Dear Mike and Ian
Keith has asked me to send you a timeseries for the IPCC multi-proxy
reconstruction figure, to replace the one you currently have.  The data are
attached to this e-mail.  They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually
stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that
is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use.  I haven't put a 40-yr
smoothing through them - I thought it best if you were to do this to ensure
the same filter was used for all curves.
The raw data are the same as used in Briffa et al. (1998), the Nature paper
that I think you have the reference for already.  They are analysed in a
different way, to retain the low-frequency variations.  In this sense, it
is one-step removed from Briffa et al. (1998).  It is not two-steps removed
from Briffa et al. (1998), since the new series is simply a *replacement*
for the one that you have been using, rather than being one-step further.
A new manuscript is in preparation describing this alternative analysis
method, the calibration of the resulting series, and their comparison with
other reconstructions.  We are consdering submitting this manuscript to J.
Geophys. Res. when it is ready, but for now it is best cited as:
Briffa KR, Osborn TJ, Schweingruber FH, Harris IC and Jones PD (1999)
Extracting low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring
density network. In preparation.
Keith will be sending you a copy of the manuscript when it is nearer to
completion.
I have also attached a PS file showing the original Briffa et al. (1998)
curve, with annotation of cold years associated with known volcanic
eruptions.  Overlain on this, you will see a green curve.  This is the new
series with a 40-yr filter through it.  This is just so that you can see
what it should look like (***ignore the temperature scale on this
figure***, since the baseline is non-standard).
With regard to the baseline, the data I've sent are calibrated over the
period 1881-1960 against the instrumental Apr-Sep tempratures averaged over
all land grid boxes with observed data that are north of 20N.  As such, the
mean of our reconstruction over 1881-1960 matches the mean of the observed
target series over the same period.  Since the observed series consists of
degrees C anomalies wrt to 1961-90, we say that the reconstructed series
also represents degrees C anomalies wrt to 1961-90.  One could, of course,
shift the mean of our reconstruction so that it matched the observed series
over a different period - say 1931-60 - but I don't see that this improves
things.  Indeed, if the non-temperature signal that causes the decline in
tree-ring density begins before 1960, then a short 1931-60 period might
yield a more biased result than using a longer 1881-1960 period.
If you have any queries regarding this replacement data, then please e-mail
me and/or Keith.
Best regards
Tim
Calibrated against observed Apr-Sep temperature over 1881-1960
averaged over all land grid boxes north of 20N
Year  Reconstructed temperature anomaly (degrees C wrt 1961-90)
1402    -0.283
1403    -0.334
1404    -0.286
1405    -0.350
1406    -0.152
1407    -0.124
1408    -0.220
1409    -0.175
1410    -0.100
1411    -0.129
1412    -0.226
1413    -0.115
1414    -0.386
1415    -0.319
1416    -0.277
1417    -0.136
1418    -0.172
1419    -0.294
1420    -0.280
1421    -0.335
1422    -0.406
1423    -0.312
1424    -0.207
1425    -0.136
1426    -0.354
1427    -0.222
1428    -0.305
1429    -0.322
1430    -0.282
1431    -0.143
1432    -0.212
1433    -0.234
1434    -0.076
1435    -0.309
1436    -0.411
1437    -0.122
1438    -0.272
1439    -0.159
1440    -0.330
1441    -0.160
1442    -0.105
1443    -0.080
1444    -0.308
1445    -0.138
1446    -0.317
1447    -0.270
1448    -0.301
1449    -0.357
1450    -0.137
1451    -0.183
1452    -0.207
1453    -0.485
1454    -0.265
1455    -0.358
1456    -0.241
1457    -0.199
1458    -0.366
1459    -0.397
1460    -0.252
1461    -0.230
1462    -0.252
1463    -0.209
1464    -0.174
1465    -0.174
1466    -0.280
1467    -0.256
1468    -0.256
1469    -0.222
1470    -0.237
1471    -0.094
1472    -0.122
1473    -0.056
1474    -0.320
1475    -0.376
1476    -0.133
1477    -0.075
1478     0.037
1479    -0.161
1480    -0.379
1481    -0.513
1482    -0.286
1483    -0.354
1484    -0.327
1485    -0.208
1486    -0.125
1487    -0.380
1488    -0.193
1489    -0.245
1490    -0.466
1491    -0.244
1492    -0.146
1493    -0.278
1494    -0.394
1495    -0.526
1496    -0.275
1497    -0.264
1498    -0.233
1499    -0.169
1500    -0.128
1501    -0.415
1502    -0.306
1503     0.011
1504    -0.013
1505    -0.378
1506    -0.226
1507    -0.428
1508    -0.192
1509    -0.312
1510    -0.157
1511    -0.162
1512    -0.188
1513    -0.135
1514    -0.418
1515    -0.258
1516    -0.381
1517    -0.134
1518    -0.180
1519    -0.166
1520    -0.035
1521    -0.384
1522    -0.302
1523    -0.541
1524    -0.371
1525    -0.183
1526    -0.289
1527    -0.224
1528    -0.247
1529    -0.432
1530    -0.291
1531    -0.467
1532    -0.343
1533    -0.586
1534    -0.183
1535    -0.417
1536    -0.350
1537    -0.257
1538    -0.451
1539    -0.398
1540    -0.497
1541    -0.406
1542    -0.584
1543    -0.448
1544    -0.317
1545    -0.312
1546    -0.289
1547    -0.114
1548    -0.459
1549    -0.335
1550    -0.009
1551    -0.074
1552    -0.047
1553    -0.207
1554    -0.285
1555    -0.116
1556    -0.141
1557    -0.419
1558    -0.174
1559    -0.465
1560    -0.287
1561    -0.169
1562    -0.231
1563    -0.270
1564    -0.347
1565    -0.116
1566    -0.202
1567    -0.278
1568    -0.445
1569    -0.488
1570    -0.465
1571    -0.434
1572    -0.674
1573    -0.324
1574    -0.493
1575    -0.273
1576    -0.623
1577    -0.483
1578    -0.521
1579    -0.551
1580    -0.473
1581    -0.436
1582    -0.382
1583    -0.345
1584    -0.280
1585    -0.565
1586    -0.409
1587    -0.580
1588    -0.530
1589    -0.534
1590    -0.354
1591    -0.377
1592    -0.407
1593    -0.337
1594    -0.591
1595    -0.459
1596    -0.436
1597    -0.475
1598    -0.152
1599    -0.134
1600    -0.381
1601    -1.169
1602    -0.403
1603    -0.414
1604    -0.472
1605    -0.393
1606    -0.564
1607    -0.529
1608    -0.822
1609    -0.789
1610    -0.617
1611    -0.681
1612    -0.670
1613    -0.364
1614    -0.733
1615    -0.428
1616    -0.698
1617    -0.479
1618    -0.485
1619    -0.524
1620    -0.706
1621    -0.671
1622    -0.714
1623    -0.662
1624    -0.387
1625    -0.566
1626    -0.671
1627    -0.665
1628    -0.759
1629    -0.654
1630    -0.379
1631    -0.466
1632    -0.330
1633    -0.377
1634    -0.521
1635    -0.222
1636    -0.265
1637    -0.252
1638    -0.396
1639    -0.382
1640    -0.400
1641    -1.152
1642    -1.067
1643    -1.092
1644    -0.649
1645    -0.588
1646    -0.632
1647    -0.554
1648    -0.368
1649    -0.572
1650    -0.215
1651    -0.317
1652    -0.529
1653    -0.268
1654    -0.343
1655    -0.400
1656    -0.372
1657    -0.332
1658    -0.359
1659    -0.182
1660    -0.260
1661    -0.258
1662    -0.433
1663    -0.433
1664    -0.353
1665    -0.440
1666    -0.837
1667    -0.857
1668    -0.816
1669    -0.779
1670    -0.871
1671    -0.463
1672    -0.434
1673    -0.631
1674    -0.663
1675    -0.870
1676    -0.523
1677    -0.670
1678    -0.794
1679    -0.768
1680    -0.701
1681    -0.380
1682    -0.518
1683    -0.364
1684    -0.369
1685    -0.688
1686    -0.178
1687    -0.481
1688    -0.351
1689    -0.229
1690    -0.254
1691    -0.221
1692    -0.545
1693    -0.263
1694    -0.316
1695    -0.955
1696    -0.816
1697    -0.687
1698    -1.054
1699    -1.005
1700    -0.630
1701    -0.818
1702    -0.510
1703    -0.377
1704    -0.420
1705    -0.527
1706    -0.328
1707    -0.257
1708    -0.465
1709    -0.493
1710    -0.288
1711    -0.344
1712    -0.345
1713    -0.242
1714    -0.390
1715    -0.305
1716    -0.390
1717    -0.309
1718    -0.270
1719    -0.194
1720    -0.110
1721    -0.427
1722     0.005
1723    -0.193
1724    -0.249
1725    -0.497
1726    -0.381
1727    -0.241
1728    -0.133
1729    -0.261
1730    -0.633
1731    -0.723
1732    -0.426
1733    -0.371
1734    -0.104
1735    -0.373
1736    -0.330
1737    -0.206
1738    -0.557
1739    -0.291
1740    -0.734
1741    -0.594
1742    -0.808
1743    -0.378
1744    -0.372
1745    -0.418
1746    -0.501
1747    -0.150
1748    -0.389
1749    -0.328
1750    -0.168
1751    -0.343
1752    -0.227
1753    -0.218
1754    -0.377
1755    -0.328
1756    -0.221
1757    -0.259
1758    -0.431
1759    -0.340
1760    -0.335
1761    -0.261
1762    -0.466
1763    -0.291
1764    -0.473
1765    -0.378
1766    -0.212
1767    -0.429
1768    -0.544
1769    -0.343
1770    -0.341
1771    -0.265
1772    -0.547
1773    -0.421
1774    -0.048
1775    -0.289
1776    -0.186
1777    -0.288
1778    -0.178
1779    -0.550
1780    -0.339
1781    -0.251
1782    -0.164
1783    -0.757
1784    -0.142
1785    -0.141
1786    -0.179
1787    -0.432
1788    -0.207
1789    -0.235
1790    -0.612
1791    -0.163
1792    -0.086
1793    -0.023
1794    -0.030
1795    -0.243
1796    -0.028
1797    -0.565
1798    -0.049
1799    -0.228
1800    -0.287
1801    -0.413
1802    -0.117
1803     0.020
1804     0.036
1805    -0.094
1806    -0.251
1807    -0.089
1808    -0.241
1809    -0.460
1810    -0.582
1811    -0.353
1812    -0.459
1813    -0.545
1814    -0.458
1815    -0.588
1816    -0.855
1817    -0.861
1818    -0.629
1819    -0.680
1820    -0.289
1821    -0.351
1822    -0.159
1823    -0.246
1824    -0.276
1825    -0.263
1826    -0.140
1827    -0.293
1828    -0.033
1829    -0.087
1830    -0.173
1831    -0.045
1832    -0.621
1833    -0.660
1834    -0.141
1835    -0.647
1836    -0.775
1837    -0.771
1838    -0.359
1839    -0.267
1840    -0.144
1841    -0.077
1842    -0.337
1843    -0.435
1844    -0.101
1845    -0.412
1846     0.106
1847    -0.079
1848    -0.346
1849    -0.393
1850    -0.261
1851    -0.165
1852    -0.100
1853    -0.174
1854    -0.138
1855    -0.418
1856    -0.250
1857    -0.538
1858    -0.126
1859    -0.195
1860    -0.231
1861    -0.029
1862    -0.555
1863    -0.303
1864    -0.407
1865    -0.256
1866    -0.437
1867    -0.413
1868    -0.119
1869    -0.321
1870    -0.213
1871    -0.352
1872    -0.163
1873    -0.183
1874    -0.372
1875    -0.247
1876    -0.487
1877    -0.192
1878     0.120
1879    -0.152
1880    -0.346
1881    -0.184
1882    -0.200
1883    -0.183
1884    -0.717
1885    -0.534
1886    -0.485
1887    -0.281
1888    -0.261
1889    -0.153
1890    -0.341
1891    -0.313
1892    -0.138
1893    -0.301
1894    -0.134
1895    -0.128
1896    -0.241
1897    -0.016
1898     0.065
1899    -0.574
1900    -0.218
1901    -0.049
1902    -0.287
1903    -0.142
1904    -0.205
1905    -0.308
1906    -0.034
1907    -0.412
1908    -0.048
1909    -0.214
1910    -0.147
1911    -0.194
1912    -0.631
1913    -0.161
1914    -0.294
1915    -0.074
1916    -0.277
1917    -0.297
1918    -0.460
1919    -0.013
1920    -0.272
1921    -0.114
1922    -0.036
1923    -0.305
1924    -0.141
1925    -0.258
1926    -0.115
1927    -0.198
1928    -0.018
1929    -0.161
1930     0.086
1931     0.104
1932     0.081
1933    -0.057
1934     0.007
1935    -0.037
1936    -0.019
1937     0.060
1938     0.163
1939    -0.075
1940     0.113
1941    -0.200
1942     0.128
1943     0.053
1944    -0.080
1945     0.059
1946    -0.016
1947    -0.188
1948    -0.038
1949    -0.107
1950    -0.269
1951    -0.100
1952    -0.118
1953     0.161
1954    -0.235
1955    -0.127
1956    -0.308
1957    -0.194
1958    -0.308
1959    -0.224
1960     0.076
1961    -0.104
1962    -0.289
1963    -0.173
1964    -0.479
1965    -0.474
1966    -0.171
1967    -0.200
1968    -0.599
1969    -0.355
1970    -0.353
1971    -0.328
1972    -0.563
1973    -0.262
1974    -0.336
1975    -0.507
1976    -0.558
1977    -0.363
1978    -0.698
1979    -0.289
1980    -0.612
1981    -0.195
1982    -0.522
1983    -0.234
1984    -0.335
1985    -0.423
1986    -0.430
1987    -0.424
1988    -0.161
1989    -0.286
1990    -0.275
1991    -0.169
1992    -0.175
1993    -0.341
1994    -0.320
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Briffa et al.ps"
Dr Timothy J Osborn                 | phone:    +44 1603 592089
Senior Research Associate           | fax:      +44 1603 507784
Climatic Research Unit              | e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
School of Environmental Sciences    | web-site:
University of East Anglia __________|   ~timo/
Norwich  NR4 7TJ         | sunclock:
UK                       |   ~timo/sunclock.htm


