Dear Tas,
Thanks for the email. Steve McIntyre hasn't contacted me directly about Law Dome
(yet), nor about any of
the series used in the 1998 Holocene paper or the 2003 GRL one with Mike. I suspect (hope)
that he won't. I
had some emails with him a few years ago when he wanted to get all the station temperature
data we use here
in CRU. At that time, I hid behind the fact that some of the data had been received from
individuals and not
directly from Met Services through the Global Telecommunications Service (GTS) or through
GCOS.
I've cc'd Mike on this, just for info. Emails have also been sent to some other paleo
people asking for
datasets used in 1998 or 2003. Keith Briffa here got one, for example. Here, they have
also been in contact with
some of Keith's Russian contacts. All seem to relate to trying to get series we've used.
In the Russian case,
issues relate to the Russian  (Rashit Hantemirov) having a paper out with the same series
Keith used (for the
Yamal Peninsula). Series are different for two reasons. One Keith used the RCS
standardization method
and secondly Rashit has added some series since Keith got the data a couple of years ago.
I'll just sit tight here and do nothing.  Mike will likely do the same, but we'll
expect another publication in
the nearish future.
As for the series for LD you sent us, we used it in the paper for Reviews of
Geophysics. This paper has
had 4 good reviews and we've just sent back a revised version. This will likely get
reviewed by 1 or 2 of
the same reviewers of the editor, but I think it will come out this year some time.  When
it does, we
will put all the series onto a web site. Hope this is OK with you.  It will unlikely be
before our summer
months.
Cheers
Phil
At 17:56 09/02/2004 +1100, you wrote:
Dear Phil,
What you will find below is (in reverse chronological order) an email interchange
between Steve McIntyre and myself.  He has been asking for LD data for a while (since
your GRL paper came out) and to my chagrin, I have put him off once already, for reasons
I spell out below.  For your information, I am close to submitting the full LD isotope
record, which I hope to present at SCAR Bremen, along with some interesting spectral
analyses and comparison to EPICA Dome C.
Anyway, I am aware of McIntyre's controversial history and am trying to handle things in
a non-inflammatory way.  He seems not to be troubling me over my own delay, but has
asked for data that was used in your Holocene paper of 1998.  For this, I have referred
him to you.  I expect he wants to replicate your synthesis, and so he should use the
identical data set, and I give you permission to pass on whatever it was I gave you for
that work - with the caveat that it is representative of where the LD proxy record was
in 1997, not 2004.  I leave it to you to decide how to deal with this - you may prefer
to ignore the issue, and I would understand.
Let me know if there is anything I can do to assist.
Cheers,
Tas
___________________________________________________________________
Dr Tas van Ommen, Principal Research Scientist  | Postal Address:
Australian Antarctic Division and               | ACE CRC
Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems CRC              | Private Bag 80
Tel: +61 (03) 6226 2981 Fax: +61 (03) 6226 2902 | Hobart
[1]www.antcrc.utas.edu.au/~tas                     | Tasmania  7001
[2]tas.van.ommen@utas.edu.au                       | Australia
___________________________________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Tas van Ommen [[3]mailto:tas.van.ommen@utas.edu.au]
Sent: Monday, 9 February 2004 17:46
To: 'Steve McIntyre'
Subject: RE: Law Dome O18
Dear Stephen,
I suggest you ask Phil Jones for a copy of that older data set. Jones et al cite Morgan
and van Ommen 1997, although that data set was heavily smoothed (gaussian of rms=13
years from memory), so the one they show is not a direct version of Morgan and van Ommen
1997.  I think that I provided them with a high resolution version, and from their
notation, it seems that they are using a November-April subset, but you would have to
ask Phil - especially if what you seek is to replicate their analyses. Apart from
anything else, our set has been continually in a state of development, which is why I
have not wanted to widely circulate it until now.  Over this period we have had made new
measurements (which improved our layer counted dating and filled the gap that you see in
Jones et al.), retreived more cores using better technology and derived a robust
gas-tied flow-model that dates the core to 90ky. Now that the new development has
ceased, we will soon be releasing the full data set, as I have indicated to you. This is
the set I would want to see in wider use, and it is worth noting that it is essentially
the same as the portion used by Mann and Jones in their GRL paper in 2003.
All the best,
Tas
___________________________________________________________________
Dr Tas van Ommen, Principal Research Scientist  | Postal Address:
Australian Antarctic Division and               | ACE CRC
Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems CRC              | Private Bag 80
Tel: +61 (03) 6226 2981 Fax: +61 (03) 6226 2902 | Hobart
[4]www.antcrc.utas.edu.au/~tas                     | Tasmania  7001
[5]tas.van.ommen@utas.edu.au                       | Australia
___________________________________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve McIntyre [[6]mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca]
Sent: Monday, 9 February 2004 09:46
To: Tas van Ommen
Subject: Re: Law Dome O18
There is a Law Dome O18 data set which was used in Jones et al (Holocene 1998) and
printed as a graphic. Is this one available?  Regards, Steve McIntyre
----- Original Message -----
From: [7]Tas van Ommen
To: [8]'Steve McIntyre'
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 11:15 PM
Subject: RE: Law Dome O18
Dear Stephen,
The 18O data used in Mann and Jones 2003 was provided as an advance copy in 2003,
and you are welcome to have access to it and it will certainly be placed in public
archives.
The data in question is part of the full 90 ky isotope record from Law Dome, for
which a peer-reviewed dating scale has only recently been published (actually it is
in press see van Ommen et al, in press Annals of Glaciology 39 at
[9]~tas/home/openaccess.html#vanommen04LD1). Now this
job is done, I am finalizing a paper that will allow me to release the isotope
record more widely.
It is this next paper that controls the timeframe for release to you and archives.
While I should await peer review for a release to the archives, I am happy to pass
on a copy of the data set to you on an advance basis as soon as the paper is
submitted  I expect in a couple of months.  You will appreciate that at this time of
the year, we in the south are in our vacation season, not to mention dealing with
our Antarctic Summer field program, so I thank you for your patience.  Do check back
with me in a while if you dont hear more.
Regards,
Tas
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve McIntyre [[10]mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca]
Sent: Sunday, 8 February 2004 6:29 AM
To: Tas Van Ommen
Subject: Law Dome O18
Dear Dr van Ommen,
some time ago I inquired as to the availability of the O18 data set which was used
in Mann and Jones 2003. Is this the same data as was used in Jones et al 1998
(Holocene) . Do you plan to archive this data?  Otherwise, I would appreciate an
email copy of the data.
Thanks for your consideration.
Stephen McIntyre
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. ~tas
2. mailto:tas.van.ommen@utas.edu.au
3. mailto:tas.van.ommen@utas.edu.au
4. ~tas
5. mailto:tas.van.ommen@utas.edu.au
6. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca
7. mailto:tas.van.ommen@utas.edu.au
8. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca
9. ~tas/home/openaccess.html#vanommen04LD1
10. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca


Mike,
These were two simple ones to provide. Also Tas told him I had one of them. I guess
these
are the ones that aren't available on web sites.
Anyway, it is done now. If he starts asking for them in dribs and drabs, I'll baulk at
that.
Ben waded in with very positive comments re the CC issue.  Steve's going to find it
very
hard to ask you to send the code. Those that say on the CC board that you should send the
code, have little idea what is involved. Most are on the social science side.
Cheers
Phil
At 10:19 09/02/2004 -0500, you wrote:
HI Phil,
Personally, I wouldn't send him anything. I have no idea what he's up to, but you can be
sure it falls into the "no good" category.
There are a few series from our '03 paper that he won't have--these include the latest
Jacoby and D'Arrigo, which I digitized from their publication (they haven't made it
publicly available) and the extended western North American series, which they wouldn't
be able to reproduce without following exactly the procedure described in our '99 GRL
paper to remove the estimated non-climatic component.
I would not give them *anything*. I would not respond or even acknowledge receipt of
their emails. There is no reason to give them any data, in my opinion, and I think we do
so at our own peril!
talk to you later,
mike
At 02:46 PM 2/9/2004 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
FYI.  Sent him the two series - the as received versions.  Wonder what he's up to?
Why these two series ?  Used a lot more in the 1998 paper. Didn't want the Alerce
series.
Must already have the Tassy series from Ed.  I know Ed has a more recent series than we
used in 1998. Got this for the 2003 work.
Cheers
Phil
From: "Steve McIntyre"
To: "Phil Jones"
Subject: Fw: Law Dome O18
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 08:05:23 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH LOGIN at
fep04-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com from [65.49.25.138] using ID
at Mon, 9 Feb 2004 08:02:13 -0500
Dear Phil,
Tas van Ommen has refered me to you for the version of his dataset that you used in
Jones et al Holocene 1998 and I would appreicate a copy. I would also appreciate a copy
of the Lenca series used in this study. Regards, Steve McIntyre
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[1]
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.


Ben,
Every now and then - generally around an England game (probably now as we've just
drawn with Portugal) or lamenting the fall of Liverpool, I get emails and sometimes phone
calls from Pete Mayes !! Pete wants to get back into climate change and do some
comparisons between real world data and some models. It is a pity he wasn't this keen,
when he first went to the US !
Anyway I suggested he contact you. He has but he's not got a reply. I guess you're
busy
and/or don't know how to reply. I'm sure he doesn't know what he really wants. I gave him
some references etc to look over and your name/email - so SORRY !!!!
I guess I'll see you just after Easter. Will you be here for the HC meeting as well
as IDAG?
It will be good to see Tom in Oxford - he should liven up the IDAG discussions.
Hope all is well with you and Nick !
Cheers
Phil
PS I see Steve has replied to MM re the MBH review. This nearly got out of hand - it still
could.  Appalling paper in GRL in the Feb04 issue - Mike Mann's written a response.
Clearly another case of the GRL editor's having no idea of the science. Who in their right
mind would accept that for publication. Nowhere on the CRU site does it say that HadCRUT2v
is the IPCC data. According to the HC the IPCC data is the OA version HadCRUT - no v, no
2.
