Eugene
I am told that the money transfer ( 5000 u.s. dollars) should have gone to the bank account you stated. Please let me know if this is received by you. I now also have the contract signed by INTAS and we must organise future work and I will talk to Fritz about us visiting Ekaterinburg next year. In the meantime I wish you and Stepan to organise major review papers of the Yamal and Taimyr long chronology staus for inclusion in the Holocene ADVANCE-10K Special Issue. These need to be completed by June at the latest . They will each be 10-12 pages of print. I can suggest content, do some analyses and help with editing these . I am also sending Stepan's 5000 dollars to Switzerland now to be carried back by his colleague. I have yet to sort out how claims on the INTAS money will be handled. Have you received the details of the final contract?
best wishes
Keith


Paul and Nick
at this point it would be unwise to consider the proposal dead. Yes
it has received mixed receptions in different quarters but this was always to be expected. Each of the boards has its own family to protect , or at least this is the way science funding is now perceived, so that the only consideration in the discussion  ( especially of proposals from alien boards) is whether or not there will be enough on the carcass for ones own. The strength of our proposal lies in the potential for true cross-Board participation and the real scientific and strategic advantage of the focus on the Hadley Centre work. In my mind the problem has always been to get real enthusiasm from ASTB , and if COAPPEC had not been on the table this may have been more forthcoming. I can not see that we could have done anything more in the cicumstances to overcome this hurdle than by enlisting Hadley Centre support. The decision to go jointly only with ESTB and ASTB was already made. The issue of 'no money anyway ' typifies the unsatisfactory nature of the system - but in this case I hear things may not be so bleak. Apparently some millions more pounds are now available than was the case earlier! At this point NERC will say nothing  - but they are equally not saying  ' sorry and goodbye' . Let us wait and reconsider when we hear something definate.
Incidently, I have seen a copy of a project funded in Germany where they have millions of marks to compare model and palaeodata to verify and otherwise explore the natural variability in the Hamburg model! They are looking forward to using our data in this exercise!
I will be in touch as soon as I hear more.
best wishes
Keith
At 06:41 PM 11/25/98 +0000, Paul Valdes wrote:
>Keith, Nick,
>
>Have you had any news about the thematic proposal.
>
>I gather that things did not go well for it in the ASTB.
>The story I have heard is that it was tabled along with
>the other proposals, but also tabled was the proposed
>expenditure for the next 5 years. Moreover, apparently
>it was then said (or perhaps just implied) that there
>was no point looking at some thematic proposals because
>all money was already committed!
>
>If only half of this were true, then it is disappointing.
>Apparently, more atmospheric chemistry was recommended,
>plus COAPPEC (the coupled ocean-atmosphere project).
>
>Hopefully it faired better at ESTB but it clearly cannot
>be argued to be a joint proposal!
>
>Perhaps we should consider recycling it into an EC framework
>5 proposal.
>
>Paul
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Dr. Paul Valdes                             Dept. of Meteorology,
>Email: P.J.Valdes@reading.ac.uk             University of Reading,
>Phone: + 44 118 931 6517                    Earley Gate, Whiteknights,
>Fax:   + 44 118 931 8905                    PO Box 243
>                                            Reading. RG6 6BB. UK
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>


Frank is correct in that we need to define 'abrupt climatic change' or
even just 'climate change.'
Using Jim's Schulman Grove example suppose that the area supported a
stand of bristlecone pine 9,000 or more years ago, hence the scattered
remnants.  Either a major catastrophic event or a fluctuation in climate
(call it climate change if you want) resulted in conditions that killed
the mature trees and eliminated any further recruitment for up to 1,000
years.  This site may be near the limits of recruitment and with a major
(or minor perhaps) change in climate it could easily be beyond the
limits of recruitment.  About 8,000 years ago climate again became
favorable for bristlecone pine recruitment and a new stand(s) developed
and have existed ever since.  Some or most of the material remaining
from the original stand may be buried down in the valley, or the
original stand may have been small or sparse.  The amount of time
between the loss of the original stand and the beginning of the new
stand would depend on the period of unfavorable weather and the amount
of time needed for bristlecone pine to re-invade the area.  I am out on
a limb here, so to speak, as I an somewhat ignorant of prehistoric
climate patterns for the area and of bristlecone pine ecology, but this
seems like a relatively reasonable scenario.
I guess that my point is that climate continues to fluctuate within
broad bounds.  Everything that we are now calling 'climate change' is
well within the bounds observed within the prehistoric record of climate
fluctuations.  Do we call any variation 'climate change' or should we
limit the term climate change for anything considered to be caused by
humans?  To my mind it is not so much what we call it, but rather that
we keep a clear idea of what we actually talking about.
Bob Keeland
USGS, National Wetlands Research Center
Lafayette, LA
bob_keeland@usgs.gov


Dear All --
On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Barrie Pittock wrote:
> 1. Two issues are being addressed and partially confused:
> (a) the confidence we have in the science (which seems to be the main
> concern of the paper);
> (b) the quantitative uncertainty regarding specific results such as: by
> what percentage will the rainfall change at 2050 in region/location A?
> or, how much will changes in tropical cyclones cost in percent of GNP
> (or additional? lives lost)? My reading of the comments from WG1 authors
> reported by Neil Leary was that they were focussing more on (a), whereas
> WG2 authors may want to focus a bit more on (b).
I wholeheartedly agree. While I agree with the probabilistic approach in
general, there are a number of practical factors that will mitigate
against it. Barrie has listed most, I have added one below.
> 2. Authors will be limited largely by what is in the literature,
> especially on the second class of uncertainty. So the guidance needs to
> go from the authors, or IPCC in some other way (as soon as possible), to
> the researchers to encourage greater attention to quantifying their
> uncertainties, and to the authors to put their fingers on misleadingly
> "precise" estimates by pointing out the basis of such estimates, eg.,
> "this estimated crop yield change is based on only one simulation with
> one GCM and should be considered in the light of the range of results
> from other GCMs and for other realisations".
Another source of uncertainty is the different methods used to derive
climate change scenarios at regional and local scales. Some authors apply
perturbations (based on changes indicated by several GCMs) to historical
climate series, some use results from limited area models, while others
use one of a wide variety of stochastic approaches that are based on
results from one or more GCMs. The important point here is these methods
would produce different estimates of uncertainty for the same region and
the same suite of GCMs.
> 6. Regarding para. 67, I am more concerned about the "best" or "central"
> estimate for climate sensitivity of 2.5 deg.C for 2xCO2 than about the
> range. Several lines of evidence (paleo-evidence, fitting models to the
> last 100 years, the distribution of improved model results) all suggest
> that the "best estimate" for this increasingly dated and artificial
> notion should be raised from 2.5 to nearer 3.5. This would be
> controversial, but I believe it would also be giving the best advice
> possible. Whatever you believe is the correct number, the level of
> concern such a change would raise is in itself evidence for the
> importance of central estimates in the climate change debate.
This could be investigated and quantified in a Bayesian framework.
> 7. I share Martin Manning's problems with the use of the term "Bayesian"
> and equating it with "subjective". Personally I think this paper should
> avoid such specialist technical terms if possible, especially if there
> is disagreement about what they mean!
Yes: Bayesian methods provide a means of combining prior (expert)
knowledge with data to quantify the posterior distribution. The prior
knowledge may be based on the results of previous experiments and need not
be subjective. Another point is that formal application of Bayesian
methods usually leads to problems that are analytically intractable. The
recent development of Markov chain Monte Carlo methods has largely
overcome this.
> 8. I repeat my concern re too much spatial aggregation of results if it
> hides important regional differences, as these are very important for
> questions of intragenerational equity. I think the paper should
> specifically warn against this. Averaging is notorious as a way of
> hiding important differences.
I share this concern: the average of a large negative and a large
positive number is close to zero.
Regards
Bryson Bates


LS
As you may recall, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is
in the process of preparing a Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES).
Recently, it has been agreed that these scenarios are to play an important
role in IPCC's Third Assessment Report. The Terms of Reference of this
Special Report include a so-called Open Process to stimulate input from a
community of experts much broader than the writing team. This Open Process
has started in August 1998 and was planned last until the end of the year.
Because of the late date of this message we decided to extent this deadline
until January 10 now. A website (sres.ciesin.org)  is managed by the Center
for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) in the United
States in collaboration with the Energy Research Foundation (ECN) in the
Netherlands, the Technical Support Unit (TSU) of Working Group III on
Mitigation of IPCC in the Netherlands, and the International Institute of
Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria, the home institution of the
co-ordinator of the SRES Report, dr. Nebojsa Nakicenovic. Three types of
input are invited: (a) new scenarios (preferably from the peer-reviewed
literature) that have not been taken into account by the writing team, (b)
new quantification of the proposed SRES scenarios based on storylines, and
(c) suggestions for improvements of the material developed until now.
Several of you have responded to an earlier request for input into this
open process. Thank you for that input. Amongst other things on the basis
of input received so far, recently the information on the website has been
improved considerably. The writing team of the report has now started to
actually draft their report, but can still take into account reactions to
this new information as published through the website, in principle until
31 December 1998. Herewith I would like to invite you to explore the site
(again) and provide us with your comments.
PLEASE DO SO USING THE FACILITIES OF THE WEBSITE, DO NOT USE THE EMAIL
ADDRESS OF THE SENDER OF THIS MESSAGE OR THE EMAIL GROUP LIST ABOVE!!!!
On behalf of Dr. Nakicenovic, thank you very much for your support to this
important endeavour!
Dr. Rob Swart
Head, Technical Support Unit
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group III: Mitigation
P.O. Box 1
3720 BA Bilthoven
Netherlands
31-30-2743026
email: rob.swart@rivm.nl or ipcc3tsu@rivm.nl


Dear Mike
Please send the details etc to me.
Thanks
Bill
\
On 18 Dec 98 at 9:43, Mike Hulme wrote:
> Date:          Fri, 18 Dec 1998 09:43:31 +0000
> To:            Bill Hare
> From:          Mike Hulme
> Subject:       Re: MAGICC
> Bill,
>
> The version of MAGICC we are distributing is the IPCC SAR 1996
> version. You can get that from me under Licence for $50.  If you
> wish to proceed let me know and I can send it you with invoice.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>
> At 17:59 16/12/98 +0100, you wrote:
> >Dear Mike
> >
> >I would like to know how to get the most recent version of MAGICC and
> >of COMICC (carbon cycle model).  I heard from a colleague that you
> >may be distributing MAGICC??
> >
> >I look forward to hearing from you,
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >Bill Hare
> >
> >Bill Hare
> >Climate Policy Director
> >Greenpeace International
> >Keizersgracht 176
> >1016 DW Amsterdam
> >The Netherlands
> >
> >Phone:    +31-20-5236268
> >Fax:      +31-20-5236200
> >Email:    bill.hare@ams.greenpeace.org
> >
> >
> >
>
Bill Hare
Climate Policy Director
Greenpeace International
Keizersgracht 176
1016 DW Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Phone:    +31-20-5236268
Fax:      +31-20-5236200
Email:    bill.hare@ams.greenpeace.org


