Dear Mike,
Thanks for your detailed reply concerning Scengen and CC:Train.  I was not
proposing to incorporate Scengen in a major way into the training package,
and I am quite aware of the problems of consistency regarding aerosol
effects, natural variability, etc.  Rather, I thought that the training
package would be an excellent way to introduce the existence of Scengen
(and MAGICC) to the Country Teams which are responsible for coordinating
national assessments.  (the intention was NOT to provide intensive
technical training in its use -- the country team members are largely
coordinators, not technical climate experts). In this way, when it comes
time to actually carry out the national assessments, Scengen would be
recognised as a major tool for scenario generation and, if appropriate, CRU
could be contacted regarding its application, technical training or
collaboration.   You had mentioned to me at the IPCC meeting in London that
one of your major aims was to get Scengen recognised as the "standard" for
scenario generation for impact assessments, and I simply thought I saw a
way of furthering that aim through the CC:Train mechanism.
Given the training programmes that you are currently proposing through
ENRICH and others, I can understand your fears that we might "muddy the
waters".  Let me pose the following options; that we
(1) use some hard-copy examples from Scengen;
(2) incorporate a demonstration diskette (do you have one?);
(3) just mention the existence of Scengen;
(4) not mention Scengen at all.
Frankly, I am quite happy with any of these.   The part on climate change
scenarios is really only a small bit of the overall V&A training package in
any case.
Good luck with your proposals.
Cheers,
Dick
----------
From: 	Mike Hulme[SMTP:m.hulme@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 	Thursday, 16 January 1997 00:45
To: 	Richard Warrick
Cc: 	m.kelly@uea.ac.uk; tim.carter@fmi.fi; wigley@ncar.ucar.edu
Subject: 	Re: Scengen and CC:Train
Dick,
And Happy New Year to you also.
You've posed me a tricky one re. SCENGEN and my answer about it being
incorporated into the CC:Train package as a component tool is going to have
to be 'no'. Let me explain.
We too here have plans to exploit SCENGEN (and MAGICC) in a
training/educational context.  I ran a pilot seminar here for UNEP before
Christmas on scenario construction, although this was using the new
WINDOWS/Unix versions of both MAGICC and SCENGEN (MAGICC 2 and SCENGEN 2;
IPCC 1995 compatible) we have re-written.  Also, I have just submitted a
proposal (called SPARCCS) to ENRICH in DGXII for a support package for
regional climate change scenarios.  This would be a 2-year project with
emissions people, as well as MAGICC, SCENGEN and our new global historic
climatology.  I think we have a good chance of funding.
With this background I do not want SCENGEN (and especially the old DOS
version) 'leaking' out into the climate training community at this stage.
I am confirmed in this view by thinking that the complex issues surrounding
scenario creation (and the new IPCC Taskgroup on scenarios for the 3rd
assessment is grappling with these - ask Tim Carter about it) should _not_
be an essential part of a vulnerability/adaptation package.  And even if
you
think differently then let me suggest the following: if you think it should
be a minor part then I do not think that you need SCENGEN formally
incorporated; if you think it should be a major part then not only do I
think you are wrong in thinking so, but there is more to the scenario issue
than can be supplied by SCENGEN - for example, you need MAGICC, you need to
consider how you handle aerosols, and you need to think about natural
variability and signal/noise issues.
My feeling is that by all means use SCENGEN within CEARS in thinking about
the training package and coming up with some off-line examples (either
sample scenarios or guided sensitivity), but do _not_ incorporate it in the
package.  [By the way SCENGEN does not have imaginery countries!].  If
people want more detailed thinking on scenarios then you could always refer
them to CRU (which is what our speciality is).
I hope you understand my feelings on this - I am not trying to be negative,
but am thinking ahead and about the complexity of the scenario issue.  I
have talked with Tim Carter recently at some length about some of these
things so I will copy this correspondence to him.
Good luck with CC:Train anyway and I'm sure you'll come up with something
good.
Regards,
Mike
At 14:41 10/01/97 +-1300, you wrote:
>Dear Mike,
>
>Happy New Year's Greetings from Downunder!
>
>I have a question for you regarding Scengen that relates to a "training
>package" which CEARS have agreed to develop for CC:Train (under UNITAR).
> CC:Train is currently developing about four such training packages
>pertaining to climate change, of which CEARS has agreed to undertake one,
>on Vulnerability and Adaptation assessment.  The V&A and other packages
are
>supposed to be flexible enough to be used under a variety of regional and
>country contexts.  These packages build upon existing guidelines and
>manuals (e.g. Carter et al's IPCC Guidelines...) and are designed for
>trainers who will be conducting training workshops for the coordinators of
>national assessments (the CC:Train "Country Teams").  Beginning on 21
>January, Tim Carter will be here for 3 weeks, as will Stephanie Lenhart
>(U.S. Country Studies Program), in order to help with this task. The V&A
>training modules will closely follow the IPCC Guidelines.  I have proposed
>developing the package as a kind of role-playing simulation exercise in
>which the participants carry out a mini-assessment for a hypothetical
>country.
>
>One of the major steps in the assessment, of course, is the development of
>climate change scenarios.  I thought it would be very effective to use
>Scengen for this purpose, and to make Scengen a component tool of the
>training package.  Can I use Scengen for this purpose?  One possible
>advantage of doing so is that Scengen could, de facto, quickly become the
>standard method used by various Country Teams in carrying out national
>assessments for UNFCCC reporting (or is this not an advantage?!).
>
>Please advise on how I should proceed.
>
>Best wishes to all at CRU.
>
>Cheers,
>Dick
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Dr Mike Hulme				tel: +44 1603 593162
Climatic Research Unit			fax: +44 1603 507784
School of Environmental Sciences	email:  m.hulme@uea.ac.uk
University of East Anglia		web site: ~mikeh/
Norwich  NR4  7TJ
Mean temperature in C.England during 1996 was 0.3degC below the 1961-90
average.
The maximum temperature in Norwich:    Tuesday 13 January:  9.1degC.


Hi Keith:
As you are aware, the situation in Russia is very uncertain with their
unfortunate economic condition, especially science support. There is
interest, hope, and dots on maps showing intent but actual activity is
difficult to judge. In the particular area I am interested in, the Taymyr,
there is no current active tree-ring research going on although it has been
previously sampled and some reports are in preparation. Ed probably told
you that I have submitted a proposal to do work there. My understanding is
that unless there is some external funding support, such as my project,
tree-ring sampling there is in abeyance. Several people, including
yourself, recognize the great potential in the region. From my perspective
it seems that the Polar Urals are being studied, Yokutia to the far east is
being studied, some work has been done by Szeicz and Macdonald at the Lena
but there is need for more intensive effort in Taymyr. I would like to hear
your perspective on the situation.
In a related topic, I am thinking of using the option in Ed's new ARSTAN to
use the regional standardization method. In Russia and other locales the
establishment of trees is episodic. In particular, in Alaska Glenn Juday
has data showing cohort groups being established in favorable times. In
Taymyr also, the establishment of trees is not evenly distributed through
time. There are times of growth and times of demise. This concerns me as it
could affect the development of a regional curve. do you see problems
arising from this?
I am also curious to hear any comments you care to make about my recent
letter to Fritz Schweingruber. He obviously will pursue any style of
sampling and analyses he chooses to. My only contention is that he should
not represent his data as the definitive tree-ring information,
particularly ring-width data. His opinions are influential but there is an
accumulating body of ring-width data that clearly shows him to be missing
much important information with his style of sampling. Scientists and
others should be aware of this fact.
Cheers,     Gordon


