Dear Eleven,
I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get
others to endorse it.  Not only do I disagree with the content of
this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the
IPCC "view" when you say that "the latest IPCC assessment makes a
convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions."  In contrast
to the one-sided opinion expressed in your letter, IPCC WGIII SAR and TP3
review the literature and the issues in a balanced way presenting
arguments in support of both "immediate control" and the spectrum of more
cost-effective options.  It is not IPCC's role to make "convincing cases"
for any particular policy option; nor does it.  However, most IPCC readers
would draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors the
emissions trajectories given in the WRE paper.  This is contrary to your
statement.
This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a
dis-service.  To someone like me, who knows the science, it is
apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed,
balanced scientific assessment.  What is unfortunate is that this will not
be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted.  In
issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their
personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others
when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their
scientific research.  I think you have failed to do this.
Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal
views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible.  No
scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever
endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully
themselves.  You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just
this!  I fear that some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief
that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science
-- when, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords
with IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on
the subject.
Let me remind you of the science.  The issue you address is one of the
timing of emissions reductions below BAU.  Note that this is not the same
as the timing of action -- and note that your letter categorically
addresses the former rather than the latter issue.  Emissions reduction
timing is epitomized by the differences between the Sxxx and WRExxx
pathways towards CO2 concentration stabilization.  It has been clearly
demonstrated in the literature that the mitigation costs of following an
Sxxx pathway are up to five times the cost of following an equivalent
WRExxx pathway.  It has also been shown that there is likely to be an
equal or greater cost differential for non-Annex I countries, and that the
economic burden in Annex I countries would fall disproportionately on
poorer people.
Furthermore, since there has been no credible analysis of the benefits
(averted impacts) side of the equation, it is impossible to assess fully
the benefits differential between the Sxxx and WRExxx stabilization
profiles.  Indeed, uncertainties in predicting the regional details of
future climate change that would arise from following these pathways, and
the even greater uncertainties that attend any assessment of the impacts
of such climate changes, preclude any credible assessment of the relative
benefits.  As shown in the WRE paper (Nature v. 379, pp. 240-243), the
differentials at the global-mean level are so small, at most a few tenths
of a degree Celsius and a few cm in sea level rise and declining to
minuscule amounts as the pathways approach the SAME target, that it is
unlikely that an analysis of future climate data could even distinguish
between the pathways.  Certainly, given the much larger noise at the
regional level, and noting that even the absolute changes in many
variables at the regional level remain within the noise out to 2030 or
later, the two pathways would certainly be indistinguishable at the
regional level until well into the 21st century.
The crux of this issue is developing policies for controlling greenhouse
gas emissions where the reductions relative to BAU are neither too much,
too soon (which could cause serious economic hardship to those who are
most vulnerable, poor people and poor countries) nor too little, too late
(which could lead to future impacts that would be bad for future
generations of the same groups).  Our ability to quantify the economic
consequences of "too much, too soon" is far better than our ability to
quantify the impacts that might arise from "too little, too late" -- to
the extent that we cannot even define what this means!  You appear to be
putting too much weight on the highly uncertain impacts side of the
equation.  Worse than this, you have not even explained what the issues
are.  In my judgment, you are behaving in an irresponsible way that does
you little credit.  Furthermore, you have compounded your sin by actually
putting a lie into the mouths of innocents ("after carefully examining the
question of timing of emissions reductions, we find the arguments against
postponement to be more compelling").  People who endorse your letter will
NOT have "carefully examined" the issue.
When scientists color the science with their own PERSONAL views or make
categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such
statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what
they are doing.  You have failed to do so.  Indeed, what you are doing is,
in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than
the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics, Michaels, Singer et al.  I
find this extremely disturbing.
Tom Wigley
On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Tim Mitchell wrote:
> Reference:  Statement of European Climate Scientists on Actions to Protect
> Global Climate
>
> Dear Colleague,
>
> Attached at the end of this email is a Statement, the purpose of which is
> to bolster or increase governmental and public support for controls of
> emissions of greenhouse gases in European and other industrialised
> countries in the negotiations during the Kyoto Climate Conference in
> December 1997. The Statement was drafted by a number of prominent European
> scientists concerned with the climate issue, 11 of whom are listed after
> the Statement and who are acting as formal sponsors of the Statement.
>
> *****  The 11 formal sponsors are: *****
>
> Jan Goudriaan		Hartmut Grassl	Klaus Hasselmann	Jill Jäger
> Hans Opschoor		Tim O'Riordan		Martin Parry		David Pearce
> Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber			Wolfgang Seiler	Pier Vellinga
>
> After endorsements from many hundreds of other European climate-related
> scientists are collected (and we hope that you agree to be one of these), the
> Statement will be brought to the attention of key decision-makers (e.g. EU
> Kyoto negotiaters and Environment Ministers) and other opinion-makers in
> Europe (e.g. editorial boards of newspapers) during the week beginning 24th
> November. The UK and other European WWF offices have agreed to assist in
> this activity, although the preparation of the Statement itself has in no
> way been initiated or influenced by WWF or any other body.  This is an
> initiative taken by us alone and supported by our 11 Statement sponsors.
>
> WHAT WE ASK FROM YOU
>
> We would very much like you to endorse this Statement.  Unfortunately, at
> this time we can no longer take into account any suggested modifications.
> Nevertheless, we hope that it reflects your views closely enough so that
> you can support it.  If you agree with the Statement, then:
>
> 1. PLEASE IMMEDIATELY FILL OUT the form below and either reply via email
> (preferably) or telefax (only if necessary) to the indicated fax number.
> Replies received after Wednesday 19th November will not be included.  If
> replying by email please do not use the 'reply all' option.  If this
> invitation has been forwarded from a colleague, please make sure your reply
> is directed to the originators of this invitation, namely:
> t.mitchell@uea.ac.uk (on behalf of Mike Hulme and Joe Alcamo).
>
> 2. We have identified about 700 climate-related scientists in Europe who
> are receiving this email directly from us.  If you feel it is appropriate,
> PLEASE FORWARD THIS MESSAGE to up to three colleagues in your country who
> are working in climate-related fields, who you think may support the
> Statement and whom we have not targeted.  To identify colleagues whom we
> have already invited you can examine the email address list we have used
> for your country in the email header (or else appended to the end of this
> email).
>
> We realize that you are very busy, but this action may have a very positive
> influence on public discussions during the critical period leading up to
> Kyoto and during the Conference itself.
>
> With best wishes,
>
> Michael Hulme, Climatic Research Unit, UEA, Norwich
> Joseph Alcamo, University of Kassel, Germany
>
> (On behalf of the other signatories of the Statement)
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
> I agree to have my name placed on the list of scientists that endorse the
> Statement of European Climate Scientists on Actions to Protect Global
> Climate.
>
> Full Title and Name
>
> Affiliation						Country
>
> Signature (for fax replies only)
>
> Date
>
> Other comments:
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
> We would prefer you to return this email message to us by email, having
> duly completed the form above.  You should be sending the form to:
>
>                            ****************************
>                            **                        **
>                            **  t.mitchell@uea.ac.uk  **
>                            **                        **
>                            ****************************
>
> If you would rather not use the email reply function, then please print out
> the form above and fax it (filled in) to:
>
> "Attention: European Climate Statement"
> Climatic Research Unit,  University of East Anglia
> Telefax: +44 1603 507784
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> Statement of European Climate Scientists on Actions to Protect Global Climate
> =============================================================================
>
> In 1992, the nations of the world took a significant step to protect global
> climate by signing the Framework Convention on Climate Change. This year,
> at the coming Climate Summit in Kyoto*, they have the chance to take
> another important step.  It is our belief that the nations of the world
> should agree to substantive action for controlling the growth of greenhouse
> gas emissions.
>
> Our opinion is bolstered by the latest assessment of scientific knowledge
> carried out by the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The
> IPCC reported that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human
> influence on global climate". They also gave examples of observed climate
> change up to now, including:
>
> · Global mean surface air temperature has increased by between 0.3 to 0.6
> degrees Celsius since the late 19th century, and recent years have been the
> warmest since 1860.
> · Global sea level has risen between 10 and 25 centimeters over the past
> 100 years.
