Empirical Orthogonal Component \cr >>> \hline >>> INVR & Inverse Regression reconstruction method \cr >>> \hline >>> IPCC & The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established by the >>> World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment >>> > Programme (UNEP) > >>> to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant >>> > for the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options > for adaptation and mitigation. It is open to all Members of the UN and of > WMO. \cr > >>> \hline >>> ITRDB & International Tree-Ring Data Bank, maintained by the NOAA >>> > Paleoclimatology > >>> Program and World Data Center for Paleoclimatology >>> > (www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo) \cr > >>> \hline >>> MWP & Medieval Warm Period \cr >>> \hline >>> PC & Principal Component \cr >>> \hline >>> RCS & Regional Curve Standardisation tree ring standardisation method \cr >>> \hline >>> \end{tabular} >>> \caption{Acronyms used in the text} >>> \end{table} >>> >>> \bibliographystyle{egu}% >>> \bibliography{citations,extras} >>> >>> \vfill\eject >>> \begin{figure*}[h] >>> %% produced by idl/mitrie/plot_recon.pro >>> \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f01}} >>> \caption{\label{fig:1} >>> Various reconstructions. With mean of 1900 to 1960 removed. >>> } >>> \end{figure*} >>> >>> \vfill\eject >>> \begin{figure*}[h] >>> %% produced by idl/paleo/mbh_70.pro >>> \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f02}} >>> \caption{\label{fig:2} >>> Data blocks for PC calculation by MBH1998. Each of the 212 data series is >>> > shown as a horizontal > >>> line over the time period covered. The dashed blue rectangles indicate >>> > some of the blocks of data > >>> used by MBH1998 for their proxy principal component calculation, using >>> > fewer series for longer time > >>> periods. The red rectangle indicates the single block used by MM2003, >>> > neglecting all data prior > >>> to 1619. >>> } >>> \end{figure*} >>> >>> >>> \vfill\eject >>> \begin{figure*}[h] >>> %% produced by pylib/do_eof.py >>> \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f03}} >>> \caption{\label{fig:3} >>> First Principal Component of the North American proxy record collection, >>> > following MBH1998. > >>> The black line is the MBH1998 archived version. >>> The other lines differ only in the method of standardisation of series >>> > prior to calculation of the > >>> principal components. >>> Red: calculated following the MBH1998 method, the individual series have >>> > the mean of the calibration > >>> period removed and are normalised by the variance of the detrended series >>> > over that period; > >>> Blue: with the mean of the whole series removed, and normalised with the >>> > variance of the whole series. > >>> Green: mean removed but no normalisation. >>> } >>> \end{figure*} >>> >>> >>> \vfill\eject >>> \begin{figure*}[h] >>> %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py >>> \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f13}} >>> \caption{\label{fig:4} >>> Reconstruction back to 1000, calibrated on 1856 to 1980 northern >>> > hemisphere temperature, > >>> using the MBH1999 proxy data collection. >>> The MBH1999 NH reconstruction and the Jones et al. (1986) instrumental >>> > data are shown for comparison. > >>> All data have been smoothed with a 21-year running mean. >>> } >>> \end{figure*} >>> >>> >>> \vfill\eject >>> \begin{figure*}[h] >>> %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py >>> \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f12}} >>> \caption{\label{fig:5} >>> As Fig.~4, but using the MBH1998 data collection back to 1400AD. >>> } >>> \end{figure*} >>> >>> \vfill\eject >>> \begin{figure*}[h] >>> %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py >>> \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f10}} >>> \caption{\label{fig:6} >>> Reconstruction back to 1000AD, calibrated on 1856 to 1980 northern >>> > hemisphere temperature, > >>> using a composite and variance matching, >>> for a variety of different data collections. >>> The MBH1999 and HPS2000 NH reconstructions and the Jones et al. (1998) >>> > instrumental > >>> data are shown for comparison. >>> Graphs have been smoothed with a 21-year running mean and centered on 1866 >>> > to 1970. > >>> The maximum of the 'Union' reconstruction in the pre-industrial period >>> > (0.227K, 1091AD) is shown > >>> by a short cyan bar, the maximum of the instrumental record (0.841K, >>> > 1998AD) is shown as a > >>> short purple bar. >>> } >>> \end{figure*} >>> >>> \vfill\eject >>> \begin{figure*}[h] >>> %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py >>> \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f11}} >>> \caption{\label{fig:7} >>> As Fig.~6, except using inverse regression. >>> } >>> \end{figure*} >>> >>> \vfill\eject >>> \begin{figure*}[h] >>> %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py >>> \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f14}} >>> \caption{\label{fig:8} >>> Lag correlations for proxy composites and instrumental record (gray). >>> } >>> \end{figure*} >>> >>> \vfill\eject >>> \begin{figure*}[h] >>> %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py >>> \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f09}} >>> \caption{\label{fig:9} >>> The ``Union'' reconstruction, using `composite plus variance scaling', for >>> > the > >>> calibration period. Also shown is the level of the maximum plus two >>> > standard errors. > >>> The Jones and Mann instrumental data is plotted as a dashed line. >>> } >>> \end{figure*} >>> >>> \end{document} >>> diliberate bad speling >>> >>> \vfill\eject >>> >>> {\it\small >>> Both these questions could be answered by a detailed knowledge of the >>> climate and its forcings over the past 1000 years, but the detailed >>> instrumental record only extends back to 1856. Hence ... [[]] >>> >>> %%The motivation for the study of past climate variability is twofold: >>> Current projections of future climate change are still burdened with >>> some level of uncertainty, even within a particular scenario of future >>> greenhouse concentrations. Although all climate models simulate an >>> increase of global temperatures in this century, the range of warming >>> simulated by different models still covers a wide range \citep{IPCC2001}. >>> A much pursued goal is to reduce this uncertainty range. >>> A question is whether warming of magnitude similar to that observed in the >>> 19th and 20th centuries, very likely caused at least to a large part by >>> anthropogenic greenhouse gas, has also occurred in the preindustrial >>> > recent past, > >>> when, to a large extent, only natural forcings of the climate system >>> > were active. > >>> {\small\it Reconstructions of the climate of the past millennium can help >>> > us to > >>> answer the second point by describing the magnitude of >>> global temperature fluctuations in the past and can address the first >>> point by helping to quantify the climate sensitivity: the >>> ratio of the response to the forcing.} >>> Progress in both questions can be achieved through the analysis >>> of reconstructions and simulations of the climate of the past millennium: >>> firstly, >>> we wish to know whether current high global temperatures are >>> within the range of natural variability. Secondly, we wish to >>> evaluate the skill and reliability of climate models. >>> %%The rise in global mean temperatures since then is >>> Therefore, some form of empirical reconstruction based on >>> > early-instrumental > >>> records, documentary evidence and proxy data is needed. >>> %%On the other hand, >>> %%the global warming observed in the past 2 centuries may be partly >>> %%due to the recovery from an extended >>> %%period of anomalously low temperatures which was reflected >>> %%in a large number of indirect European records. >>> %%[omit above sentence (AM)??] >>> %%[justify "recovery" (JE)??] >>> %%[was it really gradual (JE)] >>> %%"gradual deleted": jones and mann suggest that hemispheric mean cooling >>> > trend > >>> %% is "relatively steady" in contrast to more episodic cooling in Europe, >>> %% but esper etal (2002) suggests that attributing this difference to >>> %% hemisphere vs. europe is wrong, it might be whole hemisphere vs. >>> > extra-tropical, > >>> %% or it might be failure to resolve variability. >>> %[check]: copied from Gabi's email -- needs clearing up. >>> %%However, some unsolved questions will remain. >>> %%For instance, the climate sensitivity may depend on the nature of the >>> > external > >>> %%forcing (greenhouse gas, solar irradiance, etc), so that an estimation >>> %%of past climate sensitivity has still to be considered with some care. >>> %%There are indeed indications that climate sensitivity to changes in >>> > solar > >>> %%forcing is lower than to changes to greenhouse gas forcing >>> %%\citep{tett_etal2005+, joshi_etal2003}. >>> %%[ be more precise -- (i.e. in terms of $K W^-1 m^2$ ??)]] >>> %%::joshi etal show a 0-20% difference between sensitivity to solar >>> > forcing > >>> %%compared to CO2 forcing. This is much less than variability in >>> > sensitivity > >>> %%among models. >>> %%[this is not really relevant if the difference in climate sensitivity >>> > between > >>> %%forcings is much less than that between, say, models] >>> >>> A wide range of proxy >>> data sources which have been exploited for this problem >>> \citep[reviewed in][]{jones_mann2004}. >>> Tree rings are a particularly important source of information >>> within the time frame of the last millennium. The precise dating which >>> is provided by the annual growth rings allows anomalous growth >>> rates to be compared reliably with historical events. >>> However, its not straightforward to retrieve the climate variability >>> at timescales that exceed the typical life span of a tree (see Sect.~2.5 >>> > below). > >>> Statistical regression against instrumental temperature data is often used >>> because the majority of proxy records cannot be directly related to >>> > temperature > >>> by deterministic models >>> (two exceptions, reconstructions obtained from borehole temperatures >>> and those based on glacial advance and retreat, are discussed below). >>> Appendix A gives mathematical details of some basic statistical measures. >>> The measures of skill used by MBH1998, MBH1999 are the >>> $R^2$ test, which measures the degree of coherence between two data >>> sets, and the ``Reduction of Error'' (RE) statistic, which measures the >>> effectiveness of one series (typically a model or prediction) >>> in explaining the total (i.e. including the mean) variance in another (the >>> > verification data). > >>> The statistical tests on these measures of skill are described >>> in many text books, and their application is straight forward >>> when all sources of noise contaminating the >>> data are well characterised. The difficulty which arises >>> in many applications, including climate reconstructions, is that >>> the noise has significant but poorly characterised correlations. >>> %%[is this true for tests of skill -- probably not for analytical tests of >>> > RE]] > >>> } >>> \vfill\eject >>> \vfill \eject >>> >>> The B\"urger et al. analyses use a collection of pseudo-proxies created >>> > from > >>> pseudo observations of a climate simulation with added white noise. >>> This is a pragmatic approach -- there is little reliable information about >>> the true nature of the noise spectrum. It has been suggested that >>> > bristlecone pines > >>> in N. America have an anomalous growth trend in the 20th century which is >>> coherent among that species. The inverse regression algorithm can give >>> > large > >>> weight to individual proxies and negative weight to others: this may be >>> correct in some circumstances, but in others it could amplify the error. >>> The composite approach, on the other hand, is robust: >>> simply taking the mean of the available proxies does not rely on >>> specific assumptions about the noise spectrum. >>> >>> \vfill\eject >>> \begin{figure*}[h] >>> %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py >>> \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{figz/c_var_nh_reconc_10_1000_c}} >>> \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{figs/cpd-2006-xxxx-f04}} >>> \caption{\label{fig:1} >>> As Fig.~7, except >>> using composite and variance matching. >>> } >>> \end{figure*} >>> >>> \vfill\eject >>> >>> \begin{figure*}[h] >>> %% produced by pylib/plot_regc.py >>> \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{figz/c_var_nh_reconc_10_1000_c}} >>> \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{figs/cpd-2006-xxxx-f04}} >>> \caption{\label{fig:1} >>> The ``Union'' reconstruction, using `composite plus variance scaling', for >>> > the > >>> calibration period. Also shown is the level of the maximum plus two >>> > standard errors. > >>> The Jones and Mann instrumental data is plotted as a dashed line. >>> } >>> \end{figure*} >>> >>> >>> >>> Willmott, C.J., 1981. On the validation of models. Phys. Geog., 2, 184-194 >>> >>> >>> {\bf A2: Principal Components} >>> >>> Principal component analysis is a standard technique for reducing the >>> volume of data while attempting to retain as much of the variability >>> of the original data as possible. >>> >>> Stage (2) establishes an empirical link between the proxy records and >>> temperature. In MBH1998 inverse least squares regression of the >>> proxy network against the principal components of the measured temperature >>> > field, > >>> over the period 1902 to 1980, is used. >>> >>> Stage (3), the verification stage, determines how many, if any, of the >>> reconstructed time series for the principal components can be >>> considered to have some descriptive value. This is done by evaluating the >>> fit of the implied fields to the observations in the verification period, >>> > 1856 to 1901. > >>> The northern hemisphere mean temperature is calculated from the >>> The uncertainties are calculated from the residuals to the fit in the >>> > calibration period. > >>> \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005c} assert that the fact that omission of data >>> led to a different result demonstrates that the method is unreliable. >>> This would be true if the computation of a time series were the >>> end point of the analysis. However, the need to verify the computed series >>> was recognised by MBH1998. This is discussed further below. >>> >>> \subsubsection{Spurious metaphors} >>> >>> The term ``hockey-stick" has become widely used, particularly in the US >>> media, to refer to the temperature history implied by the MBH1999 >>> temperature reconstruction. It did not originally apply to the >>> > reconstruction > >>> itself, which has a relatively minor temperature increase in the early >>> 20th century, but rather to the combination of this series with the >>> more recent observed temperature trends: the combination shows >>> a dramatic increase in the 20th century, substantially greater than >>> > anything > >>> that occurred in the past millennium. >>> The first attempt to attach any scientific meaning to the phrase >>> was with the introduction of a ``hockey stick index'' >>> \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005a} (hereafter MM2005). >>> This index is defined in terms of the ratio of the variance at the end of >>> > a time series > >>> to the variance over the remainder of the series. >>> MM2005 argue that the way in which >>> a principal component analysis is carried out in MBH generates an >>> > artificial > >>> bias towards a high ``hockey-stick index" and that the statistical >>> > significance of > >>> the MBH results may be lower that originally estimated. >>> %% and that this is responsible for the >>> %%shape in the MBH temperature reconstruction. >>> %%Martin: I think that what MM05 indicate is that "hockey-stick may arise >>> > from random time series more easlily as previously thought, when using the > decentered PCs. I am not sure if they make this decentering responsible for > the final output in MBH. > >>> %% >>> \subsection{Validation} >>> >>> As noted above, MM2003 have shown that removing data >>> degrades the result, as might be expected. >>> Among the adjustments which they characterize as ``corrections'' was the >>> omission of the 3 principal components mentioned above. >>> In fact, 70\% of the 90 time series extending back to >>> 1400 are omitted from their analysis. >>> >>> In principle, it would be possible to estimate the accuracy of >>> reconstructions calculated by regression from the data in the >>> calibration period. However, this calculation can easily be biased >>> by unreliable assumptions about the noise covariances within >>> the calibration period. >>> MBH1998, 1999 follow a more robust approach, using independent >>> data from a validation period (1856 to 1901) to, >>> firstly, determine whether a reconstruction has any relation to >>> > temperature > >>> and, secondly, estimate the error variance. >>> >>> MM2003, however, omitted the validation phase. >>> \citep{wahl_ammann2005} have carried out a detailed investigation >>> of the robustness of the MBH1998 technique to address this >>> and many other issues. They find that the MM2003 series fails the >>> validation tests used by MBH1998. >>> >>> As an illustration of the robustness of the reconstruction, >>> figures 5 and 6 shows a reconstructions made using the MBH1999 and MBH1998 >>> > data respectively. > >>> Regression against northern hemispheric mean temperature is used >>> instead of regression against principal components of >>> temperature. There are differences, but key features remain. >>> [[more details in appendix and/or supplementary materials]] >>> MM2003 draw attention to the fact that one time series, >>> ``CANA036" in the ITRDB classification, contributed >>> by Gasp\'e, appears twice in the MBH1998 database. >>> This error is corrected in the red dashed curve of Fig.~5, >>> which is almost identical to the green curve, which retains the >>> > duplication. > >>> With our simplification of the method it is possible >>> to use the entire instrumental record for calibration. >>> This leaves no data for validation, but the difference >>> between this and a reconstruction based on a shorter >>> period gives some idea of the robustness. >>> Figure 4b shows the result. >>> >>> Finally, MM question the calculation of uncertainty limits. >>> This depends on the number of degrees of freedom >>> assigned to the data. MM state that the standard method used >>> by MBH is wrong, and that a lower number of degrees of >>> freedom is appropriate because of long range correlations in >>> the data. MBH use the lag-one autocorrelation to estimate >>> the degrees of freedom. >>> >>> In all such tests it is necessary to remember the distinction between the >>> sample correlation, which one is forced to deal with, and >>> the actual correlation, we cannot know exactly. For this reason >>> it is generally unwise to use methods which rely on statistics >>> which cannot be estimated robustly in a small sample. >>> >>> MM05 also confuse the auto-correlation structure of the tree-ring data, >>> which are known to have an environmental signal with correlations >>> on at least the decadal time-scale, with the auto-correlation of the >>> residuals which should be used in estimating the noise structure. >>> \vfill\eject >>> \begin{figure*}[h] >>> %% produced by idl/paleo/mbh_70.pro >>> \centering{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{cpd-2006-xxxx-f03}} >>> \caption{\label{fig:1} >>> Data blocks for PC calculation by MBH. >>> } >>> \end{figure*} >>> >>> >>> >>> \subsection{Natural variability and forcings} >>> >>> Global temperature can fluctuate through natural internal variability of >>> the climate system (as in the El Ni\~no phenomenon), through >>> variability in natural forcings (solar insolation, volcanic aerosols, >>> natural changes to greenhouse gas concentrations) and human changes. >>> >>> Analysis of the physical links between the estimated temperature changes >>> of the past millennium and estimated variations in the >>> different forcing mechanisms can give improve our understanding of those >>> mechanisms and help to validate the estimated temperature and >>> >>> \citet{goosse_etal2005} investigate the role of natural variability using >>> an ensemble of 25 climate model simulations of the last millennium >>> and forcing estimates from \citet{crowley2000}. >>> They conclude that natural variability dominates local and regional >>> scale temperature anomalies, implying that most of the variations >>> experienced by a region such as Europe over the last millennium could >>> be caused by natural variability. On the hemispheric and global scale, >>> > however, the > >>> external forcing dominates. >>> This reinforces similar statements made by JOS1998. >>> > \citet{goosse_etal2005} > >>> make the new point, that noise can lead to regional temperature anomalies >>> peaking at different times to the forcing, so that disagreements in >>> timing between proxy series should not necessarily be interpreted as >>> > meaning there > >>> is no common forcing. >>> >>> Analysis of natural climate forcings \citep{crowley2000} >>> show that changes in atmospheric aerosol content due to changes >>> in volcanic activity and changes in solar irradiance >>> can explain this long term cooling through most of the millenium, >>> shown by paleoclimate reconstructions, >>> and the observed warming in the late 19th century. >>> \citet{hegerl_etal2003} analyse the correlations between four >>> reconstructions (MBH1999, BOS2001, ECS2002, and a modified version of >>> > CL2000) > >>> and estimated forcings \citep{crowley2000}. >>> They find that that natural forcing, particularly by >>> volcanism, explains a substantial fraction of decadal variance, also in >>> new high-variance reconstructions. Greenhouse gas forcing is detectable >>> with high significance level in all analyzed reconstructions analyzed. >>> \citet{weber2005b} carries out a similar analysis with a wider range >>> of reconstructions. >>> It is shown that the correlation between reconstructed >>> global temperatures and forcings are similar to those derived from >>> the ECBILT climate model \citep{opsteegh_etal1998}. >>> The trend component over the period 1000 to 1850 is, however, larger in >>> > the > >>> reconstructions compared to the forcings. >>> >>> The methods employed by >>> \citet{hegerl_etal2006+} attribute about a third of the early 20th century >>> > warming, sometimes > >>> more, in high-variance reconstructions to greenhouse gas forcing. >>> These results indicate that enhanced variability in the past does not >>> make it more difficult to detect greenhouse warming, since a large >>> fraction of the variability can be attributed to external forcing. >>> Quantifying the influence of external forcing on the proxy records is >>> therefore more relevant to understanding climate variability and its >>> causes than determining if past periods were possibly as warm as the >>> 20th century. >>> >>> The dominance of volcanic forcing over solar variability found in some of >>> > the > >>> above studies is consistent with recent questioning of the >>> magnitude of low-frequency solar forcing \citep{lean_etal2002, >>> > foukal_etal2004}. > >>> \subsection{Tests of skill in reconstructions} >>> >>> RE: Reduction of Error >>> >>> \be >>> RE = 1. - { \overline{ (y- \hat y^\prime)^2 } \over >>> \overline{ y^2 } } >>> \ee >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> >> Anders Moberg >> Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology >> Stockholm University >> SE-106 91 Stockholm >> Sweden >> >> Phone: +46 (0)8 6747814 >> Fax: +46 (0) 8 164818 >> www.geo.su.se >> anders.moberg@natgeo.su.se >> >> >> -- Anders Moberg Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology Stockholm University SE-106 91 Stockholm Sweden Phone: +46 (0)8 6747814 Fax: +46 (0) 8 164818 www.geo.su.se anders.moberg@natgeo.su.se 3907. 2006-08-07 ______________________________________________________ cc: Anders , Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de, hegerl@duke.edu, esper@wsl.ch, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 13:35:09 +0000 from: Nanne Weber subject: Re: Another draft -- hopefully ready for submission to: Martin Juckes Hi Martin, thanks a lot for the new draft. I have a number of smaller comments, as indicated in the Latex file (marked by %CNANNE....%CENDNANNE, so that you should be able to find them easily). Also some bigger comments: 1) I think that we should avoid entering into unresolved disputes (unless we really want to present something new as in section 4). Otherwise it might provoke endless comments and emails, similar to what Anders is referring to. Therefore, I propose to shorten the first para of section 2.8, just stating the two views (of Storch et al and Mann et al) and noting that the debate is ongoing (see text in Latex file). 2) I found the review of MMetc. in section 3 quite accurate, but agree with Anders that we should be careful here. As another example of what can be provoked I refer to the just submitted paper of Burger and Cubasch on the CPD website, which has already attracted a number of heated+lengthy+technical comments from 1 referee, plus counter-comments 3) table 1 in section 3 is simply confusing to me. I propose to a) order the data according to geographical location b) add references that are still missing, especially for the Hegerl et al data (paper not published yet) and Esper et al (original paper does not contain data soure references) c) explain in text that 2 versions of same treering record (Tornetraesk, Taymir, Urals) mostly differ in treatment of long timescales Example reshuffled table is attached 4) section 4 is really nice, concise and clear in its goals. However, I got lost in the statistics. I have put a lot of dumb questions in the text where I got lost. Hope that you can clarify these. After all, we are trying to reach a general readership. 5) Figures: could you do 6+7 with the same vertical scale? I had to look hard for the bars in Fig. 6, maybe replace them with something more solid (filled dots?). The graphs would be better visible if you would place the coloring code in the caption instead of in the figure. Fig. 8: it seems more relevant to me to give the autocorrelation for lags of 0-30 yrs (about), as these can be reliably estimated and just discuss some of the features for longer lags in the text (maybe even the Appendix). Best, Nanne =================================================== Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\table1_mitrie.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\mitrie1.tex" 1869. 2006-08-08 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Aug 8 09:18:21 2006 from: Tim Osborn subject: summary for soap sea level report to: Alex Wright , Orson van de Plassche , simon.tett@metoffice.gov.uk, jason.lowe@metoffice.gov.uk, j.m.gregory@reading.ac.uk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk Dear all, below is the summary I've drafted for the sea level report. The report is now finished except for any comments you may have on this summary plus any final comments on the report from Orson. Thanks for all your help. Please send any comments ASAP. Cheers, Tim --------------------- Simulations with the HadCM3 climate model indicate that global-mean sea level is closely controlled by the climate response to external radiative forcings, with only a small contribution from internally-generated climate variability. At the global-scale, simulated sea-level rise accelerates in response to anthropogenic forcings during the twentieth century, but natural forcings increase the rate of rise in the early decades of this century and decrease the rate in more recent decades (due to more active volcanism), so that in response to the combined natural and anthropogenic forcings, sea level rises at almost a constant rate through the twentieth century (56 mm/century). This is significantly less than the increase inferred from tide gauges (100-200 mm/century). Regionally and locally the simulated sea level is more strongly influenced by variations in ocean circulation even on multi-decadal time scales, particularly outside the tropics. In particular, the sea level in parts of the North Atlantic Ocean is strongly influenced by variations in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC); along the east coast of North America changes of up to 200 mm appear to be associated with variations in the HadCM3 Atlantic MOC of 2 Sv. The model simulations were compared with estimates of past sea level developed from salt-marsh foraminifera. The uncertainties associated with both the climate model experiment and the sea level reconstructions are so large relative to the simulated changes that the model-data comparison is unable to provide confirmation that key aspects of the simulated sea level (e.g., the fall from 1500 to 1820 or the change to rising levels that occurred around 1820) match changes in the real world. For the twentieth century, the mean rate of rise from the sea level reconstructions in the north-east Atlantic exceeds that in the HadCM3 simulation by a factor of two to three (in agreement with the local and global tide-gauge data). --------------------- 223. 2006-08-09 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Aug 9 16:01:15 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Another draft -- hopefully ready for submission to: Martin Juckes Martin first sorry these comments did not go with you on your visit - no problem with the responses as far as I can see. I am attaching a paper by Gene Wahl and Caspar Amann that you may not have seen - it deals with the issue of the PC calculation as used by Mann et al and M+M apologies if you have seen this already. Do you wish me to comment on the latest draft of our paper as I have it now , or do you have a revised version. I know my collaboration has not been efficient but what with IPCC and other stuff , it has not been an easy time this last year cheers Keith At 15:08 09/08/2006, you wrote: Hi Keith, some brief responses to your hand-wrtten comments: Scope: there is some vague motivational stuff in the introduction which might give the impression we are tackling a wider problem than we actually are -- I'll try and make it more focussed on what we do. I've corrected the confusion between Age Banding and RCS (Anders pointed this out earlier), and pointed out that Briffa et al. 2001 used density data. I've added a comment about the empirical content of the Oerlemans reconstruction. I want to keep in the McIntyre and McKitrick discussion because they have created the impression that the temperature series in their 2003 paper results from choices about quality control which are debatable: the truth is that they made a serious mistake which led to substantial amounts of data being omitted. As to the question of how it fits in with this paper: firstly, the Dutch funding obliges us to review this, so I want to make it fit, secondly, I want to be able to say that those publications (McIntyre and McKitrick 2003, Soon and Baliunas) which contradict the IPCC (2001) statement (last decades of 20th century likely warmer than ....) are seriously flawed: this requires justification in the text. On Soon and Baliunas: I've added references to the EOS papers, but I'm not entirely convinced by the arguments there, so want to add an extra point. This is perhaps a moot point since Osborn and Briffa (2006) does a cleaner job, but I want to point out that the Soon and Baliunas analysis was inappropriate, even if the issues of choices of proxies raised in the EOS papers were resolved. cheers, Martin On Tuesday 01 August 2006 17:02, you wrote: > Martin > been frantically involved with IPCC stuff. thanks for this -realised > never sent earlier comments so have left with Tim to send anyway - am > away for a week and will take this with me > cheers > Keith > > At 14:27 01/08/2006, you wrote: > >Hello All, > > > >here is another draft. I've added a new reconstruction, using 19 independent > >proxies series from Jones et al., Mann et al., Esper et al. and Moberg et al. > >This gives a good fit to the calibration data, such that 2 recent > >years exceed > >the maximum pre-industrial estimate by 4 sigma levels. I've included this > >because without it I found it hard to draw precise and useful conclusions > >from the 4 partially overlapping reconstructions I had done before. > > > >cheers, > >Martin > > > > > > -- > 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 Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 3212. 2006-08-09 ______________________________________________________ cc: Thorsten Kiefer , Christoph Kull , Heinz Wanner , Nick Graham , Tim Osborn , Keith Briffa , philip.brohan@metoffice.gov.uk, Francis Zwiers date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 16:16:48 +0100 from: philip.brohan@metoffice.gov.uk subject: Re: Challenge to: Caspar Ammann Caspar et al. A few comments on the proposal. 1) Reconstructions of the real climate differ widely in their results - they can't all be correct, and it's likely that all existing reconstructions are in error in some important aspect. I think the challenge needs to propose a reconstruction task that is sufficiently difficult that we can reproduce this state of affairs in the challenge world. In other words, the purpose is not to find which reconstruction method is best; the aim is to allow each team doing reconstructions to find out what the limitations of their method are. 2) Making realistic proxies will be difficult and time consuming, also it will be difficult to make many different sets of proxies where the errors are realistic but independent of other sets, so we should limit the number of 'full blown' challenge experiments done. (Perhaps to 2: 2A and 2C?). Also, it needs to be easy for people to participate in the challenge, which means the number of reconstructions should be limited. 3) It's vital to separate the reconstruction group from those making the pseudoproxy data, but it's less important to separate the model group from the pseudo-proxy group. combining these two groups would make the project easier to run and reduce the chances of a mistake due to a misunderstanding between modellers and proxy people. 4) I like the proposal as it stands, and if we can find the resources we should do it as described. But I'm also tempted by a simpler approach: Make just one blind model from set 2A, and a set of full-complexity proxies for it. Invite reconstructions based on these proxies. With a bit of luck the reconstructions will differ wildly from one another and significantly from the true result. Then distribute the true model data and information on the errors introduced into the proxies - each reconstructor can then work out where their method went wrong and try to improve it. When enough people have done this, make another blind model from set 2A (or 2C) and repeat the whole process. Regards, Philip On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 17:28, Caspar Ammann wrote: > Hi everybody, > > here the further updated draft of the Challenge description so nicely > named by Mike "PR Challenge" (Paleoclimate Reconstruction Challenge) > > Again, this is a draft and I welcome any comments and suggestions. I > added a time table and questions for discussion at the end. Please let > me know what you think about this setup. Particularly the funding we > would have to discuss rather quickly and see what we need and how to > approach the agencies. Any input on that side would be highly welcome. > > Caspar -- Philip Brohan, Climate Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research Tel: +44 (0)1392 884574 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 Global climate data sets are available from http://www.hadobs.org 3308. 2006-08-09 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 15:08:50 +0100 from: Martin Juckes subject: Re: Another draft -- hopefully ready for submission to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith, some brief responses to your hand-wrtten comments: Scope: there is some vague motivational stuff in the introduction which might give the impression we are tackling a wider problem than we actually are -- I'll try and make it more focussed on what we do. I've corrected the confusion between Age Banding and RCS (Anders pointed this out earlier), and pointed out that Briffa et al. 2001 used density data. I've added a comment about the empirical content of the Oerlemans reconstruction. I want to keep in the McIntyre and McKitrick discussion because they have created the impression that the temperature series in their 2003 paper results from choices about quality control which are debatable: the truth is that they made a serious mistake which led to substantial amounts of data being omitted. As to the question of how it fits in with this paper: firstly, the Dutch funding obliges us to review this, so I want to make it fit, secondly, I want to be able to say that those publications (McIntyre and McKitrick 2003, Soon and Baliunas) which contradict the IPCC (2001) statement (last decades of 20th century likely warmer than ....) are seriously flawed: this requires justification in the text. On Soon and Baliunas: I've added references to the EOS papers, but I'm not entirely convinced by the arguments there, so want to add an extra point. This is perhaps a moot point since Osborn and Briffa (2006) does a cleaner job, but I want to point out that the Soon and Baliunas analysis was inappropriate, even if the issues of choices of proxies raised in the EOS papers were resolved. cheers, Martin On Tuesday 01 August 2006 17:02, you wrote: > Martin > been frantically involved with IPCC stuff. thanks for this -realised > never sent earlier comments so have left with Tim to send anyway - am > away for a week and will take this with me > cheers > Keith > > At 14:27 01/08/2006, you wrote: > >Hello All, > > > >here is another draft. I've added a new reconstruction, using 19 independent > >proxies series from Jones et al., Mann et al., Esper et al. and Moberg et al. > >This gives a good fit to the calibration data, such that 2 recent > >years exceed > >the maximum pre-industrial estimate by 4 sigma levels. I've included this > >because without it I found it hard to draw precise and useful conclusions > >from the 4 partially overlapping reconstructions I had done before. > > > >cheers, > >Martin > > > > > > -- > 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/ > > > 917. 2006-08-10 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 20:44:21 +0100 from: "Quaternary Research" subject: Reviewer Invitation for YQRES-D-06-00111 to: Ms. Ref. No.: YQRES-D-06-00111 Title: Reconstruction of August-September temperature, in North-Western Himalaya since AD 1773, based on tree-ring data of Pinus wallichiana and Abies pindrow. Author(s): Vandana Chaudhary, PhD; Amalava Bhattacharyya, PhD; Joel Guiot, PhD; Sangeet Kumar Srivastava, PhD; Jean-Louis Edouard, PhD; André Thomas; Santosh Kumar Shah, MSc Quaternary Research Dear Dr Briffa, I would like to invite you to review the above-mentioned manuscript that has been submitted for publication in Quaternary Research. The manuscript abstract is attached below. If you are willing to review this manuscript, please click on the link below: http://ees.elsevier.com/yqres/l.asp?i=1028&l=DFHUXEMX If you are NOT able to review this manuscript, please click on the link below. We would appreciate receiving suggestions for alternative reviewers: http://ees.elsevier.com/yqres/l.asp?i=1027&l=DEY9XTQW If you accept this invitation, I would be very grateful if you would complete your review within 30 days of your agreement to review. You may submit your comments online at the above URL. There you will find spaces for confidential comments to the editor, comments for the author and a report form to be completed. You may also return a marked-up hard copy of the manuscript, at your preference. To assist you in the reviewing process, I am delighted to offer you full access to Scopus* for 30 days. With Scopus you can search for related articles, references and papers by the same author. You may also use Scopus for your own purposes at any time during the 30-day period. If you already use Scopus at your institute, having this 30 day full access means that you will also be able to access Scopus from home. Access instructions will follow once you have accepted this invitation to review *Scopus is the world's largest abstract and citation database of research information and quality internet sources. With kind regards, Karin Stewart-Perry Assistant Managing Editor Quaternary Research ABSTRACT: The analysis of tree-ring data of Siver fir (Abies pindrow [Royale] Spach.) and Himalayan pine (Pinus wallichiana A.B. Jackson) from the sub-alpine forest of Northwestern Himalayan region signifies the importance of August-September temperature in controlling the growth of these trees. Mean temperature in each year for these two months has been reconstructed from A.D. 1995 up to A.D. 1773 based on ring-width and density data. The calibration model explains 44% variance in the instrumental data (1902-1987). The reconstructed temperature series shows annual to multiyear fluctuations punctuated with colder and warmer periods amongst which A.D. 1830-1852 and A.D. 1961-1972 is the coldest and warmest period respectively. For this region both Little Ice Age cooling of 19th or warming of 20th centuries are recorded as discrete phenomena intermittent with smaller phases of warming and cooling episodes respectively. In contrary to the recent global warming there is cooling phase since A.D. 1973 in the reconstruction. Sequential change-point analysis has been used for the first in the dendroclimatic studies from this region and the result indicates the major regime shifts over the sites at 1783, 1794, 1805, 1827, 1862, 1873, 1898 and 1971. ****************************************** For any technical queries about using EES, please contact Elsevier Reviewer Support at reviewersupport@elsevier.com Global telephone support is available 24/7: For The Americas: +1 888 834 7287 (toll-free for US & Canadian customers) For Asia & Pacific: +81 3 5561 5032 For Europe & rest of the world: +353 61 709190 2282. 2006-08-10 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Aug 10 15:08:12 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: the IPCC stuff to: Ed Cook,hpollack@umich.edu Ed and Henry I am just not sure whether this is being sent officially to all CAs but I wanted to make sure that you two saw it - well at least the section on the last 2000 years. So I am attaching the latest draft I have for your CONFIDENTIAL look see. Ed I especially want you to look at the new paragraph on tree-ring problems (pages 32/3) and obviously Henry you at the subsurface section. We have very little time - so point out anything you are seriously worried about (only). Do not that I was "allowed" to do this so please refrain from saying I did - and please do show to others cheers Keith -- 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/ 122. 2006-08-12 ______________________________________________________ date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 16:04:53 -0400 from: Gabi Hegerl subject: our reconstruction to: Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn Hi Keith and Tim, I have been a bit slow in distributing Toms and my reconstruciton because I wanted to crosscheck which of my various versions is actually the one (sigh, dont know if you have ever experienced that kind of problem :) anyway, since I sent to Martin, here is a version for you, too, in case you want it! with readme. And a plot of the land data. Let me know if you find a problem! Gabi -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Another draft -- hopefully ready for submission Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 16:00:01 -0400 From: Gabi Hegerl [1] To: Martin Juckes [2] References: [3]<200602131552.26409.m.n.juckes@rl.ac.uk> [4]<44D7418D.2020004@knmi.nl> [5]<20060807094835.s631o03q8kgkck0k@webmail.duke.edu> [6]<200608071625.18042.m.n.juckes@rl.ac.uk> Martin, did I promise you an updated version of the reconstruction? Anycase, here is it, with raedme file. Its 5 files, 3 for land only recons (more reliable since all data land based), and 2 for recons calibrated to land and ocean. there is also a figure. I hope to send comments to the mitrie draft before tuesday Gabi Martin Juckes wrote: >Hi Gabi, > >the last version of your paper which I have is from January -- I'd be grateful >for any update. I hope to submit next Tuesday or Wednesday, so if you could >send me some comments by end of your Monday so I can go through them on >Tuesday morning that will be fine. > >cheers, >Martin > >On Monday 07 August 2006 14:48, you wrote: > > >>Hi Martin, Nanne et al., >> >>I will send in comments hopefully by the end of the week (I am late with >>IPCC stuff, replies to 1200 comments were due friday and are still being >>QC'ed...) >>My paper is in press now at J Climate. >>Martin, did I send a recent version? >> >>Gabi >> >>Quoting Nanne Weber [7]: >> >> >> >>>Hi Martin, >>> >>>thanks a lot for the new draft. I have a number of smaller comments, >>>as indicated in the Latex file (marked by %CNANNE....%CENDNANNE, so >>>that you should be able to find them easily). >>> >>>Also some bigger comments: >>>1) I think that we should avoid entering into unresolved >>>disputes (unless we really want to present something new as in >>>section 4). Otherwise it might provoke endless comments and >>>emails, similar to what Anders is referring to. >>>Therefore, I propose to shorten the first para of section 2.8, just >>>stating the two views (of Storch et al and Mann et al) and noting that >>>the debate is ongoing (see text in Latex file). >>>2) I found the review of MMetc. in section 3 quite accurate, but >>>agree with Anders that we should be careful here. >>>As another example of what can be provoked I refer to the just >>>submitted paper of Burger and Cubasch on the CPD website, which >>>has already attracted a number of heated+lengthy+technical >>>comments from 1 referee, plus counter-comments >>>3) table 1 in section 3 is simply confusing to me. I propose to >>>a) order the data according to geographical location >>>b) add references that are still missing, especially for the Hegerl >>> et al data (paper not published yet) and Esper et al (original >>> paper does not contain data soure references) >>>c) explain in text that 2 versions of same treering record (Tornetraesk, >>> Taymir, Urals) mostly differ in treatment of long timescales >>>Example reshuffled table is attached >>>4) section 4 is really nice, concise and clear in its goals. >>>However, I got lost in the statistics. I have put a lot of dumb >>>questions in the text where I got lost. Hope that you can clarify these. >>>After all, we are trying to reach a general readership. >>>5) Figures: could you do 6+7 with the same vertical scale? I had to look >>>hard for the bars in Fig. 6, maybe replace them with something more >>>solid (filled dots?). The graphs would be better visible if you would >>>place the coloring code in the caption instead of in the figure. >>>Fig. 8: it seems more relevant to me to give the autocorrelation >>>for lags of 0-30 yrs (about), as these can be reliably estimated >>>and just discuss some of the features for longer lags in the text (maybe >>>even the Appendix). >>> >>>Best, Nanne >>>=================================================== >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, Box 90227 Duke University, Durham NC 27708 Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 email: [8]hegerl@duke.edu, [9]http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, Box 90227 Duke University, Durham NC 27708 Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 email: [10]hegerl@duke.edu, [11]http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\chblend_zonal3090N.ps" [[[laouyt garbled]]] 1505.0 -0.1912 -0.0179 -0.4751 1506.0 -0.2012 -0.0255 -0.4915 1507.0 -0.2112 -0.0330 -0.5078 1508.0 -0.2212 -0.0405 -0.5241 1509.0 -0.2112 -0.0330 -0.5078 1510.0 -0.2312 -0.0481 -0.5405 1511.0 -0.2412 -0.0556 -0.5568 1512.0 -0.2412 -0.0556 -0.5568 1513.0 -0.2612 -0.0706 -0.5895 1514.0 -0.2512 -0.0631 -0.5731 1515.0 -0.2212 -0.0405 -0.5241 1516.0 -0.2412 -0.0556 -0.5568 1517.0 -0.2612 -0.0706 -0.5895 1518.0 -0.2612 -0.0706 -0.5895 1519.0 -0.2612 -0.0706 -0.5895 1520.0 -0.2712 -0.0782 -0.6058 1521.0 -0.2712 -0.0782 -0.6058 1522.0 -0.2612 -0.0706 -0.5895 1523.0 -0.2612 -0.0706 -0.5895 1524.0 -0.2812 -0.0857 -0.6221 1525.0 -0.2812 -0.0857 -0.6221 1526.0 -0.2912 -0.0932 -0.6385 1527.0 -0.2812 -0.0857 -0.6221 1528.0 -0.2812 -0.0857 -0.6221 1529.0 -0.2812 -0.0857 -0.6221 1530.0 -0.2612 -0.0706 -0.5895 1531.0 -0.2512 -0.0631 -0.5731 1532.0 -0.2212 -0.0405 -0.5241 1533.0 -0.2112 -0.0330 -0.5078 1534.0 -0.1812 -0.0104 -0.4588 1535.0 -0.1412 0.0197 -0.3935 1536.0 -0.1512 0.0122 -0.4098 1537.0 -0.1612 0.0047 -0.4261 1538.0 -0.1712 -0.0029 -0.4425 1539.0 -0.1812 -0.0104 -0.4588 1540.0 -0.1812 -0.0104 -0.4588 1541.0 -0.2012 -0.0255 -0.4915 1542.0 -0.2212 -0.0405 -0.5241 1543.0 -0.2412 -0.0556 -0.5568 1544.0 -0.2312 -0.0481 -0.5405 1545.0 -0.2312 -0.0481 -0.5405 1546.0 -0.2212 -0.0405 -0.5241 1547.0 -0.1912 -0.0179 -0.4751 1548.0 -0.1512 0.0122 -0.4098 1549.0 -0.1412 0.0197 -0.3935 1550.0 -0.1312 0.0273 -0.3771 1551.0 -0.1012 0.0499 -0.3281 1552.0 -0.0812 0.0649 -0.2955 1553.0 -0.0712 0.0725 -0.2792 1554.0 -0.0712 0.0725 -0.2792 1555.0 -0.0712 0.0725 -0.2792 1556.0 -0.1012 0.0499 -0.3281 1557.0 -0.0912 0.0574 -0.3118 1558.0 -0.0912 0.0574 -0.3118 1559.0 -0.0912 0.0574 -0.3118 1560.0 -0.0912 0.0574 -0.3118 1561.0 -0.0712 0.0725 -0.2792 1562.0 -0.0612 0.0800 -0.2628 1563.0 -0.0812 0.0649 -0.2955 1564.0 -0.0712 0.0725 -0.2792 1565.0 -0.0612 0.0800 -0.2628 1566.0 -0.0612 0.0800 -0.2628 1567.0 -0.0412 0.0955 -0.2302 1568.0 -0.0612 0.0800 -0.2628 1569.0 -0.0712 0.0725 -0.2792 1570.0 -0.0712 0.0725 -0.2792 1571.0 -0.1112 0.0423 -0.3445 1572.0 -0.1112 0.0423 -0.3445 1573.0 -0.1412 0.0197 -0.3935 1574.0 -0.1512 0.0122 -0.4098 1575.0 -0.1912 -0.0179 -0.4751 1576.0 -0.2312 -0.0481 -0.5405 1577.0 -0.2512 -0.0631 -0.5731 1578.0 -0.2712 -0.0782 -0.6058 1579.0 -0.3012 -0.1008 -0.6548 1580.0 -0.3112 -0.1083 -0.6711 1581.0 -0.3312 -0.1234 -0.7038 1582.0 -0.3312 -0.1234 -0.7038 1583.0 -0.3512 -0.1384 -0.7364 1584.0 -0.3712 -0.1535 -0.7691 1585.0 -0.3812 -0.1610 -0.7854 1586.0 -0.3812 -0.1610 -0.7854 1587.0 -0.3812 -0.1610 -0.7854 1588.0 -0.3912 -0.1686 -0.8018 1589.0 -0.3812 -0.1610 -0.7854 1590.0 -0.3912 -0.1686 -0.8018 1591.0 -0.3812 -0.1610 -0.7854 1592.0 -0.4012 -0.1761 -0.8181 1593.0 -0.4212 -0.1912 -0.8508 1594.0 -0.4112 -0.1836 -0.8344 1595.0 -0.4012 -0.1761 -0.8181 1596.0 -0.4212 -0.1912 -0.8508 1597.0 -0.4312 -0.1987 -0.8671 1598.0 -0.4112 -0.1836 -0.8344 1599.0 -0.4012 -0.1761 -0.8181 1600.0 -0.4112 -0.1836 -0.8344 1601.0 -0.4012 -0.1761 -0.8181 1602.0 -0.3812 -0.1610 -0.7854 1603.0 -0.3912 -0.1686 -0.8018 1604.0 -0.3912 -0.1686 -0.8018 1605.0 -0.4012 -0.1761 -0.8181 1606.0 -0.4012 -0.1761 -0.8181 1607.0 -0.3812 -0.1610 -0.7854 1608.0 -0.3712 -0.1535 -0.7691 1609.0 -0.3512 -0.1384 -0.7364 1610.0 -0.3512 -0.1384 -0.7364 1611.0 -0.3412 -0.1309 -0.7201 1612.0 -0.3412 -0.1309 -0.7201 1613.0 -0.3412 -0.1309 -0.7201 1614.0 -0.3612 -0.1460 -0.7528 1615.0 -0.3512 -0.1384 -0.7364 1616.0 -0.3512 -0.1384 -0.7364 1617.0 -0.3612 -0.1460 -0.7528 1618.0 -0.3712 -0.1535 -0.7691 1619.0 -0.3912 -0.1686 -0.8018 1620.0 -0.4012 -0.1761 -0.8181 1621.0 -0.4012 -0.1761 -0.8181 1622.0 -0.4112 -0.1836 -0.8344 1623.0 -0.4212 -0.1912 -0.8508 1624.0 -0.4012 -0.1761 -0.8181 1625.0 -0.4012 -0.1761 -0.8181 1626.0 -0.4212 -0.1912 -0.8508 1627.0 -0.4512 -0.2138 -0.8998 1628.0 -0.4412 -0.2062 -0.8834 1629.0 -0.4512 -0.2138 -0.8998 1630.0 -0.4512 -0.2138 -0.8998 1631.0 -0.4512 -0.2138 -0.8998 1632.0 -0.4412 -0.2062 -0.8834 1633.0 -0.4412 -0.2062 -0.8834 1634.0 -0.4412 -0.2062 -0.8834 1635.0 -0.4512 -0.2138 -0.8998 1636.0 -0.4612 -0.2213 -0.9161 1637.0 -0.4812 -0.2364 -0.9488 1638.0 -0.4912 -0.2439 -0.9651 1639.0 -0.5212 -0.2665 -1.0141 1640.0 -0.5212 -0.2665 -1.0141 1641.0 -0.5312 -0.2740 -1.0304 1642.0 -0.5412 -0.2815 -1.0468 1643.0 -0.5612 -0.2966 -1.0794 1644.0 -0.5512 -0.2891 -1.0631 1645.0 -0.5412 -0.2815 -1.0468 1646.0 -0.5412 -0.2815 -1.0468 1647.0 -0.5212 -0.2665 -1.0141 1648.0 -0.5012 -0.2514 -0.9814 1649.0 -0.5012 -0.2514 -0.9814 1650.0 -0.4712 -0.2288 -0.9324 1651.0 -0.4612 -0.2213 -0.9161 1652.0 -0.4412 -0.2062 -0.8834 1653.0 -0.4112 -0.1836 -0.8344 1654.0 -0.3912 -0.1686 -0.8018 1655.0 -0.3812 -0.1610 -0.7854 1656.0 -0.3712 -0.1535 -0.7691 1657.0 -0.3712 -0.1535 -0.7691 1658.0 -0.3612 -0.1460 -0.7528 1659.0 -0.3312 -0.1234 -0.7038 1660.0 -0.3212 -0.1158 -0.6875 1661.0 -0.3012 -0.1008 -0.6548 1662.0 -0.3112 -0.1083 -0.6711 1663.0 -0.3112 -0.1083 -0.6711 1664.0 -0.3212 -0.1158 -0.6875 1665.0 -0.3412 -0.1309 -0.7201 1666.0 -0.3312 -0.1234 -0.7038 1667.0 -0.3312 -0.1234 -0.7038 1668.0 -0.3212 -0.1158 -0.6875 1669.0 -0.3312 -0.1234 -0.7038 1670.0 -0.3512 -0.1384 -0.7364 1671.0 -0.3712 -0.1535 -0.7691 1672.0 -0.4012 -0.1761 -0.8181 1673.0 -0.4012 -0.1761 -0.8181 1674.0 -0.4212 -0.1912 -0.8508 1675.0 -0.4312 -0.1987 -0.8671 1676.0 -0.4412 -0.2062 -0.8834 1677.0 -0.4412 -0.2062 -0.8834 1678.0 -0.4412 -0.2062 -0.8834 1679.0 -0.4512 -0.2138 -0.8998 1680.0 -0.4712 -0.2288 -0.9324 1681.0 -0.4612 -0.2213 -0.9161 1682.0 -0.4312 -0.1987 -0.8671 1683.0 -0.4312 -0.1987 -0.8671 1684.0 -0.4112 -0.1836 -0.8344 1685.0 -0.3912 -0.1686 -0.8018 1686.0 -0.3612 -0.1460 -0.7528 1687.0 -0.3412 -0.1309 -0.7201 1688.0 -0.3212 -0.1158 -0.6875 1689.0 -0.3412 -0.1309 -0.7201 1690.0 -0.3312 -0.1234 -0.7038 1691.0 -0.3512 -0.1384 -0.7364 1692.0 -0.3612 -0.1460 -0.7528 1693.0 -0.3912 -0.1686 -0.8018 1694.0 -0.4312 -0.1987 -0.8671 1695.0 -0.4512 -0.2138 -0.8998 1696.0 -0.4612 -0.2213 -0.9161 1697.0 -0.4812 -0.2364 -0.9488 1698.0 -0.4812 -0.2364 -0.9488 1699.0 -0.4812 -0.2364 -0.9488 1700.0 -0.4812 -0.2364 -0.9488 1701.0 -0.5012 -0.2514 -0.9814 1702.0 -0.4712 -0.2288 -0.9324 1703.0 -0.4612 -0.2213 -0.9161 1704.0 -0.4312 -0.1987 -0.8671 1705.0 -0.3812 -0.1610 -0.7854 1706.0 -0.3612 -0.1460 -0.7528 1707.0 -0.3412 -0.1309 -0.7201 1708.0 -0.3212 -0.1158 -0.6875 1709.0 -0.3212 -0.1158 -0.6875 1710.0 -0.3012 -0.1008 -0.6548 1711.0 -0.3012 -0.1008 -0.6548 1712.0 -0.2812 -0.0857 -0.6221 1713.0 -0.2812 -0.0857 -0.6221 1714.0 -0.2712 -0.0782 -0.6058 1715.0 -0.2812 -0.0857 -0.6221 1716.0 -0.2712 -0.0782 -0.6058 1717.0 -0.2412 -0.0556 -0.5568 1718.0 -0.2412 -0.0556 -0.5568 1719.0 -0.2512 -0.0631 -0.5731 1720.0 -0.2312 -0.0481 -0.5405 1721.0 -0.2212 -0.0405 -0.5241 1722.0 -0.1912 -0.0179 -0.4751 1723.0 -0.1812 -0.0104 -0.4588 1724.0 -0.1612 0.0047 -0.4261 1725.0 -0.1412 0.0197 -0.3935 1726.0 -0.1512 0.0122 -0.4098 1727.0 -0.1712 -0.0029 -0.4425 1728.0 -0.1712 -0.0029 -0.4425 1729.0 -0.1712 -0.0029 -0.4425 1730.0 -0.1912 -0.0179 -0.4751 1731.0 -0.2112 -0.0330 -0.5078 1732.0 -0.2112 -0.0330 -0.5078 1733.0 -0.2512 -0.0631 -0.5731 1734.0 -0.2612 -0.0706 -0.5895 1735.0 -0.2912 -0.0932 -0.6385 1736.0 -0.3112 -0.1083 -0.6711 1737.0 -0.3412 -0.1309 -0.7201 1738.0 -0.3212 -0.1158 -0.6875 1739.0 -0.3212 -0.1158 -0.6875 1740.0 -0.3212 -0.1158 -0.6875 1741.0 -0.2912 -0.0932 -0.6385 1742.0 -0.2812 -0.0857 -0.6221 1743.0 -0.2612 -0.0706 -0.5895 1744.0 -0.2612 -0.0706 -0.5895 1745.0 -0.2712 -0.0782 -0.6058 1746.0 -0.2712 -0.0782 -0.6058 1747.0 -0.2712 -0.0782 -0.6058 1748.0 -0.2512 -0.0631 -0.5731 1749.0 -0.2512 -0.0631 -0.5731 1750.0 -0.2512 -0.0631 -0.5731 1751.0 -0.2412 -0.0556 -0.5568 1752.0 -0.2112 -0.0330 -0.5078 1753.0 -0.2212 -0.0405 -0.5241 1754.0 -0.2212 -0.0405 -0.5241 1755.0 -0.2112 -0.0330 -0.5078 1756.0 -0.1712 -0.0029 -0.4425 1757.0 -0.1412 0.0197 -0.3935 1758.0 -0.1212 0.0348 -0.3608 1759.0 -0.1012 0.0499 -0.3281 1760.0 -0.0712 0.0725 -0.2792 1761.0 -0.0412 0.0955 -0.2302 1762.0 -0.0412 0.0955 -0.2302 1763.0 -0.0512 0.0875 -0.2465 1764.0 -0.0512 0.0875 -0.2465 1765.0 -0.0712 0.0725 -0.2792 1766.0 -0.0712 0.0725 -0.2792 1767.0 -0.0912 0.0574 -0.3118 1768.0 -0.1112 0.0423 -0.3445 1769.0 -0.1112 0.0423 -0.3445 1770.0 -0.0912 0.0574 -0.3118 1771.0 -0.1112 0.0423 -0.3445 1772.0 -0.1212 0.0348 -0.3608 1773.0 -0.1312 0.0273 -0.3771 1774.0 -0.1312 0.0273 -0.3771 1775.0 -0.1412 0.0197 -0.3935 1776.0 -0.1212 0.0348 -0.3608 1777.0 -0.1312 0.0273 -0.3771 1778.0 -0.1312 0.0273 -0.3771 1779.0 -0.1312 0.0273 -0.3771 1780.0 -0.1612 0.0047 -0.4261 1781.0 -0.1812 -0.0104 -0.4588 1782.0 -0.1912 -0.0179 -0.4751 1783.0 -0.2012 -0.0255 -0.4915 1784.0 -0.2012 -0.0255 -0.4915 1785.0 -0.1812 -0.0104 -0.4588 1786.0 -0.1512 0.0122 -0.4098 1787.0 -0.1412 0.0197 -0.3935 1788.0 -0.1412 0.0197 -0.3935 1789.0 -0.0912 0.0574 -0.3118 1790.0 -0.0912 0.0574 -0.3118 1791.0 -0.0912 0.0574 -0.3118 1792.0 -0.1012 0.0499 -0.3281 1793.0 -0.1012 0.0499 -0.3281 1794.0 -0.1012 0.0499 -0.3281 1795.0 -0.1312 0.0273 -0.3771 1796.0 -0.1112 0.0423 -0.3445 1797.0 -0.1212 0.0348 -0.3608 1798.0 -0.1412 0.0197 -0.3935 1799.0 -0.1212 0.0348 -0.3608 1800.0 -0.1212 0.0348 -0.3608 1801.0 -0.1212 0.0348 -0.3608 1802.0 -0.1312 0.0273 -0.3771 1803.0 -0.1312 0.0273 -0.3771 1804.0 -0.1312 0.0273 -0.3771 1805.0 -0.1412 0.0197 -0.3935 1806.0 -0.1312 0.0273 -0.3771 1807.0 -0.1912 -0.0179 -0.4751 1808.0 -0.2212 -0.0405 -0.5241 1809.0 -0.2612 -0.0706 -0.5895 1810.0 -0.3212 -0.1158 -0.6875 1811.0 -0.3712 -0.1535 -0.7691 1812.0 -0.4212 -0.1912 -0.8508 1813.0 -0.4412 -0.2062 -0.8834 1814.0 -0.4712 -0.2288 -0.9324 1815.0 -0.4912 -0.2439 -0.9651 1816.0 -0.5012 -0.2514 -0.9814 1817.0 -0.4912 -0.2439 -0.9651 1818.0 -0.4612 -0.2213 -0.9161 1819.0 -0.4512 -0.2138 -0.8998 1820.0 -0.4512 -0.2138 -0.8998 1821.0 -0.4112 -0.1836 -0.8344 1822.0 -0.3612 -0.1460 -0.7528 1823.0 -0.3512 -0.1384 -0.7364 1824.0 -0.3312 -0.1234 -0.7038 1825.0 -0.3212 -0.1158 -0.6875 1826.0 -0.3112 -0.1083 -0.6711 1827.0 -0.3212 -0.1158 -0.6875 1828.0 -0.3312 -0.1234 -0.7038 1829.0 -0.3412 -0.1309 -0.7201 1830.0 -0.3312 -0.1234 -0.7038 1831.0 -0.3312 -0.1234 -0.7038 1832.0 -0.3512 -0.1384 -0.7364 1833.0 -0.3712 -0.1535 -0.7691 1834.0 -0.4012 -0.1761 -0.8181 1835.0 -0.4412 -0.2062 -0.8834 1836.0 -0.4412 -0.2062 -0.8834 1837.0 -0.4712 -0.2288 -0.9324 1838.0 -0.4712 -0.2288 -0.9324 1839.0 -0.4612 -0.2213 -0.9161 1840.0 -0.4512 -0.2138 -0.8998 1841.0 -0.4012 -0.1761 -0.8181 1842.0 -0.3812 -0.1610 -0.7854 1843.0 -0.3512 -0.1384 -0.7364 1844.0 -0.3512 -0.1384 -0.7364 1845.0 -0.3312 -0.1234 -0.7038 1846.0 -0.3112 -0.1083 -0.6711 1847.0 -0.2912 -0.0932 -0.6385 1848.0 -0.2812 -0.0857 -0.6221 1849.0 -0.2612 -0.0706 -0.5895 1850.0 -0.2612 -0.0706 -0.5895 1851.0 -0.2612 -0.0706 -0.5895 1852.0 -0.2912 -0.0932 -0.6385 1853.0 -0.2912 -0.0932 -0.6385 1854.0 -0.2912 -0.0932 -0.6385 1855.0 -0.2812 -0.0857 -0.6221 1856.0 -0.2712 -0.0782 -0.6058 1857.0 -0.2812 -0.0857 -0.6221 1858.0 -0.3012 -0.1008 -0.6548 1859.0 -0.3112 -0.1083 -0.6711 1860.0 -0.3212 -0.1158 -0.6875 1861.0 -0.3212 -0.1158 -0.6875 1862.0 -0.3512 -0.1384 -0.7364 1863.0 -0.3212 -0.1158 -0.6875 1864.0 -0.3412 -0.1309 -0.7201 1865.0 -0.3312 -0.1234 -0.7038 1866.0 -0.3512 -0.1384 -0.7364 1867.0 -0.3612 -0.1460 -0.7528 1868.0 -0.3412 -0.1309 -0.7201 1869.0 -0.3412 -0.1309 -0.7201 1870.0 -0.3712 -0.1535 -0.7691 1871.0 -0.3512 -0.1384 -0.7364 1872.0 -0.3012 -0.1008 -0.6548 1873.0 -0.2612 -0.0706 -0.5895 1874.0 -0.2712 -0.0782 -0.6058 1875.0 -0.2512 -0.0631 -0.5731 1876.0 -0.2412 -0.0556 -0.5568 1877.0 -0.2512 -0.0631 -0.5731 1878.0 -0.2412 -0.0556 -0.5568 1879.0 -0.2612 -0.0706 -0.5895 1880.0 -0.2712 -0.0782 -0.6058 1881.0 -0.2712 -0.0782 -0.6058 1882.0 -0.2712 -0.0782 -0.6058 1883.0 -0.3112 -0.1083 -0.6711 1884.0 -0.3312 -0.1234 -0.7038 1885.0 -0.3312 -0.1234 -0.7038 1886.0 -0.3412 -0.1309 -0.7201 1887.0 -0.3412 -0.1309 -0.7201 1888.0 -0.3412 -0.1309 -0.7201 1889.0 -0.3212 -0.1158 -0.6875 1890.0 -0.2812 -0.0857 -0.6221 1891.0 -0.2412 -0.0556 -0.5568 1892.0 -0.2012 -0.0255 -0.4915 1893.0 -0.1712 -0.0029 -0.4425 1894.0 -0.1712 -0.0029 -0.4425 1895.0 -0.1712 -0.0029 -0.4425 1896.0 -0.1412 0.0197 -0.3935 1897.0 -0.1412 0.0197 -0.3935 1898.0 -0.1512 0.0122 -0.4098 1899.0 -0.1512 0.0122 -0.4098 1900.0 -0.1612 0.0047 -0.4261 1901.0 -0.1712 -0.0029 -0.4425 1902.0 -0.2012 -0.0255 -0.4915 1903.0 -0.1812 -0.0104 -0.4588 1904.0 -0.1812 -0.0104 -0.4588 1905.0 -0.1512 0.0122 -0.4098 1906.0 -0.1412 0.0197 -0.3935 1907.0 -0.1712 -0.0029 -0.4425 1908.0 -0.1912 -0.0179 -0.4751 1909.0 -0.1712 -0.0029 -0.4425 1910.0 -0.1512 0.0122 -0.4098 1911.0 -0.1212 0.0348 -0.3608 1912.0 -0.1112 0.0423 -0.3445 1913.0 -0.0912 0.0574 -0.3118 1914.0 -0.1212 0.0348 -0.3608 1915.0 -0.1312 0.0273 -0.3771 1916.0 -0.1112 0.0423 -0.3445 1917.0 -0.0912 0.0574 -0.3118 1918.0 -0.0612 0.0800 -0.2628 1919.0 -0.0412 0.0955 -0.2302 1920.0 -0.0112 0.1445 -0.1812 1921.0 -0.0112 0.1445 -0.1812 1922.0 -0.0212 0.1281 -0.1975 1923.0 0.0088 0.1771 -0.1485 1924.0 0.0088 0.1771 -0.1485 1925.0 0.0388 0.2261 -0.0995 1926.0 0.0288 0.2098 -0.1158 1927.0 0.0588 0.2588 -0.0819 1928.0 0.0488 0.2425 -0.0894 1929.0 0.0688 0.2751 -0.0743 1930.0 0.1088 0.3404 -0.0442 1931.0 0.1188 0.3568 -0.0367 1932.0 0.1588 0.4221 -0.0065 1933.0 0.1988 0.4874 0.0236 1934.0 0.2288 0.5364 0.0462 1935.0 0.2388 0.5528 0.0537 1936.0 0.2488 0.5691 0.0613 1937.0 0.2488 0.5691 0.0613 1938.0 0.2588 0.5854 0.0688 1939.0 0.2488 0.5691 0.0613 1940.0 0.2588 0.5854 0.0688 1941.0 0.2788 0.6181 0.0839 1942.0 0.2988 0.6508 0.0989 1943.0 0.3288 0.6998 0.1215 1944.0 0.2888 0.6344 0.0914 1945.0 0.2788 0.6181 0.0839 1946.0 0.2788 0.6181 0.0839 1947.0 0.2588 0.5854 0.0688 1948.0 0.2688 0.6018 0.0763 1949.0 0.2588 0.5854 0.0688 1950.0 0.2588 0.5854 0.0688 1951.0 0.2188 0.5201 0.0387 1952.0 0.2088 0.5038 0.0311 1953.0 0.1988 0.4874 0.0236 1954.0 0.2088 0.5038 0.0311 1955.0 0.2488 0.5691 0.0613 1956.0 0.2488 0.5691 0.0613 1957.0 0.2788 0.6181 0.0839 1958.0 0.2588 0.5854 0.0688 1959.0 0.2588 0.5854 0.0688 1960.0 0.2488 0.5691 0.0613 558.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 559.0 -0.0790 0.1353 -0.3413 560.0 -0.0790 0.1353 -0.3413 561.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 562.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 563.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 564.0 -0.1152 0.1094 -0.3980 565.0 -0.1394 0.0921 -0.4359 566.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 567.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 568.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 569.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 570.0 -0.2845 -0.0117 -0.6629 571.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 572.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 573.0 -0.3086 -0.0290 -0.7008 574.0 -0.3328 -0.0463 -0.7386 575.0 -0.2966 -0.0203 -0.6818 576.0 -0.3086 -0.0290 -0.7008 577.0 -0.3207 -0.0376 -0.7197 578.0 -0.3086 -0.0290 -0.7008 579.0 -0.2845 -0.0117 -0.6629 580.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 581.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 582.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 583.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 584.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 585.0 0.0178 0.2455 -0.1899 586.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 587.0 0.0057 0.2266 -0.2088 588.0 0.0419 0.2833 -0.1618 589.0 0.0540 0.3022 -0.1531 590.0 0.1266 0.4158 -0.1013 591.0 0.1024 0.3779 -0.1186 592.0 0.0903 0.3590 -0.1272 593.0 0.0903 0.3590 -0.1272 594.0 0.0661 0.3212 -0.1445 595.0 0.0903 0.3590 -0.1272 596.0 0.1145 0.3969 -0.1099 597.0 0.1991 0.5293 -0.0494 598.0 0.1628 0.4725 -0.0753 599.0 0.1749 0.4915 -0.0667 600.0 0.1507 0.4536 -0.0840 601.0 0.0782 0.3401 -0.1358 602.0 0.0540 0.3022 -0.1531 603.0 0.0178 0.2455 -0.1899 604.0 0.0057 0.2266 -0.2088 605.0 -0.0064 0.2076 -0.2277 606.0 -0.0790 0.1353 -0.3413 607.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 608.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 609.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 610.0 -0.3086 -0.0290 -0.7008 611.0 -0.3207 -0.0376 -0.7197 612.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 613.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 614.0 -0.3328 -0.0463 -0.7386 615.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 616.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 617.0 -0.3328 -0.0463 -0.7386 618.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 619.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 620.0 -0.3328 -0.0463 -0.7386 621.0 -0.2966 -0.0203 -0.6818 622.0 -0.3207 -0.0376 -0.7197 623.0 -0.3207 -0.0376 -0.7197 624.0 -0.3328 -0.0463 -0.7386 625.0 -0.3812 -0.0809 -0.8143 626.0 -0.4175 -0.1068 -0.8711 627.0 -0.3933 -0.0895 -0.8332 628.0 -0.3812 -0.0809 -0.8143 629.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 630.0 -0.3691 -0.0722 -0.7954 631.0 -0.3812 -0.0809 -0.8143 632.0 -0.3933 -0.0895 -0.8332 633.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 634.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 635.0 -0.3933 -0.0895 -0.8332 636.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 637.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 638.0 -0.3691 -0.0722 -0.7954 639.0 -0.3933 -0.0895 -0.8332 640.0 -0.4295 -0.1155 -0.8900 641.0 -0.4416 -0.1241 -0.9089 642.0 -0.4416 -0.1241 -0.9089 643.0 -0.4537 -0.1328 -0.9278 644.0 -0.4658 -0.1414 -0.9468 645.0 -0.4658 -0.1414 -0.9468 646.0 -0.4537 -0.1328 -0.9278 647.0 -0.4416 -0.1241 -0.9089 648.0 -0.4295 -0.1155 -0.8900 649.0 -0.4175 -0.1068 -0.8711 650.0 -0.4175 -0.1068 -0.8711 651.0 -0.3933 -0.0895 -0.8332 652.0 -0.3691 -0.0722 -0.7954 653.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 654.0 -0.3207 -0.0376 -0.7197 655.0 -0.3207 -0.0376 -0.7197 656.0 -0.3086 -0.0290 -0.7008 657.0 -0.3086 -0.0290 -0.7008 658.0 -0.3207 -0.0376 -0.7197 659.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 660.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 661.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 662.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 663.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 664.0 -0.3691 -0.0722 -0.7954 665.0 -0.3691 -0.0722 -0.7954 666.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 667.0 -0.3328 -0.0463 -0.7386 668.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 669.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 670.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 671.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 672.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 673.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 674.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 675.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 676.0 -0.2845 -0.0117 -0.6629 677.0 -0.3086 -0.0290 -0.7008 678.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 679.0 -0.4054 -0.0982 -0.8521 680.0 -0.4658 -0.1414 -0.9468 681.0 -0.5142 -0.1760 -1.0224 682.0 -0.5021 -0.1673 -1.0035 683.0 -0.4537 -0.1328 -0.9278 684.0 -0.4054 -0.0982 -0.8521 685.0 -0.3933 -0.0895 -0.8332 686.0 -0.3812 -0.0809 -0.8143 687.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 688.0 -0.3328 -0.0463 -0.7386 689.0 -0.3086 -0.0290 -0.7008 690.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 691.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 692.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 693.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 694.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 695.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 696.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 697.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 698.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 699.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 700.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 701.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 702.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 703.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 704.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 705.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 706.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 707.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 708.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 709.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 710.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 711.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 712.0 -0.2966 -0.0203 -0.6818 713.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 714.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 715.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 716.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 717.0 -0.1394 0.0921 -0.4359 718.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 719.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 720.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 721.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 722.0 -0.0790 0.1353 -0.3413 723.0 -0.0548 0.1526 -0.3034 724.0 -0.0548 0.1526 -0.3034 725.0 -0.0669 0.1440 -0.3223 726.0 -0.0185 0.1887 -0.2466 727.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 728.0 -0.0185 0.1887 -0.2466 729.0 -0.0427 0.1613 -0.2845 730.0 -0.0064 0.2076 -0.2277 731.0 0.0178 0.2455 -0.1899 732.0 0.0057 0.2266 -0.2088 733.0 0.0057 0.2266 -0.2088 734.0 0.0178 0.2455 -0.1899 735.0 -0.0185 0.1887 -0.2466 736.0 0.0057 0.2266 -0.2088 737.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 738.0 -0.0548 0.1526 -0.3034 739.0 -0.1152 0.1094 -0.3980 740.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 741.0 -0.1152 0.1094 -0.3980 742.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 743.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 744.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 745.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 746.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 747.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 748.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 749.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 750.0 -0.1152 0.1094 -0.3980 751.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 752.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 753.0 -0.0669 0.1440 -0.3223 754.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 755.0 0.0057 0.2266 -0.2088 756.0 0.0298 0.2644 -0.1710 757.0 0.0298 0.2644 -0.1710 758.0 0.0782 0.3401 -0.1358 759.0 0.1507 0.4536 -0.0840 760.0 0.1749 0.4915 -0.0667 761.0 0.1387 0.4347 -0.0926 762.0 0.1387 0.4347 -0.0926 763.0 0.1387 0.4347 -0.0926 764.0 0.1145 0.3969 -0.1099 765.0 0.0540 0.3022 -0.1531 766.0 0.0540 0.3022 -0.1531 767.0 0.0419 0.2833 -0.1618 768.0 0.0540 0.3022 -0.1531 769.0 0.0178 0.2455 -0.1899 770.0 -0.0548 0.1526 -0.3034 771.0 -0.1152 0.1094 -0.3980 772.0 -0.1394 0.0921 -0.4359 773.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 774.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 775.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 776.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 777.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 778.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 779.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 780.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 781.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 782.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 783.0 -0.1152 0.1094 -0.3980 784.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 785.0 -0.0548 0.1526 -0.3034 786.0 -0.0064 0.2076 -0.2277 787.0 0.0298 0.2644 -0.1710 788.0 0.0903 0.3590 -0.1272 789.0 0.1024 0.3779 -0.1186 790.0 0.0903 0.3590 -0.1272 791.0 0.0540 0.3022 -0.1531 792.0 0.0298 0.2644 -0.1710 793.0 -0.0064 0.2076 -0.2277 794.0 -0.0185 0.1887 -0.2466 795.0 -0.0548 0.1526 -0.3034 796.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 797.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 798.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 799.0 -0.3086 -0.0290 -0.7008 800.0 -0.3207 -0.0376 -0.7197 801.0 -0.3086 -0.0290 -0.7008 802.0 -0.3328 -0.0463 -0.7386 803.0 -0.3207 -0.0376 -0.7197 804.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 805.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 806.0 -0.3328 -0.0463 -0.7386 807.0 -0.3207 -0.0376 -0.7197 808.0 -0.2966 -0.0203 -0.6818 809.0 -0.2966 -0.0203 -0.6818 810.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 811.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 812.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 813.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 814.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 815.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 816.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 817.0 -0.1152 0.1094 -0.3980 818.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 819.0 -0.0790 0.1353 -0.3413 820.0 -0.0669 0.1440 -0.3223 821.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 822.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 823.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 824.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 825.0 -0.1152 0.1094 -0.3980 826.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 827.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 828.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 829.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 830.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 831.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 832.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 833.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 834.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 835.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 836.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 837.0 -0.0669 0.1440 -0.3223 838.0 -0.0064 0.2076 -0.2277 839.0 0.0419 0.2833 -0.1618 840.0 0.0903 0.3590 -0.1272 841.0 0.0903 0.3590 -0.1272 842.0 0.0782 0.3401 -0.1358 843.0 0.0540 0.3022 -0.1531 844.0 0.0540 0.3022 -0.1531 845.0 0.0419 0.2833 -0.1618 846.0 0.0178 0.2455 -0.1899 847.0 -0.0427 0.1613 -0.2845 848.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 849.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 850.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 851.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 852.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 853.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 854.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 855.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 856.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 857.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 858.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 859.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 860.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 861.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 862.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 863.0 -0.1394 0.0921 -0.4359 864.0 -0.1394 0.0921 -0.4359 865.0 -0.1394 0.0921 -0.4359 866.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 867.0 -0.0548 0.1526 -0.3034 868.0 -0.0548 0.1526 -0.3034 869.0 -0.0548 0.1526 -0.3034 870.0 -0.0669 0.1440 -0.3223 871.0 -0.0669 0.1440 -0.3223 872.0 -0.0669 0.1440 -0.3223 873.0 -0.0548 0.1526 -0.3034 874.0 -0.0427 0.1613 -0.2845 875.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 876.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 877.0 -0.0548 0.1526 -0.3034 878.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 879.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 880.0 -0.0669 0.1440 -0.3223 881.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 882.0 -0.0185 0.1887 -0.2466 883.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 884.0 -0.0427 0.1613 -0.2845 885.0 -0.0548 0.1526 -0.3034 886.0 -0.0669 0.1440 -0.3223 887.0 -0.0427 0.1613 -0.2845 888.0 -0.0548 0.1526 -0.3034 889.0 -0.0064 0.2076 -0.2277 890.0 0.0178 0.2455 -0.1899 891.0 0.0178 0.2455 -0.1899 892.0 0.0057 0.2266 -0.2088 893.0 0.0057 0.2266 -0.2088 894.0 0.0419 0.2833 -0.1618 895.0 0.0298 0.2644 -0.1710 896.0 0.0057 0.2266 -0.2088 897.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 898.0 -0.0790 0.1353 -0.3413 899.0 -0.0790 0.1353 -0.3413 900.0 -0.1152 0.1094 -0.3980 901.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 902.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 903.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 904.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 905.0 -0.3207 -0.0376 -0.7197 906.0 -0.3207 -0.0376 -0.7197 907.0 -0.3207 -0.0376 -0.7197 908.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 909.0 -0.3207 -0.0376 -0.7197 910.0 -0.3328 -0.0463 -0.7386 911.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 912.0 -0.3086 -0.0290 -0.7008 913.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 914.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 915.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 916.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 917.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 918.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 919.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 920.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 921.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 922.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 923.0 -0.1394 0.0921 -0.4359 924.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 925.0 -0.0669 0.1440 -0.3223 926.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 927.0 -0.0185 0.1887 -0.2466 928.0 -0.0064 0.2076 -0.2277 929.0 0.0419 0.2833 -0.1618 930.0 0.0903 0.3590 -0.1272 931.0 0.0903 0.3590 -0.1272 932.0 0.0782 0.3401 -0.1358 933.0 0.0782 0.3401 -0.1358 934.0 0.1024 0.3779 -0.1186 935.0 0.0661 0.3212 -0.1445 936.0 0.0419 0.2833 -0.1618 937.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 938.0 -0.0669 0.1440 -0.3223 939.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 940.0 -0.1394 0.0921 -0.4359 941.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 942.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 943.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 944.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 945.0 -0.3207 -0.0376 -0.7197 946.0 -0.3086 -0.0290 -0.7008 947.0 -0.3207 -0.0376 -0.7197 948.0 -0.2966 -0.0203 -0.6818 949.0 -0.2845 -0.0117 -0.6629 950.0 -0.2966 -0.0203 -0.6818 951.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 952.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 953.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 954.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 955.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 956.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 957.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 958.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 959.0 -0.0790 0.1353 -0.3413 960.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 961.0 0.0178 0.2455 -0.1899 962.0 -0.0064 0.2076 -0.2277 963.0 0.0661 0.3212 -0.1445 964.0 0.1024 0.3779 -0.1186 965.0 0.1266 0.4158 -0.1013 966.0 0.1387 0.4347 -0.0926 967.0 0.1991 0.5293 -0.0494 968.0 0.1870 0.5104 -0.0580 969.0 0.1628 0.4725 -0.0753 970.0 0.1387 0.4347 -0.0926 971.0 0.1145 0.3969 -0.1099 972.0 0.0782 0.3401 -0.1358 973.0 0.1266 0.4158 -0.1013 974.0 0.0782 0.3401 -0.1358 975.0 0.0419 0.2833 -0.1618 976.0 -0.0185 0.1887 -0.2466 977.0 0.0178 0.2455 -0.1899 978.0 0.0298 0.2644 -0.1710 979.0 0.0661 0.3212 -0.1445 980.0 0.0661 0.3212 -0.1445 981.0 0.1266 0.4158 -0.1013 982.0 0.1387 0.4347 -0.0926 983.0 0.1628 0.4725 -0.0753 984.0 0.1628 0.4725 -0.0753 985.0 0.1870 0.5104 -0.0580 986.0 0.1991 0.5293 -0.0494 987.0 0.2354 0.5861 -0.0234 988.0 0.1991 0.5293 -0.0494 989.0 0.1870 0.5104 -0.0580 990.0 0.1507 0.4536 -0.0840 991.0 0.1387 0.4347 -0.0926 992.0 0.0540 0.3022 -0.1531 993.0 0.0178 0.2455 -0.1899 994.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 995.0 -0.0669 0.1440 -0.3223 996.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 997.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 998.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 999.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 1000.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 1001.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 1002.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 1003.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 1004.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 1005.0 -0.1152 0.1094 -0.3980 1006.0 -0.1152 0.1094 -0.3980 1007.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 1008.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 1009.0 -0.1152 0.1094 -0.3980 1010.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 1011.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 1012.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 1013.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 1014.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 1015.0 -0.0548 0.1526 -0.3034 1016.0 -0.0548 0.1526 -0.3034 1017.0 -0.0669 0.1440 -0.3223 1018.0 -0.0185 0.1887 -0.2466 1019.0 -0.0064 0.2076 -0.2277 1020.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 1021.0 -0.0790 0.1353 -0.3413 1022.0 -0.0548 0.1526 -0.3034 1023.0 -0.0548 0.1526 -0.3034 1024.0 -0.0669 0.1440 -0.3223 1025.0 -0.0790 0.1353 -0.3413 1026.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 1027.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 1028.0 -0.0790 0.1353 -0.3413 1029.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 1030.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 1031.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 1032.0 -0.0427 0.1613 -0.2845 1033.0 -0.0669 0.1440 -0.3223 1034.0 -0.0548 0.1526 -0.3034 1035.0 -0.0185 0.1887 -0.2466 1036.0 -0.0427 0.1613 -0.2845 1037.0 -0.0427 0.1613 -0.2845 1038.0 -0.0185 0.1887 -0.2466 1039.0 -0.0064 0.2076 -0.2277 1040.0 0.0057 0.2266 -0.2088 1041.0 0.0178 0.2455 -0.1899 1042.0 0.0419 0.2833 -0.1618 1043.0 0.0298 0.2644 -0.1710 1044.0 0.0298 0.2644 -0.1710 1045.0 0.0298 0.2644 -0.1710 1046.0 0.0298 0.2644 -0.1710 1047.0 0.0419 0.2833 -0.1618 1048.0 0.0419 0.2833 -0.1618 1049.0 0.0057 0.2266 -0.2088 1050.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 1051.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 1052.0 -0.0185 0.1887 -0.2466 1053.0 -0.0185 0.1887 -0.2466 1054.0 -0.0427 0.1613 -0.2845 1055.0 -0.0548 0.1526 -0.3034 1056.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 1057.0 -0.0185 0.1887 -0.2466 1058.0 -0.0185 0.1887 -0.2466 1059.0 0.0057 0.2266 -0.2088 1060.0 0.0298 0.2644 -0.1710 1061.0 0.0782 0.3401 -0.1358 1062.0 0.0782 0.3401 -0.1358 1063.0 0.0661 0.3212 -0.1445 1064.0 0.0419 0.2833 -0.1618 1065.0 0.0661 0.3212 -0.1445 1066.0 0.0782 0.3401 -0.1358 1067.0 0.0419 0.2833 -0.1618 1068.0 0.0178 0.2455 -0.1899 1069.0 0.0178 0.2455 -0.1899 1070.0 0.0057 0.2266 -0.2088 1071.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 1072.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 1073.0 -0.1152 0.1094 -0.3980 1074.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 1075.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 1076.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 1077.0 -0.0669 0.1440 -0.3223 1078.0 -0.0548 0.1526 -0.3034 1079.0 -0.0548 0.1526 -0.3034 1080.0 -0.0427 0.1613 -0.2845 1081.0 -0.0185 0.1887 -0.2466 1082.0 0.0178 0.2455 -0.1899 1083.0 0.0661 0.3212 -0.1445 1084.0 0.1024 0.3779 -0.1186 1085.0 0.1024 0.3779 -0.1186 1086.0 0.1507 0.4536 -0.0840 1087.0 0.1628 0.4725 -0.0753 1088.0 0.1749 0.4915 -0.0667 1089.0 0.1870 0.5104 -0.0580 1090.0 0.1870 0.5104 -0.0580 1091.0 0.1628 0.4725 -0.0753 1092.0 0.1507 0.4536 -0.0840 1093.0 0.1266 0.4158 -0.1013 1094.0 0.1266 0.4158 -0.1013 1095.0 0.1387 0.4347 -0.0926 1096.0 0.1266 0.4158 -0.1013 1097.0 0.0782 0.3401 -0.1358 1098.0 0.0540 0.3022 -0.1531 1099.0 0.0419 0.2833 -0.1618 1100.0 0.0540 0.3022 -0.1531 1101.0 0.0661 0.3212 -0.1445 1102.0 0.0782 0.3401 -0.1358 1103.0 0.0540 0.3022 -0.1531 1104.0 0.0298 0.2644 -0.1710 1105.0 -0.0064 0.2076 -0.2277 1106.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 1107.0 -0.0185 0.1887 -0.2466 1108.0 -0.0185 0.1887 -0.2466 1109.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 1110.0 -0.0427 0.1613 -0.2845 1111.0 -0.0548 0.1526 -0.3034 1112.0 -0.0669 0.1440 -0.3223 1113.0 -0.0790 0.1353 -0.3413 1114.0 -0.0548 0.1526 -0.3034 1115.0 -0.0185 0.1887 -0.2466 1116.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 1117.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 1118.0 -0.0427 0.1613 -0.2845 1119.0 -0.0548 0.1526 -0.3034 1120.0 -0.0669 0.1440 -0.3223 1121.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 1122.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 1123.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 1124.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 1125.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 1126.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 1127.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 1128.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 1129.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 1130.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 1131.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 1132.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 1133.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 1134.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 1135.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1136.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1137.0 -0.2845 -0.0117 -0.6629 1138.0 -0.2966 -0.0203 -0.6818 1139.0 -0.2966 -0.0203 -0.6818 1140.0 -0.3086 -0.0290 -0.7008 1141.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1142.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1143.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1144.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 1145.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1146.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1147.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 1148.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 1149.0 -0.3812 -0.0809 -0.8143 1150.0 -0.3812 -0.0809 -0.8143 1151.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 1152.0 -0.3328 -0.0463 -0.7386 1153.0 -0.3207 -0.0376 -0.7197 1154.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 1155.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 1156.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 1157.0 -0.1394 0.0921 -0.4359 1158.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 1159.0 -0.0427 0.1613 -0.2845 1160.0 -0.0064 0.2076 -0.2277 1161.0 -0.0185 0.1887 -0.2466 1162.0 -0.0185 0.1887 -0.2466 1163.0 -0.0185 0.1887 -0.2466 1164.0 0.0057 0.2266 -0.2088 1165.0 -0.0064 0.2076 -0.2277 1166.0 -0.0427 0.1613 -0.2845 1167.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 1168.0 -0.0427 0.1613 -0.2845 1169.0 -0.0427 0.1613 -0.2845 1170.0 -0.0185 0.1887 -0.2466 1171.0 0.0057 0.2266 -0.2088 1172.0 0.0298 0.2644 -0.1710 1173.0 0.0419 0.2833 -0.1618 1174.0 0.0419 0.2833 -0.1618 1175.0 0.0419 0.2833 -0.1618 1176.0 0.0540 0.3022 -0.1531 1177.0 0.0661 0.3212 -0.1445 1178.0 0.0661 0.3212 -0.1445 1179.0 0.0903 0.3590 -0.1272 1180.0 0.0661 0.3212 -0.1445 1181.0 0.0057 0.2266 -0.2088 1182.0 -0.0427 0.1613 -0.2845 1183.0 -0.0548 0.1526 -0.3034 1184.0 -0.0790 0.1353 -0.3413 1185.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 1186.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 1187.0 -0.1394 0.0921 -0.4359 1188.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 1189.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 1190.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1191.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 1192.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1193.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1194.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 1195.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 1196.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 1197.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 1198.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 1199.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1200.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 1201.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 1202.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 1203.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 1204.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 1205.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1206.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1207.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 1208.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 1209.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 1210.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 1211.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 1212.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 1213.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 1214.0 -0.2845 -0.0117 -0.6629 1215.0 -0.3086 -0.0290 -0.7008 1216.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1217.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 1218.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 1219.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 1220.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 1221.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 1222.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1223.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 1224.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 1225.0 -0.1394 0.0921 -0.4359 1226.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 1227.0 -0.1152 0.1094 -0.3980 1228.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 1229.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 1230.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 1231.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 1232.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 1233.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 1234.0 -0.1394 0.0921 -0.4359 1235.0 -0.1152 0.1094 -0.3980 1236.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 1237.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 1238.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 1239.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 1240.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 1241.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 1242.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1243.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1244.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 1245.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 1246.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 1247.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 1248.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 1249.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1250.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 1251.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1252.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 1253.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 1254.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 1255.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 1256.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 1257.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 1258.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1259.0 -0.3328 -0.0463 -0.7386 1260.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1261.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1262.0 -0.3328 -0.0463 -0.7386 1263.0 -0.3328 -0.0463 -0.7386 1264.0 -0.2845 -0.0117 -0.6629 1265.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 1266.0 -0.2966 -0.0203 -0.6818 1267.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 1268.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 1269.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 1270.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 1271.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 1272.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 1273.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 1274.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 1275.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 1276.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 1277.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1278.0 -0.2845 -0.0117 -0.6629 1279.0 -0.3086 -0.0290 -0.7008 1280.0 -0.3207 -0.0376 -0.7197 1281.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1282.0 -0.3207 -0.0376 -0.7197 1283.0 -0.3328 -0.0463 -0.7386 1284.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1285.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1286.0 -0.3691 -0.0722 -0.7954 1287.0 -0.3812 -0.0809 -0.8143 1288.0 -0.4175 -0.1068 -0.8711 1289.0 -0.4175 -0.1068 -0.8711 1290.0 -0.3933 -0.0895 -0.8332 1291.0 -0.4054 -0.0982 -0.8521 1292.0 -0.4175 -0.1068 -0.8711 1293.0 -0.4175 -0.1068 -0.8711 1294.0 -0.4175 -0.1068 -0.8711 1295.0 -0.3812 -0.0809 -0.8143 1296.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 1297.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1298.0 -0.3328 -0.0463 -0.7386 1299.0 -0.2845 -0.0117 -0.6629 1300.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 1301.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 1302.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 1303.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 1304.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1305.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1306.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1307.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 1308.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 1309.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 1310.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1311.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 1312.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 1313.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 1314.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 1315.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 1316.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 1317.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 1318.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 1319.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 1320.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 1321.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 1322.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 1323.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 1324.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 1325.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 1326.0 -0.0669 0.1440 -0.3223 1327.0 -0.0790 0.1353 -0.3413 1328.0 -0.0669 0.1440 -0.3223 1329.0 -0.0669 0.1440 -0.3223 1330.0 -0.0790 0.1353 -0.3413 1331.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 1332.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1333.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 1334.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 1335.0 -0.2845 -0.0117 -0.6629 1336.0 -0.3086 -0.0290 -0.7008 1337.0 -0.3328 -0.0463 -0.7386 1338.0 -0.3207 -0.0376 -0.7197 1339.0 -0.3328 -0.0463 -0.7386 1340.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 1341.0 -0.3691 -0.0722 -0.7954 1342.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1343.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1344.0 -0.3328 -0.0463 -0.7386 1345.0 -0.3691 -0.0722 -0.7954 1346.0 -0.3812 -0.0809 -0.8143 1347.0 -0.3812 -0.0809 -0.8143 1348.0 -0.4054 -0.0982 -0.8521 1349.0 -0.3933 -0.0895 -0.8332 1350.0 -0.3933 -0.0895 -0.8332 1351.0 -0.3691 -0.0722 -0.7954 1352.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 1353.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 1354.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1355.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1356.0 -0.3207 -0.0376 -0.7197 1357.0 -0.2966 -0.0203 -0.6818 1358.0 -0.2845 -0.0117 -0.6629 1359.0 -0.2845 -0.0117 -0.6629 1360.0 -0.2845 -0.0117 -0.6629 1361.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 1362.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 1363.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 1364.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1365.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 1366.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 1367.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 1368.0 -0.1152 0.1094 -0.3980 1369.0 -0.0790 0.1353 -0.3413 1370.0 -0.0790 0.1353 -0.3413 1371.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 1372.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 1373.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 1374.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1375.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 1376.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 1377.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1378.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1379.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 1380.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1381.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 1382.