Apologies
Phil
Kevin,
Finally gotten around to putting thoughts down.  Mostly on the challenges slides
at the start. Maybe you would have said these things.
1. As well as suggesting the model chapters rank models (I don't think they will
go with this - even though it is what we should be doing, and there are a whole raft
of issues as to how to do it) should we also be dismissing observational papers
that are clearly wrong (or a distortion of the facts and emphasizing the wrong issues).
In some parts of our chapter, we omit the poor papers. Just stressing that we are
doing an assessment and not a review. An assessment is our expert view of the science
at the present.
For space limitations we must omit many papers, but we must do this objectively. In the
NRC review I made the point that most of the papers reviewed were the author's own. It is
difficult and we must not fall into that trap. All this again comes back to
assessment/review.
With 3.4.1 we mustn't get caught up in having to agree with the CCSP VTT report. We're
either doing OUR assessment or we might as well give up.
Gone on for long enough on that one.
2. I think we both believe we should be saying somewhere what we should be measuring
(how accurately, where and with what). If we don't say this somewhere, AR5 will be in a
worse state.  Susan is against this, but I think on this point she's wrong. IPCC has a lot
of clout - much more than GCOS and/or WMO.  It should be saying something about what
we should be doing.
3. Minor point, just land warming more than ocean, not much more.
4. I guess you've expanded on linear trends enough
5. The CCSP diagrams are good, but I'm not keen on running means. I guess though they
wouldn't be too different with a better smoother.
6. I guess you'll raise map projections. Could add in the new one Dave has done for precip
to show the 30E edge.
The additional slides. Most of these are from a talk I have to give in Bern next month.
They relate
mostly to issues with Ch 6. Maybe you can add a couple of them.They relate to the issues
of:
- making full use of the instrumental records to compare with proxy records
- changes in seasonality
- was the few hundred years before 1850 always colder than the post 1920 period.
The first 2 are the longest European records. The period I'm interested in is the rise
up
from the late 17th century to the 1730s and then the year 1740. No volcanoes for 20-30
year period may be a factor, solar also, but nothing explains 1740. It is not just in CET.
1730s at CET and De Bilt is the warmest decade until the 1990s.  Producing these sorts
of things in proxy data is a key.
3rd slide is just some of these longer records filtered. They don't agree that well, so
why should proxy series agree. We have more to learn from the early instrumental period.
4th is just a simple example of instrumental/proxy overlap. Highlights seasonality
differences.
and 5th just shows how unusual the central European summer was in 2003 - if we
wanted a figure for the box.
The interface with Ch 6 and the early instrumental period is crucial.  60% of the
comments
on Ch 6 were on the 3-4 pages on the last millennium !   Ours weren't that distorted to
one
of our sections.
Issues at UEA and CRU haven't helped me get to 3.2 yet.  I hope to by the end of the
day.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:26 03/05/2005, you wrote:
Phil
Did you look at and have comments/suggestion on the ppt for the last day in Beijing?
Kevin
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                              e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR                  [1]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000,                                 (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                               (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80303
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.


Kevin et al,
The diagram looks too good to me. CRU's data are reasonable over Brazil for
some of the period, but poor in others, particularly recently. So we would have
difficulty in updating this because of station numbers and quality. We could try
using the GPCC dataset. They have huge numbers of stations for Brazil, but only
for specific regions and periods, so likely problems there also.
We have a couple of papers in submission to J. Hydrology on flows in the
subcatchments of the Parana river, which are well reproduced by rainfall,
evaporation and a catchment model. Agree with your concerns about the Amazon
flows not agreeing with the rainfall. Do the NAR and SAR regions fully encompass
the enormous catchment though.
Cheers
Phil
At 17:36 03/05/2005, Aiguo Dai wrote:
One can use the Chen et al. and CRU to produce similar type of  plots to validate
Marengo's  result.
He did use the CRU rainfall data set, but not for this particular plot.
Aiguo
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi all
As you know we got some manuscripts from Jose Marengo to be considered in our chapter,
and he is a LA on another chapter and will be in Beijing.  He has offerred to be  CA.
My question concerns how good his data are?  I asked Aiguo Dai to comment:
====
One of the interesting results from Marengo's work is that he found the Northern and
Southern Amazonia have opposite phase of decadal rainfall variations (see attached Fig.
from Marengo 2004, Ther. Appl. Climatol.): In the northern Amazonia,  rainfall is above
normal during ~1945-1975 and below normal during ~1976-1998; and it is opposite in the
southern Amazonia. He suggested warmer SST in central and eastern Pacific contributed to
the dry conditions in the northern Amazonia during 1976-1998.
As noted in Betts et al. (2005, JHM, in press), Marengo's basin integrated rainfall
index does not correlate well with Amazon river flow during the recent decades (worse
than Chen et al.). This large multidecadal signal seems, however, robust.
=====
Certainly the attached figure is striking.  Are we sure it is not due to changes in the
way observations are made? Do other datasets replicate this? The lack of relation with
river flow is a substantial concern.   Matilde, can you provide informed commentary?  If
the figure is good then maybe we should include it?
Kevin
--
Aiguo Dai, Scientist                        Email: adai@ucar.edu
Climate & Global Dynamics Division          Phone: 303-497-1357
National Center for Atmospheric Research    Fax  : 303-497-1333
P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO  80307, USA      [1]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/
Street Address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305, USA
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.


Dear all,
First of all a big hand for Eystein and all those who put in so much time into this task. Very disheartening to hear the outcome.
I have muych sympathy with what Rainer Zahn has said, especially on the Brussels front and the client relationships that are cultivated with EU officials.
I think that in addition to a letter to the EU, I would suggest that perhaps an editorial in NAture or something similar, outlining the growing degree of scepticism amongst scientists regarding the transparency of the EU funding process might be in order.
Chronis Tzedakis
-----Original Message-----
From:	Rainer Zahn
Sent:	Wed 5/11/2005 2:47 PM
To:	Thomas Stocker; Atte Korhola
Cc:	Eystein.Jansen@geo.uib.no; Imprint-partner@bjerknes.uib.no; beatriz.balino@bjerknes.uib.no; atle.nesje@geo.uib.no; oyvind.lie@geo.uib.no; john.birks@bio.uib.no; Carin.Andersson@bjerknes.uib.no; trond.dokken@bjerknes.uib.no; ulysses.ninnemann@geo.uib.no; Astrid.Bardgard@fa.uib.no; richard.telford@bjerknes.uib.no
Subject:	commission performance alpha 5
dear Eystein, dear Imprint consortium,
I am sure I will not make many friends with what follows below. Firstly, it
surely is sad and disheartening to see our proposal going down. and there
are many issues involved some of which have been named in the recent
emails. But then there are those issues left that have not been named but
which I consider relevant if we are to make progress on the EU FWP front.
Some of these issues may and will touch a personal nerve here and there,
but let's face some of the unpleasant realities much rather than sitting
back and keeping going with business as usual, a business that soon may go
out of existence.
First, I am not convinced that Imprint was the best we could have done. On
my side I was surprised to no small extent during our London meeting to see
that those from the modeling community and other groups present obviously
had no idea why our palaeo-component (a derivative of the planned ICON IP)
was part of Imprint, and they were not overly favourable to listen and
expand their views. So in a sense, even within our own consortium there
was, perhaps still is a lack of insight and understanding as to what a
palaeo-component is about and will have to offer. In the end I am now left
with the impression that ICON would have stood a good chance to survive on
its own.
Second, as a member of the Imprint consortium I still find it difficult
today to sort through this proposal and its various components, tasks,
topics, milestones, deliverables etc. Which only tells me how ever so more
difficult it must have been for outsiders i.e., reviewers to sift through
the bits and pieces and comprehend what this is about. But I also feel that
this has to do with the concept of IPs at large as it is not an easy task
to compose an IP consortium of the dimension and wide range of expertise
envisioned by the commission. The outcome of the whole process in my view
confirms the notion that the concept of IPs has fundamentally (and to a
large degree predictably) failed. This concept reflects a substantial lack
of insight on the side of those who were, presumably still are involved in
designing research policies in the commission about what science is about
and how it works. Those parties should not be where they are, and they
certainly should not be involved in setting up FWP7
This is what I have to say about our proposal.
As for the Commission's performance it is not my impression they are living
up to their own standards that they have set up for the quality of
proposals requested. In particular the proposal evaluation process is
ridiculous and lacks any degree of substance. For instance, the reviews
that I did receive in response to my RTN proposal (submitted last year) are
mediocre at best, meaningless and useless in detail, beyond anything I
would consider expert insight, simply a waste of time and tax payers'
money. They are an insult to anybody who did contribute to and put work and
effort into that proposal. As for the Impront proposal we now are faced
with the prospect that the only IP proposal, Millennium, that is competing
with Imprint from the outset was received more favourably than our own
proposal. With this I could live were it not for the fact that in
Millennium everything is named as a strategy and work plan that we were
being advised to not do. This speaks a language of its own and to me
reflects a fundamental lack of enthusiasm, professionalism and competence
with those who give advice and organize the evaluation process. Obviously,
the vision set out by our programme manager(s) never made it to the
reviewers who seemed to follow quite different guidelines, if any.
Lastly, from what I can see around me, particularly in the Mediterranean
club, it appears more important and beneficial to spend time in Brussels
wiping door handles and leaving a professorial - directorial impression
rather than composing upbeat cutting edge science proposals. It is ever so
disheartening that within the FWP our success seems to depend more on who
we know than the quality we present. Last time when programme managerial
posts in the commission were reshuffled the primary concern around here was
that "we now lose our contacts". This is wrong, a disgrace to our community.
I have had a few conversations with colleagues who were partners in EU
proposals, both successful ones and ones that were rejected. From these
conversations I sense a growing degree of tiredness about EU science policy
and more so, about the chaotic way proposals are being solicited and then
turned down on grounds that so very obviously have nothing to do with the
science presented. There is also the notion that within the commission
climate and paleo-work has fallen from grace, for reasons not known to
many. Which brings me back to the point that perhaps we do not have the
right programme managers in place to fend our cause.
I am prepared to write a firm letter to the commission, or to contribute to
such letter, about the issues impinging on the poor performance of the
commision. I rather do that before turning entirely into a full-grown
Eurosceptic.
Rainer
Rainer Zahn, Professor de Recerca
Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats, ICREA
i Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Institut de Ciencia i Tecnologia Ambientals
Edifici Cn - Campus UAB
E-08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola), Spain
Phone: +34 - 93 581 4219
Fax: +34 - 93 581 3331
email: rainer.zahn@uab.es, rainer.zahn@icrea.es


