John,
There has been some email traffic in the last few days to a week - quite
a bit really, only a small part about MSU. The main part has been one of
your House subcommittees wanting Mike Mann and others and IPCC
to respond on how they produced their reconstructions and how IPCC
produced their report.
In case you want to look at this see later in the email !
Also this load of rubbish !
This is from an Australian at BMRC (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached
article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no
uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only
7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant.
The Australian also alerted me to this blogging !  I think this is the term !  Luckily
I don't live in Australia.
[1]
Unlike the UK, the public in Australia is very very naïve about climate change, mostly
because of our governments Kyoto stance, and because there is a proliferation of people
with no climate knowledge at all that are prepared to do the gov bidding. Hence the
general populace is at best confused, and at worst, antagonistic about climate change -
for instance, at a recent rural meeting on drought, attended by politicians and around
2000 farmers, a Qld collegue - Dr Roger Stone - spoke about drought from a climatologist
point of view, and suggested that climate change may be playing a role in Australias
continuing drought+water problem. He was booed and heckled (and unfortunately some
politicians applauded when this happened) - that's what we're dealing with due to
columists such as the one I sent to you.
Now to your email.  I have seen the latest Mears and Wentz paper (to Science),  but
am not reviewing it, thank goodness. I am reviewing a couple of papers on extremes,
so that I can refer to them in the chapter for AR4. Somewhat circular, but I kept to
my usual standards.
The Hadley Centre are working on the day/night issue with sondes, but there are
a lot of problems as there are very few sites in the tropics with both and where both
can be distinguished. My own view if that the sondes are overdoing the cooling
wrt MSU4 in the lower stratosphere, and some of this likely (IPCC definition) affects
the upper troposphere as well. Sondes are a mess and the fact you get agreement
with some of them is miraculous. Have you looked at individual sondes, rather than
averages - particularly tropical ones? LKS is good, but the RATPAC update less so.
As for being on the latest VG analysis, Kostya wanted it to use the surface data.
I thought the model comparisons were a useful aside, so agreed. Ben sent me a paper he's
submitted with lots of model comparisons that I also thought a useful addition to
the subject.
As for resolving all this (as opposed to the dogfight) I'm hoping that CCSP will
come up with something - a compromise.  I might be naive in this respect. I hope
you are still emailing and talking to Carl and Frank. How is CCSP going? Are you still
on schedule for end of August for your open review?
What will be interesting is to see how IPCC pans out, as we've been told we can't use
any article that hasn't been submitted by May 31. This date isn't binding, but
Aug 12 is a little more as this is when we must submit our next draft - the one
everybody will be able to get access to and comment upon. The science isn't
going to stop from now until AR4 comes out in early 2007, so we are going to
have to add in relevant new and important papers. I hope it is up to us to decide
what is important and new. So, unless you get something to me soon, it won't
be in this version. It shouldn't matter though, as it will be ridiculous to keep
later drafts without it. We will be open to criticism though with what we do add
in subsequent drafts. Someone is going to check the final version and the
Aug 12 draft.  This is partly why I've sent you the rest of this email.  IPCC,
me and whoever will get accused of being political, whatever we do. As you
know, I'm not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen,
so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This
isn't being political, it is being selfish.
Cheers
Phil
IPCC stuff   ----   just for interest !!!
IPCC ASKED TO COME CLEAN OVER CONTROVERSIAL HOCKEY STICK STUDIES
The Committee on Energy and Commerce, 23 June 2005
[2]
Joe Barton, Chairman
U.S. House of Representatives
June 23, 2005
To: Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri
Chairman
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
C/O IPCC Secretariat
World Meteorological Organization
7 bis Avenue de La Paix
C.P. 2300
Ch- 1211 Geneva 2 Switzerland
Dear Chairman Pachauri:
Questions have been raised, according to a February 14, 2005 article in The Wall Street
Journal, about the significance of methodological flaws and data errors in studies by Dr.
Michael Mann and co-authors of the historical record of temperatures and climate change. We
understand that these studies of temperature proxies (tree rings, ice cores, corals, etc.)
formed the basis for a new finding in the 2001 United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR). This finding - that the increase in
20th century northern hemisphere temperatures is "likely to have been the largest of any
century during the past 1,000 years" and that the "1990s was the warmest decade and 1998
the warmest year" - has since been referenced widely and has become a prominent feature of
the public debate surrounding climate change policy.
However, in recent peer-reviewed articles in Science, Geophysical Research Letters, Energy
& Environment, among others, researchers question the results of this work. As these
researchers find, based on the available information, the conclusions concerning
temperature
histories - and hence whether warming in the 20th century is actually unprecedented -
cannot be
supported by the Mann et. al. studies. In addition, we understand from the February 14
Journal
and these other reports that researchers have failed to replicate the findings of these
studies, in part because of problems with the underlying data and the calculations used to
reach the conclusions. Questions have also been raised concerning the sharing and
dissemination of the data and methods used to perform the studies. For example, according
to the January 2005
Energy & Environment, the information necessary to replicate the analyses in the studies
has not been made fully available to researchers upon request.
The concerns surrounding these studies reflect upon the quality and transparency of
federally
funded research and of the IPCC review process - two matters of particular interest to the
Committee. For example, one concern relates to whether IPCC review has been sufficiently
robust
and independent. We understand that Dr. Michael Mann, the lead author of the studies in
question, was also a lead author of the IPCC chapter that assessed and reported this very
same work, and that two co-authors of the studies were also contributing authors to the
same chapter. Given the prominence these studies were accorded in the IPCC TAR, we seek to
learn more about the facts and circumstances that led to acceptance and prominent use of
this work in the IPCC TAR and to understand what this controversy indicates about the data
quality of key IPCC studies.
In light of the Committee's jurisdiction over energy policy and certain environmental
issues
in the U.S. House of Representatives, the Committee must have full and accurate information
when considering matters relating to climate change policy. We open this review because the
dispute surrounding these studies bears directly on important questions about the federally
funded work upon which climate studies rely and the quality and transparency of analyses
used
to support the IPCC assessment process. With the IPCC currently working to produce a fourth
assessment report, addressing questions of quality and transparency in the underlying
analyses
supporting that assessment, both scientific and economic, are of utmost importance if
Congress
is eventually going to make policy decisions drawing from this work.
To assist us as we begin this review, and pursuant to Rules X and XI of the U.S. House of
Representatives, please provide the following information requested below on or before July
11,
2005:
1. Explain the IPCC process for preparing and writing its assessment reports, including,
but
not limited to: (a) how referenced studies are reviewed and assessed by the relevant
Working Group; (b) the steps taken by lead authors, reviewers, and others to ensure the
data underlying the studies forming the basis for key findings - particularly proxy and
temperature data - are accurate and up to date; and (c) the IPCC requirements governing
the quality of data used in reports.
2. What specifically did IPCC do to check the quality of the Mann et. al. studies and
underlying data, cited in the TAR? Did IPCC seek to ensure the studies could be
replicated?
3. What is your position with regard to: (a) the recent challenges to the quality of the
Mann
et. al. data, (b) related questions surrounding the sharing of methods and research for
others to test the validity of these studies, and (c) what this controversy indicates about
the data quality of key IPCC studies?
4. What did IPCC do to ensure the quality of data for other prominent historical
temperature
or proxy studies cited in the IPCC, including the Folland et. al. and Jones et. al. studies
that were sources for the graphic accompanying the Mann et. al. graphic in the Summary
for Policy Makers? Are the data and methodologies for such works complete and
available for other researchers to test and replicate?
5. Explain (a) the facts and circumstances by which Dr. Michael Mann served as a lead
author of the very chapter that prominently featured his work and (b) by which his work
became a finding and graphical feature of the TAR Summary for Policymakers.
6. Explain (a) how IPCC ensures objectivity and independence among section contributors
and reviewers, (b) how they are chosen, and (c) how the chapters, summaries, and the full
report are approved and what any such approval signifies about the quality and
acceptance of particular research therein.
7. Identify the people who wrote and reviewed the historical temperature-record portions of
the TAR, particularly Section 2.3, "Is the Recent Warming Unusual?" and explain all
their roles in the preparation of the TAR, including, but not limited to, the specific
roles
in the writing and review process.
8. Given the questions about Mann et. al. data, has the Working Group I or the IPCC made
any changes to specific procedures or policies, including policies for checking the quality
of data, for the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report? If so, explain in detail any such
changes, and why they were made.
9. Does the IPCC or Working Group I have policies or procedures regarding the disclosure
and dissemination of scientific data referenced in the reports? If so, explain in detail
any
such policies and what happens when they are violated.
Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please contact Peter Spencer of
the Majority Committee staff at (202) 226-2424.
Sincerely,
Joe Barton Chairman Chairman
Ed Whitfield
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
cc: The Honorable John Dingell, Ranking Member
The Honorable Bart Stupak, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
EDITOR'S NOTE: The House of Representatives has also written to National Science Foundation
Director Arden Bement, Dr. Michael Mann, Dr. Malcolm K. Hughes, and Dr. Raymond S. Bradley,
requesting information regarding their global warming studies; see "Letters Requesting
Information Regarding Global Warming Studies" at
[3]
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.
2.
3.


Neville,
Mike's response could do with a little work, but as you say he's got the tone
almost dead on.  I hope I don't get a call from congress !  I'm hoping that no-one
there realizes I have a US DoE grant and have had this (with Tom W.) for the last 25
years.
I'll send on one other email received for interest.
Cheers
Phil
At 14:21 06/07/2005, you wrote:
Thanks Phil.
I had seen the estimates of 0.12C for UAH 5.2, but wasnt sure if the version producing
these trends had all the months corrected, and that John was happy with the corrections
(I had heard that his initial estimate was that the change made a major difference to
the trends, but that later calulations didnt support this). I think I have a pretty good
idea now of the trends in the various data sets.
I have seen the Mears/Wentz paper, but will watch out for John's paper (I know I could
have asked John about all of this, but I suspect he feels a bit over-burdened and
harrassed at the moment, and I didnt want to add to the pressure on him, so thanks for
passing this stuff on to me).
I thought Mike Mann's draft response was pretty good - I had expected something more
vigorous, but I think he has got the "tone" pretty right. Do you expect to get a call
from Congress?
Neville Nicholls
Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre
9th Floor, 700 Collins Street
Docklands,Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
PO Box 1289K, Melbourne, AUSTRALIA 3001
Phone: +61 (0)3 9669 4407
Fax: +61 (0)3 9669 4660
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: Wed 7/6/2005 5:57 PM
To: Neville Nicholls
Subject: Fwd: Misc
Neville,
Here's an email from John, with the trend from his latest version
in.  Also
has trends for RATPAC and HadAT2. If you can stress in your talks that it is
more likely the sondes are wrong - at least as a group. Some may be OK
individually. The tropical ones are the key, but it is these that least
is know
about except for a few regions. The sondes clearly show too much cooling in
the stratosphere (when compared to MSU4), and I reckon this must
also affect their upper troposphere trends as well. So, John may be putting
too much faith in them wrt agreement with UAH.