Sulfur Emissions in New IPCC Scenarios
Arnulf Gruebler, IIASA
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTIVITIES
1. Review and comments of present sulfur discussion paper
2. Revision by sulfur paper lead author
3. Preparation of comparison of regional sulfur scenarios (by lead
author with inputs from other members of writing team and experts)
Timing: August 1997.
4. Specification of minimum and desirable sulfur emission scenario
characteristics and specification (for modeling teams in open process)
5. Establishment of key relationships between sulfur emissions and
other salient scenario driving force variables (income,
technological change environmental, non-GHG policies) using the
simple metric of sulfur to carbon emission ratios.
6. Adoption of specific sulfur control scenarios in conformity with
overall scenario ``storylines''.
7. Distribution of ``template'' sulfur scenarios to selected modeling teams
for assessment of climate and acidification impacts of sulfur scenarios.
Timing: End of 1997.
DISCUSSION PAPER
1. Introduction
The purpose of this discussion paper is to review briefly
the assumptions on sulfur emissions in the IS92 IPCC scenarios,
advances in knowledge and modeling of future sulfur emission
scenarios since IS92, as well as to initiate a discussion on how
to incorporate future sulfur emissions trends into the new IPCC emissions
scenarios.  The present draft will be revised based on feedback
received within the members of the IPCC writing team as well as
additional outside experts.
2. Sulfur emissions in IS92
The treatment of sulfur emissions in the IS92 scenarios was
comprehensive.  In addition to the dominant energy sector emissions,
also sulfur emissions from industrial processes and land-use changes
(biomass burning) and (a constant flow) of natural sources were
included in the scenarios.
1990 base year values in IS92 were as follows in MtS
(Million tons, or Tg, elemental sulfur; to obtain
weight as SO2 multiply by 2.):
Energy Sector:  65 MtS
Other Industry:  8 MtS
Biomass burning: 2 MtS
Natural:        22 MtS
TOTAL:          98 MtS
These global base year values are well within the range given by
global sulfur emission inventories of 4 to 45 MtS natural sources
and 65 to 90 MtS anthropogenic sources in 1990 (IPCC, 1995:135-141).
A comparison of 1990 base year sulfur emission values from a number
of scenarios and integrated assessment models is enclosed as
attachment.
However, as observed in the evaluation of the IS92 scenarios (Alcamo et al.,
1995) regional sulfur emissions assumed in IS92 (e.g. for China) are
much more uncertain.  There is for instance up to a factor two difference
between regionalized estimated of global inventories and aggregates of
national and regional emissions inventories.  Thus, the good agreement of
base year values of IS92 at the global level masks important differences
and uncertainties at the regional level.
A first important task for the new IPCC scenarios is therefore to update the
regional sulfur emissions baseline values with the results of
latest regional sulfur emissions inventories. Such inventories are available
for Europe through EMEP and CORINAIR, North America (NAPAP), and more
recently also for Asia (e.g. the Worldbank sulfur project, Foell et al., 1995).
Improved modeling of regional sulfur emissions (and deposition, i.e.
impacts) patterns would also require a redefinition of the world
regions as used in the IS92 scenario series.  For instance, Canada
is included in the region OECD-Europe, and the IS92 region "South
Asia" includes both the Indian subcontinent as well as Indonesia.
Their important differences in resource endowments lead to different
patterns of sulfur emissions. Their differing predominant weather
patterns and distinct ecosystems lead to differing acidic deposition
patterns and impacts.  Both factors preclude their aggregation into
one single regional model.  Active inputs from representatives of all
respective modeling communities (regional acidification impacts, regional
climate modelers, energy systems analysts) will be sought on this
issue and lessons learned within EMF activities (M. Schlesinger) on
appropriate sulfur regionalization (6 world regions) will be extremely
valuable.
Concerning future emissions of sulfur the IS92 scenarios project
global anthropogenic emissions of between 150 to 200 MtS by 2050 and
between 140 to 230 MtS by 2100 in the high growth cases, and of around 80-90
and 60 MtS in the two low scenarios (IS92c and IS92d) by 2050 and 2100
respectively.  The IS92 scenario evaluation (Alcamo
et al., 1995:281-282) concluded that the IS92 scenario series only
partially reflect recent legislation to reduce sulfur emissions (e.g.
the amendments to the Clean Air Act in the US or the Second
European sulfur protocol).  Hence, particularly regional sulfur
emissions in OECD countries projected in IS92 are much higher than
more recent scenarios taking account these legislative changes (as
also discussed by IPCC, 1995:155-156).  For instance the recent
scenarios of the Commission of the European Communities (EC, 1996)
indicate that sulfur emissions by 2020 will be between 64 to 77 percent
below 1990 emissions levels, or between less than 2 to 3 MtS, compared to
8 in 1990.  For comparison, the IS92 scenarios project for OECD
Europe (including Canada) sulfur emissions between 8.4 (IS92a and
IS92b) and 11.7 (all other scenarios) MtS by 2020, i.e. between 2 to
30 percent lower than in 1990 (12 MtS).
In addition, integrated assessment models are increasingly able to
model in greater detail driving forces of sulfur emissions as well
as acidification impacts (cf. discussion below).  These model
simulations suggest that particularly in Asia acidification impacts
would require substantial sulfur emission control measures already
much earlier than 2050.  The resulting global sulfur emissions
are substantially lower than suggested in the IS92 series: typically
in the range between 20 to 80 MtS by 2050 and between 20 to 120 MtS
by 2100. (A comparison of global sulfur emissions scenarios with and
without specific sulfur control assumptions in enclosed as
attachment.)
3. What's New since IS92 (scientific front)
The importance of aerosols including those from sulfur emissions
is by now widely recognized and considerable progress has been made
to quantify their effect on regional climate, both in large GCM
simulations as well as in more simplified integrated assessment models,
e.g. MAGICC's SCENGEN module (needs checking for details with Mike Hulme)
or Michael Schlesinger's work within the EMF (current status:
uncertain).  The importance of sulfur emissions as input to climate models
is therefore larger than ever.
As a result of a major World Bank study on acid rain in Asia also
improved national and regional sulfur emissions inventories have
become available (Foell et al., 1995).  Improved emissions
inventories outside North America, Europe (including the European
part of the former USSR), and Asia (excluding Oceania, for which
only sparse data seems to be available) have not been made available
since publication of IS92.
As a result, models and scenarios continue to rely on estimates, largely
based on approximate mass and sulfur balance approaches in the world regions
for the Middle East, Southern Africa, and Latin America (cf. discussion of
data availability below).
Similarly, acidification impact models are increasingly being
refined for regions outside OECD in particular for Asia.
Acidification impact studies for unabated sulfur
emissions of coal intensive ``business as usual'' scenarios indicate
exceedance of critical loads of up to a factor 10 already within the
next three to four decades (Amann et al., 1995) with enormous
impacts on natural ecosystems as well as important foodcrops (Fischer
et al., 1996).
Increasingly also energy sector and integrated assessment models
link regional acidification models with simplified climate models
enabling joint analysis of sulfur and climate policies and
impacts. Examples include the IMAGE model (Posch et al., 1996) and the
IIASA integrated assessment model (Rogner and Nakicenovic, 1996) that are
linked with the acidification model RAINS for Europe and Asia, the AIM
(Morita et al., 1994) model for Asia, or ???? for North America.
These models extend earlier energy sector models that dealt with a
comparative costs assessment of isolated sulfur and carbon reductions,
and joint mitigation respectively, such as the OECD GREEN model
(Complainville and Martins, 1994). The state of knowledge of joint
benefits of sulfur and carbon emission reductions was reviewed in
the 1995 IPCC WG III report (IPCC, 1996: 215-218) and is expanding
rapidly.
4. Data requirements
The most obvious data requirements concern of course
comprehensiveness of sulfur emissions by major source category
(anthropogenic and natural, energy sector and other industrial sources).
Here the data model of the IS92 scenarios appears appropriate and would only
require a reassessment in view of most recent data concerning regional
emissions (particularly in China, where data uncertainties seem
largest).
A more difficult question concerns spatial disaggregation.
Independent from the question of which formal models are being used
to check for scenario consistency, the outmost spatial detail
currently in driving force models with global coverage available is
at the level of world regions (typically around 10, but going up to
around 20 world regions).  Both climate as well as acidification
models require inputs at finer spatial resolution.  It is unclear at
present what would constitute a ``minimum'' or ``desirable'' level
of spatial disaggregation for the variety of user communities of new
IPCC scenarios.  Existing model links (like with the RAINS model)
could be used in some regions like Europe and Asia to generate
spatially highly disaggregated sulfur emission and deposition maps
as inputs for climate models and for impact assessment studies (e.g.
for agricultural crop yield models).  In their most advanced
versions the model links even incorporate regionalized differential
growth trends and thus improve on the standard practice of
renormalizing base year spatial emission and deposition patterns
linearly with a particular sulfur emissions scenario.
For regions where similar links are unavailable, more simplified procedures
will need to be devised, keeping in mind the overall tight time frame of the
scenario exercise.  Two data sets (are there more??) appear available for
regionalized sulfur emission patterns: the Oak Ridge
GAIA data set (spatial resolution: ????) and the Spiro et al. (1992)
data set (spatial resolution: one degree by one degree).
An open (but extremely critical) issue remaining to be resolved is
to identify mechanisms and responsible groups that could provide the
link between the spatial resolution of the new IPCC scenarios sulfur
emissions to whatever final geographical scales required by impact
assessment and climate models.
5. Scenarios and Sulfur Policies
There are two major sets of driving force variable that influence
future sulfur emissions. 1. Level and structure of energy supply and end
use, and 2. degree of sulfur control policies assumed.  (Because of the
dominance of energy related sulfur emissions, they should receive
particular attention in the new scenarios.  Industrial sources could
be included in the scenarios with much a simpler driving force
model, e.g. coupling to industrial output.)
Ceteris paribus, highest sulfur emissions occur in scenarios of high demand
growth, rapid resource depletion, limited technological change and absence
of sulfur control policies outside OECD countries.  In terms of energy
supply structures such scenarios imply a massive use of coal, including
synfuel production. Typical examples would include the IS92e
and IS92f scenarios. Up to ca. 2050 sulfur emissions in such
scenarios roughly grow in line with fossil fuel use and resulting
carbon emissions, i.e. a roughly constant sulfur to carbon emissions
ratio.  Post 2050, still in absence of sulfur control policies,
growth rates of sulfur emissions start to fall short of growth in
fossil fuel use due to the internal technology logic of synfuel
production: synfuel production requires prior coal conversion (e.g.
gasification) and removal of sulfur prior to further conversion,
e.g. to synliquids.  Ceteris paribus, therefore sulfur emissions
relative to those of carbon decline.
Sulfur emissions are lower in scenarios with 1. lower demand, 2. more
ample resource availability (especially for natural gas), 3. higher
rates of technological change (especially for non-fossil energy
technologies), and 4. extent and timing of direct sulfur control policies
especially outside OECD countries (itself function of projected impacts like
acidification), and finally, 5. level of other environmental control
measures and valuation of environmental goods (e.g. sulfur emissions are
also lower in scenarios imposing limits on GHG emissions).
Next to environmental impacts and policies, there are also other key
relationships that need to be considered for the formulation of
future sulfur scenarios.  For instance, the literature on
environmental Kuznets curves (cf. e.g. World Bank, 1992, or
IIASA-WEC, 1995) argues that with increasing affluence and valuation
of environmental goods, sulfur emissions decline.  This hypothesis
is corroborated by both longitudinal and cross-sectional empirical
data.  Thus, in the process of industrialization and economic development,
emissions rise initially, pass through a maximum (say at income levels
around 2000 $/capita) and decline thereafter with rising per capita incomes
and the resulting preference of cleaner end-use fuels, valuation of clean
environments, etc.
A scenario taxonomy along the dimensions of demand, resource
availability, and technological change in any case is necessary to
respond to the critique on the IS92 series that these important
driving forces were not varied appropriately to reflect both
uncertainty as well as new scientific knowledge and empirical
evidence.  They form part of the overall scenario design process and
the scenario ``storylines'' and need not to be addressed
specifically in the work on sulfur emissions.
Separate ``sulfur stories'' could be developed in addition, based on various
relationships between sulfur emissions and levels of affluence,
industrial structure, etc. within the overall framework of the
scenario ``storylines''.  Here sulfur emissions would be part of
other environmental policies (e.g. on water quality, urban traffic
related pollutants, etc.) that form integral part of particular
scenario ``storylines''.
A key variable remains the timing and extent of sulfur control
policies to be assumed for the new scenarios.  First of all the
scenarios need to reflect changes in actual policies implemented.
As noted above, IS92 did not take full account of recent
environmental legislation in both North America and the second
European sulfur protocol.  Secondly, the sulfur policies to be
assumed, need to reflect recent scientific findings, in particular
the very large local and regional impacts on agricultural crops and
ecosystems of unabated high sulfur emission scenarios, particularly
in Asia.  Therefore, all scenarios should assume faster and
deeper reductions in sulfur emissions outside OECD countries than
were assumed for IS92 in light of this recent scientific evidence.  The
exact timing and extent of such sulfur reduction measures could then
be scenario dependent. Also no specific reference to individual
policy measures would need to be made (to avoid normative policy
elements, or recommendations, in the scenarios), as reduction
profiles could be adopted from existing sulfur reduction scenarios
in the scientific literaursement by UE (Action COST) for the lecturer, but for this I hope to
>have an answer as soon as possible.
>
>Thank you for your answer
>
>Best regards
>
>I'm Bernardo Gozzini and I work with Marco Bindi in the organisation of this
>seminar because Marco in the next week will leave for USA for two months and
>he cannot follow it
>******************************************************************
>Bernardo Gozzini
>Ce.S.I.A.-Accademia dei Georgofili
>Piazzale delle Cascine, 18
>50144  FIRENZE   ITALIA
>
>tel: 39 + 55 + 354895 / 354897
>fax 39 + 55 + 350833
>e-mail: gozzini@sunserver.iata.fi.cnr.it
>******************************************************************
>
>