Dear all IMPRINT colleagues,
Being away from Europe, this was a very bad news that I got this morning
listening about the rejection of IMPRINT. Eystein did a great job by being
able to gather the European paleo community under a common umbrella and he
desereves a lot of our consideration.
Concerning now the review process, I have been involved several times in
Brussels and I have been able to see the evolution of the evaluating panel
session after session.
I am not please with this evaluation and I already addressed my comments
to Andre Berger. It is not normal that entering the room where you are
supposed to meet the other "panelists" you would not know those who are
supposed to be representative of your community, this is my first comment.
Second, the way the referees are selected is somehow strange and involve a
political issue which is very sensitive as I'm sure you will understand
that a country fair representation is not enough in our field which better
involves expertise.
Third and last, having set a consortium of the leading Europe institutions
and scientists, how can you expect appropriate expertise? I have been
approached to join the evaluating panel but refused as being an IMPRINT
member to respect some ethic. If, what I wish, we all didi that way, they
one can sincerely expect the worst as I already experienced in a recent
past.
Forth, complaining to the commission is a waste of time as these
administrative people, even if this is you right, will always provide you
with arguments to justify the decision. I complain once to the director of
the programme who just retun me that the referees of my proposal were
relevant, what I know was not the case unfortunately. However I totally
support the initiative to question the commission on the way the
evaluations are performed, but also how the referees are selected.
Fifth, you all are waiting for the reviews. I agree with Rainer that the
comments that are provided are useless and in somehow offending the PIs.
This is mostly due to the review process and this again must be changed.
Furthermore what we receive is the consensus report which passed in the
European officers hands to be cleaned of any agressive sentences or words,
and must remain politically correct. So effectively these reports are
useless. It would be interesting to get also the individual reports on
which the consensus one has been established and would better show the
real work of every referee, and we would be very surprised sometimes.
Finaly to follow Thomas, Rainer and Eric, I would suggest to continue what
has been launched with IMPRINT which is to my sense unique in gathering
all the European paleo community under the same umbrella. May be the
proposal was too broad, but this was following the commission's aim. The
"Millenium" proposal benefited of several consecutive EU supports which
apparently helped a lot. Their lobbying seem to have ben very efficient,
not only in Brussels but in the journals and meetings. The Utrecht
initiative was a good one which must stop today. We have the opportunity
to gather regularly at least once during the EGU that we all are
attending, why not using such opportunity to reinforce the initiative
during such meeting?
All the very best to all of you
cheers
denis
-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Betreff: RE: commission performance alpha 5
Von: "Polychronis Tzedakis"
Datum: Mit, 11.05.2005, 17:25
An: "Rainer Zahn"
,
"Thomas Stocker"
,
"Atte Korhola"
Dear all,
First of all a big hand for Eystein and all those who put in so much
time into this task. Very disheartening to hear the outcome.
I have muych sympathy with what Rainer Zahn has said, especially on the
Brussels front and the client relationships that are cultivated with EU
officials.
I think that in addition to a letter to the EU, I would suggest that
perhaps an editorial in NAture or something similar, outlining the
growing degree of scepticism amongst scientists regarding the
transparency of the EU funding process might be in order.
Chronis Tzedakis
-----Original Message-----
From:	Rainer Zahn
Sent:	Wed 5/11/2005 2:47 PM
To:	Thomas Stocker; Atte Korhola
Cc:	Eystein.Jansen@geo.uib.no; Imprint-partner@bjerknes.uib.no;
beatriz.balino@bjerknes.uib.no; atle.nesje@geo.uib.no;
oyvind.lie@geo.uib.no; john.birks@bio.uib.no;
Carin.Andersson@bjerknes.uib.no; trond.dokken@bjerknes.uib.no;
ulysses.ninnemann@geo.uib.no; Astrid.Bardgard@fa.uib.no;
richard.telford@bjerknes.uib.no Subject:	commission performance alpha 5
dear Eystein, dear Imprint consortium,
I am sure I will not make many friends with what follows below. Firstly,
it  surely is sad and disheartening to see our proposal going down. and
there  are many issues involved some of which have been named in the
recent  emails. But then there are those issues left that have not been
named but  which I consider relevant if we are to make progress on the
EU FWP front.  Some of these issues may and will touch a personal nerve
here and there,  but let's face some of the unpleasant realities much
rather than sitting  back and keeping going with business as usual, a
business that soon may go  out of existence.
First, I am not convinced that Imprint was the best we could have done.
On  my side I was surprised to no small extent during our London meeting
to see  that those from the modeling community and other groups present
obviously  had no idea why our palaeo-component (a derivative of the
planned ICON IP)  was part of Imprint, and they were not overly
favourable to listen and  expand their views. So in a sense, even within
our own consortium there  was, perhaps still is a lack of insight and
understanding as to what a  palaeo-component is about and will have to
offer. In the end I am now left  with the impression that ICON would
have stood a good chance to survive on  its own.
Second, as a member of the Imprint consortium I still find it difficult
today to sort through this proposal and its various components, tasks,
topics, milestones, deliverables etc. Which only tells me how ever so
more  difficult it must have been for outsiders i.e., reviewers to sift
through  the bits and pieces and comprehend what this is about. But I
also feel that  this has to do with the concept of IPs at large as it is
not an easy task  to compose an IP consortium of the dimension and wide
range of expertise  envisioned by the commission. The outcome of the
whole process in my view  confirms the notion that the concept of IPs
has fundamentally (and to a  large degree predictably) failed. This
concept reflects a substantial lack  of insight on the side of those who
were, presumably still are involved in  designing research policies in
the commission about what science is about  and how it works. Those
parties should not be where they are, and they  certainly should not be
involved in setting up FWP7
This is what I have to say about our proposal.
As for the Commission's performance it is not my impression they are
living  up to their own standards that they have set up for the quality
of  proposals requested. In particular the proposal evaluation process
is  ridiculous and lacks any degree of substance. For instance, the
reviews  that I did receive in response to my RTN proposal (submitted
last year) are  mediocre at best, meaningless and useless in detail,
beyond anything I  would consider expert insight, simply a waste of time
and tax payers'  money. They are an insult to anybody who did contribute
to and put work and  effort into that proposal. As for the Impront
proposal we now are faced  with the prospect that the only IP proposal,
Millennium, that is competing  with Imprint from the outset was received
more favourably than our own  proposal. With this I could live were it
not for the fact that in  Millennium everything is named as a strategy
and work plan that we were  being advised to not do. This speaks a
language of its own and to me  reflects a fundamental lack of
enthusiasm, professionalism and competence  with those who give advice
and organize the evaluation process. Obviously,  the vision set out by
our programme manager(s) never made it to the  reviewers who seemed to
follow quite different guidelines, if any.
Lastly, from what I can see around me, particularly in the Mediterranean
club, it appears more important and beneficial to spend time in
Brussels  wiping door handles and leaving a professorial - directorial
impression  rather than composing upbeat cutting edge science proposals.
It is ever so  disheartening that within the FWP our success seems to
depend more on who  we know than the quality we present. Last time when
programme managerial  posts in the commission were reshuffled the
primary concern around here was  that "we now lose our contacts". This
is wrong, a disgrace to our community.
I have had a few conversations with colleagues who were partners in EU
proposals, both successful ones and ones that were rejected. From these
conversations I sense a growing degree of tiredness about EU science
policy  and more so, about the chaotic way proposals are being solicited
and then  turned down on grounds that so very obviously have nothing to
do with the  science presented. There is also the notion that within the
commission  climate and paleo-work has fallen from grace, for reasons
not known to  many. Which brings me back to the point that perhaps we do
not have the  right programme managers in place to fend our cause.
I am prepared to write a firm letter to the commission, or to contribute
to  such letter, about the issues impinging on the poor performance of
the  commision. I rather do that before turning entirely into a
full-grown  Eurosceptic.
Rainer
Rainer Zahn, Professor de Recerca
Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats, ICREA
i Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Institut de Ciencia i Tecnologia Ambientals
Edifici Cn - Campus UAB
E-08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola), Spain
Phone: +34 - 93 581 4219
Fax: +34 - 93 581 3331
email: rainer.zahn@uab.es, rainer.zahn@icrea.es


Katerina,
I will be able to review this, despite just coming back from IPCC.
Cheers
Phil
At 20:04 12/05/2005, you wrote:
Dear Phil,
Attached is a letter from Steve Schneider requesting review of the above referenced
paper, which is also sent as an attachment (ms and four figures).
Please acknowledge receipt and let us know if you need a hard copy.
Regards,
Katarina
Katarina Kivel
Assistant Editor, CLIMATIC CHANGE
Department of Biological Sciences
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305-5020
TEL 650-725-6508
FAX 650-725-4387
EMAIL kivel@stanford.edu
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


so can you give me a number where I can reach you - after your meeting . I am in and out
trying to do various things , but wish to discuss "next steps" . Did you get my email last
evening?
Keith
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[1]
References
1.