Dear Mike,
I was on travel and hence  the delay in responding to your email. TERI will be interested in being one of the International Supporting Institutes for the Centre. I will fax a letter to you tomorrow and send the original by post.
I have not  heard on the DETR proposal as yet.
Best wishes
Sujata
Sujata Gupta, Ph.D.
Fellow and Dean
Policy Analysis Division
TERI
>>> Mike Hulme
09/28/99 02:34AM >>>
Dear Sujata,
This may well not be news to you, but the UK government has recently
requested bids from UK universities to house a new 'National Climate Change
Centre'.  The Centre would receive funds of 2 million pounds sterling per
year for (at least initially) five years.  The role of the Centre would be
to compliment existing work on climate modelling and data analysis (IPCC
WGI areas) by focussing on 'solutions' (mitigation and adaptation options
and their implementation), specifically for the UK government and business
community, but within a global context.  The emphasis appears to be on IPCC
WG3 area with a strong commitment to integrated research, but with some
overlap with WG2.  The Centre would carry out independent research, but
would also be expected to make use of, and to integrate, exisiting UK
research and expertise.  It would be expected to contribute to and to
foster interdisciplinary research that underpins sustainable solutions to
the climate change problem.
UEA is making a bid for this Centre.  Applications are due by mid-October.
UEA is well-known for CRU, but it also has strengths in data distribution
to the climate impacts community, in impacts research, and in environmental
economics (CSERGE).  While these areas are fundamental foundation stones
for the science that the Centre is expected to develop, the Centre would
need to expand significantly beyond these areas.  We have a Consortium in
place as follows
- 6-7 Senior Partners - (UEA, UMIST, U.Southamton, Dept. Economics at
U.Cambridge,   Cranfield, Leeds Institute of Transport Studies, IH and   ITE)
- Affiliated UK Organisations - (we have 6-8 of these)
- Supporting Business Links
- Supporting International Organisations
If UEA were to succeed in its bid for the Centre, then it would seek to
develop strong links with other institutions abroad in order to strengthen
its own intellectual base and, through such links, to contribute to the
development and implementation of the science.  We would see TERI as one of
these Supporting International Organisations.
To this end, we would like a short letter of support from yourself - on
behalf of the Policy Analysis Division, or a wider TERI grouping if you
feel able to represent them - indicating that you fully support the UEA bid
and would exclusively lend your backing to this Consortium and be keen to
interact closely with us at a research level were the Centre to come to
UEA.  This interaction may take the form of exchanging scientists, testing
out new methodologies, developing/advising on workshops, providing
entry-points into international policy initiatives, etc., etc.
Nothing too formal or lengthy at this stage, but we would like to provide
the Council's with a flavour of the breadth of our existing and future
colloboration in the field and our ability to mobilise support in our favour.
Many thanks.  Please send to Prof. Trevor Davies, Dean, Environmental
Sciences, UEA, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, before the 12th October.
Feel free to ask me for more details, etc. Our written text is beginning to
take shape and we will circulate a draft of this to you before the bid goes
in.
Regards,
Mike
p.s. I have not yet heard anything about the DETR India Programme.  Have you?
*****************************************************************************
Dr Mike Hulme
Reader in Climatology             tel: +44 1603 593162
Climatic Research Unit            fax: +44 1603 507784
School of Environmental Science   email:  m.hulme@uea.ac.uk
University of East Anglia         web site: ~mikeh/
Norwich  NR4  7TJ
*****************************************************************************
Annual mean temperature in Central England for 1999
is currently about +1.4 deg C above the 1961-90 average
***************************************************
The global-mean surface air temperature anomaly for 1998
was +0.57 deg C above the 1961-90 average, the warmest year yet recorded
*****************************************************************************


Dear Mike,
I've not yet looked at your Tyndall biography, but I see your logic in
suggesting his name.  His 1861 papers in Phil. Mag. Ser. 4, 22, 169-194
and 273-285 were arguable the first reasonable descriptions of the CO2
(or, in his words, "carbonic acid") greenhouse effect.  However, it is
generally believed that Fourier, in 1827, was the first person to allude
to a greenhouse effect and to suggest that human activities might affect
the climate (see, e.g., Ramanathan, Science 240, 293-299, 1988).
In my view, however, neither Tyndall nor Fourier would be appropriate for
naming a climate centre devoted to human-induced change.  Tyndall is not
appropriate because he did not consider (or even dream of) the human
influence; while Fourier is not appropriate because it would not be P.C.
to name a UK centre after a Frenchman.  Furthermore, both Tyndall and
Fourier are well-known and well-recognized for their contributions in
*other* areas.
The person who really deserves the credit is Callendar who, in 1938, not
only suggested that human influences were causing CO2 to increase, but
also that this was causing global warming.  Furthermore, he did an amazing
job documenting both the CO2 build up *and* the warming.  Essentially, it
was Callendar who, more than 60 years ago, really exposed the problem that
is our current concern.  His work was a quantum leap above anything done
previously; and, one could argue, was not really improved upon until
Manabe and Wetherald's seminal 1967 (JAS 24, 241-259) paper.  I doubt
whether there is an intellectual milestone in *any* field that compares
with this.
Best wishes,
Tom
On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, Mike Hulme wrote:
> Dear 'Advisory Board member',
>
> As tentative nominees for the 'Advisory Board' for the UEA-led bid for the
> new UK National Climate Change Centre, I am sending you a first full draft
> of our outline bid.  This is due with the Council's on the 15th October.
> Needless to say, please regard this document as confidential and do *not*
> circulate it to third parties.
>
> I would like to invite your comments in the next few days on the draft.  I
> can accept comments until Tuesday 12th October, but earlier comments will
> prove most useful.  Appended below is the communication sent out to our
> co-applicants with this draft.  Please bear in mind that this is the first
> full draft we have put together and it is very rough and ready.
>
> You may find it easier to download from the named web site.
>
> Thank you for your time.  Please direct any comments to the Consortium via me.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
**********************************************************
*Tom M.L. Wigley						*
*Senior Scientist 					*
*National Center for Atmospheric Research                *
*P.O. Box 3000				                *
*Boulder, CO 80307-3000					*
*USA                                                     *
*Phone: 303-497-2690                                     *
*Fax: 303-497-2699                                       *
*E-mail: wigley@ucar.edu                                 *
**********************************************************


