>Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 10:06:52 -0400
>To: juppenbrink@science-int.co.uk
>From: "Raymond S. Bradley"
>Subject: Climate warming prespctives article
>Cc: mann@snow.geo.umass.edu, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu
>
>I have just returned from Finland and have now read all the correspondence
regarding the Science perspectives article you asked Keith Briffa & Tim
Osborn to write.  I've sent Tim Osborn & Keith Briffa a few suggestions re
their perspectives article.  If you would like to see them, let me know.
>I would like to diasassociate myself from Mike Mann's view that
"xxxxxxxxxxx" and that they "xxxxxxxxxxxxx".  I find this notion quite
absurd.  I have worked with the UEA group for 20+ years and have great
respect for them and for their work.  Of course, I don't agree with
everything they write, and we often have long (but cordial) arguments about
what they think versus my views, but that is life. Indeed, I know that they
have broad disagreements among themselves, so to refer to them as "the UEA
group", as though they all march in lock-step seems bizarre.
>As for thinking that it is "Better that nothing appear, than something
unnacceptable to us" .....as though we are the gatekeepers of all that is
acceptable in the world of paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant.
Science moves forward whether we agree with individiual articles or not....
>
>Sincerely,
>
>
Raymond S. Bradley
Professor and Head of Department
Department of Geosciences
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003-5820
Tel: 413-545-2120
Fax: 413-545-1200
Climate System Research Center: 413-545-0659
Climate System Research Center Web Site:
<


Dear all,
Ray accurately (though w/ not the same level of detail) obviously
recapitulates my main concerns here. As for the one area of
disagreement (not understanding the reason for expecting an overal
cooling during the 1st millennium), I'll refer Ray to the appropriate
areas of his Paleoclimatology text book, and show him some
additional recent work relevant to this, upon my return.
Thanks again to all for working to make the final product one
we can all be happy with.
best regards,
mike
_______________________________________________________________________
Michael E. Mann
________Current_____________________________Starting Fall 1999_________
Adjunct Assistant Professor      |    Assistant Professor
Department of Geosciences        |    Dept. of Environmental Sciences
Morrill Science Center           |    Clark Hall
University of Massachusetts      |    University of Virginia
Amherst, MA 01003                |    Charlottesville, VA 22903
_________________________________|_____________________________________
e-mail: mann@geo.umass.edu; memann@titan.oit.umass.edu (attachments)
Phone: (413) 545-9573      FAX: (413) 545-1200


Dear Steve,
AZ510.crn is a bristlecone pine chronology.  I suspect the others you are
working with are ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir.  In this region, these
lower-elevation species have quite a different response to climate than the
bristlecone.   I haven't worked with the AZ510 chronology, but I would
guess that bristlecone tree growth at this site would be favored by warm
winter temperatures and perhaps somewhat drier conditions, while the
ponderosa and Douglas-fir do well under cool, wet winter conditions.  This
may be the reason for your poor correlations.
regards,
Connie Woodhouse
Connie Woodhouse
NOAA Paleoclimatology Program
National Geophysical Data Center
325 Broadway
Boulder, CO  80303
ph: (303)497-6297
fax: (303)497-6513
email: woodhous@ngdc.noaa.gov
Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research
Campus Box 450
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO  80309
ph: (303)497-6297
fax: (303)497-6513
email: woodhous@culter.colorado.edu


Steve:
I've had some experience with bristlecone pine on the San Francisco Peaks
and you are correct in noting their lack of correlation with precipitation
records and with other precipitation sensitive tree-ring chronologies like
Slate Mtn. Ponderosa. There is no "problem" with the AZ510 chronology; it
is, as suggested by Dave, Connie, and Jim, a chronology constructed from
trees whose growth is not primarily limited by precipitation. Site location
and tree species are critical when comparing chronologies and evaluating
climate - tree growth relationships.
We've collected in the Peaks recently as part of an ongoing archaeological
and paleoclimate project and have built a chronology extending back to 663
BC, more than 1200 years longer than the AZ510 chronology collected by Don
Graybill in the early 1980's. We're working on a temperature reconstruction
from this chronology that should prove to be a valuable addition to the
already extensive archive of southwestern USA paleoenvironmental research.
Matt Salzer
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
University of Arizona
msalzer@ltrr.arizona.edu
Upper Midwest Aerospace Consortium
msalzer@aero.und.edu


