Kevin/Susan,
I'll look over 3.9. A quick look at the back references to sections which contain
the detail summarized here, suggests that you've got the right level of section. I guess
we could add a sentence to say that this/these are the principal section(s), but the whole
of the x.x section is likely also relevant.
I've added Susan in to show what we're doing. It might be appropriate for other
chapters. Part of my reason was traceability, but also we are referring to subsequent
sections in Chapters 4 and 5.
The figures seem to be coming along well. Pdfs are also. I'll send another
reminder about these out later today, when I've had one last look for a few of them.
I'll attach section numbers as there are so few now.
Cheers
Phil
The bulletted points and back references are below.
·         Global-mean surface temperatures show overall warming of 0.75ºC over the
19012004 period although rates of temperature rise are much greater after 1979.   Both land
surface air temperatures and SST show warming although land regions have warmed at a faster
rate than the oceans for both hemispheres in the past few decades, consistent with the much
greater mass and thermal inertia of the oceans.  Some areas have not warmed in recent
decades, and a few have cooled although not significantly. [3.2.2]
·         The warming of the climate is consistent with a widespread reduction in the
number of frost days in mid-latitude regions. The latter is due to an earlier last day of
frost in spring rather than a later start to the frost season in autumn. The increase in
the number of daily warm extremes and reduction in cold extremes across over 70% of land
regions studied have been most marked at night over the 1951-2003 period.  The greater
increase in nighttime as opposed to daytime temperatures has continued. [3.8.2.1]
·         Widespread (but not ubiquitous) decreases in continental DTR since the 1950s
occur with increases in cloud amounts, as expected from the impact of cloud cover on solar
heating of the surface. [3.2.2; 3.4.3]
·         The temperature increases are consistent with the observed nearly worldwide
reduction in mountain glacier mass and extent. A few regions of the world where mountain
glacier termini are determined by winter precipitation totals, as opposed to summer
temperatures, do show some advances, but these are consistent with changes in circulation
and associated increases in winter precipitation (e.g., southwestern Norway, parts of
coastal Alaska, southern Chile and Fjordland of the South Island of New Zealand). Tropical
ice caps in South America, Africa and Tibet have all shown remarkable declines in recent
decades. If continued, some may disappear within the next 30 years. Reduction in mass of
such glaciers depends on local heat budgets, which is not necessarily reflected in local
temperature changes. The temperature records all show a slight warming, but nowhere near
the magnitude required to explain the rapid demise of the many of the ice caps. [4.5]
·         Snow cover has decreased in many NH regions, particularly in the spring season,
consistent with greater increases in spring as opposed to autumn temperatures in
mid-latitude regions. The decrease is accompanied by increased active layer thickness above
permafrost and decreased seasonally frozen ground depths. [3.3.2.3; 4.2.4, 4.8]
·         Sea-ice extents have decreased in the Arctic, particularly in the spring and
summer seasons, and patterns of the changes are consistent with regions showing a
temperature increase, although changes in winds are also a major factor. Decreases are
found in the length of the freeze season of river and lake ice. [3.2.2.3; 4.3, 4.4, 5.3.3]
·         Surface temperature variability and trends since 1979 are consistent with those
estimated by most analyses of satellite retrievals of lower-tropospheric temperatures,
provided the latter are adequately adjusted for all issues of satellite drift, orbit decay,
different satellites and stratospheric influence on the T2 records, and also with ERA-40
estimates of lower-tropospheric temperatures. The range from different datasets of global
surface warming since 1979 is 0.15 to 0.18 compared to 0.12 to 0.19 K decade^-1 for MSU
estimates of lower tropospheric temperatures. [3.4.1]
·         Stratospheric temperature estimates from radiosondes, satellites (T4) and
reanalyses are in qualitative agreement recording a cooling of between 0.3 and 0.8ºC
decade^-1 since 1979. Increasing evidence suggests increasing warming with altitude from
1979 to 2004 from the surface through much of the troposphere in the tropics, cooling in
the stratosphere, and a higher tropopause, consistent with expectations from observed
increased greenhouse gases and changes in stratospheric ozone. Over extratropical land, the
larger warming at night is associated with larger surface temperature changes. [3.4.1]
·         Radiation changes at the top-of the atmosphere from the 1980s to 1990s, possibly
ENSO related in part, appear to be associated with reductions in tropical cloud cover, and
are linked to changes in the energy budget at the surface and in observed ocean heat
content in a consistent way. [3.4.3; 3.4.4]
·         Surface specific humidity has also generally increased after 1976 in close
association with higher temperatures over both land and ocean.  Consistent with a warmer