Happy for you to use the figure, if you don't pass on to anyone else.
Watch
out for Science though and the Mears/Wentz paper if it ever comes out.
Also, do point out that looking at surface trends from 1998 isn't very
clever.
Cheers
Phil
>Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 07:59:51 -0500
>From: John Christy
>User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.4)
>Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1
>X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
>To: Phil Jones
>Subject: Misc
>X-NSSTC-MailScanner: Found to be clean
>X-NSSTC-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted),
>         SpamAssassin (score=-5.8, required 5, BAYES_01 -5.40,
>         RCVD_IN_ORBS 0.11, SIGNATURE_LONG_SPARSE -0.49,
>         USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_UA 0.00)
>X-MailScanner-From: john.christy@nsstc.uah.edu
>X-Spam-Score: 0.0
>X-Spam-Level: /
>X-Spam-Flag: NO
>
>Hi Phil:
>
>I've been getting round-about versions of rumors concerning our newly
>adjusted version 5.2 LT dataset.  I believe I had indicated earlier to you
>that the correction was within our published margin of error.  In any case
>here are the numbers that describe various aspects of v5.2
>1979-2004
>
>Global Trend +0.115 UAH,  +0.125 RATPAC and +0.137 HadAT  (note, when
>subsampled for the same latitudes in which sonde observations are
>available, UAH and HadAT are almost exactly the same.)
>
>Update of site by site comparison of UAH LT 5.2 and SH radiosondes from
>Christy and Norris 2004:
>
>All 87 SH stations, no adjustments  Raobs + 0.028  UAH +0.040
>74 best sites with adjustments      Raobs +0.030  UAH +0.054
>
>These SH changes from the original publication were very minor because
>most stations were outside the tropics where the diurnal error had
>essentially no impact.
>
>A paper by Sherwood claims that Day minus Night is a legitimate way to go
>about looking at sonde problems.  The real problem though is that Day
>minus Night is only an indicator of a sonde change, it does not determine
>the change itself.  Most notorious is the Philipps Mark III to Vaisala
>RS-80 where the night warmed by about 0.3 C and the day by a little bit
>less, which means the Day minus Night reveals a negative shift when in
>fact both ob times have a significant positive shift (these sondes form a
>signifciant part of the LKS dataset).  Similar results occur for US VIZ
>mini-art 2 to Micro-art software in 1990.
>
>I have many other sone comparisons, and all are more consistent with the
>UAH trends more than RSS and certainly VG.  Indeed,  I was curious to see
>that your name was on VG's latest paper.  I wish I had time to fill you in
>on why the addition of the non-linear terms is a red herring (both UAH and
>RSS have performed the calculations with and without the non-linear terms
>with no impact on the trends) and why the latitudinal difference for
>calculating the coefficients leads one astray.  I'm a little nervous now
>that you may have a "dog in this fight" as we say in Alabama while writing
>up the IPCC.  I expect my sonde comparisons to be included in the IPCC and
>I will have further results demonstrating the problems with the Day minus
>Night technique within a few months.
>
>I've lots to do now.  Thanks for listening.
>
>John C.
>
>--
>************************************************************
>John R. Christy
>Director, Earth System Science Center   voice: 256-961-7763
>Professor, Atmospheric Science          fax:   256-961-7751
>Alabama State Climatologist
>University of Alabama in Huntsville
>[2]
>
>Mail:   ESSC-Cramer Hall/University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville
>AL 35899
>Express:   Cramer Hall/ESSC, 320 Sparkman Dr., Huntsville AL 35805
>
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
2.


Kevin,
In the caption to Fig 3.6.2, can you change 1882-2004 to 1866-2004 and
add a reference to Konnen (with umlaut over the o) et al. (1998). Reference
is in the list. Dennis must have picked up the MSLP file from our web site,
that has the early pre-1882 data in. These are fine as from 1869 they are Darwin,
with the few missing months (and 1866-68) infilled by regression with Jakarta.
This regression is very good (r>0.8). Much better than the infilling of Tahiti, which
is said in the text to be less reliable before 1935, which I agree with.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hi Gabi,
Here is the section from the FOD draft that includes the new PMIP-2
results.  The radiative forcings have been modified based on new
calculations.  Note the PMIP-2 LGM model results included in the FOD
do not include vegetation or atmospheric aerosol changes so for
these results the radiative forcing estimate is 5.7 +/- 1.3 W/m2.
Bette
______________________________________________
Bette L. Otto-Bliesner
Climate Change Research
National Center for Atmospheric Research
1850 Table Mesa Drive / P.O. Box 3000
Boulder, Colorado  80307
Phone:	303-497-1723
Fax:	303-497-1348
Email:	ottobli@ncar.ucar.edu
______________________________________________
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 hegerl@duke.edu wrote:
>
>
> Hi chapter 6,
>
> I am getting a bit nervous about the sensitivity stuff, since
> chapter 10 wants our version from us (blush nowhere near there)
> for their summary of all things sensitivity - so I am in the middle
> of the pipeline....
> ALl I'd need is the text from the ZOD, if you want to update anything
> or make me aware of refs, thats fine, but not as urgent.
> Did the ZOD have the ice age sensitivity?
>
> thank you and sorry...
>
> Gabi
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gabriele Hegerl
> Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment
> Duke University, Durham NC 27708
> phone 919-684-6167, fax 919-684-5833
> email: hegerl@duke.edu
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\What do ice ages tell us_071105.doc"


Hi all - in the last few emails, we have suggested that you serve as
"head" lead authors for the various sections of our chapter. One main
purpose of this email is to make sure you are comfortable with the
responsibility and have time for it. The other main goal is to
explain what is expected of each of you.
First, here's a list of who's heading what sections. We picked you
guys since you have proven to be intellectual leaders on the team,
but also because you have track records of getting the job done on
time. The one person we worry about is Olga, since she is leaving
soon for the field, but nonetheless, we'd like all her input on Box
6.3 before she leaves. We will take over after then.
Exec Summary and Section 6.1 - PECK and EYSTEIN
Section 6.2 - DAVID
Section 6.3 - STEFAN
Section 6.4 - BETTE
Section 6.5 - KEITH
Section 6.6 - FORTUNAT
Box 6.1 - DAVID
Box 6.2 - FORTUNAT
Box 6.3 - OLGA
Box 6.4 - KEITH
Second, what is needed? Here is a list that has come to mind. We'd
like you all to comment on this list (use the email list used for
this email), so that we all agree about what we're doing in the next
couple weeks.
1) Your primary job is to make sure your section (text, tables, figs
and refs) is as perfect as possible. Each of us has to be careful
about how we schedule things so that we have the job DONE by July 24.
2) Each of you should solicit feedback and edits from the ENTIRE LA
team, plus relevant CAs. This is obviously to get the best ideas
possible, but also to ensure that all on the LA team have had input.
Please create a check list and make sure that you have some sort of
feedback (at least an "OK") from each LA. We suggest you start asap,
and don't expect LAs to just respond to the emails we just sent -
many of the LAs just don't respond in a timely fashion (thankfully,
you guys are not on that list!).
2.5) Monitor all chapter listserv traffic for your input, as some LAs
prefer to communicate only in that way.
3) Please explicitly ask for feedback on the text, tables, figs and refs.
4) With respect to text, try hard to get it down to size (see below),
and to ensure that it is FOCUSED on only that science which is policy
relevant. ALL TEXT should support an Exec Summary Bullet. If it
doesn't the text should be removed, or a bullet created for
discussion with our team. Also, although it is ultimately our job to
try to make the chapter flow as one document, please do what you can
to make your section's text flow with the other sections. Look to
make sure all information is compatible across sections, and that the
same type of language/style is used (to the extent you can.
4.4) We hope that you will start your process by reading THE ENTIRE
CHAPTER carefully, and sending your comments for each section to the
"head" LA for that section. This will get things moving fast, and
help with the compatibility issues mentioned in #4 above.
5) With respect to the figures (and table), make sure each one is as
compelling as possible. To save space (see below) you might decide a
figure has to go. You might decide a new figure has to be included
(only if there is space!). Work to get the figure redrafted where
needed to be perfect - a sign of ultimate success will be that our
figs get into the TS/SPM docs. Peck will be on that team, and will
push hard, but figures MUST BE POLICY RELEVANT AND COMPELLING.
6) With respect to refs, please make sure that only the most relevant
ones are cited, and that all of the citations are complete and
entered into your copy of the master chapter endnote file. Although
we expect to cite our own work where it makes sense, please be double
sure that we're not going overboard in this regard - it won't look
good to the outside world (e.g., skeptics) if we appear self-serving
at all.
7) If you run into any debates that can't be easily solved (i.e. with
all LAs happy), please consult with us. It is our job to make the
ultimate calls, since someone has to do it. Again, it is our goal to
make sure that no one is left with a bad feeling about our product.
On the other hand, we have to make sure we stick to only the best
science.
8) We'll be asking to make sure we have all the CAs listed. Let us
know if you need to consult with any new ones. AGain, we must do what
it takes to get the science and message as perfect as possible. CA
consultation at this point is encouraged where it will help. For
example, we need to get out the Pre-Q box to some Pre-Q experts - we
are discussing w/ David.
9) At any point you need input, ask. We are happy to talk on the
phone, and can call you or a group if you want a conference call. We
are doing this already, and it can save lots of time. Or email. Both
of us will be mostly around save a day or two.
10) Size and need to cut some sections. Because of recent changes in
the TSU, we haven't been able to get the latest word, but we suspect
that our comments in the FOD draft just sent are true - some sections
have a real space issue (factor in figures), others less so. We'll
provide more on this soon, and we expect that if you follow the above
guidelines, you'll be getting things into more focus, and hopefully
less space - especially section 6.3. When thinking about Figs, Tables
and Refs, also be thinking "How can I save space?"
11) Feel free to bring in other LAs to help you coordinate. For
example, for section 6.3, Bette and Dominique (to be back soon) can
be a big help, Stefan. Keith is working with Tim and Ricardo, but
also some others to do the job he has left. Etc.
12) We will start sending more info next week, and will help reach
consensus on what we're doing, and by when if needed. Let us know
what we've missed, and what might be wrong or unclear.
Ok, that's more than enough.
Thanks again for helping us lead the next big push!
