Dear Geoff
it good to hear from you. By now you may know that we had a small working meeting to consider the current draft of the thematic bid yesterday in London. Simon Tett , Nick Shackleton , Paul Valdes  and I  really did get to grips with a lot of the important details concerning the way in which such a project might actually run. We are going for a joint Earth science/Atmospheric Science Board application for 8 million to run over 5 years. Simon told us about your offer of some support - perhaps as money , perhaps as some equivelent- and the spirit of the offer is much appreciated. Frankly, the fact that you consider this a worthy and valid scientific exercise is what really gives me cheer. We have a long way to go to really sort out many of the problems with the palaeo data and with the methodology of using them in a validation and/or detection context, but I genuinely believe this approach will yield rewards somewhere down the line. I think our support from the earth science side is very probable. The politics of the Atmospheric Board - and the potential clash with other initiatives coming from Reading - mean that their support ( in any meaningful sense) can't be thought of as more than possible. I suppose we may have something like a near 50 % chance of eventually getting some money , but 50% is pretty good. I will now ammend the document to show an explicit requirement for formal supervisory input on the programme from the Hadley Centre and I acknowledge that there will be no blanket release of data whatever happens. I will forward the application to you soon. If we get through the outline agreement stage with NERC , we will surely revisit these practical details , along with others. For now I simply say thanks to you and John for your support , and thanks for the input of Simon and Peter Cox. I will stay in touch as and when things develop. Even if we fail here, the science imperative will mean that we find other means of working with you -most likely through an EC grant - on these issues.
Thanks again and I hope you are bearing up under the strain of recent troubles
Keith
At 11:53 AM 9/14/98 +0100, you wrote:
>Keith
>
>Im afraid I dont have your original email abou you proposal for oa thematic
>programme on palaeo data - we just got converted to Windows NT and I have
>wiped my old emails by mistake.
>
>We would be very supportive of a programme which delivered better estimates
>of natural variability of climate over the past 1000 yrs globally and
>regionally which, as I recall, is the main aim.
>
>What do you want me / us to do, ie a letter to someone in NERC or you from
>me/ Dave Carson/ Paul Mason saying ho w important the topic is and that we
>would be immediate users of deliverables etc?
>
>Let me know and I will draft something. Can you re-email what you set please
>- sorry.
>
>Cheers
>Geoff
>


Ray
this is simply to say that I will get my paper to you as soon as I can. Frank knows that I am currently involved with writing a bid on behalf of the earth science community to try to extract 8 million pounds for a 5 year project from NERC to support Palaeo/Modelling validatin work. I was not allowed to say no to this request and it is involving me in a lot of meetings and associated crap. I am now redrafting the proposal. Also I must write my application to NERC for a fellowship - if this fails Sarah and I are unemployed after December as things stand. God knows there is little chance of success but the application must be in be the end of September and I have not started it yet. This is a big deal for me and I am putting you down as my primary suggested scientific referee. The PAGES paper can only be done in mid October and I really need your and Frank's understanding on this. I had to do the Thematic bid proposal as Nick Shackleton asked me to , and I want to put him down as my primary Personal reference! In early October I have to attend a NERC Earth Science Board meeting to defend the Thematic bid; a meeting of PEP3 in Belgium;a UK CLIVAR meeting in London; an EC meeting to present our ADVANCE-10K results in Vienna. This is not bullshit. I will do the PAGES meetin paper as fast as I can and you must please allow me the leeway . Sorry - but this will not really hold the publication up . If I could sort out some funding I could afford to drop some of these things but with the EC future also up in the air at the moment , I have to try to juggle these things. Sorry again Ray
Keith
At 09:07 PM 9/12/98 -0400, you wrote:
>This is a reminder that the due date for your paper to be reviewed for the
>Special edition of Quaternary Science Reviews was August 31....unless you
>made a special deal with me (and have sent your checks to my Swiss bank
>account) you should send me your manuscript AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!!!
>
>Thanks
>
>Ray
>
>
>Raymond S. Bradley
>Professor and Head of Department
>Department of Geosciences
>University of Massachusetts
>Amherst, MA 01003-5820
>Tel: 413-545-2120
>Fax: 413-545-1200
>Climate Lab: 413-545-0659
>Climate Lab Web Site:
>
>Chairman IGBP-PAGES
>Scientific Steering Committee
>Baerenplatz 2
>CH-3011 Bern, Switzerland
>Tel: +41-31-312-3133
>Fax: +41-31-312-3168
>EMail: pages@pages.unibe.ch
>PAGES Web Site:
>
>


Hi Phil - thanks for your detailed reply to my email. I look forward to
working with you and the rest of the gang to really improve the state of
paleo contributions to the detection/attribution issue. The earlier we get
a small group together, the better, so I suggest we try to take you up on
the AMS add-on idea. It would be ideal to have a 1 to 1.5day mtg in Boulder
since we have many of the needed perspectives (ice core, coral, seds, data,
etc) here. What would be the best dates for you (and Keith - I'm hoping
he'll be up for this too). We can find the extra $$ to get folks to Boulder
and have a quality time (do you ski?).
Once we set the dates with you (PLEASE SEND FAVORED DATES), Mike and Ray,
we can set the agenda. The main thing is that it would set the stage for
the extra degree of data sharing we'll need before the planned Santorini
mtg (still no dates - please bug Jean-Claude!!). Sound ok?
As for the data from your paper, I'd like to get them up with the data from
the other studies on the WDC www site asap. (JUST LET ME KNOW HOW!) The
White House is interested in knowing the state-of-the-art, and if we can
get everything together at one www site (including data and figs), I think
I can get some needed visibility for the paleo perspective. You probably
know this, but Henry Pollack's Borehole view of things (similar conclusions
to the other recent papers) is about to appear in Science. Although each
proxy and method does have it's limitations and biases, the multiproxy view
is compelling with regard to the patterns of temp change over the past
several centuries. The IPCC next time around should be much stronger than
last on the paleo side of things (although still not as good as it can
get!).
Of course, I'll continue to work with Mike and Ray to get the rest of the
individual series out into the public domain. Santorini should be the goal
- not alowwed on the island without coughing up data first!