climate, total column water vapour has increased over the global oceans by 1.2 ± 0.3% from
1988 to 2004, consistent in patterns and amount with changes in SST and a fairly constant
relative humidity.  Upper tropospheric water vapour has also increased in ways such that
relative humidity remains about constant, providing a major positive feedback to radiative
forcing. [3.4.2]
·         Over land a strong negative correlation is observed between precipitation and
surface temperature in summer and in low latitudes throughout the year, and areas that have
become wetter, such as the eastern United States, have not warmed as much as other land
areas.  Increased precipitation is associated with increases in cloud and surface wetness,
and thus increased evaporation. Although records are sparse, continental-scale estimates of
pan evaporation show decreases, due to decreases in surface radiation associated with
increases in clouds, changes in cloud properties, and increases in air pollution in
different regions from 1970 to 1990. There is tentative evidence to suggest that this has
reversed in recent years.  The inferred enhanced evaporation and reduced temperature
increase is physically consistent with enhanced latent versus sensible heat fluxes from the
surface in wetter conditions. [3.3.5; 3.4.4.2]
·         Surface observations of cloud cover changes over land exhibit coherent variations
on interannual to decadal time scales which are positively correlated with gauge-based
precipitation measurements. [3.4.3]
·         Consistent with rising amounts of water vapour in the atmosphere, increases in
the numbers of heavy precipitation events (e.g., 90/95^th percentile) have been reported
from many land regions, even those where there has been a reduction in total precipitation.
Increases have also been reported for rarer precipitation events (1 in 50 year return
period), but only a few regions have sufficient data to assess such trends reliably.
[3.4.2; 3.8.2.2]
·         Patterns of precipitation change are much more spatially- and seasonally-variable
than temperature change, but where significant changes do occur they are consistent with
measured changes in streamflow. [3.3.4]
·         Droughts have increased in various parts of the world.  The regions where they
have occurred seem to be determined largely by changes in SSTs, especially in the tropics,
through changes in the atmospheric circulation and precipitation. Inferred enhanced
evaporation and drying associated with warming and decreased precipitation are important
factors in increases in drought. In the western United States, diminishing snow pack and
subsequent summer soil moisture reductions have also been a factor. In Australia and
Europe, direct links to warming have been inferred through the extreme nature of high
temperatures and heat waves accompanying drought. [3.3.4, QACCS 3.3, 3.8.3, 4.x.x]
·         Changes in the freshwater balance of the Atlantic Ocean over the past four
decades have been pronounced as freshening has occurred in the North Atlantic and also
south of 25°S, while salinity has increased in the tropics and subtropics, especially in
the upper 500 m. The implication is that there have been increases in moisture transport by
the atmosphere from the subtropics to higher latitudes, in association with changes in
atmospheric circulation, including the NAO, thereby increasing precipitation over the
northern ocean and in adjacent land areas (as observed). [3.3.2, 3.3.3, 5.3.2, 5.5.3]
·         Changes in the large-scale atmospheric circulation are apparent. Increasing
westerlies have been present in both hemispheres as enhanced annular modes. In the NH, the
NAM and NAO change the flow from oceans to continents and are a major part of the
wintertime observed change in storm tracks, precipitation and temperature patterns,
especially over Europe and North Africa. In the SH, SAM changes, in association with the
ozone hole, have been identified with recent contrasting trends of large warming in the
Antarctic Peninsula, and cooling over interior Antarctica. [3.5, 3.6, 3.8.3]
·         The 19761977 climate shift toward more El Niños has affected Pacific rim
countries and monsoons throughout the tropics. Over North America, ENSO and PNA-related
changes appear to have led to contrasting changes across the continent, as the west has
warmed more than the east, while the latter has become cloudier and wetter. [3.6, 3.7]
·         Variations in extratropical storminess are strongly associated mostly with
changes in mean atmospheric circulation, such as changes and variations in ENSO, NAO, PDO,
and SAM. Wind and significant wave height analysis support the reanalysis-based evidence
for an increase in extratropical storm activity in the NH in recent decades. After the late
1990s, however, some of these variations seemed to change sign. [3.5, 3.6, 3.8.3.2]
·         Changes are observed to occur in the number, distribution and tracks of tropical
storms that are clearly related to ENSO phases and to a slightly lesser extent to the AMO
and QBO modulations.  Increases in intensity and lifetimes of tropical storms since the
1970s are consistent with increases in SSTs and atmospheric water vapour. [3.8.3.1]
·         Sea level likely rose about 18±3 cm during the 20^th century, but increased
3.0±0.4 mm/year after 1992, when confidence increases from global altimetry measurements.