Best, Peck and Eystein
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795


Tom,
This Briffa series is just a three site average (trees from Tornetrask, Polar Urals
and
Taimyr) - all in northern Eurasia. It is therefore for a limited region and is likely
just the summer, whereas some of the others have regressed on annual T for
the NH (or north of 20N).
Of these 3, the first two are in most of the other series (Esper, Crowley, Jones, Mann)
and also for HF in Moberg. Not sure whether Taimyr is in any of the others.
Esper uses a different standardization approach, but should have most of the
same trees, but only TRW. The others use our reconstructions which have MXD
is as well.
Have you tried these correlations after extracting the LF trends (say residuals
from a 30 or 50 yr filter)? Would expect some of them to be much, much lower.
Keith's reconstruction that would be much better is the one that goes back to
only about 1400. Do you have this?  Go here [1]
then click on paleo data, then on obtaining and look for Keith's - it says 600 years in
the title. You can get the data.
Cheers
Phil
At 21:57 14/07/2005, you wrote:
Phil,
I eventually refiltered all the paleo data and have compared these
with likewise filtered MAGICC output. Very interesting results.
Can you comment, off the record, on Keith's paleo series.
Here are correlations of individual series against the 7 series average.
(Different series lengths, but essentially same results over common lengths.)
SERIES     1000-1610       1610-1995      1000-1995
Briffa                  -.272                 .262                .207
Esper                   .583                 .917                .687
Crowley               .879                 .946                .902
Jones                   .773                 .917                .861
Mann                   .760                 .856                .822
M&J-NH             .929                 .965                .936
Moberg                .904                 .856                .871
Correlations with the climate model are not the same -- but Briffa is
again the clear outlier.
Why?
Tom.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.


Hi,
if what Tom writes is correct, then I  would
think it is not necessary to have a separate
paper. But we need to be sure so as not to break
any of the regulations since this will be one of
the most scrutinized sections of the whole 4AR. I
guess it is now up to how Keith and Tim takes the
MWP box further and what ends up in the figure.
Cheers,
Eystein
At 21:35 -0600 17-07-05, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>Hi Tom - thx for the quick response. It sounds
>like you don't need to do the extra pub. Keith
>and Eystein, do you agree? Tom can help make
>sure everything is ok, and should probably be a
>Contributing Author for the effort. Is that
>appropriate, all? Tom has already given us lots
>of useful review comments, and I suspect (am I
>right, Tom) that would be willing to review some
>more, in addition to helping make sure Keith and
>Tim get the figure we're thinking about right?
>Of course, if we run into a methodological or
>space problem, the fig might still not make it,
>but Keith, Eystein and I talked and have agreed
>that it would be good to hammer home that
>available data do not support the concept of a
>single (or multiple) globally synchronous (e.g.,
>to the degree that the late 20th century is)
>warm events during anyone's definition of
>Medieval times. We also agreed that this fig
>would focus on that issue only, and not Medieval
>warmth vs 20th century. This amplitude issue is
>dealt with in the main "temps of the last 2K"
>figs that Tim and Keith produced. But, given all
>the misunderstanding and misrepresenting that is
>going on wrt to the Medieval Warm Period, we
>concluded that it's worth the extra space to
>address the issue in more than one way - hence
>the decision to try to do something along the
>lines of your figure.
>
>It's in Keith and Tim's hands for the next step - they're working away.
>
>Thanks again to all, best, peck
>
>Thx, peck
>
>>Quoting Jonathan Overpeck
:
>>
>>
>>Jonathan, can do, but I am wondering if we need to - seven of the curves have
>>been processed in the way we describe in the
>>Hegerl et al paper to nature that
>>gabi sent you - s.d.s even listed in
>>supplementary file.  the only exception is
>>the Alberta record, which Lockhart (sp?)
>>extended recently to about 900 - that
>>is published too - so each of the records has
>>gone through some peer-processing
>>- so should the figure itself, based on those data, still require an extra
>>reference?  if so I will still do it, but I
>>wonder if it is needed. please get
>>back to me soon on this, tom
>>
>>>  Hi Tom - Looks like we (Keith) is going to try to come up w/ a new
>>>  version of your figure for our MWP Box. We're banking on Susan giving
>>>  us the extra space for this and a couple other things, but I
>>>  recommend you do that quick EOS paper you mentioned. Still ok?
>>>
>>>  Many thanks.
>>>
>>>  best, peck
>>>  --
>>>  Jonathan T. Overpeck
>>>  Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
>>>  Professor, Department of Geosciences
>>>  Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
>>>
>>>  Mail and Fedex Address:
>>>
>>>  Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
>>>  715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
>>>  University of Arizona
>>>  Tucson, AZ 85721
>>>  direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
>>>  fax: +1 520 792-8795
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>--
>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, Eystein and Tom
At this point we thought it was important to review where we think we are with the MWP
Figure.
First, we have no objection to a Figure . Our only concerns have been that we should
1/... be clear what we wish this Figure to  illustrate (in the specific context of the MWP
box) - note that this is very different from trying to produce a Figure in such a way as to
bias what it says (I am not suggesting that we are, but we have to guard against any later
charge that we did this). We say this because there are intonations in some of Peck's
previous messages  that he wishes to "nail" the MWP - i.e. this could be interpreted as
trying to say there was no such thing, and
2/ ...agree that we have done this in the best way.
The truth is that there IS a period of relative warmth around the end of the 1st and start
of the 2nd millennium C.E. , but that there are much fewer data to base this conclusion on
(and hence the uncertainty around even our multiple calibrated multi-proxy reconstructions
are wide). The geographical spread of data also impart a northern (and land) bias in our
early proxy data. My understanding of Tom's rationale with the Figure is that we should
show how, because the timing of maximum pre-20th century warmth is different in different
records, the magnitude of the warmest period (for the Hemisphere , or globe, as a whole) is
less than the recently observed warmth.
The reconstructions we plot in Chapter 6 already express the mean Hemispheric warmth (after
various selection and scaling of data), and so the additional information that the MWP box
figure should show must relate to the scatter of the proxy data. There seems to be a
consensus that this is best done by showing individual records , and we are happy to agree.
What we worry very much about, however, is that we should not produce a Figure that then
conflicts with the picture of proxy evidence for Hemispheric mean warmth as a whole,shown
in the main Chapter Figure. By showing a composite (as Tom has done) and scaling against
another (30-90degrees N) temperature record - this is just what is done.
As we promised, Tim has produced a similar Figure, using the same series plus a few extras,
but omitting the composite mean and the scaling against instrumental temperatures. The idea
was to include as many of the original input series (to the various reconstructions) as we
could  - though avoiding conflicting use of different versions of the same data. The
precise selection of records will have to be agreed and, presumably, based on some clear,
objective criteria that we would need to justify (this will not be straight forward). This,
along with Tom's plot (forwarded by Peck) is in the attachment.
We would like to get your opinion now, and especially Tom's, on the points regarding the
composite and scaling. We would be in favour of just showing the series - but do they make
the point (and emphasise the message of the text in the box)? Or does the scatter of the
various series as plotted, dilute the message about the strength of 20th century mean
warming (note the apparently greater scatter in the 20th century  in our figure than in
Tom's)? Can you all chip in here please.
best wishes
Keith and Tim
P.S. We agreed in Beijing that we should definitely ask Tom to be a CA .
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784


Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:38:31 +0100
To: Tom Crowley
, Jonathan Overpeck
From: Keith Briffa
Subject: Re: thoughts and Figure for MWP box
Cc: Eystein Jansen
Tom et al
thanks for remarks - in response to Tom's questions
At 18:23 18/07/2005, Tom Crowley wrote:
a few comments -
1) are you trying to choose between my way of presenting things and your way - ie, w
w/out composite?
Yes
2) with your data, do they all go through from beginning to end?
pretty much - and have been standardised over the maximum period for each (not
necessarily the best way?)
3) why include chesapeake, which is likely a salinity record?
Because Moberg used it in their latest reconstruction - I agree that I would not use it
because of the dubious temperature signal (salinity effect and no local replication) and
poor dating control (and I do not like the way the Moberg method effectively over
weights the low-frequency predictor series in their analysis).
4) some of your data are from virtually the same site - Mangazeja and yamal are both w.
siberia - I composited data available from multiple sites to produce one time series,
which is equally counted against the other regions, which might (greenland, w.U.S., e.
Asia) or might not have multiple records in them
Just to reiterate - I understood after the group chat with Susan S. in Beijing , that we
were being asked  to try to produce a "cloud" diagram including as many of "original"
predictor series ,from all the reconstructions, to see if it provided an "obvious"
picture of the unprecedented warming over the last millennium or so. Tim and I are in no
way trying t produce a different Figure for the sake of producing a different Figure .
In practice this is hard to do (because some records are sensible "local" composites
already, and how far do you go in showing all input data? The problem of what and how to
composite is tricky - and no obviously "correct"  way is apparent.
Having said this , Tom's way is fine with me (provided the composites are robust) and we
get general agreement. Am happy to go with Tom's Figure , or version that incorporates
as many records as possible - but as we have said - without the composite or temperature
scaled add ons.
5) I am not sure whether it is wise to add me to the CA list, just because the reviewer
is supposed to be impartial and a CA loses that appearance of impartiality if he has now
been included as a CA - may want to check with Susan S. on this one to be sure - still
happy to provide advice
My own position on this is that you are an "unofficial" referee, who has (and still is)
making a significant contribution - I see no conflict
6) I am happy to go in either direction - include or not include my figure - all I need
are specific directions as to what to do, as CLAs you people need to decide, and then
just tell me what or what not to do
Agree - CLAs please rule on the individual record/composite question - I am very happy
to go with Tom's Figure. We did ours because we were asked to.
7) I am a little unhappy with the emphasis on hemispheric warmth - lets face it, almost
all of the long records are from 30-90N - the question is:  how representative is 30-90N
to the rest of the world?  for the 20th c. one can do correlations with the instrumental
record, but co2 has almost certainly increased the correlation scale beyond what it was
preanthropogenic.
Absolutely agree , and hope this comes over in text (and bullets) - if not needs
strengthening (note David R's comments).
you could correlate with quelcaya - not  sure how many other records there are that are
annual resolution - in the tropics I have produced a tropical composite (corals +
Quelc.) but it only goes back to ~1780 - corals just don't live v long - in that
interval at least the agreement is satisfactory with the mid latitude reconstruction but
there is only 100 years extra of independent information beyond the instrumental
record..
