Dear all,
here is the data from the Climber-3alpha simulations. I know they are
too late, but
perhaps there is still a way to include them. The structure of the files
is the
same as Eva's. The file names correspond to the ones you gave in the
simulation
protocol.
Cheers,
Anders
Fortunat Joos wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Please find attached an update of the simulation protocol and input
> data description.
>
> Kasper Plattner pointed out that I forgot the obvious. We need of
> course a control run to correct for potential model drift. The readme
> file has been modified accordingly adding a brief description on how
> the control should be done.
>
> I am looking forward to any additional comments. Hope everything is
> clear.
>
> Kasper is currently working to perform the simulation with the Bern2.5CC.
>
> Regards, Fortunat
>
> Fortunat Joos wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I have now compiled the input data set and written a protocol how to
>> perform the runs. It seems to me that it would make sense if we
>> perform the simulations first with the Bern Model and with the
>> Climber 2 model. We can then still decide if we need Climber 3.
>>
>> Please let me know if there are any questions.
>>
>> I could also provide files where the radiative forcing of solar,
>> volcanoes and non-CO2-anthropogenic has been added together.
>>
>> With best wishes,
>>
>> Fortunat
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Eva and Fortunat - thanks for working on getting things moving.
>>> It seems that the detailed forcing recommendations laid out below by
>>> Fortunat build nicely on what Eva first suggested, and that going
>>> with the forcing series suggested below by Foortunat (and the 6
>>> simulations) is going to be just right for the IPCC AR4 Chap 6
>>> needs. Does everyone agree?
>>>
>>> Thanks Fortunat for preparing/sharing the standard forcing series.
>>>
>>> Best, peck
>>>
>>>> Dear Eva,
>>>>
>>>> We are working on the forcing series and they should be ready by
>>>> the end  of the week. Stefan assured us that you can run this
>>>> within a few hours.
>>>>
>>>> What we are preparing are the following series of radiative forcing
>>>> in W/m2:
>>>>
>>>> a) RF from atmospheric constituents (well-mixed GHGs (CO2, CH4,
>>>> N2O, many  Halocarbons) tropo and strato Ozone, various
>>>> anthropogenic aerosols) as used in the Bern CC TAR version and the
>>>> TAR (see Joos et al., GBC, 2001; pdf is on my homepage and TAR
>>>> appendix).
>>>> b) volcanic from Crowley, Sci, 2000
>>>> c) solar based on Lean and Bard et al.
>>>>
>>>> For the solar we will prepare 3 combinations:
>>>>
>>>> c1) original serie from Lean (2005) provided to you already
>>>> c2)  Bard et al., Be-10 record linearly scaled to match the Maunder
>>>> Minimum   Average of Lean-AR4
>>>> c3)  Bard et al., Be-10 scaled to a MM reduction of 0.25 permil,
>>>> i.e. the low case in the Bard et, Tellus, publication corresponding
>>>> to the Lean et al, 1995 scaling
>>>>
>>>> For the RF by atmospheric components two cases are foreseen:
>>>> a1) standard case with reconstructed evolution over past 1150 years
>>>> a2) RF kept at 1765 value after 1765, i.e. a simulation with
>>>> natural forcings only.
>>>>
>>>> This will yield in total 6 simulations 3 over the full length from
>>>> 850 AD to 2000 and 3 brach-off simulatons from 1765 with natural
>>>> only forcing.
>>>>
>>>> An important point in IPCC is that things are published, consistent
>>>> among chapters, and it helps if approaches are tracable to earlier
>>>> accepted and approved IPCC work. The arguments for these series are
>>>> as follows:
>>>>
>>>> a) Considering as many components relevant for RF as possible (more
>>>> than just CO2). The series are fully compatible with TAR and that
>>>> the setup is tracable to the TAR for the industrial era increase.
>>>> The same series will be used in the projection chapter 10 for the
>>>> SRES calculation
>>>>
>>>> b) volcanic: a widely cited record
>>>>
>>>> c) solar: c1) and c3) are published series; c2 follows the same
>>>> approach and spirit as used to derive c3, i.e. scaling the Be-10
>>>> serie linearly with a given Maunder Minimum reduction. The impact
>>>> of the 11-yr solar cycle can be looked at in the original Lean-AR4
>>>> serie.
>>>>
>>>> I hope this help.
>>>>
>>>> With kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Fortunat
>>>>
>>>> Eva Bauer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Jonathan, dear Fortunat:
>>>>>
>>>>> Happy New Year!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Stefan, Anders and me just have discussed how to set up our
>>>>> CLIMBER2/3alpha runs, to produce something useful for the IPCC WGI
>>>>> chapter 6. This chapter appears to touch the impact on the NH
>>>>> temperature related to low and high solar forcing.
>>>>>
>>>>> For a reasonable comparison, we think two 1000-year simulations
>>>>> differing only by a low and a high solar forcing, conducted with both
>>>>> CLIMBER models, would be ideal. To do so, we would have to extend the
>>>>> solar forcing time series based on Lean (GRL, 2000) and on Wang et
>>>>> al. (2005) distributed in previous e-mails back to the year 1000.
>>>>> This
>>>>> would require some splicing as was done, for instance, by Crowley.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm thinking of some scaling applied to a series of Crowley (say the
>>>>> data called Be10/Lean splice in Science, 2000) such that the
>>>>> amplitude
>>>>> of the solar variability from the 11-year cycle is conserved after
>>>>> ~1720. I have to check but it appears that the variation in the TSI
>>>>> due to the 11-year cycle contained in the Crowley series agrees
>>>>> perfectly with the 11yr-cycle data in the file based on Lean (2000).
>>>>> Before starting such an exercise I like to ask you what you think
>>>>> about. We would be happy to receive your response quite soon to be
>>>>> able to finish the calculations with our slow model in time for the
>>>>> IPCC report.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you please also comment on the other forcings we should
>>>>> include,
>>>>> namely the volcanic forcing and the CO2 forcing. For the present
>>>>> study
>>>>> we suggest to use the forcing as in Bauer et al (2000) but omitting
>>>>> the land-use. This means, using the volcanic forcing from Crowley,
>>>>> 2000 and the CO2 forcing based on Etheridge et al 1996 and Keeling
>>>>> and
>>>>> Whorf, 1996.  (If you wish we can distribute these data series.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, thinking beyond the IPCC study, the model results may become
>>>>> interesting enough to be discussed in a 3-model comparison study!?
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking forward to your reply.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best wishes
>>>>>
>>>>> Eva
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>   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
>>>>   Internet: ~joos/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Last Millennium Simulations for IPCC AR4 WG1 Chap 6
>---------------------------------------------------
>
>F. Joos,
>joos@climate.unibe.ch
>18 Januar 2006
>
>OVERVIEW
>--------
>
>A total of 7 simulations is planned.
>
>A control simulation without any forcing
>
>Two millennium-long simulations with solar forcing following Bard et al. with a Maunder Minimum reduction of 0.08 and 0.25 percent in total irradiance and volcanic and anthropogenic forcing included
>
>A simulation from 1610 to 1998 with solar forcing from Wang et al, 2005 and
>volcanic and anthropogenic forcing included
>
>Three simulations from 1765 to 1998 with only solar and volcanic forcing included, but no anthropogenic forcings. These are branches from the above three simulation.
>
>A range of input data files have been prepeared. Each contains a header with additional descriptions of the data.
>
>Solar irradiance has been taken from Bard et al., Tellus, 1999 and from Wang, Lean, Shirley, JAp, 2005.
>
>It is estimated that the Maunder Minimum irradiance is reduce by 0.08 percent
>relative to today and that the present irradiance is 1366 W/m2 from the Wang et al. data.
>
>A case with a Maunder Minimum reduction of 0.08 percent is calculated from the Bard et al. data by scaling the original Bard series appropriately.
>The original Bard series are offset by 1.3 W/m2 in irradiance to bring them to
>a present irradiance of 1366 W/m2. For this excercise we will utilize a Maunder
>Minimum reduction in irradiance relative to today of 0.08 percent and of 0.25 percent (other cases with high MM reduction are included in the files).
>
>Irradiance has been converted to radiative forcing: RF= (IRR-1366)/4*0.7
>
>Volcanic forcing is from Crowley Science, 2000, with albedo factored in (e.g. as for solar forcing). To avoid a cold start of the model, the serie is extended to 850 AD by mirroring the Crowley data from 1001 to 1150 to the period 850 to 1000.
>
>NonCO2 forcing is following TAR (updated for an error in tropo O3 in the TAR).
>
>CO2 is a spline through the Etheridge, JGR, 97 data and the Siegenthaler, TEllus, 2005 data.
>
>
>INPUT FILES DESCRIPTION:
>-----------------------
>
>It is recommended to linearly interpolate between data points.
>
>A1: Solar irradiance and radiative forcing following Bard from 850 to 2000
>
>(Tag        description)
>solBard08   2. col: Maunder Minimum reduction of  0.08 percent
>solBard25   3. col: Maunder Minimu reduction of 0.25 percent
>
>Note: data from Bard have been linearlz interplated on an annual time step
>
>   files:
>    bard00tel_solar_RF_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out
>    bard00tel_solar_irradiance_offset-13_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out
>
>
>A2: Solar irradiance and radiative forcing following Wang, Lean, Shirley, 2005
>    from 1610 to 2004
>
>    annual resolution
>
>Tag: WLS-05
>
>   files:
>    wang05jastr_lean_RF_IPCC_chap6_Joos_11jan06.out
>    wang05jastr_lean_irradiance_IPCC_chap6_Joos_11jan06.out
>
>A3: CO2 concentration in ppm from 850 to 2000
>
>    annual resolution
>
>Tag: CO2
>    file: co2_850-2000_splined_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out
>
>A4: volcanic forcing after Crowley from 1001 to 1998 AD, extended by artificial
>    data from 850 to 1000 AD by mirroring the forcing from 1000 to 1150 to the period 850 to 1000
>
>Tag: volcCrow
>
>    annual resolution
>
>     file: crowley00sci_RFvolcanic_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan05.out
>
>A5: radiative forcing by non-CO2 agents
>
>    annual resolution
>
>Tag: nonco2
>
>    files
>    rf_nonco2_1yr_1765_2000_individ_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out
>    rf_nonco2_1yr_850_2000_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out
>
>
>
>B) SIMULATIONS
>-----------------------
>
>B1. 2 Long simulations from 850 AD to 1998
>
>-------
>
>Simulation B1.1. tag: bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_850-1998
>
>Solar forcing from Bard et al. with MM reduction of 0.08 percent, volcanic forcing and forcing from CO2 and other anthropogenic (non-CO2) agents.
>
>Start of simulation 850 AD
>End of simulation: 1998 AD
>initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar)
>
>Analysis period: 1001 AD to 1998 AD
>start-up period: 850 to 1000 with artificial volcanic data
>
>--------
>
>Simulation B1.2 tag: bard25_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_850-1998
>
>as B1.1 but with solar forcing from Bard et al. reduced by 0.25 percent for the Maunder Minimum.
>
>Start of simulation 850 AD
>End of simulation: 1998 AD
>initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar)
>
>Analysis period: 1001 AD to 1998 AD
>start-up period: 850 to 1000 with artificial volcanic data
>
>--------
>
>Simulation B2: A simulation from 1610 to 1998 restarted from bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2
>
>With solar forcing from Wang et al., 2005, volcanic forci
>ng and forcing from CO2 and other anthropogenic (non-CO2) agents.
>
>B2 tag: WLS-2005_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_1610-1998
>
>Start of simulation: 1610 AD
>End of simulation:   1998 AD
>initial condition:  restart from simulation B1.1.  bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2
>		    at year 1610
>
>Analysis period: 1610 AD to 1998 AD
>
>
>-------
>
>B3: 3 Simulations from 1765 to 1998 with natural forcing only
>
>	non-CO2 radiative forcing is kept to zero
>         (except for volcanoes and solar)
>
>	CO2 is kept at its 1765 value.
>
>Simulation B3.1: tag  bard08_volcCrow_1765_1998
>
>Start of simulation: 1765 AD
>End of simulation:   1998 AD
>initial condition: restart from simulation B1.1.  bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2
>                    at year 1765
>
>Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD
>
>-------
>
>Simulation B3.2: tag  bard25_volcCrow_1765_1998
>
>Start of simulation: 1765 AD
>End of simulation:   1998 AD
>initial condition: restart from simulation B1.2.  bard25_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2
>                    at year 1765
>
>Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD
>
>-----
>
>Simulation B3.1: tag  WLS-2005_volcCrow_1765_1998
>
>Start of simulation: 1765 AD
>End of simulation:   1998 AD
>initial condition: restart from simulation B2.  WLS-2005_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2
>                    at year 1765
>
>Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD
>
>-------
>
>Simulation B4: tag ctrl_850-1998
>
>Control simulation without any forcing
>
>Start of simulation 850 AD
>End of simulation: 1998 AD
>initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar)
>
>Analysis period: 850 to 1998
>
>
>OUTPUT
>------
>
>I guess minimal output is global and NH mean surface temperature.
>
>
--
Anders Levermann
phone: +49-331-288-2560                 Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
fax:   +49-331-288-2570                 Telegraphenberg A26, 14473 Potsdam, Germany
anders.levermann@pik-potsdam.de         www.pik-potsdam.de/~anders
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\c3a_b1_1.dat"
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\c3a_b1_2.dat"
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\c3a_b2.dat"
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\c3a_b3_1.dat"
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\c3a_b3_2.dat"
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\c3a_b3_3.dat"