During this period, glacier melt has increased ocean mass by order 1.0 mm/year, increases
in ocean heat content and associated ocean expansion are estimated to contribute 1.6
mm/year, while changes in land water storage are uncertain but may have taken water out of
the ocean.  Isostatic rebound contributes about 0.3 mm/year. This near balance gives
increased confidence that the observed sea level rise is a strong indicator of warming, and
an integrator of the cumulative energy imbalance at the top of atmosphere.[4.5, 4.7, 4.9.8,
5.2, 5.5]
At 23:47 27/07/2005, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Phil
I placed new versions of the figure and text files on my ftp site.  I implemented your
suggestion of adding section numbers to the 3.9.  I used the ones from the ZOD wrt other
chapters.  So they may change.  I also added a small piece on freezing seasons on lakes
and rivers that was mentioned in the last para but not in any bullets.  You may like to
comment on this as some are x.x, some are y.y.y and some are z.z.z.z.
In the first case the whole section is really applicable and so mentioning each
subsection does not seem worthwhile.  Should we go to the z.z.z.z level, as that is not
in the TOC?
In doing this I found that two sections in 3.8 had very similar titles and so I changed
that of 3.8.3 to explicitly say tropical and extratrtopical storms and extreme events,
which are the 3 subsections. The Table of contents (TOC) is all up to date, and now
corrected for one subsection that was mislabeled as level 2 instead of 3.
Several figures have been revised.
I am out tomorrow all day but Lisa tells me she is up to w in the references.  So should
have a complete new version on Friday.  Hopefully several of the figures will be by
upgraded then too.  I have a new Fig 3.3.1 but can't work with it: something wrong with
it, so I've asked Dave E for a different one. Main outstanding stuff is all waiting on
Dave Easterling.  I have requests in to Tom Karl on the 2 CCSP figures.
Following my earlier email I have responses on Figs 3.2.3: now good, 3.4.6 I did, 3.5.2,
and one from Groisman.  So only 7 figures not in final form.
I believe we have 74 figures in the sense that they are separate files.
That includes counts of 1 for several multipanel files (like some T ones or the
hurricane one), but 4 for some 4 panel ones like the ENSO one, where the files were all
generated anew and independently.  So the good part is that 67 of them are in great
shape.  We actually have 48 figures counting the 2 TAR ones that will be in 3.9, and 3
in the 3 QACCS.
Cheers
Kevin
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                              e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR                  [1]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000,                                 (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                               (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80303
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.


Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mime-Autoconverted: from 8bit to 7bit by courier 0.47
Hi Peck and Eystein,
Here a reduced version of Box 6.2, taking into account suggestions from David
and Bette. The text is now 1.5 pages, i.e. just slightly above target. The
entire Box should now fit on less than 1 IPCC page (Assigned 0.75 page).
I am willing to take the next effort to shorten when the review comments of the
FOD are in.
With best regards,
Fortunat
Quoting Fortunat Joos
:
> Hi Peck and Eystein,
>
> here my general comment on the introduction and specific comments on section
> 6.2.1 and 6.4.1.
>
> 6.1 and 6.2.1:
>
> Well done!
>
> (1) Perhaps, words such as 'significant' and other value judgment terms could
> be
> used somewhat less. e.g. 'With proper care, current methodologies alloww more
> accurate age models' more accurate than what? We always hope that things are
> done with proper care.
>
> (2) The following sentence must in my opinion be deleted: 'but also note that
> new work reveals that
> cosmogeninc-isotope-derived estimates of solar forcing for the Holocene are
> not
> likely as well-constrained as commonly thought.'
>
> This is a very sweeping statement that is not backed up by the chapter text.
> It
> is also a very policy sensitive statement. We are either able to firmly
> support
> that or to drop it. I suspect that the paleo community would be divided about
> this.
>
> Scott Lehmann has just shown me a plot with a really nice correlatin between
> d18O in N-pachy in the Norht-Atlatnic and sunspots over the past 400 years.
> Yes, there appears to be a link.
>
> I also doubt that some of the existing work, e.g. Fleitman etc can be
> dismissed
> so easily.
>
> section 6.4.1:
>
> (3) I also think that the Holocene text on solar needs some readjustments.
> Linking the studies suggesting solar changes and those with NADW variations
> seems a somewhat improper comparison.
>
> The present text reads:
>
> 'Based on the correlation between changes in atmospheric concentrations of
> cosmogenic isotopes (10Be or 14C) and climate proxy records, some authors
> argue
> that solar activity may be the driver for an organised centennial to
> millennial
> scale variability (e.g., (Bond et al., 2001; Fleitmann et al., 2003) (Karlen,
> 1996) (Wang et al., 2005b), whereas others point to modes of variability
> driven
> by processes within the climate system, for instance related to the deep
> ocean
> circulation (Bianchi and McCave, 1999) (Duplessy et al., 2001) (Oppo et al.,
> 2003) (Marchal et al., 2002).'