Dear Mike,
I can understand you very well. I would have been more nervous about
this, hadn't the preparations AND registrations been going as well as
they have done: just now, I feel pretty comfortable about the meeting.
Sure, it's a pity not having you around, but I guess you are taking
the appropriate decision under your particular circumstances.
Perhaps I shouldn't be doing this, but let me add a VERY CONFIDENTIAL
piece of information for you. It won't make your life less stressful
during the next few days, and I really MUST ask you to keep this
confidential at your end (since I am effectively breaking a
confidentiality here, and I wouldn't want Edinburgh to know that), but
I received the following e-mail on October 6:
Dear Dr Cramer,
I am contacting you on behalf of Prof Paul Jarvis to check whether you
are willing to have your name mentioned in association with a project
he is hoping to undertake. The project is part of a much larger package
of projects which forms the nucleus of a bid being made by the
University of Edinburgh and other partners to host a new Climate Change
Centre, to be funded by the UK Research Councils at 10 million GBP over
5 years (for further details of this opportunity see:
 I work in a small unit of
the University of Edinburgh that has responsibility for co-ordinating
multi-disciplinary environmental research bids. Currently we are
preparing the Outline Bid (deadline 15 October), so nothing should be
regarded as firm, and details will be open to modification in the Full
Bid, which we will prepare if the Outline Bid is successful.
Below I reproduce the text we are proposing to include in the Outline
Bid. Please confirm whether or not you are willing to have your name
included.
Please treat this email as confidential.
Best regards,
Simon Allen.
========================================================================
Dr S J Allen, Research Co-ordinator
Centre for the study of Environmental Change and Sustainability (CECS)
University of Edinburgh
John Muir Building, King's Buildings, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JK
Tel: 0131 650 7215        Email: simon.allen@ed.ac.uk
Fax: 0131 650 7214
========================================================================
Issue: Will terrestrial carbon sinks saturate?
It has been proposed that the assimilation of CO2 by vegetation will
reach saturation within the foreseeable future as atmospheric CO2
concentrations continue to rise and that, conversely, increase in
temperature will lead to open-ended increase in respiration by soil
heterotrophs, so that at some point in the not too distant future, CO2
efflux will come to exceed CO2 influx.
This far-reaching assumption derives from global models that lack a
consideration of acclimation, feed backs and biological constraints
acting on these processes. This proposition will be critically
evaluated using Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVM's) that include
appropriate feed backs derived from new data that are becoming
available from on-going experiments in the UK and elsewhere. This core
project will be executed over two years by a research fellow at the
University of Edinburgh, under the supervision of Professor Paul
Jarvis, FRS. The project will involve close collaboration with: the Max
Planck Institut fur Biogeochemie (Prof I Colin Prentice) and the
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research (Dr Wolfgang Cramer)
where fully operational DGVMs are in use; the Dept of Production
Ecology, University of Uppsala (Prof Sune Linder), currently conducting
soil warming experiments in northern Sweden.
Costs (GBP):                    Yr 1    Yr 2
Research fellow                 50 k    52 k
Travel/interaction               4 k     4 k
Total project cost:             54 k    56 k
-----end of Edinburgh mail-----
To me, this comes at a very strange moment, since I am, with Bert
Bolin, in a very strange situation with the completion of our second
draft of the IPCC Special Report on Sinks due Land Use and Forestry.
The very issue they propose to collaborate with Colin and myself about
was the most contentious one of all, and Paul on one side, and several
others including myself on the other side, had diametrically opposing
opinions. In fact, I simply believe Jarvis either wasn't able or not
wasn't willing to understand what the real issue was.
Anyway, I don't know whether, and if, in which way, this may or may
not affect your completion of the UEA bid, but I thought I'd better
let you know. Obviously I discussed this with Colin, and his response
is that he a) would place his bet on your rather than the Edinburgh
bid in terms of potential success, and b) that he nevertheless thinks
Edinburgh is proposing the appropriate thing to do here, and that he
therefore will reply positive to their request for collaboration.
Unless you see a strong reason for recommending me to NOT do the same
(we can talk about this in Brussels of course), I shall probably reply
in the same positive way.
Take care,
Wolfgang
PS: I am really uncertain whether I do something terribly bad in
sending this to you, after the explicit request for confidentiality -
so please keep this among the two of us...
On Freitag, 8. Oktober 1999, you wrote:
> Wolfgang,
> I shall have to apologise, but I will not be able to make the ECLAT meeting
> at all.  The pressures of getting our UK National Climate Change Centre
> outline bid together for the 15th October are now such that I have to be
> here on the 13th and 14th (being in Brussels in the 12th is not very
> helpful either, but I can at least get back to UEA for Wednesday/Thursday
> to wrap up the bid).  I have the lead responsibility now at UEA for
> co-ordinating our proposal - 8 institutions, 24-co-applicants, so you can
> imagine the headaches involved.  But we want to make sure Hans-Joachim has
> a good proposal tabled from UEA when he meets with the Assessment Panel
> later in November!
> I really regret not being there - you have done a great job in pulling the
> programme and people together amidst IPCC activities.  I have asked Tim
> Carter to present the IPCC/ACACIA speech and I am sure he will!
> Tim Carter and David Viner will co-ordinate over what needs doing for the
> proceedings which I insist will be a Cramer et al. (ed) (1999/2000)
> publication.  David and Ruth will bring several dozen copies of the
> Helsinki book for distribution.  It is important to get the breakout groups
> to get text together on their deliberations while at the meeting.  You will
> see what we have done to the Helsinki material.  For the Green Workshop we
> should not exceed 100pp. (cf. 128pp. for Helsink) and colour should be
> avoided where possible.  CRU will take over the sub-editing and desk-top
> publishing role again.
> I guess I will see you in Brussels anyway.
> Gabi ......... please cancel my hotel reservation and travel pick-up.
> Thank you for your efficiency in organising all this.
> Best regards,
> Mike
mailto:Wolfgang.Cramer@pik-potsdam.de


Workshop on "North-South Strategies for Sustainable Development",  November 1, 1999
Dear Dr Hulme,
TERI is hosting an event at the Fifth Conference of the Parties on "North-South Strategies for Sustainable Development".  At this event we intend to generate a discussion on the impetus for furthering the objectives of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Not only is there a need to review the provisions in the Kyoto Protocol but also to develop a framework for operationalizing it. In particular, the workshop will focus on the Clean Development Mechanism. The workshop also aims to identify drivers that could maintain the momentum, which was achieved at Kyoto, ratification of the Protocol notwithstanding.
Hoping you were already at Bonn, I would like to invite you to provide your valuable viewpoint as a discussant at our event scheduled for November 1, 1999 at Hotel Maritim from 1800 - 1930 hours. A brief background note highlighting the issues intended for discussions during the Workshop as well as the Workshop agenda is attached herewith for your perusal. In case you have not planned for Bonn, I would deeply appreciate it if you could forward this mail to prospective participants to COP 5.
Thanking you and looking forward to meeting you at Bonn.
With warm regards,
R K Pachauri
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Wkshp-bkground1.doc"


Dear Dominique,
Jonathon Overpeck forwarded your email to me some time ago, regarding
Holocene ice core data.  I apologize for the delay in responding.
Frist, regarding US contacts for ice core data.  I am happy to work on
this as you suggest, and it certaintly makes sense to have me involved
since I have been working on ice core data management for some time.  I
can probably do a good job representing the US Arctic/Antarctic community,
but Lonnie Thompson should also be contacted, since there is so much
data from tropical glaciers that is not yet publicly available.  In any
case, I look forward to working with you on this.
Second, regarding ice core relevant for Holocene studies:
It would be ideal to include all of the Antarctic cores drilled so far:
Dome B, Dome C, Vostok, Komsomolskaya, Byrd, etc.  Much of the stable
isotope data for these cores is already available at our "Ice Core Data
Cooperative" web site.  Valerie Masson, Jean Jouzel, myself and others
recently submitted a paper comparing isotope data from all of these cores,
and I should be able to get the data from her.  Also at the Data Co-op
site are data from the Canadian ice caps (we do not yet have Penny Ice
Cap, but I can talk with David Fisher about this), Mount Logan, and from
some temperate ice cores including Fremont Glacier.  These data are better
than commonly believed and may be useful.
I think that any Holocene climate compilation really needs chemistry and
gas data as well as isotope data.  Although chemical concentrations have
not been measured on many of the cores, a very important data set that is
missing from our current archive is the chemistry data from the Antarctic
cores.  All of the Taylor Dome chemistry data is available at
www.sas.upenn.edu/~esteig/taylor.html but as far as I am aware there is no
other chemistry data out there.  It would be wonderful if you could
convince Michel Legrand and colleagues to send these data to me, for
inclusion on the Ice Core Data site, for both the Holocene the glacial
periods.
All of the data that I currently have are available via the NOAA
web server  "International Ice Core
Data Cooperative".  The site also lists cores which exist but for which
data are still needed.  The direct link is:

I apologize that the pages are not in very good order; most of my time
when I had hoped to be working on this was devoted to the production of
the GISP2/GRIP CDROM, which took considerably more effort than expected.
I plan to begin improving those pages soon.  Let me know if you have
additional questions.
Warm regards,
Eric Steig