The data is on the HC web site. There is a link to it from the CRU site. When getting data
from the CRU site we ask people to refer to some of the papers and to use the dataset
names. Soon et al didn't do either. Paper attached as I have it.
Just had a paper accepted by Reviews of Geophysics with Mike Mann on the climate of
the last 2k years.  Expecting flak for this, but it had 4 very positive reviews.
For some inane reason I put my name forward to do the chapter on atmospheric obs. for
AR4.  Hope I don't get picked.
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,
Just agreed to review a paper for GRL - it is absolute rubbish. It is having a go at
the
CRU temperature data - not the latest vesion, but the one you used in MBH98 !!   We added
lots of data in for the region this person says has Urban Warming ! So easy review to do.
Sent Ben the Soon et al. paper and he wonders who reviews these sorts of things. Says
GRL hasn't a clue with editors or reviewers. By chance they seem to have got the right
person with the one just received.
Can I ask you something in CONFIDENCE - don't email around, especially not to
Keith and Tim here. Have you reviewed any papers recently for Science that say that
MBH98 and MJ03 have underestimated variability in the millennial record - from models
or from some low-freq proxy data. Just a yes or no will do.  Tim is reviewing them - I
want
to make sure he takes my comments on board, but he wants to be squeaky clean with
discussing them with others.  So forget this email when you reply.
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


"
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Dear Adrian,
Thanks very much for sending me your comparison of surface air temperature
changes in CRU and ERA-40. I've been looking at a related issue - the
correspondence between 2m temperature changes in ERA-40 and PCM.
Here's the background to this work. Increasingly, there is some interest in the
problem of identifying anthropogenic climate change at regional scales. I have
to give a brief talk on this subject tomorrow. In preparing for this talk, I
decided that it would be useful to show how signal and noise change as a
function of spatial scale. I looked at the behavior of 2m temperature in the
four individual realizations of the PCM "ALL forcings" experiment (the same
experiment that we analysed in our joint Nature paper). For each realization, I
computed spatial averages over the globe, the Northern Hemisphere, and the
western United States (30-50N, 126W-114W). These spatial averages were then
expressed as anomalies relative to climatological monthly means over 1979-1999.
The orange shading in the three panels of the figure entitled "tas_tseries3.ps"
is a measure of the between-realization variability in PCM. The envelope is
simply the range (during any given month) between the maximum and minimum values
of the four realizations. This range was then low-pass filtered. The solid red
is the low-pass filtered ensemble mean.
To facilitate comparison with PCM data, I've defined 2m temperature anomalies in
ERA-40 in the same way (i.e., relative to climatological monthly means over
1979-1999), and have used the same low-pass filter. One can then ask whether the
2m temperature changes in ERA-40 are consistent with those in PCM - in other
words, are they encompassed by PCM's envelope of possible climate responses to
combined anthropogenic and natural forcing?
They are. Surprisingly, this consistency occurs not only at the global-mean
level, but also for the NH and western U.S. For the global-mean and the NH, the
ERA-40 2m temperature changes are outside PCM's envelope of 2m temperature
changes during the first 5-10 years of the reanalysis. After the late 1960s,
however, the ERA-40 2m temperature changes are entirely consistent with those in
PCM. Over the western U.S., 2m temperature changes in PCM and ERA-40 are
consistent throughout the reanalysis period.
Such qualitative consistency, while interesting, is no substitute for formal,
pattern-based fingerprint detection studies at global, hemispheric, and regional
scales. For example, an overestimate of the regional-scale variability of 2m
temperature by PCM could explain why PCM's 2m temperature changes over the
western U.S. fully encompass the ERA-40 result (see panel C). On the other hand,
there is some real similarity in the low-frequency component of the 2m
temperature changes in ERA-40 and PCM (look at the similar responses to Agung,
Chichon, and Pinatubo in panel B!)
The bottom line is that PCM's 2m temperature changes are reasonably consistent
with those in ERA-40, even at sub-global spatial scales. This suggests that
formal regional-scale detection work might be useful. If you are interested,
perhaps we could collaborate on such work. A collaboration would also involve
the PCM group at NCAR (to whom I'm copying this email).
The second figure that I've appended shows the global-mean changes in synthetic
MSU channel 2 temperatures in PCM and ERA-40. The message is pretty much the
same as for 2m temperatures: PCM's "envelope" of possible changes in
tropospheric temperatures largely encompasses the ERA-40 results, except during
a few large El Nino and La Nina events. Once again, there is surprising
similarity in the low-frequency component of the model and reanalysis T2
changes.
It would be fun to take these simple comparisons a little further!
With best regards,
Ben
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCMDI HAS MOVED TO A NEW BUILDING. NOTE CHANGE OF MAIL CODE!
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-7638
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


I agree with Tom:  I sent you (without copying others) a whole host of
material..
Kevin
tom crowley wrote:
> For goodness sakes, I don't know where to start - let me just make one
> point with respect to solar - solar projects onto the GHG signal in
> the 20th c. so solar cannot be distinguished during that time.  if one
> were to independently correlate solar and GHG with temp. since 1750,
> solar would "explain" about 75% of the variance, GHG about 70% - a
> spectacular 140% of the variance explained!
>
> the only way to evaluate solar is to look at intervals when GHG was
> not changing and solar was - the preanthropogenic interval - perhaps
> the most comprehensive evaluation of the solar effect is in the
> attached paper, where it is quite clear that solar effect is either
> negligible or just barely significant, ie., 5-10% of the decadally
> scaled variance.
>
> with respect to the MWP all you have to do is plot the data up and
> compile them - the numbers don't work out as being warmer than the
> present - at best approaching or slightly exceeding mid-20th c.  the
> reason is that is was warm at different times.  Soon and Baliunas of
> course never showed this - but if you actually look at the damn data
> and plot up, the same answer as I stated above keeps showing up, over
> and over.
>
> with respect to UAH, there are now two other reconstructions that show
> otherwise.
>
> enough, this is like trying to convert someone with one religion to
> another.
>
> tom
>
> Chick Keller wrote:
>
>> Richard and Friends,
>>
>> thanks for the point of view.  I'll put some of this into my
>> presentation.
>>
>> However, it won't wash when facing critics head-on.
>>
>> Their latest arguments are more subtle.  Their main point is that
>> their counter information hangs together into a logically coherent
>> picture.
>>
>> Models:  no real finger print that distinguishes AGHG forcings from
>> others!   Models using AGHG forcings predict warming is function of
>> latitude yet the Arctic is hardly warming (north of ~^65°N), and high
>> latitude Antarctic (excepting for the peninsula) is actually cooling
>> slightly.
>>
>> Models:  As you say need AGHG forcings to simulate last 30 years of
>> observed warming.  But, they counter, UAH satellite reductions show
>> no such warming so don't need AGHG forcing (or at least don't need
>> effects of positive feedbacks and just increases in AGHGs don't cause
>> so much warming).
>>
>> Solar forcing--not able to generate last 30 years of observed
>> warming.  Same counter as last one--"See, they say, no increased
>> solar in last 25 years is consistent with no warming!!
>>
>> Also, since no warming since 1945, MWP most likely to have been as
>> warm as now and thus sun can indeed explain (with proper lags)
>> observed warming thus far.
>>
>> Their model--climate varies depending on solar activity.  all
>> observations are consistent with this.
>>
>> Models predict that any surface warming will be seen in the
>> troposphere.  Since UAH satellite reduction shows no such warming--1.
>> models are wrong and/or no warming at surface just lousy observations.
>> 2. If no warming at surface in last 30 years AGHG forcing predictions
>> by models is incorrect probably due to poor cloud/water vapor
>> modeling--no positive feedbacks to speak of.
>>
>> Sooooo, you can say all you want that all the prestigious societies
>> and folks say it's AGHGs, but they've been bamboozled by a few of
>> elitist scientists.  As long as satellites show no recent warming,
>> the entire AGHG hypothesis collapses, not because multi-atomic
>> molecules don't cause the atmosphere to be more opaque, but because
>> there are no positive feedbacks which the models need to get the
>> "right" answer.
>>
>> So, what I need is strong evidence that the surface record is indeed
>> correct (UHI effect is small, and marine boundary layer approximation
>> is correct).
>>
>> Now, Richard, toss in large effects of land use changes and of black
>> soot forcing changing earth's albedo, and you now have additional
>> forcings which may be causing warming but can't be countered by
>> reducing AGHGs.
>>
>> Soooo, it still ain't all that easy to convince an audience that the
>> Singer's of this world aren't on to at least part of the problem.
>>
>> AND keep in mind that increased CO2 is good for us--more agriculture,
>> etc.
>>
>> Nope it just ain't that easy.  So any information--graphics, etc on
>> these issues will be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Regards to all,
>> chick
>>
>>
>> Hi Chick and friends,
>>
>> Good to hear from you, Chick.  I'm busy, like all of us, and
>> responding to Singer is not my cup of tea, so I'm glad you and others
>> are willing.  I hate to be in the same room with him, frankly.  He's
>> a third-rate scientist and is ethically challenged, to say the least.
>>
>>  From others on your email list, I am sure you will receive tons of
>> useful information.  However, I think your entire basic strategy for
>> confronting Singer might not be optimal.  Sometimes the most pressing
>> issues in the research community, or the most interesting questions
>> scientifically, are not necessarily the best ways to carry on the
>> public conversation.  I am thinking in particular of your statement:
>>
>> "Perhaps the most important is that satellites don't show much
>> warming since 1979 and disagree substantially with the surface
>> record, which must then be incorrect.  Were we able to resolve this
>> conundrum, I think most of the other objections to human generated
>> climate change would lose their credibility."
>>
>> For what it's worth,  here's my take on your approach.  I
>> respectfully disagree with you that hammering away on reconciling the
>> MSU data with radiosonde and surface data is the right way to go in
>> dealing with the Fred Singers of the world.  Even though much of the
>> differences may now be apparently explained, it's still a terribly
>> messy job.  The satellite system wasn't designed to measure
>> tropospheric temperatures, the calibration and orbital decay and
>> retrieval algorithm and all the other technical issues are ugly, and
>> nobody knows how much the lower stratospheric cooling ought to have
>> infected the upper troposphere, among other points one might make.