Aloha and thanks again! Peck
Dr. Jonathan T. Overpeck
Head, NOAA Paleoclimatology Program
National Geophysical Data Center
325 Broadway E/GC
Boulder, CO 80303
tel: 303-497-6172
fax: 303-497-6513
jto@ngdc.noaa.gov
For OVERNIGHT (e.g., Fedex) deliveries,
PLEASE USE:
Dr. Jonathan Overpeck
NOAA National Geophysical Data Center
3100 Marine Street, RL3, Rm A136
Boulder, CO 80303
tel: 303-497-6160


Hi Peck,
Thanks for ccing the message. I was talking to Ed Cook at
a NASA workshop we both attended a couple weeks ago, and
he also expressed quite a bit of interest in attending
the mini-meeting, since he'll be going to the AMS meeting
to.
When is the meeting? Do other people prefer just before or
just after the meeting for the workshop. Either probably
works easily well for me at this point, since I won't have
teaching committments at that point.
Looking forward to us finalizing a plan!
mike
_______________________________________________________________________
Michael E. Mann
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of Geosciences
Morrill Science Center
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail:  mann@snow.geo.umass.edu (normal)
memann@titan.oit.umass.edu (attachments)
Web:
Phone: (413) 545-9573                            FAX: (413) 545-1200


Dear Colleagues,
A meeting was held today on SRES scenarios during the IPCC plenary session
in Vienna.  The meeting was organized by David Griggs, Fortunaat Joos,
Richard Moss, and Rob Swart.  Also present were a number of delegates
including two Co-Chairs of IPCC, John Houghton from WGI and Bert Metz from
WGIII.  Attached is a document with issues discussed during this meeting.
The meeting was very productive in my view, even though it was quite brief.
Two key issues were discussed that are listed in the attachment: (1)
incomplete information concerning SRES emissions as reported on the
website, and (2) consistency and plausibility of SRES scenarios and their
emissions.
(1) Incomplete information
There appeared to be a general consensus that the range of CO2 emissions
(especially energy-related ones) are in quite good agreement across the
SRES scenarios once one adds the missing emissions categories to all model
runs.  They are also in a relatively good agreement with the ranges given
in SAR.
The SRES ranges of CH4 and N2O emissions did not appear to be a problem in
themselves, but they are considerably lower than the ranges given in SAR.
It was agreed to ask the SRES writing team to further harmonize the ranges
for the base year and the period 1990 to 2000 across the scenarios for CO2,
CH4 and N2O.  At the same time, David Griggs will contact the colleagues
from WGI to inquire whether the emissions ranges for these gases as given
in SAR have changed in the mean time and will inform the SRES colleagues
soon about the result.  In particular, he will check whether the non-energy
CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions ranges are still appropriate as best guess for
the 1990 situation and about any new numbers about the ranges for more
recent years.  It was also suggested that the SRES writing team discuss the
reasons for relatively low CH4 emissions in 1990 compared with the SAR range.
Most of the SRES models do not generate CFC and HFC emissions but these
emissions are important for climate models.  It was agreed that David
Griggs will inquire with climate modelers whether they really need all
species of these gases or whether it is sufficient to report their joint
emissions.  SRES team is to report whether these emissions could be added
to most of the model runs and over which time-scale.   Joergen Fenhann is
in touch with a number of colleagues on this issue already and he is
planning to make a specific proposal how to handle this question across
SRES scenarios.
SRES sulfur emissions are considerably lower than the IS92 range.  There
are a number of reasons for this difference that were discussed at the
meeting.  It was decided that this exchange should continue in the future
so that there is a better understanding of all issues involved.  This is a
new aspect of SRES scenarios that represents an important change since
IS92a, a change that was also suggested by the 1994 IPCC review of
emissions scenarios.
The concern raised by Hugh Pitcher (in the WGI scenario discussion group)
about high productivity growth in A1 scenarios was briefly mentioned.  This
issue is to be settled within the SRES writing team, possibly by including
the formulation of alternative scenario variants.
(2) Consistency and Plausibility
Most participants of the meeting expressed the need to have emissions
trajectories that are somehow normalized for all SRES scenarios for 1990
and that have the same trends through 2000 and diverge only thereafter
across different scenarios.  This would meet the need of climate modelers
to work with the same starting points for all scenarios they model.  One
suggestion was that SRES team simply takes midpoints of emissions ranges in
1990 and renormalizes all SRES emissions.  Another proposal is that climate
modelers suggest their preferred values for 1990 to be used in
renormalization.  In any case, the method that is used would need to be
well documented and cited in the relevant IPCC reports.  This is necessary
so as not to introduce an artificial impression that there is a full
agreement on base-year emissions across SRES scenarios.
There were no specific suggestions how to harmonize short-term emissions
through 2000.  This issues is to be discussed within the SRES writing team
and within the climate modeling community in order to collect emissions
data for the last years that could be used for such harmonization.
The issue was discussed of generally lower CO2 and SO2 emissions across the
range of SRES scenarios and in particular for B2 marker.  This results in
lower GHG forcing and lower "negative" SO2 forcing.  The total forcing
remains roughly the same as in IS92a but has fundamentally different
implications especially at regional level.
Most of the climate models will be in the position to use just a few
scenarios, in some case, may be just two.  Possible ways of avoiding the
impression that there is a "preferred" scenario were discussed and there
was a consensus that somehow the message needs to be conveyed that the
whole set of SRES scenarios is plausible and that there is really no single
"central" case that can be compared with IS92a.
Climate models need gridded SO2 emissions while SRES models generate SO2
emissions for a number world regions.  Mike Schlesinger and Steve Smith
will attend the next SRES meeting and it was suggested that Mike would use
his method to produce gridded SO2 emissions and that Steve would use the
method proposed by Tom Wigley to do the same.  This way there would be two
alternative gridded emissions patterns for all SRES scenarios available to
user groups.
In conclusion, it was agreed that it would be useful to organize an
informal meeting where SRES colleagues could meet with potential user
groups from TAR (especially from WGI and WGII).  Next possibility to do so
would be on the occasion of the WGI meeting in Paris, 30 November to 3
December.  I am not quite sure that I got the dates right.  The next
communication will be more precise.
Regards,  Naki
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\sres_w~1.rtf"


Dear Stepan and Eugene ( and Fritz),
I have now receivd contracts from The EC for the INTAS work.
I have received the real signed Power Of Attorney form from Stepan , but not from Eugene.