see inserts
jfbmitchell@meto.gov.uk
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
The Met. Office, Bracknell
RG12 2SZ UK
Tel +44 1344 856613/6656
Fax+44 1344 856912
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Mike Hulme [SMTP:m.hulme@uea.ac.uk]
> Sent:	Friday, April 30, 1999 12:31 PM
> To:	Mitchell, John FB
> Subject:	RE: GEC paper
>
> John,
>
> Could you have a quick look at this paragraph (see below) from the GEC
> fast-track paper.  I do not understand:
>
> a) why CO2-doubling forcing for CM2 is cited (see your original email at
> the end of this message) as 3.26Wm-2 when I thought it was 3.471Wm-2 (I'm
> sure I've seen 3.471Wm-2 cited elsewhere for HadCM2).
[Mitchell, John FB]  3.471 in longwave, 3.26 when shortwave also
taken into account. Unfortunately modellers do not always make clear how
they have estimated their CO2 forcing.
>  and
>
> b) why the forcing curves in the plot William Ingram sent show higher
> forcing in CM2 than CM3 (by about 0.5Wm-2) when the CO2-doubling forcing
> is
> *lower* in CM2 cf. CM3.
[Mitchell, John FB]  HadCM2 is 1%/year increase in CO2 which is only
approximately equivalent to IS92a. Hadcm 3 is "95a" - in fact "95a" I think
differs only from in the conversion of the 92a emissions to concentrations,
so strictly speaking is not an emissions scenario. As far as I know, Tom
never did explain why his concentrations in 1995 were different form the
ones Jonathan and I derived using his 1992 model- I think CH4 liffetimes and
the CO2 sink were the main factors.
>  [is this solely due again to the difference between IS92a and IS95a
> concentrations?]
>
> and
>
> c) why the global-mean warmings in CM2 and CM3 are quite similar when CM3
> has a higher sensitivity than CM2 (3.3 to 2.5K over the next century) and
> CM3 also has a higher CO2-doubling forcing (3.74Wm-2 to 3.26Wm-2, or
> 3.47Wm-2 - see a)).  Surely this should lead to faster warming in CM3 cf.
> CM2?
[Mitchell, John FB]  See above - HadCM2 uses 1%/year increase in
CO2, which gives a greater forcing than HadCM3, even after the effect of
explicit trace gases is added in.
(about 0.5Wm-2 by 2100). The greater climate sensitivity does not
make as big a difference as one would expect. The difference in CO2 forcing
per doubling is not the issue- the net forcing is, and that has ben
calculated taking the difference in CO2 response into account
M aybe I have misinterpreted something here.
> Thanks,
>
> Mike
>
> ______________
>
> Paragraph from GEC paper ......
>
> "In HadCM3, greenhouse gas concentrations were increased from their 1860
> values up to present (1990) as observed and then following the IPCC
> emissions scenario IS92a (Leggett et al., 1992) from 1990 to 2100.  Only
> one simulation was carried out.  The increase in radiative forcing during
> the twenty-first century is very similar to HadCM2, being only 0.5 Wm-2
> (about 10%) smaller by 2100 than in the HadCM2 experiment (Figure 2).
> Note
> that the ratio of the increases in CO2 concentration (HadCM2/HadCM3) is
> much greater than the ratio of the changes in radiative heating.  There is
> a greater increase in heating in HadCM2, so a greater increase in CO2 is
> required to produce the same fractional increase in heating.  Also,
> because
> the heating due to doubling CO2 in HadCM2 is less than in HadCM3 (3.26
> Wm-2
> compared to 3.74 Wm-2), a larger increase in CO2 is required to give the
> same change in heating.  Note also that the increase in forcing varies as
> the logarithm of the change in CO2 concentration."
>
>
> At 14:54 09/04/99 +0100, you wrote:
> >Hi Mike.
> >
> >2xCO2
> >HadCM2    3.26 Wm-2 including stratospheric adjustment and allowance for
> >solar absorption.
> >hadCM3    3.74 Wm-2 as above.
> >
> >
> >Gordon C., C. Cooper, C. Senior, H. Banks, J. M. Gregory, T.C. Johns,
> J.F.B.
> >Mitchell and R. Wood, 1999. Simulation of SST, sea ice extents and ocean
> >heat transports in a coupled model without flux adjustments. Climate
> >Dynamics (provisionally accepted)
> >
> >Note year is 1997
> >Gregory, J. M. and J.F.B Mitchell, 1997. The climate response to CO2 of
> the
> >Hadley Centre coupled OAGCM with and without flux adjustment, J Geophys
> >Lett.,  24, 1943 -1946.
> >
> >I will try and look at then text now
> >John
> >jfbmitchell@meto.gov.uk
> >Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
> >The Met. Office, Bracknell
> >RG12 2SZ UK
> >Tel +44 1344 856613/6656
> >Fax+44 1344 856912
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From:	Mike Hulme [SMTP:m.hulme@uea.ac.uk]
> >> Sent:	09 April 1999 14:11
> >> To:	Mitchell, John FB
> >> Subject:	RE: GEC paper
> >>
> >> John,
> >>
> >> Here is a Word 6 version of the GEC paper.  You need to give me two
> >> references (Gregory and Mitchell 1998 and Gordon et al 1999?) and check
> >> through the bits I have added.  See especially what I have worded about
> >> CO2
> >> concentrations in Section 7 - quite what we cite for HadCM3 I'm not
> sure.
> >> It depends what the impacts people say about the sensitivity of their
> >> results to CO2 concentrations.  I also have a question in the text in
> >> Section 5 for you.
> >>
> >> Figure 10 is not made yet - I thought I would produce this inter-model
> >> comparison plot for the Amazon given the interesting results we were
> >> getting there.
> >>
> >> I will wait for your comments before sending it to Martin and the other
> >> impacts people, but I must do this by the 19th April at latest.
> >>
> >> I think I understand where the various CO2 numbers come from now.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >>
> >> At 11:59 09/04/99 +0100, you wrote:
> >> >Dear Mike,
> >> > I think we have traced where the different CO2 values have come from
> >> >			   HadCM2		      HadCM3
> >> >	            assumed  'correct'   	assumed   'correct'
> >> >	2020s		441      470	         457       434
> >> >	2050s		565      590	         574       528
> >> >	2080s		731      770	         712       638
> >> >
> >> >	The left hand HadCM2 value we think comes from SA90 - Peter Cox will
> >> >check. The second HadcM2 value is notional- I don't think the
> >> inconsistency
> >> >between the the columns matters that much, since there is no "correct"
> >> >HadCM2 value.
> >> >		The HadcM3 values do matter. The right hand side value is
> >> >what was used in the model, and what Willaim took from the TOM Wigley
> as
> >> >being the SAR IS95a values. I do not know where these are publicaly
> >> >available, and I have asked Dave Griggs that if we use new scenarios
> (eg
> >> >SRES) in the TAR, they are publicly available and well documented. The
> >> left
> >> >hand column appears to be from the 1992 IPCC supplement.(The annex by
> >> >Mitchell and Gregory). This used the then current UEA enrgy
> >> balance/carbon
> >> >cycle model to convert CO2 emissions to concentrations. I presume the
> >> >discrepancy comes from changes to the carbon cycle model and anything
> >> elses
> >> >affecting the conversion from emissions to concentrations.
> Unfortunately,
> >> as
> >> >far as I can tell, the SAR never refers to these or explains why the
> >> >concentrations are different.
> >> >		This could easily happen again. The situation with the new
> >> >SRES scenarios to me seems rather chaotic, anad again they are
> emissions
> >> >scenarios, not concentration scenarios. The initial GCM runs will use
> CO2
> >> >concentrations from one particular model. The TAR may report (probably
> >> will
> >> >report) different values since they will use a different model. The
> best
> >> >thing is to talk to the people who set up the GCM run to find out
> exactly
> >> >what was used in the model
> >> >
> >> >	With best wishes
> >> >	John
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >jfbmitchell@meto.gov.uk
> >> >Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
> >> >The Met. Office, Bracknell
> >> >RG12 2SZ UK
> >> >Tel +44 1344 856613/6656
> >> >Fax+44 1344 856912
> >> >
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From:	Mike Hulme [SMTP:m.hulme@uea.ac.uk]
> >> >> Sent:	08 April 1999 17:35
> >> >> To:	N.W.Arnell; Sari Kovats; Matt Livermore; parryml@aol.com;
> >> Andrew
> >> >> White; jfbmitchell@meto.gov.uk; gjjenkins@meto.gov.uk;
> >> >> r.nicholls@mdx.ac.uk
> >> >> Subject:	HadCM3 CO2 concentrations
> >> >> Importance:	High
> >> >>
> >> >> Dear Fast-trackers,
> >> >>
> >> >> In putting the scenario paper together for the GEC issue, John
> Mitchell
> >> >> and
> >> >> I have come up with slightly different CO2 concentrations for HadCM2
> >> and
> >> >> HadCM3 to what we had earlier assumed.  These CO2 concentrations
> will
> >> >> really have to appear in the scenario paper to be consistent with
> the
> >> GCM
> >> >> experiments.  Given the differences from the values (I think) you
> have
> >> all
> >> >> used in the impacts work, what significance does this have for your
> >> work?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> 		   HadCM2		      HadCM3
> >> >>             assumed  'correct'   	assumed   'correct'
> >> >> 2020s		441      470	         457       434
> >> >> 2050s		565      590	         574       528
> >> >> 2080s		731      770	         712       638
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> The difference is that the assumed HadCM2 concentrations are
> 20-30ppmv
> >> too
> >> >> low while the assumed HadCM3 concentrations are 20-70ppmv too high.
> >> >>
> >> >> The assumed HadCM2 concentrations came from Cox and Friend (they had
> >> >> already run Hybrid with these concentrations before the FT work got
> >> under
> >> >> way, so we adopted their values).  I cannot yet trace where the
> assumed
> >> >> HadCM3 concentrations came from, but the 'correct' values are what
> both
> >> >> John Mitchell and the IPCC (1996 report) have calculated for the
> IS92a
> >> >> scenario.
> >> >>
> >> >> Your suggestions on how best to handle this inconsistency would be
> >> >> appreciated.  How big a difference do these differences make to your
> >> >> impacts?
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >>
> >> >> Mike
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> **************************************************************************
> >> >> ***
> >> >> Dr Mike Hulme
> >> >> Reader in Climatology             tel: +44 1603 593162
> >> >> Climatic Research Unit            fax: +44 1603 507784
> >> >> School of Environmental Science   email:  m.hulme@uea.ac.uk
> >> >> University of East Anglia         web site:
> >> >> ~mikeh/
> >> >> Norwich  NR4  7TJ
> >> >>
> >>
> **************************************************************************
> >> >> ***
> >> >>          Annual mean temperature in Central England during 1999
> >> >>               is about +1.5 deg C above the 1961-90 average
> >> >>         ***************************************************
> >> >>       The global-mean surface air temperature anomaly for 1998
> >> >>  was +0.58 deg C above the 1961-90 average, the warmest year yet
> >> recorded
> >> >>
> >>
> **************************************************************************
> >> >> ***
> >> >
>
> >