>>
>> No matter what one does on trying to make the MSU data tell us a
>> clean story, there are remaining serious uncertainties.   That's
>> basically what the NAS/NRC study chaired by Mike Wallace concluded,
>> and it's still true, in my view.  Plus the data record is so short.
>> In addition, as you say, you are retired, and research on these
>> things is not what you have first-person experience with, so when you
>> try to study up on the latest published results, you're at a
>> disadvantage compared with the Singers of the world, whose full-time
>> job is to cherry-pick the literature for evidence to support their
>> preconceived positions.
>>
>> One of the tactics of the skeptics is to create the impression among
>> nonscientists, especially journalists, that the entire science of
>> climate change rests on the flimsy foundation of one or two lines of
>> evidence, so that casting doubt on that foundation ought to bring
>> down the entire structure.  For temperature, that approach is clearly
>> behind the attacks on the "hockey stick" curve over the last 1,000
>> years or the satellite vs. in situ differences over the last 25
>> years.  Refuting the errors of the papers by Soon and Baliunas or by
>> McIntyre and Mckitrick doesn't faze these people.  They just shift
>> their ground and produce another erroneous attack.  Their goal is not
>> to advance the science, but to perpetuate the appearance of
>> controversy and doubt.
>>
>> I don't think the skeptics should be allowed to choose the
>> battlefield, and I certainly don't think the issue of whether
>> anthropogenic influences are a serious concern should be settled by
>> looking at any single data set.  I do think the IPCC TAR was right to
>> stress that you simply can't plausibly make GCMs replicate the
>> instrumental record without including GHGs (and aerosols).  I also
>> think the recent AGU and AMS public statements, which you will
>> doubtless find on their web sites, are right on target.  Many of us
>> were pleasantly surprised that our leading scientific societies have
>> recently adopted such strong statements as to the reality and
>> seriousness of anthropogenic climate change.  There really is a
>> scientific consensus, and it cannot be refuted or disproved by
>> attacking any single data set.
>>
>> I also think people need to come to understand that the scientific
>> uncertainties work both ways.  We don't understand cloud feedbacks.
>> We don't understand air-sea interactions.  We don't understand
>> aerosol indirect effects.  The list is long.  Singer will say that
>> uncertainties like these mean models lack veracity and can safely be
>> ignored.  What seems highly unlikely to me is that each of these
>> uncertainties is going to make the climate system more robust against
>> change.  It is just as likely a priori that a poorly understood bit
>> of physics might be a positive as a negative feedback.  Meanwhile,
>> the climate system overall is in fact behaving in a manner consistent
>> with the GCM predictions.  I have often wondered how our medical
>> colleagues manage to escape the trap of having their entire science
>> dismissed because there are uncured diseases and other remaining
>> uncertainties.  Maybe we can learn from the physicians.
>>
>> People on airplanes, when they find out what I do for a living,
>> usually ask me if I "believe in" global warming.  It's not religion,
>> of course.  What I actually tend to believe in, if they really wanted
>> to try to understand, is quantum mechanics.  CO2 and CH4 and all
>> those other interesting trace gases have more than two atoms, and
>> that fact simply has inescapable consequences.  You just can't keep
>> adding those GHG molecules indefinitely without making the atmosphere
>> significantly more opaque in the IR.   The "debates" in the reputable
>> research community are all quantitative.  If skeptics don't worry
>> about doubling, they ought to be pressed to tell us why they are
>> unconcerned about tripling or quadrupling or worse.  That's where the
>> planet is headed.  The fact that remote sensing and model building
>> are hard work, and that much remains to be done, shouldn't be allowed
>> to obscure the basic obvious facts.
>>
>> Bonne chance et bon courage,
>>
>> Richard
>
>
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                           	e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR              	www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000,                              	(303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                           	(303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80303


Dear Jorge,
Happy for you to use me in an additional attempt tp get some Mexican support
to come to CRU next year.  What exactly do you need?  Send me an example of
what you want?  Life is very busy here at the moment as I'll be away for several
meetings over the next 6 weeks and I must prepare some material for most of them.
GKSS is just one model and it is a model, so there is no need for it to be correct.
I am also aware that Ed Cook is revising the ECS curve in a paper he's submitting
to Quaternary Science Reviews.
Remember that if ECS (and GKSS) are correct then the climate is more sensitive
to external forcing (the factors that cause past changes/variability). If the climate is
more sensitive then the likely changes in the future will be greater. The curves that
we've produced here (and also Mike Mann's) suggest a climate sensitivity of about
2.5 deg C for a CO2 doubling. Getting volcanic forcing right in the past (along with
solar)
are crucial in any study.
Cheers
Phil
At 12:22 12/03/2004 -0600, you wrote:
Dear Dr. Jones:
I am very happy because I went to a Workshop in Kona Hawaii (with support
of NASA-CRCES after to gain a contest with a review paper about global
temperature reconstructions, it was a different version of the paper that
you have read). There I met with Dr. Michael Mann. Mann was very kind with
me, however when he did know my work he changed his attitude. I met there
also Dr. Hans von Starch who presented a global temperature reconstructions
with a AOCGCM with natural and anthropogenic forcings. His results agree
more or less with ECS, and my results. i am in contact with the GKSS group
in order to compare and share information.
However, the key point of my studies, as you have pointed out, is to
justify that the background Ice Acidity (without volcanic activity) from
polar caps could be considered as a proxy. I have contacted Dr. Hammer and
Dr. Crowley to have information and advice.
In order continue this kind of studies I would like to propose you again
(as we have tried last year) to ask support the the AMC (Mexican Academy of
Sciences) to support a visit to CRU-UEA next year to continue my work, with
your help and advice, about global temperature for the Holocene. I will
need only an official invitation for my visit. It would be in March 2005
for 3 or 4 weeks.
Also, I am asking support to travel to Japan this year (this fall), however
I would like to stop in England a week, in order to visit CRU-UEA and to
continue our collaboration.
I would like to know your oppinion,
cheers,
Jorge
Jorge Sánchez-Sesma
Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua
Subcoordinación de Hidrometeorología
Paseo Cuauhnahuac No. 8532, Col. Progreso
Jiutepec, Morelos
62550, México
telefono:       52+(777)329-3600 x 879
fax             52+(777)3293683
email:          jsanchez@tlaloc.imta.mx
pagina: [1]
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.


Ben,
Thanks I picked it up last Friday.  See you after Easter.
Cheers
Phil
At 09:22 25/03/2004 -0800, you wrote:
Dear Phil,
Our exchange with Roger Pielke finally appeared in Science (copy appended). I'm
glad I've gotten this particular albatross off my neck. Timo et al. have already
been circulating this stuff to all and sundry.....
See you in a few weeks' time,
Cheers,
Ben
Phil Jones wrote:
>
>   Ben,
>      Right decision ! She sent me an email to review a paper two weeks ago.
> Said I didn't
>   have time until May. I'll continue to say that now.
>     See you just after Easter. Have a good short break, as you'll have to
> miss part of it
>   to come to London and IDAG.
>
>   Cheers
>   Phil
>
> At 19:06 22/03/2004 -0800, you wrote:
> >Dear Phil,
> >
> >I just don't have much luck with the Heikes of this world. Heike L.
> >rejected our
> >Nature paper on the analysis of changes in tropopause height and
> >equivalent MSU
> >temperatures in ERA-40. She took six weeks to make this decision, and didn't
> >even send the paper out for review! Very disappointing. I doubt whether
> >I'll be
> >submitting any papers to Nature in the next few years. We're now revising the
> >erstwhile Nature paper for submission to Journal of Climate, and I hope to
> >have
> >it sent off before I leave for the U.K. on April 11th.
> >
> >I look forward to seeing you at the SRG meeting. Hope everything is well with
> >you, Ruth, Hannah, and Matthew.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >
> >Ben
> >=====================================================================================
>
> 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCMDI HAS MOVED TO A NEW BUILDING. NOTE CHANGE OF MAIL CODE!
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-7638
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,
Yes, but not had a chance to read it yet. Too much else going on. Ed has a paper
reworking Esper et al. as you'll know.  If you're going to Tucson, I suggest you talk to
Keith about it then - don't email him as he's too busy preparing to go and marking essays.
Jan is in one of our EU projects. Seems that Keith thinks Jan is reinventing a lot of
Keith's
work, renamed the RCS method and much more. Jan doesn't always take in what is in
the literature even though he purports to read it.  He's now looking at homogenization
techniques for temperature to check the Siberian temperature data. We keep telling him the
decline is also in N. Europe, N. America (where we use all the recently homogenized
Canadian data). The decline may be slightly larger in Siberia, but it is elsewhere as
well.
Also Siberia is one of the worst places to look at homogeneity, as the stations aren't
that
close together (as they are in Fennoscandia and most of Canada) and also the temperature
varies an awful lot from year to year.
Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it
wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either
appears
I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Cheers
Phil
Cheers
Phil
At 11:20 30/03/2004 -0500, you wrote:
Phil,
Have you seen this piece of crap by Esper?
The JGR paper, which Scott is supposed to be finalizing, demonstrates quite convincingly
that the greater amplitude of Esper et al is due to spatial and seasonal sampling,
mike
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[1]
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.


Scott and Mike,
It's been a long week catching up from 3 weeks away. Getting another email from
McIntyre asking me for paleo data series I don't have (I'm not going to reply, by the way
even though he calls me Phil and other emails he sends me are to Dr Crowley and Dr.
Briffa who've also not replied) reminded me that I agreed with Mike to put together as
many of the series from the RoG paper onto a page on the CRU web site.
So, with this in mind, can you send me the data for the various plots. I checked the
paper and Fig 1 doesn't need anything, so this leave Figs 3 (on the boreholes), 5 (with
the various NH/SH/Global series) and 8 (with all the various model runs).
