COMMENTS ON CH. 13 (SCENARIOS) FROM TOM WIGLEY
(Page and line numbers are from the May 14 zero order draft.)
*****************************************************************
Dear contributors to Ch. 13,
Here are my comments on your chapter. I think you all know me
well enough that you will not be offended by my occasional
bluntness. The chapter needs a lot of work (not surprisingly),
but it has at least touched most of the bases. It suffers from
a lack of overview perspective, making the detail hard to wade
through. I was disturbed by the lack of credit given to
MAGICC/SCENGEN, since this software already addresses many of the
key issues that arise in scenario development.
Apologies for not proof reading this. By the time I got to the
end of typing it, I'd had enough.
*****************************************************************
Page 3 (lines 86-89) : Critically, this information doesn't give
a full assessment of uncertainties.
3 (110-115) : Sentence too long.
3 (117)     : State 'illuminate uncertainty' earlier, since this
is a primary purpose of, e.g., MAGICC/SCENGEN.
3 (118)     : 'indeterminate' is far too strong.
4 (124-125) : Not clear.
4 (155)     : What is 'integrated assessment'? Define and/or
explain earlier.
5 (170)     : Clumsy grammar.
5 (171-172) : Silly! Scenarios per se do not have ANY uncertainty
associated with them, by definition. They are, however, a very
(if not the most) useful tool for assessing and quantifying
uncertainties. For example, a primary purpose of MAGICC/SCENGEN
is to quantify uncertainties. Major text revision is needed to
clarify this point.
Part of the problem here is that the boundary between scenarios
and predictions/projections is indistinct (as is the distinction
between predictions and projections -- this too needs to be
clarified). One could argue that 'scenarios' developed using
MAGICC/SCENGEN are actually better predictions of some aspects
of future climate change than any O/AGCM results. Certainly,
'scenarios' based on scaling are much more than just scenarios
as defined here -- they are true predictions, based on some
assumed scenario (this is the correct word here!) for future
emissions.
Substantial work is required to the present text to clarify
these issues -- they are the crux of the matter.
5 (178-179)  : Note earlier that scenarios (a word I will continue
to use even though it may be inappropriate in many cases)
usually define CHANGES in climate. They are not, in these
cases, 'scenarios', but 'scenarios of change'. Strict (i.e.,
absolute) scenarios are then constructed from them by adding
the changes to a baseline climatology. This needs to be
explained up front.
5 (187)      : Delete '(and art)'. This is a derogatory term, likely
to be misinterpreted/misrepresented.
6 (220)      : Comma after 'scenarios'. The text contains many
stylistic and grammatical errors (the most common being the
failure to isolate parenthetical clauses). I will assume that
someone with a better grasp of grammar will catch all these
at some stage, so I will not comment further on them.
6 (225+)     : A critical item missed here is inter-variable
consistency. Later, consistency between climate and CO2 is
mentioned; but there is no mention of consistency between, e.g.,
temperature and precipitation, etc. This is a major issue!
7 (257)      : Instrumentally-based analogue scenarios were first
introduced by Wigley et al. (Nature, 1979). Credit should be
given. Also, the USDOE 'State of the Art (sic)' reports (1985)
and the Bolin et al. SCOPE report (1986) both review this and
other methods. This reviews should be cited.
7 (267-268)  : What does 'extrapolating ...' mean?
7 (296)      : Wigley et al. (1979) should also be cited here.
8 (306)      : Nevertheless, they may do a better job of getting the
inter-variable correlations 'right' than GCMs!
8 (315)      : Delete 'questionable'. This word is entirely unnecessary
here. More importantly, the authors need to be more careful in
their choice of words, since there are many critics out there who
will be looking for things that can be taken out of context,
misinterpreted, or misrepresented.
8 (344-345)  : Control run? So what? This is only relevant if the
control is used in scenario development. This raises the issue
of 'Definition 1' versus 'Definition 2' for defining climate
change (a terminology introduced by Santer et al., 1994, JGR).
(Later, this difference is attributed to Cubasch et al., but
it was first clearly enuncited by Santer et al.) The difference
is whether or not one subtracts the control from the perturbed
result. More needs to be said about this. It is often assumed
that subtracting the control will remove any spurious drift in
the perturation experiment. This, of course, is clearly wishful
thinking, both a priori, and as shown by Raper and Cubasch (1996).
Basically, there is no way to reliably remove drift in a
perturbation experiment; which makes it all the more important
to have drift-free models. Flux adjustments do not necessarily
remove drift -- just look at some of the ECHAM control-run
results. There are some very important issues here, central to
the use of O/AGCMs in scenario generation. They need better
coverage. More is said later, but this is still inadequate.
9 (357)      : Yes, they can be different, but so what? The issue is
whether the differences are statistically significant. To my
knowledge, no one has addressed this issue properly.
9 (358)      : I'm sure (at least I hope) you don't mean 'observed'.
The issue is the difference between the equilibrium PATTERNS
of change and the MODELLED (NOT 'observed') transient patterns
of change.
9 (to 361)   : You've missed the most inportant point! The advantage
of an equilibrium result over an O/AGCM result is that the
former is pure signal.
9 (to 376)   : The Definition 1 versus Definition 2 issue is relevant
here.
9 (379)      : Please don't propogate garbage. The issue here is
natural internally generated variability. There is no need for
such variability to be chaotic, so you should eschew use of
this word.
9 (to 387)   : I presume here that you are talking about O/AGCMs.
You should not use just 'GCM' -- you must be specific. Also,
you've missed some vital points: the natural internal variability
problem (i.e., output is signal plus noise -- noted elsewhere,
but must be stated here); and the model-specific natureof the
climate sensitivity.
10(399)      : Please give credit to the first work on this (Santer
et al., 1990). I should point out that this was actually my
idea.
10(404-406)  : Totally unclear.
10(420-421)  : Poor wording. Should be '.. to which changes are added'.
10(423)      : Delete 'appropriate'.
10(429)      : Insert 'based' after 'period'.
10(431)      : 'weather generators' comes as a non sequitur here. In
any event, you haven't said what they are!
10(435-437)  : So what? The issue is what period one is measuring the
impacts from. In most cases it will be some nominal 'present-day',
so the baseline climatology must refer to the same period.
Whether or not the period has some sulphate effect in it is
utterly irrelevant.
10(437-438)  : What garbage. See above.
11(448-450)  : More garbage -- think about it! The reason 1990 is
not so useful as a reference 'period' is because the impacts
variable is probably not adequately definable over a single
year. You have really messed up this issue.
11(460)      : Yet more garbage! Given what I have tried to explain
above, it is ludicrous to consider daily data as part of the
baseline climatology. The impacts variable may require daily data
from a baseline period in order to define ITS reference level
(but probably not), but this is NOT the same thing. Either all
this is very badly worded, or you don't know what your doing.
11(468)      : No!! Think about it!
11(470)      : No!! This is NOT the reason.
11(473)      : No!! Not 'observed' (which is past or present), but
FUTURE data.
11(482-483)  : Duplication.
12(to 492)   : This is a very confused paragraph.
12(497-499)  : Wrong. For upper air, their is a major paper by Santer
et al. (JGR, 1999), which also touches on some surface issues.
There are also a number of papers by Trenberth that are relevant.
12(507)      : Again, introduction of an undefined term/concept
(downscaling).
12(510)      : At last, mention of changes. Sadly, it is inappropriate
here, since this is NOT the reason.
12(514)      : Why should this Figure be here?
12(518)      : Wrong. As a scenario, this could be justified. You are
confusing scenario (as you have defined it, which I have already
criticized) with prediction/projection.
12(521)      : See above.
12(525-527)  : This is the Def. 1 vs Def. 2 issue. However, you have
the history and motivation wrong.
12(527-531)  : Wrong. This issue has nothing to do with cold start vs
warm start; it is to get over the drift problem (which it fails
to do).
12(537)      : Not 'especially'; mor appropriate may be 'but only'.
13(543)      : 'were'; grammar!
13(543-545)  : Not clear.
13(552-553)  : Not clear.
13(579-581)  : So what? Given your definition of scenario, this
doesn't matter.
14(594)      : Why use 'perceived'?
14(604)      : This issue was first raised by Kim et al. (1987?).
It was first addressed in a credible manner by Wigley et al.
(1990).
14(606)      : 'appending' is a ridiculous word to use. Try 'adding'.
14(608)      : 'often' to 'usually'.
14(613)      : 'appended' to 'added'.
14(616)      : 'appended' to 'added'.
14(617)      : 'appended' to 'added'.
14(627,628)  : Please cite the key initial papers by Kim et al. and
Wigley et al.
15(635,636)  : Clumsy sentence.
15(638)      : Isn't the word 'physical' usually used? The process
does not just involve dynamics.
15(642-648)  : Mention of 1-way vs 2-way nesting needed here.
15(657-659)  : You have failed to mention the most important reason
for using LAMs, orography/topography.
16(667)      : Please cite the key initial papers by Kim et al. and
Wigley et al.
16(673)      : 'predict and' to 'predictand'.
16(679-683)  : Once again, you fail to mention the main advantage;
viz. that statistical downscaling involve real-world data and
so ensures that inter-variable relationships are realistic. Of
course, these relationships may change; but LAMs don't even get
the correct relationships for the present.
16(703)-17(716): These are VERY important results. They need far
greater emphasis.
17(720)      : In Australia? Or anywhere for that matter.
17(723-724)  : See, e.g., Wigley (1999 - Pew report- and material
cited therein).
17(725)      : 'mulitple'?
17(730-732)  : Not clear.
17(739-740)  : This sentence sounds stupid. Rephrase.
17(744)      : You cannot say 'most areas' and then cite only
agriculture cases.
17(748)      : The first clear exposition of this is in the oft-cited
paper by Wigley (Nature, 1985). See also later paper in Climate
Monitor.
17(755-756)  : I disagree. Both methods have strengths and weaknesses.
18(770)      : At last! A definition of 'weather generators'.
18(778-779)  : Unclear.
18(798)      : What means 'more definitive'?
18(803)      : "Wilk's" to  "Wilks'".
18(805)      : Hence, the work is irrelevant in the present context.
Delete irrelevant text.
19(to 821)   : Most of the agriculture studies dealing with the
effects of variability changes are flawed since they fail to
separate the low-frequency effect of induced changes in
winter soil moisture levels from the specific effect of
within-growing-season variability changes.
19(826-839)  : Since this should refer back to lines 823,824,
this whole section amounts to a giant non sequitur.
20(880)      : One could be much stronger than this. The use of
high spatial resolution information is more than just
'warranted', it is absolutely essential. However, there is
another approach that you have failed to mention at all.