Mick,
CONFIDENTIAL
I think I'm missing out on something here (refer also to Keith's email
where he talked about "CRU being railroaded by ENV"). My recollection was
that it was agreed that I should approach Reading to see if they are up to
anything & sound out if they might be interested in talking about a joint
bid. The suggestion may have been mine originally, but I do not have
absolute recollection over that. Southampton have approached us via the
Registrar and via Peter Liss. As far as I am aware, nobody from UEA has
approached them (although I have certainly argued with Jean that we should
at least talk with them).
I now have a leaked document which spells out some of the research
councils' thinking. I will get a copy over to CRU today. Please keep this
document within the CRU5, since it may compromise the source. NERC and
EPSRC are signed up. ESRC are not yet. Given the EPSRC stake, it will
certainly be be useful to get RAL etc involved. The funding might be
2million per year. That might imply that the Councils favour multi-site,
clusters, etc, but they stress they have no preconceptions.
Given some of their requirements, the JIF bid may be useful.
An important requirement seems to be to attract an "internationally
renowned and charismatic scientist" to be overall Director. Do you think we
should sound out Schneider? Watson?  ??
Trevor
At 11:17 01/05/99 +0100, Mick Kelly wrote:
>I can't make the re-arranged date so here is my input on some of the items
>I know are on the agenda:
>
>National Climate Centre:
>
>1. I feel even more strongly after learning more of the opposition that we
>should make a single site bid and capitalise on our proven track record as
>the only UK university which has covered and can cover all aspects of the
>climate issue from hard science to policy and philosophy.
>We should
>continue to firm up our links with NERC institutes, Hadley Centre, etc.
>But if we reach out to other universities we will:
>a) reveal what we see to be our sectoral weaknesses - a very bad strategic
>move
>b) have to split what is a limited pot of cash
>c) create a potential adminstrative monster that we know ERSC don't like
>from CSERGE experience
>d) weaken our comparative advantage as the place where all aspects of the
>issue are covered.
>It's my understanding that the CRU 5 have already decided in previous
>discussions that this is the way we should go? Trevor - do you want to
>argue against this? It's notable that we haven't been approached by other
>universities!
>
>2. Kerry reckons that likely limited lifetime of ESRC presence
>(Global Env programme office) at SPRU means it's not worth approaching
>them - so I haven't.
>
>3. I propose a working group be set up to move forward the centre proposal
>and ensure coordination/representation of views. 2 from CRU Bd,
>2 from CSERGE (Kerry and Neil?), Dean. Chair from CRU would be my vote -
>this should not all be loaded on Trevor's shoulders.
>
>Studentships
>To report on situation re my proposals:
>1. Craig Wallace (ex MSc) is reserve candidate (joint with Tim Osborn).
>2. My candidate for my solo topic was switched to the ESRC/NERC
>interdisciplinary bid by the studentship committee even though I'd told
>them we definitely couldn't put him forward for this - so that's
>scratched. They thought my topic was not NERC-friendly - but didn't tell
>me this till after the event. A number of phrases spring to mind but maybe
>they were just having a bad day.
>3. My feeling is best tactic for next year
>if we want more students - do we or are we at saturation point? - is to
>advertise early (now?), advertise applicants must have/be in line for a
>first or MSc with distinction, ensure we get feedback on topics from the
>committee and submit candidates early on in the process. Obvious, really.
>
>CRU 5 employment/salaries situation
>What is the current situation?
>
>AOB: Desk space for students
>Can I repeat that I think we should have policy on registration only ie
>post three year grad. students to be adopted when Nick finishes and before
>we hit the next late submitter? My feeling is a desk for 6 months then
>they move out to our overflow rooms in ENV. We should prioritise desk
>space in CRU for first year students. What does ENV do in this situation?
>
>Regards
>Mick
>
> ______________________________________________
>
>Mick Kelly                       Climatic Research Unit
>University of East Anglia     Norwich NR4 7TJ
>United Kingdom
>Tel: 44-1603-592091          Fax: 44-1603-507784
>Email: m.kelly@uea.ac.uk
>Web:
>______________________________________________
>
>
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Professor Trevor D. Davies
Dean, School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
Tel.  +44 1603 592836
Fax.  +44 1603 507719
++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Hi Keith,
Thanks very much for the update. Sounds like everything should be
good here. I'm sorry If I might have seemed to over-react, but
it was just to make sure we avoided the scenario of last year
where we had to end up publishing a followup letter because
we and Phil hadn't had adequate communication before the piece
was published. I'll look forward to seeing the piece in print.
It sounds like you guys have a done a very good job. Indeed,
Tim and we had a very constructive dialogue about things in
your absence. Will be in touch.
best regards,
mike
p.s. I mentioned to Phil it would be nice to get at least one
spatial pattern of your summer dendro temperature estimates into
IPCC, along with a pattern or two from our multiproxy recons.
I haven't heard back to Phil, but perhaps you can make a specific
suggestion, and send me an appropriate postscript file? It's
not too late to get this to Chris Folland for inclusion in the
initial draft. Thanks in advance...
_______________________________________________________________________
Michael E. Mann
________Current_____________________________Starting Fall 1999_________
Adjunct Assistant Professor      |    Assistant Professor
Department of Geosciences        |    Dept. of Environmental Sciences
Morrill Science Center           |    Clark Hall
University of Massachusetts      |    University of Virginia
Amherst, MA 01003                |    Charlottesville, VA 22903
_________________________________|_____________________________________
e-mail: mann@geo.umass.edu; memann@titan.oit.umass.edu (attachments)
Phone: (413) 545-9573      FAX: (413) 545-1200


Hi Phil,
SOrry that you have taken such a negative spin from this. I had hoped it was
all resolved pretty amicably, and emphasized to Keith and Tim that I was
being perhaps overly picky this time PRECISELY to avoid the misunderstanding
that happened last time around w/ Science.
Trust that I'm certainly on board w/ you that we're all working towards a common
goal. That is what is distressing about commentarys (yours from last year, and
potentially, without us having had approprimate input, Keith and Tim's now) that
appear to "divide and conquer". The skeptics happily took your commentary last
year as reason to doubt our results! In fact, your piece was references in several
commentaries (mostly on the WEB, not published) attacking our work. So THAT is
what this is all about. It is in the NAME of the common effort we're all engaged
in, that I have voiced concerns about language and details in this latest
commentary--so as to avoid precisely that scenario.
Please understand the above to be a complete and honest statement about the source
of my concerns. It really doesn't have anything to do about who did what first, etc.
I trust that history will give us all proper credit for what we're doing here.
The millennial-scale trend issue appears to be a source of contention. Malcolm can
address the replication issue better than any of us--it's not a problem w/ our
reconstruction. Furthermore, WE HAVE EXPLICITLY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE LOSS OF
LOW-FREQUENCY VARIANCE IN OUR ESTIMATES OF UNCERTAINTY. I don't know how many times
I need to stress this. It is of fundamental importance in framing our conclusions.
Our own analysis convinces me that things are already quite uncertain a millennium
back in time. With regard to longer timescale variations, the evidence is all
over the place. At EGS I saw some convincing evidence that many new paleo proxies
indicate steadily decline at least over several millennia, and so do, in large part,
the available long borehole estimates (though we should all take that w/ a good
dose of NaCl). So I'm skeptical of estimates more than a millennium back in time
until we have multiple proxies we can trust at that timescale, and can verify
somehow the DC component of the estimates, or at least replicate them. This was
my concern about the latest 2000 year recon that was shown.
You are right, the Milankovitch forcing argument is ONLY A NULL HYPOTHESIS. I hope
I haven't argued anything more than that. That our millennial scale trend, which
we reasonably trust, and have some idea of the uncertainties in, is in line w/ that
null hypothesis is information that cannot be ignored. That Kutzbach, Berger, and
others are showing increasingly convincing model integrations over several millennia
suggesting this, is more evidence. In the real word, anything *could* have happened.
But lets not loose site of the appropriate null hypothesis here.
I hope the above clears things up somewhat. I'm sorry things have been construed in
more negative light than I had ever intended. Call me anytime to discuss, here
at the office (not sure how well our schedules overlap though).
Thanks, and sorry for the miscommunication here,
mike
_______________________________________________________________________
Michael E. Mann
________Current_____________________________Starting Fall 1999_________
Adjunct Assistant Professor      |    Assistant Professor
Department of Geosciences        |    Dept. of Environmental Sciences
Morrill Science Center           |    Clark Hall
University of Massachusetts      |    University of Virginia
Amherst, MA 01003                |    Charlottesville, VA 22903
_________________________________|_____________________________________
e-mail: mann@geo.umass.edu; memann@titan.oit.umass.edu (attachments)
Phone: (413) 545-9573      FAX: (413) 545-1200


HI Phil,
Thanks for your message. I'm with you 100%, and honestly am very much looking forward
to moving towards close collaboration between us. I've already talked a bit w/ Tim about
those plans and the possibility of him spending some time in Charlottesville, etc. Will
be in touch w/ you guys soon about trying to solidify some of these plans...
Yes, I will be in the Lion's den, so to speak. Not sure how much must stands behind
his roar though...We do have to deal w/ the skeptics here somewhat directly. At least,
to the extent that I do presentations on capitol hill for USGCRP (I do one w/ Jim
Hansen and Malcolm on the 17th of this month), I'm a bit in the fray. Mostly, though,
I've been trying to help Mike McCracken and company behind the scenes. We all know
what happens when a U.S. scientists becomes a thorn in the side of big business...
Anyways, I'm really happy that the air is cleared. More soon,
mike
_______________________________________________________________________
Michael E. Mann
________Current_____________________________Starting Fall 1999_________
Adjunct Assistant Professor      |    Assistant Professor
Department of Geosciences        |    Dept. of Environmental Sciences
Morrill Science Center           |    Clark Hall
University of Massachusetts      |    University of Virginia
Amherst, MA 01003                |    Charlottesville, VA 22903
_________________________________|_____________________________________
e-mail: mann@geo.umass.edu; memann@titan.oit.umass.edu (attachments)
Phone: (413) 545-9573      FAX: (413) 545-1200