We have gone round in circles over this , but understand consensus to be that Quelc. not
a clean temperature record. Agree corals would be better longer (the new coral-based
reconstruction by Rob Wilson et al
goes back to 1700 and shows unprecedented tropical warming . Along with the text from
Julie we can not go much further, but the importance of extending the tropical (and SH
records needs to be very clear)
.THIS MAY NEED TO BE ADDRESSEDAS A GENERAL ISSUE SOMEWHERE (SHORTLY) IN YOUR DOC
Really hope it is already - but advise if you think not
tom
Thanks for this - lets take lead from J and E now  (also can you advise on state of play
with the Hegerl et al manuscript?)
thanks
Keith
Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
Hi Keith, Eystein and Tom: See below (BOLD) for my comments. Thanks for moving this
forward and making sure we do it right (i.e., without any bias, or perception of bias).
Dear Peck, Eystein and Tom
At this point we thought it was important to review where we think we are with the MWP
Figure.
First, we have no objection to a Figure . Our only concerns have been that we should
1/... be clear what we wish this Figure to illustrate (in the specific context of the
MWP box) - note that this is very different from trying to produce a Figure in such a
way as to bias what it says (I am not suggesting that we are, but we have to guard
against any later charge that we did this). We say this because there are intonations in
some of Peck's previous messages  that he wishes to "nail" the MWP - i.e. this could be
interpreted as trying to say there was no such thing, and
SORRY TO SCARE YOU. I **ABSOLUTELY** AGREE THAT WE MUST AVOID ANY BIAS OR PERCEPTION OF
BIAS. MY COMMENT ON "NAILING" WAS MADE TO MEAN THAT ININFORMED PEOPLE KEEPING COMING
BACK TO THE MWP, AND DESCRIBING IT FOR WHAT I BELIEVE IT WASN'T. OUR JOB IS TO MAKE IT
CLEAR WHAT IT WAS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE DATA. IF THE DATA ARE NOT CLEAR, THEN WE HAVE
TO BE NOT CLEAR. THAT SAID, I THINK TOM'S FIGURE CAPTURED WHAT I HAVE SENSED IS THE MWP
FOR A LONG TIME, AND BASED ON OTHER SOURCES OF INFO - INCLUDING KEITH'S PROSE. THE IDEA
OF A FIGURE, IS THAT FIGURES CAN BE MORE COMPELLING AND CONNECT BETTER THAN TEXT. ALSO,
THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO LOOK AT THE MWP, AND AS LONG AS WE DON'T INTRODUCE BIAS OR
ANYTHING ELSE THAT WILL DILUTE THE MESSAGE IN THE END, THE IDEA IS TO SHOW THE MWP IN
MORE WAYS THAN TWO (THAT IS, THE EXISTING FIGS IN THE TEXT THAT KEITH AND TIM MADE).
2/ ...agree that we have done this in the best way.
The truth is that there IS a period of relative warmth around the end of the 1st and
start of the 2nd millennium C.E. , but that there are much fewer data to base this
conclusion on (and hence the uncertainty around even our multiple calibrated multi-proxy
reconstructions are wide). The geographical spread of data also impart a northern (and
land) bias in our early proxy data.
NEED TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THIS BIAS IN THE CAPTION AND BOX TEXT
My understanding of Tom's rationale with the Figure is that we should show how, because
the timing of maximum pre-20th century warmth is different in different records, the
magnitude of the warmest period (for the Hemisphere , or globe, as a whole) is less than
the recently observed warmth.
YES, BUT IN A WAY THAT SAYS "LOOK, HERE ARE THE ACTUAL REGIONAL CURVES - CHECK IT OUT
FOR YOURSELF" INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING (IN A SCIENTIFICALLY MORE STANDARD MANNER - HERE
ARE THE VARIOUS, MOST ROBUST, LARGE AREA RECONSTRUCTIONS. IN MY MIND, THE LATTER
(KEITH/TIM FIGS IN THE MAIN TEXT) WILL BE THE MOST APPEALING/CONVINCING TO PALEOCLIMATE
SCIENTISTS, BUT TOM'S MIGHT HELP THERE, AND CERTAINLY WITH NON-PALEO SCIENTISTS AND
POLICY FOLKS. MIGHT HELP... IF IT DOESN'T NOTHING LOST, BUT IF IT COULD HURT CONVEYING
UNDERSTANDING, THEN ITS BAD TO USE THE NEW FIGURE.
The reconstructions we plot in Chapter 6 already express the mean Hemispheric warmth
(after various selection and scaling of data), and so the additional information that
the MWP box figure should show must relate to the scatter of the proxy data. There seems
to be a consensus that this is best done by showing individual records , and we are
happy to agree.
What we worry very much about, however, is that we should not produce a Figure that then
conflicts with the picture of proxy evidence for Hemispheric mean warmth as a
whole,shown in the main Chapter Figure. By showing a composite (as Tom has done) and
scaling against another (30-90degrees N) temperature record - this is just what is done.
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT - CAN'T HAVE CONFLICT.
As we promised, Tim has produced a similar Figure, using the same series plus a few
extras, but omitting the composite mean and the scaling against instrumental
temperatures. The idea was to include as many of the original input series (to the
various reconstructions) as we could  - though avoiding conflicting use of different
versions of the same data. The precise selection of records will have to be agreed and,
presumably, based on some clear, objective criteria that we would need to justify (this
will not be straight forward). This, along with Tom's plot (forwarded by Peck) is in the
attachment.
We would like to get your opinion now, and especially Tom's, on the points regarding the
composite and scaling. We would be in favour of just showing the series - but do they
make the point (and emphasise the message of the text in the box)? Or does the scatter
of the various series as plotted, dilute the message about the strength of 20th century
mean warming (note the apparently greater scatter in the 20th century in our figure than
in Tom's)? Can you all chip in here please.
best wishes
WHAT ABOUT THE IDEA THAT WE ONLY SHOW THE SERIES FOR THE MWP, SINCE THE COMPARISON TO
THE 20TH CENTURY IS DONE WELL (AND BEST?) IN THE TEXT FIGS (WHICH I'M ATTACHING JUST IN
CASE TOM DOESN'T HAVE, ALONG WITH THE TEXT - IF YOU HAVE TIME, TOM, PLEASE READ COMMENT
ON ANYTHING YOU WISH, BUT CERTAINLY THE LAST 2000 YEARS BIT - ASSUME YOU'LL BE DOING
THIS AT THE REVIEW STAGE ANYHOW...)
ANOTHER THING THAT IS A REAL ISSUE IS SHOWING SOME OF THE TREE-RING DATA FOR THE PERIOD
AFTER 1950. BASED ON THE LITERATURE, WE KNOW THESE ARE BIASED - RIGHT? SO SHOULD WE SAY
THAT'S THE REASON THEY ARE NOT SHOWN? OF COURSE, IF WE ONLY PLOT THE FIG FROM CA 800 TO
1400 AD, IT WOULD DO WHAT WE WANT, FOCUS ON THE MWP ONLY - THE TOPIC OF THE BOX - AND
SHOW THAT THERE WERE NOT ANY PERIODS WHEN ALL THE RECORDS ALL SHOWED WARMTH - I.E., OF
THE KIND WE'RE EXPERIENCING NOW.
TWO CENTS WORTH
Keith and Tim
P.S. We agreed in Beijing that we should definitely ask Tom to be a CA .
TRUE - BUT HAS ANYONE CONFIRMED W/ TOM. TOM, YOU OK W/ THIS?
THANKS - A GREAT DISCUSSION, AND LETS SAY THE JURY IS STILL OUT ON THIS FIGURE UNTIL WE
ALL ARE COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IN THE END.
BEST, PECK
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:mwpbox_figures.pdf (PDF /«IC») (0008A8AE)
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[1]
--
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.
2.


From: "Ricardo Villalba"
To: "Jonathan Overpeck"
,
"Edward R. Cook"
Cc: "Keith R. Briffa"
,
Subject: Re: the regional section and MWP Figure
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:35:39 -0300
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437
Dear Keith and Ed,
Please, find attached the new version of the SH figure for the IPCC.  I have
now included the New Zealand record. All the records have been scaled to 4
°C amplitude. Variability in the Tas record is reduced compared to New
Zealand and Patagonian records. The reference lines is the mean used for the
calibration period in each record, 15 C for New Zealand, 14.95 C for
Tasmania and 0 C for the Patagonian records (they show departures). Please,
let me know if you want to introduce some changes in the figure. The
opposite phase in the Patagonia-New Zealand records is so clear before 1850,
which is consistent with our previous TPI. For instance, in the instrumental
record the 1971 and 1976 are the coolest summer in northern Patagonian
during the past 70 years, but the warmest in New Zealand reconstruction!!
This out of phase relationship between regions in the Southern Hemisphere
points out to the difficulty of using few records to get a hemispheric
average. Cheers,
Ricardo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Overpeck"
To: "edwardcook"
Cc: "Keith Briffa"
; "Ricardo Villalba"
;
"Eystein Jansen"
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: the regional section and MWP Figure
Thanks Ed - Ricardo, can you get the data from Henry? What do you think,
Keith?
Best, Peck
>Given the nature of the SH and what Ricardo put
>together, I would keep the Australian and South
>Aftrican borehole records separate. Henry
>Pollack can provide them, I am sure. He gave an
>excellent talk at a meeting in Canberra that I
>recently participated in.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Ed
>
>P.S. Ricardo, here is the Oroko temperature reconstruction.