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 1383.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 1384.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 1385.0 -0.0548 0.1526 -0.3034 1386.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 1387.0 0.0178 0.2455 -0.1899 1388.0 0.0298 0.2644 -0.1710 1389.0 0.0419 0.2833 -0.1618 1390.0 0.0540 0.3022 -0.1531 1391.0 0.0661 0.3212 -0.1445 1392.0 0.0661 0.3212 -0.1445 1393.0 0.0782 0.3401 -0.1358 1394.0 0.0419 0.2833 -0.1618 1395.0 0.0057 0.2266 -0.2088 1396.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 1397.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 1398.0 -0.0185 0.1887 -0.2466 1399.0 0.0057 0.2266 -0.2088 1400.0 0.0298 0.2644 -0.1710 1401.0 0.0419 0.2833 -0.1618 1402.0 0.0419 0.2833 -0.1618 1403.0 0.0540 0.3022 -0.1531 1404.0 0.0782 0.3401 -0.1358 1405.0 0.1145 0.3969 -0.1099 1406.0 0.1628 0.4725 -0.0753 1407.0 0.1870 0.5104 -0.0580 1408.0 0.1870 0.5104 -0.0580 1409.0 0.1870 0.5104 -0.0580 1410.0 0.1870 0.5104 -0.0580 1411.0 0.1870 0.5104 -0.0580 1412.0 0.1749 0.4915 -0.0667 1413.0 0.1991 0.5293 -0.0494 1414.0 0.1870 0.5104 -0.0580 1415.0 0.1628 0.4725 -0.0753 1416.0 0.1387 0.4347 -0.0926 1417.0 0.1024 0.3779 -0.1186 1418.0 0.0782 0.3401 -0.1358 1419.0 0.0903 0.3590 -0.1272 1420.0 0.0903 0.3590 -0.1272 1421.0 0.0782 0.3401 -0.1358 1422.0 0.0661 0.3212 -0.1445 1423.0 0.0419 0.2833 -0.1618 1424.0 0.0298 0.2644 -0.1710 1425.0 0.0298 0.2644 -0.1710 1426.0 0.0178 0.2455 -0.1899 1427.0 0.0178 0.2455 -0.1899 1428.0 0.0178 0.2455 -0.1899 1429.0 0.0298 0.2644 -0.1710 1430.0 0.0057 0.2266 -0.2088 1431.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 1432.0 -0.0185 0.1887 -0.2466 1433.0 -0.0548 0.1526 -0.3034 1434.0 -0.0669 0.1440 -0.3223 1435.0 -0.0669 0.1440 -0.3223 1436.0 -0.0669 0.1440 -0.3223 1437.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 1438.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 1439.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 1440.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 1441.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 1442.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 1443.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 1444.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 1445.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1446.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 1447.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 1448.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 1449.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 1450.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 1451.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1452.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 1453.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 1454.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 1455.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 1456.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 1457.0 -0.2966 -0.0203 -0.6818 1458.0 -0.3328 -0.0463 -0.7386 1459.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1460.0 -0.3328 -0.0463 -0.7386 1461.0 -0.3207 -0.0376 -0.7197 1462.0 -0.3328 -0.0463 -0.7386 1463.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 1464.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1465.0 -0.3328 -0.0463 -0.7386 1466.0 -0.3328 -0.0463 -0.7386 1467.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1468.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1469.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1470.0 -0.3812 -0.0809 -0.8143 1471.0 -0.3933 -0.0895 -0.8332 1472.0 -0.4054 -0.0982 -0.8521 1473.0 -0.4054 -0.0982 -0.8521 1474.0 -0.4054 -0.0982 -0.8521 1475.0 -0.4416 -0.1241 -0.9089 1476.0 -0.4658 -0.1414 -0.9468 1477.0 -0.4779 -0.1501 -0.9657 1478.0 -0.4658 -0.1414 -0.9468 1479.0 -0.4416 -0.1241 -0.9089 1480.0 -0.4295 -0.1155 -0.8900 1481.0 -0.3812 -0.0809 -0.8143 1482.0 -0.3691 -0.0722 -0.7954 1483.0 -0.3812 -0.0809 -0.8143 1484.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1485.0 -0.3207 -0.0376 -0.7197 1486.0 -0.2845 -0.0117 -0.6629 1487.0 -0.2845 -0.0117 -0.6629 1488.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1489.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 1490.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 1491.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 1492.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 1493.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1494.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 1495.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 1496.0 -0.2845 -0.0117 -0.6629 1497.0 -0.3086 -0.0290 -0.7008 1498.0 -0.2966 -0.0203 -0.6818 1499.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1500.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1501.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 1502.0 -0.2845 -0.0117 -0.6629 1503.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 1504.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 1505.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1506.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1507.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1508.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1509.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 1510.0 -0.2845 -0.0117 -0.6629 1511.0 -0.3086 -0.0290 -0.7008 1512.0 -0.2966 -0.0203 -0.6818 1513.0 -0.3207 -0.0376 -0.7197 1514.0 -0.3086 -0.0290 -0.7008 1515.0 -0.2966 -0.0203 -0.6818 1516.0 -0.3328 -0.0463 -0.7386 1517.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 1518.0 -0.3933 -0.0895 -0.8332 1519.0 -0.3933 -0.0895 -0.8332 1520.0 -0.4175 -0.1068 -0.8711 1521.0 -0.4054 -0.0982 -0.8521 1522.0 -0.3812 -0.0809 -0.8143 1523.0 -0.3933 -0.0895 -0.8332 1524.0 -0.3933 -0.0895 -0.8332 1525.0 -0.3933 -0.0895 -0.8332 1526.0 -0.3933 -0.0895 -0.8332 1527.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 1528.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1529.0 -0.3086 -0.0290 -0.7008 1530.0 -0.2845 -0.0117 -0.6629 1531.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1532.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 1533.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 1534.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1535.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 1536.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 1537.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 1538.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1539.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1540.0 -0.2845 -0.0117 -0.6629 1541.0 -0.3086 -0.0290 -0.7008 1542.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1543.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 1544.0 -0.3691 -0.0722 -0.7954 1545.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 1546.0 -0.3328 -0.0463 -0.7386 1547.0 -0.3086 -0.0290 -0.7008 1548.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1549.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 1550.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 1551.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1552.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 1553.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 1554.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 1555.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 1556.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 1557.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 1558.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 1559.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 1560.0 -0.1394 0.0921 -0.4359 1561.0 -0.1394 0.0921 -0.4359 1562.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 1563.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 1564.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 1565.0 -0.1394 0.0921 -0.4359 1566.0 -0.1394 0.0921 -0.4359 1567.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 1568.0 -0.1152 0.1094 -0.3980 1569.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 1570.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 1571.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 1572.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 1573.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 1574.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 1575.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1576.0 -0.2966 -0.0203 -0.6818 1577.0 -0.3086 -0.0290 -0.7008 1578.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 1579.0 -0.3812 -0.0809 -0.8143 1580.0 -0.4175 -0.1068 -0.8711 1581.0 -0.4295 -0.1155 -0.8900 1582.0 -0.4175 -0.1068 -0.8711 1583.0 -0.4295 -0.1155 -0.8900 1584.0 -0.4295 -0.1155 -0.8900 1585.0 -0.4416 -0.1241 -0.9089 1586.0 -0.4295 -0.1155 -0.8900 1587.0 -0.4658 -0.1414 -0.9468 1588.0 -0.4900 -0.1587 -0.9846 1589.0 -0.4537 -0.1328 -0.9278 1590.0 -0.4537 -0.1328 -0.9278 1591.0 -0.4416 -0.1241 -0.9089 1592.0 -0.4537 -0.1328 -0.9278 1593.0 -0.4658 -0.1414 -0.9468 1594.0 -0.4658 -0.1414 -0.9468 1595.0 -0.4658 -0.1414 -0.9468 1596.0 -0.4658 -0.1414 -0.9468 1597.0 -0.4779 -0.1501 -0.9657 1598.0 -0.4416 -0.1241 -0.9089 1599.0 -0.4416 -0.1241 -0.9089 1600.0 -0.4779 -0.1501 -0.9657 1601.0 -0.4779 -0.1501 -0.9657 1602.0 -0.5142 -0.1760 -1.0224 1603.0 -0.5142 -0.1760 -1.0224 1604.0 -0.5263 -0.1846 -1.0414 1605.0 -0.5263 -0.1846 -1.0414 1606.0 -0.5142 -0.1760 -1.0224 1607.0 -0.5142 -0.1760 -1.0224 1608.0 -0.4900 -0.1587 -0.9846 1609.0 -0.5021 -0.1673 -1.0035 1610.0 -0.4900 -0.1587 -0.9846 1611.0 -0.4658 -0.1414 -0.9468 1612.0 -0.4537 -0.1328 -0.9278 1613.0 -0.4658 -0.1414 -0.9468 1614.0 -0.4658 -0.1414 -0.9468 1615.0 -0.4658 -0.1414 -0.9468 1616.0 -0.4658 -0.1414 -0.9468 1617.0 -0.4900 -0.1587 -0.9846 1618.0 -0.4779 -0.1501 -0.9657 1619.0 -0.5263 -0.1846 -1.0414 1620.0 -0.5383 -0.1933 -1.0603 1621.0 -0.5383 -0.1933 -1.0603 1622.0 -0.5504 -0.2019 -1.0792 1623.0 -0.5504 -0.2019 -1.0792 1624.0 -0.5021 -0.1673 -1.0035 1625.0 -0.4900 -0.1587 -0.9846 1626.0 -0.4900 -0.1587 -0.9846 1627.0 -0.5263 -0.1846 -1.0414 1628.0 -0.5142 -0.1760 -1.0224 1629.0 -0.5142 -0.1760 -1.0224 1630.0 -0.4779 -0.1501 -0.9657 1631.0 -0.4537 -0.1328 -0.9278 1632.0 -0.4537 -0.1328 -0.9278 1633.0 -0.4779 -0.1501 -0.9657 1634.0 -0.4900 -0.1587 -0.9846 1635.0 -0.4900 -0.1587 -0.9846 1636.0 -0.5263 -0.1846 -1.0414 1637.0 -0.5625 -0.2106 -1.0981 1638.0 -0.5504 -0.2019 -1.0792 1639.0 -0.5746 -0.2192 -1.1171 1640.0 -0.5988 -0.2365 -1.1549 1641.0 -0.6230 -0.2538 -1.1927 1642.0 -0.6592 -0.2798 -1.2495 1643.0 -0.6713 -0.2884 -1.2684 1644.0 -0.6351 -0.2625 -1.2117 1645.0 -0.6471 -0.2711 -1.2306 1646.0 -0.6351 -0.2625 -1.2117 1647.0 -0.5988 -0.2365 -1.1549 1648.0 -0.5746 -0.2192 -1.1171 1649.0 -0.5746 -0.2192 -1.1171 1650.0 -0.5383 -0.1933 -1.0603 1651.0 -0.5021 -0.1673 -1.0035 1652.0 -0.4779 -0.1501 -0.9657 1653.0 -0.4295 -0.1155 -0.8900 1654.0 -0.3933 -0.0895 -0.8332 1655.0 -0.4054 -0.0982 -0.8521 1656.0 -0.3933 -0.0895 -0.8332 1657.0 -0.4175 -0.1068 -0.8711 1658.0 -0.4295 -0.1155 -0.8900 1659.0 -0.3812 -0.0809 -0.8143 1660.0 -0.3691 -0.0722 -0.7954 1661.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 1662.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1663.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 1664.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 1665.0 -0.3691 -0.0722 -0.7954 1666.0 -0.3812 -0.0809 -0.8143 1667.0 -0.3933 -0.0895 -0.8332 1668.0 -0.3812 -0.0809 -0.8143 1669.0 -0.3691 -0.0722 -0.7954 1670.0 -0.4054 -0.0982 -0.8521 1671.0 -0.4416 -0.1241 -0.9089 1672.0 -0.4537 -0.1328 -0.9278 1673.0 -0.4900 -0.1587 -0.9846 1674.0 -0.4900 -0.1587 -0.9846 1675.0 -0.5263 -0.1846 -1.0414 1676.0 -0.5383 -0.1933 -1.0603 1677.0 -0.5625 -0.2106 -1.0981 1678.0 -0.5383 -0.1933 -1.0603 1679.0 -0.5383 -0.1933 -1.0603 1680.0 -0.5625 -0.2106 -1.0981 1681.0 -0.5746 -0.2192 -1.1171 1682.0 -0.5504 -0.2019 -1.0792 1683.0 -0.5746 -0.2192 -1.1171 1684.0 -0.5504 -0.2019 -1.0792 1685.0 -0.5504 -0.2019 -1.0792 1686.0 -0.5021 -0.1673 -1.0035 1687.0 -0.4658 -0.1414 -0.9468 1688.0 -0.4175 -0.1068 -0.8711 1689.0 -0.4416 -0.1241 -0.9089 1690.0 -0.4416 -0.1241 -0.9089 1691.0 -0.4537 -0.1328 -0.9278 1692.0 -0.4537 -0.1328 -0.9278 1693.0 -0.4537 -0.1328 -0.9278 1694.0 -0.4537 -0.1328 -0.9278 1695.0 -0.4658 -0.1414 -0.9468 1696.0 -0.4537 -0.1328 -0.9278 1697.0 -0.4537 -0.1328 -0.9278 1698.0 -0.4779 -0.1501 -0.9657 1699.0 -0.5021 -0.1673 -1.0035 1700.0 -0.5142 -0.1760 -1.0224 1701.0 -0.5383 -0.1933 -1.0603 1702.0 -0.5021 -0.1673 -1.0035 1703.0 -0.5021 -0.1673 -1.0035 1704.0 -0.4779 -0.1501 -0.9657 1705.0 -0.4537 -0.1328 -0.9278 1706.0 -0.4416 -0.1241 -0.9089 1707.0 -0.4295 -0.1155 -0.8900 1708.0 -0.4054 -0.0982 -0.8521 1709.0 -0.4054 -0.0982 -0.8521 1710.0 -0.3812 -0.0809 -0.8143 1711.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 1712.0 -0.3328 -0.0463 -0.7386 1713.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1714.0 -0.3328 -0.0463 -0.7386 1715.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1716.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1717.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 1718.0 -0.3691 -0.0722 -0.7954 1719.0 -0.3933 -0.0895 -0.8332 1720.0 -0.3570 -0.0636 -0.7765 1721.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1722.0 -0.2966 -0.0203 -0.6818 1723.0 -0.2966 -0.0203 -0.6818 1724.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 1725.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1726.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 1727.0 -0.1394 0.0921 -0.4359 1728.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 1729.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 1730.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 1731.0 -0.1394 0.0921 -0.4359 1732.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 1733.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1734.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 1735.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1736.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 1737.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 1738.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 1739.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 1740.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 1741.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1742.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1743.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 1744.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 1745.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 1746.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1747.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1748.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 1749.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 1750.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 1751.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 1752.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 1753.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 1754.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 1755.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 1756.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 1757.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 1758.0 -0.0790 0.1353 -0.3413 1759.0 -0.0669 0.1440 -0.3223 1760.0 -0.0427 0.1613 -0.2845 1761.0 -0.0064 0.2076 -0.2277 1762.0 0.0178 0.2455 -0.1899 1763.0 -0.0185 0.1887 -0.2466 1764.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 1765.0 -0.0427 0.1613 -0.2845 1766.0 -0.0427 0.1613 -0.2845 1767.0 -0.0790 0.1353 -0.3413 1768.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 1769.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 1770.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 1771.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 1772.0 -0.1394 0.0921 -0.4359 1773.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 1774.0 -0.1394 0.0921 -0.4359 1775.0 -0.1394 0.0921 -0.4359 1776.0 -0.1152 0.1094 -0.3980 1777.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 1778.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 1779.0 -0.1152 0.1094 -0.3980 1780.0 -0.1152 0.1094 -0.3980 1781.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 1782.0 -0.1394 0.0921 -0.4359 1783.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 1784.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 1785.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 1786.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 1787.0 -0.0669 0.1440 -0.3223 1788.0 -0.0548 0.1526 -0.3034 1789.0 -0.0185 0.1887 -0.2466 1790.0 -0.0064 0.2076 -0.2277 1791.0 -0.0185 0.1887 -0.2466 1792.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 1793.0 -0.0427 0.1613 -0.2845 1794.0 -0.0427 0.1613 -0.2845 1795.0 -0.0669 0.1440 -0.3223 1796.0 -0.0427 0.1613 -0.2845 1797.0 -0.0790 0.1353 -0.3413 1798.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 1799.0 -0.0790 0.1353 -0.3413 1800.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 1801.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 1802.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 1803.0 -0.1152 0.1094 -0.3980 1804.0 -0.1152 0.1094 -0.3980 1805.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 1806.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 1807.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 1808.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1809.0 -0.2845 -0.0117 -0.6629 1810.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1811.0 -0.3933 -0.0895 -0.8332 1812.0 -0.4054 -0.0982 -0.8521 1813.0 -0.4295 -0.1155 -0.8900 1814.0 -0.4537 -0.1328 -0.9278 1815.0 -0.4658 -0.1414 -0.9468 1816.0 -0.4658 -0.1414 -0.9468 1817.0 -0.4537 -0.1328 -0.9278 1818.0 -0.4175 -0.1068 -0.8711 1819.0 -0.4054 -0.0982 -0.8521 1820.0 -0.4054 -0.0982 -0.8521 1821.0 -0.3812 -0.0809 -0.8143 1822.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1823.0 -0.2966 -0.0203 -0.6818 1824.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1825.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1826.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 1827.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 1828.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 1829.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 1830.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 1831.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1832.0 -0.2966 -0.0203 -0.6818 1833.0 -0.3328 -0.0463 -0.7386 1834.0 -0.3812 -0.0809 -0.8143 1835.0 -0.4054 -0.0982 -0.8521 1836.0 -0.4054 -0.0982 -0.8521 1837.0 -0.4537 -0.1328 -0.9278 1838.0 -0.4537 -0.1328 -0.9278 1839.0 -0.4537 -0.1328 -0.9278 1840.0 -0.4416 -0.1241 -0.9089 1841.0 -0.4175 -0.1068 -0.8711 1842.0 -0.3691 -0.0722 -0.7954 1843.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1844.0 -0.3449 -0.0549 -0.7575 1845.0 -0.3207 -0.0376 -0.7197 1846.0 -0.3207 -0.0376 -0.7197 1847.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 1848.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 1849.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 1850.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1851.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1852.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 1853.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 1854.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 1855.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 1856.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 1857.0 -0.1394 0.0921 -0.4359 1858.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 1859.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 1860.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 1861.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1862.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1863.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 1864.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 1865.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1866.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 1867.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 1868.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 1869.0 -0.2724 -0.0030 -0.6440 1870.0 -0.2603 0.0056 -0.6251 1871.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 1872.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 1873.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 1874.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 1875.0 -0.1152 0.1094 -0.3980 1876.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 1877.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 1878.0 -0.1152 0.1094 -0.3980 1879.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 1880.0 -0.1394 0.0921 -0.4359 1881.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 1882.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1883.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 1884.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 1885.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 1886.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 1887.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 1888.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 1889.0 -0.2361 0.0229 -0.5872 1890.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 1891.0 -0.1394 0.0921 -0.4359 1892.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 1893.0 -0.0790 0.1353 -0.3413 1894.0 -0.1152 0.1094 -0.3980 1895.0 -0.1394 0.0921 -0.4359 1896.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 1897.0 -0.1031 0.1180 -0.3791 1898.0 -0.1152 0.1094 -0.3980 1899.0 -0.1152 0.1094 -0.3980 1900.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 1901.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1902.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 1903.0 -0.1998 0.0488 -0.5305 1904.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 1905.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1906.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 1907.0 -0.2119 0.0402 -0.5494 1908.0 -0.2482 0.0142 -0.6062 1909.0 -0.2240 0.0315 -0.5683 1910.0 -0.1878 0.0575 -0.5116 1911.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 1912.0 -0.1394 0.0921 -0.4359 1913.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 1914.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 1915.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 1916.0 -0.1757 0.0661 -0.4926 1917.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 1918.0 -0.1636 0.0748 -0.4737 1919.0 -0.1515 0.0834 -0.4548 1920.0 -0.1394 0.0921 -0.4359 1921.0 -0.1273 0.1007 -0.4169 1922.0 -0.1394 0.0921 -0.4359 1923.0 -0.1152 0.1094 -0.3980 1924.0 -0.0910 0.1267 -0.3602 1925.0 -0.0548 0.1526 -0.3034 1926.0 -0.0306 0.1699 -0.2656 1927.0 0.0419 0.2833 -0.1618 1928.0 0.0661 0.3212 -0.1445 1929.0 0.1024 0.3779 -0.1186 1930.0 0.1387 0.4347 -0.0926 1931.0 0.1507 0.4536 -0.0840 1932.0 0.1870 0.5104 -0.0580 1933.0 0.2233 0.5672 -0.0321 1934.0 0.2595 0.6239 -0.0061 1935.0 0.2837 0.6618 0.0112 1936.0 0.3079 0.6996 0.0285 1937.0 0.3442 0.7564 0.0544 1938.0 0.3442 0.7564 0.0544 1939.0 0.3200 0.7185 0.0371 1940.0 0.3563 0.7753 0.0630 1941.0 0.3804 0.8131 0.0803 1942.0 0.3925 0.8321 0.0890 1943.0 0.3804 0.8131 0.0803 1944.0 0.3200 0.7185 0.0371 1945.0 0.2958 0.6807 0.0198 1946.0 0.2716 0.6428 0.0025 1947.0 0.2354 0.5861 -0.0234 1948.0 0.2233 0.5672 -0.0321 1949.0 0.2112 0.5482 -0.0407 1950.0 0.2112 0.5482 -0.0407 1951.0 0.1628 0.4725 -0.0753 1952.0 0.1266 0.4158 -0.1013 1953.0 0.1024 0.3779 -0.1186 1954.0 0.1266 0.4158 -0.1013 1955.0 0.1628 0.4725 -0.0753 1956.0 0.1628 0.4725 -0.0753 1957.0 0.1628 0.4725 -0.0753 1958.0 0.1628 0.4725 -0.0753 1959.0 0.1628 0.4725 -0.0753 1960.0 0.1507 0.4536 -0.0840 946.0 -0.1356 0.0501 -0.3917 947.0 -0.1597 0.0329 -0.4294 948.0 -0.1545 0.0366 -0.4213 949.0 -0.1587 0.0335 -0.4280 950.0 -0.1604 0.0323 -0.4306 951.0 -0.1390 0.0476 -0.3971 952.0 -0.1220 0.0598 -0.3705 953.0 -0.0977 0.0772 -0.3325 954.0 -0.0668 0.0993 -0.2841 955.0 -0.0620 0.1027 -0.2765 956.0 -0.0630 0.1020 -0.2782 957.0 -0.0664 0.0996 -0.2834 958.0 -0.0297 0.1330 -0.2260 959.0 -0.0048 0.1720 -0.1870 960.0 0.0301 0.2266 -0.1324 961.0 0.0528 0.2622 -0.1093 962.0 0.0284 0.2239 -0.1351 963.0 0.0679 0.2858 -0.0985 964.0 0.1029 0.3405 -0.0735 965.0 0.1162 0.3614 -0.0640 966.0 0.1179 0.3641 -0.0627 967.0 0.1349 0.3906 -0.0506 968.0 0.1326 0.3870 -0.0522 969.0 0.1091 0.3502 -0.0691 970.0 0.0872 0.3161 -0.0847 971.0 0.0566 0.2681 -0.1066 972.0 0.0456 0.2510 -0.1144 973.0 0.0938 0.3263 -0.0800 974.0 0.0583 0.2708 -0.1054 975.0 0.0461 0.2516 -0.1141 976.0 0.0088 0.1933 -0.1657 977.0 0.0307 0.2277 -0.1314 978.0 0.0547 0.2651 -0.1079 979.0 0.0850 0.3126 -0.0863 980.0 0.0781 0.3018 -0.0912 981.0 0.1185 0.3650 -0.0623 982.0 0.1437 0.4045 -0.0443 983.0 0.1691 0.4441 -0.0261 984.0 0.1715 0.4480 -0.0244 985.0 0.1944 0.4837 -0.0080 986.0 0.1874 0.4728 -0.0130 987.0 0.2033 0.4978 -0.0016 988.0 0.1927 0.4811 -0.0092 989.0 0.1799 0.4611 -0.0184 990.0 0.1675 0.4418 -0.0272 991.0 0.1666 0.4403 -0.0279 992.0 0.1148 0.3591 -0.0650 993.0 0.0806 0.3058 -0.0894 994.0 0.0343 0.2332 -0.1258 995.0 -0.0122 0.1605 -0.1986 996.0 -0.0423 0.1168 -0.2458 997.0 -0.0714 0.0960 -0.2913 998.0 -0.1195 0.0616 -0.3665 999.0 -0.1614 0.0316 -0.4322 1000.0 -0.1880 0.0126 -0.4738 1001.0 -0.1911 0.0104 -0.4786 1002.0 -0.1713 0.0245 -0.4477 1003.0 -0.1526 0.0379 -0.4184 1004.0 -0.1488 0.0406 -0.4124 1005.0 -0.1455 0.0430 -0.4073 1006.0 -0.1405 0.0465 -0.3995 1007.0 -0.1688 0.0263 -0.4437 1008.0 -0.1663 0.0281 -0.4397 1009.0 -0.1195 0.0616 -0.3666 1010.0 -0.0852 0.0861 -0.3130 1011.0 -0.0723 0.0953 -0.2928 1012.0 -0.0648 0.1007 -0.2810 1013.0 -0.0836 0.0872 -0.3104 1014.0 -0.0757 0.0929 -0.2980 1015.0 -0.0392 0.1190 -0.2408 1016.0 -0.0267 0.1377 -0.2213 1017.0 -0.0224 0.1445 -0.2146 1018.0 0.0145 0.2023 -0.1568 1019.0 0.0360 0.2358 -0.1232 1020.0 0.0069 0.1904 -0.1687 1021.0 -0.0138 0.1579 -0.2012 1022.0 0.0041 0.1859 -0.1732 1023.0 0.0191 0.2094 -0.1497 1024.0 0.0066 0.1899 -0.1692 1025.0 0.0134 0.2004 -0.1586 1026.0 0.0048 0.1870 -0.1720 1027.0 -0.0161 0.1543 -0.2048 1028.0 -0.0059 0.1704 -0.1887 1029.0 -0.0105 0.1631 -0.1960 1030.0 -0.0369 0.1218 -0.2372 1031.0 -0.0176 0.1519 -0.2071 1032.0 0.0028 0.1839 -0.1751 1033.0 -0.0129 0.1593 -0.1997 1034.0 -0.0200 0.1483 -0.2108 1035.0 0.0025 0.1834 -0.1756 1036.0 -0.0165 0.1537 -0.2053 1037.0 -0.0323 0.1290 -0.2300 1038.0 0.0119 0.1982 -0.1608 1039.0 0.0220 0.2139 -0.1451 1040.0 0.0308 0.2277 -0.1314 1041.0 0.0429 0.2466 -0.1164 1042.0 0.0637 0.2792 -0.1015 1043.0 0.0722 0.2925 -0.0954 1044.0 0.0683 0.2865 -0.0982 1045.0 0.0687 0.2871 -0.0979 1046.0 0.0557 0.2667 -0.1072 1047.0 0.0748 0.2966 -0.0935 1048.0 0.0922 0.3238 -0.0811 1049.0 0.0591 0.2720 -0.1048 1050.0 0.0219 0.2137 -0.1453 1051.0 0.0134 0.2005 -0.1586 1052.0 0.0180 0.2077 -0.1513 1053.0 0.0112 0.1970 -0.1621 1054.0 -0.0189 0.1500 -0.2091 1055.0 -0.0507 0.1108 -0.2589 1056.0 -0.0472 0.1133 -0.2534 1057.0 -0.0239 0.1422 -0.2169 1058.0 -0.0363 0.1228 -0.2363 1059.0 -0.0412 0.1176 -0.2440 1060.0 -0.0313 0.1305 -0.2285 1061.0 0.0082 0.1924 -0.1666 1062.0 0.0046 0.1868 -0.1723 1063.0 -0.0048 0.1721 -0.1870 1064.0 -0.0149 0.1561 -0.2029 1065.0 -0.0014 0.1773 -0.1817 1066.0 0.0096 0.1945 -0.1645 1067.0 -0.0282 0.1353 -0.2237 1068.0 -0.0454 0.1146 -0.2506 1069.0 -0.0433 0.1161 -0.2473 1070.0 -0.0535 0.1088 -0.2633 1071.0 -0.0761 0.0926 -0.2986 1072.0 -0.1194 0.0616 -0.3664 1073.0 -0.1363 0.0496 -0.3928 1074.0 -0.1335 0.0516 -0.3885 1075.0 -0.1430 0.0448 -0.4033 1076.0 -0.1335 0.0515 -0.3885 1077.0 -0.1043 0.0725 -0.3428 1078.0 -0.0888 0.0835 -0.3185 1079.0 -0.0892 0.0833 -0.3191 1080.0 -0.0897 0.0829 -0.3199 1081.0 -0.0904 0.0824 -0.3210 1082.0 -0.0588 0.1050 -0.2715 1083.0 -0.0461 0.1141 -0.2517 1084.0 -0.0223 0.1446 -0.2144 1085.0 -0.0164 0.1539 -0.2052 1086.0 0.0196 0.2102 -0.1489 1087.0 0.0101 0.1953 -0.1638 1088.0 0.0142 0.2017 -0.1573 1089.0 0.0236 0.2165 -0.1426 1090.0 0.0336 0.2321 -0.1270 1091.0 0.0159 0.2043 -0.1547 1092.0 0.0181 0.2079 -0.1511 1093.0 -0.0053 0.1713 -0.1878 1094.0 -0.0057 0.1706 -0.1885 1095.0 -0.0129 0.1594 -0.1996 1096.0 -0.0376 0.1206 -0.2384 1097.0 -0.0682 0.0983 -0.2862 1098.0 -0.0772 0.0919 -0.3003 1099.0 -0.0941 0.0798 -0.3268 1100.0 -0.1007 0.0750 -0.3371 1101.0 -0.1109 0.0677 -0.3531 1102.0 -0.1025 0.0737 -0.3399 1103.0 -0.1262 0.0568 -0.3771 1104.0 -0.1468 0.0420 -0.4093 1105.0 -0.1641 0.0297 -0.4363 1106.0 -0.1840 0.0154 -0.4676 1107.0 -0.1683 0.0267 -0.4429 1108.0 -0.1758 0.0213 -0.4547 1109.0 -0.1932 0.0088 -0.4820 1110.0 -0.2016 0.0028 -0.4951 1111.0 -0.2086 -0.0021 -0.5060 1112.0 -0.2129 -0.0052 -0.5127 1113.0 -0.2278 -0.0159 -0.5361 1114.0 -0.2063 -0.0005 -0.5024 1115.0 -0.1797 0.0185 -0.4607 1116.0 -0.1730 0.0233 -0.4504 1117.0 -0.1868 0.0135 -0.4719 1118.0 -0.1907 0.0107 -0.4780 1119.0 -0.2027 0.0020 -0.4968 1120.0 -0.2119 -0.0045 -0.5111 1121.0 -0.2400 -0.0246 -0.5552 1122.0 -0.2515 -0.0328 -0.5732 1123.0 -0.2798 -0.0531 -0.6175 1124.0 -0.2894 -0.0599 -0.6324 1125.0 -0.3061 -0.0719 -0.6587 1126.0 -0.3111 -0.0755 -0.6664 1127.0 -0.3076 -0.0730 -0.6610 1128.0 -0.2897 -0.0602 -0.6330 1129.0 -0.2923 -0.0621 -0.6371 1130.0 -0.2774 -0.0514 -0.6137 1131.0 -0.2725 -0.0479 -0.6061 1132.0 -0.2605 -0.0393 -0.5873 1133.0 -0.2578 -0.0374 -0.5830 1134.0 -0.2556 -0.0358 -0.5796 1135.0 -0.2690 -0.0454 -0.6006 1136.0 -0.2725 -0.0479 -0.6061 1137.0 -0.2786 -0.0522 -0.6156 1138.0 -0.2760 -0.0504 -0.6115 1139.0 -0.2694 -0.0456 -0.6011 1140.0 -0.2765 -0.0507 -0.6122 1141.0 -0.2908 -0.0610 -0.6348 1142.0 -0.2775 -0.0514 -0.6138 1143.0 -0.2824 -0.0549 -0.6215 1144.0 -0.2964 -0.0650 -0.6435 1145.0 -0.2838 -0.0559 -0.6237 1146.0 -0.2959 -0.0646 -0.6426 1147.0 -0.3126 -0.0765 -0.6688 1148.0 -0.3311 -0.0898 -0.6978 1149.0 -0.3609 -0.1111 -0.7444 1150.0 -0.3677 -0.1160 -0.7551 1151.0 -0.3566 -0.1080 -0.7377 1152.0 -0.3463 -0.1006 -0.7215 1153.0 -0.3410 -0.0968 -0.7132 1154.0 -0.3133 -0.0771 -0.6699 1155.0 -0.2819 -0.0546 -0.6208 1156.0 -0.2921 -0.0619 -0.6367 1157.0 -0.2429 -0.0267 -0.5597 1158.0 -0.1988 0.0049 -0.4906 1159.0 -0.1687 0.0264 -0.4435 1160.0 -0.1306 0.0537 -0.3839 1161.0 -0.1347 0.0507 -0.3904 1162.0 -0.1352 0.0504 -0.3911 1163.0 -0.1239 0.0584 -0.3734 1164.0 -0.1005 0.0752 -0.3368 1165.0 -0.1067 0.0708 -0.3465 1166.0 -0.1256 0.0572 -0.3761 1167.0 -0.1167 0.0636 -0.3623 1168.0 -0.1095 0.0687 -0.3509 1169.0 -0.1136 0.0658 -0.3574 1170.0 -0.0886 0.0836 -0.3183 1171.0 -0.0691 0.0976 -0.2878 1172.0 -0.0432 0.1162 -0.2471 1173.0 -0.0433 0.1161 -0.2473 1174.0 -0.0494 0.1117 -0.2568 1175.0 -0.0759 0.0928 -0.2983 1176.0 -0.0587 0.1050 -0.2715 1177.0 -0.0555 0.1074 -0.2663 1178.0 -0.0403 0.1182 -0.2427 1179.0 -0.0443 0.1154 -0.2488 1180.0 -0.0570 0.1063 -0.2688 1181.0 -0.1032 0.0732 -0.3411 1182.0 -0.1325 0.0523 -0.3869 1183.0 -0.1319 0.0527 -0.3860 1184.0 -0.1353 0.0503 -0.3913 1185.0 -0.1385 0.0480 -0.3963 1186.0 -0.1315 0.0530 -0.3853 1187.0 -0.1475 0.0416 -0.4103 1188.0 -0.1359 0.0498 -0.3923 1189.0 -0.1529 0.0377 -0.4188 1190.0 -0.1572 0.0346 -0.4256 1191.0 -0.1790 0.0190 -0.4598 1192.0 -0.1431 0.0447 -0.4036 1193.0 -0.1363 0.0496 -0.3928 1194.0 -0.1514 0.0388 -0.4164 1195.0 -0.1555 0.0358 -0.4230 1196.0 -0.1806 0.0179 -0.4622 1197.0 -0.1896 0.0114 -0.4763 1198.0 -0.1983 0.0052 -0.4899 1199.0 -0.2145 -0.0064 -0.5153 1200.0 -0.2081 -0.0018 -0.5053 1201.0 -0.2249 -0.0138 -0.5316 1202.0 -0.2245 -0.0136 -0.5310 1203.0 -0.2443 -0.0277 -0.5619 1204.0 -0.2478 -0.0302 -0.5673 1205.0 -0.2766 -0.0508 -0.6124 1206.0 -0.2741 -0.0490 -0.6085 1207.0 -0.2435 -0.0271 -0.5606 1208.0 -0.2501 -0.0319 -0.5710 1209.0 -0.2545 -0.0350 -0.5779 1210.0 -0.2521 -0.0332 -0.5740 1211.0 -0.2693 -0.0456 -0.6011 1212.0 -0.2870 -0.0582 -0.6287 1213.0 -0.2798 -0.0531 -0.6174 1214.0 -0.2911 -0.0611 -0.6351 1215.0 -0.2952 -0.0641 -0.6415 1216.0 -0.2597 -0.0387 -0.5860 1217.0 -0.2309 -0.0181 -0.5409 1218.0 -0.2227 -0.0123 -0.5281 1219.0 -0.1924 0.0094 -0.4807 1220.0 -0.1695 0.0258 -0.4448 1221.0 -0.1535 0.0373 -0.4198 1222.0 -0.1325 0.0523 -0.3870 1223.0 -0.0958 0.0786 -0.3294 1224.0 -0.0675 0.0988 -0.2852 1225.0 -0.0536 0.1087 -0.2635 1226.0 -0.0275 0.1364 -0.2226 1227.0 -0.0328 0.1282 -0.2308 1228.0 -0.0647 0.1008 -0.2808 1229.0 -0.0814 0.0888 -0.3069 1230.0 -0.1020 0.0741 -0.3392 1231.0 -0.1290 0.0548 -0.3815 1232.0 -0.1450 0.0433 -0.4065 1233.0 -0.1420 0.0455 -0.4018 1234.0 -0.1409 0.0462 -0.4001 1235.0 -0.1384 0.0481 -0.3961 1236.0 -0.1333 0.0517 -0.3882 1237.0 -0.1490 0.0405 -0.4128 1238.0 -0.1655 0.0287 -0.4386 1239.0 -0.1676 0.0272 -0.4419 1240.0 -0.1643 0.0295 -0.4367 1241.0 -0.1783 0.0196 -0.4585 1242.0 -0.1768 0.0206 -0.4562 1243.0 -0.1646 0.0293 -0.4372 1244.0 -0.1536 0.0372 -0.4200 1245.0 -0.1449 0.0434 -0.4064 1246.0 -0.1658 0.0284 -0.4391 1247.0 -0.1779 0.0198 -0.4579 1248.0 -0.1498 0.0399 -0.4140 1249.0 -0.1283 0.0553 -0.3804 1250.0 -0.1087 0.0693 -0.3496 1251.0 -0.1077 0.0700 -0.3480 1252.0 -0.0746 0.0937 -0.2964 1253.0 -0.0923 0.0810 -0.3240 1254.0 -0.1184 0.0624 -0.3648 1255.0 -0.1351 0.0504 -0.3910 1256.0 -0.1567 0.0349 -0.4249 1257.0 -0.1520 0.0384 -0.4174 1258.0 -0.1848 0.0149 -0.4687 1259.0 -0.2386 -0.0236 -0.5529 1260.0 -0.2703 -0.0463 -0.6025 1261.0 -0.2858 -0.0574 -0.6268 1262.0 -0.2825 -0.0550 -0.6216 1263.0 -0.2923 -0.0620 -0.6370 1264.0 -0.2681 -0.0447 -0.5991 1265.0 -0.2643 -0.0420 -0.5932 1266.0 -0.2865 -0.0578 -0.6279 1267.0 -0.2692 -0.0455 -0.6009 1268.0 -0.2733 -0.0484 -0.6073 1269.0 -0.2443 -0.0277 -0.5619 1270.0 -0.2168 -0.0080 -0.5189 1271.0 -0.2071 -0.0011 -0.5037 1272.0 -0.2118 -0.0044 -0.5110 1273.0 -0.2350 -0.0210 -0.5473 1274.0 -0.2384 -0.0234 -0.5526 1275.0 -0.2418 -0.0259 -0.5580 1276.0 -0.2267 -0.0151 -0.5343 1277.0 -0.2100 -0.0031 -0.5082 1278.0 -0.2210 -0.0111 -0.5255 1279.0 -0.2354 -0.0213 -0.5480 1280.0 -0.2434 -0.0271 -0.5606 1281.0 -0.2603 -0.0391 -0.5869 1282.0 -0.2543 -0.0348 -0.5776 1283.0 -0.2523 -0.0334 -0.5744 1284.0 -0.2541 -0.0347 -0.5772 1285.0 -0.2716 -0.0472 -0.6046 1286.0 -0.2947 -0.0637 -0.6408 1287.0 -0.3082 -0.0734 -0.6619 1288.0 -0.3551 -0.1069 -0.7353 1289.0 -0.3749 -0.1211 -0.7663 1290.0 -0.3732 -0.1199 -0.7637 1291.0 -0.3848 -0.1282 -0.7818 1292.0 -0.4095 -0.1458 -0.8204 1293.0 -0.4286 -0.1595 -0.8503 1294.0 -0.4451 -0.1713 -0.8761 1295.0 -0.4482 -0.1735 -0.8810 1296.0 -0.4428 -0.1696 -0.8725 1297.0 -0.4331 -0.1628 -0.8574 1298.0 -0.4295 -0.1601 -0.8517 1299.0 -0.3851 -0.1284 -0.7822 1300.0 -0.3677 -0.1160 -0.7551 1301.0 -0.3467 -0.1009 -0.7222 1302.0 -0.3166 -0.0794 -0.6750 1303.0 -0.2796 -0.0529 -0.6172 1304.0 -0.2638 -0.0417 -0.5924 1305.0 -0.2446 -0.0279 -0.5624 1306.0 -0.2161 -0.0075 -0.5178 1307.0 -0.2212 -0.0111 -0.5257 1308.0 -0.2085 -0.0021 -0.5059 1309.0 -0.1956 0.0071 -0.4857 1310.0 -0.1896 0.0114 -0.4763 1311.0 -0.1974 0.0059 -0.4884 1312.0 -0.2130 -0.0053 -0.5129 1313.0 -0.2298 -0.0173 -0.5392 1314.0 -0.2317 -0.0186 -0.5421 1315.0 -0.2296 -0.0172 -0.5389 1316.0 -0.2248 -0.0138 -0.5314 1317.0 -0.2327 -0.0194 -0.5438 1318.0 -0.2274 -0.0156 -0.5355 1319.0 -0.2179 -0.0088 -0.5205 1320.0 -0.1924 0.0095 -0.4806 1321.0 -0.1789 0.0191 -0.4595 1322.0 -0.1559 0.0356 -0.4235 1323.0 -0.1340 0.0512 -0.3893 1324.0 -0.1141 0.0654 -0.3581 1325.0 -0.1221 0.0597 -0.3706 1326.0 -0.1062 0.0711 -0.3457 1327.0 -0.1093 0.0689 -0.3505 1328.0 -0.1052 0.0718 -0.3442 1329.0 -0.1117 0.0672 -0.3544 1330.0 -0.1358 0.0499 -0.3921 1331.0 -0.1997 0.0042 -0.4921 1332.0 -0.2324 -0.0191 -0.5432 1333.0 -0.2765 -0.0507 -0.6123 1334.0 -0.2942 -0.0634 -0.6400 1335.0 -0.3318 -0.0903 -0.6989 1336.0 -0.3435 -0.0986 -0.7171 1337.0 -0.3711 -0.1184 -0.7604 1338.0 -0.3736 -0.1202 -0.7642 1339.0 -0.3802 -0.1249 -0.7746 1340.0 -0.3975 -0.1373 -0.8017 1341.0 -0.4087 -0.1453 -0.8191 1342.0 -0.4006 -0.1395 -0.8066 1343.0 -0.4044 -0.1422 -0.8125 1344.0 -0.3902 -0.1320 -0.7902 1345.0 -0.4196 -0.1530 -0.8362 1346.0 -0.4222 -0.1550 -0.8404 1347.0 -0.4297 -0.1603 -0.8521 1348.0 -0.4294 -0.1601 -0.8517 1349.0 -0.4312 -0.1614 -0.8545 1350.0 -0.4227 -0.1553 -0.8411 1351.0 -0.3970 -0.1370 -0.8010 1352.0 -0.3745 -0.1208 -0.7657 1353.0 -0.3525 -0.1051 -0.7312 1354.0 -0.3369 -0.0939 -0.7068 1355.0 -0.3303 -0.0892 -0.6964 1356.0 -0.2959 -0.0646 -0.6427 1357.0 -0.2627 -0.0408 -0.5906 1358.0 -0.2461 -0.0290 -0.5647 1359.0 -0.2391 -0.0240 -0.5537 1360.0 -0.2339 -0.0202 -0.5455 1361.0 -0.2169 -0.0081 -0.5190 1362.0 -0.2048 0.0005 -0.5001 1363.0 -0.1830 0.0162 -0.4659 1364.0 -0.1535 0.0373 -0.4197 1365.0 -0.1457 0.0428 -0.4076 1366.0 -0.1399 0.0470 -0.3984 1367.0 -0.1356 0.0501 -0.3917 1368.0 -0.1257 0.0571 -0.3763 1369.0 -0.1076 0.0701 -0.3480 1370.0 -0.0973 0.0775 -0.3318 1371.0 -0.0973 0.0774 -0.3319 1372.0 -0.1168 0.0635 -0.3623 1373.0 -0.1188 0.0621 -0.3655 1374.0 -0.1447 0.0435 -0.4061 1375.0 -0.1822 0.0167 -0.4647 1376.0 -0.1991 0.0046 -0.4912 1377.0 -0.1996 0.0043 -0.4920 1378.0 -0.1971 0.0061 -0.4880 1379.0 -0.1888 0.0120 -0.4751 1380.0 -0.1834 0.0159 -0.4665 1381.0 -0.1682 0.0268 -0.4427 1382.0 -0.1621 0.0311 -0.4332 1383.0 -0.1234 0.0588 -0.3727 1384.0 -0.0975 0.0773 -0.3321 1385.0 -0.0613 0.1032 -0.2755 1386.0 -0.0322 0.1292 -0.2299 1387.0 -0.0035 0.1740 -0.1850 1388.0 0.0006 0.1805 -0.1786 1389.0 0.0222 0.2142 -0.1448 1390.0 0.0280 0.2234 -0.1357 1391.0 0.0245 0.2178 -0.1412 1392.0 0.0338 0.2324 -0.1266 1393.0 0.0427 0.2463 -0.1165 1394.0 0.0180 0.2076 -0.1514 1395.0 -0.0112 0.1621 -0.1970 1396.0 -0.0356 0.1238 -0.2352 1397.0 -0.0412 0.1176 -0.2441 1398.0 -0.0317 0.1299 -0.2291 1399.0 -0.0108 0.1627 -0.1964 1400.0 -0.0070 0.1686 -0.1904 1401.0 0.0127 0.1994 -0.1596 1402.0 0.0239 0.2169 -0.1421 1403.0 0.0270 0.2218 -0.1372 1404.0 0.0542 0.2644 -0.1083 1405.0 0.0703 0.2896 -0.0968 1406.0 0.1040 0.3423 -0.0727 1407.0 0.1326 0.3870 -0.0522 1408.0 0.1541 0.4207 -0.0369 1409.0 0.1485 0.4119 -0.0408 1410.0 0.1513 0.4163 -0.0388 1411.0 0.1428 0.4030 -0.0449 1412.0 0.1285 0.3807 -0.0551 1413.0 0.1285 0.3806 -0.0552 1414.0 0.1168 0.3623 -0.0635 1415.0 0.0949 0.3281 -0.0792 1416.0 0.0794 0.3037 -0.0903 1417.0 0.0525 0.2617 -0.1095 1418.0 0.0321 0.2298 -0.1293 1419.0 0.0375 0.2382 -0.1208 1420.0 0.0525 0.2617 -0.1095 1421.0 0.0590 0.2719 -0.1048 1422.0 0.0665 0.2836 -0.0995 1423.0 0.0565 0.2680 -0.1066 1424.0 0.0552 0.2659 -0.1076 1425.0 0.0632 0.2785 -0.1018 1426.0 0.0672 0.2847 -0.0990 1427.0 0.0701 0.2892 -0.0969 1428.0 0.0617 0.2761 -0.1029 1429.0 0.0686 0.2870 -0.0980 1430.0 0.0362 0.2362 -0.1229 1431.0 0.0001 0.1796 -0.1794 1432.0 -0.0088 0.1658 -0.1933 1433.0 -0.0367 0.1220 -0.2370 1434.0 -0.0537 0.1087 -0.2635 1435.0 -0.0667 0.0994 -0.2839 1436.0 -0.0879 0.0842 -0.3170 1437.0 -0.1148 0.0649 -0.3592 1438.0 -0.1014 0.0745 -0.3382 1439.0 -0.0941 0.0797 -0.3268 1440.0 -0.0831 0.0876 -0.3096 1441.0 -0.0877 0.0843 -0.3168 1442.0 -0.0829 0.0878 -0.3092 1443.0 -0.1173 0.0632 -0.3631 1444.0 -0.1323 0.0524 -0.3866 1445.0 -0.1402 0.0467 -0.3990 1446.0 -0.1614 0.0316 -0.4322 1447.0 -0.1581 0.0340 -0.4270 1448.0 -0.1815 0.0172 -0.4636 1449.0 -0.2290 -0.0168 -0.5380 1450.0 -0.2587 -0.0380 -0.5844 1451.0 -0.2969 -0.0653 -0.6442 1452.0 -0.3061 -0.0719 -0.6586 1453.0 -0.3191 -0.0812 -0.6789 1454.0 -0.3225 -0.0836 -0.6843 1455.0 -0.3247 -0.0852 -0.6877 1456.0 -0.3451 -0.0998 -0.7197 1457.0 -0.3551 -0.1070 -0.7353 1458.0 -0.3636 -0.1131 -0.7487 1459.0 -0.3562 -0.1078 -0.7371 1460.0 -0.3368 -0.0939 -0.7067 1461.0 -0.3382 -0.0949 -0.7089 1462.0 -0.3440 -0.0990 -0.7179 1463.0 -0.3523 -0.1049 -0.7309 1464.0 -0.3390 -0.0955 -0.7102 1465.0 -0.3128 -0.0767 -0.6691 1466.0 -0.3040 -0.0704 -0.6554 1467.0 -0.3041 -0.0705 -0.6555 1468.0 -0.2924 -0.0621 -0.6373 1469.0 -0.2968 -0.0652 -0.6440 1470.0 -0.3163 -0.0792 -0.6746 1471.0 -0.3194 -0.0814 -0.6794 1472.0 -0.3082 -0.0734 -0.6620 1473.0 -0.2823 -0.0548 -0.6213 1474.0 -0.2619 -0.0403 -0.5894 1475.0 -0.2722 -0.0477 -0.6056 1476.0 -0.3075 -0.0729 -0.6608 1477.0 -0.3077 -0.0731 -0.6612 1478.0 -0.3066 -0.0723 -0.6595 1479.0 -0.3109 -0.0753 -0.6661 1480.0 -0.3057 -0.0716 -0.6580 1481.0 -0.2792 -0.0527 -0.6165 1482.0 -0.2841 -0.0562 -0.6242 1483.0 -0.2829 -0.0553 -0.6224 1484.0 -0.2779 -0.0517 -0.6144 1485.0 -0.2625 -0.0407 -0.5904 1486.0 -0.2525 -0.0336 -0.5748 1487.0 -0.2443 -0.0277 -0.5619 1488.0 -0.2394 -0.0242 -0.5542 1489.0 -0.2320 -0.0189 -0.5426 1490.0 -0.2298 -0.0173 -0.5393 1491.0 -0.2277 -0.0158 -0.5360 1492.0 -0.2336 -0.0200 -0.5452 1493.0 -0.2310 -0.0182 -0.5411 1494.0 -0.2294 -0.0170 -0.5385 1495.0 -0.2417 -0.0258 -0.5578 1496.0 -0.2440 -0.0275 -0.5615 1497.0 -0.2608 -0.0395 -0.5877 1498.0 -0.2401 -0.0247 -0.5553 1499.0 -0.2038 0.0013 -0.4985 1500.0 -0.1971 0.0061 -0.4880 1501.0 -0.1956 0.0072 -0.4856 1502.0 -0.1880 0.0126 -0.4738 1503.0 -0.1985 0.0051 -0.4901 1504.0 -0.2060 -0.0003 -0.5020 1505.0 -0.1862 0.0139 -0.4710 1506.0 -0.1942 0.0082 -0.4834 1507.0 -0.2033 0.0017 -0.4977 1508.0 -0.2076 -0.0015 -0.5045 1509.0 -0.2021 0.0025 -0.4958 1510.0 -0.2429 -0.0267 -0.5597 1511.0 -0.2627 -0.0408 -0.5906 1512.0 -0.2653 -0.0427 -0.5947 1513.0 -0.2870 -0.0582 -0.6287 1514.0 -0.2689 -0.0453 -0.6004 1515.0 -0.2478 -0.0302 -0.5674 1516.0 -0.2796 -0.0529 -0.6171 1517.0 -0.2900 -0.0604 -0.6335 1518.0 -0.3214 -0.0828 -0.6825 1519.0 -0.3278 -0.0874 -0.6925 1520.0 -0.3433 -0.0985 -0.7169 1521.0 -0.3439 -0.0989 -0.7178 1522.0 -0.3232 -0.0841 -0.6854 1523.0 -0.3356 -0.0930 -0.7048 1524.0 -0.3574 -0.1086 -0.7390 1525.0 -0.3602 -0.1106 -0.7433 1526.0 -0.3833 -0.1271 -0.7794 1527.0 -0.3773 -0.1228 -0.7700 1528.0 -0.3865 -0.1294 -0.7845 1529.0 -0.3699 -0.1175 -0.7584 1530.0 -0.3428 -0.0982 -0.7161 1531.0 -0.3105 -0.0750 -0.6655 1532.0 -0.2775 -0.0514 -0.6138 1533.0 -0.2692 -0.0455 -0.6009 1534.0 -0.2264 -0.0149 -0.5339 1535.0 -0.1972 0.0060 -0.4882 1536.0 -0.2055 0.0001 -0.5011 1537.0 -0.2231 -0.0125 -0.5287 1538.0 -0.2299 -0.0174 -0.5394 1539.0 -0.2210 -0.0110 -0.5254 1540.0 -0.2296 -0.0172 -0.5389 1541.0 -0.2435 -0.0271 -0.5606 1542.0 -0.2761 -0.0505 -0.6117 1543.0 -0.2939 -0.0631 -0.6395 1544.0 -0.2926 -0.0622 -0.6375 1545.0 -0.2912 -0.0612 -0.6353 1546.0 -0.2733 -0.0484 -0.6073 1547.0 -0.2428 -0.0266 -0.5596 1548.0 -0.1955 0.0072 -0.4856 1549.0 -0.1698 0.0256 -0.4453 1550.0 -0.1590 0.0333 -0.4284 1551.0 -0.1273 0.0560 -0.3788 1552.0 -0.0951 0.0790 -0.3284 1553.0 -0.0720 0.0955 -0.2923 1554.0 -0.0605 0.1038 -0.2743 1555.0 -0.0828 0.0878 -0.3092 1556.0 -0.1091 0.0690 -0.3503 1557.0 -0.1081 0.0697 -0.3488 1558.0 -0.1055 0.0716 -0.3446 1559.0 -0.0940 0.0798 -0.3266 1560.0 -0.0727 0.0951 -0.2933 1561.0 -0.0568 0.1064 -0.2684 1562.0 -0.0516 0.1101 -0.2603 1563.0 -0.0715 0.0959 -0.2915 1564.0 -0.0538 0.1086 -0.2637 1565.0 -0.0348 0.1251 -0.2340 1566.0 -0.0431 0.1163 -0.2469 1567.0 -0.0140 0.1576 -0.2015 1568.0 -0.0172 0.1527 -0.2064 1569.0 -0.0220 0.1451 -0.2139 1570.0 -0.0346 0.1254 -0.2336 1571.0 -0.0773 0.0918 -0.3005 1572.0 -0.0775 0.0916 -0.3009 1573.0 -0.1104 0.0681 -0.3523 1574.0 -0.1456 0.0429 -0.4074 1575.0 -0.2085 -0.0021 -0.5058 1576.0 -0.2574 -0.0370 -0.5824 1577.0 -0.2713 -0.0470 -0.6041 1578.0 -0.3002 -0.0677 -0.6493 1579.0 -0.3354 -0.0929 -0.7045 1580.0 -0.3725 -0.1194 -0.7626 1581.0 -0.3856 -0.1288 -0.7830 1582.0 -0.3726 -0.1195 -0.7628 1583.0 -0.3958 -0.1361 -0.7991 1584.0 -0.4132 -0.1485 -0.8263 1585.0 -0.4106 -0.1466 -0.8222 1586.0 -0.3978 -0.1375 -0.8022 1587.0 -0.4019 -0.1404 -0.8085 1588.0 -0.4160 -0.1505 -0.8306 1589.0 -0.4066 -0.1438 -0.8159 1590.0 -0.4018 -0.1404 -0.8084 1591.0 -0.3951 -0.1356 -0.7979 1592.0 -0.4130 -0.1484 -0.8260 1593.0 -0.4299 -0.1604 -0.8523 1594.0 -0.4282 -0.1592 -0.8497 1595.0 -0.4041 -0.1420 -0.8120 1596.0 -0.4125 -0.1480 -0.8252 1597.0 -0.4272 -0.1585 -0.8482 1598.0 -0.4125 -0.1480 -0.8251 1599.0 -0.4092 -0.1456 -0.8199 1600.0 -0.4337 -0.1631 -0.8583 1601.0 -0.4304 -0.1608 -0.8532 1602.0 -0.4271 -0.1584 -0.8480 1603.0 -0.4222 -0.1549 -0.8403 1604.0 -0.4318 -0.1618 -0.8554 1605.0 -0.4481 -0.1735 -0.8809 1606.0 -0.4515 -0.1759 -0.8862 1607.0 -0.4341 -0.1635 -0.8590 1608.0 -0.4093 -0.1457 -0.8202 1609.0 -0.4057 -0.1432 -0.8146 1610.0 -0.3895 -0.1315 -0.7891 1611.0 -0.3755 -0.1215 -0.7672 1612.0 -0.3770 -0.1226 -0.7695 1613.0 -0.3837 -0.1274 -0.7800 1614.0 -0.3944 -0.1350 -0.7968 1615.0 -0.3825 -0.1265 -0.7782 1616.0 -0.3726 -0.1194 -0.7627 1617.0 -0.3863 -0.1293 -0.7842 1618.0 -0.3916 -0.1331 -0.7925 1619.0 -0.4162 -0.1507 -0.8310 1620.0 -0.4250 -0.1570 -0.8448 1621.0 -0.4274 -0.1587 -0.8485 1622.0 -0.4427 -0.1696 -0.8724 1623.0 -0.4494 -0.1744 -0.8829 1624.0 -0.4335 -0.1630 -0.8580 1625.0 -0.4469 -0.1726 -0.8790 1626.0 -0.4870 -0.2013 -0.9418 1627.0 -0.5075 -0.2159 -0.9738 1628.0 -0.5109 -0.2184 -0.9792 1629.0 -0.5206 -0.2253 -0.9944 1630.0 -0.4954 -0.2073 -0.9550 1631.0 -0.4925 -0.2052 -0.9504 1632.0 -0.4738 -0.1919 -0.9211 1633.0 -0.4801 -0.1964 -0.9310 1634.0 -0.4899 -0.2034 -0.9463 1635.0 -0.4982 -0.2093 -0.9593 1636.0 -0.5181 -0.2235 -0.9904 1637.0 -0.5280 -0.2306 -1.0059 1638.0 -0.5356 -0.2361 -1.0179 1639.0 -0.5730 -0.2628 -1.0764 1640.0 -0.5800 -0.2678 -1.0874 1641.0 -0.5944 -0.2781 -1.1099 1642.0 -0.6150 -0.2928 -1.1421 1643.0 -0.6526 -0.3197 -1.2009 1644.0 -0.6379 -0.3093 -1.1780 1645.0 -0.6315 -0.3047 -1.1680 1646.0 -0.6307 -0.3041 -1.1667 1647.0 -0.6082 -0.2880 -1.1314 1648.0 -0.5672 -0.2586 -1.0673 1649.0 -0.5532 -0.2486 -1.0453 1650.0 -0.5203 -0.2251 -0.9939 1651.0 -0.4937 -0.2061 -0.9522 1652.0 -0.4736 -0.1917 -0.9207 1653.0 -0.4315 -0.1616 -0.8549 1654.0 -0.4029 -0.1411 -0.8101 1655.0 -0.3958 -0.1361 -0.7990 1656.0 -0.3898 -0.1317 -0.7896 1657.0 -0.4003 -0.1393 -0.8061 1658.0 -0.3803 -0.1249 -0.7747 1659.0 -0.3534 -0.1057 -0.7326 1660.0 -0.3385 -0.0951 -0.7094 1661.0 -0.3183 -0.0806 -0.6778 1662.0 -0.3082 -0.0734 -0.6619 1663.0 -0.3178 -0.0803 -0.6770 1664.0 -0.3385 -0.0950 -0.7093 1665.0 -0.3543 -0.1064 -0.7340 1666.0 -0.3521 -0.1048 -0.7306 1667.0 -0.3463 -0.1007 -0.7216 1668.0 -0.3304 -0.0893 -0.6967 1669.0 -0.3312 -0.0899 -0.6980 1670.0 -0.3543 -0.1064 -0.7341 1671.0 -0.3854 -0.1286 -0.7827 1672.0 -0.4128 -0.1482 -0.8256 1673.0 -0.4337 -0.1632 -0.8584 1674.0 -0.4404 -0.1679 -0.8688 1675.0 -0.4731 -0.1913 -0.9200 1676.0 -0.4834 -0.1987 -0.9361 1677.0 -0.5047 -0.2140 -0.9695 1678.0 -0.5023 -0.2123 -0.9658 1679.0 -0.5043 -0.2137 -0.9689 1680.0 -0.5211 -0.2257 -0.9951 1681.0 -0.5140 -0.2206 -0.9840 1682.0 -0.4779 -0.1948 -0.9275 1683.0 -0.4648 -0.1854 -0.9070 1684.0 -0.4455 -0.1716 -0.8768 1685.0 -0.4256 -0.1574 -0.8456 1686.0 -0.3775 -0.1229 -0.7703 1687.0 -0.3364 -0.0936 -0.7061 1688.0 -0.3154 -0.0786 -0.6732 1689.0 -0.3263 -0.0863 -0.6902 1690.0 -0.3033 -0.0699 -0.6543 1691.0 -0.3161 -0.0791 -0.6743 1692.0 -0.3238 -0.0846 -0.6864 1693.0 -0.3558 -0.1074 -0.7363 1694.0 -0.3896 -0.1316 -0.7893 1695.0 -0.4066 -0.1438 -0.8159 1696.0 -0.4190 -0.1526 -0.8353 1697.0 -0.4379 -0.1661 -0.8649 1698.0 -0.4631 -0.1842 -0.9043 1699.0 -0.4649 -0.1855 -0.9071 1700.0 -0.4705 -0.1895 -0.9159 1701.0 -0.5197 -0.2247 -0.9929 1702.0 -0.4939 -0.2063 -0.9526 1703.0 -0.4931 -0.2056 -0.9513 1704.0 -0.4490 -0.1741 -0.8824 1705.0 -0.4022 -0.1407 -0.8091 1706.0 -0.3924 -0.1336 -0.7936 1707.0 -0.3703 -0.1178 -0.7592 1708.0 -0.3361 -0.0933 -0.7056 1709.0 -0.3402 -0.0963 -0.7120 1710.0 -0.3343 -0.0921 -0.7027 1711.0 -0.3050 -0.0711 -0.6569 1712.0 -0.2782 -0.0519 -0.6149 1713.0 -0.2796 -0.0529 -0.6171 1714.0 -0.2709 -0.0467 -0.6036 1715.0 -0.2707 -0.0466 -0.6032 1716.0 -0.2590 -0.0382 -0.5849 1717.0 -0.2480 -0.0303 -0.5677 1718.0 -0.2622 -0.0405 -0.5899 1719.0 -0.2804 -0.0535 -0.6184 1720.0 -0.2470 -0.0296 -0.5662 1721.0 -0.2436 -0.0272 -0.5609 1722.0 -0.2068 -0.0009 -0.5033 1723.0 -0.1813 0.0174 -0.4633 1724.0 -0.1383 0.0481 -0.3960 1725.0 -0.1059 0.0713 -0.3453 1726.0 -0.1169 0.0634 -0.3625 1727.0 -0.1353 0.0503 -0.3913 1728.0 -0.1386 0.0479 -0.3964 1729.0 -0.1360 0.0498 -0.3923 1730.0 -0.1709 0.0248 -0.4470 1731.0 -0.2073 -0.0012 -0.5040 1732.0 -0.2282 -0.0162 -0.5367 1733.0 -0.2883 -0.0591 -0.6307 1734.0 -0.3059 -0.0717 -0.6583 1735.0 -0.3309 -0.0896 -0.6974 1736.0 -0.3484 -0.1022 -0.7249 1737.0 -0.3709 -0.1182 -0.7600 1738.0 -0.3481 -0.1019 -0.7243 1739.0 -0.3395 -0.0958 -0.7108 1740.0 -0.3398 -0.0960 -0.7114 1741.0 -0.3075 -0.0729 -0.6608 1742.0 -0.2914 -0.0614 -0.6356 1743.0 -0.2699 -0.0460 -0.6020 1744.0 -0.2631 -0.0412 -0.5914 1745.0 -0.2821 -0.0548 -0.6211 1746.0 -0.3029 -0.0696 -0.6536 1747.0 -0.3129 -0.0768 -0.6693 1748.0 -0.2945 -0.0636 -0.6404 1749.0 -0.3083 -0.0735 -0.6621 1750.0 -0.3107 -0.0752 -0.6658 1751.0 -0.2950 -0.0639 -0.6412 1752.0 -0.2730 -0.0482 -0.6068 1753.0 -0.2631 -0.0411 -0.5913 1754.0 -0.2628 -0.0409 -0.5909 1755.0 -0.2410 -0.0253 -0.5567 1756.0 -0.1986 0.0050 -0.4903 1757.0 -0.1438 0.0442 -0.4045 1758.0 -0.1088 0.0692 -0.3498 1759.0 -0.0850 0.0862 -0.3126 1760.0 -0.0443 0.1154 -0.2489 1761.0 -0.0183 0.1509 -0.2082 1762.0 0.0060 0.1889 -0.1701 1763.0 -0.0154 0.1554 -0.2037 1764.0 -0.0131 0.1591 -0.2000 1765.0 -0.0377 0.1205 -0.2385 1766.0 -0.0455 0.1145 -0.2508 1767.0 -0.0773 0.0918 -0.3005 1768.0 -0.1291 0.0547 -0.3815 1769.0 -0.1442 0.0439 -0.4053 1770.0 -0.1383 0.0481 -0.3961 1771.0 -0.1732 0.0231 -0.4507 1772.0 -0.1884 0.0123 -0.4744 1773.0 -0.2118 -0.0045 -0.5111 1774.0 -0.2065 -0.0006 -0.5027 1775.0 -0.2044 0.0008 -0.4995 1776.0 -0.1669 0.0277 -0.4407 1777.0 -0.1511 0.0390 -0.4160 1778.0 -0.1483 0.0409 -0.4117 1779.0 -0.1258 0.0571 -0.3764 1780.0 -0.1130 0.0662 -0.3564 1781.0 -0.1131 0.0662 -0.3565 1782.0 -0.0892 0.0833 -0.3191 1783.0 -0.0949 0.0792 -0.3280 1784.0 -0.0813 0.0889 -0.3067 1785.0 -0.0630 0.1020 -0.2782 1786.0 -0.0571 0.1062 -0.2688 1787.0 -0.0648 0.1007 -0.2810 1788.0 -0.0847 0.0865 -0.3121 1789.0 -0.0523 0.1096 -0.2614 1790.0 -0.0589 0.1049 -0.2717 1791.0 -0.0724 0.0953 -0.2929 1792.0 -0.1006 0.0751 -0.3370 1793.0 -0.1169 0.0634 -0.3625 1794.0 -0.1059 0.0713 -0.3453 1795.0 -0.1326 0.0522 -0.3871 1796.0 -0.1226 0.0594 -0.3714 1797.0 -0.1442 0.0439 -0.4053 1798.0 -0.1327 0.0521 -0.3872 1799.0 -0.1002 0.0754 -0.3364 1800.0 -0.0970 0.0777 -0.3313 1801.0 -0.0917 0.0814 -0.3231 1802.0 -0.0996 0.0758 -0.3355 1803.0 -0.0797 0.0901 -0.3042 1804.0 -0.0731 0.0948 -0.2940 1805.0 -0.0982 0.0768 -0.3332 1806.0 -0.1035 0.0730 -0.3416 1807.0 -0.1607 0.0321 -0.4310 1808.0 -0.1883 0.0124 -0.4742 1809.0 -0.2375 -0.0228 -0.5512 1810.0 -0.3080 -0.0733 -0.6617 1811.0 -0.3704 -0.1179 -0.7593 1812.0 -0.4136 -0.1488 -0.8269 1813.0 -0.4522 -0.1764 -0.8873 1814.0 -0.4971 -0.2085 -0.9575 1815.0 -0.5265 -0.2296 -1.0036 1816.0 -0.5376 -0.2375 -1.0210 1817.0 -0.5516 -0.2475 -1.0429 1818.0 -0.5198 -0.2247 -0.9931 1819.0 -0.5124 -0.2195 -0.9816 1820.0 -0.5102 -0.2179 -0.9780 1821.0 -0.4842 -0.1993 -0.9374 1822.0 -0.4357 -0.1646 -0.8615 1823.0 -0.3921 -0.1334 -0.7933 1824.0 -0.3467 -0.1010 -0.7222 1825.0 -0.3174 -0.0800 -0.6763 1826.0 -0.2801 -0.0533 -0.6179 1827.0 -0.2722 -0.0476 -0.6055 1828.0 -0.2724 -0.0478 -0.6058 1829.0 -0.2954 -0.0642 -0.6418 1830.0 -0.3073 -0.0727 -0.6605 1831.0 -0.3216 -0.0830 -0.6829 1832.0 -0.3356 -0.0930 -0.7048 1833.0 -0.3621 -0.1119 -0.7462 1834.0 -0.3942 -0.1349 -0.7965 1835.0 -0.4221 -0.1549 -0.8403 1836.0 -0.4308 -0.1611 -0.8538 1837.0 -0.4647 -0.1854 -0.9069 1838.0 -0.4741 -0.1920 -0.9215 1839.0 -0.4692 -0.1886 -0.9140 1840.0 -0.4550 -0.1784 -0.8916 1841.0 -0.4130 -0.1484 -0.8259 1842.0 -0.3694 -0.1172 -0.7577 1843.0 -0.3419 -0.0975 -0.7147 1844.0 -0.3330 -0.0911 -0.7007 1845.0 -0.3116 -0.0758 -0.6672 1846.0 -0.2920 -0.0618 -0.6366 1847.0 -0.2593 -0.0384 -0.5853 1848.0 -0.2317 -0.0186 -0.5421 1849.0 -0.2133 -0.0055 -0.5134 1850.0 -0.2042 0.0010 -0.4991 1851.0 -0.1956 0.0071 -0.4857 1852.0 -0.2242 -0.0133 -0.5304 1853.0 -0.2256 -0.0143 -0.5327 1854.0 -0.2387 -0.0237 -0.5531 1855.0 -0.2199 -0.0102 -0.5236 1856.0 -0.2101 -0.0032 -0.5084 1857.0 -0.2271 -0.0154 -0.5351 1858.0 -0.2754 -0.0499 -0.6105 1859.0 -0.2833 -0.0556 -0.6230 1860.0 -0.2926 -0.0622 -0.6374 1861.0 -0.3052 -0.0713 -0.6573 1862.0 -0.3319 -0.0903 -0.6990 1863.0 -0.3084 -0.0736 -0.6622 1864.0 -0.3242 -0.0848 -0.6869 1865.0 -0.3117 -0.0759 -0.6674 1866.0 -0.3190 -0.0811 -0.6788 1867.0 -0.3315 -0.0901 -0.6985 1868.0 -0.3350 -0.0925 -0.7038 1869.0 -0.3251 -0.0855 -0.6883 1870.0 -0.3240 -0.0847 -0.6867 1871.0 -0.2922 -0.0620 -0.6369 1872.0 -0.2371 -0.0226 -0.5507 1873.0 -0.1918 0.0099 -0.4797 1874.0 -0.1826 0.0165 -0.4653 1875.0 -0.1543 0.0367 -0.4211 1876.0 -0.1486 0.0408 -0.4121 1877.0 -0.1695 0.0258 -0.4448 1878.0 -0.1721 0.0239 -0.4489 1879.0 -0.1883 0.0124 -0.4743 1880.0 -0.2035 0.0015 -0.4980 1881.0 -0.2296 -0.0172 -0.5389 1882.0 -0.2531 -0.0340 -0.5756 1883.0 -0.2876 -0.0587 -0.6297 1884.0 -0.3091 -0.0740 -0.6633 1885.0 -0.3241 -0.0848 -0.6868 1886.0 -0.3313 -0.0899 -0.6980 1887.0 -0.3363 -0.0935 -0.7059 1888.0 -0.3328 -0.0910 -0.7004 1889.0 -0.3276 -0.0873 -0.6923 1890.0 -0.2769 -0.0510 -0.6129 1891.0 -0.2156 -0.0071 -0.5169 1892.0 -0.1723 0.0238 -0.4492 1893.0 -0.1401 0.0468 -0.3988 1894.0 -0.1584 0.0337 -0.4275 1895.0 -0.1582 0.0339 -0.4271 1896.0 -0.1334 0.0516 -0.3883 1897.0 -0.1143 0.0653 -0.3585 1898.0 -0.1406 0.0465 -0.3995 1899.0 -0.1343 0.0510 -0.3898 1900.0 -0.1471 0.0418 -0.4097 1901.0 -0.1782 0.0196 -0.4584 1902.0 -0.2031 0.0018 -0.4973 1903.0 -0.1928 0.0091 -0.4814 1904.0 -0.1846 0.0150 -0.4685 1905.0 -0.1630 0.0305 -0.4346 1906.0 -0.1520 0.0383 -0.4174 1907.0 -0.1759 0.0213 -0.4548 1908.0 -0.2163 -0.0077 -0.5181 1909.0 -0.2008 0.0034 -0.4939 1910.0 -0.1659 0.0284 -0.4392 1911.0 -0.1186 0.0622 -0.3652 1912.0 -0.1004 0.0753 -0.3366 1913.0 -0.0952 0.0790 -0.3285 1914.0 -0.1139 0.0656 -0.3577 1915.0 -0.1215 0.0601 -0.3698 1916.0 -0.1120 0.0669 -0.3549 1917.0 -0.0839 0.0871 -0.3108 1918.0 -0.0592 0.1047 -0.2722 1919.0 -0.0320 0.1294 -0.2297 1920.0 -0.0083 0.1665 -0.1926 1921.0 -0.0202 0.1479 -0.2112 1922.0 -0.0301 0.1324 -0.2266 1923.0 -0.0049 0.1719 -0.1872 1924.0 0.0146 0.2024 -0.1567 1925.0 0.0260 0.2203 -0.1388 1926.0 0.0302 0.2268 -0.1323 1927.0 0.0623 0.2770 -0.1025 1928.0 0.0602 0.2738 -0.1040 1929.0 0.0810 0.3063 -0.0891 1930.0 0.1075 0.3478 -0.0701 1931.0 0.1260 0.3767 -0.0570 1932.0 0.1490 0.4127 -0.0405 1933.0 0.1861 0.4708 -0.0139 1934.0 0.2177 0.5203 0.0087 1935.0 0.2467 0.5657 0.0294 1936.0 0.2849 0.6255 0.0567 1937.0 0.3200 0.6804 0.0818 1938.0 0.3205 0.6811 0.0822 1939.0 0.3218 0.6832 0.0831 1940.0 0.3409 0.7130 0.0968 1941.0 0.3497 0.7269 0.1031 1942.0 0.3364 0.7061 0.0936 1943.0 0.3340 0.7024 0.0919 1944.0 0.2701 0.6022 0.0461 1945.0 0.2359 0.5487 0.0217 1946.0 0.2092 0.5069 0.0026 1947.0 0.1716 0.4480 -0.0243 1948.0 0.1738 0.4516 -0.0227 1949.0 0.1659 0.4392 -0.0284 1950.0 0.1776 0.4575 -0.0200 1951.0 0.1596 0.4293 -0.0329 1952.0 0.1408 0.3999 -0.0464 1953.0 0.1465 0.4088 -0.0423 1954.0 0.1704 0.4463 -0.0252 1955.0 0.2249 0.5315 0.0138 1956.0 0.2294 0.5386 0.0170 1957.0 0.2504 0.5714 0.0320 1958.0 0.2610 0.5881 0.0397 1959.0 0.2683 0.5995 0.0449 1960.0 0.2883 0.6308 0.0592 1505.0 -0.1500 0.0821 -0.4664 1506.0 -0.1700 0.0704 -0.4988 1507.0 -0.1700 0.0704 -0.4988 1508.0 -0.1800 0.0645 -0.5149 1509.0 -0.1700 0.0704 -0.4988 1510.0 -0.2000 0.0528 -0.5472 1511.0 -0.2000 0.0528 -0.5472 1512.0 -0.2100 0.0470 -0.5634 1513.0 -0.2300 0.0353 -0.5957 1514.0 -0.2200 0.0411 -0.5796 1515.0 -0.1900 0.0587 -0.5311 1516.0 -0.2100 0.0470 -0.5634 1517.0 -0.2200 0.0411 -0.5796 1518.0 -0.2300 0.0353 -0.5957 1519.0 -0.2300 0.0353 -0.5957 1520.0 -0.2400 0.0294 -0.6119 1521.0 -0.2400 0.0294 -0.6119 1522.0 -0.2300 0.0353 -0.5957 1523.0 -0.2300 0.0353 -0.5957 1524.0 -0.2500 0.0236 -0.6280 1525.0 -0.2500 0.0236 -0.6280 1526.0 -0.2600 0.0177 -0.6442 1527.0 -0.2500 0.0236 -0.6280 1528.0 -0.2500 0.0236 -0.6280 1529.0 -0.2500 0.0236 -0.6280 1530.0 -0.2300 0.0353 -0.5957 1531.0 -0.2200 0.0411 -0.5796 1532.0 -0.1900 0.0587 -0.5311 1533.0 -0.1800 0.0645 -0.5149 1534.0 -0.1500 0.0821 -0.4664 1535.0 -0.1100 0.1055 -0.4018 1536.0 -0.1100 0.1055 -0.4018 1537.0 -0.1200 0.0996 -0.4179 1538.0 -0.1300 0.0938 -0.4341 1539.0 -0.1400 0.0879 -0.4503 1540.0 -0.1400 0.0879 -0.4503 1541.0 -0.1700 0.0704 -0.4988 1542.0 -0.1900 0.0587 -0.5311 1543.0 -0.2000 0.0528 -0.5472 1544.0 -0.2000 0.0528 -0.5472 1545.0 -0.1900 0.0587 -0.5311 1546.0 -0.1800 0.0645 -0.5149 1547.0 -0.1500 0.0821 -0.4664 1548.0 -0.1100 0.1055 -0.4018 1549.0 -0.0900 0.1172 -0.3695 1550.0 -0.0900 0.1172 -0.3695 1551.0 -0.0500 0.1432 -0.3048 1552.0 -0.0300 0.1755 -0.2725 1553.0 -0.0200 0.1917 -0.2563 1554.0 -0.0200 0.1917 -0.2563 1555.0 -0.0300 0.1755 -0.2725 1556.0 -0.0500 0.1432 -0.3048 1557.0 -0.0500 0.1432 -0.3048 1558.0 -0.0400 0.1594 -0.2886 1559.0 -0.0300 0.1755 -0.2725 1560.0 -0.0300 0.1755 -0.2725 1561.0 -0.0100 0.2078 -0.2402 1562.0 0.0000 0.2240 -0.2240 1563.0 -0.0200 0.1917 -0.2563 1564.0 -0.0100 0.2078 -0.2402 1565.0 0.0000 0.2240 -0.2240 1566.0 0.0000 0.2240 -0.2240 1567.0 0.0200 0.2563 -0.1917 1568.0 0.0000 0.2240 -0.2240 1569.0 -0.0100 0.2078 -0.2402 1570.0 -0.0100 0.2078 -0.2402 1571.0 -0.0500 0.1432 -0.3048 1572.0 -0.0600 0.1348 -0.3210 1573.0 -0.0800 0.1230 -0.3533 1574.0 -0.0900 0.1172 -0.3695 1575.0 -0.1300 0.0938 -0.4341 1576.0 -0.1700 0.0704 -0.4988 1577.0 -0.1900 0.0587 -0.5311 1578.0 -0.2200 0.0411 -0.5796 1579.0 -0.2500 0.0236 -0.6280 1580.0 -0.2700 0.0119 -0.6604 1581.0 -0.2900 0.0002 -0.6927 1582.0 -0.2900 0.0002 -0.6927 1583.0 -0.3100 -0.0115 -0.7250 1584.0 -0.3300 -0.0232 -0.7573 1585.0 -0.3300 -0.0232 -0.7573 1586.0 -0.3400 -0.0291 -0.7735 1587.0 -0.3500 -0.0349 -0.7897 1588.0 -0.3500 -0.0349 -0.7897 1589.0 -0.3400 -0.0291 -0.7735 1590.0 -0.3500 -0.0349 -0.7897 1591.0 -0.3400 -0.0291 -0.7735 1592.0 -0.3600 -0.0408 -0.8058 1593.0 -0.3800 -0.0525 -0.8382 1594.0 -0.3700 -0.0466 -0.8220 1595.0 -0.3600 -0.0408 -0.8058 1596.0 -0.3800 -0.0525 -0.8382 1597.0 -0.3900 -0.0583 -0.8543 1598.0 -0.3700 -0.0466 -0.8220 1599.0 -0.3600 -0.0408 -0.8058 1600.0 -0.3700 -0.0466 -0.8220 1601.0 -0.3600 -0.0408 -0.8058 1602.0 -0.3400 -0.0291 -0.7735 1603.0 -0.3600 -0.0408 -0.8058 1604.0 -0.3500 -0.0349 -0.7897 1605.0 -0.3600 -0.0408 -0.8058 1606.0 -0.3600 -0.0408 -0.8058 1607.0 -0.3400 -0.0291 -0.7735 1608.0 -0.3300 -0.0232 -0.7573 1609.0 -0.3200 -0.0174 -0.7412 1610.0 -0.3100 -0.0115 -0.7250 1611.0 -0.3100 -0.0115 -0.7250 1612.0 -0.3000 -0.0057 -0.7089 1613.0 -0.3100 -0.0115 -0.7250 1614.0 -0.3300 -0.0232 -0.7573 1615.0 -0.3200 -0.0174 -0.7412 1616.0 -0.3200 -0.0174 -0.7412 1617.0 -0.3300 -0.0232 -0.7573 1618.0 -0.3500 -0.0349 -0.7897 1619.0 -0.3700 -0.0466 -0.8220 1620.0 -0.3800 -0.0525 -0.8382 1621.0 -0.3700 -0.0466 -0.8220 1622.0 -0.3900 -0.0583 -0.8543 1623.0 -0.3900 -0.0583 -0.8543 1624.0 -0.3700 -0.0466 -0.8220 1625.0 -0.3700 -0.0466 -0.8220 1626.0 -0.3800 -0.0525 -0.8382 1627.0 -0.4100 -0.0700 -0.8866 1628.0 -0.4000 -0.0642 -0.8705 1629.0 -0.4100 -0.0700 -0.8866 1630.0 -0.4100 -0.0700 -0.8866 1631.0 -0.4000 -0.0642 -0.8705 1632.0 -0.4000 -0.0642 -0.8705 1633.0 -0.4000 -0.0642 -0.8705 1634.0 -0.4000 -0.0642 -0.8705 1635.0 -0.4200 -0.0759 -0.9028 1636.0 -0.4300 -0.0817 -0.9190 1637.0 -0.4500 -0.0934 -0.9513 1638.0 -0.4600 -0.0993 -0.9675 1639.0 -0.4900 -0.1168 -1.0159 1640.0 -0.5000 -0.1227 -1.0321 1641.0 -0.5100 -0.1285 -1.0483 1642.0 -0.5100 -0.1285 -1.0483 1643.0 -0.5300 -0.1402 -1.0806 1644.0 -0.5200 -0.1344 -1.0644 1645.0 -0.5100 -0.1285 -1.0483 1646.0 -0.5200 -0.1344 -1.0644 1647.0 -0.4900 -0.1168 -1.0159 1648.0 -0.4700 -0.1051 -0.9836 1649.0 -0.4700 -0.1051 -0.9836 1650.0 -0.4400 -0.0876 -0.9351 1651.0 -0.4300 -0.0817 -0.9190 1652.0 -0.4100 -0.0700 -0.8866 1653.0 -0.3900 -0.0583 -0.8543 1654.0 -0.3600 -0.0408 -0.8058 1655.0 -0.3500 -0.0349 -0.7897 1656.0 -0.3400 -0.0291 -0.7735 1657.0 -0.3300 -0.0232 -0.7573 1658.0 -0.3300 -0.0232 -0.7573 1659.0 -0.3000 -0.0057 -0.7089 1660.0 -0.2900 0.0002 -0.6927 1661.0 -0.2700 0.0119 -0.6604 1662.0 -0.2700 0.0119 -0.6604 1663.0 -0.2700 0.0119 -0.6604 1664.0 -0.2900 0.0002 -0.6927 1665.0 -0.3100 -0.0115 -0.7250 1666.0 -0.3000 -0.0057 -0.7089 1667.0 -0.3000 -0.0057 -0.7089 1668.0 -0.2900 0.0002 -0.6927 1669.0 -0.3000 -0.0057 -0.7089 1670.0 -0.3200 -0.0174 -0.7412 1671.0 -0.3400 -0.0291 -0.7735 1672.0 -0.3700 -0.0466 -0.8220 1673.0 -0.3800 -0.0525 -0.8382 1674.0 -0.3900 -0.0583 -0.8543 1675.0 -0.4100 -0.0700 -0.8866 1676.0 -0.4200 -0.0759 -0.9028 1677.0 -0.4200 -0.0759 -0.9028 1678.0 -0.4200 -0.0759 -0.9028 1679.0 -0.4300 -0.0817 -0.9190 1680.0 -0.4500 -0.0934 -0.9513 1681.0 -0.4400 -0.0876 -0.9351 1682.0 -0.4100 -0.0700 -0.8866 1683.0 -0.4100 -0.0700 -0.8866 1684.0 -0.3900 -0.0583 -0.8543 1685.0 -0.3700 -0.0466 -0.8220 1686.0 -0.3400 -0.0291 -0.7735 1687.0 -0.3200 -0.0174 -0.7412 1688.0 -0.2900 0.0002 -0.6927 1689.0 -0.3100 -0.0115 -0.7250 1690.0 -0.3100 -0.0115 -0.7250 1691.0 -0.3300 -0.0232 -0.7573 1692.0 -0.3400 -0.0291 -0.7735 1693.0 -0.3700 -0.0466 -0.8220 1694.0 -0.4100 -0.0700 -0.8866 1695.0 -0.4300 -0.0817 -0.9190 1696.0 -0.4300 -0.0817 -0.9190 1697.0 -0.4500 -0.0934 -0.9513 1698.0 -0.4600 -0.0993 -0.9675 1699.0 -0.4500 -0.0934 -0.9513 1700.0 -0.4500 -0.0934 -0.9513 1701.0 -0.4700 -0.1051 -0.9836 1702.0 -0.4400 -0.0876 -0.9351 1703.0 -0.4200 -0.0759 -0.9028 1704.0 -0.4000 -0.0642 -0.8705 1705.0 -0.3500 -0.0349 -0.7897 1706.0 -0.3200 -0.0174 -0.7412 1707.0 -0.3100 -0.0115 -0.7250 1708.0 -0.2800 0.0060 -0.6765 1709.0 -0.2900 0.0002 -0.6927 1710.0 -0.2700 0.0119 -0.6604 1711.0 -0.2700 0.0119 -0.6604 1712.0 -0.2500 0.0236 -0.6280 1713.0 -0.2500 0.0236 -0.6280 1714.0 -0.2500 0.0236 -0.6280 1715.0 -0.2500 0.0236 -0.6280 1716.0 -0.2400 0.0294 -0.6119 1717.0 -0.2100 0.0470 -0.5634 1718.0 -0.2100 0.0470 -0.5634 1719.0 -0.2300 0.0353 -0.5957 1720.0 -0.2100 0.0470 -0.5634 1721.0 -0.2000 0.0528 -0.5472 1722.0 -0.1700 0.0704 -0.4988 1723.0 -0.1600 0.0762 -0.4826 1724.0 -0.1400 0.0879 -0.4503 1725.0 -0.1200 0.0996 -0.4179 1726.0 -0.1300 0.0938 -0.4341 1727.0 -0.1400 0.0879 -0.4503 1728.0 -0.1500 0.0821 -0.4664 1729.0 -0.1500 0.0821 -0.4664 1730.0 -0.1600 0.0762 -0.4826 1731.0 -0.1800 0.0645 -0.5149 1732.0 -0.1800 0.0645 -0.5149 1733.0 -0.2100 0.0470 -0.5634 1734.0 -0.2200 0.0411 -0.5796 1735.0 -0.2500 0.0236 -0.6280 1736.0 -0.2700 0.0119 -0.6604 1737.0 -0.2900 0.0002 -0.6927 1738.0 -0.2800 0.0060 -0.6765 1739.0 -0.2800 0.0060 -0.6765 1740.0 -0.2800 0.0060 -0.6765 1741.0 -0.2400 0.0294 -0.6119 1742.0 -0.2300 0.0353 -0.5957 1743.0 -0.2100 0.0470 -0.5634 1744.0 -0.2000 0.0528 -0.5472 1745.0 -0.2200 0.0411 -0.5796 1746.0 -0.2300 0.0353 -0.5957 1747.0 -0.2200 0.0411 -0.5796 1748.0 -0.2000 0.0528 -0.5472 1749.0 -0.2100 0.0470 -0.5634 1750.0 -0.2000 0.0528 -0.5472 1751.0 -0.1900 0.0587 -0.5311 1752.0 -0.1700 0.0704 -0.4988 1753.0 -0.1700 0.0704 -0.4988 1754.0 -0.1700 0.0704 -0.4988 1755.0 -0.1600 0.0762 -0.4826 1756.0 -0.1200 0.0996 -0.4179 1757.0 -0.0800 0.1230 -0.3533 1758.0 -0.0700 0.1289 -0.3371 1759.0 -0.0400 0.1594 -0.2886 1760.0 -0.0100 0.2078 -0.2402 1761.0 0.0200 0.2563 -0.1917 1762.0 0.0200 0.2563 -0.1917 1763.0 0.0100 0.2402 -0.2078 1764.0 0.0100 0.2402 -0.2078 1765.0 -0.0100 0.2078 -0.2402 1766.0 -0.0100 0.2078 -0.2402 1767.0 -0.0300 0.1755 -0.2725 1768.0 -0.0500 0.1432 -0.3048 1769.0 -0.0600 0.1348 -0.3210 1770.0 -0.0400 0.1594 -0.2886 1771.0 -0.0700 0.1289 -0.3371 1772.0 -0.0800 0.1230 -0.3533 1773.0 -0.1000 0.1113 -0.3856 1774.0 -0.0900 0.1172 -0.3695 1775.0 -0.1000 0.1113 -0.3856 1776.0 -0.0900 0.1172 -0.3695 1777.0 -0.1000 0.1113 -0.3856 1778.0 -0.1000 0.1113 -0.3856 1779.0 -0.1000 0.1113 -0.3856 1780.0 -0.1400 0.0879 -0.4503 1781.0 -0.1600 0.0762 -0.4826 1782.0 -0.1600 0.0762 -0.4826 1783.0 -0.1700 0.0704 -0.4988 1784.0 -0.1700 0.0704 -0.4988 1785.0 -0.1400 0.0879 -0.4503 1786.0 -0.1100 0.1055 -0.4018 1787.0 -0.1000 0.1113 -0.3856 1788.0 -0.1100 0.1055 -0.4018 1789.0 -0.0500 0.1432 -0.3048 1790.0 -0.0500 0.1432 -0.3048 1791.0 -0.0500 0.1432 -0.3048 1792.0 -0.0600 0.1348 -0.3210 1793.0 -0.0600 0.1348 -0.3210 1794.0 -0.0600 0.1348 -0.3210 1795.0 -0.1000 0.1113 -0.3856 1796.0 -0.0900 0.1172 -0.3695 1797.0 -0.1000 0.1113 -0.3856 1798.0 -0.1100 0.1055 -0.4018 1799.0 -0.1000 0.1113 -0.3856 1800.0 -0.0900 0.1172 -0.3695 1801.0 -0.0900 0.1172 -0.3695 1802.0 -0.1000 0.1113 -0.3856 1803.0 -0.1000 0.1113 -0.3856 1804.0 -0.1000 0.1113 -0.3856 1805.0 -0.1200 0.0996 -0.4179 1806.0 -0.1000 0.1113 -0.3856 1807.0 -0.1500 0.0821 -0.4664 1808.0 -0.1800 0.0645 -0.5149 1809.0 -0.2300 0.0353 -0.5957 1810.0 -0.2900 0.0002 -0.6927 1811.0 -0.3500 -0.0349 -0.7897 1812.0 -0.3900 -0.0583 -0.8543 1813.0 -0.4100 -0.0700 -0.8866 1814.0 -0.4400 -0.0876 -0.9351 1815.0 -0.4600 -0.0993 -0.9675 1816.0 -0.4700 -0.1051 -0.9836 1817.0 -0.4600 -0.0993 -0.9675 1818.0 -0.4300 -0.0817 -0.9190 1819.0 -0.4200 -0.0759 -0.9028 1820.0 -0.4100 -0.0700 -0.8866 1821.0 -0.3700 -0.0466 -0.8220 1822.0 -0.3300 -0.0232 -0.7573 1823.0 -0.3100 -0.0115 -0.7250 1824.0 -0.2900 0.0002 -0.6927 1825.0 -0.2900 0.0002 -0.6927 1826.0 -0.2700 0.0119 -0.6604 1827.0 -0.2800 0.0060 -0.6765 1828.0 -0.2900 0.0002 -0.6927 1829.0 -0.3000 -0.0057 -0.7089 1830.0 -0.2900 0.0002 -0.6927 1831.0 -0.3000 -0.0057 -0.7089 1832.0 -0.3200 -0.0174 -0.7412 1833.0 -0.3400 -0.0291 -0.7735 1834.0 -0.3600 -0.0408 -0.8058 1835.0 -0.4000 -0.0642 -0.8705 1836.0 -0.4000 -0.0642 -0.8705 1837.0 -0.4300 -0.0817 -0.9190 1838.0 -0.4300 -0.0817 -0.9190 1839.0 -0.4300 -0.0817 -0.9190 1840.0 -0.4200 -0.0759 -0.9028 1841.0 -0.3700 -0.0466 -0.8220 1842.0 -0.3500 -0.0349 -0.7897 1843.0 -0.3200 -0.0174 -0.7412 1844.0 -0.3200 -0.0174 -0.7412 1845.0 -0.3000 -0.0057 -0.7089 1846.0 -0.2800 0.0060 -0.6765 1847.0 -0.2600 0.0177 -0.6442 1848.0 -0.2500 0.0236 -0.6280 1849.0 -0.2300 0.0353 -0.5957 1850.0 -0.2300 0.0353 -0.5957 1851.0 -0.2300 0.0353 -0.5957 1852.0 -0.2500 0.0236 -0.6280 1853.0 -0.2600 0.0177 -0.6442 1854.0 -0.2600 0.0177 -0.6442 1855.0 -0.2500 0.0236 -0.6280 1856.0 -0.2400 0.0294 -0.6119 1857.0 -0.2500 0.0236 -0.6280 1858.0 -0.2700 0.0119 -0.6604 1859.0 -0.2800 0.0060 -0.6765 1860.0 -0.2900 0.0002 -0.6927 1861.0 -0.3000 -0.0057 -0.7089 1862.0 -0.3300 -0.0232 -0.7573 1863.0 -0.2900 0.0002 -0.6927 1864.0 -0.3200 -0.0174 -0.7412 1865.0 -0.3000 -0.0057 -0.7089 1866.0 -0.3200 -0.0174 -0.7412 1867.0 -0.3300 -0.0232 -0.7573 1868.0 -0.3200 -0.0174 -0.7412 1869.0 -0.3200 -0.0174 -0.7412 1870.0 -0.3400 -0.0291 -0.7735 1871.0 -0.3200 -0.0174 -0.7412 1872.0 -0.2700 0.0119 -0.6604 1873.0 -0.2300 0.0353 -0.5957 1874.0 -0.2400 0.0294 -0.6119 1875.0 -0.2100 0.0470 -0.5634 1876.0 -0.2000 0.0528 -0.5472 1877.0 -0.2000 0.0528 -0.5472 1878.0 -0.2000 0.0528 -0.5472 1879.0 -0.2100 0.0470 -0.5634 1880.0 -0.2200 0.0411 -0.5796 1881.0 -0.2200 0.0411 -0.5796 1882.0 -0.2200 0.0411 -0.5796 1883.0 -0.2500 0.0236 -0.6280 1884.0 -0.2700 0.0119 -0.6604 1885.0 -0.2800 0.0060 -0.6765 1886.0 -0.2800 0.0060 -0.6765 1887.0 -0.2800 0.0060 -0.6765 1888.0 -0.2800 0.0060 -0.6765 1889.0 -0.2600 0.0177 -0.6442 1890.0 -0.2200 0.0411 -0.5796 1891.0 -0.1800 0.0645 -0.5149 1892.0 -0.1400 0.0879 -0.4503 1893.0 -0.1100 0.1055 -0.4018 1894.0 -0.1200 0.0996 -0.4179 1895.0 -0.1200 0.0996 -0.4179 1896.0 -0.0900 0.1172 -0.3695 1897.0 -0.0900 0.1172 -0.3695 1898.0 -0.1000 0.1113 -0.3856 1899.0 -0.1000 0.1113 -0.3856 1900.0 -0.1100 0.1055 -0.4018 1901.0 -0.1300 0.0938 -0.4341 1902.0 -0.1600 0.0762 -0.4826 1903.0 -0.1400 0.0879 -0.4503 1904.0 -0.1400 0.0879 -0.4503 1905.0 -0.1200 0.0996 -0.4179 1906.0 -0.1100 0.1055 -0.4018 1907.0 -0.1400 0.0879 -0.4503 1908.0 -0.1600 0.0762 -0.4826 1909.0 -0.1400 0.0879 -0.4503 1910.0 -0.1200 0.0996 -0.4179 1911.0 -0.0900 0.1172 -0.3695 1912.0 -0.0800 0.1230 -0.3533 1913.0 -0.0600 0.1348 -0.3210 1914.0 -0.0900 0.1172 -0.3695 1915.0 -0.0900 0.1172 -0.3695 1916.0 -0.0800 0.1230 -0.3533 1917.0 -0.0700 0.1289 -0.3371 1918.0 -0.0400 0.1594 -0.2886 1919.0 -0.0200 0.1917 -0.2563 1920.0 0.0100 0.2402 -0.2078 1921.0 0.0100 0.2402 -0.2078 1922.0 0.0000 0.2240 -0.2240 1923.0 0.0300 0.2725 -0.1755 1924.0 0.0300 0.2725 -0.1755 1925.0 0.0600 0.3210 -0.1348 1926.0 0.0600 0.3210 -0.1348 1927.0 0.0900 0.3695 -0.1172 1928.0 0.0800 0.3533 -0.1230 1929.0 0.1200 0.4179 -0.0996 1930.0 0.1500 0.4664 -0.0821 1931.0 0.1700 0.4988 -0.0704 1932.0 0.2000 0.5472 -0.0528 1933.0 0.2500 0.6280 -0.0236 1934.0 0.2900 0.6927 -0.0002 1935.0 0.2900 0.6927 -0.0002 1936.0 0.3100 0.7250 0.0115 1937.0 0.3200 0.7412 0.0174 1938.0 0.3200 0.7412 0.0174 1939.0 0.3200 0.7412 0.0174 1940.0 0.3300 0.7573 0.0232 1941.0 0.3600 0.8058 0.0408 1942.0 0.3700 0.8220 0.0466 1943.0 0.4100 0.8866 0.0700 1944.0 0.3700 0.8220 0.0466 1945.0 0.3600 0.8058 0.0408 1946.0 0.3600 0.8058 0.0408 1947.0 0.3400 0.7735 0.0291 1948.0 0.3500 0.7897 0.0349 1949.0 0.3400 0.7735 0.0291 1950.0 0.3400 0.7735 0.0291 1951.0 0.3000 0.7089 0.0057 1952.0 0.2800 0.6765 -0.0060 1953.0 0.2700 0.6604 -0.0119 1954.0 0.2800 0.6765 -0.0060 1955.0 0.3200 0.7412 0.0174 1956.0 0.3300 0.7573 0.0232 1957.0 0.3500 0.7897 0.0349 1958.0 0.3400 0.7735 0.0291 1959.0 0.3400 0.7735 0.0291 1960.0 0.3200 0.7412 0.0174 1251.0 -0.1209 0.1062 -0.4576 1252.0 -0.0995 0.1201 -0.4182 1253.0 -0.1141 0.1106 -0.4451 1254.0 -0.1404 0.0935 -0.4934 1255.0 -0.1551 0.0840 -0.5203 1256.0 -0.1746 0.0713 -0.5561 1257.0 -0.1716 0.0732 -0.5507 1258.0 -0.1941 0.0586 -0.5919 1259.0 -0.2360 0.0313 -0.6689 1260.0 -0.2574 0.0174 -0.7083 1261.0 -0.2653 0.0123 -0.7227 1262.0 -0.2594 0.0161 -0.7119 1263.0 -0.2623 0.0142 -0.7173 1264.0 -0.2379 0.0300 -0.6725 1265.0 -0.2272 0.0370 -0.6528 1266.0 -0.2360 0.0313 -0.6689 1267.0 -0.2136 0.0459 -0.6277 1268.0 -0.2136 0.0459 -0.6277 1269.0 -0.1872 0.0630 -0.5794 1270.0 -0.1609 0.0802 -0.5310 1271.0 -0.1541 0.0846 -0.5185 1272.0 -0.1560 0.0833 -0.5221 1273.0 -0.1687 0.0751 -0.5454 1274.0 -0.1716 0.0732 -0.5507 1275.0 -0.1765 0.0700 -0.5597 1276.0 -0.1716 0.0732 -0.5507 1277.0 -0.1707 0.0738 -0.5490 1278.0 -0.1892 0.0618 -0.5830 1279.0 -0.2048 0.0516 -0.6116 1280.0 -0.2184 0.0427 -0.6367 1281.0 -0.2370 0.0307 -0.6707 1282.0 -0.2399 0.0288 -0.6761 1283.0 -0.2496 0.0224 -0.6940 1284.0 -0.2643 0.0129 -0.7209 1285.0 -0.2867 -0.0017 -0.7621 1286.0 -0.3111 -0.0175 -0.8068 1287.0 -0.3238 -0.0258 -0.8301 1288.0 -0.3569 -0.0474 -0.8910 1289.0 -0.3686 -0.0550 -0.9125 1290.0 -0.3647 -0.0524 -0.9053 1291.0 -0.3764 -0.0600 -0.9268 1292.0 -0.3940 -0.0715 -0.9591 1293.0 -0.4018 -0.0765 -0.9734 1294.0 -0.4067 -0.0797 -0.9823 1295.0 -0.4037 -0.0778 -0.9770 1296.0 -0.3910 -0.0696 -0.9537 1297.0 -0.3754 -0.0594 -0.9250 1298.0 -0.3706 -0.0562 -0.9161 1299.0 -0.3325 -0.0315 -0.8462 1300.0 -0.3160 -0.0207 -0.8158 1301.0 -0.2974 -0.0087 -0.7818 1302.0 -0.2662 0.0116 -0.7245 1303.0 -0.2321 0.0338 -0.6618 1304.0 -0.2175 0.0434 -0.6349 1305.0 -0.2028 0.0529 -0.6081 1306.0 -0.1794 0.0681 -0.5651 1307.0 -0.1814 0.0668 -0.5687 1308.0 -0.1726 0.0725 -0.5525 1309.0 -0.1638 0.0783 -0.5364 1310.0 -0.1599 0.0808 -0.5293 1311.0 -0.1697 0.0744 -0.5472 1312.0 -0.1872 0.0630 -0.5794 1313.0 -0.2077 0.0497 -0.6170 1314.0 -0.2175 0.0434 -0.6349 1315.0 -0.2223 0.0402 -0.6439 1316.0 -0.2204 0.0415 -0.6403 1317.0 -0.2292 0.0357 -0.6564 1318.0 -0.2292 0.0357 -0.6564 1319.0 -0.2223 0.0402 -0.6439 1320.0 -0.2019 0.0535 -0.6063 1321.0 -0.1892 0.0618 -0.5830 1322.0 -0.1677 0.0757 -0.5436 1323.0 -0.1453 0.0903 -0.5024 1324.0 -0.1229 0.1049 -0.4612 1325.0 -0.1287 0.1011 -0.4719 1326.0 -0.1121 0.1119 -0.4415 1327.0 -0.1102 0.1131 -0.4379 1328.0 -0.1053 0.1163 -0.4290 1329.0 -0.1073 0.1151 -0.4326 1330.0 -0.1238 0.1043 -0.4630 1331.0 -0.1697 0.0744 -0.5472 1332.0 -0.1941 0.0586 -0.5919 1333.0 -0.2262 0.0377 -0.6510 1334.0 -0.2399 0.0288 -0.6761 1335.0 -0.2711 0.0085 -0.7334 1336.0 -0.2760 0.0053 -0.7424 1337.0 -0.2926 -0.0055 -0.7728 1338.0 -0.2945 -0.0068 -0.7764 1339.0 -0.2965 -0.0080 -0.7800 1340.0 -0.3121 -0.0182 -0.8086 1341.0 -0.3228 -0.0252 -0.8283 1342.0 -0.3199 -0.0233 -0.8229 1343.0 -0.3247 -0.0264 -0.8319 1344.0 -0.3169 -0.0213 -0.8176 1345.0 -0.3433 -0.0385 -0.8659 1346.0 -0.3472 -0.0410 -0.8731 1347.0 -0.3530 -0.0448 -0.8838 1348.0 -0.3579 -0.0480 -0.8928 1349.0 -0.3598 -0.0493 -0.8964 1350.0 -0.3569 -0.0474 -0.8910 1351.0 -0.3394 -0.0359 -0.8588 1352.0 -0.3218 -0.0245 -0.8265 1353.0 -0.3023 -0.0118 -0.7907 1354.0 -0.2896 -0.0036 -0.7674 1355.0 -0.2877 -0.0023 -0.7639 1356.0 -0.2594 0.0161 -0.7119 1357.0 -0.2340 0.0326 -0.6654 1358.0 -0.2223 0.0402 -0.6439 1359.0 -0.2155 0.0446 -0.6313 1360.0 -0.2116 0.0472 -0.6242 1361.0 -0.1970 0.0567 -0.5973 1362.0 -0.1843 0.0649 -0.5740 1363.0 -0.1677 0.0757 -0.5436 1364.0 -0.1424 0.0922 -0.4970 1365.0 -0.1385 0.0947 -0.4899 1366.0 -0.1307 0.0998 -0.4755 1367.0 -0.1277 0.1017 -0.4702 1368.0 -0.1190 0.1074 -0.4540 1369.0 -0.1092 0.1138 -0.4361 1370.0 -0.1053 0.1163 -0.4290 1371.0 -0.1112 0.1125 -0.4397 1372.0 -0.1307 0.0998 -0.4755 1373.0 -0.1346 0.0973 -0.4827 1374.0 -0.1521 0.0859 -0.5149 1375.0 -0.1833 0.0656 -0.5722 1376.0 -0.1980 0.0561 -0.5991 1377.0 -0.2019 0.0535 -0.6063 1378.0 -0.1999 0.0548 -0.6027 1379.0 -0.1950 0.0580 -0.5937 1380.0 -0.1911 0.0605 -0.5866 1381.0 -0.1775 0.0694 -0.5615 1382.0 -0.1697 0.0744 -0.5472 1383.0 -0.1365 0.0960 -0.4863 1384.0 -0.1131 0.1112 -0.4433 1385.0 -0.0848 0.1296 -0.3914 1386.0 -0.0624 0.1442 -0.3502 1387.0 -0.0380 0.1657 -0.3054 1388.0 -0.0361 0.1693 -0.3018 1389.0 -0.0234 0.1926 -0.2785 1390.0 -0.0176 0.2033 -0.2678 1391.0 -0.0156 0.2069 -0.2642 1392.0 -0.0039 0.2284 -0.2427 1393.0 0.0059 0.2463 -0.2248 1394.0 -0.0107 0.2159 -0.2553 1395.0 -0.0341 0.1729 -0.2982 1396.0 -0.0517 0.1512 -0.3305 1397.0 -0.0536 0.1499 -0.3341 1398.0 -0.0410 0.1603 -0.3108 1399.0 -0.0215 0.1962 -0.2750 1400.0 -0.0146 0.2087 -0.2624 1401.0 0.0010 0.2374 -0.2338 1402.0 0.0098 0.2535 -0.2177 1403.0 0.0146 0.2624 -0.2087 1404.0 0.0322 0.2947 -0.1765 1405.0 0.0439 0.3161 -0.1563 1406.0 0.0692 0.3627 -0.1398 1407.0 0.0868 0.3949 -0.1284 1408.0 0.0985 0.4164 -0.1208 1409.0 0.0897 0.4003 -0.1265 1410.0 0.0897 0.4003 -0.1265 1411.0 0.0800 0.3824 -0.1328 1412.0 0.0644 0.3538 -0.1430 1413.0 0.0605 0.3466 -0.1455 1414.0 0.0449 0.3179 -0.1557 1415.0 0.0263 0.2839 -0.1872 1416.0 0.0098 0.2535 -0.2177 1417.0 -0.0137 0.2105 -0.2606 1418.0 -0.0302 0.1800 -0.2911 1419.0 -0.0293 0.1818 -0.2893 1420.0 -0.0224 0.1944 -0.2768 1421.0 -0.0176 0.2033 -0.2678 1422.0 -0.0137 0.2105 -0.2606 1423.0 -0.0205 0.1980 -0.2732 1424.0 -0.0176 0.2033 -0.2678 1425.0 -0.0078 0.2212 -0.2499 1426.0 -0.0020 0.2320 -0.2391 1427.0 0.0049 0.2445 -0.2266 1428.0 0.0020 0.2391 -0.2320 1429.0 0.0117 0.2571 -0.2141 1430.0 -0.0098 0.2177 -0.2535 1431.0 -0.0312 0.1783 -0.2929 1432.0 -0.0371 0.1675 -0.3036 1433.0 -0.0556 0.1487 -0.3376 1434.0 -0.0663 0.1417 -0.3573 1435.0 -0.0780 0.1341 -0.3788 1436.0 -0.0975 0.1214 -0.4146 1437.0 -0.1248 0.1036 -0.4648 1438.0 -0.1209 0.1062 -0.4576 1439.0 -0.1219 0.1055 -0.4594 1440.0 -0.1209 0.1062 -0.4576 1441.0 -0.1287 0.1011 -0.4719 1442.0 -0.1317 0.0992 -0.4773 1443.0 -0.1648 0.0776 -0.5382 1444.0 -0.1794 0.0681 -0.5651 1445.0 -0.1853 0.0643 -0.5758 1446.0 -0.2067 0.0503 -0.6152 1447.0 -0.2038 0.0522 -0.6098 1448.0 -0.2175 0.0434 -0.6349 1449.0 -0.2555 0.0186 -0.7048 1450.0 -0.2770 0.0047 -0.7442 1451.0 -0.3023 -0.0118 -0.7907 1452.0 -0.3082 -0.0156 -0.8015 1453.0 -0.3169 -0.0213 -0.8176 1454.0 -0.3150 -0.0201 -0.8140 1455.0 -0.3179 -0.0220 -0.8194 1456.0 -0.3394 -0.0359 -0.8588 1457.0 -0.3481 -0.0416 -0.8749 1458.0 -0.3598 -0.0493 -0.8964 1459.0 -0.3598 -0.0493 -0.8964 1460.0 -0.3472 -0.0410 -0.8731 1461.0 -0.3481 -0.0416 -0.8749 1462.0 -0.3559 -0.0467 -0.8892 1463.0 -0.3657 -0.0531 -0.9071 1464.0 -0.3579 -0.0480 -0.8928 1465.0 -0.3394 -0.0359 -0.8588 1466.0 -0.3325 -0.0315 -0.8462 1467.0 -0.3335 -0.0321 -0.8480 1468.0 -0.3247 -0.0264 -0.8319 1469.0 -0.3247 -0.0264 -0.8319 1470.0 -0.3364 -0.0340 -0.8534 1471.0 -0.3345 -0.0328 -0.8498 1472.0 -0.3257 -0.0271 -0.8337 1473.0 -0.3082 -0.0156 -0.8015 1474.0 -0.2926 -0.0055 -0.7728 1475.0 -0.2994 -0.0099 -0.7853 1476.0 -0.3218 -0.0245 -0.8265 1477.0 -0.3218 -0.0245 -0.8265 1478.0 -0.3150 -0.0201 -0.8140 1479.0 -0.3160 -0.0207 -0.8158 1480.0 -0.3091 -0.0163 -0.8032 1481.0 -0.2867 -0.0017 -0.7621 1482.0 -0.2896 -0.0036 -0.7674 1483.0 -0.2887 -0.0030 -0.7656 1484.0 -0.2799 0.0028 -0.7495 1485.0 -0.2633 0.0135 -0.7191 1486.0 -0.2535 0.0199 -0.7012 1487.0 -0.2487 0.0231 -0.6922 1488.0 -0.2477 0.0237 -0.6904 1489.0 -0.2467 0.0243 -0.6886 1490.0 -0.2457 0.0250 -0.6868 1491.0 -0.2467 0.0243 -0.6886 1492.0 -0.2516 0.0212 -0.6976 1493.0 -0.2516 0.0212 -0.6976 1494.0 -0.2506 0.0218 -0.6958 1495.0 -0.2633 0.0135 -0.7191 1496.0 -0.2672 0.0110 -0.7262 1497.0 -0.2799 0.0028 -0.7495 1498.0 -0.2653 0.0123 -0.7227 1499.0 -0.2311 0.0345 -0.6600 1500.0 -0.2214 0.0408 -0.6421 1501.0 -0.2136 0.0459 -0.6277 1502.0 -0.2038 0.0522 -0.6098 1503.0 -0.2058 0.0510 -0.6134 1504.0 -0.2067 0.0503 -0.6152 1505.0 -0.1882 0.0624 -0.5812 1506.0 -0.1911 0.0605 -0.5866 1507.0 -0.1911 0.0605 -0.5866 1508.0 -0.1882 0.0624 -0.5812 1509.0 -0.1785 0.0687 -0.5633 1510.0 -0.2067 0.0503 -0.6152 1511.0 -0.2204 0.0415 -0.6403 1512.0 -0.2253 0.0383 -0.6492 1513.0 -0.2428 0.0269 -0.6815 1514.0 -0.2311 0.0345 -0.6600 1515.0 -0.2184 0.0427 -0.6367 1516.0 -0.2428 0.0269 -0.6815 1517.0 -0.2487 0.0231 -0.6922 1518.0 -0.2711 0.0085 -0.7334 1519.0 -0.2750 0.0059 -0.7406 1520.0 -0.2867 -0.0017 -0.7621 1521.0 -0.2848 -0.0004 -0.7585 1522.0 -0.2633 0.0135 -0.7191 1523.0 -0.2653 0.0123 -0.7227 1524.0 -0.2760 0.0053 -0.7424 1525.0 -0.2740 0.0066 -0.7388 1526.0 -0.2828 0.0009 -0.7549 1527.0 -0.2701 0.0091 -0.7316 1528.0 -0.2721 0.0078 -0.7352 1529.0 -0.2613 0.0148 -0.7155 1530.0 -0.2409 0.0281 -0.6779 1531.0 -0.2184 0.0427 -0.6367 1532.0 -0.1960 0.0573 -0.5955 1533.0 -0.1911 0.0605 -0.5866 1534.0 -0.1648 0.0776 -0.5382 1535.0 -0.1453 0.0903 -0.5024 1536.0 -0.1512 0.0865 -0.5131 1537.0 -0.1668 0.0764 -0.5418 1538.0 -0.1765 0.0700 -0.5597 1539.0 -0.1726 0.0725 -0.5525 1540.0 -0.1765 0.0700 -0.5597 1541.0 -0.1872 0.0630 -0.5794 1542.0 -0.2126 0.0465 -0.6260 1543.0 -0.2204 0.0415 -0.6403 1544.0 -0.2194 0.0421 -0.6385 1545.0 -0.2155 0.0446 -0.6313 1546.0 -0.1980 0.0561 -0.5991 1547.0 -0.1746 0.0713 -0.5561 1548.0 -0.1395 0.0941 -0.4916 1549.0 -0.1180 0.1081 -0.4523 1550.0 -0.1073 0.1151 -0.4326 1551.0 -0.0848 0.1296 -0.3914 1552.0 -0.0595 0.1461 -0.3448 1553.0 -0.0390 0.1639 -0.3072 1554.0 -0.0332 0.1747 -0.2964 1555.0 -0.0478 0.1538 -0.3233 1556.0 -0.0663 0.1417 -0.3573 1557.0 -0.0624 0.1442 -0.3502 1558.0 -0.0595 0.1461 -0.3448 1559.0 -0.0478 0.1538 -0.3233 1560.0 -0.0273 0.1854 -0.2857 1561.0 -0.0146 0.2087 -0.2624 1562.0 -0.0107 0.2159 -0.2553 1563.0 -0.0293 0.1818 -0.2893 1564.0 -0.0137 0.2105 -0.2606 1565.0 0.0039 0.2427 -0.2284 1566.0 -0.0020 0.2320 -0.2391 1567.0 0.0205 0.2732 -0.1980 1568.0 0.0185 0.2696 -0.2015 1569.0 0.0117 0.2571 -0.2141 1570.0 0.0000 0.2356 -0.2356 1571.0 -0.0410 0.1603 -0.3108 1572.0 -0.0410 0.1603 -0.3108 1573.0 -0.0673 0.1411 -0.3591 1574.0 -0.0897 0.1265 -0.4003 1575.0 -0.1365 0.0960 -0.4863 1576.0 -0.1765 0.0700 -0.5597 1577.0 -0.1911 0.0605 -0.5866 1578.0 -0.2155 0.0446 -0.6313 1579.0 -0.2477 0.0237 -0.6904 1580.0 -0.2740 0.0066 -0.7388 1581.0 -0.2828 0.0009 -0.7549 1582.0 -0.2692 0.0097 -0.7298 1583.0 -0.2896 -0.0036 -0.7674 1584.0 -0.3023 -0.0118 -0.7907 1585.0 -0.3004 -0.0106 -0.7871 1586.0 -0.2965 -0.0080 -0.7800 1587.0 -0.3004 -0.0106 -0.7871 1588.0 -0.3091 -0.0163 -0.8032 1589.0 -0.2994 -0.0099 -0.7853 1590.0 -0.2916 -0.0049 -0.7710 1591.0 -0.2857 -0.0010 -0.7603 1592.0 -0.2994 -0.0099 -0.7853 1593.0 -0.3121 -0.0182 -0.8086 1594.0 -0.3072 -0.0150 -0.7997 1595.0 -0.2867 -0.0017 -0.7621 1596.0 -0.2945 -0.0068 -0.7764 1597.0 -0.3033 -0.0125 -0.7925 1598.0 -0.2887 -0.0030 -0.7656 1599.0 -0.2867 -0.0017 -0.7621 1600.0 -0.3082 -0.0156 -0.8015 1601.0 -0.3091 -0.0163 -0.8032 1602.0 -0.3101 -0.0169 -0.8050 1603.0 -0.3091 -0.0163 -0.8032 1604.0 -0.3160 -0.0207 -0.8158 1605.0 -0.3316 -0.0309 -0.8444 1606.0 -0.3364 -0.0340 -0.8534 1607.0 -0.3218 -0.0245 -0.8265 1608.0 -0.3013 -0.0112 -0.7889 1609.0 -0.2984 -0.0093 -0.7836 1610.0 -0.2838 0.0002 -0.7567 1611.0 -0.2721 0.0078 -0.7352 1612.0 -0.2692 0.0097 -0.7298 1613.0 -0.2750 0.0059 -0.7406 1614.0 -0.2828 0.0009 -0.7549 1615.0 -0.2779 0.0040 -0.7459 1616.0 -0.2672 0.0110 -0.7262 1617.0 -0.2779 0.0040 -0.7459 1618.0 -0.2828 0.0009 -0.7549 1619.0 -0.3062 -0.0144 -0.7979 1620.0 -0.3218 -0.0245 -0.8265 1621.0 -0.3277 -0.0283 -0.8373 1622.0 -0.3462 -0.0404 -0.8713 1623.0 -0.3589 -0.0486 -0.8946 1624.0 -0.3452 -0.0397 -0.8695 1625.0 -0.3550 -0.0461 -0.8874 1626.0 -0.3852 -0.0658 -0.9429 1627.0 -0.4037 -0.0778 -0.9770 1628.0 -0.4067 -0.0797 -0.9823 1629.0 -0.4164 -0.0861 -1.0002 1630.0 -0.3969 -0.0734 -0.9644 1631.0 -0.3930 -0.0708 -0.9573 1632.0 -0.3784 -0.0613 -0.9304 1633.0 -0.3764 -0.0600 -0.9268 1634.0 -0.3784 -0.0613 -0.9304 1635.0 -0.3813 -0.0632 -0.9358 1636.0 -0.3959 -0.0727 -0.9626 1637.0 -0.4047 -0.0784 -0.9787 1638.0 -0.4086 -0.0810 -0.9859 1639.0 -0.4349 -0.0981 -1.0343 1640.0 -0.4427 -0.1032 -1.0486 1641.0 -0.4535 -0.1102 -1.0683 1642.0 -0.4710 -0.1216 -1.1005 1643.0 -0.5003 -0.1406 -1.1542 1644.0 -0.4886 -0.1330 -1.1328 1645.0 -0.4847 -0.1305 -1.1256 1646.0 -0.4886 -0.1330 -1.1328 1647.0 -0.4681 -0.1197 -1.0952 1648.0 -0.4408 -0.1019 -1.0450 1649.0 -0.4320 -0.0962 -1.0289 1650.0 -0.4067 -0.0797 -0.9823 1651.0 -0.3832 -0.0645 -0.9394 1652.0 -0.3647 -0.0524 -0.9053 1653.0 -0.3296 -0.0296 -0.8409 1654.0 -0.3043 -0.0131 -0.7943 1655.0 -0.3013 -0.0112 -0.7889 1656.0 -0.2984 -0.0093 -0.7836 1657.0 -0.3072 -0.0150 -0.7997 1658.0 -0.2994 -0.0099 -0.7853 1659.0 -0.2770 0.0047 -0.7442 1660.0 -0.2692 0.0097 -0.7298 1661.0 -0.2555 0.0186 -0.7048 1662.0 -0.2487 0.0231 -0.6922 1663.0 -0.2565 0.0180 -0.7065 1664.0 -0.2731 0.0072 -0.7370 1665.0 -0.2896 -0.0036 -0.7674 1666.0 -0.2906 -0.0042 -0.7692 1667.0 -0.2867 -0.0017 -0.7621 1668.0 -0.2731 0.0072 -0.7370 1669.0 -0.2731 0.0072 -0.7370 1670.0 -0.2887 -0.0030 -0.7656 1671.0 -0.3101 -0.0169 -0.8050 1672.0 -0.3296 -0.0296 -0.8409 1673.0 -0.3481 -0.0416 -0.8749 1674.0 -0.3520 -0.0442 -0.8820 1675.0 -0.3774 -0.0607 -0.9286 1676.0 -0.3842 -0.0651 -0.9411 1677.0 -0.3989 -0.0746 -0.9680 1678.0 -0.3930 -0.0708 -0.9573 1679.0 -0.3950 -0.0721 -0.9608 1680.0 -0.4096 -0.0816 -0.9877 1681.0 -0.4076 -0.0803 -0.9841 1682.0 -0.3774 -0.0607 -0.9286 1683.0 -0.3676 -0.0543 -0.9107 1684.0 -0.3491 -0.0423 -0.8767 1685.0 -0.3345 -0.0328 -0.8498 1686.0 -0.2955 -0.0074 -0.7782 1687.0 -0.2643 0.0129 -0.7209 1688.0 -0.2467 0.0243 -0.6886 1689.0 -0.2643 0.0129 -0.7209 1690.0 -0.2516 0.0212 -0.6976 1691.0 -0.2653 0.0123 -0.7227 1692.0 -0.2750 0.0059 -0.7406 1693.0 -0.3072 -0.0150 -0.7997 1694.0 -0.3403 -0.0366 -0.8606 1695.0 -0.3657 -0.0531 -0.9071 1696.0 -0.3842 -0.0651 -0.9411 1697.0 -0.4076 -0.0803 -0.9841 1698.0 -0.4310 -0.0956 -1.0271 1699.0 -0.4349 -0.0981 -1.0343 1700.0 -0.4349 -0.0981 -1.0343 1701.0 -0.4681 -0.1197 -1.0952 1702.0 -0.4418 -0.1026 -1.0468 1703.0 -0.4320 -0.0962 -1.0289 1704.0 -0.3910 -0.0696 -0.9537 1705.0 -0.3442 -0.0391 -0.8677 1706.0 -0.3267 -0.0277 -0.8355 1707.0 -0.3013 -0.0112 -0.7889 1708.0 -0.2653 0.0123 -0.7227 1709.0 -0.2623 0.0142 -0.7173 1710.0 -0.2535 0.0199 -0.7012 1711.0 -0.2301 0.0351 -0.6582 1712.0 -0.2067 0.0503 -0.6152 1713.0 -0.2048 0.0516 -0.6116 1714.0 -0.1970 0.0567 -0.5973 1715.0 -0.2019 0.0535 -0.6063 1716.0 -0.1941 0.0586 -0.5919 1717.0 -0.1843 0.0649 -0.5740 1718.0 -0.1950 0.0580 -0.5937 1719.0 -0.2116 0.0472 -0.6242 1720.0 -0.1872 0.0630 -0.5794 1721.0 -0.1853 0.0643 -0.5758 1722.0 -0.1551 0.0840 -0.5203 1723.0 -0.1414 0.0928 -0.4952 1724.0 -0.1112 0.1125 -0.4397 1725.0 -0.0897 0.1265 -0.4003 1726.0 -0.0946 0.1233 -0.4093 1727.0 -0.1092 0.1138 -0.4361 1728.0 -0.1160 0.1093 -0.4487 1729.0 -0.1190 0.1074 -0.4540 1730.0 -0.1492 0.0878 -0.5096 1731.0 -0.1775 0.0694 -0.5615 1732.0 -0.1941 0.0586 -0.5919 1733.0 -0.2399 0.0288 -0.6761 1734.0 -0.2526 0.0205 -0.6994 1735.0 -0.2721 0.0078 -0.7352 1736.0 -0.2896 -0.0036 -0.7674 1737.0 -0.3091 -0.0163 -0.8032 1738.0 -0.2945 -0.0068 -0.7764 1739.0 -0.2867 -0.0017 -0.7621 1740.0 -0.2857 -0.0010 -0.7603 1741.0 -0.2594 0.0161 -0.7119 1742.0 -0.2457 0.0250 -0.6868 1743.0 -0.2262 0.0377 -0.6510 1744.0 -0.2184 0.0427 -0.6367 1745.0 -0.2311 0.0345 -0.6600 1746.0 -0.2457 0.0250 -0.6868 1747.0 -0.2467 0.0243 -0.6886 1748.0 -0.2282 0.0364 -0.6546 1749.0 -0.2340 0.0326 -0.6654 1750.0 -0.2292 0.0357 -0.6564 1751.0 -0.2116 0.0472 -0.6242 1752.0 -0.1911 0.0605 -0.5866 1753.0 -0.1824 0.0662 -0.5704 1754.0 -0.1843 0.0649 -0.5740 1755.0 -0.1726 0.0725 -0.5525 1756.0 -0.1424 0.0922 -0.4970 1757.0 -0.0975 0.1214 -0.4146 1758.0 -0.0673 0.1411 -0.3591 1759.0 -0.0497 0.1525 -0.3269 1760.0 -0.0195 0.1997 -0.2714 1761.0 0.0010 0.2374 -0.2338 1762.0 0.0176 0.2678 -0.2033 1763.0 0.0029 0.2409 -0.2302 1764.0 0.0068 0.2481 -0.2230 1765.0 -0.0049 0.2266 -0.2445 1766.0 0.0010 0.2374 -0.2338 1767.0 -0.0185 0.2015 -0.2696 1768.0 -0.0527 0.1506 -0.3323 1769.0 -0.0673 0.1411 -0.3591 1770.0 -0.0605 0.1455 -0.3466 1771.0 -0.0848 0.1296 -0.3914 1772.0 -0.1014 0.1189 -0.4218 1773.0 -0.1229 0.1049 -0.4612 1774.0 -0.1307 0.0998 -0.4755 1775.0 -0.1395 0.0941 -0.4916 1776.0 -0.1248 0.1036 -0.4648 1777.0 -0.1287 0.1011 -0.4719 1778.0 -0.1375 0.0954 -0.4881 1779.0 -0.1307 0.0998 -0.4755 1780.0 -0.1287 0.1011 -0.4719 1781.0 -0.1365 0.0960 -0.4863 1782.0 -0.1268 0.1024 -0.4684 1783.0 -0.1356 0.0967 -0.4845 1784.0 -0.1238 0.1043 -0.4630 1785.0 -0.1053 0.1163 -0.4290 1786.0 -0.0975 0.1214 -0.4146 1787.0 -0.0965 0.1220 -0.4129 1788.0 -0.1034 0.1176 -0.4254 1789.0 -0.0692 0.1398 -0.3627 1790.0 -0.0673 0.1411 -0.3591 1791.0 -0.0702 0.1392 -0.3645 1792.0 -0.0858 0.1290 -0.3932 1793.0 -0.0956 0.1227 -0.4111 1794.0 -0.0848 0.1296 -0.3914 1795.0 -0.1063 0.1157 -0.4308 1796.0 -0.0946 0.1233 -0.4093 1797.0 -0.1112 0.1125 -0.4397 1798.0 -0.1034 0.1176 -0.4254 1799.0 -0.0790 0.1334 -0.3806 1800.0 -0.0819 0.1315 -0.3860 1801.0 -0.0858 0.1290 -0.3932 1802.0 -0.0995 0.1201 -0.4182 1803.0 -0.0897 0.1265 -0.4003 1804.0 -0.0868 0.1284 -0.3949 1805.0 -0.1063 0.1157 -0.4308 1806.0 -0.1102 0.1131 -0.4379 1807.0 -0.1599 0.0808 -0.5293 1808.0 -0.1863 0.0637 -0.5776 1809.0 -0.2282 0.0364 -0.6546 1810.0 -0.2877 -0.0023 -0.7639 1811.0 -0.3384 -0.0353 -0.8570 1812.0 -0.3667 -0.0537 -0.9089 1813.0 -0.3930 -0.0708 -0.9573 1814.0 -0.4262 -0.0924 -1.0181 1815.0 -0.4476 -0.1064 -1.0575 1816.0 -0.4583 -0.1133 -1.0772 1817.0 -0.4691 -0.1203 -1.0969 1818.0 -0.4418 -0.1026 -1.0468 1819.0 -0.4340 -0.0975 -1.0325 1820.0 -0.4291 -0.0943 -1.0235 1821.0 -0.4067 -0.0797 -0.9823 1822.0 -0.3676 -0.0543 -0.9107 1823.0 -0.3374 -0.0347 -0.8552 1824.0 -0.3004 -0.0106 -0.7871 1825.0 -0.2779 0.0040 -0.7459 1826.0 -0.2467 0.0243 -0.6886 1827.0 -0.2389 0.0294 -0.6743 1828.0 -0.2399 0.0288 -0.6761 1829.0 -0.2574 0.0174 -0.7083 1830.0 -0.2643 0.0129 -0.7209 1831.0 -0.2750 0.0059 -0.7406 1832.0 -0.2867 -0.0017 -0.7621 1833.0 -0.3043 -0.0131 -0.7943 1834.0 -0.3238 -0.0258 -0.8301 1835.0 -0.3442 -0.0391 -0.8677 1836.0 -0.3481 -0.0416 -0.8749 1837.0 -0.3706 -0.0562 -0.9161 1838.0 -0.3715 -0.0569 -0.9179 1839.0 -0.3608 -0.0499 -0.8982 1840.0 -0.3413 -0.0372 -0.8623 1841.0 -0.3062 -0.0144 -0.7979 1842.0 -0.2672 0.0110 -0.7262 1843.0 -0.2399 0.0288 -0.6761 1844.0 -0.2340 0.0326 -0.6654 1845.0 -0.2136 0.0459 -0.6277 1846.0 -0.1970 0.0567 -0.5973 1847.0 -0.1687 0.0751 -0.5454 1848.0 -0.1502 0.0871 -0.5113 1849.0 -0.1346 0.0973 -0.4827 1850.0 -0.1248 0.1036 -0.4648 1851.0 -0.1209 0.1062 -0.4576 1852.0 -0.1404 0.0935 -0.4934 1853.0 -0.1424 0.0922 -0.4970 1854.0 -0.1521 0.0859 -0.5149 1855.0 -0.1395 0.0941 -0.4916 1856.0 -0.1336 0.0979 -0.4809 1857.0 -0.1443 0.0909 -0.5006 1858.0 -0.1794 0.0681 -0.5651 1859.0 -0.1843 0.0649 -0.5740 1860.0 -0.1931 0.0592 -0.5901 1861.0 -0.2067 0.0503 -0.6152 1862.0 -0.2321 0.0338 -0.6618 1863.0 -0.2175 0.0434 -0.6349 1864.0 -0.2350 0.0319 -0.6671 1865.0 -0.2292 0.0357 -0.6564 1866.0 -0.2389 0.0294 -0.6743 1867.0 -0.2516 0.0212 -0.6976 1868.0 -0.2623 0.0142 -0.7173 1869.0 -0.2653 0.0123 -0.7227 1870.0 -0.2721 0.0078 -0.7352 1871.0 -0.2526 0.0205 -0.6994 1872.0 -0.2136 0.0459 -0.6277 1873.0 -0.1746 0.0713 -0.5561 1874.0 -0.1668 0.0764 -0.5418 1875.0 -0.1404 0.0935 -0.4934 1876.0 -0.1365 0.0960 -0.4863 1877.0 -0.1453 0.0903 -0.5024 1878.0 -0.1395 0.0941 -0.4916 1879.0 -0.1443 0.0909 -0.5006 1880.0 -0.1502 0.0871 -0.5113 1881.0 -0.1619 0.0795 -0.5328 1882.0 -0.1755 0.0706 -0.5579 1883.0 -0.1960 0.0573 -0.5955 1884.0 -0.2126 0.0465 -0.6260 1885.0 -0.2223 0.0402 -0.6439 1886.0 -0.2223 0.0402 -0.6439 1887.0 -0.2184 0.0427 -0.6367 1888.0 -0.2145 0.0453 -0.6295 1889.0 -0.2087 0.0491 -0.6188 1890.0 -0.1687 0.0751 -0.5454 1891.0 -0.1170 0.1087 -0.4505 1892.0 -0.0858 0.1290 -0.3932 1893.0 -0.0595 0.1461 -0.3448 1894.0 -0.0722 0.1379 -0.3681 1895.0 -0.0702 0.1392 -0.3645 1896.0 -0.0507 0.1518 -0.3287 1897.0 -0.0390 0.1639 -0.3072 1898.0 -0.0585 0.1468 -0.3430 1899.0 -0.0536 0.1499 -0.3341 1900.0 -0.0663 0.1417 -0.3573 1901.0 -0.0926 0.1246 -0.4057 1902.0 -0.1170 0.1087 -0.4505 1903.0 -0.1053 0.1163 -0.4290 1904.0 -0.1004 0.1195 -0.4200 1905.0 -0.0839 0.1303 -0.3896 1906.0 -0.0761 0.1354 -0.3752 1907.0 -0.0956 0.1227 -0.4111 1908.0 -0.1258 0.1030 -0.4666 1909.0 -0.1151 0.1100 -0.4469 1910.0 -0.0887 0.1271 -0.3985 1911.0 -0.0536 0.1499 -0.3341 1912.0 -0.0380 0.1657 -0.3054 1913.0 -0.0254 0.1890 -0.2821 1914.0 -0.0439 0.1563 -0.3161 1915.0 -0.0497 0.1525 -0.3269 1916.0 -0.0439 0.1563 -0.3161 1917.0 -0.0224 0.1944 -0.2768 1918.0 -0.0049 0.2266 -0.2445 1919.0 0.0146 0.2624 -0.2087 1920.0 0.0341 0.2982 -0.1729 1921.0 0.0302 0.2911 -0.1800 1922.0 0.0234 0.2785 -0.1926 1923.0 0.0449 0.3179 -0.1557 1924.0 0.0585 0.3430 -0.1468 1925.0 0.0722 0.3681 -0.1379 1926.0 0.0790 0.3806 -0.1334 1927.0 0.1102 0.4379 -0.1131 1928.0 0.1121 0.4415 -0.1119 1929.0 0.1317 0.4773 -0.0992 1930.0 0.1551 0.5203 -0.0840 1931.0 0.1697 0.5472 -0.0744 1932.0 0.1863 0.5776 -0.0637 1933.0 0.2155 0.6313 -0.0446 1934.0 0.2370 0.6707 -0.0307 1935.0 0.2584 0.7101 -0.0167 1936.0 0.2857 0.7603 0.0010 1937.0 0.3130 0.8104 0.0188 1938.0 0.3140 0.8122 0.0194 1939.0 0.3199 0.8229 0.0233 1940.0 0.3384 0.8570 0.0353 1941.0 0.3501 0.8785 0.0429 1942.0 0.3442 0.8677 0.0391 1943.0 0.3501 0.8785 0.0429 1944.0 0.3062 0.7979 0.0144 1945.0 0.2906 0.7692 0.0042 1946.0 0.2731 0.7370 -0.0072 1947.0 0.2448 0.6851 -0.0256 1948.0 0.2487 0.6922 -0.0231 1949.0 0.2438 0.6833 -0.0262 1950.0 0.2516 0.6976 -0.0212 1951.0 0.2321 0.6618 -0.0338 1952.0 0.2116 0.6242 -0.0472 1953.0 0.2097 0.6206 -0.0484 1954.0 0.2204 0.6403 -0.0415 1955.0 0.2565 0.7065 -0.0180 1956.0 0.2496 0.6940 -0.0224 1957.0 0.2574 0.7083 -0.0174 1958.0 0.2574 0.7083 -0.0174 1959.0 0.2565 0.7065 -0.0180 1960.0 0.2623 0.7173 -0.0142 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\readme_chblend.doc" 2540. 2006-08-12 ______________________________________________________ date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:02:44 -0400 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: confidential to: "Keith Briffa" Hi Keith: Thanks so much for the chance to look over this section. I think the long section you added on pp 6-5 and 6-6 reads well, and makes good sense according to what I know. Indeed, reading the whole section is a good review for me! I suggested addition of a phrase in lines 32-33 on page 6-3 regarding MM 2003 and analysis of it by Wahl-Ammann 2006. I also suggest a (logically useful) change from singular to plural in line 42 of that page. The changes are in RED/BOLD font. [I should note that AW 2006 is still in "in press" status, and its exact publication date will be affected by publication of an editorial designed to go with it that Caspar and I are submitting this weekend. Thus I cannot say it is certain this article will come out in 2006, but its final acceptance for publication as of 2/28/06 remains completely solid.] Also, I added the full information for the Wahl-Ritson-Ammann 2006 Science article in the references section, also in RED/BOLD font. By the way, is the "AJS" NCAR-CSM model in Fig. 6-13 the one Caspar did? I couldn't tell this for sure from the information in the text. If it is, perfect. If not, is there a way to include his millenium run? Thanks to you and all the authors for you painstaking work. Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 607-871-2604 1 Saxon Drive Alfred, NY 14802 ________________________________ From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Mon 7/31/2006 10:29 AM To: Wahl, Eugene R Subject: RE: confidential First Gene - let me say that I never intended that you should spend so much time on this - though I really appreciate your take on these points. The one you highlight here - correctly warns me that in succumbing to the temptation to be lazy in the sense of the brief answer that I have provided - I do give an implied endorsement of the sense of the whole comment. This is not, of course what I intended. I simply meant to agree that some reference to the "divergence" issue was necessitated . I will revise the reply to say briefly that I do not agree with the interpretation of the reviewer. I am attaching what I have done (see blue highlighting) to the section in response to comments (including the addition of the needed extra section on the "tree-ring issues" called for by several people). I have had no feedback yet on this as it has not been generally circulated , but thought you might like to see it. PLEASE REMEMBER that this is "for your eyes only " . Please do NOT feel that I am asking /expecting you to go through this in any detail - but given the trouble you have taken,I thought it reasonable to give you a private look. Cheers Keith At 07:16 27/07/2006, you wrote: >Hi Keith: > >Here is the text with my comments. I will go over the "stolen" >parts (highlighted in blue outline) for a final time tomorrow >morning, but I wanted to get this to you ASAP. The main new point I >have to make is added in bold/blue font on pp. 101-103. I question >the way the response to the comment there is currently worded, as it >seems to imply that the divergence issue really does invalidate any >dendro-based reconstructions before about 1850--which I imagine is >not what you would like to say. I give a series of arguments >against this as a general conclusion. Maybe I got over-bold in >doing so, as in my point (1) I'm examining issues that are at the >very core of your expertise! Excuse me that one, but I decided to >jump in anyway. Let me know if I got it wrong in any way! > >There are other quite minor suggestions (mostly focused on >referencing other responses in a few places) that are also in >bold/blue. These go on into the "120's" in terms of page numbers. > >This is really a lot of work you've taken on, and I REALLY >appreciate what you and the others are doing! > >[I've also been a lot involved with helping to get a person from the >Pew Center for Global Climate Change ready to testify in front of >the House Energy and Environment Committee tomorrow. That is why I >couldn't get this done and sent to you earlier today. Send Mike >Mann and Jay Gulledge (Pew Center) all good thoughts for strength and clarity.] > > >NB -- "r" towards the end of the filename stands for my middle initial. > > >Peace, Gene >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies >Alfred University > >607-871-2604 >1 Saxon Drive >Alfred, NY 14802 > >________________________________ > >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Mon 7/24/2006 3:16 PM >To: Wahl, Eugene R >Subject: RE: confidential > > > > > >Gene >here is where I am up to now with my responses (still a load to do) - >you can see that I have "borrowed (stolen)" from 2 of your responses >in a significant degree - please assure me that this OK (and will not >later be obvious) hopefully. >You will get the whole text(confidentially again ) soon. You could >also see that I hope to be fair to Mike - but he can be a little >unbalanced in his remarks sometime - and I have had to disagree with >his interpretations of some issues also. > >Please do not pass these on to anyone at all. >Keith > > > >Will pass all comments to you before they are fixed in stone- nothing >from review article will be mentioned. >Really grateful to you - thanks >Keith > >At 05:08 22/07/2006, you wrote: > >Hi Keith: > > > >Glad to help. (!) > > > >If I could get a chance to look over the sections of my text you > >would post to the comments before you do, I would appreciate it. If > >this is a burden/problem let me know and we'll work it out. > > > >If it is anything from the Wahl-Ammann paper, of course that is fine > >to use at once since it is publicly available. There will only be > >exceedingly minor/few changes in the galleys, including a footnote > >pointing to the extended RE benchmarking analysis contained in the > >Ammann-Wahl review article. > > > >What I am concerned about for the time being is that nothing in the > >review article shows up anywhere. It is just going in, and > >confidentiality is important. The only exception to this are the > >points I make in my blue comments in the big review file on page > >104, concerning the MM way of benchmarking the RE statistic. Those > >comments are fine to repeat at this point. [Please excuse my > >hesitance in this way.] > > > >Actually, all the other blue comments I made in the big review file > >are also fine to use at once. > > > > > >Again, if this request is in any way a problem, let me know and > >we'll figure out something. > > > > > >Peace, Gene > >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl > >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies > >Alfred University > > > >________________________________ > > > >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] > >Sent: Fri 7/21/2006 2:00 PM > >To: Wahl, Eugene R > >Subject: RE: confidential > > > >Gene > >your comments have been really useful and reassuring that I am not > >doing MM a disservice. I will use some sections of your text in my > >comments that will be eventually archived so hope this is ok with > >you. I will keep the section in the chapter very brief - but will > >cite all the papers to avoid claims of bias. I really would like to > >discuss the whole issue of the reconstruction differences at a later > >, less stressful time. I completely accept the arguments about the > >limitation in the r2 and the value of capturing longer-term variance > >. I think I will have to stop now as the temp and humidity are killing here. > > > >Thanks a lot again > > > >Keith > > > >At 18:39 21/07/2006, you wrote: > > >Hi Keith: > > > > > >I'm sorry that there is a bit to digest...although I know it is just > > >a result of the nature of things. > > > > > >By the way, copied below is a synopsis that I sent this morning to a > > >person in DC who is working on all this with regard to the House of > > >Representative hearings. Evidently, there is to be at least one > > >more hearing next week, and Mike Mann will go. The person I sent > > >this to is trying to understand the importance of the proxy PC > > >issues --especially how, no matter what way the PC extraction is > > >done, the reconstructions converge if the structures actually > > >present in the data are not tossed out by truncating the number > > >retained PCs at a too low level. What I've copied is this > > >synopsis. I think it is straightforward -- maybe a bit dense, but > > >at least brief. > > > > > >Also, let me know if I can help on the issue of RE vs r^2. I could > > >write a few brief sentences as something for you to look at if you > > >would like. Wahl-Ammann show very clearly that there is objectively > > >demonstrated skill at the low-frequency level of the verification > > >period mean for all the MBH segments, although the earlier MBH > > >segments do have really low r^2 values (indicating very little skill > > >at the interannual level). Our argument that to throw out the > > >reconstruction completely based on the fastest varying frequency, > > >when it has objectively demonstrable meaning at lower frequencies, > > >is to me quite reasonable. That it is some how entirely ad hoc, as > > >McIntyre claims in one (more?) of his comments, is neither logical > > >nor factual in my perspective. The idea of frequency dependent > > >skill/non-skill is not new to the literature, and the independent > > >re-reviewer that Steve Schneider had look over Wahl-Ammann said s/he > > >had experienced this issue in his/her work. G. > > > > > > > > >****************************** COPIED TEXT ****************************** > > > > > >What it boils down to in the end is as follows: > > > > > >1) The different reference periods used to calculate proxy PCs from > > >N. America (calibration only for MBH, full period for MM) only have > > >the effect of re-arranging how the hockey stick shape appears across > > >the rank ordering of PCs. In MBH it is concentrated in PC1. In the > > >full-period method, it is spread over PCs 1 and 2. If one adds PCs > > >1 and 2 (either arithmetically or as vectors) from either > > >convention, you get an essentially IDENTICAL time series, only the > > >amplitudes are a bit different. [Note that the input data were > > >centered AND standardized before being put into the PC calculation > > >algorithm. This is important, as shown below.] > > > WHEN ACTUALLY USED IN THE RECONSTRUCTION, THE DIFFERENCE > > > IS MINISCULE -- MBH is colder over 1400-1449 by 0.05 degrees! > > > > > >2) IF the data are centered but NOT standardized and are input into > > >in a PCA algorithm using the variance-covariance matrix and not the > > >correlation matrix (the way MM did it), then the hockey stick shape > > >shows up in PC4. MM in fact reported this first in their 2005 > > >Energy and Environment article. In effect, the first two PCs are > > >ARE ACTING TO DO THE STANDARDIZING OF THE DATA not done as a > > >pre-processing step. [When the correlation matrix is used instead > > >in the PCA algorithm, then the standardization is in effect done by > > >the algorithm, because all the correlations are "standardized" by > > >construction--they all range between 0 and 1.] > > > When 4 PCs from this calculation method are used rather > > > than 2 PCs calculated as above, then the RECONSTRUCTION CONVERGES > > > TO THE SAME AS ABOVE. > > > > > >3) Thus, all the different "flavors" for PC extraction have > > >essentially no effect on reconstruction when one does the exercise > > >of adding PCs sequentially from 2 to 5 for any flavor. In the case > > >of (1), the reconstructions converge by the second PC. In the case > > >of (2), they converge by PC4. They don't change with higher order > > PCs added. > > > THIS SHOULD BE EXPECTED FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES. That is, > > > the same underlying information is there in all cases, it is only > > > how the structures present in these data are spread across the rank > > > order of PCs, as explained. The simple exercise of taking the > > > reconstructions to convergence across the number of PCs used shows > > > this clearly. > > > > > >4) In fact, MM essentially say all this in the 2005 EE > > >article--INCLUDING ABOUT THE RECONSTRUCTION RESULTS -- but they > > >strongly claim that the movement of the hockey stick shape to the > > >4th PC shows it is not a leading pattern of variance as MBH claim, > > >and thus should not be used. This might be logical if their > > >analysis was an apples-apples comparison, but it is not, due to the > > >PCA method they use and applying it on NON-standardized data. > > > THESE TWO DIFFERENCES (which one can only fully get > > > from their actual code, not in the articles published) DRIVE THEIR > > > ENTIRE ARGUMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. What they do not say is > > > that convergence to something like the MBH result is expectable, > > > and indeed MUST happen given the data used, because the hockey > > > stick shape is actually IN the data, it is NOT an artifact of PC > > > calculation procedure. > > > > > > > > >5) FINALLY, note that all of this rests on the foundation that > > >keeping the bristlecone pine records in the data is appropriate, > > >which Caspar and I find can be reasonable presumption. If one > > >believes that the bristlecone data should be removed, then the > > >1400-1449 reconstruction does not pass verification testing with the > > >RE statistic, and the MBH reconstruction should commence from 1450 on out. > > > > > >Although there are a number of reasons to keep the bristlecone data > > >in, maybe the most compelling reason they are a NON-ISSUE is that, > > >over the common period of overlap (1450-1980), the reconstruction > > >based on using them from 1400-1980 is very close to the > > >reconstruction based on omitting them from 1450-1980. Since the > > >issues about the bristlecone response to climate are primarily about > > >1850 onwards, especially 1900 onwards [KEITH -- PLEASE LET ME KNOW > > >IF I AM NOT ACCURATE IN THIS], there is no reason to expect that > > >their behavior during 1400-1449 is in any way anomalous to their > > >behavior from 1450-1850. Thus, THERE IS NO REASON TO THINK THAT THE > > >BRISTLECONES ARE SOMEHOW MAKING THE 1400-1449 SEGMENT OF THE MBH > > >RECONSTRUCTION BE INAPPROPRIATELY SKEWED. > > > > > > > > >****************************** END OF COPIED TEXT ******************* > > > > > >Peace, Gene > > >Dr. Eugene R. Wahl > > >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies > > >Alfred University > > > > > >607-871-2604 > > >1 Saxon Drive > > >Alfred, NY 14802 > > > > > >________________________________ > > > > > >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] > > >Sent: Fri 7/21/2006 4:51 AM > > >To: Wahl, Eugene R > > >Subject: RE: confidential > > > > > > > > > > > >Gene > > >thanks a lot for this - I need to digest and I will come back to you. > > > > > >thanks again > > >Keith > > > >-- > >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 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 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/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Ch06_SOD_Text_TSU_FINAL_2000_25jul06KRB-FJ-RV_ERW_suggestions.doc" 1066. 2006-08-14 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Aug 14 15:50:02 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Oerlemans in IPCC to: Georg Kaser George - will do best wishes Keith At 15:37 14/08/2006, you wrote: Dear Keith, this is fine. You may add a reference to Chapter 4 instead. Best wishes, Georg Georg Kaser ------------------------------------------------- Institut fuer Geographie Innrain 52 A-6020 INNSBRUCK AUSTRIA Tel: ++43 512 507 5407 Fax: ++43 512 507 2895 [1]http://meteo9.uibk.ac.at/IceClim/CRYO/cryo_a.html On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Keith Briffa wrote: Sorry George - forgot to include you on last response to Olga - I thought we would make only one very small change to remove repetition - see message repeated below cheers Keith ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Olga thanks for this - I suggest we simply remove the last sentence only from our section (6-30-43-55) "In southern Norway,.......temperatures (Nesje and Dahl, 2003)." The rest is consistent but not repetitive , with our discussion relating to the temperature interpretation only. Cheers Keith ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- At 15:19 14/08/2006, Georg Kaser wrote: Dear Olga and Keith, have many thanks for the cross check. As for the paragraphs cited from Chapetr 4, only slight changes have been made that do not affect the content (see attached Chapter4). The Oerlemans regions have been named in the Figure 4.5.1 caption. Also the Oerlemans paragraph in Chapter 6 is fine and I hope you can keep it as it is. As for the paragraph on the Tropical isotop analyses the first part is fine, the second one contradicts the respective Chapter 4: You state: "Very rapid and apparently unprecedented melting of tropical ice caps has been observed in recent decades (Thompson et al., 2000; Thompson, 2001) (see Box 6.3), likely associated with enhanced warming at high elevations (Gaffen et al., 2000), but other factors besides temperature can strongly influence tropical glacier mass balance (see Chapter 4)." We show that the shrinkage of Tropical glaciers has the same time pattern and the same magnitude as the shrinkage of glaciers in the mid latitudes since the "Littel Ice Age". They melt not more rapid than comparable glaciers somewhere else and not in an unprecented way (e.g. shrinkage rates have been stronger in the 1940s). There is only one exception: Kilimanjaro plateau. There, glacier shrinkage is NOT due to 20th century climate change. (see respective paragraph in the attached Chapter 4 draft). I also attach the respective Kilimanjaro paper that went into press in order to make the TSU deadline in July. If you refer to the Quelccaya Ice Cap, make clear that you talk about that only and that it was reported that meltwater had penetrated the ice where it was still "dry" in the 1970s. One cannot deviate general "Very rapid and apparently unprecedented melting of tropical ice caps in recent decades" from this. Best wishes, Georg Georg Kaser ------------------------------------------------- Institut fuer Geographie Innrain 52 A-6020 INNSBRUCK AUSTRIA Tel: ++43 512 507 5407 Fax: ++43 512 507 2895 [2]http://meteo9.uibk.ac.at/IceClim/CRYO/cryo_a.html On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, olgasolomina wrote: Dear Georg and Keith, We discuss Oerleman?s paper two times ? in Ch 6 and Ch 4. I copied here the sections from both chapters. I guess you have to decide what to keep and where. I also copied a paragraph from ch6 concerning the glacier retreat ? Georg might be interested to see it. We decided to write ?Little Ice Age? and ?Medieval Warm Period? in quotes. Shall we correct it now? This should be consistent though the whole Assessment ? we probably have to draw attention of TSU to this point. Cheers, olga From SOD ch 4 4-14-2-12 4.5.2. Large and Global Scale Analyses Records of glacier length changes go far back in time (written reports as far back as 1600 in a few cases) and are directly related to low-frequency climate change. From 169 glacier-length records, Oerlemans (2005) has compiled mean length variations of glacier tongues for large scale regions from 1700 to 2000 (Figure 4.5.1). Although much local to regional and high-frequency variability is superimposed, the smoothed series give an apparently homogeneous signal. General retreat of glacier termini started after 1800, with considerable mean retreat rates in all regions after 1850 lasting throughout the 20th century. A slowdown of retreats between about 1970 and 1990 is more evident in the raw data. Retreats were again generally rapid in the 1990s; the Atlantic and the Southern Hemisphere curves reflect precipitation driven advances of glaciers in Western Scandinavia and New Zealand (Chinn et al., 2005). 4-18-32-41 The surface mass balance of snow and ice is determined by a complex interaction of energy fluxes toward and away from the surface, and the occurrence of solid precipitation. Nevertheless, glacier fluctuations show a strong statistical correlation with air temperature at least on a large spatial scale throughout the 20th century (Greene, 2005), and a strong physical basis exists to explain why warming would cause mass loss. Changes in snow accumulation also matter, and may dominate in response to strong circulation changes or when temperature is not changing greatly. For example, analyses of glacier mass balances, volume changes, length variations and homogenized temperature records for the western portion of the European Alps (Vincent et al., 2005) clearly indicate the role of precipitation changes in glacier variations in the 18th and 19th centuries. Similarly, Nesje and Dahl (2003) explained glacier advances in southern Norway in the early 18th century based on increased! w! inter precipitation rather than cold temperatures. FROM TOD ch 6 6-30-43-55 Oerlemans (2005) constructed a temperature history for the globe based on 169 glacier-length records. He used simplified glacier dynamics that incorporate specific response time and climate sensitivity estimates for each glacier. The reconstruction suggests that moderate global warming occurred after the middle of the 19th century, with about 0.6?C warming by the middle of the 20th century. Following a 25-year cooling, temperatures rose again after 1970, though much regional and high-frequency variability is superimposed on this overall interpretation. However, this approach does not allow for changing glacier sensitivity over time, which may limit the information before 1900. For example, analyses of glacier mass balances, volume changes, and length variations along with temperature records in the western European Alps (Vincent et al., 2005) indicate that between 1760 and 1830, glacier advance was driven by precipitation that was 25% above the 20th century average, while there was little difference in average temperatures. Glacier retreat after 1830 was related to reduced winter precipitation and the influence of summer warming only became effective at the beginning of the 20th century. In southern Norway, early 18th century glacier advances can be attributed to increased winter precipitation rather than cold temperatures (Nesje and Dahl, 2003). I also copy here a paragraph from ch 6 that you might want to take into account. FROM TOD ch 6 6-32-40-48 Stable isotope data from high-elevation ice cores provide long records and have been interpreted in terms of past temperature variability (Thompson, 2000), but recent calibration and modelling studies, in South America and southern Tibet (Hoffmann et al., 2003; Vuille and Werner, 2005; Vuille et al., 2005), indicate a dominant sensitivity to precipitation changes, at least on seasonal to decadal timescales, in these regions. Very rapid and apparently unprecedented melting of tropical ice caps has been observed in recent decades (Thompson et al., 2000; Thompson, 2001) (see Box 6.3), likely associated with enhanced warming at high elevations (Gaffen et al., 2000), but other factors besides temperature can strongly influence tropical glacier mass balance (see Chapter 4). -- Dr.Olga Solomina Corresponding Member of Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Geography RAS Staromonetny-29 Moscow, Russia tel: 007-095-125-90-11, 007-095-939-01-21 fax: 007-095-959-00-33 e-mail: olgasolomina@yandex.ru PAGES Web:www.pages-igbp.org -- ??????? ??????? ????, ????? ??????? ????? ?? ??????? [3]http://mail.yandex.ru -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 1440. 2006-08-14 ______________________________________________________ cc: Jonathan Overpeck ,Eystein Jansen date: Mon Aug 14 10:24:19 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Oerlemans in IPCC to: olgasolomina@yandex.ru Olga thanks for this - I suggest we simply remove the last sentence only from our section (6-30-43-55) "In southern Norway,.......temperatures (Nesje and Dahl, 2003)." The rest is consistent but not repetitive , with our discussion relating to the temperature interpretation only. Cheers Keith At 06:04 14/08/2006, olgasolomina wrote: Dear Georg and Keith, We discuss Oerlemans paper two times in Ch 6 and Ch 4. I copied here the sections from both chapters. I guess you have to decide what to keep and where. I also copied a paragraph from ch6 concerning the glacier retreat Georg might be interested to see it. We decided to write Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in quotes. Shall we correct it now? This should be consistent though the whole Assessment we probably have to draw attention of TSU to this point. Cheers, olga From SOD ch 4 4-14-2-12 4.5.2. Large and Global Scale Analyses Records of glacier length changes go far back in time (written reports as far back as 1600 in a few cases) and are directly related to low-frequency climate change. From 169 glacier-length records, Oerlemans (2005) has compiled mean length variations of glacier tongues for large scale regions from 1700 to 2000 (Figure 4.5.1). Although much local to regional and high-frequency variability is superimposed, the smoothed series give an apparently homogeneous signal. General retreat of glacier termini started after 1800, with considerable mean retreat rates in all regions after 1850 lasting throughout the 20th century. A slowdown of retreats between about 1970 and 1990 is more evident in the raw data. Retreats were again generally rapid in the 1990s; the Atlantic and the Southern Hemisphere curves reflect precipitation driven advances of glaciers in Western Scandinavia and New Zealand (Chinn et al., 2005). 4-18-32-41 The surface mass balance of snow and ice is determined by a complex interaction of energy fluxes toward and away from the surface, and the occurrence of solid precipitation. Nevertheless, glacier fluctuations show a strong statistical correlation with air temperature at least on a large spatial scale throughout the 20th century (Greene, 2005), and a strong physical basis exists to explain why warming would cause mass loss. Changes in snow accumulation also matter, and may dominate in response to strong circulation changes or when temperature is not changing greatly. For example, analyses of glacier mass balances, volume changes, length variations and homogenized temperature records for the western portion of the European Alps (Vincent et al., 2005) clearly indicate the role of precipitation changes in glacier variations in the 18th and 19th centuries. Similarly, Nesje and Dahl (2003) explained glacier advances in southern Norway in the early 18th century based on increased winter precipitation rather than cold temperatures. FROM TOD ch 6 6-30-43-55 Oerlemans (2005) constructed a temperature history for the globe based on 169 glacier-length records. He used simplified glacier dynamics that incorporate specific response time and climate sensitivity estimates for each glacier. The reconstruction suggests that moderate global warming occurred after the middle of the 19th century, with about 0.6°C warming by the middle of the 20th century. Following a 25-year cooling, temperatures rose again after 1970, though much regional and high-frequency variability is superimposed on this overall interpretation. However, this approach does not allow for changing glacier sensitivity over time, which may limit the information before 1900. For example, analyses of glacier mass balances, volume changes, and length variations along with temperature records in the western European Alps (Vincent et al., 2005) indicate that between 1760 and 1830, glacier advance was driven by precipitation that was 25% above the 20th century average, while there was little difference in average temperatures. Glacier retreat after 1830 was related to reduced winter precipitation and the influence of summer warming only became effective at the beginning of the 20th century. In southern Norway, early 18th century glacier advances can be attributed to increased winter precipitation rather than cold temperatures (Nesje and Dahl, 2003). I also copy here a paragraph from ch 6 that you might want to take into account. FROM TOD ch 6 6-32-40-48 Stable isotope data from high-elevation ice cores provide long records and have been interpreted in terms of past temperature variability (Thompson, 2000), but recent calibration and modelling studies, in South America and southern Tibet (Hoffmann et al., 2003; Vuille and Werner, 2005; Vuille et al., 2005), indicate a dominant sensitivity to precipitation changes, at least on seasonal to decadal timescales, in these regions. Very rapid and apparently unprecedented melting of tropical ice caps has been observed in recent decades (Thompson et al., 2000; Thompson, 2001) (see Box 6.3), likely associated with enhanced warming at high elevations (Gaffen et al., 2000), but other factors besides temperature can strongly influence tropical glacier mass balance (see Chapter 4). -- 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/ 3966. 2006-08-14 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Keith Briffa,cru (Climatic Research Unit)" , Peter Lemke date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:19:54 +0200 (MEST) from: Georg Kaser subject: Re: Oerlemans in IPCC to: olgasolomina Dear Olga and Keith, have many thanks for the cross check. As for the paragraphs cited from Chapetr 4, only slight changes have been made that do not affect the content (see attached Chapter4). The Oerlemans regions have been named in the Figure 4.5.1 caption. Also the Oerlemans paragraph in Chapter 6 is fine and I hope you can keep it as it is. As for the paragraph on the Tropical isotop analyses the first part is fine, the second one contradicts the respective Chapter 4: You state: "Very rapid and apparently unprecedented melting of tropical ice caps has been observed in recent decades (Thompson et al., 2000; Thompson, 2001) (see Box 6.3), likely associated with enhanced warming at high elevations (Gaffen et al., 2000), but other factors besides temperature can strongly influence tropical glacier mass balance (see Chapter 4)." We show that the shrinkage of Tropical glaciers has the same time pattern and the same magnitude as the shrinkage of glaciers in the mid latitudes since the "Littel Ice Age". They melt not more rapid than comparable glaciers somewhere else and not in an unprecented way (e.g. shrinkage rates have been stronger in the 1940s). There is only one exception: Kilimanjaro plateau. There, glacier shrinkage is NOT due to 20th century climate change. (see respective paragraph in the attached Chapter 4 draft). I also attach the respective Kilimanjaro paper that went into press in order to make the TSU deadline in July. If you refer to the Quelccaya Ice Cap, make clear that you talk about that only and that it was reported that meltwater had penetrated the ice where it was still "dry" in the 1970s. One cannot deviate general "Very rapid and apparently unprecedented melting of tropical ice caps in recent decades" from this. Best wishes, Georg Georg Kaser ------------------------------------------------- Institut fuer Geographie Innrain 52 A-6020 INNSBRUCK AUSTRIA Tel: ++43 512 507 5407 Fax: ++43 512 507 2895 http://meteo9.uibk.ac.at/IceClim/CRYO/cryo_a.html On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, olgasolomina wrote: > Dear Georg and Keith, > > > We discuss Oerleman?s paper two times ? in Ch 6 and Ch 4. I copied here the sections from both chapters. I guess you have to decide what to keep and where. I also copied a paragraph from ch6 concerning the glacier retreat ? Georg might be interested to see it. > We decided to write ?Little Ice Age? and ?Medieval Warm Period? in quotes. Shall we correct it now? This should be consistent though the whole Assessment ? we probably have to draw attention of TSU to this point. > > Cheers, > olga > > > From SOD ch 4 > > 4-14-2-12 > > 4.5.2. Large and Global Scale Analyses > > Records of glacier length changes go far back in time (written reports as far back as 1600 in a few cases) and are directly related to low-frequency climate change. From 169 glacier-length records, Oerlemans (2005) has compiled mean length variations of glacier tongues for large scale regions from 1700 to 2000 (Figure 4.5.1). Although much local to regional and high-frequency variability is superimposed, the smoothed series give an apparently homogeneous signal. General retreat of glacier termini started after 1800, with considerable mean retreat rates in all regions after 1850 lasting throughout the 20th century. A slowdown of retreats between about 1970 and 1990 is more evident in the raw data. Retreats were again generally rapid in the 1990s; the Atlantic and the Southern Hemisphere curves reflect precipitation driven advances of glaciers in Western Scandinavia and New Zealand (Chinn et al., 2005). > > 4-18-32-41 > > The surface mass balance of snow and ice is determined by a complex interaction of energy fluxes toward and away from the surface, and the occurrence of solid precipitation. Nevertheless, glacier fluctuations show a strong statistical correlation with air temperature at least on a large spatial scale throughout the 20th century (Greene, 2005), and a strong physical basis exists to explain why warming would cause mass loss. Changes in snow accumulation also matter, and may dominate in response to strong circulation changes or when temperature is not changing greatly. For example, analyses of glacier mass balances, volume changes, length variations and homogenized temperature records for the western portion of the European Alps (Vincent et al., 2005) clearly indicate the role of precipitation changes in glacier variations in the 18th and 19th centuries. Similarly, Nesje and Dahl (2003) explained glacier advances in southern Norway in the early 18th century based on increased! w! > inter precipitation rather than cold temperatures. > > > FROM TOD ch 6 > 6-30-43-55 > > Oerlemans (2005) constructed a temperature history for the globe based on 169 glacier-length records. He used simplified glacier dynamics that incorporate specific response time and climate sensitivity estimates for each glacier. The reconstruction suggests that moderate global warming occurred after the middle of the 19th century, with about 0.6?C warming by the middle of the 20th century. Following a 25-year cooling, temperatures rose again after 1970, though much regional and high-frequency variability is superimposed on this overall interpretation. However, this approach does not allow for changing glacier sensitivity over time, which may limit the information before 1900. For example, analyses of glacier mass balances, volume changes, and length variations along with temperature records in the western European Alps (Vincent et al., 2005) indicate that between 1760 and 1830, glacier advance was driven by precipitation that was 25% above the 20th century average, while there was little difference in average temperatures. Glacier retreat after 1830 was related to reduced winter precipitation and the influence of summer warming only became effective at the beginning of the 20th century. In southern Norway, early 18th century glacier advances can be attributed to increased winter precipitation rather than cold temperatures (Nesje and Dahl, 2003). > > > I also copy here a paragraph from ch 6 that you might want to take into account. > > FROM TOD ch 6 > 6-32-40-48 > > Stable isotope data from high-elevation ice cores provide long records and have been interpreted in terms of past temperature variability (Thompson, 2000), but recent calibration and modelling studies, in South America and southern Tibet (Hoffmann et al., 2003; Vuille and Werner, 2005; Vuille et al., 2005), indicate a dominant sensitivity to precipitation changes, at least on seasonal to decadal timescales, in these regions. Very rapid and apparently unprecedented melting of tropical ice caps has been observed in recent decades (Thompson et al., 2000; Thompson, 2001) (see Box 6.3), likely associated with enhanced warming at high elevations (Gaffen et al., 2000), but other factors besides temperature can strongly influence tropical glacier mass balance (see Chapter 4). > > > > > > -- > Dr.Olga Solomina > Corresponding Member of Russian Academy of Sciences > Institute of Geography RAS > Staromonetny-29 > Moscow, Russia > tel: 007-095-125-90-11, 007-095-939-01-21 > fax: 007-095-959-00-33 > e-mail: olgasolomina@yandex.ru > PAGES Web:www.pages-igbp.org > > -- > ??????? ??????? ????, ????? ??????? ????? ?? ??????? http://mail.yandex.ru > > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\2006GL027084_CULLEN_RESUBMIT.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Chapter 4.5 060811.doc" 786. 2006-08-15 ______________________________________________________ cc: laura.middleton@uea.ac.uk,s.keeley@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, p.jones@uea.ac.uk,k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,m.salmon@uea.ac.uk, t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk,m.hulme@uea.ac.uk,a.watkinson@uea.ac.uk date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 20:12:42 +0100 from: Clare Goodess subject: Re: Exhibit so far to: Laura.Middleton@uea.ac.uk Dear Laura At last it seems that we finally have the basis for proper exchange and negotiation on the text and CRU contributions. From your responses to our face-to-face discussions last week and emails earlier this week, it seemed to us that there was no such basis because you were not prepared to take on board anything that we proposed. Your refusal to include the global temperature time series despite insistence from Phil and myself was the last straw. Hence our decision that the best thing was to pull out of part of the exhibition. I think that the text you've sent still needs a lot of work, but I think is sufficiently improved to allow further modification and dialogue tomorrow. For example, I would still like to see a bit more detailed discussion of natural/anthropogenic forcing and attribution and also a mention of model reliability. I think that this would be rather more informative/educational than the bullet points about UEA scientists. So could be included without unduly increasing the word count. In order to better inform our editing tomorrow, it would be very helpful if you could send us the text for what were panels 3 to 5 but may have changed number. Could you tell us whether the 'Talking Heads' section will still be included and if so, which scientists will be involved? Finally, please remember that an acknowledgement to data sources, including the Hadley Centre (you have the wording for this), needs to be included either on Panel 6 or on the acknowledgements panel. Would it be possible to see the text for the latter? Best wishes, Clare At 19:16 15/08/2006, Laura.Middleton@uea.ac.uk wrote: >Dear Clare, >I appreciate your concern that the scientific information included in this >exhibit is accurate, but I think it would be a real shame if CRU pulls out >at such a late stage and had hoped that our exchanges would lead to >something that we could all be happy with using. This type of work does >require drafting, redrafting and editing, as I mentioned in my last >message, but I’m certain that with patience and understanding we can get >there! > >Researchers from CRU, Tyndall and me especially have input many unpaid >hours into this and I would be sad to see that go to waste. The designers >have been working on the panels for the last few weeks and much of the >work is complete, including the CRU /UEA panel. They will charge for panel >stands and design work so far, even if you chose not to exhibit, which all >comes from taxpayers’ money. > >I would appreciate it if you consider the attached re-draft for panel 6, >which includes both the animation and the time series graph, plus slightly >amended text from what Sarah sent me last week. I need to let the >designers know as soon as possible if you do want to drop out to avoid >accruing further wasted expense. At present a total of £875 (exc VAT) has >been spent on the CRU /UEA stand. We may be able to send the DVD machine >back, which reduces the cost by £400. > >I feel that once you see the exhibit as a whole you will appreciate that >it has not deviated from my intentions in the proposal. > >Best wishes, Laura > > > > > Dear Laura > > > > Thank you for your response which we have discussed this afternoon. > > > > Unfortunately, it does not change our view of the way in which our > > research (and that of the Hadley Centre) is being > > presented. According to the proposal to DEFRA 'The scientific > > discoveries they highlight will be drawn from key UEA research and > > findings on climate change.' Since you have decided to omit the > > global temperature time series which is the highlight of CRU work > > over the years, and refuse to allow inclusion of adequate explanation > > of the animation, we are not prepared to allow you to use the DVD > > animation as part of this exhibition, nor the picture of the CRU > > building. So I would be grateful if you could return the DVD to me. > > > > We did note and discuss your suggestion to produce a leaflet. Apart > > from the time/cost of producing this, it would not solve the future > > problem. The intention is for this exhibition to be re-used in a > > variety of places and I doubt that you can guarantee that the leaflet > > will always be available. > > > > We are sorry that we have had to come to this decision, particularly > > after the many hours of unpaid work many of us have devoted to > > this. But the exhibition has moved too far away from the original > > proposal for us to feel comfortable. > > > > Having said that, we are happy for the tree ring material to be used > > - provided that no further cuts are made to that. It is still a > > disappointment that you have decided to omit Tim's Picture 4, despite > > seeming quite positive about it when we met on 10th August. > > > > Best wishes, Clare > > > > > > At 10:59 15/08/2006, Laura.Middleton@uea.ac.uk wrote: > >>Dear Phil, Clare, Sarah, Keith, Mike and Tim, > >> > >>Thank you for being honest about the exhibition; it is best to have a > >> full > >>and frank discussion to avoid misunderstandings later! First, I would > >>like to thank you for your input to the exhibition so far. The effort > >> you > >>have all made is absolutely vital to the integrity of the work, and the > >>exhibition would not be possible without the help that you have given. > >>The rigour of the science is the backbone of this, and I understand the > >>need to present this in a clear and effective way. > >> > >>I agree that the purpose of the exhibition is to reach a diverse audience > >>with a range of ages. The aim must be to create something which is as > >>accessible to the general public as possible, to the old lady with the > >>bunions whose new bifocals don't work, to the young dad with the > >> screaming > >>children, to the occasional tourists.... > >>Many people among the general public are not used to reading any kind of > >>text and graphs and don't understand them, and others would understand > >>them if they had time, but they want to be entertained and will be moving > >>swiftly to the other things they have to do that day. This combination > >> of > >>lack of familiarity and lack of time and inclination is a potent brew; > >>regardless of the age we are aiming at, we need to pitch it to the > >> average > >>(not the most intelligent) 12 year old, and one with a short attention > >>span at that! > >> > >>A detailed text and many graphs and maps will simply not be read apart > >>from by the very few who would probably know most of it anyway. Advice > >> we > >>have received from an experienced museum director and exhibitions creator > >>is that - exhibition research shows that the word limit per panel should > >>be 150-200 at most. In that length we have to make all the points we > >>want, ie. the most important ones. But simple and clear does not equal > >>"dumbed down". Any factual errors in the text must be corrected. > >>Creating an exhibition text is a long process of writing, re-writing and > >>polishing and I appreciate your help in this. A simple clear text will > >>reach many more people at a lesser level of detail, but will hopefully > >>inspire many to pursue the matters further under their own steam. Could > >>we reconcile this lack of description with a set of leaflets, which went > >>into more detail to keep next to the panels 6 so people can take them if > >>they want? Perhaps we could include a link to the CRU website and the > >>graphs and explanations not covered on the main panels. > >> > >>I hope the above explains why I have approached the material in the way > >>that I have. I'm looking forward to working with you to create the best > >>exhibition that we can and inspire many people in Norwich and further > >>afield to find out more about climate and climate change. I also feel > >> that > >>some of your areas of concern will be addressed by other panels. > >> > >>I attach another draft for panel 6. If you are happy with my suggestions > >>then please let me know and correct any factual errors in this panel. I > >>look forward to hearing your suggestions. > >> > >>Best regards, Laura > >> > >> > >> > > > > Dr Clare Goodess > > Climatic Research Unit > > School of Environmental Sciences > > University of East Anglia > > Norwich > > NR4 7TJ > > UK > > > > Tel: +44 -1603 592875 > > Fax: +44 -1603 507784 > > Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ > > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm > > > > > > > > > Dr Clare Goodess Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: +44 -1603 592875 Fax: +44 -1603 507784 Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm 1478. 2006-08-15 ______________________________________________________ cc: Anders Moberg , Anders , Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de, esper@wsl.ch, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, weber@knmi.nl, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 20:21:50 -0400 from: Gabi Hegerl subject: Re: Figure 5, plus "executive summary" to: Martin Juckes Hi all, First, many apologies for being so late!! (There is this four letter word thats taking lots more of my time than I anticipated... sorry...) Martin, I just crosschecked your email and realized that you wanted this this morning... sorry.... This is very very nice and useful paper, and I really enjoyed reading the MM vs MBH discussion and really liked it. There are some things though that I am worried about that refer more to the other techniques than MBH, the comparison figure, and IPCC. A lot of it is quite self serving, sorry for that, becuase of time constraints, I plowed particularly into segments referring to IPCC or my stuff... sorry for that! The one aspect I worry about is that in figure 1, the CH-blend (cited as hegerl et al., Tom would prefer calling it CH-blend because he is the main recon guy, I am just calibrating and detecting - but ok either way) does not look the same as in our figure in the paper (figure 2). Also, there is several versions, 3 segments of different length, all using same amount of data, for land only, 30-90N, and 2 for land and ocean. I am not sure which one you use, the one you show may be the land and ocean one, while the one our figure 2 shows is the land only. I am happy showing either one, it would be nice to use the full length, you can just use the "long" version before the regular version starts. However, the comparison shown in figure 1 is a bit misleading then, since there are reconstructions for land only extratropics (eg the boreholes) plotted into reconstrucitons of land and ocean all NH (eg Moberg), and all kinds of things in between (Briffa 2001 I think is growing season land only, for example). I think this is ok if its explained, but without explanation gives a misleading idea of the level of disagreement. The boreholes for example are if compared over the same time and space domains consistent with CH-blend (and probably other high-variance recons too) but this is not clear from the comparison in the figure. This could be clarified by labelling what the different reconstructions represent, and adding a sentence to both caption and text discussing it that says that part of the difference in amplitude is due to the difference in the physical domain reconstructed. I am also not quite sure what the reconstruction you show further down (Union etc) does represent, is it 0-90N land and ocean? Another minor worry is that the discussion of reconstruction methods other than MBH gives different results from other work I am aware of, and I think it may be partly due to what exactly is done. For example, the total least squares approach is very similar to the inverse regression approach, and can work pretty nice, at least does in my paper and another work I heard about. I tried inverse regression, too, and its very similar to total least square, and worked very nice for me unless I tried calibrating the records to local temps using it. I think the one used here (please bear with me if I didnt read this careful enough!! sorry in taht case, I was trying to sneak this in between IPCC stuff, final draft deadline approaching phew...) may not be exactly the same as one that only calibrates a (weighted or not) average of the paleo records "paleo" to the hemispheric mean using inverse ols by saying paleo = beta * instrumental + noise, and then using 1/beta. If I am right here, it would be good to say so, if not, then maybe it could be made a bit clearer. Tls might also be mentioned as the case where noise in both is equally considered, but the prize is more estimates / assumptions. If you feel like trying out something, I would find it really interesting to try using inverse regression and variance matching in comparison for going from the composite to the final reconstruction scaled to temperature. This is where in my view tls or inverse regression is nice, since it does not assume that the proxy based composite has the same amount of noise as instrumental data, although the latter are much more tightly sampled and have much less non-temperature variability etc superimposed, all reasons to think that they would have lots less error. On the other hand, it could be that the errors are small relative to the variability in temperature, in which case both would perform similarly. The assumption that the proxy timeseries should jiggle a little bit about the (less noisy) instrumental timeseries due to its extra noise variance seems like a good one to me... But doing or not doing this is totally up to you! So specifically to executive summaryES text sent out about a week ago: 1. The first page after "perturb our climate": It may be good to add there something like: Also, conclusions of the IPCC report (IPCC, 2001) that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” were based nearly entirely on studies analyzing the instrumental record and distinguishing and estimating the signature of temperature response to greenhouse gas forcing. Therefore, this conclusion is not affected by uncertainties in reconstruction techniques and data (Mitchell et al., 2001). Mitchell, J.F.B., D.J. Karoly, G.C. Hegerl, F.W. Zwiers, and J. Marengo, 2001: Detection of climate change and attribution of causes. In: Climate Change 2001. The Scientific Basis. The Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [J.T. Houghton, et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, pp. 695-738 The reason to add this would be that some part of this debate is trying to sink all conclusions about greenhouse warming with the hockeystick, which is a total stretch since the hockeystick doesnt contribute that much to that conclusion at all! Actually, nearly nothing! 2. Section 5 of ES: Are these techniques known in exactly the form they are used here? It looks like the technique known as inverse ols uses a scaling factor that varies from proxy series to proxy series, and I suspect that the usefulness of that technique depends very strongly on how its done. It will do poorly if there is lots of noise (like i tried calibration of local records to temperature) and will be better if there is high correlation (eg if there is already some proxy reconstruction that just needs to be matched to the instrumental in amplitude, as in my paper, in otehr words, if instead of variance matching, tls or inverse ols would be done). So can we qualify the end of the first para of section 5 ES by saying using two techniques of different complexity, The simpler method is known as "Composite... matching", is widely used and gives robust results. The second method is based on inverse regression. Here, the reconstruction and its amplitude is determined using this method, and this variant of inverse regression is found to be sensitive to give less robust results than C...M. This sensitivity is less important if there is relatively good correlation between the target and the reconstruction timeseries, and in those cases it has been shown to work well. In cases where the amount of sampling and random noise on proxy data is substantially larger than on instrumental data, inverse regression produces more reliable amplitude estimates for the reconstruction, which can be important if the amplitude of externally forced signals in proxy reconstructions are used, for example, to estimate climate sensitivity. (Last sentence is just a suggestion!) 3. Last section of last page in ES: I am not quite sure what the little hitch about climate sensitivity is saying, but a certain nature paepr that came out in April (sorry self serving) showed that indeed the constraints from data for the last few hundred years alone provide quite wide pdfs of climate sensitivity. (Hegerl et al, nature, see J Climate paper for reference). If this information is combined with (also wide) pdfs for instrumental data, where the problen is the poorly known ocean heat uptake etc, our understanding of climate sensitivity can narrow a bit. But thats not necessary to say here unless you want, it may be a nice pitch for paleo to say taht if instrumental estimates are combined with those from proxy data, climate sensitivities outside the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5 become substantially less likely. One could also add that a further interest for the proxy reconstructions arises because the detection of greenhouse warming depends on model estimates of climate natural variability. Recent simulations of climate variability in the last few millennia are generally in agreement with reconstructions (e.g., Tett et al., others - can find) and suggest that the level of natural variability produced by climate models is reasonable (see also Zorita et al., Hegerl et al., 2006b JCLimate paper). MAIN PAPER (long version, very early August): Abstract: see point 2 above, can this also qualify the inverse regression a bit referring to one particular variant tested here? p.3, see above suggestion 1, would be a good place to add this after the first paragraph (...beyond dispute.) p. 3, beginning of 3rd paragraph: Not sure I understand this! p.4, beginning of last paragraph: HCA is not 0-90N, there is one version tahts 30-90N, and one thats 30-90N land. I am not srue if ECS is 0-90, I was under the impression its also extratropical - do you use the cook-scaled version? p. 6, footnote: I don't agree with the pitch for confidence level vs likelyhood. The overall, expert assessment of the likelyhood that something is true like the 90ies are the warmest period in the millennium, includes both an assessment of the robustness of the method, and of remaining uncertainties. Confidence stuff is still not much used in 4AR drafts at least of my chapter, we tried to use in one case and reviewers didnt like it much. Also, there could be the very confusing result of something being "very likely" true with low confidence (which may well be what you'd conclude from some paleo stuff), which is just confusing. So teh expert assessment is supposed to try to account for all remaining uncertainties. p. 12: Wasn't there a detrending issue with Zorita et al, vs MBH? p. 13, end of first para: If you want, you could add after "under the assumption that the instrumental noise is known" the method then accounts for the uncetainty due to unknown noise in proxy data. (this is something taht not many seem to catch, so I try pitching in for it :) p. 14, detection stuff: We do multiregression, not correlations alone, and we use response to forcings as determined by an Energy Balance Model. (this is important to me, volcanic forcing wouldnt correlate very well with response). So say Hegerl et al. (2003, 2006b) use a multiregression detection and attribution method to determine the fingerprints of temperature response to solar, volcanic and greenhouse gas forcing in a variety of reconstrucitons. They find... variance, namely more than 50% of the decadal variance in all records explored. I need to check what Nanne did, but I think it was a bit different, I remember it was a nice paper. P15, end of first paragraph: This might be a nice place to refer to Osborne et al., nature, for the unusualness of the overall pattern of warming in the proxy records. p. 16, top: Is the IPCC stuff that is referred to the finding that the nineties are unusual, or that most of the observed warming... greenhouse gases? I think the sceptics are (maybe on purpose) murky about this, so we should be very clear and separate between which finding is dicussed. So maybe recite here? p. 18, 2nd last before section 4: typo, remove "and". p. 21, top: Moberg et al., I THINK also find that the time around 16 was colder than the early 19th, and CH-blend suggests that also, although less clearly p. 22, 2nd paragraph from bottom: Its fascinating that union has more variance than the others - is there any explanation available? Its really interesting! This would also be a good place to crossreference that the INVR approach used here is one realization of many possible ways of doing inverse regression. table 3 should get a qualifyer that CH-blend is an outlier because of its lower (decadal) resolution. If possble, it would be nice to explicitly mention it as a reconstruction that uses the same number of records throughout (at least the individual segments from it are). p. 25, 2nd line: "this" reconstruciton is Union, right? Greetings, I'd be happy to more thoroughly read this again, if you want to - if already submitted, maybe we can fix thse things later.. Gabi Martin Juckes wrote: >As Anders pointed out, one curve is not visible in figure 5 -- this is because >it is virtually indistinguishable from others: a better version of the figure >is attached. I'll also modify the caption to give a more complete description >of how each curve is generated. > >Also attached is an "Executive Summary" for the Netherlands Environment >Assessment Agency. This is still a little rough in places, but any views on >the opinions expressed and general layout would be welcome. > >cheers, >Martin > -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, Box 90227 Duke University, Durham NC 27708 Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 email: hegerl@duke.edu, http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html 2959. 2006-08-15 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 20:15:53 +0100 from: Clare Goodess subject: Re: Exhibit so far to: s.keeley@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk,p.jones@uea.ac.uk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,m.salmon@uea.ac.uk,t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk Dear all A bit of blackmail works wonders! Though this means a final bit of work from us. Best thing is to iterate edits amongst ourselves tomorrow, before sending a joint response to Laura. Clare At 20:12 15/08/2006, Clare Goodess wrote: >Dear Laura > >At last it seems that we finally have the basis for proper exchange >and negotiation on the text and CRU contributions. > > From your responses to our face-to-face discussions last week and > emails earlier this week, it seemed to us that there was no such > basis because you were not prepared to take on board anything that > we proposed. Your refusal to include the global temperature time > series despite insistence from Phil and myself was the last straw. > Hence our decision that the best thing was to pull out of part of > the exhibition. > >I think that the text you've sent still needs a lot of work, but I >think is sufficiently improved to allow further modification and >dialogue tomorrow. > >For example, I would still like to see a bit more detailed >discussion of natural/anthropogenic forcing and attribution and also >a mention of model reliability. I think that this would be rather >more informative/educational than the bullet points about UEA >scientists. So could be included without unduly increasing the word count. > >In order to better inform our editing tomorrow, it would be very >helpful if you could send us the text for what were panels 3 to 5 >but may have changed number. > >Could you tell us whether the 'Talking Heads' section will still be >included and if so, which scientists will be involved? > >Finally, please remember that an acknowledgement to data sources, >including the Hadley Centre (you have the wording for this), needs >to be included either on Panel 6 or on the acknowledgements panel. >Would it be possible to see the text for the latter? > >Best wishes, Clare > > Dr Clare Goodess Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: +44 -1603 592875 Fax: +44 -1603 507784 Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm 3608. 2006-08-15 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:03:04 +0100 from: Clare Goodess subject: Re: Exhibit so far to: s.keeley@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk,p.jones@uea.ac.uk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,m.salmon@uea.ac.uk Dear all Laura is still refusing to listen to us. It certainly seems that she is still not prepared to include the global temperature time series. I don't think any of us have time to work on a leaflet now. And this does not solve the future problem. The intention is for this exhibition to be re-used in a variety of places and I doubt that she can guarantee that the leaflet will always be available. I tend to the view that we should not allow her to use the DVD for the exhibition nor a photo of the CRU Building. The tree ring material is somewhat different - so I think we have to let her use that. Though final decision should be down to Keith/Tom/Tim. Clare At 10:59 15/08/2006, Laura.Middleton@uea.ac.uk wrote: >Dear Phil, Clare, Sarah, Keith, Mike and Tim, > >Thank you for being honest about the exhibition; it is best to have a full >and frank discussion to avoid misunderstandings later! First, I would >like to thank you for your input to the exhibition so far. The effort you >have all made is absolutely vital to the integrity of the work, and the >exhibition would not be possible without the help that you have given. >The rigour of the science is the backbone of this, and I understand the >need to present this in a clear and effective way. > >I agree that the purpose of the exhibition is to reach a diverse audience >with a range of ages. The aim must be to create something which is as >accessible to the general public as possible, to the old lady with the >bunions whose new bifocals don't work, to the young dad with the screaming >children, to the occasional tourists.... >Many people among the general public are not used to reading any kind of >text and graphs and don't understand them, and others would understand >them if they had time, but they want to be entertained and will be moving >swiftly to the other things they have to do that day. This combination of >lack of familiarity and lack of time and inclination is a potent brew; >regardless of the age we are aiming at, we need to pitch it to the average >(not the most intelligent) 12 year old, and one with a short attention >span at that! > >A detailed text and many graphs and maps will simply not be read apart >from by the very few who would probably know most of it anyway. Advice we >have received from an experienced museum director and exhibitions creator >is that - exhibition research shows that the word limit per panel should >be 150-200 at most. In that length we have to make all the points we >want, ie. the most important ones. But simple and clear does not equal >"dumbed down". Any factual errors in the text must be corrected. >Creating an exhibition text is a long process of writing, re-writing and >polishing and I appreciate your help in this. A simple clear text will >reach many more people at a lesser level of detail, but will hopefully >inspire many to pursue the matters further under their own steam. Could >we reconcile this lack of description with a set of leaflets, which went >into more detail to keep next to the panels 6 so people can take them if >they want? Perhaps we could include a link to the CRU website and the >graphs and explanations not covered on the main panels. > >I hope the above explains why I have approached the material in the way >that I have. I'm looking forward to working with you to create the best >exhibition that we can and inspire many people in Norwich and further >afield to find out more about climate and climate change. I also feel that >some of your areas of concern will be addressed by other panels. > >I attach another draft for panel 6. If you are happy with my suggestions >then please let me know and correct any factual errors in this panel. I >look forward to hearing your suggestions. > >Best regards, Laura > > > >---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- >Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: RE: Re: Panel 7 >From: "Clare Goodess" >Date: Mon, August 14, 2006 5:59 pm >To: Laura.Middleton@uea.ac.uk >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16 > >Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:19:02 +0100 > >To: Sarah Keeley ,Clare Goodess > >From: Tim Osborn > >Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: Re: Panel 7 > >Cc: p.jones@uea.ac.uk,k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,mike Salmon > > > >I agree. People attending the BA festival should really *learn* > >something new about science. It isn't appropriate to cut down and > >simplify things to such an extent that there is no new learning by > >the visitors/audience. The purpose is not, in my opinion, to simply > >tell people that climate is changing and something should be done... > >if that were the case then it could simply be part of some > >Defra/Tyndall Centre public engagement exercise. This is still part > >of it, of course, but far better if they come away actually > >appreciating something more about the science of climate change and > >*why* we know that climate is changing or *what* scientists are > >doing to try to learn more. If that means including some things > >that some visitors will skip over, then so be it! > > > >Tim > > > >At 16:06 14/08/2006, Sarah Keeley wrote: > >>Clare, > >>It seems a shame to not showcase CRU's work - but she also seems to > >>be cutting out so much text we cannot even adequately explain what > >>is going on on the DVD let alone anything else. > >> > >>Can we suggest to her that one panel breaks with conformity and has > >>more text on? I have double checked the agenda and we are supposed > >>to be catering for the age group 25 plus as well children- so this > >>should be ok if they will let us do it. I am concerned that the > >>exhibition is going to make the climate research carried out at CRU > >>look a bit mickey mouse. > >> > >>Sarah > >> > >Dr Clare Goodess >Climatic Research Unit >School of Environmental Sciences >University of East Anglia >Norwich >NR4 7TJ >UK > >Tel: +44 -1603 592875 >Fax: +44 -1603 507784 >Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm > > > > Dr Clare Goodess Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: +44 -1603 592875 Fax: +44 -1603 507784 Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm 2455. 2006-08-16 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Aug 16 16:51:17 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: FW: request from the Evening News to: "Mantell, Rowan" At 12:18 16/08/2006, you wrote: ___________________________________________________________________________________ Dear Keith, I am a feature writer with the Norwich Evening News working on a piece on the science festival. I am writing about some of the climate change events happening during the festival and would like to include info from the local experts taking part. I am asking some of the climate change scientists the same three questions and wondered whether you would be kind enough to answer them. I realise you must be very busy right now and brief, single sentence, answers would be absolutely fine. Dear Rowan hope the following suffice - best wishes Keith My questions are: What is the future for Norwich and Norfolk? (in terms of our climate, our coastline, what we might be growing in our gardens, the pests and diseases we might have to contend with...) I am confident that we will continue to experience a steady increase in the warmth of winters and summers over the decades to come. There will be the odd hiccup now and then , as the year to year variability of our climate can mask the underlying trend, or some explosive volcanic eruption in the tropics causes a cold wet summer. As the years pass though, the warmth of this summer will become the expectation rather than being seen as the unusual event that it was. It is hard to say what will happen to our rainfall, but I expect dry summers , and protracted dry spells to increase in frequency and our appreciation of the true value of water , ecologically and economically, will change the way we use it. The rise in sea level that we have seen over the last decade and more will continue relentlessly and the erosion of our coasts may even accelerate. There are all sorts of unknowns associated with future warming - for example, a major enhancement in the appeal of this region for tourists is likely, but it might be tempered by an increase in the incidence of malaria! The biggest unknown to my mind, however, is the way people will react to the ups and downs of temperature in the coming years. Norfolk folk are generally very independent and somewhat cynical . This might slow the adoption of the sort of lifestyle changes we could all reasonably make in response to the threat of the unknown. What three things should we be doing to avert climate disaster? (anything from low energy light bulbs or not flying to not having children or panicking and moving elsewhere) We should be truly conscientious about not wasting energy. This might seem patently obvious but I suspect that there is virtually no one who does not leave the television or stereo on standby for hours, or leaves lights blazing in corridors or rooms when they are empty. Even replacing light bulbs with energy-efficient bulbs really adds up in energy (and cost ) savings over the year. In other words, actually trying to do the obvious things can make a difference . Just like preserving water and recycling rubbish, this is just good common sense regardless of the threat of climate change. Making your opinions known to decision makers and service providers is really worth while - supermarkets use the excuse that "people demand choice all year round" for sourcing goods from around the world. Telling them clearly that we prefer local produce helps local farmers and reduces the emission of greenhouse gases at the same time. What, if anything are you doing? (both in terms of researching and publicising the problem and making your own lifestyle choices.) In terms of research, I am focusing on trying to understand the causes of climate variability - both natural and man-made. We need to understand how much and why our climate can change naturally , before we can improve our predictions of how it might change in the future. I work at reconstructing the past, and studying those things that can make it change, and using this information to test climate models that provide our view of the future.I try not to get involved publicly in the debate about what we should do and how we should adapt to the possibility of future changes. These are complex issues for sociologists and politicians. I prefer to work on reducing the uncertainty in the knowledge they need to debate and react to the threat of change. As far as lifestyle goes, I try to be sparing with my use of resources - but I live with the frustration of having to drive 30 miles and more a day because of the lack of any practical public transport from my home in Deopham, and I spend far too much of my life flying around the world to discuss and research the problem of climate change. I would be really grateful if you are able to find time to reply - either by email, or by phone on Norwich 772421. I will be in work until around 6pm today (Wednesday August 16) and then next week Monday to Wednesday 7.30am to around 3pm. Thank you so much for your time, Rowan Mantell Norwich Evening News feature writer. This email and any attachments to it are confidential and intended solely for the individual or organisation to whom they are addressed. You must not copy or retransmit this e-mail or its attachments in whole or in part to anyone else without our permission. The views expressed in them are those of the individual author and do not necessarily represent the views of this Company. Whilst we would never knowingly transmit anything containing a virus we cannot guarantee that this e-mail is virus-free and you should take all steps that you can to protect your systems against viruses. Archant Limited, is registered in England under Company Registration Number 4126997, and the Registered Office is Prospect House, Rouen Road, Norwich NR1 1RE. -- 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/ 3649. 2006-08-16 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Mitchell, John FB \(Chief Scientist\)" date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:14:52 +0100 from: "Mitchell, John FB \(Chief Scientist\)" subject: Chpt 6 - last 1000 yrs to: "Keith Briffa" Hi Keith I have tried to cindense what I think the main issues for the and what the response is below. The weakest area seems to be statistical significance and by implication the likely/ very likely statements. I can't think of any easy solution - in the TAR for detection and attribution we used 95% limits on stats tests and them downrated them to allow for other uncertainties. I am interested in your comments John Issues 1. Reliance on Bristlecone pine - Response - the issues are in calibration period- they agree with other indicators for the rest of the record 2. Centring of principle components leads to "hockeysticks"- Response - this makes only a small difference when standardised data used. Comment - Would be useful to know which reconstructions do and donot make this assumption- this could strengthen the response 3. The divergence issue- Response - it is only apparent in high latitudes, and only with some trees. Comment- Do we know what happens if we eliminate those records with a divergence problem. The wider issue is whether or not it is reasonable to extend the reconstructions outside the calibration range. 4. There are different ways of verifying reconstructions and assigning significance levels( calibration period or seprate verifying period, different statistics) Response ? Comment- it is difficult in the text to gauge how well reconstructions are validated - eg using the calibration period to estimate errors as opposed to an independent period clearly makes a difference. This is important where "likely", "very likely"are used- based on what statistics? I think this is the area where I think the current response is weakest 5. Robustness- Burger and Cubasch show a wide range of results using different assumptions- Response ? Mann makes a reasoned defence- there are other checks and tests which would rule out many of the arbitrary assumptions explored by Cubasch and Burger, but this is not clear in the response to M&M etc 193. 2006-08-17 ______________________________________________________ cc: " Moberg; Anders " , Gabi Hegerl , esper@wsl.ch, " Briffa; Keith " , " Osborn; Tim " , m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, weber@knmi.nl date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 18:38:17 +0100 from: Martin Juckes subject: mitrie -- response to comments from Eduardo to: Eduardo Zorita On Thursday 17 August 2006 11:31, Eduardo Zorita wrote: > >  > > Due to the ongoing debate, this has turned an even more difficult manuscript. In general, I think Martin did a very good job in the review of the literature. Concerning the new reconstructions and the evaluation of McIntyre work, I would not fully agree with some of the conclusions, which I thin do not follow from the material presented in the text. I have some remarks on this which you may consider useful. But I think that I am not the one that should give the manuscript the final shape, as Martin is the person in charge of the project. Please, consider the following comments as suggestions. > > eduardo > > > > Consensus: I would tend to avoid the word 'consensus', since it is not a well defined concept. > Depending on the meaning of consensus, each would agree with it to a certain degree. I would prefer to refer to a particular IPCC conclusion, or something similar. I think this review of the literature is very well written and informative, but I am not sure that each one of us will agree with each one of the concussions of each of the papers. > I've removed a couple of uses of `consensus' and tried to make the text clearer. There is an IPCC consensus (i.e. something members of the IPCC agreed on) -- and I think it is worth making a distinction between this and other peer reviewed results such as MBH1999 conclusions etc. I've now said that the papers reviewed in section 2 support the IPCC [that 1990s are likely to have been the warmest decade of the millenium in the Northern Hemisphere.] Later I've referred to a "general consensus": this is shorthand for saying that almost everyone agrees and where there is disagreement there are good grounds for dimissing it with regard to the specific point under discussion but not by any means implying taht people agree on other issues. > Page 12, section 2.8. I think the text is somewhat vague here, and it could be misunderstood. > Mann et al (2005) tested the RegEM method, not the original MBH98 method. It is true that applied to the > real proxies both methods, according to Mann, yield very similar results. But strictly speaking , Mann did not test the MBH98 method in the CSM simulation. The MBH98 method is thereby only by implication Text corrected > > I tested the the sensitivity of the MBH98, and not of RegEM, to the length of the calibration period. It may be the RegEM is less sensitive or not at all. Figure 4 and 5, if I understood well, support this dependency of MBH to the calibration period. Am I correct to interpret the large differences between the original MBH reconstruction (dashed red) and the black curve as due to the different calibration period (1901-1980 versus 1856-1980) and to the use of the leading PC or NHT as calibration target? At least in the period prior to 1600 I think these are the only methodological differences between both curves (?). I don't think so: the main difference is that the MBH1999 reconstruction uses more data for the more recent period, and also reconstructs more degrees of freedom. This should be stated in the text -- I'll check. I've tidied up this figure a bit. (Now figure 3, as I've omitted the previous figure 3). > My interpretation of this figure is also somewhat different. If the final reconstructions differs so strongly by using a longer calibration period (in general yielding stronger decadal variability in the reconstruction) I would tend to think that the method based on these proxies is quite unstable. What would happen if the calibration period could have been extended to 1800, for instance?. The main sensitivity which is clearly defined by the calculations I've done is that the adjustment of the North American tree-ring proxy 1 in MBH1999 shifts the AD1000 to AD1800 reconstruction up roughly 0.2K. This is now commented on. I'd like to look more closely at the 15th to 18th centuries, but I think this is best achieved by bringing in more proxies -- and I don't want to extend the scope of this study that far. I agree with you that there is an interesting and challenging issue about the 15th to 18th centuries, and hope to follow that up later (i.e. after submitting this). > > > Page 15: top. The role of forcing on the global or NH T is also recognized in the correlation between the NHT simulated by ECHO-G and CSM for the millennium. For the case of a second ECHO-G simulation /Gonzalez-Rouco et al.) the agreement is very close at 30-year timescale. > OK, I'll add the citation. > Section 3, beginning. > In my opinion, MM05 stress the inadequacies and uncertainties in the MBH work, but they not put forward their own reconstruction implying a warmer-than-today MWP. They believe that this is true, but in their works so far, at least to my knowledge, they do not assert that the MWP was warmer than present, only that the uncertainties are too large for such a claim. Figure 8 of McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) says "Corrected version: 20th century no longer highest". There 2005 paper does not reproduce this, so their published statement implying they have reproduced the results is false. They left out most of the data by mistake and got garbage -- it is fairly clear. > > Section 3: Consensus. This paragraph may be problematic. Again what is the consensus? If we look at the recent NAS report, which again not every one would agree with, the 'consensus' is reduced to the past 400 years in comparison to IPCC, leaving ample space for speculation before this period. Does the NAS report belong to the consensus? perhaps partially, but I am not sure to what extent. > The fact that there is ample space for speculation does not mean there cannot also be a consensus. I don't think a report should "belong" to the consensus, the consensus is the body of statements which are agreed on. > Section 3, discussion of MM05 and hockey-stick index. I have here a certain level of disagreement with these paragraphs. The issue raised by MM05 would be that the de-centering of the proxies prior to the calculations of the principal components tends to produce hockey-stick-shaped leading PC. I think this effect is true, at least with spatially uncorrelated red-noise series . It can be easily verified and it has been recognized in the NAS, the Wegman report and by Francis Zwiers. To be fair, following this issue is the problem of the truncation- just to keep the leading PC or further Pcs down the hiercharchy, and if this is done, the final differences could be probably minor. in the final reconstructions. But the paragraph implies, in my opinion, that this criticism by MM05 has no grounds, which as I said is problematic and could open the manuscript with criticisms based on these recent reports. Its a theoretical possibility in certain parameter regimes, yes, but its not relevant here. I have no problem with MM05 raising this issue, the problem is the inaccurate and misleading material they put in their papers. > > I think that the calculation shown in Figure 3 is very useful, as it boils down to the issue raised by MM05: how relevant is the de-centering and standardization with real proxies?. Apparently, I get a different message from Figure3 (although I may have misinterpreted the text). I see quite large differences in the 20th century between the original MBH leading PC and the 'correct' calculation (whole period centering and standarization,blue line). Only the original MBH PC shows a positive trend in the 20th century. The blue lines seems even to show a negative trend or no trend at all. If this PCs were to be used in the MBH regression model (with trend included in the calibration) the results could be quite different. I would tend to think that this figure actually supports the MM05 criticism, since the hockey-stick shape of the leading PC disappears. I've moved this, and the associated reconstructions, into "supplementary material", mainly to avoid having to discuss all the issues around the AD1400 to present proxies, and also the difference between reconstructing multiple temperature PCs and then evaluating their mean and direct reconstruction of the mean temperature. There is some sensitivity to the principal components, but very little in the reconstruction. > > Section 3, end, bristlecone pines. I am also worried by this paragraph. The recent NAS report clearly states that the bristlecone pines should not be used for reconstructions in view of their potential problems. They cite previous analysis on this issue. I think that to refer to just one study indicating no fertilization effect could not be enough. However, I am not a dendroclimatologist. This could open the door to potential problems. > I've spoken to Ed. Cook last year and he didn't know of any specific evidence of CO2 fertilization in mature trees. I haven't seen the NAS report (what's its title?) -- it would be interesting to see what they base their argument on. As far as I know the one report I've cited covers the only study on mature trees in controlled conditions (its not easy to keep large trees in an enhanced CO2 environment). > Section 4 , end. years 1997 and onwards were the warmest in the millennium. I see here also potential problems with this claim, and I do not see the need to make our lives more complicated. The NAS report expressed that the uncertainties are too large for this type of conclusion and certainly this conclusion would attract some attention from the reader. I see two lines of criticism on this: one is that the standard errors have been calculated with the calibration residuals and these are an underestimation of the true uncertainties. A reviewer may require that the uncertainty range be calculated by cross-calibration or bootstraping. In the case of CVM perhaps this effect is not very important, as there is just one free parameter, but in the case of inverse regression there are much many more free parameters and the true uncertainties can be quite different from those estimated from the calibration residuals. This potential criticism could be exacerbated by the fact that the new reconstruction has not been tested in a validation period. I haven't quoted any uncertainties for the inverse regression result for this reason. The statements in the text should be simple statements of factual results: the maximum temperature in the preindustrial time is x and the highest temperature in the instrumental record is more than 4sigma greater, where sigma is .... > > The other line of criticism could be that the calibration period has been, as in all reconstructions, a priori truncated -data after 1980 are not considered as the proxies are known to not follow the temperature. Strictly speaking this truncation can be only justified by a credible physical explanation about the cause of this divergence. Statistically, I think it is not correct to a priori ignore some data because they do not fit. If one does so, I think the uncertainty range should be enlarged to encompass the possibility that this divergence could have happened in the past, i.e. an additional standard deviation of the instrumental NH T in the period 1980-2000 (or perhaps more correct, the square root of the sum of the error variance and the NHT variance in 1980-2000). Alternatively, one could include the period 1980-2000 in the calibration and due to the divergence the standard errors would grow, but perhaps this is practically not possible as the proxy time series may not have been archived for the last 20 years. Which data do you think I'm ignoring "because they don't fit"? This is a rather unnecessary accusation. The problem is that many of the proxies are not annually updated, so that, with the methods used in this study, extending the calibration period reduces the number of proxies. I'll do a couple of sensitivity studies, but ideally we need to develop a means of exploiting proxies which do not cover the whole calibration period. REGEM might do this, but I'm not entirely convinced as yet -- mainly because the complexity makes it difficult to know exactly what is going on. > > Section 5, conclusions. > > I share the worry of Anders Moberg about the wording 'serious flaws' in the analysis of MM05. This sentence would be based on Figure 3, if I understood properly, but as I said I think Figures 3 actually does not support this conclusion. > As far as MM05 goes, they make an clearly inaccurate claim about reproducing their earlier results. I only want to say the paper has "serious flaws", not that everything in it is wrong. > > Finally, I think it would strategically better to avoid conflicts on the particular point of whether some particular year was the warmest of the millennium or not, and to stress the fact that all reconstructions, also the new ones presented in the manuscript (with one exception) show MWP temperatures lower than late 20th century temperatures. > Up to a point (the year of the maximum is only given for information, to describe the reconstruction). > > Another conclusion could be, in my view, that the average temperature in the cold centuries in the millennium seems to be still quite uncertain. The new reconstructions, or the calculation of the leading PCs of the proxies, seem to be still quite sensitive to particular choices in the statistical set-up. > > yes, I'll try to emphasise this -- it is now in the first paragraph of the conclusions. > > 4912. 2006-08-17 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:31:28 +0200 from: Eduardo Zorita subject: comments to mitrie manuscript to: m.n.juckes@rl.ac.uk, " Moberg; Anders " , Gabi Hegerl , esper@wsl.ch, " Briffa; Keith " , " Osborn; Tim " , m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, weber@knmi.nl  Due to the ongoing debate, this has turned an even more difficult manuscript. In general, I think Martin did a very good job in the review of the literature. Concerning the new reconstructions and the evaluation of McIntyre work, I would not fully agree with some of the conclusions, which I thin do not follow from the material presented in the text. I have some remarks on this which you may consider useful. But I think that I am not the one that should give the manuscript the final shape, as Martin is the person in charge of the project. Please, consider the following comments as suggestions. eduardo Consensus: I would tend to avoid the word 'consensus', since it is not a well defined concept. Depending on the meaning of consensus, each would agree with it to a certain degree. I would prefer to refer to a particular IPCC conclusion, or something similar. I think this review of the literature is very well written and informative, but I am not sure that each one of us will agree with each one of the concussions of each of the papers. Page 12, section 2.8. I think the text is somewhat vague here, and it could be misunderstood. Mann et al (2005) tested the RegEM method, not the original MBH98 method. It is true that applied to the real proxies both methods, according to Mann, yield very similar results. But strictly speaking , Mann did not test the MBH98 method in the CSM simulation. The MBH98 method is thereby only by implication I tested the the sensitivity of the MBH98, and not of RegEM, to the length of the calibration period. It may be the RegEM is less sensitive or not at all. Figure 4 and 5, if I understood well, support this dependency of MBH to the calibration period. Am I correct to interpret the large differences between the original MBH reconstruction (dashed red) and the black curve as due to the different calibration period (1901-1980 versus 1856-1980) and to the use of the leading PC or NHT as calibration target? At least in the period prior to 1600 I think these are the only methodological differences between both curves (?). My interpretation of this figure is also somewhat different. If the final reconstructions differs so strongly by using a longer calibration period (in general yielding stronger decadal variability in the reconstruction) I would tend to think that the method based on these proxies is quite unstable. What would happen if the calibration period could have been extended to 1800, for instance?. Page 15: top. The role of forcing on the global or NH T is also recognized in the correlation between the NHT simulated by ECHO-G and CSM for the millennium. For the case of a second ECHO-G simulation /Gonzalez-Rouco et al.) the agreement is very close at 30-year timescale. Section 3, beginning. In my opinion, MM05 stress the inadequacies and uncertainties in the MBH work, but they not put forward their own reconstruction implying a warmer-than-today MWP. They believe that this is true, but in their works so far, at least to my knowledge, they do not assert that the MWP was warmer than present, only that the uncertainties are too large for such a claim. Section 3: Consensus. This paragraph may be problematic. Again what is the consensus? If we look at the recent NAS report, which again not every one would agree with, the 'consensus' is reduced to the past 400 years in comparison to IPCC, leaving ample space for speculation before this period. Does the NAS report belong to the consensus? perhaps partially, but I am not sure to what extent. Section 3, discussion of MM05 and hockey-stick index. I have here a certain level of disagreement with these paragraphs. The issue raised by MM05 would be that the de-centering of the proxies prior to the calculations of the principal components tends to produce hockey-stick-shaped leading PC. I think this effect is true, at least with spatially uncorrelated red-noise series . It can be easily verified and it has been recognized in the NAS, the Wegman report and by Francis Zwiers. To be fair, following this issue is the problem of the truncation- just to keep the leading PC or further Pcs down the hiercharchy, and if this is done, the final differences could be probably minor. in the final reconstructions. But the paragraph implies, in my opinion, that this criticism by MM05 has no grounds, which as I said is problematic and could open the manuscript with criticisms based on these recent reports. I think that the calculation shown in Figure 3 is very useful, as it boils down to the issue raised by MM05: how relevant is the de-centering and standardization with real proxies?. Apparently, I get a different message from Figure3 (although I may have misinterpreted the text). I see quite large differences in the 20th century between the original MBH leading PC and the 'correct' calculation (whole period centering and standarization,blue line). Only the original MBH PC shows a positive trend in the 20th century. The blue lines seems even to show a negative trend or no trend at all. If this PCs were to be used in the MBH regression model (with trend included in the calibration) the results could be quite different. I would tend to think that this figure actually supports the MM05 criticism, since the hockey-stick shape of the leading PC disappears. Section 3, end, bristlecone pines. I am also worried by this paragraph. The recent NAS report clearly states that the bristlecone pines should not be used for reconstructions in view of their potential problems. They cite previous analysis on this issue. I think that to refer to just one study indicating no fertilization effect could not be enough. However, I am not a dendroclimatologist. This could open the door to potential problems. Section 4 , end. years 1997 and onwards were the warmest in the millennium. I see here also potential problems with this claim, and I do not see the need to make our lives more complicated. The NAS report expressed that the uncertainties are too large for this type of conclusion and certainly this conclusion would attract some attention from the reader. I see two lines of criticism on this: one is that the standard errors have been calculated with the calibration residuals and these are an underestimation of the true uncertainties. A reviewer may require that the uncertainty range be calculated by cross-calibration or bootstraping. In the case of CVM perhaps this effect is not very important, as there is just one free parameter, but in the case of inverse regression there are much many more free parameters and the true uncertainties can be quite different from those estimated from the calibration residuals. This potential criticism could be exacerbated by the fact that the new reconstruction has not been tested in a validation period. The other line of criticism could be that the calibration period has been, as in all reconstructions, a priori truncated -data after 1980 are not considered as the proxies are known to not follow the temperature. Strictly speaking this truncation can be only justified by a credible physical explanation about the cause of this divergence. Statistically, I think it is not correct to a priori ignore some data because they do not fit. If one does so, I think the uncertainty range should be enlarged to encompass the possibility that this divergence could have happened in the past, i.e. an additional standard deviation of the instrumental NH T in the period 1980-2000 (or perhaps more correct, the square root of the sum of the error variance and the NHT variance in 1980-2000). Alternatively, one could include the period 1980-2000 in the calibration and due to the divergence the standard errors would grow, but perhaps this is practically not possible as the proxy time series may not have been archived for the last 20 years. Section 5, conclusions. I share the worry of Anders Moberg about the wording 'serious flaws' in the analysis of MM05. This sentence would be based on Figure 3, if I understood properly, but as I said I think Figures 3 actually does not support this conclusion. Finally, I think it would strategically better to avoid conflicts on the particular point of whether some particular year was the warmest of the millennium or not, and to stress the fact that all reconstructions, also the new ones presented in the manuscript (with one exception) show MWP temperatures lower than late 20th century temperatures. Another conclusion could be, in my view, that the average temperature in the cold centuries in the millennium seems to be still quite uncertain. The new reconstructions, or the calculation of the leading PCs of the proxies, seem to be still quite sensitive to particular choices in the statistical set-up. 5117. 2006-08-17 ______________________________________________________ cc: Anders , Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de, hegerl@duke.edu, esper@wsl.ch, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 18:31:20 +0100 from: Martin Juckes subject: Yet another draft -- hopefully ready for submission to: Nanne Weber Hello, I didn't manage to get things finished before going on holiday -- so here is another draft which still needs proof reading. I've cut out a couple of figure which referred to the time period AD1400 to present to simplify the discussion a little. I've also cut out one proxy series from the "Union" reconstruction -- the French tree ring series which needed to be filled from 1974 to 1980. This doesn't change the results significantly. I was using treating the "high" and "low" resolution proxies of Moberg et al differently, creating two composites and then averaging them -- I've removed this complication and the resulting reconstruction looks more like their published one. Attached are some responses to Nanne's comments. Also attached are a couple of draft data files to be submitted as supplementary material. These contain the reconstructions used in figure 1. One file is in netcdf format, which is convenient for things like IDL and MATLAB, the other is a spreadsheet. cheers, Martin Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\mitrie_cited_reconstructions.csv" Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\mitrie_cited_reconstructions.nc" Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\mitrie_nanne_aug.txt" Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\cpd-2006-xxxx1.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\cpd-2006-xxxx1.tex" 1318. 2006-08-18 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Aug 18 12:51:14 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: request for "continued" collaboration to: Colin.Prentice@bristol.ac.uk 18 August 2006 Colin, Despite our best efforts the NERC application we submitted on the Process-Based Standardisation fell at the first hurdle. To be frank, I was not at all happy with the comments but I know how futile it is to argue. I submitted a similar outline proposal to the Leverhulme Trust and this got through the initial screening. I am now submitting the full proposal and I am hoping you will agree again to be named as a collaborator. Ben Smith has agreed to do likewise. I attach the proposal and summary as requested by Leverhulme. The request boils down to one for salary for Tom Melvin plus a little travel money to visit yourself and Ben (and one Austrian collaborator). I am convinced that this work will be significant for dendroclimatology and very likely be of value for tree-growth modelling studies, hence my determination to continue pursuing this. I know you are very busy so I hope you will not mind if I take the liberty of assuming you are willing to agree to this request, unless I hear from you to the contrary. Very best wishes and thanks, -- 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/ 1410. 2006-08-18 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith date: Fri Aug 18 12:58:40 2006 from: Tom Melvin subject: Leverhulme Proposal to: mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu Malcolm, The outline case to Leverhulme for Keith to hire me to continue research into Process-Based Standardisation was approved. We are now submitting the Full Application. Are you still happy (and available) to be a referee for this proposal? The closing date is 1st September 2006 and Leverhulme will contact you and require a response before 20th September. I attach a copy of the Summary Description (1000 words) and the Full proposal (5000) words. I will give your details to Leverhulme as below. Are these correct? Details of two independent referees (they MUST be from different institutions and not from that of the applicant(s)); they should be able to reply to the Trust, within 3 weeks of having been so consulted. Name and Title: Professor Malcolm K. Hughes Position: Ex. Director, Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research Full address: Prof. MK Hughes Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research The University of Arizona PO Box 210058 Tucson, Arizona 85721 Tel. No.: (520) 621 6470 Fax No.: (520) 621 8229 E-mail: [1]mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu Thanking you in anticipation. Tom Tom Melvin Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593161 Fax: +44-1603-507784 1501. 2006-08-18 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith date: Fri Aug 18 13:01:50 2006 from: Tom Melvin subject: Leverhulme Proposal to: Ed Ed, The outline case to Leverhulme for Keith to hire me to continue research into Process-Based Standardisation was approved. We are now submitting the Full Application. Are you still happy (and available) to be a referee for this proposal? The closing date is 1st September 2006 and Leverhulme will contact you and require a response before 20th September. I attach a copy of the Summary Description (1000 words) and the Full proposal (5000) words. I will give your details to Leverhulme as below. Are these correct? Details of two independent referees (they MUST be from different institutions and not from that of the applicant(s)); they should be able to reply to the Trust, within 3 weeks of having been so consulted. Name: Doctor E.R. Cook Position: Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Full address: Dr. ER Cook Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory 61 Route 9W Palisades, NY 10964 Tel. No.: (845) 365 8618 Fax No.: (845) 365 8152 E-mail: [1]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Thanking you in anticipation. Tom Tom Melvin Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593161 Fax: +44-1603-507784 2164. 