It seems I must have both . I am a bit reluctant to forge Eugene's signature! We will need to think about how the money should be handled . Also please all go back and look at the document I wrote and be sure you are happy with the committment. The most important new aspect is the biomass work and I think new , or additional collections need to be taken to look at the growth of young , medium and old trees separately through time. We have very few recent young and middle age trees in recent years. We could consider using data along north/south transects (how goes the status of the Siberian Transect?).
Also, I must go to Vienna in 2 weeks to present the results of ADVANCE10K . We have a meeting of this group here in Norwich in November but I am very sorry that I have no funds to invite you to attend this. Could you afford a meeting some time , perhaps in a neutral spot where we all (including Fritz) might get together to talk about the INTAS work and future EC work? A state of the art report of progress of the Taimyr and Yamal work is needed very soon ( by email),also so that I can report on it in Vienna and Norwich. I am also writing a paper for PAGES for the book of the conference in London that Rashit attended. I will include a report of both projects , hopefully with some Figures of the data distribution or plots of the some version of the curves themselves ( along with others at high latitudes) . I would appreciate new copies of the full dated raw data sets , in Tucson compact format, to produce some curves in a standard style. I would like to compare changing variance through time at different wave lengths and perhaps co spectra.
As for money on ADVANCE10K, I initially was awarded 50,000ECU to be split between Krasnoyarsk and Ekaterinburg. Because of exchange rate changes , which have gone against us continually since the start of the project, this is now worth between 0.2 and 0.25 LESS than it did then. I have looked at the remaining money and I think I can give you each a final payment of between 4000 and 4500 US dollars. This is not definate - but it is pretty definate! I hope this means you may be able to do this year's fieldwork. We need to think also about how and if this should be coordinted with the INTAS work - but maybe not? How about some discussion by email regarding these points. I look forward to a quick reply.
my best wishes
Keith


\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Prather's comments on SRES emissions regarding the four WGI
chapters on radiative forcing.
THIS ADDRESSES ONLY THE URGENT NEED
TO GET THE CLIMATE SCENARIOS STARTED.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OVERALL:  It is CRITICAL that the WGI chapters are involved in
and make decisions regarding the mapping of "emission scenarios"
onto "trace-gas/RF scenarios" (to then be used in generating
"climate scenarios").  This is needed so that the eventual
chapters will back these preliminary (and hurried) approaches and
present a consistent but updated (and more complete!) set of
similar RF calculations in the TAR.  We should not be adding new
"volunteers" to calculate these forcings as has been suggested by
last week's notes until we clearly agree on the
rules/algorithms..
CO2:  (WGI-Ch.3)
-----------------------
I have not heard from colleagues on Ch. 3 regarding carbon-cycle
models for these scenarios that would be consistent with their
pending chapter..
non-CO2 GASES:  (WGI-Ch.4)
--------------------------------------
We need to make sure that the COMBINATION of adopted "atmospheric
chemistry" and emissions is consistent with recent observations.
It does not mean the total burden is on emissions.  Once having
chosen the chemistry (i.e., 120 year "lifetime" for N2O today),
however, the current emissions are tied by observations.  So we
will do as already stated "make emissions match observations" but
must be careful in the chapter to note this.
I see no obvious need to change the OH lifetimes (CH4, HFCs) and
the N2O lifetimes from the SAR.  The debate over a trend in OH is
important for later analysis in the chapter.  The key here is
for consistency with the past decade.  The budget of 560 Tg(CH4)
/y is thus a balanced (steady-state) budget to match abundances
of about 1710 ppb, and the current increase of about 1-2 ppb/y
would then add about 3-5 Tg to this amount.  Thus the rate of
growth of CH4 emissions in the SRES in one concern, but the
absolute level in the late 1990s is the most critical.
The IPCC97 Mosier & Kroeze N2O budget stands:  natural = 9.0
TgN/y and anthrop = 7.2 TgN/y.  Thus ALL of the N2O scenarios
need to be scaled.  Is this by a time-independent offset (e.g., +
5.5 TgN/y for B2)?  or do we multiply the anthropogenic by a
constant factor (e.g., 3 for B2)?
HFCs cannot be included as a bulk emission values since their
lifetimes are so varied.  What could be done is to focus on a
single one as a surrogate, e.g., HFC-134a is the dominant RF from
the IS92a options calculated in the SAR.  Is this still so? We
need to look at the projected HFC industry as in the last WMO
report.
O3 - as part of the IPCC/Aviation assessment (under SAR, now in
final government review) we spent considerable effort in
calculating the changes in O3 and the associated RF.  This
included both changes due to aircraft alone and that due to
increases in CH4, CO, NOx, VOC described in IS92a.  The 3-d
tropospheric chemistry models generally agreed upon the O3
changes, and it looks as though we shall be able to take the SAR
to the next step and predict changes in tropospheric ozone with a
community consensus.  (The results were only for IS92a 2015 and
2050 atmospheres, RF's not fully analyzed for background , of
order 0.2 W/m2 for 2050.)
For the AOGCM scenarios I propose that we use these 2050 delta-O3
scenarios to "deliver" a zonal, annual mean O3 RF as a simple
function of latitude.  It would be easier that transmitting the
perturbed O3 patterns to the AOGCMs and would accomplish the
primary goal of including the O3 RF.  The IS92a 2050 pattern
would be scaled to the amount of NOx emitted and CH4
concentration (maybe).  This is probably OK for now, but of
course the correlation of NOx and CO emissions in generating O3
and OH changes is "current science" that needs to be evaluated in
the chapter.  Also the regional aspects of CO and NOx emissions
affect the O3 perturbation.
*****************************************************************
I would PROPOSE that WGI-Ch.4 define the algorithms (e.g., CH4
lifetime @ 1700 ppb plus
feedback factor and how to implement it) along with the
constraints of the 1990s and then let
the SRES scenario builders come up with a consistent set and send
these on to the AOGCMs.
*****************************************************************
SULFUR & other AEROSOLS:   (WGI-Ch.5)
-------------------------------------------------------
The AOGCMs should NOT use their own sulfur cycle for the first of
the climate scenarios.  There is little doubt that all will
produce vastly different negative RFs and hence different
regional climate response.  As I remember listening to the
arguments for preparing these climate scenarios, the PRIMARY goal
is to assess how well/consistently we can predict future climate
and especially regional changes given a set of forcings.