Dear Mike,
Thanks for your detailed response about your use of the SRES scenarios.
I'm sure it will be useful to Bob Watson.  I wish I could explain better
what Bob's problem entails -- it is intensely political.  My judgement is
that, if I tell you more, then this will indirectly help Bob in answering
the questions posed of him by Sensenbrenner; particularly should Bob need
to get back to you. Please note that this is confidential information.
Please note, too, that I am making my own judgement on this in the
interest of clarifying a complex issue.  I have not been authorized by
Bob, or anyone associated with IPCC, to divulge this information.
The stated concern of Sensenbrenner is that the use of the SRES scenarios
prior to their ratification might, in some way, jeopardize IPCC's
"independence and objectivity".  Sensenbrenner apparently uses as
guidelines in making his judgement "IPCC's 'Principles' (as) approved in
Vienna, Austria in October 1998" together with "June 11 and 28, 1999
letters" giving "Appendix A to the Principles, which is entitled
'Procedures for the Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Approval and
Publication of IPCC Reports' (which was) approved ... in April 1999".
Sensenbrenner implies that these documents "raise concerns about the use
of preliminary IPCC material by Dr. Wigley and the Pew Center on Global
Climate Change for non-IPCC purposes, apparently without IPCC sanction".
He considers that "these issues (are) significant because they relate
directly to the integrity of the IPCC process".
In my case, I bypassed the "IPCC process" by obtaining permission, in
writing, from the 4 groups who produced the marker scenarios.  I did not
acknowledge the CIESIN web site.  In your case, apparently, you did.  The
problem here is that this site stated very clearly that the data were "not
for citation or quotation".  Did you take notice of this?
My view is, and has always been, that contributors to such data sets or
distribution sites do not give up the intellectual property rights to
their own data. They could do so, of course, by signing appropriate
legal/copyright documents; but I have never done this, nor, as far as I
know, has anyone who contributed to the CIESIN site.  This is why I went
to the individual authors in order to obtain permission to use their data
in my Pew report.  I hope you can see that there is an important
difference between what you did and what I did.  At face value, it would
appear that you have ignored the clearly-stated message that the CIESIN
site data were "not for citation or quotation".  (More on this point
below.)
You refer back to the July 1998 Bureau meeting agreeing that the
preliminary SRES scenarios (in your words) "could, and should, be used by
scientists".  From my reading of the background material, this is subtly
wrong -- the Bureau only agreed that the data could be used by "the GCM
modeling community".  As it happens, I am part of that community, and I
acted as the interface between the scenarios and the rest of the NCAR GCM
team, providing SRES data to them in a form that could be used for our GCM
runs.  I do not think you can claim to have filled this particular and
quite specific role in your work.
However, there are some interesting subtleties here that, I think,
vindicate your position.  The issue is what is meant by the "GCM modeling
community".  In my view, anyone who uses GCM data either to provide data
sets to the impacts community or to carry out diagnostic studies directly
to improve GCMs is part of this community.  (Note that this does *not*
allow one to include the impacts modelers as part of the GCM community.)
The two stated aspects are precisely what you do.  Furthermore, SCENGEN
(which I presume you have used in your work) makes direct use of GCMs in
order to produce spatially-specific climate results based on any given
emissions scenarios (including the SRES scenarios).  The SCENGEN method is
simply an alternative way of translating emissions scenarios into
GCM-based and GCM-type output.  In my view, anyone using the SRES
scenarios in the development of SCENGEN, or applying SCENGEN to produce
spatially-specific climate results for dissemination to others, must be
included as part of the "GCM modeling community" referred to in the
Bureau's agreement regarding use of the SRES scenarios.  You may have
interpreted the Bureau's statements even more broadly than this -- but
this is of no consequence, since what you have done also falls squarely
within the more restricted interpretation that I have given above.
Nevertheless, I think it would have been wiser for you to have done things
the way I did, rather than to have acknowledged the CIESIN site as your
source.
The next issue, raised in your email, concerns the DDC.  I have not looked
at this site, but I presume it duplicates what was on the CIESIN site.  If
so, then its use (and the use of the preliminary SRES data) must be
controlled by the rules under which the DDC was set up and operates.  The
key questions, therefore, are:
(1) Do these rules allow the use of these data by anyone?
(2) Do the SRES data, as it appears on this site, include the statement
"not for citation or quotation"?
(3) Does this make moot the whole issue of the use of the SRES scenarios?
In other words, if these data are available to all and sundry, with no
restrictions, through DDC, then no one can complain about their use.
(Although, in your case, since you acknowledged CIESIN rather than DDC,
you may still be subject to criticism.)
What this could amount to is a loophole in the IPCC rules of procedure.
Sensenbrenner might then argue that this loophole should be closed by
clarifying and tightening the rules for the DDC.
The bottom line is that I think you have done things in a perfectly
legitimate way.  Even acknowledging the CIESIN site is legitimate, since
your primary application was in the production of climate change scenarios
as a member of the "GCM modeling community" as I believe this community
should be defined.  You have then distributed these results to the global
climate impacts community who, in turn, will be feeding their results back
into the IPCC process through WGII.  Your chosen method of distribution
(especially the WWF pathway) might be judged as less than ideal; but I
cannot see anything that you have done that goes explicitly or implicitly
against IPCC regulations.
Below the bottom line is the concern expressed by Sensenbrenner that these
actions (yours and mine) might, in some way, have undermined the
"integrity of the IPCC process".  It would be interesting to hear from
Sensenbrenner just how he thinks that might have happened.  All we have
done is distribute credible and defensible scientific information.  If
this information were to be in conflict with the currently best-available
science, this might be an issue of concern -- but it is not.  The more
such credible scientific information is distributed to the community,
particularly when it is presented in an easily-read, non-technical yet
authoritative way, the better.  I can see no way that this can distort the
IPCC process.  Some people, however, appear to think that it might.  (A
less kind interpretation might be that they are just trying to slow down
the process by tying it up in legal and procedural knots -- but I have no
evidence that this is what they are trying to do.)
I hope you can see from the above quotes and somewhat convoluted arguments
what a legal and political minefield this is.  These sorts of issues do
not seem to arise outside of the USA; but here they take on an enormous
importance.  One must tread very cautiously.
Cheers,
Tom
On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, Mike Hulme wrote:
> Bob,
>
> You will have seen Tom Wigley's email asking me about the climate scenarios
> I prepared for WWF and which were distributed 2 weeks ago.  I have just got
> back from a trip away and am concerned that *you* are concerned, hence my
> immediate reply.
>
> These CRU/WWF regional/national scenarios *do* use the preliminary SRES98
> emissions scenarios that are posted on the CIESIN and IPCC DDC web sites.
> The CRU/WWF reports state that preliminary emissions scenarios sre used,
> they acknowledge the CIESIN source of these emissions, and they make it
> clear that the derived climate scenarios are the work and responsibility of
> the authors alone.
>
> Maybe some background would help explain why I do not think that from my
> perspective there is cause for concern (although I am aware of the
> criticism the SRES report has increasingly been receiving and that the
> issues are bigger than I may realise):
>
> __________________________________________
>
> July '98: IPCC Bureau meeting agreed that the preliminary SRES emissions
> scenarios could, and should, be used by scientists in their unapproved
> form.
>
> Dec '98: the above was reiterated to WGI scientists at the Paris LA
> meeting.  In particular, it was recognised that SAR science would have to
> be used in the interim (i.e., next 12-18 months) to generate the climatic
> (and consequently impact) implications of the SRES emissions.
>
> Jan '99: the SRES Open Process ended.  The IPCC DDC placed the preliminary
> SRES98 emissions scenarios on the open DDC web site as requested by the
> IPCC Task Group on Climate Scenarios for Impact Assessment (Chair Martin
> Parry).  The objective of the DDC right from its original 1997 commission
> was to provide timely access to emissions scenarios, observed climate
> datasets and new GCM experiments (all of which would be assessed in the
> IPCC TAR), thus enabling impact scientists worldwide to construct and apply
> consistent climate scenarios (this information has already been used by
> several 100 scientists, including many in developing countries).  Only in
> this way would it be at all possible for WGII to have access to
> impact/adaptation science that was in any way consistent with the WGIII
> (SRES emissions) and WGI (climate modelling) material.  The placing of the
> SRES98 emissions on the DDC web site was widely discussed in the TGCIA and
> was publicised at the time to the research community using the DDC,
> including through the A4-flier advertising the DDC that was sent to the WGI
> (and WGII?) mailing list.
>
> Feb '99: Hulme&Carter used the preliminary SRES98 emissions (and other DDC
> products) to develop climate scenarios
> for the European Union as part of the EU-funded ACACIA assessment
> (unrelated to Tom's US-based ACACIA).  The approach
> I took in using the SRES98 emissions for the ACACIA climate scenarios was
> *my* decision and was not part of any IPCC activity.  The ACACIA climate
> scenarios, and indeed entire EU ACACIA impacts assessment, have been widely
> reviewed within Europe, and are part of the draft report presented to
> Brussels last month.  They will published in their final form in June 2000.
>  This EU-ACACIA activity has done in my view *exactly* what the DDC was
> intended to do, namely allow impact scientists to generate results using
> consistent scenarios and assumptions; these results provide the raw
> material for IPCC LAs to assess in their TAR chapters!
>
> My approach for converting the preliminary SRES98 emissions into climate
> scenarios is also being used in many other EU and UK-funded impact research
> programmes and is generating a variety of scientific reports and papers -
> several of the latter are under peer-review at the moment and may be
> citeable in time for the 2nd-order WGII drafts.
>
> ***Is an apology needed for this activity?  If so, then I and others on the
> IPCC TGCIA totally misunderstood the brief of the DDC and the intent of the
> July 98 and Dec. 98 IPCC decisions.***
>
> May '99: WWF commissioned me to prepare a set of national/regional climate
> scenarios for them to launch in October 1999.  It seemed entirely
> appropriate and legitimate to me to use the same method I had adopted for
> EU-ACACIA to generate these WWF scenarios.
>
> June '99: Tom's Pew Report was published using SRES98 emissions is a not
> dissimilar way to me (i.e., using them to drive a simple climate model
> based on SAR science).
>
> July '99: following some controversy over the Pew Report, there was an
> email circular from WGI TSU (Griggs) reminding LAs that there was 'active
> encouragement' from IPCC for scientists to use the preliminary SRES98
> emissions in modelling work. The conditions were that it should be stated
> that they were unapproved by IPCC (i.e, preliminary) and that work using
> them should ideally be peer-reviewed and published.  Tom Wigley followed-up
> on this circular by explaining *his* use of SRES98 in the Pew Report, the
> conditions he met and his justification for using them.  I noted this
> correspondence at the time and did not feel that my use of SRES98 emissions
> in my WWF work was out of order.
>
> Oct '99: the 15 sets of CRU/WWF regional/national scenarios were published
> and widely distributed by WWF.  These leaflets state that 'preliminary IPCC
> emissions scenarios' are used, acknowledge the source of these emissions as
> the CIESIN site, and make clear that the climate scenarios are the work of
> the authors alone and no other organisation.  Furthermore, the approach I
> have taken (which I originally designed back in December 1998) has been
> subject to a diversity of peer-review activities, and will shortly be
> published.
> _______________________________
>
> Sorry for making this a lengthy reply, but it seems best to spell out the
> history and my thinking to avoid any room for misunderstanding.  In
> summary, the only two grounds on which I think I could be criticised for
> using the SRES98 emissions in my CRU/WWF climate scenarios are if:
>
> 1) the IPCC DDC was wrong to put the SRES98 emissions on its web site back
> in January 1999 and to publicise its purpose in doing so.  If we *were*
> wrong, then this error goes back to January 1999 and the TGCIA
> fundamentally misunderstood its brief.
> 2) the pronouncements of the IPCC in July 1998 and December 1998 were
> intended to apply *only* to scientists who had a formal role in the IPCC
> and that the SRES98 emissions could only be used for 'official' IPCC
> scientific activities whatever these may be.  This would draw a very
> dubious line between science done for IPCC and science done 'not for IPCC'.
>  IPCC's brief is to assess *all*, done by no matter whom or for what
> purpose.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Mike
>
> Dr Mike Hulme
> Reader, Climatic Research Unit
> School of Environmental Sciences
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich  NR4  7TJ
> (tel:  +44 1603 593162;  fax: +44 1603 507784)
> (email: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk)
> (web: http//www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~mikeh)
>
> ----------
> > From: Tom Wigley
> > To: Mike Hulme
> > Cc: Robert Watson
> > Subject: CONFIDENTIAL: CRU scenarios
> > Date: 27 October 1999 19:02
> >
> > ****In strictest confidence****
> >
> > Dear Mike,
> >
> > Bob Watson contacted me last week asking about some climate results that
> > he apparently saw on the CRU and/or WWF web pages.  The CRU web site
> > states that you have produced (and already distributed) a set of regional
> > scenario leaflets based on "new ghg emissions scenarios", which I think
> is
> > what Bob may be concerned about.
> >
> > I hope that "new" does not refer to the SRES scenarios. You may recall
> > that, when I was in CRU, I showed you, in confidence, a letter from F.
> > James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives
> > Committee on Science,  criticizing IPCC for "allowing" me to use these
> > scenarios in my Pew Report.
> >
> > Unfortunately, this issue is not going away, and any further perceived
> > "misuse" of the SRES scenarios prior to their IPCC ratification would
> > exacerbate the problem considerably.
> >
> > I do hope, therefore, that you have *not* used the SRES scenarios.  I
> > expect not, since I explained the potential problems to you in July.
> > Please reassure me -- and Bob.
> >
> > If, by chance, you *have* used the SRES scenarios, but not yet
> distributed
> > the WWF leaflets, I urge you to hold fire until you have contacted Bob.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> >
> >        **********************************************************
> >        *Tom M.L. Wigley						*
> >        *Senior Scientist 					*
> >        *National Center for Atmospheric Research                *
> >        *P.O. Box 3000				                *
> >        *Boulder, CO 80307-3000					*
> >        *USA                                                     *
> >        *Phone: 303-497-2690                                     *
> >        *Fax: 303-497-2699                                       *
> >        *E-mail: wigley@ucar.edu                                 *
> >        **********************************************************
> >
> >
> >
>
**********************************************************
Tom M.L. Wigley
Senior Scientist
National Center for Atmospheric Research
P.O. Box 3000
Boulder, CO 80307-3000
USA
Phone: 303-497-2690
Fax: 303-497-2699
E-mail: wigley@ucar.edu
Web:
**********************************************************