Figure 3 should be trivial as borehole data are only every 50 years.  For the other
2 plots
I'm after the annual values of each series and the smoothed ones that get plotted. Hope
this
won't take too long to do. I'm going to send emails to a few people to check we can make
the
data available (mainly the modellers, but also Tas van Ommen).
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Tas and Caspar,
Attached is the proof version of the RoG paper with Mike Mann. This is about 99.99%
the final one. Mike and I sent back a few small changes to AGU a month or so ago. Keep
this to yourself for a while yet - I would expect the paper out sometime in the
July/August
period.
Many of us in the paleo field get requests from skeptics (mainly a guy called
Steve McIntyre in Canada) asking us for series. Mike and I are not sending anything,
partly because we don't have some of the series he wants, also partly as we've got the
data
through contacts like you, but mostly because he'll distort and misuse them.
Despite this, Mike and I would like to make as many of the series we've used in the
RoG
plots available from the CRU web page. Can we do this with the series we've got from
you?  You don't have to do anything, except to reply yes or no !
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Aiguo,
You've done a great job in putting this together so quickly and clearly.  I
have a couple of additional comments to make on it, but can't do so until
Tuesday.  You (we?) might also like to think of the reply being
multi-authored, including Phil, Pete, Kevin, Joe and myself.
I must say that when I first read this paper a couple of weeks ago I wrote it
off as so bad (so, so bad) that it didn't even deserve a response.  To pretend
that the Sahel drought didn't happen (i.e., a pure artifact of wrongful use of
rainfall data) is the most astounding assertion, almost on a par with
holocaust denial.  Try putting that proposition to the millions of inhabitants
of the Sahel in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, many of whom died as a direct
consequence and whose livelihoods were devastated.  Adrian Chappell may never
have visited the region, but I know Clive Agnew has (many times) - and he
should know better.  I did my PhD research in the region in the early 1980s
and I know exactly what the rainfall conditions were like and how much
oridinary people suffered as a consequence.  My PhD was on rainfall
variability and local water supplies in Sudan and I visited and talked to many
villagers in the region.
Anyway, Phil first suggested that a corrective reply was needed and I can see
the value of doing so, especially with IPCC AR4 approaching.  It just seems to
me such a shame that such poor science is being done by some people - in this
case I don't think there is a deeper motive on the part of Chappell and Agnew
than pure delusion and incompetence - and, worse, that a journal like IJC will
publish it.
Thanks again for your efforts,
Mike
>===== Original Message From Aiguo Dai
=====
>Dear All,
>
>Soon after I sent out my last email, I quickly realized that there is
>another fundamental error in their rainfall model eq.(1): the regional
>station numbers na and nb should be replaced with regional areas. This
>can be seen clearly in the following example: suppose region a has only
>one station whose long-term mean rainfall happens to be the same as
>region a's mean, and region b has 100 stations. Then their model would
>give the completely wrong estimate of rainfall for region (a+b), while
>the area-weighted version would still work. This is an obvious error, but
>it apparently could be easily overlooked. Their model seems to be
>originated from their incorrect perception that regional rainfall has
>been traditionally derived using the simple arithmetic mean of all station
>data. After reading the leader author's response to Joe's comments, I
>could not believe that they still think previous analyses are simpler than
>theirs!
>
>I also forgot to point out in my earlier draft the fact that even if their
>modelled time series were a reasonable proxy of Sahel rainfall, their
>results would still have had little implications to previous analyses of
>Sahel rainfall. This is because their analysis maximized the effects of
>changing station networks by the design of their model and by choosing
>the boundary of the two sub-Sahel region at 6deg.W, whereas in most previous
>analyses these effects were minimized by area-weighted averaging (Jones and
>Hulme, 1996).
>
>Sorry for the overlook of these issues in my earlier email.
>
>Regards,
>
>--Aiguo Dai
>
>
>
>
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I was asked by Kevin to work out a rebuttal to Chappell and Agnew
>> (2004). After reading
>> it a couple of times, I found the main reason why they came to their
>> results: they devised a
>> Sahel rainfall model (eq. 1) with a necessary condition that the
>> constants a and b
>> represent the mean rainfall for the west and east part of the Sahel.
>> However, later in their
>> paper, they estimated a and b by a non-linear least-squares fitting to
>> observed rainfall
>> data, and their a (=973mm) and b (=142mm) are nowhere near the actural
>> mean rainfall
>> for these sub-Sahel regions (~645.5 mm and 471.2mm). In essense, their
>> rainfall model
>> and thus their modelled rainfall time series are no longer relevant to
>> Sahel rainfall!
>>
>> I have seen many bad papers, but this one is the worst of all, not only
>> because they
>> misled the reader with their model (intentionally or unintentionally),
>> but also because they
>> made all kinds of unfounded pure speculations about the implications of
>> their  results.
>>
>> I did some quick analyses using data extracted from the update GHVN2 and
>>  wrote a
>> comment paper, which is attached as Word file. Any comments will be
>> appreciated.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Aiguo
>>
>> Phil Jones wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>  Dear All,
>>>      Several emails today. Kevin's encouraging Aiguo Dai to write a
>>> response as well,
>>>  so it might be worth some co-ordination. 2 responses might be better
>>> than one, though, so I'll
>>>  leave it up to you.
>>>      They have dug themselves into a bigger hole in their response to
>>> Joe. Joe's assessment
>>>  of their reasoning is exactly right. Also you can't write a paper
>>> saying an analysis is flawed and
>>>  then say we don't dispute the local evidence for drought ! This is
>>> naive in the extreme and
>>>  dumb. I've heard this excuse several times in the past with other
>>> contentious papers.
>>>      The one problem there might be in a response is getting a quick
>>> turnaround with IJC.
>>>  With the response a strongly worded letter should go to the editor
>>> (Glenn McGregor)
>>>  requesting a fast-track review. The journal does this. As Kevin says
>>> any response short
>>>  be short and to the point.
>>>
>>>  Cheers
>>>  Phil
>>>
>>>
>>> At 18:17 06/05/2004 -0400, Joseph M. Prospero wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: "A.Chappell"
>>>> To: "Joseph M. Prospero"
>>>> Cc: "Clive Agnew"
>>>> Subject: Re: Sahel drought "artifact"
>>>> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 12:13:48 +0100
>>>>
>>>> Dear Professor Prospero,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your email. I read your paper with interest. It does
>>>> indeed show a strong correlation with conventional estimates of mean
>>>>  annual rainfall. However, the paper implicitly assumes that the
>>>> mean  annual rainfall represents the variation in rainfall for the
>>>> entire  region. Our paper shows that those statistics are flawed
>>>> because of  the changing station networks and that those regional
>>>> statistics do  not show a 'drought' in the Sahel. Our paper does not
>>>> dispute the  local scale evidence for drought.
>>>>
>>>> It is too simplistic to average mean monthly rainfall for such a
>>>> large heterogenous region and believe that the rainfall trend is
>>>> precise. What might be interesting is to correlate your results
>>>> against the mean annual rainfall corrected for the changing station
>>>> networks.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Adrian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     ----- Original Message -----
>>>>     From: Joseph M. Prospero
To:
>>>> a.chappell@salford.ac.uk
>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 10:33 PM
>>>>     Subject: Sahel drought "artifact"
>>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Aiguo Dai                                    email: adai@ucar.edu
>> Climate & Global Dynamics Division           phone: 303-497-1357
>> National Center for Atmospheric Research     FAX  : 303-497-1333
>> P.O. Box 3000, 1850 Table Mesa Drive
>> Boulder, CO  80307
>> homepage:
>>
>>


Dear Sarah,
Ben and I have had some long discussions about this paper, and I have
made quite a few changes as a consequence. Most of these are minor --
but I realized that my statement that the peak cooling depended
logarithmically on the sensitivity was potentially confusing. For this to be
the case one has to have a relationship like
Tmax = A + B ln(S)
which implies odd results for very low sensitivity. Instead, I have fitted
a relationship of the form
Tmax = A [S**n]
which gives Tmax = 0 when S = 0.
I have fitted a similar relationship to the decay time results, and I have
done the same for the LG98 results. All this information has been added
to the manuscript. It helps in understanding the differences between us and
LG98.
I had hoped to send this off earlier this week, i.e., before I go to Buenos
Aires (tomorrow), but I never received the copyright form from you. Then
I remembered that you were at that IPCC meeting in Ireland. So I have
asked Liz Rothney to send the ms off next week as soon as she gets the
copyright form from you. So please fax this back (303 497 1333) as soon
as possible.
Best wishes,
Tom.


From: Dale Patrick Kaiser
Reply-To: kaiserdp@ornl.gov
To: Keith Briffa
Subject: Re: Russian daily data
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 10:31:02 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3
Cc: d9k@ornl.gov
X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Dear Keith,
I wish I could say that updating the Russian data is on the front burner for
us right now, but I'm afraid it's not.  I'm having to plan some proposals and
have been pulled off part of my normal CDIAC work for about 6 months to work
on a special project.  And in our small group, I'm the only climate guy (and
the one that has done the Russian work thus far).  Thus, the first suggestion
I have is to discuss the data with NCDC; perhaps the best person to start
with would be Pasha Groisman.  Years ago, when I did the Russian work, the
data were actually transferred from Russia to NCDC and then on to us, so I
wouldn't be surprised if NCDC was holding updated data or at least could get
ahold of data relatively easily.  Perhaps you've already corresponded
directly w/Slava Razuvaev or one of his colleagues at RIHMI-WDC?  I'm afraid
it's been quite a while since I've spoken w/Slava.
Wait, maybe there is another way....  I've just remembered about NCDC's Global
Daily Climate Network:
[1]
I have not learned much about these holdings, but if you check it out perhaps
they've incorporated more recent data daily into this database for the FSU.
I sure hope so.
I'm sorry that I cannot be of more help at this time.  With any luck CDIAC can
turn its attention to updates of these data in 2005.