>
> I suggest to change it to something along the following line.
>
> "'Based on the correlation between changes in atmospheric concentrations of
> cosmogenic isotopes (10Be or 14C) and climate proxy records, many studies
> suggest that solar activity may be a driver for centennial to millennial
> scale
> variability (e.g., (Bond et al., 2001; Fleitmann et al., 2003) (Karlen, 1996)
> (Wang et al., 2005b). The importance of (forced or unforced) modes of
> variability within the climate system, for instance related to the deep ocean
> circulation has been pointed out (Bianchi and McCave, 1999) (Duplessy et al.,
> 2001) (Oppo et al., 2003) (Marchal et al., 2002)."
>
> With best regards,
>
> Fortunat
>
>
>
> Quoting Fortunat Joos
:
>
> > Hi Stefan, Peck and all,
> >
> > Here an update on the abrupt event figure and the figure caption. There
> were
> > some lost lines in the one send yesterday - please delete. I have now also
> > numbered some of the D/O events and the A1 to A4 events.
> >
> > The purpose of the figure is to demonstrate the asynchrounous evolution of
> NH
> > and SH temperatuere and the magnitude of the GHG changes during abrupt
> > events.
> >
> > Clearly, it would be great if the figure could be amended by other
> > information,
> > e.g. from the land or sediment records. We may also think about indicating
> > the
> > local Greenland temperatre change for the bigger events.
> >
> > Any ideas, suggestions, comments are welcomed.
> >
> > Peck: please include ERIC MONNIN as a Contributing author.
> >
> > Eric has synchronized the Taylor Dome and Dome C data on the GRIP time
> scale
> > and
> > helped me greatly to put toghether the records for the abrupt event and for
> > the
> > LGM-box figures.
> >
> > With best regards,
> >
> > Fortunat
> >
> > Quoting Fortunat Joos
:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Here finally the abrupt event figure plus an update of the LGM-box
> figure.
> > > Will provide figure caption, section 6.6. text and shortened LGM-box
> > > tomorrow.
> > >
> > > With best regards,
> > >
> > > Fortunat
> > >
> > > --
> > > e-mail:   joos@climate.unibe.ch;
> > >
> > > Until November 23
> > >   National Centre for Atmospheric Research, Terrestrial Sciences, CGD
> > >   1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO, 80305
> > >   ++1-303 497 13 44 (office)
> > >
> > >   home address:
> > >   3655 Emerson Avenue, Boulder, CO, 80305
> > >    ++1-303 494 69 52 (home)
> > >
> > > After November 24
> > >   Climate and Environmental Physics
> > >   Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern
> > >   Phone:    ++41(0)31 631 44 61      Fax:      ++41(0)31 631 87 42
> > >   Internet: ~joos/
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > e-mail:   joos@climate.unibe.ch;
> >
> > Until November 23
> >   National Centre for Atmospheric Research, Terrestrial Sciences, CGD
> >   1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO, 80305
> >   ++1-303 497 13 44 (office)
> >
> >   home address:
> >   3655 Emerson Avenue, Boulder, CO, 80305
> >    ++1-303 494 69 52 (home)
> >
> > After November 24
> >   Climate and Environmental Physics
> >   Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern
> >   Phone:    ++41(0)31 631 44 61      Fax:      ++41(0)31 631 87 42
> >   Internet: ~joos/
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> e-mail:   joos@climate.unibe.ch;
>
> Until November 23
>   National Centre for Atmospheric Research, Terrestrial Sciences, CGD
>   1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO, 80305
>   ++1-303 497 13 44 (office)
>
>   home address:
>   3655 Emerson Avenue, Boulder, CO, 80305
>    ++1-303 494 69 52 (home)
>
> After November 24
>   Climate and Environmental Physics
>   Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern
>   Phone:    ++41(0)31 631 44 61      Fax:      ++41(0)31 631 87 42
>   Internet: ~joos/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list
> Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu
>
>
--
e-mail:   joos@climate.unibe.ch;
Until November 23
National Centre for Atmospheric Research, Terrestrial Sciences, CGD
1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO, 80305
++1-303 497 13 44 (office)
home address:
3655 Emerson Avenue, Boulder, CO, 80305
++1-303 494 69 52 (home)
After November 24
Climate and Environmental Physics
Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern
Phone:    ++41(0)31 631 44 61      Fax:      ++41(0)31 631 87 42
Internet: ~joos/
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\joos_Ch06_FOD_LGMBox_28jul05.doc"
_______________________________________________
Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list
Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu


Simon,
If you go to this web page
[1]
You can click on a re-evaluation of MBH, which leads to a paper submitted
to Climatic Change. This shows that MBH can be reproduced. The R-code
to do this can be accessed and eventually the data - once the paper has been
accepted.