06.03.97
fAJL partid.txt
2.1    CO
2.2    Professor
2.3    Head of Group
2.4    M
2.5    Fritz
2.6
2.7    Schweingruber
2.8.1  Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape
Research
2.8.2  Department of Ecology
2.8.3  Forest and Climate Research Unit
2.9
2.10   Zuercherstrasse 111
2.11
2.12   8903
2.13   Birmensdorf
2.14   CH
2.15   41 1 7392281
2.16   41 1 7392215
2.17   fritz.schweingruber@wsl.ch
2.18   1
2.19   6000
2.20   0
2.21   2000
2.22   3000
2.23   0
2.24   1000
2.26   0
2.1    CR
2.2    Doctor of Philosophy
2.3    Senior Research Associate
2.4    M
2.5    Keith
2.6
2.7    Briffa
2.8.1  University of East Anglia
2.8.2  School of Environmental Sciences
2.8.3  Climatic Research Unit
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12   NR4 7TJ
2.13   Norwich
2.14   GB
2.15   44 1603 592090
2.16   44 1603 507784
2.17   k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
2.18   2
2.19   6,000
2.20   0
2.21   2,000
2.22   4,000
2.23   0
2.24   0
2.25   0
2.1    CR
2.2    Doctor of Biological Sciences
2.3    Head of the Laboratory of Dendrochronology
2.4    M
2.5    Stepan
2.6    Grigor'evich
2.7    Shiyatov
2.8.1  Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
2.8.2
2.8.3  Laboratory of Dendrochronology
2.9    Ural Branch RAS
2.10   8 Marta Street 202
2.11
2.12   620144
2.13   Ekaterinburg
2.14   RU
2.15   7 3432 294080
2.16   7 3432 294161
2.17   plant@insec.quorus.e-burg.su
2.18   3
2.19   24000
2.20   12000
2.21   1300
2.22   4700
2.23   0
2.24   1000
2.25   5000
2.1    CR
2.2    Doctor of Biological Sciences
2.3    Director of Forest Institute
2.4    M
2.5    Evgeny
2.6    Alexandrovich
2.7    Vaganov
2.8.1  Institute of Forest
2.8.2
2.8.3  Laboratory of Dendrochronology
2.9    Siberian Branch RAS
2.10
2.11
2.12   660036
2.13   Krasnoyarsk
2.14   RU
2.15   7 3912 431429
2.16   7 3912 433686
2.17   evag@ifor.krasnoyarsk.su
2.18   3
2.19   24000
2.20   12000
2.21   1300
2.22   4700
2.23   0
2.24   1000
2.25   5000
fAJL power.txt
"MULTI-MILLENNIAL-LENGTH DENDROCLIMATIC RECONSTRUCTIONS AT
HIGH-LATITUDE REGIONS OF SIBERIA".
By signing this declaration, I certify that the information given
in this proposal relating to me and the team I represent is to
the best of my knowledge true and complete. I have been involved
in the preparation of the full proposal and I agree with its
contents. I am fully authorised to commit myself and the team I
represent to be ready to set up and execute all tasks, duties and
obligations assigned to us in this research proposal, if
selected.
I hereby authorise the co-ordinator as lawful attorney and
administrator and empower him to act all of the necessary actions
to administrate validly the herein said rights on behalf of me in
case the proposal should be selected by INTAS, inter alia, to
negotiate and to conclude the co-operation agreement, as well as
any amendments, variations or additions to the co-operation
agreement on my behalf.
Laboratory of Dendrochronology
Institute of Forest SB RAS
Krasnoyarsk
Dr.Eugene A.Vaganov
5 March, 1997
fAJL projid.txt
1.1 Multi-millennial-length dendroclimatic reconstructions
at high-latitude regions of Siberia.
1.2 5
1.3 600
1.4 36
1.5 Oct-97
1.6 4
1.7 60000
By signing this proposal, I certify that the information given in
this proposal is the best of my knowledge, true and complete as
received from all project participants; that all participants
were involved in the preparation, agree with this project
proposal and have declared themselves ready to perform the
project as proposed in case of selection.
I am fully authorised to commit myself and the team I represent
to be ready to set up and execute all tasks, duties and
obligations assigned to us in this research proposal and I am
ready to act as the co-ordinator of the project.
The proposal contains ..... pages.
PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR           First name and family name:
Fritz Schweingruber
Date: ..... March,1997             Original signature:
fAJL sum.txt
4.1. TITLE OF THE PROJECT
Multi-millennial-length dendroclimaticreconstructions
at high-latitude regions of Siberia
4.2. SUMMARY
This research will make a major contribution to our knowledge of
high-resolution climate variability at high latitudes of Western
and Middle Siberia throughout the Holocene using the unique
potential of tree-ring data.
The specific objectives of this proposal are the development of
two supra-long (each spanning 6-9000 years up to present)
continuous larch ring-width chronologies at two distant each
other high-latitude locations of Siberia (Yamal and Taimyr
peninsulas). Ring-width chronologies developed from coniferous
trees growing at the polar timberline in Siberia contain a very
strong climatic signal, mainly summer air temperatures. With
these chronologies high-resolution continuous and quantitative
reconstruction of summer temperatures will be made.
As in the areas of the past and present polar and upper
timberlines trees megafossils have been preserved properly in
large quantities in the Holocene deposits (alluvial, lacustrine
and peat), there is a good possibility to develop continuous,
multi-millennial tree-ring chronologies.
Now the material already collected and measured (1800 subfossil
wood samples from Yamal and 280 samples from Taimyr) has yielded
the ring-width chronologies continuously spanning the last 3200
years (Yamal) and 950 years (Taimyr).
However, there are also many more samples that have been measured
and have provided data, now assembled in a number of provisionally
"floating" chronologies covering much of the period from 7000 to
1700 B.C. (based on some 70 radiocarbon dates of samples of this
wood). There is a fair chance that a 6-9000-year continuous
chronologies will be constructed within the span of the proposed
project.
These chronologies and temperature reconstructions will be the
first to be so long, reliable, annually-resolved and
precisely-dated with known reliability across the whole of
northern Hemisphere. These reconstructions will allow to compare
and contrast the details of temperature changes at the
moderate-continental region of Yamal Peninsula with the
continental region of Taimyr Peninsula and allow modern and
predicted temperature patterns to be compared with variability
patterns of pre-industrial era. Participants of the proposed
project are the well-known institutions which are engaged in the
field of dendrochronology and dendroclimatology and have
collaborated with each other during the last 6 years.
fAJL workpro.txt
3.1 TITLE
Multi-millennial-length dendroclimatic reconstructions
at high-latitude regions of Siberia
3.2 OBJECTIVES
This research will make a major contribution to our knoweledge of
high-resolution climate variability at high latitudes of Western
and Middle Siberia throughout the Holocene using the unique
potential of tree-ring data.
The specific objectives of this proposal are as follows:
- to develop two supra-long (each spanning 6-9000 years up to
present) continuous ring-width larch chronologies at two
high-latitude locations of Siberia;
- using these tree-ring chronologies, tomake a multi-millennial
high-resolution continuous and quantitative reconstruction of
summer temperatures;
- to analyse spatio-temporal patterns of temperature variability
at these locations over a range of timescales (annual, decadal,
multi-decadal and centennial) and their connections with various
forcing factors and other annual resolution records being
developed elsewhere in the Arctic and Subarctic.
3.3. BACKGROUND
Reconstruction and analysis of natural climatic changes through
the whole Holocene at high latitudes are of great importance as
climatic conditions, especially air temperature, are most
variable and sensitive to various forcing functions (Budyko,
1980; Jones and Kelly, 1983; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, 1990). However, there are a minute quantity of long,
precisely-dated and high-resolution proxy climatic series for
these regions.
The territory of Yamal Peninsula located on the eastern boundary
of influence of the Atlantic air masses and the territory of the
eastern part of Taimyr Peninsula located between the Arctic High
and Siberian High are of major importance for monitoring regional
and global-mean air temperatures and assessing theories and
models concerned with past, current and future climate changes
(Lamb, 1977; Briffa and Jones, 1993; Moses et al., 1987).
Tree rings as a proxy indicator of the past climatic conditions
are of special interest as they allow to reconstruct climatic
parameters with seasonal and annual resolution for many hundred
and thousand years, to provide an exact absolute and relative
dating of the tree-ring data, to establish high-frequency climate
changes (from interannual to centennial timescales) with high
confidence, to obtain dendroclimatic information practically for
every site where trees grow at present or grew in the past.
Intensive dendroclimatic investigations are carrying out in many
countries and regions, mainly in temperate and subtropic zones
(Fritts, 1976, 1991 ). At high latitudes such works began later
(during the last two decades) and living trees were used
primarily for developing tree-ring chronologies of 200-500 years
long (Aniol and Eckstein, 1984; Shiyatov, 1984, 1986; Jacoby and
D'Arrigo, 1989; Schweingruber, Briffa and Nogler, 1993; Briffa,
Jones, Schweingruber, Shiyatov and Vaganov,1996; Jacoby, Wiles,
D'Arrigo, 1996; Vaganov, Shiyatov and Mazepa, 1996). As in the
areas of the past and present polar and upper timberlines trees
megafossils have been preserved properly in large quantities on
the surface and in the Holocene deposits (alluvial, lacustrine
and peat), there is a possibility to develop continuous,
multi-millennium and sensitive to climate tree-ring chronologies.
Such works began in the Polar Ural Mountains (Shiyatov, 1986;
Graybill and Shiyatov, 1992; Briffa, Jones, Schweingruber,
Shiyatov and Cook, 1995), in the southern part of Yamal Peninsula
(Shiyatov, Surkov, 1980; Hantemirov, 1995), in Finnish Lapland
and Northern Sweden (Zetterberg, Eronen and Briffa, 1995), in
the eastern part of Taimyr Peninsula (Vaganov, Naurazbaev,
Schweingruber and Briffa, in press) and in the Lower Indigirka
River at present. Now the longest, continuous and absolute-dated
ring-width chronologies developed for the Yamal Peninsula
(spanning 3200 years) and for the Northern Scandinavia (spanning
2160 years) and the "floating" chronologies dated by the
radiocarbon method extended back 9500 and over 7000 years
respectively.
Ring-width chronologies developed from coniferous trees growing
at the polar timberline in moderate-continental and continental
regions of Siberia contain a very strong climatic signal, mainly
summer air temperatures of tree growth year (Graybill and
Shiyatov, 1992; Briffa, Jones, Schweingruber, Shiyatov and Cook,
1995; Hantemirov, 1995; Vaganov, Shiyatov and Mazepa, 1996).The
explained variance over the calibration and verification periods
is highest reported in the literature to date (65-70%) and it
allows to make a quantitative reconstructions of summer
temperatures. These chronologies and temperature reconstructions
will be the first to be so long, reliable, annually-resolved and
precisely-dated with known reliability across the whole of
northern Hemisphere. These reconstructions will allow to compare
and contrast the details of temperature changes at the
moderate-continental region of Yamal Peninsula with the
continental region of Taimyr Peninsula and allow modern and
predicted temperature patterns to be compared with variability
patterns of pre-industrial era.
Participants of the proposed project are the well-known
institutions which are engaged in the field of dendrochronology
and dendroclimatology and have collaborated with each other
during the last 6 years.
- The Group of Tree-Ring and Site of the Swiss Federal Institute
for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (Birmensdorf,
Switzerland). The Group is currently engaged on a major programme
of densitometric and ring-width chronology development involving
many sites across the whole of the Northern Hemisphere including
sites with living trees in the polar timberline area of Russia.
This work is specifically designed to provide
climatically-sensitive data for use in large spatial climate
reconstruction work. Dr. F.H.Schweingruber, Head of the Group, is
known throughout the world for his work in wood anatomy and
dendrochronology and the development of tree-ring densitometry.
He has published extensively in different areas of wood anatomy
and tree-growth research and has authored several classic books.
- The Laboratory of Dendrochronology of the Institute of Plant
and Animal Ecology of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
Ekaterinburg, Russia is one of the leading laboratory in the
field of dendrochronology in Russia. The Laboratory has an
international reputation for its work on the developing
ring-width chronologies at high latitudes and altitudes,
reconstruction of climatic conditions, developing long-term
chronologies, studying cycles in tree-ring series, using
tree-ring data for studies of the upper and polar timberlines
dynamics and forest succession. Dr. S.G.Shiyatov, Head of the
Laboratory, is one of the pioneers of dendrochronology in Russia
and has worked for more than 30 years in the Far North and
mountains of the Urals, Siberia, Far East and Middle Asia. He has
published more than 130 articles and three monographs. Dr.
Shiyatov was the first who began to collect subfossil wood in
Russia for developing long-term chronologies.
- The Laboratory of Dendrochronology of the Institute of Forest
of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Krasnoyarsk, Russia is
another leading laboratory in the field of dendrochronology in
Russia. Dr. E.A.Vaganov, Director of the Institute of Forest and
Head of the Laboratory of Dendrochronology, has an international
reputation for his work on the cell structure of wood lyers of
coniferous trees, seasonal growth variations and cambium
activity, developing simulation models of seasonal tree growth,
developing ring-width and cell chronologies, reconstructing
climatic conditions of the past using tree-ring chronologies. He
has published more than 100 articles and 5 monographs.
- The Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia,
Norwich, Great Britain is one of the world's leading research
organisation specialising in the study of climate change: climate
history, current climates, projected changes and impacts. Dr.
K.R.Briffa, Senior Research Associate at the Climatic Research
Unit, has considerable experience in climatology and with the use
of statistical methods of climate analyses and dendroclimatic
reconstruction, especially with regard to large-spatial-scale
reconstructions of climate patterns and published many articles
on the theoretical and practical aspects of dendrochronology and
dendroclimatology, and on use of paleoclimate data for
understanding current and possible future climates.
3.4 SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
3.4.1. RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
Tree-ring data will be obtained from living trees and subfossil
wood of Siberian larch (Larix sibirica Ledeb.) in western Siberia
and Gmelini larch (Larix Gmelini Pilger) in central Siberia. The
first location is situated in the southern part of Yamal
Peninsula (67-688N, 69-718E), the second location in the eastern
part of Taimyr Peninsula (71-738N, 98-1058E). There is a great
many properly preserved subfossil wood in the Holocene deposits
at both locations, mainly in the alluvial and peat deposits.
The main variable measured will be ring width. This variable
reflects properly climate influences on tree growth at the polar
timberline areas of Siberia having a continental climate.
Ring-width chronologies for the last 400-500 years will be
developed from the oldest living trees. Extensions to these
chronologies back further in time will be made by using subfossil
material, joined with the living material by standard crossdating
procedures. High-precision radiocarbon dates will be used for
rough dating of "floating" tree-ring chronologies.
The sampling subfossil wood and development of the Yamal's
supra-long chronology began since 1982 by the workers of the
Laboratory of Dendrochronology (Ekaterinburg). Most intensively
this work was carried out during the last five years. Now the
material already collected and measured (1800 subfossil wood
cuts) has yielded the ring-width chronology continuously spanning
the last 3200 years. However, there are also many more samples
that have been measured and have provided data, now assembled in
a number of provisionally "floating" chronologies covering much
of the period from 7000 to 1700 B.C. (based on some 45
radiocarbon dates of samples of this wood). These chronologies
separated by 50 to 500 year length gaps. There is a fair chance
that a 9000-year continuous chronology will be constructed for
this location within the span of the proposed project.
Similarly, work with a shorter history than the Yamal's research
has clearly established potential to build a chronology at least
as long in the Taimyr Peninsula where the modern polar timberline
extends to about 72830'N, most northern over the world. This work
is not so advanced as in Yamal, but the work to date suggests
that very rapid progress is likely. Samples from living and dead
trees have already been assembled at the Laboratory of
Dendrochronology (Krasnoyarsk) into the 950-year continuous
chronology. The collections from this location are not so
extensive as those made to date at Yamal (280 subfossil wood
samples), but there is an abundant supply of subfossil trees,
many with over 300 annual rings. 25 radiocarbon dates of samples
of this material suggest major phases of tree growth around 8500
B.P. and 5000 B.P. The general distribution of the radiocarbon
dates suggests that, eventually, sufficient trees can probably be
located to span the whole of the last 10000 years. It is not
expected that a continuous 10000-year ring-width chronology will
be produced within timeframe of this project. However, there are
good prospects of producing a 5-6000- year chronology to the
present.
3.4.2 RESEARCH RESULTS
During three years we expect to develop the continuous and
good-replicated tree-ring 9000-year larch chronology for the
Yamal Peninsula and the 5-6000-year larch chronology for the
Taimyr Peninsula. Using these chronologies we intend to
reconstruct and analyse a summer temperature variation at several
time scales (annual, decadal, multi-decadal and centennial) and
compare the data obtained with other high-resolution
Holocene-length proxy data (ice cores, laminated sediments,
historical documents).
The results of this project will be published primarily in the
scientific literature in Russian and English and presented at
different national and international conferences. Because of the
fundamental interdisciplinarity and collaborative interaction
within the subgroups, a number of multi-authored papers will be
produced. The individual and mean ring-width chronologies and the
reconstructions produced will be distributed to the international
scientific community through submission to the International
Tree-Ring Data Bank (Boulder, Colorado, USA) and to other
national and international institutions and data centres.
3.5 MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
3.5.1 TASK DIVISION
Dr F.H.Schweingruber (Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow
and Landscape Research) will be the project co-ordinator on the
proposed project from the INTAS countries.
Dr S.G.Shiyatov (Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology) will be
the responsible scientist on the proposed project and he will
take part in collecting, dating, developing and analysing the
multi-millennial ring-width chronology at the area of Yamal
Peninsula. The next young scientists of the Institute will be
involved in the project:
Rashit M. Hantemirov, Candidate of Biological Sciences,
34 years old. He will take part in collecting, cross-dating
and analysing the material.
Alexander Yu. Surkov, technician, 30 years old. He will take part
in collecting, preparing and measuring the subfossil wood samples.
Dr E.A.Vaganov (Institute of Forest) will be the responsible
scientist on the proposed project and he will take part in
collecting, dating, developing and analysing the multi-millennial
ring-width chronology at the area of Taimyr Peninsula. The next
young scientists will be involved in the project:
Mukhtar M. Naurazbaev, junior research fellow,35  years old.
He will take part in collecting, preparing, measuring, cross-
dating and analysing the material.
Alexander V.Kirdyanov, post-graduate, 25 years old.
He will take part in data processing, density measurements,
chronology analysis.
Dmitry V.Ovchinnikov, post-graduate, 26 years old.
He will take part in cross-dating, data processing,
chronology analysis.
Dr K.R.Briffa (Climatic Research Unit) will be the responsible
scientist on the proposed project and he will take part in
analysing growth-climate relationships, developing statistical
models of tree growth, extracting climatic signal, reconstructing
and analysing climatic conditions of the remote past.
3.5.2 PLANNING
To carry-out the objectives of this proposal the workers of the
Russian laboratories will carry out an intensive collecting
subfossil wood during summers of 1997-1998 at two high-latitude
locations (Yamal and Taimyr peninsulas) using helicopters, boats
and ships. To finish the development of the Yamal chronology it
is necessary to collect additionally no less than 300-400 cuts of
subfossil wood. Much more intensive collecting (600-800 cuts for
two field seasons) is needed to develop the Taimyr chronology.
All samples collected during these two years and earlier will be
measured and cross-dated at Ekaterinburg and Krasnoyarsk
laboratories until the middle of 1999.
The Russian laboratories together with the Climatic Research Unit
of the University of East Anglia during 1997-1999 will be
analysing the material obtained (standardization of individual
series, development of mean chronologies, studying growth-climate
relationships, developing statistical models of tree growth,
extracting climatic signal, reconstructing and analysing climatic
conditions of the remote past). This work will be finished at the
end of 1999.
3.5.3 EQUIPMENT
Participants of the proposed project have the necessary equipment
for fieldwork, measuring equipment and compatible software.
3.5.4 SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES
Briffa, K.R., Jones, P.D., Schweingruber, F.H., Shiyatov, S.G.
and Cook, E.R. Unusual twentieth-century summer warmth in a
1,000-year temperature record from Siberia. Nature, 1995, Vol.
376, 13 July, 156-159.
Briffa, K.R., Jones, P.D., Schweingruber, F.H., Shiyatov, S.G.,
Vaganov, E.A. Development of a North Eurasian chronology network:
Rationale and preliminary results of comparative ring-width and
densitimetric analyses in Northern Russia. Radiocarbon, 1996,
25-41.
Hantemirov, R.M. A 2,305 year tree-ring reconstruction of mean
June-July temperature deviations in the Yamal Peninsula.
Publication of the Academy of Finland,1995, 6, 124-127.
Shiyatov, S.G., Mazepa, V.S., Vaganov, E.A., Schweingruber, F.H.
Summer temperature variations reconstructed by tree-ring Data at
the polar timberline in Siberia. Radiocarbon, 1996, 61-70.
Vaganov, E.A., Shiyatov, S.G., Mazepa, V.S. Dendroclimatic Study
in Ural-Siberian Subarctic. Novosibirsk: "Nauka", Siberian
Publishing Firm RAS, 1996, 246 pp. (in Russian).