>
>JANUARY-MARCH TEMPERATURES RECONSTRUCTED FROM
>OROKO SWAMP, NEW ZEALAND SILVER PINE TREE RINGS
>BE ADVISED THAT THE DATA AFTER 1958 ARE INSTRUMENTAL
>TEMPERATURES
>  YEAR  TEMP °C
>   900  13.751
>   901  14.461
>   902  13.236
>   903  13.331
>   904  13.483
>   905  13.632
>   906  12.959
>   907  13.628
>   908  13.372
>   909  12.868
>   910  13.244
>   911  13.793
>   912  14.048
>   913  14.444
>   914  13.095
>   915  14.036
>   916  13.215
>   917  13.698
>   918  13.570
>   919  13.665
>   920  13.871
>   921  13.966
>   922  14.762
>   923  14.325
>   924  14.077
>   925  14.713
>   926  14.081
>   927  14.218
>   928  13.793
>   929  14.151
>   930  14.985
>   931  13.599
>   932  14.663
>   933  14.110
>   934  14.968
>   935  14.391
>   936  15.484
>   937  15.554
>   938  14.977
>   939  15.303
>   940  15.179
>   941  15.591
>   942  14.737
>   943  14.007
>   944  14.865
>   945  14.449
>   946  14.350
>   947  15.096
>   948  15.257
>   949  15.789
>   950  15.303
>   951  15.513
>   952  16.111
>   953  15.723
>   954  15.459
>   955  14.015
>   956  13.083
>   957  13.850
>   958  14.069
>   959  13.772
>   960  14.873
>   961  14.692
>   962  14.923
>   963  14.527
>   964  15.034
>   965  14.688
>   966  14.486
>   967  14.444
>   968  14.436
>   969  13.776
>   970  13.809
>   971  14.391
>   972  13.487
>   973  13.995
>   974  14.061
>   975  14.321
>   976  14.882
>   977  14.226
>   978  14.977
>   979  15.447
>   980  14.424
>   981  14.923
>   982  14.180
>   983  15.484
>   984  13.487
>   985  14.168
>   986  14.176
>   987  15.699
>   988  15.187
>   989  16.305
>   990  14.845
>   991  14.647
>   992  15.765
>   993  14.754
>   994  14.271
>   995  13.623
>   996  14.300
>   997  13.937
>   998  14.040
>   999  14.011
>  1000  12.976
>  1001  13.904
>  1002  13.500
>  1003  13.586
>  1004  14.090
>  1005  13.809
>  1006  13.413
>  1007  13.318
>  1008  13.892
>  1009  14.151
>  1010  14.391
>  1011  13.793
>  1012  14.626
>  1013  13.755
>  1014  13.838
>  1015  13.017
>  1016  13.083
>  1017  13.549
>  1018  13.471
>  1019  13.087
>  1020  13.458
>  1021  13.203
>  1022  14.090
>  1023  13.574
>  1024  13.755
>  1025  13.826
>  1026  13.137
>  1027  13.194
>  1028  14.036
>  1029  13.091
>  1030  13.768
>  1031  13.813
>  1032  13.846
>  1033  13.871
>  1034  14.255
>  1035  14.370
>  1036  13.805
>  1037  14.576
>  1038  13.504
>  1039  13.867
>  1040  14.927
>  1041  14.420
>  1042  15.661
>  1043  15.484
>  1044  15.595
>  1045  14.741
>  1046  13.644
>  1047  14.271
>  1048  14.288
>  1049  13.661
>  1050  13.665
>  1051  13.298
>  1052  14.003
>  1053  13.826
>  1054  13.788
>  1055  13.768
>  1056  12.976
>  1057  13.397
>  1058  13.529
>  1059  13.549
>  1060  13.846
>  1061  14.032
>  1062  14.820
>  1063  13.962
>  1064  14.279
>  1065  14.151
>  1066  14.358
>  1067  14.131
>  1068  13.652
>  1069  13.941
>  1070  14.007
>  1071  14.403
>  1072  13.764
>  1073  13.982
>  1074  13.846
>  1075  13.830
>  1076  13.450
>  1077  13.632
>  1078  13.265
>  1079  13.331
>  1080  14.267
>  1081  13.644
>  1082  13.549
>  1083  13.557
>  1084  13.549
>  1085  14.725
>  1086  13.479
>  1087  12.848
>  1088  12.559
>  1089  12.926
>  1090  13.793
>  1091  14.387
>  1092  14.531
>  1093  14.114
>  1094  14.754
>  1095  14.688
>  1096  14.845
>  1097  14.729
>  1098  15.059
>  1099  15.059
>  1100  15.055
>  1101  16.057
>  1102  15.208
>  1103  15.492
>  1104  14.519
>  1105  14.741
>  1106  14.151
>  1107  15.005
>  1108  13.640
>  1109  13.652
>  1110  13.566
>  1111  13.978
>  1112  14.424
>  1113  14.180
>  1114  14.931
>  1115  14.601
>  1116  14.403
>  1117  14.391
>  1118  14.981
>  1119  15.125
>  1120  13.817
>  1121  12.897
>  1122  13.863
>  1123  14.271
>  1124  14.857
>  1125  14.882
>  1126  14.762
>  1127  14.548
>  1128  14.403
>  1129  14.667
>  1130  14.572
>  1131  14.057
>  1132  14.556
>  1133  15.018
>  1134  13.892
>  1135  13.995
>  1136  13.982
>  1137  14.853
>  1138  14.779
>  1139  15.129
>  1140  15.117
>  1141  14.849
>  1142  15.228
>  1143  15.216
>  1144  15.030
>  1145  14.428
>  1146  15.063
>  1147  15.216
>  1148  15.043
>  1149  15.034
>  1150  14.370
>  1151  15.096
>  1152  15.410
>  1153  15.719
>  1154  16.577
>  1155  15.769
>  1156  15.364
>  1157  15.855
>  1158  15.422
>  1159  14.515
>  1160  15.810
>  1161  15.628
>  1162  15.402
>  1163  15.092
>  1164  15.298
>  1165  14.865
>  1166  14.882
>  1167  15.274
>  1168  14.605
>  1169  14.746
>  1170  15.472
>  1171  15.509
>  1172  15.018
>  1173  15.369
>  1174  15.084
>  1175  15.855
>  1176  14.795
>  1177  15.571
>  1178  14.255
>  1179  14.510
>  1180  14.865
>  1181  14.036
>  1182  14.688
>  1183  14.713
>  1184  14.519
>  1185  14.255
>  1186  15.204
>  1187  14.461
>  1188  15.476
>  1189  14.882
>  1190  15.005
>  1191  14.453
>  1192  14.729
>  1193  15.265
>  1194  14.444
>  1195  14.696
>  1196  15.793
>  1197  14.581
>  1198  15.014
>  1199  14.539
>  1200  14.044
>  1201  14.733
>  1202  14.853
>  1203  15.298
>  1204  13.772
>  1205  13.991
>  1206  14.651
>  1207  14.836
>  1208  14.440
>  1209  15.162
>  1210  14.766
>  1211  15.010
>  1212  15.356
>  1213  14.787
>  1214  15.645
>  1215  15.435
>  1216  15.043
>  1217  15.063
>  1218  14.151
>  1219  15.397
>  1220  15.154
>  1221  15.892
>  1222  15.488
>  1223  15.938
>  1224  15.525
>  1225  15.591
>  1226  14.589
>  1227  15.496
>  1228  15.963
>  1229  14.502
>  1230  14.457
>  1231  15.468
>  1232  14.985
>  1233  15.282
>  1234  14.989
>  1235  15.237
>  1236  15.711
>  1237  15.888
>  1238  14.259
>  1239  14.560
>  1240  15.711
>  1241  15.195
>  1242  15.484
>  1243  15.166
>  1244  16.020
>  1245  16.454
>  1246  15.480
>  1247  15.492
>  1248  16.528
>  1249  15.150
>  1250  14.436
>  1251  14.878
>  1252  15.723
>  1253  15.043
>  1254  15.121
>  1255  14.845
>  1256  14.807
>  1257  14.482
>  1258  14.585
>  1259  15.307
>  1260  15.100
>  1261  14.354
>  1262  13.995
>  1263  14.106
>  1264  14.403
>  1265  14.754
>  1266  14.581
>  1267  14.799
>  1268  14.378
>  1269  14.671
>  1270  14.193
>  1271  14.387
>  1272  14.453
>  1273  14.510
>  1274  15.187
>  1275  15.393
>  1276  14.498
>  1277  14.560
>  1278  15.022
>  1279  14.498
>  1280  14.725
>  1281  13.549
>  1282  14.977
>  1283  14.065
>  1284  14.024
>  1285  13.603
>  1286  15.220
>  1287  15.080
>  1288  14.898
>  1289  14.774
>  1290  15.542
>  1291  15.212
>  1292  14.267
>  1293  14.692
>  1294  13.644
>  1295  14.222
>  1296  15.038
>  1297  14.721
>  1298  15.682
>  1299  13.896
>  1300  14.766
>  1301  14.836
>  1302  14.370
>  1303  14.812
>  1304  14.812
>  1305  13.673
>  1306  14.036
>  1307  13.929
>  1308  14.807
>  1309  14.114
>  1310  13.446
>  1311  13.368
>  1312  14.168
>  1313  14.989
>  1314  14.292
>  1315  14.985
>  1316  14.123
>  1317  14.321
>  1318  13.966
>  1319  14.325
>  1320  14.647
>  1321  14.622
>  1322  14.279
>  1323  14.510
>  1324  13.689
>  1325  13.450
>  1326  14.197
>  1327  13.867
>  1328  14.205
>  1329  14.779
>  1330  14.350
>  1331  14.729
>  1332  13.479
>  1333  13.974
>  1334  14.453
>  1335  14.535
>  1336  15.402
>  1337  14.424
>  1338  14.399
>  1339  14.906
>  1340  15.430
>  1341  14.531
>  1342  15.785
>  1343  15.513
>  1344  15.220
>  1345  15.352
>  1346  15.443
>  1347  15.410
>  1348  15.777
>  1349  14.902
>  1350  14.576
>  1351  14.605
>  1352  14.168
>  1353  14.601
>  1354  15.414
>  1355  14.300
>  1356  14.630
>  1357  15.170
>  1358  14.919
>  1359  14.688
>  1360  14.081
>  1361  14.799
>  1362  14.581
>  1363  15.133
>  1364  13.838
>  1365  14.708
>  1366  13.149
>  1367  13.281
>  1368  13.760
>  1369  14.123
>  1370  13.314
>  1371  14.523
>  1372  14.267
>  1373  14.226
>  1374  14.044
>  1375  14.271
>  1376  15.307
>  1377  14.684
>  1378  14.168
>  1379  14.473
>  1380  13.578
>  1381  13.586
>  1382  13.999
>  1383  13.991
>  1384  13.710
>  1385  14.411
>  1386  13.867
>  1387  14.255
>  1388  13.611
>  1389  13.974
>  1390  13.916
>  1391  13.615
>  1392  14.440
>  1393  14.787
>  1394  15.880
>  1395  16.297
>  1396  16.289
>  1397  15.170
>  1398  16.082
>  1399  15.463
>  1400  14.366
>  1401  14.758
>  1402  14.902
>  1403  14.568
>  1404  15.158
>  1405  15.579
>  1406  13.966
>  1407  13.970
>  1408  13.772
>  1409  14.523
>  1410  14.498
>  1411  14.791
>  1412  14.007
>  1413  15.818
>  1414  13.974
>  1415  13.776
>  1416  13.760
>  1417  14.407
>  1418  14.498
>  1419  14.515
>  1420  14.341
>  1421  14.374
>  1422  13.677
>  1423  14.354
>  1424  13.223
>  1425  13.801
>  1426  14.560
>  1427  14.374
>  1428  14.494
>  1429  15.051
>  1430  14.836
>  1431  13.999
>  1432  14.341
>  1433  14.865
>  1434  15.063
>  1435  15.311
>  1436  15.765
>  1437  15.789
>  1438  15.204
>  1439  15.298
>  1440  15.257
>  1441  15.443
>  1442  14.737
>  1443  15.385
>  1444  15.723
>  1445  14.717
>  1446  15.088
>  1447  15.253
>  1448  14.477
>  1449  16.004
>  1450  14.581
>  1451  14.449
>  1452  14.993
>  1453  14.151
>  1454  14.556