IPCC will likely conclude that all MM arguments are wrong and have
been answered in papers that have either come out or will soon. MBH
is just one curve of many - more now than there were in 2001. MBH is
still in the spaghetti of curves, and is not an outlier.  If there are outliers
it will be Esper et al. and another one.
Bristlecones are only crucial to the issue if you are MM. They misused
them, by their PCA application.  This is all well-known to those in the know.
I have reviewed the CC paper by Wahl and Ammann. It reproduces all
the mistakes MM have made, so they know how and why their results
have been achieved.  I can send you the paper if you want, subject
to the usual rules.
MBH have all responded to the same requests as IPCC got from the
US Senate. Their responses are all posted at [2]
The skeptics have shot themselves in the foot over this one.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:17 29/07/2005, Tim Osborn wrote:
At 14:27 28/07/2005, Tett, Simon wrote:
John Houghton is being quized by bits of the US senate. One question is
"Whats the status of the review of the Mann hockey stick temperature
curve?  I understand that studies by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick
suggest that it relied on the statistically insignificant bristlecone
pine.  Is the IPCC taking another look at that work, which forms the
basis for much of todays climate change debate?"
My current thoughts on an answer is to say that other reconstructions
show a similar pattern (though not magnitude). However how many of the
other reconstructions use the bristlecone data? [I suspect yours does
not]
Hi Simon - I was away yesterday, so couldn't answer then.  Hopefully it isn't too late
to answer today.
(1) I don't understand what they mean by describing the bristlecone pine as
"statistically insignificant".
(2) The Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH1999) reconstruction is only one small piece of
information in today's climate change debate.
(3) As far as I understand, then yes the MBH1999 reconstruction does give quite a lot of
weight to a few western US tree-ring series, which are mostly bristlecone pines for the
longest records.
(4) Other reconstructions show similar shape (though not magnitude) and support similar
conclusions (regarding the unprecedented nature of recent warmth/warming trend).  This
is the main argument to make, as you thought.  Some of these other reconstructions do
not include these bristlecones (e.g. Briffa, 2000; Crowley et al., 2003; Moberg et al.,
2005; Briffa et al., 2001).  Crowely and Moberg use different Bristlecone records I
think.  Other reconstructions do use the same Bristlecone pines (e.g., Mann and Jones,
2004).  BUT the critical thing is that the studies either do not use these Bristlecone
pines, or if they do use them, then they give them much more similar weighting to the
other records used.  I think MBH1999 is the only one that might give them a dominant
weighting.
(5) IPCC is assessing all published work that relates to these issues in preparation for
the AR4 in 2007.  This includes the McIntyre and McKitrick papers as well as papers that
report results contrary to McIntyre/McKitrick, such as the paper in press by Wahl and
Amman that shows the Mann et al. results are reproducible.
cc'd for additional comments to Phil and Keith (when he's back).
Cheers
Tim
Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
phone:    +44 1603 592089
fax:      +44 1603 507784
web:      [3]~timo/
sunclock: [4]~timo/sunclock.htm
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.
2.
3. ~timo/
4. ~timo/sunclock.htm


Mike,
Gabi was supposed to be there but wasn't either. I think Gabi isn't
being objective as she might because of Tom C.  I recall Keith
telling me that her recent paper has been rejected, not sure if outright
or not.
Gabi sees the issue from a D&A perspective, not whether any curve
is nearer the truth, but just what the envelope of the range might be.
There is an issue coming up in IPCC. Every curve needs error
bars, and having them is all that matters. It seems irrelevant whether
they are right or how they are used. Changing timescales make this
simple use impractical.
We have a new version of HadCRUT just submitted, so soon
the'll be HadCRUT3v and CRUTEM3v.  The land doesn't change much.
This has errors associated with each point, but the paper doesn't yet
discuss how to use them.
I'll attach this paper. Only just been submitted to JGR - not
in this format though. This format lays it out better.
Thanks for reminding Scott.
Cheers
Phil
At 08:48 04/08/2005, you wrote:
Hi Phil,
Thanks for the heads up. Will be prepared for this then. I thought that Gabi Hegerl was
involved with this guy? Doesn't she know better? It is disturbing that she hasn't set
them straight on this.