This is 'upscaling' of the impacts model. There is some
relevant work on this in papers by Jarvis and McNaughton
(and vice versa). Another related approach is the direct
modelling of spatial patterns of agricultural yield (as
in work by Wigley and Tu Qipu, which relates yield patterns
to climate patterns). Presumably one could apply a similar
approach to direct modelling of river flow. These approaches
complement the rather boring direct approach of downcsaling,
and they may well circumvent some of its problems.
20(898)      : Under this comes: model errors; sensitivity
uncertainties; aerosol forcing uncertainties; lag uncer-
tainties, regionalization versus global-mean uncertainties.
21(905)      : lesser or greater than what??
21(916)      : 'adequacy' is not the right word; hoe about
'appropriateness'?
21(928)      : I disagree. Re-analysis data for precipitation are
simply not good enough, and precipitation is the key variable
in most impact areas. Also, in the regions where scenario
data are most needed, real observational data are available.
Re-analyses largely provide useful new data in regions where
data are not needed. The authors seem not to have thought
this through.
21(to 931)   : There are two papers by Wigley (conference
proceedings, edited by Hanisch) which address the issue of
the relative magnitudes of different sources of uncertainty
in global-mean projections (emissions, aerosol forcing,
carbon cycle, other trace gases, climate sensitivity).
These papers are singularly relevant to this section.
21(939)      : Actually, the range for total emissions is from
7.9 to 29.0GtC/yr. For fossil CO2 emissions, the range is
6.5 to 28.8GtC/yr.
21(943)      : Not just 'time-dependent evolution', but anything
that has a specific time attached to it.
22(948)      : The reference to Alcamo et al. here seems either
perverse or ignorant. Recall that the topic is CLIMATE
scenarios. In this context, MAGICC/SCENGEN is FAR better
suited to exploring the consequences (right down the line)
of emissions 'uncertainties'.
22(959-960)  : MAGICC/SCENGEN already does this at the global-mean
level. Furthermore, at least three O/AGCMs have fully embedded
sulphur cycles already.
22(968)      : 'specifications' is the wrong word. These things
are NOT 'specified'.
22(970)      : 'determine' to 'have'
22(972)      : See also Wigley's Pew report (1999).
22(974-976)  : Not straightforward? This really is utter garbage.
In MAGICC/SCENGEN, this is extremely easy and straightforward.
22(985)      : Ah ha! The 1-way/2-way nesting issue surfaces at last!
22(989-990)  : See above.
23(999)      : Actually, this issue was first raised in Santer et al.
(1990). It has also been addressed in papers by Wigley and
Palutikof (probably before anyone else).
23(1010-1011): The wording here is not quite right.
23(1022)     : First done in Santer et al. (1990).
23(1030)     : If one assumes stable patterns, which has been shown
to be okay for the CO2 component of change, then the SNR problem
can be minimized by using changes over a long time interval.
23(1033)     : This average response method was alluded to in
Santer et al. (1990). It was first implemented in ESCAPE and
later in MAGICC/SCENGEN. A good illustration of the method,
including some relevant discussion of it, is given in the
Wigley Pew report (1999). One of the critical aspects of this
method (which is not even mentioned here!) is that the results
must be normalized by the global-mean temperature before
averaging.
24(1040)     : Is this the ACACIA program run out of NCAR? This
program was established some years ago, and it would be
extremely confusing if there were two programs with the same
acronym.
24(1047)     : Not 'a few', but many -- CMIP1.
24(1060)     : 'rations' to 'ratios'.
24(1060-1062): Not clear.
24(1073)     : What means 'non-standard forcing'? In my view, something
like IS92a forcing would be 'standard', whereas 1% compound CO2
is 'non-standard' (i.e., unrealistic and artificial).
24(1076-1078): Really? Why? I think this statement is wrong. There
are a number of ways to determine SNR values from a single O/AGCM
run. (Note the continuing confusing use of 'GCM', instead of
O/AGCM.)
24(1085)     : I don't think 'uncertainties' is quite the right word
here. Input emissions scenarios, which are scenarios in the
strict sense of the word, do not directly address uncertainty
issues (although they can, with some trepidation and a not-
inconsiderable amount of ingenuity, be used to define
uncertainties). By the way, as far as I can see, the only
scenario development method/software that does address the
input and uncertainty issues is MAGICC/SCENGEN.
25(1090)     : Again, these are not the most appropriate references.
Key references are Santer et al. (1990), and papers on ESCAPE
and MAGICC/SCENGEN.
25(1093)     : What means 'annotation' here?
25(1102)     : Actually, it was my idea.
25(1105,1106): No! The key assumption is actually linear superposition.
This is the way that SO4 effects are handled. There are a number
of papers that show that this assumption works well for
temperature, and a paper by Ramaswamy and Chen in GRL that shows
that it works also for precipitation. The tricky thing for this
variable would be to prove statistically that it doesn't work.
Given the SNR, it would be very difficult  to reject the null
hypothesis that P(A)+P(B)=P(A+B), where A,B are the forcings
and P(.) is the response pattern.
25(1108)     : Plus numerous other papers.
25(1112,1113): This is very galling. The method may have been used
in IMAGE, but they got it from ESCAPE, which goes back to
Santer et al. (1990). MAGICC/SCENGEN pushes the idea as far
as is possible. Schlesinger's COSMIC does things quite
similarly tp MAGICC/SCENGEN. (Schlesinger was a co-author of
the Santer et al. paper.)
25(1115)     : Not clear.
25(1122)     : All you can say here is 'may not hold', not 'probably
does not hold'. Indeed, there are reasons to expect it to hold
quite well.
25(1123)     : Could begin new paragraph with 'Uncertainties'.
25(1123,1124): I think this statement is categorically wrong. MAGICC/
SCENGEN incorporates SO4 influences, as does COSMIC. There is
no evidence at all that the uncertainties are thereby amplified.
Indeed, there is evidence to the contrary (e.g. Penner et al.,
1997). Idle and unsupported speculations like this do nobody
any good.
25(1124,1125): I suspect you argument here would have to hinge on
the possible spatial effects of a THC slowdown or shutdown.
If so, say so. But, if this is the case, you must also note
that the latest non-flux-corrected O/AGCMs do not show these
major THC changes, and scaling approaches may well work out
very well for these situations, even in stabilization cases.
Please avoid jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions.
25(1125)     : I refereed this paper, and I judged it to be an
appalling display of ignorance. It should not be cited.
26(1134)     : Why is this Figure here?
26(1138)     : Ah ha! At last the normalization issue. This must
come much earlier.
26(1144-1147): This is simply wrong. It is true that Ramaswamy and
Chen dreamed up a case with big hemispheric-scale responses
but little global-mean response, but this was totally
unrealistic. In all cases that I have looked at, using the
method employed by MAGICC/SCENGEN and COSMIC, this is simply
NOT a problem.
26(1147,1148): Again, this is just WRONG!
26(1150+)    : Again, this is my idea, and it was first implemented
in MAGICC/SCENGEN. Please give credit where due.
26(1156-1159): Isn't this ALWAYS the case. In other words, the
scaling method is almost universally applicable and useful.
26(1159-1162): I do not think this has been proven.
26(1164,1165): There are other methods, too.
26(1172)     : Oh come on! Scaling handles MANY types of uncertainty
(perhaps all), not just 'one type'.
27(1181)     : 'documented' to 'quantified'?
27(to 1185)  : etc., etc.
27(1193)     : MAGICC/SCENGEN allows the user to consider this issue
by providing data on global precipitation pattern correlations.
Indeed, this software was the first to consider this issue (in
spite of the Whetton and Pittock paper cited on line 1199).
27(1198-1201): Very clumsy text.
27(1203-1204): This is an issue we considered years ago in developing
ESCAPE and MAGICC/SCENGEN. The trouble with judging a model on
its regional performance is one of statistical significance.
It is much easier to get a good regional result by chance than
to get results that are good globally.
27(1208-1211): Very clumsy text.
27(to 1214)  : You have failed to mention a key issue. Is model skill
in simulating present-day climate a reliable indicator of its
skill in predicting future climate change? There is no evidence
to support this idea, although it does sound a priori reasonable.
You must at least raise the issue.
28(1227)     : Cite Morgan and Keith (1995) here.
28(1231)     : This is a critical point. It needs more emphasis.
28(1235+)    : What about inter-variable consistency? This needs to
be discussed.
28(1236)     : 'the manifold' to 'possible'.
28(1239)     : Insert 'give' after 'chapters'.
28(1252)     : Not clear.
28(1255)     : So what? It is almost certainly irrelevant unless the
CO2 changes are bigger than anything anticipated, or unless there
are nonlinear effects associated with THC changes (which looks
increasingly unlikely).
28(1257)     : 'mimics'? You must be joking! How about 'approximates'?
28(1262)     : 'equal' (grammar).
28(1262,1263): How can smart people like this make such an elementary
mistake!
29(1280,1281): This does not seem to be an appropriate reference.
29(1282)     : 'albino' to 'albedo'.
29(1294)     : This sea level consistency issue was first addressed
by Wigley and Raper (Warrick et al. sea level book). It is,
of course, avoided in MAGICC/SCENGEN.
29(1295)     : 'dependable' to 'dependent'.
29(1295-1301): A giant red herring! Maybe some ignorant people
produced inconsistent scenarios like this years ago, but the
issue was also resolved years ago. All you need to say is that
comprehensive software suites avoid these naive problems.
Concentrate on the strengths of existing methods/software;
don't reraise issues that were solved long ago.
29(1305-1308): Another misleading red herring, that fails to reflect
the current state of the science. Global-mean responses to
aerosol forcing CAN be used to drive regional patterns. This
is just what is done in MAGICC/SCENGEN and COSMIC.
29(1310,1311): Not clear.
29(1314)     : Delete 'scenario'.
29(1318)     : 'to daily' to 'in daily'.
30(1329,1330): 'stimulated new techniques' Oh yeah? The MAGICC/SCENGEN
method has not changed in 7 years, and it still represents the
state of the science.
30(1332,1333): True, but you have not explained them very well. Could
you not have a summary Table that lists the strengths and
weaknesses of the various methods, including the direct use of
O/AGCM output. This would have helped you a lot in planning
and structuring this chapter. It can still help in revising it;
and be useful to readers.
30(1336-1339): Not clear.
30(1342)     : You have mentioned this before, but you have failed
to tell us what it is or given any example. A mention alone is
valueless.
30(1344)     : What means 'semi-formal'. I thought it was a dress
protocol.
30(general)  : A crucial need for scenarios (and for simple models)
is to expand the range of cases covered by O/AGCMs.
END *********************************************************************
******************************
*  Dr. Sarah Raper           *
*  Climatic Research Unit    *
*  University of East Aglia  *
*  Norwich                   *
*  NR4 7TJ                   *
*                            *
*  Tel. + 44 1603 592089     *
*  Fax. + 44 1603 507784     *
******************************