>  1455  14.366
>  1456  14.601
>  1457  13.813
>  1458  14.242
>  1459  15.047
>  1460  14.919
>  1461  14.300
>  1462  15.010
>  1463  14.139
>  1464  15.001
>  1465  14.873
>  1466  15.406
>  1467  14.399
>  1468  14.671
>  1469  15.092
>  1470  14.337
>  1471  14.948
>  1472  15.047
>  1473  14.523
>  1474  14.680
>  1475  14.395
>  1476  15.661
>  1477  15.158
>  1478  15.414
>  1479  15.641
>  1480  15.909
>  1481  15.748
>  1482  14.708
>  1483  14.981
>  1484  14.659
>  1485  15.113
>  1486  14.754
>  1487  15.740
>  1488  15.327
>  1489  15.125
>  1490  15.026
>  1491  15.567
>  1492  15.265
>  1493  15.996
>  1494  16.326
>  1495  14.915
>  1496  15.831
>  1497  14.845
>  1498  15.670
>  1499  16.156
>  1500  15.864
>  1501  15.831
>  1502  16.581
>  1503  15.212
>  1504  15.534
>  1505  15.270
>  1506  15.492
>  1507  15.633
>  1508  14.420
>  1509  15.723
>  1510  14.816
>  1511  15.282
>  1512  15.641
>  1513  14.655
>  1514  14.510
>  1515  13.508
>  1516  14.172
>  1517  14.251
>  1518  13.628
>  1519  13.698
>  1520  13.405
>  1521  13.920
>  1522  13.974
>  1523  13.978
>  1524  14.238
>  1525  14.003
>  1526  13.298
>  1527  13.694
>  1528  15.005
>  1529  14.218
>  1530  14.110
>  1531  14.593
>  1532  13.916
>  1533  14.510
>  1534  14.057
>  1535  14.048
>  1536  13.673
>  1537  14.477
>  1538  14.090
>  1539  14.300
>  1540  14.374
>  1541  14.387
>  1542  14.085
>  1543  14.184
>  1544  14.597
>  1545  14.783
>  1546  15.348
>  1547  15.859
>  1548  15.835
>  1549  14.729
>  1550  15.451
>  1551  15.204
>  1552  15.022
>  1553  15.352
>  1554  14.251
>  1555  14.135
>  1556  14.609
>  1557  14.572
>  1558  15.224
>  1559  14.688
>  1560  14.618
>  1561  15.179
>  1562  14.399
>  1563  14.873
>  1564  13.652
>  1565  13.958
>  1566  15.595
>  1567  14.898
>  1568  13.595
>  1569  14.019
>  1570  15.030
>  1571  15.228
>  1572  15.241
>  1573  16.355
>  1574  14.865
>  1575  14.923
>  1576  15.542
>  1577  15.162
>  1578  14.956
>  1579  15.657
>  1580  15.208
>  1581  15.208
>  1582  15.166
>  1583  14.473
>  1584  14.052
>  1585  14.213
>  1586  14.568
>  1587  14.762
>  1588  14.288
>  1589  14.069
>  1590  13.929
>  1591  13.479
>  1592  14.044
>  1593  14.267
>  1594  14.288
>  1595  14.609
>  1596  14.362
>  1597  13.846
>  1598  14.098
>  1599  14.147
>  1600  14.783
>  1601  13.995
>  1602  13.925
>  1603  13.999
>  1604  14.688
>  1605  13.892
>  1606  15.410
>  1607  14.325
>  1608  15.241
>  1609  15.104
>  1610  14.531
>  1611  15.958
>  1612  14.597
>  1613  14.337
>  1614  14.647
>  1615  13.318
>  1616  14.424
>  1617  13.768
>  1618  14.779
>  1619  14.886
>  1620  14.065
>  1621  14.085
>  1622  14.626
>  1623  13.912
>  1624  13.487
>  1625  14.292
>  1626  13.075
>  1627  13.871
>  1628  13.850
>  1629  13.755
>  1630  14.680
>  1631  14.048
>  1632  14.601
>  1633  15.752
>  1634  14.420
>  1635  14.085
>  1636  14.230
>  1637  15.426
>  1638  16.322
>  1639  14.762
>  1640  14.882
>  1641  14.985
>  1642  14.931
>  1643  15.484
>  1644  15.843
>  1645  14.861
>  1646  14.284
>  1647  14.494
>  1648  14.935
>  1649  13.966
>  1650  14.296
>  1651  13.768
>  1652  15.001
>  1653  14.944
>  1654  15.418
>  1655  15.146
>  1656  14.915
>  1657  14.803
>  1658  14.638
>  1659  14.630
>  1660  14.052
>  1661  13.702
>  1662  14.081
>  1663  14.312
>  1664  14.197
>  1665  13.780
>  1666  14.292
>  1667  14.634
>  1668  13.768
>  1669  14.671
>  1670  14.246
>  1671  14.812
>  1672  15.216
>  1673  15.810
>  1674  14.869
>  1675  16.148
>  1676  14.977
>  1677  14.923
>  1678  15.488
>  1679  14.956
>  1680  14.098
>  1681  14.523
>  1682  15.327
>  1683  15.666
>  1684  15.554
>  1685  15.270
>  1686  15.492
>  1687  15.459
>  1688  14.754
>  1689  14.741
>  1690  14.700
>  1691  14.906
>  1692  13.904
>  1693  14.527
>  1694  15.063
>  1695  14.399
>  1696  15.096
>  1697  15.360
>  1698  15.694
>  1699  15.249
>  1700  14.779
>  1701  14.609
>  1702  15.336
>  1703  15.121
>  1704  15.154
>  1705  15.212
>  1706  14.750
>  1707  15.472
>  1708  14.164
>  1709  13.665
>  1710  14.213
>  1711  14.741
>  1712  15.521
>  1713  15.410
>  1714  14.519
>  1715  15.154
>  1716  14.597
>  1717  15.212
>  1718  14.688
>  1719  13.962
>  1720  15.109
>  1721  15.839
>  1722  15.765
>  1723  15.001
>  1724  15.389
>  1725  15.088
>  1726  14.655
>  1727  14.312
>  1728  14.824
>  1729  14.981
>  1730  13.640
>  1731  15.043
>  1732  13.953
>  1733  13.681
>  1734  14.036
>  1735  13.937
>  1736  14.832
>  1737  14.807
>  1738  14.325
>  1739  14.337
>  1740  14.680
>  1741  14.779
>  1742  14.255
>  1743  14.205
>  1744  14.024
>  1745  14.069
>  1746  15.216
>  1747  15.455
>  1748  15.447
>  1749  15.851
>  1750  15.253
>  1751  14.626
>  1752  15.294
>  1753  15.744
>  1754  15.158
>  1755  14.750
>  1756  15.319
>  1757  15.059
>  1758  15.195
>  1759  14.725
>  1760  14.609
>  1761  14.869
>  1762  15.212
>  1763  15.505
>  1764  14.634
>  1765  15.175
>  1766  14.552
>  1767  15.109
>  1768  14.312
>  1769  14.090
>  1770  14.246
>  1771  14.127
>  1772  14.667
>  1773  14.312
>  1774  14.659
>  1775  14.296
>  1776  14.527
>  1777  14.069
>  1778  15.005
>  1779  14.832
>  1780  15.146
>  1781  14.865
>  1782  14.102
>  1783  13.735
>  1784  14.510
>  1785  14.052
>  1786  14.795
>  1787  15.455
>  1788  15.298
>  1789  14.325
>  1790  14.927
>  1791  14.230
>  1792  14.230
>  1793  14.836
>  1794  15.637
>  1795  15.022
>  1796  14.473
>  1797  14.968
>  1798  14.028
>  1799  13.463
>  1800  14.151
>  1801  15.187
>  1802  15.290
>  1803  15.732
>  1804  14.985
>  1805  15.224
>  1806  16.251
>  1807  13.289
>  1808  14.420
>  1809  14.696
>  1810  14.568
>  1811  15.802
>  1812  16.082
>  1813  16.416
>  1814  16.082
>  1815  16.309
>  1816  15.967
>  1817  16.247
>  1818  15.208
>  1819  15.587
>  1820  15.323
>  1821  15.505
>  1822  14.812
>  1823  15.298
>  1824  15.022
>  1825  15.179
>  1826  15.967
>  1827  14.040
>  1828  14.449
>  1829  14.242
>  1830  14.548
>  1831  14.378
>  1832  15.137
>  1833  13.496
>  1834  14.081
>  1835  15.228
>  1836  14.700
>  1837  14.432
>  1838  14.927
>  1839  14.482
>  1840  15.175
>  1841  14.296
>  1842  14.762
>  1843  14.350
>  1844  14.770
>  1845  15.026
>  1846  14.688
>  1847  14.944
>  1848  15.088
>  1849  14.774
>  1850  14.865
>  1851  14.787
>  1852  14.527
>  1853  14.502
>  1854  15.183
>  1855  14.828
>  1856  15.270
>  1857  14.436
>  1858  14.721
>  1859  14.539
>  1860  14.407
>  1861  14.832
>  1862  14.271
>  1863  14.490
>  1864  13.953
>  1865  15.290
>  1866  14.473
>  1867  15.414
>  1868  14.440
>  1869  15.129
>  1870  15.022
>  1871  15.468
>  1872  14.993
>  1873  14.890
>  1874  14.638
>  1875  14.898
>  1876  14.993
>  1877  14.366
>  1878  14.333
>  1879  13.454
>  1880  15.369
>  1881  15.109
>  1882  15.187
>  1883  15.278
>  1884  14.308
>  1885  15.026
>  1886  15.385
>  1887  15.183
>  1888  14.127
>  1889  14.985
>  1890  15.480
>  1891  14.717
>  1892  15.773
>  1893  14.807
>  1894  15.451
>  1895  15.179
>  1896  13.780
>  1897  14.531
>  1898  13.912
>  1899  14.354
>  1900  15.290
>  1901  15.752
>  1902  14.886
>  1903  15.216
>  1904  15.938
>  1905  15.208
>  1906  14.279
>  1907  14.923
>  1908  15.022
>  1909  15.501
>  1910  15.633
>  1911  15.212
>  1912  13.648
>  1913  14.329
>  1914  15.389
>  1915  14.704
>  1916  15.983
>  1917  14.779
>  1918  14.432
>  1919  14.024
>  1920  14.040
>  1921  14.622
>  1922  15.315
>  1923  14.560
>  1924  15.835
>  1925  14.927
>  1926  14.812
>  1927  15.220
>  1928  16.433
>  1929  14.506
>  1930  14.535
>  1931  14.073
>  1932  14.440
>  1933  15.406
>  1934  14.708
>  1935  15.026
>  1936  14.106
>  1937  13.372
>  1938  14.663
>  1939  13.842
>  1940  13.879
>  1941  14.725
>  1942  14.510
>  1943  14.337
>  1944  15.133
>  1945  14.189
>  1946  14.048
>  1947  14.098
>  1948  14.923
>  1949  14.733
>  1950  14.581
>  1951  15.121
>  1952  14.073
>  1953  14.572
>  1954  14.106
>  1955  14.457
>  1956  14.849
>  1957  14.626
>  1958  15.374
>  1959  15.183
>  1960  14.970
>  1961  15.140
>  1962  15.289
>  1963  14.991
>  1964  14.395
>  1965  14.991
>  1966  15.587
>  1967  14.948
>  1968  14.948
>  1969  14.629
>  1970  15.779
>  1971  16.354
>  1972  15.247
>  1973  14.671
>  1974  15.353
>  1975  16.141
>  1976  14.586
>  1977  14.863
>  1978  15.332
>  1979  14.948
>  1980  14.906
>  1981  15.481
>  1982  14.991
>  1983  14.117
>  1984  15.353
>  1985  15.225
>  1986  15.587
>  1987  15.140
>  1988  14.863
>  1989  16.098
>  1990  15.417
>  1991  14.991
>  1992  14.096
>  1993  14.160
>  1994  15.183
>  1995  15.119
>  1996  15.630
>  1997  14.927
>  1998  15.417
>  1999  16.354
>
>On Jul 17, 2005, at 10:40 PM, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>
>>Thanks Ricardo and Ed! I personally am not a
>>big fan of the Jones and Mann SH recon. It is
>>based on so little. On the other hand, it is in
>>the literature. So, I leave it up to you and
>>Keith to decide - perhaps Eystein can weigh in
>>too.