>To: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
>Organization: ECOLOGY INSTITUTE
>From: "Tatiana M. Dedkova"
>Date: Mon,  9 Dec 96 14:19:37 +0500
>Return-Receipt-To: tatm@insec.quorus.e-burg.su
>Subject: from Rashit
>Return-Receipt-To: tatm@insec.quorus.e-burg.su
>Lines: 106
>
>Dear Keith,
>we received your letters concerning our paper for Dendrochronologia
>and three long chronologies.
>1. As regards individual ring width data of living trees from
>Yamal we would remind you that you have them. Stepan gave to you
>in England one diskette. There are data for Larix sibirica from
>three sites (KHA - from Khadyta river, 67812'N 69850'E; JAH -
>from Yahody river 67807'N 69854'E and POR - from Portsa river
>67827'N 71800'E) and for Picea obovata from two points (SCH -
>Shtshutshya river 66849'N 69850'E and KHD - from Khadyta river
>67807'N 69854'E).
>2. We would be very gratefull if you can do some corrections and
>additions in the paper for Dendrochronologia. We did not quite
>understand what we have to do on missing rings? Just enumerate
>years when missing rings occur? If so, these are following years:
>
> Year absent    %  ind %    Year absent    %  ind %
>-1172  1 of  4  25%  51      700  2 of  8  25%   31
>-1171  1 of  4  25%  12      707  1 of  9  11%   31
>-1168  1 of  4  25%  13      718  1 of  8  13%   33
>-1142  1 of  5  20%  50      773  1 of  8  13%   38
>-1127  1 of  5  20%  15      777  1 of  9  11%   67
>-1126  1 of  5  20%  10      814  3 of  9  33%   12
>-1029  1 of 10  10%  57      816  3 of  9  33%   10
>-1021  1 of 10  10%  55      818  3 of 10  30%   14
> -988  1 of 10  10%  17      867  1 of 11   9%   34
> -987  1 of 10  10%  12      903  1 of 11   9%   12
> -986  2 of 10  20%  17      904  1 of 10  10%   30
> -971  1 of 12   8%  44      914  1 of  9  11%   25
> -969  1 of 12   8%  67      915  1 of  9  11%   61
> -964  1 of 12   8%  14      959  1 of 10  10%   59
> -899  1 of 10  10%  29     1006  1 of 12   8%   28
> -886  1 of  9  11%  42     1007  1 of 12   8%   28
> -882  4 of  9  44%   5     1170  2 of 12  17%    8
> -860  1 of 11   9%  20     1259  1 of 10  10%   28
> -823  2 of  8  25%  18     1270  1 of 11   9%   36
> -792  1 of  6  17%  15     1278  3 of 11  27%   15
> -547  2 of  5  40%  61     1290  1 of 10  10%   44
> -543  1 of  6  17%  91     1300  1 of  9  11%   18
> -318  1 of  5  20%  29     1302  1 of  9  11%   58
> -294  1 of  5  20%  66     1323  1 of  7  14%   18
> -292  1 of  6  17%  24     1334  1 of  8  13%   53
> -288  1 of  6  17%  61     1342  1 of  9  11%    8
> -287  2 of  6  33%  25     1347  1 of  9  11%   14
> -261  1 of  5  20%  30     1380  1 of 12   8%   38
> -248  1 of  5  20%  13     1453  5 of 13  38%    9
> -246  1 of  5  20%  25     1456  1 of 13   8%   20
> -241  1 of  5  20%  12     1460  1 of 13   8%   24
> -239  1 of  5  20%  25     1466  1 of 12   8%   30
> -139  2 of  7  29%   9     1529  2 of  7  29%   10
> -119  1 of  7  14%  14     1560  1 of  7  14%    6     living
> -118  1 of  7  14%  11     1714  1 of 11   9%   49   1 of 16  6%
>   16  1 of  8  13%  26     1718                 73   1 of 16  6%
>   49  1 of  9  11%  11     1730                 45   1 of 20  5%
>  134  1 of 22   5%  33     1732                 28   2 of 20 10%
>  143  4 of 21  19%   7     1739  3 of  9  33%   50   1 of 20  5%
>  155  1 of 21   5%  54     1742                 23   3 of 20 15%
>  207  1 of 16   6%  54     1749                 57   1 of 20  5%
>  426  1 of  6  17%  19     1752                 67   1 of 21  5%
>  492  1 of  9  11%  19     1755                 72   1 of 21  5%
>  493  1 of  9  11%  16     1783                 39   1 of 22  5%
>  495  1 of  9  11%  16     1788                 83   1 of 22  5%
>  536  1 of 12   8%  38     1789                 92   1 of 22  5%
>  546  1 of 12   8%  12     1795                102   1 of 22  5%
>  579  1 of 16   6%  41     1806                 68   1 of 22  5%
>  589  1 of 19   5%  31     1808                 97   1 of 22  5%
>  596  1 of 18   6%  22     1812                 35   1 of 22  5%
>  598  1 of 18   6%  51     1814                 54   1 of 22  5%
>  623  3 of 17  18%   6     1815                 30   1 of 22  5%
>  636  2 of 17  12%  32     1816  2 of  3  67%    2  16 of 22 73%
>  637  4 of 17  24%   9     1817                 33   1 of 22  5%
>  639  3 of 17  18%   9     1818  3 of  3 100%    4  14 of 22 64%
>  640  7 of 17  41%   7     1819                 22   6 of 22 27%
>  644  1 of 18   6%  22     1820  1 of  3  33%    9  12 of 22 55%
>  646  2 of 18  11%  26     1824  1 of  3  33%   66
>                            l  i   v   i   n   g
>                            1825  2 of 22   9%   38
>                            1828  1 of 22   5%   47
>                            1831  5 of 22  23%   28
>                            1833  4 of 22  18%   31
>                            1837  1 of 22   5%   49
>                            1867  3 of 23  13%   21
>                            1882  1 of 23   4%   39
>                            1883  1 of 23   4%   50
>                            1884  1 of 23   4%   29
>                            1885  1 of 23   4%   28
>                            1889  1 of 24   4%   20
>                            1891  1 of 24   4%   32
>                            1903  2 of 24   8%   46
>                            1934  1 of 24   4%   45
>                            1946  1 of 24   4%   46
>                            1947  1 of 24   4%   40
>                            1967  1 of 20   5%  102
>                            1971  1 of 20   5%   50
>                            1975  1 of 20   5%   40
>
>We have to note that frequency of missing rings on increment
>cores of living trees higher, because on samples of subfossil
>trees we try to find this kind of rings on whole disc.
>Some periods are notable for missing rings: 988-964 BC, 882 BC,
>143 AD, 623-646 AD (especially 640 AD), 814-816-818 AD, 1453 AD
>and beginning of 1800th AD.
>3. Stepan ask what about book by Bailey?
>Best wishes,
>Rashit
>
>