2006-08-18 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Aug 18 18:27:44 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: CONFIDENTIAL to: mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu,drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Malcolm and Ed forgive the cheek - though I know you will - but I am writing (confidentially) about the proposal I am now submitting The Leverhulme foundation. This is the follow up to the preliminary submission we made at the beginning of this year. I am writing to give a little background and to ask that you take a little time over the review that I really hope will be requested of you and that I know you will help us with. It turns out that the original request did not require referees and the fact that I asked you at the time was premature , the result of my lack of sufficient preparation. I have no idea whether the Trust saw you letters or not , but they made no mention of us needing to suggest different referees this time. Hence my naming you both again - sorry for the trouble. Needless to say I really do believe that there is a lot in this request otherwise I would not be so keen to push it . True , Tom's salary for the next three years pretty much depends on getting it but I nevertheless believe that this is really worth pursuing and I hope you will think so too. Colin Prentice and Ben Smith , as you will see , are happy to collaborate also and needless to say I would be delighted to get input and ongoing advice from you two also. Leverhulme , as Malcolm (but probably not Ed) is aware , are basically a pretty snobby lot. They are certainly influenced by reputation and rank. That is not to say that the proposal will not have to be good scientifically, but that this alone is not likely to impress their Committee. I have to ask (with admitted embarrassment) that beside reviewing the content , you do not stint on the personal recommendation.It might not hurt to say well qualified each of you is to give an opinion. There is no place for me to blow my own trumpet in this regard as they ask for only a one-page CV! I would be really grateful if you could push the line that I have made some innovatory contributions to the field and that I recognize the need ( and contribute in a practical way) to the use of our data in the wider scientific context. They look favourably on inter-disciplinary projects that are not well suited to a submission to the usual Research Council funding sources. They have , I suppose, to be convinced that this work could be of wider value than just a narrow dendro project and that we could be trusted to extend our work into the Tree-Growth Modelling area , despite a lack of any reputation in it!!!! It would be good to say something about Tom - that he is old (and odd) and came late to this stuff - but already is showing signs of introducing new (hopefully genuine) advances. I don't want to push it any further so I will leave it at that. One thing though - if they do contact you please be really strict about getting the review back in time - they are unbelievably anal about deadlines and rules and the like. I know we know each other well enough to know that you will realise I am writing this with the best of motives and how much I (and Tom) appreciate anything you can do to help. With very best wishes Keith -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 4554. 2006-08-22 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Tim Osborn" , , "Brohan, Philip" date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 13:05:36 +0100 from: "Rob Wilson" subject: Re: Coral reconstruction - a more complicated approach but no to: "Tett, Simon" , "Sandy Tudhope" Hi Simon, yes, certainly calibrating against a more spatially restricted (Indian/Pacific) mean SST series could improve the results. This was really just an academic exercise to answer a query of Sandy's and see if R2 could be inflated significantly beyond what we already have. As a method it may not be too realistic anyway as no such data massaging is done to the SST grids when they are averaged to derive the large scale mean. I suppose the optimal approach would be a spatial field reconstruction, but then we are dogged with the problem of using relatively short coral records and relying on teleconnected relationships between the longer coral series. I am not keen on this as I do not feel we can assumed that teleconnected relationships are time stable I am happy with what we have done especially as it was derived using a relatively simple approach. I am sure in the future someone will developed a better series as more coral series are made available. But that is for the future. regards Rob ----- Original Message ----- From: [1]Tett, Simon To: [2]Rob Wilson ; [3]Sandy Tudhope Cc: [4]Tim Osborn ; [5]K.briffa@uea.ac.uk ; [6]Brohan, Philip Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 12:05 PM Subject: RE: Coral reconstruction - a more complicated approach but no significant gain My feeling is that the additional data improves things a bit but not a lot! You could try and calibrate against Indo-Pacific SST rather than tropical SST. S Dr Simon Tett Managing Scientist, Data development and applications. Met Office Hadley Centre (Reading Unit) Meteorology Building, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5614 Fax +44 (0)118 378 5615 Mobex: +44-(0)1392 886886 E-mail: [7]simon.tett@metoffice.gov.uk [8]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Global climate data sets are available from [9]http://www.hadobs.org ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Rob Wilson [mailto:rob.wilson@ed.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 5:14 PM To: Sandy Tudhope Cc: Tim Osborn; Tett, Simon; K.briffa@uea.ac.uk; Brohan, Philip Subject: Coral reconstruction - a more complicated approach but no significant gain Hi Sandy, I could not resist looking into your question below. One of the main weaknesses in the coral reconstruction is perhaps the autocorrelation in the model residuals as measured by the Durbin-Watson statistic. It is possible that this weakness comes from not including those corals located from the Warm Pool region down to the southern tropical Pacific (where SSTs are inversely correlate with large scale tropical SSTs - i.e. Raratonga, Laing etc). So to address your query, I added to the JGR data-set the coral records from the Warm Pool paper (Bunaken, Lombok and Laing), plus the DO18 series from Raratonga and Fiji (I do not think the Sr/Ca records would make much difference). I also included the New Caledonian (AML) record of Crowley although it does not pass screening against local SSTs. This results in an expanded data-base of 19 series (MAI and TAR combined). I then band pass filtered the series (and the TROP HADISST series) to high (< 10 year), mid (10-30 year) and low (> 30 year) frequency fractions. Table 1 in the attached PDF shows the correlations (1897-1981 common period) between each coral record and HADISST tropical temperatures using the unfiltered series and their band-pass versions. The expected opposite sign of the correlations, at high frequencies, of the RAR, FIJ, AML, BUN, LNG and LOM series is clear. I then chose arbitrary correlations levels for acceptance for inclusion in the final reconstruction. High - > 0.20 (equates roughly to the 95% C.L.) Mid - > 0.40 Low - > 0.50 Higher acceptance values for the mid and low frequencies could have been used, but I wanted to use as many of the coral records as possible. Table 1 also highlights (grey shading) those coral records in each frequency band that were used for the final mean function: High - 15 Mid - 9 Low - 15 At each frequency band, the accepted series were normalised and the sign changed to be consistent with each other. I then made a frequency band mean by averaging the accepted series. The correlations between the coral mean and HADISST temperature data at each frequency band are: High - 0.76 Mid - 0.75 Low - 0.86 To ensure consistent variance in the final time-series, the variance of the frequency band mean series were re-scaled to the grand mean of the standard deviations of the original band-pass series within each band-width. The re-scaled high, mid and low time-series were then summed and a final tropical mean function developed. This final series was then calibrated (regressed not scaled) to the unfiltered HADISST data over the 1897-1981 period. This equates to the most replicated nest in the JGR paper. The attached PDF file compares the JGR reconstruction with the new band-pass derived reconstruction along with some calibration results. The JGR reconstruction explains 57% of the variance, while the new one explains 60%. The DW in the original was 0.95, while the new one is worse at 0.90. The two reconstructions correlate with each other at 0.94. So - in this version, Raratonga (the high frequency fraction of it at least) has been included (plus other new series of course). However, there has really been no significant gain using this approach. In fact, the DW value is still poor which frustrates me. This may mean that some sort of AR modelling may be required to improve the reconstruction in this regards in the future. Something I keep meaning to play with. Of course, it could be argued that the individual coral series should be screened at each frequency band with local SSTs. However, overall, I do not think it will make a huge difference no matter what games we play. My gut feeling is that one big problem is the lack of data from the Atlantic. From SST data that Philip sent me, greatest warming occurs in Atlantic SSTs. As the coral data-set is biased to the Pacific where warming is least (Indian Ocean in-between), then the autocorrelation may simply reflect this spatial bias in sites. anyway, I hope this answers your query. I am happy I finally did this as it has been bugging me for a while and the method needed to be explored. This band pass approach is more time consuming, but holds promise. However, at least for the most replicated period it makes little difference to the results. However, in the earlier less replicated periods, a few more additional coral series could make a huge difference (e.g. the Lombok series). I think this is probably the sort of approach that may need to be considered in the future. regards Rob --------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: [10]Sandy Tudhope To: [11]Rob Wilson Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 4:52 PM Subject: Re: SAGES lectureship Hi Rob, b) CORAL RECONSTRUCTION: - There was quite a bit of discussion about whether we should have kept in the Rarotonga and other coral sites that show the inverse relationship with Tropical SST. I suppose an important question is: does it make any difference to the overall reconstruction? I said I didn't think it did, but that I couldn't be certain if you'd tried the exercise including them. Did you? 2238. 2006-08-28 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones , Scott Rutherford , Caspar Ammann , "Wahl, Eugene R" date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 08:51:29 -0400 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: followup to: Keith Briffa Keith, I didn't receive a response to my previous inquiry so I'm resending. Also copying to Phil in case you haven't been reading email for some reason. We would like to run our RegEM analysis through the ECHO-G simulation results. It appears that the results of that simulation have been widely disseminated to other groups, and yet they are not publically available to our knowledge. As per your previous suggestion, we would be grateful if we could acquire the surface temperature field for the simulation from you for some analyses we're doing. Thanks in advance for any help, mike -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 1514. 2006-08-30 ______________________________________________________ cc: Jonathan Overpeck date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 21:43:25 +0200 from: Eystein Jansen subject: Fwd: Chpt 6 - last 1000 yrs to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith, John should have the latest versions of the comments file and the chapter text, i.e. the ones that went out for LA review this summer. I believe he is after some more specific answers in the comments and not so much changes to the text, and has selected the bristlecone issue, the divergency issue and the verification and robustness issues. If you are unsure what comments or tetx he refers to, I think the best thing is for to ask John for the specific comments he thinks are not adequate, or the specific lines of text which he suggests changed. It seems he needs some reassurance rather than you writing much new in terms of comments and text, so the best would be to talk to him and ask what he needs you to do to the documents. Best wishes, Eystein Envelope-to: Eystein.Jansen@geo.uib.no Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:31:12 +0100 To: Eystein Jansen From: Keith Briffa Subject: Fwd: Chpt 6 - last 1000 yrs X-UEA-Spam-Score: -101.6 X-UEA-Spam-Level: --------------------------------------------------- X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO X-checked-clean: by exiscan on noralf X-UiB-SpamFlag: NO UIB: -13.8 hits, 8.0 required X-UiB-SpamReport: spamassassin found; -15 From is listed in 'whitelist_SA' 0.1 BODY: Message is 30% to 40% HTML 0.0 BODY: HTML included in message 1.1 BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts Eystein John sent these remarks - have not talked with him yet - but not sure what is now required Keith X-IronPort-AV: i="4.08,132,1154908800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="17827006:sNHT58118592" Subject: Chpt 6 - last 1000 yrs Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:14:52 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Chpt 6 - last 1000 yrs Thread-Index: AcbBRrj0FPNJH9bQTyCswuNw7Ln3bw== From: "Mitchell, John FB \(Chief Scientist\)" To: "Keith Briffa" Cc: "Mitchell, John FB \(Chief Scientist\)" X-UEA-Spam-Score: 2.1 X-UEA-Spam-Level: ++ X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Hi Keith I have tried to cindense what I think the main issues for the and what the response is below. The weakest area seems to be statistical significance and by implication the likely/ very likely statements. I can't think of any easy solution - in the TAR for detection and attribution we used 95% limits on stats tests and them downrated them to allow for other uncertainties. I am interested in your comments John Issues 1. Reliance on Bristlecone pine - Response - the issues are in calibration period- they agree with other indicators for the rest of the record 2. Centring of principle components leads to "hockeysticks"- Response - this makes only a small difference when standardised data used. Comment - Would be useful to know which reconstructions do and donot make this assumption- this could strengthen the response 3. The divergence issue- Response - it is only apparent in high latitudes, and only with some trees. Comment- Do we know what happens if we eliminate those records with a divergence problem. The wider issue is whether or not it is reasonable to extend the reconstructions outside the calibration range. 4. There are different ways of verifying reconstructions and assigning significance levels( calibration period or seprate verifying period, different statistics) Response ? Comment- it is difficult in the text to gauge how well reconstructions are validated - eg using the calibration period to estimate errors as opposed to an independent period clearly makes a difference. This is important where "likely", "very likely"are used- based on what statistics? I think this is the area where I think the current response is weakest 5. Robustness- Burger and Cubasch show a wide range of results using different assumptions- Response ? Mann makes a reasoned defence- there are other checks and tests which would rule out many of the arbitrary assumptions explored by Cubasch and Burger, but this is not clear in the response to M&M etc -- 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/ -- ______________________________________________________________ Eystein Jansen Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen Allégaten 55 N-5007 Bergen NORWAY e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 Fax: +47-55-584330 1894. 2006-08-31 ______________________________________________________ cc: joos , Eystein Jansen , Bette Otto-Bleisner , cddhr@giss.nasa.gov, rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, Keith Briffa date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 21:28:16 -0400 from: David Rind subject: Re: urgent IPCC need to: Jonathan Overpeck Jonathan, I haven't looked at these in great detail, but I have a problem with Martin making suggestions about the TSU Exec Summary for chap 6. Weren't these decided by consensus among the Chap 6 authors? Why does Martin have any say about this? Clarification is one thing, but some of these suggestions seem to be 'leading'. I think we should be very cautious about changing anything substantive here at the last moment. [This is the expurgated version of what I really thing.] David At 4:55 PM -0600 8/31/06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >Hi all - We need to submit our latest chap 6 >Exec Summary to TSU tomorrow if we can. We can >still make changes, but I wanted to update with >Martin's suggestions taken into account. See the >attached and please comment regarding my strike >throughs and additions (yellow highlight). >Martin's comments are in yellowish text, and my >questions to you (especially FORTUNAT) are >higlighted in PURPLE. > >Please send by tomorrow aft if you can. > >Not that I've sent to those I think are on-line >right now. Will send to the whole team later >with more edited text. > >Thanks, Peck >-- >Jonathan T. Overpeck >Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >Professor, Department of Geosciences >Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences > >Mail and Fedex Address: > >Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >University of Arizona >Tucson, AZ 85721 >direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >fax: +1 520 792-8795 >http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ > >Attachment converted: >Toltec:Ch06_FinalDraft_ExecSumV3.doc (WDBN/«IC») >(1BEA76C7) -- /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 2446. 2006-08-31 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen date: Thu Aug 31 15:36:50 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: FAR chapter 6 and comments to: john.f.mitchell@metoffice.gov.uk John thanks for the time and discussion on our section of Chapter 6 today. I am sending the latest version of the Chapter , particularly hoping you will comment on the new paragraph discussing tree-ring "problems", but also give your opinion on Stefan's suggested revision regarding the von Storch section. I will forward his message separately. I will also send in a separate email the latest version of my responses as sent to Eystein in case the version you have has been modified somewhat. Thanks again Keith Eystein - please see the minor addition to Comment 6-736 (in response to a point by John) and note that Peck has not infilled his responses to the drought questions (currently still labelled in yellow as PECK). -- 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/ 4210. 2006-08-31 ______________________________________________________ cc: joos , Eystein Jansen , Bette Otto-Bleisner , cddhr@giss.nasa.gov, rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, Keith Briffa date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 22:30:25 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: urgent IPCC need to: David Rind Hi David - I was hoping (thinking) you'd be working this evening, thanks. What you say make sense, and perhaps we should scale back the changes that I made in response to what Martin suggested to include only those that clarify. But, I do think this needs to include things like the 1998 issue - we didn't have that on our radar screen in Bergen, and we will get grief if we don't say something. So, I suggest we all look at what I sent, and try to only consider those changes which clarify and don't change existing meaning. Then, I also assume we give everyone a chance to check what we've done. No meaning's changed, just clarification. Most of what Martin (with Susan's blessing and input I sense) suggested was along these lines, but not all, so as you read what I did, please err on the side of sticking to our original agreement not to change meaning after Bergen. Thanks David for thinking and writing wisely. best, peck >Jonathan, > >I haven't looked at these in great detail, but I >have a problem with Martin making suggestions >about the TSU Exec Summary for chap 6. Weren't >these decided by consensus among the Chap 6 >authors? Why does Martin have any say about >this? Clarification is one thing, but some of >these suggestions seem to be 'leading'. I think >we should be very cautious about changing >anything substantive here at the last moment. >[This is the expurgated version of what I really >thing.] > >David > > >At 4:55 PM -0600 8/31/06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>Hi all - We need to submit our latest chap 6 >>Exec Summary to TSU tomorrow if we can. We can >>still make changes, but I wanted to update with >>Martin's suggestions taken into account. See >>the attached and please comment regarding my >>strike throughs and additions (yellow >>highlight). Martin's comments are in yellowish >>text, and my questions to you (especially >>FORTUNAT) are higlighted in PURPLE. >> >>Please send by tomorrow aft if you can. >> >>Not that I've sent to those I think are on-line >>right now. Will send to the whole team later >>with more edited text. >> >>Thanks, Peck >>-- >>Jonathan T. Overpeck >>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>Professor, Department of Geosciences >>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >> >>Mail and Fedex Address: >> >>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>University of Arizona >>Tucson, AZ 85721 >>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >> >>Attachment converted: >>Toltec:Ch06_FinalDraft_ExecSumV3.doc >>(WDBN/«IC») (1BEA76C7) > > >-- >/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > >/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 4645. 2006-08-31 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen ,rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de date: Thu Aug 31 15:52:58 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Fwd: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] NEW DRAFT FOR LA REVIEW to: john.f.mitchell@metoffice.gov.uk John here are the suggested changes by Stefan that we discussed (thanks for these Sefan). I accept the minor wording changes shown (Eystein please implement) but disagree with suggested wording of the Von Storch paragraph - preferring my own earlier version) - so your opinion(s) welcome. Keith Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 20:21:57 +0200 From: Stefan Rahmstorf User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719) To: Eystein Jansen , Jonathan Overpeck , Keith Briffa Subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] NEW DRAFT FOR LA REVIEW Hi folks - I read EVERY WORD of our chapter and here are my revisions.... see attached. Mostly minor (but all with thought, so don't just dismiss), except for one bigger paragraph concerning pseudo-proxies, for special consideration by Keith. And I make it shorter! The figures tomorrow. Chapter is looking pretty good! Cheers, Stefan -- To reach me directly please use: rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de (My former addresses @pik-potsdam.de are read by my assistant Brigitta.) Stefan Rahmstorf [1]www.ozean-klima.de [2]www.realclimate.org -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 605. 2006-09-01 ______________________________________________________ cc: joos , Eystein Jansen , Bette Otto-Bleisner , cddhr@giss.nasa.gov date: Fri Sep 1 15:45:38 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: urgent IPCC need to: Stefan Rahmstorf , Jonathan Overpeck I forgot to say that I too disagree with removing the first sentence re simulations being consistent with reconstructed NH temps. As Sefan says we need the context , and our results are independent of Chapter 9 in this regard. Keith At 15:37 01/09/2006, Stefan Rahmstorf wrote: Hi Peck, Martin as in Manning? I have found his feedback very useful so far, so we should definitely look at what he suggests - he mostly tends to look for whether our sentences are clear. Obviously, he cannot suggest real changes in meaning, only issues of clarity, but the latter I would take very seriously. Mostly I find his small rewordings good, I comment on the larger points and exceptions below. - I am against deleting the bullet on speed of deglacial change. This point is extremely effective. Just two days ago an oil industry person told me that there have been big natural climate changes like ice ages in the past, hence we need not worry. I responded that the biggest warming in recent climate history was the end of the last Ice Age - but that warming by about 5 ºC took about 5,000 years, not a hundred. "Oh" he said, "Really so long? I didn't know that." I think it is a very important point, we need to make it. Maybe not in term of "average rate", may we should just say: the warming of 4-7 ºC took about 5,000 years, as compared to a future change of up to the same magnitude within a century. - Next ice age bullet in 30k seems fine to me. - exceptional warmth: the SPM said: 20th C T increase likely the largest in a millennium - that is strengthened (perhaps very likely now?) 1990s likely the warmest decade in a millennium - that again is strengthened 1998 likely the warmest year - I'd say this is unchanged (except for 2005 challenging it), likely is only 66%! Even though the annual proxy data may be uncertain, as a physicist I would find it unlikely that there is a mechanism to cause a big warm outlier year that beats 1998 from a much cooler background state. How would that work - where would the heat come from? So in my view we could actually say that these past SPM statements held up or were strengthened - but in fact I also like the bullet as it is. - [DEL: Paleoclimate model simulations are broadly consistent with the reconstructed NH temperatures over the past 1000 years. :DEL] The rise in surface temperatures since 1950 very likely cannot be reproduced without including anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the model forcings, and it is very unlikely that this warming was merely a recovery from the pre-20^th century cold period. On this I disagree with deleting the first sentence, as the second one needs it to follow logically. And why should the paleo chapter suddenly make a statement on post-1950 warming, if it is not in the context of the past millennium? Cheers, Stefan -- To reach me directly please use: [1]rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de (My former addresses @pik-potsdam.de are read by my assistant Brigitta.) Stefan Rahmstorf [2]www.ozean-klima.de [3]www.realclimate.org -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 1154. 2006-09-01 ______________________________________________________ cc: john.f.mitchell@metoffice.gov.uk, Eystein Jansen , Jonathan Overpeck date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:01:37 +0200 from: Stefan Rahmstorf subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] NEW DRAFT FOR LA REVIEW to: Keith Briffa Dear Keith, you disagree with my proposed revision of the paragraph re. the Von Storch papers, but you do not give any reasons or arguments for that. I think there are some good reasons to shorten this discussion and to clarify it, and I would welcome to hear your reasons against it. Firstly, I think your original discussion was too long and complex to understand for non-specialists, and, at this level of detail, not policy-relevant. It took up a disproportionate amount of space for what we can learn from it. Secondly, I don't think we need to cite all those Storch-spinoff papers by Bürger/Cubasch. Most people whose judgement I value (e.g., David Ritson, who I think has no vested interest but a very detailed knowledge of the issue) think these papers are irrelevant at best and misleading at worst (he actually has used stronger wording). You may also have seen that the latest in this series, making similar points, is highly criticised by anonymous reviewers on the open discussion site of the journal Climate of the Past, where one reviewer (this is not the even more scathing review by Mann) recommends rejection of the Bürger/Cubasch paper because of "numerous errors and inaccuracies in the use of statistical concepts and methods". Third, if we cite Von Storch et al. 2004 we need to be very clear that a number of key statements are simply incorrect, which is a fact that is not in dispute and documented in the literature. They implemented the Mann et al. method incorrectly, and it is at least unclear whether in their follow-up paper they have now fixed this (Ritson, who discovered the problem in their original paper in the first place, thinks they still have a problem, the detrending step was not the only one - and certainly in no paper have VS et al. shown any test that verifies their algorithm). Also, they were hiding a major artificial climate drift (which they must have known about, and which makes up half of their climate signal) - it is at least unclear whether you can expect a proxy method based on physical patterns of climate variability to reconstruct an unphysical drift, which has a completely different pattern. I simply think that because of this flaw, we cannot trust or cite any results from this particular ECHO-G run, which also affects several of the Bürger/Cubasch papers using the same data set. Given that the VS04 paper was used in the US Senate and other high-profile fora to discredit IPCC, I think it is imperative that we clarify this and leave our readers in no doubt about the fact that the VS04 results have proven to be incorrect in a major way. I am aware that you authored a favorable Science Perspective on the VS04 paper at the time, but you could not have known of those errors back then, and for a long time I thought myself that it was a valid paper. Therefore, if we state clearly in our chapter what is wrong with it, I do not think this would be a loss of face for you - quite the contrary. I also think you have done a brilliant job on the rest of the very difficult discussion of the past millennium. Best wishes, Stefan -- To reach me directly please use: [1]rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de (My former addresses @pik-potsdam.de are read by my assistant Brigitta.) Stefan Rahmstorf [2]www.ozean-klima.de [3]www.realclimate.org 1206. 2006-09-01 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , Stefan Rahmstorf , Bette Otto-Bleisner , david.adelman@law.arizona.edu date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 15:25:20 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: urgent IPCC need to: Eystein Jansen Hi all - today has been a hectic one, with lots of good input from multiple folks. In the end, we agreed to stick with our existing bullets, which changes only where they would improve the clarity of what we were saying. Please check the attached - need Fortunat's detailed look in particular. Changes are all in yellow highlight. Two special issues: 1) There is still concern that this bullet is too vague to be as useful as it could be: o It is very likely that the global warming of 4 to 7 °C since the Last Glacial Maximum (ca. 21,000 years ago) occurred at an average rate about ten times slower than the warming of the 20th century. but, perhaps the safest thing would be to leave as is. 2) As for the 1998/2005 warmest in last 1000 years issue, we suggest adding nothing new to the ES, in line with our chapter policy from Bergen, BUT adding something in the chapter along the lines of: " There is currently insufficient knowledge to form a consensus on the issue of how the warmth of individual years of the last 100 years compare with individual years of the last 1000 years" Keith, would you like to make a suggestion on the wording and placement? The reasoning expressed by Stefan on this issue is undoubtedly shared by others outside our team, and perhaps a paper be written on this key topic to help the community reach better consensus. Thanks for your continued dialog and work! Have a good weekend. best, Peck and Eystein dear All, thanks for being alert. I think we have an agreement that Martin´s comments are useful, but that we should change only those sentences where they clarify. Otherwise i agree with Stefan and Keith´s statements below. Eystein At 15:45 +0100 01-09-06, Keith Briffa wrote: I forgot to say that I too disagree with removing the first sentence re simulations being consistent with reconstructed NH temps. As Sefan says we need the context , and our results are independent of Chapter 9 in this regard. Keith At 15:37 01/09/2006, Stefan Rahmstorf wrote: Hi Peck, Martin as in Manning? I have found his feedback very useful so far, so we should definitely look at what he suggests - he mostly tends to look for whether our sentences are clear. Obviously, he cannot suggest real changes in meaning, only issues of clarity, but the latter I would take very seriously. Mostly I find his small rewordings good, I comment on the larger points and exceptions below. - I am against deleting the bullet on speed of deglacial change. This point is extremely effective. Just two days ago an oil industry person told me that there have been big natural climate changes like ice ages in the past, hence we need not worry. I responded that the biggest warming in recent climate history was the end of the last Ice Age - but that warming by about 5 ºC took about 5,000 years, not a hundred. "Oh" he said, "Really so long? I didn't know that." I think it is a very important point, we need to make it. Maybe not in term of "average rate", may we should just say: the warming of 4-7 ºC took about 5,000 years, as compared to a future change of up to the same magnitude within a century. - Next ice age bullet in 30k seems fine to me. - exceptional warmth: the SPM said: 20th C T increase likely the largest in a millennium - that is strengthened (perhaps very likely now?) 1990s likely the warmest decade in a millennium - that again is strengthened 1998 likely the warmest year - I'd say this is unchanged (except for 2005 challenging it), likely is only 66%! Even though the annual proxy data may be uncertain, as a physicist I would find it unlikely that there is a mechanism to cause a big warm outlier year that beats 1998 from a much cooler background state. How would that work - where would the heat come from? So in my view we could actually say that these past SPM statements held up or were strengthened - but in fact I also like the bullet as it is. - Paleoclimate model simulations are broadly consistent with the reconstructed NH temperatures over the past 1000 years. The rise in surface temperatures since 1950 very likely cannot be reproduced without including anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the model forcings, and it is very unlikely that this warming was merely a recovery from the pre-20th century cold period. On this I disagree with deleting the first sentence, as the second one needs it to follow logically. And why should the paleo chapter suddenly make a statement on post-1950 warming, if it is not in the context of the past millennium? Cheers, Stefan -- To reach me directly please use: rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de (My former addresses @pik-potsdam.de are read by my assistant Brigitta.) Stefan Rahmstorf www.ozean-klima.de www.realclimate.org -- 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/ -- ______________________________________________________________ Eystein Jansen Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen Allégaten 55 N-5007 Bergen NORWAY e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 Fax: +47-55-584330 -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Ch06_FinalDraft_ExecSumV4.doc" 3774. 2006-09-01 ______________________________________________________ cc: joos , Eystein Jansen , Bette Otto-Bleisner , cddhr@giss.nasa.gov, Keith Briffa date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 16:37:36 +0200 from: Stefan Rahmstorf subject: Re: urgent IPCC need to: Jonathan Overpeck Hi Peck, Martin as in Manning? I have found his feedback very useful so far, so we should definitely look at what he suggests - he mostly tends to look for whether our sentences are clear. Obviously, he cannot suggest real changes in meaning, only issues of clarity, but the latter I would take very seriously. Mostly I find his small rewordings good, I comment on the larger points and exceptions below. - I am against deleting the bullet on speed of deglacial change. This point is extremely effective. Just two days ago an oil industry person told me that there have been big natural climate changes like ice ages in the past, hence we need not worry. I responded that the biggest warming in recent climate history was the end of the last Ice Age - but that warming by about 5 ºC took about 5,000 years, not a hundred. "Oh" he said, "Really so long? I didn't know that." I think it is a very important point, we need to make it. Maybe not in term of "average rate", may we should just say: the warming of 4-7 ºC took about 5,000 years, as compared to a future change of up to the same magnitude within a century. - Next ice age bullet in 30k seems fine to me. - exceptional warmth: the SPM said: 20th C T increase likely the largest in a millennium - that is strengthened (perhaps very likely now?) 1990s likely the warmest decade in a millennium - that again is strengthened 1998 likely the warmest year - I'd say this is unchanged (except for 2005 challenging it), likely is only 66%! Even though the annual proxy data may be uncertain, as a physicist I would find it unlikely that there is a mechanism to cause a big warm outlier year that beats 1998 from a much cooler background state. How would that work - where would the heat come from? So in my view we could actually say that these past SPM statements held up or were strengthened - but in fact I also like the bullet as it is. - [DEL: Paleoclimate model simulations are broadly consistent with the reconstructed NH temperatures over the past 1000 years. :DEL] The rise in surface temperatures since 1950 very likely cannot be reproduced without including anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the model forcings, and it is very unlikely that this warming was merely a recovery from the pre-20^th century cold period. On this I disagree with deleting the first sentence, as the second one needs it to follow logically. And why should the paleo chapter suddenly make a statement on post-1950 warming, if it is not in the context of the past millennium? Cheers, Stefan -- To reach me directly please use: [1]rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de (My former addresses @pik-potsdam.de are read by my assistant Brigitta.) Stefan Rahmstorf [2]www.ozean-klima.de [3]www.realclimate.org 4339. 2006-09-01 ______________________________________________________ cc: joos , Eystein Jansen , Bette Otto-Bleisner , cddhr@giss.nasa.gov date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 10:16:32 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: urgent IPCC need to: Keith Briffa Hi all - ok, I think we're all in agreement - no changes to the ES except to improve clarity. Thanks Keith and Stefan for feedback. The only issue that I think we need to discuss more is the 1998 issue. We have some, Keith, the recent US NAS committee, and myself included, who think we can't support the TAR on this one, and who wish we didn't have to note that. We have at least one - Stefan - who makes an interesting argument that we COULD support it. I strongly feel we can't ignore it - it is too much in the public debate. For now (what I send to the TSU as a draft ES), I can leave this issue unresolved. But, I have to say we're working on it. It's ok for the AR4 to admit that the TAR didn't get everything right. Indeed, it makes our strengthening of some statements stronger if we deal with the 1998/2005 issue in a clear way. Bette, Fortunat and David have not weighed in yet on this issue, and I'd like to hear what they say. Please read both Keith's and Stefan's arguments - sent today - first. Otherwise, I'll keep things like they were with clarifications and no points deleted. Hoping to get some of the clarifications from Fortunat soon, but also to hear from Bette and David. thanks/best, peck >First, >I think it best to limit comments to a few most relevant (to me) >points. Second, I agree with David that this "review" by Martin >seems a strange anomaly in the process as first declared , and in >comparison to other chapters. However,.. some the points are ok > >The removal of the word certain after very likely is a must in first bullet. > >agree strongly that best to remove 4th bullet > >as to the "exceptional warmth of the ..." bullet, I think your >suggested sentence is fine BUT it will need a corresponding >statement in the main text. >The reason I did not go into the 1998 debate is that I did not , and >still do not agree with what the TAR said about 1998. Many >reconstructions either do not explicitly estimate interannual values >at all , or where they do , they perform poorly (especially Mann et >al in the pre-instrumental period). Those that perform well >(basically only my density based ones) are very clearly summer high >lat and so there is just not the basis on which to make the >statement. I avoided this discussion with regard to the TAR because >I would have had to explicitly criticise its conclusion. I feel it >is very late in the day to be making these changes (unrefereed). >[ditto for the inclusion of my paragraph on tree-ring problems about >which I have received NO feedback at all] > >I VERY STRONGLY AGREE THAT THE BULLET ABOUT THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE >SHOULD HAVE THE LAST SENTENCE REMOVED - IN FACT I DO NOT KNOW HOW >THIS GOT IN THERE AND MARTIN IS CORRECT THAT IT IS WRITTEN IN A VERY >ARGUMENTATIVE WAY (IE NOT NEUTRAL) > >Stefan , >will reply separately to your last message. cheers >Keith > > > >At 23:55 31/08/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>Hi all - We need to submit our latest chap 6 Exec Summary to TSU >>tomorrow if we can. We can still make changes, but I wanted to >>update with Martin's suggestions taken into account. See the >>attached and please comment regarding my strike throughs and >>additions (yellow highlight). Martin's comments are in yellowish >>text, and my questions to you (especially FORTUNAT) are higlighted >>in PURPLE. >> >>Please send by tomorrow aft if you can. >> >>Not that I've sent to those I think are on-line right now. Will >>send to the whole team later with more edited text. >> >>Thanks, Peck >>-- >>Jonathan T. Overpeck >>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>Professor, Department of Geosciences >>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >> >>Mail and Fedex Address: >> >>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>University of Arizona >>Tucson, AZ 85721 >>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >> > >-- >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/ -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 203. 2006-09-04 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 09:48:05 +0100 from: "Irene Lorenzoni" subject: Fw: Communicating Climate Change Workshop - Washington DC, November to: , , , "Tyndall All UEA" Dear All, apologies for any cross-postings. Please find attached information on a fully-funded workshop for young British climate scientists. The workshop is called "Communicating Climate Change: Science and Media Networking for the Future" and is being held in Washington, DC from November 15-18, 2006. Seven candidates from the US and seven candidates from the UK will be selected to participate in the program. Travel and expenses will be fully funded by the British Council USA. The competition is open to PhD students in their final year of research or early post-doctoral researchers in fields related to climate change; all applicants must be American or British scientists currently living and working in the US and UK. Completed applications must be submitted to the British Council USA by no later than September 22, 2006 (see below for details). Please distribute to anyone else who may be interested. Thank you Irene Dr Irene Lorenzoni Lecturer in Environmental Politics and Governance School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK Tel: + 44 (0)1603 593173 Fax: + 44 (0)1603 593127 E-mail: i.lorenzoni@uea.ac.uk School of Environmental Sciences: www.uea.ac.uk/env Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research: www.tyndall.ac.uk CALL FOR APPLICATIONS: WORKSHOP ON COMMUNICATING CLIMATE CHANGE Young American Scientists Invited to Apply for Fully-Funded Workshop at American University The British Council USA, the UK's international organization for educational and cultural relations, in partnership with American University and SeaWeb/COMPASS, encourages early career scientists involved in climate change research to apply for the International Networking for Young Scientists (INYS) program in Washington, DC. Designed to develop scientists' skills in communicating climate change science to the media, "Communicating Climate Change: Science and Media Networking for the Future" will bring prominent environmental journalists together with young researchers from the US and the UK to discuss issues in climate change communication and create a lasting collaborative network. "Communicating Climate Change: Science and Media Networking for the Future" will take place at American University November 15-18, 2006. The four-day workshop includes intensive, hands-on media training by SeaWeb/COMPASS; participants will also hear from several prominent journalists from US and UK publications, including Michelle Nijhuis, contributing editor for High Country News, and NPR science correspondent Christopher Joyce. Approximately seven candidates from the US and seven candidates from the UK will be selected to participate in the program. Travel and expenses will be fully funded by the British Council USA. The competition is open to PhD students in their final year of research or early post-doctoral researchers in fields related to climate change; all applicants must be American or British scientists currently living and working in the US and UK. Completed applications must be submitted to the British Council USA by no later than September 22, 2006. Successful candidates will be selected and notified by October 1, 2006. For more information or to download an application form, please visit www.britishcouncil.org/usa-science. Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\USAINYS.pdf" 3687. 2006-09-04 ______________________________________________________ cc: WGI-chap6-ar4 date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 15:21:07 -0600 from: Martin Manning subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] urgent IPCC need to: Fortunat Joos , Fortunat Joos Dear Fortunat and colleagues Thanks for copying me on your discussion. Can I just try to clarify what I meant by one of the questions raised on your earlier version of the ES. This refers to the bullet: * The small variations in preindustrial CO2 and CH4 concentrations over the past millennium are consistent with millennial-length proxy Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions; climate variations larger than indicated by the reconstructions would likely yield larger concentration changes. [my question: Dont the small preindustrial variations in CO2 and CH4 also put a constraint on global temperature changes?] [Peck's comment: Fortunat should we just delete the words Northern Hemisphere? Martin is right, and this makes the statement more powerful than just supporting NH proxy records.] [Fortunat's response: There are hardly reliable global reconstructions to compare with. Please do not delete NH! The literature on the issue is limited. Thus, I hesitate to make to bullet too strong.] I was thinking of Gerber et al (2003) (Climate Dynamics) and on going back and looking at this again I see that there are some subtle distinctions being made there between past NH temperatures and past global temperatures. But there still seem to be some implications for global temperatures. E.g. the abstract says: "Simulations where the magnitude of solar irradiance changes is increased yield a mismatch between model results and CO2 data, providing evidence for modest changes in solar irradiance and global mean temperatures over the past millennium and arguing against a significant amplification of the response of global or hemispheric annual mean temperature to solar forcing." Clearly deleting "Northern Hemisphere" in the first part of the bullet would go too far but is there a case for a short additional sentence on the end of the bullet in the ES along that lines of that sentence pulled from Gerber et al? Regards Martin At 09:02 AM 9/4/2006, Fortunat Joos wrote: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by tomcat.al.noaa.gov id k84F2V7S002068 Uups, Sorry for sending of the file too early. Would like to correct the suggested bullet on orbital forcing and feedbacks: The widely-accepted orbital theory suggests that glacial-interglacial cycles occurred in response to orbital forcing. The large response of the climate system implies a strong positive amplification of this forcing. Changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, ice sheet growth and decay, ocean circulation and sea ice changes, biophysical feedbacks, and aerosol (dust) loading have very like contributed to this amplification. We do not need to refer to the magnitude of the orbital forcing. Although it is small in global annual mean it is very large seasonally. With best wishes, Fortunat Fortunat Joos wrote: Hi Peck and all, Sorry was not in over the weekend. It seems that my earlier comments and suggestions for the ES got overlooked. All my changes are detailed in the attached revised ES file. Please refer to this file for my detailed comments. The most important proposals are given in ascii below for those that do not want to open the attached file(s). I copy this also to Martin Manning for information. Finally, all authors of the chapter should definitly see the latest version and give their agreement. With best wishes, Fortunat Here first my earlier suggestions also in the file from August 15. 1. bullet "The sustained rate of increase over the past century in the combined radiative forcing from the three well-mixed greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) is very likely unprecedented in at least the past 16,000 years. Pre-industrial variations of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations observed during the last 10,000 years were small compared to industrial era greenhouse gas increases, and were likely mostly due to natural processes." 1. bullet in 2000 year section: "It is very likely that the average rates of increase in CO2 and in the combined radiative forcing from CO2, CH4 and N2O concentration increases have been at least five times faster over the period from 1960 to 1999 than over any other 40-year period during the past two millennia prior to the Industrial Era." 1. bullet in feedback section: What does the original bullet mean to a non-specialist? Non-linear can be anything (exponential decay? An oscillation?). Why should the small size of the orbital forcing suggest non-linearity? What about GHGs? Bullet seems very verbose. What does the last sentence mean? Is this not a contradiction to the figure showing the LGM forcing? In this figure, a consensus view is given on the magnitude of past forcing. Dust loading and vegetation albedo feedback/forcing are generally considered to be much smaller than ice sheet feedbacks/forcing. What should be said is something like: "The widely-accepted orbital theory suggests that glacial-interglacial cycles occurred in response to globally small changes in orbital forcing. The large response of the climate system to a globally small forcing implies a strong positive amplification of this forcing. Changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, ice sheet growth and decay, ocean circulation and sea ice changes, biophysical feedbacks, and aerosol (dust) loading have very like contributed to this amplification." The points are refer to the orbital theory to caveat the statement as Milankovitch theory is not yet proven. - strong amplifications occurred. - list the factors that contributed to the amplification. Now to the more recent discussion. Suggestions are again in the attached file in green. - I agree with Peck that we should say something about 1998 issue. - I think merging the first and last section would overcome some of the weaknesses of the previous draft in particular with respect to amplification and orbital theory: What is the relationship between past greenhouse gas concentrations and climate and the role of biogeochemical and biophysical feedbacks? The sustained rate of increase over the past century in the combined radiative forcing from the three well-mixed greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) is very likely unprecedented in at least the past 16,000 years. Pre-industrial variations of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations observed during the last 10,000 years were small compared to industrial era greenhouse gas increases, and were likely mostly due to natural processes. It is very likely that the current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (380 ppm) and CH4 (1760 ppb) exceed by far the natural range of the last 650000 years. Ice core data indicate that CO2 varied within of 180 to 300 ppm and CH4 within 320 to 790 ppb over this period. Over the same period, Antarctic temperature and CO2 concentrations co-vary, indicating a close relationship between climate and the carbon cycle. The widely-accepted orbital theory suggests that glacial-interglacial cycles occurred in response to globally small changes in orbital forcing. The large response of the climate system to a globally small forcing implies a strong positive amplification of this forcing. Changes in CO2 and other greenhouse gases, ice sheet growth and decay, ocean circulation and sea ice changes, biophysical feedbacks, and aerosol (dust) loading have very like contributed to this amplification. It is unlikely that CO2 variations have triggered the end of glacial periods. Antarctic temperature started to rise several centuries before atmospheric CO2 during past glacial terminations. It is very likely that marine carbon cycle processes were primarily responsible for the glacial-interglacial CO2 variations. The quantification of individual marine processes remains a difficult problem. It is virtually certain that millennial-scale changes in atmospheric CO2 associated with individual Antarctic warm events were less than 25 ppm during the last glacial period. This suggests that the associated changes in North Atlantic Deep Water formation and in the large-scale deposition of wind-borne iron in the Southern Ocean had limited impact. Paleoenvironmental data indicate that regional vegetation composition and structure are very likely sensitive to climate change, and can, in some cases, respond to climate change within decades. It is likely that earlier periods with higher than present atmospheric CO2 concentrations were warmer than present. This is the case both for climate states over millions of years (e.g., in the Pliocene, ca. 5 to 3 million years ago) and for warm events lasting a few hundred thousand years (i.e., the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, 55 million years ago). In each of these two cases, warming was likely strongly amplified at high northern latitudes relative to lower latitudes. -- Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 Internet: [1]http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ -- Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov ** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory Phone: +1 303 497 4479 325 Broadway, DSRC R/CSD8 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 Boulder, CO 80305, USA _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 428. 2006-09-05 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Eystein Jansen" , "Jonathan Overpeck" , "Jean Jouzel" date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 12:29:08 +0100 from: "Mitchell, John FB \(Chief Scientist\)" subject: RE: Fwd: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] NEW DRAFT FOR LA REVIEW to: "Stefan Rahmstorf" , "Keith Briffa" Keith, Stefan Its not my role as review editor to tell you what to write, just to make sure you have responded to the reviewers comments. For what its worth, I did find Keith's text quite involved. However, you do need to respond the the reviewers comments on Burger etc - if the flaws in von Storch paper cast doubt on the subsequent papers, then why not include a sentence in the chapter that says so, and list just the key papers affected. I hope this helps john Professor John Mitchell OBE FRS Chief Scientist, Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel. +44(0)1392884604 Fax:+44 (0) 870 9005050 E-mail: john.f.mitchell@metoffice.gov.uk [1]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Stefan Rahmstorf [mailto:rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de] Sent: 01 September 2006 13:02 To: Keith Briffa Cc: Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist); Eystein Jansen; Jonathan Overpeck Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] NEW DRAFT FOR LA REVIEW Dear Keith, you disagree with my proposed revision of the paragraph re. the Von Storch papers, but you do not give any reasons or arguments for that. I think there are some good reasons to shorten this discussion and to clarify it, and I would welcome to hear your reasons against it. Firstly, I think your original discussion was too long and complex to understand for non-specialists, and, at this level of detail, not policy-relevant. It took up a disproportionate amount of space for what we can learn from it. Secondly, I don't think we need to cite all those Storch-spinoff papers by Bürger/Cubasch. Most people whose judgement I value (e.g., David Ritson, who I think has no vested interest but a very detailed knowledge of the issue) think these papers are irrelevant at best and misleading at worst (he actually has used stronger wording). You may also have seen that the latest in this series, making similar points, is highly criticised by anonymous reviewers on the open discussion site of the journal Climate of the Past, where one reviewer (this is not the even more scathing review by Mann) recommends rejection of the Bürger/Cubasch paper because of "numerous errors and inaccuracies in the use of statistical concepts and methods". Third, if we cite Von Storch et al. 2004 we need to be very clear that a number of key statements are simply incorrect, which is a fact that is not in dispute and documented in the literature. They implemented the Mann et al. method incorrectly, and it is at least unclear whether in their follow-up paper they have now fixed this (Ritson, who discovered the problem in their original paper in the first place, thinks they still have a problem, the detrending step was not the only one - and certainly in no paper have VS et al. shown any test that verifies their algorithm). Also, they were hiding a major artificial climate drift (which they must have known about, and which makes up half of their climate signal) - it is at least unclear whether you can expect a proxy method based on physical patterns of climate variability to reconstruct an unphysical drift, which has a completely different pattern. I simply think that because of this flaw, we cannot trust or cite any results from this particular ECHO-G run, which also affects several of the Bürger/Cubasch papers using the same data set. Given that the VS04 paper was used in the US Senate and other high-profile fora to discredit IPCC, I think it is imperative that we clarify this and leave our readers in no doubt about the fact that the VS04 results have proven to be incorrect in a major way. I am aware that you authored a favorable Science Perspective on the VS04 paper at the time, but you could not have known of those errors back then, and for a long time I thought myself that it was a valid paper. Therefore, if we state clearly in our chapter what is wrong with it, I do not think this would be a loss of face for you - quite the contrary. I also think you have done a brilliant job on the rest of the very difficult discussion of the past millennium. Best wishes, Stefan -- To reach me directly please use: [2]rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de (My former addresses @pik-potsdam.de are read by my assistant Brigitta.) Stefan Rahmstorf [3]www.ozean-klima.de [4]www.realclimate.org 2031. 2006-09-05 ______________________________________________________ cc: Martin Manning , WGI-chap6-ar4 date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 10:41:18 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] urgent IPCC need to: Fortunat Joos Thanks Fortunat - not sure how we missed these, but the good news is that we've started a new tracking system for all the input we're getting. Eystein, Øyvind and I are getting back to full time IPCC, so there will be more to look at soon. All Chap. 6 LAs - attached is the latest draft of the Chap. 6 Executive Summary - please read and let us know if there are any errors or ways to make our points more clear (remember, we're not adding new points at this time. and that our latest edits are in yellow). As before, the CLA edits have been made with the intent of clarification only, not changing the meaning. Note that there is a new bullet suggested by Fortunat: o It is unlikely that CO2 variations have triggered the end of glacial periods. Antarctic temperature started to rise several centuries before atmospheric CO2 during past glacial terminations. This bullet is intended to clarify what is meant by "close relationship between climate and the carbon cycle " in the previous bullet. OUTSTANDING ISSUE - there is still concern, voiced by me, Eystein and Fortunat, that the bullet" o It is very likely that the global warming of 4 to 7 °C since the Last Glacial Maximum (ca. 21,000 years ago) occurred at an average rate about ten times slower than the warming of the 20th century. is still to vague. Two other LAs that we've checked with feel this cannot be deleted - per our agreement in Bergen. The question is whether we can clarify it somehow. Please suggest ideas! Thanks, Peck Hi Peck and all, Sorry was not in over the weekend. It seems that my earlier comments and suggestions for the ES got overlooked. All my changes are detailed in the attached revised ES file. Please refer to this file for my detailed comments. The most important proposals are given in ascii below for those that do not want to open the attached file(s). I copy this also to Martin Manning for information. Finally, all authors of the chapter should definitly see the latest version and give their agreement. With best wishes, Fortunat Here first my earlier suggestions also in the file from August 15. 1. bullet "The sustained rate of increase over the past century in the combined radiative forcing from the three well-mixed greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) is very likely unprecedented in at least the past 16,000 years. Pre-industrial variations of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations observed during the last 10,000 years were small compared to industrial era greenhouse gas increases, and were likely mostly due to natural processes." 1. bullet in 2000 year section: "It is very likely that the average rates of increase in CO2 and in the combined radiative forcing from CO2, CH4 and N2O concentration increases have been at least five times faster over the period from 1960 to 1999 than over any other 40-year period during the past two millennia prior to the Industrial Era." 1. bullet in feedback section: What does the original bullet mean to a non-specialist? Non-linear can be anything (exponential decay? An oscillation?). Why should the small size of the orbital forcing suggest non-linearity? What about GHGs? Bullet seems very verbose. What does the last sentence mean? Is this not a contradiction to the figure showing the LGM forcing? In this figure, a consensus view is given on the magnitude of past forcing. Dust loading and vegetation albedo feedback/forcing are generally considered to be much smaller than ice sheet feedbacks/forcing. What should be said is something like: "The widely-accepted orbital theory suggests that glacial-interglacial cycles occurred in response to globally small changes in orbital forcing. The large response of the climate system to a globally small forcing implies a strong positive amplification of this forcing. Changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, ice sheet growth and decay, ocean circulation and sea ice changes, biophysical feedbacks, and aerosol (dust) loading have very like contributed to this amplification." The points are - refer to the orbital theory to caveat the statement as Milankovitch theory is not yet proven. - strong amplifications occurred. - list the factors that contributed to the amplification. Now to the more recent discussion. Suggestions are again in the attached file in green. - I agree with Peck that we should say something about 1998 issue. - I think merging the first and last section would overcome some of the weaknesses of the previous draft in particular with respect to amplification and orbital theory: What is the relationship between past greenhouse gas concentrations and climate and the role of biogeochemical and biophysical feedbacks? * The sustained rate of increase over the past century in the combined radiative forcing from the three well-mixed greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) is very likely unprecedented in at least the past 16,000 years. Pre-industrial variations of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations observed during the last 10,000 years were small compared to industrial era greenhouse gas increases, and were likely mostly due to natural processes. * It is very likely that the current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (380 ppm) and CH4 (1760 ppb) exceed by far the natural range of the last 650'000 years. Ice core data indicate that CO2 varied within of 180 to 300 ppm and CH4 within 320 to 790 ppb over this period. Over the same period, Antarctic temperature and CO2 concentrations co-vary, indicating a close relationship between climate and the carbon cycle. * The widely-accepted orbital theory suggests that glacial-interglacial cycles occurred in response to globally small changes in orbital forcing. The large response of the climate system to a globally small forcing implies a strong positive amplification of this forcing. Changes in CO2 and other greenhouse gases, ice sheet growth and decay, ocean circulation and sea ice changes, biophysical feedbacks, and aerosol (dust) loading have very like contributed to this amplification. * It is unlikely that CO2 variations have triggered the end of glacial periods. Antarctic temperature started to rise several centuries before atmospheric CO2 during past glacial terminations. * It is very likely that marine carbon cycle processes were primarily responsible for the glacial-interglacial CO2 variations. The quantification of individual marine processes remains a difficult problem. * It is virtually certain that millennial-scale changes in atmospheric CO2 associated with individual Antarctic warm events were less than 25 ppm during the last glacial period. This suggests that the associated changes in North Atlantic Deep Water formation and in the large-scale deposition of wind-borne iron in the Southern Ocean had limited impact. * Paleoenvironmental data indicate that regional vegetation composition and structure are very likely sensitive to climate change, and can, in some cases, respond to climate change within decades. * It is likely that earlier periods with higher than present atmospheric CO2 concentrations were warmer than present. This is the case both for climate states over millions of years (e.g., in the Pliocene, ca. 5 to 3 million years ago) and for warm events lasting a few hundred thousand years (i.e., the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, 55 million years ago). In each of these two cases, warming was likely strongly amplified at high northern latitudes relative to lower latitudes. -- Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Ch6_TODv1ej_op_A2_cl#150AFC.doc (WDBN/«IC») (00150AFC) Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Ch06_FinalDraft_Exec#150AFD.doc (WDBN/«IC») (00150AFD) -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Ch06_FinalDraft_ExecSumV5.doc" _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 2679. 2006-09-05 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Sep 5 16:35:21 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: urgent IPCC need to: Eystein Jansen eystein i have to leave for austria now for a week - on monday next will send result of consultation for text change regrading the von storch paragraph of our chapter, after discussion with Stefan and john Mitchell - please wait til then keith At 16:13 01/09/2006, you wrote: dear All, thanks for being alert. I think we have an agreement that Martin´s comments are useful, but that we should change only those sentences where they clarify. Otherwise i agree with Stefan and Keith´s statements below. Eystein At 15:45 +0100 01-09-06, Keith Briffa wrote: I forgot to say that I too disagree with removing the first sentence re simulations being consistent with reconstructed NH temps. As Sefan says we need the context , and our results are independent of Chapter 9 in this regard. Keith At 15:37 01/09/2006, Stefan Rahmstorf wrote: Hi Peck, Martin as in Manning? I have found his feedback very useful so far, so we should definitely look at what he suggests - he mostly tends to look for whether our sentences are clear. Obviously, he cannot suggest real changes in meaning, only issues of clarity, but the latter I would take very seriously. Mostly I find his small rewordings good, I comment on the larger points and exceptions below. - I am against deleting the bullet on speed of deglacial change. This point is extremely effective. Just two days ago an oil industry person told me that there have been big natural climate changes like ice ages in the past, hence we need not worry. I responded that the biggest warming in recent climate history was the end of the last Ice Age - but that warming by about 5 ºC took about 5,000 years, not a hundred. "Oh" he said, "Really so long? I didn't know that." I think it is a very important point, we need to make it. Maybe not in term of "average rate", may we should just say: the warming of 4-7 ºC took about 5,000 years, as compared to a future change of up to the same magnitude within a century. - Next ice age bullet in 30k seems fine to me. - exceptional warmth: the SPM said: 20th C T increase likely the largest in a millennium - that is strengthened (perhaps very likely now?) 1990s likely the warmest decade in a millennium - that again is strengthened 1998 likely the warmest year - I'd say this is unchanged (except for 2005 challenging it), likely is only 66%! Even though the annual proxy data may be uncertain, as a physicist I would find it unlikely that there is a mechanism to cause a big warm outlier year that beats 1998 from a much cooler background state. How would that work - where would the heat come from? So in my view we could actually say that these past SPM statements held up or were strengthened - but in fact I also like the bullet as it is. - Paleoclimate model simulations are broadly consistent with the reconstructed NH temperatures over the past 1000 years. The rise in surface temperatures since 1950 very likely cannot be reproduced without including anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the model forcings, and it is very unlikely that this warming was merely a recovery from the pre-20th century cold period. On this I disagree with deleting the first sentence, as the second one needs it to follow logically. And why should the paleo chapter suddenly make a statement on post-1950 warming, if it is not in the context of the past millennium? Cheers, Stefan -- To reach me directly please use: <[1]mailto:rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de>rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de (My former addresses @pik-potsdam.de are read by my assistant Brigitta.) Stefan Rahmstorf <[2]http://www.ozean-klima.de>[3]www.ozean-klima.de [4]www.realclimate.org -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ -- ______________________________________________________________ Eystein Jansen Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen Allégaten 55 N-5007 Bergen NORWAY e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 Fax: +47-55-584330 -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [6]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 4010. 2006-09-05 ______________________________________________________ cc: oyvind.paasche@geo.uib.no date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 22:27:20 +0200 from: Eystein Jansen subject: Re: urgent IPCC need to: Keith Briffa OK, but please not later than Monday! Cheers, Eystein >eystein >i have to leave for austria now for a week - on >monday next will send result of consultation for >text change regrading the von storch paragraph >of our chapter, after discussion with Stefan and >john Mitchell - please wait til then >keith > >At 16:13 01/09/2006, you wrote: >>dear All, thanks for being alert. >>I think we have an agreement that Martin´s >>comments are useful, but that we should change >>only those sentences where they clarify. >>Otherwise i agree with Stefan and Keith´s >>statements below. >> >>Eystein >> >>At 15:45 +0100 01-09-06, Keith Briffa wrote: >>>I forgot to say that I too disagree with >>>removing the first sentence re simulations >>>being consistent with reconstructed NH temps. >>>As Sefan says we need the context , and our >>>results are independent of Chapter 9 in this >>>regard. >>>Keith >>> >>>At 15:37 01/09/2006, Stefan Rahmstorf wrote: >>>>Hi Peck, >>>> >>>>Martin as in Manning? I have found his >>>>feedback very useful so far, so we should >>>>definitely look at what he suggests - he >>>>mostly tends to look for whether our >>>>sentences are clear. Obviously, he cannot >>>>suggest real changes in meaning, only issues >>>>of clarity, but the latter I would take very >>>>seriously. Mostly I find his small rewordings >>>>good, I comment on the larger points and >>>>exceptions below. >>>> >>>>- I am against deleting the bullet on speed >>>>of deglacial change. This point is extremely >>>>effective. Just two days ago an oil industry >>>>person told me that there have been big >>>>natural climate changes like ice ages in the >>>>past, hence we need not worry. I responded >>>>that the biggest warming in recent climate >>>>history was the end of the last Ice Age - but >>>>that warming by about 5 ºC took about 5,000 >>>>years, not a hundred. "Oh" he said, "Really >>>>so long? I didn't know that." I think it is a >>>>very important point, we need to make it. >>>>Maybe not in term of "average rate", may we >>>>should just say: the warming of 4-7 ºC took >>>>about 5,000 years, as compared to a future >>>>change of up to the same magnitude within a >>>>century. >>>> >>>>- Next ice age bullet in 30k seems fine to me. >>>> >>>>- exceptional warmth: the SPM said: >>>>20th C T increase likely the largest in a >>>>millennium - that is strengthened (perhaps >>>>very likely now?) >>>>1990s likely the warmest decade in a >>>>millennium - that again is strengthened >>>>1998 likely the warmest year - I'd say this >>>>is unchanged (except for 2005 challenging >>>>it), likely is only 66%! Even though the >>>>annual proxy data may be uncertain, as a >>>>physicist I would find it unlikely that there >>>>is a mechanism to cause a big warm outlier >>>>year that beats 1998 from a much cooler >>>>background state. How would that work - where >>>>would the heat come from? >>>>So in my view we could actually say that >>>>these past SPM statements held up or were >>>>strengthened - but in fact I also like the >>>>bullet as it is. >>>> >>>>- Paleoclimate model simulations are broadly >>>>consistent with the reconstructed NH >>>>temperatures over the past 1000 years. The >>>>rise in surface temperatures since 1950 very >>>>likely cannot be reproduced without including >>>>anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the model >>>>forcings, and it is very unlikely that this >>>>warming was merely a recovery from the >>>>pre-20th century cold period. >>>>On this I disagree with deleting the first >>>>sentence, as the second one needs it to >>>>follow logically. And why should the paleo >>>>chapter suddenly make a statement on >>>>post-1950 warming, if it is not in the >>>>context of the past millennium? >>>> >>>>Cheers, Stefan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>-- >>>>To reach me directly please use: >>>>rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de >>>>(My former addresses @pik-potsdam.de are read by my assistant Brigitta.) >>>> >>>>Stefan Rahmstorf >>>>www.ozean-klima.de >>>>www.realclimate.org >>> >>>-- >>>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/ >> >> >>-- >>______________________________________________________________ >>Eystein Jansen >>Professor/Director >>Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and >>Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen >>Allégaten 55 >>N-5007 Bergen >>NORWAY >>e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no >>Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 >>Fax: +47-55-584330 > >-- >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/ -- ______________________________________________________________ Eystein Jansen Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen Allégaten 55 N-5007 Bergen NORWAY e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 Fax: +47-55-584330 5032. 2006-09-05 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Sep 5 16:38:54 2006 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Access to ECHO-G data to: David Preece Hi David, I'm just back from 2 weeks holiday and catching up with emails. Thanks for yours which arrived just as I was about to leave. Yes you can use the ECHO-G data for your PhD work. Access is similar to the HadCM3 data, but the username/password are different: soapech od2004 and you can get them from here: [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/projects/soap/data/model/echog.htm Note that the ECHO-G simulation has some strong temperature trends in the early centuries because it was started from a relatively warm initial state and gradually cooled down, and also has strong warming in the last 100 years probably because they did not include the cooling effects of anthropogenic tropospheric sulphate aerosols, though these would have affect the northern hemisphere far more than S. Africa, so perhaps not so much problem for you? These two issues were explained in the attached paper. Best wishes and good luck with your use of the data, Cheers Tim At 16:15 17/08/2006, you wrote: Dear Dr. Osborn, I'm a PhD student investigating decadal variability in southern Africa. I'm already using some of the SOAP project's HadCM3 data and Simon Tett's experiments, but I would like to try and validate some of the work with multi-model comparisons. Is it possible to arrange access to ECHO-G long integrations under the SOAP page, and how would I go about making this arrangement? Regards, David Preece -- David Preece Department of Geography, UCL [2]www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/~dpreece 1296. 2006-09-06 ______________________________________________________ cc: "\"WGI-chap6-ar4\"" date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 17:28:53 +0400 from: "Olga Solomina" subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] urgent IPCC need to: "Fortunat Joos" Dear Fortunat, Many thanks for your suggetions (including the glacier bullet). It would be nice to include the point that the early Hol warming was orbitally triggered, but it is hard to find an elegant way to do it in this bullet. We have to be careful because in the Holocene subchapter we say that there were no periods (or we cannot detect them) of global (or hemispheric-scale) warming previousely to 20th century. Cheers, olga ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fortunat Joos" To: "Jonathan Overpeck" ; "WGI-chap6-ar4" Cc: "Martin Manning" Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 2:57 PM Subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] urgent IPCC need > Dear Peck, Eystein, Martin and co, > > Went again carefully through the ES and have removed a few typos and > added some clarificaton to avoid ambiguities. All changes indicated in > brownish color. > > KEITH: suggest to add the words Northern Hemisphere in one of the > bullets to really make it unambigous > > Holocene glacier extent: suggest to clarify that Holocene warming was > related to orbital forcing > > last 2 ka bullet: Do we have nothing to say about droughts in Asia. We > mention Africa and Americas, but not Asia/Europe/Australia. So the > bullets may be regarded as not balanced. > > Hope the proposed rewording of the feedback bullet is acceptable to > everybody and reflects adequately what is said in the chapter. > > • The widely accepted orbital theory suggests that glacial-interglacial > cycles occurred in response to orbital forcing. The large response of > the climate system implies a strong positive amplification of this > forcing. Changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, ice sheet growth and > decay, ocean circulation and sea ice changes, biophysical feedbacks, and > aerosol (dust) loading have very like contributed to this amplification. > > Not sure David is happy with it? > > Turning to the issue raised by Martin to make a statement on global > temperature of the last millennium. How about adding the following > sentence to the bullet, linking GHG and global temperature? > > • The small variations in preindustrial CO2 and CH4 concentrations over > the past millennium are consistent with millennial-length proxy Northern > Hemisphere temperature reconstructions; climate variations larger than > indicated by the reconstructions would likely yield larger concentration > changes. The small preindustrial greenhouse gas variations also provide > indirect evidence for a limited range of decade- to century-scale > variations in global temperature. > > > I still believe that the points we made in the Gerber et al. study are > valid. However, I also like to point out that our findings have not been > scrutinized by others and there is hardly any literature investigating > the relationship between CO2 or CH4 and climate over the past > millennium. There are a number of open issues such as > > - The response of atmospheric CO2 to a change in climate varies greatly > among the C4MIP model (factor four or so). We know some weaknesses of > the model that behave extreme in this respect, however, there is no > basis for excluding them from the assessment at the moment. > - Land use is a factor that has not been properly addressed yet. > - studies addressing the link between CH4 and climate over the last > millenium are missing > > I think more studies on past CO2 and CH4 variations are needed to > corrobate the Gerber et al. results. Perhaps, then the point can be made > more vigourously and convincingly in the AR5. > > With best wishes, Fortunat > > Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >> >> Hi Martin - I can see what you mean, and hope that Fortunat can come up >> with a clever idea to clarify that the modest trace gas variations argue >> for modest global temp change over the last 1000 year, consistent with >> the reconstructions of modest NH temperature change over this interval. >> >> Perhaps... >> >> The small variations in preindustrial CO2 and CH4 concentrations over >> the past millennium are consistent with millennial-length proxy Northern >> Hemisphere temperature reconstructions in supporting only a limited >> likely role of solar climate forcing. >> >> >> Thanks both, cheers, peck >> >> >>> Dear Fortunat and colleagues >>> >>> Thanks for copying me on your discussion. Can I just try to clarify >>> what I meant by one of the questions raised on your earlier version of >>> the ES. This refers to the bullet: >> >>> * The small variations in preindustrial CO2 and CH4 concentrations >>> over the past millennium are consistent with millennial-length proxy >>> Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions; climate variations >>> larger than indicated by the reconstructions would likely yield larger >>> concentration changes. [my question: Don’t the small preindustrial >>> variations in CO2 and CH4 also put a constraint on global temperature >>> changes?] [Peck's comment: Fortunat – should we just delete the words >>> “Northern Hemisphere”? Martin is right, and this makes the statement >>> more powerful than just supporting NH proxy records.] >>> >>> [Fortunat's response: There are hardly reliable global reconstructions >>> to compare with. Please do not delete NH! The literature on the issue >>> is limited. Thus, I hesitate to make to bullet too strong.] >>> >>> I was thinking of Gerber et al (2003) (Climate Dynamics) and on going >>> back and looking at this again I see that there are some subtle >>> distinctions being made there between past NH temperatures and past >>> global temperatures. But there still seem to be some implications for >>> global temperatures. E.g. the abstract says: >>> >>> " Simulations where the magnitude of solar irradiance changes is >>> increased yield a mismatch between model results and CO2 data, >>> providing evidence for modest changes in solar irradiance and global >>> mean temperatures over the past millennium and arguing against a >>> significant amplification of the response of global or hemispheric >>> annual mean temperature to solar forcing." >>> >>> Clearly deleting "Northern Hemisphere" in the first part of the bullet >>> would go too far but is there a case for a short additional sentence >>> on the end of the bullet in the ES along that lines of that sentence >>> pulled from Gerber et al? >>> >>> Regards >>> Martin >>> >>> At 09:02 AM 9/4/2006, Fortunat Joos wrote: >>> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed >>>> X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by >>>> tomcat.al.noaa.gov id k84F2V7S002068 >>>> >>>> Uups, >>>> >>>> Sorry for sending of the file too early. Would like to correct the >>>> suggested bullet on orbital forcing and feedbacks: >>>> >>>> • The widely-accepted orbital theory suggests that >>>> glacial-interglacial cycles occurred in response to orbital forcing. >>>> The large response of the climate system implies a strong positive >>>> amplification of this forcing. Changes in greenhouse gas >>>> concentrations, ice sheet growth and decay, ocean circulation and sea >>>> ice changes, biophysical feedbacks, and aerosol (dust) loading have >>>> very like contributed to this amplification. >>>> >>>> >>>> We do not need to refer to the magnitude of the orbital forcing. >>>> Although it is small in global annual mean it is very large seasonally. >>>> >>>> With best wishes, >>>> >>>> Fortunat >>>> >>>> Fortunat Joos wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Peck and all, >>>>> Sorry was not in over the weekend. >>>>> It seems that my earlier comments and suggestions for the ES got >>>>> overlooked. All my changes are detailed in the attached revised ES >>>>> file. Please refer to this file for my detailed comments. >>>>> The most important proposals are given in ascii below for those that >>>>> do not want to open the attached file(s). >>>>> I copy this also to Martin Manning for information. >>>>> Finally, all authors of the chapter should definitly see the latest >>>>> version and give their agreement. >>>> >>>>> With best wishes, Fortunat >>>>> >>>>> Here first my earlier suggestions also in the file from August 15. >>>>> 1. bullet >>>>> "The sustained rate of increase over the past century in the >>>>> combined radiative forcing from the three well-mixed greenhouse >>>>> gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) >>>>> is very likely unprecedented in at least the past 16,000 years. >>>>> Pre-industrial variations of atmospheric greenhouse gas >>>>> concentrations observed during the last 10,000 years were small >>>>> compared to industrial era greenhouse gas increases, and were likely >>>>> mostly due to natural processes." >>>>> 1. bullet in 2000 year section: >>>>> "It is very likely that the average rates of increase in CO2 and in >>>>> the combined radiative forcing from CO2, CH4 and N2O concentration >>>>> increases have been at least five times faster over the period from >>>>> 1960 to 1999 than over any other 40-year period during the past two >>>>> millennia prior to the Industrial Era." >>>>> 1. bullet in feedback section: >>>>> What does the original bullet mean to a non-specialist? Non-linear >>>>> can be anything (exponential decay? An oscillation?). Why should the >>>>> small size of the orbital forcing suggest non-linearity? What about >>>>> GHGs? Bullet seems very verbose. What does the last sentence mean? >>>>> Is this not a contradiction to the figure showing the LGM forcing? >>>>> In this figure, a consensus view is given on the magnitude of past >>>>> forcing. Dust loading and vegetation albedo feedback/forcing are >>>>> generally considered to be much smaller than ice sheet >>>>> feedbacks/forcing. >>>>> >>>>> What should be said is something like: >>>>> "The widely-accepted orbital theory suggests that >>>>> glacial-interglacial cycles occurred in response to globally small >>>>> changes in orbital forcing. The large response of the climate system >>>>> to a globally small forcing implies a strong positive amplification >>>>> of this forcing. Changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, ice sheet >>>>> growth and decay, ocean circulation and sea ice changes, biophysical >>>>> feedbacks, and aerosol (dust) loading have very like contributed to >>>>> this amplification." >>>>> The points are >>>>> - refer to the orbital theory to caveat the statement as >>>>> Milankovitch theory is not yet proven. >>>>> - strong amplifications occurred. >>>>> - list the factors that contributed to the amplification. >>>>> >>>>> Now to the more recent discussion. Suggestions are again in the >>>>> attached file in green. >>>>> - I agree with Peck that we should say something about 1998 issue. >>>>> - I think merging the first and last section would overcome some of >>>>> the weaknesses of the previous draft in particular with respect to >>>>> amplification and orbital theory: >>>>> What is the relationship between past greenhouse gas concentrations >>>>> and climate and the role of biogeochemical and biophysical feedbacks? >>>>> • The sustained rate of increase over the past century in the >>>>> combined radiative forcing from the three well-mixed greenhouse >>>>> gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) >>>>> is very likely unprecedented in at least the past 16,000 years. >>>>> Pre-industrial variations of atmospheric greenhouse gas >>>>> concentrations observed during the last 10,000 years were small >>>>> compared to industrial era greenhouse gas increases, and were likely >>>>> mostly due to natural processes. >>>>> • It is very likely that the current atmospheric concentrations >>>>> of CO2 (380 ppm) and CH4 (1760 ppb) exceed by far the natural range >>>>> of the last 650’000 years. Ice core data indicate that CO2 varied >>>>> within of 180 to 300 ppm and CH4 within 320 to 790 ppb over this >>>>> period. Over the same period, Antarctic temperature and CO2 >>>>> concentrations co-vary, indicating a close relationship between >>>>> climate and the carbon cycle. >>>>> • The widely-accepted orbital theory suggests that >>>>> glacial-interglacial cycles occurred in response to globally small >>>>> changes in orbital forcing. The large response of the climate system >>>>> to a globally small forcing implies a strong positive amplification >>>>> of this forcing. Changes in CO2 and other greenhouse gases, ice >>>>> sheet growth and decay, ocean circulation and sea ice changes, >>>>> biophysical feedbacks, and aerosol (dust) loading have very like >>>>> contributed to this amplification. >>>>> • It is unlikely that CO2 variations have triggered the end of >>>>> glacial periods. Antarctic temperature started to rise several >>>>> centuries before atmospheric CO2 during past glacial terminations. >>>> >>>>> • It is very likely that marine carbon cycle processes were >>>>> primarily responsible for the glacial-interglacial CO2 variations. >>>>> The quantification of individual marine processes remains a >>>>> difficult problem. >>>>> • It is virtually certain that millennial-scale changes in >>>>> atmospheric CO2 associated with individual Antarctic warm events >>>>> were less than 25 ppm during the last glacial period. This suggests >>>>> that the associated changes in North Atlantic Deep Water formation >>>>> and in the large-scale deposition of wind-borne iron in the Southern >>>>> Ocean had limited impact. >>>>> • Paleoenvironmental data indicate that regional vegetation >>>>> composition and structure are very likely sensitive to climate >>>>> change, and can, in some cases, respond to climate change within >>>>> decades. >>>>> • It is likely that earlier periods with higher than present >>>>> atmospheric CO2 concentrations were warmer than present. This is the >>>>> case both for climate states over millions of years (e.g., in the >>>>> Pliocene, ca. 5 to 3 million years ago) and for warm events lasting >>>>> a few hundred thousand years (i.e., the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal >>>>> Maximum, 55 million years ago). In each of these two cases, warming >>>>> was likely strongly amplified at high northern latitudes relative to >>>>> lower latitudes. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Climate and Environmental Physics, >>>> Physics Institute, University of Bern >>>> Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern >>>> Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 >>>> Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ >>>> >>> -- >>> *Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov >>> *** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address >>> Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit >>> NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory Phone: +1 303 497 4479 >>> 325 Broadway, DSRC R/CSD8 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 >>> Boulder, CO 80305, USA >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jonathan T. Overpeck >> Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >> Professor, Department of Geosciences >> Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >> >> Mail and Fedex Address: >> >> Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >> 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >> University of Arizona >> Tucson, AZ 85721 >> direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >> fax: +1 520 792-8795 >> http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >> http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ > > -- > > Climate and Environmental Physics, > Physics Institute, University of Bern > Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern > Phone: ++41(0)31 631 44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 > Internet: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list > Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu > http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 > _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 2727. 