Dear Keith,
Thank you for the money transfer via Fritz Schweingruber. I received
5000 USD. Is it necessary to give you a receipt for this sum of money?
Money will be used for organization of field works in the Yamal
Peninsula and Polar Urals next year. Of course, this sum is not
enough. I hope we shall have an additional money from the INTAS
project and the Russian Funds.
I received two copy of the INTAS contract from Fritz and one copy I
sent to E. Vaganov. We would like to know your opinion concerning
transfer money.
Also, I need to know exact time you and Fritz intend to visit
Ekaterinburg next year. The new rules demand to make application to
the Russian officials before 6 months of your arriving. Do you want
or not to travel in the area of Southern Ural Mountains after meeting
in Ekaterinburg? Fritz wants to travel over this area (the Taganai and
Iremel Mountains).
Best wishes to you, your family and your colleagues.
Marry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Sincerely yours,
Dr. Stepan G. Shiyatov
Lab. of Dendrochronology
Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
8 Marta St., 202
Ekaterinburg, 620144, Russia
e-mail: stepan@ipae.uran.ru
Fax: +7 (3432) 29 41 61
Phone: +7 (3432) 29 40 92


Dear All, The most pertinent document is item one on copyright.  Some ENv policy documents are also included as
item5.
#Janice
Forwarded Message:
From: Helen Self
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:32:36 GMT
Subject: EN99:04 UKRO - European News (29 January 1999) (fwd)
To: d.chadd@uea.ac.uk, dean.wam@uea.ac.uk, Dora.K@uea, e.banakas@uea,
e.doy@uea, f.littlewood@uea, g.turner@uea.ac.uk, h.brownlee@uea,
j.casey@uea.ac.uk, j.darch@uea, j.johnson@uea.ac.uk, j.schostak@uea,
j.steward@uea, j.watson@uea.ac.uk, m.silbert@uea, m.stallworthy@uea,
mrs@sys.uea.ac.uk, odg.gen@uea, r.mcbride@uea, r.mclarty@uea.ac.uk,
r.sales@uea.ac.uk, r.sassatelli@uea.ac.uk, t.prime@uea.ac.uk,
v.koutrakou@uea
Forwarded Message:
From: ukro.ukro
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:45:25 +0000
Subject: EN99:04 UKRO - European News (29 January 1999)
To: g.l.a.jones@reading.ac.uk, geoff.g.wood@vla.maff.gov.uk,
costas.kaldis@britcoun.gr, david.elliott@britcoun.org.il,
shabtay.dover@skynet.be, elosuniv@BBSRC.ac.uk, eoscmemb@BBSRC.ac.uk,
elosresc@BBSRC.ac.uk
===============================================
EN99:04 UKRO - European News (29 January 1999)
===============================================
News on non-Framework Programme 5, programmes & policy
===============================================
GENERAL:
1. ESF on Copyright Law
2. GENERAL - Policy documents
LIFE SCIENCES:
3. DG V - Newsletter on Alzheimer's Disease
4. Microbiology - Industrial Platform
ENVIRONMENT:
5. ENVIRONMENT - Policy documents
ENERGY:
6. Synergy - International Cooperation in Energy
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES:
7. Public-Sector Information
INDUSTRY & TECHNOLOGIES:
8. Results - Pilot Projects on Benchmarking
9. Communication on Industrial Policy
EDUCATION:
10. Leonardo Database on Cordis
REGIONAL FUNDS:
11. Mid-term Review for Structural Funds
===============================================
1. ESF on Copyright Law
The European Science Foundation is warning that current plans for new EU
copyright laws, if left unchanged, could harm the international
competitiveness of European research. The Commission's draft Directive
harmonising aspects of copyright will shortly be debated by the Council of
Ministers. The ESF is calling for changes to be made to the wording of one
of the Directive's key articles which deals with 'exceptions' to the
proposed laws to ensure that it doesn't cause legal and financial headaches
for Europe's researchers.
The Foundation supports the Commission's objectives of improving the
protection of intellectual property as technological developments make it
ever easier for pirates to duplicate and distribute copyright material.
But it warns that this should not be at the expense of Europe's ability to
carry out research. Reflecting widespread concern in its Member
Organisations, the Foundation argues that the draft Article 5, which deals
with 'exceptions' to the proposed laws, "could result in research being
treated differently in different countries across Europe".  As presently
written, the Article sets out an exhaustive list of permissible  exceptions
to the directive, but it leaves to Member States the interpretation and
implementation of these 'exceptions'.  The effect of this could be that
some researchers might find themselves in a worse position than at present
regarding their access to and use of published material.  Given the
differences in national legislation between Member States, the ESF
recognises it may be difficult to draft and agree prescriptive legislation
for 'exceptions'.
The Foundation is recommending, therefore, that a clause be added to the
Directive allowing for the inclusion of all current 'exceptions' set out in
national legislation. Other suggested revisions include the need to ensure
that 'scientific research' is interpreted in a broad sense, with research
in the humanities and arts being explicitly included.  In addition, the ESF
suggests that the current reference to 'non-commercial' research could
cause confusion, as it would be very difficult to differentiate between
commercial and non-commercial research in most academic settings.  To avoid
this, it recommends the introduction of a 'public good' definition of
research, which could form an 'exception' to the Directive.  The
Foundation's statement also points out that the Directive's current
reference to the possibility of Member States exempting the use of work
"provided that such use exclusively serves the purpose of illustration for
teaching or scientific research" is ambiguous.  It could be interpreted
that there is such a thing as 'illustration for research' and that any
'exception' did not apply to research in general.  A simple rewording of
the sentence to read "sole purpose of scientific research or for
illustration for teaching" would clarify the 'exception'.
The European Commission's draft "Directive on the Harmonisation of Certain
Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society" is
available on-line at
FURTHER INFORMATION: Johanne Martinez, Information Officer, European
Science Foundation, tel 0033 3 8876 7114, fax 0033 3 8837 0532, email:
jmartinez@esf.org, URL:
2. GENERAL - Policy documents
Recent policy documents issued by the European institutions. Full titles
and details appear on the UKRO web site under the subject listings:
* Community action programme in the field of Civil Protection
* Action programme for customs in the Community
* Further actions in the fight against trafficking in women
* Further actions in the fight against trafficking in women
* Better lawmaking 1998: a shared responsibility Commission report to the
European Council
* Determination of the person liable for payment of value added tax
* Legal aspects of electronic commerce in the internal market
* General framework for Community activities in favour of consumers
* Action programme for customs in the Community
3. DG V - Newsletter on Alzheimer's Disease
The first edition of the Alzheimer Europe quarterly newsletter has been
published by DG V (Public Health). The newsletter is intended to draw
attention to the aims and activities of Alzheimer Europe, a grouping of
national organisations dealing with Alzheimer's disease. The newsletter
includes news of research, events and conferences relevant to the field. It
will focus on important developments in the European institutions which
affect people with dementia and is also intended to be a platform for the
exchange of ideas between organisations and institutes active in the field
of Alzheimer's disease. Each issue will include reports on EC-funded
transnational projects, beginning in the first edition with London's
Institute of Psychiatry EUROCARE project. The next edition of the
newsletter will be published towards the end of March 1999.
FURTHER INFORMATION: Alzheimer Europe, tel 00352 297 970, fax 00352 297
972,email: info@alzheimer-europe.org, URL:
4. Microbiology - Industrial Platform
The Industrial Platform for Microbiology, a ginger group of EU-funded
companies and researchers, has decided to change the focus of its
activities. It will now aim to provide a forum for EU industrial
microbiologists to discuss research and development strategies, scientific
aspects of regulatory developments in applied life sciences, and
professional issues such as education and training in the field. The
Industrial Platform for Microbiology was originally established to organise
information exchange between EU-funded companies interested in using the
results of EU funded projects and academics working on microbiology
research and development projects. Its members will meet again in Brussels
in February 1999 to discuss a draft "code of conduct" for companies
involved in bioprospecting activities.
FURTHER INFORMATION: Anne-Marie Prieels, Tech-Know Consultants, tel 0032 58
513 953, email: anne.marie.prieels@skynet.be, URL:
5. ENVIRONMENT - Policy documents
Recent policy documents issued by the European institutions. Full titles
and details appear on the UKRO web site under the subject listings:
* Present situation and prospects for radioactive waste management
* Minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States
* Cooperation in the field of accidental marine pollution
* Limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of
organic solvents
* Review clause Environmental and health standards four years after the
accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden to the E. U.
* Application of aerial-survey and remote-sensing techniques to the
agricultural statistics for 1999-2003
* Financial instrument for the environment
* Forestry strategy for the E. U.
* Control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their
disposal
* Voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management
and audit scheme
* Remote sensing applied to agricultural statistics during the period
1994-1998
6. Synergy - International Cooperation in Energy
The Council has announced a Decision (1999/23/EC) adopting a multiannual programme to promote
international cooperation in the energy sector
(1998-2002). According to the Decision, within the European Union's Energy
Framework Programme (see EN39:98, item 11), a specific programme for
reinforcement of international cooperation in the energy field will be
implemented from 1998 to 2002 ('Synergy programme').
The objectives of this programme are to provide assistance to third
countries with the definition, formulation and implementation of energy
policy, and to promote industrial cooperation between the Community and
third countries in the energy sector. The main tasks of the Synergy
programme are to help achieve the Community's energy objectives:
competitiveness, security of supply, and protection of the environment.
The financial reference for the Synergy programme will be ECU 15 million.
Of this, ECU 6m will be for the period 1998 to 1999. The finances for the
period between 2000 and 2002 will be reviewed if the amount ECU 9m is not
consistent with the financial perspective for that period.
Supported activities are:
* Energy policy advice and training;
* Energy analyses and forecasting;
* Energy dialogue and exchanges of information on energy policy, notably by
means of organisation of conferences and seminars;
* Support to regional transboundary coooperation;
* Improvement of the Framework for industrial cooperation on energy.
According to this Decision, NO FUNDING MAY BE GRANTED TO RESEARCH,
development, or demonstration projects.
FURTHER INFORMATION: OJ L 7 of 13 January 1999, p.23.
7. Public-Sector Information
The European Commission has decided to publish a Green Paper on how the
information gathered by government departments and other public bodies can
be used to provide the greatest benefit for citizens and businesses in
Europe. A lot of information gathered by public bodies for carrying out
their duties could be used by the multimedia industry for developing new
products and services. Citizens could make better use of their rights if,
for example, information was readily available on the conditions for
working, studying or living as a pensioner in other Member States. Many
people would like to have full information on the tax regulations for
cross-border purchases. The competitiveness of businesses could be
increased if they had a quick and easy means of finding out what the
regulations and procedures are for exporting to other countries. All this
information exists, but the technical and legal procedures and terms under
which the Member States make it available are uncoordinated and therefore
not very transparent for citizens and business. The Green Paper calls for
these matters to be discussed and asks questions about how the situation
can be improved.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
8. Results - Pilot Projects on Benchmarking
Results from four pilot projects on benchmarking framework conditions - in
the fields of professional qualification, logistics, the impact of new
information technologies (NITs) on company organisation, and the financing
of innovation - are reported in the January issue of the newsletter of the
European Association of Development Agencies (EURADA).
The lessons drawn included:
* Companies located in peripheral regions suffer from the poor quality of
infrastructures, expensive logistical services and weaknesses in the field
of transnational cooperation;
* The authorities should support the effective use of NIT and the
enhancement of NIT-related structures;
* SMEs lack NIT qualifications and skills;
* Business Angels play a lesser role in innovation in Europe than in the
US, probably due to tax- and revenue-related problems;
* Even though it remains below the number of such companies operating in
the US, the number of venture capital companies operating in Member States
of the EU is rising (750 versus 1800);
* Generally speaking and in comparison with the US and Israel, Europe
suffers from a deficit in terms of the ability to evaluate technological
risks and from a lack of initiatives to support faster interaction between
universities and companies;
* Education policies should be more practical and in-company training
should be fully integrated in the programmes of higher education
institutions;
* Closer links should be promoted between industry and the educational
system;
* The skills which new workers lack most upon entry to the labour market
are (a) knowledge of English, (b) computer literacy, (c) knowledge about
the industrial world, and (d) adaptability.
FURTHER INFORMATION: EURADA, Avenue des Arts 12/7, B-1210 Brussels, tel
0032 2 218 4313; fax 0032 2 218 4583, email: info@eurada.org, URL:

9. Communication on Industrial Policy
The Commission has adopted a communication launching an open debate with
the EU's different political, economic and social players on the
orientation of a new industrial policy with a view to addressing the
challenges of globalisation and accelerated technological changes. The
communication diagnoses European industry's weaknesses and proposes a
series of measures to promote industrial competitiveness.
The communication diagnoses the weaknesses of European industry:
* Europe does not have a strong presence in the services sector;
* European enterprises resort to insufficient externalisation;
* Specialisation remains underdeveloped in sectors with high growth, highly
differentiated products and requiring a strong marketing strategy;
* The European audiovisual sector is in an unfavourable competitive
position;
* European enterprises form relatively few alliances in advanced technology
areas;
* The amounts invested by risk capital funds are insufficiently oriented
towards new and high- technology industries;
* European enterprises can access financial markets only with difficulty;
* The level of R&D spending in terms of EU GDP is still below that of its
principal global economic partners;
* The exploitation of research results is not efficient enough;
* The EU suffers from high costs and the complexity of procedures for
achieving intellectual property protection in Europe;
* European enterprises put very few joint research projects in place.
To counteract this situation and stimulate European competitiveness, the
communication emphasises the following proposals, among others:
* Reinforce intangible investment, by adapting the systems of accrediting
competencies and by improving the level of and return from research
resources, especially through a better system of intellectual property
protection;
* Develop human resources by acting on the educational system, by
encouraging the spirit of enterprise and various forms of social innovation
and social cohesion;
* Promote the access of European enterprises to the world market, by
accelerating the exploitation of the competitive advantages of the Single
Market;
* Promote fair rules of the game at a world level in view of the new round
of WTO negotiations (that is by developing an observation system for public
support to research in industrialised countries);
* Develop the dialogue between industry and public authorities and forms of
self-regulation (protection of consumers and users);
* Improve financing by eliminating institutional and regulatory barriers to
the development of venture capital and improving the tax regime applied to
venture capital;
* Adaptation of the rules to the context of the information society and
electronic commerce (agreements such as the "International Charter").
FURTHER INFORMATION: Press release IP/99/33.
10. Leonardo Database on Cordis
DG XXII and Cordis have approved plans to include the products database of
the Leonardo da Vinci Programme on the Cordis service. The publication of
the Leonardo Da Vinci products database on Cordis should allow its
continual update. This is hoped to improve interaction between the owners
of products and their users. The schedule for the launch of this database
on Cordis has yet to be confirmed.
FURTHER INFORMATION: DG XXII, fax 0032 2 295 5699, URL:

11. Mid-term Review for Structural Funds
The European Commission approved a report on the mid-term review for the
poorest (Objective 1) and sparsely populated regions (Objective 6) in the
European Union (EU) for the present programming period (1994 1999). It
gives an overview of the mid-term evaluations carried out for the
Structural Funds programmes during the current programming period. The
report shows important achievements, e.g. when it comes to reducing
disparities in basic infrastructure, energy diversification or
environmental improvements.
URL:
===============================================
Commission press releases (reference 'IP/year 2 digits/number') can be
obtained from 'RAPID' at
Log in as 'guest' with password 'guest'.
European documents (ISBNs) and Official Commission documents (reference
'Com (year 2 digits) number') are available from your local European
Documentation Centre at:  or from
the Stationery Office, Tel 0171 873 8372, fax 0171 873 8463.
Please note that European News is sent directly to European Liaison
Officers only. ELOs can decide how to disseminate it within their
institution. European News is accessible via the web at
 (subscribers only).
INFORMATION FROM THIS PUBLICATION MUST NOT BE FORWARDED OR COPIED OUTSIDE
OF YOUR INSTITUTION. No liability shall be incurred by UKRO for use of the
information provided in this publication.
UKRO
Rue de la Loi 83
1040 Brussels, Belgium
Tel:  0032 2 230 5275 / 1535
Fax:  0032 2 230 4803
Email:  ukro@bbsrc.ac.uk
URL:
===============================================
??
________________________________
Dr J P Darch
j.darch@uea.ac.uk
Research Administrator, School of Environmental Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK
Tel: +44 (0)1603 592994   Fax: +44 (0) 1603 507784/507719


Dear Mike,
thanks for your message. I am sure we can work with these files as
soon as we know how the grid is organized. Is it line by line from the
North to the South, starting at the dateline? Or something different?
Yes indeed, it would be the best to work with *your* 61-90 baseline
for this. Does the baseline also contain cloudiness? If not, then I
intend to generate that from our own files, and we will make the
assumption that, on the level of monthly means, this does not change
as much as to significantly affect the sensitivity of vegetation to
the other forcings.
As for a minor point, please remember to use my pik-address
whenever possible. The other two (csi and t-online) are both used for
sending mail while I am on the road (csi) or at home (t-online), and
particularly t-online has the drawback that I can ONLY access it from
home (presently) and not from the lab. Unfortunately, I cannot
convince my mail sending software to always pretend the mail comes
from PIK...
Yes, I will come to the ACACIA meeting, at least until the second
day in the afternoon - after that I have to juggle two other meetings
in Holland and Germany. With some luck, I should be able to present
some results there.
Best wishes!
Wolfgang
PS: I saw your correspondence with Kinne and am interested to follow
up - but not today.
On Dienstag, 2. Februar 1999, you wrote:
> Wolfgang,
> Martin is dragging his feet, but you have convinced me we should distribute
> them anyway.  I have got someone onto it today and with luck may have the
> minimum (8 realisations for 4 scenarios and for 3 timeslices and for Tmean,
> Precip and DTR on the HadCM2 grid for the entire world) completed and on an
> ftp site by Friday.  I will also let Nigel know about this.  Presumably you
> will use the 1961-90 0.5deg baseline data?  Our files will present
> *changes* from 1961-90 on a mean monthly basis on the 2.5 by 3.75 grid.
> Let's keep in touch on this since it opens up a number of other
> issues/applications.  Will you be coming to the ACACIA meeting in early March?
> Mike
> p.s. the files will be in the same format as the attached file to this
> email - just so that you can start thinking about what you need to do.
mailto:Wolfgang.Cramer@pik-potsdam.de