Hi Henry (and Keith) - thanks for the quick
effort! Regarding your comments, here's some
feedback - it's good Keith beat me too it.
1. For Fig. 6.9b, there is a new version that
resulted in lots of discussion at our last
meeting. Keith can elaborate when he has time
(we're pushing him real hard now for the SOD
text), but we agree the caption has to be clear.
2. I'm worried about your discussion of southern
hemisphere records, and trust Keith will get it
right. Too bad your paper isn't in press too - it
would be nice to include.
3. Hope you can help Keith with uncertainty
prose. We are over length and hence we can't have
more figures (e.g., with confidence intervals
shown for all data). Please help him work it into
the SOD text.
4. It is unclear if we'll have time for review of
the whole chapter, but I'm still hoping Keith
will send you all of Section 6.6 to look at. That
assumes he has it done today or very soon at
least. The more people that can look at text the
better, but we also have to get the draft done -
it can then be reviewed, and we will make sure
CAs get to review in a more timely fashion this
time.
Thanks again, Peck
>Hi Peck, Eystein and Keith,
>
>Attached in Borehole SOD.doc is a 'rewrite' of the borehole stuff.  You
>will recognize the 'rewrite', as it still addresses everything in
>the FOD draft sent to me, with much the same language. It is, however,
>an improvement in
>structure, and has a more balanced discussion. Keith, if you want more
>insight into why I
>have presented the material this way, I'll be happy to elaborate.
>
>The rewrite occupies lines 32-57 of page 6-30 SOD and lines 1-12 of page 6-31.
>
>Also attached is the full SOD template with the 'rewrite' and
>references inserted. It is not clear from your instructions that you
>wanted this to be done, but now you have it if you want it.
>
>Also attached are my replies to the reviewers of the FOD.
>
>I am sending everything today (Sunday), so everyone will get it as
>early as possible.
>
>Some additional comments in areas outside the narrowly defined
>'borehole' section:
>
>In Figure 6.9b, I recommend removing the instrumental record prior to
>1860, because it
>apparently represents only four European stations. The figure is
>captioned to represent
>the entire northern hemisphere.
>
>In section 6.6.2 Southern Hemisphere Temperature Variability page 6-32,
>lines 56-57: The
>two geothermal reconstructions shown, for southern Africa and
>Australia, do NOT indicate
>unusually warm conditions prevailing in the 20th century. Both
>reconstructions miss the
>rapid warming in the last two decades of the 20th century because many
>of the boreholes
>were logged prior to that excursion. The two reconstructions do match
>well the pre-1980
>SAT trends. I discuss this in a paper now in review by J. Quaternary
>Sci., titled "Five
>centuries of climate change in Australia: the view from underground."
>The southern
>hemisphere is NOT discussed in Pollack and Smerdon (2004), which you
>have cited there.
>
>If you will find it helpful, I can scan the entire chapter and provide
>comments, but
>perhaps that could wait until you have passed the immediate deadline in
>front of you.
>
>Cheers,
>Henry
>
>
>  ___    ___    Henry N. Pollack
>[   \  /   ]   Professor of Geophysics
>  |   \/   |    Department of Geological Sciences
>  |MICHIGAN|    University of Michigan
>[___]\/[___]   Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1005, U.S.A.
>
>  Phone: 734-763-0084   FAX: 734-763-4690
>  e-mail: hpollack@umich.edu
>  URL:  www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~hpollack/
>  URL:  www-personal.umich.edu/~hpollack/book.html
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Quoting Jonathan Overpeck
:
>
>>Hi Henry - yes, it's true, but that's why we all get things done. Thanks.
>>
>>We have a serious space problem with the chapter, and need to
>>generally reduce it's size. However, if you nee a couple more lines
>>to do it well, and to get the proper refs in there (there are
>>undoubtedly new ones?), you may do so. We can always cut later... (so
>>don't add more than just a few lines max).
>>
>>As soon as you're done, pls email to me, Eystein and Keith. The
>>sooner Keith can finish the complete section, the sooner we can all
>>look at it and edit.
>>
>>The NAS/NRC mtg is at a crappy time. I can't travel then since I'm
>>alone w/ the kids, but I've been discussing helping by phone if
>>possible. The problem is that March 3 (the day they really want my
>>input) is the deadline for the SOD. If it's anything like last time
>>(FOD), I won't have time but for a quick trip to the bathroom now and
>>then to recycle coffee. But, I'm glad to hear you're in the loop. I
>>might still be able to help, since we're trying to do this so it
>>isn't a madhouse at the very end.
>>
>>Best, peck
>>
>>>Hi Peck,
>>>
>>>Yes, I will be working weekends -- don't we always??
>>>
>>>Are you attending the NAS/NRC hearing on surface temperature
>>>reconstructions on March 2?
>>>
>>>I will take you up on the invitation to (re)write the 40 lines of the
>>>borehole section.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>Henry
>>>  ___    ___    Henry N. Pollack
>>>[   \  /   ]   Professor of Geophysics
>>>  |   \/   |    Department of Geological Sciences
>>>  |MICHIGAN|    University of Michigan
>>>[___]\/[___]   Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1005, U.S.A.
>>>
>>>  Phone: 734-763-0084   FAX: 734-763-4690
>>>  e-mail: hpollack@umich.edu
>>>  URL:  www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~hpollack/
>>>  URL:  www-personal.umich.edu/~hpollack/book.html
>>>
>>>
>>>Quoting Jonathan Overpeck
:
>>>
>>>>Hi Henry - see the notes below on how to best update your section
>>>>using the attached files (and comments you already have).
>>>>
>>>>Julie is flying to Germany tomorrow, so I'll be single-parenting and
>>>>my email will be at night on the weekend. If you have urgent need for
>>>>input, you can call me:
>>>>
>>>>970-728-0780 (home)
>>>>520-907-6480 (cell - only good if I'm in town - best to use home on
>>>>weekends, and cell weekdays)
>>>>
>>>>Thanks again, peck
>>>>
>>>>>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>>>>>Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:59:33 +0100
>>>>>To: wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu
>>>>>From: Eystein Jansen
>>>>>Subject: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] SOD- template and FOD document
>>>>>X-BeenThere: wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu
>>>>>List-Id:
>>>>>List-Help:
>>>>>List-Post:
>>>>>List-Subscribe:
,
>>>>>
>>>>>List-Archive:
>>>>>List-Unsubscribe:
>>>>>
,
>>>>>
>>>>>Sender: wg1-ar4-ch06-bounces@joss.ucar.edu
>>>>>
>>>>>Dear friends,
>>>>>In preparation for your rewriting of  the FOD as SOD, we send you
>>>>>the following documents.
>>>>>1. A new template for the FOD which is restructured so that the
>>>>>decisions on structure we made in Christchurch have been taken into
>>>>>account. We also send you the word version of the FOD which is the
>>>>>final version used for the review, in case you do not have this.
>>>>>This is the version for which the comments refer to.
>>>>>In the rewriting we would ask you to rewrite into the SOD template
>>>>>document, thus:
>>>>>1. Find the relevant comment or section to be rewritten in the FOD.
>>>>>2. Then the corresponding section in the SOD document, and rewrrite
>>>>>the text there. References should also be inserted into the SOD
>>>>>document.
>>>>>You have to work in parallel with both documents, but we do not see
>>>>>any way around this in order to arrive at a SOD without too many
>>>>>problems of technical sort.
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheers, and best luck.
>>>>>Peck and 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list
>>>>>Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Boreholes SOD.doc (WDBN/«IC») (001131FA)
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Ch06_SOD_1A 2.doc (WDBN/«IC») (001131FC)
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Pollack_comm.doc (WDBN/«IC») (00113211)
--
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 Tim,
Thanks, I agree. I don't think there is any need for you/Keith to do
this. We've pretty much got things under control at RC and it is
probably wise to hold your ammunition for any possible comment to
Science. In my view the McIntyre criticisms are weak and disingenous.But
what's new w/ that?
mike
Tim Osborn wrote:
> Hi Mike and Gavin,
>
> thanks for the things that are doing at RC, it has developed into an
> excellent resource for this type of situation.  I think we'll hold off
> from posting any reply to criticisms for the moment, I somehow don't
> think that we would even then make much headway with the hard-core
> critics.  They might even submit some formal criticism to Science and
> we can reserve our response for that if they do.
>
> So, no need to hold up any comments etc., we'll just let things run.
> Sorry if this puts the onus upon you or others at RC, but the comments
> on this particular thread seem to be petering out anyway, so hopefully
> not too much left to deal with.
>
> Best wishes and thanks for your support,
>
> Tim
>
> At 21:51 09/02/2006, Michael E. Mann wrote:
>
>> guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so
>> we put up the RC post. By now, you've probably read that nasty
>> McIntyre thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I
>> don't go there personally, but so I'm informed).
>>
>> Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any
>> way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful
>> about what comments we screen through, and we'll be very careful to
>> answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other
>> hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself.
>> We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or
>> not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any
>> comments you'd like us to include.
>>
>> You're also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as
>> a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put
>> forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We'll use
>> our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont'get to  use the RC
>> comments as a megaphone...
>>
>> mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael E. Mann
>> Associate Professor
>> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
>>
>> Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
>> 503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
>> The Pennsylvania State University      email:  mann@psu.edu
>> University Park, PA 16802-5013
>>
>>
>>
>
> Dr Timothy J Osborn
> Climatic Research Unit
> School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
> Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
>
> e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
> phone:    +44 1603 592089
> fax:      +44 1603 507784
> web:      ~timo/
> sunclock: ~timo/sunclock.htm
>
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University      email:  mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013