2006-09-06 ______________________________________________________ cc: Martin Manning date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 09:32:56 -0400 from: David Rind subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] urgent IPCC need to: Fortunat Joos , Jonathan Overpeck , WGI-chap6-ar4 Hi, I hope this isn't nitpicking, but using the words 'very likely' in combinaion with the reset of the sentence gives a statistical meaning, from the IPCC perspective, that says very strongly that ALL of those things contributed to the positive amplification. Some of them one would think very likely did: changes in greenhouse gas concentration, ice sheet and sea ice changes, and most likely biophysical feedbacks - but we really have no idea whether ocean circulation changes were a positive or negative feedback (and different modeling groups have gotten opposite results in this regard). The circulation changes implied by the CLIMAP SST reconstruction (reduced poleward heat transport) actually was a negative feedback in our modeling results by keeping the tropics warm and minimizing the water vapor reduction. In coupled models, one set of studies showed that decreased deep water formation was necessary for the positive feedback, while another set showed increased circulation was the trigger. Even dust is an issue - over a vegetated surface, or the ocean, it is clearly a positive amplification, but as Jonathan knows well, modeling studies suggest it is a negative feedback over snow and ice surfaces. Some studies have it helping to force the peak of an ice age, while in another it is a prime component in ending it. So I would suggest the following, somewhat less definitive version: * The widely accepted orbital theory suggests that glacial-interglacial cycles occurred in response to orbital forcing. The large response of the climate system implies the necessity for a strong positive amplification of this forcing. Changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, ice sheet growth and decay, ocean circulation and sea ice changes, biophysical feedbacks, and aerosol (dust) loading are among the responses that influenced climate sensitivity. David At 12:57 PM +0200 9/6/06, Fortunat Joos wrote: >* The widely accepted orbital theory suggests that >glacial-interglacial cycles occurred in response to orbital forcing. >The large response of the climate system implies a strong positive >amplification of this forcing. Changes in greenhouse gas >concentrations, ice sheet growth and decay, ocean circulation and >sea ice changes, biophysical feedbacks, and aerosol (dust) loading >have very like contributed to this amplification. > >Not sure David is happy with it? _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 4824. 2006-09-06 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 14:42:02 -0400 from: Gabi Hegerl subject: Re: quick question IPCC to: Gabi Hegerl ps Keith, even Mike agrees they are uncetain, so I just leave that caution in Gabi Hegerl wrote: > Keith, do you say that SH temperature reconstructions are > substantially more uncertain, and what > section should I cite? (refrencing Andrononova et al showing that EBM > runs with volcanism dont well > agree with Mann 2003 SH recon, but do we believe that recon?) > > Gabi > -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, Box 90227 Duke University, Durham NC 27708 Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 email: hegerl@duke.edu, http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html 3647. 2006-09-07 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 18:22:41 +0100 from: Clare Goodess subject: Re: Speaker request to: cru.internal@uea.ac.uk We shouldn't be too worried about a village in Lincolnshire! October is not giving us much notice - but would be good if someone could do the NFU and Suffolk Wildlife Trust ones. I'm already doing the East of England Chapter of the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (!) on 10 October - so don't really want to do another the same week. We have talked about putting together a standard CRU presentation. Since we still haven't got organised enough to do this - perhaps we could have a commonly-accessible directory where people could put any of their more general presentations that they are happy for others to use/edit. Clare At 15:14 07/09/2006, you wrote: the list of invites/requests so far any others? BA Science festival Whttlingham Broad (today)* NFU Bod in St Ives (see email) A village in Lincolnshire(TBC) Fakenham Ecumenical Council (October)* EEDA (Oct)* Suffolk Wildlife Trust 12th oct) Brighton City Council (October)* Advanta Seeds (Peas Nov 15) ESRC Event Nov * Meat and Livestock Organiation 30 Jan * * = ones I have already agreed to. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr David Viner Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ Tel: +44 1603 592089 SKYPE Address: drdavidviner (Intermittent) Climate Change Masters Course: [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/env/msc/ [2]http://www.e-clat.org Tourism and Climate Change +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ On 7 Sep 2006, at 10:23, Clare Goodess wrote: OK David - please could you produce a list of all these requests and we can decide what to do about them/which to prioritise. Clare At 09:36 07/09/2006, you wrote: Dear All Bloody hell!! this must be the 6th or 7th request for a speaker that CRU or I have had in the last few of days!! I think we should collate them and then divvy them out to those who haven't done any external talks Can we get a note on the Web site, saying somehing like " we are more than happy to do talks and public engagement is a central core of our policy and role, however, because we are the World's Leading Climate Change Institute we get absolutely inundated with requests and find it extremely difficult to do everything" On 7 Sep 2006, at 09:06, Sheppard Sylvia ((SCI)) ks918 wrote: Would anyone be able to go and give a talk at NFU? If so, please could you respond to James and 'cc' me into the response. Thanks, Sylvia -----Original Message----- From: [3]James_Godfrey@nfumutual.co.uk [ [4]mailto:James_Godfrey@nfumutual.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 5:09 PM To: [5]cru@uea.ac.uk Subject: Speaker request Hello I wonder if you could assit us. We are looking for a speaker on the topic of climate change and its effect on UK particulary East Anglian agriculture. Our next meeting is the 8th November, these are held at the Maltings in Ely, Cambs. We normally ask for a 30-40 min presentation follwed by questions. Our local branch of the NFU is very well supported mainly due to the speakers that we get to attend. We will cover any expenses incured if some one can come back to me I would very much appreciate it. Kind regards James Godfrey Secretary Ely & Soham NFU IMPORTANT The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is intended for the addressee only and may contain legally privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy, distribute, alter, or take any action in reliance on the information and NFU Mutual will not accept liability for any loss or damage howsoever arising, directly or indirectly in reliance on it and gives no warranty or representation as to its accuracy or reliability. If you are not the addressee, please notify us immediately on 01789 202121* and delete the material from your computer and destroy any copies. NFU Mutual reserves the right to monitor and record incoming and outgoing email messages for the purposes of investigating or detecting unauthorised use of its system and ensuring its effective operation. NFU Mutual will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of any virus being passed on. NFU Mutual is The National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society Limited (No. 111982). Registered in England. Registered office: Tiddington Road, Stratford upon Avon, Warwickshire CV37 7BJ. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. A member of the Association of British Insurers. Our agents are appointed representatives for general insurance products and introducer appointed representatives for life, pensions and investments of NFU Mutual. Our staff introduce to NFU Mutual for life, pensions and investments. * For security and training purposes, telephone calls may be recorded and monitored. [6]http://www.nfumutual.co.uk ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit [7]http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ Dr Clare Goodess Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: +44 -1603 592875 Fax: +44 -1603 507784 Web: [8]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ [9]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm Dr Clare Goodess Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: +44 -1603 592875 Fax: +44 -1603 507784 Web: [10]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ [11]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm 4866. 2006-09-08 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 20:52:08 +0200 from: Dominique Raynaud subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Latest version of the Chap 6 Executive Summary to: Jonathan Overpeck , IPCC Chapter 6 Dear Peck and ch.6 LA's I propose two modifications: page 6-1 lines 15 to 19 and page 6-3, line 35. They are highlighted in cyan color. The purpose is to make sure that we highlight that greenhouse gases very likely have played a major role in the amplification process. Have all a nice week end Dominique Hi Chapter 6 LA's: Please review the attached latest version of the chapter 6 executive summary. As before, changes have only been made for the purpose of clarification - thank you to those who provided feedback. Most changes (highlighted in yellow) are quite minor, however a couple warrant some highlighting to make sure we have the optimal final wording: 1) the glacial bullet was debated by a couple team members and we decided that the bullet needed to be more specific. For example, the use of the terms early and mid-Holocene wasn't precise. So, how do you like: o Glaciers of several mountain regions of the Northern Hemisphere retreated in response to orbitally-forced regional warmth between 11,000 and 5000 years ago, and were smaller at times prior to 5,000 years ago than at the end of 20th century, or were even absent. Note that this formulation also manages to get in the role of orbital forcing and the fact that this orbital forcing caused regional, as opposed to hemispheric or global, temperature anomalies. The revised bullet is also now more consistent with the glacial box figure in terms of years cited. Ok? 2) Fortunat came up with the magic bullet (we think) describing the climatic implications of the recent pre-industrial trace gas changes when he suggested: The small preindustrial greenhouse gas variations also provide indirect evidence for a limited range of decade- to century-scale variations in global temperature. Sound ok to all? 3) Fortunat also queried regarding the why Europe, Asia and Australia were not included along with parts of Africa and North America in the drought of the last 2000 bullet. The reason for not including this other regions is that we don't have much evidence for recurrent droughts lasting decades or longer in these other regions. They may have happened, but the literature is apparently not well developed in this regard. Thus, without the backup in the main text, we can't expand the bullet to include more regions. No reviewers in any review cycle provided insights to change this assessment, so we feel it's better to leave as it is. Also, it would be a substantive change to include them at this stage - another reason to leave as is. Ok? 4) Then there is the tricky bullet on the amplification of orbital forcing. We appreciate the debate on this one and suggest we go with the following: Changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, ice sheet growth and decay, ocean circulation and sea ice changes, biophysical feedbacks, and aerosol (dust) loading have very likely influenced this amplification. Note that the use of "influenced this amplification" (the "amplification" is a main topic of the bullet - don't want to lose it) helps clarify that some of the listed factors may have reduced the amplifications, some increased. Also, it makes the use of the term "very likely" more sound - hard to imagine the factors listed played no roles. Is this ok? Again, many thanks for your input. Please note that we're close to having a CLA edited (and shortened as necessary) complete final draft, and plan to circulate this early next week for FAST final checking. Please set aside time so that you can read and suggest final edits within 24 hours of receipt. Best, Peck and Eystein -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Ch06_FinalDraft_ExecSumV6.doc (W8BN/MSWD) (000F366B) _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\_Ch06_FinalDraft_Exec#F3CC4.doc" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by joss.ucar.edu id k88IqJBO025529 -- Dominique Raynaud Research Director at CNRS Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Géophysique de l'Environnement BP 96 38402 Saint Martin d'Heres Cedex, France raynaud@lgge.obs.ujf-grenoble.fr PH: +33 4 76 82 42 52 FAX: +33 4 76 82 42 01 _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 652. 2006-09-11 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 11:51:22 +0100 from: "D Turnbull" subject: FW: Cambridge Energy Symposium : Reminder to: Hello, I have been notified of an event being run by Cambridge University - see email attached. Please contact them directly if you are interested in attending. Best wishes, Dawn Dawn Turnbull Centre Administrator CSERGE School of Environmental Sciences Tel + 44 (0) 1603 593738 Fax +44 (0) 1603 593739 Please visit our website: http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/cserge/ -----Original Message----- From: R. Kavanagh [mailto:rk331@hermes.cam.ac.uk] On Behalf Of R. Kavanagh Sent: 09 September 2006 14:53 To: d.turnbull@uea.ac.uk Subject: Cambridge Energy Symposium : Reminder Dear Ms Turnbull, I am writing to you remind you of the forthcoming Cambridge Energy Symposium on September 28th in the Centre of Mathematical Sciences, Cambridge (map attached). This year the symposium will address the opportunities and challenges facing the future of distributed generation in the UK. Given the discussions prompted by the recent energy review and the task force currently looking at the future of the industry, distributed generation is a technology coming to the fore in the UK. The event will be chaired by Lord Ron Oxburgh and speakers from industry and academia will present their perspective and experience of distributed generation. A poster session and competition will be held during the day, which has attracted students in energy research from the University of Cambridge, Imperial College London, the University of East Anglia and Queen Mary University. The event registration commences at 9.45am and a wine reception at 5pm will conclude the day, see poster attached. If you could circulate this poster with your colleagues it would be much appreciated. I look forward to seeing you there. Yours sincerely, Ronan Kavanagh Cambridge University Energy Network Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\CES poster.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\CMSmap.pdf" 1479. 2006-09-13 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, Bette Otto-Bleisner , cddhr@giss.nasa.gov, joos , Eystein Jansen , "Ricardo Villalba" , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:43:08 -0400 from: David Rind subject: Re: to: Jonathan Overpeck Leaving aside for the moment the resolution issue, the statement should at least be consistent with our figures. Fig. 6-10 looks like there were years around 1000 AD that could have been just as warm - if one wants to make this statement, one needs to expand the vertical scale in Fig. 6-10 to show that the current warm period is 'warmer'. Now getting back to the resolution issue: given what we know about the ability to reconstruct global or NH temperatures in the past - could we really in good conscience say we have the precision from tree rings and the very sparse other data to make any definitive statement of this nature (let alone accuracy)? While I appreciate the cleverness of the second sentence, the problem is everybody will recognize that we are 'being clever' - at what point does one come out looking aggressively defensive? I agree that leaving the first sentence as the only sentence suggests that one is somehow doubting the significance of the recent warm years, which is probably not something we want to do. What I would suggest is to forget about making 'one year' assessments; what Fig. 6-10 shows is that the recent warm period is highly anomalous with respect to the record of the last 1000 years. That would be what I think we can safely conclude the last 1000 years really tells us. David At 9:10 AM -0600 9/13/06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: Keith - thanks for this and the earlier updates. Stefan is not around this week, but hopefully the others on this email can weight in. My thoughts... 1) We MUST say something about individual years (and by extension the 1998 TAR statement) - do we support it, or not, and why. 2) a paragraph would be nice, but I doubt we can do that, so.. 3) I suggest putting the first sentence that Keith provides below as the last sentence, in the last (summary) para of 6.6.1.1. To make a stand alone para seems like a bad way to end the very meaty section. 4) I think the second sentence could be more controversial - I don't think our team feels it is valid to say, as they did in TAR, that "It is also likely that, in the Northern Hemisphere,... 1998 was the warmest year" in the last 1000 years. But, it you think about it for a while, Keith has come up with a clever 2nd sentence (when you insert "Northern Hemisphere" language as I suggest below). At first, my reaction was leave it out, but it grows on you, especially if you acknowledge that many readers will want more explicit prose on the 1998 (2005) issue. Greater uncertainty associated with proxy-based temperature estimates for individual years means that it is more difficult to gauge the significance, or precedence, of the extreme warm years observed in the recent instrumental record. However, there is no new evidence to challenge the statement made in the TAR that 1998 (or the subsequent near-equivalent 2005) was likely the warmest of Northern Hemisphere year over the last 1000 years. 5) I strongly agree we can't add anything to the Exec Summary. 6) so, if no one disagrees or edits, I suggest we insert the above 2 sentences to end the last (summary) para of 6.6.1.1. Or should we make it a separate, last para - see point #3 above why I don't favor that idea as much. But, it's not a clear cut issue. Thoughts? Thanks all, Peck Eystein and Peck I have thought about this and spent some time discussing it with Tim. I have come up with the following Greater uncertainty associated with proxy-based temperature estimates for individual years means that it is more difficult to gauge the significance, or precedence, of the extreme warm years observed in the recent instrumental record. However, there is no new evidence to challenge the statement made in the TAR that 1998 (or the subsequent near-equivalent 2005) was likely the warmest in the last 1000 years. This should best go after the paragraph that concludes section 6.6.1.1 I believe we might best omit the second sentence of the suggested new paragraph - but you might consider this too subtle (or negative) then. I think the second sentence is very subtle also though - because it does not exclude the possibility that the same old evidence that challenges the veracity of the TAR statement exists now , as then! I think this could go in the text where suggested , but I think it best NOT to have a bullet about this point.We need to check exactly what was saidin the TAR . Perhaps a reference to the Academy Report could also be inserted here? Anyway, you asked for a straw-man statement for all to argue about so I suggest we send this to Stefan, David , Betty and whoever else you think. cheers Keith -- 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/ -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ -- /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 2394. 2006-09-13 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen , rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 09:37:50 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: input to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith et al - I think your compromise para is good - more useful detail than Stefan's suggestion, and yet, the punch line is the same. Please check the attached, and those changes I made in your compromise para that are highlighted in yellow. The first major one was a funny slip, the second designed to just be more clear on what is, and is not, likely biased. thanks, peck >Hi all >see attachment > >Keith > > > >14:37 12/09/2006, you wrote: >>OK, >>hope things get better, but please - make it AM..... >> >>Eystein >> >>>just back - but under weather with cold thing >>>and sorting out stuff - will email Wednesday am >>>Keith >>> >>>At 14:35 11/09/2006, you wrote: >>>>Hi Keith, I am eagerly awaiting input from >>>>you after Austria - will it come today? >>>>Cheers, >>>>Eystein >>>>-- >>>>______________________________________________________________ >>>>Eystein Jansen >>>>Professor/Director >>>>Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and >>>>Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen >>>>Allégaten 55 >>>>N-5007 Bergen >>>>NORWAY >>>>e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no >>>>Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 >>>>Fax: +47-55-584330 >>> >>>-- >>>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/ >> >> >>-- >>______________________________________________________________ >>Eystein Jansen >>Professor/Director >>Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and >>Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen >>Allégaten 55 >>N-5007 Bergen >>NORWAY >>e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no >>Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 >>Fax: +47-55-584330 > >-- >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/ > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:pseudobit.doc (WDBN/«IC») (00152B39) -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\pseudobitjto.doc" 4594. 2006-09-14 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:17:26 +0000 from: Gerard van der Schrier subject: talk by McIntyre to: Phil Jones Phil, Just came back from a 2-hour long seminar by McIntyre (including discussion). In the talk, he focussed mainly on the Mann et al. reconstruction, flaws in Mann et al's statistical method and the effects of the Bristlecone pines on the reconstruction. Much attention to Mann's response to all this (showing mails etc. as we have come accustomed to). Also the Wahl and Ammann paper was discussed extensively. So in the first 80-ish slides: no mention of Briffa, Osborn or Jones. After that he ran out of time and skipped the parts which related to the CRU reconstructions. He briefly touched upon the truncation of the Briffa et al (2001?) reconstruction in the late 20th century. Obviously, the data-availability was an issue...... He claims to have approached Wahl to write a paper together in which the merits of the reconstruction method are tested extensively. It seems that after initial interest, Wahl opted out. In the (Dutch) media, the McIntyre & McKitrick paper is presented as "evidence" that global warming is not present, or at least that it is part of natural variability. What surprised me is that McIntyre clearly and unequivocally parted with that view. Cheers, Gerard > > Gerard, > Also he may slag off Keith and Tim. Probably best to just listen > and not to try and defend us. There may be some press on this > the week after next as McIntyre is in Stockholm at a meeting earlier > in the week. > > Cheers > Phil > > At 12:28 01/09/2006, you wrote: >> Phil, >> >> Thanks for having a look at the ms. >> >> I think I should be at McIntyre's seminar, but I do not expect to >> hear a balanced view on multiproxy reconstructions (based on his >> abstract). He has been invited by Amsterdam's free university, and >> somebody probably thought it was a nice idea to have him here too. >> >> Cheers, Gerard >>> >>> Gerard, >>> Manuscript fine. I see you'll have a seminar at KNMI >>> by Stephen McIntyre on Sept 14 ! Amazing what you can >>> find on skeptic web sites. If you're there on the day, >>> can you tell me how much he slangs me off during his >>> talk. >>> >>> Away after today until Sept 21. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> -- ---------------------------------------------------------- Gerard van der Schrier Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) dept. KS/AS PO Box 201 3730 AE De Bilt The Netherlands schrier@knmi.nl +31-30-2206597 www.knmi.nl/~schrier ---------------------------------------------------------- 923. 2006-09-15 ______________________________________________________ cc: , Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 08:46:22 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: Figure 6.10 problem? tickmarks to: Tim Osborn Thanks Tim - should be in time to replace old 6.10 for sure - Øyvind, can you confirm you got it, plus Tim's helpful table edits all set and incorporated. Thanks! Really like the new 6.10c color scheme now - more obvious what's up. thx again for the quick changes. best, peck >Really well spotted, Peck! I've corrected the >minor tickmarks on 6.10b x-axes as requested, >plus tried a lighter biege for you at the lower >end. Final version is attached in .gif .pdf and >.eps formats. Oyvind, is there time to replace >with this version and give the .eps to TSU? > >Cheers > >Tim > >At 16:33 13/09/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>Hi Tim - I just realized that the x-axis >>tickmarks on 6.10b are different that those >>below on 6.10c. The latter seem to be more >>useful/correct. Should we redo the figure with >>updated 6.10b tickmarks? Sorry I didn't see >>this sooner. While you're at it, and only if it >>doesn't add much to the time it takes... >> >>1) I like the line thicknesses in 6.10b as said previously >>2) but wonder if the gradient in 6.10c should >>be even lighter on the light end - people might >>look at that plot and see that blip at 1000 and >>think - oh, just as warm as late 20th. Not sure >>if it's worth changing. >> >>Thanks, Peck >>-- >>Jonathan T. Overpeck >>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>Professor, Department of Geosciences >>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences >> >>Mail and Fedex Address: >> >>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth >>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >>University of Arizona >>Tucson, AZ 85721 >>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >>fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ > > >Attachment converted: Macintosh >HD:chap6_f6.10_brown_new.pdf (PDF /«IC») >(00153892) >Attachment converted: Macintosh >HD:chap6_f6.10_brown_new.gif (GIFf/«IC») >(00153893) >Attachment converted: Macintosh >HD:chap6_f6.10_brown_new.eps ( / ) >(00153894) >Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow >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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > >**Norwich -- City for Science: >**Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006 -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 3734. 2006-09-15 ______________________________________________________ cc: Jonathan Overpeck ,David Rind , rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de,Bette Otto-Bleisner , cddhr@giss.nasa.gov,Ricardo Villalba date: Fri Sep 15 12:57:13 2006 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: 1988/2005 to: Keith Briffa , Fortunat Joos , Eystein Jansen Hi, my view is also that Eystein's adaption of Keith's original wording (with the second 'individual' removed as Keith said) seems to be the best option so far, because it does not attempt to re-assess the TAR's claim about 1998 but instead it just points out that such claims are difficult to assess. If the uncertainty were simply larger for individual years then we could still do the assessment. The difficulty is that the uncertainty is not just larger but also harder to quantify -- e.g. Wahl & Ammann, in press, do not attempt to verify the inter-annual variability of the Mann et al. reconstruction, instead focussing on verification of decadal timescales. Without such inter-annual verification, the assessment cannot be made. Yet it is also difficult to 'withdraw' the previous statement, because it had only been made with relatively low confidence (likely, 66-90% confidence). Cheers Tim At 11:33 15/09/2006, Keith Briffa wrote: I do not disagree either - in fact I preferred not to make the "too clever" second statement in my "straw man" as I said at the time. If this is the consensus (and I believe it is the scientifically correct one) then I would be happy with Eystein's sentence. The worry is that we have inserted this late with no refereeing and no justification in the text. I would also suggest dropping the second "!individual" in the sentence. At 10:50 15/09/2006, Fortunat Joos wrote: Hi, I support Eystein's suggestion and agree with David. If there is not sufficient evidence to support or dismis claims whether 1998 or 2005 was the warmest year of the millennium than we should indeed say so. It is the nature and the strenght of the IPCC process that points from the TAR and earlier reports get reconsidered and reassessed. It is normal that earlier statements get revised. Often statements can be strenghtened, but sometimes statements can not be supported anymore. Our job is to present the current understanding of science as balanced as possible. With best wishes, Fortunat Quoting Eystein Jansen : > Hi all, > My take on this is similar to what Peck wrote. My suggestion is to write: > > Greater uncertainty associated with proxy-based > temperature estimates for individual years means > that it is more difficult to gauge the > significance, or precedence, of the extreme warm > individual years observed in the recent > instrumental record, such as 1998 and 2005, in > the context of the last millennium. > > I think this is scientifically correct, and in > essence means that we, as did the NAS panel say, > feel the TAR statement was not what we would have > said. I sympatise with those who say that it is > not likely that any individual years were > warmer, as Stefan has stated, but I don´t think > we have enough data to qualify this on the > hemispheric mean. > > Best wishes, > Eystein 2911. 2006-09-18 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:20:46 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: review of Wu 2006 to: Keith Briffa ---------------------- Review of manuscript by Wu, Yu, Zeng and Wang "Possible solar forcing of 400-year wet-dry climate cycles in northwestern China" This paper presents results from a new lake sediment record in NW China, covering approximately the last 1500 years. This is an interesting area in which to develop new records spanning this time period and the authors should be encouraged in their endeavours to do so. Despite this, I do not recommend that the present manuscript should be published, for two main reasons. First, the age-model cannot be relied upon with confidence. For most of the length of the record the age-model appears to be defined by the untested assumption of constant sedimentation rate between the surface and one single calibrated radiocarbon date. Not only is this assumption not tested by using further dates (except in the top 8cm of a neighbouring core, compared with the 150cm of the main core) but the changes in sediment composition which are interpreted as major changes in river inflow would surely cast doubt upon this assumption? The age-model is, of course, important anyway, but becomes even more so because of the comparisons made later in the manuscript with other records, including interpreting those comparisons as evidence for a response to changes in solar forcing. Second, the comparisons made between different indicator time series within the new core, and also with records from elsewhere in the region or the world, are not done with sufficient quantitative rigour to justify the conclusions that are made. The doubtful age-model should not limit the use of quantitative statistical methods (at least simple correlation coefficients) for the comparison between the different indicators, because the multiple proxies were presumably derived from the same depths of the same core and therefore age-model errors will affect all these proxy series in the same way. These comparisons should, therefore, be more quantitative. For example it is stated that the oxygen and carbon isotopes of the bulk carbonate have "a tendency to covary": this statement is not clearly supported by a visual comparison, so state the correlation between these series. The del18O does not, for example, appear to show the "large negative excursions" in 750 or 1050, and neither isotope shows a negative excursion at the stated 1650 date. There are other cases too that the authors should re-visit using quantitiative statistics to support the conclusions that they draw from their data. The doubtful age-model does invalidate the comparisons made with other records and the radiocarbon record and so these should be removed completely from the manuscript (e.g. all of page 11, first half of page 12, points 3 and 4 in the conclusions and figures 4 and 5. Even if the age model was good enough to justify such comparisons, the comparisons are not made rigorously. For example, the lake record wet intervals "appear to correlate" with snow accumulation rate and snow oxygen isotopes -- do they correlate or don't they? State the correlation coefficient. Visually, it looks as if they may correlate with the rate, but not at all with the isotopes! There is a "close correlation" between the lake organic matter del13C record and snow accumulation -- if true, state the correlation coefficient. Visually this statement looks false. Another problem is that the MWP is not well-defined and it is not possible therefore to have confidence in the stated onset and termination dates (for which region? dates are probably different in different places!) nor their coincidence with wet intervals in the poorly-dated lake record. ---------------------- Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm **Norwich -- City for Science: **Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006 4741. 2006-09-19 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:37:49 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: cheers! to: Gabi Hegerl Hi Gabi - we do loose quite a bit (e.g., boreholes and other proxies) back beyond 500, so that's why we drew the "very likely" line there. But, we did stay as strong as the TAR back 1300, so that was our compromise on certainty. I believe the forcing series also start to get more uncertain pretty fast back beyond even 400 years ago, but I'm pretty impressed with the match between simulated and observed NH climate back ca. 700 years (e.g., our Figs 6.13 and 6.14). Thus, I bet you are right that we know back to 700 pretty well, but not well enough to go with "very likely" in the all important chap 6 bullet. Not sure this helps, but we do need to pay attention as we do the SPM to get the right balance. I'll cc to Keith in case he wants to chime in, which would be appreciated. thanks, peck >p.s. hope you are all recovered etc! >I have one chapter question: We were waffling back and forth if we >SHOULD go with the chapter 6 >assessment on the last 500 being better reconstructed than say last >700, but in the end, we stuck with >last 700 because some results rely on using a long timehorizon to >separate like ghg and solar signals. >To say that very likely a substantial fraction of the variance on >those records is externally forced (nother >words, detectable external signals in reconstructions). >Does this seem ok to you? In the SPM session we had some waffling >about 5 vs 7 centuries. > >Gabi > >Jonathan Overpeck wrote: -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 4054. 2006-09-20 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen , Jonathan Overpeck , Francis Zwiers date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:37:42 -0400 from: Gabi Hegerl subject: Re: 5 to 7 centuries to: Keith Briffa I asked Tom about it, he says (but I realize he is one sample of the volcano enthusiasts) it could have been El Chichon, the eruption seems to be huge, but there is concerns that different physics would apply to such a large eruption making it cause different climate impacts (he cites a paper for that that I promplty forgot). I am always slightly nervous about the fact that this one doesnt show up in the data, and wondering if there is a sliver of circularity, but I think results like my detection stuff and probably also EPOCH stuff (I could try) are quite robust to missing an eruption, even a biggie. Greetings everybody! Gabi Keith Briffa wrote: > Hi everyone - just been at a meeting all day so just seen this . I > agree with Eystein et al . so no problems . Interested to know what > you mean Gabi about the 1256 eruption - we have been looking at the > empirical evidence for a contemporaneous cooling with ambiguous results > cheers > Keith > > > > At 20:16 19/09/2006, Eystein Jansen wrote: > >> Hi Gabi, >> this is fine with me and does not seem to contradict Ch6. >> Eystein >> >> >> >> >> At 15:06 -0400 19-09-06, Gabi Hegerl wrote: >> >>> SOunds good - since forcing and temperature reconstrucitons are >>> independent, >>> I think it was defensible to make a statement about role of forced >>> response 700 yrs back in Ch9. >>> Is it ok to keep 700 yrs about significant externally forced >>> component in SPM? >>> Susan is finetuning that bullet right now so thats why i thought it >>> would be good to know if you guys are >>> happy. >>> We justified ch9's assessment based on your figure 6.13 showing >>> model and recon agreement, and on few detection >>> studies and some qualitatative agreement studies all saying the >>> agreement is not spurious. >>> One issue going beyond further is 1256 eruption, which is not that >>> well understood, >>> so it gets a bit dicey beyond I think! >>> >>> Gabi >>> >>> Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Gabi - we do loose quite a bit (e.g., boreholes and other >>>> proxies) back beyond 500, so that's why we drew the "very likely" >>>> line there. But, we did stay as strong as the TAR back 1300, so >>>> that was our compromise on certainty. I believe the forcing series >>>> also start to get more uncertain pretty fast back beyond even 400 >>>> years ago, but I'm pretty impressed with the match between >>>> simulated and observed NH climate back ca. 700 years (e.g., our >>>> Figs 6.13 and 6.14). Thus, I bet you are right that we know back to >>>> 700 pretty well, but not well enough to go with "very likely" in >>>> the all important chap 6 bullet. >>>> >>>> Not sure this helps, but we do need to pay attention as we do the >>>> SPM to get the right balance. >>>> >>>> I'll cc to Keith in case he wants to chime in, which would be >>>> appreciated. >>>> >>>> thanks, peck >>>> >>>>> p.s. hope you are all recovered etc! >>>>> I have one chapter question: We were waffling back and forth if we >>>>> SHOULD go with the chapter 6 >>>>> assessment on the last 500 being better reconstructed than say >>>>> last 700, but in the end, we stuck with >>>>> last 700 because some results rely on using a long timehorizon to >>>>> separate like ghg and solar signals. >>>>> To say that very likely a substantial fraction of the variance on >>>>> those records is externally forced (nother >>>>> words, detectable external signals in reconstructions). >>>>> Does this seem ok to you? In the SPM session we had some waffling >>>>> about 5 vs 7 centuries. >>>>> >>>>> Gabi >>>>> >>>>> Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas >>> School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, >>> Box 90227 >>> Duke University, Durham NC 27708 >>> Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 email: hegerl@duke.edu, >>> http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html >> >> >> >> -- >> ______________________________________________________________ >> Eystein Jansen >> Professor/Director >> Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and >> Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen >> Allégaten 55 >> N-5007 Bergen >> NORWAY >> e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no >> Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 >> Fax: +47-55-584330 > > > -- > 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/ > -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, Box 90227 Duke University, Durham NC 27708 Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 email: hegerl@duke.edu, http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html 1343. 2006-09-21 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Keith Briffa" , "Martin Widmann" date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:37:19 +0100 from: "Collins, Matthew" subject: RE: SAT in MOC experiment to: , "Tim Osborn" > Anyway, it looks as if the behaviour is not spurious at all, > but rather a > feature in many models. Unfortunately this means I won't be > able to get a > separate publication out of this... :-) Unless you could look at it from the palaeo-data angle. i.e. are there any paleo-indicators in the region which show warming during the LIA? If so (and we put our faith in the models) then it is suggestive of a THC mechanisms for the LIA, if not then it points to other mechanisms. BTW, mixed layer depth is a good proxy for convective activity I think. Thanks for the nice meeting. Not sure if anyone is aware of the recent Karoly and Stott paper in Atmos. Sci. Letts. Basicially it's a detection+attribution study on the CET. One of the things they worry about is that the model doesn't produce the NAO trend with anthropogenic forcing and that this might affect their conclusion of a positive detection of anthropogenic influence on CET. Could be a nice application of the nudging technique. i.e. a suite of runs with/without anthro warming and with/without nudging. Cheers, Mat 3613. 2006-09-21 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:21:55 +0100 from: Phil Jones subject: TS/SPM - Don't pass on to anyone!!!!!! to: k.briffa@uea.ac.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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\WG1_SPM_Sep20.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\WG1_TS_Sep20.pdf" 4176. 2006-09-21 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Sep 21 16:45:11 2006 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: use of CLIMGEN for IPCC: before we meet to: "Rachel Warren" Rachel - we can talk some more when you come to see me, but Tom Wigley is not an author at any level, as far as I know, on any chapter in IPCC WG1 for the AR4. So his approval or disapproval may not be relevant (other than for scientific reasons of course!). In the way that you are using CLIMGEN, I think that there really only two things that need to be defended: (1) the GCM patterns that have been used; and (2) the pattern-scaling concept itself. The reason why I think these are the only two issues is that you could probably do the upscaling without using CLIMGEN at all, just by using these two things. Both issues are defensible in general. With specific reference to IPCC WG1, however, you should look to see what the draft says about regional climate change, and specifically whether pattern-scaling is criticised or supported or even mentioned. CLIMGEN is not reviewed or mentioned as far as I know, but provided the 2 concepts/issues mentioned above, then this is fine. The GCM runs from which the patterns are derived are not all very new; some of these runs are definitely still being used in AR4 WG1, but we can check if this applies to them all. All are at least TAR or later. Cheers Tim At 16:32 21/09/2006, you wrote: Dear Tim This is just to let you both know that I am using CLIMGEN to backwards-downscale (i.e. upscale) regional to global temperature for a key table in an IPCC WG2 chapter on climate impacts for ecosystems at different degrees of temperature rise using the range of GCMs in CLIMGEN. The method for uncertainty analysis for the upscaling was agreed with Martin Parry at the recent WG2 meeting I went to last week. I've already done a lot of calculations but I am going to do more following last week's decision, to include more uncertainty analysis for more of the entries in the table than I had previously done. I am wondering, however, whether WGI, given their recent tendency to object to anything that isn't in the WG1 report, may object to the use of CLIMGEN in this way. WG1 are currently opposing the use of anything in WG2/3 on climate science that isn't covered in their report, even if it's perfectly valid literature that they don't cover. However, CLIMGEN has the same methods as SCENGEN which was used in the TAR. I am wondering whether to talk to Tom Wigley about it - but given the SCENGEN/CLIMGEN tension that I think may have existed, this may make matters worse. Is CLIMGEN reviewed in IPCC WGI or not? Does Tom Wigley approve of CLIMGEN? If WG1 object to the use of CLIMGEN, because it is not SCENGEN or Tom Wigley's latest MAGICC-SCENGEN combination, they may argue to throw out the table, and I would lose all of my work on this subject and the chapter would be much the poorer - the review editor thinks that my table will get more attention than anything else in the chapter and some of it may end up in the SPM. Hence I cannot emphasise the importance of making sure that WG1 cannot complain about my using CLIMGEN to upscale! I'll be talking to you tomorrow to make sure that I fully understand exactly which GCM datasets are used in CLIMGEN so that I and the CLA and Martin Parry can defend how I have used it, and how it works, if the topic comes up in discussion at any time. Tim, I need to check whether you are using the same updated GCM patterns as the new version of SCENGEN (version 2.4 of 2003). The best thing would be to get Tom Wigley's approval of my using it, prior to any of the IPCC meetings ... Thanks Rachel Dr Rachel Warren Senior Research Fellow Tyndall Centre Zuckermann Institute University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ Telephone 01603 593912 Fax 01603 593901 E-mail r.warren@uea.ac.uk 2825. 2006-09-22 ______________________________________________________ cc: WG1Bureau: ; date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 19:27:03 -0600 from: Martin Manning subject: [Wg1-ar4-las] Thanks to All for the Final Draft to: wg1-ar4-las@joss.ucar.edu Dear Members of the WG1 Author Team, All eleven chapters of the WG1 report have been received and are being prepared for final government distribution. In going over the material, we have once again been moved by the quality of this outstanding report, which is the reason for writing to you today. We also want to congratulate all the author teams for being on time (or very nearly so) in this last critical stage, which is an enormous help. It has been a huge effort to produce this remarkable document, requiring all of us to go many extra miles, not only on airplanes but also in terms of time and mental focus. As you know, the final plenary will occur in Paris at the end of January, and we will certainly ensure that you are informed regarding that last very important step which will essentially conclude our work. Since we cant do it in person we thought we would send you this note to say a very sincere thank you and encourage a virtual toast electronically at this point. It has been a very great privilege and honor to work with you. Best regards, Susan, Dahe, and Martin on behalf of the IPCC Working Group I Bureau -- Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov ** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory Phone: +1 303 497 4479 325 Broadway, DSRC R/CSD8 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 Boulder, CO 80305, USA _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-las mailing list Wg1-ar4-las@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-las 749. 2006-09-25 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 11:49:15 +0200 from: Bo Vinther subject: Revised draft application for Carslberg-funded stay at CRU to: Phil Jones Dear Keith and Phil I have now talked with Dorthe and she came up with the splendid idea that I should apply for money for two years - one at CRU and one in Copenhagen - a slightly revised draft application is therefore attached. Cheers....Bo Dear Keith and Phil As you can see below the chances that our Marie Curie proposal will get funded are rather slim....hence - as I really want to spend the next year working with you at CRU - I have drafted the attached application for Carlsberg-funding for a one year research stay at CRU. The draft is a shortened (max. 2 pages for Carlsberg-applications) and modified version of the Marie Curie application - its modified to include work on my recent finding (chapter 5 in my Ph.D. dissertation - also attached), that elevation change of the Greenland ice sheet is very likely to blame for the disagreement between delta-O18 and borehole temperatures during the Holocene! The deadline for Carlsberg-aapplications is the 2nd of october - hence if you like the new application I have made, I will rather urgently need you to mail/fax me a letter that states your willingness to house me at CRU in 2007 (Carlsberg pays my salary, travel and accommodation - but no overheads at all) and a recommendation of the project. I will get Sigfús and Dorthe to write letters of support as well.... I apologize for writing you this late - but I have been busy preparing my Ph.D.-defence until a week ago (I had my defence just in time for the Marie Curie 18/9 deadline - just in case....) so I simply have not had a draft to mail you before this weekend.... Cheers......Bo Hi Bo. You are now number six on the reserve list as was able to open negotiations today with number one. On the basis of our expected savings (our budget for those we are in negotiation with are usually overestimated by around 5% to be safe). If this 'saving' of 5% on average continues, we are hoping to get through another 3 on the reserve list by the end of October. What happens to the remaining reserve list then largely depends on whether people drop out of negotiations if they find other jobs in the meantime. No guarantees then. Very sorry for the uncertainty. In any case ALL our negotiations have to be finished by December chen the budget for this programme is closed. Good news is that a new programme shd be announced in January... Best wishes, JANE Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Carlsberg21.doc" 137. 2006-09-26 ______________________________________________________ cc: Ian Kraucunas , Steve McIntyre date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:15:17 -0500 from: "Gerald R. North" subject: Data Requests from McIntyre to: Lonnie Thompson , druidrd@ldeo.columbia.edu, Gabi Hegerl , jan.esper@wsl.ch, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, mann@psu.edu Dear Colleagues, Mr. Steve McIntyre has recently asked me to contact you in hopes that you will send him some information regarding your recent research. He has previously asked Dr. Ralph Cicerone to send out such a letter to you, but Dr. Cicerone was reluctant to do so in his role as President of the National Academy of Sciences. Mr. McIntyre thought that as chair of the recent NRC Committee on Reconstruction of Surface Temperatures for the Last Two Thousand Years, that my request to you might carry some weight. Of course, I have no authority to compel you to do anything with your data and I do not represent the NRC Committee on this matter. I understand that you have spent many days and even years collecting your data under sometimes dangerous conditions. But McIntyre does have a point in that most of our research has been supported by US Taxpayers. I also understand that archiving data is expensive and time consuming (I also know that not all of the archiving and quality control was supported by past grants), but as scientists we all owe it to each other to share information to the maximum extent possible. So I would like to ask you that if it is feasible to grant McIntyres requests. Despite his sometimes unusual approach to science and scientists, I do believe he is bright, hardworking and sincere. I attach McIntyres letter to me. Best wishes, Jerry North Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\north.letter.september.doc" 541. 2006-09-26 ______________________________________________________ cc: Anthony Socci , mann@psu.edu, "Raymond S. Bradley" , Malcolm Hughes , Edward Cook , Henry Diaz , Jonathan Overpeck , jcole@geo.arizona.edu, sasha@ucsd.edu, ajmiller@ucsd.edu, Gavin Schmidt , dshindell@giss.nasa.gov, Eric Steig , "Dale P. Winebrenner" , David Vladeck , "David M. Ritson" , Stephen H Schneider , Mike MacCracken , Phil Jones , Keith Briffa , Kerry Emanuel , Ben Santer , "Wahl, Eugene R" , Caspar Ammann , Scott Rutherford , dhondt@gso.uri.edu, Juerg Luterbacher , Pete Altman , ccappella@ametsoc.org, Dale Willman date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 07:06:22 -0400 from: Andy Revkin subject: Re: inhofe & mann & me to: Stefan Rahmstorf I know. but he still speaks to and for a big chunk of America -- people whose understanding of science and engagement with such issues is so slight that they happily sit in pre-conceived positions. that might be one reason he doesn't like this book, which is devoid of easily-attacked spin and scare tactics and lets the science point the way itself. i'm just trying to be sure that folks like all of you take an extra couple seconds to use Inhofe against himself and forward the blog/book link to a few people who might not be aware of this book -- the first on Arctic and global climate change for all readers 10 and up -- and of Inhofe's moves. [1]http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A1L2TYV56JXF2V/ref=cm_blog_dp_pdp/104-4914927-77631 26 Hi Andy, from over here, it is hard to see this kind of Inhofe speach as anything else than an irrelevant piece of absurd theatre. It doesn't even bother me any more - he's simply lost it. Cheers, Stefan ANDREW C. REVKIN The New York Times / Environment 229 West 43d St., NY NY 10036 phone: 212-556-7326 / e-mail: revkin@nytimes.com / fax: 509-357-0965 Arctic book: The North Pole Was Here: [2]www.nytimes.com/learning/globalwarming Amazon book: The Burning Season [3]www.islandpress.org/burning Acoustic-roots band: [4]www.myspace.com/unclewade 4309. 2006-09-26 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Sep 26 10:10:07 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Fwd: Review of Briffa proposal to: edwardcook thanks Ed the pertinent questions will be explored in collaboration with you if this ever gets support . Appreciated Keith At 15:00 25/09/2006, you wrote: Hi Keith and Tom, Here is my review of your Leverhulme proposal just emailed in to them. While there was plenty of room to ask a few probing questions about your proposed research (e.g. issues of generality to species with growth strategies quite unlike Scots Pine, issues of changing radial growth architecture from full to stripbark; applicability to deciduous tree species; I did therefore almost give "Success" a "B" rating), I didn't want to add any element of doubt to the determination. This work truly should be funded. Cheers, Ed Begin forwarded message: From: edwardcook Date: September 25, 2006 9:36:35 AM EDT To: nthorp@leverhulme.ac.uk Cc: edwardcook Subject: Review of Briffa proposal To Whom It May Concern: Below is my review of a proposal submitted to the Leverhulme Trust by Professor Keith R. Briffa, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich. I have also attached it as a Word document. Please let me know if you have received it in proper order. Sincerely Edward R. Cook ===== Review of âProcess-based methods in the interpretation of tree- growth/climate relationshipsâ, submitted by Professor Keith R. Briffa Reviewer: Dr. Edward R. Cook, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, 61 Route 9W, Palisades, New York 10964 USA (Referee No: 103766) Originality of Method & Approach: A -- Very Novel Significance: A -- Important to others A -- Lasting value Success: A -- Strong likelihood Overall Rating: A -- Exceptional Comments (please pass on to applicants): This proposal is one of the most original research ideas to come out of the science of dendrochronology in many, many years. Dendrochronology is being used increasingly to answer questions about environmental change, especially that related to global climatic change and tree growth in a rapidly changing world. Yet, there is great controversy over its results caused, in part if not mostly, by a fundamental step in the analysis of tree rings: the removal of long-term growth trends thought to be strictly due to biological processes and aging. This step is based on the fitting of empirical growth models or equations to the original tree-ring measurements to remove the biological effects without any regard for the underlying processes that contributed to the observed trends in growth. This is a fundamental weakness in the science that this proposal seeks to resolve and largely eliminate through the development of a process-based approach based on sound tree physiological and structural principles. Prof. Briffa and his post- doc Tom Melvin will conduct this research in a way that will also provide the greater dendrochronological community with a cross- platform computer program and tool for the analysis and interpretation of tree growth. Therefore, it has the potential for fundamentally changing in the way that changing patterns of tree growth will be evaluated in the future and also provide the tools for doing so to the greater research community. I cannot stress too highly how important this proposed research is to the science of dendrochronology. It is for this reason that I give it the highest ratings of âAâ in all categories. I am familiar enough with the work conducted by Prof. Briffa and Tom Melvin to know that the proposed research will be conducted at the highest level and I look forward to the development and testing of their process-based model. =====  ================================== 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 ================================== Hi Keith and Tom, Here is my review of your Leverhulme proposal just emailed in to them. While there was plenty of room to ask a few probing questions about your proposed research (e.g. issues of generality to species with growth strategies quite unlike Scots Pine, issues of changing radial growth architecture from full to stripbark; applicability to deciduous tree species; I did therefore almost give "Success" a "B" rating), I didn't want to add any element of doubt to the determination. This work truly should be funded. Cheers, Ed Begin forwarded message: From: edwardcook <[1]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu> Date: September 25, 2006 9:36:35 AM EDT To: [2]nthorp@leverhulme.ac.uk Cc: edwardcook <[3]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu> Subject: Review of Briffa proposal To Whom It May Concern: Below is my review of a proposal submitted to the Leverhulme Trust by Professor Keith R. Briffa, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich. I have also attached it as a Word document. Please let me know if you have received it in proper order. Sincerely Edward R. Cook ===== Review of Process-based methods in the interpretation of tree-growth/climate relationships, submitted by Professor Keith R. Briffa Reviewer: Dr. Edward R. Cook, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, 61 Route 9W, Palisades, New York 10964 USA (Referee No: 103766) Originality of Method & Approach: A -- Very Novel Significance: A -- Important to others A -- Lasting value Success: A -- Strong likelihood Overall Rating: A -- Exceptional Comments (please pass on to applicants): This proposal is one of the most original research ideas to come out of the science of dendrochronology in many, many years. Dendrochronology is being used increasingly to answer questions about environmental change, especially that related to global climatic change and tree growth in a rapidly changing world. Yet, there is great controversy over its results caused, in part if not mostly, by a fundamental step in the analysis of tree rings: the removal of long-term growth trends thought to be strictly due to biological processes and aging. This step is based on the fitting of empirical growth models or equations to the original tree-ring measurements to remove the biological effects without any regard for the underlying processes that contributed to the observed trends in growth. This is a fundamental weakness in the science that this proposal seeks to resolve and largely eliminate through the development of a process-based approach based on sound tree physiological and structural principles. Prof. Briffa and his post-doc Tom Melvin will conduct this research in a way that will also provide the greater dendrochronological community with a cross-platform computer program and tool for the analysis and interpretation of tree growth. Therefore, it has the potential for fundamentally changing in the way that changing patterns of tree growth will be evaluated in the future and also provide the tools for doing so to the greater research community. I cannot stress too highly how important this proposed research is to the science of dendrochronology. It is for this reason that I give it the highest ratings of A in all categories. I am familiar enough with the work conducted by Prof. Briffa and Tom Melvin to know that the proposed research will be conducted at the highest level and I look forward to the development and testing of their process-based model. ===== Content-Type: application/octet-stream; x-mac-type=5738424E; x-unix-mode=0644; x-mac-creator=4D535744; name=Leverhulme Trust Review.doc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Leverhulme Trust Review.doc" ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email: [4]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152 ================================== -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 891. 2006-09-27 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Sep 27 09:25:28 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: The Holocene-manuscript to: g.swindles@Queens-Belfast.AC.UK Graeme thanks for this - I follow your points - which are very well expressed in the manuscript , but I just wanted to know whether you really believed that this "event" was solar induced . Personally , I am not convinced either way , but I know that your paper adds to the bank of well-dated records that will eventually help settle this . I wonder if you might like to actually address the possibility of a direct volcanic effect in your text , which I feel would add to the "citability" of the paper as the debate grows (which it will). If not, I am happy to publish just as is . If you wished to add a section , including the points you both make here about the possibility of volcanic forcing , them I would be happy to publish as well. Up to you and over to you. cheers Keith At 19:29 26/09/2006, you wrote: Hi Keith, See comments attached. Many thanks, Graeme On Sep 26 2006, Keith Briffa wrote: Graeme First , I am going to recommend immediate publication - perhaps not under the tittle of "rapid communication" , but just as soon as it can be published. Second, could you consider why you attribute the cool/wet evidence to solar forcing at all ? Is this because you believe you show local evidence that is delayed , or are you just persisting with a assumed solar effect and trying not to be too dramatic by suggesting the effect is not solar - but perhaps a response to volcanic forcing. Either way , the point is ambiguous and I would like your opinion before proceeding. Thanks Keith At 20:55 04/09/2006, you wrote: >Dear Keith, > >I have posted you three copies of the manuscript for peer review >(The Holocene) entitled 'A delayed climatic response to solar >forcing at 2800 cal. BP: Multi-proxy evidence from three Irish >peatland (Swindles, Plunkett & Roe). > >Many thanks, > >Graeme > >---- >Graeme Swindles >School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology >Queen's University Belfast >Northern Ireland -- 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 Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 1720. 2006-09-27 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Sep 27 15:59:58 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Your paper submitted to the Holocene to: w.jinglu@niglas.ac.cn Dear sir I am sorry to have to inform you that after receiving referee's reports , we feel that we are not able to accept your paper Possible solar forcing of 400-year wet-dry climate cycles in northwestern China for publication in the Holocene. Please accept my apologies for the time it has taken to reach this decision - but after receiving only very abrupt and brief communications from the two initial referees, both of which returned a generally negative opinion , we took the time to solicit a further review - copied below. Unfortunately the negative content of this review has made it inevitable that we must decline to publish at this time. Although I realise that this response is bound to be somewhat disappointing , I hope that it will not discourage you and your colleagues from submitting further manuscripts in the future. Thank you for submitting his paper and I hope we will be able to view any future submissions in a more positive way. yours sincerely Keith Briffa Associate Editor - The Holocene ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- Review of manuscript by Wu, Yu, Zeng and Wang "Possible solar forcing of 400-year wet-dry climate cycles in northwestern China" This paper presents results from a new lake sediment record in NW China, covering approximately the last 1500 years. This is an interesting area in which to develop new records spanning this time period and the authors should be encouraged in their endeavours to do so. Despite this, I do not recommend that the present manuscript should be published, for two main reasons. First, the age-model cannot be relied upon with confidence. For most of the length of the record the age-model appears to be defined by the untested assumption of constant sedimentation rate between the surface and one single calibrated radiocarbon date. Not only is this assumption not tested by using further dates (except in the top 8cm of a neighbouring core, compared with the 150cm of the main core) but the changes in sediment composition which are interpreted as major changes in river inflow would surely cast doubt upon this assumption? The age-model is, of course, important anyway, but becomes even more so because of the comparisons made later in the manuscript with other records, including interpreting those comparisons as evidence for a response to changes in solar forcing. Second, the comparisons made between different indicator time series within the new core, and also with records from elsewhere in the region or the world, are not done with sufficient quantitative rigour to justify the conclusions that are made. The doubtful age-model should not limit the use of quantitative statistical methods (at least simple correlation coefficients) for the comparison between the different indicators, because the multiple proxies were presumably derived from the same depths of the same core and therefore age-model errors will affect all these proxy series in the same way. These comparisons should, therefore, be more quantitative. For example it is stated that the oxygen and carbon isotopes of the bulk carbonate have "a tendency to covary": this statement is not clearly supported by a visual comparison, so state the correlation between these series. The del18O does not, for example, appear to show the "large negative excursions" in 750 or 1050, and neither isotope shows a negative excursion at the stated 1650 date. There are other cases too that the authors should re-visit using quantitiative statistics to support the conclusions that they draw from their data. The doubtful age-model does invalidate the comparisons made with other records and the radiocarbon record and so these should be removed completely from the manuscript (e.g. all of page 11, first half of page 12, points 3 and 4 in the conclusions and figures 4 and 5. Even if the age model was good enough to justify such comparisons, the comparisons are not made rigorously. For example, the lake record wet intervals "appear to correlate" with snow accumulation rate and snow oxygen isotopes -- do they correlate or don't they? State the correlation coefficient. Visually, it looks as if they may correlate with the rate, but not at all with the isotopes! There is a "close correlation" between the lake organic matter del13C record and snow accumulation -- if true, state the correlation coefficient. Visually this statement looks false. Another problem is that the MWP is not well-defined and it is not possible therefore to have confidence in the stated onset and termination dates ( for which region? dates are probably different in different places!) nor their coincidence with wet intervals in the poorly-dated lake record. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------PLEASE NOTE _ Other reviews very brief and merely stated that dating and analyses did not justify conclusions - but both said not prepared to provide detailed comments ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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/ 2348. 2006-09-27 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 18:10:03 +0100 from: "Saffron O'Neill" subject: Re: Expert elicitation and polar bears to: "Tim Osborn" Hi Tim Yes, fair point. I've got 9 hours on the train to and from Newcastle tomorrow so I'll muse over it in more detail then! How's the modelling going? Is it in the format you expected? Saffron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Osborn" To: "Saffron O'Neill" ; "Irene Lorenzoni" ; "Mike Hulme" Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 9:06 AM Subject: Re: Expert elicitation and polar bears > Hi Saffron, > > your document makes a reasonable case for this approach. Obviously you > can't be more explicit about the material you will present to them yet, > until we've had a look together at the IPCC model results that I'm > extracting. But perhaps you can already be a bit more explicit about the > question(s) you will be asking them? What precisely do you want this > expert group to make their judgements on? > > Cheers > > Tim > > At 18:06 26/09/2006, Saffron O'Neill wrote: >>Dear Irene, Mike and Tim >> >>Thanks for all your individual comments so far on operationalising the >>icons. To update: >> >>Irene has suggested that a produce a quick intro to how I plan to >>operationalise the polar bear icon. At the moment, the plan is to use an >>expert elicitation. Tim has kindly agreed to investigate the use of some >>sea ice models and hopefully this will be completed in the near future. >> >>An expert elicitation can be a really time-consuming process so I need to >>get it underway quickly if I'm to be able to present this information to >>the public in stage 3 by the new year! >> >>I've attached my justification for expert elicitation, including a brief >>explanation of how this may be carried out. I've also included a very >>brief lit. review of exactly what I am calling an expert elicitation in >>this context, with pros and cons. >> >>As usual, I'd appreciate any feedback! Could we (Irene and Mike) meet to >>discuss this proposal, perhaps on Friday, or next week? >> >>I'm at the Tyndall away day tomorrow and off to Newcastle on Thursday to >>meet Jim Hall and Rich Dawson to discuss the London icon, so apologies if >>this is a little rough round the edges - I wanted to get it off ASAP. >> >>Saffron >> >> >> > > Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow > 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ > sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > > **Norwich -- City for Science: > **Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006 > > 2380. 2006-09-28 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones , "k.briffa Briffa" date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:49:18 +0100 from: David Viner subject: Letter to the Guardian to: "Vincent Chris Prof ((ENV)) e470" Dear Chris Just writing in response to Alan Kendall's letter that has appeared in today's Guardian (this is his second letter). Whilst Alan may have his own personal views on climate change (that are not supported by the science) I do not believe he should be using our School's affiliation on these letters. When I have had letters published in newspapers that are my opinion and not based upon my work I use my personal address. Alan's letter can not be supported by any work that has been published by this school and, I believe, therefore should not be affiliated to our school. Yours David +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr David Viner Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ Tel: +44 1603 592089 SKYPE Address: drdavidviner (Intermittent) Home Page: [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/link Climate Change Masters Course: [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/env/msc/ [3]http://www.e-clat.org Tourism and Climate Change The C-Change Trust [4]http://www.thec-changetrust.org/ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2853. 2006-09-29 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 09:46:51 +0100 from: "Saffron O'Neill" subject: Fw: Arctic model simulations for A1B to 2050? to: Good news, hopefully! Saffron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Xiangdong Zhang" To: "Saffron O'Neill" Cc: "Xiangdong Zhang" Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:19 AM Subject: Re: Arctic model simulations for A1B to 2050? > Dear Saffron, > > Thanks for your email and glad to learn your interesting work. It is > important to build an effective bridge between climate change study > and general public/policy-maker. > > As you can see from my paper, I did analysis from some time in the 19th > century to the end of the 21st century. The data to 2050 was naturally > involved. Recently, an increasing number of people hope to see what sea > ice cover over the Arctic Ocean would like in the middle of 21st century > in addition to the total area which I showed in my paper. So, I plotted > figures showing 2-D distribution of sea ice concentrations around 2050 > and also animations from 1900-2100 under the A1B scenario. I am going to > put them on a website soon. > > If you have any questions or need any help I can do, please let me know. > > Cheers, > Xiangdong > > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 05:18:24PM +0100, Saffron O'Neill wrote: >> Dear Xiangdong Zhang >> >> I am a PhD researcher supervised by Prof. Mike Hulme and Dr. Tim Osborn >> at >> the Tyndall Centre, UEA. >> >> My research is centred around finding more salient methods of >> communicating >> climate change to the lay-public. My PhD is interdisciplinary, and aims >> to >> harness the emotive and visual power of 'icons' with a rigorous >> scientific >> analysis of possible changes under SRES A1B to 2050. These parameters >> have >> been chosen to represent a middle-range scenario within a timescale that >> the >> public can conceptualise. I've attached my PhD abstract should you want >> to >> know more. >> >> I am interested in the results of your paper 'Towards a seasonally >> ice-covered Arctic Ocean'. I see here you have used a large number of >> model >> simulations to 2100. I was wondering if you had analysed or plotted the >> results of the models with scenario A1B to 2050? - as one of the icons >> chosen was the polar bear, and consequently I am searching for sea-ice >> area >> models. >> >> I would greatly appreciate any assistance with this. >> >> Regards, >> >> Saffron O'Neill >> >> 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 >> >> T: +44 (0) 1603 593 911 >> F: +44 (0) 1603 593 901 >> E-mail: s.o-neill@uea.ac.uk >> Web: http://www.tyndall.ac.uk > 1379. 2006-10-02 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 10:46:26 +0100 from: "Saffron O'Neill" subject: panel meeting and ice extent modelling to: Hi Tim I've found some 'communicating cc' ref's which I've attached - nothing too hard going! Futerra's 'rules of the game' is a good intro to what climate change communicators should be working towards in terms of best practice. Sophie's poster is a summary of the main findings of her PhD research from a couple of years back in ENV, and is a message that some NGOs in particular would still do well to heed! Finally, the communicating CC document is an outline of Defra's recent initiative, as followed on from Futerra's consultancy work. PhD stuff: at the last panel meeting, we agreed to meet again in early October. However, I think this meeting would best be delayed until we know exactly what info we can obtain for the expert elicitation as r.e. ice extent maps, time series etc. I forwarded on the email from Xiangdong Zhang a few days ago - he's happy to give me some plots showing 2-D distribution of sea ice concentrations around 2050 and also animations from 1900-2100 under the A1B scenario. How is the ice modelling going? Do you think you'd be able to get some plots say by w/c 9th Oct so we could talk about them in the meeting? Cheers Saffron Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\communicating_climate_change.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\POSTER SNC.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\RulesOfTheGame.pdf" 5004. 2006-10-05 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 17:37:31 +0100 from: "Janice Darch" subject: Details FP7 Environment to: ,  Subscriber Services banner [1]My News | [2]My Profile | [3]Bookmark this page | [4]My Researcher Page Search ____________________ [5][Search_normal.gif] [6]Advanced Search UKRO Logo [7]Home > [8]Subscriber Services > [9]Information Services > My News navigation bar [10]navigation fp7 button navigation bar [11]navigation fp6 button navigation bar [12]navigation fp5 button navigation bar [13]navigation non-framework button navigation bar navigation information services button navigation bar [14]navigation events button navigation bar [15]navigation brussels info button navigation bar [16]navigation ukro info button navigation bar FP7 Cooperation - Environment - Update FP Yes Information type News Created 2006-10-02 Summary UKRO has obtained further information on what might be covered under FP7 Cooperation Theme 6 Environment (including climate change). UKRO understands that early plans are to split the Environment Work Programme into five activity areas: climate change, pollution and risks; sustainable management of resources; environmental technologies; earth observation and assessment tools; and horizontal actions. As mentioned at the UKRO Annual Conference there will be an annual Work Programme for the FP7 Environment theme, and there is likely to be one call per year. The work programme is also expected to include an outline of possible topics for later years. Article ______________________________________________________________________________________ ELOs and sponsors Important reminder Please note that discussions on the Work Programmes are ongoing, and that the Commission's proposals are subject to approval from the relevant Programme Management Committee (PMC) for FP7, after formal approval of the overall Framework Programme and Specific Programmes by the European Council and Parliament. UKRO would therefore remind subscribers to be cautious when considering these topics, as these are liable to change significantly. Potential applicants should not prepare applications until the final Work Programmes and Calls for Proposals are available. Background and structure The FP7 Environment theme will follow on from previous Framework Programmes, but will also be the result of extensive consultations. As mentioned in the Cooperation Specific Programme proposals, the Environment work programme will be structures around 4 themes: * Climate Change, Pollution and Risks * Sustainable Management of Resources * Environmental Technologies * Earth Observation and Assessment tools The Specific Programme proposals highlighted the importance of Climate Change, Environment and Health, and Environmental Technologies to European policy. UKRO understands that the Commission also intend a new emphasis in the Work Programme on the importance of some additional topics to policy development, namely Earth Observation, Environment and Health and Marine Sciences (in light of the policy support that will be needed to back up the EU current development of an EU Maritime Policy). Timing of calls At a consultation on Environment and Health earlier this year, the Commission explained that they have analysed the content and completion date of environmental projects funded under FP5 and FP6. They will then use information on the completion dates for these topics to work out the timing of calls within the Environment Work Programme for FP7. Generally, if a specific topic has a project currently underway under FP5/6, the call for any follow-up projects in the same area is likely to occur after the existing project has been completed, so that the new projects can build on the research of the completed project. Horizontal issues UKRO understands that the horizontal issues that will cut across the work programme (such as: SME relevant research; international cooperation; responding to emerging needs and policy relevant research; and dissemination actions) will be particularly emphasised throughout the Environment Work Programme, and that the Work Programme will also include a summary highlighting which call topics are particularly related to: * SME relevant research; * International Collaboration Partner Country (ICPC) activities; * Cross thematic issues (with other themes in Cooperation); * Dissemination actions, which are likely to relate to both `research to policy' and `science and society' issues; * Emerging needs. ERA-NETs It now seems likely that the Environment Work Programme for 2007 will look at ERA NETS strategically, rather than bottom up. UKRO understands that there are plans to hold ERA-NET calls on specific topics where there is a demand for ERA-NETS, and that Commission consultations have been useful in identifying topics suitable for ERA-NETS. Project types In FP7, the funding mechanisms/instruments will be: collaborative projects (which replace STREPS and IPs from FP6), networks of excellence, coordination and support actions. Possible topics for 2007 Calls for the theme on Environment (including climate change) Initial indications are that the following topics could be open under the 2007 call, but please note that these are only early provisional indications for topics, and are likely to change. Please also note that any budgets mentioned are indicative budgets only, and are also subject to change. 6.1 CLIMATE CHANGE, POLLUTION, AND RISKS Pressures on the environment and climate (39 million) * The earth system and climate: functioning and abrupt changes + Stability of the thermohaline circulation * Emissions and Pressures: natural and anthropogenic + Megacities, air quality and climate * The global carbon cycle greenhouse gas budget + Ocean acidification and its consequences * Future climate + Topic not likely to be open in 2007 * Climate change - natural and socio-economic impacts + Climate change and impacts in national water policies + Climate change impacts on vulnerable mountain regions + Past and future climate change impacts in the Parana-Plata South American basin * Response strategies: adoption, mitigation and policies + Full costs of climate change + Effectiveness of adaptation and mitigation measures related to changes of the hydrological cycles and its extremes + Impacts and feedbacks of climate change policies on land use and ecosystems in Europe Environment and Health (21 million) * Health effects of exposure to environmental stressors + Indoor air pollution in Europe: and emerging environmental health issue + Environmental factors and their impact on reproduction and development * Integrated approaches for environment and health risk assessment + European network on human biomonitoring + European cohort on air pollution + Health impacts of drought and desertification including related socio-economics aspects * Delivery of methods and decision support tools for risk analysis and policy development + Geographical information systems in support for environment and health research + ERA-NET for environment and health Natural Hazards (14 million) * Hazard assessment, triggering factors and forecasting + European storm risk * Vulnerability assessment and social impacts + Frame for better vulnerability assessment * Risk assessment and management + Assessing and managing volcanic threat + Harmonising avalanche forecasting, risk mapping and warning + Investigating Europe's risk from droughts * Multi-risk evaluation and mitigation strategies + European (multi) hazard database analysis 6.2 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES Conservation and sustainable management of natural and manmade resources (30 million) * Integrated resources management + Topic not likely to be open in 2007 * Water resources + Groundwater systems management + River basin twinning initiatives as a tool to implement EU water initiatives + Temporary water bodies management + Integrated resources management in international cooperation partner countries * Soil Research and desertification + Transect approach to desertification * Biodiversity + Contribution of biodiversity to ecosystem services + Use of natural resources: the impact on biodiversity, ecosystem, goods and services + Biodiversity values, sustainable use and livelihoods * Urban development + Urban metabolism and resource optimisation in the urban fabric * Consumption patterns + Consumption patterns * Integrated forest research + Topic not likely to be open in 2007 Evolution on Marine Environments (23 million) * Marine Resources + Development of advanced ecosystem models and methodologies for the management and the sustainable use of resources + Ecology of important marine species + Habitat-marine species interactions in view of ecosystem based management in the deep-sea + Dynamic of the marine ecosystem in a changing environment + Deep ocean geophysical and biological processes + Investigating life in extreme environments + Promoting access to information across marine themes + Fostering improved cooperation between marine science and the private sector + Access to and the recovery of marine data from previous FP projects 6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES Environmental technologies for the sustainable management and conservation of the natural and manmade environment (41 million) * Water + Innovative technologies for sustainable water use in industries + Technologies for measuring and monitoring networks * Soil + Development and improvement of technologies for data collection and (digital) soil mapping + Development of technologies and tools for soil contamination assessment and site characterisation, towards sustainable remediation * Waste + Development of integrated waste technologies for maximising material and energy resource/recycling of the organic (humid) fraction of municipal solid waste + New technologies for waste sorting + Networking and preparatory action in view of developing cost-effective, environmentally-safe waste treatment technologies adapted to the needs of developing countries, within a targeted life cycle approach. * Clean technologies + Networking and preparatory action in view of control of mercury in industrial processes and products * Built environment + Low resource consumption buildings and infrastructure + Performance indicators for health, comfort and safety of the indoor built environment Protection, conservation and enhancement of cultural heritage (7 million) * Assessment and conservation in cultural heritage + Damage assessment, diagnosis, and monitoring for the preventative conservation and maintenance of cultural heritage * Networking, knowledge transfer and optimisation of results in cultural heritage + Preservation of the tangible cultural heritage + Consolidation and dissemination of results related to cultural heritage * Environmental technologies for archaeology and landscapes + Topic not likely to be open in 2007 * Fostering the integration of cultural heritage in urban and rural strategies + Topic not likely to be open in 2007 Technology assessment, verification and testing (5 million) * Risk assessment of chemicals and alternative strategies for testing + In-silico techniques for hazard-, safety-, and environmental risk-assessment + Defining a long-term research strategy for the full replacement of animal test for repeat dose system toxicity * Technology assessment + Topic not likely to be open in 2007 * Environmental technologies verification and testing + Topic not likely to be open in 2007 6.4 EARTH OBSERVATION AND ASSESSMENT TOOLS Earth Observation (22 million) * Integration of European activities within GEO + Monitoring of the carbon cycle at global level + Contribution to a global biodiversity observation system * Crosscutting research activities relevant to GEO + ERA-NET for national earth observation programmes + Contributing to the development of a worldwide network on in-situ observatories for seismogenic hazards * Earth observation activities in emerging areas + Application of Earth Observations to environmental and health issues + Monitoring the ocean interior, seafloor, and subseafloor + Development of a global soil observing system * Developing capacity building activities in the domain of earth observation in developing countries + Georesource information system for Africa + Improving observing systems for water resource management + GEOnetcast applications for developing countries + Support to the functioning of the GEO Secretariat Assessment tools for sustainable development (10 million) * Assessment tools and models, foresight and scenarios for sustainable development: the environment as an economic opportunity + Strategies to transform the environment challenge into an economic challenge into an economic development opportunity + Improved tools and methods to analyse the sustainable development implications of the EU Financial Perspective revision (2008-9) + Tools and methods for sot-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis of environmental policies in international collaboration partner countries * Sustainable development indicators and externalities + Topic not likely to be open in 2007 * Multifunctional land use for sustainable development + Methodologies for scaling down the analysis of policy impacts on multifunctional land uses, from economy-wide to the regional and local level * Engaging civil society in research on sustainable development + Revisiting assessment tools and strategies in fields related to sustainable development 6.5 HORIZONTAL ACTIONS (1 million) Dissemination activities * Dissemination and broadcasting of scientific data and information Possible topics for future calls in later years As mentioned by the Commission at the UKRO Annual Conference, UKRO understands that the 2007 Environment Work programme will also include an initial outline of what call topics might be in the later years. UKRO understands that these are only intended to give researchers an outline of what might possibly be on the horizon for the future, i.e. these topics are only indicative, and may be subject to change during 2007. It is expected that the structure (i.e. the first three levels of headings) used to classify the calls might mostly be the same as the structure used for the 2007 call topics. Related information [17]08/09/2006 - EC Consultation: Green Paper on 'Future Maritime Policy for the EU: A European Vision for the Oceans and Seas' (FP News) [18]08/09/2006 - Marine Research is Vital to Support Maritime Policy (FP News) [19]07/09/2006 - Environmental Strategy for the Mediterranean Sea (FP News) [20]04/08/2006 - Update on Environmental Policies (FP News) [21]25/07/2006 - UKRO Annual Conference 2006: The Environment Thematic Priority (FP News) [22]24/07/2006 - Prince Albert II of Monaco Creates Environmental Research Foundation (Non-FP News) [23]28/06/2006 - Green TV Launched (Non-FP News) [24]05/06/2006 - Commission launch `You Control Climate Change' Awareness Campaign (Non-FP News) [25]01/06/2006 - FP7 Environment & Health: Report on Consultation & Possible Calls (FP News) [26]29/05/2006 - Climate Change and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (Non-FP News) [27]28/04/2006 - Open Stakeholder Consultation: FP7 Priorities for Environment & Health (Event) [28]03/03/2006 - EC Launches High-level Group on Energy, Environment and Competitiveness (Non-FP News) [29]17/02/2006 - Commission Publishes Annual Environment Policy Review (Non-FP News) Print article Print this article Embedded Content: left_subscr195.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,01354147 Embedded Content: Search_normal195.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,3f2df517 Embedded Content: ukrosmall195.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,41ea81ef Embedded Content: subs_nav00195.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,076deb24 Embedded Content: subs_nav08195.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,076dec54 Embedded Content: subs_nav01195.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,076deb4a Embedded Content: subs_nav02195.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,076deb70 Embedded Content: subs_nav03195.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,076deb96 Embedded Content: subs_nav04_on195.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,0bc8eb1a Embedded Content: subs_nav05195.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,076debe2 Embedded Content: subs_nav06195.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,076dec08 Embedded Content: subs_nav07195.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,076dec2e Embedded Content: print195.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,25cf2dd6 3471. 2006-10-06 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen date: Fri Oct 6 12:38:51 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: VERY URGENT HELP NEEDED TO ADDRESS FINAL DRAFT PROBLEM to: Jonathan Overpeck Just thought also - that perhaps , if possible, we should include the words " ,many of which were assembled up to 20 years ago, " after existing records on line 54 of page Y-28 , ie in the Box 6.4 text. The reason is that we state in the key uncertainties , the need to update records but not sure we stress this point in the text. Incidentaly, this is why we need to refer to instrumental and proxy records in the suggested sentence to be added. Hi Peck and Eystein In response to Points 4-6 4. Add the following after past 1300 years. on line 13 page Y-33 "Considering the recent instrumental and longer proxy evidence together, it is very likely that average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were warmer than any other 50-year period in the last 500 years. " Do not put anything in Box 6.4 which is written frolm the reverse perspective - evidence of medieval period not good enough to say warmer than now. Also confuses statements about 500 years and longer (1000 year ) Medieval ,time. 5. The person who says this has not read the text - see lines 28-33 on Y-32 where I think this is well covered. 6. If you read the text on lines 1-10 of PAGE Y-38 I think this meaning is clearly conveyed. It is not in the same words -but easily supports the ES statement. HOWEVER, I do not like the last part of the statement (and not sure where this came from) because it is ambiguous and anyway implied by prior statement. I strongly urge you to remove the section "and it is very unlikely that this warming was merely a recovery from the pre-20th century cold period." These would sort things out I believe cheers Keith At 19:26 05/10/2006, you wrote: Hi Keith and Tim - we just got the attached consistency feedback doc from the TSU, and I've added my thoughts in red. We need your feedback on items 4-6 REALLY FAST. Tim, if Keith's not around to help, please do the job - the TSU has zero time to give us. I think the solutions to #5 and 6 are easy as I suggested (although I don't have confirmation from Susan or Martin that we can just do as I suggest, but it seems logical to me - if you can suggest an even better solution, pls do. I'll send the official chap 6 final draft text next - at least as it stands today. thanks for dealing with this, perhaps before you go to sleep this evening. Best, Peck -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 [1]http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ [2]http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 4625. 