Hi Frank and friends - I'm happy to see the budget looking sound and feel
Franks suggestions are good ones in terms of money to spend this year.
Building on the Swiss paleoclimate course is a good idea, and, of course,
we should decide on future REDIE investments at future SSC's. My gut
feeling is that REDIE will have to continue to be a lower priority in the
future, BUT that we should stay committed to getting scientists (including
youngsters) from developing countries to our science mtgs - makes more
sense than training probably, given tight budgets. Thanks,Peck
>Dear colleagues,
>
>I now share with you some ideas about our financial situation in PAGES. I
>think the information should be treated confidentially at this stage and
>certainly with some discretion.
>
>During the course of last year, it was very difficult to keep track of our
>financial position from month to month, partly because it took our
>financial contacts in the University of Bern an inordinately long time to
>sort out the financial implications of the OSM, partly because, in the
>course of doing this, they made some understandable but very significant
>and confusing errors. Niklaus has now managed to sort these out and we also
>have our confirmed budget for 1999 - which means that we can begin to do
>some real planning.
>
>The first significant point is that we are carrying over into 1999 a
>surplus some US$15k greater than we began with in 1998. In fact we have
>been building up our 'carry-over' steadily since the beginning of 1996 and
>it is now around $67k - between 13% and 14% or our annual budget and a much
>higher proprtion of that part of our budget that is uncommitted each year.
>Whilst I believe it would be unwise to eliminate it entirely, I do think we
>should aim to reduce it significantly provided there is a good rationale
>for the means we choose.
>
>I have attached a summary of how I see things for 1999.  You will see that
>even if we spend all the funds committed to workshops at our Pallanza
>meeting, we still have a very healthy surplus. On past experience, I do not
>think this sum will be exceeded during 1999 - even if we have one or two
>more urgent requests, they are more than likely to be offset by delayed
>workshops, so I think this is actually likely to be an over-estimate.
>Moreover, I have assumed that ALL the money allocated by IGBP for Synthesis
>will be spent in 1999. We are under some pressure to do this, but the pace
>of the exercise makes me suspect that we may have difficulty.
>
>At the end of the Table, I list 3 additional commitments I would like to
>propose for prioiritizing and I discuss each briefly below:
>
>1. REDIE (which you may remember stands for Regional Educational and
>Infrastructure Efforts (about which we have, so far, said very little and
>done even less).
>
> In this area, one of the ideas gently simmering on the back burner has
>been the notion of winning support from START to run something like a
>Summer School for selected young scientists from developing countries. This
>emerged from an informal discussion between ouselves in the Office, Bruno
>and Roland Fuchs, the Director of START, when he was over here on a visit.
>At the time, he seemed quite keen on the idea, but has since been silent.
>No matter, I still feel it is an idea worth working towards at least up to
>the pre-commitment stage and I have been exploring informally the
>possibility of  basing such a course in London.
>
>This coming summer, I think we may have a chance to do a kind of partial
>trial run. Thomas Stocker and Andy Lotter (a first class paleolimnologist
>here in Bern) plan to run a Summer School nearby this year. Thomas
>approached me some time ago to see if PAGES could support participation by
>any overseas students and my reply was a very cautious one to the effect
>that we would normally expect to be approached and have an input at the
>planning stage and that we would only really consider such a possibility in
>the context of training for scientists from developing countries. Having
>discussed the whole thing more fully with him, I begin to wonder whether
>it may offer quite an interesting possibility. My plan would be to seek
>nomination of/applications from say 3 to 5 young scientists from different
>parts of the developing/former eastern bloc world (represnting each of the
>PEP Transects) and bring them to Bern both for the course and for a short
>period linked into the PAGES Office. The ideas behind the latter part of
>the suggestion would be to
> - support their participation if need be,
> -  give them some sense of PAGES and its role in nternational global
>change science/IGBP etc and
> - solicit feedback and advice about what the shape of an ideal course for
>developing country scientists interested in PAGES activities might be.
>
>I believe that even if we did not have something like REDIE in our
>Implementation Plan it should be an important commitment; since we do, it
>is an absolute obligation which we ignore at the risk of serious
>allegations of bad faith.
>
>2. I feel there will be a need to follow up my PEP II visit to Australia
>with something positive there. John Dodson is responding well to
>suggestions about more co-ordination and bringing in more colleagues to
>share the responsibility, but I think that if whatever we agree in Perth is
>actually to work, there will be a need to fund a WORKshop (as distinct from
>a mini-symposium) of thematic and/or regional co-ordinators to get their
>act together. We should offer money for this.
>
>3. The difference it has made having Cathy Stickley (based at UCL) working
>for PEP III is fantastic, but we risk losing her input unless something can
>be done. I'm negotiating with ESF, but it will be over a year before their
>finely grinding mills deliver anything.  Rick and Francoise are also going
>to apply to  EC for Framework 5 funding, but that will be no quicker. I am
>seriously considering asking Zimmie to help bridge the gap since he did not
>quite close the door when I last talked this through with him, but I feel
>that if I do this, PAGES might need to put up a bit more colateral, the
>more so since we are in credit.
>
>Both 2 and 3 reflect my view that the PEP's remain an absolutely vital part
>of the PAGES structure and need to be supported if that is the only way
>they can achieve their objectives.
>
>All three of the above suggestions require some endorsement in principle
>before I take them any further. If we were to spend all the funds envisaged
>before the end of 1999, our budget credit would be very much reduced -
>probably by too much, but I believe the PEP funding would probably be paced
>over a longer period and that the other items in our budget are more likely
>to be marginally under- than over-spent, so I do not feel we are proposing
>any unreasonable risk.
>
>I look forward to any reactions members of EXCOMM may have to these
>suggestions.
>
>Withh all good wishes,
>
>Frank
>
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Budget for 1999 (RTF /MSWD) (0000B314)
>____________________________________________
>Frank Oldfield
>
>Executive Director
>PAGES IPO
>Barenplatz 2
>CH-3011 Bern, Switzerland
>
>e-mail: frank.oldfield@pages.unibe.ch
>
>Phone: +41 31 312 3133; Fax: +41 31 312 3168
>
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 all,
thank you for the meeting on tuesday. I think it went well. Here as
promised and slightly late is a summary of what we discussed. Myles can
you forward the message to Michael. Can you let me know if you are all
happy with this and once I have made any corrections you want I'd like
to send it to John, Geoff and Tim Barnett -- anyone else you think
should get it?
Proxy Climate forcing.
Solar -- Beer has a Be based proxy reconstruction of Solar ACTIVITY
which can be converted to irradiance changes. [Is it different from LBB
or H&S ?] Has the LBB dataset been updated? Has Svensmark got a better
handle on his proposed physical mechanisms to amplify solar irradiance
changes? [Someone to check at RMS meeting which I won't be able to
attend] Want forcing back to 1600?? though HC would find it hard to
justify doing runs that early -- me to see if John/Geoff think useful or
not.
Me to check with William the source of the rumour about problems with
the H&S dataset.
Volcanoes. Volcanoes are an important climate forcings [Issue for
IPCC??] Do volcanic erruptions cluster? Myles to "persuade" a student to
look at Phil/Keith's dataset and see if there is evidence for this? Are
there other indices of volcanic activity? Is climate response to
volcanoes sensitive to mean state?? i.e. in cooler climate get bigger
response. [Gareth could see from our model if Krakota response
significantly different from Pinatubo]
Proxy Climate data + comparision with obs and models.
Keith/Phil have 400 sites of high quality tree ring density data which
there are willing to let HC (Mat) use to do a crude model/data
comparision. Mat and Tim to liase on what they are doing. Note that
funny things are happening in the density data post 1950. Also available
may be some borehole data [Phil to talk to Pollock/Wang about
possibility] which could use to compare with model -- should consider
using lower soil temperature rather than 1. m temp. There are a few
sites with data from 0A to 2000 as well as many sites with data for 1700
to 2000 -- should consider both. There may be some other tree ring data
which tells us something about SW USA precip and thus ENSO.
Tim wants to compare patterns of temperature var from the proxy data
and   compare that with the models i.e compare "observed" and modelled
covariance structure rather than just the variability. Also Tim wants to
try and unpick Mann's stuff.... HC to provide solar forced run from 1700
-- Me to check if it goes from 1700!
Our approach will be to compare model data "directly" with Proxy data
rather than do Interpolation a la GISST or Mann et al.
EU proposal
Not clear if in this years framework 5 call there will be room for
Detection/Attribution proposals (which is how we'd like to frame a
model/proxy comparision). Other issue is that QUARCC 2 and model/proxy
comparision could involve similar institutions which could cause
problems. Phil to check if room this year for proposal. Keith pointed
out that we can't just recycle the NERC thematic proposal (PRESIENT).
There is good news on that fron which suggests the proposal will go
through with an 8 million pound budget!!!
Ad Hoc detn group.
Not much said on that (or at least I didn't note it) Phil -- you have
some advice for me on that?
CLIVAR/PAGES
In the next 1-2 years there may be new reasonable quality ice core and
sedimentation data available. Data availablity from the proxy and
modelling groups is an issue (another reason for an EU proposal!).
Phil pointed out that there is a lot of instrumental data (in "funny"
units) which could be digitised in Europe.
Keith is planning on writting a "call to arms" paleo data paper.
I think I need to come up with a list of actions.... Anyone want to
volunteer.....
Simon