Hi Keith,
for your information, I  have enclosed the letter
received on the outcome of phase 1, and the
guidance for Stage 2. We will dig up more.
I also talked with Christoph Heinze who said this
definately  has the flair of someone in the
review panel having an agenda of revenge, and
that this could be an element of a formal
complaint.
More later,
Eystein
--
______________________________________________________________
Eystein Jansen
Professor/Director
Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen
Allégaten 55
N-5007 Bergen
NORWAY
e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no
Phone: 	+47-55-583491  -  Home: +47-55-910661
Fax:  	+47-55-584330
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\IMPRINT_QI_letter 1.pdf"
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\IMPRINT_ESR 1.pdf"


Mike,
Just reviewed Caspar's paper with Wahl for Climatic Change. Looks pretty good.
Almost reproduced your series and shows where MM have gone wrong. Should keep
them quiet for a while. Also they release all the data and the R software. Presume
you know all about this. Should make Keith's life in Ch 6 easy !
Also, confidentially for a few weeks,  Christy and Spencer have admitted
at the Chicago CCSP meeting that their 2LT record is wrong !! They used the wrong
sign for the diurnal correction !  Series now warms - not quite as much as the surface
but within error bands. Between you and me, we'll be going with RSS in Ch 3
and there will be no discrepancy with the surface and the models. Should make Ch 3
a doddle now !   Keep quiet about this until Bern at least. Can tell you more then.
RSS (Carl Mears and Frank Wentz) found the mistake !
The skeptic pillars are tumbling !
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear friends of the Imprint - SSC,
After seeing the evaluation summary of our
proposal, and not least the same for Millennium,
it is clear to me that we have been very badly
treated, first by the public advice from the
Commission in Utrecht who advised the community
to create a proposal which we did, but which is
orthogonal to what they now have decided to
negotiate, later by the random way we were
reviewed and the many inconsistencies in the
evaluation. Compared to this the Millennium
review was full of subjective phrases and a
number of negative aspects were glossed over.
The review is an insult, and it appears likely
that elements in the panel bear some grudges
against our community. In order to get the 0.5
point difference between Imprint and Millennium
they had to give a number of very imbalanced
statements. They also had to raise the management
score of Millennium to 4 by the xtended panel
despite critisisms by the reviewers  that the
management was not well laid out.
I feel that the review was very biased and the
result is that they will probably fund a project
with only limited relevance to the call, and miss
a major opportunity of integrating European
paleoclimate research and climate modelling and
create a new major step forward.
We have been advised to send a formal letter of
complaint to the Commission, asking for a renewed
evaluation, not because we think there is a good
chance that it will lead to much, but we think it
is important that they know that they have upset
a community consisting of top level European
scientists, This may help us in the longer term.
The advice I have got is to send this to Pierre
Valette, co-signed by the key partners, both
their PIs and head of administration, with copies
to our individual national members of the Global
Change Panel of the EU.
So far there is no formal decision on which
proposal to fund, this may happen in September
after negotiations with the selected proposals.
There is a seldom precedence in Europe that such
an intervention has been successful, but very
rarely.
In phrasing such a letter we have to be very
careful and make sure our message is clear and
fair, but I think it needs to be done.
I would therefore ask you to respond immediately
to this mail as to whether you think we should go
this route or not. We will then in a few days
send out a draft for comments, if you agree that
we shall send in a complaint. We have to move
fast here, so I hope you will be quick.
Concerning the other proposals on what to do,
there are many good ideas, and I think we should
have a meeting in the autumn to discuss the
strategy of securing paleo in the 7th Framwork
program. The text is out for review now, and we
all need to suggest changes through our national
representatives. I will distribute a list of who
this is for the various countries over the
week-end.
I am also working on formulating  text to help
launch our ideas in teh European Parliament via
Atte´s wife.
Best wishes,
Eystein


Hi Keith - thanks again for the help in Beijing. We hope you found a
fabulous clay pot or at least some good views of China.
We know it's going to be extra hard on you to get everything done on
time, but we're hoping you can more-or-less stick to the schedule we
just sent around. Your section is going to be the big one, and we
need to make sure we have as much review and polishing as possible.
If we don't we (especially you) will pay heavily at FOD review time.
Lots of work now saves even more work later. Or so the real veterans
tell us.
Lastly, we wanted you to know that we can probably win another page
or two (total, including figs and refs) if you end up needing it.
Susan didn't promise this, but she gave us the feeling that we could
get it if we ask - but probably only for your section, and maybe an
extra page for general refs (although we're not going to mention this
to the others, since we're not sure we can get it). Note that some of
the methodological parts of your sections should go into supplemental
material - this has to be written just as carefully, but it gives you
another space buffer. All this means you can do a good job on
figures, rather than the bare minimum. We're hoping you guys can
generate something compelling enough for the TS and SPM - something
that will replace the hockey-stick with something even more
compelling.
Anyhow, thanks in advance for what is most likely not going to be
your number 1 summer to remember. That said, what we produce should
provide real satisfaction.
Best, Peck and Eystein
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795


Kevin,
I'll broach it with the UK people. Need to consider timing in November, once we
get the comments or maybe after the ChCh meeting.  Been to Boulder in Jan and Feb
before so know what to expect ! Early Feb would seem best. Not thought about
going to the AMS so won't.
A few problems with Figures today. Hopefully they will get resolved in the not too
distant future.  Dave E has at least sent one email.
Seeing our granddaughter on Saturday, but should have some good time for
the Chapter on Sunday and Monday (at home).
Cheers
Phil
At 17:11 25/05/2005, you wrote:
Hi Phil
I am attaching the updated Fig 3.4.? I have also in .ps that can be converted if need
be.
Dennis has also plotted the Fu data and I'll send a version a bit later.  But need to
have consistent colors.
I am encouraged that the text is getting a lot better.  The FOD is approaching close to
what will be final, we should find.  After that point the figs should only be updates
and minor changes, and the text is modified to respond to comments, that we will have to
address more systematically next time.  The SOD does become close to final: still
subject to all the reviews and late breaking material.
Key thing is for you and me to make sure we converge, and don't do a wholesale
replacement of a section without careful checking.
I have decided not to attend AMS AGM next year in January so that I can work on the
SOD.  I would be glad to invite you to come for a visit for a week and I suspect we can
also come up with some funds to help: at the price of a seminar.  e.g. we could split it
by you doing airfare and we do local accommodation or vice versa?  This summer Tom
Stocker is here and working with Jerry on chap 10.  I think it could be worthwhile, main
question is best timing.  Perhaps late Jan or early Feb?  That time of year can be cold
here: usually not that much snow or if it does snow it does not last long in Boulder:
great skiing nearby if you are interested in that.  Mean T in Jan is about 0C but highs
not uncommon about 10C, and have been over 20C with chinook.  Cold at night.  So good
idea.
Cheers
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:
Kevin,
Things seem to be coming in.  Will work on 3.5-3.7 tomorrow. 3.2 and the Appendices
now back with David. The Appendices read pretty good - lots of useful background
material. It will be shame to lose it to a web site. Once David gets these back these
should be almost good enough to go out to all on July 15 (or whenever we said).
A thought kept recurring - there must be a better way to do this !  Although the FOD
reviews will be different from the ZOD (and many more), I'm prepared to come to Boulder
for a week
in early 2006 if needed. I think I can get the money from the UK to do this. Question
is
will be it be worthwhile. Better if we were both locked away somewhere other than one
of our institutions, but then we wouldn't have the infrastructure, support (email,
printers
etc).
Anyway, give it some thought. You'll know more than I do about some much the FOD
and SOD change. Q is whether a week or a fortnight is sufficient.  If we knew that a
few of the
key people in the chapter were at their desks, the text should show a marked
improvement.
Assuming here the majority of the Figures set by then - just a few need updating.
Cheers
Phil
At 17:03 24/05/2005, you wrote:
Hi Phil
Thanks for update:  monday is a holiday here: Memorial Day, seems weird that Brian is
working?
My approach to the revisions at this stage is not to take the material sent and
wholesale replace it, but cautiously compare and insert if it makes sense.  i.e. you and
I need to act as editors with a fairly strong hand.  I suspect 3.7 may have some useful
material but it could degrade the section by further adding material that is not
especially relevant.  I'll bet it does not shorten it, which is desired still.
I am clearly not on same page as Brian wrt clouds and radiation, and I am interested in
his take on it all, given the new material and changes.  I am not a fan of Norris'
stuff.  We have updated Fig 3.4.1 on water vapor thru 2004: the ocean trend drops to
1.2%/decade.  So you can help a lot by putting your take on the 3.4 stuff: it may also
require some careful wording to accommodate different views if we can't see eye to eye.
For instance, on the dimming, the recent Pinker paper uses ISCCP and I simply don't
believe the trends from ISCCP at all.  Saying Wielicki and ISCCP agree actually damns
them both.  Or similarly saying Norris and ISCCP agree causes problems (this relates to
upper cloud, which Norris gets from total minus lower, but those two sets of data are
not homogeneous: there is not a lower cloud ob for every total; using means, esp zonal
means without differencing each ob potentially causes major problems).
Dennis is starting on the 3.6 figs today plus the Sahel one.
Cheers
Kevin
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    [1]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                              e-mail: [2]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR                  [3]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000,                                 (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                               (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80303
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
2. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
3.