By the way, as you may or may not have heard, its been discovered that there is a major
error in Von Storch et al '04 that they now appear to be trying to hide (they have some
obscure article in an Italian journal where they attempt to justify the error).  There
are several comments that have been or are soon to be submitted to Science about this.
As it turns out, they introduces a spurious step in their supposed implementation of the
MBH98 procedure in which they detrended the series first, gives completely wrong
results.. Caspar Ammann and Gene Wahl and David Ritson of Stanford have both
independently discovered this, because they noticed that  amplitude of the calibrated
signal in VS04 scales with the signal-to-noise ratio--this was the first clue that there
was a major problem. There may be calls upon Science for them to retract their paper.
The results are completely wrong, aside from the problems w/ the GKSS simulation. You
can expect to hear more about this soon...
I'll remind Scott about the proxies. He and Zhang are in the process of screening the
proxy series for temperature signals, etc. Once they've done that, should be more
useful. I expect we'll be able to get you some stuff by late August.
I did hear about the 3 papers coming out in Science. Apparently Donald Kennedy is doing
an editorial that will discuss this in the context of the whole Barton business. That
should be interesting...There will be articles by both Gavin and Steve Sherwood on
"RealClimate" in coordination with the publication of the papers in Science Express.
This should help turn the debate around.
talk to you later,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
He's been working with Myles Allen. Tim went to the first meeting of this
Dutch funded project near Oxford last week.
Tim said they were doing some odd things, like correlating all the proxy series
they had with CET (yes CET)!  Even the few SH proxies they have. The others
who went to the meeting were Zorita and Moberg. Zorita was still showing the
GKSS run with Moberg series, even though its forcing is too large, it doesn't
have aerosols in the 20th century and has spin up problems for the first
200 years.
Meeting wasn't that productive according to Tim. There was a belief amongst
those there that all trees you used have lost low-freq, but this isn't true as you
know.
Also, it was a good job Keith wasn't there (he didn't go as his father died the
weekend before and he's not been in CRU since) as Martin assumed that RCS
was developed by Esper (who also wasn't there). Tim put them right on this
one, but RCS isn't applicable for normal tree sites, nor useful for bristlecones.
Tim said Esper was wrong is his use of RCS, but they wouldn't accept that
as Esper wasn't there to defend himself!
Basically only Tim knew anything about proxy data especially trees. Tim
got the impression that they wanted to find that MBH is wrong. Given the
previous comment, as you weren't there they are using double standards.
So, in conclusion, act carefully. Don't jump in, but some carefully thought
through comments should be productive. Suggest they read the RevG article.
Martin isn't associated with the contrarians, but he's not in possession
of the all the facts. He isn't aware of Casper's work, nor your latest study
which you sent the other day, nor Rutherford et al.
There still seems to be a belief in these lower responding proxies. This is
something we want to work on more here, as the only way it seems to show
that these lower-freq proxies aren't that great is to use higher-freq proxies.
When you're back or sometime, can you remind Scott to send your
latest set of proxies. I'll have some time in the autumn to work on them
as the AR4 should be in by Aug 12.
Science should be publishing 3 papers on the MSU issue by the end of Aug
or early Sept. This is Mears/Wentz, Santer et al. and Sherwood et al. Latter
shows that sondes are only truly reliable when flown at night. Daytime ones
have all manner of problems with heating, just like air temps on board ships -
hence the NMAT series.
I'll forward another email for interest.
Cheers
Phil
At 03:40 04/08/2005, you wrote:
Hi Phil,
Thanks, yes I'm in China now. As you might imagine, ,things have been very busy, but
calming down a bit. Looks like Barton may be backing down...
Martin Juckes has an invited talk in my session. I invited him, because he was working
w/ Stott et al, and so I assume he was legit, and not associated with the contrarians.
But if he's associated w/ the Dutch group, he may actually be a problem. Do you have
additional information about him and what he has been up to?
Thanks,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Good to hear it is out  !
Hope the changeover is going OK and life is getting back to normal.
If you're not gone to China yet - you'll meet someone called Martin
Dukes (?). He's giving a talk at your session. He knows about maths
etc but not much about paleo !   Might need some education, but
is probably OK. Not met him, but Tim has.  Doing some worked
funded by the Dutch govt on the hockey stick.
Cheers
Phil
At 04:05 03/08/2005, you wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
FYI, two papers attached:
First (reprint), Rutherford et al, is now out in latest issue of Journal of Climate.
This paper, aside from addressing other more scientifically-worthwhile issues,  also
happens to discredit most of the McIntyre and McKitrick claims.
Second (preprint), Mann et al, is formally in press (i.e., has gone off to the AMS
production staff) in Journal of Climate. This paper strongly challenges the conclusions
of von Storch et al (2004), and raises some methodological issues w/ the approach used
by Moberg et al (2005).