Likewise, we do not want these scenarios generated from different
time lines for CO2, CH4, and O3 because the models have different
cycle for these gases.  So why S? While many of these models may
have scientifically excellent S cycles and include indirect
impacts on cloud formation, this task (i.e., comparison of S
models in GCMs) should be the second tier of experiments.
Given the primary goals of these climate simulations by the
AOGCMs, it would seem best to specify a simple albedo/RF by lat-
long, ONE THAT Chapter 5 of the new TAR would advocate and
support in its chapter.  (e.g., what is suggested by Chapter 4
for O3 above)  For example, the current geographic pattern of
direct sulfate forcing has been studied and will obviously be
reviewed/summarized by WGI - Chapter 5; this could be scaled to
total S emissions, especially since they are dropping in most of
the SRES emission scenarios.  It would still provide a basic test
of our predictions of regional climate across the AOGCMs.
There is nothing here to develop scenarios for other
anthropogenic aerosol forcings that appear to be important (i.e.,
organics and soot).
summary RF:  (WGI-Ch.6)
-------------------------------
A potential issue here is the ability to de-convolve the
emissions and RFs per sector.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
--
Michael J. Prather, Prof.   mprather@uci.edu
Earth System Science Dept    1-949-824-5838/fax-3256
UC Irvine, CA 92697-3100


Dear all,
I just wanted to thank Keith for his comments. They are right on target.
There is indeed, as many of us are aware, at least one key player in the
modeling community that has made overly dismissive statements about the
value of proxy data as late, because of what might be argued as his/her
own naive assessment/analysis of these data. This presents the danger of
just the sort of backlash that Keith warns of, and makes all the more
pressing the need for more of a community-wide strategizing on our part.
I think the workshop in Jan that Peck is hosting will go far in this
regard, and I personally am really looking forward to it!
cheers,
mike.
_______________________________________________________________________
Michael E. Mann
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of Geosciences
Morrill Science Center
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail:  mann@snow.geo.umass.edu (normal)
memann@titan.oit.umass.edu (attachments)
Web:
Phone: (413) 545-9573                            FAX: (413) 545-1200


Hi Peck et al.
A little late but I'd like to put in my twopence worth regarding your original message and Phil's reply. I have been tied up with a load of stuff so don't interpret my lack of speedy response as a lack of interest in these matters.
My first comment is that I agree with all of your general remarks and with your implied rebuke to Phil that we should be very wary of seeming to dam certain proxies and over hype others when we all know that there are real strengths and weaknesses associted with them all. The truth is that all of this group are well aware of this and of the associated fact that even within each of these sub-disciplines e.g. Dendro, coral etc. there is a large range of value , or concern with the external usage of our data. However, my own and Phil's concerns are motivated ,like yourself, by the outside world's inability to appreciate these points and the danger that we will all be seen as uncritical or niave about the real value of proxy data. The rationale for the recent Jones et al paper, and some things that I have written in the past is to inform would be users , particularly the modellers, that there are critical questions to be addressed about how the palaeo-data are best used in a 'detection' or 'model validation' context. Many in the palaeo-community  understand these issues , but perhaps there has been some reluctance to air them in sufficient depth or in the right situations where they will be heard/seen  by those people who now seek to use the data . I believe that many of the modellers , having been blissfully unaware for years of the need to work with the palaeo-community, are now expecting too much . This carries the danger of a backlash as they undertake simple assessments of the palaeo-series and conclude that they are all of very little use. The problem is that as we try to inform them we may get the balance between valueable self criticism and scientific flagellation wrong. The more so when the whip is seemingly aimed at others!
There is no doubt though, that many palaeo- types are not concerned with the 'bigger issues' of climate change , so it is up to those who do ,such as this group,  to try to sort out some sensible approach to how we do explore the good and bad ,fairly, in our collective data and how we present this to the outside world.  The meeting you propose is a good way forward.If he is already not included,  I also urge you to invite Ed Cook.
I hate cold feet and I don't ski so I vote for anywhere away from snow.
To answer the question about the degradation in tree-ring chronology confidence  back in time - yes, we ( that is several of us in tree rings , and rising out of them, in average temperature or rainfall series, have suggested a basis for quantifying chronology error as a function of series replication and time-dependent chages in the correlations of the series that go to form the mean chronology. The problem  is tricky because the error is timescale ( i.e frequency) dependent also. This is just the chronology. Calculating confidence limits on reconstructions derived from one or more chronologies must take account of the regression error (again likely to be timescale dependent) while incorporating the additional uncertainty associated with the chronology. When the reconstructions are derived using a spatial transfer function ( such as in canonical correlation or our similar Orthogonal Spatial Regression technique )the reconstruction at each point in the predictand network has some ,different, uncertainty relating to the error in each predictor series and the magnitude of its influence in the specific regression equation relating to that point. Finally, as regards this issue, if you have detrended or high-pass filtered the original predictor series in some way (i.e. tree-ring standardisation) , you have some potential long-timescale uncertainty around the final reconstruction which can not be represented by any analyses of the remaining prdictors or their association with a relatively short instrumental predictand series. I have a half drafted paper on this which I intended to submit to Tree-Ring Bulletin - perhaps one day!
Your question about Jasper, the sample depth, in my opinion , IS responsible for the early high values. So don't put much faith in the early warmth. We have devised a simple method of scaling down the variance in average series to take account of the inflated variance that occurs when a reduced number of series are averaged - such as at the start of this chronology . We used this in our recent Nature paper looking at a possible volcanic signal in the density data averaged over the northern network. Ed has incorporated this in the latest version of his super tree-ring standardisation/chronolgy construction program , but it was not used in the Jasper work .
I agree that we must be careful not to appear to be knocking other proxies- even if this is not intended . We must also be explicit about where problems lie and in suggesting the ways to overcome them. I for one do not think the world revolves only around trees. The only sensible way forward is through interpretation of multiple proxies and we need much more work comparing and reconciling the different evidence they hold. Let's have more balance in the literature and more constructive dialogue /debate between ourselves.
Keith
At 02:38 PM 9/14/98 -0700, Jonathan T. Overpeck wrote:
>Hi Phil et al. - just read the Jones et al. Holocene paper (v. 8, p.
>456-471) and had a couple comments/questions....
>
>1) nice paper
>
>2) would you like to archive the reconstructions at the WDC-A for Paleo??