Mike,
Just back from two weeks away and from discussions with Keith
and Tim and some emails you seem quite pissed off with us
all in CRU. I am somewhat at a loss to understand why. It is
clear from the emails that this relates to the emphasis placed
on a few words/phrases in Keith/Tim's Science piece. These may not
be fully resolved but the piece comes out tomorrow. I don't want
to open more wounds but I might by the end of the email.
I've not seen the censored email that Ray has mentioned but this
doesn't, to my way of working, seem to be the way you should be
responding - ie slanging us all off to Science. We are all
trying to work together for the good of the 'Science'. We have
disagreements - Ray, Malcolm, Keith and me have in the past,
but they get aired and eventually forgotten. We have never
resorted to slanging one another off to a journal ( as in this
case) or in reviewing papers or proposals. You may think Keith
or I have reviewed some of your papers but we haven't. I've
reviewed Ray's and Malcolm's - constructively I hope where I
thought something could have been done better. I also know
you've reviewed my paper with Gabi very constructively.
So why all the beef now ?
Maybe it started with my Science piece last summer. When asked
to do this it was stressed to that I should discuss how your
Nature paper fitted in to the current issues in
paleoclimatology. This is what I thought I was doing. Julia
Uppenbrink asked me to do the same with your GRL paper but
I was too busy and passed it on to Keith. Again it seems a
very reasoned comment.
I would suspect that you've been unhappy about us coming out
with a paper going back 1000 years only a few months after
your Nature paper (back to 1400). Ray knew all about this as
he was one of the reviewers. Then the second Science comment
has come out with a tentative series going back 2000 years.
Both Science pieces give us a chance to discuss issues highly
relevant to the 'science', which is what we have both tried to
do.
Anyway that's enough for now - I'll see how you'll respond,
if at all.
There are two things I'm going to say though :
1) Keith didn't mention in his Science piece but both of us
think that you're on very dodgy ground with this long-term
decline in temperatures on the 1000 year timescale. What
the real world has done over the last 6000 years and what
it ought to have done given our understandding of Milankovic
forcing are two very different things. I don't think the
world was much warmer 6000 years ago - in a global sense
compared to the average of the last 1000 years, but this is
my opinion and I may change it given more evidence.
2) The errors don't include all the possible factors. Even
though the tree-ring chronologies used have robust rbar
statistics for the whole 1000 years ( ie they lose nothing
because core numbers stay high throughout), they have lost
low frequency because of standardization. We've all tried
with RCS/very stiff splines/hardly any detrending to keep
this to a minimum, but until we know it is minimal it is
still worth mentioning. It is better we ( I mean all of us
here) put the caveats in ourselves than let others put them
in for us.
3) None of us here are trying to get material into IPCC. I've
given you my input through the review of the chapter in
Asheville. I may get a chance to see the whole thing again
at some stage, but I won't be worried if I don't.
I can't think of a good ending, but hoping for a favourable
response, so we can still work together.
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mike,
We'll differ a bit on a few points, but let's wipe the slate
clean and get back to improving our estimates of past changes
over the last millennium.
I must admit to having little regard for the Web. Living over
here makes that easier than in the US - but I would ignore the
so-called skeptics until they get to the peer-review arena. I know
this is harder for you in the US and it might become harder still
at your new location. I guess it shows though that what we are
doing in important. The skeptics are fighting a losing battle.
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hi, David,
I don't think that Antarctic is the principal source of differences.  When
we compare only the common areas it doesn't really come into play.  There
are areas in Mexico and Northern Africa that seem to contribute more to the
differences.  Makiko will put the plots that you requested at
~cdmss/Parker
Regards, Jim
At 05:35 PM 5/5/99 +0100, D Parker wrote:
>To Jim Hansen		jhansen@giss.nasa.gov
>		(& copies to Chris Folland, Ian Macadam, Phil Jones)
>Jim
>
>Thanks for the mailed illustrations comparing your surface temperature data
>set with Phil Jones's.
>
>We are trying to understand the cooling of your data relative to Phil Jones's
>in the Southern Hemisphere during the 1990s (Table 1 below) in the annual
>series you sent to Ian Macadam. Plots of these were shown at the IPCC meeting
>in Asheville in March and showed the same relative cooling, but Figure 2 of
>your mailed illustrations does not show it. I note that the comparison in
>Figure 2 was made over the common area. If you use all available grids, do
>you get the relative cooling in the GISS dataset? I expect you will, because
>I have been perusing your web site and have noted that most recent years are
>cold over Antarctica in your dataset. This could be the focus of the problem,
>as  your stations (with 1200km influence) will have more weight than Phil's
>unless you use common grids.
>
>As an aside, recent cooling over Antarctica could be partly forced by ozone
>losses, though I note that the cooling is strongest in March-May, not in
>Sept-Nov when the ozone hole occurs. If Antarctica cools, there will be
>consequences for Southern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation patterns,
>conceivably even contributing to the recent cooling of marine air temperature
>relative to sea surface temperature.
>
>To help further, can you provide annual maps, 1989 through 1998, of Jones
>(land), GISS (stations, 1200 km) and Jones minus GISS in the format of Figure
>3 of your mailed illustrations? Web or ftp access would be better than
paper,
>if possible.
>
>Thanks and regards
>
>David		5 May 1999
>
>	*****************************************************
>
>Table 1.   Annual Southern Hemisphere Anomalies (deg C) Relative to 1961-1990
>
>	  GISS		Jones
>
> 1990     0.250		0.30
> 1991     0.265		0.32
> 1992     0.023		0.14
> 1993    -0.027		0.24
> 1994     0.033		0.35
> 1995     0.069		0.37
> 1996     0.191		0.23
> 1997     0.033		0.34
> 1998     0.317		0.60
>
>
>	*****************************************************
>
>
>
>	David E Parker
>	Room H001
>	Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
>	Meteorological Office
>	London Road
>	BRACKNELL
>	Berkshire
>	RG12 2SY
>	UNITED KINGDOM
>
>
>	Tel +44-1344-856649
>	Fax +44-1344-854898
>
>	email	deparker@meto.gov.uk
>
>
James Hansen
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025
e-mail jhansen@giss.nasa.gov
212-678-5500  fax (678-5622)


Excuse me while I puke...
Ray
>From: mann@snow.geo.umass.edu
>Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 13:00:09 -0400 (EDT)
>To: juppenbrink@science-int.co.uk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
>Cc: mann@geo.umass.edu, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu, p.jones@uea.ac.uk,
>        rbradley@geo.umass.edu
>
>Dear all,
>
>Thanks for working so hard to insure a final product that was
>acceptable to all. I think that Keith and Tim are to be
>commended on a fine job w/ the final version of the
>Perspectives piece that appeared, and I thank Julia for her
>especially difficult editorial task.
>
>I appreciate having had the opportunity to respond to the
>original draft. I think this opportunity is very important
>in such cases (ie, where a particular author/groups work
>is the focus of a commentary by someone else), and hope
>that this would be considered standard procedure in the
>future in such instances.
>
>I think we have some honest disagreements amonst us about
>some of the underlying issues, but these were fairly treated
>in the piece and that's what is important (The choice of
>wording in the final version was much better too. Wording
>matters!).
>
>Thanks all for the hard work and a job well done. I like
>to think that may feedback helped here--so I take some
>pride here as well.
>
>best regards,
>
>mike
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>                          Michael E. Mann
>________Current_____________________________Starting Fall 1999_________
>Adjunct Assistant Professor      |    Assistant Professor
>Department of Geosciences        |    Dept. of Environmental Sciences
>Morrill Science Center           |    Clark Hall
>University of Massachusetts      |    University of Virginia
>Amherst, MA 01003                |    Charlottesville, VA 22903
>_________________________________|_____________________________________
>e-mail: mann@geo.umass.edu; memann@titan.oit.umass.edu (attachments)
>          Phone: (413) 545-9573      FAX: (413) 545-1200
>
>
>
Raymond S. Bradley
Professor and Head of Department
Department of Geosciences
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003-5820
Tel: 413-545-2120
Fax: 413-545-1200
Climate System Research Center: 413-545-0659
Climate System Research Center Web Site:
<


