Hi Prof. Zhang: thanks for your email and good to hear about your book. I will send the
reference file to the LAs for them to incorporate as appropriate. You will also be editing
the ZOD when it's complete, or of specific sections before then if you ask the appropriate
leader of a section of interest (see previous listserv email with this list in case you
don't remember from Italy).
Regarding  6.5.9, I will cc this to Dan and Ramesh so you can coordinate with them
directly. This is the process we have adopted for all subsections so we don't waste time
with the CLA's having to relay messages. Go direct...
I will also CC to Jean-Claude and Keith, so they make sure they have checked your input.
Many thanks, Peck
Å@Dear  Peck:
...
As regards Section 6.5.9 I shall do my utmost to help Den and Ramesh. But the
assistance is to come only after I have read through their draft . Only in that way can
I form an ideal "it must be relevant to policy makers" .  I have been accustomed to
write about scientific facts. Now I am confronted with a new problem how to serve the
purpose of another style. Otherwise my suggestions would be of no use.
I had sent paragraphs to Jean-Claunde for Section 6.2.2 and to Keith Briffa for
section 6.3.2.1. last Nav..
With best wishes,
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795


Eystein
in theory - it is supposed to be finished. I would just remove the two sections I suggested
(or certainly move the regional simulation stuff into Ricardo's section. How does end note
cope with references that are not published?
Keith
At 13:26 12/01/2005, you wrote:
Hi  Keith,
I am in transit back to Bergen where there is a strong storm at present, but just a
query to  ask what you think a a realistic time fframe for your part. I will be reding
through it  on the way. If you have problems getting the references in, this is
something we can help with, if you just write i text author name, year and paper, then
we download from the ISI base and enter into End Note here, just to help you
prioritising the text and figures.
Thanks for all your efforts. This is a critical part of the Chapter and the most complex
and it seems to progress well, despite the strains.
Cheers,
Eystein
Basically , I need to send this to you to because there comes a point when I am just not
able to read it objectively.
I would really  like you both - and David and Stefan (I am ccing to them only) to look
at it . Obviously it has grown too much, but the information in here is in my opinion
all important.
I suggest removing the regional simulations stuff from the end (as David said earlier!)
but feel this should be somewhere - also (sorry Eystein) perhaps the ocean  section
should go? I have dropped the proposed Figure 2 _ after wasting a lot of time on it -
there are too many problems with getting and understanding data - and then making any
sensible conclusion on the basis of it. We really must have the two Figures left though
- or some variants (these need borehole curves including and some way of indicating
envelope of uncertainty around all reconstructions - perhaps as gray shading of
different darkness depending on how may confidence limits overlap).
I would really appreciate a dispassionate look by all of you at the conclusions drawn
after the the desciption of both Figures - in the light of the discussion we had about
interpreting these Figures. I am really happy if you and David and Stefan (and
Fortunat?) consider what is worth and not worth trying to say re the implications of
these Figures, beyond the TAR. I can not tell if what I am saying is balanced (I know
Esper reconstruction is very hairy and ECHO-G run has much too great long-term
variability - but no evidence PUBLISHED to support this - yet at least). Is what I say
about the implications of the reconstructions banal?
I have been battling with teaching today and fucked up course scheduling by the
administration that has outraged some students. Tomorrow I must take daughter back for
new term in Cambridge - and now must work on proposal for Russian who leaves Thursday
and needs to submit before then.
Do have a look and trim , cross reference as needed. The nightmare with these references
continues also and I will have to get someone to help out here - incidentally our
secretary has gone absent for a month . I will be back in hopefully by tomorrow
afternoon . The conclusions (bullets?) should be very brief - but can not see them yet -
suggestions welcome
I can try to do something for the methods but would rather you just told me exactly what
is needed. I will then work on this Thursday and likely happy to accept what you say re
this text. I know I have not contributed to the discussing on other sections - very
frustrating - but must wait til after ZOD . Sorry
Keith
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[1]
Attachment converted: Sauvignon blanc:IPCCFAR11-01-05 .doc (WDBN/MSWD) (00459793)
--
______________________________________________________________
Eystein Jansen
Professor/Director
Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen
Allégaten 55
N-5007 Bergen
NORWAY
e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no
Phone:  +47-55-583491  -  Home: +47-55-910661
Fax:    +47-55-584330
-----------------------
The Bjerknes Training site offers 3-12 months fellowships to PhD students
More info at: [2]www.bjerknes.uib.no/mcts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[3]
References
1.
2.
3.


Hi all on the list above... Some of you have received this already straight from David, but
some other key people have not. Eystein and I would appreciate it very much if you would
please read/comment/and edit the attached section 6.5.8 (Sensitivity) NO LATER THAN
THURSDAY NOON, Eastern time (6PM GMT).
Please send responses to all on the address list ABOVE, plus Peck.
Thanks, Peck
X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
X-Sender: drind@4dmail.giss.nasa.gov
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:29:53 -0500
To: joos
From: David Rind
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: 6.5.8 Sensitivity
Cc: David Rind
,
Jonathan Overpeck
,
Dominique Raynaud
,
Eystein Jansen
,
trond.dokken@bjerknes.uib.no, peltier@atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca,
Jean-Claude Duplessy
,
rahmstorf@pik-potsdam.de, cddhr@giss.nasa.gov
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at email.arizona.edu
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.272 required=7 tests=BAYES_00, HTML_20_30,
HTML_MESSAGE, MIME_SUSPECT_NAME
X-Spam-Level:
Dear Fortunat (and others),
Here is the revised section 6.5.8. I've put in most of your changes (and also most of
those suggested by Stefan, particularly with regards to clarifying the sign of the
radiative forcing). Most importantly, I've removed the table - I agree it seems to imply
a solidity that is really not there. The one thing I have not done is condense it
greatly (of course!). The real reason for going into such detail, rather than just
saying, "well, the forcing and response are uncertain, so we can't conclude anything",
is I think it's important to show that paleoclimate scientists have gone to some effort
to try to deduce climate sensitivity from the paleorecord, the parameter that is
probably of most interest to IPCC. In that respect the details are important, as are the
magnitudes of uncertainty represented in the different studies. Obviously, at any point
in the proceedings the section can be shortened, but I thought it useful to start with
this level of quantification, and show paleoclimate has this similarity with the rest of
IPCC in addition to more qualitative concepts.
I've responded to your individual comments below.
At 6:15 PM +0100 1/11/05, joos wrote:
Dear David,
Here my comments on the updated climate sensitivity section.  Please
apologize if I formualate my comments straight away, but I need to leave
very soon. Many of my comments might have to do with presentation.
Your main conclusions in paragraph f are fine.
My view is that it would be ideal to address the issue from a
probabilistic view point. this is of course not always possible.
1) Maunder Minimum section:
Several studies using Monte Carlo approaches show that almost any
climate sensitivity is posssible when taking into account uncertainties
in radiative forcing input data as well as observational records over
the 20 century as constraints. See the Paris report for more
information.
The uncertainty does not only arise from indirect aerosol effect, but
also form the whole range of forcing agents that all have an uncertainty
attached. E.g. Reto Knutti did some evaluation of his results where he
assumed that the aerosol forcing is exactly know (No error) -> even then
climate sensititivity remains unconstraint. Clearly, uncertainty is
growing when going further back in time than the last century as done
here. Then, the numbers provided in the table are useless, as you now
state in the last sentence of the revised text.
2) Other sections:
I think similar concerns also hold for the other sections. For example,
the LGM global cooling is very uncertain. I have just heard yesterday a
talk by Ralph Schneider who showed how different SST reconstructions
(Alkenone, Cd/Ca, MAT, radiolare etc) disagree. global SST cooling might
be anywhere between 0 and 4 K or so. Of course, CLIMAP and the recent
GLAMAP update provide a reasonable estimate. However, the point is that
uncertainies are huge.
The table is a very focused and stand alone thing for the reader. It
gives the impression that climate sensitivity for different period can
be well evaluated. However, this is not the case.
3) My conclusion:
- The table should be dropped. I have quite a strong feeling here, as it
seems to me that the number in the table are very hard to defend and
should not be made prominent.
The table and reference to it has been dropped.
- The whole section should be condensed considerably. Your main
conclusions in paragraph f are fine.
Well, removing the table will shorten this section!
Further comments:
1) section d) 1. para: solar forcing reduction estimate range up to
0.65% for MM e.g. Reid, 97 and Bard et al.
Correction made, and reference added (and I also corrected the numbers as Stefan
suggested, although the upper number is actually larger given the Reid estimate).
2) section d, last para equilibrium
The statement that transient effects are not important is very hard to
defend:
2a) The warming and forcing up to today is considered. Certainly, we are
now far from equilibrium ( a lag of 30 years or so).
2b) the volcanic forcing is very pulse like and I do not see how the
equilibrium concept holds here. It can only be evaluated in a transient
way.
3c) The MM is probably not in equilibrium climate, as solar forcing has
likely varied over the MM as indicated by radiocarbon, althoug sunspots
were not present
I've removed the word "transient" but I have justified the equilibrium aspect of the
sentence with a reference (we investigated that issue by running from 1500 through the
Maunder Minimum, and seeing what the prior changes in solar forcing did to the Maunder
Minimum cooling - the effect, as noted in the reference, was small in our model).
3) section b) end of 1. para: How should such a 'general climate
sensitivity' be defined?
For now I've simply suggested what should also be factored in; I don't know that it's
our place to come up with a new definition per se, although if IPCC is interested, we
could try!
4), section c) Somewhat a mix of model and observations. end of 2 para:
It is not clear which forcing was operating in these different models
(at least it is not stated in the text) and hence one can not directly
imply a climate sensitivity in the way done here. For this the forcing
that went into the model simulations must be known.
I looked at each of the references and saw what forcing they actually used - they were
all very similar except for one which used current orbital parameters (not really
important). This comment is now included.
Hope this is useful and looking foreward to further debate the issue.
Thanks for the comments!
David
ps - Jonathan, the attached Endnote library includes the references we discussed
yesterday, as well as all the ones relevant for this section.
--
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\newest_6.5_2.8.doc" Attachment Converted:
"c:\eudora\attach\IPPC_2007_1_Rind_Copy"