>It would be great to add them to existing recent ones (Cook et al. -
>drought; Mann et al. NH temp; Briffa et al. NH temp, Overpeck et al. Arctic
>temp). It would be ideal to get each of the 17 proxy records PLUS the
>hemispheric recons.
>
>3) regarding proxies, I wonder how much of the "quality" issue regarding
>ice cores and some other remote proxy records is due to there not being any
>instrumental stations near them (and at the same altitude)? Also, with
>respect to coral records, I get the feeling most in the coral community now
>think there is something "funny" about long Galapagos record (age model,
>maybe more - I think a new record is being generated). Also, many coral 18O
>records (e.g., New Caledonia) are influenced by both temp and salinity
>variations. This is a solid reason why the fit of such a record to temp
>won't be as good as you'd like (or as good as a buffo dendro record). I
>think Terry Quinn is generating the trace metal data to sort temp out.
>Lastly, I've now seen a number of coral records (most not published, but
>Tarawa is an example I think) where the proxy does as well as local
>instrumental data (in this case ppt) in getting the regional signal, AND
>the local instrumental record only go back to the war. I'm guessing, just
>between us, that ENSO recons based on proxies will soon be better than
>instrumental ones before 1950 - not just before 1850! In fact, I'd bet on
>it (using some of the money Ray still owes Julie!). Thus, I worry that it
>might not be wise to dismiss reconstructions on a proxy basis, particularly
>since trees lack one important trait - they don't work for all parts of the
>globe.
>
>4) About trees.... (Keith are you still reading?? - I sent this to Ed and
>Brian too, since they might have insights). Has anyone examined how a
>tree-ring recon degrades as a function of sample size back in time. I
>always see the quality of dendro recons cast as GREAT vs.other proxies (and
>they are) based on comparison with instrumental records. But, the dendro
>records usually have the best sample replication in this same instrumental
>period, and then tail off back in time. For example, Brian's Jasper recon
>has a sample depth of ca 28 trees in the last century, but drops off to ca.
>5 in the 12th century and 1 (?) in the 11th century. The "quality" of the
>recon must degrade too?? In contrast, some non-dendro reconstructions may
>not verify as well as dendro vs the instrumental record, but they might not
>degrade with time either since the sample density doesn't change with time.
>Thus, could it be that at some point back in time, the dendro records
>degrade to the same quality (or worse) than other proxies???
>
>5) Talking specifically about Jasper, it is interesting that the 20th
>century is as warm or warmer than everything in the last 1000 years EXCEPT
>before ca. 1110 AD. Since the sample depth before this time is 5 or less,
>how much faith should we put in those warmer than modern temps??
>
>6) I went to the trouble of all this mainly to A) get some feedback (and
>data into the WDC) and also B) to highlight that we need to extra careful
>in judging the quality of one proxy over or under another. If a well known
>group of paleo scientists suggest that, for example, corals are not that
>useful, then it might mean   more years before we have a mutli-century
>record of tropical climate variability. I think it is clear that each proxy
>has limitations (and I like the table 2 idea of Jones et al), but the real
>need is to understand that each record (not just each proxy) has pros and
>cons, and that wise use requires knowing these pros/cons. Some coral, ice
>core and sediment records are no doubt better than some dendro records
>(also, for example, with respect to reconstructing low frequency variations
>in climate). I'm NOT trying to dis tree-rings, but rather to suggest more
>balance in what we all say in the literature.
>
>7) Lastly, I think there is a need to have a small workshop to put together
>an expanded version of Jones' et al. table 2, and, more importantly, to set
>some guidelines for data generators in terms of the kinds of data and meta
>data that need to be archived to ensure best use of the data (for example,
>information of the nature of the climate signal and what might bias it -
>like the salinity effect on a coral record or method of standardization on
>a dendro record). Also, we need guidelines on what info should be archived
>with a climate reconstruction  (for example, are error bars available; if
>not, why not - there are often good reasons, but the interdisicplinary user
>might not get it). It might be best if the database could be upgreaded, so
>that users would know, for example, that a proxy record or recon they want
>to use has some recently discovered problem or verification.
>
>I've asked Mike Mann if he'd like to help put together such a workshop with
>me, and I think I have some US funding for it - it would be small, with
>just a couple folks from each proxy plus some folks like Phil and Mike who
>are well-know users of paleo data. Like the idea??
>
>Thx for reading this far. Cheers, Peck
>
>Dr. Jonathan T. Overpeck
>Head, NOAA Paleoclimatology Program
>National Geophysical Data Center
>325 Broadway E/GC
>Boulder, CO 80303
>
>tel: 303-497-6172
>fax: 303-497-6513
>jto@ngdc.noaa.gov
>
>For OVERNIGHT (e.g., Fedex) deliveries,
>PLEASE USE:
>
>Dr. Jonathan Overpeck
>NOAA National Geophysical Data Center
>3100 Marine Street, RL3, Rm A136
>Boulder, CO 80303
>tel: 303-497-6160
>
>
>
>
>


Dear Keith,
I apologize for delay with reply. Below is short information about
state of Yamal work.
Samples from 2,172 subfossil larches (appr. 95% of all samples),
spruces (5%) and birches (solitary finding) have been collected within
a region centered on about 67030'N, 70000'E at the southern part of
Yamal Peninsula. All of them have been measured.
Success has already been achieved in developing a continuous larch
ring-width chronology extending from the present back to 4999 BC. My
version of chronology (individual series indexed by corridor method)
attached (file "yamal.gnr"). I could guarantee today that last
4600-years interval (2600 BC - 1996 AD) of chronology is reliable.
Earlier data (5000 BC - 2600 BC) are needed to be examined more
properly.
Using this chronology 1074 subfossil trees have been dated. Temporal
distribution of trees is attached (file "number"). Unfortunately, I
can't sign with confidence the belonging to certain species (larch or
spruce) of each tree at present.
Ring width data of 539 dated subfossil trees and 17 living larches are
attached (file "yamal.rwm"). Some samples measured on 2 or more radii.
First letter means species (l- larch, p- spruce, _ - uncertain), last
cipher - radius. These series are examined for missing rings. If you
need all the dated individual series I can send the rest of data, but
the others are don't corrected as regards to missing rings.
Residuary 1098 subfossil trees don't dated as yet. More than 200 of
them have less than 60 rings, dating of such samples often is not
confident. Great part undated wood remnants most likely older than
7000 years.