>
> Based on estimates from computer models, the IPCC also maintained that
> humanity will have a continuing and cumulative effect on climate in the
> future. Future society may find that some climate impacts are positive, as
> in the possible increase in rainfall and crop yield in some dry regions;
> and society may be able to adapt to some impacts, such as by building dikes
> against rising sea level. But many, if not most, climate impacts will
> increase risks to society and nature, and will be irreversible on the human
> time scale. Among the possible changes are further increases in sea level,
> the transformation of forest and other ecosystems, modifications of crop
> yield, and shifts in the geographic range of pests and pathogens. It is
> also possible that infrequent but disastrous events, such as droughts and
> floods, could occur more often in some regions. At particular risk are
> people living on arid or semi-arid land, in low-lying coastal areas and
> islands, in water-limited or flood-prone regions, or in mountainous
> regions. The risk to nature will be significant in the many areas where
> ecosystems cannot quickly adapt to changing climate, or where they are
> already under stress from environmental pollution or other factors.
>
> Because of these risks, we consider it important for nations to set limits
> on the increase of global temperature due to human interference with the
> climate system. We recommend that European and other industrialized nations
> use such long-term climate protection goals as a guide to determining
> short-term emission targets. This approach has been adopted, for example,
> by the European Union and the Alliance of Small Island States.
>
> Some may say that action to control emissions should be postponed because
> of the scientific uncertainties of climate change and its impact. Our view
> is that the risks and irreversibility of many climate impacts require
> "precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent, or minimize the causes of
> climate change", as stated in the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
>
> We also acknowledge that economic arguments have been put forward for
> postponing the control of emissions in Europe and elsewhere. However, after
> carefully examining the question of timing of emission reductions, we find
> the arguments against postponement to be more compelling. First, postponing
> action could shift an unfair burden for more severe reductions of emissions
> onto future generations. Second, it will lead to a greater accumulation of
> greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and hence make it more difficult to
> prevent future climate change when action is finally taken. Third, the
> latest IPCC assessment makes a convincing economic case for immediate
> control of emissions.
>
> Rather than delay, we strongly urge governments in Europe and other
> industrialized countries to agree to control greenhouse emissions as part
> of a Kyoto agreement. Some controls can be achieved by reducing fossil fuel
> use at little or no net cost through accelerated improvements in the
> efficiency of energy systems, the faster introduction of renewable energy
> sources, and the reduction of subsidies for fossil fuel use. Moreover,
> reducing the use of fossil fuels will also reduce local and regional air
> pollution, and their related impacts on human health and ecosystems.
>
> We believe that the European Union (EU) proposal is consistent with long
> term climate protection. This proposal would reduce key greenhouse gas
> emissions by 15% from industrialized countries (so-called Annex I
> countries) by the year 2010 (relative to year 1990). Although stronger
> emission reductions will be needed in the future, we see the EU, or
> similar, goal as a positive first step "to prevent dangerous anthropogenic
> interference with the climate system" and to lessen risks to society and
> nature.   Such substantive action is needed now.
>
> *Third Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate
> Change, Kyoto, Japan, December, 1997.
>
> Signed:
>
> Jan Goudriaan			Hartmut Grassl		Klaus Hasselmann
> Jill Jäger			Hans Opschoor			Tim O'Riordan
> Martin Parry 			David Pearce			Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber
> Wolfgang Seiler		Pier Vellinga
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> **  This message originated from the
> **     Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
> **  It was sent out by
> **     Mike Hulme and Tim Mitchell on behalf of the 11 key signatories.
> **  If you object to being on this email address list,
> **     please accept our apologies and inform us;
> **     we will then remove your address from the list.
> **  Please direct any comments to:
> **     t.mitchell@uea.ac.uk
> ************************************************************************
>
> The list below consists of the people with UK email addresses to whom this
> message has been sent:
>
> all CRU staff
> Adger, N
> Alcock, Graeme
> Allan, P
> Allan, Richard P
> Anderson, Dennis
> Armstrong, Adrian
> Arnell, N W
> Audsley, Eric
> Baker, Richard
> Baran, A J
> Barker, Terry
> Benestad, R E
> Bentham, G
> Bigg, G
> Boucher, Keith R
> Bouma, D
> Bramwell, Penny
> Brooks, Roger
> Brown, Philip RA
> Brugge, Roger
> Bullock, P
> Burkhardt, Ulrike
> Butterfield, Ruth
> Cai, Xiaoming
> Cannell, Melvyn
> Carling, Bob
> Castleford, John
> Chan, Angela H Y
> Clark, Douglas B
> Cluckie, I D
> Collins, Matthew
> Colman, Andrew
> Connolley, William M
> Cornford, Dan
> Costigan, Peter
> Cox, Peter
> Cox, Peter M
> Cui, Zhiqiang
> Culf, Alastair
> Cullum, Dave
> Dale, Ian
> Davis, Gerald R
> Dewhurst, Nicola
> Doherty, Ruth
> Dokerty, T
> Dorling, S
> Downey, Ian
> Downing, Tom
> East, M.
> Easthope, Mark
> Evans, Sam
> Favis-Mortlock, David
> Ferris, Rachel
> Fisher, Helen
> Folland, Chris
> Foot, John S
> Ford, I J
> Fowler, David
> Friend, Andrew
> Fruh, Wolf-Gerrit
> Gallop, Rowland
> Gawith, Megan
> Geer, Alan
> George, Glen
> Gibson, J K
> Giles, Brian
> Goode, Helen Rachel
> Gregory, David
> Gregory, Jonathan
> Gregory, Ken
> Griggs, D
> Grubb, Michael
> Hannah, David M
> Hansen, Jim
> Harrison, Paula
> Hawksworth, Kevin Stuart
> Hedger, Merylyn
> Hewitt, Chris
> Highwood, Eleanor
> Holt, Chris
> Horton, Briony
> Houghton, J
> Houseago, Richenda
> Huntingford, Chris
> Hutchings, Jenny
> Ingram, John
> Ingram, W J
> Jackson, Tim
> Jakob, Christian
> Jeffree, Christopher E
> Jenkins, Geoff
> Johns, Tim
> Johnston, Peter
> Jolliffe, Ian
> Jones, Clive
> Jones, Colin
> Jordan, A
> Joyce, Andrew N
> Keen, Ann
> Kennedy, Hamid
> Kenworthy, Joan M
> Keramitsoglou, Iphigenia
> Kilsby, Chris
> King, Ben P
> King, John
> Kings, John
> Kniveton, Dom
> Lamptey, Benjamin Lantei
> Lary, David J
> Liss, P
> Livermore, Matt
> Lloyd, Colin
> Lynagh, Norman
> Marshall, David
> Marshall, Stewart
> Maskell, Kathy
> Matthews, B
> Mavromatis, Theodoros
> Mayes, Julian
> Mayr, Thomas
> McClatchey, John
> McGregor, Glenn Russell
> McKay, Douglas
> McLaren, Alison
> McMichael, Tony
> Medlyn, Belinda
> Merchant, Chris
> Mitchell, John
> Morison, James
> Morse, Andy
> Mulligan, Mark
> Murphy, James
> Murrill, A
> Nicholls, Robert
> Noguer, Maria
> Orr, John
> Palmer, Tim
> Palutikof, Jean
> Parker, David
> Parkinson, Stuart
> Parry, M
> Pedder, Mike
> Perry, Allen
> Pierce, Clive
> Pilling, C
> Pope, V D
> Pugh, D
> Ravetz, Jerome R
> Read, P L
> Rey, N
> Reynard, Nick
> Reynolds, David
> Roberts, D L
> Rosier, Suzanne
> Rounsevell, Mark
> Rowell, Dave
> Ryan, Sonja
> Sanderson, Michael G
> Scaife, Adam
> Sear, Chris
> Semenov, Mikhail
> Shackley, Simon
> Shao, Jianmin
> Shine, Keith P
> Simpson, I
> Simpson, V
> Sims, Graham
> Skea, Jim
> Slingo, Julia
> Smithson, Peter
> Snow, Keith
> Spellman, Greg
> Standley, Andy
> Stott, Peter
> Subak, S
> Sumner, Graham
> Sutton, R T
> Tait, Andrew
> Taylor, C M
> Tett, Simon
> Thorncroft, Chris
> Thornes, John E
> Thornton, Tim
> Thorpe, Robert
> Thuburn, John
> Todd, Martin
> Tullett, Michael
> Turner, R K
> Unwin, David
> Veal, Anthony
> Viterbo, Pedro
> Walker, Malcolm
> Wang, Kuoying
> Warrilow, David
> Washington, Richard
> Webb, Mark
> Wheeler, Tim
> Wigley, Tom
> Wilby, Rob
> Wild, Richard
> Williamson, P
> Woodward, Stephanie
> Wright, Peter
> Wynne, Brian
> Yamin, Farhana
>
>
**********************************************************
*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 Stepan and Eugene
I don't know whether you have received your copies of the 1996 issue of  Dendrochronologia yet but in case not I have seen the issue and it looks very good. Your two papers on Yamal and Taimyr are there and they both look excellent. Stepan I received receipt for money and the data and photographs your sent . I am very grateful for all . Thankyou. Again I can only say sorry about the problems of money transfer.