Hi all: Keith and Tim asked for specific requests in terms of what
you could do for section 6.2.2. I'm hoping Valerie and Fortunat have
already made enough progress that they can ask, but here's my take:
1. you have lots of methodology material in your 6.3.2.1, and this is
good. It would be good to refer to this from the earlier, more
general 6.2.2
2. the goal of 6.2.2 is to give the reader more confidence in paleo
and to get them to read on with confidence that what they read will
be of use
3. I suspect that the format V and F will be working around will be
one that can first highlight chronological issues (that we can date
some proxies very well, and that's what we focus on in this chapter
primarily). It would be good to have the usual comforting comments
about tree rings and other annual proxies.
4. The, it would be good to have the basics on how proxies reflect
climate, and how we know we understand the relationship. That it is
useful even if the proxy is responding to things other than climate.
Seasonality, etc. Include brief overview of calibration,
verification. you know the drill.
5. keep it short and not too detailed. Use lots of references -
including to the most recent stuff.
6. I'm sure we'll end up modifying/improving later after we figure
out what to do with the appendix
7. Need to work fast, very fast, but hopefully V and F have made real
progress already.
Thanks!! Peck
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795


Keith, Tim (and friends- please read below and provide your comments
THURS too) - just finished reading your draft and my primary reaction
is one of great relief and admiration. You've done an excellent job.
I'm sure things will look different in the end, but for the ZOD, this
lays things out just fine.
That said, here are comments. More are in the attached draft w/ track changes
1. still need to see the figs - ok to state what still has to be done
(as you have)
2. regarding the ocean section, I think some of it should stay in -
both as a placeholder for other relevant stuff, and because it is
important. See attached. It would be good if EYSTEIN would look at my
comments for this section and provide the needed minor help - we need
the punchline/bullet - how does the 20th century compare with the
previous part of the record (you say it shows the warming, but then
don't go the next step.
3. THIS IS THE ONLY COMMENT THAT WILL TAKE MORE THAN A FEW MINUTES -
can we get THE word on the MWP in before hydro? Heck, I'd even
support a small (smaller than the other ones) box. There is lots of
debate about the MWP,. and we need to weigh in. Was it global,
hemispheric, regional only (e.g., Europe and N. Atlantic - can then
refer back to it in ocean section)? Was it one synchronous warm event
or a bunch of shorter regionally asynchronous events? Warmer than
20th? Late 20th? (think you answered this, but need to nail it!).
Cite the cast of papers you've already discussed, plus Bradley et al
Science 03.
4. what you say is balanced, and it's ok to note in the text where
you anticipate serious improvement w/ more published paper support -
e.g., Esper (you're doing a paper on this, no?) and ECHO-G.
5. have to have boreholes on Figs too - that would be more important
now than uncertainty estimates around all recons - the latter is
harder, but in any case, say what you intend to add after ZOD.
6. see text - minor edits
7. I can make draft bullets from what you sent
Guys - it was worth the wait. Hope you can take advantage of the
relatively minor edits required and help some with other sections as
asked for.
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795


Hi Keith -
1) ok on the refs - send tomorrow
2) glad you're keen for the box - it can't be too long - maybe shot
for ca. 400 words? After the ZOD is done, I'm sure we can tune to the
correct balance of info. A fig is ok if it's compelling. The box will
either be 6.1 or 6.2 depending on whether you refer to it in your
section before or after the glacier box. I'm guessing it'll be 6.1
and come first, but it's your call. Think of a title for the box -
something like "Box 6.1: The Medieval Warm Period" or maybe something
more catchy. Can't be too glib.
3) glad you have some borehole in there. Of course, you'll be at the
front of the line for dealing with the grief we get no matter what
choice we make. So the key is to go with what can be best justified.
Your section has this nice balance already.
Thanks for getting Tim (and you as time permits) to work on those
other sections - VERY important too. But, your section is the most
important.
thx, Peck
>...are really welcome. Am now incorporating them , plus doing some
>editorial bits - though will wait on Eystein to send replacement
>ocean bit . Having to get one of my people to do the references but
>not likely these will arrive til tomorrow. The main point to discuss
>is your comment on the MWP . I like the idea of a box. This IS
>sufficiently important to warrant it - in the context that most
>people say "it was warm/warmer than now then so disproves anthro
>effect - we should address this explicitly. I will have a go - but
>need to know how many words and Figure(s) allowed. We can simply
>just refer to this box in a couple of places in existing text. Sorry
>about Figures - now got some (2 ) borehole lines in (but may need
>more - reluctant to use Huang and Pollack original though because
>obviously much too cold on basis of simple regional averaging
>biases. Will send latest version (without box on MWP) tonight my
>time.
>Keith
>
>--
>Professor Keith Briffa,
>Climatic Research Unit
>University of East Anglia
>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>
>Phone: +44-1603-593909
>Fax: +44-1603-507784
>
>
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795


Here are my responses to Stefan's comments. While I could have made each of these points in
the document itself, it is already sufficiently long that Jonathan had me cut it before
most of you guys saw it.
At 8:53 PM +0100 1/13/05, Stefan Rahmstorf wrote:
Hi folks,
on the topic of climate sensitivity. I just lost a long mail on it due to a software
crash, so sorry if I'm brief now.
I think it makes no sense for the purpose of the IPCC to discuss a climate sensitivity
to orbital forcing - if such a thing can be defined at all. The first-order idea of
orbital forcing is that in annual global mean it is almost zero - and in any case the
large effect orbital forcing has on climate has very little to do with its global mean
value. Hence, we'll confuse people by discussing it in this way, and even citing numbers
for it. For the purpose of IPCC, I think climate sensitvity should refer to climate
sensitivity wrt. greenhouse gases.
The point here is that climate can be forced by other factors than simply a global, annual
average radiation change, which is the metric now being used. The orbital forcing induced
changes are wonderful examples of this, hence the paleoclimate chapter is a perfect place
to discuss it. Variations in seasonal and latitudinal forcing clearly have had a major
impact on climate, including forcing of ice ages, yet the annual average radiative change
is small. The importance of this with respect to IPCC is that other climate forcings can
also affect the seasonal and latitudinal distribution of radiation - aerosols, land surface
changes, and even solar radiation (considering cloud cover distributions) - hence they too
may have a disproportionate influence compared to their annual global average magnitude.
What is said in this subsection is simply that this one metric clearly fails with respect
to the major variations in paleoclimate, and as a general rule, there should be room for an
expanded concept (which may then have utility for current and future climate forcing as
well).
Also, it is questionable to discuss climate sensitivity for uncoupled models, especially
for glacial times - Ganopolski et al. (Nature 1998) have shown that glacial climate
looks very different with mixed layer ocean vs. coupled.  I think for a 2007 IPCC report
we shouldn't be discussing old uncoupled runs when coupled model results are available.
(And it is a little odd that the above paper, the first coupled model simulation of
glacial climate, cited over 150 times so far, is ignored here in the discussion of the
last glacial maximum - if you do a search on the Google Scholar engine for the key words
"Last Glacial Maximum", you'll find it's the second-most cited paper on this topic after
the Petit et al. Vostok data paper.)
In fact, most if not all of climate sensitivity measurements have been done for what Stefan
calls "uncoupled models", atmospheric models coupled to mixed layer ocean models. The
results from all prior IPCC reports give sensitivities from precisely these types of models
- for the basic reason that almost no one has ever run a coupled model for 2CO2 to
equilibrium. The other disadvantage of coupled models in this regard is that their control
run, if simulated long enough, often does not reproduce the current climate in important
respects - one is then getting a climate sensitivity with respect to something far removed
from the current climate, so what good is it? The fact that models coupled to a dynamic
ocean and those coupled to mixed layer oceans may get different responses - and one can see
from the numbers that the responses are actually fairly similar in general - can be related
to the ocean dynamics changes; as the text notes, that is considered a feedback in this
subsection, and therefore an appropriate part of the climate sensitivity calculation.
I still think it makes no sense to say that climate sensitivity depends on the sign of
the forcing. Talking about greenhouse gases: whether you will do an experiment going
from 280 ppm to 300 ppm, or the other way round from 300 ppm to 280 ppm, should give you
the same climate sensitivity. Perhaps you  mean that going from 280 to 300 will give a
different result compared to going from 280 to 260, but then you're really comparing
different mean climates. I think this "directionality" of climate sensitivity is not a
good concept.
It's not the forcing per se that's the issue here, it's the feedbacks that potentially can
alter the climate sensitivity to the sign of the forcing.
It has been suggested in the past that climate sensitivity is larger to cooling
perturbations then to warming ones, and we ourselves have found that result in some earlier
model runs. The standard reason given is that with a cooling climate perturbation, sea ice
can expand further equatorward, to cover a broader area, and intersect more solar radiation
- therefore providing a more positive feedback to the cooling. In a warming climate, the
sea ice retreats and intersects less radiation - but the sunlight-weighted area is smaller
in the regions it is retreating to, so its positive feedback to the warming is not as
large.
However - water vapor works the opposite way. Given the exponential dependence of water
vapor on temperature, in a warming climate the added temperature would allow for a greater
water vapor change (increase) than would occur with a cooling climate of the same
magnitude. Hence the water vapor feedback should be greater in a warming climate.
So the answer is - nobody knows. Jim Hansen did a survey of people at GISS recently to see
what the general opinion was for a paper he's working on (and sending around). Since
paleoclimates have suffered both positive and negative forcings (in the examples given in
this section), and since we don't know the answer to this question, we can't really say
whether the sign of the forcing is important or not. So I've left it as an open question,
with the possibility that it might matter.
Relating forcing to response, the sensitivity from the models is then on the order of
0.6°C/ Wm-2 (or higher, depending on the model used); the sensitivity from the
observations, if taken at face value, would be considerably less.
I still don't understand how you get this conclusion. This would mean: if you take
models with those estimated forcings and run them, they should show a big mismatch with
the proxy data. As far as I can tell from the diagram by Mike Mann attached, combining
models and data, only the Von Storch simulation (not shown on this one) does show such a
mismatch. (And that uses 1.5 times the Lean solar forcing.)
If you look at the various model simulations done for this time period, the only way the
models can reproduce the "observed" cooling relative to the present is by using only a
subset of the forcings. When you use all the forcings, you get a much higher number. You
can do the math yourself: with a "best-guess" radiative forcing change of 2.4Wm**-2, models
with a sensitivity of 0.6C/Wm**-2 will get a temperature change of some 1.5C, which over
the course of 300 years shows up in GCMs. For example: Cubasch et al (1997), using just
solar forcing in the ECHAM 3 model came up with cooling of 0.5C; if you add a reasonable
response to the approximately 1.5-2 W/m**2 forcing from trace gases plus aerosols, you get
an additional 1C cooling (given the sensitivity stated above). Counteracting that could be
land surface changes - but counteracting that are undoubtedly the reduced pre-industrial
tropospheric ozone, plus any additional volcanic cooling (a la Crowley). So assuming those
sort of cancel, we have a 1.5C cooling for the MM time period from solar plus
anthropogenic, similar to what we get in the GISS model (as noted in our 2004 paper). That
can be compared with the Mann et al reconstruction - and you can see from your figure that
for the 1700 time period relative to the 1990s, the cooling is about 0.5C. Similarly,
Fischer-Bruns et al. (2002) with the ECHAM 4 model, using solar forcing of -0.1% for the
MM, and volcanic forcing greater than today (like Crowley) got a cooling of 1.2C. The
Zorita et al study also got a large magnitude cooling when using all the forcings. BTW,
neither ECHAM 3 nor ECHAM 4 has a large climate sensitivity - it is of the order of
0.6C/Wm-2, as referred to in the comment above. Note that none of these models are shown in
your accompanying figure, and all are GCM studies.
How did the Crowley and Bauer studies that are shown in the figure (using EB or EMIC
models) get the smaller cooling magnitudes indicated there? Only by using a subset of the
forcings - Crowley basically threw out the solar changes (and had  a lower sensitivity
model), Bauer et al. used a large aerosol effect and still needed a large deforestation
warming to bring her results in line with the Mann et al. reconstruction (in fact, it was
done specifically for that reason). None of these runs used the tropospheric ozone
reduction that we have evidence did occur. My impression is that these studies took the
observations as given and were asking the question of what forcings would be needed to
reproduce them. That is an interesting question, but it obviously does not validate the
observations.
The specific comment you refer to above relates to the discussion in the previous
paragraphs, which detail the radiative forcings and all the different model responses. It
is a fair representation of the current status, however unsettling that is. But in the
current incarnation of this subsection, we do not use it to imply a low climate sensitivity
- we simply say that given the uncertainties in forcing and response, we cannot use this
time period to better understand climate sensitivity. And I think that's accurate.
David
--
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