Some results (I think, the temperature reconstruction you will done
better than me):
Millennium-scale changes of interannual tree growth variability have
been discovered. There were periods of low (5000-2800 BC), middle
(2800-1700 BC) and high interannual variability (1700 BC - to the
present).
Exact dating of hundreds of subfossil trees gave a chance to clear up
the temporal distribution of trees abundance, age structure, frequency
of trees deaths and appearances during last seven millennia.
Assessment of polar tree line changes has been carried out by mapping
of dated subfossil trees.
According to reconsructions most favorable conditions for tree growth
have been marked during 5000-1700 BC. At that time position of tree
line was far northward of recent one.
[Unfortunately, region of our research don't include the whole area
where trees grew during the Holocene. We can maintain that before 1700
BC tree line was northward of our research area. We have only 3 dated
remnants of trees from Yuribey River sampled by our colleagues (70 km
to the north from recent polar tree line) that grew during 4200-4016
and 3330-2986 BC.]
This period is pointed out by low interannual variability of tree
growth and high trees abundance discontinued, however, by several
short (50-100 years) unfavorable periods, most significant of them
dated about 4060-3990 BC. Since about 2800 BC gradual worsening of
tree growth condition has begun. Significant shift of the polar tree
line to the south have been fixed between 1700 and 1600 BC. At the
same time interannual tree growth variability increased appreciably.
During last 3600 years most of reconstructed indices have been varying
not so very significant. Tree line has been shifting within 3-5 km
near recent one. Low abundance of trees has been fixed during
1410-1250 BC and 500-350 BC. Relatively high number of trees has been
noted during 750-1450 AD.
There are no evidences of moving polar timberline to the north during
last century.
Please, let me know if you need more data or detailed report.
Best regards,
Rashit Hantemirov
Lab. of Dendrochronology
Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
8 Marta St., 202
Ekaterinburg, 620144, Russia
e-mail: rashit@ipae.uran.ru
Fax: +7 (3432) 29 41 61; phone: +7 (3432) 29 40 92
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\yamal.rwm"
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Yamal.gnr"
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Number"


Dear Keith,
below is the list of publications concerning Yamal chronology.
References of russian articles are in three forms:
a) original russian text. I am afraid you will be not able to read
(see) it without any russian driver. Therefore, if you need this form
of reference, please see attached file as well (.doc file) using
attached russian font;
b) russian words written by english letters;
c) english translation (excuse me for my english).
1. Hantemirov, R.M. A 2,305 year tree-ring reconstruction of mean
June-July temperature deviations in the Yamal Peninsula //Int. Conf.
on Past, Present and Future Climate: Proc. of the SILMU conf.
Helsinki, Finland, 22-25 August 1995 /Publication of the Academy of
Finland 6/95.- Helsinki, 1995.- P. 124-127.
2. U`mrelhpnb P.L., Qspjnb @.^. 3243-kerm dpebeqmn-jnk|veb`
pejnmqrpsjvh jkhl`rhweqjhu sqknbhi dk qebep` G`o`dmni Qhahph //
Opnakel{ nayei h ophjk`dmni }jnknchh (L`reph`k{ lnkndefmni
jnmtepemvhh).- Ej`rephmaspc, 1996.- Q. 266-278.
Hantemirov R.M., Surkov A.Yu. 3243-letnyaya drevesno-kol'cevaya
rekonstrukciya klimaticheskich usloviy dlya severa Zapadnoy Sibiri //
Problemy obshchey i prikladnoy ekologii (Materialy molodezhnoy
konferencii).- Ekaterinburg, 1996.- S. 266-278.
Hantemirov R.M., Surkov A.Yu. A 3243-year tree-ring reconstruction of
climatic conditions for the north of West Siberia // Problems of
general and applied ecology (Proceedings of young scientists
conference).- Ekaterinburg, 1996.- P. 266-278.
3. Xhrnb Q.C., U`mrelhpnb P.L., L`geo` B.Q. Onbeqr| _l`k|qjhu ker.
Kernohq| hglememhi jkhl`r` m` _l`ke g` onqkedmhe rph r{qwekerh,
g`ohq`mm` b cndhwm{u jnk|v`u depeb|eb. // _l`k - qnjpnbhymhv`
Pnqqhh.- 1996.- N 4.- Q. 6-7.
Shiyatov, S.G., Hantemirov, R.M., Mazepa V.S. Povest' Yamal'skich
let. Letopis' izmeneniy klimata na Yamale za posledniye tri
tysyacheletiya, zapisannaya v godichnych kol'zach derev'ev // Yamal -
sokrovishchnica Rossii.- 1996.- N 4.- S. 6-7.
Shiyatov, S.G., Hantemirov, R.M., Mazepa V.S. The tale of Yamal's
years [summers]. A chronicle of climate changes on Yamal during last
three millennia recorded in tree rings. // Yamal - the treasury of
Russia.- 1996.- N 4.- P.6-7.
I am sorry, it is difficult for me to translate properly the title of
this article in the popular magazine.
4. Shiyatov, S.G., Hantemirov, R.M., Schweingruber, F.H., Briffa K.R.
and Moell M. Potential long chronology development on the northwest
Siberian plain: Early results // Dendrochronologia.- 1996.- V. 14.- P.
13-29.
5. B`c`mnb E.@., Xhrnb Q.C., U`mrelhpnb P.L., M`spga`eb L.L.
Hglemwhbnqr| kermei reloep`rsp{ bngdsu` b b{qnjhu xhpnr`u Qebepmncn
onksx`ph g` onqkedmhe 1.5 r{q. ker: qp`bmhrek|m{i `m`khg d`mm{u
cndhwm{u jnkev depeb|eb h kednb{u jnknmnj // Dnjk. @M.- 1997.- R. 358,
9 5.- Q. 681-684.
Vaganov E.A., Shiyatov, S.G., Hantemirov, R.M., Naurzbaev M.M.
Izmenchivost' letney temperatury vozducha v vysokich shirotach
Severnogo polushariya za posledniye 1.5 tys. let: sravnitel'nyy
analiz dannych godichnych kolec derev'ev i ledovych kolonok //
Doklady Akademii Nauk.- 1997.- T. 358, N 5.- S. 681-684.
Vaganov E.A., Shiyatov, S.G., Hantemirov, R.M., Naurzbaev M.M.