Regards,
Dale
On Friday 04 June 2004 7:18 am, you wrote:
> Dear Dale
> sorry to contact you out of the blue , but  Phil Jones suggested I check
> with you about the status of daily temperature (and possibly precipitation)
> data for Russia that I believe you and colleagues might be planning to
> update. I work with tree-ring data in Northern Russia and we are
> particularly interested in looking at growing season and snow lie changes
> in recent years that may be influencing the growth rates of trees and the
> position of the tree line . We are especially interested in data for the
> Yamal Peninsula ,Taimyr and Indigirka (though we would also like to explore
> snow lie changes over the whole of northern Siberia eventually). Is there
> any chance of getting updated data for these initial regions in the near
> term , and perhaps the wider area eventually? We would be really grateful
> for any help in this regard.
> Very best wishes and thanks for your help
> Keith
>
> --
> Professor Keith Briffa,
> Climatic Research Unit
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>
> Phone: +44-1603-593909
> Fax: +44-1603-507784
>
> [2]
--
Dale P. Kaiser
Carbon Dioxide Information
Analysis Center
Environmental Sci. Division
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
(865) 241-4849
(865) 574-2232 (fax)
kaiserdp@ornl.gov
[3]
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[4]
References
1.
2.
3.
4.


2. Call for proposals - Thematic call in the area of 'Global change and
ecosystems'.
OJ C159 (16.06.2004) p.3
Deadline for submissions: 26.10.2004
Activity: Priority thematic area 'Sustainable Development, Global Change and
Ecosystems'; Sub-priority 'Global Change and Ecosystems'.
Call identifier: FP6-2004-Global-3
Total indicative budget: EUR 205 million
Areas called and Instruments:
- Area 6.3.I: Impact and mechanisms of greenhouse gas emissions and
atmospheric pollutants on climate, ozone depletion and carbon sinks ( IP,
STREP, CA)
- Area 6.3.II: Water cycle, including soil related aspects ( IP, STREP, CA)
- Area 6.3.III: Biodiversity and ecosystems ( IP, STREP, CA, NoE)
- Area 6.3.IV: Mechanisms of desertification and natural disasters  ( IP,
STREP, CA)
- Area 6.3.V: Strategies for sustainable land management, including coastal
zones, agricultural land and forests ( IP, STREP, CA)
- Area 6.3.VI: Operational forecasting and modelling including global
climatic change observation systems  ( IP )
- Area 6.3.VII: Complementary research  (IP, CA)
- Area 6.3.VIII: Cross-cutting issue: Sustainable Development concepts and
tools (STREP, CA)
- Area 6.3.IX: Specific Support Actions ( SSA )
FURTHER INFORMATION:
European Commission
The FP6 Information Desk
Directorate General RTD
B-1049 Brussels
www.cordis.lu/
____________________________
Dr. J.P. Darch
Research Administrator
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich
NR4 7TJ
U.K.
Tel  : 44 (0)1603 592994
Fax : 44 (0)1603 593035


I'll leave it up to you then.
Phil
At 16:04 18/06/2004 +0100, David Viner wrote:
Phil
Err! yes i think this would be good to get involved.
D
On 18 Jun 2004, at 15:40, Phil Jones wrote:
Dave and Clare,
I am presuming we (CRU) don't want to get involved with this.
Cheers
Phil
From: "Alex Haxeltine"
To: "Terry Barker \(DAE\)"
,
,
"Andrew Jordan"
,
"Bob Nicholls"
,
"emily boyd"
,
"Emma Tompkins"
,
"Franziska Matthies"
,
"jonathan Kohler"
,
"Kate Brown"
,
,
,
"Neil Adger"
,
"Nick Brooks"
,
"Phil Jones"
,
"rachel warren"
,
"simon shackley"
,
"Steve Sorrell"
,
"suraje Dessai"
Subject: Proposal for a new Tyndall-led European research initiative
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:16:20 +0100
Organization: University of East Anglia
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3311
Importance: Normal
Dear Colleague,
The Tyndall Centre is intending to lead a bid for a large EU research
project (ca 12-15 million Euros in the initial bid) on climate change
adaptation and mitigation strategies in Europe. The call was announced
this week with outline bids (ca. 20 pages) due by October (3rd call of
the sixth framework programme, FP6).
Please find attached a copy of an invitation that has been sent out to a
key set of European partners. This provides a little further information
on the proposed scope and content of the project. We will be holding a
planning meeting with European partners from the evening of Monday 19th
July to end of Tuesday 20th July 2004.
You are receiving this email because we thought that you might have some
interest in participating in this project. We would therefore like to
hold an internal planning meeting of all interested Tyndall-linked
researchers on the 19th July (starting at lunchtime; ca 3-4 hours long).
Please let us know by 25th June, if you would like to take part in this
internal planning meeting; and also whether you would like to make a
short presentation at the meeting, about how your work with the Tyndall
Centre might contribute. If you cannot attend on the 19th but are
nevertheless interested in contributing to the proposal, please also let
us know.
Warm regards,
Mike Hulme
John Schellnhuber
Alex Haxeltine
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dr David Viner
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
Tel: +44 1603 592089
Fax: +44 1603 507784
[1] (With Information Forum)
[2]  Tourism and Climate Change (With Information Forum)
[3]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.
2.
3.


Mike,
Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY - don't pass on. Relevant paras are the last
2 in section 4 on p13.  As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia
for years. He knows the're wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him
to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !
I didn't say any of this, so be careful how you use it - if at all. Keep quiet also
that you have the pdf.
The attachment is a very good paper - I've been pushing Adrian over the last weeks
to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also
for ERA-40. The basic message is clear - you have to put enough surface and sonde
obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand
out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.
The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also
losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see
it.
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them
out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil
Mike,
For your interest, there is an ECMWF ERA-40 Report coming out soon, which
shows that Kalnay and Cai are wrong.  It isn't that strongly worded as the first author
is a personal friend of Eugenia. The result is rather hidden in the middle of the report.
It isn't peer review, but a slimmed down version will go to a journal. KC are wrong
because
the difference between NCEP and real surface temps (CRU) over eastern N. America doesn't
happen with ERA-40.  ERA-40 assimilates surface temps (which NCEP didn't) and doing
this makes the agreement with CRU better. Also ERA-40's trends in the lower atmosphere
are all physically consistent where NCEP's are not - over eastern US.
I can send if you want, but it won't be out as a report for a couple of months.
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Tom,
Can you send me via email the two sets of results you showed this morning of
the dating for the trw and mxd series from the Polar Urals?  Just the two separate
ones - forget Yamal.
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Doug,
Maybe Steve sent you the two emails I've resent. Ignore my ramblings at the end of one,
but I was getting a little fed up.  The Legates email is at the end, in case you're
interested.
The pdf is worth a read. Odd that he writes a press release, then starts working on a
paper.
We've very occasionally written a press release, but only after the paper has come out.
I tried to explain the 'missing' rings. They aren't missing, but due to the samples not
being right for density measurements. All Schweingruber's chronologies are constructed
this way - traditional ring width measurements aren't made. Some of the Russian groups
he's worked with have added extra ring width cores and sometime get longer series, but
all the data Keith and I work with is from Fritz, so if density is missing, then RW is
also.
Fritz did almost all the coring - 99% of the sites. We only help coring on a couple of
occasions.
This comes from alignment tracking as you say, but Fritz also says it is partly due to
the need to extract the lignin and to avoid resin. When we cored together, he was always
saying we weren't doing it properly getting twisted cores.  I'm not a proper dendro
person,
as I only got into this because of Keith - it may not be lignin, but something has to be
extracted with solvents.
The Polar Urals site was collected by Fritz and Stepan Shiyatov. There are living trees
back to the 1500s and then stumps at a slightly higher elevation. Stepan has been back
more recently and regeneration is occurring at higher levels, but it is taking time. Tree
lines
take a while to respond to the recent warmth in some regions. Once the trees are
established
and not killed by frosts/snow in winter they survive even if it gets cooler. I discussed
this
in a review paper in RoG attached. The section on the issue is brief.
All the cores were collected over a couple of days. Fritz made a mistake with the
labelling
for one core and that explains the 400 years of missing values. Someone at WDCP
must have combined the cores with the same ids. Dendro people are always looking for the
oldest trees and we kept the earliest series in. Steve seems to have a thing about these
and the 10th and 11th centuries, but they are correctly dated. Fritz uses loads of plots
and pointer years and doesn't make mistakes normally. There is a very distinct year at
AD 1032. Fritz is also cross dating with LWW and EWW and other features and not just
on RW. I say not just, he normally does with density.  At the coring stage Fritz had no
idea
of the ages of the stumps (well just the number of years). There may have been samples
off the front that couldn't be dated at all, for all I know.  I suspect though they are
roughly
the same calendar age, as the site has distinct dates for the start of trees, which
represent
regeneration periods. Maybe you can try and explain the tree-line argument to Steve.
When he had to omit parts of cores, he was always able to know where the two parts sat
in the sequence. We need to keep them together to do things like RCS.
Anyway, I have to go home - it's been very wet lately and the grass has grown. The
lawn must be mowed when the sun shines.
Keep pushing that he should write up what he does (and Ross) in proper journals. E&E
and Climate Research are not read by many now. I only look at them when I get
alerted and I remain exasperated.
Cheers
Phil
Legates email
Phil Jones has made a valid point in that some of the articles cited
in my critique do not 'directly' address problems with Mann and Jones (MJ)
but rather, address problems with earlier works by Mann, Bradley, and
Hughes (MBH) and other colleagues.  Fair enough - I have changed the
critique to reflect that fact.  The revised version has been posted since
July 19 at:
[1]
However, I still contend that most of my original arguments - namely, the
problems with the shaft, blade, and sheath - apply equally to Mann and
Jones as well as the other Mann et al. manifestations of the 'hockey
stick'.
MJ incorporate data from a number of the same sources as those used
by MBH; for example, Mann's unpublished PC1 from the western North
American tree-ring data, Cook's Tasmanian tree rings, Thompson's Quelccaya
and Dunde ice core oxygen isotope records (the latter embedded in Yang's
Chinese composite), and Fisher's stacked Greenland ice core oxygen isotope
record. Calibration and verification of MJ includes the flawed MBH curve.