Hi all - I commented on the reference period issue in my previous
email, and hope we can resolve it today, or tomorrow at the latest?
Tim and Keith should help convince Fortunat that their choice is
strong.
Tim - can you make the other changes suggested by Fortunat?
Thanks, peck
>Hi,
>
>I have now found the time to look over the figures. First
>congratulations to this effort. Looks great! A tremendous job - I
>assume many hours of work.
>
>I have, however, a few points
>
>1) The instrumental record - our best piece of information is
>missing in panel e. Please add to the EMIC panel.
>
>2) I am not very enthusiastic to normalize model results with
>respect to 1500-1899. The EMIC panel is to illustrate two points -
>the difference between low and high solar forcing and with/without
>anthropogenic forcing.
>
>I think panel e (EMIC panel)  would be more informative in this
>respect if  all runs with anthropogenic forcing and the proxies are
>normalized as in panel b) (19061-1990) and the runs without anth.
>forcing start at the same point as the ones with anth. forcing
>
>I have no strong opinion on panel d.
>
>3) Please change Bern2.5c to Bern2.5CC
>
>Thanks for considering this.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Fortunat
>
>Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>Hi Stefan and Fortunat: Attached are the draft figs that include
>>proxy obs, simulations, and comparisons of the two. As you can see,
>>Tim just sent them. Big job, but they look great in my eyes.
>>
>>See Tim's email below for more background info.
>>
>>We need fast feedback from you both, specifically:
>>
>>1) any general comments on the figs - this is a crux set of figures
>>and we need your eyes to look at them carefully
>>
>>2) is it wise to keep the new EMIC run panel attached to the second
>>figure as attached? I vote yes, but what do you think. It fits w/
>>the other panels pretty well.
>>
>>3) either way, we need caption prose from you (perhaps Fortunat
>>start, and Stefan edit, or vice versa if Stefan can start first) on
>>the new EMIC panel.
>>
>>4) also, we need a new para, or prose that can be added to a para,
>>that describes the panel and it's implications as it informs our
>>assessment. Keith will then integrate this into the section. I'm
>>not sure of this, but perhaps you could start with a new question
>>heading, and then have a short para to go under it - something like
>>"What is the significance of the new reduced-amplitude estimates of
>>past solar variability?"
>>
>>Of course, we need your feedback and prose asap. Please send to me,
>>Eystein, Keith and Tim.
>>
>>Thanks in advance for the help. Best, peck
>>
>>>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>>>Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:00:19 +0000
>>>To: Jonathan Overpeck
,
>>>     Eystein Jansen
>>>From: Tim Osborn
>>>Subject: some figures at last!
>>>Cc: Keith Briffa
>>>X-UEA-Spam-Score: -102.8
>>>X-UEA-Spam-Level: ---------------------------------------------------
>>>X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>>>
>>>Dear Peck and Eystein,
>>>
>>>the attached word file contains the latest versions of two of our figures.
>>>
>>>First, is the reconstructions with many requests now done: linear
>>>time scale, dotted early instrumental temperatures not solid line,
>>>Oerlemans added, new panel showing shading for the overlapping
>>>regions of temperature reconstructions.
>>>
>>>Second, is the forcings and models.  Stendel ECHAM simulation
>>>added (1500-2000). New ECHO-G Erik2 simulation just published in
>>>GRL from Gonzalez-Ruoco et al. added (1000-1990).  Reconstruction
>>>"envelope" replaced by new shading of overlaps in the temperature
>>>reconstructions. Correction of some labelling errors.  Those runs
>>>that did not include 20th century sulphate aerosol cooling are
>>>dotted or dashed after 1900 (the two low ones also omitted CH4,
>>>N2O, CFCs, O3, hence still cool despite omitting aerosol cooling).
>>>The ECHO-G Erik1 simulation with the very out-of-equilibrium
>>>initial conditions is dashed.  Finally, the extra panel with the
>>>new EMIC runs is included as panel (e), again with the new shading
>>>of overlapping temperature reconstructions.
>>>
>>>Keith suggests sending to Stefan and Fortunat too for their views
>>>- can you do that (they may now be gone for the weekend, of
>>>course).
>>>
>>>Best wishes and sorry this is late.  Am I right in thinking that
>>>the only other possible-TS figure is the location maps?  Still
>>>working on those (had very little time in last 2 days due to media
>>>etc. attention re. Science paper).
>>>
>>>Cheers
>>>
>>>Tim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Dr Timothy J Osborn
>>>Climatic Research Unit
>>>School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
>>>Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
>>>
>>>e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
>>>phone:    +44 1603 592089
>>>fax:      +44 1603 507784
>>>web:      ~timo/
>>>sunclock: ~timo/sunclock.htm
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>
>   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
>   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


Clare, Keith,
Any thoughts on this?
Phil
From: "Andras Vag"
To:
Subject: Invitation to an EU project
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 13:00:25 +0100
Organization: ATLAS
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.1
X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
Dear Prof. Jones
My name is Andras Vag, I am working for a Hungarian organization (ATLAS Innoglobe),
which deals with environmental consultancy.
We are preparing an EU project proposal for the following call: Scientific Support to
Policies, Identifier: [FP6-2005-SSP-5-A]  Budget: 77 million
Closing Date(s): 22 March 2006 at 17.00 (Brussels local time)
Specific programme: [Integrating and Strengthening the European Research Area] ,
Activity area(s): [Policy-orientated research]
[1]
_id=268
Are you / CRU is interested in the cooperation? The co-work with you would be a great
honour for us and definitely would improve the quality of the project.
Please see the attached Letter of Invitation to the planned project. I hope you like the
idea.
Best wishes
Andras Vag
ATLAS Innoglobe Ltd.
Magdolna str 6.
1221 Budapest
Hungary
+36-20-574-9262
[2]andras.vag@atlasco.hu
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\LetterOfInvitation.pdf"
References
1. file://localhost/tmp/convertmbox13876.html??
2. file://localhost/tmp/convertmbox13876.html??