Dave,
Thanks for the update on the maps. Can you calculate a CRU time series from
what you have? Exactly which dataset do you have? Is it CRU TS 2.0? If this is it
then OK. This is the infilled one, so variance may be a little low in early years.
Hopefully your calculations will agree with Aiguo. I don't have anyone here to do this
at the moment. There seem a lot of deadlines at the moment here, which is making
it hard for me to find quality time for Ch3. Luckily there is a holiday weekend coming
up and I hope to use that to get 3.5-3.7 looked over. 3.2 is now done and agreed
with David. I'll tweak anything when I get your spatial maps. I came in with good
intentions today, but have been answering emails and seeing students.
As for smoothing, we didn't agree. For temperature we are going with the HC
'approximate' 20-year binomial. I'll attach a figure David's produced to let you see that.
I reckon if you did a 13-year binomial you'll get something like it. Remember to send
David all the series for trend estimation when you have them.
I am assuming Bin Wang did 3.7.1. Can you clarify with Dave exactly what 3.7.1
is? Give him the method to calculate it.  Also clarify the two Chen's.
I see that David has emailed his reading of the
English. I was about to wright something like this. It is definitely the difference
between
two period averages and not extremes years in the periods. The caption obviously needs
a lot of work - I'll have a go at that when I get to it.
If the 3 of us are having difficulties, what hope have we for the readers. If you can't
get
anything remotely like it I would suggest we drop it - but try David's English translation
first !
Cheers
Phil
At 14:11 26/05/2005, David Easterling wrote:
Phil,
We will have the maps redone next week and I have started reworking the text for 3.3
Do you have a CRU global pcp time series for 1901-2003 you can send or should
we calculate?  I have the numbers for the figure Aiguo Dai sent.
Also, we never decided on a standard smoothing routine.  My preference is for
a 13 or 9 point binomial with reflected ends, but we need to decide.
Last, it is still not clear who did figure 3.7.1, was it Bin Wang?  The two Chen
papers are by different authors, the 2004 EA monsoon paper is by T-C Chen of
Iowa State U., and the 2002 paper and data set creator is Ming Chen at NOAA/CPC.
I have requested the PREC/L data set from CPC. But I am not even sure exactly what
3.7.1 is, the title says change in mean annual range between the two periods, which I
interpret to mean the difference between the highest and lowest years for the post 1976
period
minus the difference between the highest and lowest from the pre-1976 period giving a
measure
of change in year to year consistency of  monsoons.  Also, there is a reference in the
text that
Chen et al. (2004) compiled PREC/L, but that is not the case, it should be Chen et al.
(2002)
as creator, but with an update to 2003.
Dave
Phil Jones wrote:
Dave,
I still don't understand why Bin Wang is involved in this !  Have you contacted
Chen? Maybe it was Bin Wang.  Have you looked into trying to reproduce it?
Panmao has sent me a revised 3.7.3 using HadSLP2. I'm going to contact
Rob Allan about this one as he's been involved in developing HadSLP2.
Will you be in a position to send revised Figures soon?  Any date also
when you'll be working on the text of 3.3?
Cheers
Phil
At 19:44 25/05/2005, David Easterling wrote:
Phil,
I am trying to track down the source of Fig. 3.7.1 the epoch difference in
monsoon rainfall map.  It has a reference of Chen et al. 2004, which is
the J. Climate paper on the east Asian monsoon, but this figure is not in the paper.
Someone must
of plotted it using their data, but not sure who.  Do you know?
Dave
--
David R. Easterling, Ph.D.
Chief, Scientific Services Division
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC  28801    USA
V: 828-271-4675
F: 828-271-4328
David.Easterling@noaa.gov
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
David R. Easterling, Ph.D.
Chief, Scientific Services Division
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC  28801    USA
V: 828-271-4675
F: 828-271-4328
David.Easterling@noaa.gov
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Olga,
I deeple apologize for haveing not read your e-mail earlier. I was so
overburden with other obligations when coming back from Beijing
that I gave myself the deadline of June 1 to start with IPCC work. As
usual, circumstances have forced me to postpone this "dedaline" to next
Monday. For this, I had not realised that Chapter 6 has its first deadline
tomorrow. I have now gone through the "Glaiers during the LIA" and
"Glaciers during the MWP" paragraphs as well as through the "glacier
bullet" you send today.
I think the LIA paragraph fits well into the Chapter 4 as a supplement to
the "Observations" we concentrate on. The MWP is a bit out of focus
(Observations!). As I mentioned earlier, I would be glad if chapter 6
could give glaciers approprate space as being the only climate proxies
which are exclus´ively governed by physical processes and are, thus, much
safer to interpret than any other proxies. The fact that they give
filtered information as a mean over longer time periods enables them to
represent climate. Over the last years, glaciologists have started to
investigate the impact of climate seasonality on glaciers and have also
started to separate thermal and hygric variables driving glaciers. All
this deserves much attention also beyond the "Observations" to be coverd
in Chapter 4.
A comment on the bullet: this is fine. The only point I would change is
the one mentioning Africa. For Lewis Glacier, Mount Kenya, advances have
been reconstructed from moraines aoroud 1900 and (measured) thickening
took place in the 1970s. Rwenzori glaciers have advanced in the late 1960s
and early 1970s. A compilation of this is attached as well as a figure
and a table from an ongoing compilation of the post-LIA retreat of
tropical glaciers I am working on. Please keep them confidential. Note
from this figure also the exception Kilimanjaro glaciers play. They have
to be seen separately from anything else we observe in the tropics mainly
because of the absolute lack of movement on the Plateau (there are also
other reasons which would go beyond a readable e-mail). So, to make the
long story short: (i) Afrikan glaciers are no exception to the global
picture and (ii) Kilimanjaro glaciers are an exception in Africa, in the
Tropics, and on the global picture. Thus, Kili glaciers should not be used
as an example neither for Africa nor for the tropics. Although I am highly
interested in Kilimanjaro myself running a reserach project there, I
strongly suggest to not overestimate its glaciers. Accoding to a request
from Suasan Solomon I will address that briefly in Chapter 4.5. By the
way, Kili glaciers only cover 2.6 km2 out of 2,500 km2 in the tropics (see
table in attachement).
Hope this is of help and if you have any further question feel free to
contact me. Best wishes, Georg
Georg Kaser ------------------------------------------------- Institut
fuer Geographie Innrain 52 A-6020 INNSBRUCK Tel: ++43 512 507 5407 Fax:
++43 512 507 2895
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Olga Solomina wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Please find attached my suggestions for the "Glacier bullet" (chapter 6). It
> accumulates (and replaces) all "glacier cases" mentioned in different places
> in our preliminary draft.
>
> I find that our first subdivision of the chapter to 2ka, 10ka etc. was more
> natural rather than 6ka etc. - now we have a  mixture of two systems.
>
> My suggestions for the glossary are:
>
> The Holocene (including Early, Mid, Late with approximate dates)
> Little Ice Age
> Neoglacial
>
> I also attach two paragraphs that I wrote for the Ch4 for the recent glacier
> variations, though it is still unclear where it should be. I think both the
> glacier recession from the LIA maximum positions and glacier advances
> occurred during the MWP should be mentioned somewhere.
>
> Cheers,
> olga
>
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\KASER-1999GPCh.PDF"
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\TropGlac.doc"


Eystein
tried phoning on your mobile - no luck - Don't like this Figure , but still having trouble
working on ours. Have cut large bits out of my text and suggestions for cutting other bits
, but will be a little late sending these bits. Can you ring to discuss (and IMPRINT)
tomorrow ?
Keith
At 06:28 15/06/2005, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
enclosed for your consideration.
Eystein
Envelope-to: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:13:28 -0400
From: Tom Crowley
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: J Overpeck
,
"Jansen, Eystein "
,
Tim Osborn
Subject: updated MWP figure
X-checked-clean: by exiscan on alf
X-UiB-SpamFlag: NO UIB: 0 hits, 8.0 required
X-UiB-SpamReport: spamassassin found;
Hello,
I have been fiddling with the best way to illustrate the stable nature of the medieval
warm period - the attached plot has eight sites that go from 946-1960 in decadal std.
dev. units - although small in number there is a good geographic spread -- four are from
the w. hemisphere, four from the east.  I also plot the raw composite of the eight sites
and scale it to the 30-90N decadal temp. record.
this record illustrates how the individual sites are related to the composite and also
why the composite has no dramatically warm MWP -- there is no dramatically warm
clustering of the individual sites.
use or lose as you wish, tom
--
______________________________________________________________
Eystein Jansen
Professor/Director
Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen
Allégaten 55
N-5007 Bergen
NORWAY
e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no
Phone:  +47-55-583491  -  Home: +47-55-910661
Fax:    +47-55-584330
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[1]
References
1.