Thus, any errors in MBH effectively undermine the calibration-verification
results of MJ, leaving this study unsupported and any problems with the
underlying common proxies identified in critiques of MBH will also result
in identical problems in MJ.
My criticism regarding the blade is that 0.6 deg C warming for the
last century is noted by the IPCC whereas MJ (and other M et al
representations) have up to 0.95 deg C warming in their observed record.
See MJ's figure 2 where for the global and NH reconstruction, their
estimates for 2000 exceed +0.4 and +0.5 (nearly +0.6), respectively.
MJ's NH curve is included in the attached graph.  Thus, I stand by my
criticism of MJ on this point, which is more egregious in MJ than other M
et al representations.
>From Jones:  "The trend over the 20th century in the Figure and in the
instrumental data.  IPCC quotes 0.6 deg C over the 1901-2000 period.  Fact
- but Legates is eyeballing the curve to get 0.95 deg C. A figure isn't
given in Mann and Jones (2003). Take it from me the trend is about the
same as the instrumental record."
Funny, but there IS a figure in MJ - see their Figure 2.  As for me
'eyeballing' an apparently non-existent curve, I attach a figure from Soon
et al. (2004) that contains a portion of MJ's Figure 2 to allow others to
decide for themselves whether MJ suggest a twentieth century warming of
0.6 deg C or 0.95 deg C.  Moreover, maybe someone can explain why every
time Mann and his colleagues draft another curve, the temperature in 2000
gets warmer and warmer after the fact...
My criticisms regarding the sheath (largely from a paper on which I
am working) stem from the characterization of the uncertainty by MJ that
arises solely from the 'fit' statistics to the 1600-1855 period using
cross-validation with, not observations, but composites of three
previously compiled reconstructions, including that developed by MBH - the
focus of known flaws and errors in the shaft.  Note that some of the same
data are used in both MBH and MJ, which doesn't allow for a truly
independent cross-validation.  My rather obvious point was not that fit
statistics should not be included (as Jones asserts) but that MJ included
no errors in either input realization (observations or proxy data) or
other obvious sources of error.  The claim by MBH and MJ is that only the
model lack-of-fit contributes to uncertainty is inherently flawed.
Considerable errors exist in the representation of both fields -
annual temperatures from both observations and proxy records - and must be
incorporated.  Clearly, there is a spatial bias associated with
observations that are biased away from the oceans, high latitudes, and
high altitudes.  The spatial problem is far more pronounced when only a
handful of proxies are used to represent the global temperatures at
earlier time periods.  Both MBH and MJ are equally guilty in this regard.
David R. Legates
Several people have asked me for the full references to the works I have
cited.  They are:
Chapman, D.S., M.G. Bartlett, and R.N. Harris (2004):  Comment on 'Ground
vs. surface air temperature trends:  Implications for borehole surface
temperature reconstructions' by M.E. Mann and G. Schmidt.  Geophysical
Research Letters, 31, L07205, doi:10.1029/2003GL019054.
Esper, J, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002):  Low-frequency signals
in long tree-ring chronologies for reconstructing past temperature
variability, Science, 295, 2250-2253.
Esper, J, D.C. Frank, and R.J.S. Wilson (2004):  Climate reconstructions:
Low-frequency ambition and high-frequency ratification.  EOS, Transactions
of the American Geophysical Union, Vol. 85 (12):113,120.
IPCC TAR (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Third Assessment
Report) (2001):  Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Houghton,
J.T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D.J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P. J., Dai, X.,
Maskell, K., Johnson, C.A. (Eds.), Cambridge University Press.
Mann, M.E., R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1998):  Global-Scale
Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries,
Nature, 392, 779-787.  [see also the correction in Nature - Mann, Bradley,
and Hughes, 2004]
Mann, M.E., R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999): Northern Hemisphere
Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and
Limitations.  Geophysical Research Letters, 26, 759-762.
Mann, M.E., and P.D. Jones (2003):  Global surface temperature over the
past two millennia, Geophysical Research Letters, 30(15), 1820, doi:
10.1029/2003GL017814.
Mann, M.E., and G. Schmidt (2003):  Ground vs. surface air temperature
trends:  Implications for borehole surface temperature reconstructions.
Geophysical Research Letters, 30(12), 1607, doi:10.1029/2003GL017170.
McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick (2003): Corrections to the Mann et al
(1998) Proxy Data Based and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature
Series.  Energy and Environment, 14, 751-771.
Pollack, H.N., and J.E. Smerdon (2004):  Borehole climate reconstructions:
Spatial structure and hemispheric averages.  Journal of Geophysical
Research, 109, D11106, doi:10.1029/2003JD004163.
Rutherford, S., and M.E. Mann (2004):  Correction to 'Optimal surface
temperature reconstructions using terrestrial borehole data'.  Journal of
Geophysical Research, 109, D11107, doi:10.1029/2003JD004290.
Soon, W.-H., S.L. Baliunas, C. Idso, S. Idso, and D.R. Legates (2003):
Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years:
A Reappraisal.  Energy and Environment, 14:233-296.
Soon, W.-H., D.R. Legates, and S.L. Baliunas (2004):  Estimation and
Representation of Long-Term (>40 year) trends of
Northern-Hemisphere-gridded Surface Temperature:  A Note of Caution.
Geophysical Research Letters, 31(3).
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.


Janice,
Most of the data series in most of the plots have just appeared on the CRU web site.
Go to data then to paleoclimate. Did this to stop getting hassled by the skeptics for the
data series. Mike Mann refuses to talk to these people and I can understand why. They are
just trying to find if we've done anything wrong. I sent one of them loads of series
and he barely said a thankyou.  It seems they are now going for Tom Crowley, Lonnie
Thompson and Gordon Jacoby as most of their series are not on web sites.
Below is a link to an awful piece by Legates. He told me he is a writing a paper, but
wrote the press release first !  The pdf is worth getting for a couple of sentences, when
he
said that MJ restricted their use of paleo series to those that had correlations with
instrumental data !  It is a classic. 'Our uncertainty estimates are based solely on how
well
the proxy records match the observed data' !
The Legates piece must have been sent to loads of environment correspondents across
the world and a number of op-ed pieces appeared. Some were awful. Most have had
responses from Ray Bradley, Caspar Amman and others.
Hope all is well with you and all the best to all. Glad you enjoyed the paper.
Cheers
Phil
PS Do you want to get involved in IPCC this time? I'm the CLA of the atmospheric obs.
chapter with Kevin Trenberth and we'll be looking for Contributing Authors to help the
Lead Authors we have.  Paleo is in a different section this time led by Peck and Eystein
Janssen. Keith is a lead author as well.
Phil Jones has made a valid point in that some of the articles cited
in my critique do not 'directly' address problems with Mann and Jones (MJ)
but rather, address problems with earlier works by Mann, Bradley, and
Hughes (MBH) and other colleagues.  Fair enough - I have changed the
critique to reflect that fact.  The revised version has been posted since
July 19 at:
[1]
However, I still contend that most of my original arguments - namely, the
problems with the shaft, blade, and sheath - apply equally to Mann and
Jones as well as the other Mann et al. manifestations of the 'hockey
stick'.
MJ incorporate data from a number of the same sources as those used
by MBH; for example, Mann's unpublished PC1 from the western North
American tree-ring data, Cook's Tasmanian tree rings, Thompson's Quelccaya
and Dunde ice core oxygen isotope records (the latter embedded in Yang's
Chinese composite), and Fisher's stacked Greenland ice core oxygen isotope
record. Calibration and verification of MJ includes the flawed MBH curve.
Thus, any errors in MBH effectively undermine the calibration-verification
results of MJ, leaving this study unsupported and any problems with the
underlying common proxies identified in critiques of MBH will also result
in identical problems in MJ.
My criticism regarding the blade is that 0.6 deg C warming for the
last century is noted by the IPCC whereas MJ (and other M et al
representations) have up to 0.95 deg C warming in their observed record.
See MJ's figure 2 where for the global and NH reconstruction, their
estimates for 2000 exceed +0.4 and +0.5 (nearly +0.6), respectively.
MJ's NH curve is included in the attached graph.  Thus, I stand by my
criticism of MJ on this point, which is more egregious in MJ than other M
et al representations.
>From Jones:  "The trend over the 20th century in the Figure and in the
instrumental data.  IPCC quotes 0.6 deg C over the 1901-2000 period.  Fact
- but Legates is eyeballing the curve to get 0.95 deg C. A figure isn't
given in Mann and Jones (2003). Take it from me the trend is about the
same as the instrumental record."
Funny, but there IS a figure in MJ - see their Figure 2.  As for me
'eyeballing' an apparently non-existent curve, I attach a figure from Soon
et al. (2004) that contains a portion of MJ's Figure 2 to allow others to
decide for themselves whether MJ suggest a twentieth century warming of
0.6 deg C or 0.95 deg C.  Moreover, maybe someone can explain why every
time Mann and his colleagues draft another curve, the temperature in 2000
gets warmer and warmer after the fact...
My criticisms regarding the sheath (largely from a paper on which I
am working) stem from the characterization of the uncertainty by MJ that
arises solely from the 'fit' statistics to the 1600-1855 period using
cross-validation with, not observations, but composites of three
previously compiled reconstructions, including that developed by MBH - the
focus of known flaws and errors in the shaft.  Note that some of the same
data are used in both MBH and MJ, which doesn't allow for a truly
independent cross-validation.  My rather obvious point was not that fit
statistics should not be included (as Jones asserts) but that MJ included
no errors in either input realization (observations or proxy data) or
other obvious sources of error.  The claim by MBH and MJ is that only the
model lack-of-fit contributes to uncertainty is inherently flawed.
Considerable errors exist in the representation of both fields -
annual temperatures from both observations and proxy records - and must be
incorporated.  Clearly, there is a spatial bias associated with
observations that are biased away from the oceans, high latitudes, and
high altitudes.  The spatial problem is far more pronounced when only a
handful of proxies are used to represent the global temperatures at
earlier time periods.  Both MBH and MJ are equally guilty in this regard.