2006-10-06 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 09:11:04 -0600 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: VERY URGENT HELP NEEDED TO ADDRESS FINAL DRAFT PROBLEM to: Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen Hi Keith and Eystein - thanks for the timely and helpful (very) feedback, Keith. Your suggestions for 4 and 5 seem fine, and I wonder only about 6. I too am not sure where the final clause came from, but I'll guess it was a suggestion of Stefan's that then stood the text of time. In the spirit of trying hard not to change the meaning of bullets in the ES from what the LA team agreed to in Bergen, what about changing this clause in the ES to read "natural recovery", i.e.: and it is very unlikely that this warming was merely a natural recovery from the pre-20th century cold period." This takes away the ambiguity, and does serve to address a widely held misconception outside of our community - or at least to phrase the issue in terms that some might find more useful. If we keep this phrase, then I would suggest restating the entire ES sentence at the end of 6.6.3. Is this ok? Again, I'm motivated by our team agreement - I do think we could delete this phrase since it's more repetitive than new meaning, but would rather not unless it really does not work. Personally, I like it as modified above, because it hammers the important point from a slightly different perspective - one that seems to be on the minds of the public still. Thanks, both, for letting me know what you think fast. best, peck Hi Peck and Eystein In response to Points 4-6 4. Add the following after past 1300 years. on line 13 page Y-33 "Considering the recent instrumental and longer proxy evidence together, it is very likely that average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were warmer than any other 50-year period in the last 500 years. " Do not put anything in Box 6.4 which is written frolm the reverse perspective - evidence of medieval period not good enough to say warmer than now. Also confuses statements about 500 years and longer (1000 year ) Medieval ,time. 5. The person who says this has not read the text - see lines 28-33 on Y-32 where I think this is well covered. 6. If you read the text on lines 1-10 of PAGE Y-38 I think this meaning is clearly conveyed. It is not in the same words -but easily supports the ES statement. HOWEVER, I do not like the last part of the statement (and not sure where this came from) because it is ambiguous and anyway implied by prior statement. I strongly urge you to remove the section "and it is very unlikely that this warming was merely a recovery from the pre-20th century cold period." These would sort things out I believe cheers Keith At 19:26 05/10/2006, you wrote: Hi Keith and Tim - we just got the attached consistency feedback doc from the TSU, and I've added my thoughts in red. We need your feedback on items 4-6 REALLY FAST. Tim, if Keith's not around to help, please do the job - the TSU has zero time to give us. I think the solutions to #5 and 6 are easy as I suggested (although I don't have confirmation from Susan or Martin that we can just do as I suggest, but it seems logical to me - if you can suggest an even better solution, pls do. I'll send the official chap 6 final draft text next - at least as it stands today. thanks for dealing with this, perhaps before you go to sleep this evening. Best, Peck -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ -- 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/ -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences Mail and Fedex Address: Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795 http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 1416. 2006-10-09 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 11:30:01 +0100 from: "Quaternary Science Reviews" subject: Reviewer Invitation for JQSR-D-06-00173 to: Ms. Ref. No.: JQSR-D-06-00173 Title: Hemispheric changes of internal and forced variability recorded in regional climate - imprints of Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and twentieth century warmth in proxy-based temperature reconstruction at high-latitudes of Europe Quaternary Science Reviews Dear Prof Keith R Briffa, You are invited to review the above-mentioned manuscript that has been submitted for publication in Quaternary Science Reviews. The abstract is attached below. Are you available to provide the review? PLEASE DO NOT USE YOUR E-MAIL "REPLY" OPTION TO RESPOND TO THIS INVITATION. Instead, please respond online at http://ees.elsevier.com/jqsr/. You will need to login as a Reviewer: Your username is: KBriffa-255 Your password is: briffa5873 Please select the "New Invitations" link on your Main Menu, then choose to "Accept" or "Decline" this invitation, as appropriate. If you accept this invitation, I would be very grateful if you would return your review by Nov 20, 2006. You may submit your comments online at the above URL. There you will find spaces for confidential comments to the editor, comments for the author and a report form to be completed. To assist you in the reviewing process, I am delighted to offer you full access to Scopus* for 30 days. With Scopus you can search for related articles, references and papers by the same author. You may also use Scopus for your own purposes at any time during the 30-day period. If you already use Scopus at your institute, having this 30 day full access means that you will also be able to access Scopus from home. Access instructions will follow once you have accepted this invitation to review *Scopus is the world's largest abstract and citation database of research information and quality internet sources. With kind regards, Neil Roberts Editor Quaternary Science Reviews ABSTRACT: New tree-ring based analysis for climate variability at regional scale is presented for northern Fennoscandia. Our absolutely dated temperature reconstruction seeks to characterize the shifts and gradual changes in temperature history through the classical climatic periods since AD 750. Warmest and coldest reconstructed 250-year periods occurred AD 931-1180 and AD 1601-1850, respectively. These periods owe significant temporal overlap with the general hemispheric climate variability due to the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA). Detailed picture of temperature evolution shows that MWP was long ameliorated interval with mean temperatures warmer than temperatures during the following centuries but not warmer than during the 20th century. The LIA seems to follow the two-stage model. We detect the approx. 60-year rhythm, attributable to North Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC), in the regional climate during the MWP but not during the LIA. THC further appears as an agent behind the initiation and continuation of MWP and the mid-LIA transient warmth. Coldest and warmest of all reconstructed 100-year periods occurred AD 1587-1686 and AD 1895-1994, respectively. These dates bracket the coldest phase of Little Ice Age suggesting that both its initiation and termination were associated with anomalous climatic intervals. Cooling of climate since the MWP until the termination of the LIA follows the hemispheric trend supposedly by orbital forcing, amplification of volcanic signature years and hemispheric vegetation changes with intensifying mechanism from regional forest-limit retreat. Brief comparison of instrumental and proxy-based records shows that the rise in annual and summer temperatures during the late 19th and early 20th century is parallel but not exactly simultaneous. ****************************************** For any technical queries about using EES, please contact Elsevier Reviewer Support at reviewersupport@elsevier.com 1450. 2006-10-10 ______________________________________________________ cc: Scott Rutherford , Caspar Ammann , "Wahl, Eugene R" date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:33:48 -0400 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: GKSS results to: Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn Dear Tim/Keith, I hope all is well with both of you. We've been doing a number of sensitivity tests w/ RegEM using both the CSM simulation, and now more recently the GKSS simulation data we got from you. There are some methodological developments we'll describe soon, related to what is the most reliable regularization method in RegEM, ridge regression and truncated total least squares. We are now leaning towards the latter because of potential non-convergence problems in some cases w/ the former. More on that soon. More relevant, however, are the results. As you can see from the attached plot, RegEM works quite well w/ GKSS, using a short calibration period (1900-1980, corresponding to years 900-980 in the attached plot) and both white and red pseudoproxy noise (we used rho=0.5 in the attached, but similar result for other values). The most interesting result is that while RegEM reconstructs the full NH series well throughout, in the case of the CSM simulation, it does modestly underestimate the warmth of the earliest centuries in the GKSS Erik simulation (it fits everything else, including the LIA cooling, very well). We feel that this is likely due to problem of correctly identifying the 'drift' pattern using CFR methods. The long and short of this is that we would like to be able to show this result in a (very short!) J. Climate response we need to finalize, to a comment on Mann et al (2005) J. Clim by Zorita and Von Storch. We would show you this response for comment of course, and would add you as co-authors. We have cleared with Andrew Weaver that this would be an acceptable course of action. We are hoping you are in agreement with this? please let us know ASAP, we have to finalize our response within days. thanks, mike -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\whiteredcompare.jpg" 3592. 2006-10-10 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:29:42 +0100 from: "Saffron O'Neill" subject: Fw: Polar bears in a changing climate to: "Mike Hulme" , , "Irene Lorenzoni" Dear all FYI, the response from Andrew of the PBSG regarding the potential expert elicitation. Saffron ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Saffron O'Neill" Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 5:14 AM Subject: Re: Polar bears in a changing climate Dear Saffron, Sorry for the delay in responding but I have been travelling the past 3 weeks. I would be willing to take your proposal to the PBSG if you could provide a brief 1-2 page outline of what would be expected from each participant (similar to what you have provided). I don't think Peter Molnar would have the breadth of insights to assist question construction. His field experience is limited and he comes to the area with expertise in mathematics and model construction. If you can give me a timeframe for this it would also help. I know the various PBSG members are deep into status reviews of polar bears in Europe, USA and Canada so things are very tight on time just now. So, if you can provide a 1 page overview then I will forward it to the membership to see if they are willing to participate. Is there a minimum number of people that you need to do this? The PBSG is a small group of ca. 20 people. Best regards, Andrew Derocher Chair, IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group Quoting Saffron O'Neill : > Dear Andrew > > Thanks for your previous email. > > I've been refining the details and the protocol for carrying out this > potential expert elicitation. The research team here (Prof. Mike Hulme, > Dr. Tim Osborn, Dr. Irene Lorenzoni and myself) think it could be a > really interesting use of the Delphi elicitation method, but more > importantly for you, it could perhaps provide an outlet for the latest > scientific knowledge regarding polar bears and climate change (before > Peter's thesis perhaps covers this). I'm hoping members of the PBSG > would find this an interesting exercise as well as providing a > potentially publishable document which can be referenced to when probed > for the latest thoughts regarding polar bear dynamics and climate > change. > > > > Just to give you a quick intro to what an expert elicitation involves > in case you haven't come across the method before - it is a structured > process to elicit subjective judgements from experts. Within this > definition, experts are defined as those who have special skills or > knowledge in a particular field, and a judgement is defined as the > forming of an estimate or conclusion from information presented to the > expert. Expert elicitation is widely used to quantify risk > uncertainties where there is a lack of empirical data to infer on > uncertainty and it has the potential to make available knowledge that > may not be easily accessible otherwise. Expert elicitation aims to > include the views of a wide variety of experts and can reveal the level > of expert disagreement. The judgement of the expert is usually > represented as a 'subjective' probability density function (PDF). > > > > The Delphi technique is one such technique for combining expert > judgements for a risk analysis. It is a well established iterative > technique that allows the participants to view previous responses from > the group in comparison to their own. As the participants' identity > remains anonymous throughout - from taking part to report write-up, > they can modify their answers if they wish without experiencing > pressure to do so: for example, using an expert elicitation conducted > via the web allows anonymity of experts within the group, and allows > experts to speak outside of their professional capacity. Participants > can be asked to combine their scientific knowledge with judgement based > in part on advice, discussion with colleagues (though not other > participants in the elicitation) and intuition. > > > > The basic procedure would be as follows. PBSG members would be asked to > participate, and it would be ideal if you could endorse this, as well > as participate yourself. The exercise would take place via the WWW so > updates to the iteration could be made quickly. Those willing to > participate would be asked to access a webpage containing some material > on which to base their judgements. I have asked Peter's advice on the > sort of information I would present in order for the experts to be able > to make a judgement - these will be to a particular time period and > scenario and are likely to be maps or timeseries of yearly ice extremes > and open water concentrations. You'll appreciate that whilst I have > told Peter the details of these and have asked for his input on what > information would be most pertinent, if you are able to participate in > the expert elicitation these details must be disclosed at the same time > as the other participants receive them! The webpage would be online for > around 14 days, during which time experts could log on and update their > elicitations in view of others submitted. Each iteration should not > take longer than around 20 minutes. After the 14 days, the website > would close and the results would be analysed and presented back to the > participants. > > > > As you both said, I think asking those who are current PBSG members > would be an excellent idea as a predefined expert group. Therefore, > Peter would not contribute to the exercise directly. However, I'd > really appreciate it if he could check over the potential expert > elicitation questions - I could do with some input to whether a polar > bear specialist would consider them essentially, an 'answerable' > question. Of course, if Peter contributes directly to this exercise he > would be acknowledged, and there would be the potential for > collaboration with the results into publishable research. My deadline > for completing the whole exercise is the end of December this year - a > tight timescale, I realise! > > > > Thanks for all your advice so far and I look forward to hearing if you > think this is a suitable proposal. > > > > Regards, > > > > Saffron > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Derocher" > > To: "'Saffron O'Neill'" ; > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 3:39 PM > Subject: RE: Polar bears in a changing climate > > > Dear Saffron, > > There are various groups that you could approach for such an exercise but > the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group members is likely the > organization > that could best assist. There are about 20 members from the 5 circumpolar > nations. I cannot speak to the intentions of all members relative to > responding to such a request but I will assist as best I can. One of the > problems with polar bears and climate change issues is that most members > are > inundated with requests from students, the press, film makers, and the > interested public. It can be a daunting task to deal with all inquiries. > Further, given that many members represent government agencies and thus > have > to follow an organizational process, they may not be able to express a > personal opinion on certain elements. > > I will try to assist as best I can but there are 3 status reviews of polar > bears underway (Canada, USA and Europe) so the issue is likely to be > political as well as scientific. > > Best regards, > > Andrew > Andrew E. Derocher, Ph.D. > Chair, IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group > Professor > Department of Biological Sciences > University of Alberta > Edmonton, AB > T6G 2E9 > Phone: (780) 492-5570 Fax: (780) 492-9234 > http://pbsg.npolar.no/ > http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/faculty/andrew_derocher/ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Saffron O'Neill [mailto:s.o-neill@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 8:28 AM > To: pmolnar@ualberta.ca; derocher@ualberta.ca > Subject: Re: Polar bears in a changing climate > > > Dear Peter and Andrew > > Thank you both for such in-depth and thoughtful replies to my email. I > apologise for it taking so long for me to get back to you. > > Since you both replied, I've had an in-depth look at all the literature, > particularly those references you have suggested, as well as Peter's email > detailing the current state of knowledge surrounding climate change and > polar bears. It's all been really fascinating, a total change from my > usual > subject area. > > After talks with my supervisor, we have agreed probably the best way to go > forward on this is to attempt to carry out an expert elicitation: that is, > to either interview polar bear experts with an interest in polar bear / > climate dynamics by phone or ask these experts to complete a questionnaire > by email. The format would involve asking for potential projections of > polar > > bear dynamics under one particular climate scenario (SRES A1B) to the year > 2050 (I would provide the specific information on ice-extent). > > I realise that this situation is not in any way perfect, but I think it is > the only way for this aspect of my research to proceed using the best > available scientific knowledge. At the moment, the expert elicitation is > still in its formative stages but I anticipate I'd be collecting the data > in > > late autumn/winter. > > It would be great if either or both of you would like to take part in > this. > Indeed, if either of you have ideas of other experts in this field who may > like to take part (ideally not all from your particular lab) this would be > greatly appreciated. > > Many thanks again for all your help, and I look forward to hearing from > you > soon. > > Saffron > > ----- Original Message ----- From: > To: "Saffron O'Neill" > Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 10:44 AM > Subject: Re: Polar bears in a changing climate > > >> Dear Saffron, >> >> Thanks again for your email. >> >> I have come across a lot of concern regarding the future of the polar >> bear >> myself when talking to all kinds of people. I have also noticed that >> there > >> are many, many more documentaries about the Arctic on German television >> than a few years ago; I don't think I have ever seen as many >> documentaries > >> about polar bears before. As you describe, the polar bear seems to be a >> charismatic species that many people can relate to, not unlike the panda, >> which has been serving as a conservation symbol for a long time now. But >> more than that, there is a lot of ecological merit in monitoring the >> polar > >> bear closely: due to the relative simplictity of arctic foodwebs and its >> position at the top of the food chain it makes a good indicator species. >> That is, changes in the general arctic ecosystem will most likely be >> reflected in the status of polar bear populations. >> >> As you know, my thesis is among others concerned with evaluating the >> possible effects of climate change on the population dynamics and life >> histories of polar bears.In order to be able to make scientifically sound >> projections I try to use a modelling approach to project the population >> dynamics/life histories of polar bears under certain environmental >> conditions, similarly to what you have described in you email. However, >> through my studies I have found two basic difficulties with this >> approach: > >> 1) which climate model should we take, and 2) how will polar bears react >> to a certain climatic change. >> >> The first point can be circumvented by choosing a particular model or >> range of models. The second problem, however, I found to be far more >> complicated. The problem is that, even though data has been collected for >> more than 30 years, we lack information about how polar bears would >> respond to specific climatic situations. This makes it fairly difficult >> to > >> make specific projections of polar bear populations under climate change. >> It is simply very hard to say, how flexible the bears are when dealing >> with different situations. >> >> I don't know if you know these two references, but they should give >> you a >> good idea about the possible effects of climate change on polar bears: >> >> Striling, I. and Derocher, A.E. 1993. Possible impacts of climatic >> warming >> on polar bears. Arctic 46: 240-245. >> >> Derocher, A.E., Lunn, N.J. and Stirling I. 2004. Polar bears in a >> warming >> climate. Integr. Comp. Biol. 44(2): 163-176 >> >> Anyways, in order to deal with the second problem, I have decided not >> to >> focus on the population dynamics as a whole, but rather to build >> mechanistic models that describe parts of the population dynamics (e.g. >> the life histories of bears, the mating system, predator-prey dynamics >> etc). With such an approach, the models then include the mechanisms which >> we think shape these dynamics (e.g. time to feed before the ice breaks up >> in summer), and the models are then validated agains data from the past, >> and if the models describe the past correctly, then we can make some >> statements about how the population processes will be affected if climate >> change affects some of the underlying mechanisms. I think this to be the >> right approach, as predictive models should include as much realism as we >> can justify from past datasets. >> >> Unfortunately, I have to disappoint you as far as publications are >> concerned. I'm currently finishing up the first paper of my thesis, which >> deals with the mating system of polar bears. Polar bears are not only >> threatened by climate change, but more acutely by possible sex-selective >> over-harvest, which might reduce the number of males to a point where >> there will be too few males to impregnate all females. I do have some >> interesting results there with respect to how climate change might affect >> the mating system, as well, but they are not published yet. I expect this >> to happen hopefully by the end of the year. Once the paper has been >> accepted I'll make sure to send you a copy. After that, there are a few >> options for me, but I will possibly deal with the issue of climate change >> more directly, maybe focussing on how earlier break-up of the ice in >> spring affects reproduction and life histories of the polar bear, or the >> predator-prey system. I realise that this is probably not of much help to >> you. >> >> Note that simple models for the population dynamics of polar bears do >> exist, such as a projection model called RISKMAN that incorporates the 3 >> year reproductive cycle of polar bears (which standard matrix models >> don't). The software is available from the PBSG website that Andy sent >> you. I have chosen not to use it myself, as I believe that without >> incorporating the specific mechanisms that could be affected by climate >> change, the model output would remain speculative, but it might be of >> some > >> use to you. >> >> I'm sorry that I can't be of much more help at this stage, but I make >> sure >> to let you know about any upcoming publications. I'm also very interested >> to learn more about your work, and would appreciate if you could also let >> me know about your results, or maybe publications that you are >> planning. Have you decided what modelling approach to use yet? >> >> Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Best wishes, >> >> Peter >> >> Quoting Saffron O'Neill : >> >>> Dear Peter Molnar. >>> >>> Let me introduce myself. My name is Saffron O'Neill and I am also >>> researching for a PhD, supervised by Prof. Mike Hulme of the Tyndall >>> Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia, UK. >>> I am most interested in your work on polar bears under a changing >>> environment. >>> >>> My research is centred around finding more salient methods of >>> communicating climate change to the lay-public. My PhD is >>> interdisciplinary, and aims to harness the emotive and visual power of >>> 'icons' with a rigorous scientific analysis of possible changes under a >>> different climate future. I am developing an 'iconic approach' as the >>> lay-public finds it difficult to relate to the abstract concept of >>> climate change, but finds it easier to focus on one particular, >>> spatially > >>> located, icon. (I've attached my PhD abstract should you want to know >>> more). >>> >>> I've investigated a variety of social networks, and polar bears have >>> emerged as a really salient icon for a wide variety of audiences. Hence, >>> I now have the task of modelling (whether semi- or fully-quantitatively) >>> the population dynamics of polar bears under a particular climate >>> future, > >>> probably the SRES A1B. Finally, I will take this information back in a >>> communication exercise to a UK audience to assess the potency of the >>> 'iconic approach'. >>> >>> I have come across your PhD work on the University of Alberta website >>> when searching for information about polar bears and potential climate >>> change. I am most interested in your thesis and would greatly appreciate >>> it if you could point me in the direction of any relevant literature you >>> may (or may not yet) have published. I see you started your PhD in 2003, >>> so am assuming you may be writing up now? >>> >>> I look forward to hearing from you soon. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Saffron O'Neill (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 >>> >>> T: +44 (0) 1603 593 911 >>> F: +44 (0) 1603 593 901 >>> E-mail: s.o-neill@uea.ac.uk >>> Web: http://www.tyndall.ac.uk >>> >>> >> >> >> >> 978. 2006-10-12 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:46:38 -0600 from: Tom Wigley subject: [Fwd: Re: title] to: Phil Jones , Keith Briffa , Sarah Raper , Tim Osborn Dear Phil, Keith, Sarah and Tim, I am being considered for an Honorary Professorship at UEA -- see attached for details. This requires me sending in my CV, a biosketch, and information about my UEA collaborations in recent years -- also attached. I'm sending all this to you because I have mentioned your names in this documentation. For interest, I had to give three referees so I chose Brian Hoskins, Paul Crutzen and Ben. I guess this is all confidential. Best wishes, Tom. Message-ID: <452E6A1C.8050905@cgd.ucar.edu> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:15:24 -0600 From: Tom Wigley Organization: NCAR/CGD User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Vincent Chris Prof (ENV) e470" Subject: Re: title References: <060666F1A6465342B2321B4C92333D7A1DD71C@UEAEXCHCLUS01.UEA.AC.UK> In-Reply-To: <060666F1A6465342B2321B4C92333D7A1DD71C@UEAEXCHCLUS01.UEA.AC.UK> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------020803090200050908060003" Dear Chris, Thanks for this. 'Honorary Professor' would be perfect. Enclosed is a brief bio and my CV. Best wishes, Tom. +++++++++++++++++++++= Vincent Chris Prof (ENV) e470 wrote: >Hi Tom >A timely e-mail! We are shortly starting the next round of Promotions. >The ENV Promotions Committee meets 1 November to discuss applications >for Chairs. At this meeting we also take the first stage of Honorary >Appointments to Chairs and Readers, and then feed these into the >University system (title would be Honorary Professor - and you'd style >yourself 'Professor'). >The University process for Honorary Chairs and Readers is as follows > >************************************************************************ >*** > >1. Honorary Chairs and Readerships > >The Promotions Committee is responsible for new appointments/promotions >to Honorary Professorships and Readerships and works as far as possible >to the same criteria as for substantive promotions to these grades. >Initial consideration of the prima facie cases within both grades is >undertaken by a Review Panel. Accordingly, recommendations are now >sought for new appointments or promotions to Honorary Professorships and >Readerships. In recommending each case, Heads of School are asked to >provide: > >* a statement of the case on behalf of the School's Promotions >Committee* ; > >* a copy of an up-to-date Curriculum Vitae* ; > >* contact details of three external assessors, at least one of >whom should be able to discuss the candidate's international research >reputation. > >(* details of the candidate's relationship with, and activities within, >the School should be clearly stated in one of these documents) > >Recommendations should be submitted to the relevant Personnel Manager >not later than 31 January 2007. >************************************************************************ >* > >Could you let me have your c.v., the three external referees who the >University can approach, and some narrative that I can use in support of >your application (for University Promotions Committee), particularly >outlining your continuing association with ENV (e.g. research links to >ENV staff, visits to UEA, lectures & seminars given, help with PhD >supervision etc) > >Best Wishes >Chris > >Professor Chris Vincent >Head of School >School of Environmental Sciences >University of East Anglia >Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK >Phone (+44) (0) 1603 592 836 >Fax (+44) (0) 1603 593 792 >http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/coastal/Staff.htm > >-----Original Message----- >From: Tom Wigley [mailto:wigley@cgd.ucar.edu] >Sent: 11 October 2006 20:41 >To: Chris Vincent >Subject: title > >Dear Chris, > >I have a "Visiting Fellowship" appointment with UEA, from Feb. 1 2005 >through 31 Aug 2007. At the time this appointment was made (April >this year) I suggested that the title should somehow indicate the level >of the appointment -- something like "Visiting Professorial Fellow" in >my case. > >Has anything been done about this? > >Related to this, am I entitled to call myself "Professor Emeritus"? Or >is this another title that needs to be conferred formally? I should note >that I do *not* want such a title, since the adjective 'emeritus' means >more than just 'retired', but 'honorably discharged from service'. I >guess 'honorably' is fine, but there is an implication that the person >is no longer serving the academic community. This is far from correct >in my case -- I think I have more papers in 2006 than in any previous >year. > >I hope you'll pardon my pedantry. > >Best wishes, >Tom. > > > > Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\BioForUEA-2006.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\midprintcv.doc" 4185. 2006-10-12 ______________________________________________________ cc: ricardo@lab.cricyt.edu.ar date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:03:53 -0400 from: hegerl@duke.edu subject: Re: quick question IPCC to: Keith Briffa Good thanks Keith - we have that caution in, still, too, as far as I remember. We got one reviewer worrying about it, but even Mike agreed that he didn't necessarily believe that recon, so I left the caution in (Andronova et al find poor agreement between their SH forced run and the recon, and I figured it was the recon since NH worked just fine). I know exactly what you mean by "lack of enthusiasm". I seem to still not have recovered from IPCC (apart from SPM and TS stuff coming at me still at regular intervals). I think I'll be fine after about a 6 month vacation, except that wont happen in the near future.....(and then there is the omitted reviews that get me emails from editors and prgram directors about when-am-i-planning-to etc and my little research program that came to a grinding halt in last few months and needs to be accelerated again etc etc) Gabi Quoting Keith Briffa : > Gabi > I was away yesterday - a cold and lack of enthusiasm! The answer to > your question is that NO - "we" do not believe the 2003 > reconstruction - or the earlier (Jones et al. ) one either. These > rely heavily on two long tree-based reconstructions by Ricardo > Villalba and Antonio Lara and colleagues, in Argentina and Chile , > both based on a tree called Fitzroya . Now , I doubt that these > authors would sanction either reconstruction , or the processing > methods used to produce the chronologies. I am copying this to > Ricardo in case he would like to disagree or expand. In Chapter 6 we > now say that there are not sufficient data to produce a mean Southern > Hemisphere curve , but rather we are best to consider the present > evidence as "limited regional indicators". > > I quote, (Section 6.6.2) > > "Taken together, the very sparse evidence for Southrern Hemisphere > temperatures prior to the periiod of instrumental records indicates > that unusual warming is occuring in some regions. However, more proxy > data are required to verify the apparent warm trend." > > > cheers > Keith > > At 19:42 06/09/2006, you wrote: >> ps Keith, even Mike agrees they are uncetain, so I just leave that >> caution in >> >> Gabi Hegerl wrote: >> >>> Keith, do you say that SH temperature reconstructions are >>> substantially more uncertain, and what >>> section should I cite? (refrencing Andrononova et al showing that >>> EBM runs with volcanism dont well >>> agree with Mann 2003 SH recon, but do we believe that recon?) >>> >>> Gabi >> >> -- >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas >> School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, >> Box 90227 >> Duke University, Durham NC 27708 >> Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 >> email: hegerl@duke.edu, http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html >> > > -- > 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/ > > 3370. 2006-10-13 ______________________________________________________ cc: Caspar Ammann date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:04:50 -0400 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: [Fwd: Re: GKSS results] to: Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn Keith, I also figured this might be what you say, and I understand where you've coming from. This represents a bit of a dillemma too, as it seems unprofessional at best that Zorita and Von Storch have not made their code public, when we of course have made ours public. There are other sources where we could have gotten the GKSS data--I'm checking w/ Caspar for confirmation. I know that the Cane group has it, and I believe other groups have it nows too. So frankly, it is effectively now 'public domain' whether VS and Zorita like it or not! I propose, hoping that their is no loud objection, that we will include a line in our response indicating that we have confirmed that we get similar results using the GKSS Erik simulation. We'll leave it at that. We don't need to show that result necessarily, unless the editor/reviewers demand to see proof, and we certaintly don't have to reveal where we got the GKSS data. As I mentioned, there are enough groups out there that now have it, that VS and Zorita would not know the source, and we would not reveal it. We feel as if we cannot completely hide the fact that we have confirmed our result w/ GKSS, hence the "compromise" suggested above. Meanwhile, we can pursue a more thorough, official collaborative effort in the future. Thoughts on this? thanks, mike -- Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on mail.meteo.psu.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: mann@meteo.psu.edu Delivered-To: mann@meteo.psu.edu Received: from tr12n05.aset.psu.edu (tr12g05.aset.psu.edu [128.118.146.135]) by mail.meteo.psu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08C5B204B4A for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:51:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailgate5.uea.ac.uk (mailgate5.uea.ac.uk [139.222.130.185]) by tr12n05.aset.psu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.2) with ESMTP id k9DFpkiX2199660 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:51:49 -0400 Received: from [139.222.130.167] (helo=ueams2.uea.ac.uk) by mailgate5.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1GYP3d-0000kt-V7 for mann@psu.edu; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:34:50 +0100 Received: from [139.222.104.74] (helo=angara.uea.ac.uk) by ueams2.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.51) id 1GYP3d-00037Y-JU; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:34:45 +0100 Message-Id: <7.0.0.16.0.20061013163526.03552e98@uea.ac.uk> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:36:51 +0100 To: mann@psu.edu From: Keith Briffa Subject: Re: GKSS results Cc: Tim Osborn In-Reply-To: <452BCB6C.1070306@meteo.psu.edu> References: <452BCB6C.1070306@meteo.psu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====================_48573031==_" X-UEA-Spam-Score: -102.8 X-UEA-Spam-Level: --------------------------------------------------- X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-sophos X-PSU-Spam-Flag: NO X-PSU-Spam-Hits: -2.599 Mike Tim and I have discussed this round and round and our response is attached what do you think best wishes Keith At 17:33 10/10/2006, you wrote: >Dear Tim/Keith, > >I hope all is well with both of you. > >We've been doing a number of sensitivity tests w/ RegEM using both >the CSM simulation, and now more recently the GKSS simulation data >we got from you. There are some methodological developments we'll >describe soon, related to what is the most reliable regularization >method in RegEM, ridge regression and truncated total least squares. >We are now leaning towards the latter because of potential >non-convergence problems in some cases w/ the former. More on that soon. > >More relevant, however, are the results. As you can see from the >attached plot, RegEM works quite well w/ GKSS, using a short >calibration period (1900-1980, corresponding to years 900-980 in the >attached plot) and both white and red pseudoproxy noise (we used >rho=0.5 in the attached, but similar result for other values). > >The most interesting result is that while RegEM reconstructs the >full NH series well throughout, in the case of the CSM simulation, >it does modestly underestimate the warmth of the earliest centuries >in the GKSS Erik simulation (it fits everything else, including the >LIA cooling, very well). We feel that this is likely due to problem >of correctly identifying the 'drift' pattern using CFR methods. > >The long and short of this is that we would like to be able to show >this result in a (very short!) J. Climate response we need to >finalize, to a comment on Mann et al (2005) J. Clim by Zorita and >Von Storch. We would show you this response for comment of course, >and would add you as co-authors. We have cleared with Andrew Weaver >that this would be an acceptable course of action. We are hoping >you are in agreement with this? > >please let us know ASAP, we have to finalize our response within days. > >thanks, > >mike > >-- >Michael E. Mann >Associate Professor >Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) > >Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 >503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 >The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu >University Park, PA 16802-5013 > >http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm > > > > -- 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/ Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\letter to Mike - 131.10.06.doc" 3354. 2006-10-17 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 09:08:35 +0100 from: "Sheppard Sylv Miss \(SCI-LS\) ks918" subject: FW: Politics and Science Issue of the Social Research Journal to: -----Original Message----- From: Social Research Social Research [mailto:SocRes@newschool.edu] Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 8:53 PM To: cru@uea.ac.uk Subject: Politics and Science Issue of the Social Research Journal Dear Climatic Research Unit, I am writing to let you know about the newly published issue of Social Research, which contains the papers delivered at the New School's recent conference on Politics and Science: How their Interplay Results in Public Policy. The issue includes papers by James Hansen on global warming, Joycelyn Elders on health care, Martin Hoffert on energy policy, and many other important papers by leading scientists, and senior policy makers. This remarkable collection of articles explores how the current increasing politicization of science may be leading to policy decisions that run counter to accepted scientific consensus and risks endangering our health and well-being. Scientists and policy-makers from across the political spectrum assess the current tension between politics and science and discuss how to increase the likelihood that the best science becomes the basis for future public policy. The complete table of contents appears below. For additional information, please visit our website: www.socres.org Because we believe that this issue may be of great interest to you and many of your members, we would be extremely grateful if you would let them know about this special issue. Specifically, we would grateful if you could do one or more of the following. - - Mention the issue in your newsletter or listserv. - - Review the journal or selected papers in your publication or on your web site. - - Send the attached an e-mail announcement your organization's email list. - - Post an announcement on your web site with a link to our website. (We would be happy to link to your website from our web site in return.) If you have any questions about the special issue, or if you would like a review copy, please feel free to contact me at this e-mail address or by phone at (212) 229-5776 x1. Sincerely, Cara Schlesinger Managing Editor * * * * * * * Social Research Publishes Summer Issue on "Politics and Science" Includes papers by James Hansen, Neal Lane, M. Joycelyn Elders, Henry Kelly, and many prominent others. Social Research: An International Quarterly of the Social Sciences announces the publication of its Fall 2006 issue, on "Politics and Science: How Their Interplay Results in Public Policy." The papers in this issue were first presented at a conference held at The New School in February 2006. The conference brought together leading scientists and policy makers from across the political spectrum, including James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City; Neal Lane, Science Advisor to President Clinton; former Director of the National Science Foundation; and Henry Kelly, President of the Federation of American Scientists; among many prominent others. The full table of contents is attached below. The special Social Research brings together papers by these leading figures from the political and scientific communities to explore the future of public health, the environment, and energy, and to examine the increasing politicization of science in the United States and the nexus of interests currently determining our government policy. TABLE OF CONTENTS (see www.SOCRES.ORG for complete list of paper titles, or information on how to order) I. Recent History: The Emerging Conflict between Politics and Science Gerald Holton: Introduction Henry Kelly: Science Policy in the United States: A Commentary On the State of the Art Rita R. Colwell: Cholera Outbreaks and Ocean Climate Daniel J. Kevles: What's New about the Politics of Science? II. Health Katayoun Chamany: Introduction Eric Cohen: The Permanent Limits of Modern Science-From Birth to Death M. Joycelyn Elders: The Politics of Health Care William B. Hurlbut: Science, Religion, and the Politics of Stem Cells John S. Santelli: Abstinence-only Education: Politics, Science, and Ethics III. Keynote Address Neal Lane: Politics and Science: a Series of Lessons IV. The Environment Dawn Rittenhouse: Introduction Michael Oppenheimer: Science and Environmental Policy: The Role of Nongovernmental Organizations Steven F. Hayward: Environmental Science and Public Policy Paul R. Ehrlich: Environmental Science Input to Public Policy James E. Hansen: Can We Still Avoid Dangerous Human-made Climate Change? V. Energy: Technology and Sources of Power Henry Kelly: Introduction Martin Hoffert: An Energy Revolution for the Greenhouse Century Paul Gilman: Science, Policy, and Politics: Comparing and Contrasting Issues In Energy and the Environment: Kurt Gottfried: Climate Change and Nuclear Power VI. Roundtable Discussion Ira Flatow, Robert P. George, David Goldston, Rush Holt, Ellis Rubinstein, Philip M. Smith, Ruth Wooden ISBN 1-933481-06-4. Available in Borders and independent bookstores or by order. $14 ind/ $30 inst. Annual subscriptions, print + online: $40 ind/$120 inst. Foreign postage: $8/year or $3 for first back issue plus $2.00 each additional issue. Online only: $36 ind/ $100 inst. Students with valid ID: $28/one year. Agent/bookseller discounts available. Payment by check (in US$, drawn on a U.S. bank, payable to Social Research), Visa or MasterCard. Subscribe online at www.SOCRES.ORG. Libraries and booksellers, please contact our office. *************** You are receiving this e-mail because you have expressed an interest in Social Research journal or our conference series. If you wish to be deleted from our mailing list, or if you are on this list in error, simply reply with the word "Remove" in the subject line and we will do so immediately. *************** 2067. 2006-10-18 ______________________________________________________ cc: john.sefton@tiscali.co.uk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 11:53:53 +0100 (BST) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: FW: Medieval Warm Period to: "Sheppard Sylv Miss \(SCI-LS\) ks918" John, The simple answer to your question is that the average temperatures (global) for the last 20 years are likely warmer than they were during the MWP. Keith Briffa who I've cc'd can send you a paper and a diagram. I'm on travel at the moment. Although we are warmer now than during the MWP, it might hve been warmer during the Roman Warm Period and was also likely warmer about 6000 years ago. So warmest only now in the last 1000 years context. Cheers Phil > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Sefton [mailto:john.sefton@tiscali.co.uk] > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:33 PM > To: cru@uea.ac.uk > Subject: Medieval Warm Period > > > > Can you help please. > > I have found a graph ex NOAA showing temperatures from the year 1000 to > 2000. Accepting the uncertainties about temperature measurement and > variability throghout the Northern hemishere could you answer this > question. > > What were the temperature variations in the Medieval Warm period and do > those noted in the last 20 years exceed them. Essentially can we say > that currently this has been the warmest period since the Last Ice Age. > > Thank you- references would be fine > > John Sefton > > 532. 2006-10-25 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:44:46 +0200 from: Eduardo Zorita subject: our manuscript in COP to: m.n.juckes@rl.ac.uk, hegerl@duke.edu, esper@wsl.ch, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, weber@knmi.nl, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Dear Martin and co-authors, I wanted just to inform you that our comment Zorita et al 2006 to the Mann et al 2005 paper in Journal of Climate has been now accepted. I attach the manuscript below. Essentially our manuscript tries to show that the MBH98 method is quite sensitive to the length of calibration period. Interestingly, this might be also related to a recent develpment regarding the RegEM method. Mann et al 20005 have identify an error in the RegEM code, which has been now withdrawn from the supplementary material page linked to this paper http://fox.rwu.edu/~rutherfo/supplements/Pseudoproxy05/ > UPDATE (AUG 16 2006): > 1. A line of the post-processing code (postprocessing.m) was inadvertently truncated when posted. Delete line16 and insert the following line in its place: > > [nyears,nvars]=size(X); gridsnonorm=X.*(repmat(sd(1:1312),nyears,1); > > 2. We have identified a problem in the version of the code provided here, which leads to a sensitivity of results to the time interval used to center and standardize the data. A corrected version of the code which eliminates this sensitivity will be available at this site in the near future. It is unclear to mea at this point what this means and what consequences it may have for the results shown in Mann et al 2005. best wishes eduardo Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\zorita_etal_comment_M05.pdf" 2303. 2006-10-30 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Keith Briffa" date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:43:20 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: FW: Juckes et al Submission to: "Martin Juckes" Hi Martin, I was just wondering what your initial reaction to McIntyre's message might be, and whether you plan to ignore it, respond to it, or accept it? Cheers Tim At 14:06 29/10/2006, Steve McIntyre wrote: >[Steve McIntyre] The word "code" should have been used instead of >"methods". The version below amends and supercedes the email just sent to you. > >Dear Dr Juckes, > >In your recent submission to Climate of the Past, now available for >comment on the Internet, you make the following untrue and >defamatory statement: > >
The code used by MM2005 [the GRL article] is not, at >the time of writing, available, …. >
> >As you either know or should know, the code used in McIntyre and >McKitrick 2005 is available at the Supplementary Information to the >article at >ftp://ftp.agu.org/apend/gl/2004GL021750, >as is made clear in the article itself. (The code for MM05 (EE) and >MM03 (EE) are at >http://www.climate2003.com/scripts/MM05_EE >and >http://www.climate2003.com/scripts/MM03 >respectively). The Wegman Report specifically noted that they >verified availability of our source code at the time of their report >last summer. Previously, both Huybers and Wahl and Ammann had >examined the source code, neither of whom required any assistance >from me. Huybers annotated the code in his Supplementary Information. > >Given our emphasis on making source code available, your purpose in >making this untrue statement was to disparage us, especially when >you isolated us for criticism while omitting to report the actual >unavailability of data and code from authors in the field, >including your coauthors. > >I request that you withdraw this allegation from your submission to >Climates of the Past on or before November 2, 2006 or I will take >such other steps as I see fit. > >Yours truly, > >Stephen McIntyre Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 4283. 2006-10-31 ______________________________________________________ cc: Nanne Weber , Anders Moberg , Myles Allen , Gabi Hegerl , Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de, Tim Osborn , Keith Briffa , Jan Esper date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:16:33 +0000 from: Martin Juckes subject: Re: FW: Juckes et al Submission to: Anders Moberg Hello All, I'm preparing a response. I've just got the relevant part of the MM2005c (Energy and Environment) software working and the surprising conclusion is that they no only overlooked the standardisation stage but also failed to centre the data. This is relected in Figure 2 of the Energy and Environment paper which shows the first PC to oscillate aroubnd 0.04 -- the mean of this PC is much greater than its variability. Data is usuall centred, of course, because otherwise the mean values dominate the first PC, which is what is happening here. I'll get a comment to this effect up on the CPD site by the end of today. (I was on leave yesterday, hence the delay in responding). There is a mistake in the manuscript at the point McIntyre cites, it should be MM2005c (the EE paper) not MM2005 (the GRL paper) which was referred to there. The software for the EE paper is now available on his site, as he indicates, since March this year, but is still not linked to from anywhere. Nevertheless, I will apologise for the inaccuracy and correct the comments on the basis of what his code actually does, cheers, Martin On Tuesday 31 October 2006 12:01, Anders Moberg wrote: > Dear Martin, > > Have you found out yet how you/we shall react to McIntyres complaint? If > it is correct that their code actually is available (I suppose it is > correct - otherwise he would not have complained), I suggest that you > discuss with the editor of changing the manuscript in an appropriate way > at the appropriate place(s). This seems to be the easiest and most fair > thing to do. > > Cheers, > Anders > > 4380. 2006-10-31 ______________________________________________________ cc: Nanne Weber , Anders Moberg , Myles Allen , Gabi Hegerl , Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de, Tim Osborn , Keith Briffa , Jan Esper date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:01:20 +0100 from: Anders Moberg subject: Re: FW: Juckes et al Submission to: Martin Juckes Dear Martin, Have you found out yet how you/we shall react to McIntyres complaint? If it is correct that their code actually is available (I suppose it is correct - otherwise he would not have complained), I suggest that you discuss with the editor of changing the manuscript in an appropriate way at the appropriate place(s). This seems to be the easiest and most fair thing to do. Cheers, Anders 387. 2006-11-01 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, anders.moberg@natgeo.su.se, hegerl@duke.edu, weber@knmi.nl, myles.allen@physics.ox.ac.uk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, jan.esper@wsl.ch date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:40:45 +0000 from: Martin Juckes subject: Re: CPD submission to: Eduardo Zorita I've attached the document I intend to put on the MITRIE web site. Following Eduardo's comments, I've only put myself as author, but I'm happy to include anyone else who would like to endorse it. It is important to emphasise that figure 2 of MM2005 (Energy and Environment) which shows a line with clearly non-zero mean and claims it is a principal component of centred data cannot be correct: principal components of centred data have zero mean. It is slightly embarassing to have missed this rather obvious point until now, but it is nevertheless true. Studying their code, and getting it to run so that I am not dependent on assuming that routines are platform independent, allows the source of this error to be determined. I've also attached the MM2005 paper, so you can check that their figure is properly reproduced. cheers, Martin On Wednesday 01 November 2006 14:25, Eduardo Zorita wrote: > > dear co-authors, > > > On the question of data and code -sharing, I am not sure whether Climate of the Past is the adequate forum, but I have > in principle nothing against it. I see however the risk that the possible discussion drifts from > the manuscript itself towards those general questions. > > Concerning the more particulat question of the errors in the code my MM05-ee, again I would tend to be very > cautious. I have tried to look a little bit into the R routines that may be used to calculate the > principal components, prcomb and princomb. There are several methods to do it, and apparently even those R-routines do not produce the same results with the same data. I am not an expert in the R languange and I feel completely unsure to as > what those routines do internally, e.g. whether the data are indeed centered or not in any internal steps. > However, I recall that when this issue was raised by MM, Mann itself recognized that the calculation by MM was > correct, i.e. the leading PC was dependent on the centering period, but that when choosing the correct truncation > (i.e. keeping more PCs than just the leading one) the final results were insensitive to this step. > Wegman also went through the code and apparently he found it to be ok. Of course, it is possible that both were wrong. > This, together with the fact that is quite easy to overlook aspects of the code written by others, guards > me against making any definitive assertions on a code written in a language that I do not command, the results of which I do not have the chance to test with my own software. Of course, you are free to do as you think is correct, but please not under my undorsement. > > > > > eduardo > > > > > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\comment_ee_figure2.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\mcintyre_mckitrick2005_ee.pdf" 830. 2006-11-01 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eduardo Zorita , anders.moberg@natgeo.su.se, hegerl@duke.edu, weber@knmi.nl, myles.allen@physics.ox.ac.uk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, jan.esper@wsl.ch date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 16:47:24 +0000 from: Martin Juckes subject: Re: CPD submission to: Tim Osborn Firstly, there really is no way of getting a PC with non-zero mean out of centred data. There is no need for any discussion on trivial mathematical identities. That part is not complicated. The Huybers comment deals with a different McIntyre and McKitrick paper, so it is not directly relevant. I've used the code provided by McIntyre, data from his website (which is just the MBH 1998 data in a slightly different format), and the result is a graph which is indistinguishable from that published in his Energy and Environment paper. The software does not centre the data, if it did centre the data it could not possibly produce the published graph. If you think there is anything complicated here it would be helpful to know what it is, it all looks blindingly obvious to me (which is not to say that there aren't closely related issues which are complicated). cheers, Martin On Wednesday 01 November 2006 16:18, Tim Osborn wrote: > Hi Martin, > > I have only had time for a quick read of your comments plus a quick > think about this possible complex issue. > > I agree with Eduardo that we should be careful about claiming coding > errors (or failure to implement exactly the process that is described > in the text), and would suggest that you contact McIntyre with a > brief question about the centering that he thinks he is doing etc. > before posting to the CPD site. I expect that you won't want to get > into a detailed and lengthy interaction over this, but a short query > to the effect that you are concerned that his code does not appear to > be centering the data might be sufficient to elucidate whether your > concern is correct or not. For example, even if he does not centred > the data in his code, if the input data are already centred then this > does not matter (sorry, I have no time to examine his input data files today!). > > I also draw your attention to the Huybers comment (and the MM > response to it), PDFs of both are attached. Does this have any > relevance to your concerns over the MM code? First, because Huybers > seems happy that MM results are reproducible. Second, because he > points out that MM and MBH differ not only in centering period, but > also in standardisation (i.e. correlation vs. covariance) -- does > that cover part of your concerns already? > > Sorry for the rushed and not completely-thought-through reply, but I > have to leave now. > > Cheers > > Tim > > > > At 15:40 01/11/2006, Martin Juckes wrote: > >I've attached the document I intend to put on the MITRIE web site. Following > >Eduardo's comments, I've only put myself as author, but I'm happy to include > >anyone else who would like to endorse it. > > > >It is important to emphasise that figure 2 of MM2005 (Energy and Environment) > >which shows a line with clearly non-zero mean and claims it is a principal > >component of centred data cannot be correct: principal components of centred > >data have zero mean. It is slightly embarassing to have missed this rather > >obvious point until now, but it is nevertheless true. Studying their code, > >and getting it to run so that I am not dependent on assuming that routines > >are platform independent, allows the source of this error to be determined. > > > >I've also attached the MM2005 paper, so you can check that their figure is > >properly reproduced. > > > >cheers, > >Martin > > > >On Wednesday 01 November 2006 14:25, Eduardo Zorita wrote: > > > > > > dear co-authors, > > > > > > > > > On the question of data and code -sharing, I am not sure whether > > Climate of > >the Past is the adequate forum, but I have > > > in principle nothing against it. I see however the risk that the possible > >discussion drifts from > > > the manuscript itself towards those general questions. > > > > > > Concerning the more particulat question of the errors in the code my > >MM05-ee, again I would tend to be very > > > cautious. I have tried to look a little bit into the R routines > > that may be > >used to calculate the > > > principal components, prcomb and princomb. There are several methods to do > >it, and apparently even those R-routines do not produce the same results with > >the same data. I am not an expert in the R languange and I feel completely > >unsure to as > > > what those routines do internally, e.g. whether the data are > > indeed centered > >or not in any internal steps. > > > However, I recall that when this issue was raised by MM, Mann itself > >recognized that the calculation by MM was > > > correct, i.e. the leading PC was dependent on the centering > > period, but that > >when choosing the correct truncation > > > (i.e. keeping more PCs than just the leading one) the final results were > >insensitive to this step. > > > Wegman also went through the code and apparently he found it to be ok. Of > >course, it is possible that both were wrong. > > > This, together with the fact that is quite easy to overlook aspects of the > >code written by others, guards > > > me against making any definitive assertions on a code written in > > a language > >that I do not command, the results of which I do not have the chance to test > >with my own software. Of course, you are free to do as you think is correct, > >but please not under my undorsement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eduardo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1733. 2006-11-01 ______________________________________________________ cc: anders.moberg@natgeo.su.se, Nanne.Weber@knmi.nl, hegerl@duke.edu, myles.allen@physics.ox.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, jan.esper@wsl.ch date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 19:17:49 +0100 from: Eduardo Zorita subject: cpd to: m.n.juckes@rl.ac.uk Dear co-authors, It is not clear to me if Martin wants to submit this second comment individually or on behalf of all. As I said before, I would only endorse the first paragraph. If this is too complex to include in the comment, I can also submitt a very short disclaimer to cpd. eduardo 3732. 2006-11-01 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, anders.moberg@natgeo.su.se, hegerl@duke.edu, weber@knmi.nl, myles.allen@physics.ox.ac.uk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, jan.esper@wsl.ch date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 15:25:56 +0100 (MET) from: Eduardo Zorita subject: CPD submission to: m.n.juckes@rl.ac.uk dear co-authors, On the question of data and code -sharing, I am not sure whether Climate of the Past is the adequate forum, but I have in principle nothing against it. I see however the risk that the possible discussion drifts from the manuscript itself towards those general questions. Concerning the more particulat question of the errors in the code my MM05-ee, again I would tend to be very cautious. I have tried to look a little bit into the R routines that may be used to calculate the principal components, prcomb and princomb. There are several methods to do it, and apparently even those R-routines do not produce the same results with the same data. I am not an expert in the R languange and I feel completely unsure to as what those routines do internally, e.g. whether the data are indeed centered or not in any internal steps. However, I recall that when this issue was raised by MM, Mann itself recognized that the calculation by MM was correct, i.e. the leading PC was dependent on the centering period, but that when choosing the correct truncation (i.e. keeping more PCs than just the leading one) the final results were insensitive to this step. Wegman also went through the code and apparently he found it to be ok. Of course, it is possible that both were wrong. This, together with the fact that is quite easy to overlook aspects of the code written by others, guards me against making any definitive assertions on a code written in a language that I do not command, the results of which I do not have the chance to test with my own software. Of course, you are free to do as you think is correct, but please not under my undorsement. eduardo 4864. 2006-11-01 ______________________________________________________ cc: anders.moberg@natgeo.su.se,hegerl@duke.edu,weber@knmi.nl, myles.allen@physics.ox.ac.uk,k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,jan.esper@wsl.ch date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 16:18:47 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: CPD submission to: Martin Juckes , Eduardo Zorita Hi Martin, I have only had time for a quick read of your comments plus a quick think about this possible complex issue. I agree with Eduardo that we should be careful about claiming coding errors (or failure to implement exactly the process that is described in the text), and would suggest that you contact McIntyre with a brief question about the centering that he thinks he is doing etc. before posting to the CPD site. I expect that you won't want to get into a detailed and lengthy interaction over this, but a short query to the effect that you are concerned that his code does not appear to be centering the data might be sufficient to elucidate whether your concern is correct or not. For example, even if he does not centred the data in his code, if the input data are already centred then this does not matter (sorry, I have no time to examine his input data files today!). I also draw your attention to the Huybers comment (and the MM response to it), PDFs of both are attached. Does this have any relevance to your concerns over the MM code? First, because Huybers seems happy that MM results are reproducible. Second, because he points out that MM and MBH differ not only in centering period, but also in standardisation (i.e. correlation vs. covariance) -- does that cover part of your concerns already? Sorry for the rushed and not completely-thought-through reply, but I have to leave now. Cheers Tim At 15:40 01/11/2006, Martin Juckes wrote: >I've attached the document I intend to put on the MITRIE web site. Following >Eduardo's comments, I've only put myself as author, but I'm happy to include >anyone else who would like to endorse it. > >It is important to emphasise that figure 2 of MM2005 (Energy and Environment) >which shows a line with clearly non-zero mean and claims it is a principal >component of centred data cannot be correct: principal components of centred >data have zero mean. It is slightly embarassing to have missed this rather >obvious point until now, but it is nevertheless true. Studying their code, >and getting it to run so that I am not dependent on assuming that routines >are platform independent, allows the source of this error to be determined. > >I've also attached the MM2005 paper, so you can check that their figure is >properly reproduced. > >cheers, >Martin > >On Wednesday 01 November 2006 14:25, Eduardo Zorita wrote: > > > > dear co-authors, > > > > > > On the question of data and code -sharing, I am not sure whether > Climate of >the Past is the adequate forum, but I have > > in principle nothing against it. I see however the risk that the possible >discussion drifts from > > the manuscript itself towards those general questions. > > > > Concerning the more particulat question of the errors in the code my >MM05-ee, again I would tend to be very > > cautious. I have tried to look a little bit into the R routines > that may be >used to calculate the > > principal components, prcomb and princomb. There are several methods to do >it, and apparently even those R-routines do not produce the same results with >the same data. I am not an expert in the R languange and I feel completely >unsure to as > > what those routines do internally, e.g. whether the data are > indeed centered >or not in any internal steps. > > However, I recall that when this issue was raised by MM, Mann itself >recognized that the calculation by MM was > > correct, i.e. the leading PC was dependent on the centering > period, but that >when choosing the correct truncation > > (i.e. keeping more PCs than just the leading one) the final results were >insensitive to this step. > > Wegman also went through the code and apparently he found it to be ok. Of >course, it is possible that both were wrong. > > This, together with the fact that is quite easy to overlook aspects of the >code written by others, guards > > me against making any definitive assertions on a code written in > a language >that I do not command, the results of which I do not have the chance to test >with my own software. Of course, you are free to do as you think is correct, >but please not under my undorsement. > > > > > > > > > > eduardo > > > > > > > > > > > > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\huybers comment MM 2005.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\McIntyre response Huybers 2005.pdf" Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 543. 2006-11-02 ______________________________________________________ cc: "derzhang@cma.gov.cn" , date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 08:54:43 +0800 from: subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] IPCC last 2000 years data to: Keith Briffa Dr. Keith Briffa: I have read your mail of October 11. My suggestions are as follows. 1. As regards the "precipitation (moisture) variability" I prefer the second way that is easier to do. But precipitation has intense regionality and 2-3 quasi periodicities are very apparent for east Asia, and the proxy data we have of precipitation (moisture) with 1-year resolution reflect its change in limited areas alone and is not good for greater regions. I can present the change in subregions of east-China monsoon climate from historical documents records, in a non-monsoon zone in west China based on tree rings and in a few sites of the Tibetan Plateau from ice cores. It should be noted that the series of tree rings cover just over 1000 rather than 2000 years. 2. As concerns the quasi periodicities I think I will allow for the possibility of submitting that about the condition in China after I have read the text on North American Doughts. 3. For the question of LIA and MWP ,I will offer some information on the conditions in the mainland. 4. I will try to provide the "evidence for extremes/abrupt change" found in research in my country for your reference. Best wishes Zhang De'er derzhang@cma.gov.cn 2004-10-12 --- Chief Scientist, Professor National Climate Center No.46 Zhongguancun nandajie Beijing 100081 ,P.R.CHINA Tel : +86-10-68408538 Fax: +86-10-62176804 ======= 2004-10-11 17:00:00 ÄúÔÚÀ´ÐÅÖÐдµÀ£º======= >Friends and authors ( especially Ricardo, Olga, Fortunat, David, Ramesh, >Zhang, Dan, Eystein and Valerie) >Now back from travels (until Wednesday when off to Austria for a few days) >I thought it best to suggest a break down for the writing of the data >section for the last 2000 years of the IPCC palaeoclimate chapter. Please >see the outline produced at the meeting. We have 4 IPCC pages . I will >write a short intro linking to the instrumental data with links to Chapters >3-5. I will coach this in a general introduction to this section that >addresses the points listed in the initial notes ( namely how we use the >various high , and few low, resolution data to construct regional and >large-scale temperature variability , and where possible, gain insight into >hydrologic variability. I will say we use models to get insight into >methodology and to explore regional coverage and seasonality issues and we >use control and forced model runs to look at sensitivity and detection >issues , but also use date to test model variability and sensitivity . >I can first go at the NH (SH) Spaghetti diagram discussion and hopefully >you will pick up the regional aspects of the temperature and precipitation >(moisture) variability . >Rather than me say - I would like you to come back with the major areas you >will cover , but these may best be done in terms of climatologically >meaningful regions - ie relating to the ENSO, NAM, PDO , AAO, monsoon areas >- then we could fill in the remaining regions if significant non overlap in >areas is apparent (Eurasia, non-monsoon china etc) . We do not want a list >of every paper ever written , but a selection of (the better) work that you >feel has regional relevance (and some length presumably). THe other >alternative is just to divide up the world to our own regions and then >discuss the climate indices separately. This would likely be easier to do . >Let me know what you think. Either way , we also should have a specific >discussion of forcings at high resolution , and Fortunat, Valerie could >cover solar and volcanic , perhaps Eystein discussing what evidence there >is for THC change . The knotty issue of THC versus NAO and the link to >model theories/models could go here - or perhaps later in the section >6.4.3.2 ? Davis what say you about this? The same is true of ENSO links to >terrestrial precipitation patterns and temperature? >I don't like the idea of dealing wit quasi periodicities separately , but >rather wit the regional discussions eg North American drought. The >question of LIA , MWP will come up in the large scale average discussion >but you can also address it in the regional discussions , but in a critical >and quantitative way. I would like to see the evidence for extremmes/abrupt >change from the regional syntheses and then see if we have enough to define >and discuss the issue separately. Olga could you pick up on the glacial >variations (perhaps with links to models also?) > >So come back to me asap to let me know impressions and regional/variable >focus you all wish to pick up. Ricardo will obviously do North South >linkages as per the PEP1 transect , but what about along PEP2 and 3/ WE may >have to pick this up in the light of the regional data. Can you also let me >know if/who you might be asking to help with writing . Peck , I would still >rather have Mike Mann in , so what is the story here - can I ask him? >Suggestions for summary Figures still welcome - I would like to have a High >lat , mid lat , low lat transect type figure for temperature , possibly >along each PEP transect - with longest instrumental data . A forcing >diagram is also a must - but could combine Holocene and "blow up " last >2000 years. > >Best wishes >Keith > >-- >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/ > >_______________________________________________ >Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list >Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu >http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡Ö Àñ£¡ ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡Õŵ¶þ ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡derzhang@cma.gov.cn ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡2004-10-12 1886. 2006-11-02 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:55:24 +0100 from: Stefan Rahmstorf subject: 4 european stations to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith, now it's a bit quite on the IPCC front, I have a question (dealing with a prominent climate skeptic in Germany). Our chapter has a curve since about 1720 labelled: 4 Euro. Stations 1721–2003 Average of central England, de Bilt, Berlin & Uppsala But no reference is given for this in the table. Is this unpublished? I would love to have this curve (or the data), especially for the individual seasons. The climate skeptic claims there was a cooling trend for spring and summer over this period in Europe. Can you help? Stefan -- Stefan Rahmstorf www.ozean-klima.de www.realclimate.org 2391. 2006-11-02 ______________________________________________________ cc: hegerl@duke.edu, "Myles Allen" , "Eduardo Zorita" , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, anders.moberg@natgeo.su.se, weber@knmi.nl, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, jan.esper@wsl.ch date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 09:38:00 -0000 (GMT) from: "Tim Osborn" subject: Re: CPD submission to: "Martin Juckes" On Thu, November 2, 2006 8:41 am, Martin Juckes wrote: > Please respond to this point: a principal component of centred data has > zero > mean. Martin, yes, this point is mathematically correct. Each PC time series is a weighted mean of the time series at each point in the field, and if each of those has zero mean, then of course each PC will have zero mean. I agree. So I don't expect McIntyre to argue against this basic point. But I complained publicly that MM03 should have been sent to MBH for comment before it was published, in case MBH had simple explanations for some of the complaints made in MM03. Which is why I now suggested that you question McIntyre prior to posting it publicly on CPD. Yes it is a basic point, but it would be good to know what his response might be in advance of posting it publicly, so that you can make sure that the way you have worded the posting already deals with any obfuscation that he might later attempt. You don't need to mention that you will be posting a comment on this; it is sufficient to say that, now you have his code, you have looked into it and it does not seem to centre the data prior to the PCA, and this is contrary to... etc. and can he clarify the matter. Regarding the CPD posts, it might be simplest to post 3 separate pieces: (1) providing the update with regards code availability, which I guess we can all sign; (2) discussing data/code availability; and (3) after getting a response from McIntyre, pointing out the centering problem with his code/results, which some of us might sign depending on McIntyre's response. By splitting them this way, there is no need to wait for (3) before posting (1) and (2). Presumably the manuscript itself will be changed after the review/discussion phase, but for now we just leave it as submitted and post these comments separately? I wonder if McIntyre will complain that the manuscript itself will retain the complaint about code unavailability until the revision phase? Cheers Tim 2438. 2006-11-02 ______________________________________________________ cc: hegerl@duke.edu, "Myles Allen" , "Eduardo Zorita" , anders.moberg@natgeo.su.se, weber@knmi.nl, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, jan.esper@wsl.ch date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 10:26:34 +0000 from: Martin Juckes subject: Re: CPD submission to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Hello Tim, Thanks for that. I have now responded to McIntyre, as he answered my previous email. It is now reasonably clear that he used the centred (but not normalised) principal components for his reconstructions, so the error in his figure 2 is isolated. It is however, relevant, because he uses that figure to disparage the MBH PC calculation. I appreciate your point about MM03, but there are two important differences: (1) MM03 was entirely focussed on MBH98 and (2) our paper is published in a discussion forum. Our paper is not entirely or mainly focussed on McIntyre and McKitrick's work and we have not consulted with the authors of all the papers we comment on. As we are presenting principal components which ae clearly inconsistent with that published in MM2005c, figure 2, and as we KNOW (by which I do not mean suspect, think, or believe) that a graph with non-zero mean (as displayed in figure 2) cannot be a PC of centred data I cannot understand why you and others are reluctant to state the obvious. Regarding Eduardo's recent email: there are several ways of making errors and it is only by looking at the code that I know which particular route they took in this case (namely, using a function which does not do centering). Calling something which is not a PC a PC would be a potential source of error, but what they have actually plotted (see the pdf I attached a few emails back) is the PC of uncentred data. Changing the definition of a principal component at this point is not going to be helpful. I can see, however, the advantage of keeping things brief, as in Nanne's suggested text. I think we do, however, need to replace a comment based on the then unavailable code with a comment about the code that is now available, so I've added a couple of lines to that effect, and also a line giving McIntyre credit for disclosing more code than most (which is a good thing in itself, even if we don't believe that everyone is in a position to do it). So I suggest the following text: ================================================ CORRECTION: On page 19, line 6, the manuscript states: "The code used by MM2005 is not, at the time of writing, available": This comment should have referred to the code used by MM2005c (their Energy and Environment paper) -- the code used by MM2005 (their GRL paper) was made available at time of publication. In view of these considerations the following modification to the text is needed: on page 19, line 6-9: replace "The code .... (standardised)" with: "The code used by MM2005c (available at http://www.climate2003.com/scripts/) shows that they use PCs which have been (except in figure 2) centred but not normalised to unit variance (standardised). Figure 2 of MM2005c is an exception: it shows a graph with non-zero mean which cannot be the principal component of centred data." We apologise to McIntyre and McKitrick for suggesting that the code for MM2005 was unavailable when it was in fact the code for MM2005c which we had not been able to obtain, and note that they have made efforts to provide code for this and other publications which go beyond the norm in this field. The code used by MM2005c is now (mostly since March 2006, updated October 2006 following correspondence about missing components) available at http://www.climate2003.com/scripts/ (McIntyre, personal communication), as stated in our corrected text above. At the present time this page is not linked to from the main site (www.climate2003.com), which contains the statement that ``The computer script used to generate the figures and statistics in the E\&E here will be located here [in a couple of days]'' Our intended comment (that the code used by MM2005c is not available) was based on the above statement and on an email from Stephen McIntyre to us saying that he would forward the code when it became available. He first informed us of its availability after the publication of our manuscript. In view of these considerations the above statement will be removed from the text when revising the manuscript. A detailed discussion of the provided code can be found on the MITRIE project website (http://mitrie.badc.rl.ac.uk), in addition to some comments on the issue of disclosing software. ======================================================= I'd like to have a consensus on this, but I don't want to waste time discussing whether a figure which must have zero mean and clearly does not is in error or not. There is of course an issue about how to phrase what we say about it .... cheers, Martin On Thursday 02 November 2006 09:38, Tim Osborn wrote: > On Thu, November 2, 2006 8:41 am, Martin Juckes wrote: > > Please respond to this point: a principal component of centred data has > > zero > > mean. > > Martin, > > yes, this point is mathematically correct. Each PC time series is a > weighted mean of the time series at each point in the field, and if each > of those has zero mean, then of course each PC will have zero mean. I > agree. So I don't expect McIntyre to argue against this basic point. But > I complained publicly that MM03 should have been sent to MBH for comment > before it was published, in case MBH had simple explanations for some of > the complaints made in MM03. Which is why I now suggested that you > question McIntyre prior to posting it publicly on CPD. Yes it is a basic > point, but it would be good to know what his response might be in advance > of posting it publicly, so that you can make sure that the way you have > worded the posting already deals with any obfuscation that he might later > attempt. You don't need to mention that you will be posting a comment on > this; it is sufficient to say that, now you have his code, you have looked > into it and it does not seem to centre the data prior to the PCA, and this > is contrary to... etc. and can he clarify the matter. > > Regarding the CPD posts, it might be simplest to post 3 separate pieces: > (1) providing the update with regards code availability, which I guess we > can all sign; (2) discussing data/code availability; and (3) after getting > a response from McIntyre, pointing out the centering problem with his > code/results, which some of us might sign depending on McIntyre's > response. By splitting them this way, there is no need to wait for (3) > before posting (1) and (2). > > Presumably the manuscript itself will be changed after the > review/discussion phase, but for now we just leave it as submitted and > post these comments separately? I wonder if McIntyre will complain that > the manuscript itself will retain the complaint about code unavailability > until the revision phase? > > Cheers > > Tim > > > > 2207. 2006-11-03 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 12:36:15 +0100 from: Stefan Rahmstorf subject: Re: The 4 early European temperature series to: Phil Jones , k.briffa@uea.ac.uk Hi Phil, thanks for sending the paper! And Keith, I look forward to getting the monthly series! Btw., our local climate data expert says: forget about the homogeneity of the "Berlin" record, the station was shifted around to different locations several times. I see you concluded that already based on the lack of agreement with the De Bilt. (After 1893, however, I think "Berlin" is actually the Potsdam series next door to my office, which is one of the most homogeneous in the world.) Cheers, Stefan -- Stefan Rahmstorf www.ozean-klima.de www.realclimate.org 5150. 2006-11-03 ______________________________________________________ cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:19:34 +0000 from: Phil Jones subject: The 4 early European temperature series to: Stefan Rahmstorf > Stefan, The 4 series are used in this paper. This isn't referred to as it hasn't come out. Keith is at home, but rang to say you'd emailed about this. I need to find the program that averaged them together to determine which years at the beginning of Berlin and Uppsala I dropped off. For Uppsala it is likely all years before 1740 as they were from an unheated room till then. This loses all the very cold temps in winter. Not sure when the CC paper will come out. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\jonesbriffa20061.pdf" 4853. 2006-11-06 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 12:26:25 +0000 from: Keith Briffa subject: TSU Figure label to: Jonathan Overpeck , Eystein Jansen Peck Tim has just pointed out to me that the caption to the current TS-20 contains the words "locations of temperature sensitive proxy records..". In the revision of the Figure ( showing the 3 maps ) as presented in the Chapter , we refer to sites " used to reconstruct temperature" and dropped the inference of direct, positive association with temperature, because we added in sites that Mike in particular had used because of their inverse sensitivity - ie they were really more precipitation sensitive . It would be better to amend the TSU caption to show the latter wording to account for this also. cheers Keith -- 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/ 3573. 2006-11-09 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 13:54:05 +0100 from: Eystein Jansen subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Millennium Simulations to: Tim Osborn Hi Tim, We are playing with putting together and analyzing marine records for the last 1200 years (also using the Osborn Briffa Science 2006 methodology). In this work it would be good to look at simulations and forcing series. Richard Telford here does this work, and I would like for him to use the same series both for forcing and NH mean T from the simulations as they appear in the IPCC report. Thus, would it be possible for you to send me the series you used for generating the forcings/simulations last millennium figure, or let me know if they can be downloaded from somewhere. Many thanks for your help Cheers Eystein >Dear all, > >I have redone all plots for the two alternative >baseline periods - see attached PDF. Please >look at them on the screen as well as printing >them, because with some printers you can hardly >see the paler greys and the yellow lines whereas >they seem quite bright on my screen. > >Page 1 is 1500-1899. Page 2 is 1961-1990. > >Mine and Keith's opinion: > >1500-1899 looks better for panels (a), (c) and >(d). They look equally as good for panel (c). >For panel (e) we are unsure and below are some >arguments for and against. > >[Obviously I can tidy up the 1961-1990 version a >bit more, in terms of labelling etc., though it >is clearly going to be tricky to find gaps for >the key and titles and the vertical scale of >panel (d) would need to be changed/extended a >bit and then wouldn't match the scale I used for >panel (e). So 1961-1990 is a bit harder to get >everything looking good and consistent.] > >At first we thought that the new 1961-1990 >version of panel (e) looked better for the >reason that there is clearer separation between >the "all forcings" (thick lines) and the >"natural-only forcings" (thin lines) in the >early 20th century. > >On closer inspection, however, we then were >swayed back to the 1500-1899 version of panel >(e), because the reason for the clearer >separation of the "Nat" and "All" runs in >1961-1990 version is that the stronger solar >forcing runs (dark and pale blue and green) are >pushed downwards. But pushing them downwards >means that during the "Little Ice Age" period >these runs (especially the dark and pale blue >ones) are clearly in the bottom part of the >range of the reconstructions relative to >1961-1990 - and the question is why should we >say that the "Nat" runs cannot capture the first >phase of 20th century warming when we have >started them from cooler conditions, purely on >the basis of the amount of warming achieved in >the other runs by the time the reference period >is reached. This seems harder to defend. It >relates back to my earlier comments about (1) >using as long a reference period as possible; >and (2) thinking about climate changing from the >relative stable period, rather than going >backwards from the present period with its >strong transient changes. > >Views please? > >If the decision is made to go with 1961-1990, >then Keith suggests sticking with 1500-1899 for >panels (a)-(d) as before, and make the new EMIC >runs (currently panel (e)) into a stand-alone >figure with 1961-1990 baseline. > >Views required urgently! > >Cheers > >Tim > > >Attachment converted: Nebbiolo:modelsA-E_2versions.pdf (PDF /«IC») (00ADAE95) >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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm -- ______________________________________________________________ Eystein Jansen Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen Allégaten 55 N-5007 Bergen NORWAY e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 Fax: +47-55-584330 1019. 2006-11-13 ______________________________________________________ cc: Claire Waelbroeck date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:01:16 -0500 from: "W.R. Peltier" subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Chapter 6 update and calendar to: clairew@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr, Jonathan Overpeck , wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu Dear Claire, Sorry to have mistaken your silence for acquiescence. Of course I'm more than willing to continue the discussion with you. Once you had realized that we were using different definitions of what is meant by "ice equivalent eustatic sea level thought that you had grasped the point of the analysis that Rick and I have performed. Since you've sent a .pdf discussing your remaining issues I cannot provide further discussion interlineally as before. However I will comment on these in a separate e-mail to which your .pdf will be attached for reference. Best Dick At 01:40 PM 13/11/2006, clairew@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr wrote: >Dear all, >I haven't had the time to answer to Dick Peltier's last message >(received on November 8) but still disagree with some important points >in it. I wish that he would have checked with me that I indeed did not >asked any change any longer to the text written in the IPCC report >before writing so to all of you. > >Sincerely, > > Claire Waelbroeck > > > >At 10:17 -0500 13/11/06, W.R. Peltier wrote: >>Dear All, > > This is just to you know that I have had a further useful >exchange with Claire Waelbroeck on her issues with the text >surrounding my discussion of the sea level figure. Since the Peltier >and Fairbanks paper that is central to this figure is now available >through the QSR website, Claire has been able to go over it in some >detail. She now understands that the definition I employ for the >phrase "ice equivalent eustatic sea level" differs from the >definition she has been assuming. This definition is such that her >bottom water temperature corrected sea level history is in fact >directly comparable to the history that I infer based upon the ice >mass contained in the ICE-5G reconstruction. I'm very glad that we >have managed to sort this out --- no change is required to the text >that I have written. > >Sincerely >Dick > > _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 1202. 2006-11-13 ______________________________________________________ cc: , , , , , , date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 08:56:52 +0000 from: "Nanne Weber" subject: Re: Mitrie to: "Martin Juckes" Martin Juckes wrote: > > I'm going to send an email to Prof. North of the NAS panel to ask if he really > meant "don't use bristlecones", as he is quoted by McIntyre. I talked with Bette Otto-Bliesner a few weeks ago. She was a Panel member and said that they had asked a tree-ring specialist and he had adviced not to use BCpines. Not a very deep argument. The report is available I think, but it is not final yet. Keith, what do you think about this? > > > Does anyone know where I can get hold of the categorisation of the Sheep > Mountain trees used by Graybill and Idso (ca534.rwl from the WDC for > paleoclimatology I think) into "strip-bark" and "full-bark"? I've sent an > email to the WDC query address. > ask Graybill and/or Idso themselves? Nanne -------------------------------------------------------------- Zie ook/see also: http://www.knmi.nl/maildisclaimer.html 1484. 2006-11-13 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Nov 13 09:29:49 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Mitrie to: "Nanne Weber" Between you and I , I believe there may be problems with the analysis of the Bristlecone data. We can talk by phone about this Keith At 08:56 13/11/2006, you wrote: Martin Juckes wrote: I'm going to send an email to Prof. North of the NAS panel to ask if he really meant "don't use bristlecones", as he is quoted by McIntyre. I talked with Bette Otto-Bliesner a few weeks ago. She was a Panel member and said that they had asked a tree-ring specialist and he had adviced not to use BCpines. Not a very deep argument. The report is available I think, but it is not final yet. Keith, what do you think about this? Does anyone know where I can get hold of the categorisation of the Sheep Mountain trees used by Graybill and Idso (ca534.rwl from the WDC for paleoclimatology I think) into "strip-bark" and "full-bark"? I've sent an email to the WDC query address. ask Graybill and/or Idso themselves? Nanne -------------------------------------------------------------- Zie ook/see also: [1]http://www.knmi.nl/maildisclaimer.html -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 3827. 