I want to make one thing really clear.  We ARE NOT supposed to be working
with the assumption that these scenarios are realistic.  They are
scenarios-internally consistent (or so we thought) what-if storylines.
You are in fact out of line to assume that these are in some sense
realistic-this is in direct contradiction to the guidance on scenarios
provided by the synthesis team.
If you want to do 'realistic CO2 effects studies, you must do sensitivity
analyses bracketing possible trajectories.  We do not and cannot not and
must not prejudge what realistic CO2 trajectories are, as they are
ultimatley a political decision (except in the sense that reserves and
resources provide an upper bound).
'Advice' will be based on a mix of different approaches that must reflect
the fact that we do not have high coinfidence in GHG projections nor full
confidence in climate ystem model projections of consequences.
Dave
On Sun, 16
May 1999, Shrikant Jagtap wrote:
> Friends,
>
> I'm enjoying the current debate about CO2 levels.  I feel that we are using
> the GCM scenarios, and we MUST use exactly those CO2 levels for crop model
> runs, so all data is consistent.  So if we are wrong, we are uniformly wrong
> and adjust our explanations accordingly whenever we agree on things.  Now to
> use different data will be hard to explain.
>
>
> Shrikant
>
> Dr. Shrikant Jagtap
> 104 Rogers Hall, Ag & Biol. Engineering
> University Of Florida
> Gainesville, FL 32611
> Tel: 352 392 7719 (Work) & Fax: 352 392 4092 (Work)
> ~sjagtap/ssj/
>
> Tel: 352 379 0698 (Home)
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: franci
> Sent: Saturday, May 15, 1999 3:58 PM
> To: Benjamin Felzer
> Cc: Mike Hulme; schimel@ucar.edu; wigley@ucar.edu; kittel@ucar.edu;
> sjagtap@agen.ufl.edu; nanr@ucar.edu; Mike MacCracken
> Subject: Re: CO2
>
>
> dear ben,
>
> You just showed that the Hadley transient run we are supposed to use for the
> national assessment is too high, forcing-wise, because it assumes an overall
> 1.2% increase in total forcing.
>
> My question is then the following:
>
> -why are we using a 1% annual increase in GHG forcing (corresponding to the
> 1.2% increase) as a criteria for GCM simulations to then be used for the
> national assessment? Is it because of the possible confusion you refer to
> below?  If so, that criteria needs to be revised.
>
> I still have a problem with the real CO2 calculations, in connections to
> hadley or CCCM. It seems to me it is still arbitrary to use one or another
> CO2 curve.
> However, in this arbitrariness, two easy solutions are possible ( i am just
> summarizing previous e-mails, at the cost of being highly repetitive and
> obvious):
> -one is dave's, i.e, assume no change i GHG forcing mix from today, and
> apply 1% compounded increase to the 1990 actual levels.
>  That gives a concentration of real CO2 in 2100 that is > 1050 ppm. THAT'S
> 50% higher than projected by IS92a, and even 17 % higher than the worst
> emission case devised in IS92f.
> -the second is tom's. Just use the co2 in IS92a, and assume that all other
> further changes necessary to get the hadley forcing (whatever they are)
> happen in GHG other than CO2.
> I will repeat that I like the latter solution.
>
>
> Whatever the consideration of self-consistency and physics are when you make
> this decision, I do not think we should carry out the national assessment by
> using "unrealistic" CO2 numbers. I thought the numbers that come out of our
> exercises (from the impact side of things) were supposed to serve as some
> basis to be used in the process of decision making at the national and
> regional level. Am i out of line here? There are dozens of people right now,
> out there, including our group at giss, who are gathering data, fine-tuning
> models, making connections among physical and socio-economic variables,
> etc., at a very low "effort spent/retribution received", and then we are
> going to run things at 1000 ppm in 2100?
> As far as my specific contribution is concerned, it surely might make a big
> difference in crop yield changes under climate change whether I use 700 ppm
> in 2100 (the IS92a) curve, or >1000 ppm (the 1% compounded increase).
>
> The problem is the same for the 2040's (the other decade we have decided to
> simulate), although possibly not as bad as the 2090's case.
>
> Either solution we opt for, we have to make clear to whomever will receive
> our results that the climate forcing scenario is on the "high" side of
> things.
>
> Ah! It was so nice and easy when we were working with doubled-CO2
> equilibrium runs!
>
> cheers,
>
> francesco
>
> PS what about the CCCM scenario?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benjamin Felzer
> To: franci
> Cc: Mike Hulme
; schimel@ucar.edu
;
> wigley@ucar.edu
; kittel@ucar.edu
;
> sjagtap@agen.ufl.edu
; nanr@ucar.edu
;
> Mike MacCracken
> Date: Friday, May 14, 1999 8:12 PM
> Subject: Re: CO2
>
>
> >Please disregard the previous message and replace with this message (1st
> >paragraph is unchanged).
> >
> >On Fri, 14 May 1999, Benjamin Felzer wrote:
> >
> >> Going back to some of the original radiative forcing values, it would
> >> appear that the 1% increase is true of RADIATIVE FORCING, whether of CO2,
> >> CH4, etc, or the total (to an approximation).  However, once we convert
> >> back to CO2 concentration (using the exponential relationship), the
> actual
> >> increase in concentration is more along the order of 0.7% (all
> >> compounded).  Is it possible that the original 1% assumption was
> >> mistakenly applied to CO2 concentrations for the modelers when it was
> >> actually meant for radiative forcing??
> >>
> >Therefore for the ecological models we should use Dave's original
> >suggestion, because the models really did use a 1% increase in equivalent
> >CO2, which approximates a 1% increase in CO2 alone.  The point here is
> >that this 1% increase is much higher than IS92a, but that might be because
> >of the confusion between radiative forcing increase and concentration
> >increase discussed above.  In fact a 0.7% increase in equivalent CO2 might
> >have been a more realistic assumption for IS92a, but the 1% increase in
> >concentration is what was actually used in these earlier models.  The CO2
> >concentrations used in the ecological model should correspond to those
> >used in the GCMs, not to what we think they should be.
> >
> >
> >> Any other thoughts?
> >>
> >> Ben
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>


Mike
The climate sensitivity of HadCM2.....pick a value between 2.5 and 4.1K
D
>Envelope-to: f046@cpca11.uea.ac.uk
>Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 11:27:48 +0100 (BST)
>From: T Johns
>Subject: Re: Climate Sensitivity
>To: d.viner@uea.ac.uk
>Cc: tcjohns@meto.gov.uk
>Status:
>
>Hi David,
>
>I have just got back from leave today - sorry for the lack of response
>to your emails.
>
>On climate sensitivity, the equilibrium sensitivity in HadCM2 was difficult
>to get a definitive answer for initially as the conventional slab experiment
>was unstable, so we estimated it from part of a transient coupled run
>instead.  We quoted 2.5 K in the original Nature paper.  Recently we
>have done a HadAM2 slab experiment (modified sea ice and slab ocean physics)
>which indicated 4.1 K rather than 2.5 as an equilibrium value.  This is
>quoted in a paper submitted as a CMIP study.  The HadAM3 conventional
>slab experiment gave the 3.3 K figure I think.  The HadCM2 discrepancy
>indicates the perils of this yardstick; other research here suggests that
>the effective climate sensitivity does respond to climate change feedbacks
>in transient experiments (with HadCM2 particularly).  The early 2.5 K
>estimate has been revised upwards based on a long coupled run of HadCM2 to
>be closer to the 3.3 K we got from HadCM3 equilibrium slab experiments.
>
>Comparing transient temperature responses to similar time-varying forcing
>may be a better indication of real sensitivity, but so long as we quote
>single climate sensitivity numbers I fear that there is scope for confusion.
>
>Tim.
>
>PS: I will try to get an update on the HadCM3 references sorted out for you.
>
>> Tim
>>
>> I'm a bit confused as now I have seen a numeber of different values, in
>> HCTN2 you mention that HadAM3 has a climate sensitivity of 3.3 degrees K
>> and that this is similar to HadCM2. Is this the case and is such a value
>> available from a comparable HadAM2 experiment.
>>
>> Many regards
>>
>> David
>>
>> PS Did you get my message about references?
>
#--------------------------------------------
#  Dr. David Viner
#  Climate Impacts LINK Project
#  Climatic Research Unit
#  University of East Anglia
#  Norwich NR4 7TJ
#  UK
#            mailto://d.viner@uea.ac.uk
#  WWW:
#  WWW:
#  Tel: +44 (0)1603 592089
#  Fax: +44 (0)1603 507784
#---------------------------------------------