The first thing I wish to say is that I know we have been unsuccessful with our recent applications to INTAS and COPERNICUS . However , if you agree , I would like to resubmit a new proposal to INTAS in March to continue the development of the long chronologies. I will write it and stress the success todate and the need to carry on the formal collaboration. What is your joint opinion on this?
The Nature paper on the decline story is now officially accepted and I still hope it may come out before Christmas or at least shortly afterwards. I will be writing a story about increasing basal area on the long term as I showed in Krasnoyarsk and I also intend to submit this to Science or Nature and you will be coauthors on that. We also have done a lot of work on the growing season degree day reconstructions and will write up another joint paper on this soon - but I am trying to get the ringwidth data produced by you two incorporated with the ringwidth data produced from the density measurements - because Stepan told me these may be longer and anyway they will help the quality of the ringwidth data anyway. You may therefore get some messages or questions from Harry (Ian Harris) who works for me asking about the locations. Please be patient and try to help him with this if necessay.
Unfortunately, next year I have several major meetings to attend and present our joint results. Each of these meetings is very important. In March, I must give a major review paper at the PAGES open Science meeting in London. This must cover all dendro - or at least the best of it - which of course includes our own work! Early next year I will ask for the full data sets as they then stand, for Yamal and Taimyr so that I can try restandardising and calibrating against regional mean climate data. If there are not likely to be more data than I already have , can you let me know. Also in March, I will go to Copenhagen for an European Community meeting of project leaders of projects dealing with Arctic climates. This is the sort of meeting I must attend and put on a good show if we hope to get further funding in 1999 onwards. Later in the year there is a big climate conference here at which I must give a review of dendroclimatic research.
By January , we are supposed to exchange data within the project for possible research - but with the proviso that nothing can be written about work using others data without full collaboration and coauthorship. Are you both willing to let your chronologies as published be released to the rest of the group at that time?
Finally, I have got permission (provided I can find the money to pay for it) to have a special issue of The Holocene dedicated to the results (todate) of the ADVANCE-10K project. It will contain a series of major articles describing each piece of the work and I wish these to include large ,detailed papers on the Yamal and Taimyr chronologies , and perhaps a separate paper on the Northern Urals work. I hope to get a firm committment now from Both of you that you will be prepared to do this. I would be happy to help with specific ideas and some analysis and plotting of all Figures and retyping if you wish. The provisional deadline for the production of the papers would be late summer or autumn at the earliest.
I am of course very keen to continue our collaboration and next year as soon as I know more about the details of the European Community Framework 5 plan ( which , incidently now contains a heading 'Global Change') I will be putting together another application. I will try my best to include you both as full partners in this if it is at all possible.
After the Krasnoyarsk meeting I heard nothing about the final decision regarding an application for a Transect Office in Krasnoyarsk ( at some time someone had asked me would I coauthor an application) . Has this idea died? Also will there be a proceedings book arising out of the meeting ? Do I have to prepare something?
Eugene, I have a revised version of the paper you gave me to read some time ago about the cell growth model work. Do you intend me to send this to Dendrochronologia or just send the annotated manuscript back to you? I have a question about meaning that held me up and needs your answer - can I fax you something?
Finally ,  -  I wish you each and everyone in your laboratories and all your families the very best christmas and new year .
Keith


Dear Colleagues,
I would like to confirm that we will hold the next SRES meeting on 7-8 February
at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California.  Lynn
Price is the organizer of the meeting.  Below is her contact information.
Ms. Lynn Price
Energy Analysis Program
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
MS 90-4000, 1 Cyclotron Road
Berkeley, CA 94720
U.S.A.
(001-510) 486-6519
(001-510) 486-6996
e-mail:  lkprice@lbl.gov
The main purpose of the meeting is to review the work progress of the four
modeling groups that have been involved in first quantifications of the
four storylines.  My expectation is that we can harmonize various model
runs into four initial scenarios.  Thus, this will be primarily a modelers'
meeting focusing on technical issues, storyline interpretation and
consistency of first quantifications.  It will not have the character of a
Lead Authors meeting in the strict sense.  It is nevertheless an important
meeting for all modeling groups who have volunteered to quantify
storylines, since this work needs to proceed in order for us to meet our
original timetable and cannot be postponed until the next Lead Authors'
meeting in the spring.
I hope that most of you can attend.  Your input would be
valuable in this early stage of modeling work.  Furthermore, it would be
good to also take the opportunity of this meeting to review the so-called
zero-order-drafts (ZODs).  The deadline for the submission of the final
versions of the ZODs is 15 January (Thursday), so I expect that we will
also have new material to discuss.
Although I realize that this meeting will take place on rather short
notice and not all of you will be able to obtain the necessary approvals
and visas to attend, I nonetheless believe that it is important at this
stage to hold an informal meeting with the four modeling groups.  I have
funds available for the four lead authors from developing countries:
Matthew Luhanga, Zhou Dadi, Henryk Gaj, and Emilio La Rovere.  As noted
above, a more formal meeting of the complete writing team will be held
sometime in March or April, at which time I hope everyone will be able to
attend.
Please confirm your attendance for the February meeting with me as soon as
possible (this week if you can), so that we can reserve sufficient hotel
space in Berkeley.
Again, for those of you who are working on Zero Order Drafts, please
remember that this Thursday is the deadline for completion.  I look forward to
receiving these.
Best Regards,
Naki
Katalin Kuszko
Environmentally Compatible Energy Strategies
International Institute for | Email: kuszko@iiasa.ac.at
Applied  Systems Analysis  | Phone: +43  2236 807 319
A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria  |   Fax: +43  2236 71313


Naki,
Thanks for the invitation to the SRES meeting.
Given the funds situation at your disposal, I am opting out of attending
the meeting. I would however like to offer any assistance on issues
concerning developing / Asian countries. Specifically, I have data on
structural changes of GDP and energy for countries in Asia-Pacific. The
structural transitions in these countries offer interesting insights and
directions for scenarios. I have passed an analysis of 12 countries to
Tae. The countries include the important economies in Asia-Pacific,
namely China, India, Japan, Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand,
Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. I think the structural changes in developing
countries is a very vital aspect for specifying future emissions. Also,
well documented and specified information on this shall help the policy
exercises later which shall use our emissions scenarios as reference.
I think the modelling groups may also require some inputs (and insights)
for handling developing country specifications in the models. In the
past we have pointed out several lacunas - such as neglect of
traditional biomass, disequilibrium, informal economy, geopolitical
realities etc. These also influence technological assumptions and
constraints. In fact our scenarios are very well suited to handle some
of these aspects differently. The modellers may have to be advised to
handle these aspects suitably. This is vital since we aim to specify the
emissions regionally.
An another issue I wish to bring to your attention relates to discount
rates. I know your competence on this issue. However, the modelling
difficulties (and paradigm itself) often stop us from using different
discount rates. The persistence of high discount rates in developing
economies is an observed fact. This may not equalize globally during the
next half century (or more). Even if we may not want to have different
discount rates (since this upsets the underlying neoclassical paradigm),
we may just ask the modellers to ensure that the results are not
sensitive to this.
A more interesting issue concerning the discount rates for our scenarios
is that the different futures (scenarios) would have different
associated discount rates. The sustainable development type scenarios
(e.g. B1 scenario) may have lower discount rate than our A scenarios. If
we run all scenarios with same discount rate, this would be a
contradiction. I know there are no easy answers around this since we do
not want to confuse the users of scenarios later on with too many
different parameters. However it may be worth providing different
specifications for important parameters or caveats where we anticipate
contradictions.
Given the recent developments in East Asia, it may be worth to take a
relook at A1 scenario and consider whether the Tiger World would transit
to A1 or A2. This is just an aside.
Wishing you a very happy new year.