Guys
here is the latest draft of 6.3.2.1 (only waiting on slight edits on ocean bit from Eystein
and ENDNOTE reffs to be sorted. Have agreed with Peck and Eystein to do a Medieval Warm Box
tomorrow and insert a sentence or two on lack of info for SH .Figures of course need work -
particularly sorting out how to represent uncertainty around all reconstructions in Fig 1
and represent totality ion Fig 2d. Also some forcing data still missing - may have to wait
til after ZOD (will also need to put in other borehole curve(s) but data not to hand).
Having virus troubles with by email (and our system randomly blocking some files) - sorry
so don't know whether David has seen this at all (re his comments on Figures - which are
now embedded as GIFs and attached separately as 2 files in case go wrong again.
As I type just got Stefan's message and comments and Goose paper- will look at tonight and
incorporate tomorrow.
David - I know it is received wisdom that volcanos only force climate for 1 to 2 years -
but in our SOAP transient models this is not the case where several large eruptions occur
(co- incidentally often in sunspot minima periods - see the actual magnitude of radiative
forcing in Figure 2 (and these effects are directly transmitted as continually propagating
coolings in ocean in HADCM3 and ECHO-G for up to decades i believe. Anyway - I am happy
with your conclusions and agree that these are not "negative". I would rather just pick a
cool period and not label it as MM (or late MM ) as this is a solar
definition as such should be defined according to solar proxy data (and hence choice of
shorter period seems unsupported). If you just say a date range without the label , I think
it avoids the issue.
Sorry for garbled writing but rushing - I like your bit (in case this did not come across)
thanks all for now
Keith
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[1]
References
1.


Dear Keith,
you've done a great job on the touchy subject of the last millennium,
which is central to our whole chapter.
My comments to that are threefold:
(1) If you could shorten the text somewhat, it could become more powerful
(2) Some small edits & comments are in the attached doc
(3) I propose some improvements to the figures as follows.
- Fig 1a the land temps seem to go off plot, temperature scale needs to
be extended
- we need a break between panels a and the rest, since it's a different
time scale on the x axis
- Fig 1c also has one curve going off the top
- Panels 1b-d might run the time axis up to 2010 or so, else the
important rise at the end is hidden in the tick-marks and less obvious
than it should be
- the legends need to say what the baseline period (zero line of y-axis)
is (hard to find this in the axis label)
- this baseline should be the same for all curves, i.e. 1961-1990. Fig
2d says 1901-1960 - it's not ideal to have a different one, as compared
to Fig 1. Also, is it true? Surely the Storch curve is not shown
relative to this baseline, it's way above it. Aligning it like this
could lead to the dangerous misunderstanding that Storch suggests a much
warmer medieval time compared to everyone else, which of course is not
the case.
I hope this helps.
Cheers, Stefan
--
Stefan Rahmstorf
www.ozean-klima.de
www.realclimate.org
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Briffa_ed_sr .doc"
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\goosse_et_al_2005.pdf"


Hi friends,
good idea for a box. Just want to make sure you're aware of the attached
paper by Goosse et al., which may be helpful in illustrating what we all
know, but what here is shown in a citeable way: local climate variations
are dominated by internal variability (redistribution of heat), only
very large scale averages can be expected to reflect the global forcings
(GHG, solar) over the past millennium.
Stefan
--
Stefan Rahmstorf
www.ozean-klima.de
www.realclimate.org
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\goosse_et_al_20051.pdf"


Hi folks,
on the topic of climate sensitivity. I just lost a long mail on it due to a software crash,
so sorry if I'm brief now.
I think it makes no sense for the purpose of the IPCC to discuss a climate sensitivity to
orbital forcing - if such a thing can be defined at all. The first-order idea of orbital
forcing is that in annual global mean it is almost zero - and in any case the large effect
orbital forcing has on climate has very little to do with its global mean value. Hence,
we'll confuse people by discussing it in this way, and even citing numbers for it. For the
purpose of IPCC, I think climate sensitvity should refer to climate sensitivity wrt.
greenhouse gases.
Also, it is questionable to discuss climate sensitivity for uncoupled models, especially
for glacial times - Ganopolski et al. (Nature 1998) have shown that glacial climate looks
very different with mixed layer ocean vs. coupled.  I think for a 2007 IPCC report we
shouldn't be discussing old uncoupled runs when coupled model results are available. (And
it is a little odd that the above paper, the first coupled model simulation of glacial
climate, cited over 150 times so far, is ignored here in the discussion of the last glacial
maximum - if you do a search on the Google Scholar engine for the key words "Last Glacial
Maximum", you'll find it's the second-most cited paper on this topic after the Petit et al.
Vostok data paper.)
I still think it makes no sense to say that climate sensitivity depends on the sign of the
forcing. Talking about greenhouse gases: whether you will do an experiment going from 280
ppm to 300 ppm, or the other way round from 300 ppm to 280 ppm, should give you the same
climate sensitivity. Perhaps you  mean that going from 280 to 300 will give a different
result compared to going from 280 to 260, but then you're really comparing different mean
climates. I think this "directionality" of climate sensitivity is not a good concept.
Relating forcing to response, the sensitivity from the models is then on the order of
0.6°C/ Wm^-2 (or higher, depending on the model used); the sensitivity from the
observations, if taken at face value, would be considerably less.
I still don't understand how you get this conclusion. This would mean: if you take models
with those estimated forcings and run them, they should show a big mismatch with the proxy
data. As far as I can tell from the diagram by Mike Mann attached, combining models and
data, only the Von Storch simulation (not shown on this one) does show such a mismatch.
(And that uses 1.5 times the Lean solar forcing.)
Stefan
--
Stefan Rahmstorf
[1]www.ozean-klima.de
[2]www.realclimate.org
Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my
documents\eudora\attach\millennium.jpg"
References
1.
2.