From:
To: Keith Briffa
Subject: Some information about the super-long tree-ring chronology
the East of Taymir and Putoran
Dear Keith
I sent two variants of letter by mail few days ago.
Hope that you received fax copy of it.
There are the references you ask:
REFERENCES:
1. Abaimov A.P., Bondarev A.V.,Zyryanova O.A., Shitova S.A. The Forests
of Polar Sector of Krasnoyarskii Krai.Novosibirsk, Nauka,1997,-207 pp.
(in Russ.).
2.Adamenko V.N.,Masanova M.D., Chetverikov A.F. Indication of climate
change. Gidrometeoizdat, Leningrad, 1982, -110 pp. (in Russ.)
3. Bitvinskas T.T. Dendroclimatic research. Gidrometeoizdat, Leningrad,
1974,-170 pp. (in Russ.).
4. Budyko M.I., Izrael Yu.A. (eds.) Antropogenic climate changes. Gidro-
meteoizdat, Leningrad, 1987, -406 pp. (in Russ.).
5. Vaganov E.A., Vysotskaya L.G., Shashkin A.V. Seasonal growth and tree-
ring structure of larch near polar timberline."Lesovedenie (Russ.J.For.
Sci.)", 1994,5: 3-15.(in Russ.).
6. Vaganov E.A., Shiyatov S.G., Mazepa V.S. Dendroclimatic Study in Ural-
Siberian Subarctic. Novosibirsk, Nauka, 1996,-246 pp. (in Russ.).
7. Vaganov E.A., Panyushkina I.P., Naurzbaev M.M. Summer temperature
reconstruction in the east Taymir for last 840 years. "Ecologia (Russ.
J.Ecol.)", 1997,6:403-407. (in Russ. and Engl).
8. Vaganov E.A., Shiyatov S.G., Hantemirov R.N.,Naurzbaev M.M. Summer
temperature variability in high latitudes of the northern hemisphere for
the last 1,5 millennia: comparative analysis tree-ring and ice core data.
"Doklady AN", 1998,358(5): 681-684 (in Russ.and Engl).
9. Vaganov E.A., Kirdyanov A.V., Silkin P.P. The influence of early summer
temperature and dates of snow melting on tree growth in Subarctic of
Siberia."Lesovedenie (Russ.J.For.Sci.)" (in press).
10.Jenkins G.,Watts D. Spectral analysis and it's applications. Mir,M.,v.1-2,
1971,1972,-320 pp.,-282 pp. (transl.to Russ.).
11.Komin G.E. To the method of dendroclimatic study.In: Forest forming processes
in Ural, Sverdlovsk, 1970: 38-45 (in Russ.).
12.Mazepa V.S. The usage of spectral analysis and linear filtering to
reveal the cyclicity in dendrochronological data. In: Dendrochronology
and archaeology, Novosibirsk, Nauka, 1986: 49-68.(in Russ.).
13.Monin A.S., Shishkov Yu.A. The History of Climate. Gidrometeoizdat,
Leningrad, 1979,-407 pp.(in Russ.).
14.Naurzbaev M.M.,Vaganov E.A. 1957-year chronology for eastern Taimir.
"Sib.J.Ecol.", 1999,V.6, N 2(in press.).
15.Shiyatov S.G.Dendrochronology of upper timberline in Ural. Nauka,M.,
1986,-136 pp. (in Russ.).
16.Shnitnikov A.V.Intrasecular variations of moisture components. Nauka,
Leningrad, 1968,-246 pp. (in Russ.).
17.Himmelblau D.Process analysis by statistical methods.M.,Mir,1973,-
947 pp.(transl.to Russ.).
18.Bradley R.S.,Jones P.D. The "Little Ice Age" summer temperature variations:
their nature and relevance to global warming trends."Holocene",1993,3:367-
376.
19.Briffa K.R.,Bartholin T.S. et al. A 1,400-year tree-ring record of summer
temperature in Fennoscandia."Nature",1990,346:434-439.
20.Briffa K.R.,Jones P.D. et al. Fennoscandian summer from AD 500: temperature
changes on short and long timescales."Climate Dynamics", 1992,7:111-119.
21.Briffa K.R.,Jones P.D. et al. Tree-ring variables as proxy-climate indicators:
problems with low-frequency signals.In: Climate Change and Forcing Mechanisms
of the last 2000 years.NATO ASI Ser.,1996,141:9-41.
22.Briffa K.R.,Jones P.D. et al.Unusual twentieth-century warmth in a 1,000-
year temperature record from Siberia."Nature",1995,376:156-159.
23.Briffa K.R.,Schweingruber F.H. et al.Trees tell of past climates: but are
they speaking less clearly today?"Phil.Trans.Royal Soc.London,Ser.B.",1998,
353:65-73.
24.Briffa K.R.,Schweingruber F.H. et al. Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth
to temperature at high northern latitudes."Nature",1998,391:678-682.
25.Burroughs W.J. Weather Cycles: Real or Imaginary? Cambridge, Cambridge
Univ.press,1992,-201 pp.
26.Cook E.R.,Briffa K.R.,Shiyatov S.G.,Mazepa V.S. Tree-ring standardization
and growth-trend estimation. In:Methods of Dendrochronology.Application
in the Environmental Sciences (Cook E.R.,Kairiukstis L.A.eds.),Kluwer
Acad.Publ.,Dordtrecht,1990:104-123.
27.Dahl-Jensen D.,Gundestrup N.S.,Mosegaard K.,Clow G.D. Reconstruction of the
past climate from GRIP temperature profile by Monte Carlo inversion.Paper
presented at the 1997 Fall AGU Meeting,San Francisco,1997,-28 pp.
28.D'Arrigo R.D.,Jacoby G.C.Dendroclimatic evidence from northern north
America.In: Climate since AD 1500 (Bradley R.S.,Jones P.D.,eds.),Routledge,
London, 1992:296-311.
29.Dansgaard W.,Johnsen S.J.,Clansen H.B.,Gundestrup N."Medd.Grenland",
1973,197(2):34-76.
30.Fritts H.C. Tree Rings and Climate.Acad.Press, London/New York/San Francisco,
1976,-567 pp.
31.Graybill D.A.,Shiyatov S.G. A 1009 year tree-ring reconstruction of mean
June-July temperature deviations in the Polar Urals.In: Proc.Second US-USSR
Symp.Air Pollution Effects on Vegetation Including Forest Ecosystems. USDA
For.Serv.,NFES, 1989:37-42.
32.Hantemirov R.N. A 2,305 year tree-ring reconstruction of mean June-July
temperature deviations in the Yamal Peninsula.In: Int.Conf.Past,Present
and Future Climate. Publ.Acad.Finland, 1995:124-127.
33.Holmes R.L. Computer-assisted quality control in tree-ring dating and
measurements."Tree-Ring Bull.",1983,44:69-75.
34.Hughes M.K.,Vaganov E.A. et al. A multimullenial temperature reconstruction
from far northeastern Eurasia."Holocene" (in press.).
35.Jacoby G.C.,D'Arrigo R. Reconstructed northern Hemisphere annual temperature
since 1671 based on high-latitude tree-ring data from North America."Climate
Change", 1989,14:39-59.
36.Jacoby G.C.,D'Arrigo R. Tree-ring width and density evidence of climatic
and potentual forest change in Alaska."Global Bioch.Cycles",1995,9(2):227-
234.
37.Jacoby G.C.,D'Arrigo R.,Tsevegyn D. Mongolian tree rings and 20th-century
warming."Science",1996,9:771-773.
38.Lamb H.H. Climate: present, past and future.In: Climate History and Future,
V.2,Menthuen,London, 1977:5-31.
39.LaMarche V.C., Graybill D.A., Fritts H.C.,Rose M.R. Increasing atmospheric
carbon dioxide: tree-ring evidence for growth enhancement in natural
vegetation."Science", 1984,225:1019-1021.
40.Mazepa V.S. Spektral approach and narrow band filtering for assessment
of cyclic components and ecological prognoses.In: Methods of Dendrochronology.
Applications in the Environmental Sciences. Cluwer Acad.Publ.,Dordtrecht,
1990:302-308.
41.Methods of Dendrochronology.Applications in the Environmental Sciences
(E.Cook,L.Kairiukstis, eds.),Kluwer Acad.Publ.,Dordtrecht, 1990,-394 pp.
42.Schweingruber F.H., Briffa K.R.,Jones P.D. Yearly maps of summer temperatures
in Western Europe from A.D. 1750 to 1975 and Western North America from
1600 to 1982: results of radiodensitometrical study on tree rings."Vegetatio",
1991,92:5-71.
43.Schweingruber F.H. Tree Rings and Environment.Dendroecology. Paul Haupt
Publ.,Berne/Stuttgart/Vienna, 1996,-609 pp.
44.Vaganov E.A., Naurzbaev M.M.,Schweingruber F.H.,Briffa K.R.,Moell M. An
840-year tree-ring width chronology for taymir as an indicator of summer
temperature changes."Dendrochronologia", 1996,14:193-205.
Regards, Gene.


Dear Fred,
The following legends refer to the appropriately titled post-script files that will be sent to you separately by my colleague Tim Osborn.
Please note that these results are products of the European Community funded
project ADVANCE-10K (Analysis of Dendrochronological Variability and Associated Natural Climates in Eurasia - the last 10,000 years).Environment and Climate Programme Contract ENV4-CT95-0127. See also
As I said on the 'phone , due acknowledgement of the above is important to us!
Figure 1
Annually averaged tree-ring density data from 400 high-latiude or high-elevation sites around the Northern Hemisphere. This series represents interannual and multidecadal summer temperature variability from A.D.1400 onwards. This series shows circum-hemispheric summer temperature variability on interannual and multi-decadal timescales and demonstrates the relative cooling effect of known, and some probably as yet unknown, large explosive volcanic eruptions.
Figure 2
Normalized tree-ring -density anomalies around the Northern hemisphere showing patterns of likely summer temperature changes year by year through the relatively cool decade of the 1810s, in part caused by major volcanic eruptions in 1809 and 1815.
Figure 3
Decadally-smoothed timeseries of standardized radial tree growth at three high northern latitude regions during the last 2000 years : Tornetrask, N.Sweden (20E);Yamal(70E)and Taimyr(102E),Russia. Positive and negative values of these data represent relatively warm and cool summers, associated at  each location with the strength and position of large-scale atmospheric circulation features.
I have asked Phil Jones here to send you a post script file and reference for the mean 1000-year Nortern Hemisphere curve. His email address is shown above.
You may be also interested in some reconstructions of the NAO made by various people. If so ask Tim about these.
best wishes
Keith


Dear TGCIA'ers,
I have two questions to raise with you regarding the IPCC Data Distribution
Centre.  The first one concerns advice regarding a GCM submission to the
DDC and the second concerns mirror web sites for the DDC.
1. GCM submission.
-------------------
The LMD (through Herve Le Treut) has requested the runs from LMD coupled
GCM be lodged with the DDC.  His original request (July 1998) is appended
below as text ATTACHMENT 1.  We originally rejected the submission on the
grounds that the runs were not historically forced, i.e., they were
cold-start experiments with 1% p.a. forcing being introduced from 'current'
baseline and different to all other DDC runs.
However, LMD have re-submitted their request for reasons outlined in
ATTACHMENT 2 which is an email from my DDC Co-Manager Michael
Lautenschlager (dated 12 February 1999).  In this ATTACHMENT Michael makes
a proposal to include the LMD model runs, but as 'related modelling
results' rather than as 'full status' DDC results.
We need to take TGCIA soundings on this.  Strictly, the LMD runs do *not*
qualify according to the criteria the TGCIA established back in May 1997.
The question is how flexible are we prepared to be and whether including
model runs with a different experimental design may either a) confuse
impacts users and/or b) invalidate inter-model comparisons.  Bear in mind
also that if/when new GCM results forced by SRES forcings are generated
this summer and beyond, we will need to consult again about how the DDC
handles/presents these new SRES runs.  At present the DDC does not have a
mandate for these either.
Please would you submit your opinions to me by Monday 12 April.  I will
then compile the views expressed and make a recommendation.
2. DDC mirror web sites.
------------------------
With the DDC web site now fully operational (and the CD-ROM about to be
released) we need to consider our idea for mirror sites around the world.
Users are picking up data and information from both the Yellow Pages (full
GCM archive site) and Green Pages (synthesised GCM results, observed data,
and other scenario data and visualisation), but for some
users/regions/operations access is very slow.
Proposed mirror sites might include: CSIRO (Victoria), IIT (Delhi), NCAR
(USA) and Cape Town (S.Africa).  Maybe a Japanese site also.
The mirror sites could consist only of the Green Pages (about 0.5GB
requirement) or both Green and Yellow Pages (several GB requirement, but I
have not checked exactly how much with DKRZ).  I know that we can arrange
for the mirror sites to automatically refresh every 24 hours therefore
reflecting perfectly any developments on the host mother-site (i.e., the
mirror sites must be perfect mirrors).
Could I also ask for your views on the desirability of these options,
whether Green only or Green plus Yellow, how many mirrors and where they
should be?  Please let me have your views on this also by Monday 12 April.
*********
In considering both these questions it is perhaps worth thinking about the
longer-term future of the DDC beyond TAR and into 4th IPCC Assessment.
Although TGCIA and the DDC has now only a mandate through the lifetime of
TAR, for us to really learn from our experiences and to achieve full
benefits for IPCC, then we need to be thinking ahead beyond year 2000.
*********
Mike Hulme
____________________________________________________________________________
___
ATTACHMENT 1
____________________________________________________________________________
___
Subject:
From:    Herve.Letreut@lmd.jussieu.fr at internet
Date:    9/7/98  9:08 pm
Dear Maria,
At the IPCC meeting a week ago, I spoke with M. Hulme concerming the
possibility of having our simulations being integrated in the IPCC
data base (DDA?)
I think that our simulations meet a number of the criteria:
- the control simulation is 200 years long
- the model has participated to CIMP1 and CMIP2
- it is described in details (description posted on the WEb in the
Euroclivar Web site:
Our main problem concerns the definition of the experiments. We have used
a model without flux correction and have decided to start from observed
Levitus data. The coupled model has some drift but it stabilizes rather
quickly  and the thermohaline circulation is quite stable
Accordingly our initial CO2 value corresponds to a recent past: 320 ppm.
>From that value we have increased directly the CO2 concentration of
1 percent per year. We have therefore not allowed for an 'historic'
increase of the CO2 before the actual 1percent increase, which is due
to a lack of understanding of the IPCC rules.
My feeling is that scientifically this is not too important (we have
no 'cold start' symptom when we look at the difference between the
perturbed and controled run). I have realized that in the context
of the IPCC, however, people may think otherwise.
My question is two-fold:
- Can our experiment nevertheless be integrated in the IPCC data base.
This is important to us: if it cannot we will not realize the sulfate
experiment we had planned to do, and wait for the future scenarios to be
decided.
- I hope that I will be more easily aware of the IPCC initiatives in the
future. But is there any procedure through which we can make sure in
advance that a  given experiment we decide to carry out does  get
approoved by the IPCC?
Sincerely yours
Herve
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herve Le Treut
Laboratoire de Meteorologie Dynamique, Universite PetM Curie ,
Tour15-25, 5eme etage, boite 99, 4 place Jussieu 75252 Paris Cedex 05
(mail sent to Ecole Normale Superieure also reaches me)
tel: +33 (0)1 44 27 8406   fax : +33 (0)1 44 27 62 72
secretariat du LMD a Jussieu: +33 (0)1 44 27 50 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENT 2
________________________________________________________________
Hamburg, den 12. February 1999   (15:00)
Dear Maria and Mike,
last week I have a discussion with Herve LeTreut from LMD in Paris about
the DDC rejection of the French contribution to the climate scenario
calculations. He informed that the climate modellers are running into
political difficulties because no French data are contained in the DDC.
We have rejected the data last year because they design of his
experiments are not directly comparable to the DDC requirements. A
recalculation is not possible within short term.
In order to prevent the French colleagues from difficulties I suggest to
install an additional section in our DDC page which may be entitled 'DDC
related modelling results'. In this section Herve`s data as well as data
from other groups can be disseminated. The processing priority is
certainly lower than for the direct DDC data.
Do you agree with my suggestion?
Best regards, Michael
*****************************************************************************
Dr Mike Hulme
Reader in Climatology             tel: +44 1603 593162
Climatic Research Unit            fax: +44 1603 507784
School of Environmental Science   email:  m.hulme@uea.ac.uk
University of East Anglia         web site: ~mikeh/
Norwich  NR4  7TJ
*****************************************************************************
Annual mean temperature in Central England during 1999
is about +1.5 deg C above the 1961-90 average
***************************************************
The global-mean surface air temperature anomaly for 1998
was +0.58 deg C above the 1961-90 average, the warmest year yet recorded
*****************************************************************************