Tom,
Sorry I couldn't say goodbye - I was actually on the phone to Bo Lim at the time.  I also wanted to ask you about your views on the UK national climate change centre, but this can wait until later.
Anyway, about MAGICC/SCENGEN Workbook I think we agreed the following things for this UNDP version ........
- a select number of emissions scenarios, IS92, SRES98, 550 and 750 stabilisation cases, some Kyoto variants (perhaps from IS92a,e,d reference), and 1-2 others you may recommend.  I would be keen to use your *.gas files if that's OK, even though I have some of my own.  You may have done the SO2 into regions, which I haven't.  Could you send me a selection?
- you would think about how to handle the CH4 adjustment to ensure SAR replicability across the emissions scenarios.  This may require a tweak in the MAGICC code which Mike will have to recompile.
- we should aim to reproduce the SAR results as closely as possible in this version, e.g. use 6.37Wm-2 rather than 5.5, and not use Prather's methane concentrations (an Annex in the Workbook will explain this).
- the variable upwelling rate will be hard-wired.  Choices will remain for the Dn80s, climate sensitivity and aerosol forcing.
- SCENGEN will have the new DDC patterns included and we will switch off the buttons for the older 2xCO2 patterns.
- SCENGEN will output values over land and ocean.
- the Help Screens will need updating.  I will attempt this and then check them all with you to make sure you agree.
The only problem I can forsee is that the 2.32 version that Mike and you produced in the summer corrected the aerosol calculations and also used Prather's methane concentrations.  If we now want a version with correct aerosol concentrations and IPCC SAR Chapter 6 CH4 concentrations, *plus* a CH4 tweak to handle the ad hoc adjustment, then Mike Salmon will need a new and unique FORTRAN version of MAGICC.  Am I right?
I have agreed with Bo Lim to get a first draft of the Workbook by 17 December, but the final version and all the CDs will not be agreed until February 2000.
Have I missed anything?
Regards,
Mike


Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear colleagues,
you may already know it: the EU FP5 second call for proposals is out
since today ( as expected,
and the deadline for submission is Feb 15.
The new call does indeed answer a question I have been wondering about
when I heard from many first-call projects that they were asked to
re-submit. The present call is only for the slots that were, last
year, declared to be opened at this stage (not for the previous
slots). Probably the re-invited proposals then still bid for the old
money (or at least, I hope so).
There is however one important exception: "2.3.1 Mitigation and
adaptation to global change". About this, the official document says
"re-open ... because of the quality of proposal received in reply to
the call of 20 March 1999". Further down, they point out that Kyoto
really is tremendously important for the commission ("primary
objective"), and then comes the following far-reaching sentence: "If
one takes into account the time lag between the research results, the
political decisions and the actual emission reduction it is evident
that the year 2000 is the last opportunity for research to cover the
remaining analytical gaps of priority." (da_pg2_en_199902.pdf, page
6). Tough!
This mail goes to all people I have currently listed as "likely
participants in A-TEAM", although the group may either grow or shrink
as the remaining time passes by (depending, among other things, on
your inputs!).
The present state of development is that I have recently circulated
another draft of our basic document among just a few of you, hoping
for input to it REALLY SOON. On the basis of this, I intend to
a) develop a better draft that will then be circulated to all of you,
b) organize a small brainstorming meeting, hopefully before christmas,
but again only with a small core group,
c) by christmas, provide you with a roadmap for the remaining things
to be done.
Best regards,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang Cramer
Department of Global Change and Natural Systems
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
PO Box 60 12 03, D-14412 Potsdam, Germany
Tel.: +49-331-288-2521, Fax: +49-331-288-2600
mailto:Wolfgang.Cramer@pik-potsdam.de
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: IF YOU NEED TO SEND ATTACHMENTS TO ME, PLEASE:
1) avoid sending MS-Word *.doc files (send rtf instead)
2) if the attachments exceed 500kB, contact me before sending anything
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Simon,
I have talked with Tim O'Riordan and others here today and Tim has a wealth of contacts he is prepared to help with.  Four specific ones from Tim are:
- Charlotte Grezo, BP Fuel Options (possibly on the Assessment Panel. She is also on the ESRC Research Priorities Board), but someone Tim can easily talk with.  There are others in BP Tim knows too.
- Richard Sykes, Head of Environment Division at Shell International
- Chris Laing, Managing Director, Laing Construction (also maybe someone at Bovis)
- ??, someone high-up in Unilever whose name escapes me.
And then Simon Gerrard here in our Risk Unit suggested the following personal contacts:
- ??, someone senior at AMEC Engineering in Yarmouth (involved with North Sea industry and wind energy)
- Richard Powell, Director of the East of England Development Board
You can add these to your list and I can ensure that Tim and Simon feed the right material through once finalised.
I will phone tomorrow re. the texts.
Cheers,
Mike
At 20:30 07/01/00 BST, you wrote:
>dear colleagues
>
>re:  List of Industrial and Commercial Contacts to Elicit Support
>from for the Tyndall Centre
>
>This is the list so far.  Our contact person is given in brackets
>afterwards. There is some discussion on whether we
>should restict ourselves to board level contacts - hence Dlugolecki
>is not board level but highly knowledgeable about climate change.
>I think people such as that, who are well known for their climate
>change interests, are worth writing to for support.  There may be
>less value in writing to lesser known personnel at a non-board level.
>
>SPRU has offered to elicit support from their energy programme
>sponsors which will help beef things up.  (Frans: is the Alsthom
>contact the same as Nick Jenkin's below?  Also, do you have a BP
>Amoco contact?  The name I've come up with is Paul Rutter, chief
>engineer, but he is not a personal contact]
>
>We could probably do with some more names from the financial sector.
>Does anyone know any investment bankers?
>
>Please send additional names as quickly as possible so we can
>finalise the list.
>
>I am sending a draft of the generic version of the letter eliciting
>support and the 2 page summary to Mike to look over. Then this can be
>used as a basis for letter writing by the Tyndall contact (the person
>in brackets).
>
>Mr Alan Wood CEO Siemens plc   [Nick Jenkins]
>Mr Mike Hughes CE Midlands Electricity (Visiting Prof at UMIST)  [Nick
>Jenkins]
>Mr Keith Taylor, Chairman and CEO of Esso UK   (John
>Shepherd]
>Mr Brian Duckworth, Managing Director,  Severn-Trent Water
>[Mike Hulme]
>Dr Jeremy Leggett,  Director,  Solar Century [Mike Hulme]
>Mr Brian Ford,  Director of Quality,  United Utilities plc  [Simon
>Shackley]
>Dr Andrew Dlugolecki,  CGU   [Jean Palutikof]
>Dr Ted Ellis, VP Building Products, Pilkington plc [Simon Shackley]
>Mr Mervyn Pedalty, CEO, Cooperative Bank plc [Simon Shackley]
>
>
>Possibles:
>Mr John Loughhead, Technology Director ALSTOM    [Nick Jenkins]
>Mr Edward Hyams, Managing Director Eastern Generation    [Nick
>Jenkins]
>Dr David Parry, Director Power Technology Centre, Powergen
>[Nick Jenkins]
>Mike Townsend, Director, The Woodland Trust  [Melvin
>Cannell]
>Mr Paul Rutter, BP Amoco  [via Terry Lazenby, UMIST]
>
>With kind regards
>
>Simon Shackley
>
>
>
>
>


Hi Stepan and Eugene ( Eugene are you getting these messages?)
You will have the first idea of things now and soon the first forms will come which must be filled in and signed and stamped and returned here by FAX and as soon as possible by REAL mail. The original forms must be submitted from here in February. This message is to reiterate that the reviewing process this time is going to look very carefully at the reakdown of costs in relation to precise tasks. There is even a section of the form that asks for proportional costs associated with individual deliverables. Therefore it is important to specify ( at least for the sake of the plan) precisely what work can be done and the person hour costs, materials, travel, fieldwork, equipment ( corers, durable equipment like computer ,GPS, etc: consumable costs like xray film etc.etc.) . I need you to think in terms of intensive sampling of modern and sub-fossil wood with the emphasis on major contributions to extending the network in Russia both ringwidth ( in Ekaterinburg) and a major part of the densitometry , perhaps of Russian and non-Russian samples(?) (in EKaterinburg). THIS IS NOT TO SAY I AM ASSUMING YOU ARE ONLY DATA PROVIDERS . I do not look on you in this way. It is simply that I have to make a strong @SPECIAL CASE@ for your both being partners and the relatively large funds that I have suggested must be convincingly justified. Your involvement is crucial on the scientific side and I will emphasise this strongly. But it is also important to display to referees what the money will go on. Hence yoy need to suggest various options to me in terms of possible sampling work, laboratory work and analysis and cost out these different options to cover different possible plans. We will then sort out an optimum one . You must budget realistically for travel, fieldwork travel and equipment - which I believe are expensive. ALso note our earlier message as regards travel to Europe. I would very much appreciate help with up to date information on state of the art of the Russian data for background, potential of new areas or your ideas of where best to concentrate updating work.
In both Yamal and Taimyr , the continued work on the long chronologies to greatly increase sample numbers is still very high on my lisy of priorities and  the work Stepan (and Rashit) are doing to reconstruct tree-line changes on a detailed resolution is very very important. So please try to think about the details of new sampling sites( need bigger sample numbers with different age trees at each to look at age-dependent growth chages); best areas needing updating; subfossil continuation; real numbers for different cost options and start to interact with me and Tim ( and Fritz) re the possible distribution of densitometry work. Finally, Eugene, I think your comments on the ring structure and using inpu from simulations and model (GCM) data are important. Can we factor in some exploratory work on this or is it better to do it as part of a separate proposal - I have two more in mind in the coming months ( one to NERC in UK and one to the Leverhulme  Foundation - more about these later).
for now that better be all
best wishes
Keith  (p.s please copy all replies to Tim )