P.R. Shukla
**************************************************************
P.R. Shukla, Professor
Indian Institute of Management, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad 380015, India
Phone:  91 79 407241, Fax: 91 79 6427896
Email: shukla@iimahd.ernet.in, ~shukla
***************************************************************


Frank
I do not recall what Kyrdianov has worked on - sorry. However, Hantemirov has done outstanding work putting together and as yet preliminarily analysing what wii no doubt become a world famous sub fossil chronology in the Yamal area of northern Siberia. Indeed I will feature this work in my presentation.
Frank , an important point requiring your instant help! Some time ago I got a request to write something for a NERC(?) publication related to my talk in April. Now I can't find it and desperately need to contact the guy about length and deadine - which may have passed. Can you help? I know you coordinated with him.
Yes I know I'm a _anker!
Keith
At 10:12 AM 1/16/98 +0100, you wrote:
>Dear Keith,
>
>I'm trying to draw up a short list for the 5 young scientists who will
>receive financial support from UCL. I need to balance them for theme and
>region and it seems that one of them should probably be a former USSR
>dendro-person. I've consulted Gene who points to Hantemirov and
>Kyrdianov as the two most worthy. Do you have any advice? Both abstracts
>look good and Gene thinks highly of each piece of work.  seems better to
>get a second opinion from the dendro-world than to leave it open or try
>to resolve the question from a non-specialist perspective.
>
>I look forward to hearing from you,
>
>Cheers,
>
>Frank
>____________________________________________
>Frank Oldfield
>
>Executive Director
>PAGES IPO
>Barenplatz 2
>CH-3011 Bern, Switzerland
>
>e-mail: frank.oldfield@pages.unibe.ch   *** NOTE CHANGE ***
>
>Phone: +41 31 312 3133; Fax: +41 31 312 3168
>
>


Dear Keith!
I contacted Hakan Grudd last week. He is also positive about a Ph.D. for me
in Stockholm.
I have tried to make a formulation of a project. Please, read it and let me
know what you think. Maybe the project is overlapping with that of Grudd or
maybe you have better ideas. It could also be that I have misunderstood
some points.
I have sent the project formulation to Schweingruber, Grudd and Kalen. I
send it to Schweingruber because I already contacted him last week (before
I got the message from you). He is also interested in the project and
anyway he will get involved if I am going to train in Birmensdorf.
Best regards from:
Gerner Thomsen
Description of project
1. Background
Dendroclimatology can be defined as the use of tree rings to study and
reconstruct past and present climate (Kaennel & Schweingruber, 1995).
Global average surface temperatures have risen by 0.3-0.6 °C since the
middle of the 19th century (Folland et al., 1990). Climatologists seek to
establish the extent to which this rise may be attributable to an enhanced
greenhouse effect and so need to distinguish anthropogenic from 'natural'
climate fluctuations (those that would occur without anthropogenic
influences) to help them make predictions of future climate changes (Briffa
et al., 1996a). Clearly the century-long instrumental record is not long
enough to accomplish this. Paleoclimatic fluctuations older than
meteorological measurements can be inferred from a variety of data sources,
including tree rings, records of vegetation processes (e.g. pollen in lake
sediments), records of ice layer in ice cores, historical records, etc.
(Eddy, 1992). However, within a time frame of the last two millennia
dendroclimatology has shown to be the most powerful tool available to
provide globally distributed, annually resolved paleoenvironmental records
(Luckman, 1996). The growing influence of dendroclimatology in
paleoenvironmental studies can be seen in the fact that almost a third of
Bradley and Jones' volume Climate since AD 1500 (Bradley & Jones, 1992)
deals with dendrochronology and dendroclimatic reconstruction.
Near the polar and altitudinal tree lines, tree growth is mainly dependent
on summer temperature. As northern latitudes are regarded as being strongly
affected by global climate changes, a network of chronologies is
established along the polar tree-line in Eurasia (Briffa et al., 1996b). At
specific locations in these northern high-latitude regions it is possible
to extend the tree-growth record back beyond the life span of living trees
by amalgamating the measurements from overlapping, absolutely-dated series
of measurements made on dead wood from historical or archeological
provenances or naturally surviving above ground, in peat or alluvial
sediments, or preserved in lakes. The first pair of (ring-width and
density) chronologies, made up from samples of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris
L.) at several locations adjacent to Lake Torneträsk, northern Sweden, have
been used to reconstruct summer (April-August) temperatures representing a
large region  of northern Fennoscandia from AD 500 to 1980 (Briffa et al.,
1990, 1992). The Fennoscandian temperature records show that marked
high-frequency (interannual-to-century) timescale variability together with
marked long-timescale (multicentury) variations in summer temperatures have
been a characteristic feature in this region during the last millennium.
Similar data from samples of larch (Larix sibirica) on the eastern slopes
of the northern Urals have been used to reconstruct regional summer
(May-September) temperatures representing a region of north-western Siberia
for the period 914 to 1990 (Briffa et al., 1995b). As a part of developing
the north Eurasian chronology network, two projects currently underway aim
to build continuous multimillennial pine ring-width chronologies in
northern Sweden and Finland, spanning 7000-8000 years (Briffa et al.,
1995a). In Russia a similar project underway aim to build larch ring-width
chronologies in Yamal Peninsula, also spanning 7000-8000 years (Shiyatov,
1997).
The application of radiodensitometry in the analysis of conifer rings
throughout Europe (Schweingruber, 1985) show the considerable amount of
additional information lying in density, as compared with total ring width.
Obviously, external factors have a more uniform influence on cell wall
growth in latewood (density) than on cambial activity (ring-widths). In
trees of the northern and subalpine timberlines, maximum latewood density
is essentially a measure of mean summer temperature (ibid.).
2. Purpose of this study
2.1. Main objective
The main objective of this study is to provide additional information for a
more precise climate reconstruction based on the already existing
Torneträsk-chronology  in northern Sweden (AD 500 to 1980) and a future
supra-long chronology (BC 7000 to 1996), based on ring-widths and maximum
latewood density of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) from the same area.
2.2. Elaboration of the main objective
One of the most fundamental underlying principles in dendroclimatology is
the assumption of uniformitarianism in the response of data to climate
forcing. The uniformitarian principle implies that "the physical and
biological processes which link today's climate with today's variations in
tree growth must have been in operation in the past" (Fritts, 1976).
However, it is a moot point whether the assumption of uniformitarianism
holds when past climate variations are inferred from long chronologies. The
problem arises because the extrapolation always is based on a regression
model calibrated on very short meteorological records. Long chronologies,
as those seen in northern Scandinavia and Siberia, are made up from trees
of different ages growing under more or less uniform conditions. In such
chronologies there must always be uncertainty regarding the long-term
stability of (non-climate) environmental influences or differing climate
sensivity due to the inhomogeneity in the sampled material (Briffa, 1995a,
Briffa et al., 1996a). The climate signals in chronologies may, to some
extent, be affected by:
1.
Inhomogeneity in the site characteristics of the samples (soil
fertility, water holding capacity of the soil, altitude, exposure of slope,
etc.)
2.
Inhomogeneity in series length of samples (tree age)
3.
Inhomogeneity in tree growth form and population density of samples
4.
Anthropogenic influence (nitrogen deposition, raise in CO2 level)
producing enhanced tree growth in the recent part of the chronology
5.
Series replication in the chronology
6.
The technique used to remove the non-climatic, age-related bias in
individual series (a technique known as standardization in
dendroclimatology)
This study will focus on the influence of point 1-3 on the climate signal
seen in densities of Scots pine from the area of Torneträsk in northern
Sweden. It is well-known that the Torneträsk-chronology is subject to the
inhomogenity in samples described in point 1-3, but it is not clear to what
extension these inhomogenities affect the climate signal in the chronology.
Thus, a study of the influence of inhomogenity in the samples will provide
valuable additional information for a more precise interpretation of the
summer-temperature record inferred from the already existing
Torneträsk-chronology. In the same way it will highly increase the value
and confidence of climate reconstructions from future supra-long
pine-chronologies in this region. The growth parameter under investigation
is maximum latewood density. In this way the study will complement an
ongoing similar study on ring-widths of Scots pine from the same region
(Grudd, 1998).
2.3. Partial objectives of the study and publications
Methodologically, the project can be divided into three, but overlapping
stages:
1.
Building of density pine-chronologies around Torneträsk from different
sites. Various site conditions (mainly soil fertility, water holding
capacity of the soil, altitude, and tree population density) and different
age classes must be taken into consideration. No less than 10-12
chronologies must be estimated.
2.