David R. Legates
At 15:55 06/08/2004 +1000, you wrote:
Dear Phil
Just finished reading your paper with Mike M in Rev of Geophysics which I
very much enjoyed - will let you know when it hits the Mission Beach
Chronicle!
Hope all is well
best wishes
Janice
Janice M. Lough
Principal Research Scientist
Australian Institute of Marine Science
PMB 3, Townsville MC
Queensland 4810
Australia
email: j.lough@aims.gov.au
Tel: (07) 47 534248
Fax: (07) 47 725852
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information  contained within this transmission  is for the use of
the  intended  recipient  only  and  may  contain confidential  and/or
legally privileged  material and/or material the  subject of copyright
and/or  personal  information  and/or  sensitive  information  that is
subject  to the   Privacy  Act  1988.   Any  review,  re-transmission,
disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any  action in
reliance upon this information  by persons or entities  other than the
intended recipient is prohibited.
If you have  received  this email  in error  please  notify  the  AIMS
Privacy  Officer on  (07) 4753 4444  and  delete  all copies  of  this
transmission together with any attachments.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.


Gabi,
No second attempt - don't know what the first was?  We'll be doing a new instrumental
data
set (surprisingly called HadCRUT3), but that's it at the moment.
Attached is a good review of corals - just out.
Cheers
Phil
At 10:36 10/08/2004 -0400, Gabi Hegerl wrote:
Hi Mike and Phil,
Thanks! Yes, factor 1.29 will get me closer to my best guess scaling (factor 1.6 to
same-size signals).
The scaling is a tough issue, and I think there are lots of possibilities to do it
depending on what one wants
to do. For comparing underlying forced signals, I think tls is best. To get a
conservative size paleo reconstruction
(like what part of instrumental do we reconstruct with paleo), the traditional scaling
is best.
I'll write up what Myles and I have been thinking and send it.
Phil, if there is a second attempt at that with the Hadley Centre, let me know, I don't
like racing anybody!
Gabi
Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear Phil and Gabi,
I've attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for
doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are
likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so
best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want
to test it, etc.  Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but
don't pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.
In the process of trying to clean it up, I realized I had something a bit odd, not
necessarily wrong, but it makes a small difference. It seems that I used the 'long' NH
instrumental series back to 1753 that we calculated in the following paper:
* Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., Keimig, F.T., [1]Optimal
Surface Temperature Reconstructions using Terrestrial Borehole Data, Journal of
Geophysical Research, 108 (D7), 4203, doi: 10.1029/2002JD002532, 2003.
(based on the sparse available long instrumental records) to set the scale for the
decadal standard deviation of the proxy composite. Not sure why I used this, rather than
using the CRU NH record back to 1856 for this purpose. It looks like I had two similarly
named series floating around in the code, and used perhaps the less preferable one for
setting the scale.
Turns it, this has the net effect of decreasing the amplitude of the NH reconstruction
by a factor of 0.11/0.14 = 1.29.
This may explain part of what perplexed Gabi when she was comparing w/ the instrumental
series. I've attached the version of the reconstruction where the NH is scaled by the
CRU NH record instead, as well as the Matlab code which you're welcome to try to use
yourself and play around with. Basically, this increases the amplitude of the
reconstruction everywhere by the factor 1.29. Perhaps this is more  in line w/ what Gabi
was estimating (Gabi?)
Anyway, doesn't make a major difference, but you might want to take this into account in
any further use of the Mann and Jones series...
Phil: is this worth a followup note to GRL, w/ a link to the Matlab code?
Mike
p.s. Gabi: when do you and Tom plan to publish your NH reconstruction that now goes back
about 1500 years or so? It would be nice to have more independent reconstructions
published in the near future! Maybe I missed this? Thanks...
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: [2]mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[3]
% COMPOSITENH"
%
% (c) 2003, M.E. Mann
%
% THIS ROUTINE PERFORMS A RECONSTRUCTION OF NORTHERN HEMISPHERE
% MEAN ANNUAL TEMPERATURE BASED ON A WEIGHTED COMPOSITE OF LONG-TERM TEMPERATURE
% PROXY RECORDS SCALED AGAINST THE INSTRUMENTAL HEMISPHERIC MEAN TEMPERATURE
% SERIES, AS USED IN THE FOLLOWING TWO PUBLICATIONS:
%
%
% Jones, P.D., Mann, M.E., Climate Over Past Millennia, Reviews of Geophysics,
% 42, RG2002, doi:10.1029/2003RG000143, 2004
%
% Mann, M.E., Jones, P.D., Global Surface Temperatures over the Past two Millennia,
% Geophysical Research Letters,
% 30 (15), 1820, doi: 10.1029/2003GL017814, 2003
%
%
% 1. READ IN INSTRUMENTAL RECORD
%
% Read in CRU instrumental NH mean temeperature record (1856-2003)
load nh.dat;
yearinstr=nh(:,1);
% calculate both warm-season and annual means
warmseason=(nh(:,5)+nh(:,6)+nh(:,7)+nh(:,8)+nh(:,9)+nh(:,10))/6;
annualmean=nh(:,14);
% use annual mean  record in this analysis
nhmean=annualmean;
%
% 2. READ IN PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED PROXY-RECONSTRUCTIONS OF NH ANNUAL MEAN
% RECONSTRUCTIONS AND FORM APPROPRIATELY SCALED COMPOSITE
%
% Read in Mann et al (1998), Crowley and Lowery (2000), and Jones et al (1998)
% NH temperature reconstructions
load nhem-millennium.dat;
load crowleylowery.dat;
load joneshemisrecons.dat;
nhmbh=nhem_millennium(1:981,2);
nhjones=joneshemisrecons(1:981,2);
nhcl=crowleylowery(1:981,2);
yearmillen=nhem_millennium(1:981,1);
% since some reconstructions are only decadally resolved, smooth each on
% decadal timescales through use of a lowpass filter with cutoff at
% f=0.1 cycle/year. Based on use of the filtering routine described in:
%
%    Mann, M.E., On Smoothing Potentially Non-Stationary Climate Time Series,
%    Geophysical Research Letters,  31, L07214, doi: 10.1029/2004GL019569, 2004.
%
% using 'minimum norm' constraint at both boundaries for all time series
nhsmooth=lowpass(nhmean,0.10,0,0);
nhmbhsmooth=lowpass(nhmbh,0.10,0,0);
nhjonessmooth=lowpass(nhjones,0.10,0,0);
nhclsmooth=lowpass(nhcl,0.10,0,0);
% Mann et al (1998) already calibrated in terms of hemispheric annual mean temperature, but
% reference mean has to be adjusted to equal that of the instrumental series
% over the 1856-1980 overlap period (which uses a 1961-1990 reference period)
admbh=mean(nhsmooth(1:125))-mean(nhmbhsmooth(857:981));
newmbh=nhmbhsmooth+admbh;
% need to adjust and scale Jones et al (1998) and Crowley and Lowery (2000)
% reconstructions to match mean and trend of smoothed instrumental series
% over 1856-1980
t1=1856;
t2=1980;
x=(t1:t2)';
nhlong=nhmean(1:125);
smoothlong=lowpass(nhlong,0.10,0,0);
amean0=mean(smoothlong);
y=smoothlong;
[yc,t,trend0,detrend0,xm,ym] = lintrend(x, y);
%
y=nhclsmooth(t1-999:t2-999);
[yc,t,trendcl,detrendcl,xm,ym] = lintrend(x, y);
%
y=nhjonessmooth(t1-999:t2-999);
[yc,t,trendjones,detrendjones,xm,ym] = lintrend(x, y);
%
multjones=norm(trend0)/norm(trendjones);
adjustedjones=nhjonessmooth*multjones;
offsetjones=amean0-mean(adjustedjones(t1-999:t2-999));
newjones=adjustedjones+offsetjones;
newjones=newjones';
%
multcl=norm(trend0)/norm(trendcl);
adjustedcl=nhclsmooth*multcl;
offsetcl=amean0-mean(adjustedcl(t1-999:t2-999));
newcl=adjustedcl+offsetcl;
newcl=newcl';
%
nhlongcompose=0.3333*(newmbh+newjones'+newcl')';
%
% 3. READ IN AND PROCESS PROXY TEMPERATURE RECORDS
%
M=8;
load 'china-series1.dat'
load 'itrdb-long-fixed.dat'
load 'westgreen-o18.dat'
load 'torny.dat'
load 'chesapeake.dat'
load 'mongolia-darrigo.dat'
load 'dahl-jensen-gripbh1yrinterp.txt'
load 'dahl-jensen-dye3bh1yrinterp.txt'
% read in years
x1=china_series1(:,1);
x2=itrdb_long_fixed(:,1);
x3=westgreen_o18(:,1);
x4=torny(:,1);
x5=chesapeake(:,1);
x6=mongolia_darrigo(:,1);
x7=dahl_jensen_gripbh1yrinterp(:,1);
x8=dahl_jensen_dye3bh1yrinterp(:,1);
% read in proxy values
y1=china_series1(:,2);
y2=itrdb_long_fixed(:,2);
y3=westgreen_o18(:,2);
y4=torny(:,2);
y5=chesapeake(:,2);
y6=mongolia_darrigo(:,2);
y7=dahl_jensen_gripbh1yrinterp(:,2);
y8=dahl_jensen_dye3bh1yrinterp(:,2);
% Store decadal correlation of each proxy record with local available