Jenny,
Thanks for these.
After entering into debate with Barrie Pittock, I have decided to shift to using the 1 sigma level as a mask for all maps.  This will not affect any of the temperature plots you have done until now, but means that the China and C.America precipitation maps will need re-drawing using 1 sigma.  Please let me know when these are done.
Note also for Russia and that everything from now on for WWF (both T and P) should use 1 sigma as the mask.
Sorry about this and I realise this squeezes even more time away from the RCM.
Given what has happened and your role in producing these plots, you may interested in the exchanges I have had with Barrie Pittock - it illustrates nicely the nuances of presenting climate scenarios in different Fora.  Read these three emails in reverse order.
Mike
___________________________________________
Dear Mike,
Thank you for your careful consideration of my "trenchant comments". I
am now much happier with what you are doing, and indeed grateful for
your hard work and enterprise is getting the new scenarios out so
quickly for both IPCC and WWF. Shifting to a one standard deviation is
certainly an improvement, along with some discussion of possible changes
in extremes. I fully appreciate that analysis of daily output is a
time-consuming future task, but meantime an appropriate caveat is
needed. Maybe an additional upfront paragraph discussion of the very
issues we have discussed re providing best estimates of changes, even if
their statistical detectability can only be established after a long
time period has elapsed, would be useful?
I should perhaps explain my delicate position in all this. As a retired
CSIRO person I have somewhat more independence than before, and perhaps
a reduced sense of vested interest in CSIRO, but I am still closely in
touch and supportive of what CAR is doing. Also, I have a son who is now
a leading staff member of WWF in Australia and who is naturally well
informed on climate change issues. Moreover, Michael Rae, who is their
local climate change staffer, is a member of the CSIRO sector advisory
committee (along with some industry people as well) and well known to
me. So I anticipated questions from WWF Australia, and from the media
later when the scenarios are released, regarding the scenarios. I did
not want to be in the position of feeling the need to seriously question
in public their presentation or interpretation. You have allayed my
fears on that score, so that is great.
Roger may still follow up with some more detailed comments he is
collating from people in CAR.
Best regards,
Barrie.
________________________________
Barrie,
Thanks for your trenchent comments re. the scenario maps.
Let's get the bit about extremes out of the way because in what WWF have asked us to do (or what Tim Carter and I have done for WGII) we cannot produce new detailed analyses for all the 15 regions we are doing of GCM-based changes in daily or sub-daily events.  Clearly for (some, many?) impacts such changes will be important and we (do and will) make comments to this effect in various places.  [By the way, we do show some analyses of changes in the probability of extreme *seasons*, if not extreme days].
Your main point of contention, however, is about the portrayal of changes in mean seasonal T and P (and we are talking about 30-year climate averages here).
My reason for introducing the idea of only showing changes in T and P that *exceed* some level of 'natural' variability was a pedagogic one, rather than a formal statistical one (I concede that using '95% confidence' terminology in the WWF leaflet  is misleading and will drop this).  And the pedagogic role of this type of visual display is to bring home to people that (some, much or all of) GCM simulated changes in mean seasonal precip. for some regions do *not* amount to anything very large in relation to what may happen in the future to precip. anyway - a classic example is the African Sahel where *none* of the GCMs get precip. changes anything like as large as have been seen this century.
The reasons for this may be 1) because the GHG signal is poorly defined, i.e., a scatter of GCM P changes both above and below zero, and/or 2) because even with a tighter bunching of GCM predictions in one direction these may still not be large relative to 'natural' variations in 30-year mean precip.  My approach of taking a pseudo-ensemble of GCMs, standarising and scaling and then plotting the Median *in relation to* natural variations is I think one of the more elegant ways of showing this.  Of course, we could define natural variability to be the 1 sigma rather than the 2 sigma level, or simply the interquartile range of control climates or even just the 40-60 percentile range.  What one chooses is a matter of judgement and probably for WWF I should use a less extreme threshold than 2 sigma.
The point behind all this is to emphasise that precip. changes are less well-defined than temp. changes *and* that we should be thinking of adaptation to *present* levels of precip. variability, rather than getting hung up on the problems of predicting future precip. levels.  This pedagogic thinking is hard to communicate in a short WWF brochure.
Your concern about my message is well taken, however, and I intend to remove any reference to 95% confidence levels, to re-word the text to indicate that we are plotting precip. changes only 'where they are large relative to natural variability', and to reduce my threshold to the 1 sigma level of HadCM2 control variability (e.g. this has the effect of showing precip. changes for the majority of Australia even in the B1 scenario).
But I do not intend to abandon the concept.  I think it important - even for Greenie groups - to present sober assessments of magnitudes of change.  Thus making it clear that future changes in T are better defined that future changes in P, and also to point out that future emissions (and therefore climate change) may be as low as the B1 scenario (is B1 climate change negligible?  I almost think so), whilst also being possibly as high as A2 is I think very important.
The alternative is to think that such a more subtle presentation is too sophisticated for WWF. But I think (hope) not.
Thanks again Barrie for forcing me to think through this again.
Mike
_________________________________________________________
At 17:52 28/07/99 +1000, you wrote:
>Hello Mike,
>
>I am giving a preliminary response to your suggestion that Peter Whetton
>comment on your scenario material in case there is some urgency. Peter
>did write an email last Friday night before going on a week's holiday,
>but unfortunately the email system failed and it probably did not go and
>has been lost. He asked Roger Jones to respond on behalf of the group
>but Roger is snowed under at present.
>
>Peter and I did discuss it on Friday.  Our main concern (although there
>are other more detailed ones) is your use of the 95% confidence limits
>of natural climatic variability as some sort of threshold for change.
>This is a reasonable thing to do if you are addressing the question of
>whether climatic change will be detectable at a "scientific level" of
>confidence, but that is certainly not the question I would expect WWF to
>want answered, nor is it the one most relevant to giving policy advice.
>The relevant question is "What is the best estimate of climate change,
>given the assumption that increasing GH gases will cause change?". The
>contrast between these questions, the statistical criteria they require,
>and thus the answers, is what I was driving at in my comment on your
>paper in Nature. It is a very serious difference with serious
>consequences for how people will interpret your advice. The results as
>you present them suggest that many areas will have precipitation changes
>(particularly) which are small compared to natural variability, and
>therefore it does not matter. But if the change in mean is some
>appreciable fraction of natural variability, say, 50%, that is a very
>serious matter which ought to concern policy makers, because it will
>have cumulative impacts, especially in regard to large changes in the
>frequency and magnitude of extremes (floods and droughts). Surely you
>understand that! - refer to the standard diagrams of the impact on
>extremes of shifting a normal distribution by one standard deviation.
>
>What you are doing is using a strict Type I error criterion when others
>(WWF?) might think a Type II error criterion is more suitable (the
>Precautionary Principle), and reasonable people (like me of course!?)
>think a criterion in between which measures risk of serious impacts is
>what is needed for policymakers. The reference I gave in my comment in
>Nature may not be the best - but look at my argument in QJRMS, 109,
>pp.46-48 (1983) for a clearer exposition on this point.
>
>The other related matter is that your scenarios for WWF, and for that
>matter for IPCC WG2, do not discuss the importance of changes in
>extremes, which are arguably the most important changes, however poorly
>understood they may be at present. This and the other caveats you are
>intending to include in the IPCC material, re scaling, sulfate aerosol
>effects, longer timescales, and change after stabilisation of
>concentrations, should be in the WWF material also, even if they
>complicate things a bit (I have not checked whether some of that is in
>your WWF stuff as yet).
>
>I would be very concerned if the material comes out under WWF auspices
>in a way that can be interpreted as saying that "even a
>greenie group like WWF" thinks large areas of the world will have
>negligible climate change. But that is where your 95% confidence limit
>leads.
>
>Sorry to be critical, but better now than later!
>
>Best regards,
>
>Barrie.
>
>Dr A. Barrie Pittock
>Post-Retirement Fellow*, Climate Impact Group
>CSIRO Atmospheric Research, PMB 1, Aspendale 3195, Australia
>Tel: +61 3 9239 4527, Fax: +61 3 9239 4688, email:
>
>WWW:
>
>* As from 1 March 1999 I have become a CSIRO Post-Retirement Fellow.
>This means I do not have administrative responsibilities, and am
>working part-time, primarily on writing for the Intergovernmental Panel
>on Climate Change. Please refer any administrative matters or contract
>negotiations for the CIG to Dr. Peter Whetton, the new Group Leader, at
>
, tel. +61 3 9239 4535.
>
>"Far better an approximate answer to the right question which is often
>vague, than an exact answer to the wrong question which can always be
>made precise." J.W. Tukey as cited by R. Lewin, Science 221,636-639.
>
>