O.k. EMIC caption noted. Can go with the 1500-1899 ref period.
Stefan, Anders, and Eva can you provide me the appropriate references
for your models and the official names.
Regards, Fortunat
Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
> Hi Tim and Fortunat: This looks nice (thanks) and my slight bias is that
> we should include the Climber3a results. What do you think, Fortunat? I
> think Stefan likes it based on his email.
>
> Regarding the reference period, I would side w/ Tim and Keith on using
> 1500-1899. We need to use the same ref period for everything on these
> two figs (obs and forcing/simulations), and I think the EMIC panel still
> convey's the main message. Keith/Tim/Fortunat - we have to resolve this
> FAST, so please weigh in more on this issue. Thanks.
>
> Regarding captions, yes, you should do all but the EMICS, and you should
> make sure you send to Stefan so he can help make sure it makes sense
> (e.g., the red/grey shading). We have asked Fortunat to do the EMIC
> caption. Can you do this Fortunat? Thanks.
>
> Best, Peck
>
>
>
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> please see the attached diagram (both the same, PDF or GIF) with all
>> three EMICs on now. Climber3a seems to lie between Climber2 and
>> Bern2.5CC mostly.  Does it add to the message of the figure to use all
>> three?  If so, please use this version from now on, for drafting
>> captions etc.
>>
>> Nobody said much about the previous version, so hopefully this
>> indicates general agreement!  I didn't show the "Bard08" runs, because
>> they were so close to the runs I have labelled "WLS", but of course in
>> those runs the pre-1610 solar forcing is Bard08 - so maybe the labels
>> should be altered to somehow indicate them, or this could just be
>> stated in the caption.
>>
>> Am I right that Keith and I need to provide an updated caption for
>> panels (a)-(d), but that someone else will write a caption for the
>> EMIC panel (e)?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> At 19:20 13/02/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Anders and Tim - It could be too late, but this is up to Tim. Can
>>> you get these data onto the new EMIC panel?  I think it'd be worth
>>> it, but only if you and Keith can get everything else done first.
>>> Best make sure you have all the data needed, just in case.
>>>
>>> thanks Anders too.
>>>
>>> best, peck
>>>
>>>> X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>>>> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:20:14 +0100
>>>> From: Anders Levermann
>>>> Organization: PIK
>>>> X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
>>>> To: Fortunat Joos
>>>> Cc: Jonathan Overpeck
,
>>>>         Stefan Rahmstorf
,
>>>>         Anders Levermann
,
>>>>         Eva Bauer
,
>>>> plattner@climate.unibe.ch,
>>>>         Eystein Jansen
,
>>>>         Keith Briffa
>>>> Subject: Re: Millennium Simulations
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> here is the data from the Climber-3alpha simulations. I know they
>>>> are too late, but
>>>> perhaps there is still a way to include them. The structure of the
>>>> files is the
>>>> same as Eva's. The file names correspond to the ones you gave in the
>>>> simulation
>>>> protocol.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Anders
>>>>
>>>> Fortunat Joos wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please find attached an update of the simulation protocol and input
>>>>> data description.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kasper Plattner pointed out that I forgot the obvious. We need of
>>>>> course a control run to correct for potential model drift. The
>>>>> readme file has been modified accordingly adding a brief
>>>>> description on how the control should be done.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am looking forward to any additional comments. Hope everything is
>>>>> clear.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kasper is currently working to perform the simulation with the
>>>>> Bern2.5CC.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards, Fortunat
>>>>>
>>>>> Fortunat Joos wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have now compiled the input data set and written a protocol how
>>>>>> to perform the runs. It seems to me that it would make sense if we
>>>>>> perform the simulations first with the Bern Model and with the
>>>>>> Climber 2 model. We can then still decide if we need Climber 3.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please let me know if there are any questions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I could also provide files where the radiative forcing of solar,
>>>>>> volcanoes and non-CO2-anthropogenic has been added together.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With best wishes,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fortunat
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Eva and Fortunat - thanks for working on getting things
>>>>>>> moving. It seems that the detailed forcing recommendations laid
>>>>>>> out below by Fortunat build nicely on what Eva first suggested,
>>>>>>> and that going with the forcing series suggested below by
>>>>>>> Foortunat (and the 6 simulations) is going to be just right for
>>>>>>> the IPCC AR4 Chap 6 needs. Does everyone agree?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Fortunat for preparing/sharing the standard forcing series.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best, peck
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear Eva,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We are working on the forcing series and they should be ready by
>>>>>>>> the end  of the week. Stefan assured us that you can run this
>>>>>>>> within a few hours.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What we are preparing are the following series of radiative
>>>>>>>> forcing in W/m2:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a) RF from atmospheric constituents (well-mixed GHGs (CO2, CH4,
>>>>>>>> N2O, many Halocarbons) tropo and strato Ozone, various
>>>>>>>> anthropogenic aerosols) as used in the Bern CC TAR version and
>>>>>>>> the TAR (see Joos et al., GBC, 2001; pdf is on my homepage and
>>>>>>>> TAR appendix).
>>>>>>>> b) volcanic from Crowley, Sci, 2000
>>>>>>>> c) solar based on Lean and Bard et al.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For the solar we will prepare 3 combinations:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> c1) original serie from Lean (2005) provided to you already
>>>>>>>> c2)  Bard et al., Be-10 record linearly scaled to match the
>>>>>>>> Maunder Minimum Average of Lean-AR4
>>>>>>>> c3)  Bard et al., Be-10 scaled to a MM reduction of 0.25 permil,
>>>>>>>> i.e. the low case in the Bard et, Tellus, publication
>>>>>>>> corresponding to the Lean et al, 1995 scaling
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For the RF by atmospheric components two cases are foreseen:
>>>>>>>> a1) standard case with reconstructed evolution over past 1150 years
>>>>>>>> a2) RF kept at 1765 value after 1765, i.e. a simulation with
>>>>>>>> natural forcings only.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This will yield in total 6 simulations 3 over the full length
>>>>>>>> from 850 AD to 2000 and 3 brach-off simulatons from 1765 with
>>>>>>>> natural only forcing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An important point in IPCC is that things are published,
>>>>>>>> consistent among chapters, and it helps if approaches are
>>>>>>>> tracable to earlier accepted and approved IPCC work. The
>>>>>>>> arguments for these series are as follows:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a) Considering as many components relevant for RF as possible
>>>>>>>> (more than just CO2). The series are fully compatible with TAR
>>>>>>>> and that the setup is tracable to the TAR for the industrial era
>>>>>>>> increase. The same series will be used in the projection chapter
>>>>>>>> 10 for the SRES calculation
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> b) volcanic: a widely cited record
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> c) solar: c1) and c3) are published series; c2 follows the same
>>>>>>>> approach and spirit as used to derive c3, i.e. scaling the Be-10
>>>>>>>> serie linearly with a given Maunder Minimum reduction. The
>>>>>>>> impact of the 11-yr solar cycle can be looked at in the original
>>>>>>>> Lean-AR4 serie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I hope this help.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With kind regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fortunat
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Eva Bauer wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dear Jonathan, dear Fortunat:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Happy New Year!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Stefan, Anders and me just have discussed how to set up our
>>>>>>>>> CLIMBER2/3alpha runs, to produce something useful for the IPCC WGI
>>>>>>>>> chapter 6. This chapter appears to touch the impact on the NH
>>>>>>>>> temperature related to low and high solar forcing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For a reasonable comparison, we think two 1000-year simulations
>>>>>>>>> differing only by a low and a high solar forcing, conducted
>>>>>>>>> with both
>>>>>>>>> CLIMBER models, would be ideal. To do so, we would have to
>>>>>>>>> extend the
>>>>>>>>> solar forcing time series based on Lean (GRL, 2000) and on Wang et
>>>>>>>>> al. (2005) distributed in previous e-mails back to the year
>>>>>>>>> 1000. This
>>>>>>>>> would require some splicing as was done, for instance, by Crowley.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm thinking of some scaling applied to a series of Crowley
>>>>>>>>> (say the
>>>>>>>>> data called Be10/Lean splice in Science, 2000) such that the
>>>>>>>>> amplitude
>>>>>>>>> of the solar variability from the 11-year cycle is conserved after
>>>>>>>>> ~1720. I have to check but it appears that the variation in the
>>>>>>>>> TSI
>>>>>>>>> due to the 11-year cycle contained in the Crowley series agrees
>>>>>>>>> perfectly with the 11yr-cycle data in the file based on Lean
>>>>>>>>> (2000).
>>>>>>>>> Before starting such an exercise I like to ask you what you think
>>>>>>>>> about. We would be happy to receive your response quite soon to be
>>>>>>>>> able to finish the calculations with our slow model in time for
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> IPCC report.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Could you please also comment on the other forcings we should
>>>>>>>>> include,
>>>>>>>>> namely the volcanic forcing and the CO2 forcing. For the
>>>>>>>>> present study
>>>>>>>>> we suggest to use the forcing as in Bauer et al (2000) but
>>>>>>>>> omitting
>>>>>>>>> the land-use. This means, using the volcanic forcing from Crowley,
>>>>>>>>> 2000 and the CO2 forcing based on Etheridge et al 1996 and
>>>>>>>>> Keeling and
>>>>>>>>> Whorf, 1996.  (If you wish we can distribute these data series.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also, thinking beyond the IPCC study, the model results may become
>>>>>>>>> interesting enough to be discussed in a 3-model comparison study!?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your reply.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best wishes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Eva
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   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
>>>>>>>>   Internet: ~joos/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Last Millennium Simulations for IPCC AR4 WG1 Chap 6
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> F. Joos,
>>>>> joos@climate.unibe.ch
>>>>> 18 Januar 2006
>>>>>
>>>>> OVERVIEW
>>>>> --------
>>>>>
>>>>> A total of 7 simulations is planned.
>>>>> A control simulation without any forcing
>>>>>
>>>>> Two millennium-long simulations with solar forcing following Bard
>>>>> et al. with a Maunder Minimum reduction of 0.08 and 0.25 percent in
>>>>> total irradiance and volcanic and anthropogenic forcing included
>>>>> A simulation from 1610 to 1998 with solar forcing from Wang et al,
>>>>> 2005 and volcanic and anthropogenic forcing included
>>>>>
>>>>> Three simulations from 1765 to 1998 with only solar and volcanic
>>>>> forcing included, but no anthropogenic forcings. These are branches
>>>>> from the above three simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> A range of input data files have been prepeared. Each contains a
>>>>> header with additional descriptions of the data.
>>>>> Solar irradiance has been taken from Bard et al., Tellus, 1999 and
>>>>> from Wang, Lean, Shirley, JAp, 2005.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is estimated that the Maunder Minimum irradiance is reduce by
>>>>> 0.08 percent
>>>>> relative to today and that the present irradiance is 1366 W/m2 from
>>>>> the Wang et al. data.
>>>>>
>>>>> A case with a Maunder Minimum reduction of 0.08 percent is
>>>>> calculated from the Bard et al. data by scaling the original Bard
>>>>> series appropriately.
>>>>> The original Bard series are offset by 1.3 W/m2 in irradiance to
>>>>> bring them to a present irradiance of 1366 W/m2. For this excercise
>>>>> we will utilize a Maunder
>>>>> Minimum reduction in irradiance relative to today of 0.08 percent
>>>>> and of 0.25 percent (other cases with high MM reduction are
>>>>> included in the files).
>>>>>
>>>>> Irradiance has been converted to radiative forcing: RF=
>>>>> (IRR-1366)/4*0.7
>>>>>   Volcanic forcing is from Crowley Science, 2000, with albedo
>>>>> factored in (e.g. as for solar forcing). To avoid a cold start of
>>>>> the model, the serie is extended to 850 AD by mirroring the Crowley
>>>>> data from 1001 to 1150 to the period 850 to 1000.
>>>>> NonCO2 forcing is following TAR (updated for an error in tropo O3
>>>>> in the TAR).
>>>>> CO2 is a spline through the Etheridge, JGR, 97 data and the
>>>>> Siegenthaler, TEllus, 2005 data.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> INPUT FILES DESCRIPTION:
>>>>> -----------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> It is recommended to linearly interpolate between data points.
>>>>>
>>>>> A1: Solar irradiance and radiative forcing following Bard from 850
>>>>> to 2000
>>>>> (Tag        description)
>>>>> solBard08   2. col: Maunder Minimum reduction of  0.08 percent
>>>>> solBard25   3. col: Maunder Minimu reduction of 0.25 percent
>>>>>
>>>>> Note: data from Bard have been linearlz interplated on an annual
>>>>> time step
>>>>>   files:
>>>>>    bard00tel_solar_RF_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out
>>>>>    bard00tel_solar_irradiance_offset-13_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A2: Solar irradiance and radiative forcing following Wang, Lean,
>>>>> Shirley, 2005
>>>>>    from 1610 to 2004      annual resolution
>>>>> Tag: WLS-05
>>>>>
>>>>>   files:
>>>>>    wang05jastr_lean_RF_IPCC_chap6_Joos_11jan06.out
>>>>>    wang05jastr_lean_irradiance_IPCC_chap6_Joos_11jan06.out
>>>>>
>>>>> A3: CO2 concentration in ppm from 850 to 2000
>>>>>
>>>>>    annual resolution
>>>>> Tag: CO2
>>>>>    file: co2_850-2000_splined_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out
>>>>>
>>>>> A4: volcanic forcing after Crowley from 1001 to 1998 AD, extended
>>>>> by artificial
>>>>>    data from 850 to 1000 AD by mirroring the forcing from 1000 to
>>>>> 1150 to the period 850 to 1000
>>>>> Tag: volcCrow
>>>>>
>>>>>    annual resolution
>>>>>     file: crowley00sci_RFvolcanic_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan05.out
>>>>>
>>>>> A5: radiative forcing by non-CO2 agents
>>>>>    annual resolution
>>>>> Tag: nonco2
>>>>>
>>>>>    files
>>>>>    rf_nonco2_1yr_1765_2000_individ_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out
>>>>>    rf_nonco2_1yr_850_2000_IPCC_Chap6_Joos_11jan06.out
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> B) SIMULATIONS
>>>>> -----------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> B1. 2 Long simulations from 850 AD to 1998
>>>>>
>>>>> -------
>>>>>
>>>>> Simulation B1.1. tag: bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_850-1998
>>>>>
>>>>> Solar forcing from Bard et al. with MM reduction of 0.08 percent,
>>>>> volcanic forcing and forcing from CO2 and other anthropogenic
>>>>> (non-CO2) agents.
>>>>>
>>>>> Start of simulation 850 AD
>>>>> End of simulation: 1998 AD
>>>>> initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar)
>>>>>
>>>>> Analysis period: 1001 AD to 1998 AD
>>>>> start-up period: 850 to 1000 with artificial volcanic data
>>>>>
>>>>> --------
>>>>>
>>>>> Simulation B1.2 tag: bard25_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_850-1998
>>>>>
>>>>> as B1.1 but with solar forcing from Bard et al. reduced by 0.25
>>>>> percent for the Maunder Minimum.
>>>>>
>>>>> Start of simulation 850 AD
>>>>> End of simulation: 1998 AD
>>>>> initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar)
>>>>>
>>>>> Analysis period: 1001 AD to 1998 AD
>>>>> start-up period: 850 to 1000 with artificial volcanic data
>>>>>
>>>>> --------
>>>>>
>>>>> Simulation B2: A simulation from 1610 to 1998 restarted from
>>>>> bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2
>>>>>
>>>>> With solar forcing from Wang et al., 2005, volcanic forci
>>>>> ng and forcing from CO2 and other anthropogenic (non-CO2) agents.
>>>>>
>>>>> B2 tag: WLS-2005_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2_1610-1998
>>>>>
>>>>> Start of simulation: 1610 AD
>>>>> End of simulation:   1998 AD
>>>>> initial condition:  restart from simulation B1.1.
>>>>> bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2
>>>>>                     at year 1610
>>>>>
>>>>> Analysis period: 1610 AD to 1998 AD
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -------
>>>>>
>>>>> B3: 3 Simulations from 1765 to 1998 with natural forcing only
>>>>>
>>>>>         non-CO2 radiative forcing is kept to zero          (except
>>>>> for volcanoes and solar)
>>>>>
>>>>>         CO2 is kept at its 1765 value.
>>>>>
>>>>> Simulation B3.1: tag  bard08_volcCrow_1765_1998
>>>>>
>>>>> Start of simulation: 1765 AD
>>>>> End of simulation:   1998 AD
>>>>> initial condition: restart from simulation B1.1.
>>>>> bard08_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2
>>>>>                    at year 1765
>>>>>
>>>>> Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD
>>>>>
>>>>> -------
>>>>>
>>>>> Simulation B3.2: tag  bard25_volcCrow_1765_1998
>>>>>
>>>>> Start of simulation: 1765 AD
>>>>> End of simulation:   1998 AD
>>>>> initial condition: restart from simulation B1.2.
>>>>> bard25_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2
>>>>>                    at year 1765
>>>>>
>>>>> Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD
>>>>>
>>>>> -----
>>>>>
>>>>> Simulation B3.1: tag  WLS-2005_volcCrow_1765_1998
>>>>>
>>>>> Start of simulation: 1765 AD
>>>>> End of simulation:   1998 AD
>>>>> initial condition: restart from simulation B2.
>>>>> WLS-2005_volcCrow_CO2_nonCO2
>>>>>                    at year 1765
>>>>>
>>>>> Analysis period: 1765 to 1998 AD
>>>>>
>>>>> -------
>>>>>
>>>>> Simulation B4: tag ctrl_850-1998
>>>>>
>>>>> Control simulation without any forcing
>>>>>
>>>>> Start of simulation 850 AD
>>>>> End of simulation: 1998 AD
>>>>> initial condition: model spinup for year 850 (or similiar)
>>>>>
>>>>> Analysis period: 850 to 1998
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OUTPUT
>>>>> ------
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess minimal output is global and NH mean surface temperature.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Anders Levermann
>>>> phone: +49-331-288-2560 Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
>>>> fax:   +49-331-288-2570 Telegraphenberg A26, 14473 Potsdam, Germany
>>>> anders.levermann@pik-potsdam.de         www.pik-potsdam.de/~anders
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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: Macintosh HD:modelsE.gif (GIFf/«IC») (00113719)
>> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:modelsE.pdf (PDF /«IC») (0011371A)
>> Dr Timothy J Osborn
>> Climatic Research Unit
>> School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
>> Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
>>
>> e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
>> phone:    +44 1603 592089
>> fax:      +44 1603 507784
>> web:      ~timo/
>> sunclock: ~timo/sunclock.htm
>
>
>
--
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
Internet: ~joos/