Dear Keith,
After our long silence we would like inform you about our
sucesses, problems and plans.
1. The main success to our mind is the next. We have filled up
the gap (1350-1250 BC) between the absolutely dated 3250-year
Yamal chronology and the nearest floating chronology. It was
happened few weeks ago using samples collected in 1996. Now
there are no obstacles to develop in the nearest future the
7000-7500-year length continuous chronology. Now we are
working with ancient samples: searching the places of missing
and false rings, making more precise datings of individual
chronologies and so on. During this time interval we have some
problems. For example, no more samples were found up to now to
confirm the absence of false ring near 360 BC.
2. This summer we intend to hold an expedition from the end of
June to the middle of August in the southern part of Yamal
peninsula to collect more samples of subfossil wood which have
a great many of rings, are sensitive and cover the intervals
represented by insufficient quantity of samples at present. We
think that during this field season we must collect a necessary
quantity of samples to develop a well represented 7000-7500
years chronology. Next year we intend to collect subfossil
samples of wood from the middle part of Yamal peninsula to
reconstruct the dynamics of polar timberline during the
Holocene in detail using a large number of tree remnants
absolutely dated by dendrochronological method.
2. This year we have a small grant the from the Russsian
Science Foundation for developing the Yamal supra-long
chronology (approximately 4000 USD). But we are not sure
that all this sum we will receive. For example, last year we
have received 37% from the promised sum of money. As cost of
helicopter's rent is increased again this year (about $ 2.000
for one hour), we have the problem how to reach our research
area in the Yamal peninsula. E. Vaganov have the same problem
with organisation of field works over the territory of Taimyr
peninsula. That is why we and E.Vaganov ask you to transfer
each of us 7-8.000 USD until the end of June from the ADVANCE
project, if it is possible. Last summer, when I was in England,
you promised to help us with money to organise field works this
year.
3. I am finishing a measurements of rings of subfossil wood
samples collected last year on the surface and in one lake
and some bogs in the Polar Ural Mountains. I found a little
more ancient wood (not all samples are dated until now) and
can prolong this chronology at least up to one hundred years.
This summer I will be in the mountains and try to collect
wood from other lakes. I want to develop the Polar Urals
chronology for the last 2.000 years.
4. Now we are preparing the paper concerning Yamal project
in Russian and we need to cite the paper prepared for
Dendrochronologia in English. Could you send to us the last
version of this articles by e-mail or by post?
We wish you and your family the best. We wish the same to
Phil Jones and his family.
Sincerely yours
Stepan Shiyatov and Rashit Hantemirov