Hi Mike,
I'm sure you will get some comments direct from Mike Rae in WWF
Australia, but I wanted to pass on the gist of what they've said to me so
far.
They are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative
approach to the risks than they are hearing from CSIRO. In particular,
they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events
beefed up if possible. They regard an increased likelihood of even 50%
of drought or extreme weather as a significant risk. Drought is also a
particularly importnat issue for Australia, as are tropical storms.
I guess the bottom  line is that if they are going to go with a big public
splash on this they need something that will get good support from
CSIRO scientists (who will certainly be asked to comment by the press).
One paper they referred me to, which you probably know well is:
"The Question of Significance" by Barrie in Nature Vol 397, 25 Feb 1999,
p 657
Let me know what you think. Adam


Dear Tom,
Thanks for bringing that to our attention...
I checked out that page and, unfortunately what he has
done is *so* ridden with problems that it isn't even
worth confronting. Many of us (e.g., me,
Phil Jones, Henry Pollack, Shao-Yang Huang, Rob
Harris, and others) have been scratching our heads
trying to find a statistically defensible way of combining
the information in boreholes and "conventional" proxy
indicators, and as yet it is not clear if it can be done,
given in particular the loss of information due to
geothermal diffusion, and the overriding important
of land-usage changes and snowcover variations, on borehole
temperature profiles. I don't think Hoyt has added
anything scientifically productive in this regard.
Looks more like he has wrecklessly convoluted
borhole data with our reconstructions to get just
the kind of result he wants to get...
Of course, there are issues with regard to secular trends
in dendroclimatic reconstructions (which form an important,
but not exclusive, role in oure reconstructions) and nobody
is better qualified to discuss these than Keith, or Malcolm Hughes,
who have highlighted these issues in recent publications
(there is a link to a nice recent "Nota Bene" Science piece by
Keith and Tim Osborn on my webpage:

With regard to "Co2 fertilization", it is ironic that
Hoyt frames his analysis in these terms, when it
precisely  this effect (for better or for worse)
we took great pains to account for in our recent millennial
temperature reconstruction (see the above web page
for more info). At least, we have done this in a reasonably
statistically-defensible, if imperfect, manner, rather
than an ad hoc attempt to get an answer, rather than follow
a scientifically meaningful process.
This thing wouldn't have a chance at passing
peer-review (at least, not on this planet), so
he posts it on the web--the downside of absolute
freedom of dissemination I suppose. The material in
question is the scientific equivalent of trash, plain and
simple.
Like a lot of the "skeptics" out there, D.H. appears
far less interested in honest scientific discourse,
than in misleading as many unlucky soles as possible
who wander into his den of disinformation (kind of like the
"scientist" equivalent of an Ant Lion I suppose).
Every once and a while, I do choose to respond to this
type of crap (e.g., with regard to Pat Michaels--my
soon-to-be "neighbor"'s  recent pieces in his
"World Climate Report"). In D.H.'s case, I doubt even
more that this would be at all productive. We just have
to wait and see if he ever tries to get this kind of
thing published in the peer-reviewed literature. For
our part, I think the best approach is to, as Jonathan
Overpeck has so effectivley been doing, try whenever
possible to educate the lay public about the essential
distinction between peer-reviewed science and un-peer-
reviewed....,  well, whatever you want to call it.
Again, thanks for the head's up on this.
best regards,
mike mann
>X-Sender: tfp@pop.unixg.ubc.ca
>Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 13:36:36 -0700
>To: rbradley@climate1.geo.umass.edu
>From: Tom Pedersen
>Subject: Skeptics
>Cc: calvert@unixg.ubc.ca (Steve Calvert), k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,
>        weaver@ocean.seos.uvic.ca
>
>Hi Ray:
>My colleague, Steve Calvert, has just brought to my attention a website of
>which I was unaware but you probably know well. It's at
>
>and run by Doug Hoyt.
>Amongst other things Hoyt has taken the Mann reconstruction and
>reconstructed it by "removing the effect on tree ring thickness that
>results from CO2 fertilization" (paraphrased). You will see the figure on
>his site. He concludes that there is no significant warming in the last
>half of this century relative to the last millenium. Do you know this guy?
>Are you familiar with his reconstruction of your reconstruction? Didn't
>Keith Briffa correct his tree-ring reconstructions for CO2 fertilization?
>[Keith: any comments?]. Steve and I would be most interested to hear your
>collective comments...
>
>To close this, here is a bit cut and pasted from Hoyt's sight:
>
>
>                                              Three Final Points
>
>There are three important points to make about the reported warming of the
>last 20 years:
>
>1. The warming has occurred mostly at night and not during the day. This
>result is inconsistent with a warming
>caused by greenhouse gases, but is consistent with urban heat island and
>other surface effects.
>
>2. The reported warming has occurred only at the surface and not in the
>upper atmosphere. This type of warming is
>completely opposite to what is predicted if greenhouse gases are the cause.
>Again these observations are consistent
>with problems in the surface measurements.
>
>3. The warming has occurred primarily in the Northern Hemisphere
>mid-latitudes with little in the polar and tropical
>regions. This result is consistent with urban influences, but is
>incompatible with the climate warming predicted from
>greenhouse gases which predict it to be largest in the polar regions.
>
>In short, the reported warming is inconsistent with warming due to
>greenhouse gases in its temporal, vertical, and
>geographical distribution. The reported warming is consistent with problems
>in the surface network.
>
>
>Cheers, Tom
>
>
>T.F. Pedersen
>Oceanography, Earth and Ocean Sciences, 6270 University Boulevard,
>University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Canada  V6T 1Z4
>Telephone: 604-822-5984    Fax: 604-822-6091    Email: pedersen@eos.ubc.ca
>
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
Michael E. Mann
________Current_____________________________Starting Fall 1999_________
Adjunct Assistant Professor      |    Assistant Professor
Department of Geosciences        |    Dept. of Environmental Sciences
Morrill Science Center           |    Clark Hall
University of Massachusetts      |    University of Virginia
Amherst, MA 01003                |    Charlottesville, VA 22903
_________________________________|_____________________________________
e-mail: mann@geo.umass.edu; memann@titan.oit.umass.edu (attachments)
Phone: (413) 545-9573      FAX: (413) 545-1200


Mike,
I thought maybe I could contribute a few comments to your concern
over using a common coverage mask for surface and MSU temperatures.
(Copy of your relevent paragraph copied below.)
Whether or not to mask depends on the question being addressed.  If
we wanted the best estimate of global mean MSU temperatures, then
clearly we wouldn't want to mask.  The issues we address, however,
are largely based on an expectation (from models and observations)
that over large portions of the globe strong vertical coupling tends
to lead to large positive correlations between surface and lower
tropospheric temperatures.  There is a further (model-based) expectation
that any warming trend at the surface should be slightly amplified
higher up in the troposphere.  These expectations seem to be
contradicted by the MSU data (at least for global mean trends).
Masking makes most sense if there is in fact strong coupling between
the surface and troposphere.  Suppose the CO2 warming signal were
one with relatively strong warming over land areas and weaker
warming over ocean.  Suppose further that we only had surface
temperature measurements over land, but had  MSU retrievals over all the
globe.  Also assume a case of perfect coupling (1K rise in local upper
air temperature for every 1K rise in local surface temperature).
In this case the unmasked global mean MSU temperature increase would be
less than the "global" mean surface temperature increase, falsely
indicating a damping with height of the CO2 signal.  If we masked
the MSU temperature (sampling only over land), then the global
means would be computed over the same area as the surface temperature
and the MSU temperature change would equal the surface temperature
change, indicating no damping of the response with height.  This
second conclusion would be the correct one.  Note, however, that
the true global mean temperature change (both at the surface and
aloft) would be best estimated using the MSU unmasked data (under
the conditions of this hypothesized case).
Under different conditions, and again depending on what question is
being addressed, it might be best not to mask the MSU data.  In our
paper we wanted to determine whether the apparent discrepancy between
the MSU trend (very small) and the surface trend (positive, and larger)
could be explained by coverage differences.  This makes sense since
models seem to indicate that the trends should be comparable.  One
explanation for the discrepancy is that in models true global
means had been considered until now, whereas in the data the MSU mean
was computed from global coverage, but the surface changes were
computed from data covering about 70% of the globe. In our study
both model data and observations were treated with the same mask
so we rule out different sampling as a full explanation for
the difference between surface and MSU temperature trends.
Hope this doesn't confuse things further.
cheers,
Karl
------------------------------------
Mike wrote (in part):
I think one needs to be very careful about this coverage
argument--basically becuase the atmosphere can move anomalies around
compared to the surface. One would just not expect therir spatial patterns
to be the same, so taking a common spatial maskwill not resolve this (even
if it seems plausible). To illustrate, take an extreme example of there
only being sfc msmts for the equatorial eastern Pacific (the El Nino
region). There, the MSU and sfc temp go in opposite directions for quite
plausible physical reasons. Doing a mask and comparing for that small
region would make no sens and give negative correlations, etc. Now, in that
sfc obs cover most of the globe, the problem will not be so severe, but it
persists (it was for this reason that I was suggesting extrapolating to the
global value for sfc temp based on changing coverage--not sure how to do
that however). In any case, I believe taht  MSU and sfc should only be
compared, if at all, for the globe as a whole.


Dear Keith,
I just come back from Yamal. We collected subfossil wood in Yuribey
River basin (50-150 km northward of recent timberline) and have found
about one hundred remains of trees.
Before departure for Yamal, on July 17, I have sent you draft outline
of paper for Holocene. I asked Valery Mazepa to send it one more if
any problems in connection. Now Valery is in Polar Ural and I don't
know did you receive this outline.
Could you inform me about this.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Rashit M. Hantemirov
Lab. of Dendrochronology
Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
8 Marta St., 202
Ekaterinburg, 620144, Russia
e-mail: rashit@ipae.uran.ru
Fax: +7 (3432) 29 41 61; phone: +7 (3432) 29 40 92


Dear Keith,
Some days ago we have got "JOINT ANNOUNCEMENT OF
OPPORTUNITY" from International Arctic Research Center and Cooperative
Institute for Arctic Research University of Alaska Fairbanks. The
general theme is Global Change Research in the Arctic (full text with
description is attached bellow). As we have read Research Themes from
announcement they seem to be very congenial to our laboratory. What do
you think about this? Is there point in submitting proposal to IARC
and CIFAR at the University of Alaska Fairbanks? Research theme would
be 5,000 year summer air temperature reconstruction from tree rings
and impacts and consequences of global climate change on forest
ecosystems in the Polar Ural and Yamal Peninsula (Subarctic regions of
Russia).
We have no wide experience to submit proposal to any foreign
administration. We need in some advice. Could you give us a piece of
good advice how to do this well.
The questions are:
1. We are not sure whether this action and theme is contrary to our
future cooperative work?
2. If not, how big our chance to get award?
3. Could we submit a proposal from our Institute only without U.S.
partner? (Proposals from foreign institutions should preferably have a
U.S. partner. See description bellow). If U.S. partner should be, who
in your opinion would be?
Best regards.
Stepan.
From: ArcticInfo
To: arcticinfo@arcus.org
Subject: IARC Announcement of Opportunity
For more information on these research
opportunities contact:
Professor Syun Akasofu, Director, IARC, Phone: 907/474-6012,
Fax: 907/474-5662, or E-mail: sakasofu@iarc.uaf.edu.
RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES
JOINT ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPPORTUNITY
International Arctic Research Center and Cooperative Institute for
Arctic Research University of Alaska Fairbanks
Global Change Research in the Arctic
INTRODUCTION
Proposals are invited on topics of global change and its
effects in the Arctic (detection; interactions and feedbacks;
paleoclimates, arctic haze, ozone and UV; contaminants; impacts and
consequences of change). The proposal deadline is 1 October 1999 and
awards will be made in January 2000.
DESCRIPTION
The International Arctic Research Center (IARC) and the Cooperative
Institute for Arctic
Research (CIFAR) at the University of Alaska Fairbanks announce the
availability of funding for global change research in the Arctic. The
IARC is a new international research center at the University of
Alaska Fairbanks, established jointly with Japan. The mission of the
IARC is to provide an environment that will nurture multidisciplinary
research by integrating and synthesizing past, present, and future
studies in global change.
CIFAR is the NOAA-UAF Cooperative Institute
for Arctic Research; it is combining the resources of its Arctic
Research Initiative (ARI) with those of IARC under this announcement.
The goal is to develop a focal point for a pan-Arctic synthesis of
global change in which researchers from many different institutions
throughout the United States and the rest of the world participate to
combine their research results. Further details on IARC can be found
on its web page at  and on CIFAR at