>>
>>I do, however, think it would be really helpful
>>to included the borehole data (see prev.
>>emails) - either as a single SH curve, or
>>(probably better) two regional curves
>>(Australia and S. Africa). Is there a reason
>>this is not a good idea? Can't complain about
>>snow bias down there...
>>
>>Thanks again - I look forward to seeing the
>>next draft and figure - complete w/ borehole I
>>hope.
>>
>>thx, Peck
>>
>>>Hi Keith,
>>>
>>>Please, find attached my last version of the SH temp. As you know, Ed
Cook
>>>returned my original version of the SH with minor comments. Overall, he
>>>agreed with the text. Still I am waiting from him the Oroco Swamp data to
>>>include in the Figure, which first draft I sent you more than a month
ago.
>>>
>>>In the last version I have included a first paragraph referring to the
Jones
>>>and Mann (2003) temperature reconstruction for the SH.  At that time we
have
>>>to decide if we want to have the hemispheric (Jones and Mann) and the
>>>regional views (Tasmania, New Zealand, Patagonia, maybe include
Antarctica
>>>(Ommem et al. 2005)), or just one of them. If we decide to stay with the
>>>hemispheric view, we should include Jones and Mann reconstruction at the
>>>bottom of one of your figures. In cases that we decide to maintain both
>>>hemispheric and regional views, we should include Jones and Mann at the
>>>bottom of my figure.  Please, could you check with Peck and Eystein to
see
>>>the best way to proceed? Thanks,
>>>
>>>Ricardo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Keith Briffa"
>>>To:
; "Eystein Jansen"
>>>Cc:
; "Ed Cook"
>>>Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 11:01 AM
>>>Subject: the regional section and MWP Figure
>>>
>>>>  Guys
>>>>  still need the SH temp bit from Ricardo/ED to edit and am exploring
the
>>>MWP
>>>>  Figure - but the concept still is unclear to me - but we agreed to do
a
>>>>  plot like Tom's . The regional section is still a worry  - I am happy
to
>>>>  very briefly edit the section on NAO (possibly incorporate the ENSO
>>>stuff )
>>>>  but my understanding is that this section is best done (to incorporate
>>>also
>>>>  the regional moisture work of Ed ) by Ricardo /Ed with input my Peck.
This
>>>>  is still my opinion. I also would appreciate feedback re the regional
>>>>  forcing section that I think we may have to drop - but perhaps not.
>>>>  Therefore I ask that when i get the SH temp stuff I will incorporate
it
>>>but
>>>>  that you guys (Peck, Ricardo, Ed and Eystein interacting over the
North
>>>>  Atlantic bit) first review and redo the regional section .
>>>>  It is important to get feedback from Henry re the borehole stuff and
>>>>  involve Tom in the debate with all of us , of the value of the Figure
. In
>>>>  meantime , will experiment with the Figure and review existing text
and
>>>bullets
>>>>  Keith
>>>>
>>>>  Keith
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  --
>>>>  Professor Keith Briffa,
>>>>  Climatic Research Unit
>>>>  University of East Anglia
>>>>  Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>>>
>>>>  Phone: +44-1603-593909
>>>>  Fax: +44-1603-507784
>>>>
>>>>  [1]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Southern
>>>hemisphere2.doc (WDBN/«IC») (0008A6E0)
>>
>>
>>--
>>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
>>[2]
>>[3]
>>
>==================================
>Dr. Edward R. Cook
>Doherty Senior Scholar and
>Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory
>Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
>Palisades, New York 10964  USA
>Email: drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu
>Phone: 845-365-8618
>Fax: 845-365-8152
>==================================
--
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
[4]
[5]
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[6]
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.


Dear Stefan,
The distinction here is that GCMs attempt to calculate from first
principles the zeroth and first order processes that dominate the
problem they are studying, whereas EMICs parameterize many of those
processes. The fact that EMICs can reproduce GCM results suggest that
their parameterizations have been tuned to do so - but this does not
in any way imply that if one alters the forcing or boundary
conditions outside of a small range, or apply them to completely
different problems, that the two types of models will react
similarly. In fact, there is a history of this - the first "EMICs"
had a very large sensitivity to a 2% solar insolation change; then
they had to be re-tuned to prevent that from happening. EMICs are
used for paleo-problems because of their ability to take large
time-steps, but there is no free lunch - in doing so, they sacrifice
calculating the fundamental physical processes the way the real world
does it. GCMs have storms, they have real water vapor transports,
they have winds calculated from solving the conservation of momentum
equation, etc. etc. There is a quantum difference between the
fundamental approaches - it is not a continuum, in which there are no
real differences, everything is simply a matter of opinion, there is
no such thing as truth  - that's the argument that greenhouse
skeptics use to try to make science go away.
Because we can't use GCMs for long-time scale problems, we do the
best we can - we use these heavily parameterized models. If we could
use GCMs for those problems, EMICs could then be tuned to produce the
GCM results on those time-scales as well. But in this case we have no
way to validate the EMIC results - and since the first principles are
not being used, we cannot know whether they represent a physically
consistent solution or not. Therefore all they can do is suggest
interactions among processes, a useful though not definitive addition
to the field.
David
ps - concerning CLIMBER-2, I asked a number of leading climate
scientists to read the model description paper. Peter Stone was the
only person I asked who thought the model was at all useful for
studying the types of problems we are discussing. And it was not only
GCM scientists. If you want to hear further cogent arguments
concerning its inapplicability, consider contacting Bill Rossow (the
recent winner of a major honor as a leading climate scientist) but
make sure your email program or telephone accepts unexpurgated text.
At 4:22 PM +0200 7/20/05, Stefan Rahmstorf wrote:
>Dear David,
>
>I take from your response that you consider all models that
>parameterise an important first-order process "conceptual models". I
>can live with that - but then there are only conceptual climate
>models around. Any coupled climate GCM that I know of parameterises
>oceanic convection (and in a very crude way), hence it is a
>conceptual model in your terms, and there is no fundamental
>distinction of category between your model and our model.
>
>To me the scientific question is not whether an important process is
>parameterised (many are in GCMs) - it is how well this
>parameterisation works, for the task at hand. We have tested the
>feedbacks in great detail (e.g., the cloud, water vapour, lapse rate
>and snow/ice albedo feedbacks for 2xCO2) in our model and they
>perform quantitatively within the range simulated by various GCMs.
>The same is true for many other diagnostics - the model has taken
>part in model intercomparisons with GCMs and always falls within the
>range of different GCMs, in a quantitative way. To repeat that
>point, the quantitative differences between different GCMs are
>larger than the typical difference between our model and a GCM. So I
>see no basis for your claim that this model can only "suggest orders
>of magnitude". That's just plain wrong from all the evidence that I
>have seen (a lot). If you have concrete evidence to the contrary,
>other than just knowing one person who happens to agree with you,
>please come forward with it.
>
>Stefan
>
>--
>To reach me directly please use: rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de
>(My former addresses @pik-potsdam.de are read by my assistant Brigitta.)
>
>Stefan Rahmstorf
>www.ozean-klima.de
>www.realclimate.org
_______________________________________________
Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list
Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu


Hi all
think this is resolved now (virtually) -
We use series that total to Tom/Gabi composite , and we can cite this as an example of the
scatter of regional records "in a typical reconstruction". This avoids very difficult issue
of what is the best way to aggregate certain data sets - we are simply illustrating the
point with one published (by then) data set.
The issue of the composite is then not an issue either , because it is not a new
(unpublished) composite that we were concerned about - though I still believe it is a
distraction to put the composite in. It would be best to use data from 800 or 850 at least
, and go to 1500 (?) and presumably normalise over the whole period of data shown. OK? Even
though you guys all wish to go with the reduced period (ie not up the present) , but my own
instinct is that this might later come back to haunt us - but will take your lead.
I agree the look of the Figure should match the others.
So, if Tom will send the data sets (his regional curves) , Tim will plot and send back asap
for scrutiny.  Thanks Tom and thanks for your help with this - further comments on latest
version of 6.5 (last 2000 years) still welcome , though will be incorporating a few changes
in response to David and Fortunat input , and SH  bit (from Ricardo and Ed) still to go in
and regional section to be revised  (after input from Peck et al.)
cheers
Keith
.
At 21:42 19/07/2005, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
Hi Keith and Tim: Just got off the phone with Eystein, and hopefully he will sleep ok
knowing that we have a plan for the MWP fig and Tom...