Dear Keith,
Thank you for the message of 5 June, 1997.
I am anderstanding your difficulties with transfering money and I
think the best way for us if you will bring money to Krasnoyarsk
and I give you a receipt.
Rashit will go to Yamal at the end of June and I go to the Polar
Urals at the beginnind of July. We can find money temporary at our
Institute and other sources for three months to fulfill our fieldworks.
Now I am at two weeks holiday with my wife and granddother near Moscow
after the meeting of Russian Academy of Sciences where E.Vaganov was
elected as the Academician. It is important for dendrochronological
srudies at our country and international collaboration.
Sincerely yours                Stepan Shiyatov


Dear Keith,
I am not sure you received my message sent the last week from
Moscow. Therefore I decided to repeat it.
Thank you for the message of 5 June,1997.
I am anderstanding your difficulties with transfering money and I
think the best way for us if you will bring money to Krasnoyarsk
and I give you a receipt.
Rashit will go to Yamal at the end of June and I go to the Polar
Urals at the beginning of July. We can find money temporary at our
Institute and other sources for three months to fulfill our fieldworks.
Now I am at two weeks holiday with my wife and grand-daughter near Moscow
after the meeting of Russian Academy of Sciences where E.Vaganov was
elected as the Academician of RAS. It is important for dendrochronological
studies at our country and international collaboration.
Sincerely yours                Stepan Shiyatov


Dear Participants,
Please find attached the Minutes of the SRES Meeting in Laxenburg, June 14-16. 1997.
Please note that the list of participants will be sent additionally Monday, 4th of August.
Best regards,
Arnulf
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\finalmin.doc"
Dr. Arnulf Gruebler
Environmentally Compatible Energy Strategies
International Institute for | Email: gruebler@iiasa.ac.at
Applied  Systems Analysis  | Phone: +43  2236 807 470
A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria  |   Fax: +43  2236 71313


Dear Tony and Michael,
The final draft of the letter to the Times is attached, incorperating
your changes (I hope I have combined them in a way that you are both
happy with).
Brian Hoskins and Adrian Jenkins have both decided that they prefer not
to sign the letter, although agreeing with its message. I haven't been
able to contact anyone else in the short time available, so I leave it
up to you to decide whether you are still both happy to go ahead.
If so, Mike could you please reply to both Tony and myself and let us
know, and Tony could you then send it as agreed?
Thank you both very much for your time and trouble.
Best regards,
Helen
Dr Helen Wallace
Senior Scientist
Greenpeace UK
Greenpeace, Canonbury Villas, London, N1 2PN
Tel: +44-171-865-8241
Fax: +44-171-865-8202
---------------------------
FINAL DRAFT
Letters Editor
The Times
Fax: 0171-782-5046
Email: letters@the-times.co.uk
21 June 1997
Dear Sir,
Without wishing to comment on the dispute between BP and Greenpeace
(Editorial, 20 August), we would like to remind your readers of the
seriousness of the potential threat caused by our continued use of
fossil fuels. This damage occurs both locally - as evidenced by the
deterioration of air quality in UK cities in the past few weeks - and
also globally.
As scientists studying the impacts of climate change, we consider the
global threat from greenhouse gases to be serious and to need
addressing. Adverse effects on human populations are likely to result
from changes in weather patterns, shifts in storm frequencies, rises in
sea level and the spread of certain pests and infectious diseases. A
wide variety of ecosystems throughout the world will be at increasing
risk.
We have little idea whether or not we can manage such adverse effects
and therefore the prudent course of action is to limit the cause of the
threat.
Major shifts in investment away from fossil fuels will therefore be
required to make the necessary reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide
to the atmosphere. Large companies like British Petroleum seem to us to
be well placed to take an active part in investing in these changes.
There is no doubt the need for precautionary, preventative action is
urgent.
Yours sincerely,
Prof. A.J. McMichael
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
University of London
Keppel Street
London
WC1E 7HT
Dr. M. Hulme
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich
NR4 7TJ


Dear Colleagues,
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of you who have attended the
SRES Lead Authors' meeting (17-19 September 1997) and Rob Swart and
his colleagues from RIVM for organizing and hosting the meeting.
We have achieved a lot in the three short days as you will soon also see
from the minutes.  The minutes of the meeting will be forwarded to you later this week
together with the revised SRES work plan that we have discussed during the meeting.
Sorry that it took a while longer this time for the completion of the minutes,
but I hope that they will refresh you memory about the outcome of the meeting.
Erik Haites just e-mailed that he returned from the IPCC plenary meeting in
Maldives and that the new IPCC Bureau has been appointed.  It consists of
30 members: the Chair (Bob Watson), 5 Vice-Chairs (R. Pachuari (India), R.
Odingo (Kenya), G. Meira Filho (Brazil), Y. Izrael (Russia), K. Seiki
(Japan), and 8 Bureau members for each of the three Working Groups.  The
Bureau for Working Group III (responsible for SRES) is B. Metz
(Netherlands), O. Davidson (Sierra Leone), E. Jochem (Germany), M.
Munasinghe (Sri Lanka), E. Calvo (Peru), R. Madruga (Cuba), R.T.M.
Sutamihardja (Indonesia), and L. Lorentsen (Norway).
Best regards,
Naki
Nebojsa Nakicenovic
Project Leader
Environmentally Compatible Energy Strategies
International Institute for | Email: naki@iiasa.ac.at
Applied  Systems Analysis  | Phone: +43  2236 807 411
A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria  |   Fax: +43  2236 71313