Variability of summer air temperature in high latitudes of the
Northern Hemisphere during last 1.5 thousand years: comparative
analysis of tree-ring and ice core data // Proceedings of the
[Russian] Academy of Sciences.- 1997.- V. 358, N 5.- P. 681-684.
Papers in press expected to be published this year:
6. U`mrelhpnb P.L. Dpebeqmn-jnk|veb` pejnmqrpsjvh kermhu reloep`rsp
m` qebepe G`o`dmni Qhahph g` onqkedmhe 3248 ker // Qha. }jnk. f..-
1998.-R. 5, N 5 (b oew`rh).
Hantemirov R.M. Drevesno-kol'cevaya rekonstrukciya letnich temperatur
na severe Zapadnoy Sibiri za posledniye 3248 let // Sibirskii
ecologicheskii zhurnal.- 1998.- T. 5, N 5 (v pechati).
Hantemirov R.M. Tree ring reconstruction of summer temperatures on
the north of West Siberia during last 3248 years // Siberian
Ecological Journal.- 1998.- V. 5, N 5 (in press)
There is English version of this journal
7. U`mrelhpnb P.L. 4309-kerm upnmnknch dk _l`k` h ee hqonk|gnb`mhe
dk pejnmqrpsjvhh hqrnphh jkhl`rhweqjhu hglememhi m` qebepe G`o`dmni
Qhahph. // Opnakel{ }jnknchweqjncn lnmhrnphmc` h lndekhpnb`mh
}jnqhqrel.- QOa.: Chdpnlerenhgd`r, 1998.- R. 17.- (b oew`rh)
Hantemirov R.M. 4309-letnyaya chronologiya dlya Yamala i yeyo
ispol'zovaniye dlya rekonstrukcii istorii klimaticheskich izmeneniy
na severe Zapadnoy Sibiri // Problemy ecologicheskogo monitoringa i
modelirovaniya ekosistem.- SPb.: Gidrometeoizdat, 1998.- T.17 (v
pechati).
Hantemirov R.M. A 4309 year chronology for Yamal and its use for
reconstruction of climatic changes history on the north of West
Siberia // Problems of ecological monitoring and modelling of
ecosystems.- S.Petersburg: Gidrometeoizdat, 1998.- V.17 (in press)
8. U`mrelhpnb P.L., Xhrnb Q.C. P`dhnsckepndm{e h
demdpnupnmnknchweqjhe d`rhpnbjh onkshqjno`elni dpebeqhm{ m` _l`ke h hu
hqonk|gnb`mhe dk hgswemh dhm`lhjh keqnrsmdpnb{u }jnqhqrel. // Ahnr`
Ophsp`k|qjni Qsa`pjrhjh b ongdmel okeiqrnveme h cnknveme.
Ej`rephmaspc, hgd-bn "Ej`rephmaspc", 1998 (b oew`rh).
Hantemirov R.M., Shiyatov S.G. Radiouglerodnyye i
dendrochronologicheskiye datirovki poluiskopayemoy drevesiny na
Yamale i ich ispol'zovaniye dlya izucheniya dinamiki lesotundrovych
ekosistem // Biota Priural'skoy Subarktiki v pozdnem pleistocene i
golocene. Ekaterinburg, izdatel'stvo "Ekaterinburg", 1998 (v pechati)
Hantemirov R.M., Shiyatov S.G. Radiocarbon and dendrochronological
datings of subfossil wood from Yamal and their using to study
forest-tundra ecosystems dynamic // Biota of [near]Ural Subarctic
during the late Pleistocene and the Holocene. Ekaterinburg,
publishing house "Ekaterinburg", 1998 (in press)
9. Xhrnb Q. C., U`mrelhpnb P. L. Demdpnupnmnknchweqj` d`rhpnbj`
dpebeqhm{ jsqr`pmhjnb hg `puenknchweqjncn onqekemh _pre-6 m`
onksnqrpnbe _l`k // Dpebmnqrh _l`k`. Rnank|qj, 1998 (b oew`rh).
Shiyatov S.G., Hantemirov R.M. Dendrochronologicheskaya datirovka
drevesiny kustarnikov iz archeologicheskogo poseleniya Yarte-6 na
poluostrove Yamal // Drevnosti Yamala. Tobol'sk, 1998 (v pechati)
Shiyatov S.G., Hantemirov R.M. Dendrochronological dating of shrubs
wood from archeological settlement "Yarte-6" on the Yamal Peninsula //
Antiquities of Yamal. Tobolsk, 1998 (in press).
I am not quite get your question about fieldwork. You mean "this year"
is 1998? If so it is too late now, on southern part of Yamal yesterday
was about -10 C. Next year we plane fieldwork, final decision about
where and when we will make in the beginning of next year. I would
like to go to Yuribey River, northward of our usual research area.
Best regards,
Rashit Hantemirov
Lab. of Dendrochronology
Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
8 Marta St., 202
Ekaterinburg, 620144, Russia
e-mail: rashit@ipae.uran.ru
Fax: +7 (3432) 29 41 61; phone: +7 (3432) 29 40 92
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\articles.doc"
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Timcyr.ttf"


3. Use of simple climate models
3.1 Simple models used only as tools for extrapolationg/interpolationg GCM
results to estimate the effect of different scenarios or sensitivities?
1-D UD/EBMs (upwelling-diffusion energy balance models), such as the Wigley
and Raper (1992) model updated in Raper et al. (1996), in my opinion, come
into this category. I along with Jonathan Gregory and Tim Osborn have
completed a very detailed comparison of this and several alternative 1-D
models with HadCM2 results. With the addition of a sea ice parameter the
Raper et al. model reproduces well the HadCM2 results for global mean
surface temperature and thermal expansion out to 2100, for several scenarios.
However, the distinction between 3.1 and 3.2 below is not clearcut. By the
end of the 900 year 2xCO2 experiment the thermal expansion for the HadCM2
model is nearly 5 times larger than that simulated by the fitted (over
1860-2100) UD/EBM, and unlike the UD/EBM shows no sign of coming to
equilibrium. In our analysis we conclude that it is not immediately obvious
which if either model is correct. The difference serves to highlight the
uncertainty in the thermal expansion commitment. Incidently a fitted pure
diffusion/EBM gives good simulation of the HadCM2 results in both the short
and long term.