Please ask questions if we don't cover all the key points, but here's what we think:
1) the MWP fig should span the MWP only, and should emphasize variation in regional
amplitude (we agree that we must be clear that this fig is not a reconstruction) - that
is, it is best to use time series representing regions, assuming that the regional
series do represent a region ok with one or more input series. We want to avoid a
regional bias if we can - this is what got us into all the MWP misunderstanding in the
first place, perhaps (e.g., nice MWP in Europe/Atlantic region - must be global)
2) If you guys could agree on the series and the interval, that'd be great. We agree it
would be good to start before 1000 and end before the Renaissance (15th century?). If
you want more feedback on these issues, we're happy to provide, but it seems logical
that you pick series and intervals so that each series covers the entire interval
selected.
3) Don't use the Chesapeak record - it is likely biased by salinity
4) We'd like Keith and Tim to draft the final figure so that it matches the look and
style of the other two figs they have made. Hope this is doable. Tom, does Keith have
all the data? Thanks for sending if not.
5) We agree that Tom should NOT be a CA given that he was officially one of the ZOD
reviewers. Of course, this doesn't represent a real conflict, but we need to avoid even
the appearance of conflict. We greatly appreciate all the feedback that Tom is
providing! Is this plan ok w/ you Tom? We think you're cool with it, but just want to
check one more time.
That... it is. Please let us know if there are any more questions. Keith - feel free to
try and get Eystein on his cell doing your work hours if you want quick feedback. Or we
can do this by email - he's not in a very email friendly place right now, but the
fishing appears to be ok.
Again, thanks to you both for all the discussion and thought that has gone into this
figure.
Best, peck
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795
[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.


Dear chapter 6 friends,
I have a request on procedure. In the interest of a good and constructive working
atmosphere, I would suggest that all of us focus on sober scientific arguments and refrain
from unneccessarily derogatory comments about the work of colleagues. I'm referring in this
case to David's comment
- this reference is overused, especially for such a simplistic model
The reference concerned is our theory of DO events which appeared in Nature in 2001 and has
since been cited 133 times according to the Web of Science (a sign of overuse?) The model
concerned is the CLIMBER-2 model, featured in over 50 peer-reviewed publications since
1998, including 7 in Nature and Science.
This model is different from David's model, because it has been constructed for a
differenet purpose, but it is not "simplistic". It would never occur to me to call David's
model "simplistic" because it does not include an interactive continental ice sheet model,
vegetation model, carbon cycle model, sediment model and isotope model.
I'm absolutely open to any rational scientific criticism and discussion, but I can see no
purpose in derogatory statements like the above, which include not even a trace of
scientific argument. This kind of thing only poisons the working atmosphere in our group,
which I thought was very positive and a great pleasure in Beijing.
Regards, Stefan
--
To reach me directly please use: [1]rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de
(My former addresses @pik-potsdam.de are read by my assistant Brigitta.)
Stefan Rahmstorf
[2]www.ozean-klima.de
[3]www.realclimate.org
_______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list
Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu
References
1. mailto:rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de
2.
3.


Tom - thanks. Good points regarding regional labeling. Defn stick to
Tibetan Plateau!
best, peck
>Keith, if you can find more I see no problem - it seems that a lot
>of the data you used was via Cook and colleagues - I was unable to
>locate a full length record from Quebec in that time series, but
>maybe you are relying on something else - if so can I have it!?
>
>other suggestions:  provide a more general label to sites - eg,
>mangazeyek (sp)/yamal  could be listed as polar urals - taimyr
>central Siberia.
>
>China shoudl be relabeled as east Asia as it does include some
>information from Japan and the Tibetan Plateau (L. Thompson) and we
>don't want to get into some political to-do by calling Tibet
>"Chinese".
>
>that's all I can think of for present, good sailing, tom
>
>Keith Briffa wrote:
>
>>Hi all
>>think this is resolved now (virtually) -
>>
>>We use series that total to Tom/Gabi composite , and we can cite
>>this as an example of the scatter of regional records "in a typical
>>reconstruction". This avoids very difficult issue of what is the
>>best way to aggregate certain data sets - we are simply
>>illustrating the point with one published (by then) data set.
>>The issue of the composite is then not an issue either , because it
>>is not a new (unpublished) composite that we were concerned about -
>>though I still believe it is a distraction to put the composite in.
>>It would be best to use data from 800 or 850 at least , and go to
>>1500 (?) and presumably normalise over the whole period of data
>>shown. OK? Even though you guys all wish to go with the reduced
>>period (ie not up the present) , but my own instinct is that this
>>might later come back to haunt us - but will take your lead.
>>I agree the look of the Figure should match the others.
>>So, if Tom will send the data sets (his regional curves) , Tim will
>>plot and send back asap for scrutiny.  Thanks Tom and thanks for
>>your help with this - further comments on latest version of 6.5
>>(last 2000 years) still welcome , though will be incorporating a
>>few changes in response to David and Fortunat input , and SH  bit
>>(from Ricardo and Ed) still to go in and regional section to be
>>revised  (after input from Peck et al.)
>>cheers
>>Keith
>>.
>>
>>
>>  At 21:42 19/07/2005, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Keith and Tim: Just got off the phone with Eystein, and
>>>hopefully he will sleep ok knowing that we have a plan for the MWP
>>>fig and Tom...
>>>
>>>Please ask questions if we don't cover all the key points, but
>>>here's what we think:
>>>
>>>1) the MWP fig should span the MWP only, and should emphasize
>>>variation in regional amplitude (we agree that we must be clear
>>>that this fig is not a reconstruction) - that is, it is best to
>>>use time series representing regions, assuming that the regional
>>>series do represent a region ok with one or more input series. We
>>>want to avoid a regional bias if we can - this is what got us into
>>>all the MWP misunderstanding in the first place, perhaps (e.g.,
>>>nice MWP in Europe/Atlantic region - must be global)
>>>
>>>2) If you guys could agree on the series and the interval, that'd
>>>be great. We agree it would be good to start before 1000 and end
>>>before the Renaissance (15th century?). If you want more feedback
>>>on these issues, we're happy to provide, but it seems logical that
>>>you pick series and intervals so that each series covers the
>>>entire interval selected.
>>>
>>>3) Don't use the Chesapeak record - it is likely biased by salinity
>>>
>>>4) We'd like Keith and Tim to draft the final figure so that it
>>>matches the look and style of the other two figs they have made.
>>>Hope this is doable. Tom, does Keith have all the data? Thanks for
>>>sending if not.
>>>
>>>5) We agree that Tom should NOT be a CA given that he was
>>>officially one of the ZOD reviewers. Of course, this doesn't
>>>represent a real conflict, but we need to avoid even the
>>>appearance of conflict. We greatly appreciate all the feedback
>>>that Tom is providing! Is this plan ok w/ you Tom? We think you're
>>>cool with it, but just want to check one more time.
>>>
>>>That... it is. Please let us know if there are any more questions.
>>>Keith - feel free to try and get Eystein on his cell doing your
>>>work hours if you want quick feedback. Or we can do this by email
>>>- he's not in a very email friendly place right now, but the
>>>fishing appears to be ok.
>>>
>>>Again, thanks to you both for all the discussion and thought that
>>>has gone into this figure.
>>>
>>>Best, peck
>>>--
>>>Jonathan T. Overpeck
>>>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
>>>Professor, Department of Geosciences
>>>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
>>>
>>>Mail and Fedex Address:
>>>
>>>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
>>>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
>>>University of Arizona
>>>Tucson, AZ 85721
>>>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
>>>fax: +1 520 792-8795
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Professor Keith Briffa,
>>Climatic Research Unit
>>University of East Anglia
>>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>
>>Phone: +44-1603-593909
>>Fax: +44-1603-507784
>>
>>
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795


Hi Tom,
as a followup to Keith's email, it might be quite likely that one of the series you plot is
replaced by the instrumental record after 1960, because the file from Crowley and Lowery
that is available at the WDC-Paleoclimate contains such a record.  The header states:
----------------------------------------
Crowley and Lowery 2000 (Ambio 29, 51)
Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction
Modified as published in Crowley 2000
(Science v289 p.270, 14 July 2000)
Data from Fig. 1, Crowley 2000:
Decadally smoothed time series of Crowley-Lowery reconstruction
spliced into smoothed Jones et al instrumental record after 1860
(labeled CL2.Jns11), and a slight modification (labeled CL2)
of the original Crowley and Lowery reconstruction to 1965.
----------------------------------------
The URL of this file is:
[1]ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/gcmoutput/crowley2000/crowley_lowery2000_nht.txt
and it is listed here:
[2]
Cheers
Tim
At 12:22 18/07/2005, Keith Briffa wrote:
as a first quick response - the Crowley numbers came from his paper with Lowery. I seem
to remember that there were 2 versions of the composite that he produced - certainly we
used the data that did not include Sargasso and Michigan site data. I presume the other
(from the CRU web site) were the data used by Phil and Mike Mann that they got from him
(where exactly did you pick then up from?)and could be the other data set (with those
sites included). It seems odd that the values are so high in the recent period of this
series and could conceivably be instrumental data , but would have to check. The scaling
of the data we used to produce the Crowley curve that formed one of the lines in our
spaghetti diagram (that we put on the web site under my name and made available to
NGDC), was based on taking the unscaled composite he sent and re-calibrating against
April - Sept. average for land North of 20 degrees Lat., and repeating his somewhat
bazaar calibration procedure (which deliberately omitted the data between 1900-1920 that
did not fit with the instrumental data (remember his data are also decadal smoothed
values). In fact , as we were using summer data we calibrated over 1881-1900 (avoiding
the high early decades that I still believe are biased in summer)  and 1920 - 1960 ,
whereas he used 1856-1880 and 1920-1965.  Of the precise details might differ - but the
crux of the matter is that I suspect one of the Figures you show may have instrumental
data in the recent period - but not ours. If you say exactly where these series came
from I can ask Tim (who will have done the calibrations) to check.
As  for the second question , the QR data are averaged ring widths from relatively few
site chronologies in the high north (mostly N.Eurasia - Scandinavia,Yamal,Taimyr),
though with a few other site data added in as stated. The 2001 data are the MXD data
from near 400 sites and provide the best interannual to multidecadal indication of
summer temps for land areas north of 20 degrees than any of the true proxy (ie not
including instrumental ) data. No idea what the correlation over the common 600 year
period is - but I have never said that the ring width is anything other than summer
temps for the area it covers .
Keith
At 20:38 15/07/2005, you wrote:
Keith,
Look at the attached. Can you explain to me why these plots
differ -- particularly after 1880?
Could you also explain why the Briffa data in QR 2000 are so poorly
correlated with the Briffa 2001 data?
I think I know the answers, but I want an independent and spontaneous
answer from you.
Thanks,
Tom.
--
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. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/gcmoutput/crowley2000/crowley_lowery2000_nht.txt
2.
3.