Analysis of climate-growth relationships of the pine-chronologies,
focusing on differences between high-frequency and low-frequency
variability in the climate date. The results are compared and conclusions
are drawn about the diversity of climate signal seen in
density-chronologies from Scots pine growing under various conditions in
the area around Torneträsk.
3.
Re-interpretation of the already existing Torneträsk-chronology on the
basis of the new information provided by the study in case and the ongoing
similar study of ring-widths from the same region (Grudd, 1998)
The results are published in three articles with the following provisional
titles:
a)
"Site-induced differences in climate-growth response of Pinus sylvestris
L."  (The article focuses on differences in climate-growth response for
trees growing on different soil types and for trees from stands with
different population density)
b)
"Altitude and age as parameters of climate-growth response in Pinus
sylvestris L." (The article focuses on differences in climate-growth
response for trees growing at different altitudes and trees in different
age-classes )
c)
"Possible site-induced changes in the climate-growth response of the
1,400 year tree-ring chronology from northern Fennoscandia" (A
re-interpretation of  the existing Torneträsk-chronology is made on the
basis of the new information)
3. Methods
3.1.  Sampling strategy
3.1.1. Selection of sites and stands
As already pointed out, various site conditions and different age classes
must be taken into consideration. Site homogeneity largely determines the
quality of the chronology. That is, the factor under investigation which is
assumed to affect the climate-growth response must be constant all over the
site, and other possible affecting factors are minimised. It is important
that the stand have not been similarly damaged by fires, wind, or other
catastrophic factors to extract reliable climatic information. Site
characteristics will be noted (typography/geomorphology, soil conditions,
vegetation description, signs of human impact, etc.).
3.1.2. Selection of  trees
Trees should be in a dominant position (with the possible exception of
stand density studies), without irregular growth which probably disturb the
climate signal in the tree-rings. Individual variability in the final
chronology decreases with an increasing number of samples. Consequently,
two cores from at least 12 living trees are necessary to obtain a
site-chronology of sufficient quality. It is best to sample a few more
trees than necessary so that anomalous cores may be discarded.  Trees of
different age classes will be cored to allow for systematical studies on
age-related bias in the climate-growth response.
Samples are taken at breast height with an increment borer. The cores are
stored in air-dry conditions after labelling with a pencil. Growth
irregularities (compression wood, wound tissue, etc.) are excluded by
avoiding sampling in the vicinity of wound and of upslope and downslope
sides of trees growing on sloping ground. Cores are taken as nearly
perpendicular to the fibre orientation as possible. This can greatly reduce
the variability  owing to technical processing in densitometric studies
(Schweingruber et al., 1990). Core characteristics will be noted (tree
height, stem diameter at breast height, crown size and condition, injuries
and irregular growth, coring direction and height, etc.). Sites and trees
will be documented photographically.
3.2.Sample preparation, measurement, and chronology building
3.2.1. Preparation
Resins and heartwood substances must be chemically removed as they will
influence on the X-ray absorption (Schweingruber, 1990). This is done
through distillation in Soxhlett device; resins are extracted with alcohol,
heartwood substances with water.  After removal of resins and heartwood
substances, laths of equal thickness have to be cut from the round cores.
The Birmensdorf system may be used where the core is glued to a wooden
support with the radial surface uppermost and a 1.25-mm-thick lath cut out
with a small twin-bladed circular saw. To obtain comparable density values,
the moisture content of the wood must be kept constant.
3.2.2. Measurement of density
The irradiation of film can be done with different methods. Two methods,
which have proved to be useful are:
1.
Irradiation of a film (Kodak, Type R, single-coated industrial X-ray film)
resting on the moving stage. The film is transported at five cm/min under
the radiation source, which is 31 cm above, and irradiated at 20kVh and 2mA
(Vancouver system)
2.
Irradiation of a film (Kodak, Type X-Omat TL, double coated medical X-ray
film) resting on a stationary stage at 11 kVh and 20 mA for 90 min. The
source is 250 cm above the film (Nancy system)
The film is developed and the different gray levels produced on the
radiograph by the wood samples are converted to wood density values. The
basic instrument used is the densitometer (ibid). Analog or digital
processing of the actual measurements produces a density profile from which
the desired parameter (maximum density) is registered.
3.2.3. Dating and chronology building
For dating, chronology building and quality control, the program COFECHA
(Holmes et al., 1986) may be used. In addition a manual dating control has
to be done at the light table or monitor, comparing each curve with an
existing master chronology. The procedure ensures precise dating of every
tree ring.
3.3.  Data processing
3.3.1.  Standardization of tree-ring data
Before averaging tree-ring curves to mean chronologies which shall be used
for dendroclimatological purposes, the raw values must be standardized to
index values. In the same process, one has to remove the natural age trend
of trees and eventual density variations caused by stand dynamics, and not
representing climate. Also in this process, it is crucial to control the
effect of detrending at the light table or on the monitor, comparing the
original with the detrended curve. Much depends from this process, as the
dendrochronologist here decides which portion of low frequency variation
that is removed from the series. This in turn affects climate information
inferred from the chronology. Therefore, several detrending methods have to
be tested in this study.
3.3.2. Computing climate-growth response
Climate-growth models will be computed for all individual chronologies. The
period selected for climate-growth modelling, is the period for which
climate data are available (the earliest series start in AD ??). Different
techniques are existing for estimation of the climate-growth response. For
example, simple correlation analysis may be used or a regression-technique
based on principal component analysis. It may be relevant to detect
non-linear relationships between climate variables and ring growth, as well
as to study single years with special tree-ring (pointer years) and climate
events. To detect changes in climate-response over time the Kalman filter
can be used.
4. Time schedule
The project will be performed during three years (June 1998 to June 2001).
The Ph.D. student will follow courses corresponding to 40 weeks of studies.
>From earlier working, the following assumptions regarding time consume for
field work and measuring can be made: It can take a number of days to
become familiar with the localities and to find the most suitable pine
stands. At each site, one to two days are needed for sampling and site
description, provided that the pines do not stand too scattered, and long
walking distances can be avoided. Time for measuring and chronology
building should be estimated rather high (2-3 weeks per site).
1998:
Summer:
Preparing of a detailed sampling strategy for the whole project (2 weeks)
and field work (6 weeks). The field work will focus on sampling of trees
from about six sites with varying conditions (soil fertility and water
holding capacity).
Autumn semester:
Training in use of densitometry equipment at the institute of Forest, Snow
and Landscape in Birmensdorf, Switzerland. Measurement of samples collected
in the summer.
1999:
Spring semester:
Continued measuring of samples at the university in Stockholm. Systematical
analysis of standardization methods and construction of six site
chronologies. Start of analysing climate-growth response in chronologies.
Summer:
Field work (6 weeks) which will put focus on sampling trees from about six
sites in different altitudes and with different stand densities.
Autumn semester:
Measuring of the summer's material at the university in Stockholm.
Systematical analysis of standardization methods and construction of six
new site chronologies. Analysing climate-growth response in chronologies.
2000:
Spring semester:
Analysing climate-growth response in all chronologies. Preparation of
publication (a).
Autumn semester:
Analysing age-related climate-response. Preparation of publication (b).
Comparison of results with similar study on ring-widths (Grudd, 1998).
2001:
Spring semester:
Last statistics, preparation of publication (c), preparation of
disputation.
Bibliography
Bradley & Jones, (1992). Climate since A.D. 1500. London: Routledge, 678
pp.
Briffa, K.R., Bartholin, T.S., Eckstein, D., Jones, P.D., Karlén, W.,
Schweingruber, F.H. & Zetterberg, P. (1990). A 1,400-year tree-ring record
of summer temperatures in Fennoscandia. Nature. 346: 434-439.
Briffa, K.R., Jones, P.D., Bartholin, T.S., Eckstein, D., Schweingruber,
F.H., Karlén, W., Zetterberg, P. & Eronen, M. (1992). Fennoscandian summers
from A.D. 500: Temperature changes on short and long timescales. Climate
Dynamics. 7: 111-119.
Briffa, K.R. (1995). Interpreting High-Resolution Proxy Climate Data - The
Example of Dendroclimatology. In: Storch, H.v., Navarra, A. (Eds), Analysis
of Climate Variability: Applications of Statistical Techniques:
Proceedings, Elba, oct-nov, 1993. Springer-Verlag, Berlin: pp. 77-94.