Hi Keith and Tim - since you're off the 6.2.2 hook until Eystein
hangs you back up on it, you have more time to focus on that new Box.
In reading Valerie's Holocene section, I get the sense that I'm not
the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of
supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature. The sceptics
and uninformed love to cite these periods as natural analogs for
current warming too - pure rubbish.
So, pls DO try hard to follow up on my advice provided in previous
email. No need to go into details on any but the MWP, but good to
mention the others in the same dismissive effort. "Holocene Thermal
Maximum" is another one that should only be used with care, and with
the explicit knowledge that it was a time-transgressive event totally
unlike the recent global warming.
Thanks for doing this on - if you have a cool figure idea, include it.
Best, peck
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795


Hi David,
thanks for the detailed response. I'll try to be brief.
On the orbital forcing you write:
The point here is that climate can be forced by other factors than simply a global,
annual average radiation change, which is the metric now being used.
I think we all agree on this point. My concern is only about how to present it in the
section. I think that giving a climate sensitivity wrt. global mean orbital forcing is
confusing to the uninitiated, e.g. your statement in the section:
This high climate sensitivity (2°C/ Wm^-2) is occurring in an atmospheric model
(ECHAM-1) whose sensitivity to doubled CO[2] is about 0.6°C/Wm^-2.
I really think we should not give a number like 2°C/ Wm^-2 as "climate sensitivity" to
global-mean orbital forcing and contrast it to that to doubled CO2. It gives out the
message to people that climate sensitivity is all over the place and ill defined. That's
not the case. Climate sensitivity is a well-defined concept for a globally uniform forcing
like CO2 forcing, but nobody expects any clear relation between the global mean part of
orbital forcing and the climate response.
On uncoupled models:
I agree that for 2xCO2 runs, you will get very similar climate sensitivity with uncoupled
and coupled models, because there is no large change in ocean heat transport between
equilibrium 1x and 2x CO2 states (as confirmed by doing this in coupled models). The mixed
layer boundary condition used in the uncoupled models simply assumes a fixed, prescribed
ocean heat transport, which turns out to be a valid approximation in this case.
My concern was and is specific to the discussion for LGM climate, where this is not a valid
approximation, as we know both from proxy data and from model results that ocean
circulation and heat transport was very likely quite different in the LGM compared to
today. In our Nature 98 LGM simulation, we get 50% difference in the response of the
Northern Hemisphere mean temperature, between the uncoupled "mixed layer" experiment and
the one that includes the ocean model. 50% is a first-order difference, and hence I think
that all the evidence we have today, points to the "constant heat transport" approximation
breaking down when applied to the LGM. The IPCC report should not draw conclusions about
climate sensitivity from LGM experiments that have made this approximation, as I think
those would be hard to defend. I must say I'm starting to get a little concerned about the
chapter discussing 1980s papers for no other apparent reason then them being authored by
Rind, while leaving out important more recent, widely recognised advances in the field.
I attach the Schneider et al. paper I announced earlier, submitted to Science today and
arguable the most comprehense study on deriving climate sensitivity from LGM data
constraints that has been done so far.
On the directionality of the cimate sensitivity:
of course I understand the reasons, the ice feedback and water vapor feedback etc., I've
written about those myself in the past - again this is only a difference in how best to
present the same, undisputed facts. You make the argument that when going to a colder
climate, sensitivity is different from when going to a warmer climate. That is undisputed.
But that in my view has nothing to do with the "direction" of the experiment, but with the
fact that sensitivity in a colder climate is different from sensitivity in a warmer
climate. I explained with the ppm example because I thought that's simple. A
"directionality" would be, if going from 280 to 300 ppm would give a different equilibrium
response compared to going from 300 to 280. But that's not what you're talking about. Your
talking about going from 280 to 260 (say), as compared to going from 280 to 300. That of
course gives different results, because the difference 280-260 applies to a colder climate
than the difference 300-280 (no matter in which "direction" you derive this).
Stefan
--
Stefan Rahmstorf
[1]www.ozean-klima.de
[2]www.realclimate.org
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\schneider_jan05.pdf"
References
1.
2.


Here are my responses to the comments concerning 6.5.8d. With respect to Stefan's main
concern: I too am sensitive to the possible mis-use of words that appear in a cavalier
manner in the text. I think the way to avoid that is to be as precise as possible about
what is being said. I also feel that hand-waving should be minimized - just because there
are uncertainties, does not mean IPCC will throw up its hands. Thus the attempt to quantify
these numbers are precisely as they will be done in other IPCC chapters. Again, the
responses are in red, and the text alterations (or in this case, some entire text) are in
blue.
I'm not working on this topic myself so I'm by no means an expert. But I am still quite
concerned with the wording in 6.5.8 on the last millennium.
First, to avoid misunderstandings, I would like to suggest again to describe forcings
and climate changes going forward in time, rather than going backwards in time. Even
colleagues here that I discuss it with misunderstand the present version with backwards
reasoning - it leads to phrases like "deforestation warming" (used by David in his last
mail), although deforestation caused cooling - backwards in time you can see this as a
warming, but should you call it "afforestation warming" if you look back in time? I
suggest to use the physical, forwards, time arrow in the discussion.
In all the other sections of 6.5.8 we discuss the temperature change and the radiative
forcing relative to the present - when it was colder than the present, the temperatures
were indicated to be colder, and the radiative forcing more negative. To alter that for
this section alone would cause added confusion. I have therefore in each case tried to make
it perfectly clear what is being said. In particular, I agree that in the case of
deforestation the terminology does become confusing so the text has been changed to be more
communicative; it now reads,
Warming of 0.35°C due to the existence of  vegetation and forests that have since been cut
down was found by (Bauer et al., 2003) ...
The section states:
If one takes mid-range estimates of solar and anthropogenic forcings, and assumes that
volcanic, tropospheric ozone and land albedo changes cancel out, the resulting radiative
forcing change is ~-2.4 Wm-2.
I don't think we should give a "mid-range" of the forcing like this; the assumption that
ozone, land albedo and volcanic changes cancel is hard to justify in any case. For the
forcing we need to give a range in my opinion, not one number. If we give a range, it
will become clear that the forcing is too uncertain for drawing conclusions on climate
sensitivity from this time period.
The problem with giving a maximum range for this time period is the same as giving one for
the 20th century - the inclusion of the potential indirect effects of aerosols means you
can wipe out all climate forcing entirely. It becomes a 'reductio aud absurdum'. The issue
in particular for the Late Maunder Minimum time period, and the specific reason for
including it, is that it potentially says something about SOLAR forcing.
In writing this section, we are not simply doing a core dump of everything people have
done, we are supposed to use our brains to assess the likely situation. Having already
provided the range of uncertainty,we can give a 'best estimate' for the various forcings
that we can use in a meaningful way if we are careful - and which show the importance of
the uncertainty in the solar forcing. I do agree that what existed in the text especially
for the third paragraph needed improvement. Therefore, after several talks with people
here, I've altered (especially) the first and third paragraphs accordingly. Rather than
just stating the conclusion that climate sensitivity can't be well defined, the paragraphs
now show quantitatively that is the case. The specificity, I believe, gives people a real
feeling for the uncertainties, and in the way it is done here, especially the uncertainty
in the solar forcing and actual climate response. (This rewrite obviates the need for a
direct response to several of Stefan's other comments.)
(d)Last 1000 years
We concentrate here on the Late Maunder Minimum time period in which sunspots were
generally missing (approximately 1675-1715), but outside of the estimated solar irradiance
change, the discussion is applicable for the pre-industrial climate in general. The primary
forcings relative to today are (1) a decrease in various greenhouse gases, with a forcing
of approximately -2.4±0.25 Wm-2 (not including tropospheric ozone changes); (2) reduced
tropospheric sulfate aerosols, whose direct effect is estimated by IPCC (2001) as +0.4±0.3
Wm-2 with an indirect effect ranging from +0.5 to +2 Wm-2  (3) a solar forcing reduction
estimated as ranging from -0.12 to -1.56 Wm-2 (0.05% to 0.65%) ((Hoyt and Schatten,
1993);(Lean, 2000);(Foukal and Milano, 2001); (Reid, 1997)); and (4) volcanic aerosol
forcing either similar to today ((Robertson, 2001)), lower than today ((Robock and Free,
1996)), or higher ((Crowley, 2000)). Large uncertainties therefore exist for all of the
forcings except the trace gas values (again excluding tropospheric ozone). The cooling
effects are offset to small degree by land albedo changes, estimated to contribute +0.4
Wm-2  ((Hansen et al., 1998)). Reduced tropospheric ozone has been estimated to cause an
additional forcing of -0.3 to -0.8Wm-2 (Mickley et al., 2001), while increased
stratospheric ozone produced a positive forcing of -0.09 to -0.25 Wm-2 (IPCC, 2001). If one
takes the most widely used  or mid-range estimates of solar (-0.5 Wm-2 from (Lean, 2000))
and anthropogenic forcings (-2.4Wm-2  from reduced trace gases, other than tropospheric
ozone; +0.5 Wm-2  from reduced sulfate aerosols), land albedo changes (0.4 Wm-2), decreased
tropospheric ozone (-0.35 Wm-2 (IPCC, 2001)) and increased stratospheric ozone (+0.15 Wm-2
(IPCC, 2001)), the net radiative forcing for this time is estimated as -2.2 Wm-2. [For this
exercise we ignore the effects of volcanoes, the indirect effects of sulfate aerosols, and
the effects of carbon and organic aerosols.]. Including these additional components (except
for volcanic aerosols for which even the sign of the change is not well know), Hansen
(personal communication) calculates a value close to -2 Wm-2.
How cold was this time period? Different reconstructions (Fig. X1) provide different
estimates of cooling, ranging from -0.45°C ((Mann et al., 1999), annual value for the
Northern Hemisphere), to about -0.7°C ((Esper et al., 2002)for 20-90°N in the growing
season, and (Briffa and Osborne, 2002)(from borehole temperature records). Model studies
(Fig. X2) for this time period have generally employed significant solar reductions (-0.2%
to -0.4%), which by themselves have resulted in cooling of about -0.5°C ((Cubasch et al.,
1997);(Bauer et al., 2003);(Rind et al., 2004)). Utilizing a forcing of -1.5 to -2 Wm-2
from the combined influence of preindustrial trace gases and aerosols results in additional
cooling of about -1 to -1.5°C ((Fischer-Bruns et al., 2002);(Rind et al., 2004);(Zorita et
al., 2004)). If volcanic aerosols were actually more extensive during this time period,
then additional cooling would arise from this factor as well (on the order of -0.4°C found
by (Hegerl et al., 2003)using the (Crowley, 2000)reconstruction). Warming of 0.35°C due to
the existence of vegetation and forests that have since been cut down was found by (Bauer
et al., 2003), on the same order but of opposite sign to the tropospheric ozone forcing
(Mickley et al., 2004). Adding these effects from model simulations together produces a
total cooling on the order of  -1 to -1.5°C or greater, significantly larger than any of
the paleo-estimates. For the ~50 year time period associated with the Maunder Minimum,
without large forcing trends, the model results are essentially in radiative balance, and
while the influence of past solar variations could still be in acting, in at least one
study they were shown to be unimportant (Rind et al., 2004).
The climate sensitivity from the GCMs used for these studies in on the order of 0.6°C/ Wm-2
(or higher, depending on the model used). To calculate the sensitivity from the
observations, we first use the estimated forcing of -2.2 Wm-2 and recognize that ~0.85 Wm-2
of this is unresolved (Hansen, personal communication) due to the rapid trace gas changes
of the last few decades.  Therefore, only 1.35 Wm-2 of the radiative forcing should have
been expressed in the system. Were this to have resulted in a temperature change of about
-0.5°C (as in the Mann et al reconstruction), it would imply a climate sensitivity of 0.37
Wm-2, i.e. at the low end of the IPCC range for doubled CO2 response. Using the higher
estimated cooling of -0.7°C results in a climate sensitivity of 0.52 Wm-2. Alternatively,
if the uncertain solar forcing change was at the estimated minimal value (-0.12 Wm-2), then
the radiative forcing change would be reduced accordingly, and climate sensitivity for the
two reconstructions increases to 0.5 Wm-2 and 0.7 Wm-2 (near 3°C for doubled CO2)
respectively, for the different temperature reconstructions. This exercise can be carried
on ad infinitum; considering the actual uncertainty in many of the forcings, and in the
actual temperature response of the climate system, we conclude that we cannot properly
constrain climate sensitivity for this time period (and to some extent the results are
similar for other preindustrial time periods compared to the present).
As an aside: if one uses the minimal estimate of solar forcing in the example presented,
one gets a range of temperature response to 2xCO2 of 2-3°C, not too much different from
that concluded in the paper Stefan just sent around (which was 2.5 to 3C).
Then you state the Mann et al. data are 0.5 ºC below the 1990s in the Maunder Minimum. I
can see they are 0.4 ºC below the reference level (I believe this is 1961-1990). The
mean of the 1990s is 0.3 ºC above this level (I calculated this from the Jones data) -
so I find that the Mann data are in fact 0.7 ºC below the 1990s in the MM. The
difference between model expectation for 2.4 W/m2 and the actual found in the Mann data
is almost gone then. Add to that the possibility that the Mann data may somewhat
understimate the variability, and I do not see any significant discrepancy between
models and data, which we should mention and which we could defend as real - even for
"best guess" sensitivity and forcing, let alone considering the uncertainty in those.
The easiest way to see this is to note that the Mann et al reconstruction has the late
1600s slightly warmer than the late 1800s. It is widely acknowledged that the late 1800s
were 0.6C colder than today (taking into account the heat island effect) (and the radiative
forcings, a la IPCC 2001, are all with respect to the 1990s.) That puts the late 1600s at
less than 0.6C colder, close to the value indicated in the text.
David
--
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