Dear Mike,
Yes, I am aware of the confusion surrounding what the Hadley Centre did
and why.  It is even messier than you realize.  I have forcing data sets
(more than one!) from Jonathon Gregory that differ from the numbers you
gave in your email!!  The Hadley people have clearly screwed things up,
but their "errors" don't really matter given all of the uncertainties.  I
didn't mention this because I thought that opening up that can of worms
would confuse people even more.
In my view (trying to keep things as simple as possible), the key points
are these:
(1)  The HadCM2 run purports to be IS92a, and it is a good approximation
to this.
(2)  Their use of 1% compounded for CO2 *is* a reasonable approximation to
the IS92a GHG forcing (which, itself, is uncertain).
(3)  The climate model output is also uncertain.
(4)  The pure CO2 input to IS92a is what I have distributed from the Bern
model.
(5)  Hence, the best and simplest combination is to use HadCM2 climate
output with these (point (4)) *a priori* defined "pure" CO2 concentrations
for IS92a.
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Mike Hulme wrote:
> Tom,
>
> Thanks for clarifying your thinking on this.
>
> I still have a problem with HadCM2 forcing and making sense of what Hadley
> have published, esp. the numbers in the Feb. 1997 J.Climate paper by
> Mitchell and Johns.  There, they make it clear that the model was presented
> with CO2-equiv. rising from 473ppmv in 1990 to 1414ppmv in 2100, i.e., a 1%
> p.a. increase.  This *seems* precise and unambiguous, so I don't think they
> do adjust the CO2-equiv. growth ratio (C2100/C1990) to 3.127 (i.e., about
> 1.05% p.a.) as you suggest.
>
> This concentration scenario yielded a 1990-2100 model forcing of 6.5Wm-2
> (sic), "close to that reported by Mitchell and Gregory in 1992" [Mitchell
> and Johns, 1997] using STUGE (my estimate for that is about 6.2Wm-2). Both
> of these are quite a bit higher than the 5.8Wm-2 forcing in IPCC SAR for
> IS92a.  With this (apparently) higher forcing, I reasoned that all else
> being equal, the actual CO2 concentrations that are consistent with HadCM2
> should also be *higher* that those cited in IPCC SAR and hence we could not
> just use the CO2 concentrations from MAGICC (or the Bern model).  Hence my
> somewhat higher CO2 estimates of 790ppmv by 2100 were arrived at by using:
>
> pCO2 = 279ppmv * (exp(F/(3.47/ln(2)))))  where F is the proportion in
> MAGICC of total forcing due to CO2 alone for IS92a.
>
> The Mitchell/Johns J.Climate paper is confusing, however, because it also
> presents results in their Table 1 which shows a 1990-2100 HadCM2 forcing of
> only 5.5Wm-2 (sic), a value that relates to their text-cited value of
> 6.5Wm-2 only by using DQ of 5.05Wm-2 (i.e., the sensitivity of HadCM2)
> rather than DQ = 6.3Wm-2.  Yet the text of the paper continues to imply the
> HadCM2 forcing is '12% higher' than Kattenburg, rather than 5% lower.
>
> The bottom line ... the IS92a SAR forcing of 5.758Wm-2 and DQ of 6.3Wm-2
> only yields a CO2-equiv. growth rate of just over 0.8% p.a., rising to
> nearly 0.9% p.a. if the HadCM2 DQ of 5.05Wm-2 is used.  These are still
> some way short of 1% p.a.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>
> p.s. this is now more a matter for my own curiousity since I agree that for
> most assessment purposes the Wigley/Joos numbers are the best to use.
>
> At 15:36 18/05/99 -0600, you wrote:
> >Dear all,
> >
> >I've just read the emails of May 14 onwards regarding CO2.  I must say
> >that I am stunned by the confusion that surrounds this issue.
> >Basically, I and MacCracken are *right* and Felzer, Schimel and (to a
> >lesser extent) Hulme are *wrong*.  There is absolutely, categorically no
> >doubt about this.  Let me explain.
> >
> >(1)  The Hadley Centre run is meant to simulate the climate change
> >consequences of the full IS92a emissions scenario.
> >
> >(2)  In this scenario, there are the following concentration and forcing
> >changes over 1990-2100:
> >        Item        C(2100)     DQ(1990-2100)
> >        CO2         708         4.350
> >        CH4        3470         0.574
> >        N2O         414         0.368
> >        Halos                   0.315
> >        TropO3                  0.151
> >        -----------------------------
> >        GHGs                    5.758
> >        SO4 (dir)              -0.284
> >        SO4 (indir)            -0.370
> >	-----------------------------
> >	TOTAL                   5.104
> >
> >These are the numbers I used in Ch. 6 of the SAR.  They do not agree
> >precisely with numbers in Ch. 2, because I used the models and formulae
> >embedded in MAGICC.  The differences between Ch. 2 and Ch. 6 are
> >irrelevant to the present issue.
> >
> >(3)  How does one simulate the combined effects of all the GHGs in a
> >climate model that only has CO2?  The standard way is to take the GHG
> >radiative forcing (ending in 5.758W/m**2 in 2100 in this case) and
> >convert this to  *equivalent* CO2 concentration changes.  If one uses
> >the old (IPCC90) forcing formula for CO2 (which is what was used in the
> >SAR), viz DQ=6.3 ln(C/C0), then C(2100)/C(1990) is 2.494.  Note that the
> >1% compounded change would be C(2100)/C(1990)=(1.01)**110=2.988.  Thus,
> >1% compounded CO2 gives roughly the correct *forcing*.
> >
> >NOTE THAT THE ACTUAL CO2 CHANGES ARE *NOT* THE CO2 CHANGES USED IN THE
> >MODEL.  THE MODEL USES ARTIFICIAL CO2 CHANGES, SCALED UP TO ACCOUNT FOR
> >FORCING FROM OTHER GHGs.
> >
> >NOTE THAT THE ACTUAL CO2 CHANGE IS FROM 354ppmv IN 1990 to
> >708ppmv IN 2100.  THIS IS *NOT* A 1% COMPOUNDED INCREASE.
> >
> >NOTE, FURTHER, THAT WHAT MIKE HULME SUGGESTS IN HIS POINT 8 IS ALSO
> >WRONG.  IT IS WRONG TO *BACK OUT* THE CO2 FROM FORCINGS.  THE CO2 WAS
> >SPECIFIED A PRIORI.
> >
> >NOTE FINALLY THAT MIKE *DOES* GIVE THE 708ppmv VALUE IN HIS POINT 9.
> >USING THIS WOULD BE OK, BUT I RECOMMEND USING THE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT
> >BERN MODEL RESULTS (SEE BELOW).
> >
> >(4)  Now, some minor wrinkles.  In the Hadley Centre model for CO2,
> >DQ=5.05 ln (C/C0).  Hence, to get a forcing of 5.758W/m**2, they need to
> >use C(2100/C1990)=3.127.  Note that this is a little closer to the 1%
> >compounded result than my above calculation.  The Hadley Centre may well
> >have used a slightly different total 1990-2100 GHG forcing than mine, so
> >they may have backed out a compounded CO2 increase rate even closer to
> >1% than the above.  In any event, if they decided to go with 1%, then
> >this was a perfectly reasonable choice in order to capture the total GHG
> >forcing.
> >
> >(5)  The 708ppmv C(2100) value is what comes out of my carbon cycle
> >model.  In the SAR, in Ch. 2, we considered results from three different
> >carbon cycle models; mine, the Bern (Joos) model, and Atul Jain's
> >model.  For illustrations in the SAR, we used the Bern model.  The
> >mid-2100 value with this model, for IS92a, was 711.7ppmv.  A later
> >version of this model, used in IPCC TP4, gives 711.5ppmv. Jain's model
> >gave 712.3ppmv.
> >
> >(6)  The bottom line here is that, for a consistent pairing of Hadley
> >Centre climate and CO2, one MUST use the ACTUAL CO2 numbers that went
> >into calculating the radiative forcing, NOT the equivalent CO2 numbers.
> >The climate response reflects all GHGs, whereas the plants are
> >responding only to CO2.
> >
> >(7)  I am attaching the Joos CO2 time series.  I recommend using the
> >actual values rather than trying to fit a compound CO2 increase to
> >them---which, in any event, should not be done using just the end point
> >values.  This, however, is your choice. Differences will be negligible
> >in terms of plant response.
> >
> >I hope this clarifies things.  It has always seemed pretty obvious and
> >clear cut to me.  I hope it will now to all of you.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Tom
> >
> >
> >       **********************************************************
> >       *Tom M.L. Wigley						*
> >       *Senior Scientist 					*
> >       *National Center for Atmospheric Research                *
> >       *P.O. Box 3000				                *
> >       *Boulder, CO 80307-3000					*
> >       *USA                                                     *
> >       *Phone: 303-497-2690                                     *
> >       *Fax: 303-497-2699                                       *
> >       *E-mail: wigley@ucar.edu                                 *
> >       **********************************************************
> >Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Is95a.dat"
> >
>
**********************************************************
*Tom M.L. Wigley						*
*Senior Scientist 					*
*National Center for Atmospheric Research                *
*P.O. Box 3000				                *
*Boulder, CO 80307-3000					*
*USA                                                     *
*Phone: 303-497-2690                                     *
*Fax: 303-497-2699                                       *
*E-mail: wigley@ucar.edu                                 *
**********************************************************


Dear Orson
Very sorry for such a slow reply.
The individual curves (Tornetrask, Taimyr and Yamal) have not been calibrated against their local temperature records yet, and so only exist as standardised (or normalised) anomalies.
For the calibrated Tornetrask record of Briffa et al. (1992), the calibrated reconstruction made use of both tree-ring width and tree-ring density and so it will look different to the ring-width only record shown in the PAGES newsletter recently.  For the earlier extension to this record, only ring-width will be available - which is why the calibrated record cannot be simply extended with the new data.  Instead, a new calibration needs to be made, using ring-width only.  This hasn't been done yet, and - while it *might* be a simple linear regression - sometimes ring-widths from one year and from the previous year are used together as predictors, so I cannot guarantee that it will be a simple rescaling of the uncalibrated curve.  Nevertheless, the uncalibrated curve *is* correlated with summer temperature, so it certainly provides useful information.
The average of the three series was calibrated *after* they were averaged, and was calibrated against the April-September mean temperature over all land north of 20N.  This was purely for comparison with the other curves shown in our Science piece; for this curve, this region is by no means the optimum, and the temperature anomalies would no doubt differ in magnitude if a regional temperature from northern Eurasia had been used instead.  This offers one explanation of why the 650-750 warming differs from Briffa et al. (1992).  The second is that only ring-width has been used.  The third reason is that it is the average of 3 curves - if the other two don't show the warming, or not as strongly, then of course the signal will be less pronounced in the average.  So, you can still use the Briffa et al. (1992) calibration - it is certainly not wrong.
Hope this helps with your choice of what to use.
We will send you a reprint to your Middletown address when they arrive.  I am now going to mail you hard copy (black & white) of the Tornetrask uncalibrated ring-width record (annual and 50-yr smoothed) from the PAGES article, and also a hard copy of the calibrated northern Eurasia record from the Science paper.  The northern Eurasian record should preferably be referenced using both Briffa & Osborn and Briffa et al.
Best regards
Tim