Briffa, K.R., Jones, P.D., Schweingruber, F.H., Karlén, W., Bartholin,
T.S., Shiyatov, S.G., Vaganov, E.A., Zetterberg, P. & Eronen, M. (1995a).
Regional temperature patterns across Northern Eurasia: tree-ring
reconstructions over centuries and millennia. In: Heikinheimo, P.
(Ed).Proceedings, International Conference on Past, Present and Future
Climate. Academy of Finland (Suomen akatemian julkaisuja) no. 6, pp.
115-118.
Briffa, K.R., Jones, P.D., Schweingruber, F.H., Shiyatov, S.G. & Cook, E.R.
(1995b). Unusual twentieth-century summer warmth in a 1,000-year
temperature record from Siberia. Nature. 376: 156-159.
Briffa, K.R., Jones, P.D., Schweingruber, F.H., Karlén, W. & Shiyatov, S.G.
(1996a). Tree-ring variables as proxy-indicators: Problems with
low-frequency signals. In: Jones, P.D., Bradley, R.S., Jouzel, J. (Eds),
Climatic Variations and Forcing Mechanisms of the Last 2000 Years. NATO ASI
Series. Series I: Global Environmental Change. Vol. 41. pp. 9-41.
Briffa, K.R., Jones, P.D., Schweingruber, F.H., Shiyatov, S.G. & Vaganov,
E.A. (1996b). Development of a North Eurasian chronology network: Rationale
and preliminary results of comparative ring-width and densitometric
analysis in northern Russia. In: Dean, J.S., Meko, D.M., Swetnam, T.W.
(Eds), Tree Rings, Environment, and Humanity. Proceedings of the
International Conference, Tucson, Arizona, 17-21 May 1994. RADIOCARBON.
Department of Geosciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson, pp. 25-41.
Eddy, J.A. (1992). Global IGBP Change. The Royal Swedish Academy of
Sciences, Stockholm. Report no. 19. 110 pp.
Folland, C.K., Karl, T.R. & Vinnikov, K.Y. (1990). Observed Climate
Variations and Change. In: Houghton, J.T., Jenkins, G.J., Ephraums, J.J.
(Eds), Climate Change. The IPCC Scientific Assessment. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge: pp. 194-238.
Fritts, (1976). Tree Rings and Climate. First ed. London: Academic Press,
567 pp.
Grudd, H. (1998). Personal communication: Department of Physical Geography,
Stockholm University, S-10691 Stockholm.
Holmes et al., (1986). Tree-Ring Chronologies of Western North America:
California, Eastern Oregon and Northern Great Basin with Procedures used in
Chronology Department Work Including Users Manuals for Computer Programs
COFECHA and ARSTAN. Chronology Series VI. Tucson, Arizona: Laboratory of
Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona,
Kaennel & Schweingruber, (1995). Multilingual Glossary of Dendrochronology.
Bern, Switzerland: Paul Haupt Publishers, 467 pp.
Luckman, B.H. (1996). Dendrochronology and global change. In: Dean, J.S.,
Meko, D.M., Swetnam, T.W. (Eds), Tree Rings, Environment, and Humanity.
Proceedings of the International Conference, Tucson, Arizona, 17-21 May
1994. RADIOCARBON. Department of Geosciences, The University of Arizona,
Tucson, pp. 3-24.
Schweingruber, F.H. (1985). Dendro-ecological zones in the coniferous
forests of Europe. Dendrochronologia. 3: 67-75.
Schweingruber, F.H. (1990). Radiodensitometry. In: Cook, E.R., Kairiukstis,
L.A. (Eds), Methods of Dendrochronology: Applications in the Environmental
Sciences. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht: pp. 55-63.
Schweingruber, F.H., Kairiukstis, L.A. & Shiyatov, S.G. (1990). Sample
Selection. In: Cook, E.R., Kairiukstis, L.A. (Eds), Methods of
Dendrochronology: Applications in the Environmental Sciences. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht: pp. 23-35.
Shiyatov, S.G. (1997). Personal communication: Institute of Plant and
Animal Ecology, Laboratory of dendrochronology, 8 Marta 202, 620219
Ekaterinburg, Russia.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Gerner Thomsen
Marathonvej 21, 1. door 5
2300 Copenhagen S
Denmark
Tel: (+45) 3159 6095
Fax: (+45) 3155 9409
E-mail: gerner@get2net.dk
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


Hi everyone,
I need to have a firm number of attendees by the end of the day tomorrow
(Wednesday January 21st) in order to hold rooms at the hotel.  At the end
of this e-mail I have listed the information that I currently  have
regarding who is planning to attend, who is not planning to attend, and
who has not responded.
I will hold a room for each of the people listed below as attending
unless I hear otherwise from you.
If you are in the list of people who have not yet responded and you plan
to attend, please let me know ASAP.
If I have not heard from you by the end of the day tomorrow I will assume
that you will make your own arrangements for accommodations.
For those of you who want me to hold a room for you, I will send
information on how to make your reservations in a day or so.
Thanks,
Lynn
*************************************
Lynn Price
Energy Analysis Program
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
1 Cyclotron Road, MS 90-4000
Berkeley, CA 94720  USA
(510) 486-6519
fax (510) 486-6996
*************************************
Confirmed as attending:
Nebojsa Nakicenovic
Zhou Dadi
Stuart Gaffin
Henryk Gaj
Ken Gregory
Arnulf Gruebler
Erik Haites
Tae-Yong Jung
Emilio Lebre La Rovere
Alan Manne
Tsuneyuki Morita
Richard Moss
Hugh Pitcher
Rich Richels
Rob Swart
H.J.M. de Vries
Ernst Worrell
Not attending:
Knut Alfsen
Dennis Anderson
Joergen Fenhann
Laurie Michaelis
Priyadarshi Shukla
Jim Skea
Have not responded:
Joseph Alcamo
Ged Davis
Benjamin Dessus
Jae Edmonds
William Hare
Michael Hulme
Michael Jefferson
Tom Kram
Mathem Luhanga
Douglas McKay
Julio Torres Martinez
Shunsuke Mori
Youssef Nassef
William Pepper
Hans-Holger Rogner
Cynthia Rosenzweig
Leena Srivastava
John Weyant


Mike,
Thanks for the quick response.  Responses to responses follows....
(1)	I tried the composite GHG plus UIUC SUL on Norm's machine, in just
the way you said.  However, the results for the USA seem to be identical
to those using *only* UIUC GHG input.  I'll try again.
(2)	You are right in saying one shouldn't scale GHG patterns by
GHG+SUL dTs.  However, to be strictly consistent one should never allow
GHG patterns to be used alone.  So you are *not* being consistent if you
allow this---which you do.  The point then is to minimize the extent of
the inconsistency.
It is unarguably correct that the global-mean temperature to use
is the one containing all forcings (i.e., column 6 in *DRIVE.OUT).  The
choice then is what pattern(s) to use.  If we had no SUL information, we
would have to use GHG patterns; as in the original SCENGEN.  Scaling these
with the MAGICC GHG output would give both incorrect patterns and
incorrect global-mean warming.  Scaling with column 6 at least gets the
global-mean warming correct (within MAGICC uncertainties).  You seem to
have chosen to get *both* things wrong, instead of just the patterns.
I can see some logic in your method; I just think (strongly) that
it is wrong.  At the very least, it will be confusing to the user.
If the user selects only GHG model patterns, then won't they wonder why
the global-mean temperature is inconsistent with MAGICC?  To take an
extreme case, suppose the full dT is 2degC and the GHG-alone dT is 3degC.
Is it better to scale an approximate pattern (i.e., the GHG pattern) by
2degC or 3degC?  In my view, GHG scaled by 2degC would be much closer to
GHG+SUL scaled by 2degC than GHG scaled by 3degC.  Surely the real issue
(given that it is impossible to be entirely consistent in this case) is to
get a result that is as close to the 'right' result as possible.  I feel
quite sure that scaling by column 6 is best on this basis---especially
given that the patterns are much more uncertain than the global-means.  I
think this is absolutely beyond doubt.
The bottom line here is that consistency is impossible if one uses
only GHG patterns.  Column 6 was included deliberately, and after some
thought (along the lines noted above).
Of course, it is possible to get column 6 results by adding
columns 2, 3, 4 and 5 as they now stand (and as they are in the version
that you have).  However, one cannot do this with the correct *raw*
column 3, 4, and 5 output because of the nonlinear direct forcing effect.