Dear Mike
Thank you for sending the outline bid submitted last October. After reviewing the document, my colleagues and I were of the view that TERI should go non-exclusive. Our primary interest is to be part of the project and given that we (TERI) would have the role of an affiliate in both the bids, it was decided that we go non-exclusive.
We understand that the outline bid is confidential and I can assure you that it will not be shared with anyone outside the concerned colleagues at TERI. Also, I assure you of all possible support TERI can provide in developing the final bid. We look forward to a fruitful association with you on the project.
Wishing you all the best in securing the bid.
Kind regards
Sujata
Sujata Gupta Ph.D.
Fellow and Dean
Policy Analysis Division
************************************************************************
TERI's SILVER JUBILEE CONFERENCES
Celebrating 25 years of innovation and change
Meet on 'Global Sustainable Development in the 21st Century'
18-21 February 2000, New Delhi, India
Come shape a common practical and achievable agenda
Be a part of the future.
More details at
************************************************************************
T E R I
New Delhi - 110 003 / India
Fax  462 1770 or 463 2609    Country code 91
Tel.  460 1550 or 462 2246   City code 11
Web  www.teriin.org
>>> Mike Hulme
02/12/00 11:56PM >>>
Dear Sujata,
I attach a copy of our outline bid from last October - it is now evolving
rapidly of course in preparation for final submission.  This gives you a
quick idea about our Consortium and plans.  You will also see the names and
institutes of our partners. May I re-iterate that this document is
confidential and must not be disclosed to anyone outside your immediate
colleagues in TERI.
TERI was *not* listed as a formal co-applicant (non-UK institutions are not
eligible to be formal co-applicants), but was listed as an 'affiliated
organisation' along with about 10 others here in the UK.  We would propose
to do the same in the final bid, but say a little bit more about where and
how TERI would interact with us were we to win the Centre.
If you decide to remain exclusively with our bid, then I will send you the
first draft of our final submission during the next week - this will
indicate more details about our research programmes and where TERI may be
seen to interact with us as a key overseas collaborator.
However, if you decide to join with both bids - Imperial and UEA - then we
will simply continue to list you as a collaborator, but we could not then
agree to any further interaction over the next 2 weeks.
Best Regards,
Mike
At 10:45 10/02/00 +0530, you wrote:
>Dear Mike
>
>Thank you for your email.  I appreciate your understanding of our
position. TERI is essentially interested in working on the project. I can
assure you that we will not disclose any information provided by you to the
other finalist or anyone else for that matter and maintain strict
confidentiality.
>
>However, I did not receive the original bid document or an outline of the
proposal. We are not clear if TERI has been listed as a partner up-front or
has been mentioned as an associate. I would greatly appreciate it if you
could let me know TERI's status in the original document. This will help in
our taking a decision on the exclusivity front, as yet we are still
debating on the matter and have not reverted to the Imperial team. Also,
who are the other members of the team headed by you.
>
>We look forward to working with you and hope we are able to reach a
decision which is mutually beneficial.
>
>Best wishes
>
>Sujata
>
>
>
>Sujata Gupta Ph.D.
>Fellow and Dean
>Policy Analysis Division
>************************************************************************
>TERI's SILVER JUBILEE CONFERENCES
>Celebrating 25 years of innovation and change
>Meet on 'Global Sustainable Development in the 21st Century'
>18-21 February 2000, New Delhi, India
>Come shape a common practical and achievable agenda
>Be a part of the future.
>More details at
>************************************************************************
>T E R I
>New Delhi - 110 003 / India
>Fax  462 1770 or 463 2609    Country code 91
>Tel.  460 1550 or 462 2246   City code 11
>Web  www.teriin.org
>
>>>> Mike Hulme
02/08/00 01:49AM >>>
>Dear Sujata,
>
>I have consulted with colleagues in our Consortium and we consider the
>following to be the position .....
>
>- we clearly would prefer TERI to affiliate to only one of the two
>finalists, and obviously we prefer that one to be our bid.  This is
>espeically the case since we made our initial approach to you last
>September when there were still seven bids in the making; no-one else
>approached you at that stage and therefore we feel we have some preference
>through prior approach.
>
>- we recognise that *you* may now consider it in your interest to affiliate
>to both finalists to cover yourselves either way (although *we* consider
>there are strong grounds for you not to do so).  This is your choice of
>course, although were you to do this then I must point out the following
>two consequences:
>
>a) since I believe I sent you last October/November a copy of our outline
>bid for the Centre I would need to insist that you do not divulge the
>contents of this outline to Imperial College.  This is clearly a case of
>professional integrity which we are sure you understand.
>
>b) if you indicate that you are also joining with Imperial then this
>effectively precludes any further dialogue between us over the remaining 3
>weeks before submission.  All that we would be able to do would be to name
>you and your expertise in our submission rather than engage you
>interactively in shaping 1-2 of our ideas (which was my original intention
>as our final bid shapes up).
>
>Please let me know how you wish to proceed - either way, I look forward to
>a fruitful association between us in the event of our bid succeeding with
>the UK Research Councils.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Mike
>
>At 16:00 01/02/00 +0530, you wrote:
>>Dear Mike,
>>
>>TERI has a presence in London as of 25 January. My colleague Dr Ritu Kumar
>there has been approached by the consortia led by Imperial College
>>for TERI to join them. I am writing to explore the possibility of TERI
>joining both consortia on a non-exclusive basis. This would of course imply
>that we do not share/participate in the preparation of the bid. Any inputs
>provided by TERI would be common to both consortia, unless it was in
>response to a specific request by a particular partner.
>>
>>As we have committed to you first, we will revert to Imperial College for
>a non-exclusive tie-up, only after discussing the matter with you.
>>
>>I am copying this email to my colleague Dr Kumar.
>>
>>Looking forward to hearing from you.
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>Sujata
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Sujata Gupta Ph.D.
>>Fellow and Dean
>>Policy Analysis Division
>>************************************************************************
>>TERI's SILVER JUBILEE CONFERENCES
>>Celebrating 25 years of innovation and change
>>Meet on 'Global Sustainable Development in the 21st Century'
>>18-21 February 2000, New Delhi, India
>>Come shape a common practical and achievable agenda
>>Be a part of the future.
>>More details at
>>************************************************************************
>>T E R I
>>New Delhi - 110 003 / India
>>Fax  462 1770 or 463 2609    Country code 91
>>Tel.  460 1550 or 462 2246   City code 11
>>Web  www.teriin.org
>>
>>>>> Mike Hulme
01/19/00 02:52PM >>>
>>Thank you Sujata ...... I will keep you informed about our needs for
>>bidding for the UK Climate Change Centre.
>>
>>And it *was* me that you had a conversation with in Canberra about
>>reviewers for Chapter 3 on scenarios.  I will forward your suggestion on to
>>the TSU II.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>
>>At 11:56 19/01/00 +0530, you wrote:
>>>Dear Dr Hulme
>>>
>>>TERI will be happy to provide sole support to the consortium led by you
>>and  UEA. I was on travel and hence could not respond earlier. Please let
>>me know if we can assist in any way in the preparation of the bid.
>>>
>>>If I recollect we had a discussion on a possible reviewer for the
>>scenarios chapter from India who was thus far not involved with the IPCC
>>process. I can suggest the name of Dr Shreekant Gupta at the Delhi School
>>of Economics, New Delhi. It is quite possible that I had this discussion
>>with Tom Downing. Please let me know if I am communicating to the wrong
>>person on this matter.
>>>
>>>Best wishes for the new year
>>>
>>>Sujata
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Sujata Gupta Ph.D.
>>>Fellow and Dean
>>>Policy Analysis Division
>>>************************************************************************
>>>TERI's SILVER JUBILEE CONFERENCES
>>>Celebrating 25 years of innovation and change
>>>Meet on 'Global Sustainable Development in the 21st Century'
>>>18-21 February 2000, New Delhi, India
>>>Come shape a common practical and achievable agenda
>>>Be a part of the future.
>>>More details at
>>>************************************************************************
>>>T E R I
>>>New Delhi - 110 003 / India
>>>Fax  462 1770 or 463 2609    Country code 91
>>>Tel.  460 1550 or 462 2246   City code 11
>>>Web  www.teriin.org
>>>
>>>>>> Mike Hulme
01/05/00 06:54PM >>>
>>>Dear Colleague,
>>>
>>>Thank you very much for your support for our bid to run the new UK Climate
>>>Change Centre being established by three of our national research councils.
>>> We have heard that just two of the seven outline bids have been invited to
>>>submit detailed proposals and that the Consortium led by UEA is one of
>>>these two.  Final bids are required by 29th February.  The UEA-led bid
>>>proposes the new Centre to be called the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change
>>>Research (named after the 19th century British physicist who experimented
>>>with the radiative properties of greenhouse gases, John Tyndall).
>>>
>>>Assuming you are happy to continue sole support for our initiative, and on
>>>the undertaking that you do not disclose our outline bid to other parties
>>>who may be aligned with the other finalist (a Consortium led by Imperial
>>>College and involving the Environmental Change Institute at Oxford and the
>>>U. Edinburgh), then I will send you a copy of our outline proposal.
>>>
>>>There are a number of aspects of this outline bid that we will change and
>>>develop before 29th Feb. and it may be that I am back in contact with you
>>>to ask for some additional text of support about some concrete ways the UK
>>>Tyndall Centre could collaborate with your organisation.
>>>
>>>We would also, of course, welcome any suggestions you may have about such
>>>future collaboration.
>>>
>>>Best wishes for the New Year,
>>>
>>>Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>*************************************************************************
***
>>>****
>>>Dr Mike Hulme
>>>Reader in Climatology             tel: +44 1603 593162
>>>Climatic Research Unit            fax: +44 1603 507784
>>>School of Environmental Science   email:  m.hulme@uea.ac.uk
>>>University of East Anglia         web site:
>~mikeh/
>>>Norwich  NR4  7TJ
>>>*************************************************************************
***
>>>****
>>> The estimated annual mean temperature in Central England for 1999 is +1.16
>>>degC           above the 1961-90 average, the warmest year recorded in 341
>>>years
>>>        *****************************************************************
>>>       The estimated global-mean surface air temperature anomaly for
1999 is
>>>     +0.33 deg C above the 1961-90 average, the 5th warmest year yet
>recorded
>>>*************************************************************************
***
>>>****
>>>          Neither of these estimates have yet been confirmed
>>>          **************************************************
>>>
>>>
>>***************************************************************************
>>Dr Mike Hulme
>>Reader in Climatology             tel: +44 1603 593162
>>Climatic Research Unit            fax: +44 1603 507784
>>School of Environmental Science   email:  m.hulme@uea.ac.uk
>>University of East Anglia         web site:
~mikeh/
>>Norwich  NR4  7TJ
>>***************************************************************************
>>The unconfirmed annual mean temperature in Central England for 1999 was
>+1.16
>>   degC above the 1961-90 average, the warmest year recorded in 341 years
>>      *****************************************************************
>>  The unconfirmed global-mean surface air temperature anomaly for 1999 was
>>  +0.33 deg C above the 1961-90 average, the 5th warmest year yet recorded
>>***************************************************************************
>>
>>
>***************************************************************************
>Dr Mike Hulme
>Reader in Climatology             tel: +44 1603 593162
>Climatic Research Unit            fax: +44 1603 507784
>School of Environmental Science   email:  m.hulme@uea.ac.uk
>University of East Anglia         web site: ~mikeh/
>Norwich  NR4  7TJ
>***************************************************************************
>The unconfirmed annual mean temperature in Central England for 1999 was
+1.16
>   degC above the 1961-90 average, the warmest year recorded in 341 years
>      *****************************************************************
>  The unconfirmed global-mean surface air temperature anomaly for 1999 was
>  +0.33 deg C above the 1961-90 average, the 5th warmest year yet recorded
>***************************************************************************
>
>