Feel free to pass along to others. Thanks
Mike
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University      email:  mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
[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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University      email:  mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
[2]
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University      email:  mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
[3]
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.
2.
3.


Hi Tim and Keith - Hope you're not going to kill
me, but I was talking with Susan Solomon today,
and she impressed me with the need to make
several points if we can.
One issue (other to come in a subsequent email)
is whether we can extend the MWP box figure to
include the 15th century. I don't read the blogs
that regularly, but I guess the skeptics are
making hay of their being a global warm event
around 1450AD. I agree w/ Susan that it is our
obligation to weigh in on issues like this,
so.... can we extend the fig to extend up to
1500AD?
Sorry about this, Tim. Of course we need it yesterday.
Thanks x10**6
best, peck
>Dear Eystein, Peck and Keith,
>
>I spotted a minor error in the MWP figure
>(reference period was 1001-2000 but should have
>been 1001-1980 because some series stop in 1980)
>and a typo in the legend, so here is a revised
>MWP figure with these things corrected and a
>slight adjustment to line thicknesses and font
>sizes.
>
>As before I've included .ps, .pdf and .gif
>versions because I'm not sure what you prefer.
>
>I've also drafted a caption - see attached .doc
>file.  Feel free to modify as necessary.  I
>think it covers the necessary details including
>normalisation period, but perhaps it is a bit
>"wordy" and unnecessarily repeats things already
>in the MWB box text?
>
>I'm still working on SH figure/caption.
>
>Cheers
>
>Tim
>
>
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:ipccar4_mwpbox 1.pdf (PDF /«IC») (0008D1B9)
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:ipccar4_mwpbox.ps (    /    ) (0008D1BA)
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Caption for
>MWP box figure.doc (WDBN/«IC») (0008D1BB)
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:ipccar4_mwpbox.gif (GIFf/«IC») (0008D1BC)
>Dr Timothy J Osborn
>Climatic Research Unit
>School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
>Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
>
>e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
>phone:    +44 1603 592089
>fax:      +44 1603 507784
>web:      ~timo/
>sunclock: ~timo/sunclock.htm
--
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 Tim - Decisions, decisions... thanks so much
for taking the initiative. I think - for the
reason you state, we should go for the one that
includes the 20th century. We make clear that
these are not reconstructed temp, but normalized
anomalies - this keeps us out of some trouble.
But, I think the main message is that we're
looking at this issue from every angle. And,
we're letting others see the issue from every
angle. It adds punch.
this means that the MWP box needs to talk about
the period around 1400 - can you make sure that's
on Keith's radar screen. I believe that
historians talk about the Medieval Period going
to at least 1450, so what the heck...
I you can adjust the caption to work, and then
send both it and the final fig to Øyvind, me and
Eystein that would be good - make sure Keith is
ok with it all first, too.
Thanks Tim! Best, Peck
>Hi Peck,
>
>there is a period around 1400 AD when the proxy
>records we've used in this MWP figure do
>indicate a warm period - and all records show
>positive anomalies at the same time.  Thus it
>couldn't/shouldn't be dismissed in the same way
>as the MWP, as a period of disparate regional
>behaviour, albeit with more records showing
>warming than cooling.  For 1400, all indicate
>warming but with smaller magnitude than the 20th
>century.  If the figure were extended to cover
>the 15th century, then it would also seem
>necessary to extend it to the present so that
>the 1400 period could be compared with the 20th
>century.
>
>I've attached 3 versions of the figure.
>
>850-1350 as originally sent.
>
>850-1500 showing warm anomaly in 1400, but
>cannot tell how warm relative to present-day.
>
>850-2000 showing 1400 was not as anomalous as present-day.
>
>Take your pick, Peck!
>
>Cheers
>
>Tim and Keith
>
>At 21:57 05/08/2005, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>Hi Tim and Keith - Hope you're not going to
>>kill me, but I was talking with Susan Solomon
>>today, and she impressed me with the need to
>>make several points if we can.
>>
>>One issue (other to come in a subsequent email)
>>is whether we can extend the MWP box figure to
>>include the 15th century. I don't read the
>>blogs that regularly, but I guess the skeptics
>>are making hay of their being a global warm
>>event around 1450AD. I agree w/ Susan that it
>>is our obligation to weigh in on issues like
>>this, so.... can we extend the fig to extend up
>>to 1500AD?
>>
>>Sorry about this, Tim. Of course we need it yesterday.