It just happens that, in your version, I 'faked up' column 5 as the
difference between column 6 and the sum of columns 2, 3 and 4.  I did this
simply to get the code working; but (as you now know) I never got around
to fixing it up until now.  In the latest version, column 6 is again equal
to the sum of columns 2, 3, 4 and 5 because I scale columns 3, 4 and 5 to
ensure that this is so.
(3)	Re HadCM2, again it is impossible to be consistent.  What I said
before is that the reason for adding these results is simply to make them
readily available.  I do *not* advocate using them in combination with any
other model results.  It is, I believe, perfectly reasonable to scale
these results with column 6 data.  Of course, this 'hides' an assumption
about the relative magnitudes of the GHG and SUL components---i.e., it
assumes that the HadCM2 relative magnitudes are okay.  The point of
scaling, however, is to account for other factors that change the
global-mean temperature relative to HadCM2 results, such as different
sensitivities.
I agree with you that it would not be an efficient use of time
splitting the HadCM2 SUL results into GHG and 'aerosol' component
patterns.  The whole point of the sulphate part of SCENGEN is to look at
the influence of different SO2 emissions patterns.  Splitting up HadCM2
wouldn't help here at all.
I also think it would be valueless to hardwire HadCM2 dT results
into SCENGEN---again, this would defeat the purpose of including these
results.  It would introduce an additional inconsistency; since HadCM2
patterns change with time, it would not be logical to scale the 2071-2100
pattern with (e.g.) 2031-2060 dT.  Of course, you could argue that it is
illogical to scale this pattern with (e.g.) 2031-60 dT from MAGICC; but
this is a different issue that I don't think is worth discussing at this
time.
(4)	Thanks for explaining the UIUC 'other data' problem.  I will ask
Michael whether he can provide full global fields for the other variables,
since it really would be valuable to include them.  If he can give us
these data, could you add them to SCENGEN? (re this, see below)
(5)	I appreciate your problems with Olga and Mike Salmon.  As far as I
can see, incorporating the revised MAG.FOR code into MAGICC/SCENGEN
shouldn't be too difficult.  I can, however, get hold of some money to pay
for some of Mike's time to do other work---perhaps $5000 or so.  Can we
set something up?  The contractual side would be easy---just a matter of
agreeing a brief statement of work, and having CRU send a bill.  If this
is useful and possible, then can you check it out with Mike and Trevor?
Cheers,
Tom
On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Mike Hulme wrote:
> Tom,
>
> Got your fax and email.  Five responses:
>
> 1.  UIUC SUL results *can* be combined with any GHG pattern (or
> combination).  Simply click on the relevant GCMs in the GCMs menu.  You can
> choose all 15 GHG patterns and also the UIUC SUL pattern simultaneously if
> you want.  Not sure how you missed this one.
>
> 2.  We do *not* allow GHG patterns to be scaled by GHG+SUL dTs from MAGICC
> (what you call 'global sulphate'); i.e., we never use column 6 in the
> *DRIVE files.  We always follow the 'disaggregated sulphate' route by using
> columns 2, 3, 4 and 5.  I still maintain it is not correct to scale GHG
> patterns by a global dT that results from GHG+SUL forcing.  The way we have
> designed SCENGEN is so that the choice of what columns in *DRIVE to use is
> governed by what GCMs are selected in the GCMs menu.  If only GHG patterns
> are chosen we use column 2.  If only SUL patterns are chosen we use columns
> 3, 4 and 5 with the appropriate weightings applied (i.e., we have three
> UIUC SUL pattern files corresponding to the three SCENGEN regions,
> re-combined of course from Schlesinger's six original regions).  If *both*
> GHG and SUL patterns are chosen then we combine the various patterns using
> columns 2, 3, 4 and 5.  You will see that the global dT displayed in red on
> the main screen changes in keeping with these selections (i.e., GHG only,
> SUL only or GHG+SUL).
>
> If we allowed GHG patterns to be scaled by dTs from MAGICC that resulted
> from GHG and SUl forcing I believe that we break the consistency of our
> method.  Column 6 is therefore redundant and serves only to check the
> summing of the other columns.
>
> 3.  This parallels an earlier discussion about using HADCM2 SUL results in
> SCENGEN.  Strictly, we should not use them since they are SO2 pattern
> specific.  Allowing the user to scale HADCM2 SUL by a set of dTs resulting
> from *any* SO2 pattern is plainly wrong.  A compromise would be to allow
> HADCM2 SUL to be scaled by the dT from the HADCM2 SUL simulation (i.e.,
> hard-wiring these dTs into SCENGEN and using only these if the user wants
> HADCM2 SUL).  Of course, other GCM patterns should not then be added to
> this.  There is another way of using HADCM2 SUL results more flexibly and
> that is by differencing HADCM2 GHG from HADCM2 SUL (2071-2100),
> standardising the result according to the dTs from the three SCENGEN
> regions and then treating these standardised HADCM2 SUL only patterns as
> independent aerosol patterns to be used in SCENGEN.  This would be my
> approach but again requires more time and effort.
>
> 4.  We only include T and P from UIUC for the very good reason that only T
> and P contain complete global fields (at least from the ftp site data).
> The other variables exist only for land areas.  Since the UIUC grid is 4
> (lat) by 5 deg and SCENGEN is 5 by 5 we would need to regrid (and the
> longitudes are displaced by 0.5 a box as well which complicates matters).
> Regridding land only grids onto a different land only grid is non-trivial
> (possible, but would take some working at).  For example, UIUC have no
> Iceland or Caribbean islands so what do we give to SCENGEN for these boxes?
>  We have to tell SCENGEN something since we add other GCMs together.
> Faking up data here is very time-consuming.  If UIUC have other fields
> apart from T and P for a full global grid but just not put them on the web
> site then fine, the problem is quite straightfoward.  If not, then we have
> a messy problem on our hands.
>
> 5.  Points about revised MAGICC code noted and we will have a look at the
> new code when it is here.  Please also note that apart from Olga not being
> paid by me now, neither is Mike Salmon.  Indeed, Mike's contract is rather
> uncertain again.  But I hope I can pursuade him (and Trevor) to keep pace
> with MAGICC changes for all our sakes.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>
> At 19:23 06/02/98 -0700, you wrote:
> >Dear Mike,
> >
> >Some rather urgent SCENGEN issues have arisen from my meeting with Norm
> >Rosenberg, Hugh Pitcher et al. at Battelle.  While at Battelle, I had my
> >first chance to look at the new SCENGEN, since I have not had time to try
> >to get it working under NT.  (I haven't had time to try your new batch
> >file yet.)
> >
> >The first thing is that you seem to have constrained things so that
> >Schlesinger's sulphate results can only be added to *his* ghg results.
> >This defeats the purpose of the method.  The sulphate patterns,
> >appropriately scaled, can be added to *any* (or any combination) of ghg
> >(i.e., CO2 alone) results.  I am at a loss to understand why you did this,
> >because it seems to me that the coding should be easier for the more
> >general case.  The way it should work is this:
> >
> >First, the user selects the MAGICC output; low, mid, high or user climate
> >output.  This determines which file to use to get the normalized pattern
> >weights, LODRIVE, MIDDRIVE, HIDRIVE OR USRDRIVE.
> >
> >The user must then select whether to use global sulphate or disaggregated
> >sulphate.  This determines whether to use the last column only in *DRIVE
> >(labeled SUM) to weight the ghg (or composite ghg) pattern (global
> >sulphate case); or to use the second, third, fourth and fifth columns of
> >*DRIVE (labeled GHG, ESO21, ESO22, ESO23) to weight, respectively, the ghg
> >(or composite ghg), region-1 sulphate, region-2 sulphate and region-2
> >sulphate patterns---and then sum these weighted patterns.
> >
> >What you seem to be doing now is to only allow SCENGEN to use
> >Schlesinger's ghg pattern for weighting with the GHG column.  It should be
> >trivial to fix this.  The ghg (or composite ghg) pattern should be
> >calculated no matter whether the user selects the global or disaggregated
> >sulphate case.  You may have switched this calculation off for the
> >disaggregated case---but you *shouldn't*.  As I noted above, the coding
> >should be easier for the proper working of the model.
> >
> >You may recall that I said earlier that I think there is still a glitch in
> >the sulphate pattern weights.  On looking at the *DRIVE outputs again I
> >still think this is a problem.  Have a look yourself and see whether you
> >think the numbers look reasonable or not.  Ill check this out further over
> >the weekend.