Mike
BGS are now on board, so please leave them in the text : I have drafted a
letter for David Falvey to sign and sent it. I hope we shall get it back in
time...
The Esso (Exxon-Mobil) situation is still promising, but they're having to
get clearance from HQ in the USA (my best contact retired (with cancer)
just a few weeks ago, so we've had to work around the new CE, to whom all
this is news...). They know the deadline and will do their best for us.
Finally, my short informal CV is attached, as requested.
Hope the drafting is coming together well.
John
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\JGS_CV_informal.doc"


At 11:56 25/02/00 -0500, you wrote:
>I need your newest northern hemisphere density-based tree-ring reconstruction
>and appropriate reference for updating IPCC. Please send in ASCII format as
>soon as possible so we can incorporate. I hope all is well. Thanks,
Hi Mike
Keith asked me to get back to you on this.  The reconstruction is the same as the one I sent on the 5th October 1999, but I'm sending it again in case that e-mail isn't handy.  The reconstruction has now been published, in the following paper:
Briffa K.R. (2000) Annual climate variability in the Holocene: interpreting the message of ancient trees. Quaternary Science Reviews 19, 87-105.
This paper does not, however, give full details about how the reconstruction was obtained.  The details are not yet published, but will soon be submitted:
Briffa KR, Osborn TJ, Schweingruber FH, Harris IC, Jones PD, Shiyatov SG and Vaganov EA (2000) Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network. In preparation (to be submitted to Journal of Geophysical Research).
Details about the file I'm sending you (repeated from 5th Oct 99):
The data are attached to this e-mail.  They go from 1402 to 1994, although we usually stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use.  I haven't put a 40-yr smoothing through them - I thought it best if you were to do this to ensure the same filter was used for all curves.  The data I've sent are calibrated over the period 1881-1960 against the instrumental Apr-Sep tempratures averaged over all land grid boxes (that have observed data) that are north of 20N.  As such, the mean of our reconstruction over 1881-1960 matches the mean of the observed target series over the same period.  Since the observed series consists of degrees C anomalies wrt to 1961-90, we say that the reconstructed series also represents degrees C anomalies wrt to 1961-90.
(I've already truncated the series at 1960 because of the problems with the recent period.)
Best regards
Tim


Hi Frank
I have two names - one of which you know well. First , I strongly urge that one copy be sent to
Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
8 Marta St., 202
Ekaterinburg, 620144, Russia
This is the home of the Laboratory of Dendrochronology , headed by
Dr. Stepan G. Shiyatov and I would suggest you consign the book to him,
or through him , to a genearl library if one exists.
e-mail: stepan@ipae.uran.ru
Fax: +7 (3432) 29 41 61
Phone: +7 (3432) 29 40 92
I know they have very limited resources but they will make real use of the volume . They are genuinely active and the work they do is truly 'world class'. You will remember also that one of their younger scientists (Rashit Hantemirov) won a prize in London at the Open Science meeting for his poster on the long Yamal chronology. This group gets my first and strongest vote.
My other suggestion is to send one to Eugene Vaganov's Institute of Forest.
They are not so strapped for resources as the Ekaterinburg lab. but they are large and have many active areas of research and the book would get a wide audience.
Eugene's email is
ifor@krsk.infotel.ru
Then there is the question of getting them there . The post is not reliable. You might send then to Fritz Schweingruber's laboratory from where they could be picked up or carried to Russia ?
Hope this helps
best wishes
Keith
e-mail: stepan@ipae.uran.ru
Fax: +7 (3432) 29 41 61
Phone: +7 (3432) 29 40 92
At 12:58 PM 3/2/00 +0100, Frank Oldfield wrote:
>Dear Keith, Julie, Matti and David,
>
>We are compiling a list of people and/or institutions in the former USSR to
>whom we should send FREE copies of the PAGES Open Science Meeting Special
>issue of Quaternary Science Reviews. For this, we need some help and advice
>in the way of key addresses and contacts. Where it seems best to send the
>book to a library we'd quite like to inform at least one key academic in
>the Institution that we are doing this. Where we are sending to an
>individual, we need to be able to trust in a degree of collegiality and we
>shall indicate that we want to be sure the book will be made as widely
>available as possible. We do not anticipate being able to send more than 10
>or so copies for free; others may be available at a reduced rate at the end
>of the year. This means a selective and carefully compiled 'hit list' is
>required.
>
>Over to you - we need your help.
>
>Many thanks,
>
>Frank
>
>____________________________________________
>Frank Oldfield
>
>Executive Director
>PAGES IPO
>Barenplatz 2
>CH-3011 Bern, Switzerland
>
>e-mail: frank.oldfield@pages.unibe.ch
>
>Phone: +41 31 312 3133; Fax: +41 31 312 3168
>
>
>
>


Dear Shaopeng and Henry,
First, congratulations on the Nature paper. Can you send me some
reprints when you get them ?
I was at a meeting this week with Tom Crowley and we were discussing
ways to reconcile the high-freq proxies with your borehole data. Here
are a couple of our thoughts. Involving Mike Mann and others here in CRU, as
they all have an input.
1. I've shown that the borehole data in Europe agree well with the long
instrumental data in both the UK and Europe. The biggest differences/problems
seem to come with the North American borehole data, which show the 16/17/18th
data much cooler than the European/Asian/African data in the 16/17th century.
I'm still reminded by the potential effects of land-use changes, principally
in the eastern US, which could be making your North American series too
cool. I realise you've taken great care with the selection, but this is
a nagging doubt and will be picked up by the few skeptics trying to divide
us all about the course of change over the last millennium. Is it possible
to subdivide the North American borehole data into regions where we can
be confident of no land-use changes (possibly and thinking aloud say Canada
and the western US and Alaska) ? The aim of this (possibly joint work) is
to try and reconcile the low- and high-freq proxies. Tom Crowley has a
series for the NH where he's combined about 20 series (a few of which are
in Mike's and the series we've produced here but he has over half the series
from less-well resolved proxies - shallow marine and lake sediments) and
he gets something very similar to Mike and CRU.
2. As all our (Mike, Tom and CRU) all show that the first few centuries of
the millennium were cooler than the 20th century, we will come in for some
flak from the skeptics saying we're wrong because everyone knows it was
warmer in the Medieval period. We can show why we believe we are correct
with independent data from glacial advances and even slower responding
proxies, however, what are the chances of putting together a group of
a very few borhole series that are deep enough to get the last 1000 years.
Basically trying to head off criticisms of the IPCC chapter, but good
science in that we will be rewriting people's perceived wisdom about
the course of temperature change over the past millennium. It is important
as studies of the millennium will help to show that the levels of natural
variability from models are reasonable. Tom has run his EBM with current
best estimates of past forcing (Be-10 as a proxy for solar output and Alan
Robock's ice core volcanic index) and this produces a series similar
to all series of the last 1000 years.
The above is just ideas of how we, as a group, could/should try and reduce
criticisms etc over the next year or so. Nothing is sacred. Your North
American borehole series could be correct as it is annual and most of the
high-freq proxy series respond mainly to summer variations. Is yours really
annual when there is a marked seasonal snow cover season ?
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Keith,
we Mukhtar and me are definitely out from Abisko workshop,
so you are free to present any material  suitable.
Make the same in France, no problem with permission.
Best withes, Gene.
From ???@??? Wed Mar 08 20:29:20 2000 Received: from [139.222.230.3]
(helo=mailgate3.uea.ac.uk) by mailserver1.uea.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id
12SxCi-0001SB-00 for f023@smtp.uea.ac.uk; Thu, 09 Mar 2000 07:17:52 +0000 Received: from
DarkOne.ural.net [195.64.192.49] by mailgate3.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.73 #1) id
12Sx7z-00020G-00; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 07:12:59 +0000 Received: from relay.uran.ru
(atreyu.ural.net [195.19.137.69]) by DarkOne.ural.net (8.10.0/eTn) with ESMTP id
e297CwJ06512 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 12:12:58 +0500 (ES) Received: from ipae.uran.ru
([195.19.128.15]) by relay.uran.ru (8.9.3/eTn) with SMTP id MAA56670 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000
12:12:49 +0500 (ES) Received: from mail.ipae.uran.ru (rashit.ipae.uran.ru [195.19.135.143]
) by ipae.uran.ru (Hethmon Brothers Smtpd) ; Thu, 9 Mar 2000 12:16:06 +0500 Date: Thu, 9
Mar 2000 12:15:07 +0500 From: Rashit Hantemirov X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.00 Build 1311)
Registered to Andy Malyshev Reply-To: Rashit Hantemirov Organization: IPAE Priority: Normal
Message-ID:
To: Keith Briffa Subject: Re: meeting in Sweden
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: Dear
Keith, I'm glad that chance to see you in Sweden has arisen, because I will hardly come to
Mendoza. I was invited to Abisko under curious circumstances and was pleasantly surprised
seeing you among participants. I apologize if my participating give you trouble with
preparing your paper. I'm going to present results of tree line reconstruction in Yamal,
based on about 50 radiocarbon data (from 9500 BP) and about 500 samples dated using Yamal
chronology (from 7000 BP). May be some short-scale falls in summer temperature will be
examined as a potential cause of tree line recession. Organizers will pay for my travel,
accommodation and food (otherwise I could not come to Sweden). I don't know about other
participants. 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