Mike,
I will reply to Yasmine and say no tomorrow. Don't want to do it too soon.
Keith and I and Tim have been having loads of discussions about Ch 6 for IPCC.
Keith has to submit his latest draft tomorrow for better for worse.
What I'm thinking is that sometime when the three of us here have some spare time
- which may be some ways off, we'd like to do some experiments with different
proxy combinations. Would you be happy sending us all the proxies you have
(or Scott - the rookie) is putting together? If so can you arrange it. There is no
rush.  We won't pass any on or put on web sites etc.
If we ever did get some time then we could do something - it will be slowly, not for
this IPCC and unlikely to get written up or started until well into 2006.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Anders,
Sending again. Your server rejected this because of the extensions
so changed them. Hoep you get them.
Phil
Anders,
Thanks for the files. I was aware that the EGU was starting a new paleo journal.
I don't think there have been any issues yet.
I thought Keith had put those two series on our web site, but I can't find them
either. However, I found them ages and put them with some of the other long
tree-ring series. So here they are with others.
The ones you want should be in columns 1 and 2. The file starts in 1628BC, so
it takes a while to get to them. They start in AD 500.  I vaguely recall chopping off the
402-499 and 441-499 years because of sample size. Keith has more trw series now,
so they could be improved. Keith should have a reconstruction from the Grudd et al. (2002)
paper in The Holocene, but they must be on his machine.
I hope the papers for the two Fennoscandian series tell you what the base period
is. Given the publication dates I would suspect it is 1951-80.
There are newer series for Jasper and Tasmania and I wouldn't bother doing anything
with the two South American series.
Have a good summer break. Ruth and I have sat out every night this week so far.
We watched birds the last two days denuding the cherry tree of cherries.
Cheers
Phil
At 07:52 23/06/2005, you wrote:
Phil,
Here are the data we used in our Nature paper, minus Indigirka and Lauritzen. All series
are interpolated to annual resolution. Brief info in file headers. The details are found
in the online supplementary info on nature.com
Lauritzen's email:
"S. E. Lauritzen"
The Finnish diatom series and all eastern tree ring series have been sent through
personal contacts. The rest comes from the web, apart from GRIP which comes from you.
Could you, in return, send me the data file for the Fennoscandian summer temperature
reconstruction from either Briffa et al (Nature 1990) or Briffa et al (Clim Dyn 1992) -
or both? I could not find any of these series on the CRU website.
I realize that Isabelle Gouirand will have to discuss these two papers. Starting from
there and try to point out something new as regards the work done by Isabelle. By the
way, do you know anything about this journal:
[1] ? I did not know it existed, before I was
told about it yesterday.
Tomorrow starts my summer holidays, which last over the coming four weeks
Cheers,
Anders
At 10:07 2005-06-17 +0100, you wrote:
Anders,
When I got back the bus was still here and the driver had disappeared.
Hope the train came and you got to Stansted OK.
No rush for the paleo data - just when you have a few minutes.
Hopefully these colour plots are OK.  I think I was going to pay something
so forward any bills or tell Michelle to send to me.
Cheers
Phil
At 14:29 16/06/2005, you wrote:
Dear Michelle,
Thanks for your message. I expect your letter to arrive early next week, and I should be
able to answer quickly.
Best regards,
Anders
MTheakst@wiley.co.uk wrote:
Dear Anders
We have just posted you colour proofs of your paper - when you receive
these, please contact me to confirm whether we can proceed to publication.
We will be publishing your paper as part of Volume 25, Issue 9.
Best Wishes
Michelle
######################################################################
The information contained in this e-mail and any subsequent correspondence is private
and confidential and intended solely for the named recipient(s).  If you are not a named
recipient, you must not copy, distribute, or disseminate the information, open any
attachment, or take any action in reliance on it.  If you have received the e-mail in
error, please notify the sender and delete
the e-mail.
Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual sender,
unless otherwise stated.  Although this e-mail has been scanned for viruses you should
rely on your own virus check, as the sender accepts no liability for any damage arising
out of any bug or virus infection.
######################################################################
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.


Hi gang - I still have to weigh in on the great
figs/text that Keith and Tim have created, but
here's some feedback in the meantime.
I agree that a mean recon isn't the thing to do.
Let me think more before I weigh in more on the
fig. Working to get other LAs to get their stuff
in.
As for the Southern Hem temperature change fig
(and caption and a little text), I agree that you
(Ricardo in the lead) should do it as you've
proposed. We need a clear S. Hem statement, and
although it should stress that the data are too
few to create a reliable S Hem recon, we should
show the data that are available. Thus, PLEASE
proceed Ricardo on this tack. Also, can we
include the borehole recon series from S. Africa
and Australia (e.g., Pollack and Huang, 98)? I'm
sure Henry Pollack would provide fast - cc Huang
too, since he might be even faster. Keith and
Tim, does that make sense?
Please note that I think we can find room for the
above, regardless, if it is compelling enough.
As for ENSO, we will need to address for sure -
based mainly on the more direct coral data rather
than teleconnected (e.g., tree-ring)
relationships. The latter don't seem to be
definitive enough at this time - as I think we
discussed in China. The same holds true for
NAO/AO/PDO etc., and I think that we (Keith and
Tim) will need to have this in their section - in
a appropriately short manner. I'll provide more
feedback on this soon, so don't sweat it for now.
Main thing is to go ahead on the S Hem temp
fig/caption/short text., independent of ENSO etc
discussions.
Thanks, Peck
>Eystein and Peck
>very quick initial response - as have not seen
>Tim today. The Figure legends with very detailed
>explanations is at the end of the text I sent
>you already. The forcings ARE the ones that went
>into the models , appropriately colour coded for
>direct comparison - it was partly the difficulty
>of getting all of these prescribed or diagnosed
>forcings sorted out for each model that took Tim
>so long.The uncertainty levels are a compromise
>that chose came up with - see description in
>caption , but we are considering other things .
>Will get back to re the colours. Producing a
>mean reconstruction is not in my opinion a
>sensible thing to do so we will have to talk
>about this. The question of space is crucial
>regarding the Figure and reworking needed on
>Regional stuff  Ricardo and I need to know how
>the space is panning out , and you opinions on
>the reative importance of a SH regional Figure
>versus an ENSO Figure.- and what about Monsoon
>Peck? By the way, please clarify the space re
>the Medieval Warm Period Box. Does this have to
>come down , thought it was short enough?
>Keith
>
>  At 09:03 24/06/2005, Eystein Jansen wrote:
>>Hi Keith and Tim,
>>Lots of thanks for your hard work.
>>I have gone through the FOD draft and the
>>figures. Will send comments on text later today.
>>Here some comments on the figures.
>>I did not see the figure captions so it is not
>>entirely transparent to me what went into the
>>figures, hopefully all is material that is or
>>will be published before the end of 2005. But
>>anyhow, I think these figures are very good and
>>in my view give the different reconstructions,
>>the combined uncertainty as well as
>>reconstructions and simulations brought
>>together. I assume you have the Moberg et al
>>reconstruction included, but not the Oerlemans,
>>which will be treated in Ch. 4 (needs a x-ref).
>>Concerning the way of displaying the
>>uncertainties, it is not transparent to me how
>>the white and grey areas are produced. Would it
>>be viable to make a single curve of the mean of
>>the reconstructions to accompany the
>>simulations? The white area underlying the
>>simulations seem a bit weak, in the sence that
>>a superficial reader might wonder if it
>>displays something without content, perhaps a
>>different shade or colour would be better.
>>Conserning the simulations, it needs to be
>>clarified that the simulations did not
>>necessarily use the forcings displayed above,
>>hence it may be misleading to place the
>>forcings and simulations into the same figure.
>>Concerning the forcings, I am a bit surprised
>>that the amplitude of these are so close to
>>each other. Although I haven´t followed the
>>litterature here in detail, my impression was
>>that there is quite high discrepancies between
>>the various solar reconstructions, but I may be
>>wrong.
>>
>>Ricardo asks about  whether Peck and I have
>>Ok-ed his suggested figure. To me it seems a
>>good candidate for an ENSO illustration, with
>>some polishing to make it less technical, but
>>since Peck is more up to speed on this and
>>working on the issue, I  would leave it to him
>>to weigh in on this matter.
>>
>>Some first impressions for your consideration.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Eystein
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>______________________________________________________________
>>Eystein Jansen
>>Professor/Director
>>Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
>>Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen
>>Allégaten 55
>>N-5007 Bergen
>>NORWAY
>>e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no
>>Phone:  +47-55-583491  -  Home: +47-55-910661
>>Fax:    +47-55-584330
>
>--
>Professor Keith Briffa,
>Climatic Research Unit
>University of East Anglia
>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>
>Phone: +44-1603-593909
>Fax: +44-1603-507784
>
>
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795


Hi Keith and Tim - Eystein is going to chat with you tomorrow, and my
goal is to get as much as I can to you guys today and tomorrow.
First, off the figures are great (!) - that was tough job, and I'm
very impressed. Of course, I can already start to sense what the
debates will be, but we can address that in the text. Here are some
comments with respect to the figures - some are relevant to the
text...
1) they really are great
2) is the instrumental series on the first fig (top and bottom) the
same as featured in chapter 3? Need to say that.
3) rather than clogging up the caption with all the notes on each
curve, how about a table for each of the two figures. Then you can
include some more info on each recon - e.g., number of sites, types
of proxies??) I'm thinking mainly that the captions are not pretty,
but you may be able to include more summary info on each curve also
4) should we make all the series in their original and modified for
the figure form available on a www site so that reviewers can play
with the data and make sure they get their two cents in before this
thing is all said and published? The WDC-A is ready to help w/
posting of data and figs (see below).
5) I like the expanding time axis, but I'd be prepared to have a
second one with a linear axis. In fact, I'd put it up on the www page
at the same time with the data. The more we do to help others
understand, the better?
6) Also, it would be good to see both the data and the figure w/o the
Gaussian-weighted filtering. What do doe these look like, can we make
them available as suggested above. At the least, I'd like to see the
fig w/o the filtering, even though I know it will be a mess. How
about a series of time series plots (same x and y axes as the big fig
1) - in each you show both the filtered and unfiltered series. I know
this is a pain for Tim, but we really have to make sure we're not
missing anything in the data. And also - that we anticipate what
others will do, ask us to do, or squawk about.
7) On the forcing fig (fig 2) - why don't we see all the different
experiment curves (e.g., dotted red) in the forcing plots a, b and c?
Need to say why in the caption - and if they have the same forcing,
so you can't see it on the plot, need to say it. This could be much
easier in a table that indicates "same as X").
8) On fig 2 - does the recalulated envelop of reconstructed temps
also include instrumental temps? Think so, but you should say it in
the caption. Why doesn't the envelop go up to present? Can it? Might
look better, and be more consistent w/ fig 1. If the envelop can't go
to present, then maybe include the instrumental curve as in Fig 1.
9) reminders for the text (I'll think about these as I read a second
time for editing) -
9a) need to explain why the recons don't continue going up w/
instrumental data at the end (post 1990?) - might what to mention
something in caption, if you can shift all the other stuff to a table.
9b) there will be lots of discussion (during and post AR4 drafting)
about what recon series (Fig 1) should or should not be believed.
Thus, I think it is critical for us to same more about each recon -
that is to INCLUDE what you wrote in blue, and perhaps to enhance.
Need to really convince the reader that while not one recon is alone
the truth (and hence Fig 1), they all have important strengths and
weaknesses. But, the former outweigh the latter, so we've included
them.
9c) I'm sure you saw the recent (to be infamous) Wall Stree Journal
editorial - they showed what I think was a IPCC FAR curve - with the
good old MWP and LIA etc (Lamb view? - I don't have the FAR w/ me).
The way to handle the hocky stick might best be to put it in an
historical perspective along with the older IPCC views. First, show
your great figs, discuss them and what went into them, and then -
after showing the state-of-the-art, discuss how much our
understanding and view have changed. In this, simply compare each of
the historical views (FAR, SAR, TAR) to the current view, and while
doing so, play down the controversy (s) - especially the hockey
stick. The smart folks will realize that that the fluff in the news
is just that, but those with a real stake in that debate will
hopefully get the point that it doesn't matter...
10) lastly (almost), I'm sorry to ask again, but I still want to know
what is wrong with Tom Crowley's latest plot with all the recons
shown together back through the Med W Period? I need to send you my
edits on the MWP box, but it seem to me that Tom's fig could go in
that box - to help make the point that - sorry, guys - the MWP wasn't
much compared to the recent GLOBAL warming...
11) lastly (promise) - don't foget that Eystein and I think we can
get a page or two extra for your section in the end. This means you
can do all the above, and I can help (next) with the modes and
extremes sections, and we can get it all in.
Great job!
Thanks, Peck
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795