3.2 Simple models used to offer independent climate predictions?
It would probably be difficult to use 2+D models for 3.1, so they may belong
here.
I think, 3.1 and 3.2 serve different purposes. Both may be desirable.
3.3 Depending on the answers to 3.1 and 3.2......
Whichever 3.1, 3.2 or both is adopted the results and the attendant simple
model versus A/OGCM comparisons should be given in the projections chapter.
A selection of the results should then carry over to the sea level chapter.
This consistency is very important.
It is a separate question as to whether the simple climate model results
should subsequently be used as scaling factors for regional scenario
development in the scenario chapter.
3.4  How many simple climate models are needed...
For 3.1 in order to fit the A/OGCM results extensive comparisons using
alternative parameter values/models (for example, UD versus pure diffusion)
will be necessary. As well as my HadCM2 comparison mentioned above a
comparison with ECHAM3/LSG results is also well underway. In both cases the
work shows that it is advisable to calculate the effective climate
sensitivity of the A/OGCMs for use in the simple model. We found that the
effective climate sensitivity is non-constant but apparantly varies with the
surface temperature in these models. For this calculation and for
comprehensive model comparisons a specific list of A/OGCM output is
required. This includes decade ocean mean temperature profiles, a measure of
the strength of the thermohaline circulation, the A/OGCM forcing change for
2xCO2 etc. I am keen to continue these comparisons specifically as input to
the new IPCC assessments. Unfortunately, and I think mistakenly, the US DOE
have recently decided to discontinue this line of research. An endorsement
of the need for this work by the IPCC would help my attempts to acquire
funding elsewhere.
For 3.2 there would be no need of tuning to A/OGCM results and many model
results could be used to give a range. This would serve a different purpose
to 3.1 where A/OGCM results are interpolated/extrapolated for different
sensitivities and forcings.
---------------------------
| Dr S. C. B. Raper         |
| Climatic Research Unit    |
| University of East Anglia |
| Norwich                   |
| NR4 7TJ                   |
|                           |
| Tel. +44 1603 592089      |
| Fax  +44 1603 507784      |
---------------------------


> 3. Use of simple climate models:
> 		3.1 	Simple models used only as tools for
> extrapolating/interpolating GCM results to estimate the effect of different
> scenarios or sensitivities?
> 		3.2	Simple models used to offer independent climate
> predictions?
> 		3.3	Depending on the answers to 3.1 and 3.2, where will
> the assessment of simple model results be located within the TAR (under the
> projections or the scenarios Chapter or under an Appendix?)
> 		3.4 	How many simple climate models are needed (again
> depending on 3.1 and 3.2)?
I wish to pick up on two of the points raised by Sarah Raper and Jonathan
Gregory which, while not directly answering the questions posed above, need
a clear position being taken upon by IPCC.  These two points are:
>From Gregory ......
"The presentation of a wide range of scenarios and
sensitivities (3.1) will be a very important output of the TAR. Tom Wigley
argues that it would be inappropriate to relegate it to an Appendix. None-
theless it is different from the discussion and assessment of models which
produce the basic projections of climate change and sea-level. I think both
climate change and sea-level chapters should have separate, final, sections
devoted specifically to showing the full range of uncertainties and the best
estimates - an appendix to each chapter. The figures given there will be
brought together in the summary of the TAR."
This is a very important concern from the perspective of how Chapter 13
(climate scenarios) is written and how WGII will look over their shoulder
to WGI.  For many reasons which have been well-articulated elsewhere, it is
too much to expect complete consistency from WGIII emissions, to WGI models
and to WGII impacts - the lags in the knowledge creation and ratification
are too great.  However, bear in mind that most GCM results used for
climate scenario construction will be 1% per annum forcing (plus a few with
0.5% forcing, stabilisation forcing or one or more of the new SRES
forcings, but these latter GCM results are unlikely to feed forward into
(much) impacts work in time).  However, for much impacts work to be
properly assessed and interpreted by IPCC it is necessary to have used a
range of climate scenarios spanning a range of risk.  This is difficult,
nay impossible, without resorting to simple climate model results.  If WGI
can Fast-track this generation of headline projections spanning a range of
forcings and sensitivities, then this information may be made use of by
climate scenario developers and impacts analysts.  If not, then WGI
(Chapters 9 and 11) will be saying one thing, and all the impacts work is
in danger of saying something else (e.g. using IS92 forcings with the SAR
Chapter 6 simple model projections).  At worst, some careful post-hoc
re-interpretation of WGII results may be necessary in light of WGI for the
policymakers summary and most importantly for the Synthesis Report.
>From Raper .......
"It is a separate question as to whether the simple climate model results
should subsequently be used as scaling factors for regional scenario
development in the scenario chapter."
This is indeed a separate question and one on which Chapter 13 can and will
'assess' the science.  Scaling of GCM results has been widely used by
impacts/integrated assessors since CRU started using this methodology in
the early 1990s.  Whether or not to adopt/recommend scaling methods for the
IPCC TAR was side-stepped by the TGCIA, although it was clearly stated
within the TGCIA that basing all impacts work on 1% p.a. forced GCMs which
represented a narrow range of climate sensitivities, would skew impacts
results in a particular (and not altogether desirable) direction.  Chapter
13 will also recognise this problem and will assess the pros and cons of
scaling based on simple models, but given the short length of Chapter 13,
its remit now is not to convert any headline simple model results from
Chapters 9 and 11 into scaled regional scenarios for impacts work - by
mid-late 1999 it will be too late for that anyway.  So, different impact
studies will now adopt different approaches, and WGII can assess the
resulting science, but what will help the writing of Chapter 13 and WGII
will be as clear a statement of intent (and ideally some preliminary
results) of the sort of exercises that Sarah and Jonathan refer to,
preferably using the new SRES emissions scenarios.
Mike
****************************************************************************
Dr Mike Hulme
Reader in Climatology             tel: +44 1603 593162
Climatic Research Unit            fax: +44 1603 507784
School of Environmental Science   email:  m.hulme@uea.ac.uk
University of East Anglia         web site: ~mikeh/
Norwich  NR4  7TJ
****************************************************************************
Mean temp. in Central England during 1998 is running
at about 1.05 deg C above the 1961-90 average
***************************************************
The global-mean surface air temperature anomaly estimate for the
first half of 1998 was about +0.60 deg C above the 1961-90 average,
the warmest such period yet recorded
****************************************************************************