Mike
I am off to Finland for a week but I am sending you (via Tim) a copy of a draft perspectives piece for Science on you recent 1000-year reconstruction paper . They want to run it in early May I think and I have been told I will see their edited draft on my return. The idea was to make a wider comment that just report on your latest curve so I decided to mention uncertainties in tree-ring data while pushing the need for more work on high-resolution proxies and especially interpretive work in the very recent context of high temperatures and other possible anthropogenic environmental disturbance. The trouble is that they would only give us 1000 words and one Figure. Anyway this Figure now contains a selection of various large-scale temperature average series - all recalibrated against northern warm season (april-sept) average land data north of 20 degrees north. This is just to provide a convenient common scale - all the original season /area references are given. You will see that this brings phil's curve nicely back in line and the correct (low frequency ) density curve now fits better also. I have taken the opportunity to put our new longish (2000-year)tree-ring width curve in representing the north of Europe/Siberia . This is the average of Tornetrask(Sweden) and Yamal and Taimyr(Siberia ) - all processed to retain low-frequency variance. These curves and a similar average incorporating all the Northern tree-ring data (not including the large density set) are in my paper for the Pages open science meeting publication. Tim and I will produce a short paper describing the new low-frequency density curve , probably for Geophysical Research Letters. For the meantime I hope you think the perspectives piece is O.K. Let me know if you have any problems with it - but remember that they are going to hack it about anyway. By the way, how did you compare the high-elevation (PC1) timeseries with Jacoby and D'Arrigo's northern treeline data in your paper when the latter only go back to 1671 ? Did you use their reworked Gidding's dataset for Alaska?
Thanks for the message on the IPCC stuff . I am happy to write any additional bits or make suggestions . Sorry I did not get back to you last time but I was confused about the timetable . Thanks for putting my name on the list. I will make comments again as soon as I see the next draft. Cheers
Keith
At 06:20 PM 4/11/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Dear Phil, Keith,
>
>An update on IPCC. Almost done w/ my revisions, taking into account
>yours and Phil's comments, and included the *correct* briffa et al
>series. Keith--added your name in the contributor list. Sorry for
>the earlier omission (I hadn't heard from you at the point I
>wrote the initial draft)...
>
>A couple things--Phil can you send a copy of the in-press Rev
>Geophys. article as soon as possible? I'd like to have a copy
>for my own records...
>
>Also, I'm going to have to leave it to you to insert some
>of the references you mentioned in your comments which I'm
>not familiar with. Also, you'll need to supply an updated
>reference for the Briffa et al series as soon as it is
>ready.
>
>I'll send you the revised draft when I finish it within a day
>or two, at the same time I send it to Chris, Jim, and Jean. We'll
>need to incorporate Pfister's contribution (if it ever comes in),
>and Jim and Jean's suggestions at the next stage. I believe it
>will be Chris' responsibility to coordinate this. Anyways, more
>from me soon...
>
>best,
>
>mike
>_______________________________________________________________________
>                          Michael E. Mann
>________Current_____________________________Starting Fall 1999_________
>Adjunct Assistant Professor      |    Assistant Professor
>Department of Geosciences        |    Dept. of Environmental Sciences
>Morrill Science Center           |    Clark Hall
>University of Massachusetts      |    University of Virginia
>Amherst, MA 01003                |    Charlottesville, VA 22903
>_________________________________|_____________________________________
>e-mail: mann@geo.umass.edu; memann@titan.oit.umass.edu (attachments)
>          Phone: (413) 545-9573      FAX: (413) 545-1200
>
>


Dear Keith
(Tim, please get this to Keith by FAX or other means, if
he is unlikely to have received this at his own email while traveling).
It's a good piece overall. As you might suspect, I do have several
comments. Ray and Malcolm may send along a few of their own. Malcolm
in particular may want to comment on some of your points regarding
dendroclmiatic series and our ITRDB PC#1 series which figures
so prominently in our millennial reconstruction.
1) page 2, top paragraph:
It's is very misleading to make it sound as if we are strictly
reconstructing northern hemisphere mean temperature, and then
say "4 of the records are actually from the southern hemisphere
locations". This is misleading for a number of reasons. First of
all, if one is going after true northern hemisphere areally-weighted
mean temperature 0-90 degrees (as we are), then the southern hemisphere
tropics are actually more relevant than the high-latitudes of the
Northern Hemisphere. Careful diagnostics of surface temperature
covariances by Alexey Kaplan, Mark Cane and others have shown this
clearly to be true. BUt more than that, we are reconstructing the full
20th century surface temperature domain shown in Figure 1 of our '98
Nature paper. This is a GLOBAL domain, albeit sparse outside the southern
hemisphere tropics/subtropics, particularly the southern oceans,
for obvious regions. THe proxy network roughly overlaps the spatial
domain of surface temperature we are reconstructing (ie, compare
Nature '98 figure 1a and figure 1b). We choose to diagnose from
this spatial domain the northern hemisphere mean only because that
is the hemisphere for which we can meaningfully talk about a
true hemispheric mean. But both the predictor and predictand have
a global distribution. Without going on and on, I think its clear
why your comments here are a bit unfair in how they represent why
we use southern hemisphere data. This is probably the most important
point that needs to be revised here.
2) page 2, 2nd paragraph
A minor point, but an important one: It is incorrect to say the
our uncertainties are based only on "a consideration ...goodnest
of fit...over the calibration period"! This is not correct. A
key point is that the verification period (1854-1901) diagnostics
(though based on a somewhat sparser distribution of gridpoint
data from which NH mean temp can be estimated) give very nearly
identifical diagnostics in terms of unresolved reconstructed
NH mean temp variance. So our uncertainties are based both
on 20th century calibration and independent confirmation from
19th century data. PLEASE MAKE SURE this is clear.
On the bigger point being made here, I agree w/ you in principle,
and this is a point that Phil has raised too: what we *DONT*
take into account (though I challenge anyone to really ever
be able to take this into account!) is the unknown potential
bias due to degradation from diminishing quality of the underlying
proxy data back in time. However, on some of the specific
points in that regard, it is very likely not a significant
concern in our reconstructions. We closely examined the spectra
of the underlying proxy data to insure that those upon which
our reconstruction ultimately relies have the amount of
millennial scale trend/variability that would be expected for
a climatic series for at least the null hypothesis of red noise.
Malcolm independently examined the tree ring chronologies underlying
our ITRDB PC #1 to verify that the standardization was appropriately
conservative for a millennial-scale reconstruction. Furthermore,
Malcolm verified that the ITRDB PC #1 is made up of heavily replicated
chronologies as far back as we use them. So neither of the
points you raise appear to be  all that relevant to our reconstruction.
With regard to this point, I have some issues with your Figure
that accompanies the piece. It is quite ironic
given your comments about the potential impacts of
standardization on the long-timescale veriations. For our
millennial reconstruction we have verified as carefully as
has ever been verified, that the millennial scale trend is
likely to be meaningful. I don't think you have done so for
the 2000 year-long trend in the series you show, and if you
have not verified that it is likely to have retained 2000 year
long trends, it is VERY misleading to show this series along
with the others. I don't believe that it is likely to accurately
represent the 2000 year long trend in NOrthern Hemisphere mean
temperature, as you imply by showing it here. I think this series
needs to be removed from the plot. I have a related comment
below (point #5).
3) page 3, 1st paragraph:
Remove "this is a moot point" and replace with more appropriate
language. It is not "a moot point" because the problem you point
out has largely been shown to apply to tree ring density data
(which you have largely been using), and much less so tree
ring width data (which we are using). Furthermore, the comparison
only goes through 1980 at which point there is little evidence
that there is a significant declinde in tree ring width response,
although more evidence that there is already a problem at that
point with density data. Your criticism is not quite fair here,
and the statements should be revised to reflect more accurately
on what we have done.
4) page 3, 2nd paragraph:
When you talk about proxy-based ENSO reconstructions, you
should mention our NINO3 reconstruction! This is complementary
to Stahle's SOI reconstruction in a number of ways. The appropriate
references here are both our Nature '98 papers, and the chapter
in Henry Diaz's latest book (in the press):
Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., and Hughes, M.K.,
Long-term variability in the El Nino
Southern Oscillation and associated teleconnections, Diaz, H.F. & Markgraf,V.,
(eds) El Nino and the Southern Oscillation: Multiscale Variability and
its Impacts on
Natural Ecosystems and Society, Cambridge University Press, 321-372, Cambridge,
UK, in press, 1999.
if you care to, you can download the galley version here:
ftp://eclogite.geo.umass.edu/pub/mann/ONLINE-PREPRINTS/ENSO-recon/
in either pdf format (chapter-diaz.pdf) or postscript (chapter-diaz.ps)
5) accompanying figure (see also my point #3):
There are problems with the 2000 year series in terms
of your definition of the baseline for comparing with the
other series, and this differs quite a bit from what
we are likely to be showing in IPCC. It appears that both
the density NH reconstruction and your 2000 year long
series fall at least 0.1C below the other series during
the 20th century, and are probably running at least that
much too cold the whole way through.
Also, correct "global temperature and non-temperature proxies"
in your description of our series to "global climate proxies"
which is a more honest way of describing them given our
methodological approach, and make sure it is clear to the
readers which series are extratropical and warm season, and
which are full northern hemisphere/annual mean estimates (ours).
Such discussion will, again, figure prominently in IPCC, and
it would be a shame for Science to be publishing something
that is misleading in that respect. In part, it was this issue
that forced the publication of a followup to Phil's perspective
by me, Ray, Malcolm, and Phil a year ago, and it would be nice
to avoid that scenario this time around...
_______________________________________________________________
Thanks for your consideration of the above comments. I believe
your piece will make an excellent "Perspectives" article for
Science, once these comments are appropriately taken into account.
I'll leave it to the Science editor in charge to determine if
that is the case.
best regards,
mike.
_______________________________________________________________________
Michael E. Mann
________Current_____________________________Starting Fall 1999_________
Adjunct Assistant Professor      |    Assistant Professor
Department of Geosciences        |    Dept. of Environmental Sciences
Morrill Science Center           |    Clark Hall
University of Massachusetts      |    University of Virginia
Amherst, MA 01003                |    Charlottesville, VA 22903
_________________________________|_____________________________________
e-mail: mann@geo.umass.edu; memann@titan.oit.umass.edu (attachments)
Phone: (413) 545-9573      FAX: (413) 545-1200