Hi Keith (and Eystein - we need your opinion) - thanks for the quick
response. I think it easier (imagining the mess of email that could
result) if we focus on one bullet/email. So I'll start w/ the first,
and hope that Eystein can also weigh in.
With regard to the first one below, I agree that we can leave
statistics out of it. Good point.
But, I think we must at least address Susan's concern. To do
otherwise would be counterproductive. She makes sense. I think your
MWP results is quite appropriate - they were published in Science,
and in my reading of the paper, you are convincing. If it's in the
chapter, it makes sense to draw on it for the exec summary. Please
defend more convincingly, or suggest an alternative way to deal with
Susan's concern - what is the significance (not statistical) of this
one record being warmer? We need to say it.
If you really want to leave as is, please write your response in a
way that I can forward to Susan - we can't ignore he comment in this
case, because other (me, at least) think it makes sense. So we have
to convince her too - this is big stuff for the AR4, and will be in
the TS/SPM. We can't be as vague as the current bullet is.
And as for the MWP box fig, I think it should be as you suggest -
combine the existing fig w/ the new one from Tim and your paper. I
think Tim might already be working on it?
Sorry to be a tough guy, but this bullet needs to be more clear.
Thanks, peck
>Peck
>do not think you will like what I say here , but I am going to give
>straight answers to your questions.
>
>First
>
>The new draft says enough in the text now about "far-less-accurately
>dated" and "low-resolution proxy records that can not be rigorously
>calibrated" in relation to  this paper (Moberg et al.) . It is not
>appropriate to single the one series out for specific criticism in
>the summary . The use of the word "only" implies we do not believe
>it. Mike Mann's suggestion begs a lot of questions about what
>constitutes "significantly warmer". You need to have a Null
>Hypothesis to test . If you mean would the estimates in Moberg and
>the other reconstructions (during medieval time) show significantly
>different means using a t-test - then of course not , but this tells
>us nothing other than they are not likely samples from totally
>different populations - an almost impossible test to pass given the
>wide uncertainties on all reconstructions . Incidentally, we do not
>have formal (calibration ) uncertainties for Moberg anyway (just
>boot-strapped uncertainty on the average low-frequency curve).
>
>I think the vagueness is necessary  - "suggests slightly" and is appropriate.
>
>I would not call out The results of Tim and my paper either. It is
>just an aside in the Medieval box at present , perhaps with a Figure
>to accompany the original if you agree, but without more text in the
>Chapter , which I do not consider appropriate, it should not be
>highlighted as a bullet.
>
--
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


thanks. Agree on the attribution front, but what about being more specific (at least a
little) about what the "subsequent evidence" is. Is there really anything new that gives us
more confidence?
Keith? Eystein?
thx, peck
Hi,
I think this version of bullett two is best:
o       The TAR pointed to the "exceptional warmth of the late 20th century, relative to
the past 1000 years". Subsequent evidence reinforces this conclusion. Indeed, it is very
likely that average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th
century were warmer than any other 50-year period in the last 500 years. It is also
likely that this was the warmest period in the past 1300 years . The uneven coverage and
characteristics of the proxy data mean that these conclusions are most robust over
summer, extra-tropical, land areas.
I agree with Keith we cannot enter into the attibution aspects that Susan alludes to.
Eystein
At 11:57 -0700 15-02-06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
Hi again - as for bullet issue number 2, I agree that we don't need to go with the
suggest stuff on solar/forcing, BUT, I agree w/ Susan that we should try to put more in
the bullet about "Subsequent evidence" Would you pls send a new bullet that has your
suggested changes below, and that includes something like:
"Subsequent evidence, including x, y and z, reinforces this conclusion." Need to
convince readers that there really has been an increase in knowledge - more evidence.
What is it? The bullet can be longer if needed.
Thanks, Peck
Second
Simply make "1000"   "1300 years. "  and delete "and unusually warm compared with the
last 2000 years."
It is certainly NOT our job to be discussing attribution in the 20th century - this is
Chapter 9 - and we had no room (or any published material) to allow a discussion of
relative forcing contributions in earlier time. Therefore a vague statement about
"perhaps due to solar forcing" seems unjustified.
Third
I suggest this should be
Taken together , the sparse evidence of Southern Hemisphere temperatures prior to the
period of instrumental records indicates that overall warming has occurred during the
last 350 years, but the even fewer longer regional records indicate earlier periods that
are as warm, or warmer than, 20th century means.
Fourth
fine , though perhaps "warmth" instead of "warming"?
and need to see EMIC text
Fifth
suggest delete
Sixth
suggest delete
Peck, you have to consider that since the TAR , there has been a lot of argument re
"hockey stick" and the real independence of the inputs to most subsequent analyses is
minimal. True, there have been many different techniques used to aggregate and scale
data - but the efficacy of these is still far from established. We should be careful not
to push the conclusions beyond what we can securely justify - and this is not much other
than a confirmation of the general conclusions of the TAR . We must resist being pushed
to present the results such that we will be accused of bias - hence no need to attack
Moberg . Just need to show the "most likely"course of temperatures over the last 1300
years - which we do well I think. Strong confirmation of TAR is a good result, given
that we discuss uncertainty and base it on more data.  Let us not try to over egg the
pudding.
For what it worth , the above comments are my (honestly long considered) views - and I
would not be happy to go further . Of course this discussion now needs to go to the
wider Chapter authorship, but do not let Susan (or Mike) push you (us) beyond where we
know is right.
--
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