Hi all - attached is Keith's MWP box w/ my edits. It reads just great
- much like a big hammer. Nice job.
Please insert after Eystein has had his say. thx, Peck
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\MWP-KRBjto.doc"


Michael E. Mann wrote:
> Hi Malcolm,
>
> This assumes that the editor/s in question would act in good faith.
> I'm not convinced of this.
>
> I don't believe a response in GRL is warranted in any case. The MM
> claims in question are debunked in other papers that are in press and
> in review elsewhere. I'm not sure that GRL can be seen as an honest
> broker in these debates anymore, and it is probably best to do an end
> run around GRL now where possible. They have published far too many
> deeply flawed contrarian papers in the past year or so. There is no
> possible excuse for them publishing all 3 Douglass papers and the Soon
> et al paper. These were all pure crap.
>
> There appears to be a more fundamental problem w/ GRL now,
> unfortunately...
>
> Mike
>
> At 08:47 PM 1/20/2005, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu wrote:
>
>> Mike - I found this sentence in the reply from the GRL
>> Editor-in-Chief to be
>> interesting:
>> "As this manuscript was not written as a Comment, but rather as
>>  a full-up scientific manuscript, you would not in general be asked to
>>  look it over."
>> Does it not then follow that if you were to challenge their "work" in
>> a "full-
>> up scientific manuscript", but not as a "Comment" it, too, should be
>> reviewed
>> without reference to MM?
>> Maybe the editor-in-chief should be asked if this is the case, or simply
>> challenged by a submission?
>> Cheers, Malcolm
>> Quoting "Michael E. Mann"
:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks Tom,
>> >
>> >
>> > Yeah, basically this is just a heads up to people that something
>> might be
>> > up here. What a shame that would be. It's one thing to lose "Climate
>> > Research". We can't afford to lose GRL.  I think it would be
>> > useful if people begin to record their experiences w/ both Saiers and
>> > potentially Mackwell (I don't know him--he would seem to be
>> complicit w/
>> > what is going on here).
>> >
>> >
>> > If there is a clear body of evidence that something is amiss, it
>> could be
>> > taken through the proper channels. I don't that the entire AGU
>> hierarchy
>> > has yet been compromised!
>> >
>> >
>> > The GRL article simply parrots the rejected Nature comment--little
>> > substantial difference that I can see at all.
>> >
>> >
>> > Will keep you all posted of any relevant developments,
>> >
>> >
>> > mike
>> >
>> >
>> > At 04:30 PM 1/20/2005, Tom Wigley wrote:
>> >
>> > Mike,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > This is truly awful. GRL has gone downhill rapidly in recent years.
>> > I
>> >
>> > think the decline began before Saiers. I have had some unhelpful
>> >
>> > dealings with him recently with regard to a paper Sarah and I have
>> >
>> > on glaciers -- it was well received by the referees, and so is in
>> > the
>> >
>> > publication pipeline. However, I got the impression that Saiers was
>> >
>> > trying to keep it from being published.
>> >
>> >
>> > Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that
>> > Saiers
>> >
>> > is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find
>> > documentary
>> >
>> > evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get
>> >
>> > him ousted. Even this would be difficult.
>> >
>> >
>> > How different is the GRL paper from the Nature paper? Did the
>> >
>> > authors counter any of the criticisms? My experience with Douglass
>> >
>> > is that the identical (bar format changes) paper to one previously
>> >
>> > rejected was submitted to GRL.
>> >
>> >
>> > Tom.
>> >
>> > ===============
>> >
>> >
>> > Michael E. Mann wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear All,
>> >
>> >
>> > Just a heads up.  Apparently, the contrarians now have an
>> > "in" with GRL. This guy Saiers has a prior connection w/ the
>> > University of Virginia Dept. of Environmental Sciences that causes me
>> > some unease.
>> >
>> >
>> > I think we now know how the various Douglass et al papers w/
>> Michaels and
>> > Singer, the Soon et al paper, and now this one have gotten published in
>> > GRL,
>> >
>> >
>> > Mike
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Subject: Your concerns with
>> > 2004GL021750 McIntyre
>> >
>> > Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:42:12 -0600
>> >
>> > X-MS-Has-Attach:
>> >
>> > X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
>> >
>> > Thread-Topic: Your concerns with 2004GL021750 McIntyre
>> >
>> > Thread-Index: AcT/MITTfwM54m4OS32mJvW4BluE+A==
>> >
>> > From: "Mackwell, Stephen"
>> >
>> >
>> > To:
>> >
>> >
>> > Cc:
,
>> >
>> >
>> > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jan 2005 20:42:12.0740 (UTC)
>> > FILETIME=[84F55440:01C4FF30]
>> >
>> > X-UVA-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at fork7.mail.virginia.edu
>> >
>> > X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by
>> multiproxy.evsc.Virginia.EDU
>> > id j0KKgLO11138
>> >
>> >
>> > Dear Prof. Mann
>> >
>> > In your recent email to Chris Reason, you laid out your concerns that I
>> > presume were the reason for your phone call to me last week. I have
>> > reviewed the manuscript by McIntyre, as well as the reviews. The editor
>> > in this case was Prof. James Saiers. He did note initially that the
>> > manuscript did challenge published work, and so felt the need for an
>> > extensive and thorough review. For that reason, he requested
>> reviews from
>> > 3 knowledgable scientists. All three reviews recommended
>> > publication.
>> >
>> > While I do agree that this manuscript does challenge (somewhat
>> > aggresively) some of your past work, I do not feel that it takes a
>> > particularly harsh tone. On the other hand, I can understand your
>> > reaction. As this manuscript was not written as a Comment, but
>> rather as
>> > a full-up scientific manuscript, you would not in general be asked to
>> > look it over. And I am satisfied by the credentials of the reviewers.
>> > Thus, I do not feel that we have sufficient reason to interfere in the
>> > timely publication of this work.
>> >
>> > However, you are perfectly in your rights to write a Comment, in which
>> > you challenge the authors' arguments and assertions. Should you
>> elect to
>> > do this, your Comment would be provided to them and they would be
>> offered
>> > the chance to write a Reply. Both Comment and Reply would then be
>> > reviewed and published together (if they survived the review process).
>> > Comments are limited to the equivalent of 2 journal pages.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> > Steve Mackwell
>> >
>> > Editor in Chief, GRL
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ______________________________________________________________
>> >
>> >
>> > Professor Michael E. Mann
>> >
>> >            Department
>> > of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
>> >
>> >
>> > University of Virginia
>> >
>> >
>> > Charlottesville, VA 22903
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________________________________
>> >
>> > e-mail:
>> > mann@virginia.edu
>> > Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ______________________________________________________________
>> >
>> >
>> > Professor Michael E. Mann
>> >
>> >            Department
>> > of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
>> >
>> >
>> > University of Virginia
>> >
>> >
>> > Charlottesville, VA 22903
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________________________________
>> >
>> > e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770
>> > FAX: (434) 982-2137
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
> ______________________________________________________________
>                     Professor Michael E. Mann
>            Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
>                       University of Virginia
>                      Charlottesville, VA 22903
> _______________________________________________________________________
> e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
>
>
Hi Mike - of course we shouldn't make that assumption. If the issues are
being dealt with elsewhere in the peer-reviewed literature soon (in time
for IPCC to be aware of them) then there would be no reason for a
riposte in GRL. Even so, it might be worth putting the hypothetical case
to the Editor-in-Chief  to test his response. Cheers, Malcolm