Proposals may be submitted from U.S. or
foreign institutions that address studies on any of the following
themes drawn from the IARC Science Plan and the CIFAR Arctic Research
Initiative. Proposals from foreign institutions should preferably have
a U.S. partner. The starting date for proposed work should be 1
January 2000, with a duration of up to 24 months. Funding for the
second year will be contingent on the availability of additional
funds, therefore each proposal should have a clear, achievable
objective for the first year's work.
RESEARCH THEMES
1. Detection of
contemporary climate change in the Arctic by ground observations,
remote sensing and climate "fingerprinting".
2. Arctic paleoclimatic
reconstructions from ice cores, tree rings, permafrost, lake and ocean
sediments.
3. Atmosphere-ice-land-ocean interactions and feedbacks in
the Arctic that affect change, including observations and modeling.
4. Arctic atmospheric chemistry, arctic haze, ozone and UV radiation and
their effects.
5. Impacts and consequences of global climate change,
including effects on biota and ecosystems in the Arctic.
6. Contaminant sources, transport pathways, and exposure to higher
trophic levels and humans in the Arctic.
It is planned to fund several
large projects and a number of medium ($100K) or smaller projects.
Proposals must include the full cost of logistics support required. A
total of about $ 4.5M is available in year 1 for this Announcement of
Opportunity.
Proposals can request support for the following:
*Research on any of the above six themes. Proposals that add value to
ongoing research projects, or that share costs with other funded
investigators, are encouraged.
* Conducting workshops at the IARC to
further define priorities or synthesize available information on any
of the research themes listed above, or any theme from the IARC
Science Plan.
* Visiting scientists, for short- or longer-term visits,
to the IARC in Fairbanks.
* Development of generally useful curricula
and courses in global change, or conducting global change outreach and
educational activities.
* U.S. participation in the work of the Arctic
Council and its AMAP, CAFF, or PAME working groups.
All proposers
should meet the following conditions:
* PIs must attend an annual
synthesis meeting of all IARC/CIFAR investigators in Fairbanks at
which research results will be presented and working groups will
synthesize results. Proposal budgets should include travel to
Fairbanks.
* All activities will be required to acknowledge the
financial support from IARC and CIFAR in reports, papers,
dissertations, etc.
* Progress reports are due from all funded
projects on 1 August 2000.
* Copies of all publications resulting from
funded projects are to be provided to IARC/CIFAR.
Proposals should not
exceed 15 pages in text and illustrations, not counting CVs, budget
page, and appendices. Further details on proposal preparation are
attached below as an appendix.
Review criteria for research proposals are:
* Does the proposal address the research themes listed above?
*Does it propose high-quality research?
* Does it advance the NOAA mission?
* Is the PI (or are the PIs) well qualified to do the
research?
* Can the research be done in a timely manner?
* Is it likely to lead to significant results?
* Is it likely to contribute to
a synthesis of research results on global change?
Proposals must be
received by 1 October 1999. All proposals will be reviewed by a
scientific peer review panel of prominent researchers that will advise
a program management team drawn from NOAA, IARC, and CIFAR. Funds will
be available in early 2000. Please submit proposals (originals and 10
copies) to the address below. Further information can also be obtained
from the same office.
Professor Syun Akasofu, Director
International Arctic Research Center
University of Alaska Fairbanks
930 North Koyukuk Drive
P. O. Box 757340
Fairbanks, AK 99775-7340
Tel 907/474-6012
Fax 907/474-5662
e-mail: sakasofu@iarc.uaf.edu
Program Management Team:
Syun Akasofu, Director, IARC, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK
John Calder, Director, Arctic Research, NOAA-OAR, Silver Spring, MD
Gunter Weller, Director, CIFAR, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK
********************************************
APPENDIX
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION
FORMAT OF THE PROPOSAL
Proposals should be stapled in the upper left-hand corner, but
otherwise be unbound, and have 2.5-cm margins at the top, bottom, and
on each side. The type size must be clear and readily legible, in
a standard font size of 10-12 point. The original signed copy should
be clipped together (not stapled) and printed on one side of each sheet
only. The 10 additional copies of the proposal may be printed on both sides.
When submitting collaborative proposals involving more than one
institution, each institution should submit its own cover page with
appropriate signatures and its own budget. The title of the proposal,
the text, disclosures, vitae, etc., should be the same and a cover
letter should indicate that the proposal is a collaborative one
jointly submitted with another (or other) institution(s) which should
be named.
SECTIONS OF THE PROPOSAL
1. Cover page. The cover page
should include a title, the Principal Investigator's name(s) and
affiliation(s), complete address, phone, fax, e-mail information, and
budget summary broken out by year. It must be signed by an official
authorized to legally bind the submitting organization.
2. Half-page
abstract (on a separate page). This should list the nature of the
proposed work (e.g., hypotheses to be tested, the relationship of the
proposed studies to the research themes, the goals of any proposed
workshops, relationship to the Arctic Council, etc.) and a summary of
the key approach.
3. Project Description. This section should present
the problem or opportunity to be addressed by the project, and state
the questions, hypotheses, and project objectives, clearly relating
them to the goals of this competition. Proposals should: summarize the
approach that will be used to address the questions, hypotheses, and
objectives; describe how the PIs and co-PIs would contribute to the
overall study approach; describe the methods to be used; and present
expected results.
4. Data Plan. The proposal should include a plan on
how the data generated by the proposed research will be made available
to other scientists (e.g., web pages) and deposited in a recognized
data archive.
5. References cited.
6. Milestone chart for the project.
7. Statement of the project responsibilities of each Principal
Investigator and participant.
8. Budget. Pattern your budget after NSF
budget Form 1030. Budget categories include the following: salaries
and wages, fringe benefits, equipment, travel, materials and supplies
(expendable), publication costs, consultant services, computer
services, sub-awards, tuition, other expenditures, and indirect costs
(facilities and administration). The full cost of logistics should be
included in the budget. Travel to an annual PI meeting in Fairbanks
should be included. Travel expenses need to be broken down by airfare
and per diem. Salaries for Government PIs will not be supported.
9. Biographical Sketch. This is limited to two pages for each Principal
Investigator and should be focused on information directly relevant to
undertaking the proposed research.
10. A short list of possible peer
reviewers with whom you have no close working or personal relationship
(optional).
11. Federal employees. Proposals are welcome from those
Federal agencies whose legislated mission allows participation.
NONDISCRIMINATION The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
provides awards for research in the sciences. The awardee is wholly
responsible for the conduct of such research and preparation of the
results for publication. NOAA, therefore, does not assume
responsibility for such findings or their interpretation. IARC and
CIFAR welcome proposals on behalf of all qualified scientists and
engineers, and strongly encourage women, minorities, and persons with
disabilities to compete fully in any of the research and
research-related programs described in this document. In accordance
with Federal statutes and regulations, and NOAA policies, no person on
the grounds of race, color, age, sex, national origin, or disability
shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be
subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving
financial assistance from NOAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ArcticInfo is administered by the Arctic Research Consortium of the
United States (ARCUS). Please visit us on the World Wide Web at
 At anytime you may: Subscribe to ArcticInfo by
sending an email to arcticinfo-sub@arcus.org Unsubscribe by sending an
email to arcticinfo-unsub@arcus.org. These actions are automatic.
Barring mail system failure you should receive responses from our
system as confirmation to your requests. If you have information you
would like to post to the mailing list send the message to
dan@arcus.org or arcus@arcus.org. You can search back issues of
ArcticInfo by content or date at
 If you have any
questions please contact the list administrator: dan@arcus.org ARCUS
600 University Avenue, Suite 1 Fairbanks, AK 99709 907/474-1600
907/474-1604 fax
Lab. of Dendrochronology
Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
8 Marta St.,
202 Ekaterinburg, 620144, Russia
e-mail: stepan@ipae.uran.ru
Fax: +7 (3432) 29 41 61
Phone: +7 (3432) 29 40 92