--
______________________________________________________________
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
--
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


This version is fine with me:
At 12:03 -0700 15-02-06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>Hi again... thanks for the work on number #3. It
>seems a bit awkward/vague, so how about:
>
>Taken together, the sparse evidence of Southern
>Hemisphere temperatures prior to the period of
>instrumental records indicates that overall
>warming has occurred during the last 350 years.
>The even sparser records longer than 350 years
>indicate that there may have been periods of
>regional warmth in the past 1000 years that were
>as warm, or warmer than, 20th century means.
>
Eystein
>Thanks, Peck
>
>>Third
>>
>>I suggest this should be
>>
>>Taken together , the sparse evidence of
>>Southern Hemisphere temperatures prior to the
>>period of instrumental records indicates that
>>overall warming has occurred during the last
>>350 years, but the even fewer longer regional
>>records indicate earlier periods that are as
>>warm, or warmer than, 20th century means.
>>
>>Fourth
>>
>>fine , though perhaps "warmth" instead of "warming"?
>>
>>and need to see EMIC text
>>
>>Fifth
>>
>>suggest delete
>>
>>Sixth
>>
>>suggest delete
>>
>>Peck, you have to consider that since the TAR ,
>>there has been a lot of argument re "hockey
>>stick" and the real independence of the inputs
>>to most subsequent analyses is minimal. True,
>>there have been many different techniques used
>>to aggregate and scale data - but the efficacy
>>of these is still far from established. We
>>should be careful not to push the conclusions
>>beyond what we can securely justify - and this
>>is not much other than a confirmation of the
>>general conclusions of the TAR . We must resist
>>being pushed to present the results such that
>>we will be accused of bias - hence no need to
>>attack Moberg . Just need to show the "most
>>likely"course of temperatures over the last
>>1300 years - which we do well I think. Strong
>>confirmation of TAR is a good result, given
>>that we discuss uncertainty and base it on more
>>data.  Let us not try to over egg the pudding.
>>For what it worth , the above comments are my
>>(honestly long considered) views - and I would
>>not be happy to go further . Of course this
>>discussion now needs to go to the wider Chapter
>>authorship, but do not let Susan (or Mike) push
>>you (us) beyond where we know is right.
>>
>>--
>>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
>
>
--
______________________________________________________________
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


Dear Peck and Eystein
I have to come back again on this.
FIRST
Happy with first sentence.
Then following largely on a suggestion made by Tim , I suggest
The additional variability implies mainly cooler
temperatures (predominantly in the 12th-14th,
17th and 19th centuries) and only one new
reconstruction  suggests slightly warmer
conditions (in the 11th century), but well within
the uncertainty range indicated in the TAR.
Failing this, I suggest we omit everything after the first closing bracket.
SECOND
Now suggest insert the bit about our work (Tim
and I) in the second point - after the sentence ending "1300 years." That is..
The regional extent of Northern Hemisphere warmth
was very likely greater during the 20th century
than in any other century during the last 1300 years.
Will finish corrections to my text tomorrow - but
hope Fortunat has checked it all, and is doing a
paragraph on the EMICS still?
cheers
Keith
At 23:19 15/02/2006, Eystein Jansen wrote:
>Hi,
>I think we should avoid discussing the Moberg et
>al results in the exec. bullet. I also think we
>need to have a statement about the MWP in the
>bullet, and I cannot really understand why the
>most central conclusion from the very nice
>recent Osborn et al. Science paper cannot be
>highlighted in the first bullet. My suggestion is:
>o       Some of the post-TAR studies indicate
>greater multi-centennial Northern Hemisphere
>temperature variability than was shown in the
>TAR, due to the particular proxies used, and the
>specific statistical methods of processing
>and/or scaling them to represent past
>temperatures. The additional variability implies
>cooler temperatures, predominantly during the
>12th to 14th, the 17th, and the 19th centuries.
>The warmer period in the 11th century is in
>general agreement with the results shown in the
>TAR.   Consideration of the regional records of
>temperature for the 11th century indicate that
>it is unlikely that the spatial extent of
>warming during this time period was as
>significant as in the second half of the 20th century.
>
>Cheers,
>Eystein
>
>
>
>
>At 11:46 -0700 15-02-06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>Hi Keith (and Eystein - we need your opinion) -
>>thanks for the quick response. I think it
>>easier (imagining the mess of email that could
>>result) if we focus on one bullet/email. So
>>I'll start w/ the first, and hope that Eystein can also weigh in.
>>
>>With regard to the first one below, I agree
>>that we can leave statistics out of it. Good point.
>>
>>But, I think we must at least address Susan's
>>concern. To do otherwise would be
>>counterproductive. She makes sense. I think
>>your MWP results is quite appropriate - they
>>were published in Science, and in my reading of
>>the paper, you are convincing. If it's in the
>>chapter, it makes sense to draw on it for the
>>exec summary. Please defend more convincingly,
>>or suggest an alternative way to deal with
>>Susan's concern - what is the significance (not
>>statistical) of this one record being warmer? We need to say it.
>>
>>If you really want to leave as is, please write
>>your response in a way that I can forward to
>>Susan - we can't ignore he comment in this
>>case, because other (me, at least) think it
>>makes sense. So we have to convince her too -
>>this is big stuff for the AR4, and will be in
>>the TS/SPM. We can't be as vague as the current bullet is.
>>
>>And as for the MWP box fig, I think it should
>>be as you suggest - combine the existing fig w/
>>the new one from Tim and your paper. I think
>>Tim might already be working on it?
>>
>>Sorry to be a tough guy, but this bullet needs to be more clear.
>>
>>Thanks, peck
>>>Peck
>>>do not think you will like what I say here ,
>>>but I am going to give straight answers to your questions.
>>>
>>>First
>>>
>>>The new draft says enough in the text now
>>>about "far-less-accurately dated" and
>>>"low-resolution proxy records that can not be
>>>rigorously calibrated" in relation to  this
>>>paper (Moberg et al.) . It is not appropriate
>>>to single the one series out for specific
>>>criticism in the summary . The use of the word
>>>"only" implies we do not believe it. Mike
>>>Mann's suggestion begs a lot of questions
>>>about what constitutes "significantly warmer".
>>>You need to have a Null Hypothesis to test .
>>>If you mean would the estimates in Moberg and
>>>the other reconstructions (during medieval
>>>time) show significantly different means using
>>>a t-test - then of course not , but this tells
>>>us nothing other than they are not likely
>>>samples from totally different populations -
>>>an almost impossible test to pass given the
>>>wide uncertainties on all reconstructions .
>>>Incidentally, we do not have formal
>>>(calibration ) uncertainties for Moberg anyway
>>>(just boot-strapped uncertainty on the average low-frequency curve).
>>>
>>>I think the vagueness is necessary  -
>>>"suggests slightly" and is appropriate.
>>>
>>>I would not call out The results of Tim and my
>>>paper either. It is just an aside in the
>>>Medieval box at present , perhaps with a
>>>Figure to accompany the original if you agree,
>>>but without more text in the Chapter , which I
>>>do not consider appropriate, it should not be highlighted as a bullet.
>>
>>--
>>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
>>
>>
>
>
>
>--
>______________________________________________________________
>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


Hi Keith and Eystein - good additions. Thanks. You can see how I edited them in the
attached. The only tought issue was Eystein's proposed key uncertaintly on ocean
circulation. I think it would be awkward to have multiple abrupt change uncertainties
listed (our list is already pretty long in general), so I combined your suggested bullet w/
the existing one (to include drought and other types of abrupt change:
"The mechanisms of abrupt climate change (for example, in ocean circulation and drought
frequency) are not well understood, nor are the key climate thresholds that, when crossed,
could trigger an acceleration in regional climate change."
If either of you thinks we can improve  further, pls track changes edit the attached.
Thanks again, 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\Chap6RobustKeyTableV3.doc"


Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:01:57 -0700
To: Eystein Jansen
,
Keith Briffa
, joos
From: Jonathan Overpeck
Subject: URGENT review requested
X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
Hi Eystein, Keith and Fortunat - this is a special request for help from the Euro team,
so I know I have solid feedback by the time I get to work tomorrow am. Please respond
asap (using track changes if you can).
1) Tomorrow I have to send the TSU our Robust Findings and Key Uncertainties Table. I
have attached this table. Please edit, and if you think a Finding or Uncertainty is
missing, please suggest exactly how you think it should be worded, and, if it is a
Finding, suggest which existing one it should replace (I suspect they don't want more,
but we could try). Please keep in mind this table will be part of the TS (not our
chapter), and they must be VERY policy relevant - this is not the place for things a
policy maker would not understand. Also, we need to use plainer English than in our Exec
Summary bullets.
2) I also attach the latest Exec Summary, with the latest from Keith and Fortunat (e.g.,
reordered as you suggested). I will send this in to the TSU tomorrow too, so if you want
to read and edit (PLEASE USE TRACK CHANGES), that'll help too, but this is less
important than working on the Robust/Key table.
Many thanks! Cheers, peck
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Suggestions re Box - see attached
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
[1]
[2]
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[3]
References
1.
2.
3.