% overlapping CRU gridpoint surface temperature record (see Mann and Jones, 2003)
corr(1)=0.22;
corr(2)=0.52;
corr(3)=0.75;
corr(4)=0.32;
corr(5)=0.31;
corr(6)=0.40;
corr(7)=0.53;
corr(8)=0.52;
% Estimate Area represented by each proxy record based on latitude of
% record and estimated number of temperature gridpoints represented by record
pi=3.14159;
factor=pi/180.0;
lat(1)=32.5;
dof(1)=4;
lat(2)=37.5;
dof(2)=2;
lat(3)=77;
dof(3)=0.667;
lat(4)=68;
dof(4)=3.5;
lat(5)=37.0;
dof(5)=1.0;
lat(6)=47;
dof(6)=1;
lat(7)=73;
dof(7)=0.667;
lat(8)=65;
dof(8)=0.667;
for j=1:M
area(j)=dof(j)*cos(lat(j)*factor);
end
% determine min and max available years over all proxy records
%
minarray=[min(x1) min(x2) min(x3) min(x4) min(x5) min(x6) min(x7) min(x8)];
maxarray=[max(x1) max(x2) max(x3) max(x4) max(x5) max(x6) max(x7) max(x8)];
tbegin=max(minarray);
tend1=min(maxarray);
tend=max(maxarray);
% initialize proxy data matrix
notnumber = -9999;
for j=1:M
for i=1:minarray(j)-1
time(i)=i;
mat(i,j)=notnumber;
end
for i=minarray(j):tend
time(i)=i;
end
for i=minarray(j):maxarray(j)
if (j==1) mat(i,j)=y1(i-minarray(j)+1);
end
if (j==2) mat(i,j)=y2(i-minarray(j)+1);
end
if (j==3) mat(i,j)=y3(i-minarray(j)+1);
end
if (j==4) mat(i,j)=y4(i-minarray(j)+1);
end
if (j==5) mat(i,j)=y5(i-minarray(j)+1);
end
if (j==6) mat(i,j)=y6(i-minarray(j)+1);
end
if (j==7) mat(i,j)=y7(i-minarray(j)+1);
end
if (j==8) mat(i,j)=y8(i-minarray(j)+1);
end
end
% added in Jones and Mann (2004), extend series ending between
% 1980 calibration period end and 2001 boundary by persistence of
% last available value through 2001
for i=maxarray(j)+1:tend
if (j==1) mat(i,j)=y1(maxarray(j)-minarray(j)+1);
end
if (j==2) mat(i,j)=y2(maxarray(j)-minarray(j)+1);
end
if (j==3) mat(i,j)=y3(maxarray(j)-minarray(j)+1);
end
if (j==4) mat(i,j)=y4(maxarray(j)-minarray(j)+1);
end
if (j==5) mat(i,j)=y5(maxarray(j)-minarray(j)+1);
end
if (j==6) mat(i,j)=y6(maxarray(j)-minarray(j)+1);
end
if (j==7) mat(i,j)=y7(maxarray(j)-minarray(j)+1);
end
if (j==8) mat(i,j)=y8(maxarray(j)-minarray(j)+1);
end
end
end
time=time';
data=[time mat];
% decadally lowpass of proxy series at f=0.1 cycle/year as described earlier
for j=1:M
unfiltered=mat(minarray(j):tend,j);
filt=lowpass(unfiltered,0.1,0,0);
for i=1:minarray(j)-1
filtered(i,j)=mat(i,j);
end
for i=minarray(j):tend
filtered(i,j)=filt(i-minarray(j)+1);
end
end
% standardize data
% first remove mean from each series
for j=1:M
icount=0;
amean(j)=0;
for i=1:tend
if (filtered(i,j)>notnumber)
icount=icount+1;
amean(j)=amean(j)+filtered(i,j);
end
end
amean(j)=amean(j)/icount;
end
% now divide through by standard deviation
for j=1:M
icount=0;
asum=0;
for i=1:tend
if (filtered(i,j)>notnumber)
asum=asum+(filtered(i,j)-amean(j))^2;
icount=icount+1;
end
end
sd(j)=sqrt(asum/icount);
for i=1:tend
standardized(i,j)=filtered(i,j);
if (mat(i,j)>notnumber)
standardized(i,j)=(filtered(i,j)-amean(j))/sd(j);
end
end
end
%
% 4. Calculate NH mean temperature reconstruction through weighted (and
%    unweighted) composites of the decadally-smoothed proxy indicators
%
% impose weighting scheme for NH mean composite
for j=1:M
%   weighting method 1: weight each proxy series by approximate area
%   weighting method 2: weight each proxy series by correlation between
%      predictor and local gridpoint series over available overlap period
%      during calibration interval
%   weighting method 3: weight each proxy series by correlation between
%      predictor and NH mean series over calibration interval:
%    weightlong(j)=lincor(nhlong,standardized(1856:1980,j));
%   weighting method 4: combine 1 and 3
%   weighting method 5: combine 1 amd 2 (this is the 'standard' weighting
%      scheme chosen by Mann and Jones (2003)
%   use standard weighting scheme
weight(j)=corr(j)*area(j);
end
% perform reconstructions based on:
% (1) the 6 proxy temperature records available over interval AD 200-1980
% (2) all 8 proxy temperature records available over interval AD 553-1980
istart0=200;
istart1=200;
istart2=553;
nseries1=0;
nseries2=0;
weightsum1=0;
weightsum2=0;
for j=1:M
if (istart1>=minarray(j))
nseries1=nseries1+1;
weightsum1=weightsum1+weight(j);
end
if (istart2>=minarray(j))
nseries2=nseries2+1;
weightsum2=weightsum2+weight(j);
end
end
% calculate composites through 1995 (too few series available after that date)
% As discussed above, persistence is used to extend any series ending
% between 1980 and 1995 as described by Jones and Mann (2004).
tend=1995;
for i=istart1:tend
unweighted1(i)=0;
unweighted2(i)=0;
weighted1(i)=0;
weighted2(i)=0;
for j=1:M
if (istart1>=minarray(j))
unweighted1(i)=unweighted1(i)+standardized(i,j);
weighted1(i)=weighted1(i)+weight(j)*standardized(i,j);
end
if (istart2>=minarray(j))
unweighted2(i)=unweighted2(i)+standardized(i,j);
weighted2(i)=weighted2(i)+weight(j)*standardized(i,j);
end
end
end
unweighted1=unweighted1/nseries1;
unweighted2=unweighted2/nseries2;
weighted1=weighted1/weightsum1;
weighted2=weighted2/weightsum2;
unweighted1(1:istart1-1)=0;
unweighted2(1:istart2-1)=0;
weighted1(1:istart1-1)=0;
weighted2(1:istart2-1)=0;
% scale composite to have same variance as decadally-smoothed instrumental
% NH series
% Mann and Jones (2003) and Jones and Mann (2004) used for this purpose
% the extended (1753-1980) NH series used in:
%    Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., Keimig, F.T.,
%    Optimal Surface Temperature Reconstructions using Terrestrial Borehole Data,
%    Journal of Geophysical Research, 108 (D7), 4203, doi: 10.1029/2002JD002532, 2003.
% That series has a decadal standard deviation sd=0.1123
% If instead, the 1856-2003 CRU instrumental NH mean record is used, with
% a decadal standard deviation of sd=0.1446, the amplitude of the reconstruction
% increases by a factor 1.29 (this scaling yields slightly lower verification
% scores)
load nhem-long.dat
nhemlong=nhem_long(:,2);
longsmooth=lowpass(nhemlong,0.10,0,0);
sd0=std(longsmooth);
% use weighted (rather than unweighted) composite in this case
series1=weighted1;
% center composites on 1856-1980 calibration period
y=series1(t1:t2)';
amean1=mean(series1(t1:t2));
compseries1=series1(t1:t2)-amean1;
mult1=sd0/std(compseries1);
% scale composite to standard deviation of instrumental series and re-center
% to have same (1961-1990) zero reference period as CRU NH instrumental
% temperature record
adjusted1=series1*mult1;
offset1=amean0-mean(adjusted1(t1:t2));
compose1=adjusted1+offset1;
compose1=compose1';
series2=weighted2;
y=series2(t1:t2)';
amean2=mean(series2(t1:t2));
compseries2=series2(t1:t2)-amean2;
mult2=sd0/std(compseries2);
adjusted2=series2*mult2;
offset2=amean0-mean(adjusted2(t1:t2));
compose2=adjusted2+offset2;
compose2=compose2';
%
% 5. UNCERTAINTY ESTIMATION, AND STATISTICAL VERIFICATION
%
% estimate uncertainty in reconstruction
% nominal (white noise) unresolved calibration period variance
calibvar=lincor(smoothlong,compose1(t1:t2))^2;
uncalib=1-calibvar;
sdunc=sd0*sqrt(uncalib);
% note: this is the *nominal* white noise uncertainty in the reconstruction
% a spectral analysis of the calibration residuals [as discussed briefly in
% Mann and Jones, 2003] indicates that a peak at the multidecadal timescale
% that exceeds the white noise average residual variance by a factor of
% approximately 6.  A conservative estimate of the standard error in the
% reconstruction thus inflates the nominal white noise estimate "sdunc" by a
% factor of sqrt(6)
sdlow = sdunc*sqrt(6)
% calculate long-term verification statistics for reconstruction
% use composite of Mann et al (1998)/Crowley and Lowery (2000)/Jones et al (1998)
% and AD 1600-1855 interval
overlapcomp=nhlongcompose(1:981);
% work with longer reconstruction (back to AD 200)
overlaprecon=compose1(1000:1980)';
%overlaprecon=compose2(1000:1980)';
%calculate verification R^2
series11=overlaprecon(601:856);
series22=overlapcomp(601:856);
verifrsq=lincor(series11,series22)^2
% calculate verification RE
var1=0.0;
var2=0.0;
var3=0.0;
var4=0.0;
var5=0.0;
am0=0.0;
% insure convention of zero mean over calibration interval
for i=857:981
am0=am0+overlapcomp(i);
end
am0=am0/125;
for i=601:856
var1=var1+(overlapcomp(i)-am0)^2;
var2=var2+(overlapcomp(i)-overlaprecon(i))^2;
end
verifRE=1-var2/var1
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gabriele Hegerl
Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences,
Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences,
Box 90227
Duke University, Durham NC 27708
Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833
email: [4]hegerl@duke.edu, [5]
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/borehole-jgr03.pdf
2. mailto:mann@virginia.edu
3.
4. mailto:hegerl@duke.edu
5.