Tom,
I'll look at what you've said over the weekend re CCSP.
I don't know the other panel members. I've not heard any
more about it since agreeing a week ago.
As for FOIA Sarah isn't technically employed by UEA and she
will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University.
I wouldn't worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get
used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well.
Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people,
so I will be hiding behind them.  I'll be passing any
requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to
deal with them.
Cheers
Phil
At 14:35 21/01/2005, Tom Wigley wrote:
Phil,
Thanks for the quick reply.
The leaflet appeared so general, but it was prepared by UEA so
they may have simplified things. From their wording, computer code
would be covered by the FOIA. My concern was if Sarah is/was still
employed by UEA. I guess she could claim that she had only written
one tenth of the code and release every tenth line.
Sorry I won't see you, but I will not come up to Norwich until
Monday.
Let me fill you in a bit (confidentially). You probably know the panel
members. We were concerned that the chair would be a strong person.
It is Jerry Mahlman -- about the best possible choice. Richard Smith
is the statistician -- also excellent. Dave Randall, too -- very good.
As token skeptic there is Dick Lindzen -- but at least he is a smart
guy and he does listen. He may raise his paper with Gianitsis that
purports to show low climate sensitivity from volcanoes. I will
attach our paper that proves otherwise, in press in JGR.
Preparing the report has been a good and bad experience. I think
I had the worst task with the Exec. Summ. -- it tied up most of
my time for the past 3 months. The good has been the positive
interactions between most of the people -- a really excellent bunch.
I have been very impressed by Carl Mears and John Lanzante.
At meetings, John Christy has been quite good -- and there were
good and positive interactions between John and Roy and the RSS
gang that helped clarify a lot. Outside the meeting, in the email world,
he has been more of a pain. He has made a lot of useful suggestions
for the ExSumm -- but he keeps accusing the AOGCMers of
faking their models (not quite as bluntly as this). In the emails there
are some very useful exchanges from Jerry Meehl, Ramaswamy and
Ben detailing the AOGCM development process. We will be
writing a BAMS article on this in the summer -- much of what happens
in model development is unknown to the rest of the community. The
'faking' idea prompted me to write a tongue in cheek note -- also
attached. As far as I know, John will not raise this particular issue
in his dissentin views.
To accommodate dissenting views, the report will have a "dissenters'
appendix", with responses. You will get this at some stage -- the
deadline for dissenters to produce is Jan 31, and we will not finish
our rebuttals until mid Feb. The dissenters are John C, and (far worse)
Roger Pielke Sr. All of the rest of us disagree with these persons'
dissenting views. Roger has been extremely difficult -- but the details
are too complex to put in an email. On the other hand he has made
a number of useful contributions to  the ExSumm and other chapters.
Suffice to say that he has some strange ideas (often to do with the
effects of landuse change) that are interesting but still, in my view,
speculative -- but testable.
We have yet to see the dissents -- and it would not be ethical for
me to say any more than I have already.
Best wishes,
Tom.
Phil Jones wrote:
Tom,
I hope the VTT panel doesn't prove a meeting too many
at this time. It is currently scheduled for Feb 23-25 and
I only get back from an 8 day workshop in Pune on
Feb 20.
The IPCC Chapter with Kevin is now with WGI in
Boulder. We did put you down as one of our
potential reviewers. Don't know whether you'll
have time or whether WGI will select you -
regional balance etc.
Next week I'll be in Reading and Exeter, so
won'be be in CRU. Have to be at an RMS Awards
meeting then something on Reanalysis, then I
have to collect some data from the archives
in Exeter for a small project we have. It is
easier for me to get this than explain to
someone how to do it.  So I'll miss you -
not back till Thursday night.
On the FOI Act there is a little leaflet we
have all been sent. It doesn't really clarify
what we might have to do re programs or
data. Like all things in Britain we will only
find out when the first person or organization
asks. I wouldn't tell anybody about the FOI
Act in Britain. I don't think UEA really knows
what's involved.
As you're no longer an employee I would
use this argument if anything comes along.
I think it is supposed to mainly apply to
issues of personal information - references for
jobs etc.
Sorry I'll miss you next week.  If you're in
on Sunday perhaps you could come round to
our new house in Wicklewood. Phone number
is still the same as 01953 605643.  Keith and
Sarah know where it is even if they did get lost the
first time they came.
Cheers
Phil
At 02:59 21/01/2005, you wrote:
Phil,
Tom Karl told me you will be on the VTT review panel. This is
very good news.
Unfortunately I will not be at the meeting on the 23rd -- I will
be in midair half way across the Pacific to spend a couple of
weeks in Adelaide.
I got a brochure on the FOI Act from UEA. Does this mean
that, if someone asks for a computer program we have to give
it out?? Can you check this for me (and Sarah).
I will be at CRU next Mon, Tue, Wed in case Sarah did not
tell you.
Thanks,
Tom.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Keith,
It is purely a matter of resources, and since Simon will be doing the
millenial stuff with the Hadley model within IMPRINT, and I think that
probably my resources will be best focussed in some of the other work
packages. But it is possible and I will try to do it if the opportunity
arises.
Cheers
Paul
--On 21 January 2005 17:12 +0000 Keith Briffa
wrote:
> Great Paul
> but I still do not see , if we do get funded, why you can not do some
> runs (in keeping with the wider hemisphere isotope records) that fit with
> your wishes within IMPRINT.
>
>   At 15:16 21/01/2005, PJ Valdes, Geographical Sciences wrote:
>> Keith and Eystein,
>>
>> Thanks for your comments. Without modelling MILLENNIUM is a very much
>> weaker project. I admit that I am attracted to doing something with them
>> because I have wanted to get more involved in the last 1000 years, and
>> it  would be a good opportunity to run our new isotope enabled version
>> of the  Hadley model.
>>
>> However, IMPRINT is a much stronger project overall and and I also
>> prefer  the broader range of timescales offered by IMPRINT (although
>> whether we  have ended up being too broad is another issue). Given this
>> and the other  things discussed, I will decline the offer from Danny
>> Carroll
>>
>> Best Wishes
>> Paul
>>
>> --On 20 January 2005 22:24 +0100 Eystein Jansen
>>
wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Keith and Paul,
>>>
>>> I think Millennium might be  a problem, but if the project does not
>>> employ a hierarchy of models and have a comprehensive modelling
>>> component it is hard to see how it  fits the work program of the call.
>>> We disussed this kind of situation in one of our first meetings and
>>> agreed that we on an institutional basis should not be involved in
>>> competing projects, and I think we need to re-emphasise this agreement
>>> in our London meeting. I also gave Valerie the same opinion as some of
>>> the people in her lab had been asked to join the McCarroll proposal
>>> This said, it is clear that we have work to do with Imprint, we need to
>>> scrutinize budgets and the size of the partnership, look at how we best
>>> focus the science and give enough funds to the critical aspects. I do
>>> hope that the Imprint partners remain loyal to the project and that we
>>> keep it as intended: the best paleoscientists in Europe joined
>>> together. Best regards,
>>> Eystein
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 13:31 +0000 20-01-05, Keith Briffa wrote:
>>>> Paul
>>>> there is no doubt that Danny's project presents
>>>> something of a problem for us. As far as I
>>>> understand ,yes, it and IMPRINT are the only two
>>>> contenders. I know (confidentially) that they
>>>> have been criticised for not having any
>>>> modelling . Danny approached Hans von Storch
>>>> (and presumably others) , but Hans decided not
>>>> to go with them . At the outset of our
>>>> deliberations regarding IMPRINT , we did discuss
>>>> the possibility that we would impose an
>>>> exclusivity clause on participants - asking them
>>>> to agree not to subscribe to any other project
>>>> (I think Rick Battarbee had been involved in
>>>> another project that did this) . Hence at least
>>>> several of us , in the early (HOLCLIM) stage
>>>> agreed to this - but it was never reinstituted
>>>> after the project expanded to its present size.
>>>> Personally , I worry that we are too large and
>>>> possibly could be seen as not focused enough -
>>>> but this is then hard to square with the recent
>>>> referees' comments suggesting our geographic
>>>> scope was too narrow! On paper , I believe the
>>>> whole formulation and partnership of IMPRINT is
>>>> superior to MILLENNIUM , but that did not stop
>>>> me being interested when Danny asked me, some
>>>> time ago , if I would also them. Like you , I do
>>>> not wish to cut off possible fingers in possible
>>>> pies - but I felt that I could not be formally
>>>> included in both .
>>>> The problem is that one has no idea which way
>>>> the anonymous referees will view the judging
>>>> criteria. Surely , in terms of scientific scope
>>>> , our project is superior (though how well it
>>>> ever works and how well we integrate in practise
>>>> is any ones bet ).
>>>> The bottom line as I see it is that as only one
>>>> project can be funded , MILLENNIUM should still
>>>> be seen as competition - with you as part of it
>>>> , it would be much stronger competition.
>>>> As for the funding - I know things are
>>>> ill-defined at best at present. I do not think
>>>> anything should be seen as rigid - though we
>>>> certainly have too large a group .
>>>>
>>>> Don't know if this helps
>>>> Keith
>>>>
>>>> At 12:47 20/01/2005, you wrote:
>>>>> Keith,
>>>>>
>>>>> I've just tried to phone you but you were not in your office.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been contacted by Danny Carroll and
>>>>> invited to join his EU project MILLENNIUM. I
>>>>> gather that this project has also passed the
>>>>> first hurdle and, according to Danny, there are
>>>>> only two such projects so I assume that
>>>>> MILLENNIUM is directly competing against
>>>>> IMPRINT.
>>>>>
>>>>> The modelling he wants me to do is different to
>>>>> anything I will be doing for IMPRINT so there
>>>>> is no scientific reason why I shouldn't say yes
>>>>> to him, and of course it would also allow me to
>>>>> keep a foot in both camps! However there are
>>>>> clear political/strategic issues to consider
>>>>> and I rate IMPRINT higher on my agenda, even
>>>>> though (judging from the IMPRINT indictative
>>>>> money which was very low for Bristol despite
>>>>> having Colin, Sandy and myself involved) it
>>>>> seems likely that the IMPRINT resources will be
>>>>> very limited.
>>>>>
>>>>> Before I respond to him, I wanted to know if
>>>>> you (or anyone else at UEA) are involved in
>>>>> MILLENNIUM. From what I can see, it is very
>>>>> close to your interests. If you are not, was
>>>>> this because you wanted to focus entirely on
>>>>> IMPRINT.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't misinterpret this email. As I said, I do
>>>>> see IMPRINT higher than MILLENNIUM. However, I
>>>>> would just like more info before deciding how
>>>>> best to respond to Danny.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Prof. Paul Valdes                Tel: +44 (0) 117 3317 222
>>>>> School of Geographical Sciences  Fax: +44 (0) 117 928 7878
>>>>> University of Bristol            Email: P.J.Valdes@bristol.ac.uk
>>>>> University Road                  Http: www.bridge.bris.ac.uk
>>>>> Bristol BS8 1SS
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Professor Keith Briffa,
>>>> Climatic Research Unit
>>>> University of East Anglia
>>>> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>>>
>>>> Phone: +44-1603-593909
>>>> Fax: +44-1603-507784
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> Eystein Jansen
>>> Professor/Director
>>> Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
>>> Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen
>>> Allégaten 55
>>> N-5007 Bergen
>>> NORWAY
>>> e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no  Phone:       +47-55-583491  -  Home:
>>> +47-55-910661 Fax:      +47-55-584330
>>> -----------------------
>>> The Bjerknes Training site offers 3-12 months fellowships to PhD
>>> students More info at: www.bjerknes.uib.no/mcts
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -- ---
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> Prof. Paul Valdes                Tel: +44 (0) 117 3317 222
>> School of Geographical Sciences  Fax: +44 (0) 117 928 7878
>> University of Bristol            Email: P.J.Valdes@bristol.ac.uk
>> University Road                  Http: www.bridge.bris.ac.uk
>> Bristol BS8 1SS
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> Professor Keith Briffa,
> Climatic Research Unit
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>
> Phone: +44-1603-593909
> Fax: +44-1603-507784
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Paul Valdes                Tel: +44 (0) 117 3317 222
School of Geographical Sciences  Fax: +44 (0) 117 928 7878
University of Bristol            Email: P.J.Valdes@bristol.ac.uk
University Road                  Http: www.bridge.bris.ac.uk
Bristol BS8 1SS
---------------------------------------------------------------