Gentlemen - attached is the ZOD Med Warm Period Box with my
edits/comments. I don't see anything sent since then, so hope I'm not
editing the wrong thing. In any case, the Box was pretty nice as is,
so I only made a few changes. Obviously, some updating w/ new studies
is needed. The big issues are two:
1) the recent Wall Street Journal editiorial that is creating all the
crap in the US actually showed a time series from the IPCC FAR - if
you don't have it, or Eystein can't send, I can scan it in (my
Republican Dad sends me these things, although he's an increasingly
rare breed of moderate Republican). My thought is that it might we
worth adding a couple lines documenting how the view of the MWP
changed with each assessment and new knowledge. In doing so, it could
be made very clear that there is a reason that scientists don't show
those old plots anymore. We need to move the debate beyond the FAR,
SAR and TAR on this issue!
2) it would be cool to have another figure that made the point about
no single synchronous period warmer than late 20th century. This is
where I get soft with respect to Tom's plot. If it is published to
the extent we need it, and if the composite or large-area average
recon is the same as you are showing in your great new Fig 1, then it
seems that it would be reasonable to show Tom's fig as part of the
Box - just to show the same thing in a different way, and to hammer
in one more nail. That said, I'm not sure if my two conditions above
are met (I emailed Tom, no response yet - you might have insight),
and I believe you just don't like Tom's fig for some - probably good
- reason. But, I wanted us to think extra hard about whether there is
SOME fig that might work?
That's it for tonight. Will finish editing your main text next work
session tomorrow I hope.
Best, Peck
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\MWP_box_textjto.doc"


Hi Keith,
Thanks--yes, we seem to back in the days of McCarthyism in the States. Fortunately, we have
some good people who will represent us legally pro bono, and in the best case scenario,
this backfires on these thugs...
The response of the wording is likely to change dramatically after consulation w/ lawyers,
etc. but any feedback on the substance would nonetheless be very helpful...
thanks for both your help and your support,
mike
At 05:48 AM 6/28/2005, you wrote:
Mike
just in and seeing this for time - will digest - but do not like look or implications of
this at all
Keith
At 17:00 25/06/2005, you wrote:
Tim/Keith/Phil,
Please see attached letter from the U.S. House republicans. As Tom has mentioned below,
it would be very helpful if I can get feedback from you all as I proceed w/ drafting a
formal response.
Thanks in advance for any help,
mike
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 09:36:49 -0600
From: Tom Wigley
Organization: NCAR/CGD
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: Michael Oppenheimer
Cc: "Michael E. Mann"
, shs@stanford.edu, dlashof@nrdc.org,
jhansen@giss.nasa.gov, mmaccrac@comcast.net, santer1@llnl.gov,
wigley@ucar.edu, Caspar Ammann
Subject: Re: NEED HELP!
X-UVA-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at fork9.mail.virginia.edu
Mike,
There are broader implications of this, so it is important to respond well. It is
a pity you have to be the guinea pig after what you have gone through already,
but you have many supporters.
I would not advise a legal route. I think you need to consider this as just another
set of referees' comments and respond simply, clearly and directly. On the science
side the key point is that the M&M criticisms are unfounded.
Although this may be difficult, remember that this is not really a criticism of you
personally, but one aspect of a criticism of the foundations of global warming
science by people both inside and outside of Congress who have ulterior motives.
There may, in fact, be an opportunity here. As you know, we suspect that there
has been an abuse of the scientific review process at the journal editor level.
The method is to choose reviewers who are sympathetic to the anti-greenhouse
view. Recent papers in GRL (including the M&M paper) have clearly not been
reviewed by appropriate people. We have a strong suspicion that this is the case,
but, of course, no proof because we do not know *who* the reviewers of these
papers have been. Perhaps now is the time to make this a direct accusation and
request (or demand) that this information be made available. In order to properly
defend the good science it is essential that the reasons for bad science appearing
in the literature be investigated.
The lever here is that the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the
House Committee on Energy and Commerce is suggesting that your papers are
bad science and asking (their point 8e) for the identity of people who reviewed
your work. In response, it is completely fair and justifiable to point out that it
is the papers that criticize your and related work that are bad science, and that,
through the Subcommittee you can request the identities of the reviewers of all
of these critical papers -- starting with M&M.
When you respond, there are a number of items that require a direct response
from you alone. There are also a number of scientific points where you could
give a multi-authored response. There are many people who have expertise in
this area and familiarity with the scientific issues who I am sure would be willing
to join you (I would be happy to do so).
At this stage, however, I would keep the group small. A few others could be added
to the original email list nevertheless. I took the liberty of copying your plea and
the Subcommittee's letter to Caspar Ammann, primarily because I think he can
help with the scientific aspects better than most people. After all, he has been
able to follow your method and reproduce your results, he has shown the flaws
in M&M's work, he has investigated the bristlecone pine issue, and he has made
all his software available on the web.
The others who could be added at this early stage are Ray Bradley and Malcolm
Hughes, your 'co-conspirators' -- and perhaps Phil Jones, Keith Briffa and Tim
Osborn. I do not know how 'powerful' these alien opinions may be in the present
parochial context, but I note that the instigators of all this are Canadians and that
the science has no national boundaries. Phil, Keith and Tim are useful because they
have demonstrated the flaws in the von Storch work -- which is, I assume, the
Science paper that the Subcommittee's letter referes to.
A word of warning. I would be careful about using other, independent paleo
reconstruction work as supporting the MBH reconstructions. I am attaching my
version of a comparison of the bulk of these other reconstructions. Although
these all show the hockey stick shape, the differences between them prior to
1850 make me very nervous. If I were on the greenhouse deniers' side, I
would be inclined to focus on the wide range of paleo results and the differences
between them as an argument for dismissing them all.
I attach also a run with MAGICC using central-estimate climate model parameters
(DT2x = 2.6 degC, etc. -- see the TAR), and forcings used by Caspar in the
runs with paleo-CSM. I have another Figure somewhere that compares MAGICC
with paleo-CSM. The agreement is nearly perfect (given that CSM has internally
generated noise while MAGICC is pure signal). The support for the hockey stick
is not just the paleo reconstructions, but also the model results. If one takes the
best estimates of past forcing off the shelf, then the model results show the hockey
stick shape. No tuning or fudging here; this is a totally independent analysis, and
critics of the paleo data, if they disbelieve these data, have to explain why models
get the same result.
Of course, von Storch's model results do not show such good century timescale
agreement, but this is because he uses silly forcing and has failed to account for
the fact that his model was not in equilibrium at the start of the run (the subject
of Tim Osborn et al.'s submitted paper).
This is a pain in the but, but it will all work out well in the end (unintentional pun
--
sorry). Good science will prevail.
Best wishes,
Tom.
-----------------------------------------------
Michael Oppenheimer wrote:
Michael:
This is outrageous.  I'll contact some people who may be able to help right away.
----------
From: Michael E. Mann [
[2]mailto:mann@virginia.edu]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 4:27 PM
To:
shs@stanford.edu;
omichael@Princeton.EDU;
dlashof@nrdc.org;
jhansen@giss.nasa.gov;
mmaccrac@comcast.net;
santer1@llnl.gov;
wigley@ucar.edu
Subject: NEED HELP!
Importance: High
dear all,
this was predicted--they're of course trying to make things impossible for me. I need
immediate help regarding recourse for free legal advice, etc.
mike
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail:
mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX:
(434) 982-2137
[11]
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[12]
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[13]
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[14]
References
1. mailto:mann@virginia.edu
2. mailto:mann@virginia.edu
3. mailto:shs@stanford.edu
4. mailto:omichael@Princeton.EDU%3Eomichael@Princeton.EDU
5. mailto:dlashof@nrdc.org
6. mailto:jhansen@giss.nasa.gov%3Ejhansen@giss.nasa.gov
7. mailto:mmaccrac@comcast.net
8. mailto:santer1@llnl.gov%3Esanter1@llnl.gov
9. mailto:wigley@ucar.edu
10. mailto:mann@virginia.edu
11.
12.
13.
14.