Hi Peck and Eystein,
just working on this MWP box fig update. Just trying to clarify what is wanted.
The old MWP box fig had 8 series on it.  7 of these were straight
from our recent Science paper anyway, and the 8th was the average of
2 more from the Science paper.  The other 5 in the paper (making a
total of 7+2+5 = 14 series) were not used in the old MWP box fig, as
they are too short to cover the MWP period.
(1) Are you asking me to use exactly the 14 series from the Science
paper, overlaid like in the old MWP fig or, if space permits, plotted
like fig 1 in our Science paper.  And then add below the exact fig 3B
of our paper (you say "3b-like" which implied maybe some changes).
(2) Or do you want to stick with the original 8 series, and then have
the exact fig 3B from our paper, which wouldn't correspond exactly to
the 8 series above because it would be based on the 14.
(3) Or do you want to stick with the original 8 series, and then show
a panel similar to our fig 3B, but *recalculated* using just the 8
series shown?
So many questions! ;-)
I attached the original MWP fig (8 series), plus a new one from
option (1) above (14 series, looks a bit of a mess, also I removed
the "composite mean" which might have been agreed in New Zealand?).
Cheers
Tim
At 05:28 02/02/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>Hi Tim and Keith - I have some feedback on the MWP box fig, but
>would to first ask that you update us (me and Eystein) about the
>status of your other figs. We have a particularly urgent need to see
>those that are likely to be elevated to the TS (Tech Summary) - a
>big deal for paleo. Can you promise us these by the end of this
>week, Monday at the latest? Again, see my emails of Dec for details.
>
>It would be great to see a new MWP box fig asap too, but this isn't
>as high priority as the TS figs. Eystein and I agree with both Susan
>and Martin that it would be good to see a new MWP box fig that was a
>hybrid of the old fig concept and the new Fig 3b from your Science
>paper. It would be good to have two versions - if space allows, we
>go with the first, otherwise the 2nd:
>
>Both would have your 3b-like plot, and both would have all the
>normalized time series that were used to create the 3b plot (i.e.,
>those in Fig. 1 of your paper).
>
>Version 1 - has all the input series stacked on top of each other as
>in your Fig. 1, with the summary Fig 3b-like plot below.
>
>Version 2 - is the same, but the input series are all on the same
>axis like in the FOD MWP box fig.
>
>Now, if you think Version 1 plus caption would be smaller than
>Version 2 plus caption, no need for Version 2. Ditto if Version 1
>plus caption was only a little bigger than V 2 plus caption.
>
>Again, thanks for getting all of your new figs to us asap,
>particularly those targeted for TS consideration.
>
>Many 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
>
>
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\ipccar4_mwpbox4.pdf"
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\ipccar4_mwpbox_a.pdf"
Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
phone:    +44 1603 592089
fax:      +44 1603 507784
web:      ~timo/
sunclock: ~timo/sunclock.htm


Hi,
Robust finding/uncertainty table is fine with me. Good job!
Here the 6.6 material from Bern. It includes an update on solar forcing, an
update on the section on compatibility of the GHG-proxz-forcing records, new
text for the sulfate aerosol figure, new text for the EMIC figure panel e) and
a proposed bullet for the last millennium modeling.
Will send an update of the ice core sulfate figure next week with one additional
curve from Antarctica and an updated figure caption. Otherwise, I think this is
all you need from me for 6.6. Will also hunt recent references for alpine cores
highlighted as missing.
Let me know if I missed something else for the last 2ka section.
- The solar subsection in 6.6.3 requires coordination with chapter 2 – Suggest
to send the text to Dorland and Lean as soon as agreed among us. Note that we
do not have an exec summary bullet on solar forcing – probably captured by chap
2
- should probably also send the para on sulfate aerosols to chap 2 for checking
consistency and cross-referencing
- Have tried to be brief and not to add much, have also suggested to delete
paragraphs.
- note new bullet proposed for exec summary on model results. Would be nice if
sufficient space, but  no strong feeling whether this should be included or
not; may be covered to some extent by the attribution chapter.
KEITH:
Can you or Tim please provide the number for the smoothing shown in figure 11e:
'The simulated range in decadally-smoothed NH surface temperature is about 60%
KEITH/TIM CAN YOU CHECK/PROVIDE THIS NUMBER WITH YOUR FILTERED DATA larger for
the high amplitude than for the low amplitude case prior to the
industrialization.'
Looking forward to your feedbacks and improvments. We can forward to Oyvind when
finalized.
With best regards,
Fortunat
--
Climate and Environmental Physics
Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern
Phone:    ++41(0)31 631 44 61      Fax:      ++41(0)31 631 87 42
Internet: ~joos/
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\sec6.6-solar-EMIC-CO2_fjoos_17feb06.doc"


Thanks Eystein.  We submitted the data to WDC-Paleo in advance and
they went online on the day of publication.  We didn't provide an
"accession" number however.
Cheers
Tim
At 03:14 20/02/2006, you wrote:
>Tim,
>in case you did not see this yet:
>
>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
Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
phone:    +44 1603 592089
fax:      +44 1603 507784
web:      ~timo/
sunclock: ~timo/sunclock.htm


Thanks Tim,
am working my way through the comments
Have also re-read Mike Evans 2002 paper.
I am frustrated with the associate editors comments. He seems to be overtly defending
Mike's reconstruction which are quite different in nature - i.e. he reconstructed 2 spatial
fields - the 1st being ENSO related and the 2nd being probably related to the PDO although
it is not clear form the text.
The coral data-sets are also quite different, with only ~ 4 series being common to both
studies. In fact, many of the coral series used by Mike did not pass my screening process.
Lastly, the only statistic use by Mike for validation is the correlation coefficient. I
like to think I have been a little more robust at least in this regard.
I need to diplomatically word all this. I never wanted to criticise Mike's work in anyway
way. It was for that reason that I made little mention to it initially.
anyway, I hope to get a more cleaner version done by early next week.
will keep you all posted
Rob.
PS. do you have the FORTRAN code for Ed Cook's SSA software?
----- Original Message -----
From: [1]Tim Osborn
To: [2]Rob Wilson ; [3]Sandy.Tudhope@ed.ac.uk
Cc: [4]K.briffa@uea.ac.uk ; [5]Brohan, Philip ; [6]simon.tett@metoffice.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: 2005JC003188R Decision Letter
Hi Rob et al.,
seems like there are many points to address - some reasonable, some
rather picky.
Some easy things to do... change "all time scales" to "annual to
centennial time scales", minor inconsistencies pointed out.
Near the end the comments get a bit picky/stupid.  e.g. "according to
CE reconstruction is less skillful than climatology".  Doesn't RE
assume "climatology" (== calibration period mean) while CE compares
the skill against the assumption that the mean over the verification
period is known (which of course it isn't known for a general period
outside the instrumental period)?  And I really don't think your
average reader will be confused into thinking that you calibrated
using observations before 1840!  Though wording could be changed to
"the explained variance of the reconstruction using records available
before 1840 us quite low" or something similar that fits the flow of
the sentence.  Also, earlier on, isn't it obvious from the editor's
own description of the method that you can indeed estimate
verification errors for all "nests", including those available during
the instrumental period, and thus it is obvious why verification
statistics can cover this entire period in Figure 2C,D.  The editor
just needs to think about things a bit more!
The description of the calibration method can be written in the way
that is requested, I'm sure.  The difficulty is actually in
countering the criticisms that (1) the reconstruction error obtained
by regression may no longer be appropriate after the "inflation"
step, (2) the use of calibration period residuals rather than
verification period residuals to provide the error bars (though here
the editor contradicts this suggestion by pointing out that the
verification errors apply to no period other than the verification
period, but if you assume the same for the calibration errors then
where can you get the errors from?).
Hope these quick comments help,
Cheers
Tim
At 11:41 18/02/2006, Rob Wilson wrote:
>Greetings All,
>have just been away for a week to return to this reply from JGR.
>Have only gone through it quickly, but we obviously have a fussy
>associate editor to please.
>Should have gone for 'atmospheres' rather than 'oceans'.
>
>will go through it properly on Monday.
>Hope you are around over the next few days or so.
>
>regards
>Rob
>PS. have used this e-mail address as the Uni server seems to be down
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From:
jgr-oceans@agu.org
>To:
rob.wilson@ed.ac.uk
>Cc:
rob.dendro@virgin.net
>Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 8:06 PM
>Subject: 2005JC003188R Decision Letter
>
>Dear Dr. Wilson:
>
>Thank you for submitting your manuscript "250-years of reconstructed
>and modeled tropical temperatures" [Paper #2005JC003188R].
>
>I am in agreement with the associate editor and the reviewers that
>your revisions fail to adequately address the original concerns
>about the reconstruction methodologies. If you want to convey that
>this is somehow far superior to earlier reconstructions of SST, then
>it is only fair that readers of JGR get a very very clear
>description of the methods used and a convincing argument as to why
>the reconstruction is better than prior published reports on such
>reconstructions. Please heed the detailed comments and carefully
>address each of the comments with appropriate revisions and clear
>responses. I will be obliged to reject the manuscript if you do not
>address these concerns since the main claim of an improved
>reconstruction of historic temperatures is not scientifically
>rigorous enough for publication in JGR-Oceans.
>
>Please submit your revised manuscript by March 28, 2006.  If you do
>not plan to submit a revision, or if you cannot do so in the time
>allotted, I would be grateful if you could let me know as soon as
>possible.
>
>Please review the Important Links to JGR Information attached below
>before uploading your revised manuscript.
>
>When you are ready to submit your revision, please use the link
>below.
>
>

3A9KGXg2FZafNJvsZyA2JF0mAZ>
>
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Raghu Murtugudde
>Editor, Journal of Geophysical Research - Oceans
>
>--------------------IMPORTANT PUBLICATION INFORMATION---------------------
>To ensure prompt publication:
>
>1. Follow file format guidelines
>2. Provide a color option
>3. Combine figure parts or provide separate captions
>4. Provide copyright permissions for reprinted figures and tables
>5. Sign and send copyright transfer agreement
>6. A formal estimate will be sent to you a few weeks after acceptance.
>
>For information on all of the above items, see Tools for Authors at
>