"
> > >X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: D.McCarroll@swansea.ac.uk
> > >X-Miltered: at dsm-mail with ID 41F8D4D2.001 by
> > >Joe's j-chkmail (
> > >X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on
> > dsm-mail.cea.fr
> > >X-Spam-Level: **
> > >X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.8 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_44,HTML_60_70,
> > >       HTML_MESSAGE,NIGERIAN_SUBJECT1 autolearn=no version=2.64
> > >
> > >27th January
> > >
> > >Dear Millennium partners
> > >
> > >I have been informed by one of our partners that
> > >the other IP proposal (IMPRINT) has decided that
> institutions should
> > >not be in both applications (IMPRINT and MILLENNIUM) and that they
> > >want Millennium partners to choose either one or the
> > >other.  I am advised that they may issue a
> > >dictate to this effect very soon.
> > >
> > >It is my view that they have absolutely no right
> > >to do this. The Millennium application is
> > >confidential, and they have no right to ask
> > >anyone if they are part of the proposal or not.
> > >They certainly have no right to dictate that an
> > >institution can only be part of one proposal.
> > >
> > >I suggest that if any of you are contacted by
> > >IMPRINT and asked about Millennium you either
> > >ignore the message or politely tell them that EU
> > >proposals are confidential. They should not be
> > >allowed to bully anyone in this way or to
> > >undermine our project.
> > >
> > >Personally I think that there is absolutely no
> > >problem with institutions or even individuals
> > >being in both projects. The aim of an Integrated
> > >Project is to bring together the best
> > >scientists, so it is not a surprise that the
> > >best scientists appear in more than one
> > >application. If they are forced to choose then
> > >it inevitably means that some of the best groups
> > >will not get funded. That is not in the
> > >interests of the EU or of science.
> > >
> > >I will contact the leaders of IMPRINT today and
> > >try to encourage them to re-think this strategy.
> > > It is not necessary to make the community
> > >divide in this way. If they go ahead I will
> > >immediately contact the Commission and make a
> > >formal complaint.
> > >
> > >Apart from this small problem everything is
> > >going very well and we are on target to produce
> > >a very strong proposal which is realistically
> > >funded. I think that is why we are having this
> > >problem with IMPRINT!
> > >
> > >
> > >If you want to speak to me you can ring me here or at home
> > >
> > >
> > >+44 1792 295845
> > >Home: +44 1792 207556
> > >
> > >With very best wishes
> > >
> > >Danny
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > -- ______________________________________________________________
> > Eystein Jansen
> > Professor/Director
> > Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
> > Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen
> > AllÃ©gaten 55
> > N-5007 Bergen
> > NORWAY
> > e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no
> > Phone:  +47-55-583491  -  Home: +47-55-910661
> > Fax:    +47-55-584330
> > -----------------------
> > The Bjerknes Training site offers 3-12 months fellowships to PhD
> > students More info at: www.bjerknes.uib.no/mcts
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ----
>
>
>