Stepan
I have just returned from a week at a PAGES meeting in Switzerland. I presented the Yamal and Taimyr chronologies along with our recent analyses of the spatial patterns of variability in the northern network and the pressure and temperature interpretation of the patterns. All of this was well received.
As for you questions, it is  very short notice to consider getting a well organised proposal together. My answers to your specific questions are
1. Such work would not necessarily be contrary to our current and future plans but there is undoubtedly a potential overlap and possible problem in distinquishing tasks and outputs. The next EC proposal must be clearly separate and I would be concerned if the potential referees asked what was the clear difference.
2. I have no experience ( and presumably neither has anyone else as this is a new initiative) but I think the chances would depend on the degree of synthesis involved in the work and possibly how extensive the overall scope of the work is and also maybe who the U.S. collaborator is. I think your chance would be better as part of a large project , somewhat as we envisage for the next EC application. This is my opinion only and it may , of course, be wrong.
3.I see nothing preventing an application from your laboratory alone . If you do put in an application I wolud hope it made clear our ongoing collaboration. If you went for a collaborator in the U.S. the obvious person is Gordon Jacoby. I do not know if he is already submitting but I would think so. Please let me know what you decide . I will be phoning Gordon anyway to ask him about future collaboration on the EC front. I will keep you informed on that.
very best wishes
Keith
At 05:18 PM 9/6/99 +0500, you wrote:
>Dear Keith,
>Some days ago we have got "JOINT ANNOUNCEMENT OF
>OPPORTUNITY" from International Arctic Research Center and Cooperative
>Institute for Arctic Research University of Alaska Fairbanks. The
>general theme is Global Change Research in the Arctic (full text with
>description is attached bellow). As we have read Research Themes from
>announcement they seem to be very congenial to our laboratory. What do
>you think about this? Is there point in submitting proposal to IARC
>and CIFAR at the University of Alaska Fairbanks? Research theme would
>be 5,000 year summer air temperature reconstruction from tree rings
>and impacts and consequences of global climate change on forest
>ecosystems in the Polar Ural and Yamal Peninsula (Subarctic regions of
>Russia).
>We have no wide experience to submit proposal to any foreign
>administration. We need in some advice. Could you give us a piece of
>good advice how to do this well.
>The questions are:
>1. We are not sure whether this action and theme is contrary to our
>future cooperative work?
>2. If not, how big our chance to get award?
>3. Could we submit a proposal from our Institute only without U.S.
>partner? (Proposals from foreign institutions should preferably have a
>U.S. partner. See description bellow). If U.S. partner should be, who
>in your opinion would be?
>
>Best regards.
>Stepan.
>
>From: ArcticInfo
>
>To: arcticinfo@arcus.org
>Subject: IARC Announcement of Opportunity
>For more information on these research
>opportunities contact:
>Professor Syun Akasofu, Director, IARC, Phone: 907/474-6012,
>Fax: 907/474-5662, or E-mail: sakasofu@iarc.uaf.edu.
>
>RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES
>JOINT ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPPORTUNITY
>International Arctic Research Center and Cooperative Institute for
>Arctic Research University of Alaska Fairbanks
>Global Change Research in the Arctic
>
>INTRODUCTION
>Proposals are invited on topics of global change and its
>effects in the Arctic (detection; interactions and feedbacks;
>paleoclimates, arctic haze, ozone and UV; contaminants; impacts and
>consequences of change). The proposal deadline is 1 October 1999 and
>awards will be made in January 2000.
>DESCRIPTION
>The International Arctic Research Center (IARC) and the Cooperative
>Institute for Arctic
>Research (CIFAR) at the University of Alaska Fairbanks announce the
>availability of funding for global change research in the Arctic. The
>IARC is a new international research center at the University of
>Alaska Fairbanks, established jointly with Japan. The mission of the
>IARC is to provide an environment that will nurture multidisciplinary
>research by integrating and synthesizing past, present, and future
>studies in global change.
>CIFAR is the NOAA-UAF Cooperative Institute
>for Arctic Research; it is combining the resources of its Arctic
>Research Initiative (ARI) with those of IARC under this announcement.
>The goal is to develop a focal point for a pan-Arctic synthesis of
>global change in which researchers from many different institutions
>throughout the United States and the rest of the world participate to
>combine their research results. Further details on IARC can be found
>on its web page at  and on CIFAR at
>
>
>Proposals may be submitted from U.S. or
>foreign institutions that address studies on any of the following
>themes drawn from the IARC Science Plan and the CIFAR Arctic Research
>Initiative. Proposals from foreign institutions should preferably have
>a U.S. partner. The starting date for proposed work should be 1
>January 2000, with a duration of up to 24 months. Funding for the
>second year will be contingent on the availability of additional
>funds, therefore each proposal should have a clear, achievable
>objective for the first year's work.
>RESEARCH THEMES
>1. Detection of
>contemporary climate change in the Arctic by ground observations,
>remote sensing and climate "fingerprinting".
>2. Arctic paleoclimatic
>reconstructions from ice cores, tree rings, permafrost, lake and ocean
>sediments.
>3. Atmosphere-ice-land-ocean interactions and feedbacks in
>the Arctic that affect change, including observations and modeling.
>4. Arctic atmospheric chemistry, arctic haze, ozone and UV radiation and
>their effects.
>5. Impacts and consequences of global climate change,
>including effects on biota and ecosystems in the Arctic.
>6. Contaminant sources, transport pathways, and exposure to higher
>trophic levels and humans in the Arctic.
>
>It is planned to fund several
>large projects and a number of medium ($100K) or smaller projects.
>Proposals must include the full cost of logistics support required. A
>total of about $ 4.5M is available in year 1 for this Announcement of
>Opportunity.
>Proposals can request support for the following:
>*Research on any of the above six themes. Proposals that add value to
>ongoing research projects, or that share costs with other funded
>investigators, are encouraged.
>* Conducting workshops at the IARC to
>further define priorities or synthesize available information on any
>of the research themes listed above, or any theme from the IARC
>Science Plan.
>* Visiting scientists, for short- or longer-term visits,
>to the IARC in Fairbanks.
>* Development of generally useful curricula
>and courses in global change, or conducting global change outreach and
>educational activities.
>* U.S. participation in the work of the Arctic
>Council and its AMAP, CAFF, or PAME working groups.
>
>All proposers
>should meet the following conditions:
>* PIs must attend an annual
>synthesis meeting of all IARC/CIFAR investigators in Fairbanks at
>which research results will be presented and working groups will
>synthesize results. Proposal budgets should include travel to
>Fairbanks.
>* All activities will be required to acknowledge the
>financial support from IARC and CIFAR in reports, papers,
>dissertations, etc.
>* Progress reports are due from all funded
>projects on 1 August 2000.
>* Copies of all publications resulting from
>funded projects are to be provided to IARC/CIFAR.
>
>Proposals should not
>exceed 15 pages in text and illustrations, not counting CVs, budget
>page, and appendices. Further details on proposal preparation are
>attached below as an appendix.
>
>Review criteria for research proposals are:
>* Does the proposal address the research themes listed above?
>*Does it propose high-quality research?
>* Does it advance the NOAA mission?
>* Is the PI (or are the PIs) well qualified to do the
>research?
>* Can the research be done in a timely manner?
>* Is it likely to lead to significant results?
>* Is it likely to contribute to
>a synthesis of research results on global change?
>
>Proposals must be
>received by 1 October 1999. All proposals will be reviewed by a
>scientific peer review panel of prominent researchers that will advise
>a program management team drawn from NOAA, IARC, and CIFAR. Funds will
>be available in early 2000. Please submit proposals (originals and 10
>copies) to the address below. Further information can also be obtained
>from the same office.
>Professor Syun Akasofu, Director
>International Arctic Research Center
>University of Alaska Fairbanks
>930 North Koyukuk Drive
>P. O. Box 757340
>Fairbanks, AK 99775-7340
>Tel 907/474-6012
>Fax 907/474-5662
>e-mail: sakasofu@iarc.uaf.edu
>
>Program Management Team:
>Syun Akasofu, Director, IARC, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK
>John Calder, Director, Arctic Research, NOAA-OAR, Silver Spring, MD
>Gunter Weller, Director, CIFAR, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK
>********************************************
>
>                              APPENDIX
>INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION
>FORMAT OF THE PROPOSAL
>Proposals should be stapled in the upper left-hand corner, but
>otherwise be unbound, and have 2.5-cm margins at the top, bottom, and
>on each side. The type size must be clear and readily legible, in
>a standard font size of 10-12 point. The original signed copy should
>be clipped together (not stapled) and printed on one side of each sheet
>only. The 10 additional copies of the proposal may be printed on both sides.
>
>When submitting collaborative proposals involving more than one
>institution, each institution should submit its own cover page with
>appropriate signatures and its own budget. The title of the proposal,
>the text, disclosures, vitae, etc., should be the same and a cover
>letter should indicate that the proposal is a collaborative one
>jointly submitted with another (or other) institution(s) which should
>be named.
>
>SECTIONS OF THE PROPOSAL
>1. Cover page. The cover page
>should include a title, the Principal Investigator's name(s) and
>affiliation(s), complete address, phone, fax, e-mail information, and
>budget summary broken out by year. It must be signed by an official
>authorized to legally bind the submitting organization.
>2. Half-page
>abstract (on a separate page). This should list the nature of the
>proposed work (e.g., hypotheses to be tested, the relationship of the
>proposed studies to the research themes, the goals of any proposed
>workshops, relationship to the Arctic Council, etc.) and a summary of
>the key approach.
>3. Project Description. This section should present
>the problem or opportunity to be addressed by the project, and state
>the questions, hypotheses, and project objectives, clearly relating
>them to the goals of this competition. Proposals should: summarize the
>approach that will be used to address the questions, hypotheses, and
>objectives; describe how the PIs and co-PIs would contribute to the
>overall study approach; describe the methods to be used; and present
>expected results.
>4. Data Plan. The proposal should include a plan on
>how the data generated by the proposed research will be made available
>to other scientists (e.g., web pages) and deposited in a recognized
>data archive.
>5. References cited.
>6. Milestone chart for the project.
>7. Statement of the project responsibilities of each Principal
>Investigator and participant.
>8. Budget. Pattern your budget after NSF
>budget Form 1030. Budget categories include the following: salaries
>and wages, fringe benefits, equipment, travel, materials and supplies
>(expendable), publication costs, consultant services, computer
>services, sub-awards, tuition, other expenditures, and indirect costs
>(facilities and administration). The full cost of logistics should be
>included in the budget. Travel to an annual PI meeting in Fairbanks
>should be included. Travel expenses need to be broken down by airfare
>and per diem. Salaries for Government PIs will not be supported.
>9. Biographical Sketch. This is limited to two pages for each Principal
>Investigator and should be focused on information directly relevant to
>undertaking the proposed research.
>10. A short list of possible peer
>reviewers with whom you have no close working or personal relationship
>(optional).
>11. Federal employees. Proposals are welcome from those
>Federal agencies whose legislated mission allows participation.
>NONDISCRIMINATION The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
>provides awards for research in the sciences. The awardee is wholly
>responsible for the conduct of such research and preparation of the
>results for publication. NOAA, therefore, does not assume
>responsibility for such findings or their interpretation. IARC and
>CIFAR welcome proposals on behalf of all qualified scientists and
>engineers, and strongly encourage women, minorities, and persons with
>disabilities to compete fully in any of the research and
>research-related programs described in this document. In accordance
>with Federal statutes and regulations, and NOAA policies, no person on
>the grounds of race, color, age, sex, national origin, or disability
>shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be
>subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving
>financial assistance from NOAA.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>ArcticInfo is administered by the Arctic Research Consortium of the
>United States (ARCUS). Please visit us on the World Wide Web at
> At anytime you may: Subscribe to ArcticInfo by
>sending an email to arcticinfo-sub@arcus.org Unsubscribe by sending an
>email to arcticinfo-unsub@arcus.org. These actions are automatic.
>Barring mail system failure you should receive responses from our
>system as confirmation to your requests. If you have information you
>would like to post to the mailing list send the message to
>dan@arcus.org or arcus@arcus.org. You can search back issues of
>ArcticInfo by content or date at
> If you have any
>questions please contact the list administrator: dan@arcus.org ARCUS
>600 University Avenue, Suite 1 Fairbanks, AK 99709 907/474-1600
>907/474-1604 fax
>
>Lab. of Dendrochronology
>
>Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
>8 Marta St.,
>202 Ekaterinburg, 620144, Russia
>e-mail: stepan@ipae.uran.ru
>Fax: +7 (3432) 29 41 61
>Phone: +7 (3432) 29 40 92
>
>
>
>