Chris,
Sorry to be flooding you with another email, but I was discussing
this with Tim. Tim reminded me of a paper that he'd written
in that well known journal Dendrocronologia ! I've sent down
a copy of the proofs to you both. The paper has been in press for
the last 2 years ! This must be the slowest journal in the
world. This has some more theory in it and some variance
corrections for tree-ring and temperature series.
We are going ahead with the method I've outlined over the
last few emails. Tim and I have modified a couple of things
slightly :
1) Using the present combined dataset ( Jones, 1994 and Parker
et al. 1995) we will calculate monthly rbars for each 5 by 5
box. The grid-box time series will be filtered with a 30-
year Gaussian filter. rbar will be calculated from the residual
grid-box time series. Tim reckons that a longer filter is better
(an analysis in the paper). He suggests 40 years, but this
involves more problems with the ends, so we'll go with 30. I
don't think 20,30,40 will make that much difference to the
rbar values.
We are using the combined dataste for the estimation as this
should produce better rbar values around coasts and islands. If we
used the land only dataset we would have real problems with
isolated islands and with some coasts ( where all neighbouring
boxes will be in one direction from the coastal box).
2) Having got fields of the monthly rbars we'll then apply the
formula to the land-only dataset. As you're doing something
similar with the marine dataset, we can remerge the two
variance corrected datasets using David's merging ( growing
land and neighbour checking) program.
3) We will then write this up as a small paper for GRL, about
the land only results. Both of you can be on this if you want.
We can decide later what to do about the merged dataset.
4) applying the correction in real time in the future will mean
that we will always be slightly changing approximately the last
15 years data - because of the filter end effects. Best would
seem to be to maintain the present version we have and apply
this variance correction every few years ( eg the IPCC cycle !).
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Paul
I have been told PRESCIENT is positive. It has been factored into NERC finances -for the full 8 million I believe. No official written statement has been declared as far as I know but someone from NERC visited here while I was away in Russia last week and talked of a first call for proposals in April 2000. At present this is all I know. Will keep you informed if I here more.
best wishes
Keith
At 04:41 PM 5/29/99 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi Keith,
>
>I met Simon Tett the other day and he said that you thought that the
>thematic proposal had definetely been funded. Is that true? The
>last thing I heard was very promising but not the final word!
>
>Best Wishes
>
>Paul
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Dr. Paul Valdes                             Dept. of Meteorology,
>Email: P.J.Valdes@reading.ac.uk             University of Reading,
>Phone: + 44 118 931 6517                    Earley Gate, Whiteknights,
>Fax:   + 44 118 931 8905                    PO Box 243
>                                            Reading. RG6 6BB. UK
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>


Dear Keith,
I am reminding your promise to send me raw density data from Polar Urals
remnants of larches as soon as possible, as I must prepare samples for
Fritz until the end of June. Leonid Agafonov will bring them to
Slovenia to Fritz.
Tomorrow I will lie down in hospital for 7-9 days, as I get the
infection from a tick in Iremel area, not encephalitis, but a new
kind of infections from ticks, namely "lime-borrelious" (I do not know
its name exactly in English). The sign of this disease is red field
approximately 5-8 centimeters in diameter around the point where
a tick bite a body. This place itches greatly. If you have such
characteristics, you must apply to doctor. This disease is not so
dangerous as encephalitis and can be easy recovered from antibiotics.
I hope that your tick did nod contained such infection.
I wish you the best.
Sincerely yours,
Dr. Stepan G. Shiyatov
Lab. of Dendrochronology
Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
8 Marta St., 202
Ekaterinburg, 620144, Russia
e-mail: stepan@ipae.uran.ru
Fax: +7 (3432) 29 41 61
Phone: +7 (3432) 29 40 92


Stepan
I am attaching the raw density measurements (max. latewood den.) for the Sob River site as we extracted them from Fritz data bank. The format is Tucson like (index) except for a  different header on each sample series. For your purposes the start and end date of each  series are shown as the 2 I4 fields in columns 5-12 of these identifier lines. I hope this is all you need. You may also refer to Figure 2a in our paper in the NATO ASI Volume edited by Phil. The article on Low Frequency Signal problems that you are a co author on. This Figure shows the number of density samples through time in this chronology - very low before 1200 and between 1400 and 1600!!
I am sorry to hear of your tick infection. This is no laughing matter and you should ensure that you are well treated and rested. As of yet I have no problems other than worrying about how we will organise future proposals to the EU. Thankyou again for your hospitality and the warm reception from your excellent group. I sincerely hope we will be able to continue our collaboration  for many years to come. I hope too that Eugene also feels committed to this working relationship. Perhaps he was tired but I got the impression his priorities were not so much concerned with our work.
I await detailed description of the full network - locations and correspondence with the density network positions and names - that I believe Valerie will work on. Perhaps the outline and draft of something from Rashit would also be forthcoming soon.
Meanwhile I send my best wishes to you and I await news of your continued health
Keith
At 04:32 PM 6/16/99 +0500, you wrote:
>Dear Keith,
>
>I am reminding your promise to send me raw density data from Polar Urals
>remnants of larches as soon as possible, as I must prepare samples for
>Fritz until the end of June. Leonid Agafonov will bring them to
>Slovenia to Fritz.
>
>Tomorrow I will lie down in hospital for 7-9 days, as I get the
>infection from a tick in Iremel area, not encephalitis, but a new
>kind of infections from ticks, namely "lime-borrelious" (I do not know
>its name exactly in English). The sign of this disease is red field
>approximately 5-8 centimeters in diameter around the point where
>a tick bite a body. This place itches greatly. If you have such
>characteristics, you must apply to doctor. This disease is not so
>dangerous as encephalitis and can be easy recovered from antibiotics.
>I hope that your tick did nod contained such infection.
>
>I wish you the best.
>
>Sincerely yours,
>
>Dr. Stepan G. Shiyatov
>
>Lab. of Dendrochronology
>Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
>8 Marta St., 202
>Ekaterinburg, 620144, Russia
>e-mail: stepan@ipae.uran.ru
>Fax: +7 (3432) 29 41 61
>Phone: +7 (3432) 29 40 92
>
>
>
>


Below is the text and attached is a file in MSWord regarding a plan of
action for Chapter 2 leading up to the IPCC Meeting in Arusha, Tanzania.
June 21, 1999
Dear Lead Authors and Key Contributors,
This note is to outline a plan of action for Chapter 2 leading up to the
IPCC meeting in Arusha, Tanzania to take place 1-3 September.  As you know,
we are now in the midst of a
“friendly review” from our colleagues of the
strawman draft of our chapter.   We expect to receive comments from these
reviews through middle or even late July. These reviews will include some
from people other than our nominated reviewers, like Sir John Houghton,
from whom we have just had a brief review. Please check regularly with the
Tar02.meto.gov.uk email site to cover this aspect.
Accordingly we ask each of the individuals listed below to revise the draft
section as suggested below, and to indicate their response to reviewer’s
comments.  The first person listed is to take the lead, and individuals
with an asterisk by his name are to prepare the material for presentation
in Arusha.  We would ask that a provisionally revised part of your chapter
be completed by 20 August and emailed to Tom Karl or placed on the web-site
so that Sylvia Decotiis can create a new version of Chapter 2 for Tom to
bring to Tanzania. Tom will bring one paper copy of the provisional new
“Arusha” version of  chapter 2 to Tanzania, and a complete series of
electronic files which can be input to PCs via 1.4MB floppy disks. It would
be a considerable advantage for  attendees to bring portable PCs, though we
expect some IPCC PCs to be available at the Arusha International Conference
Centre.
Chris Folland will be leaving for Tanzania early (24 Aug) whereas Tom Karl
will still be available until 29 Aug for urgent interactions. We will
decide later as to whom, and how many of us, should actually make
presentations, noting that Hans Oerlemans is not likely to be present.  But
all attendees be prepared, and bring appropriate visual material and of
course, further suggestions. We have listed assignments next to each
section.
Section 2      ----- Tom Karl* and Chris Folland* Executive Summary — total
revision and update
Section 2.1    ---- Chris Folland* Changes needed regarding uncertainty
guidelines
Section 2.2.1 ---- Chris Folland* Okay for now
Section 2.2.2 ---- David Parker, Phil Jones, Tom Peterson, Chris Folland*
Length okay, but reduce number of figures.
Section 2.2.3 ---- John Christy* Check for accuracy
Section 2.2.4 ---- John Christy* Check for accuracy
Section 2.2.5 to 2.2.6 ---- Oelermans*, Nick Rayner, John Walsh, David
Robinson, Tom Karl and Chris Folland. Glacier section needs to be updated
Section 2.2.7 ---- Oelermans, Tom Karl* Check for accuracy
Sections 2.3 through Section 2.3.5---- Mike Mann*, Phil Jones Reduce in
size by about 10%
Section 2.4 through Section 2.4.5 ----Jean Jouzel* Reduce in size about 10%
Section 2.5 through 2.5.4 ---- Jim Salinger*, Pasha Groisman, Mike Hulme,
Wang. Provide a better context for why this section is important, more on
upper tropospheric water vapor if possible
Section 2.5.5 ---- Steve Warren, Dale Kaiser, Tom Karl* Add new analyses of
cloud amount
Section 2.5.6 ----Jim Salinger*
Section 2.6 through 2.6.6 ----Jim Salinger*, George Gruza, Alynn Clarke,
Wang. Reduce in size by at least 50%. Identify a rationale section at the
beginning. IPCC 1995 will help here. Some material may go elsewhere. May
need to consult Mike Mann or Jean Jouzel. Please send revised section to
Chris Folland to finally review (even if not complete) by 16 August. Chris
will feed back changes to Jim by 23 August. Jim Salinger should interact
with Chris during this work too. Jim should prepare presentational material
Section 2.7 through 2.7.4 ----David Easterling, Pasha Groisman, Tom Karl*
Review for accuracy
Povl Frich: please interact and be prepared to present extremes parts. Jim
Salinger: you may have more material on extremes in the South Pacific.
Please feed this to Tom Karl and Povl Frich.
Section 2.8 ---- Tom Karl, Chris Folland*  Develop a summary, including
strawman cartoon
In addition we have about twice the number of figures that will be allowed
so everyone should identify figures that can be removed or combined to
reduce the size. The latter can sometimes be very effective.  At the
present time we are about 1/3 over our word limit so everyone will have to
respond to the reviewers (often requesting more), and yet being more
judicious in the words we use. Please consult the 1995 IPCC Report as a
guide.
Please do not hesitate to comment on these plans, preferably as soon as
possible, so that holiday arrangements etc do not cause problems.
Cheers and thanks,
Chris and Tom
(See attached file: ARUSHA INSTR LEAD AUTHORS.doc)
National Climatic Data Center
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\ARUSHA INSTR LEAD AUTHORS.doc"