> >
> >The second thing that came up in the Battelle meeting was the fact that
> >the only data sets for Schlesinger's output seem to be temperature and
> >precipitation.  Battelle wants to do some sulphate cases (driving crop and
> >hydrology models with SCENGEN output), and they need the other variables.
> >They are working to a tight deadline, so getting these data into SCENGEN
> >is much higher priority that plugging HadCM2 SUL into SCENGEN.  This is
> >why I am going to spend some time (at last!) checking out the pattern
> >weights a.s.a.p.  I hope you can help out with these things.  The first
> >should be easy---but I realize the second could be both tedious and
> >somewhat time consuming.  There is clearly a lot of scope for using
> >SCENGEN to define the pattern consequences of sulphate aerosol forcing;
> >both to look at the implications of different SO2 emissions scenarios and
> >to investigate uncertainties.  We can't do this until I've fixed the
> >MAGICC end to get the weights working properly.  It is something we could
> >spend some time on (i.e., writing something up for publication) when I'm
> >in CRU in the summer (and/or earlier).
> >
> >Thanks for your help on this.  The people at Battelle are very impressed
> >by SCENGEN--as am I.
> >
> >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                                 *
> >       **********************************************************
> >
> >
>
**********************************************************
*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 Colleagues,
Please find attached the minutes of the SRES informal modelers' meeting,
7-8 February 1998 in Berkeley, California.  I would like to thank those who
participated in the meeting and Lynn Price in particular, both for the
excellent organization of the meeting and for drafting the minutes.  Please
note the deadlines detailed in our
work plan; for those of you completing the next two rounds on model runs
and storylines, this will be especially important.  Additional submissions
to the SRES scenario database would be also greatly appreciated.  Finally,
if anyone would like to receive a hard copy of the materials we discussed
in Berkeley, please contact Anne Johnson at johnson@iiasa.ac.at. (The same
material was sent to you by e-mail on January 30).
With best regards,
Naki
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\draft-minutes1.doc"
Nebojsa NAKICENOVIC
International Institute for | Email: naki@iiasa.ac.at
Applied  Systems Analysis  | Phone: +43  2236 807 411
A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria  |   Fax: +43  2236 71313From ???@??? Fri Feb 20 10:42:27 1998
Return-path:
Envelope-to: f037@cpca11.uea.ac.uk
Delivery-date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:41:40 +0000
Received: from mailgate3.uea.ac.uk [139.222.230.3]
by cpca11.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.73 #1)
id 0y5ptk-0005i2-00; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:41:40 +0000
Received: from thorn.meto.gov.uk by mailgate3.uea.ac.uk with SMTP (PP);
Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:41:22 +0000
Received: from thorn.meto.gov.uk (MEADOW)
by thorn.meto.gov.uk (PMDF V5.1-9 #26370) with ESMTP
id
for m.hulme@uea.ac.uk;
Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:40:27 GMT
Received: from hc0800 ([151.170.1.12])
by meadow.meto.gov.uk (PMDF V5.1-9 #26370) with ESMTP
id
for m.hulme@uea.ac.uk;
Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:40:44 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from hc1300 by hc0800 with ESMTP (1.39.111.2/1.1) id AA146051261;
Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:41:02 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:41:01 +0000 (GMT)
From: David L Roberts
Subject: From dlroberts@meto.gov.uk
To: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk
Message-id:
Posted-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:41:01 GMT
Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:41:02 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="X-roman8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Status:
Dear Mike,
What is the current state of play regarding definition of
improved sulphur emission scenarios? I have the 'zero-order
draft' by Arnulf Grubler that you sent me at the beginning of
November, as well as a shorter note by Hugh Pitcher. Have there
been more developments since then?
As you can probably guess, this enquiry results from Geoff
Jenkins's visit to Brussels (?) a few days ago. Geoff is now
keen that we should use better emission scenarios than IS92a
and is pressing me for action, even if this means using an
interim scenario that has not yet been agreed by IPCC.
Best regards,
David


Dear Colleagues,
I am writing to let you know that the next IPCC-SRES Full Authors meeting
will be held the week of 27 April 1998 (instead the week of 6 April) in
Washington, D.C.  Bob Watson of
the IPCC will attend.  The exact dates during that week are not yet fixed,
but I expect that we will have a full authors meeting for two days,
preceded by a two-day modelers meeting.  Please let me know soon--today if
possible--whether you will be available during this week; it is critical
that we finalize the dates early so there will be sufficient time to ensure
funding for our colleagues from developing countries who need IPCC support.
I look forward to hearing from you very soon.
Best regards,
Naki
Prof. Dr. Nebojsa Nakicenovic
Project Leader
Environmentally Compatible Energy Strategies
International Institute for | Email: naki@iiasa.ac.at
Applied  Systems Analysis  | Phone: +43  2236 807 411
A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria  |   Fax: +43  2236 71313


Dear Prof. Krenke
I am happy to submit the proposal from here or to be associated with it in collaboration with our ongoing tree-ring development work ( with Fritz Schweingruber, Eugene Vaganov and Stepan Shiyatov) but you will have to take the initiative in writing and organising the proposal. I am very tied up with meetings and I have to write and submit another INTAS  proposal with the people I mentioned to continue development and analysis of the long chronologies at Yamal and Taimyr. The others need not be listed if you do not wish but I would ask you to discuss with Prof. Vaganov how he sees this being balanced with his priorities and our ongoing work. We will use our own transfer function approach ( in our ADVANCE European project ) to reconstruct circulation in summer based only on the tree-ring data but this is no worry for you. If you can get the draft to me soon - with details of all participants and money I will then look at it and revise and submit as you wish.If this is to happen you must take the initiative of putting it together.
please let me know what you intend as soon as possible. I am here only for one more week!
Keith
At 09:56 AM 2/24/98 +0300, you wrote:
>
>
>Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\BRIFFA2.TXT"
>


Dear Colleagues,
Thank you for your prompt response to my recent e-mail message regarding
the next IPCC SRES meeting.  I am glad to hear that so many of you will be
able to attend, since this will be a very important discussion.  The plan is
to hold the modelers' meeting on April 27 and 28, followed by the full
authors' meeting on April 29 and 30.
Below is a list of those who are planning to attend:
Joseph Alcamo
Dennis Anderson
Zhou Dadi
Gerald Davis
(part of the meeting)
Bert de Vries
Jae Edmonds
Joerg Fenhann
Stuart Gaffin
Henryk Gaj
Kenneth Gregory
Arnulf Gruebler
Erik Haites
Michael Hulme
Tae-Yong Jung
Mathew Luhanga
Julio Torres Martinez
Laurie Michaelis
(part of the meeting)
Tsuneyuke Morita
Richard Moss
Nebojsa Nakicenovic
Youssef Nassef
Hugh Pitcher
Lynn Price
Holger Rogner
(strong possibility)
Priyadarshi Shukla
Leena Srivastava
Robert Swart
(strong possibility)
Ernst Worrell
I will be in touch with additional details in the coming weeks.
Best regards,
Naki


Dear Colleagues:
Naki has asked me to send you the attached IPCC Zero Order Draft by Dennis
Anderson on the influence of social and economic policies on future carbon
emissions.  It is an updated version of the ZOD presented at the Berkeley
SRES meeting.  The attachment is missing the last three charts, but these
will be available in time for the Washington, D.C. meeting.  If you have
any comments, please send them directly to Dennis Anderson:
Dennis.Anderson@Economics.oxford.ac.uk
I have attached the ZOD in both rich text and MS Word formats.
Regards,
Anne Johnson
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\anderson.doc"
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\anderson.rtf"
Anne JOHNSON
IIASA
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria
E-Mail: johnson@iiasa.ac.at
Phone : +43 2236 807-0
Fax   : +43 2236 71313


Dear Keith,
I am in Birmensdorf now and will stay here until March 20s.
As far as I know Stepan Shiyatov has to translate the proposal
into Russian because of this year there are two possibility to get grant.
The one is just INTAS competition and other is joint INTAS-RFBR (Russian
Foundation for Basic Researches) ones with the same requirements and
grant amounts. For second one we have to submit russian version to RFBR.
If proposal will reject by RFBR it will be automatically submit for
INTAS competition.
Attached file is the ring-width series of subfossil (first
letter is L in series number) and living larches from Yamal,
used for mean chronology developing (best or the only ones for
corresponding period).
Best regards,
hope to see you in London next month,
Rashit Hantemirov
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\AB-XVII.RWM"