>If you have any questions, reply
>to this e-mail.
>
>A manuscript tracking tool is available for you to to track the
>status of your article after acceptance:
>

tatus/ms_status.cgi
>
>
>Adobe Acrobat Reader is available, free, on the internet at the
>following URL:
>

x/acrobat/readstep.html
>
>
>************************************END*************************************
>
>
>Reviewer Comments
>
>Associate Editor(Comments):
>
>The authors adequately addressed many of the reviewers'
>remarks and requests for revisions.
>
>However, there are significant outstanding issues detailed
>below. The paper needs a thorough revision to become
>acceptable.
>
>1. The paper lacks a clear description of the reconstruction
>technique. From the text, figures, tables, and the authors'
>responses, one can guess that the following approach was
>used, in order to produce the main ("full period")
>reconstruction that the authors use for model comparison and
>interpretation: (1) for each year before 1870 the subset of
>coral records for which this year's value is available
>("nest") is identified; (2) standardized values of the
>"nest" records are averaged together for each year for which
>the entire nest is available; (3) a linear regression of the
>nest values is performed on the instrumental annual tropical
>SST averages for the period 1897-1981 (or its subperiod for
>which the nest values are available); (4) the obtained
>linear regression formula for that nest is tested on the
>period 1870-1896, and the verification statistics is
>derived; (5) the reconstruction of the target year is
>performed using the same linear regression for this nest,
>and the "verification" statistics is attributed to this
>year.
>
>Very small percentage of the readers will be able to
>understand this procedure from the paper in its current
>form.  There are a few reasons for that: (a) the paper lacks
>an explicit coherent description of this procedure, (b) the
>additional "inflation" of the reconstruction (p.9, lines
>2-3) is performed, but neither the explicit formula for it
>is given, nor how this inflation affects the reconstruction
>error in verification is discussed, (c) it would seem
>natural to use the verification error for the error bars,
>but it appears that the authors are using the calibration
>error, although no adequate description is given, (d) the
>authors are taking a lot of liberty with using verification
>statistics - unlike error bar estimates these are not
>supposed to be attributed to the periods other than those
>for which they were computed, or at least it is highly
>unusual to do that, (e) what values are given as coral
>reconstructions for the instrumental period is not
>explained: calibration values for corresponding nests?  (f)
>why "verification" statistics in Fig 2C,D cover the entire
>calibration period is unclear, (g) the presence of the
>specific calibration formula in the upper right corner of
>Fig 2 is very confusing in the context of this work, but the
>authors failed to take any action despite the hint from
>Reviewer 2 (remark 3.3).
>
>The authors have to provide an unambigous description of all
>aspects of their reconstruction procedure. But all
>additional information they provide about their
>reconstruction should help the reader to understand the main
>message, rather than to get confused or completely drowned
>under the confusing information flow. Therefore the
>"split-period" calibrations need to be reported only if they
>help to deliver the main message, which is not the case in
>the present version. Same with statistics: a lot of it is
>reported, but what purpose it serves is unclear. All
>statistics more complicated than correlation coefficient
>needs to be explicitly defined, to make the presentation
>unambigous. In their reply, the authors call Durbin-Watson
>statistic "standard". Well it's not for JGR-Oceans, where at
>least since 1994 it's never been used (in the entire body of
>all AGU journals it was only about 15 times). Same with sign
>test: the readers of JGR-Oceans should not be expected to
>have dendroclimatological textbooks by Cook and Kairiukstis
>or by Fritts in their posesion in order to look up and
>interpret the authors' results.  Some of these statistics
>are only introduced in table captions, and in a puzzling
>way, e.g. Table 2A, lines 3-4: LIN r = correlation of linear
>trend in residual series. What is meant here is probably the
>correlationcoefficient of residual with the time variable,
>but in any case, LIN r is not a good notation.
>
>2. The authors resisted the gentle insistence of Reviewer 2
>(remark 5.1) on quantifying the role of trends in the
>model-reconstruction intercomparison. To put it more
>bluntly, the significant correlations reported on p.11 and
>Table 3 are only significant because of the long term
>trends. If the 50- or 100-year the trends were subtracted,
>no significant correlation of residuals would be
>left. Trends themselves have such a small numbers of degrees
>of freedom (6, if separate trends are computed for 50 yr
>periods), that reported correlations are not significant for
>them. Therefore the authors' claim in conclusions of "a
>strong mutual agreement between the reconstruction and two
>global coupled-climate models" (p.14, lines 21-22) is not
>properly supported by the presented results and most likely
>incorrect. The authors have to change somehow their line of
>argument about model-data consistency to make it correct and
>acceptable for publication.
>
>3. The authors claim to develop "first coral-based, large
>scale temperature reconstruction, exclusive to the tropics,
>that represents past SST variability at all time-scales."
>First, how can it possibly do this at "all" time-scales and
>what scales other reconstructions of similar length exclude?
>Second, why Evans et al 2002 reconstruction doesn't count?
>In general, the authors seem to operate with understanding
>that their reconstruction is superior to that by Evans et al
>2002 (e.g. their reply to remark 3.4 by Reviewer 2). The
>basis for that is unclear, since they use a simpler
>technique, a simlar coral data set, and they only try to
>reconstruct the tropical mean, rather than the entire
>field. The actual advantages of their product compared with
>earlier works need to be made clear in the paper.
>
>4. The revision seems to have been made in a great haste, so
>that the changes the authors made often result in
>inconsistencies with the surrounding text.
>
>Abstract, lines 14-16: this sentence is grammatically
>incorrect.
>
>p.4, line 15: raw records are not data transforms
>
>p.4 lines 18-19 and p.5 lines 11-12 are in conflict. Logical
>way to present the material is to say that 16 records passed
>the screening, but then 2 of them were excluded for that and
>this reason.
>
>p.6, line 7: MTA is mentioned here, but it is only in the
>captions to Table 2 that it is explained that MTA is a
>combined mean of MAI and TAR. This is inappropriate use of
>caption, not to mention that (1) TAR is called MaiTar in the
>Table header, (2) the number of records is reduced to 13
>now, to confuse the reader further.
>
>p. 7, line 6: add "here" after "was used" to break the false
>attribution of this sentence to Evans et al 1998 work.
>
>p.8, line 5. ST abbreviation intoduced earlier is not used
>here.
>
>p.8 lines 9-11: "calculated" used twice.
>
>p.8 line 20 - p.9 line 5. Ambigous, confusing description of
>the crucial part of the procedure.
>
>
>p.9, lines 6-18. (1) attribution of the statistics to the
>entire nest record creates very bad effects here: "prior to
>1840, the explained calibration vatiance is quite low". For
>a reader who hasn't internalize the authors approach, the
>reference to calibration before 1840 will be shocking. (2)
>Strictly speaking, for the entire period before 1850 the
>reconstruction has less skill than climatology, according to
>CE in the Figure 2B. The authors have to deal with a
>complicated task of explaining that to the reader, while
>also arguing that since after 1750 the CE is a bit better
>that before 1750, they chose to use the reconstruction after
>1750 for comparison with the models. (The Reviewer 1 was
>concerned about this too in the first remark).
>
>p.9, line 19: ". . . appear improved" compared to what?
>
>p.15, lines 19-21. Again, it needs to be explained better
>what is the contribution of the present paper to evaluating
>the potential for reconstructing large scale tropical
>temperatures from a network of coral proxies, as compared to
>Evans et al papers, where this task seems to have been
>accomplished before from a few different angles.
>
>p.24, line 1: "Simple zero order OLS regression" is not
>simple: what does zero order mean in this context?
>
>p.24, line 5. "model residual" is confusing, because the
>only models called so in the paper are GCMs. But here
>"model" denotes a linear regression model.
>
>Page 41. Table S1. (1) it would be helpful to explain that
>left part of these tables are calibration statistics and
>right are verification statistics.  (2) What is aR^2:
>"multiple" correlation coefficient?  Is R different from r?
>(3) Why full-period verification statistics are missing for
>nests after 1879?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail:   [14]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
phone:    +44 1603 592089
fax:      +44 1603 507784
web:      [15]~timo/
sunclock: [16]~timo/sunclock.htm
References
1. mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
2. mailto:rob.dendro@virgin.net
3. mailto:Sandy.Tudhope@ed.ac.uk
4. mailto:K.briffa@uea.ac.uk
5. mailto:philip.brohan@metoffice.com
6. mailto:simon.tett@metoffice.com
7. mailto:jgr-oceans@agu.org>jgr-oceans@agu.org
8. mailto:rob.wilson@ed.ac.uk>rob.wilson@ed.ac.uk
9. mailto:rob.dendro@virgin.net>rob.dendro@virgin.net
10.
11.
12.
13.
14. mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
15. ~timo/
16. ~timo/sunclock.htm


Hi Keith,
will try to look at your text asap. Concerning the issue of the drift in
the Von Storch run: they now have at least one paper plus one submitted
comment where they redid their model run without the drift, they call
this ECHO-G II, the version with drift is now ECHO-G I. I think this
argues for leaving the ECHO-G I curve out of the graphs, and just having
one sentence in the text stating this is not shown as it was found to
drift, and has been superseded. It is an outlier that messes up the
graph, and if it is known and even acknowledged by its authors that it
is a model artifact, why show it in IPCC?
Stefan


OK:
Here is the mss.  Yes, fingers crossed.  Note, this is not for general
dissemination until actually "in press".
The article is quite long, due to all the MM issues we address and the
extensive discussions concerning use of validation measures we get into.
As a first pass, the Abstract, Discussion, and Summary would be good
places to start.
Peace, Gene
*******************************
Dr. Eugene R. Wahl
Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies
Alfred University
1 Saxon Drive
Alfred NY, 14802
607.871.2604
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Overpeck
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 3:59 PM
To: Wahl, Eugene R
Cc: Keith Briffa; Eystein Jansen
Subject: Re: Wahl and Ammann Climatic Change article on MBH
Hi Gene - might be better to send the ms now - at least to Keith,
since final text is being worked out now. Fingers crossed, thanks,
peck
>Hello all:
>
>The re-revised mss. of the Wahl-Ammann article on the MBH-MM
controversy
>is now to Stephen Schneider of Climatic Change for his approval.
>
>It is possible that we might hear from him within days.  If so, and the
>decision is full approval of "in press" status, I will let you all know
>immediately.  At that time I also will send the mss. itself.
>
>Peace, Gene
>
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Wahl-Ammann_3321_Figures.pdf"
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Wahl_Ammann_3321_Final_21Feb.doc"


Thanks for this Eugene. It has been very difficult in drafting the 2000-year section text
for us to get the balance between too much concentration on the controversy as you call it
and the need to describe subsequent work. Sounds like your paper is an important one to
signpost in the text.
best wishes
Keith
At 00:26 22/02/2006, Wahl, Eugene R wrote:
OK:
Here is the mss.  Yes, fingers crossed.  Note, this is not for general
dissemination until actually "in press".
The article is quite long, due to all the MM issues we address and the
extensive discussions concerning use of validation measures we get into.
As a first pass, the Abstract, Discussion, and Summary would be good
places to start.
Peace, Gene
*******************************
Dr. Eugene R. Wahl
Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies
Alfred University
1 Saxon Drive
Alfred NY, 14802
607.871.2604
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Overpeck [[1]mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 3:59 PM
To: Wahl, Eugene R
Cc: Keith Briffa; Eystein Jansen
Subject: Re: Wahl and Ammann Climatic Change article on MBH
Hi Gene - might be better to send the ms now - at least to Keith,
since final text is being worked out now. Fingers crossed, thanks,
peck
>Hello all:
>
>The re-revised mss. of the Wahl-Ammann article on the MBH-MM
controversy
>is now to Stephen Schneider of Climatic Change for his approval.
>
>It is possible that we might hear from him within days.  If so, and the
>decision is full approval of "in press" status, I will let you all know
>immediately.  At that time I also will send the mss. itself.
>
>Peace, Gene
>
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[2]
References
1. mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu
2.