Dear Keith,
I recovered from tick's infection, at any case I do not have high
temperature during the last week. I hope that your health is also
good. Now I am preparing for field work.
I selected 32 new samples of dead larch trees from the Polar Urals and
sent them to Fritz via Leonid Agafonov. A new version of the
chronology will be up to 170 years longer and a better replicated between
1400-1700 AD.
The hard disk is working perfectly, thank you very much.
My best wishes to your family and Phil.
Sincerely yours,
Dr. Stepan G. Shiyatov
Lab. of Dendrochronology
Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
8 Marta St., 202
Ekaterinburg, 620144, Russia
e-mail: stepan@ipae.uran.ru
Fax: +7 (3432) 29 41 61
Phone: +7 (3432) 29 40 92


>Envelope-to: t.d.davies@uea.ac.uk
>From: "Andrew Watson"
>To: "Trevor Davies"
>Subject: Climate change centre info.
>Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 11:11:01 +0100
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
>
>Hi Trevor
>I was with John Shepherd earlier this week. He told me he
>was phoned up last Friday by Tariq Ali at Imperial College,
>seeking to sign him up to the IC bid; it seems that IC's
>relations with Oxford may have gone sour. If that is the
>case, IC will probably make strenuous efforts to detach some
>of the members of the consortium that UEA is trying to put
>together.
>I was attending a meeting on the "miilliesym" proposal, and
>we were treated to a talk from Ian Dwyer of NERC (new
>position to co-ordinate global change research) on the
>climate change centre. Two things I picked up that I didn't
>know before (but you may) were
>(1) All the decisions, both on the outline proposals and
>full proposals, will be taken by a panel of experts
>(academics from overseas and industry). There will not be
>the normal peer review system. I asked if there would be the
>opportunity to suggest names for this panel, but the answer
>appeared to be no; the panel will be selected and organised
>by the research councils, chiefly NERC.
>(2) The split of funding for the centre will be (per year) 1
>million NERC, 0.75 million EPSRC, 0.25 million ESRC.
>Cheers, Andy
>***********************************
>Prof Andrew J. Watson
>email: a.watson@uea.ac.uk
>  or : a.j.watson@uea.ac.uk
>phone: (44) 1603 593761 direct
>            1603 456161 switchboard
>            1603 507719 fax
>School of Environmental Sciences
>University of East Anglia
>NORWICH NR4 7TJ
>U.K.
>~ajw/ajw.htm
>***********************************
>
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Professor Trevor D. Davies
Dean, School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
Tel.  +44 1603 592836
Fax.  +44 1603 507719
++++++++++++++++++++++++++


--- Begin Forwarded Message ---
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 16:45:56 -0400
From: OES Comments
Subject: Modeling & Data Analysis Research NRA-99-OES-04
Sender: OES Comments
To: OESCOMM@caffeine.public.hq.nasa.gov
Reply-To: OES Comments
Message-ID:
Investigations that Contribute to the NASA Earth Science Enterprise's
Modeling and Data Analysis Research
General Information
Solicitation Number: NRA-99-OES-04
Response Date:       Sep 27, 1999
Description
NASA is soliciting proposals for investigations that will contribute to
modeling and data analysis research that is
supported by NASA's Earth Science Enterprise. This NRA solicits proposals
directed to the interests of disciplinary
research and analysis, interdisciplinary science, and data analysis
programs that include global and regional modeling
activities and large-scale data analysis, especially model-driven analysis.
It also solicits proposals from instrument science teams and/or guest
investigators being newly competed or recompeted in which global and
regional modeling and/or
model-driven data analysis constitute major elements of the proposal. This
NRA is expected to result in research funding
of approximately $65 million over three years. The individual program
elements included in this NRA, and the responsible NASA Program Managers are:
Program Element                                        Manager
a. Global Modeling and Analysis Program (GMAP)       K Bergman
b. Atmos. Chemistry Modeling & Analysis Pgm. (ACMAP) J Kaye
c. Phys. Oceanogr. Research & Analysis Pgm. (PORAP) E Lindstrom
d. Ocean Vector Winds Science Team (OVWST)          E Lindstrom
e. Pathfinder Data Set & Associated Science Pgm.(PDSP) J Dodge
f. EOS Interdisciplinary Science Program (EOS/IDS)     J Dodge
In keeping with overall NASA goals and those of the Office of Earth
Science, research supported by this NRA will be
directed toward demonstrating successful use of data from satellite
observing systems, in conjunction with other kinds of
data, to improve models and assimilation systems for the Earth system or
one or more of its components.
Participation in this program is open to all categories of domestic and
foreign organizations, including educational
institutions, industry, non-profit institutions, NASA centers, and other
U.S. agencies. In accordance with NASA policy
as described in Appendix C, all investigations by foreign participants will
be conducted on a no-exchange-of-funds basis,
i.e., investigators whose home institution is outside the United States
cannot be funded by NASA. Proposals may be submitted at any time during the
period ending September 27, 1999. Proposals
submitted to NASA will be evaluated using scientific peer review. Proposals
selected for funding will be announced in November, 1999.
All prospective proposers are strongly encouraged to submit a letter of
intent (LOI) to propose to this Announcement by
August 27, 1999. This letter should contain a brief description of the
research to be proposed. Please see Appendix E of
the NRA for details.
Point of Contact
Name:   Kenneth H. Bergman
Title:  Manager, Global Modeling and Analysis Program
Phone:  (202) 358-0765
Fax:    (202) 358-2770
E-mail: kbergman@hq.nasa.gov
--- End Forwarded Message ---
Dr. J.P. Darch
Research Administrator
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich
NR4 7TJ
U.K.
Tel : 01603 592994


Ed
to be really honest, I don't see how this was ever accepted for publication in Nature. It is a confusing paper that leaves me asking what actually have they done and what is the so-called testable Hypothesis of which they speak. Why didn't they do the testing? Yes Sob river is the Polar Urals site and I don't know why they get the results they do for it. Thei precip. trends are dubious and our detailed regional response functions do not show a significant effect of high precip. in winter. I really have not had time to fully digest their message but I can't see why either they or Nature did not ask my opinion of it. My instinctive first reaction is that I doubt it is the answer but we do get results that support a recent loss of low-frequency spring temperature reponse in our data that may be consistent with their hypothesis of prolonged snow lie in recent decades. I have not spoken to Iain yet about the isotope data but I will. If you get any detaied thoughts on the Nature paper please let me know, as I don't know how to respond , if at all.
best wishes
Keith
At 04:11 PM 7/14/99 EDT, you wrote:
>Hi Keith,
>
>What is your take on the Vagonov et al. paper concerning the influence of
>snowfall and melt timing on tree growth in Siberia? Frankly, I can't
>believe it was published as is. It is amazinglly thin on details. Isn't Sob
>the same site as your Polar Urals site? If so, why is the Sob response
>window so radically shorter then the ones you identified in your Nature
>paper for both density and ring width? I notice that they used Berezovo
>instead of Salekhard, which is much closer according to the map. Is that
>because daily data were only available for the Berezovo? Also, there is no
>evidence for a decline or loss of temperature response in your data in the
>post-1950s (I assume that you didn't apply a bodge here). This fully
>contradicts their claims, although I do admit that such an effect might be
>happening in some places.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Ed
>
>
>