Keith,
The attachment is in WORD and better formatted.
Brian
Dear Keith,
Enclosed please find my comments on Jean Grove's paper. It gives the
impression of a cut and paste job written in haste with several minor
annoying errors. It lacks the synthesis I would have expected and reads
like a catalogue.  The paper is also not as comprehensive as would appear
from the title. Six months ago I reviewed a paper by her ( for Astrid) on
"The Initiation of the Little Ice Age in regions round the North Atlantic".
The paper she submitted to you is clearly complementary and reviews " the
rest of the world" for comparison with the classic areas discussed in the
earlier paper. Yet the earlier paper is only alluded to once (rather coyly)
and does not appear in the references. This surely has to be significantly
recognised in the title and body of this paper, because as it stands, the
review of this earlier (best dated) material is far from adequate.
I cannot speak for most of these data directly but the North American
material I am familiar with is not particularly up to date (though in
fairness most of Greg Wiles's stuff is still in press). I have sent her
under separate cover copies of my Little Ice Age in the Rockies paper
(about 6 months ago) and more recently the Luckman and Villalba review
paper on glacier fluctuations of the last Millennium along the PEP-1
transect. (copies are on their way to you too).
I think her mixing the discussion of ice core records and glacier histories
significantly muddies the waters on whether the term LIA should be used to
refer to a glacier or a climate event. I feel this should be addressed and
the paper needs a more effective conclusion. She must also decide whether
she wants diagrams or tables.
I don't know how she will take these criticisms but, as she is just
finishing revising the book, I would have thought she could have presented
a better synthesis. I leave it to your judgement as to how to deal with
these comments. The paper could be much better but that depends on how much
she is willing to reorganise and to some extent rethink what she has written.
I am sending you this e-mail. Do you want me to return the manuscript to
you? If you wish I can also e-mail  WORD copies of the two papers to you (
and her) if you wish a rapid turnaround. But you will only get the diagrams
by mail. If I don't hear from you tomorrow I'll just put everything in the
mail.
Cheers
Brian
Review of "The Initiation of the Little Ice Age" by Jean Grove
This paper is a useful summary but needs significant fine-tuning and
possibly retitling before it should be accepted. The title promises a
comprehensive review that the text does not deliver. When I first read this
paper I kept asking myself- where is the discussion of all the well-dated
early LIA material from Switzerland, Canada and Alaska? Then I remembered
the paper by the author that I reviewed 6 months ago entitled "The
Initiation of the Little Ice Age in Regions round the North Atlantic". The
present paper is not a global review of evidence but a companion paper that
compares the "Rest of the World" with the "European/North Atlantic record"
discussed in that earlier paper. The crux of the problem is the first
sentence after the title "Little Ice Age Initiation …"  at the top of page
3. I initially read this to mean that Holzhauser had submitted a paper on
the European record to Climatic Change. Careful re-reading suggests that
the author is actually referring to her own review paper. This
misunderstanding could be avoided by explicitly acknowledging, in the
introduction to the present paper, that the evidence for the circum North
Atlantic Region has previously been reviewed by Grove ( in press), giving
the full citation in the references, and that the section entitled "LIA
initiation in regions around the North Atlantic" is a brief summary of that
review.
There are a number of general points that need to be made before discussing
specifics.
1. This discussion begs the question of how one would recognise the
beginning of the LIA (A question I raised in my earlier review)  Why, for
example is the line drawn between the 8-9th century medieval glacier
advances and the 12-13th century ones? Possibly this is related to the
author's definition of the so-called Medieval Warm Period which has
recently been extensively discussed (Hughes and Diaz 1994). It might be
useful to insert a brief discussion of the rationale for this boundary and
a definition and defence of the use of the term Medieval Warm Period.in
either the introduction or the final discussion section.
2. I also feel that there is a logical inconsistency in the way the author
uses the ice core evidence in this paper. In her abstract Dr Grove
indicates that "the term LIA refers to the behaviour of glaciers, not
directly to the climatic circumstances causing them to expand " (abstract
lines 3-4).  I agree strongly agree with this usage to differentiate
between a glacier event and a climatic event. However, the discussion of
the definition of the LIA from the ice core work is based on either periods
of greater annual snow accumulation or inferred paleotemperatures from
isotopic records. i.e. these definitions are based on climatic events not
glacial events. The author should perhaps address this dichotomy and
discuss it more fully. If one wishes to argue for retaining the term LIA
for the glacial event, it is inconsistent to identify it in ice core
records based on temperature (or snowfall ) records.
3. The author appears to have an implicit faith in the veracity of 14C
dates which I do not share and a disdain for minimum age dating based on
lichenometry or dendrochronology. There is a strong  emphasis on calendar
dated 14C ages throughout this paper and age determinations by other
techniques are often significantly downplayed. The paper never specifically
addresses the relative errors involved in age determinations by these
various techniques. Lichenometry and minimum age tree-ring dating of
moraines are disparaged yet, in this timeframe the error terms are almost
certainly less than 14C dates from equivalent situations (i.e. dates above
glacier deposits or on moraine surfaces). The comments made in this paper
about lichenometric dating and dendrochronological dating of moraines (from
minimum tree ages) only stress the likelyhood of large errors through the
use of these dating techniques. These comments may be appropriate for some
moraines that date from the 12-13th centuries but they should not be
unqualified, universal statements cannot remain couched in those terms. In
most situations lichen and tree-ring minimum ages for moraines of the last
500 years or so are considerably more accurate than 14C ages would be.
4. In my review of her earlier paper I commented that I did not consider
that sites in the Canadian Rockies could be described as "around the North
Atlantic". In this paper, it makes no geographical sense to review the
results from the Rockies separately from adjacent areas in British Columbia
and Alaska which they closely resemble (see Luckman and Villalba, in
press). I have no objection to the comment that the Rockies material was
discussed in a previous paper (and will therefore not be repeated in
detail) but surely in the context of this paper these results should be
presented in the discussion of evidence from Western North America.  Having
recently reviewed the literature for North America I also note there are
omissions of significant recent material that is recently published or in
press (see Luckman and Villalba attached).
5. The Tables and diagrams appear identical except for Table 10. Tables 1-9
should be deleted?
More detailed and specific comments follow.
Page	Para	Line
1	3	4	why is lichenometry excluded?
1	4	1	Reference to Grove in press??
1	4	3.	In this paper evidence from…….???
2	2	1-2	Is dating within the last millennium considered to be the critical
defining factor
in identifying  a glacier advance as belonging to the LIA?  See comment about
the inception of the LIA, above.
2	3	1	delete orphan period before text
3	2	3	Holzhauser 1998 not in the references.
3	2	5	change phrase within brackets to (Grove, in press) and insert in
references.
3	3	1	… Rockies dating derived from ring width and…..( revise)
3	3	6	Also Stutfield after 1272 ( Luckman , in press)
3	3	11	Luckman 1995, 1996a and b??? ( there is no 1995 a and b)
3	3	14	Luckman 1991 not in references. Could be Luckman 1993? Luckman et al.
1997 ( never referenced) or Luckman 1996
3	4	3-4	Given the dispute about the universality of the Medieval Warm
Period (see Diaz and Hughes 1994) perhaps it would be better to indicate
the dating here e.g. 10-13th centuries?
4	2	1-5	based on what evidence? Lichens, historical data , 14C?
4	4		What are these moraine dates based on?
5	2	1	delete comma
5	2	3	1991a or b?
4	1	8-9	snow cover extended?  = period of snow cover lengthened between
these dates?
5	3		end of several lines truncated in xerox copy sent to me
6	1		as above
5	3	3	not in references,  Haeberli ??	Kuhn references also missing.
6	1	19	reference for Swiss example?
6	1	end	negative summer temperature anomalies or negative annual anomalies?
7	1	2	said claimed ? = said or claimed?
7	1	5-8	admitted by who relative to what? This somewhat disparaging comment
seems dismissive. Perhaps lichenometry is the only available technique. Is
the author aware whether or not these glaciers ever extended into forested
areas. Is there any wood associated with these moraines? Does the evidence
presented by these authors and their lichenometric dates indicate the
presence of early LIA moraines?
7	2	7	delete end bracket
7	2	last	What is being implied here? Were the samples dated of the same
species, were the records long enough to crossdate?
8	Table 1	etc	Are these Tables or Figures? The Tables within the text seem
almost identical to the diagrams appended at the end.
9	2	1 	and Footnote 5;  Rothlisberger 1986 not in refs. Rothlisberger and
Geyl??
9	3	2	Figure 2 and Table 2 seem identical which will be used?
References should be R and G 1986 not Rothlisberger 1986?
10	1	6	is thought?
10	1	9	geographically close or close in age?
10 	1	last 	sentence surely should come after the next section?
11	1	last	The glaciers or monsoon cover 46,000 square kilometers?
12 	2 	13	Why must it have preceded the LIA? based  on a 14C age?
13	Table/Figure 3	explain XXXs
13	1	8	"The Dunde record shows the Little Ice Age clearly" This section
needs to differentiate clearly between the glacier fluctuation record, the
snow accumulation record and the isotopic temperature signal. If the term
LIA is being used to define/describe glacier events then it cannot also be
used- without qualification- to describe climatic events. The author is
describing climate signals here not glacier advances. This section and the
discussion on page 14 needs more clarification and discussion.
14	1	5	after 1264 based on what evidence?
15-16 Apart from a conference abstract listed in the references but not
cited, there are no references to the spectacular work of Wiles in
tree-ring dating of overridden forests in this area. In addition, the
discussion of the abstract by Yager et al., is somewhat confusing. (how can
one have a floating chronology from 911-1992?; are tree-ring dates or
calendar equivalent 14C dates being cited here?) This section on Alaska is
quite dated (see Luckman and Villalba and several references by Wiles and
Calkin cited therein).
16	2		This section needs to be reworked. The data presented for Klinakini
Glacier
and Franklin Glaciers are presented and then queried without reaching any
conclusion. Both indicate glacier advance after the dated materials and the
comments qualifying these dates apply equally well to many other dates
cited in this paper. (Lag time is ignored at several other sites in the
discussion). The reporting of the Bridge Glacier site is incorrect. Ryder
and Thomson only identify one advance here, not two and consider both 14C
ages provide limiting dates for the same event. The till described is
between the paleosol and the present surface not between two paleosols.
Although scattered, there are several other papers on this region- Ryder
1987, Desloges and Ryder 1990, Clague and Mathews, 1992 etc - see Luckman
and Villalba, in press).
16 		As stated earlier, discussion of the Canadian Rockies should be
included with western North America. There are also early LIA moraines on
Mount Baker in Washington.
18	1	Rothlisberger and Geyh?.
19	1	1-2	Rationale for this statement?
20 	1	1-2	See earlier discussion. The ice core data provide information
about snow
accumulation and climate- not necessarily glacier advances
20	1	end	in-situ trees at what site? Again Thompson is referring to a
climate event not a
glacial event
20	Footnote 13	Based on what data? 1970 predates the 1976 Pacific Climate
shift.
21	2	13-14	Again, is this bias? In my experience dating based on the oldest
tree for most
moraines has far smaller error terms than radiocarbon dating. In this
specific case the moraine may be older but this does not justify the
statement "approximate at best"
21	2	20	why is Rothlisberger's date of 1000-1220 cal AD acceptable in this
circumstance but Ryder and Thomson's date of  1040-1210 ( p16) not?
24 	footnote 14	although the survey may have delimited glacier area, I
assume it was an aerial
survey !!
24	3	1	sub-fossil trees.
24	3	5	 see comment on 21 2 20 above.
24	3	8 	14C dates do not sample! Sample HV.xxx taken from a stump…..etc
26	footnote 16	see Gordon and Harkness, 1992 Quat Sci Rev, 11 697-709 for a
comprehensive review
28	2		see earlier comments on ice core discussions.
28	3	4-5	what specifically is meant here? Warmer and cooler intervals for
which dates?
29	2	5-6	see above. Lack of obvious period of significantly cooler
temperatures?
30	2	1-2	But you don't present any  "precise dates" in this table, nor are
any of the calendar dendro dates from Alaska included . If this table
is intended
to be a summary should not it show all of the data being discussed?
31	1	3-4	The implication here seems to be that a 14C date from an in-situ
log gives a
more precise limiting date for the subsequent glacier event than date from
a log that is not in-situ? Is this the case? Or is it that dates on wood
are better calibrated than dates on soils, bones or other materials?.
32	1	4	Luckman 1995 I think.
32	1	10-11	These are not dates from moraines but dates from forests
overridden by glacier
ice. Are there any examples of moraines dated to the 13th century
presented in				this paper.
Table 10 is never referred to in the text. It needs a caption. Does 13=13th
century or 1300s?
33	1	1-3	NO. decreased temperatures or increased accumulation correlated
with the
LIA have been identified in these cores.
This is not a very synthetic conclusion.
34 Barlow et al., 1997 delete in press
35 Bjork		Antarctic
36 Corte		CONICET not CONISET
36	Eglington	Font
36	Fushimi	Initials
36	Fuhimi 1978	delete reference  to 1977!
37 include Grove in press
38  Holzhauser 1998??
39	Luckman 1993a should be Luckman B.H., Holdsworth, G and Osborn G.D., 1993
reorder Luckman 1993b as Luckman 1993
40	Luckman 1996b  Dendroglaciology not Dendrochronology
Alberta not British Columbia
41 Nesje and Dahl 1991b  delete )
Nesje et al., Jostedalsbreen ???
Nesje and Rye	Geografiske ? capital G
42 Thompson 1980????
45	Wardle 		Omoeroa ( capital)
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\grove.norwich.doc"