Dear Keith,
Thank you for answers to my questions. We decided do not participate
in this project, as many problems are originated. And there is no time
to write such proposal.
Last week I came back from the Polar Urals. The fieldwork was
successful this summer. We remeasured all trees and seedlings along
the transect, mapped forest-tundra ecosystems and tree-line over a
large territory, made about 100 photos. I found very old living twigs
of Juniperus sibirica (up to 700-800 years)and took samples from many
dead twigs. We also collected many wood samples from living and dead
larches of various ages. But we were bited by many thousands of mosquitos
especially small ones.
Sincerely yours,
Dr. Stepan G. Shiyatov
Lab. of Dendrochronology
Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
8 Marta St., 202
Ekaterinburg, 620144, Russia
e-mail: stepan@ipae.uran.ru
Fax: +7 (3432) 29 41 61
Phone: +7 (3432) 29 40 92


Attached is a discussion document. It incorporates material provided by
Simon Shackley (UMIST) & Mike Hulme. Jean has commented on it. It is
intended to circulate this to consortium partners on Monday. if you have
chance to read it & comment on it before it goes, that would be good; but I
recognise that - in practice - time is too short. My apologies for that.
(However, I do think there is a danger in presenting our partners with too
'final' a draft application at this stage. And we do need their bright
ideas!).
CHRIS - please will you liaise with Jean to:
1. Get this document out to outside attendees.
2. Send out a list of attendees
3. Give outside people details of where to get the Research Councils'
document 'Information for applicants to run the Centre' (web), if they
don't already have it.
4. Send out an agenda (Jean is doing this)
5. Send out Kerry's diagram (Jean has)
CHRIS  - will you also please fax copies of the ICER document (in your
tray) to John Shepherd (Southampton 596258) and Nigel Arnell (I don't have
fax number). [For info to others - we didn't send Soton a copy of the ICER
bid earlier, because they were sitting on the fence].
Very many thanks.
Trevor
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Climate Change Centre.doc"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Professor Trevor D. Davies
Dean, School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
Tel.  +44 1603 592836
Fax.  +44 1603 507719
++++++++++++++++++++++++++From ???@??? Fri Sep 24 13:44:11 1999
Received: from [139.222.104.46] (helo=taff.cru.uea.ac.uk)
by mailserver1.uea.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 3.02 #1)
id 11UUP8-0001QM-00; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:24:46 +0100
Message-Id:
X-Sender: e022@pop.uea.ac.uk
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32)
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:21:45 +0100
To: n.adger@uea,j.alexander@uea,g.bigg@uea,k.briffa@uea,p.brimblecombe@uea,
s.dorling@uea,k.heywood@uea,t.jickells@uea,m.kelly@uea,b.maher@uea,
j.plane@uea,a.jordan@uea,m.penkett@uea,s.raper@uea,c.vincent@uea,
a.j.watson@uea
From: Trevor Davies
Subject: Outline bid for new Climate Change Centre (CCC)
Cc: c.bentham@uea,p.jones@uea,j.palutikof@uea,p.liss@uea,m.hulme@uea,
r.k.turner@uea,a.watkinson@uea,k.brown@uea,j.darch@uea,parryml@aol.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Status:
CONFIDENTIAL TO ENV  - State of Play
The research councils want a 5000 word outline bid by mid-October. The
councils are putting up 2 million pounds per year for 5 years are NERC,
EPSRC and ESRC. The research councils are putting the emphasis on
"solutions" to climate change. They are clearly not looking for another
version of CRU, the Hadley Centre, or any other existing centre in the UK.
The focus is "downstream" of these existing centres.
Much of what they appear to want we anticipated in our JIF ICER (Institute
for Connective Environmental Sciences) bid and, indeed, we made a
provisional early strike for the CCC in that bid, although the research
councils' intentions were not known at that point. Even if the JIF ICER bid
is unsuccessful (& at this stage we are still optimistic), then we will
still be able to take advantage of this "early" thinking in the final CCC bid.
We are aware of 3-4 competitors, which are mainly consortia of some form.
Our consortium includes UMIST (number of departments), Southampton (number
of departments), Cambridge (Dept of Econometrics), Sussex (Science Policy
Research Unit), Cranfield (Ecotechnology Unit- Complex Systems Modelling),
and Leeds (Institute for Transport Studies). There will also be a number of
institutes associated with us, including Inst. Hydrology, BAS, Inst.
Terrestrial Ecology, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Building Research
Establishment, John Innes Centre, and possibly other Institutes such as the
Plymouth Marine Lab & the Proudman Oceanographic Lab. The hub of this
consortium will be UEA. Visiting fellows etc will work in the Centre (&
possibly also at 'secondary' centres like UMIST).
Business/industry links are important, as are links with relevant
institutes abroad. We anticipate writing in some industrial/business partners.
Our philosophy is not to seek to maximise the input of resources to UEA, or
to the consortium, in the short term, but to build a Centre which has the
credibility and the authority to identify, initiate, orchestrate research
programmes, and to include the best people available. We see this as the
likeliest way to attract long-term funding & to ensure the long-term future
of the CCC.
We have a fairly clear idea of the "science framework" of the CCC and,
together with our partners, are now agreeing the "research challenges". At
the moment the research challenges look something like this:
1. DEVELOPING THE TOOLKIT
Given that the Centre's starting point is to take advantage of the best
research internationally (extant, on-going, and planned), it will be
necessary to apply, refine, and develop methods of 'integration'.  Much
science and engineering research is focused on specific disciplinary
issues.  This has to be brought together with critical analyses of social
and economic factors, to design more adaptive and effective policies, and
more effective and appropriate engineering/technology. The best aspects of
'integrated assessments' will be applied with a UK focus. An important part
of such assessments will be isolate emerging opportunities (for
business/industry) afforded by climate change - in order to identify
competitive opportunities it will be necessary to consider global pressure
points. Existing models need to be linked. Reduced complexity modelling has
a significant role.
The Toolkit can also be developed and tested via geographically-focused
studies. For example, integrated coastal (incl. estuaries) management which
will include: risk analysis; valuation of coastal environments; effects of
adaptation (soft/hard engineering solutions) on coastline;
ecological/economic models; etc.
Methods to characterise/measure vulnerability and adaptive capacity.
The Toolkit will also include some of the consultation/inclusion techniques
outlined in UEA's JIF bid for ICER.
2. ABRUPT CHANGES AND EXTREMES
'Climate' research on abrupt/non-linear changes (in 'underlying' climate)
and on changes in extreme event frequency (some of the Tools will need to
be applied - or adapted for - this Challenge: for example,
vulnerability/adaptation, risk analysis, reduced complexity modelling).  Of
particular importance is how the possibility of abupt/non-linear change
should be assimilated into decision-making frameworks (perception/risk
analyses, etc.).
It will be necessary to consider the implications of non-climate 'shocks' -
political and economic shocks; or combinations, for example,
climate/weather extremes influencing perceptions (amongst business
community and politicians) leading to sudden shifts of policy, investments,
etc.
3 CARBON MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY
Adoption of clean technology (includes 'alternative' energy sources, and
removal of C from emissions).  In particular, clean technologies and
solutions for developing countries link into identifying business
opportunities.  The impacts of clean technologies - landscape/lifestyle
valuation.  Incorporation (technological) into existing
infrastructure/supply networks.
a. Carbon 'sequestration' - options, waste C recycling, use in building
materials, long-term storage, etc. Oceans. Ambitious bio-engineering?
(discussions with Norwich's John Innes Centre on-going).
b. Energy efficiency (technological), including control systems, especially
when concentrated on one of the scale 'foci' (e.g. the household).
4. MANAGEMENT OF SOCIAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE.
Factor 4 and beyond 1. We will need to go well beyond Factor 4 to stabilise
the climate system. This programme would analyse and assess different
emission trajectories, and look at how we would in practice achieve Factor
4+. It would include assessment of tools such as: C trading, domestic
tradeable carbon quotas, regulation and taxation, voluntary agreements,
opportunities for win-win scenarios through resource use minimisation,
etc.  Also, it would look at changes to a low-C economy at different
scales: households, SMEs, large firms, MNCs;  local to regional to national
to global, etc., to sectoral: transport, energy supply, heavy & light
manufacturing, services & finance, etc.  Techhnology uptake.  This includes
reducing transport emissions and exploring low-consumption (water, energy,
carbon) households. What about air traffic?
The research challenges above are not intended to be all-inclusive. We
intend to use Research Challenges such as these 4, as "examplars" of the
sort of thingw we will expand upon in the final bid.
The research councils have emphasised the importance of attracting a
top-rate international scientist as Research Director. They also wish us to
name the Executive Director at this point. We believe it should be someone
with a reputation in climate research in their own right, good links etc
with the "impacts" people and with funders, as well as being a good
manager/organiser. We anticipate naming Mike Hulme. From what we have
heard, that will give us an additional advantage over other bids.
At this point, we will welcome your comment, input, suggestions.
Trevor
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Professor Trevor D. Davies
Dean, School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
Tel.  +44 1603 592836
Fax.  +44 1603 507719
++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Dear Keith,
I am sending you an additional material which can be useful for
writing the final report and the next proposal.
Sincerely yours,
Dr. Stepan G. Shiyatov
Lab. of Dendrochronology
Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
8 Marta St., 202
Ekaterinburg, 620144, Russia
e-mail: stepan@ipae.uran.ru
Fax: +7 (3432) 29 41 61
Phone: +7 (3432) 29 40 92
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\yamal-99.doc"