2006-11-13 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Losenno, Cinzia (GA)" , k.briffa@uea.ac.uk date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:02:40 -0000 from: "Tella, Oladunni (GA)" subject: RE: 10th session of IPCC (Jan 27-Feb 1) to: "'p.jones@uea.ac.uk'" Dear Phil Thank you for your email and I do apologise for the late response. This is to confirm that Defra is happy to fund your trip to attend the above meeting in Paris. The contracts shall be set up for both you and Keith Briffa. It will be put in the post for you to sign, date and return to us before your trip. Please ensure that your claim form (TASC 5) which will be enclosed with the contract is completed on your return and send to us with all the necessary receipts of expenditure incurred. I will like to seize this opportunity to inform you that Katherine Bass in no longer in Global Atmosphere Division. Her replacement is Cinzia Losenno. Please Cc any further correspondence to her in the future. Kind regards Ola Ola Tella Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs Zone 3/B5, Ashdown House 123 Victoria Street London SW1E 6DE London Tel: 020 7082 8188 Fax: 020 7082 8143 -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 07 November 2006 09:22 To: Tella, Oladunni (GA) Cc: Bass, Katherine (SFFSD); k.briffa@uea.ac.uk Subject: 10th session of IPCC (Jan 27-Feb 1) > Dear Ola, Katherine I've just received details about the final IPCC meeting in Paris next year. This is the 10th session of IPCC, where only a few of the writing team attend the meeting where the SPM is gone through line by line. Only the CLAs have to go and a few others. From UEA I have to go along with Keith Briffa. The 10th session is scheduled for Jan29 - Feb 1, but Susan Solomon would like us to be there for Jan 27-28 as well. I presume this will be like the other meetings. If we come up with a budget you will send us a ceiling. WG1 have sent us a hotel list and asked us if we can, to stay at the Hilton in Paris. This is 215 Euros a night, so for 6 nights plus the Eurostar, can we both have a ceiling of £1800. Best Regards 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only. If you have received it in error you have no authority to use, disclose, store or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it 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. 3641. 2006-11-15 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Nov 15 14:08:47 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Mitrie to: "Nanne Weber" sure thing Nanne - we can also discuss the subject of selecting proxy predictors (and the ambiguous overlap in Martin's analysis) - look forward to it best wishes Keith At 13:57 15/11/2006, you wrote: can we take some time to talk about this when you are in Amsterdam next week? Best, Nanne Keith Briffa wrote: Between you and I , I believe there may be problems with the analysis of the Bristlecone data. We can talk by phone about this Keith At 08:56 13/11/2006, you wrote: Martin Juckes wrote: I'm going to send an email to Prof. North of the NAS panel to ask if he really meant "don't use bristlecones", as he is quoted by McIntyre. I talked with Bette Otto-Bliesner a few weeks ago. She was a Panel member and said that they had asked a tree-ring specialist and he had adviced not to use BCpines. Not a very deep argument. The report is available I think, but it is not final yet. Keith, what do you think about this? Does anyone know where I can get hold of the categorisation of the Sheep Mountain trees used by Graybill and Idso (ca534.rwl from the WDC for paleoclimatology I think) into "strip-bark" and "full-bark"? I've sent an email to the WDC query address. ask Graybill and/or Idso themselves? Nanne -------------------------------------------------------------- Zie ook/see also: [1]http://www.knmi.nl/maildisclaimer.html -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ Zie ook/see also: [3]http://www.knmi.nl/maildisclaimer.html -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 339. 2006-11-16 ______________________________________________________ cc: anders@misu.su.se, Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de, hegerl@duke.edu, esper@wsl.ch, weber@knmi.nl, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Thu Nov 16 11:57:09 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Mitrie: Bristlecones to: Martin Juckes , "Myles Allen" Martin and all, I know Franco very well - but he has not worked extensively with the Bristlecones. I still believe that it would be wise to involve Malcolm Hughes in this discussion - though I recognise the point of view that says we might like to appear (and be) independent of the original Mann, Bradley and Hughes team to avoid the appearance of collusion. In my opinion (as someone how has worked with the Bristlecone data hardly at all!) there are undoubtedly problems in their use that go beyond the strip bark problem (that I will come back to later). The main one is an ambiguity in the nature and consistency of their sensitivity to temperature variations. It was widely believed some 2-3 decades ago, that high-elevation trees were PREDOMINANTLY responding to temperature and low elevation ones to available water supply (not always related in a simple way to measured precipitation) . However, response functions ( ie sets of regression coefficients on monthly mean temperature and precipitation data derived using principal components regression applied to the tree-ring data) have always shown quite weak and temporally unstable associations between chronology and climate variations (for the high-elevations trees at least). The trouble is that these results are dominated by inter-annual (ie high-frequency) variations and apparent instability in the relationships is exacerbated by the shortness of the instrumental records that restrict analyses to short periods, and the large separation of the climate station records from the sites of the trees. Limited comparisons between tree-ring density data (which seem to display less ambiguos responses) imply that there is a reasonable decadal time scale association and so indicate a real temperature signal , on this time scale .The bottom line though is that these trees likely represent a mixed temperature and moisture-supply response that might vary on longer timescales. The discussion is further complicated by the fact that the first PC of "Western US" trees used in the Mann et al. analyses is derived from a mixture of species (not just Bristlecones ) and they are quite varied in their characteristics , time span, and effective variance spectra . Many show low interannual variance and a long-term declining trend , up until about 1850 , when the Bristlecones (and others) show the remarkable increasing trend up until the end of the record. The earlier negative trend could be (partly or more significantly) a consequence of the LACK of detrending to allow for age effects in the measurements (ie standardisation) - the very early sections of relative high growth were removed in their analysis, but no explicit standardistion of the data was made to account for remaining slow width changes resulting from tree aging. This is also related to the "strip bark" problem , as these types of trees will have unpredictable trends as a consequence of aging and depending on the precise nature of each tree's structure . Another serious issue to be considered relates to the fact that the PC1 time series in the Mann et al. analysis was adjusted to reduce the positive slope in the last 150 years (on the assumption - following an earlier paper by Lamarche et al. - that this incressing growth was evidence of carbon dioxide fertilization) , by differencing the data from another record produced by other workers in northern Alaska and Canada (which incidentally was standardised in a totally different way). This last adjustment obviously will have a large influence on the quantification of the link between these Western US trees and N.Hemisphere temperatures. At this point , it is fair to say that this adjustment was arbitrary and the link between Bristlecone pine growth and CO2 is , at the very least, arguable. Note that at least one author (Lisa Gaumlich) has stated that the recent growth of these trees could be temperature driven and not evidence of CO2 fertilisation. The point of this message is to show that that this issue is complex , and I still believe the "Western US" series and its interpretation in terms of Hemispheric mean temperature is perhaps a "Pandora's box" that we might open at our peril! What does Jan say about this - he is very acquainted with these issues? cheers Keith At 15:01 15/11/2006, Martin Juckes wrote: Hi, Concerning Bristlecones, I had a sympathetic reply from Prof. North, but he deferred to the person who wrote the relevant paragraph in the NAS report (Franco Biondi) who is firmly of the view that strip-bark bristlecones should not be used. I've read a few of the articles cited to back up this statement and I am surprised by the extreme weakness of the evidence. There is one study of 27 strip-bark pines which shows that they clearly developed anomalous growth around 1850. Attributing this to CO2 is odd, to say the least. I'm writing a brief review of the literature which I'll send round in a few days time. cheers, Martin On Sunday 12 November 2006 22:21, Myles Allen wrote: > Although it probably doesn't feel like it, it seems to me you're doing > rather well... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Juckes [[1]mailto:m.n.juckes@rl.ac.uk] > Sent: 10 November 2006 15:24 > To: anders@misu.su.se; Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de; hegerl@duke.edu; > esper@wsl.ch; k.briffa@uea.ac.uk; Myles Allen; weber@knmi.nl; > t.osborn@uea.ac.uk > Subject: Mitrie > > Hello, > > well, I've had a few exchanges on climateaudit, and decided to leave > them to > it for a few days. > > I'm going to send an email to Prof. North of the NAS panel to ask if he > really > meant "don't use bristlecones", as he is quoted by McIntyre. I believe > it > would be incorrect to select sites on the basis of what the data from > the > sites looks like, and this makes up a substantial part of the argument > in > Graybill and Idso (1993). > > Does anyone know where I can get hold of the categorisation of the Sheep > > Mountain trees used by Graybill and Idso (ca534.rwl from the WDC for > paleoclimatology I think) into "strip-bark" and "full-bark"? I've sent > an > email to the WDC query address. > > I've also sent of for a publication which is cited by co2science as > using > Sargasso Sea data with the dating shifted by 50 years (Loehle, 2004, > Ecological Modelling). This appears to be a source of considerable > confusion > among the climate sceptics. The shifted series fits nicely with the idea > that > the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century, so there is a > > widespread perception that it is being ignored to fudge the results. > > Apart from a couple of oversights in the documentation of the data files > > McIntyre hasn't come up with much yet. I need to read up a bit more on > the > different Tornetraesk/Fennoscandia series. There was an interesting > discussion on "cherrypicking", with contributors suggesting that testing > the > effect of removing each proxy series in turn was "cherrypicking" and > that > selecting series based on subjective analysis of what the series look > like > would be much better! > > I've had a comment from the editor saying that responses to non-refereee > > comments are optional, especially if the comments are not relevant to > the > paper. > > cheers, > Martin > > > -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 1906. 2006-11-16 ______________________________________________________ cc: , , , , date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:51:38 -0000 from: "Rob Wilson" subject: Re: Mitrie: Bristlecones to: "Keith Briffa" , "Martin Juckes" , "Myles Allen" , "Jan Esper" Dear All, For the D'Arrigo et al. 2006 paper, I did indeed consider using the Bristlecone pine data. However, due to the issues raised by Macintyre and others, we felt that it would be unwise to use these data, especially as our data-set was biased more to higher latitudes. However, I did look at the data. I do not like ignoring potential data-sets. Of the BP data that I managed to get my hands on, I identified a significant, but relatively weak, correlation with local gridded mean summer temperatures for three sites. These three sites are: Hermit Hill (N = 38; 1048-1983) and Windy Ridge (N = 29; 1050-1985) from Colorado and Sheep Mountain (N = 71; 0 1990) from California. The attached figure compares the RCS chronology using these data (very similar to the STD version in actual fact) with the North American RCS composite series used in D'Arrigo et al. (2006). Both series have been normalised to the 1200-1750 period to highlight any potential differences in the 20th century. There is generally fairly good coherence between the two series between 1100 and the 1900. I personally do not think we have enough sites prior to 1400, so the lack of coherence prior to 1100 might just reflect regional differences and not enough series to derive a meaningful mean function. Although correlation with gridded temperatures are relatively low (~0.40), the coherence with the NA composite would seem to suggest that temperature is the dominant signal over the last 900 years or so. In the 20th century, the BP index values are clearly UNDER the NA mean. I would interpret this as suggesting that there does not appear to be any CO2 influence in the BP data. This of course assumes that there is no fertilisation effect in the rest of the NA data. There is also the Salzer BP based temperature reconstruction: [1]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/salzer2005/salzer2005.html again this does not correlate particular well with gridded temperatures - in fact it is driven more by trends, but there are some similarities with my BP chronology and NA series. I hope this helps the discussion best regards Rob ----- Original Message ----- From: [2]Jan Esper To: [3]Keith Briffa ; [4]Martin Juckes ; [5]Myles Allen Cc: [6]anders@misu.su.se ; [7]Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de ; [8]hegerl@duke.edu ; [9]weber@knmi.nl ; [10]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk ; [11]Wilson Rob Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 1:36 PM Subject: Re: Mitrie: Bristlecones ...no, no, not a lot to add from my side. This is much more than I could have said. Except, I once looked at strip bark growth trees in Central Asia, and at least there the cause for this growth form was clear to me (Esper 2000, The Holocene): "Strip-bark growth forms (Ferguson, 1968; Fritts, 1969; Graybill and Idso, 1993; Kelly et al., 1992; Wright and Mooney, 1965) also appear in older Juniper trees. This condition develops as the cambium is damaged locally and will no longer be overgrown. Mechanical damage by rockfall seems to be the principle stimulus for cambial dieback and unilateral growth. In extreme cases only a narrow strip on the stem is still active, creating these eccentric growth forms." I didn't visit the Bristlecone sites yet, but the mechanism might be the same (some physical damage). I believe that over time the crown and root system are reduced, but not at the same rate than the reduction in circumference covered by the cambium. This would be the key for strip bark tree rings being wider than "normal" rings. I am not very convinced that there are long-term fertilization effects by CO2 (but have of course no proof for this). As far as I know, (most) results from free air CO2 enrichment experiments suggest that there is no long-term effect. I Cc Rob Wilson to the mail, as he might have looked at Bristlecone data recently. Pehaps he wants to add something. Best --je At 11:57 Uhr +0000 16.11.2006, Keith Briffa wrote: Martin and all, I know Franco very well - but he has not worked extensively with the Bristlecones. I still believe that it would be wise to involve Malcolm Hughes in this discussion - though I recognise the point of view that says we might like to appear (and be) independent of the original Mann, Bradley and Hughes team to avoid the appearance of collusion. In my opinion (as someone how has worked with the Bristlecone data hardly at all!) there are undoubtedly problems in their use that go beyond the strip bark problem (that I will come back to later). The main one is an ambiguity in the nature and consistency of their sensitivity to temperature variations. It was widely believed some 2-3 decades ago, that high-elevation trees were PREDOMINANTLY responding to temperature and low elevation ones to available water supply (not always related in a simple way to measured precipitation) . However, response functions ( ie sets of regression coefficients on monthly mean temperature and precipitation data derived using principal components regression applied to the tree-ring data) have always shown quite weak and temporally unstable associations between chronology and climate variations (for the high-elevations trees at least). The trouble is that these results are dominated by inter-annual (ie high-frequency) variations and apparent instability in the relationships is exacerbated by the shortness of the instrumental records that restrict analyses to short periods, and the large separation of the climate station records from the sites of the trees. Limited comparisons between tree-ring density data (which seem to display less ambiguos responses) imply that there is a reasonable decadal time scale association and so indicate a real temperature signal , on this time scale .The bottom line though is that these trees likely represent a mixed temperature and moisture-supply response that might vary on longer timescales. The discussion is further complicated by the fact that the first PC of "Western US" trees used in the Mann et al. analyses is derived from a mixture of species (not just Bristlecones ) and they are quite varied in their characteristics , time span, and effective variance spectra . Many show low interannual variance and a long-term declining trend , up until about 1850 , when the Bristlecones (and others) show the remarkable increasing trend up until the end of the record. The earlier negative trend could be (partly or more significantly) a consequence of the LACK of detrending to allow for age effects in the measurements (ie standardisation) - the very early sections of relative high growth were removed in their analysis, but no explicit standardistion of the data was made to account for remaining slow width changes resulting from tree aging. This is also related to the "strip bark" problem , as these types of trees will have unpredictable trends as a consequence of aging and depending on the precise nature of each tree's structure . Another serious issue to be considered relates to the fact that the PC1 time series in the Mann et al. analysis was adjusted to reduce the positive slope in the last 150 years (on the assumption - following an earlier paper by Lamarche et al. - that this incressing growth was evidence of carbon dioxide fertilization) , by differencing the data from another record produced by other workers in northern Alaska and Canada (which incidentally was standardised in a totally different way). This last adjustment obviously will have a large influence on the quantification of the link between these Western US trees and N.Hemisphere temperatures. At this point , it is fair to say that this adjustment was arbitrary and the link between Bristlecone pine growth and CO2 is , at the very least, arguable. Note that at least one author (Lisa Gaumlich) has stated that the recent growth of these trees could be temperature driven and not evidence of CO2 fertilisation. The point of this message is to show that that this issue is complex , and I still believe the "Western US" series and its interpretation in terms of Hemispheric mean temperature is perhaps a "Pandora's box" that we might open at our peril! What does Jan say about this - he is very acquainted with these issues? cheers Keith At 15:01 15/11/2006, Martin Juckes wrote: Hi, Concerning Bristlecones, I had a sympathetic reply from Prof. North, but he deferred to the person who wrote the relevant paragraph in the NAS report (Franco Biondi) who is firmly of the view that strip-bark bristlecones should not be used. I've read a few of the articles cited to back up this statement and I am surprised by the extreme weakness of the evidence. There is one study of 27 strip-bark pines which shows that they clearly developed anomalous growth around 1850. Attributing this to CO2 is odd, to say the least. I'm writing a brief review of the literature which I'll send round in a few days time. cheers, Martin On Sunday 12 November 2006 22:21, Myles Allen wrote: > Although it probably doesn't feel like it, it seems to me you're doing > rather well... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Juckes [mailto:m.n.juckes@rl.ac.uk] > Sent: 10 November 2006 15:24 > To: anders@misu.su.se; Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de; hegerl@duke.edu; > esper@wsl.ch; k.briffa@uea.ac.uk; Myles Allen; weber@knmi.nl; > t.osborn@uea.ac.uk > Subject: Mitrie > > Hello, > > well, I've had a few exchanges on climateaudit, and decided to leave > them to > it for a few days. > > I'm going to send an email to Prof. North of the NAS panel to ask if he > really > meant "don't use bristlecones", as he is quoted by McIntyre. I believe > it > would be incorrect to select sites on the basis of what the data from > the > sites looks like, and this makes up a substantial part of the argument > in > Graybill and Idso (1993). > > Does anyone know where I can get hold of the categorisation of the Sheep > > Mountain trees used by Graybill and Idso (ca534.rwl from the WDC for > paleoclimatology I think) into "strip-bark" and "full-bark"? I've sent > an > email to the WDC query address. > > I've also sent of for a publication which is cited by co2science as > using > Sargasso Sea data with the dating shifted by 50 years (Loehle, 2004, > Ecological Modelling). This appears to be a source of considerable > confusion > among the climate sceptics. The shifted series fits nicely with the idea > that > the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century, so there is a > > widespread perception that it is being ignored to fudge the results. > > Apart from a couple of oversights in the documentation of the data files > > McIntyre hasn't come up with much yet. I need to read up a bit more on > the > different Tornetraesk/Fennoscandia series. There was an interesting > discussion on "cherrypicking", with contributors suggesting that testing > the > effect of removing each proxy series in turn was "cherrypicking" and > that > selecting series based on subjective analysis of what the series look > like > would be much better! > > I've had a comment from the editor saying that responses to non-refereee > > comments are optional, especially if the comments are not relevant to > the > paper. > > cheers, > Martin > > > -- 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/ -- PD Dr. Jan Esper Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL Zuercherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland Voice: +41-44-739 2510 Fax: +41-44-739 2515 http://www.wsl.ch/staff/jan.esper Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\North American TR composite vs.pdf" 2585. 2006-11-16 ______________________________________________________ cc: anders@misu.su.se, Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de, hegerl@duke.edu, weber@knmi.nl, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, Wilson Rob date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:36:14 +0100 from: Jan Esper subject: Re: Mitrie: Bristlecones to: Keith Briffa , Martin Juckes , "Myles Allen" ...no, no, not a lot to add from my side. This is much more than I could have said. Except, I once looked at strip bark growth trees in Central Asia, and at least there the cause for this growth form was clear to me (Esper 2000, The Holocene): "Strip-bark growth forms (Ferguson, 1968; Fritts, 1969; Graybill and Idso, 1993; Kelly et al., 1992; Wright and Mooney, 1965) also appear in older Juniper trees. This condition develops as the cambium is damaged locally and will no longer be overgrown. Mechanical damage by rockfall seems to be the principle stimulus for cambial dieback and unilateral growth. In extreme cases only a narrow strip on the stem is still active, creating these eccentric growth forms." I didn't visit the Bristlecone sites yet, but the mechanism might be the same (some physical damage). I believe that over time the crown and root system are reduced, but not at the same rate than the reduction in circumference covered by the cambium. This would be the key for strip bark tree rings being wider than "normal" rings. I am not very convinced that there are long-term fertilization effects by CO2 (but have of course no proof for this). As far as I know, (most) results from free air CO2 enrichment experiments suggest that there is no long-term effect. I Cc Rob Wilson to the mail, as he might have looked at Bristlecone data recently. Pehaps he wants to add something. Best --je At 11:57 Uhr +0000 16.11.2006, Keith Briffa wrote: Martin and all, I know Franco very well - but he has not worked extensively with the Bristlecones. I still believe that it would be wise to involve Malcolm Hughes in this discussion - though I recognise the point of view that says we might like to appear (and be) independent of the original Mann, Bradley and Hughes team to avoid the appearance of collusion. In my opinion (as someone how has worked with the Bristlecone data hardly at all!) there are undoubtedly problems in their use that go beyond the strip bark problem (that I will come back to later). The main one is an ambiguity in the nature and consistency of their sensitivity to temperature variations. It was widely believed some 2-3 decades ago, that high-elevation trees were PREDOMINANTLY responding to temperature and low elevation ones to available water supply (not always related in a simple way to measured precipitation) . However, response functions ( ie sets of regression coefficients on monthly mean temperature and precipitation data derived using principal components regression applied to the tree-ring data) have always shown quite weak and temporally unstable associations between chronology and climate variations (for the high-elevations trees at least). The trouble is that these results are dominated by inter-annual (ie high-frequency) variations and apparent instability in the relationships is exacerbated by the shortness of the instrumental records that restrict analyses to short periods, and the large separation of the climate station records from the sites of the trees. Limited comparisons between tree-ring density data (which seem to display less ambiguos responses) imply that there is a reasonable decadal time scale association and so indicate a real temperature signal , on this time scale .The bottom line though is that these trees likely represent a mixed temperature and moisture-supply response that might vary on longer timescales. The discussion is further complicated by the fact that the first PC of "Western US" trees used in the Mann et al. analyses is derived from a mixture of species (not just Bristlecones ) and they are quite varied in their characteristics , time span, and effective variance spectra . Many show low interannual variance and a long-term declining trend , up until about 1850 , when the Bristlecones (and others) show the remarkable increasing trend up until the end of the record. The earlier negative trend could be (partly or more significantly) a consequence of the LACK of detrending to allow for age effects in the measurements (ie standardisation) - the very early sections of relative high growth were removed in their analysis, but no explicit standardistion of the data was made to account for remaining slow width changes resulting from tree aging. This is also related to the "strip bark" problem , as these types of trees will have unpredictable trends as a consequence of aging and depending on the precise nature of each tree's structure . Another serious issue to be considered relates to the fact that the PC1 time series in the Mann et al. analysis was adjusted to reduce the positive slope in the last 150 years (on the assumption - following an earlier paper by Lamarche et al. - that this incressing growth was evidence of carbon dioxide fertilization) , by differencing the data from another record produced by other workers in northern Alaska and Canada (which incidentally was standardised in a totally different way). This last adjustment obviously will have a large influence on the quantification of the link between these Western US trees and N.Hemisphere temperatures. At this point , it is fair to say that this adjustment was arbitrary and the link between Bristlecone pine growth and CO2 is , at the very least, arguable. Note that at least one author (Lisa Gaumlich) has stated that the recent growth of these trees could be temperature driven and not evidence of CO2 fertilisation. The point of this message is to show that that this issue is complex , and I still believe the "Western US" series and its interpretation in terms of Hemispheric mean temperature is perhaps a "Pandora's box" that we might open at our peril! What does Jan say about this - he is very acquainted with these issues? cheers Keith At 15:01 15/11/2006, Martin Juckes wrote: Hi, Concerning Bristlecones, I had a sympathetic reply from Prof. North, but he deferred to the person who wrote the relevant paragraph in the NAS report (Franco Biondi) who is firmly of the view that strip-bark bristlecones should not be used. I've read a few of the articles cited to back up this statement and I am surprised by the extreme weakness of the evidence. There is one study of 27 strip-bark pines which shows that they clearly developed anomalous growth around 1850. Attributing this to CO2 is odd, to say the least. I'm writing a brief review of the literature which I'll send round in a few days time. cheers, Martin On Sunday 12 November 2006 22:21, Myles Allen wrote: > Although it probably doesn't feel like it, it seems to me you're doing > rather well... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Juckes [mailto:m.n.juckes@rl.ac.uk] > Sent: 10 November 2006 15:24 > To: anders@misu.su.se; Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de; hegerl@duke.edu; > esper@wsl.ch; k.briffa@uea.ac.uk; Myles Allen; weber@knmi.nl; > t.osborn@uea.ac.uk > Subject: Mitrie > > Hello, > > well, I've had a few exchanges on climateaudit, and decided to leave > them to > it for a few days. > > I'm going to send an email to Prof. North of the NAS panel to ask if he > really > meant "don't use bristlecones", as he is quoted by McIntyre. I believe > it > would be incorrect to select sites on the basis of what the data from > the > sites looks like, and this makes up a substantial part of the argument > in > Graybill and Idso (1993). > > Does anyone know where I can get hold of the categorisation of the Sheep > > Mountain trees used by Graybill and Idso (ca534.rwl from the WDC for > paleoclimatology I think) into "strip-bark" and "full-bark"? I've sent > an > email to the WDC query address. > > I've also sent of for a publication which is cited by co2science as > using > Sargasso Sea data with the dating shifted by 50 years (Loehle, 2004, > Ecological Modelling). This appears to be a source of considerable > confusion > among the climate sceptics. The shifted series fits nicely with the idea > that > the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century, so there is a > > widespread perception that it is being ignored to fudge the results. > > Apart from a couple of oversights in the documentation of the data files > > McIntyre hasn't come up with much yet. I need to read up a bit more on > the > different Tornetraesk/Fennoscandia series. There was an interesting > discussion on "cherrypicking", with contributors suggesting that testing > the > effect of removing each proxy series in turn was "cherrypicking" and > that > selecting series based on subjective analysis of what the series look > like > would be much better! > > I've had a comment from the editor saying that responses to non-refereee > > comments are optional, especially if the comments are not relevant to > the > paper. > > cheers, > Martin > > > -- 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/ -- PD Dr. Jan Esper Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL Zuercherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland Voice: +41-44-739 2510 Fax: +41-44-739 2515 http://www.wsl.ch/staff/jan.esper 4556. 2006-11-16 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Keith Briffa" , "Myles Allen" , "Jan Esper" , anders@misu.su.se, Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de, hegerl@duke.edu, weber@knmi.nl, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:41:57 +0000 from: Martin Juckes subject: Re: Mitrie: Bristlecones to: "Rob Wilson" Thanks for all those comments. I'm trying to avoid omitting data on the basis of cicrumstantial evidence, even when it is presented enthusiastically. The Bunn et al. study is interesting (attached) because they show estimated dates of the onset of strip-bark growth. It looks to me as though the growth anomaly of the strip-bark trees relative to the others is more to do with this change than anything else. The onset of a positive growth anomaly in the 1850s is certainly too early to be associated with CO2 increases. cheers, Martin On Thursday 16 November 2006 14:51, Rob Wilson wrote: > Re: Mitrie: BristleconesDear All, > For the D'Arrigo et al. 2006 paper, I did indeed consider using the Bristlecone pine data. > However, due to the issues raised by Macintyre and others, we felt that it would be unwise to use these data, especially as our data-set was biased more to higher latitudes. > > However, I did look at the data. I do not like ignoring potential data-sets. > > Of the BP data that I managed to get my hands on, I identified a significant, but relatively weak, correlation with local gridded mean summer temperatures for three sites. These three sites are: Hermit Hill (N = 38; 1048-1983) and Windy Ridge (N = 29; 1050-1985) from Colorado and Sheep Mountain (N = 71; 0 - 1990) from California. > > The attached figure compares the RCS chronology using these data (very similar to the STD version in actual fact) with the North American RCS composite series used in D'Arrigo et al. (2006). Both series have been normalised to the 1200-1750 period to highlight any potential differences in the 20th century. > > There is generally fairly good coherence between the two series between 1100 and the 1900. I personally do not think we have enough sites prior to 1400, so the lack of coherence prior to 1100 might just reflect regional differences and not enough series to derive a meaningful mean function. Although correlation with gridded temperatures are relatively low (~0.40), the coherence with the NA composite would seem to suggest that temperature is the dominant signal over the last 900 years or so. > > In the 20th century, the BP index values are clearly UNDER the NA mean. I would interpret this as suggesting that there does not appear to be any CO2 influence in the BP data. This of course assumes that there is no fertilisation effect in the rest of the NA data. > > There is also the Salzer BP based temperature reconstruction: > http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/salzer2005/salzer2005.html > > again this does not correlate particular well with gridded temperatures - in fact it is driven more by trends, but there are some similarities with my BP chronology and NA series. > > I hope this helps the discussion > best regards > Rob > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jan Esper > To: Keith Briffa ; Martin Juckes ; Myles Allen > Cc: anders@misu.su.se ; Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de ; hegerl@duke.edu ; weber@knmi.nl ; t.osborn@uea.ac.uk ; Wilson Rob > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 1:36 PM > Subject: Re: Mitrie: Bristlecones > > > ...no, no, not a lot to add from my side. This is much more than I could have said. Except, I once looked at strip bark growth trees in Central Asia, and at least there the cause for this growth form was clear to me (Esper 2000, The Holocene): > > > "Strip-bark growth forms (Ferguson, 1968; Fritts, 1969; Graybill and Idso, 1993; Kelly et al., 1992; Wright and Mooney, 1965) also appear in older Juniper trees. This condition develops as the cambium is damaged locally and will no longer be overgrown. Mechanical damage by rockfall seems to be the principle stimulus for cambial dieback and unilateral growth. In extreme cases only a narrow strip on the stem is still active, creating these eccentric growth forms." > > > I didn't visit the Bristlecone sites yet, but the mechanism might be the same (some physical damage). > > > I believe that over time the crown and root system are reduced, but not at the same rate than the reduction in circumference covered by the cambium. This would be the key for strip bark tree rings being wider than "normal" rings. > > > I am not very convinced that there are long-term fertilization effects by CO2 (but have of course no proof for this). As far as I know, (most) results from free air CO2 enrichment experiments suggest that there is no long-term effect. > > > I Cc Rob Wilson to the mail, as he might have looked at Bristlecone data recently. Pehaps he wants to add something. > > > Best --je > > > At 11:57 Uhr +0000 16.11.2006, Keith Briffa wrote: > Martin and all, > I know Franco very well - but he has not worked extensively with the Bristlecones. I still believe that it would be wise to involve Malcolm Hughes in this discussion - though I recognise the point of view that says we might like to appear (and be) independent of the original Mann, Bradley and Hughes team to avoid the appearance of collusion. In my opinion (as someone how has worked with the Bristlecone data hardly at all!) there are undoubtedly problems in their use that go beyond the strip bark problem (that I will come back to later). > The main one is an ambiguity in the nature and consistency of their sensitivity to temperature variations. It was widely believed some 2-3 decades ago, that high-elevation trees were PREDOMINANTLY responding to temperature and low elevation ones to available water supply (not always related in a simple way to measured precipitation) . However, response functions ( ie sets of regression coefficients on monthly mean temperature and precipitation data derived using principal components regression applied to the tree-ring data) have always shown quite weak and temporally unstable associations between chronology and climate variations (for the high-elevations trees at least). The trouble is that these results are dominated by inter-annual (ie high-frequency) variations and apparent instability in the relationships is exacerbated by the shortness of the instrumental records that restrict analyses to short periods, and the large separation of the climate station records from the sites of the trees. Limited comparisons between tree-ring density data (which seem to display less ambiguos responses) imply that there is a reasonable decadal time scale association and so indicate a real temperature signal , on this time scale .The bottom line though is that these trees likely represent a mixed temperature and moisture-supply response that might vary on longer timescales. > The discussion is further complicated by the fact that the first PC of "Western US" trees used in the Mann et al. analyses is derived from a mixture of species (not just Bristlecones ) and they are quite varied in their characteristics , time span, and effective variance spectra . Many show low interannual variance and a long-term declining trend , up until about 1850 , when the Bristlecones (and others) show the remarkable increasing trend up until the end of the record. The earlier negative trend could be (partly or more significantly) a consequence of the LACK of detrending to allow for age effects in the measurements (ie standardisation) - the very early sections of relative high growth were removed in their analysis, but no explicit standardistion of the data was made to account for remaining slow width changes resulting from tree aging. This is also related to the "strip bark" problem , as these types of trees will have unpredictable trends as a consequence of aging and depending on the precise nature of each tree's structure . > Another serious issue to be considered relates to the fact that the PC1 time series in the Mann et al. analysis was adjusted to reduce the positive slope in the last 150 years (on the assumption - following an earlier paper by Lamarche et al. - that this incressing growth was evidence of carbon dioxide fertilization) , by differencing the data from another record produced by other workers in northern Alaska and Canada (which incidentally was standardised in a totally different way). This last adjustment obviously will have a large influence on the quantification of the link between these Western US trees and N.Hemisphere temperatures. At this point , it is fair to say that this adjustment was arbitrary and the link between Bristlecone pine growth and CO2 is , at the very least, arguable. Note that at least one author (Lisa Gaumlich) has stated that the recent growth of these trees could be temperature driven and not evidence of CO2 fertilisation. > > The point of this message is to show that that this issue is complex , and I still believe the "Western US" series and its interpretation in terms of Hemispheric mean temperature is perhaps a "Pandora's box" that we might open at our peril! > What does Jan say about this - he is very acquainted with these issues? > > cheers > Keith > At 15:01 15/11/2006, Martin Juckes wrote: > Hi, > > Concerning Bristlecones, I had a sympathetic reply from Prof. North, but he > deferred to the person who wrote the relevant paragraph in the NAS report > (Franco Biondi) who is firmly of the view that strip-bark bristlecones should > not be used. I've read a few of the articles cited to back up this statement > and I am surprised by the extreme weakness of the evidence. There is one > study of 27 strip-bark pines which shows that they clearly developed > anomalous growth around 1850. Attributing this to CO2 is odd, to say the > least. I'm writing a brief review of the literature which I'll send round in > a few days time. > > cheers, > Martin > > On Sunday 12 November 2006 22:21, Myles Allen wrote: > > Although it probably doesn't feel like it, it seems to me you're doing > > rather well... > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Martin Juckes [mailto:m.n.juckes@rl.ac.uk] > > Sent: 10 November 2006 15:24 > > To: anders@misu.su.se; Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de; hegerl@duke.edu; > > esper@wsl.ch; k.briffa@uea.ac.uk; Myles Allen; weber@knmi.nl; > > t.osborn@uea.ac.uk > > Subject: Mitrie > > > > Hello, > > > > well, I've had a few exchanges on climateaudit, and decided to leave > > them to > > it for a few days. > > > > I'm going to send an email to Prof. North of the NAS panel to ask if he > > really > > meant "don't use bristlecones", as he is quoted by McIntyre. I believe > > it > > would be incorrect to select sites on the basis of what the data from > > the > > sites looks like, and this makes up a substantial part of the argument > > in > > Graybill and Idso (1993). > > > > Does anyone know where I can get hold of the categorisation of the Sheep > > > > Mountain trees used by Graybill and Idso (ca534.rwl from the WDC for > > paleoclimatology I think) into "strip-bark" and "full-bark"? I've sent > > an > > email to the WDC query address. > > > > I've also sent of for a publication which is cited by co2science as > > using > > Sargasso Sea data with the dating shifted by 50 years (Loehle, 2004, > > Ecological Modelling). This appears to be a source of considerable > > confusion > > among the climate sceptics. The shifted series fits nicely with the idea > > that > > the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century, so there is a > > > > widespread perception that it is being ignored to fudge the results. > > > > Apart from a couple of oversights in the documentation of the data files > > > > McIntyre hasn't come up with much yet. I need to read up a bit more on > > the > > different Tornetraesk/Fennoscandia series. There was an interesting > > discussion on "cherrypicking", with contributors suggesting that testing > > the > > effect of removing each proxy series in turn was "cherrypicking" and > > that > > selecting series based on subjective analysis of what the series look > > like > > would be much better! > > > > I've had a comment from the editor saying that responses to non-refereee > > > > comments are optional, especially if the comments are not relevant to > > the > > paper. > > > > cheers, > > Martin > > > > > > > > -- > 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/ > > > > > -- > PD Dr. Jan Esper > Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL > Zuercherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland > Voice: +41-44-739 2510 > Fax: +41-44-739 2515 > http://www.wsl.ch/staff/jan.esper Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\bunn_et_al_2003.pdf" 1977. 2006-11-17 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Keith Briffa" , "Myles Allen" , "Jan Esper" , , , , , date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 08:54:54 -0000 from: "Rob Wilson" subject: Re: Mitrie: Bristlecones to: "Martin Juckes"  Morning Martin, It might be worth taking Keith's advice and contacting Malcolm Hughes. I am not convinced that the Bunn study is fully relevant to addressing the use of BP data from Colorado and California as their study site is Montana. Malcolm gave a presentation earlier this year in Edinburgh which presented updated analyses on his BP work which played down the CO2 influence. regards Rob ----- Original Message ----- From: [1]Martin Juckes To: [2]Rob Wilson Cc: [3]Keith Briffa ; [4]Myles Allen ; [5]Jan Esper ; [6]anders@misu.su.se ; [7]Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de ; [8]hegerl@duke.edu ; [9]weber@knmi.nl ; [10]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 4:41 PM Subject: Re: Mitrie: Bristlecones Thanks for all those comments. I'm trying to avoid omitting data on the basis of cicrumstantial evidence, even when it is presented enthusiastically. The Bunn et al. study is interesting (attached) because they show estimated dates of the onset of strip-bark growth. It looks to me as though the growth anomaly of the strip-bark trees relative to the others is more to do with this change than anything else. The onset of a positive growth anomaly in the 1850s is certainly too early to be associated with CO2 increases. cheers, Martin On Thursday 16 November 2006 14:51, Rob Wilson wrote: > Re: Mitrie: BristleconesDear All, > For the D'Arrigo et al. 2006 paper, I did indeed consider using the Bristlecone pine data. > However, due to the issues raised by Macintyre and others, we felt that it would be unwise to use these data, especially as our data-set was biased more to higher latitudes. > > However, I did look at the data. I do not like ignoring potential data-sets. > > Of the BP data that I managed to get my hands on, I identified a significant, but relatively weak, correlation with local gridded mean summer temperatures for three sites. These three sites are: Hermit Hill (N = 38; 1048-1983) and Windy Ridge (N = 29; 1050-1985) from Colorado and Sheep Mountain (N = 71; 0 - 1990) from California. > > The attached figure compares the RCS chronology using these data (very similar to the STD version in actual fact) with the North American RCS composite series used in D'Arrigo et al. (2006). Both series have been normalised to the 1200-1750 period to highlight any potential differences in the 20th century. > > There is generally fairly good coherence between the two series between 1100 and the 1900. I personally do not think we have enough sites prior to 1400, so the lack of coherence prior to 1100 might just reflect regional differences and not enough series to derive a meaningful mean function. Although correlation with gridded temperatures are relatively low (~0.40), the coherence with the NA composite would seem to suggest that temperature is the dominant signal over the last 900 years or so. > > In the 20th century, the BP index values are clearly UNDER the NA mean. I would interpret this as suggesting that there does not appear to be any CO2 influence in the BP data. This of course assumes that there is no fertilisation effect in the rest of the NA data. > > There is also the Salzer BP based temperature reconstruction: > [11]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/salzer2005/salzer2005.html > > again this does not correlate particular well with gridded temperatures - in fact it is driven more by trends, but there are some similarities with my BP chronology and NA series. > > I hope this helps the discussion > best regards > Rob > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jan Esper > To: Keith Briffa ; Martin Juckes ; Myles Allen > Cc: [12]anders@misu.su.se ; [13]Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de ; [14]hegerl@duke.edu ; [15]weber@knmi.nl ; [16]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk ; Wilson Rob > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 1:36 PM > Subject: Re: Mitrie: Bristlecones > > > ...no, no, not a lot to add from my side. This is much more than I could have said. Except, I once looked at strip bark growth trees in Central Asia, and at least there the cause for this growth form was clear to me (Esper 2000, The Holocene): > > > "Strip-bark growth forms (Ferguson, 1968; Fritts, 1969; Graybill and Idso, 1993; Kelly et al., 1992; Wright and Mooney, 1965) also appear in older Juniper trees. This condition develops as the cambium is damaged locally and will no longer be overgrown. Mechanical damage by rockfall seems to be the principle stimulus for cambial dieback and unilateral growth. In extreme cases only a narrow strip on the stem is still active, creating these eccentric growth forms." > > > I didn't visit the Bristlecone sites yet, but the mechanism might be the same (some physical damage). > > > I believe that over time the crown and root system are reduced, but not at the same rate than the reduction in circumference covered by the cambium. This would be the key for strip bark tree rings being wider than "normal" rings. > > > I am not very convinced that there are long-term fertilization effects by CO2 (but have of course no proof for this). As far as I know, (most) results from free air CO2 enrichment experiments suggest that there is no long-term effect. > > > I Cc Rob Wilson to the mail, as he might have looked at Bristlecone data recently. Pehaps he wants to add something. > > > Best --je > > > At 11:57 Uhr +0000 16.11.2006, Keith Briffa wrote: > Martin and all, > I know Franco very well - but he has not worked extensively with the Bristlecones. I still believe that it would be wise to involve Malcolm Hughes in this discussion - though I recognise the point of view that says we might like to appear (and be) independent of the original Mann, Bradley and Hughes team to avoid the appearance of collusion. In my opinion (as someone how has worked with the Bristlecone data hardly at all!) there are undoubtedly problems in their use that go beyond the strip bark problem (that I will come back to later). > The main one is an ambiguity in the nature and consistency of their sensitivity to temperature variations. It was widely believed some 2-3 decades ago, that high-elevation trees were PREDOMINANTLY responding to temperature and low elevation ones to available water supply (not always related in a simple way to measured precipitation) . However, response functions ( ie sets of regression coefficients on monthly mean temperature and precipitation data derived using principal components regression applied to the tree-ring data) have always shown quite weak and temporally unstable associations between chronology and climate variations (for the high-elevations trees at least). The trouble is that these results are dominated by inter-annual (ie high-frequency) variations and apparent instability in the relationships is exacerbated by the shortness of the instrumental records that restrict analyses to short periods, and the large separation of the climate station records from the sites of the trees. Limited comparisons between tree-ring density data (which seem to display less ambiguos responses) imply that there is a reasonable decadal time scale association and so indicate a real temperature signal , on this time scale .The bottom line though is that these trees likely represent a mixed temperature and moisture-supply response that might vary on longer timescales. > The discussion is further complicated by the fact that the first PC of "Western US" trees used in the Mann et al. analyses is derived from a mixture of species (not just Bristlecones ) and they are quite varied in their characteristics , time span, and effective variance spectra . Many show low interannual variance and a long-term declining trend , up until about 1850 , when the Bristlecones (and others) show the remarkable increasing trend up until the end of the record. The earlier negative trend could be (partly or more significantly) a consequence of the LACK of detrending to allow for age effects in the measurements (ie standardisation) - the very early sections of relative high growth were removed in their analysis, but no explicit standardistion of the data was made to account for remaining slow width changes resulting from tree aging. This is also related to the "strip bark" problem , as these types of trees will have unpredictable trends as a consequence of aging and depending on the precise nature of each tree's structure . > Another serious issue to be considered relates to the fact that the PC1 time series in the Mann et al. analysis was adjusted to reduce the positive slope in the last 150 years (on the assumption - following an earlier paper by Lamarche et al. - that this incressing growth was evidence of carbon dioxide fertilization) , by differencing the data from another record produced by other workers in northern Alaska and Canada (which incidentally was standardised in a totally different way). This last adjustment obviously will have a large influence on the quantification of the link between these Western US trees and N.Hemisphere temperatures. At this point , it is fair to say that this adjustment was arbitrary and the link between Bristlecone pine growth and CO2 is , at the very least, arguable. Note that at least one author (Lisa Gaumlich) has stated that the recent growth of these trees could be temperature driven and not evidence of CO2 fertilisation. > > The point of this message is to show that that this issue is complex , and I still believe the "Western US" series and its interpretation in terms of Hemispheric mean temperature is perhaps a "Pandora's box" that we might open at our peril! > What does Jan say about this - he is very acquainted with these issues? > > cheers > Keith > At 15:01 15/11/2006, Martin Juckes wrote: > Hi, > > Concerning Bristlecones, I had a sympathetic reply from Prof. North, but he > deferred to the person who wrote the relevant paragraph in the NAS report > (Franco Biondi) who is firmly of the view that strip-bark bristlecones should > not be used. I've read a few of the articles cited to back up this statement > and I am surprised by the extreme weakness of the evidence. There is one > study of 27 strip-bark pines which shows that they clearly developed > anomalous growth around 1850. Attributing this to CO2 is odd, to say the > least. I'm writing a brief review of the literature which I'll send round in > a few days time. > > cheers, > Martin > > On Sunday 12 November 2006 22:21, Myles Allen wrote: > > Although it probably doesn't feel like it, it seems to me you're doing > > rather well... > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Martin Juckes [mailto:m.n.juckes@rl.ac.uk] > > Sent: 10 November 2006 15:24 > > To: [17]anders@misu.su.se; [18]Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de; [19]hegerl@duke.edu; > > [20]esper@wsl.ch; [21]k.briffa@uea.ac.uk; Myles Allen; [22]weber@knmi.nl; > > [23]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk > > Subject: Mitrie > > > > Hello, > > > > well, I've had a few exchanges on climateaudit, and decided to leave > > them to > > it for a few days. > > > > I'm going to send an email to Prof. North of the NAS panel to ask if he > > really > > meant "don't use bristlecones", as he is quoted by McIntyre. I believe > > it > > would be incorrect to select sites on the basis of what the data from > > the > > sites looks like, and this makes up a substantial part of the argument > > in > > Graybill and Idso (1993). > > > > Does anyone know where I can get hold of the categorisation of the Sheep > > > > Mountain trees used by Graybill and Idso (ca534.rwl from the WDC for > > paleoclimatology I think) into "strip-bark" and "full-bark"? I've sent > > an > > email to the WDC query address. > > > > I've also sent of for a publication which is cited by co2science as > > using > > Sargasso Sea data with the dating shifted by 50 years (Loehle, 2004, > > Ecological Modelling). This appears to be a source of considerable > > confusion > > among the climate sceptics. The shifted series fits nicely with the idea > > that > > the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century, so there is a > > > > widespread perception that it is being ignored to fudge the results. > > > > Apart from a couple of oversights in the documentation of the data files > > > > McIntyre hasn't come up with much yet. I need to read up a bit more on > > the > > different Tornetraesk/Fennoscandia series. There was an interesting > > discussion on "cherrypicking", with contributors suggesting that testing > > the > > effect of removing each proxy series in turn was "cherrypicking" and > > that > > selecting series based on subjective analysis of what the series look > > like > > would be much better! > > > > I've had a comment from the editor saying that responses to non-refereee > > > > comments are optional, especially if the comments are not relevant to > > the > > paper. > > > > cheers, > > Martin > > > > > > > > -- > Professor Keith Briffa, > Climatic Research Unit > University of East Anglia > Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > > Phone: +44-1603-593909 > Fax: +44-1603-507784 > > [24]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ > > > > > -- > PD Dr. Jan Esper > Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL > Zuercherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland > Voice: +41-44-739 2510 > Fax: +41-44-739 2515 > [25]http://www.wsl.ch/staff/jan.esper 4955. 2006-11-17 ______________________________________________________ cc: mann@psu.edu, "raymond s. bradley" , Keith Briffa date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 16:35:34 -0700 from: Malcolm Hughes subject: Re: Bristlecone pines to: Martin Juckes Martin Juckes wrote: > Hello Prof. Hughes, > > I'm involved in a discussion with Stephen McIntyre about Bristlecone pines, > which I have used as temperature proxies in a recent work > (http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/cp/cpd/2/1001/cpd-2-1001.htm). > > I've read the NAS report section on this issue, and most of the references > cited in the paragraph about bristlecones. I'm unimpressed by the evidence > presented to support the idea that these valuable records of past climate > should be discarded. In particular, the most relevant study appears to be > that of Bunn et al., and this clearly shows anomalous strip-bark growth > occurring well before significant atmospheric CO2 rises. Their study used > whitebark pine, which is clearly not the same as bristlecone, but perhaps > closer than the orange trees cited by Graybill and Idso. > > I'm looking for further literature and if possible data on the issue. Do you > know of any data on anomalous growth in bristlecone strip-bark pines which is > available for analysis? > > sincerely, > Martin Juckes > Dear Dr Jukes, I have been on travel and am extremely busy at the moment. I hope to be able to get back to you on the question of stripbark in the next week or so once I have had a chance to read your paper carefully. One thing I did see in your Table 1 caused me great concern - if you are using a model that assumes each record you use reflects local temperature (which is absolutely NOT the assumption made in MBH98 and 99) the Methuselah Walk and Indian Garden series are without question totally inappropriate, as a careful reading of Hughes and Funkhouser (2003) and a number of very accessible earlier publications going back some decades will show. Methuselah was the *lower* forest border chronology Hughes and Graumlich (1996) and Hughes and Funkhouser (1998) used to reconstruct *precipitation* in Nevada (see http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought/drght_graumlich.html for the earlier version). I think you will find these two series are not heavily loaded in the ITRDB N. America PC1 used in MBH99. This is a case where detailed knowledge of the original materials is invaluable, and by materials I mean the actual field sites and the wood, not just the derived measurements. I bring this to your attention directly now in the hope it will help you and your co-authors check the effects of this error on your calculations and conclusions in some degree of peace and quiet. I hope this helps! Malcolm Hughes 2309. 2006-11-20 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 16:59:47 -0700 from: Malcolm Hughes subject: Re: Bristlecone pines to: Martin Juckes Martin Juckes wrote: > Hello Prof. Hughes, > > I'm involved in a discussion with Stephen McIntyre about Bristlecone pines, > which I have used as temperature proxies in a recent work > (http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/cp/cpd/2/1001/cpd-2-1001.htm). > > I've read the NAS report section on this issue, and most of the references > cited in the paragraph about bristlecones. I'm unimpressed by the evidence > presented to support the idea that these valuable records of past climate > should be discarded. In particular, the most relevant study appears to be > that of Bunn et al., and this clearly shows anomalous strip-bark growth > occurring well before significant atmospheric CO2 rises. Their study used > whitebark pine, which is clearly not the same as bristlecone, but perhaps > closer than the orange trees cited by Graybill and Idso. > > I'm looking for further literature and if possible data on the issue. Do you > know of any data on anomalous growth in bristlecone strip-bark pines which is > available for analysis? > > sincerely, > Martin Juckes > Dear Dr. Jukes, I'm afraid that, apart from the Bunn et al 2003 paper you mention, I know of no other recent literature or data directly relevant to this question. There is a graduate student here working on a dissertation related to this, but neither their data nor any publications on them are available at the moment. Two points concerning Graybill and Idso (1993): 1) I don't think the sour orange trees used in Sherwood Idso's experiments were stripbark - where did this idea come from? 2) When considering the use of upper forest border bristlecone pine (e.g. Sheep Mountain, Campito Mountain, and similar sites mainly above 3100m in the relevant region) as temperature proxies it would be a mistake to discount Figure 3 in Graybill and Idso (1993) which is a comparison of a ufb bristlecone pine chronology with a smoothed gridpoint reconstruction from maximum latewood density in quite different trees provided by Keith Briffa, one of your co-authors. I read this graph as confirmation of LaMarche's interpretation of the ufb bcp records as having a ~bidecadal temperature signal combined with an interannual precipitation signal, at least before the 20th century. This is referred to Hughes and Funkhouser (2003). I hope this helps, Malcolm Hughes 1357. 2006-11-21 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Nov 21 09:51:52 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Fwd: Re: Mitrie: Bristlecones In confidence to: Malcolm Hughes Malcolm sorry , I should have cc'd this message sent to my coauthors some time ago(it pre-dates the message to you) , but I was sort of hoping this issue would recede . It would be useful to chat about this and other stuff if you are able to phone (afternoon my time preferably). Cheers Keith Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:57:09 +0000 To: Martin Juckes , "Myles Allen" From: Keith Briffa Subject: Re: Mitrie: Bristlecones Cc: anders@misu.su.se, Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de, hegerl@duke.edu, esper@wsl.ch, weber@knmi.nl, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Martin and all, I know Franco very well - but he has not worked extensively with the Bristlecones. I still believe that it would be wise to involve Malcolm Hughes in this discussion - though I recognise the point of view that says we might like to appear (and be) independent of the original Mann, Bradley and Hughes team to avoid the appearance of collusion. In my opinion (as someone how has worked with the Bristlecone data hardly at all!) there are undoubtedly problems in their use that go beyond the strip bark problem (that I will come back to later). The main one is an ambiguity in the nature and consistency of their sensitivity to temperature variations. It was widely believed some 2-3 decades ago, that high-elevation trees were PREDOMINANTLY responding to temperature and low elevation ones to available water supply (not always related in a simple way to measured precipitation) . However, response functions ( ie sets of regression coefficients on monthly mean temperature and precipitation data derived using principal components regression applied to the tree-ring data) have always shown quite weak and temporally unstable associations between chronology and climate variations (for the high-elevations trees at least). The trouble is that these results are dominated by inter-annual (ie high-frequency) variations and apparent instability in the relationships is exacerbated by the shortness of the instrumental records that restrict analyses to short periods, and the large separation of the climate station records from the sites of the trees. Limited comparisons between tree-ring density data (which seem to display less ambiguos responses) imply that there is a reasonable decadal time scale association and so indicate a real temperature signal , on this time scale .The bottom line though is that these trees likely represent a mixed temperature and moisture-supply response that might vary on longer timescales. The discussion is further complicated by the fact that the first PC of "Western US" trees used in the Mann et al. analyses is derived from a mixture of species (not just Bristlecones ) and they are quite varied in their characteristics , time span, and effective variance spectra . Many show low interannual variance and a long-term declining trend , up until about 1850 , when the Bristlecones (and others) show the remarkable increasing trend up until the end of the record. The earlier negative trend could be (partly or more significantly) a consequence of the LACK of detrending to allow for age effects in the measurements (ie standardisation) - the very early sections of relative high growth were removed in their analysis, but no explicit standardistion of the data was made to account for remaining slow width changes resulting from tree aging. This is also related to the "strip bark" problem , as these types of trees will have unpredictable trends as a consequence of aging and depending on the precise nature of each tree's structure . Another serious issue to be considered relates to the fact that the PC1 time series in the Mann et al. analysis was adjusted to reduce the positive slope in the last 150 years (on the assumption - following an earlier paper by Lamarche et al. - that this incressing growth was evidence of carbon dioxide fertilization) , by differencing the data from another record produced by other workers in northern Alaska and Canada (which incidentally was standardised in a totally different way). This last adjustment obviously will have a large influence on the quantification of the link between these Western US trees and N.Hemisphere temperatures. At this point , it is fair to say that this adjustment was arbitrary and the link between Bristlecone pine growth and CO2 is , at the very least, arguable. Note that at least one author (Lisa Gaumlich) has stated that the recent growth of these trees could be temperature driven and not evidence of CO2 fertilisation. The point of this message is to show that that this issue is complex , and I still believe the "Western US" series and its interpretation in terms of Hemispheric mean temperature is perhaps a "Pandora's box" that we might open at our peril! What does Jan say about this - he is very acquainted with these issues? cheers Keith At 15:01 15/11/2006, Martin Juckes wrote: Hi, Concerning Bristlecones, I had a sympathetic reply from Prof. North, but he deferred to the person who wrote the relevant paragraph in the NAS report (Franco Biondi) who is firmly of the view that strip-bark bristlecones should not be used. I've read a few of the articles cited to back up this statement and I am surprised by the extreme weakness of the evidence. There is one study of 27 strip-bark pines which shows that they clearly developed anomalous growth around 1850. Attributing this to CO2 is odd, to say the least. I'm writing a brief review of the literature which I'll send round in a few days time. cheers, Martin On Sunday 12 November 2006 22:21, Myles Allen wrote: > Although it probably doesn't feel like it, it seems to me you're doing > rather well... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Juckes [[1]mailto:m.n.juckes@rl.ac.uk] > Sent: 10 November 2006 15:24 > To: anders@misu.su.se; Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de; hegerl@duke.edu; > esper@wsl.ch; k.briffa@uea.ac.uk; Myles Allen; weber@knmi.nl; > t.osborn@uea.ac.uk > Subject: Mitrie > > Hello, > > well, I've had a few exchanges on climateaudit, and decided to leave > them to > it for a few days. > > I'm going to send an email to Prof. North of the NAS panel to ask if he > really > meant "don't use bristlecones", as he is quoted by McIntyre. I believe > it > would be incorrect to select sites on the basis of what the data from > the > sites looks like, and this makes up a substantial part of the argument > in > Graybill and Idso (1993). > > Does anyone know where I can get hold of the categorisation of the Sheep > > Mountain trees used by Graybill and Idso (ca534.rwl from the WDC for > paleoclimatology I think) into "strip-bark" and "full-bark"? I've sent > an > email to the WDC query address. > > I've also sent of for a publication which is cited by co2science as > using > Sargasso Sea data with the dating shifted by 50 years (Loehle, 2004, > Ecological Modelling). This appears to be a source of considerable > confusion > among the climate sceptics. The shifted series fits nicely with the idea > that > the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century, so there is a > > widespread perception that it is being ignored to fudge the results. > > Apart from a couple of oversights in the documentation of the data files > > McIntyre hasn't come up with much yet. I need to read up a bit more on > the > different Tornetraesk/Fennoscandia series. There was an interesting > discussion on "cherrypicking", with contributors suggesting that testing > the > effect of removing each proxy series in turn was "cherrypicking" and > that > selecting series based on subjective analysis of what the series look > like > would be much better! > > I've had a comment from the editor saying that responses to non-refereee > > comments are optional, especially if the comments are not relevant to > the > paper. > > cheers, > Martin > > > -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 2880. 2006-11-27 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 17:27:59 -0000 from: "Reisinger, Andy" subject: [Wg1-ar4-las] Invitation for informal review of SYR preliminary to: "Reisinger, Andy" Dear colleague On behalf of the Chair of the IPCC, it is my pleasure to invite you to undertake an informal review of the preliminary draft of the Synthesis Report (SYR) of the AR4. Please submit your personal review comments by 7 January 2007 via email to: mailto:syr.review@metoffice.gov.uk. Please note that this preliminary draft of the SYR is necessarily at an early stage of preparation. It is based on a stock-take of the three draft IPCC Working Group reports, which are at various stages of completion. It will undergo substantial revision in response to your comments and further work by members of the Core Writing Team, and also to reflect further changes in the underlying Working Group reports. Because the conclusions of some of the Working Groups are still under revision, parts of this preliminary draft may not fully reflect the final conclusions of the Assessment. As lead authors and scientists familiar with both the science in the current IPCC draft assessment reports and the IPCC process, your comments and suggestions at this early stage form an important input to the further work of the Core Writing Team. Because of its preliminary nature, which arises from overlaps in the timing for the SYR with the schedules of the Working Group reports, this draft has not been seen or discussed in its entirety by all members of the Core Writing Team. The Chair would therefore particularly welcome your comments on structure, balance, consistency and interactions between topics, including suggestions on possible synthesis of material from the Working Groups. To protect the integrity of the IPCC, please treat this draft as strictly confidential. You may not quote, cite or distribute this draft, which would include not passing it on even to close colleagues. Access details are provided below. Please do not share this password with others. If you have been invited to act as Review Editor for the SYR, please DO NOT submit any comments on the topic for which you would later act as Review Editor. We look forward to your valuable input to the SYR. Please note that due to tight deadlines, we must receive your comments by 7 January 2007 for the Core Writing Team to make full use of them. Access details: http://www.ipcc-syr.teri.res.in/EXPR Username: ar4syrexpr password: syrexrev01 Best wishes, Andy ----------------- Dr Andy Reisinger Head, Technical Support Unit for the IPCC Synthesis Report Met Office, FitzRoy Road, Exeter EX1 3PB, UK Phone (mobile): +44 7920 296 938 Phone (office): +44 1392 88 4163 Fax: +44 1392 88 5681 Email: andy.reisinger@metoffice.gov.uk _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-las mailing list Wg1-ar4-las@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-las 3516. 2006-11-29 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 15:30:37 -0000 from: "Boardman Tracey Miss \(SCI\) e091" subject: FW: "Change The Dream" Symposium 2nd Dec @ UEA to: , , DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS EMAIL. EMAIL alastair_wolfe@hotmail.com Hi Everyone "Change The Dream" Symposium 2nd Dec @ UEA Environmental Sustainability, Social Justice and Spiritual Fulfilment This is the event that I've been planning for the last few weeks to do my bit for the environment and everything else. So if you have a free day and find the content interesting, please let me know if you can come as places are limited. Details of the event and how to register follow this message. Many thanks and hopefully see you there! Alastair. The aim of this symposium is not merely to learn more about our world, but to come to grips with the very assumptions that underlie the way we see that world and our place in it... and explore what we can do - individually and cooperatively - to move ourselves in a new direction. Using video clips from some of the world's most respected thinkers, along with inspiring short films, leading edge information and also interactive group work... this day-long, multi-media experience brings together a wide spectrum of perspectives, and invites you to see for yourself the single compelling story that emerges. Saturday 2nd December 9.30am - 5:30pm Room 0.13, Congregation Hall, UEA £6 admission (£3 NUS) (All proceeds go towards covering event costs) Food outlets available on campus Places are limited to 40 people for this event. Please email to register and reserve your ticket: alastair_wolfe@hotmail.com Presented by the "Be The Change" www.bethechange.org.uk 3862. 2006-11-30 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:53:43 -0000 from: "Gill Seyfang" subject: FW: ESRC seminar on local economic development and climate change to: Please reply to Peter North P.J.North@liv.ac.uk -----Original Message----- From: Economic Geography Research Group [mailto:ECONOMIC-GEOGRAPHY@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of North, Peter Sent: 30 November 2006 11:51 To: ECONOMIC-GEOGRAPHY@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Subject: ESRC seminar on local economic development and climate change Apologies for cross posting, but list members might be interested in the following ESRC seimar series starting 6th February in Liverpool. Pete North ........................................................................................... .... Local economic development: Restructuring for climate change 6th February 2007, University of Liverpool. 11am-5pm The first in a two year ESRC-funded seminar series "Local economic development in the face of dangerous climate change and resource constraints." This introductory seminar is the first of six which will examine what dangerous climate change and peak oil means for local economic development strategies. Critiquing growth-orientated perspectives of local economic development, the seminar series will examine which conventional growth options might be problematic in terms of a forthcoming ecological crisis, and what an alternative programme would look like. The seminar series will investigate what it means to be radical in terms of economic strategy? Is it possible to define a radical local economic strategy? Does being radical need a radical movement, and what sorts of movements exist? It will examine experiences of radical local action, local initiatives, coalitions, social movements and previous forms of radical local economic action interacted with processes of large scale economic change in order to draw appropriate lessons from them. Do the lessons of the past still hold? How might we avoid past mistakes? This first seminar will scope the issues and set up the research seminar series, enabling discussions to be developed more fully over the coming two years. Speakers: Introduction: Dr Peter North, University of Liverpool Peter will introduce the seminar series with a review of our understanding of the extent that climate change represents a serious or mitigable problem. What might the consequences for the UK be, and to what extent do suggested possible solutions meet the threat? Is `growth orientated local economic development part of the problem, or, focussing understandably of growth and poverty alleviation, just disconnected from policy on climate change. What sort of issues should we be considering in the seminar series? Professor Erik Swyngedouw, University of Manchester The science of climate change is deeply contested, as are human responses to it. For some we are in clear and present danger and the solutions are obvious, while others reject the idea that all we are seeing is more than a natural change in the earth's temperature. Some are accused of indulging in apocalyptic musings which freeze us and prevent solutions emerging, while others are accused of being in the pay of `big oil'. Erik will explore the ecological apocalypse as a populist `strange attractor' occluding an understanding of the pathologies of capitalism, and argue for democratic control of solutions to environmental problems. Professor Alan Cochrane, The Open University Climate change and resource depletion are obviously phenomena that require global action, if not a globally co-ordinated re-engineering of our economic system. Yet paradoxically often the most dynamic action comes at the local level, as cities act locally to address climate change problems through the Cities for Climate Change programme, the Nottingham Declaration, the Aalberg Process and the like. For some time we have known that local action in the face of structural change is of limited efficacy, yet also essential. Alan will review thirty years of local economic development policy in an effort to uncover what works, what is merely window dressing disguising wider processes. Professor David Gibbs, University of Hull Action on climate change is not new: it has been addressed by citizen action, campaigns against road building, dams and the like, for environmental justice, and through policies for sustainable development. Again, the effectiveness of local action in response to global challenges is an issue, as is the efficacy of institutional processes such as Local Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development policy when contrasted with campaigns with more overtly oppositional strategies. David will review experiences of Sustainable Development, similarly uncovering effective and more therapeutic approaches. Ted Trainer, University of New South Wales, Australia For some, more radical approaches are required. For example, James Lovelock argues that humanity has already done irremediable damage to the planet's life systems, and we now need a managed retreat from industrialisation. Ted will argue that our industrial-affluent-consumer society is extremely unjust and ecologically unsustainable, and problems cannot be solved in a society that is driven by obsession with high rates of production and consumption, affluent living standards, market forces, the profit motive and economic growth. A sustainable and just world order cannot be achieved until we undertake radical change in our lifestyles, values and systems, especially in our economic system. The alternative we must work for is a `Simpler Way', based on frugal "living standards", co-operation, high levels of local economic self-sufficiency, and zero economic growth. Background to the series. For the past twenty or thirty years local economies have been having to cope with long term structural changes associated with the decline of manufacturing and the growth of the new service and `knowledge' economies. This restructuring process is now largely complete, and given that there has been a long period of uninterrupted economic growth in the UK since the mid-1990s, seemingly there is a consensus about the way forward for local economies. The current `taken for granted' local economic development paradigm focuses on: o place marketing, events and festivals (Manchester Olympics, Liverpool Capital of Culture): o infrastructure and communications development; o developing the local economy's specific advantage within the global division of labour (generally in the UK, within the `knowledge' economy and clusters); and o focussing on culture and the `creative classes' as the new drivers for growth. However, this new consensus, takes no cognisance of two of the major threats that all local economies will have to deal with over the next twenty years: o climate change, leading to extremes of and greater instabilities of weather, or economic activities which fit current climatic conditions becoming no longer viable; o the end of the era of cheap and plentiful oil, with the knock on that will have for carbon-fuelled economies. Co-ordinated by Peter North, Department of Geography, University of Liverpool. P.J.North@liv.ac.uk Room details to follow. The seminar is free, but prior registration is required. Lunch will be provided. There are limited number of ESRC-funded travel bursaries available on a strictly first come first served basis for postgraduate students and practitioners - applications to Peter North. More details of the seminar series and forthcoming seminars can be found at: [1]http://www.liv.ac.uk/geography/seminars/ESRC-funded_seminar_series.htm 4078. 2006-12-01 ______________________________________________________ cc: "David Viner" , "'Briffa Keith Prof \(CRU\) f023'" date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 10:51:33 -0000 from: "Alan Kendall" subject: Fossil Fuels to: Dear all, I trust you enjoyed the seminars yesterday. I certainly did, and from those of you who came to talk with me afterwards I gained the impression that you found it informative and stimulating. Perhaps you learned more about how academic argument occurs and have formed your own opinions about this. If so, then the entire idea of having these seminars has been worthwhile. Because the final minutes were taken up by an unscheduled "presentation" I was unable to make certain remarks, hence this e-mail. 1. Next week's lectures will be given by Dr. Congxiao Shan who will speak upon fuel use and transport, and upon the hydrogen economy (using fossil fuels) as well as using China as case histories. 2. Wednesday week 12's lecture will be given by Dr. Kieth Tovey, who will discuss carbon trading. I will finish up the lectures the next day with one reviewing the entire contents of the unit with perhaps something rather political - watch this space. I will of course be seeing you in the seminar slots. 3.Next week's seminars are upon 1) clouds and landuse changes influencing climate change, 2. the deficiencies of climate models, and 3.other causes of climate change, in particular solar changes. I have given advice to individual members of all three groups but if you need help with references, websites &c. please contact me by e-mail and I'll try to help. 4. Peter Brimblecombe will sit in on next week's seminars, but Dave Viner and Kieth Briffa have "threatened" to come as well. Is this because they were stimulated by the idea of these seminars or because you need to be "put right" after being subjected to undue influence by your's truely? Regardless, they are very welcome. 5. Finally can I emphasize that you are being asked to present the evidence for the proposition that evidence exists that is contrary to the commonly accepted "consensus" and to answer questions from this particular viewpoint. You are not being asked yourselves to assume any particular stance. In this regard it might be better for you to quote material from "reputable (?)" sources rather than assume these views yourself. Following on from this, you should know that I thought some of the criticisms directed at members of yesterday's presenting groups was perhaps unwarrented and unjustified. I was very impressed with some of you who stood up to such comments extremely well. To be absolutely fair, David Viner made some of the same points and commented favorably about some of the responses you made. I think you made a very creditable showing AlanK 1374. 2006-12-04 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Dec 4 10:35:06 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: (pas de sujet) to: Valerie.Masson@cea.fr Valerie I know you will think me unreasonable but I can not take on this task. True I know enough to realise that I would have to re-read all the correspondence and go back to quite a few papers. In recent months my other commitments have fallen further and further behind , and I have two important promises (concerning papers to be written) that I must keep They have to take precedence because after Christmas all my teaching overwhelms me for 4 months . So - I recommend you ask Eugen Wahl - who I believe is genuinely completely objective and independent . Please ask him - understand and forgive me !! with really best wishes Keith At 16:26 01/12/2006, you wrote: Dear Keith, I am an editor of Climate of the Past and in charge of a paper submitted by Bürger in a revised form. As you may know, an initial version of this work was the center of a strong discussion in a first round of reviews. I need very solid reviewers to handle this paper and I think that you are one of the most qualified persons to do this work. I sincerely hope that you will give a positive answer to the review request, give a first look to the paper and assess if it can be published first online, and then proceed to a more solid review. Thank you very much for your help with this paper, which deserves a fair review process, and solid reviewers, Sincerely, Valérie. -- 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/ 330. 2006-12-05 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 15:40:47 +0000 from: Phil Jones subject: Dave - in confidence to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk Keith, Chris was pretty positive with Dave. Dave is going to make a business case for the MSc with additional modules. Try and have a look through it later this week. Chris has given Dave a few ideas for the plan. There is likely to be a demand for more people to get Climate Change training in the future. If Chris is successful it might be possible to get Dave a Senior Lecturer post. He won't get a Reader though as he's not got the publications for the RAE. Any post would have to be advertised and it may not all be able to be done in time for the end of March. You could raise the issue at the next Strategy Comm. which Chris says you'll have next week. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3143. 2006-12-05 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Briffa Keith Prof \(\(CRU\)\) f023" date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 11:00:58 -0000 from: "Alan Kendall" subject: Re: Fossil Fuels to: "David Viner" David, pity the author of that New Scientist piece doesn't know all of the literature. As you are aware, there are now dozens of peer-reviewed papers identifying the MWP and LIA outside of the North Atlantic. In addition, I believe that the last modelling done involving the Gulf Stream demonstrates that this does not convey much heat to Europe, its lost its heat well before that. Thus even a reduced gulf steam should not have caused the LIA. Objections to the "hockey-stick" do not entirely reside with the reality (or not) of the MWP or LIA. As I read the criticism, it mostly concerns the invalidity of the statistical manipulations used. I also thought that the Osborn & Briffa diagram you used last week did identify the MWP and LIA, so why are you seemingly supporting the "hockey-stick" by recommending a "nice article in this weeks New Scientist" ? As for supplying references, why bother? Any, like the Peruvian glacial study, are immediately ignored or explained away as being local. AlanK ----- Original Message ----- From: [1]David Viner To: [2]Alan Kendall Cc: [3]Briffa Keith Prof ((CRU)) f023 Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 4:01 PM Subject: Re: Fossil Fuels Hi there There is a nice article in this weeks New Scientist on the "Hockey Stick" graph, page 9. If anyone can send me any published literature (in the peer-reviewed journals) that does support the view that the current rapid rise in CO2 (and other GHG concentrations) and associated temperature changes are not down in part to human activity please do send them to me. Also if anyone can find the literature that states that 1990 were not the warmest decade of the last millennia please d send me the paper. Cheers have a good week end D +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr David Viner Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ Tel: +44 1603 592089 SKYPE Address: drdavidviner (Intermittent) Home Page: [4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/link Climate Change Masters Course: [5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/env/msc/ [6]http://www.e-clat.org Tourism and Climate Change The C-Change Trust [7]http://www.thec-changetrust.org/ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ On 1 Dec 2006, at 10:51, Alan Kendall wrote: Dear all, I trust you enjoyed the seminars yesterday. I certainly did, and from those of you who came to talk with me afterwards I gained the impression that you found it informative and stimulating. Perhaps you learned more about how academic argument occurs and have formed your own opinions about this. If so, then the entire idea of having these seminars has been worthwhile. Because the final minutes were taken up by an unscheduled "presentation" I was unable to make certain remarks, hence this e-mail. 1. Next week's lectures will be given by Dr. Congxiao Shan who will speak upon fuel use and transport, and upon the hydrogen economy (using fossil fuels) as well as using China as case histories. 2. Wednesday week 12's lecture will be given by Dr. Kieth Tovey, who will discuss carbon trading. I will finish up the lectures the next day with one reviewing the entire contents of the unit with perhaps something rather political - watch this space. I will of course be seeing you in the seminar slots. 3.Next week's seminars are upon 1) clouds and landuse changes influencing climate change, 2. the deficiencies of climate models, and 3.other causes of climate change, in particular solar changes. I have given advice to individual members of all three groups but if you need help with references, websites &c. please contact me by e-mail and I'll try to help. 4. Peter Brimblecombe will sit in on next week's seminars, but Dave Viner and Kieth Briffa have "threatened" to come as well. Is this because they were stimulated by the idea of these seminars or because you need to be "put right" after being subjected to undue influence by your's truely? Regardless, they are very welcome. 5. Finally can I emphasize that you are being asked to present the evidence for the proposition that evidence exists that is contrary to the commonly accepted "consensus" and to answer questions from this particular viewpoint. You are not being asked yourselves to assume any particular stance. In this regard it might be better for you to quote material from "reputable (?)" sources rather than assume these views yourself. Following on from this, you should know that I thought some of the criticisms directed at members of yesterday's presenting groups was perhaps unwarrented and unjustified. I was very impressed with some of you who stood up to such comments extremely well. To be absolutely fair, David Viner made some of the same points and commented favorably about some of the responses you made. I think you made a very creditable showing AlanK 2224. 