Hi Keith - might be worth talking on the phone - you, me and Eystein
- after you get back. You could be right, but it is a powerful way to
look at the issue. The question is whether the normalization could be
preventing a warmer than late-20th century signal from appearing?
Should we instead update the Bradley Science graphic? That's not as
effective in my opinion.
So, let's talk next week?
Going to a tree day meeting or a three day meeting - it has to be
tough looking at tree data all day.
have fun, thx, peck
>Jonathan and Eystein
>I am leaving very early for a tree day meeting in Swansea , and will
>be away til Monday. Presently buried in EC Reporting and other stuff
>- but the reason I dislike the MWP Figure is that the simple
>normalization of series as done , (regardless of regional selection
>of specific proxies) gives a largely random amplitude to the various
>records , depending on their spectral character, and of course,
>equal weight to all regardless of the strength of their link with
>local or NH temperatures). I will think about this - you are the
>ultimate arbiter anyway .
>sorry to be so abruptly communicative
>Keith
>
>At 16:10 28/06/2005, you wrote:
>>Hi Tom -- thanks for the extra effort. I'm pushing others on the
>>author team to think hard about such a figure (space may end up
>>being the hardest part), and I should have something to discuss w/
>>you soon. Thanks for being willing to shift priorities if needed.
>>
>>FYI - I just got reviews back from an EOS piece that took over a
>>1.5 months to get. And of course, they want some edits. Not the
>>speedy venue we once knew a loved, although I bet if you really
>>keep it short and sweet it might go faster.
>>
>>Best, more soon, peck
>>
>>>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>>>Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:13:49 -0400
>>>From: Tom Crowley
>>>X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
>>>To: Jonathan Overpeck
>>>Cc: Eystein Jansen
>>>Subject: Re: updated MWP figure
>>>
>>>Hi Jonathan,
>>>
>>>let me answer the last question first - there are actually not
>>>many records that go back that far and I have used, I think, every
>>>one except Quelcaya, which being from the southern tropics makes
>>>for a lonely but potential future inclusion (which makes no
>>>difference on the conclusion).
>>>
>>>several of the sites include multiple time series - e.g.,  western
>>>U.S. time series, w. Siberia time series,  e. Asia, and w.
>>>Greenland.  I did not want to overweight any site though because
>>>of the need for a geographic balance -- note that there are four
>>>sites each in the w. hemisphere and e. hemisphere, and that the
>>>distribution of sites in each hemisphere represents a good scatter.
>>>
>>>for almost all of these sites the references are easily imaginable
>>>based on the location of the site, but they can be provided if you
>>>are interested in including the figure.
>>>
>>>can you think of any long sites I have not included?  right now I
>>>cannot.....
>>>
>>>in the overlap interval of 1500-1850 our composite has highly
>>>significant correlations with the Mann, Jones, and Briffa
>>>reconstructions that contain much more data -- thereby suggesting
>>>that use of only long time series provides a "reasonable" estimate
>>>of the last 1100 years.
>>>
>>>I have not submitted this for publication but if you are
>>>interested in including this in ipcc I can knock off a tutorial
>>>note to eos on short notice.....
>>>
>>>I am attaching the figure in several different alternate formats -
>>>cannot easily do the two you suggest from my mac, but again I can
>>>get that done with more work if you are interested  - let me know
>>>where to go next - note that I originally sent this along fyi,
>>>only to be used if you thought the figure was worthwhile -- if not
>>>I will just reorder the priority of writing it up as a note,
>>>tom
>>>
>>>Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi Tom - thanks for sending this plot. I'm a bit late in
>>>>responding since we were moving to (and still into) our
>>>>sabbatical digs in SW CO.
>>>>
>>>>Would you be willing to provide more on this plot in order for me
>>>>to understand it better? I personally like the plot quite a bit,
>>>>but between the space restrictions and other's assessment,
>>>>whether we use it or not will take some real thinking.
>>>>
>>>>For example, it would help to have
>>>>
>>>>1) a higher resolution version - eps or ai?
>>>>2) a caption or text that would spell out which records are
>>>>included, and their origins (references)
>>>>3) a bibliography for those refs.
>>>>4) perhaps, you have a paper with this included? If so, can you
>>>>send a prerprint?
>>>>5) some discussion of why you used the series  (sites) you did,
>>>>and not others - more specifically, what's wrong with others?
>>>>
>>>>If you don't mind helping here, I'll promise to get it in the mix
>>>>for serious discussion. Of course, it's already in the mix since
>>>>Eystein forwarded to Keith, and you Tim, but I want to weigh in
>>>>as informed as possible. Trying to keep track of a lot, so your
>>>>help is much appreciated.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks! Peck
>>>>
>>>>>Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>>I have been fiddling with the best way to illustrate the stable
>>>>>nature of the medieval warm period - the attached plot has eight
>>>>>sites that go from 946-1960 in decadal std. dev. units -
>>>>>although small in number there is a good geographic spread --
>>>>>four are from the w. hemisphere, four from the east.  I also
>>>>>plot the raw composite of the eight sites and scale it to the
>>>>>30-90N decadal temp. record.
>>>>>
>>>>>this record illustrates how the individual sites are related to
>>>>>the composite and also why the composite has no dramatically
>>>>>warm MWP -- there is no dramatically warm clustering of the
>>>>>individual sites.
>>>>>
>>>>>use or lose as you wish, tom
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Jonathan T. Overpeck
>>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
>>Professor, Department of Geosciences
>>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
>>
>>Mail and Fedex Address:
>>
>>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
>>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
>>University of Arizona
>>Tucson, AZ 85721
>>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
>>fax: +1 520 792-8795
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>Professor Keith Briffa,
>Climatic Research Unit
>University of East Anglia
>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>
>Phone: +44-1603-593909
>Fax: +44-1603-507784
>
>
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795


Hi all,
Two things:
1. Concerning the 1470k pacing of DO-events.
There are revisions underway in the
layer-counting of the Greenland Ice Cores. A
meeting in Copenhagen in August co-ordinated by
Sigfus Johnsen will discuss the issue at length,
but there may not be many papers out from the
meeting that are citeable for IPCC. There is
already the Shackleton paper which indicate that
Greenland Ice Cores in MIS3 have an age model
that are off by some millennia, and the
preliminary data on the new age models indicate
substantial revisions as far as I hear from talks
given at various meetings. My thinking is that
we neither can ignore the fact that current data
indicate a 1470 pacing for some time interval of
the ice cores if one apply the existing age
scales. I think it would be foolish not not refer
to it, I think the possibility that the system
has  the ability to enter into specific cycles is
intriguing, and is a  result that is well known
and IPCC should not pretend we haven´t heard
about it. But we should make it less blunt than
in the current version of the Abrupt Change
subchapter, perhaps stating that the result is
highly dependant on age models and we need time
to absorb new research in order to verify the
result.
2. Having the fortune of not being that close to
the darker sides of US politics, I have the
feeling that Peck´s comment concerning
referencing perhaps is a bit too "paranoic". I
think the advice is well taken not to overcite
our own research, and make sure not to overlook
other important contributions, but we should do
our best to cite what we think are key results.
In any case we will have the FOD review and have
the opportunity to have all our good colleagues
keeping us honest on this issue.
Cheers,
Eystein
>Hi all - thanks Fortunat and Stefan for more
>debate on the 1470. Sounds like the final
>decision is up to Eystein, but I can guess the
>way he's thinking.
>
>With regard to refs - remember that our goal is
>to cut the number of references significantly.
>Since this is an assessment and not a review, we
>can delete all but the most recent and
>comprehensive references. I don't like cutting
>out the original refs any more than you, but we
>just don't have room, and its more important to
>have text than exhaustive references. Our
>colleagues will hopefully understand, and if
>they don't then they need to do an ego check.
>It's more important that we make an impact with
>policy makers rather than with citation indices.
>
>Does this make sense?
>
>In any case, please help make sure we trim the
>total references DOWN in number by a significant
>number. This is not happening the to degree it
>should.
>
>Also, please not that in the US, the US Congress
>is questioning whether it is ethical for IPCC
>authors to be using the IPCC to champion their
>own work/opinions. Obviously, this is wrong and
>scary, but if our goal is to get policy makers
>(liberal and conservative alike) to take our
>chapter seriously, it will only hurt our effort
>if we cite too many of our own papers
>(perception is often reality). PLEASE do not
>cite anything that is not absolutely needed, and
>please do not cite your papers unless they are
>absolutely needed. Common sense, but it isn't
>happening. Please be more critical with your
>citations so we save needed space, and also so
>we don't get perceived as self serving or worse.
>
>Again, we can debate this if anyone thinks I've gone off the deep end.
>
>Thanks, peck
>PS - this is not to say anything critical of the
>refs Fortunat is suggesting - we must cite the
>most relevant papers, and we must be as up to
>date as possible.
>
>>Peck and all,
>>
>>Fully agree. This '1470' yr periodicity is highly controversial and I
>>was never convinced.
>>We can use the space for better things that are relevant in the context
>>of the anthropogenic GHG perturbation.
>>
>>I miss the recent and relevant literature. Examples are Pahnke and Zahn,
>>Science, 2005 and Stocker and Johnsen, Paleoceanography 18, 2003,  and
>>Knutti et al., Nature, 2004
>>Hemitt et al., Rev Geophysics, 2004 might be a good reference for
>>Heinrich events.
>>
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Fortunat
>>
>>
>>Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hi guys - I'm not aware of the age model changes that Eystein is
>>>  talking about (however, I'm not in the Euro meeting circles, and
>>>  trust he's right), but I know of several studies (e.g., U/Th dated
>>>  (well dated) spelothem studies (plus C14 Cariaco) that indicate that
>>>  the GISP/GRIP age models are off by quite a bit pre 40kish. The other
>>>  studies agree, so it makes sense to me that the ice core gangs are
>>>  revising their age models. Regardless of the probabilities (note that
>>>  one finds evidence in quasi-periodic variance most all paleo
>>>  records), this significant age model change means that the "1470
>>>  beat" has to be off/wrong or something else other than we've been led
>>>  to believe. For the sake of playing it safe, we should play this beat
>>>  way down until there is new evidence that is more convincing that it
>>>  is for real. We can mention it, but we make it clear that the
>>>  evidence for it is not all that strong - at best.
>>>
>>>  I'll cc this to Fortunat and Valerie too - we don't want to rush to
>>>  conclusions w/o good discussion.
>>>
>>>  Thanks, Peck
>>>
>>>  >Hi Eystein,
>>>  >
>>>  >concerning your comment on the 1470-year beat: I'm aware that in the
>>>  >new time scale, it is less regular (at least I heard this, have not
>>>  >tested myself yet).
>>>  >
>>>  >If you have two time scales, one showing a regularity and one not,
>>>  >then there are two possibilities.
>>>  >(1) The regular one is correct, in the other one the regularity got
>>>  >wiped out by random dating errors.
>>>  >(2) The one without regularity is correct, in the other one a
>>>  >regularity arose by chance due to random dating errors.
>>  > >
>>>  >The likelyhood of the regularity found with the original GISP2 time
>>>  >scale occuring by chance is minute - I've done some more
>>>  >calculations, they are not complete yet but the likelyhood is in the
>>  > >permil range. I think hypothesis (2) can be exluded at least at 99%
>>>  >confidence level.
>>>  >
>>>  >Stefan
>>>  >
>>>  >--
>>>  >To reach me directly please use: rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de
>>>  >(My former addresses @pik-potsdam.de are read by my assistant Brigitta.)
>>>  >
>>>  >Stefan Rahmstorf
>>>  >www.ozean-klima.de
>>>  >www.realclimate.org
>>>
>>>  --
>>>  Jonathan T. Overpeck
>>>  Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
>>>  Professor, Department of Geosciences
>>>  Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
>>>
>>>  Mail and Fedex Address:
>>>
>>>  Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
>>>  715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
>>>  University of Arizona
>>>  Tucson, AZ 85721
>>>  direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
>>>  fax: +1 520 792-8795
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--
>>Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern
>>Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern
>>Phone:    ++41(0)31 631 44 61      Fax:      ++41(0)31 631 87 42
>>e-mail:   joos@climate.unibe.ch;   Internet:
>>~joos/
>
>
>--
>Jonathan T. Overpeck
>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
>Professor, Department of Geosciences
>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
>
>Mail and Fedex Address:
>
>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
>University of Arizona
>Tucson, AZ 85721
>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
>fax: +1 520 792-8795
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list
>Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu
>
--
______________________________________________________________
Eystein Jansen
Professor/Director
Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen
Allégaten 55
N-5007 Bergen
NORWAY
e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no
Phone:	+47-55-583491  -  Home: +47-55-910661
Fax: 	+47-55-584330
_______________________________________________
Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list
Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu


X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by cirse.extra.cea.fr id j5SLvFxj010843
Dear Keith,
I have read your text - despite of the heat wave here  (40°C in my
office in the afternoon...). I am a bit puzzled by the regional aspects.
I think that you should make more clear in the beginning that there is
very little new information / work conducted on the S Hemisphere /
tropics and that most efforts have been focussed on the N Hemisphere,
because you mention almost nothing for the S Hemisphere.  Is ENSO
considered as a regional mode of variability? I thought that it had
almost global relevance at least in terms of impacts.
Valérie.
Keith Briffa a écrit :
> Pascale
> I am sending what I sent Peck and Eystein
> The regional stuff at the end is from Ricardo Villalba and will need
> to be shortened /rewritten after advice from CLAs. Please note this is
> only provisional and I have had no feedback from other LA and CLAs and
> the text needs to be vetted/chopped or whatever. Please note also that
> the blue text will likely disappear - no space. The Figure legends are
> at the back of the text file. I will send Figures as a separate message
> cheers
> Keith
> At 15:52 23/06/2005, Pascale Braconnot wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Here is what I send today to gaby and francis as a contribution for
>> the first draft for chapt 9.3
>>
>> We know we have overlap between the two chapters (9 and 6). We need
>> to make sure that the point of view is different (or slightly).
>> in particular, chapter 6 days much more about the data (I nearly
>> supress all ref to data in 9), and may be also on model evaluation
>> (which i do not mention as such).
>>
>> It could be nice you send me your parts in chapter 6 when ready. I
>> will have only a small time to adapt the chapt 9 contribution and
>> make changes in July.
>>
>> How things will work in chapter9 in the coming month.
>>
>> CLA recieved all the contributions, they  work together next week
>> (i still need to interact with gbi for the last millenium part and
>> the update of the figure on detection: attribution, but gabi didn't
>> had time to do it at the moment).
>>
>> Then Gabi and Francis will return comments to us (as well as internal
>> comments withing LA of the chapter) and last changes will be provided
>> for the end of July.
>>
>> On my side I am out of contact (mail etc) starting 22 July.
>> I need thus to finish every thing for July 20.
>>
>> I hope the draft 1 writing is going on well on your side
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Pascale
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Professor Keith Briffa,
> Climatic Research Unit
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>
> Phone: +44-1603-593909
> Fax: +44-1603-507784
>
>
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\masson119.vcf"


Hi Caspar and Gene - Thanks. I look forward to hearing how things go
- if the paper is in press by the first week of August, we'll cite it
in the Chapter 6 of the FOD, but otherwise I guess it'll have to wait
- that's ok too.
But... keep us posted (and send revised preprint when possible). Thanks! Peck
>Hi Peck,
>
>you might have heard.. the thing is flying in everybody's face right
>now... Mike-Ray-Malcolm, IPCC and NSF got these lovely letters from
>the House of Representatives...
>
>Now, I know of - and already have in hand - comments by two reviews
>of the WA paper, both strongly positive. Steve is probably waiting
>on the Canadians to finish theirs. There were two requests for
>additional information over the course of the review so far, I hope
>no other one is required that delays the process. I cc Steve, he
>might give you the best perspective on the progress. Gene is going
>to be at NCAR in early July and we will finish with revisions ASAP.
>
>I hope this helps for now. I'm currently in Rome at a meeting on
>Sun-Climate links,
>Caspar
>
>
>Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>
>>Hi Caspar - we're working on the IPCC chapter and wonder if you
>>could pls update us w/ the status of Wahl and Ammann? Most
>>important - will it be in press by the end of the month?
>>
>>Thanks! Peck
>
>
>--
>Caspar M. Ammann
>National Center for Atmospheric Research
>Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology
>1850 Table Mesa Drive
>Boulder, CO 80307-3000
>email: ammann@ucar.edu    tel: 303-497-1705     fax: 303-497-1348
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795


Hi Gene - good to hear from you. What you list below seems like it
must be pretty good to me. Of course, we'd like to include all we can
in the FOD, hence the interest in knowing if it's in press or not
before the end of the month.
Just keep us updated, and if you feel comfortable sharing the ms.
that'd be great, but only if you feel ok about sharing it. The key
people are me, Eystein Jansen and Keith Briffa - we won't share it
with others.
Thanks for keeping us up to date. Best, peck
>Hello Jonathan:
>
>Thanks for this info.  Could you clue me in--I had heard through the
>grapevine (ultimate source, Jerry Meehl) that the actual in-press
>deadline for IPCC citations in the AR would be Jan 1 of 2006.  On
>the IPCC website I see mid-December for the Christchurch meeting.
>
>I assume this the same situation for Chapter 6, and thus the early
>August deadline is for the FOD.  Is this getting it correct?
>
>Let me know if viewing the submitted text would be of use to you,
>and I'll ship at once.
>
>
>Hope you are well.
>
>Peace, Gene
>Dr. Eugene R. Wahl
>Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies
>Alfred University
>
>607-871-2604
>1 Saxon Drive
>Alfred, NY 14802
>
>________________________________
>
>From: Jonathan Overpeck
>Sent: Fri 7/1/2005 2:46 PM
>To: Caspar Ammann
>Cc: Eystein Jansen; Stephen Schneider; Wahl, Eugene R; Keith Briffa
>Subject: Re: What's up with your paper with Eugene?
>
>
>
>Hi Caspar and Gene - Thanks. I look forward to hearing how things go
>- if the paper is in press by the first week of August, we'll cite it
>in the Chapter 6 of the FOD, but otherwise I guess it'll have to wait
>- that's ok too.
>
>But... keep us posted (and send revised preprint when possible). Thanks! Peck
>
>>Hi Peck,
>>
>>you might have heard.. the thing is flying in everybody's face right
>>now... Mike-Ray-Malcolm, IPCC and NSF got these lovely letters from
>>the House of Representatives...
>>
>>Now, I know of - and already have in hand - comments by two reviews
>>of the WA paper, both strongly positive. Steve is probably waiting
>>on the Canadians to finish theirs. There were two requests for
>>additional information over the course of the review so far, I hope
>>no other one is required that delays the process. I cc Steve, he
>>might give you the best perspective on the progress. Gene is going
>>to be at NCAR in early July and we will finish with revisions ASAP.
>>
>>I hope this helps for now. I'm currently in Rome at a meeting on
>>Sun-Climate links,
>>Caspar
>>
>>
>>Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Caspar - we're working on the IPCC chapter and wonder if you
>>>could pls update us w/ the status of Wahl and Ammann? Most
>>>important - will it be in press by the end of the month?
>>>
>>>Thanks! Peck
>>
>>
>>--
>>Caspar M. Ammann
>>National Center for Atmospheric Research
>>Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology
>>1850 Table Mesa Drive
>>Boulder, CO 80307-3000
>>email: ammann@ucar.edu    tel: 303-497-1705     fax: 303-497-1348
>
>
>--
>Jonathan T. Overpeck
>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
>Professor, Department of Geosciences
>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
>
>Mail and Fedex Address:
>
>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
>University of Arizona
>Tucson, AZ 85721
>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
>fax: +1 520 792-8795
>
>
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795