Thanks for your response Keith,
For all:
Walked into this hornet's nest this morning! Keith and Phil have both
raised some very good points. And I should point out that Chris, through no
fault of his own, but probably through ME not conveying my thoughts very
clearly to the
others, definitely overstates any singular confidence I have in  my own
(Mann et al) series. I believe strongly that the strength in our discussion
will be the fact that certain key features of past climate estimates are
robust among a number of quasi-independent and truly independent estimates,
each
of which is not without its own limitations and potential biases. And I
certainly don't want to abuse my lead authorship by advocating my own work.
I am perfectly amenable to keeping Keith's series in the plot, and can ask
Ian Macadam (Chris?) to add it to the plot he has been  preparing (nobody
liked my own color/plotting conventions so I've given up doing this myself).
The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a reasonable
way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith's,
we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean
values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline.
So if Chris and Tom (?) are ok with this, I would be happy to add Keith's
series. That having been said, it does raise a conundrum: We demonstrate
(through comparining an exatropical averaging of our nothern hemisphere
patterns with Phil's more extratropical series) that the major
discrepancies between Phil's and our series can be explained in terms of
spatial sampling/latitudinal emphasis (seasonality seems to be secondary
here, but probably explains much of the residual differences). But that
explanation certainly can't rectify why Keith's series, which has similar
seasonality
*and* latitudinal emphasis to Phil's series, differs in large part in
exactly the opposite direction that Phil's does from ours. This is the
problem we
all picked up on (everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this
was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably
concensus viewpoint we'd like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al
series.
So, if we show Keith's series in this plot, we have to comment that
"something else" is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Perhaps
Keith can
help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the series
and the potential factors that might lead to it being "warmer" than the Jones
et al and Mann et al series?? We would need to put in a few words in this
regard. Otherwise, the skeptics have an  field day casting
doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates
and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. I don't think that
doubt is scientifically justified, and I'd hate to be the one to have
to give it fodder!
The recent Crowley and Lowery multiproxy estimate is an important
additional piece  of information which I have indeed incorporated into the
revised draft.
Tom actually estimates the same mean warming since the 17th century in his
reconstruction, that we estimate in ours, so it is an added piece of
information that Phil and I are probably in the ballpark (Tom has used
a somewhat independent set of high and low-resolution proxy data and a very
basic compositing methodology, similar to Bradley and Jones, so there is
some independent new information in this estimate.
One other key result with respect to our own work is from a paper in the
press in "Earth Interactions". An unofficial version is available here:

THe key point  we emphasize in this paper is that the low-frequency
variability in our hemispheric temperature reconstruction is basically the
same if we don't use any dendroclimatic indicators at all (though we
certainly resolve less variance, can't get a skillful reconstruction as far
back, and there are notable discrepancies at the decadal and interannual
timescales). A believe I need to add a sentence to the current discussion
on this point,
since there is an unsubstantiated knee-jerk belief that our low-frequency
variability is suppressed by the use of tree ring data.
We have shown that this is not the case: (see here:

and specifically, the plot and discussion here:

Ironically, you'll note that there is more low-frequency variability when
the tree ring data *are* used, then when only other proxy and
historical/instrumental data are used!
SO I think we're in the position to say/resolve somewhat more than, frankly,
than Keith does, about the temperature history of the past millennium.
And the issues I've spelled out all have to be dealt with in the chapter.
One last point: We will (like it or not) have SUBSTANTIAL
opportunity/requirement to revise much of this discussion after review, so
we don't have to resolve everything now. Just the big picture and the
important details...
I'm sure we can can up with an arrangement that is amenable to all, and I'm
looking forward to hearing back from Keith, Phil, and Chris in particular
about the above, so we can quickly move towards finalizing a first draft.
Looking forward to hearing back w/ comments,
mike
At 04:19 PM 9/22/99 +0100, Keith Briffa wrote:
>
>Hi everyone
>        Let me say that I don't mind what you put in the policy makers
>summary if there is a general concensus. However some general discussion
>would be valuable . First , like Phil , I think that the supposed
>separation of the tree-ring reconstruction from the others on the grounds
>that it is not a true "multi-proxy" series is hard to justify. What is true
>is that these particular tree-ring data best represent SUMMER temperatures
>mostly at the northern boreal forest regions. By virtue of this , they also
>definately share significant variance with Northern Hemisphere land and
>land and marine ANNUAL temperatures - but at decadal and multidecadal
>timescales - simply by virtue of the fact that these series correlated with
>the former at these timescales. The multi proxy series (Mann et al . Jones
>et al) supposedly represent annual and summer seasons respectively, and
>both contain large proportions of tree-ring input. The latest tree-ring
>density curve ( i.e. our data that  have been processed to retain low
>frequency information) shows more similarity to the other two series- as do
>a number of other lower resolution data ( Bradley et al, Peck et al ., and
>new Crowley series  - see our recent Science piece) whether this represents
>'TRUTH' however is a difficult problem. I know Mike thinks his series is
>the 'best' and he might be right - but he may also be too dismissive of
>other data and possibly over confident in his (or should I say his use of
>other's). After all, the early ( pre-instrumental) data are much less
>reliable as indicators of global temperature than is apparent in modern
>calibrations that include them and when we don't know the precise role of
>particular proxies in the earlier portions of reconstruction it remains
>problematic to assign genuine confidence limits at multidecadal and longer
>timescales. I still contend that multiple regression against the recent
>very trendy global mean series  is potentially dangerous. You could
>calibrate the proxies to any number of seasons , regardless of their true
>optimum response . Not for a moment am I saying that the tree-ring , or any
>other proxy data, are better than Mike's series - indeed I am saying that
>the various reconstructions are not independent but that they likely
>contribute more information about reality together than they do alone. I do
>believe   , that it should not be taken as read that Mike's series (or
>Jone's et al. for that matter) is  THE CORRECT ONE. I prefer a Figure that
>shows a multitude of reconstructions (e.g similar to that in my Science
>piece). Incidently, arguing that any particular series is probably better
>on the basis of what we now about glaciers or solar output is flaky indeed.
>Glacier mass balance is driven by the difference mainly in winter
>accumulation and summer ablation , filtered in a complex non-linear way to
>give variously lagged tongue advance/retreat .Simple inference on the
>precidence of modern day snout positions does not translate easily into
>absolute (or relative) temperature levels now or in the past. Similarly, I
>don't see that we are able to substantiate the veracity of different
>temperature reconstructions through reference to Solar forcing theories
>without making assumptions on the effectiveness of (seasonally specific )
>long-term insolation changes in different parts of the globe and the
>contribution of solar forcing to the observed 20th century warming .
>   There is still a potential problem  with non-linear responses in the
>very recent period of some biological proxies ( or perhaps a fertilisation
>through high CO2 or nitrate input) . I know there is pressure to present a
>nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand
>years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite
>so simple. We don't have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and
>those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some
>unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do
>not think it wise that this issue  be ignored in the chapter.
>     For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually
>warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming
>is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth
>was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global
>mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of
>years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence
>for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that
>require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future
>background variability of our climate.  I think the Venice meeting will be
>a good place to air these isssues.
>    Finally I appologise for this rather self-indulgent ramble, but I
>thought I may as well voice these points to you . I too would be happy to
>go through the recent draft of the chapter when it becomes available.
>
>                cheers to all
>                              Keith
>
>At 01:07 PM 9/22/99 +0100, Folland, Chris wrote:
>>Dear All
>>
>>A proxy diagram of temperature change is a clear favourite for the Policy
>>Makers summary. But the current diagram with the tree ring only data
>>somewhat contradicts the multiproxy curve and dilutes the message rather
>>significantly. We want the truth. Mike thinks it lies nearer his result
>>(which seems in accord with what we know about worldwide mountain glaciers
>>and, less clearly, suspect about solar variations). The tree ring results
>>may still suffer from lack of multicentury time scale variance.  This is
>>probably the most important issue to resolve in Chapter 2 at present.
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From:	Phil Jones [SMTP:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
>>> Sent:	22 September 1999 12:58
>>> To:	Michael E. Mann; k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
>>> Cc:	ckfolland@meto.gov.uk; tkarl@ncdc.noaa.gov
>>> Subject:	Re: IPCC revisions
>>>
>>>
>>>  Mike,
>>>    Been away in Japan the last week or so. Malcolm was there in a
>>> wheelchair
>>>  because of his ruptured achilles. We both mentioned the lack of evidence
>>>  for global scale change related to the MWE and LIA, but all the later
>>>  Japanese speakers kept saying the same old things.
>>>
>>>    As for the TAR Chap 2 it seems somewhat arbitrary divison to exclude
>>> the
>>>  tree-ring only reconstructions. Keith's reconstruction is of a different
>>>  character to other tree-ring work as it is as 'hemispheric in scale' as
>>>  possible so is unlike any other tree-ring related work that is reported
>>>  upon.
>>>    If we go as is suggested then there would be two diagrams - one simpler
>>>  one with just Mann et al and Jones et al and in another section Briffa et
>>>  al. This might make it somewhat awkward for the reader trying to put them
>>>  into context.
>>>    The most important bit of the proxy section is the general discussion
>>> of
>>>  'Was there an MWE and a LIA' drawing all the strands together. Keith and
>>> I
>>>  would be happy to look through any revisions of the section if there is
>>>  time.
>>>
>>>    One other thing, did you bring up the possibility of having a
>>> proxy-only
>>>  chapter ( albeit short) for the next assessment ?
>>>
>>>    On Venice I suggested to Peck that you and Keith give talks on the
>>>  reconstructions - frank and honest etc emphasising issues and I lead a
>>>  discussion with you both and the rest of those there where the issues
>>>  can be addressed ( ie I would like to get the views of other proxy types
>>> and
>>>  the modellers/detectors there). I suggested to Peck that this was early
>>>  in the week as I have to leave on the Thursday to go to the last day of
>>>  a Working Group meeting of the Climate Change Detection group in Geneva
>>>  ( a joint WMO Commission for Climatology/CLIVAR). I hope to report on the
>>>  main findings of the Venice meeting.
>>>
>>>     Another issue I would like to raise is availability of all the series
>>>  you use in your reconstructions. That old chestnut again !
>>>
>>>     How is life in Charlottesville ?  Do you ever bump into Michaels or is
>>>  always off giving skeptical talks ?
>>>
>>>     Tim Osborn is making great progress with his NERC grant and will be
>>> looking
>>>  into dates soon for coming to see you.
>>>
>>>  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
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>
>--
>Dr. Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia,
>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom
>Phone: +44-1603-592090    Fax: +44-1603-507784
>
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (804) 924-7770   FAX: (804) 982-2137