Dear Tim,
Thanks for your comments. Some responses to them are
given below. I'll be too busy for further correspondance
as I prepare for travel, leaving Friday morning for a week.
Since I will be away and unreachable through next wednesday.
I would thus request that you and Keith correspond with
my co-authors Ray Bradley (who should be able to
respond upon his return from current travel on Sunday
/Monday) and Malcolm Hughes on the revisions (please cc to
me so I can read upon my return), as I will be unreachable.
I'm sure we can come up with something mutually agreeable
to all of us with this piece, as is my goal with IPCC, as
long as their is proper communication and mutual understanding
by all concerned. Lets strive for this--choice of language
is a nontrivial element...
best regards,
mike.
____________________________COMMENTS________________________
One additional new comment:
0) 1st page, "In attemping to do this...Mann at al...exemplifies"
is unacceptable language to us. We confront the very problems
that are being discussed here, so it is a disservice to us
to say our paper "exemplifies" these problems. It "exposes"
or "confronts" would be fair language, but "exmemplifies" is
unacceptable.
responses to your responses to my original comments:
1) I'm not sure how to interpret your response vis-a-vis
my original comments here. My point is that our use
of southern hemisphere records in the reconstructions
is fundamentally sound, from the point of view of some very
basic principles of optimal interpolation, etc., and given
the domain we are reconstructing, which is not NH only,
although we diagnose NH from our pattern reconstructions
as a key index. There is no basis for what sounds like
a criticism of our use of such data. I couldn't tell
if you were agreeing with this or not from your commments.
2) The uncertainties are determined from the uncalibrated
variance given a certain predictor network. The predictor
network is unchanged from 1820 to present, so the verification
period (1854-1901) unresolved variance is an independent check on the
calibration period unresolved variance. Both gives numbers in
the range of 30% for the NH mean temperature reconstruction,
meaning that the error bars we determine from verification period
are essentially the same as those we determine from the calibration
period. IN this sense, the error bars as determined
from calibration and verification are essentially identical,
The bottom line, if we had used the verification period
to estimate the error bars, the eye would barely see the difference.
There may be a considerable misunderstanding on your/Keiths part, regarding
regarding what is actually shown by the spectrum of calibration residuals
in our GRL paper. It does not in any way conflict with what I indicate
above. What this particular diagnostic shows is that
there is no evidence of any increase in unresolved secular variance
(ie century-scale and longer) in our reconstructions at least
back to 1600. In contrast, there is  evidence that such frequencies
are not as well resolved as higher frequencies with the sparser
predictor network available before 1600. Our estimates of
uncertainty TAKE THIS FACT *EXPLICITLY* INTO ACCOUNT. Our uncertainties
estimates are made up of two components that add in quadrature,
including a component of uncertainty in the lowest-frequency variability
as estimated from the spectrum shown, and a component of the
highest-frequency variability  from the spectrum shown. THese are
approximated as a step-wise break in the mean (white noise) level of
unresolved variance at the edge of the secular band. Unlike any
previous study, we have actually estimated the increased uncertainty due
to the loss of low-frequency variability as it can best be estimated,
and this is explicitly incorporated into our error bars, which
is why those error bars expand considerably before 1600. This
is discussed in the GRL paper, and is a VERY important fact. It
would be very unfortunate if this fact were misrepresented!
3) I'll leave this to Keith and Malcolm to discuss (Malcom?). I
think it is pretty clear in the paper what our assumptions are
here, and what the justification is of those assumptions. There
is of course room for differing opinions on this stuff, as
it is all somewhat speculative, and we indicate that this is so
in our paper.
4) good enough
5) I really doubt that the 2000 year trend is meaningful and, unlike
the results we have shown, there is no confirmation that these 3
sites accurately reflect northern hemisphere mean temperatures
to any reasonable level during the modern era.
Work by us and others looking at similar
data would suggest that series in such regions are not adequately
representative of the largest-scale trends. There is, further, no
verification of  the frequency-domain attributes pass any satisfactory
test. For these reasons, I have informed Julia Uppenbrink directly
that I don't believe this series should be shown in this context.
I agree it is an important series, and it will be appropriate
to discuss it in IPCC. But it should not be considered on a
par with more statistically-verified true Northern Hemisphere
mean temperature reconstructions, and it is very misleading to
show it along with the NH mean reconstructions. The 2000 year
trend runs absolutely counter to everything we know about
the mid holocene. Extratropical Northern Hemisphere summer
temperatures should have been at an absolute peak 4000-6000 ybp,
and the 2000 year trend *ought* to at least be heading in that
direction. The fact that is doesn't, and that the trend hasn't
been verified in the sense discussed above, causes me real
concern. It would be misleading to argue we have any reason
to believe that NH mean temperatures have done what that series
does 2000 years back in time...
Re, the adjustment of the series, I believe it is fundamentally
unsound. Essentially, agreement over the period we can best
constrained (20th century) has been sacrifices for agreement
during the period we can't constrain, apparently for the sake
of getting the different series to align during the 19th century.
Please download the figures I have prepared for the latest IPCC
report.
ftp://eclogite.geo.umass.edu/pub/mann/IPCC/nhemcompare-ipcc.gif
OR
ftp://eclogite.geo.umass.edu/pub/mann/IPCC/nhemcompare-ipcc.ps
You will see how I have aligned the series based on a 1961-1990
reference period for the instrumental series, and a 20th baseline
adjustment for the alignment of all series. To me, this is the
most reasonable adjusment of the series if they are to be shown
together. It also shows the different that latitudinal variations
make EXPLICITLY by showing the difference between our
TRUE (0-90 lat weighted) NH annual mean temp series, and
an extratropical (30-70 deg lat) average from our pattern
reconstructions, which approaches quite closely the Overpeck
et al '97 and Jones et al '98 series. Seasonal distinctions
then  the key remain difference. This is, I believe, the
best approach to the comparisons, and the one I will favor
in IPCC.
The alternative is that true NH mean temperatures and
extratropical NH mean temperatures must be shown on separate plots,
because adjusting them the way Keith has provides a misleading
picture, and one that I don't believe can be justified for the
purposes of IPCC, regardless of what you choose to do with your
Science piece.