Dear Dirk
good news re your not dropping out . We are happy to have you and if you can do what you
can in the time available this would be good. Valerie and I will send a general message
Monday am  to all WP1 folk to say what is needed now,  but we thought it best to to get
back to you straight away re specific points raised in Steve's message.
First, I hope you will be responsible with Dan (and help from Sandy Tudhope) for
co-ordinating Task 1.4 of WP1 following the concept as we saw it in the preliminary
proposal. Of course you would focus on North African (and north and south of this area)
work - on the collection, comparison, integration, interpretation of the high and lower
resolution records that relate to hydrology. I see Dan as taking the strain regarding the
more Northern areas - with obvious attention to wetlands and Sandy helping with dynamic
links (and ENSO?). Of course there are other records and there will be a need to restrict
"new" collection/laboratory analyses to very specific , justified (and accepted by SC)
situations , but the high resolution core(s) you told me of would be relevant. I suggest
you think in terms of a person to work on this AND data compilation - perhaps a (cheap)
postdoc for 3 years , and money for internal WP1 meetings - say 250KEuro ?
FOR NOW - we need you to liaise with Dan and Sandy to produce what you can for the Task
1.4(see attached old version of proposal to start from) . We will need a "state of the Art"
Scientific objectives and approach details . Your whole Task 1.4 section can only be 1 page
A4 single spaced max.
AFTER LONG DISCUSSION IN LONDON- it was decided that this task would NOW NOT INCLUDE the
paleoflood work - and Eystein will be communicating with Bennitto to (regretfully ) to
inform him that we have had to remove his contribution (please do not contact him until
Eystein has done this). We will not put a specific focus on floods (though of course some
work can be done using existing European flood data), because of Rudolf Brazdil , and we
hope , he will accept to be part of WP1 but put some of his requested funds into WP6 .
Hence you 3 can concentrate more on the concept of large scale hydologic variability
,monsoon changes , north south linkages etc. The problem with ENSO persists. I know you
Sandy want to focus entirely on this, but we could compromise perhaps and you do part this
and part Europe?  It was decided that we will (somewhere) include data/model comparison
with US droughts , but this does not require effort on out part other than minor data
compilation of existing records  [Eystein, we therefore need to ensure Cook is one of the
associated americans]. We will put together an appendix of preliminary records to be used
in each task - just to show impressive new potential integration (but not a priority for
now).
You do not need to sign any forms officially at this stage - just get approval presumably
from your department internally . If we ever get there, forms will be handled at contract
negotiation.
So get in touch with each other (resend ideas , do not assume your previous emails went to
each other), get exchanging ideas and draft what you can .
ON monday , the specific letter to all people will come round , with requested timeline ,
task, deliverables re budget and precise format of Science writing that we need to assemble
the proposal. Then Valerie and I will have to look at the whole thing in the context of our
total 3.7 M budget.
IT WILL ALL SEEM WORTH IT IN 2006
All the very best Keith and Valerie
Keith's home number is 441953 851013
mobile 0776 9732 685
At 12:37 28/01/2005, Stephen Juggins wrote:
Hi Keith, copy to Eystein, Oyvind
Just had a long chat with Dirk.  It's OK, he's not in Millenium!
The reason he was pulling out is over committment this year.  Anyway, I
managed to persuade him to change his mind - the project won't start
until Jan 2006 at the very earliest, so any input won't be needed until
next year.  He was also unsure what to ask for - I suggested he should
cost in a post-doc for 3 years and 2 meetings per year, plus some "data
workshops". Keith - can you give him some guidance on costing these so
they are in line with what others are asking for.  I told him that you
would look at the overall budges for WP1 and adjust if necessary to meet
the target.
His only short term problem is revising any text for the proposal - he
leaves for Kenya next Thursday.  I realised that Eystein has only sent
the documents to the ssc people so Keith, can you forward these to Dirk
and let him know exactly what you need from him for the text and
budgets.
Finally, Dirk was worried that he wouldn't be able to get any paperwork
& signatures from his Uni but as I understood from the meeting yesterday
this was not needed.  Is this right?  If there are any forms to fill in
we had better get these to him asap.
Cheers, Steve
Steve Juggins
School of Geography, Politics & Sociology
University of Newcastle        Tel: +44 (0)191 222 8799
Newcastle upon Tyne            Fax: +44 (0)191 222 5421
NE1 7RU, UK                    Mobile:  +44 07740054905
[1]
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[2]
References
1.
2.


Hi, just for clarification as we continue on the
St.2 proposal (you´ll get the mailing tomrrow
with documents, scheduling etc. as planned).
The merger of ICON into Imprint was discussed
several times in the preparatory phase of Imprint
(before name was decided) in meetings we had in
London early last year. However a number of the
present WP leaders did not take part in these
early deliberations, hence this is the reason for
the  lack of a collective memory of the
background.
Reasons for including it:
1. Good science,on a topic of high relevance
(abrupt climate change) focussed and with
emphasis on aspects dealing with preedictability
of such changes rather than mapping out their
distribution and impact (as has been done before).
3. Important to avoid competing proposals within
urope to avoid the paleo-community being
marginalised.
Cheers,
Eystein
At 09:18 +0000 31-01-05, Tett, Simon wrote:
>Hi Rainer,
>	Until our recent meeting in London I was
>not aware of the history and do not recall any
>discussion about blending ICON into the project.
>I expect that is a decision Eystein made.
>However, I am very glad that the work is part of
>the IP. I think it will allow much better
>science to be done.
>
>Simon
>
>Dr Simon Tett  Managing Scientist, Data development and applications.
>Met Office       Hadley Centre (Reading Unit)
>Meteorology Building,  University of Reading Reading RG6 6BB
>Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5614  Fax +44 (0)118 378 5615
>Mobex: +44-(0)1392 886886
>E-mail: simon.tett@metoffice.gov.uk
>Global climate data sets are available from
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: rainer.zahn@icrea.es
>Sent: 31 January 2005 08:45
>To: imprint-ssc@bjerknes.uib.no;
>eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no;
>oyvind.paasche@geo.uib.no; Erick.Larson@fa.uib.no
>Cc: mschulz@palmod.uni-bremen.de; stocker@climate.unibe.ch
>Subject:
>
>
>Simon,
>
>I couldn't agree more on the issue of having the science focussed in
>Imprint. I am surprised though that the background behind having WP3 and
>Task 4.6 in Imprint does not appear to be common knowledge within Imprint.
>Thought the merger has been discussed and agreed upon by the consortium.
>
>We will move forward with our WP and see that we get the Holocene part in
>WP3/4.6 strengthened so as to make fit with the timescales of the rest of
>the planned work.
>
>As a note on the side, you may have noted in the comments of the independent
>assessor that Eystein contracted in for advice that he mentions WP3
>specifically for its clarity and relevance. While I tend to agree I am also
>aware that he probably is not the specialist to assess the issue of
>relevance and significance. Yet, in the WP3 description we are asking a set
>of clear-cut questions, which to me doesn't seem the case for other WPs that
>leave an unforturnate impression of confusion.  Beyond the needed scientific
>focus mentioned on several occasions in London and your email, clarity is an
>issue that does not seem to be equally distributed throughout the proposal.
>So as much as I do sympathise with the discussion about the sense or
>non-sense of have WP3 in Imprint, I am convinced to my heart that we need to
>improve profoundly on the quality of our WP descriptions if Imprint is to
>stand a chance of being considered for funding.
>
>Cheers,   Rainer
>
>   Rainer Zahn, Professor de Recerca
>   Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats, ICREA
>i Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
>   Institut de Ciencia i Tecnologia Ambientals
>   Edifici Cn - Campus UAB
>   E-08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola), Spain
>
>   Phone: +34 - 93 581 4219
>     Fax: +34 - 93 581 3331
>   email: rainer.zahn@icrea.es, rainer.zahn@uab.es
--
______________________________________________________________
Eystein Jansen
Professor/Director
Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen
Allégaten 55
N-5007 Bergen
NORWAY
e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no
Phone:	+47-55-583491  -  Home: +47-55-910661
Fax: 	+47-55-584330
-----------------------
The Bjerknes Training site offers 3-12 months fellowships to PhD students
More info at: www.bjerknes.uib.no/mcts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mike,
It would be good to produce future series with and without the long
instrumental series and maybe the documentary ones as well. The long
measurements can then be used to validate the low-freq aspects at least
back to 1750, maybe earlier with the documentary. There are some key
warm decades (1730s, some in the 16th century) which the Moberg
reconstruction completely misses and gives the impression that all
years are cold between 1500 and 1750.
Away Feb 6-10 and 12-20 and 22-25 (last in Chicago - on the panel to
consider the vertical temp work of CCSP).
Cheers
Phil
Cheers
Phil
At 15:26 02/02/2005, you wrote:
Thanks Phil,
Yes, we've learned out lesson about FTP. We're going to be very careful in the future
what gets put there. Scott really screwed up big time when he established that directory
so that Tim could access the data.
Yeah, there is a freedom of information act in the U.S., and the contrarians are going
to try to use it for all its worth. But there are also intellectual property rights
issues, so it isn't clear how these sorts of things will play out ultimately in the U.S.
I saw the paleo draft (actually I saw an early version, and sent Keith some minor
comments). It looks very good at present--will be interesting to see how they deal w/
the contrarian criticisms--there will be many. I'm hoping they'll stand firm (I believe
they will--I think the chapter has the right sort of personalities for that)...
Will keep you updated on stuff...
talk to you later,
mike
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott.  Make sure he documents everything better
this time !  And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is
trawling
them.  The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear
there
is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than
send
to anyone.  Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within
20 days? - our does !  The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
We also
have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried
email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code.  He
has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that.  IPR should be relevant
here,
but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere
to it !
Are you planning a complete reworking of your paleo series?  Like to be involved if
you are.
Had a quick look at Ch 6 on paleo of AR4. The MWP side bar references Briffa, Bradley,
Mann, Jones, Crowley, Hughes, Diaz - oh and Lamb !  Looks OK, but I can't see it
getting past all the stages in its present form.  MM and SB get dismissed. All the
right
emphasis is there, but the wording on occasions will be crucial. I expect this to be
the
main contentious issue in AR4. I expect (hope) that the MSU one will fade away. It
seems
the more the CCSP (the thing Tom Karl is organizing) looks into Christy and Spencer's
series, the more problems/issues they are finding. I might be on the NRC review panel,
so will keep you informed.
Rob van Dorland is an LA on the Radiative Forcing chapter, so he's a paleo expert
by GRL statndards.
Cheers
Phil
At 13:41 02/02/2005, you wrote:
Phil--thought I should let you know that its official now that I'll be moving to Penn
State next Fall.
I'll be in the Meteorology Dept. & Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, and plan
to head up a center for "Earth System History" within the institute. Will keep you
updated,
Mike
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[1]
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.