2006-12-06 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 15:02:50 +0000 from: Howard Cattle (by way of International CLIVAR Project Office) subject: ACC - the CLIVAR perspective: 2nd International Conference on to: clivar-africa@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk, clivar-atlantic@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk, clivar-dacs@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk, clivar-etccdi@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk, clivar-gsop@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk, clivar-iop@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk, clivar-monsoon@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk, clivar-pacific@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk, clivar-pages@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk, clivar-ssg@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk, clivar-sthnocean@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk, clivar-vamos@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk, clivar-wgcm@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk, clivar-wgomd@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk, clivar-wgsip@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk With apologies for any cross postings Dear all Further to my message below of 3 November, to which some of you responded directly, Tim Palmer has asked me to remind you again of this conference and in particular the session on "Modes of Variability under Anthropogenic Climate Change". Contributions to the session on how anthropogenic climate change affects modes of variability in the climate system, in the past, present, and future are welcome. Phenomena under consideration could be, but are not limited to, the North Atlantic Oscillation, El Nino-Southern Oscillation, or the ocean's Meridional Overturning Circulation. Both observational and modelling studies are welcome. Regards Howard >On 3 November 2006, Howard Cattle wrote: > >Tim Palmer has asked me to draw your attention to the CLIVAR/WCRP >cosponsored 2nd International Conference on Earth System Modelling >to and in particular the session on "Modes of Variability under >Anthropogenic Climate Change". The conference will be held at the >Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg from 27-31 August >2007. Details can be found at >http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/static/icesm/ ) > >We would like to encourage panels and working groups to contribute >papers to this session, especially those presenting work based on >analysis of the recent AR4 multi-model ensemble integrations. These >could then provide the basis for the proposed review paper on >"Anthropogenic Climate Change - the CLIVAR perspective" discussed at >the last SSG and in the subsequent email exchanges afterwards. > >It would be helpful if, in due course, you could advise me of any >relevant papers you submit to this session. > >Regards > >Howard -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Howard Cattle Direct Phone +44 (0) 23 80596208 Director Sec'y +44 (0) 23 80596789 International CLIVAR Project Office Fax +44 (0) 23 80596204 National Oceanography Centre, Southampton Empress Dock, SOUTHAMPTON, SO14 3ZH, UK. Email: hyc@noc.soton.ac.uk ***Note revised postal address and new email address (hyc@noc.soton.ac.uk)*** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CLIVAR - The Climate Variability and Predictability Project of the World Climate Research Programme http://www.clivar.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4275. 2006-12-07 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Dec 7 20:03:50 2006 from: Tom Melvin subject: Re: Leverhulme Proposal to: edwardcook Ed, We had news today. Leverhulme application was successful. Thank you again for the excellent reference. I will check on the Absoft compiler but I think I sent cd back to Paul for some reason although is still loaded on my PC. Leverhulme grant will buy me an Absoft compiler. I have compiled some programs successfully so if there are problems (should not be) I may be able to help. Tom At 16:50 07/12/2006, you wrote: Hi Tom, Would you please mail back the Absoft Fortran compiler for Windows? Paul has one of those new Intel Macs with Windows XP installed to run simultaneously with Mac OSX using the Parallels program. It is really cool! He wants to compile XP versions of our programs on his Mac, but needs to install the Windows compiler to do it. Any word from Leverhulme? Cheers, Ed ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email: [1]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152 ================================== Dr. Tom Melvin Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593161 Fax: +44-1603-507784 1588. 2006-12-08 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Dec 8 09:11:15 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Tom and Leverhulme to: Ed Cook,Malcolm Hughes Guys we have just heard positively from Leverhulme - I am relieved and grateful to you both. I think I 'll allow myself a large drink this weekend and look forward to sharing one with you two later. Thanks Keith -- 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/ 1684. 2006-12-11 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 08:52:23 +0000 from: Tom Melvin subject: Commiseration Cake to: cru.internal@uea Dear all, Due to Leverhulme's generosity you will have to put up with me for a further three years. To compensate, my wife cooked a fresh cream raspberry cake which is in the fridge. Must be eaten today. Tom Dr. Tom Melvin Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593161 Fax: +44-1603-507784 1777. 2006-12-12 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Dec 12 15:20:10 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: RE: Leverhulme to: "McCarroll D." Danny meant to contact you - but still busy celebrating - really though , thanks , as we have just heard that they will fund Tom . This is a big relief as I had to effectively sack someone a couple of months ago and was not relishing doing it again. Thanks to all at your end for making my recent brief stay pleasurable. Keith At 14:55 12/12/2006, you wrote: Hi Keith Any (good) news from Leverhulme? Danny -- 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/ 1408. 2006-12-14 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 07:43:00 -0000 (GMT) from: C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk subject: cafe eavesdropping to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, p.jones@uea.ac.uk Dear all Thought you might be interested to hear of my encounter this afternoon, sitting anonymously (without name badge) in a cafe round the corner from the AGU venue. The two sitting at the next table turned out to be Stephen McIntyre (no afiliation on his name badge) and Rob Wilson (Edinburgh). They were talking so loudly it was difficult not to follow the conversation in full. This included a critique of Mann, Moberg, von Storch, Wigley etc. etc and most disturbingly a discussion of the peer review system. Tim and Keith featured quite prominently in the latter! It was tempting to reveal my identify - but more interesting to listen in detail. I can tell you more next week! BEst wishes Clare 3409. 2006-12-14 ______________________________________________________ cc: 'Michael Grabner' , t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk, Reinhard Boehm , 'Phil Jones' , 'Maurizio Maugeri' , 'Michele Brunetti' , jan.esper@wsl.ch, 'Ulf Buentgen' date: Thu Dec 14 14:37:45 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: AW: A plot to: David Frank , Kurt Nicolussi Hi David and others The resilience of the tree-ring information , I agree , seems only to be enhanced by the multiple data set comparison. The issue of the specific "band limited" calibration is an important one here , in as much as the different data sets will require different optimal scaling (calibrations) , and the reconstructions should be considered along with their appropriate uncertainty bands. Your remarks on the density , support our ideas regarding the possibility (or even desirability ) of using "band specific calibrations" , as we discussed in the paper by Tim and myself (resurrecting the original idea by Joel). It is desirable to show the separate band reconstructions (and verification performance and regression coefficients) . Having said all this , it remains likely that difference between temperature and tree indices is pervasive . I was interested also to see that in a previous message ( as copied by Kurt) that your group is working on putting all the long Alpine temperature sensitive tree-ring data together - we ( Tom and I with Kurt and Michael) were also working towards this (hopefully with the benefit of the data your group has published) as originally outlined in the ALP-IMP plans, and I wonder what the precise plans you have ? We would not like to work at cross purposes. Cheers Keith At 12:24 14/12/2006, David Frank wrote: Dear Kurt (and all others). Thanks for the nice figures. I can only agree with your demonstration and point that a combination of all suitable data should produce a more robust estimate for past temperature trends. It is more and more apparent that any record which we consider a temperature proxy underestimates the early instrumental warm season warmth. The general tendencies displayed by the newer datasets that you show, seem to be consistent with some comparisons between the early instrumental records and other previously described tree-ring recons. However, in response to Reinhard's question to the tree-ringers, I could easily say there could be a whole variety of reasons why the tree-ring data contain more low-frequency variability than they should. The troubling part is that we can, and have, put out lots of hypotheses why these records all tend to "undershoot" the early instrumental data. From your graphs (and other quicker comparisons that i have done), it appears that Ulf's LADE-MXD record slightly underestimates the recent warming trend in the last 20 or so years in comparison to most other records (and also the instrumental data). During the earlier periods it seems to generally fall in the middle of the crowd and also captures the higher-frequency variability in the inst. records very well over a 240 year period. It seems like an advantage to be able to see how as many independent records as possible lie on the spaghetti plate. Perhaps, Keith or Tom have some helpful insights... Any thoughts on biological autocorrelation(esp. for MXD data) and detrending issues? best wishes, David Quoting Kurt Nicolussi : Dear Reinhard et al., here some plots (attached file) based on slightly different chronologies from Alps - the well know Büntgen et al. larch MXD, the Tyrol spruce MXD, the Pinus cembra TRW and a new Larch chrono (region of the Tyrol, combination of living trees, hist. and subfoss. material - RCS, power transformation) - the first two plots show the four series, single years and about 20 year smoothed, the other show some comparisons between the combined 4 chrono's and temperature data - especially the last plot indicates that the residuals are much better for the combined record. best regards Kurt Jan Esper wrote: Dear Reinhard et al., this is a fascinating discussion and enjoyed very much looking at the files you sent earlier. I just wanted to add that it would be great if you could wait a bit more until Dave came up with some first ideas on optimally combining all the long-term tree-ring data (that might not take too long anymore). I am absolutely convinced that we will produce an improved record including all the new tree-ring data, and that this record will include useful error estimates which might serve as an agrument to do more or less adjustments to the early instrumental data. I am also pretty sure that the combined record will consider certain frequency bands from certain datasets and parameters. Best wishes --Jan At 14:04 Uhr +0100 13.12.2006, Reinhard Boehm wrote: Dear Phil, Maurizio and Michele, Please apologise me not taking part actively enough in our discussion at the moment. The reason is, that since the beginning of last week I am confronted with a really incredible "hype" of the media which eats up all my time. The reason was a half-page message of our press-manager to the APA (Austrian press Agency) about the final ALP-IMP report. Since then I have done not much more than talking and writing about climate change topics, most of it not in relation to the project but about this year's warm autumn, these weeks winter tourism problems in the Alps and so on. So please do not believe I'm not anymore interested in our topic, I follow all your mails and I only want to tell you that I am also more tending to believe that may first version, to fit the early period exactly to the TR-series, may be somehow exaggerated. So Phil's last proposal, to adjust the JJAS by a bit less than I did, seems to make sense also to me. And I also think that something like a Zero-adjustment for winter would be the best solution. The only thing we should consider would be how to describe our arguments for doing so. I would also be interested about the opinion of the treering group about that: As you see, we "instrumentalists" have now come to a point short before deciding on a definite set of monthly adjustments for the early instrumental series which we think should be somewhat less than the total offset versus the TR-series. Do you have arguments to support this? Do you have ideas why TR-series tended to systematically towards a cold bias in these years? Best regards Reinhard -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. Dezember 2006 12:32 An: Maurizio Maugeri; Reinhard Boehm Cc: Michele Brunetti Betreff: A plot Thanks Michele ! The first of the two plots is the one I'm talking about. Dear All, Apologies for filling your boxes. Here is a plot. This is for average JJA (daily) temps for 1961-90 (red) and 1772-1820 (black). This is all daily T. The middle lines are the averages, the outer solid lines are the 1st and 9th deciles (10the and 90th percentiles) and the dotted lines are the absolute extremes for Tmean. A plot like this for Milan or somewhere else in Northern Italy would be interesting. This implies to us that CET is OK. This makes it harder to change your summers that much - well not as much as NITA would imply. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Ao.Univ.Prof. Dr. Kurt Nicolussi Tree-ring Group / Institute of Geography University of Innsbruck Innrain 52 A-6020 Innsbruck Tel +43 512 507 5673 Fax +43 512 507 2806 -- David Frank Eidg. Forschungsanstalt für Wald, Schnee und Landschaft WSL Paläo-Klimatologie Zürcherstrasse 111 CH-8903 Birmensdorf +41 44 7392 282 +41 44 7392 215 david.frank@wsl.ch [2]http://www.wsl.ch ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP ([3]http://horde.org/imp/) at WSL ([4]http://www.wsl.ch). -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 3640. 2006-12-18 ______________________________________________________ cc: Marquis@ucar.edu, tignor@ucar.edu, averyt@ucar.edu, Henry.LeRoy.Miller@noaa.gov, qdh@cma.gov.cn, cdccc@cma.gov.cn, chenzhenlin@hotmail.com date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:30:11 -0700 from: Martin Manning subject: Compiled comments on the Final Draft SPM to: wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu, ralley@essc.psu.edu, rba6@psu.edu, artaxo@if.usp.br, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, amnat_c@jgsee.kmutt.ac.th, pierre@dsm-mail.saclay.cea.fr, j.m.gregory@reading.ac.uk, Jonathan.Gregory@metoffice.com, Isaac.Held@noaa.gov, kattsov@main.mgo.rssi.ru, Neville.Nicholls@arts.monash.edu.au, mati@at.fcen.uba.ar, peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk, Ronald.Stouffer@noaa.gov, b.j.hoskins@rdg.ac.uk Dear Colleagues Please find attached a compilation of the comments received from governments and NGOs on the final draft SPM. We may get some further late comments but these are a substantial set (nearly 1000) and probably raise all the major issues. In order to make it easier for you to find your way around them, we are providing 5 separate files corresponding to: General + introduction section; Drivers section; Observations section (inlcuding paleoclimate); Attribution section; and Projections section. Overall we are very happy with the way in which the SPM is being received. Although there are many minor issues where the comments identify misunderstandings that need to be cleared up, or suggest better ways of expressing things, there are only a few major issues. These are consistent with some of the comments on the previous draft and so are not unexpected. As in the work on our previous draft SPM, it's important that we jointly develop responses. Our preparation should work towards a successful process. Many constructive and helpful comments have been made in the attached but there are also constraints of several types. Some of these are practical, procedural, or based upon precedents, and we will need to discuss those. Please note that time will be very limited during the formal IPCC sessions in Paris and will also constrain what is practical. A much longer SPM is simply not an option, and we already have more figures than were in the TAR SPM. Finally, it is important to recognize that at previous IPCC approval processes, some written comments by governments were superceded by quite different stated concerns in the formal session, so the written comments cannot be assumed to be absolute at this stage. As we have mentioned earlier we will use our meeting on Jan 27 and Jan 28 to finalize our jointly proposed revisions to the SPM in response to these comments. The TSU is currently preparing a revision in which all the more mechanical and obvious revisions are made. Early in the new year we will be contacting subgroups among you on specific science points and trying to ensure that we have discussed all the key SPM revisions carefully by email or conference call before arriving in Paris. We will also need to prepare some presentations to the delegates in Paris to assist the process. During Jan 29 to Feb 1 we are planning two types of science presentation by CLAs or LAs. The first type will be given during the 2-hour lunch breaks or in the mornings before the start of the plenary session. These will be open to any delegates who are interested, will be informal in style (no translation) and should be from 15 to 30 minutes long. The aim in these presentations will be to explain some of the underlying science, show typical data or results from the chapters where appropriate, and allow delegates to ask questions. These have been very helpful in the past as they allow delegates to interact with the authors in a seminar type of environment. They help to clear up misunderstandings and can be used to explain why some things being asked for by policymakers can not be provided. E.g in this type of presentation we would hope to explain why observed changes are often expressed probabilistically (which confuses some people) and how the sea level rise projections are derived. We should be able to allocate about 3 or 4 hours in total to these presentations and will cover a range of science topics suggested by the comments so far. In the attached compilation of comments the ones that we think can be assisted through science presentations are highlighted in a cyan color. The second type of presentation will be given as part of the formal plenary session and be used to introduce the key issues as we start each section of the SPM. These presentations should be 5 to 10 minutes long and summarize more specifically what is in the SPM and where it has come from in the chapters. We will only allow a very limited number of questions for these presentations and their main purpose is to orient the delegates to the material they are being asked to approve and remind them that it has to be based on the chapters. E.g this type of presentation could help clarify why we do not mix attribution statements with observation statements. To summarize: We will be contacting a few of you separately today or tomorrow about preparing the longer type of science presentations for Paris, then after Jan 1st we will be contacting subgroups regarding our options for revisions to the SPM. If you have any very specific suggestions for how to deal with particular comments or groups of comments please let us know. In the meantime enjoy the holiday season and we will be in touch again shortly. Regards Susan, Dahe, and Martin -- Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit NOAA, Earth System Research Laboratory Phone: +1 303 497 4479 325 Broadway, R/CSD 2 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 Boulder, CO 80305, USA Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\AR4FDR_BatchA_Team_General.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\AR4FDR_BatchA_Team_Drivers.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\AR4FDR_BatchA_Team_Obs.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\AR4FDR_BatchA_Team_Attrib.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\AR4FDR_BatchA_Team_Proj.doc" 379. 2006-12-19 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:26:07 UT from: grlonline@agu.org subject: Review Received by Geophysical Research Letters to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_116653476782846" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 3.01 (F2.6; B2.11; Q2.03) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:26:07 UT Message-Id: <116653476798@gems2> Dear Dr. Osborn: Thank you for your review of "Correction for proxy number and coherence in a large-scale temperature reconstruction" by David Frank, Jan Esper, and Edward Cook [Paper #2006GL028692], which we have safely received. A copy of this review is attached below for your reference. Thank you for your time and effort! Sincerely, James Famiglietti Editor Geophysical Research Letters ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Science Category: Science Category 2 Presentation Category: Presentation Category A Annotated Manuscript: No Anonymous: Yes Referrals: No Confidential Referrals: Highlight: No Highlight: Formal Review: Review of Frank, Esper and Cook "Correction for proxy number and coherence in a large-scale temperature reconstruction" This manuscript addresses the important issue of artificial changes through time in the variance of a frequently-used reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperature changes during the last 1200 years or so. Artificial change in variance is just one of a number of issues that remain to be dealt with in relation to this (and indeed some other) temperature reconstructions, but nevertheless it is entirely appropriate for a manuscript to focus on this one issue. The method used to quantify, and to compensate for, the artifical changes in variance is mostly appropriate, though further consideration to the issue of non-stationarity should also be given. The magnitude of the artificial changes in variance is sufficiently large to warrant this publication of a revised reconstruction that removes them, though it should be made clearer throughout that this is not the only issue to consider when evaluating the information provided by this and other reconstructions Similar adjustments to remove artificial changes in variance, arising from changing sample size through time, have been made in some other climate reconstructions (which should be cited to accurately represent the research record), though perhaps not in such a systematic way as presented here. Overall, therefore, I consider that this manuscript is appropriate for publication, subject to minor revisions. Major comments (1) As suggested in the introductory paragraph above, it should be made clearer throughout the manuscript that there are other important sources of uncertainty/error in the reconstruction that are not addressed here. Related to this, I would suggest that the word "correction" be replaced with the word "adjustment" in the title and at other appropriate places within the text because use of the word "correction" suggests that the new record is now "correct" whereas it will still be subject to considerable error (the estimated reconstruction error has not been shown in any of the figures either). (2) On pages 4 and 11 of the manuscript, it is noted that the method used to modify the records is applicable in cases where the individual time series are stationary. On page 11, this is followed by a mention of Jones et al. (2001), who applied the adjustments only to the high-frequency residuals from a smoothing filter, under the assumption that the high-frequency component will be stationary, but allowing non-stationarity on longer time scales. This is followed by the statement that tree-ring data contain noise on short and long time scales, which I presume is their justification for applying the adjustments to all time scales. It should be made clear that just because some data may contain noise on all time scales, this does not mean that they are then non-stationary on all time scales. Certainly it means that some component of the variability may contain artificial changes in variance on all time scales, which should be removed where possible but it does not mean that the entire time series variation is a random stationary deviation from a mean. I appreciate that it is not possible to know the non-stationary signal, and hence identify the stationary deviations from the signal, but nevertheless the manuscript would be improved by greater consideration of this issue. On page 11 it is stated that "we approached a rough stationarity requirement by setting the long-term mean of series to zero". This is a strange statement, since adjusting the mean level of a non-stationary series yields a series that is still non-stationary!! Perhaps a more defensible statement would be "we continued our analysis under the assumption that the individual tree-ring series were stationary; if this assumption is invalid, then some real climate changes during periods with small samples of data (e.g., the MWP) may be adjusted towards the mean level of our reconstruction by a greater amount than they should be Climate deviations during periods of small sample size might, therefore, be underestimated. We did, however, adjust the long-term means of each series to equal zero prior to making the adjustments." Overall, the stationarity assumption and its implications must be given greater consideration in the manuscript. (3) The manuscript appropriately cites previous work that has discussed the dependence of variance on sample size, put forward the adjustment method, and applies it to instrumental temperature data (Wigley et al., 1984; Osborn et al., 1997; Jones et al., 2001; Brohan et al., 2006). It would be appropriate to cite the adjustment method paper more prominently at the start of the discussion section (page 11). More importantly, however, it is necessary to point out that the method has previously been applied to temperature reconstructions. Careful reading of Briffa et al. (1998; Nature, 393, 450-455) indicates that they made variance adjustments when making a large-scale average of chronologies or of regional series, though it is not stated that they adjusted the individual tree-ring chronologies for this effect. Similarly, Jones et al. (1998; Holocene, 8, 455-471) also state that they made such adjustments when forming a large-scale average of individual series as did Briffa et al. (2001; J. Geophys. Res., 106, 2929-2941). It must be made clear that the current manuscript is not the first example of this method being used with proxy-based temperature reconstructions. (4) Overall, the text of the manuscript needs to be improved. Although it appears to be mostly understandable, there are cases throughout where the text must be much more precise and tight, to avoid ambiguities arising from slightly sloppy wording. Make sure, for example, that you take into account words with specific statistical meanings. The "mean-value function" is mentioned a number of times, for example, but it should be clarified that you don't mean the time-average of the reconstructed values, but instead you mean the average of the sample of data in one particular year. A careful reading of the manuscript by all the authors, with a view to considering whether a reader of the manuscript could understand precisely and unambiguously what has been done, or what is meant, should easily find the various problematic sentences. Minor comments (1) Abstract, final sentence: perhaps change "appear to" to "may", since you haven't demonstrated that these other reconstructions do contain similar biases. (2) Page 2, line 45: would "measurement records" be better than the more technical "predictors"? (3) Page 2, line 50: replace "namely" by "typically", since not all records deteriorate monotonically into the past. (4) Page 3, line 66: you cannot "eliminate changes in the proxy network", but you can "eliminate the influence of changes in the proxy network". (5) Page 3, lines 68-69: I don't understand "while remaining fixed to the ECS dataset". (6) Page 3, line 78: replace "variance of a mean collection" with "variance of the mean of a collection". (7) Page 5, line 130: suggest you add "tree-ring" before "measurement" to remind the reader what data you are referring to. (8) Page 6: where RUNNINGr is discussed, you should also note and discuss the possibility that there could be real, climate-driven variations in inter-series correlation that you would want to retain, rather than considering them all as sources of artificial variance change. Also, why did you not consider a RUNNINGr adjustment when making the large-scale averaging set, where only the MEANr adjustment was shown. Did you try it and consider it to be inappropriate? For what reason? (9) Page 8, line 196: should "that make their mean highly sensitive" really be "that make their variance highly sensitive"? (10) Page 9, lines 226-229: the sentence about "self-consistent best estimates" needs to be explained more clearly. (11) Page 9, lines 229-231: expand this sentence about the overall temperature range (note "range" is better than "amplitude") to explain that the reason why the range is unaffected by the adjustments is that the "warmest" and "coldest" reconstructed temperatures occur (give dates) during periods with large samples of data. (12) Page 10, line 243: Jones et al. (1998) is not an EOF-based method, since they did composite plus scaling (they did show some EOFs of the proxy data, but didn't actually use them in making their NH reconstruction). (13) Page 12, line 289: I don't think the problem is just that the "site locations are generally less known", but rather that they may be more scattered with greater separation between them. (14) Figure 1C: Why do the standard deviations computed in running 100-year windows extend to each end of the record - I would expect them to stop 50 years from each end. (15) Figure 2D: The caption should say which line is which (red or black). (16) Figure 2E: The y-axis label says "Rel. variance" but should it be "Rel. St. Dev."? (17) Figure 3A: The caption states that this is a log scale, but the figure does not appear to have a log scale. (18) Figure 3B: The caption states that these are the "corrections", but I think that they are the "corrected series". (19) Supplementary material, lines 30-34: Make it clearer that the reason for the reduced variance earlier on is that they used many different regression models, each re-calibrated using the different subsets of proxy data that are available in each period. (20) Suppl. Mat., line 39: "speculative" not "speculate". (21) Suppl. Mat., line 48: what does "unadjusted MEANr adjusted" mean? (22) Figure S1: Are the units "degrees C" rather than "Z"? 2628. 2006-12-20 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Dec 20 16:44:41 2006 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Choice of model selection for expert elicitation to: Saffron O'Neill looks like a suitable choice to me. Tim At 14:54 18/12/2006, you wrote: Mike (and Tim) I've decided which model to use for the time series component of the elicitation. Tim and I worked this through and after spotting a few - now corrected! - errors, we have come up with the following plot (see the second page of the attachment 'seaice_anncyc')). This provides a more thorough method than simply estimating the model to use 'by eye' - several models (orange, red and pink triangles, light blue and dark purple circle) appear in the bottom left as showing the least deviation from the observed and model mean data. Taking this information and looking at the 'change' graph on page 1, the dotted orange line appears closest in shape to the model mean change for the seasonal cycle pattern (especially in the shoulder seasons of melt and freeze up, when the calculations for the [50%] time series plot to be used will be most affected). I've checked the timeseries for Hudson Bay, as an region I know a little about now from the polar bear lit, and the present day data appears reasonable. Therefore, I will be using the Max Plank echam5 model (unless either of you object to this). As echam5 has more than one model run time series, I will use the first model run for each region for consistency. (I've also attached a pdf showing 3 of the regions, scroll down to the bottom of page 5 for echam5 timeseries). Saffron Tim Osborn wrote: Some further comments: At 17:43 29/11/2006, Mike Hulme wrote: My thoughts on this below .... At 16:20 29/11/2006, Saffron O'Neill wrote: Tim and Mike I'm sorry, I did get my wires crossed on that one. To make things clear, I'll put the maps I need in order as per Mike's email: (a) model mean spatial map of change in [50%] 'ice-free' length in months i.e., (max = 12, min = -12) but this means mostly positive values, i.e., general increases in 'ice-free' length. yes, -12 to +12, but in fact most values look to be between -1 and +6 months (b) The time series - one per key region but preserve IAV - Mike, you have suggested I use the one closest to the model mean here, in which case I need to have figures for the mean for each of these time series sets and perhaps perform some kind of analysis on this to pick the closest model to the mean. Or, as I think Tim is suggesting, should I pick a model by eye that is closest for each regional set to the median value for that region? I would have thought choose the model that in its mean seasonal cycle response (when averaged across the whole Artic) is closest to the model-mean, i.e., choose one model and stick with it (one could choose different models for different regions, but this seems too complicated). I would concur with Mike, that seems simpler to choose one model for all 6 time series. You now have the data for the annual cycle of changes in total sea-ice area over the Arctic from me, so you could use that to select a model that is (a) fairly close to the observed annual cycle in the present-day period; and (b) fairly close to the model-mean change in the annual cycle. I would just use criterion (b) if it results in choosing a model that has the target change, but starts from a poor present-day simulation. (c) Instead of relying on the [50%] value (although this is backed up by the lit. I think it would be good to provide a little more information here, otherwise as you say Tim, the same judgment will be given to a 52% to 47% change as an 80% to 15% change). So instead, a model mean map for Sept and for March of change in sea ice concentration (NOT sea ice extent). If I understand it the scale would be from (near) infinity through zero to -100 with most values on the negative side (i.e., change in concentration in a cell in March from 87% to 63% = -24%, where a change in concentration from 1% to 4% = 400%). Fine, but the colour scale and legend may need skilful choosing. Mike -- you are right about choosing the colour scale/levels carefully if the change is expressed as a percentage of the initial value, i.e.: %change = 100% * (future - present) / present because if present is small then %change can be very large. But if this is simply: change = future - present then the values will be in a more reasonable range. Saffron -- when I've had time to get the individual model changes regridded onto a common grid, ready for averaging into a multi-model mean, perhaps you might want to come over and we can try various plotting options on screen so you can choose what you think conveys the necessary information in the simplest/clearest way for your purposes. It'll probably be Monday or Tuesday next week. Sound ok? Cheers Tim Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow 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: [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Saffron O'Neill (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 T: +44 (0) 1603 593 911 F: +44 (0) 1603 593 901 E-mail: s.o-neill@uea.ac.uk Web: [3]http://www.tyndall.ac.uk 4005. 2006-12-20 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 17:07:31 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Guiot, Schweingruber data to: t.kleinen@uea.ac.uk Hi Thomas, the gridded Guiot data do exist. I don't have a copy, though I could ask Joel for them and I'm fairly sure he would send them. However I don't think that they are appropriate to use, since values are computed even where no proxy values are available, and grid boxes with proxy data in them also include information from other proxies, if I recall his method correctly. For the Guiot reconstruction, therefore, I suggest just using the area-mean time series. For the Schweingruber data, calibrated regional-mean time series from Briffa et al. (2001) are available under plates 2 and 3 here: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/jgr2001/ and are useful because the averaging enhances the signal to noise ratio and because we have estimated the error ranges (note that the error ranges are not available on Keith's webpage, so I'll email those to you separately). We have also gridded the Schweingruber data and then calibrated it to represent April-September temperatures. These data are available in the attached text-format file. Because every grid box contains a tree-ring chronology, there is less extrapolation/interpolation and therefore it's more appropriate for comparison with models. Unfortunately we haven't yet published the details of how the gridding and calibration were done. Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were -- don't rely on the match after 1960 to tell you how skilfull they really are! Finally, note that the files gives the latitudes and longitudes of the centre of each box above each column (which is the time series for that box). +ve longitude is East of Greenwich meridian, -ve is west. The time series run from 1400 to 1994. Finally, finally, we (Keith and I) were wondering what more you wanted to discuss about proxy data/reconstructions on Thursday morning, and whether we could instead cover things via emails? Please let us know what you had in mind to cover at the meeting. Cheers Tim At 10:38 11/12/2006, Thomas Kleinen wrote: >Hi Tim and Keith. > >I have had a quick look at the Guiot and the Schweingruber data on the SOAP >website. > >In his paper Guiot writes that his aim was to extend the CRU 5° gridded >temperature series, but on the SOAP page only the European mean timeseries is >available. Does the gridded timeseries exist, and do we have access somehow? > >The Schweingruber data is more like what I had in mind, but density / ring >width doesn't really help, ideally I'd still need to translate that into >temperature changes, and I had hoped I wouldn't need to go into the theory on >that... So do you have that database as temperature changes as well, or >should I rather use that as "qualitative" data (little growth = rather cool, >much growth = rather warm)? > >Thanks. >Thomas Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\schweingruber_mxdabd_grid.dat" Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 991. 2006-12-21 ______________________________________________________ cc: Edward Cook , Keith Briffa ,Paul Krusic date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:45:55 +0000 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Any ideas? to: Edward Cook Ed, A guy from Bhutan came to the meeting we had in Pune in 2005. His name will be in the author list of the attached paper, but the series he had for Bhutan were all very short. I seem to recall the late 1980s, which just about worked with the software we were using with all the participants at the meeting. I guess we could do something with the data. We'd need to work out a new base period and then grid the absolute (say 1985-2005) and then use the anomalies to get 20 year time series. It is probably doable, but might take a bit of effort. It depends on who we have who can run the software here. Also need a high-res elevation dataset which we have - well at 10 min resolution. Let's talk about this next year. The proposal doesn't seem to promise much updating. Rob should be careful. I heard he was talking to McIntyre at a coffee place and the whole place could hear what they were saying. Rob was saying things like - don't use this on the website. I reckon sooner or later Rob will realise his new friend isn't one after all. Cheers Phil At 12:25 21/12/2006, Edward Cook wrote: Hi Phil, Believe it or not, I also peeked at Climate Audit last week as well to see what McIntyre had to say. He was actually rather low-key on the hockeystick session, although he was rather ugly as usual in criticizing past work including that done by Keith. However, Rob Wilson is evidently his new friend now. I warned Rob not to trust him because McIntyre will only use him for information to criticize the field. I too am rather puzzled by reference to Bunn and Lloyd getting NSF money to update chronologies. It is the first I have heard of it. I just went on the NSF website and found the proposal that has been funded: Award Abstract #0612341 Collaborative Research/RUI: Past, Present and Future Productivity of Arctic Woody Vegetation in a Warming Climate. I have attached a pdf from the website page that includes the proposal abstract. It does mention doing some chronology updates for looking at the "divergence" problem. Getting back to met records from Asia, do you have any from Bhutan? There is a reasonable chance that I can get data for as many as 82 stations there (see the attached Excel file). The problem, if it is one, is that the station records only start in 1985. Would they still be useful to you? If so, now for a possible catch. If I can get basically all of the Bhutan met data for you, would it be possible for you to produce high-resolution (say like your 10' European data) interpolated fields of tmp and ppt for Bhutan? That would be a huge development for Bhutan, and Paul and I would produce a climate atlas for Bhutan from the data in our collaboration with the Met Office there. Paul and I are really trying to push the science in Bhutan and we both think this would be a great thing to do. It would also make it easier for the Bhutanese to share the data with us. 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 ================================== On Dec 21, 2006, at 4:48 AM, Phil Jones wrote: Ed, I see on the Climate Audit web site (that I occasionally look at) that at the AGU last week, there was a talk by Andy Bunn and Andrea Lloyd. According to McIntyre, they are updating chronologies around the world (funded by NSF). Have you ever heard of them? Have a great Christmas and New Year! 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ Hi Phil, Believe it or not, I also peeked at Climate Audit last week as well to see what McIntyre had to say. He was actually rather low-key on the hockeystick session, although he was rather ugly as usual in criticizing past work including that done by Keith. However, Rob Wilson is evidently his new friend now. I warned Rob not to trust him because McIntyre will only use him for information to criticize the field. I too am rather puzzled by reference to Bunn and Lloyd getting NSF money to update chronologies. It is the first I have heard of it. I just went on the NSF website and found the proposal that has been funded: Award Abstract #0612341 Collaborative Research/RUI: Past, Present and Future Productivity of Arctic Woody Vegetation in a Warming Climate. I have attached a pdf from the website page that includes the proposal abstract. It does mention doing some chronology updates for looking at the "divergence" problem. Getting back to met records from Asia, do you have any from Bhutan? There is a reasonable chance that I can get data for as many as 82 stations there (see the attached Excel file). The problem, if it is one, is that the station records only start in 1985. Would they still be useful to you? If so, now for a possible catch. If I can get basically all of the Bhutan met data for you, would it be possible for you to produce high-resolution (say like your 10' European data) interpolated fields of tmp and ppt for Bhutan? That would be a huge development for Bhutan, and Paul and I would produce a climate atlas for Bhutan from the data in our collaboration with the Met Office there. Paul and I are really trying to push the science in Bhutan and we both think this would be a great thing to do. It would also make it easier for the Bhutanese to share the data with us. Cheers, Ed Content-Type: application/pdf; x-unix-mode=0644; name=Award#0612341 - Collaborative Research.pdf Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Award#0612341 - Collaborative Research.pdf" ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email: [1]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152 ================================== On Dec 21, 2006, at 4:48 AM, Phil Jones wrote: Ed, I see on the Climate Audit web site (that I occasionally look at) that at the AGU last week, there was a talk by Andy Bunn and Andrea Lloyd. According to McIntyre, they are updating chronologies around the world (funded by NSF). Have you ever heard of them? Have a great Christmas and New Year! 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 [2]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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\kleintanketal2006.pdf" e: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 330. 2006-12-05 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 15:40:47 +0000 from: Phil Jones subject: Dave - in confidence to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk Keith, Chris was pretty positive with Dave. Dave is going to make a business case for the MSc with additional modules. Try and have a look through it later this week. Chris has given Dave a few ideas for the plan. There is likely to be a demand for more people to get Climate Change training in the future. If Chris is successful it might be possible to get Dave a Senior Lecturer post. He won't get a Reader though as he's not got the publications for the RAE. Any post would have to be advertised and it may not all be able to be done in time for the end of March. You could raise the issue at the next Strategy Comm. which Chris says you'll have next week. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3143. 2006-12-05 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Briffa Keith Prof \(\(CRU\)\) f023" date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 11:00:58 -0000 from: "Alan Kendall" subject: Re: Fossil Fuels to: "David Viner" David, pity the author of that New Scientist piece doesn't know all of the literature. As you are aware, there are now dozens of peer-reviewed papers identifying the MWP and LIA outside of the North Atlantic. In addition, I believe that the last modelling done involving the Gulf Stream demonstrates that this does not convey much heat to Europe, its lost its heat well before that. Thus even a reduced gulf steam should not have caused the LIA. Objections to the "hockey-stick" do not entirely reside with the reality (or not) of the MWP or LIA. As I read the criticism, it mostly concerns the invalidity of the statistical manipulations used. I also thought that the Osborn & Briffa diagram you used last week did identify the MWP and LIA, so why are you seemingly supporting the "hockey-stick" by recommending a "nice article in this weeks New Scientist" ? As for supplying references, why bother? Any, like the Peruvian glacial study, are immediately ignored or explained away as being local. AlanK ----- Original Message ----- From: [1]David Viner To: [2]Alan Kendall Cc: [3]Briffa Keith Prof ((CRU)) f023 Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 4:01 PM Subject: Re: Fossil Fuels Hi there There is a nice article in this weeks New Scientist on the "Hockey Stick" graph, page 9. If anyone can send me any published literature (in the peer-reviewed journals) that does support the view that the current rapid rise in CO2 (and other GHG concentrations) and associated temperature changes are not down in part to human activity please do send them to me. Also if anyone can find the literature that states that 1990 were not the warmest decade of the last millennia please d send me the paper. Cheers have a good week end D +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr David Viner Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ Tel: +44 1603 592089 SKYPE Address: drdavidviner (Intermittent) Home Page: [4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/link Climate Change Masters Course: [5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/env/msc/ [6]http://www.e-clat.org Tourism and Climate Change The C-Change Trust [7]http://www.thec-changetrust.org/ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ On 1 Dec 2006, at 10:51, Alan Kendall wrote: Dear all, I trust you enjoyed the seminars yesterday. I certainly did, and from those of you who came to talk with me afterwards I gained the impression that you found it informative and stimulating. Perhaps you learned more about how academic argument occurs and have formed your own opinions about this. If so, then the entire idea of having these seminars has been worthwhile. Because the final minutes were taken up by an unscheduled "presentation" I was unable to make certain remarks, hence this e-mail. 1. Next week's lectures will be given by Dr. Congxiao Shan who will speak upon fuel use and transport, and upon the hydrogen economy (using fossil fuels) as well as using China as case histories. 2. Wednesday week 12's lecture will be given by Dr. Kieth Tovey, who will discuss carbon trading. I will finish up the lectures the next day with one reviewing the entire contents of the unit with perhaps something rather political - watch this space. I will of course be seeing you in the seminar slots. 3.Next week's seminars are upon 1) clouds and landuse changes influencing climate change, 2. the deficiencies of climate models, and 3.other causes of climate change, in particular solar changes. I have given advice to individual members of all three groups but if you need help with references, websites &c. please contact me by e-mail and I'll try to help. 4. Peter Brimblecombe will sit in on next week's seminars, but Dave Viner and Kieth Briffa have "threatened" to come as well. Is this because they were stimulated by the idea of these seminars or because you need to be "put right" after being subjected to undue influence by your's truely? Regardless, they are very welcome. 5. Finally can I emphasize that you are being asked to present the evidence for the proposition that evidence exists that is contrary to the commonly accepted "consensus" and to answer questions from this particular viewpoint. You are not being asked yourselves to assume any particular stance. In this regard it might be better for you to quote material from "reputable (?)" sources rather than assume these views yourself. Following on from this, you should know that I thought some of the criticisms directed at members of yesterday's presenting groups was perhaps unwarrented and unjustified. I was very impressed with some of you who stood up to such comments extremely well. To be absolutely fair, David Viner made some of the same points and commented favorably about some of the responses you made. I think you made a very creditable showing AlanK 2224. 2006-12-06 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 15:02:50 +0000 from: Howard Cattle (by way of International CLIVAR Project Office) subject: ACC - the CLIVAR perspective: 2nd International Conference on to: clivar-africa@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk, clivar-atlantic@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk, clivar-dacs@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk, clivar-etccdi@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk, clivar-gsop@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk, clivar-iop@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk, clivar-monsoon@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk, clivar-pacific@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk, clivar-pages@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk, clivar-ssg@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk, clivar-sthnocean@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk, clivar-vamos@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk, clivar-wgcm@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk, clivar-wgomd@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk, clivar-wgsip@mercury.noc.soton.ac.uk With apologies for any cross postings Dear all Further to my message below of 3 November, to which some of you responded directly, Tim Palmer has asked me to remind you again of this conference and in particular the session on "Modes of Variability under Anthropogenic Climate Change". Contributions to the session on how anthropogenic climate change affects modes of variability in the climate system, in the past, present, and future are welcome. Phenomena under consideration could be, but are not limited to, the North Atlantic Oscillation, El Nino-Southern Oscillation, or the ocean's Meridional Overturning Circulation. Both observational and modelling studies are welcome. Regards Howard >On 3 November 2006, Howard Cattle wrote: > >Tim Palmer has asked me to draw your attention to the CLIVAR/WCRP >cosponsored 2nd International Conference on Earth System Modelling >to and in particular the session on "Modes of Variability under >Anthropogenic Climate Change". The conference will be held at the >Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg from 27-31 August >2007. Details can be found at >http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/static/icesm/ ) > >We would like to encourage panels and working groups to contribute >papers to this session, especially those presenting work based on >analysis of the recent AR4 multi-model ensemble integrations. These >could then provide the basis for the proposed review paper on >"Anthropogenic Climate Change - the CLIVAR perspective" discussed at >the last SSG and in the subsequent email exchanges afterwards. > >It would be helpful if, in due course, you could advise me of any >relevant papers you submit to this session. > >Regards > >Howard -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Howard Cattle Direct Phone +44 (0) 23 80596208 Director Sec'y +44 (0) 23 80596789 International CLIVAR Project Office Fax +44 (0) 23 80596204 National Oceanography Centre, Southampton Empress Dock, SOUTHAMPTON, SO14 3ZH, UK. Email: hyc@noc.soton.ac.uk ***Note revised postal address and new email address (hyc@noc.soton.ac.uk)*** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CLIVAR - The Climate Variability and Predictability Project of the World Climate Research Programme http://www.clivar.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4275. 2006-12-07 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Dec 7 20:03:50 2006 from: Tom Melvin subject: Re: Leverhulme Proposal to: edwardcook Ed, We had news today. Leverhulme application was successful. Thank you again for the excellent reference. I will check on the Absoft compiler but I think I sent cd back to Paul for some reason although is still loaded on my PC. Leverhulme grant will buy me an Absoft compiler. I have compiled some programs successfully so if there are problems (should not be) I may be able to help. Tom At 16:50 07/12/2006, you wrote: Hi Tom, Would you please mail back the Absoft Fortran compiler for Windows? Paul has one of those new Intel Macs with Windows XP installed to run simultaneously with Mac OSX using the Parallels program. It is really cool! He wants to compile XP versions of our programs on his Mac, but needs to install the Windows compiler to do it. Any word from Leverhulme? Cheers, Ed ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email: [1]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152 ================================== Dr. Tom Melvin Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593161 Fax: +44-1603-507784 1588. 2006-12-08 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Dec 8 09:11:15 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Tom and Leverhulme to: Ed Cook,Malcolm Hughes Guys we have just heard positively from Leverhulme - I am relieved and grateful to you both. I think I 'll allow myself a large drink this weekend and look forward to sharing one with you two later. Thanks Keith -- 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/ 1684. 2006-12-11 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 08:52:23 +0000 from: Tom Melvin subject: Commiseration Cake to: cru.internal@uea Dear all, Due to Leverhulme's generosity you will have to put up with me for a further three years. To compensate, my wife cooked a fresh cream raspberry cake which is in the fridge. Must be eaten today. Tom Dr. Tom Melvin Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593161 Fax: +44-1603-507784 1777. 2006-12-12 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Dec 12 15:20:10 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: RE: Leverhulme to: "McCarroll D." Danny meant to contact you - but still busy celebrating - really though , thanks , as we have just heard that they will fund Tom . This is a big relief as I had to effectively sack someone a couple of months ago and was not relishing doing it again. Thanks to all at your end for making my recent brief stay pleasurable. Keith At 14:55 12/12/2006, you wrote: Hi Keith Any (good) news from Leverhulme? Danny -- 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/ 1408. 2006-12-14 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 07:43:00 -0000 (GMT) from: C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk subject: cafe eavesdropping to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, p.jones@uea.ac.uk Dear all Thought you might be interested to hear of my encounter this afternoon, sitting anonymously (without name badge) in a cafe round the corner from the AGU venue. The two sitting at the next table turned out to be Stephen McIntyre (no afiliation on his name badge) and Rob Wilson (Edinburgh). They were talking so loudly it was difficult not to follow the conversation in full. This included a critique of Mann, Moberg, von Storch, Wigley etc. etc and most disturbingly a discussion of the peer review system. Tim and Keith featured quite prominently in the latter! It was tempting to reveal my identify - but more interesting to listen in detail. I can tell you more next week! BEst wishes Clare 3409. 2006-12-14 ______________________________________________________ cc: 'Michael Grabner' , t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk, Reinhard Boehm , 'Phil Jones' , 'Maurizio Maugeri' , 'Michele Brunetti' , jan.esper@wsl.ch, 'Ulf Buentgen' date: Thu Dec 14 14:37:45 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: AW: A plot to: David Frank , Kurt Nicolussi Hi David and others The resilience of the tree-ring information , I agree , seems only to be enhanced by the multiple data set comparison. The issue of the specific "band limited" calibration is an important one here , in as much as the different data sets will require different optimal scaling (calibrations) , and the reconstructions should be considered along with their appropriate uncertainty bands. Your remarks on the density , support our ideas regarding the possibility (or even desirability ) of using "band specific calibrations" , as we discussed in the paper by Tim and myself (resurrecting the original idea by Joel). It is desirable to show the separate band reconstructions (and verification performance and regression coefficients) . Having said all this , it remains likely that difference between temperature and tree indices is pervasive . I was interested also to see that in a previous message ( as copied by Kurt) that your group is working on putting all the long Alpine temperature sensitive tree-ring data together - we ( Tom and I with Kurt and Michael) were also working towards this (hopefully with the benefit of the data your group has published) as originally outlined in the ALP-IMP plans, and I wonder what the precise plans you have ? We would not like to work at cross purposes. Cheers Keith At 12:24 14/12/2006, David Frank wrote: Dear Kurt (and all others). Thanks for the nice figures. I can only agree with your demonstration and point that a combination of all suitable data should produce a more robust estimate for past temperature trends. It is more and more apparent that any record which we consider a temperature proxy underestimates the early instrumental warm season warmth. The general tendencies displayed by the newer datasets that you show, seem to be consistent with some comparisons between the early instrumental records and other previously described tree-ring recons. However, in response to Reinhard's question to the tree-ringers, I could easily say there could be a whole variety of reasons why the tree-ring data contain more low-frequency variability than they should. The troubling part is that we can, and have, put out lots of hypotheses why these records all tend to "undershoot" the early instrumental data. From your graphs (and other quicker comparisons that i have done), it appears that Ulf's LADE-MXD record slightly underestimates the recent warming trend in the last 20 or so years in comparison to most other records (and also the instrumental data). During the earlier periods it seems to generally fall in the middle of the crowd and also captures the higher-frequency variability in the inst. records very well over a 240 year period. It seems like an advantage to be able to see how as many independent records as possible lie on the spaghetti plate. Perhaps, Keith or Tom have some helpful insights... Any thoughts on biological autocorrelation(esp. for MXD data) and detrending issues? best wishes, David Quoting Kurt Nicolussi : Dear Reinhard et al., here some plots (attached file) based on slightly different chronologies from Alps - the well know Büntgen et al. larch MXD, the Tyrol spruce MXD, the Pinus cembra TRW and a new Larch chrono (region of the Tyrol, combination of living trees, hist. and subfoss. material - RCS, power transformation) - the first two plots show the four series, single years and about 20 year smoothed, the other show some comparisons between the combined 4 chrono's and temperature data - especially the last plot indicates that the residuals are much better for the combined record. best regards Kurt Jan Esper wrote: Dear Reinhard et al., this is a fascinating discussion and enjoyed very much looking at the files you sent earlier. I just wanted to add that it would be great if you could wait a bit more until Dave came up with some first ideas on optimally combining all the long-term tree-ring data (that might not take too long anymore). I am absolutely convinced that we will produce an improved record including all the new tree-ring data, and that this record will include useful error estimates which might serve as an agrument to do more or less adjustments to the early instrumental data. I am also pretty sure that the combined record will consider certain frequency bands from certain datasets and parameters. Best wishes --Jan At 14:04 Uhr +0100 13.12.2006, Reinhard Boehm wrote: Dear Phil, Maurizio and Michele, Please apologise me not taking part actively enough in our discussion at the moment. The reason is, that since the beginning of last week I am confronted with a really incredible "hype" of the media which eats up all my time. The reason was a half-page message of our press-manager to the APA (Austrian press Agency) about the final ALP-IMP report. Since then I have done not much more than talking and writing about climate change topics, most of it not in relation to the project but about this year's warm autumn, these weeks winter tourism problems in the Alps and so on. So please do not believe I'm not anymore interested in our topic, I follow all your mails and I only want to tell you that I am also more tending to believe that may first version, to fit the early period exactly to the TR-series, may be somehow exaggerated. So Phil's last proposal, to adjust the JJAS by a bit less than I did, seems to make sense also to me. And I also think that something like a Zero-adjustment for winter would be the best solution. The only thing we should consider would be how to describe our arguments for doing so. I would also be interested about the opinion of the treering group about that: As you see, we "instrumentalists" have now come to a point short before deciding on a definite set of monthly adjustments for the early instrumental series which we think should be somewhat less than the total offset versus the TR-series. Do you have arguments to support this? Do you have ideas why TR-series tended to systematically towards a cold bias in these years? Best regards Reinhard -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. Dezember 2006 12:32 An: Maurizio Maugeri; Reinhard Boehm Cc: Michele Brunetti Betreff: A plot Thanks Michele ! The first of the two plots is the one I'm talking about. Dear All, Apologies for filling your boxes. Here is a plot. This is for average JJA (daily) temps for 1961-90 (red) and 1772-1820 (black). This is all daily T. The middle lines are the averages, the outer solid lines are the 1st and 9th deciles (10the and 90th percentiles) and the dotted lines are the absolute extremes for Tmean. A plot like this for Milan or somewhere else in Northern Italy would be interesting. This implies to us that CET is OK. This makes it harder to change your summers that much - well not as much as NITA would imply. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Ao.Univ.Prof. Dr. Kurt Nicolussi Tree-ring Group / Institute of Geography University of Innsbruck Innrain 52 A-6020 Innsbruck Tel +43 512 507 5673 Fax +43 512 507 2806 -- David Frank Eidg. Forschungsanstalt für Wald, Schnee und Landschaft WSL Paläo-Klimatologie Zürcherstrasse 111 CH-8903 Birmensdorf +41 44 7392 282 +41 44 7392 215 david.frank@wsl.ch [2]http://www.wsl.ch ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP ([3]http://horde.org/imp/) at WSL ([4]http://www.wsl.ch). -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 3640. 2006-12-18 ______________________________________________________ cc: Marquis@ucar.edu, tignor@ucar.edu, averyt@ucar.edu, Henry.LeRoy.Miller@noaa.gov, qdh@cma.gov.cn, cdccc@cma.gov.cn, chenzhenlin@hotmail.com date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:30:11 -0700 from: Martin Manning subject: Compiled comments on the Final Draft SPM to: wg1-ar4-clas@joss.ucar.edu, ralley@essc.psu.edu, rba6@psu.edu, artaxo@if.usp.br, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, amnat_c@jgsee.kmutt.ac.th, pierre@dsm-mail.saclay.cea.fr, j.m.gregory@reading.ac.uk, Jonathan.Gregory@metoffice.com, Isaac.Held@noaa.gov, kattsov@main.mgo.rssi.ru, Neville.Nicholls@arts.monash.edu.au, mati@at.fcen.uba.ar, peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk, Ronald.Stouffer@noaa.gov, b.j.hoskins@rdg.ac.uk Dear Colleagues Please find attached a compilation of the comments received from governments and NGOs on the final draft SPM. We may get some further late comments but these are a substantial set (nearly 1000) and probably raise all the major issues. In order to make it easier for you to find your way around them, we are providing 5 separate files corresponding to: General + introduction section; Drivers section; Observations section (inlcuding paleoclimate); Attribution section; and Projections section. Overall we are very happy with the way in which the SPM is being received. Although there are many minor issues where the comments identify misunderstandings that need to be cleared up, or suggest better ways of expressing things, there are only a few major issues. These are consistent with some of the comments on the previous draft and so are not unexpected. As in the work on our previous draft SPM, it's important that we jointly develop responses. Our preparation should work towards a successful process. Many constructive and helpful comments have been made in the attached but there are also constraints of several types. Some of these are practical, procedural, or based upon precedents, and we will need to discuss those. Please note that time will be very limited during the formal IPCC sessions in Paris and will also constrain what is practical. A much longer SPM is simply not an option, and we already have more figures than were in the TAR SPM. Finally, it is important to recognize that at previous IPCC approval processes, some written comments by governments were superceded by quite different stated concerns in the formal session, so the written comments cannot be assumed to be absolute at this stage. As we have mentioned earlier we will use our meeting on Jan 27 and Jan 28 to finalize our jointly proposed revisions to the SPM in response to these comments. The TSU is currently preparing a revision in which all the more mechanical and obvious revisions are made. Early in the new year we will be contacting subgroups among you on specific science points and trying to ensure that we have discussed all the key SPM revisions carefully by email or conference call before arriving in Paris. We will also need to prepare some presentations to the delegates in Paris to assist the process. During Jan 29 to Feb 1 we are planning two types of science presentation by CLAs or LAs. The first type will be given during the 2-hour lunch breaks or in the mornings before the start of the plenary session. These will be open to any delegates who are interested, will be informal in style (no translation) and should be from 15 to 30 minutes long. The aim in these presentations will be to explain some of the underlying science, show typical data or results from the chapters where appropriate, and allow delegates to ask questions. These have been very helpful in the past as they allow delegates to interact with the authors in a seminar type of environment. They help to clear up misunderstandings and can be used to explain why some things being asked for by policymakers can not be provided. E.g in this type of presentation we would hope to explain why observed changes are often expressed probabilistically (which confuses some people) and how the sea level rise projections are derived. We should be able to allocate about 3 or 4 hours in total to these presentations and will cover a range of science topics suggested by the comments so far. In the attached compilation of comments the ones that we think can be assisted through science presentations are highlighted in a cyan color. The second type of presentation will be given as part of the formal plenary session and be used to introduce the key issues as we start each section of the SPM. These presentations should be 5 to 10 minutes long and summarize more specifically what is in the SPM and where it has come from in the chapters. We will only allow a very limited number of questions for these presentations and their main purpose is to orient the delegates to the material they are being asked to approve and remind them that it has to be based on the chapters. E.g this type of presentation could help clarify why we do not mix attribution statements with observation statements. To summarize: We will be contacting a few of you separately today or tomorrow about preparing the longer type of science presentations for Paris, then after Jan 1st we will be contacting subgroups regarding our options for revisions to the SPM. If you have any very specific suggestions for how to deal with particular comments or groups of comments please let us know. In the meantime enjoy the holiday season and we will be in touch again shortly. Regards Susan, Dahe, and Martin -- Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit NOAA, Earth System Research Laboratory Phone: +1 303 497 4479 325 Broadway, R/CSD 2 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 Boulder, CO 80305, USA Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\AR4FDR_BatchA_Team_General.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\AR4FDR_BatchA_Team_Drivers.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\AR4FDR_BatchA_Team_Obs.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\AR4FDR_BatchA_Team_Attrib.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\AR4FDR_BatchA_Team_Proj.doc" 379. 2006-12-19 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:26:07 UT from: grlonline@agu.org subject: Review Received by Geophysical Research Letters to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_116653476782846" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 3.01 (F2.6; B2.11; Q2.03) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:26:07 UT Message-Id: <116653476798@gems2> Dear Dr. Osborn: Thank you for your review of "Correction for proxy number and coherence in a large-scale temperature reconstruction" by David Frank, Jan Esper, and Edward Cook [Paper #2006GL028692], which we have safely received. A copy of this review is attached below for your reference. Thank you for your time and effort! Sincerely, James Famiglietti Editor Geophysical Research Letters ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Science Category: Science Category 2 Presentation Category: Presentation Category A Annotated Manuscript: No Anonymous: Yes Referrals: No Confidential Referrals: Highlight: No Highlight: Formal Review: Review of Frank, Esper and Cook "Correction for proxy number and coherence in a large-scale temperature reconstruction" This manuscript addresses the important issue of artificial changes through time in the variance of a frequently-used reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperature changes during the last 1200 years or so. Artificial change in variance is just one of a number of issues that remain to be dealt with in relation to this (and indeed some other) temperature reconstructions, but nevertheless it is entirely appropriate for a manuscript to focus on this one issue. The method used to quantify, and to compensate for, the artifical changes in variance is mostly appropriate, though further consideration to the issue of non-stationarity should also be given. The magnitude of the artificial changes in variance is sufficiently large to warrant this publication of a revised reconstruction that removes them, though it should be made clearer throughout that this is not the only issue to consider when evaluating the information provided by this and other reconstructions Similar adjustments to remove artificial changes in variance, arising from changing sample size through time, have been made in some other climate reconstructions (which should be cited to accurately represent the research record), though perhaps not in such a systematic way as presented here. Overall, therefore, I consider that this manuscript is appropriate for publication, subject to minor revisions. Major comments (1) As suggested in the introductory paragraph above, it should be made clearer throughout the manuscript that there are other important sources of uncertainty/error in the reconstruction that are not addressed here. Related to this, I would suggest that the word "correction" be replaced with the word "adjustment" in the title and at other appropriate places within the text because use of the word "correction" suggests that the new record is now "correct" whereas it will still be subject to considerable error (the estimated reconstruction error has not been shown in any of the figures either). (2) On pages 4 and 11 of the manuscript, it is noted that the method used to modify the records is applicable in cases where the individual time series are stationary. On page 11, this is followed by a mention of Jones et al. (2001), who applied the adjustments only to the high-frequency residuals from a smoothing filter, under the assumption that the high-frequency component will be stationary, but allowing non-stationarity on longer time scales. This is followed by the statement that tree-ring data contain noise on short and long time scales, which I presume is their justification for applying the adjustments to all time scales. It should be made clear that just because some data may contain noise on all time scales, this does not mean that they are then non-stationary on all time scales. Certainly it means that some component of the variability may contain artificial changes in variance on all time scales, which should be removed where possible but it does not mean that the entire time series variation is a random stationary deviation from a mean. I appreciate that it is not possible to know the non-stationary signal, and hence identify the stationary deviations from the signal, but nevertheless the manuscript would be improved by greater consideration of this issue. On page 11 it is stated that "we approached a rough stationarity requirement by setting the long-term mean of series to zero". This is a strange statement, since adjusting the mean level of a non-stationary series yields a series that is still non-stationary!! Perhaps a more defensible statement would be "we continued our analysis under the assumption that the individual tree-ring series were stationary; if this assumption is invalid, then some real climate changes during periods with small samples of data (e.g., the MWP) may be adjusted towards the mean level of our reconstruction by a greater amount than they should be Climate deviations during periods of small sample size might, therefore, be underestimated. We did, however, adjust the long-term means of each series to equal zero prior to making the adjustments." Overall, the stationarity assumption and its implications must be given greater consideration in the manuscript. (3) The manuscript appropriately cites previous work that has discussed the dependence of variance on sample size, put forward the adjustment method, and applies it to instrumental temperature data (Wigley et al., 1984; Osborn et al., 1997; Jones et al., 2001; Brohan et al., 2006). It would be appropriate to cite the adjustment method paper more prominently at the start of the discussion section (page 11). More importantly, however, it is necessary to point out that the method has previously been applied to temperature reconstructions. Careful reading of Briffa et al. (1998; Nature, 393, 450-455) indicates that they made variance adjustments when making a large-scale average of chronologies or of regional series, though it is not stated that they adjusted the individual tree-ring chronologies for this effect. Similarly, Jones et al. (1998; Holocene, 8, 455-471) also state that they made such adjustments when forming a large-scale average of individual series as did Briffa et al. (2001; J. Geophys. Res., 106, 2929-2941). It must be made clear that the current manuscript is not the first example of this method being used with proxy-based temperature reconstructions. (4) Overall, the text of the manuscript needs to be improved. Although it appears to be mostly understandable, there are cases throughout where the text must be much more precise and tight, to avoid ambiguities arising from slightly sloppy wording. Make sure, for example, that you take into account words with specific statistical meanings. The "mean-value function" is mentioned a number of times, for example, but it should be clarified that you don't mean the time-average of the reconstructed values, but instead you mean the average of the sample of data in one particular year. A careful reading of the manuscript by all the authors, with a view to considering whether a reader of the manuscript could understand precisely and unambiguously what has been done, or what is meant, should easily find the various problematic sentences. Minor comments (1) Abstract, final sentence: perhaps change "appear to" to "may", since you haven't demonstrated that these other reconstructions do contain similar biases. (2) Page 2, line 45: would "measurement records" be better than the more technical "predictors"? (3) Page 2, line 50: replace "namely" by "typically", since not all records deteriorate monotonically into the past. (4) Page 3, line 66: you cannot "eliminate changes in the proxy network", but you can "eliminate the influence of changes in the proxy network". (5) Page 3, lines 68-69: I don't understand "while remaining fixed to the ECS dataset". (6) Page 3, line 78: replace "variance of a mean collection" with "variance of the mean of a collection". (7) Page 5, line 130: suggest you add "tree-ring" before "measurement" to remind the reader what data you are referring to. (8) Page 6: where RUNNINGr is discussed, you should also note and discuss the possibility that there could be real, climate-driven variations in inter-series correlation that you would want to retain, rather than considering them all as sources of artificial variance change. Also, why did you not consider a RUNNINGr adjustment when making the large-scale averaging set, where only the MEANr adjustment was shown. Did you try it and consider it to be inappropriate? For what reason? (9) Page 8, line 196: should "that make their mean highly sensitive" really be "that make their variance highly sensitive"? (10) Page 9, lines 226-229: the sentence about "self-consistent best estimates" needs to be explained more clearly. (11) Page 9, lines 229-231: expand this sentence about the overall temperature range (note "range" is better than "amplitude") to explain that the reason why the range is unaffected by the adjustments is that the "warmest" and "coldest" reconstructed temperatures occur (give dates) during periods with large samples of data. (12) Page 10, line 243: Jones et al. (1998) is not an EOF-based method, since they did composite plus scaling (they did show some EOFs of the proxy data, but didn't actually use them in making their NH reconstruction). (13) Page 12, line 289: I don't think the problem is just that the "site locations are generally less known", but rather that they may be more scattered with greater separation between them. (14) Figure 1C: Why do the standard deviations computed in running 100-year windows extend to each end of the record - I would expect them to stop 50 years from each end. (15) Figure 2D: The caption should say which line is which (red or black). (16) Figure 2E: The y-axis label says "Rel. variance" but should it be "Rel. St. Dev."? (17) Figure 3A: The caption states that this is a log scale, but the figure does not appear to have a log scale. (18) Figure 3B: The caption states that these are the "corrections", but I think that they are the "corrected series". (19) Supplementary material, lines 30-34: Make it clearer that the reason for the reduced variance earlier on is that they used many different regression models, each re-calibrated using the different subsets of proxy data that are available in each period. (20) Suppl. Mat., line 39: "speculative" not "speculate". (21) Suppl. Mat., line 48: what does "unadjusted MEANr adjusted" mean? (22) Figure S1: Are the units "degrees C" rather than "Z"? 2628. 2006-12-20 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Dec 20 16:44:41 2006 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Choice of model selection for expert elicitation to: Saffron O'Neill looks like a suitable choice to me. Tim At 14:54 18/12/2006, you wrote: Mike (and Tim) I've decided which model to use for the time series component of the elicitation. Tim and I worked this through and after spotting a few - now corrected! - errors, we have come up with the following plot (see the second page of the attachment 'seaice_anncyc')). This provides a more thorough method than simply estimating the model to use 'by eye' - several models (orange, red and pink triangles, light blue and dark purple circle) appear in the bottom left as showing the least deviation from the observed and model mean data. Taking this information and looking at the 'change' graph on page 1, the dotted orange line appears closest in shape to the model mean change for the seasonal cycle pattern (especially in the shoulder seasons of melt and freeze up, when the calculations for the [50%] time series plot to be used will be most affected). I've checked the timeseries for Hudson Bay, as an region I know a little about now from the polar bear lit, and the present day data appears reasonable. Therefore, I will be using the Max Plank echam5 model (unless either of you object to this). As echam5 has more than one model run time series, I will use the first model run for each region for consistency. (I've also attached a pdf showing 3 of the regions, scroll down to the bottom of page 5 for echam5 timeseries). Saffron Tim Osborn wrote: Some further comments: At 17:43 29/11/2006, Mike Hulme wrote: My thoughts on this below .... At 16:20 29/11/2006, Saffron O'Neill wrote: Tim and Mike I'm sorry, I did get my wires crossed on that one. To make things clear, I'll put the maps I need in order as per Mike's email: (a) model mean spatial map of change in [50%] 'ice-free' length in months i.e., (max = 12, min = -12) but this means mostly positive values, i.e., general increases in 'ice-free' length. yes, -12 to +12, but in fact most values look to be between -1 and +6 months (b) The time series - one per key region but preserve IAV - Mike, you have suggested I use the one closest to the model mean here, in which case I need to have figures for the mean for each of these time series sets and perhaps perform some kind of analysis on this to pick the closest model to the mean. Or, as I think Tim is suggesting, should I pick a model by eye that is closest for each regional set to the median value for that region? I would have thought choose the model that in its mean seasonal cycle response (when averaged across the whole Artic) is closest to the model-mean, i.e., choose one model and stick with it (one could choose different models for different regions, but this seems too complicated). I would concur with Mike, that seems simpler to choose one model for all 6 time series. You now have the data for the annual cycle of changes in total sea-ice area over the Arctic from me, so you could use that to select a model that is (a) fairly close to the observed annual cycle in the present-day period; and (b) fairly close to the model-mean change in the annual cycle. I would just use criterion (b) if it results in choosing a model that has the target change, but starts from a poor present-day simulation. (c) Instead of relying on the [50%] value (although this is backed up by the lit. I think it would be good to provide a little more information here, otherwise as you say Tim, the same judgment will be given to a 52% to 47% change as an 80% to 15% change). So instead, a model mean map for Sept and for March of change in sea ice concentration (NOT sea ice extent). If I understand it the scale would be from (near) infinity through zero to -100 with most values on the negative side (i.e., change in concentration in a cell in March from 87% to 63% = -24%, where a change in concentration from 1% to 4% = 400%). Fine, but the colour scale and legend may need skilful choosing. Mike -- you are right about choosing the colour scale/levels carefully if the change is expressed as a percentage of the initial value, i.e.: %change = 100% * (future - present) / present because if present is small then %change can be very large. But if this is simply: change = future - present then the values will be in a more reasonable range. Saffron -- when I've had time to get the individual model changes regridded onto a common grid, ready for averaging into a multi-model mean, perhaps you might want to come over and we can try various plotting options on screen so you can choose what you think conveys the necessary information in the simplest/clearest way for your purposes. It'll probably be Monday or Tuesday next week. Sound ok? Cheers Tim Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow 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: [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Saffron O'Neill (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 T: +44 (0) 1603 593 911 F: +44 (0) 1603 593 901 E-mail: s.o-neill@uea.ac.uk Web: [3]http://www.tyndall.ac.uk 4005. 2006-12-20 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 17:07:31 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Guiot, Schweingruber data to: t.kleinen@uea.ac.uk Hi Thomas, the gridded Guiot data do exist. I don't have a copy, though I could ask Joel for them and I'm fairly sure he would send them. However I don't think that they are appropriate to use, since values are computed even where no proxy values are available, and grid boxes with proxy data in them also include information from other proxies, if I recall his method correctly. For the Guiot reconstruction, therefore, I suggest just using the area-mean time series. For the Schweingruber data, calibrated regional-mean time series from Briffa et al. (2001) are available under plates 2 and 3 here: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/jgr2001/ and are useful because the averaging enhances the signal to noise ratio and because we have estimated the error ranges (note that the error ranges are not available on Keith's webpage, so I'll email those to you separately). We have also gridded the Schweingruber data and then calibrated it to represent April-September temperatures. These data are available in the attached text-format file. Because every grid box contains a tree-ring chronology, there is less extrapolation/interpolation and therefore it's more appropriate for comparison with models. Unfortunately we haven't yet published the details of how the gridding and calibration were done. Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were -- don't rely on the match after 1960 to tell you how skilfull they really are! Finally, note that the files gives the latitudes and longitudes of the centre of each box above each column (which is the time series for that box). +ve longitude is East of Greenwich meridian, -ve is west. The time series run from 1400 to 1994. Finally, finally, we (Keith and I) were wondering what more you wanted to discuss about proxy data/reconstructions on Thursday morning, and whether we could instead cover things via emails? Please let us know what you had in mind to cover at the meeting. Cheers Tim At 10:38 11/12/2006, Thomas Kleinen wrote: >Hi Tim and Keith. > >I have had a quick look at the Guiot and the Schweingruber data on the SOAP >website. > >In his paper Guiot writes that his aim was to extend the CRU 5° gridded >temperature series, but on the SOAP page only the European mean timeseries is >available. Does the gridded timeseries exist, and do we have access somehow? > >The Schweingruber data is more like what I had in mind, but density / ring >width doesn't really help, ideally I'd still need to translate that into >temperature changes, and I had hoped I wouldn't need to go into the theory on >that... So do you have that database as temperature changes as well, or >should I rather use that as "qualitative" data (little growth = rather cool, >much growth = rather warm)? > >Thanks. >Thomas Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\schweingruber_mxdabd_grid.dat" Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow 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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm 991. 2006-12-21 ______________________________________________________ cc: Edward Cook , Keith Briffa ,Paul Krusic date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:45:55 +0000 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Any ideas? to: Edward Cook Ed, A guy from Bhutan came to the meeting we had in Pune in 2005. His name will be in the author list of the attached paper, but the series he had for Bhutan were all very short. I seem to recall the late 1980s, which just about worked with the software we were using with all the participants at the meeting. I guess we could do something with the data. We'd need to work out a new base period and then grid the absolute (say 1985-2005) and then use the anomalies to get 20 year time series. It is probably doable, but might take a bit of effort. It depends on who we have who can run the software here. Also need a high-res elevation dataset which we have - well at 10 min resolution. Let's talk about this next year. The proposal doesn't seem to promise much updating. Rob should be careful. I heard he was talking to McIntyre at a coffee place and the whole place could hear what they were saying. Rob was saying things like - don't use this on the website. I reckon sooner or later Rob will realise his new friend isn't one after all. Cheers Phil At 12:25 21/12/2006, Edward Cook wrote: Hi Phil, Believe it or not, I also peeked at Climate Audit last week as well to see what McIntyre had to say. He was actually rather low-key on the hockeystick session, although he was rather ugly as usual in criticizing past work including that done by Keith. However, Rob Wilson is evidently his new friend now. I warned Rob not to trust him because McIntyre will only use him for information to criticize the field. I too am rather puzzled by reference to Bunn and Lloyd getting NSF money to update chronologies. It is the first I have heard of it. I just went on the NSF website and found the proposal that has been funded: Award Abstract #0612341 Collaborative Research/RUI: Past, Present and Future Productivity of Arctic Woody Vegetation in a Warming Climate. I have attached a pdf from the website page that includes the proposal abstract. It does mention doing some chronology updates for looking at the "divergence" problem. Getting back to met records from Asia, do you have any from Bhutan? There is a reasonable chance that I can get data for as many as 82 stations there (see the attached Excel file). The problem, if it is one, is that the station records only start in 1985. Would they still be useful to you? If so, now for a possible catch. If I can get basically all of the Bhutan met data for you, would it be possible for you to produce high-resolution (say like your 10' European data) interpolated fields of tmp and ppt for Bhutan? That would be a huge development for Bhutan, and Paul and I would produce a climate atlas for Bhutan from the data in our collaboration with the Met Office there. Paul and I are really trying to push the science in Bhutan and we both think this would be a great thing to do. It would also make it easier for the Bhutanese to share the data with us. 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 ================================== On Dec 21, 2006, at 4:48 AM, Phil Jones wrote: Ed, I see on the Climate Audit web site (that I occasionally look at) that at the AGU last week, there was a talk by Andy Bunn and Andrea Lloyd. According to McIntyre, they are updating chronologies around the world (funded by NSF). Have you ever heard of them? Have a great Christmas and New Year! 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ Hi Phil, Believe it or not, I also peeked at Climate Audit last week as well to see what McIntyre had to say. He was actually rather low-key on the hockeystick session, although he was rather ugly as usual in criticizing past work including that done by Keith. However, Rob Wilson is evidently his new friend now. I warned Rob not to trust him because McIntyre will only use him for information to criticize the field. I too am rather puzzled by reference to Bunn and Lloyd getting NSF money to update chronologies. It is the first I have heard of it. I just went on the NSF website and found the proposal that has been funded: Award Abstract #0612341 Collaborative Research/RUI: Past, Present and Future Productivity of Arctic Woody Vegetation in a Warming Climate. I have attached a pdf from the website page that includes the proposal abstract. It does mention doing some chronology updates for looking at the "divergence" problem. Getting back to met records from Asia, do you have any from Bhutan? There is a reasonable chance that I can get data for as many as 82 stations there (see the attached Excel file). The problem, if it is one, is that the station records only start in 1985. Would they still be useful to you? If so, now for a possible catch. If I can get basically all of the Bhutan met data for you, would it be possible for you to produce high-resolution (say like your 10' European data) interpolated fields of tmp and ppt for Bhutan? That would be a huge development for Bhutan, and Paul and I would produce a climate atlas for Bhutan from the data in our collaboration with the Met Office there. Paul and I are really trying to push the science in Bhutan and we both think this would be a great thing to do. It would also make it easier for the Bhutanese to share the data with us. Cheers, Ed Content-Type: application/pdf; x-unix-mode=0644; name=Award#0612341 - Collaborative Research.pdf Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Award#0612341 - Collaborative Research.pdf" ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email: [1]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152 ================================== On Dec 21, 2006, at 4:48 AM, Phil Jones wrote: Ed, I see on the Climate Audit web site (that I occasionally look at) that at the AGU last week, there was a talk by Andy Bunn and Andrea Lloyd. According to McIntyre, they are updating chronologies around the world (funded by NSF). Have you ever heard of them? Have a great Christmas and New Year! 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 [2]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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\kleintanketal2006.pdf"