From: Andrew Kerr
Sender: Andrew Kerr
To: Peter DEBRINE
,
Patricia DESMARES
,
Cherry FARROW
, Elizabeth FOLEY
,
Karen GILL
,
"Merylyn HEDGER (wwfnet)"
,
Martin HILLER
, Aldo IACOMELLI
,
Lars Georg JENSEN
, Steve JUDD
,
Paolo LOMBARDI
, Tony LONG
,
Sten LUNDBERG
, Nick MABEY
,
Adam MARKHAM
,
Gisele McAULIFFE
,
Konrad MEYER
,
Stefan MOIDL
, Lee POSTON
,
Michael RAE
,
Andrea RIES
,
Sible SCHONE
, Stephan SINGER
,
Marc van den TWEEL
,
Marijke UNGER
,
Koichi WATANABE 2
,
Helge WEINBERG
Cc: Michael Brown
,
"Kornelis BLOK (ecofys)"
,
"Kornelis BLOK (univ)"
,
Yvo de BOER
,
Michael BROWN
,
Renate CHRIST
,
Kirsty HAMILTON
,
Kirsty HAMILTON 2
,
Sabri ZAIN
, Bill HARE 1
,
Bill HARE 2
,
Martina KRUEGER
,
Penehuro LEFALE
,
Yasuko MATSUMOTO
,
Paul METZ
, Katarina PANJI
,
"Michel RAQUET (dg11)"
,
Holger ROENITZ
,
Cornelia SIDLER
,
"Ad van WIJK (ecofys)"
,
"Ad van WIJK (uu)"
Subject: climate: Japanese proposal
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From:   Andrew Kerr, WWF Climate Change Campaign
re.:    "scandalous" Japanese climate change proposal
Dear All
I am in Japan for the next week. If you need to, you can contact me by
phone at the following numbers:
*  Monday - +81 10 760 5022 (Yurika?s mobile)
*  Tuesday-Thursday - via WWF Japan. Tel: +81 3 3769 1711; fax: 3326 1717.
*  Friday - Tokyo Grand Hotel. Tel: +81 3 3456 2222
Tomorrow the Japanese government is due to formally announce its emission
reduction proposal for the industrialised world for the Kyoto climate
summit: a maximum of a 5% reduction from 1990 levels for a basket of three
greenhouse gases over the period 2008-2012. In a second period up to 2017,
industrialised countries would not be obliged to make further reductions.
See below for fuller details and an analysis of the emission
reduction implications for various industrialised nations.
The information has been well-leaked. In a talk to the Foreign
Correspondents Club of Japan last Friday I described the proposal as a
"joke". This was well picked up by the written press here.
Now more details have emerged, the proposal is even weaker than first
thought. We are faxing a press release out this afternoon to Japan-based
agencies and press with WWF?s reaction (see below). You might like to join
in the condemnation of what Japan is proposing and ensure that your country
flatly rejects the proposal.
Japan?s Special Ambassador, Toshiaki Tanabe, is on a world tour canvassing
for the support of other industrialised nations. After visiting Washington
DC he moved on to Hawaii a few days ago for an informal conference
including Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US. Today's Yomiuri
Shimbun gave front-page coverage to Australia?s outrage over the stringency
of the Japanese proposal!
Tanabe is moving to Europe for talks in the next few days. It is vital that
European governments reject the proposal in no uncertain terms and urge
Japan to at least support the EU standpoint. (Note: the WWF policies and
measures study for Japan identifies how to cut CO2 emissions 8.8% below
1990 levels by 2005 and 14.8% by 2010 - very similar to the EU position).
It would also be very useful if progressive business groups would express
their horror at the new economic opportunities which will be foregone if
Kyoto is a flop.
Best wishes, Andrew
---
CLIMATE CHANGE: JAPANESE PROPOSAL FOR KYOTO
To be formally announced by the Japanese government, Monday 6 October 1997
Following information is from the Nikkei Journal, 4 October 1997
A.      Content of the proposal
1.  First period: the five years from 2008 to 2012
Reduction of 5%; Base year: 1990
1)  Gases: CO2, methane, Nitrous oxide
2)  Target figures will be flexible according to the future energy
situation, changes in industrial structures, etc.  But in any case, the
total emission should not exceed 1990 level.
3)  Each country's target would be based on emission per GDP, emission per
capita, and population growth rate.
If emission per GDP of 1990 (A) is smaller than emission per GDP of all
countries (B), the reduction rate should be 5%x(A/B)
If per capita emission of 1990(C) is smaller than per capita emission of
all countries (D), the reduction rate should be 5%x(C/D).
If population growth rate from 1990 to 1995 is more than the population
growth rate of all other countries, the reduction target of that country
should put into consideration their high population growth rate.
Banking, Borrowing, Joint Implementaion and Emission Trading schemes should
be introduced with certain conditions.
2.  Second period: 2013-2017
Emission should not exceed the level of the first period.
More sophisticated differentiation scheme should be adopted for the second
period.
B.      Implications of the proposal
Resulting emission reduction targets for the five years 2008-2012, relative
to 1990:
%
Australia                       1.8
Czech Republic          5.0
Denmark                 2.5
Germany                 3.1
Italy                   2.5
Japan                   2.5
Portugal                        1.6
Russia                  5.0
Spain                   2.2
Switzerland             1.3
UK                      3.7
US                      2.6
Overall reduction for all industrialised countries: 3.2 %
---
WWF PRESS RELEASE
JAPAN PROPOSAL FOR KYOTO SUMMIT SCANDALOUS, WWF SAYS
KYOTO, JAPAN, 5 October 1997 ? The World Wide Fund for Nature condemned as
"scandalous" the Japanese government?s proposal for reducing greenhouse
gases responsible for climate change, Sunday, and called on industrialised
nations to flatly reject it.
As full details of the proposal emerged over the weekend, it was revealed
that Japan suggests allowing industrialised countries to make extremely
marginal reductions in their emissions by as late as 2008-2012.  In a
second five-year period up to 2017, countries would only be required to
ensure their emissions were lower than in 1990.
"The Japanese plan presents a bleak future for the environment, already
suffering from the serious impacts of global warming including rising
sea-levels, rising sea temperatures, and increased extreme weather patterns
? to name just a few," said Andrew Kerr of WWF?s international Climate
Change Campaign.  "The plan is laughable when you consider that some
European nations already have cut their greenhouse gas emissions by several
times more than the amount Japan proposes for emission reductions more than
a decade from now."
According to the just released "WWF State of the Climate" report that
evaluates the global impacts of climate change, a long list of impacts
already are visible today including the destruction of several land and
marine ecosystems in Asia and around the world because they cannot keep up
with the pace of global warming.
The Japanese proposal also proves the government is back-tracking on a
Ministerial Declaration concluded at the 1996 climate summit in Geneva.  At
that conference, 130 countries, including Japan, agreed that the Kyoto
Summit should agree on "legally-binding objectives for emission limitations
and significant overall reductions" of greenhouse gases.  At the Geneva
meeting, the Ministers recognised that climate change science showed human
activities, primarily the burning of coal, oil and gasoline, are already
affecting the planet?s climate and the impacts would be wide-ranging and
irreversible, posing threats to food supplies, public health and the
survival of many species.  Nations also agreed that "significant reductions
in net greenhouse gas emissions are technically possible and economically
feasible".
WWF is calling on industrial nations to cut their carbon dioxide emissions
20 percent below 1990 levels by 2005.  A WWF report written by Dr. Haruki
Tsuchiya of the Research Institute for Systems Technology, in Tokyo, (to be
released by WWF later this month) shows that Japan can reduce its carbon
dioxide emissions by nearly nine percent by 2005 and by almost 15 percent
by 2010 without damaging the economy.  Policies and measures suggested by
the WWF report would stimulate the economy and help position Japan as a
world leader in the development of new, energy efficient technologies.
"Environmentally, Japan?s plan is worse than no plan whatsoever because it
pretends to legitimise an emissions cut that is so low it will produce no
tangible result in the effort to combat climate change, " said Kerr. "Even
more alarming, it encourages many nations also to cut their emissions by
much less than they now plan. This proposal is an embarrassment for Japan
because it spells disaster for the Kyoto Summit in December which will be
seen as an absolute failure by several European nations and the entire
environmental community if such meagre greenhouse gas emission cuts are
adopted."
The complicated emission-reduction formulae that Japan proposes would
require Japan to make only a 2.5 percent cut in emissions.  The United
States, responsible for over one-fifth of world releases of carbon dioxide,
would only need to make a 2.6 percent  reduction.  Highlighting the
political irrelevance of the Japanese formula, Germany,  Denmark and the UK
would have to make reductions of 3.1 percent, 2.5 percent and 3.7 percent
respectively.  But Germany already has achieved around half of its national
target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 25 percent by 2005. Denmark
is aiming for a 20 percent reduction by the same date and the UK?s target
is a 20 percent cut by 2010.
Contact:  Andrew Kerr or Yurika Ayukawa. Mobile tel: 010-760 5022 and
Hearton Hotel, 075-222 1300.


Mike, Rob,
Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.
I would like to weigh in on two important questions --
Distribution for Endorsements --
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as
possible for endorsements.   I think the only thing that counts is
numbers. The media is going to say  "1000 scientists signed" or "1500
signed".  No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
without.  They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
different story.
Conclusion -- Forget the screening, forget asking
them about their last publication (most will ignore you.)  Get those
names!
Timing -- I feel strongly that the week of 24 November  is too late.
1.  We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was
a sag in related news,  but in the week before Kyoto we should expect
that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.
2.  If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am
afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any
time to pay attention to it.  We should give them a few weeks to hear
about it.
3.  If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have
it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread
the word about the Statement.  On the other hand, it wouldn't be so
bad to release the Statement  in the same week,  but on a
diffeent day.  The media might enjoy hearing the message from two
very different directions.
Conclusion -- I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17
November at the latest.
Mike  -- I have no organized email list that could begin to compete
with the list you can get from the Dutch.  But I am still
willing to send you what I have,  if you wish.
Best wishes,
Joe Alcamo
----------------------------------------------------
Prof. Dr. Joseph Alcamo,  Director
Center for Environmental Systems Research
University of Kassel
Kurt Wolters Strasse 3
D-34109 Kassel
Germany
Phone: +49 561 804 3898
Fax:  +49 561 804 3176


Dear Dr. Ritson,
Your email to Phil Jones suggests that there are serious discrepancies between
the ECHAM1/LSG power spectrum that I computed for the 1995 Barnett et al.
Holocene paper and the ECHAM1/LSG power spectrum that Curt Covey posted on the
WWW. This is not the case. At the time that Tim Barnett, Phil Jones, Keith
Briffa and I performed the research that is the subject of the Holocene paper,
only 600 years of control run data were available from ECHAM1/LSG. This is
stated on page 256 of the Holocene paper. The first ca. 200-250 years of this
control integration incorporated a large, non-linear climate drift component.
This was manifested both in globally-averaged temperature and in other climate
variables (see Santer et al., 1995, JGR 100, 10,693-10,725).
Prior to computing the spectrum I removed the overall (i.e., 600-year)
least-squares linear trend. There is still considerable low-frequency variance
in the residuals, in part (but not wholly) due to the non-linearity of the
drift component in the first few centuries. This residual drift explains some
portion of the GFDL-versus-ECHAM1 power discrepancies at timescales of >100
years.
The CMIP project received data from MPI well after the completion of the
research described in the Barnett et al. paper. At that time, I believe that
1,250 years of ECHAM1/LSG control run data were made available. My
understanding is that Curt did not use the first (drift-contaminated) 250 years
of the ECHAM1/LSG control run when he computed the ECHAM1 spectrum displayed on
the CMIP WWW page. HIs analysis relied on the last 1,000 years of the data.
Not surprisingly, neglecting the first 250 years makes a big difference to the
computed spectrum. This is particularly apparent at low frequencies, and also
in the variance ratio (between periods of 300 and 2 years) that you compute.
I hope this clarifies things. Should you still have residual concerns about our
method of spectral analysis (which is standard and follows Jenkins and Watts),
I'd be happy to provide you with a copy of the program that was used to
generate the spectra.
Sincerely,
Ben Santer
--- Forwarded mail from Phil Jones
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:42:29 +0100
To: ritson@slac.stanford.edu
From: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: Your Holocene paper with Barnett et al 6.3 1996 page 255
Cc: bsanter@rainbow.llnl.gov
David,
I can only suggest you contact Ben Santer who did the
analysis for Table 1. Ben is generally very busy - his
email is bsanter@rainbow.llnl.gov .
Cheers
Phil
At 01:10 PM 10/13/97 -0700, you wrote:
> Two quick questions about your Fig 1, power spectrum of global mean
>averaged temperature.
>
>1) You don't provide units. I would have expected that
>
>
Integral(G(f).df)
>
>would be the normalization with G(f) being the power spectrum and DT the
>RMS variance. Obviously this is not what you used. What are your units?
>
>2) I checked your ECHAM1 results for the ratio of the power spectrum at
>a period of 300 years to the value at 2 years against the posted CMIP
>LLNL power spectrum on the WWW. Aside from units the ratios of CMIP
>and yours appear to differ by a factor of the order of 6. As you are both
>using the same data base(?) and Curtis Covey of LLNL said he used Ben Santers
>program for power spectra this discrepancy seems a litle strange. Who is
right
>or are you both right?
>
>I would check it myself in a matter of day(s) but getting model data bases
>is a bureacratic nightmare.
>
>Dave
>
Dr 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---End of forwarded mail from Phil Jones