We have heard from ESRC that the ICER bid has been successful. We are to be
funded at a "reduced level", although we don't know what that is yet. Our
guess is that it will be close to the 10 million we were asked to approach
(the revised bid was about 12.5 million).
Well done everyone.
The letter asks us not to make any public announcement, publicity or press
releases until 4 April, when there will be a JIF press conference (altho we
are encouraged to prepare the press as soon as possible). Please,
therefore, continue to regard this information as confidential as far as
the outside world is concerned - I shall ask the Press Office to do the
necessary.
I will send a note out to all faculty later this afternoon.
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 Stepan and Eugene
I was very much looking forward to seeing you both and talking over progress and future plans. I am very sorry that you were not able to attend the Mondoza meeting. I used my introductory talk for the long chronology session to illustrate the great progress and important potential of the Yamal and Taimyr work - and gave a clear indication of the quality and world significane of the continuing research at Ekaterinburg and Krasnoyarsk , and the work of Rashit and Muchtar.
Please also let me appologise that Fritz may have been over zealous in requesting receipts for the small amount of money he is to forward to you. I have received these but it was not my intention that he should keep this money until the receipts were to hand. I hope no offence was taken and I am sorry that this money has not been forwarded earlier. I have asked him to send it straight away. Also I hope Stepan that you are now well. I am now back as you see and my first job is to write and send the INTAS report . I will forward copies as soon as it is complete.
I have heard nothing about our proposal to the European Commission but I am not confident.
I will be sending your manuscripts back with comments in the near future for the Holocene issue.
It is my greatest hope that collaboration is continued between us even if our latest application fails and I will do my very best to find other sources of support in the future. I really want to understand more about the cell growth model and the link between long term changes in treelines and the lack of very long term evidence of climate change in our ring width and density chronologies. Please let us stay more closely in touch in the future.
my very best wishes
Keith


Christoph,
I have time for just a few brief comments. I'll leave Ed and the others to
follow up if they wish...
mike mann
At 05:13 PM 4/19/00 +0200, you wrote:
>
>Dear Prof. Cook
>
>I have received your comments and the comments of Prof. Mann (Juerg
>kindly forwarded me the messages).
>
>First I would like to point out that our paper clearly has the intention
>to contribute in a constructive way to the discussion of proxy-based
>climate reconstructions. This was the reason for fitting available
>proxy-based indices onto J, in order to assess the potential of the
>complementary information in the proxy data. In fact, we need proxy-data
>to go further back. But it is essential to know the limitations and there
>ARE obviously major limitations.
>
>As you mentioned, there might be some non-stationarities in the NAO.
>
Hmmm. I *think* what Ed actually meant is that if one samples e.g. only a
subset of the quadrapole set of temperature "lobes" of the NAO (especially,
if one samples only, say, one of them--the European one), then one will
necessarily be seeing a combination of the NAO, and any other climate
patterns that have a distinct regional overprint in that region. In the case
of Europe, there are several. So the "nonstationarity" isn't in the *true*
NAO, it is
an the attempt to *define* the NAO in terms of an insufficent subsample of
regions influence by it.
>However, the signature of the NAO shows to be quite robust for most of the
>20.th century. As you said, we do not know if there is in fact a probably
>strongly biased signal towards the European continent back in time.
>
>I have downloaded the preprint paper by Cullen et al. In a first overview
>it seems to me that one of my main conclusions, which states that it is
>important to use the complementary information in the data is confirmed by
>their work. In fact this was already one of the conclusions in the
>Luterbacher et al. 1999 paper (number of used predictors are an important
>factor for the obtained skill).
>
>It would have been nice to find the Luterbacher et al. 1999 index in the
>analyses of the mentioned Cullen et al. paper (e.g. in the Tables 1 to 3).
In fact, the Cullen et al paper was originally written and submitted well
before the paper you cite (GRL has an extremely fast turnaround time
relative to Paleoceanography), and it wouldn't have been appropriate for
Heidi Cullen to redo all the analyses using this additional index, at the
time the paper was already in review/in press.
>
>The loss of skill (1840-1873) found in table 3 of the mentioned Cullen et
>al. paper implies again that proxy-based index reconstructions have to be
>verified rigorously in the pre-1850 period. The Luterbacher et al. 1999
>index might give some help for the validation of proxy-based
>reconstruction attempts. This index will be open to the public after the
>EGS2000 conference. (
>
>Since I'm not a specialist in tree-ring proxy-data you could probably
>better explain the following questions that I (honestly) can not explain:
>
>Why are the different proxy-indices not significantly correlated back in
>time (if one considers a serious significance testing procedure) on the
>interannual and decadal time-scale?
Hmmm. I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion from the results we show.
Several proxy indices are in fact quite significantly correlated (the
Appenzeller index is the only one that doesn't show close correlation with
the others).
>How is it possible (from a biological and physical point of view) to
>relate the mid- and high latitude tree-ring density and width to the
>main winter circulation pattern in Europe?
>
I'm sure Ed and Keith can point you to the relevant wealth of literature on
this.
>
>
>Sincerely yours, Christoph Schmutz
>
>
>> From: "Michael E. Mann"
>> To: Ed Cook
,
>>     Juerg Luterbacher
>> Cc: cullen@ldeo.columbia.edu, druidrd@ldeo.columbia.edu, p.jones@uea.ac.uk,
>>     k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
>> Subject: Re: Your recent GRL paper
>>
>> Thanks for your comments Ed,
>>
>> I agree with them, and think this needs to be looked into further. I would
>> encourage those who haven't yet, to take a look at the Cullen et al
>> manuscript which covers the same territory and comes to somewhat different
>> conclusions. The manuscript is now in-press in Paleoceanography, and is
>> available in
>> preprint form here (both as postscript and pdf file):
>>
>>
>>
>> Would be interested in peoples thoughts.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> mike
>> At 04:34 PM 4/18/00 -0400, Ed Cook wrote:
>> >Dear Juerg,
>> >
>> >I have just completed reading your most recent GRL paper (Schmutz et al.,
>> >2000) on NAO reconstructions in which you show that proxy-based NAO
>> >reconstructions are probably wanting. It is not possible to strongly defend
>> >my reconstruction at this time (indeed I was extremely cautious in my
>> >description of it with regards to over-fitting problems, etc.). However, I
>> >do think that there are some issues that have not been fully explored,
>> >which could help explain some of the non-stationarity in the relationships
>> >found between your index and mine (at least) based on proxy data alone.
>> >First, my NAO reconstruction is based on 6 North American and 4 European
>> >tree-ring chronologies. Because the putuative NAO information in these
>> >records spans the North Atlantic and nicely brackets the NAO centers of
>> >action as we know them now, they potentially contain past information that
>> >is missing from a purely European-based estimate of NAO. This could occur
>> >if the NAO did not affect climate on both sides of the North Atlantic in
>> >the same roughly symmetric way back in time as it does now. If this were
>> >the case (and we have no way of knowing that now as far as I know), then it
>> >is conceivable that your L index is excessively biased towards Europe, as
>> >would be the extended Jones SLP index. If so, any comparisons between your
>> >L index and my proxy index with the Jones index would be hopelessly biased
>> >in your favor. This is not to say that my reconstruction is as good as
>> >yours, but it might not be as bad as your results indicate either.
>> >
>> >Indeed, I did make some effort to "verify" my reconstruction against early
>> >instrumental records, with somewhat contradictory and potentially
>> >interesting results. Over the 1841-1873 period, my record correlates
>> >significantly with Stykkisholmer SLP (-0.456) and Oslo temperatures
>> >(0.323), but not Bermuda SLP (0.156) and Central England temperatures
>> >(0.211). The "appearance" of significant verification with only the more
>> >northerly instrumental records may be telling us something about
>> >differences in circulation and SSTs over the North Atlantic from what is
>> >now the case. This could affect the way in which the NAO affects climate
>> >jointly over North America and Europe. Of course, when I added some earlier
>> >observations (same stations) to the verification tests (Table 4 of my
>> >paper), the results weakened considerably. So, maybe this means that my NAO
>> >reconstruction is indeed poor. However, I must admit to having doubts about
>> >the quality of the early instrumental records despite the great efforts
>> >made to homogenize and correct them. This is especially the case with
>> >regards to low-frequency variability, but can also extend to individual
>> >values as well. I talked with Phil Jones about one suspect datum in the
>> >early portion of his extended NAO record that largely destroys any
>> >correlation with proxy-based NAO estimates (the sign of the instrumental
>> >index appears to be wrong to me). Yet, Phil is convinced that that datum is
>> >good and he may very well be right. Either way, more robust methods of
>> >association between series may be jusitified to guard anomalous values.
>> >
>> >Last year I asked you to please send my your reconstruction of the NAO (L).
>> >I never received it and ask you again to please send it.
>> >
>> >Regards,
>> >
>> >Ed
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>                      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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>    Christoph Schmutz
>    Climatology and Meteorology          Tel:  (+41) (0)31 631 88 68
>    Institute of Geography               Fax:  (+41) (0)31 631 85 11
>    University of Bern
>    Hallerstrasse 12
>    CH-3012 Bern                      E-Mail:  schmutz@giub.unibe.ch
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
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


>Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 10:04:21 +0100
>To: shepherd
>From: Mike Hulme
>Subject: ESSO
>
>John,
>
>I can make a London lunch on either 19 or 20, but with a strong preference for 20th.  Trevor could also make both days if necessary.  By then we will have got further with the Tyndall contract so it would useful to talk with Esso (do you have a copy of the Exxonmobil booklet referred to?).
>
>Let me know how this proceeds,
>
>Mike
>
>


Trevor
I gather you're going to collect the free lunch(?) with Esso ! I agree
witrh Mike's analysis : i.e. there's room for some constructive dialogue...
See you on the 1014 from Ipswich (0940 from Norwich), for a kick-off at 12
noon ??
John
At 14:07 19/05/00 +0100, Mike Hulme wrote:
>John,
>
>It will be Trevor on the 19th for ESSO - too tricky for my schedule.  I
>will pass the Esso booklet onto Trevor.
>
>Esso have selectively quoted to (over)-emphasise the uncertainties re.
>climate change, but at least they have moved beyond denial and recognise
>that potential unknown long-term risks may require tangible short-term
>actions.  Seems to be some room for negotiation over what research needs
>doing.  I would think Tyndall should have an open mind about this and try
>to find the slants that would appeal to Esso.  Uncertainty and risk
>analysis and C sequestration may be the sort of things that appeal.
>
>See you Wednesday,
>
>Mike
>
>At 16:23 10/05/00 +0100, you wrote:
>>Mike
>>	Despite my efforts Esso have gone firm on 19th (to fit the schedule of
>>their man from the USA). Can you decide between you who should come (I
>>suggest one is enough)  : it'll be lunchtime somewhere in London. I shall
>>be travelling from Ipswich (it's my week for the Aldeburgh Festival) so we
>>could possibly meet on the train there ??
>>
>>	Copies of the Esso booklet arrived yesterday and are now on their way to
>>you... I read it last night and wrote "misleading" and "wrong" in the
>>margins in quite a few places !
>>
>>	John
>>
>>At 10:04 05/05/00 +0100, you wrote:
>>>John,
>>>
>>>I can make a London lunch on either 19 or 20, but with a strong preference
>>>for 20th.  Trevor could also make both days if necessary.  By then we will
>>>have got further with the Tyndall contract so it would useful to talk with
>>>Esso (do you have a copy of the Exxonmobil booklet referred to?).
>>>
>>>Let me know how this proceeds,
>>>
>>>Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>