Tom
please do. Actually I would be interested to know whether Malcolm mentioned these results to Dave as he was in Krasnoyarsk a few months ago when I showed this stuff. I will be over in New York in a few weeks to discuss with Ed the possibility of putting in an NSF/NERC proposal to look at the tree biomass change question. Also,the initial impetus to redo this stuff was as part of a NERC project we have running in colllaboration with Ian Woodward - i which we are inputting high resolution climate data to Dolly to assess the roll of such variability on carbon uptake
cheers
Keith
At 02:54 PM 11/3/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Keith,
>
>Malcolm Hughes was here on Friday to see Dave Schimel about precisely the
>issue you raise.  Dave wants to see if he can validate his ecosystem model
>using tree ring data.  Sounds as if you already have the data to do this.
>Can I show your e-mail to Dave?
>
>Tom
>
>On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, Keith Briffa wrote:
>
>>
>> Tom
>>    thanks for the info. Actually this is a chance for me to to mention that
>> we have for the last few months at least, been reworking the idea of
>> looking in the Schweingruber network data for evidence of increasing tree
>> growth and hence ,potentially at least, evidence of changing tree(read
>> biomass) uptake of carbon.
>> The results are dramatic - not to say earth shattering because they
>> demonstrate  major time-dependent changes - but changes that are consistent
>> in different areas of the network. We have regionalised over 350 site
>> collections , each with ring width and density data , age-banded the data
>> so that we look only at relative growth in similar ages of trees through
>> time and recombined the standardisd curves to produce growth changes in
>> each region. Basically growth is roughly constant (except for relatively
>> small climate variablity forcing) from 1700 to about 1850. It then
>> increases linearly by about up until about 1950 after which time young ( up
>> to 50 year old) basal area explodes but older trees remain constant . The
>> implication is a major increase in carbon uptake before the mid 20th
>> century - temperatue no doubt partly to blame  but much more likely to be
>> nitrate/Co2 . Equally important though is the levelling off of carbon
>> uptake in the later 20th century. This levelling is coincident with the
>> start of a density decline - we have a paper coming out in Nature
>> documenting the decline . In relative terms (i.e. by comparison with
>> increasing summer temperatures) the decline is represented in the ring
>> width and basal area data as a levelling off in the long-timescale inrease
>> ( which you only see when you process the data as we have). The density
>> data do not show the increase over and above what you expect from
>> temperature forcing.
>> I have been agonising for months that these results are not some
>> statistical artifact of the analysis method but we can't see how. For just
>> two species (spruce in the western U.S. Great Basin area and larch in
>> eastern Siberia) we can push the method far enough to get an indication of
>> much longer term growth changes ( from about 1400) and the results confirm
>> a late 20th century apparent fertilization! The method requires
>> standardizing (localized mean subtraction and standard deviation division)
>> by species/age band so we reconstruct relative (e.g. per cent change) only .
>> We have experimented with integrating the different signals in basal area
>> and density(after extracting intra ring ring width and density data where
>> available) within a 'flat mass' measure which shows a general late 20th
>> century  increase - but whether this incorporates a defensible relative
>> waiting on the different components (and what the relative carbon
>> components are) is debatable. We now need to make some horrible simplistic
>> assumptions about absolute carbon in these (relatively small) components of
>> the total biomass carbon pool and imlpications for terrestrial and total
>> carbon fluxes over the last few hundred years - and beyond! Without these
>> implications we will have difficulty convincing Nature that this work is
>> mega important.
>> There are problems with explaining and interpreting these data but they are
>> by far the best produced for assessing large scale carbon-cycle-relevant
>> vegetation changes - at least as regards well-dated continous trends. I
>> will send you a couple of Figures ( a tiny sample of the literally hundreds
>> we have) which illustrate some of this. I would appreciate your reaction.
>> Obviously this stuff is very hush hush till I get a couple of papers
>> written up on this. We are looking at a moisture sensive network of data at
>> the moment to see if any similar results are produced when
>> non-temperature-sensitive data are used. You would expect perhaps a greater
>> effect in such data if Co2 acts on the water use efficiency .
>> At 09:30 AM 11/3/97 -0700, you wrote:
>> >Dear Keith,
>> >
>> >Look at Tremblay et al. GRL 24, 2027-30 (1997) and Dyke et al. Arctic 50,
>> >1-16 (1997).  These papers deal with driftwood in the Arctic over the past
>> >9000 years.  They note that genera can be distinguished, but not species
>> >Hence, they can't say where the wood comes from, North America versus
>> >Europe.  Surely cross-dating could do this?  May be worth getting in touch
>> >with Dyke et al.
>> >
>> >Tom
>> >
>> --
>> Dr. Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia,
>> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom
>> Phone: +44-1603-592090    Fax: +44-1603-507784
>>
>
>
>       **********************************************************
>       *Tom M.L. Wigley						*
>       *Senior Scientist 					*
>       *National Center for Atmospheric Research                *
>       *P.O. Box 3000				                *
>       *Boulder, CO 80307-3000					*
>       *USA                                                     *
>       *Phone: 303-497-2690                                     *
>       *Fax: 303-497-2699                                       *
>       *E-mail: wigley@ucar.edu                                 *
>       **********************************************************
>
>


>It would indeed be interesting to poll all of our invitees using a more
>sophisticated
>questionnaire, but this is not what we are about.  For example, if you
>disagree
>with the Statement I would be interested to know the grounds of your
>disagreement.
Mike,
Thanks.
I am always worried about this sort of things. Even if you have 1000
signitures, and appear to have a strong backup, how many of those asked did
not sign?
Also, I happen to be of the opinion that the US proposal for Kyoto is too
ambitious. But of course I am thinking of real policies, not of
negotiation-rhetoric.
Finally, I think that the text conveys the message that it is a scientific
defense for the EU position. There is not any. Even DG11 finds a hard to
defend (at least, in the draft version of their attempt -- I don't think the
final version has appeared yet). Whatever you think about long-term goals,
2010 is pretty soon. At the moment, no country has any experience with
serious emission reduction POLICY. Minus 15% is serious, particularly because
of the effort that will be spend on the monetary union and because the UK and
Germany are too optimistic on their baseline emissions. Rash action instead
careful thinking may well run serious, international climate policy deep into
the ground.
Cheers
Richard


Mike
> I hope you had my comments from a few weeks ago.
Yes, sorry I've taken so long to reply.
> 1.  Overheads: we charge EU projects 20% overheads and these are totally
> acceptable
Yes, you are quite right.
> 2.  Budget: I will need to redraft our budget.  Please tell me estimated
> start data and for how long the project will run.  I envisage our budget
> remaining in the bracket 60-70k ECU
I guess we are looking to April 1998 at the very earliest. I heard that
some SMT projects take up to 2 years to get going even after they've
been approved due to wrangles over the budget. We have 1 million ECU for
3 years....so some project budgets will have to be cut. Yours looks
fine.
> 3.  Workplan: I am assuming the basic climate tasks remain pretty much as
> before, namely:
>
> a) 10' gridded monthly climate data for Europe for 1961-90 linked to a weather
> generator that will yield daily data.  Key variables: precip., tmin, tmax,
> vapour pressure, sunshine/radiation, wind, wet days, frost days.
Yes, that'll do nicely!
> b) for the world a 0.5deg gridded dataset for 1961-90 at monthly timesteps
Excellent!
> c) what was decided about very high resolution climate surfaces for 1-2
> regions?
> This was in the original proposal but got dropped I think.  Adding this back
> to our work plan would involve extra time and hence resources.  How
> important are
> these test 1km (?) resolution datasets?
We've had a problem contacting the Spaniards which is a bit of a blow
because they gave a nice geospatial feel to the project. The Norwegians
are proposing to conduct a high resolution study near Oslo..I think
they'll be interpolating locally collected data. I'll send you their
proposal as soon as I can get it into a little better shape but, in
principle, I think it would be best if you could, at this stage, just
stick to the low resolution work.
> 4.  Other EU projects:  I suggest you mention my involement in CLIVARA
> which is
> funded through the Environment/CLimate programme of DGXII.  This is running
> from
> 1996-1999 and is concerned with mapping and modelling agriculture across the
> EU under 1961-90 conditions and also under future climate change.
> Co-ordinated
> by Environmental Change Unit at University of Oxford.  let me know if you want
> more info. on this.
A brief update to your "partner information" would be great.
> Can you confirm for me which forms I need to get completed?  Do you
> have copies to send me or should I get them from here.
I'm putting some in the post for you.
> I shall not be able to be with you in York on Friday, but I am here
> all this week if there are questions.
many thanks..there are sure to be some.
All the very best
Richard