>>
>>Thanks x10**6
>>
>>best, peck
>>
>>>Dear Eystein, Peck and Keith,
>>>
>>>I spotted a minor error in the MWP figure
>>>(reference period was 1001-2000 but should
>>>have been 1001-1980 because some series stop
>>>in 1980) and a typo in the legend, so here is
>>>a revised MWP figure with these things
>>>corrected and a slight adjustment to line
>>>thicknesses and font sizes.
>>>
>>>As before I've included .ps, .pdf and .gif
>>>versions because I'm not sure what you prefer.
>>>
>>>I've also drafted a caption - see attached
>>>.doc file.  Feel free to modify as necessary.
>>>I think it covers the necessary details
>>>including normalisation period, but perhaps it
>>>is a bit "wordy" and unnecessarily repeats
>>>things already in the MWB box text?
>>>
>>>I'm still working on SH figure/caption.
>>>
>>>Cheers
>>>
>>>Tim
>
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:mwpbox8502000.pdf (PDF /«IC») (00091133)
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:mwpbox8501500.pdf (PDF /«IC») (00091134)
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:ipccar4_mwpbox 2.pdf (PDF /«IC») (00091135)
>Dr Timothy J Osborn
>Climatic Research Unit
>School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
>Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
>
>e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
>phone:    +44 1603 592089
>fax:      +44 1603 507784
>web:      ~timo/
>sunclock: ~timo/sunclock.htm
--
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


David - sounds promising. So, the bottom line is that a little disagreement is ok - that's
a reflection of the real uncertainty? But, the discrepancy is not all that big in the end?
No need to take this to a higher level?
Keith Briffa is back on line and finishing off Section 6.5, so you might want to send him
an email w/ suggestions that help keep chap 6 compatible w/ 2 and 9 - for example, with
respect to solar, we acknowledge the forcing could be less than 0.5 W/m**2, and the
uncertaintly wrt to trop aerosols and land albedo is significant - we could easily be
closer to chap 9's estimate. Would you say the key is that our analysis acknowledge the
uncertainty so as to overlap well with the other chapters?
Keith - please make sure you send your new 6.5 to David too - while you were out, he was
working hard w/ chap 2 and 9 to make sure we (the IPCC) avoid saying things that confuse.
The comparison of radiative forcings from 3 different angles is what assessment is all
about, and it's great David has had the patience to help figure it all out.
Thx, Peck
Hi Gabi,
The key to your proposed solution is the updated numbers from Chapter 2. If indeed the
radiative forcing change to 1750 is -1.53, then presumably you have made this consistent
with the earlier part of Chapter 9. The numbers previously looked like this (I haven't
seen the latest version of 6.5, but I've included the previous estimates we had in the
ZOD):
W/m**2
Chapter 6               Chapter 9
MM              1750
Greenhouse gases:               -2.4            -2.6
TROP aerosols:          0.5             0.2
Solar                   -0.5            -0.1
Volcanic:                       ?               ?
Land albedo:            +0.4            0.03
Trop O3:                        -0.35           -0.4
Strat O3:                       +0.15           0.10
1'st indirect aerosol forcing                   1.2
STRAT H2O                               -0.13
AVIATION                                -0.02
TOTAL                   -2.2            -1.7
There is essentially no change in greenhouse gas forcing from 1750 to 1700 (see for
example Crowley et al., GRL, 2003), so the difference in the estimated numbers is
probably due to inclusion of more things or different choices in Chapter 2. A similar
statement holds for trop aerosols. One can also use these two to presume that the same
also holds true for land albedo. [The value listed for that in Chapter 9 is quite small
compared to some other studies; e.g., Govindasamy et al., GRL, 28, 291-294,2001.] So, to
the extent these numbers are still discussed in Chapter 6, they should be made
consistent with those in chapters 2 and 9.
With respect to your proposed paragraph below: I would drop the comments about trace gas
differences but saying land albedo changes may have been greater, along with the
additional solar change, could give us the -1.8 W/m**2 forcing.
Concerning the temperature response: the Moberg et al paper itself claims 1°C difference
between 1500 and 2000, but the figure seems to show a larger number, perhaps 1.3°C
(again, just eye-balling it). However, the coldest time period is not in the MM but
before it. I think therefore a better estimate from that paper for the MM would be 1°C.
So, with respect to the sensitivity: if 0.85 W/m**2 is unresolved, then we have a total
forcing of ~0.95 W/m**2, and a climate response varying between 0.45°C and 1°C - or a
climate sensitivity for 2xCO2 of 1.9°C to 4.2°C, or pretty similar to standard IPCC
estimates.
I think this will work!
David
At 1:02 PM -0400 8/6/05, hegerl@duke.edu wrote:
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 hegerl@duke.edu wrote:
p.s. I modified the text for MM forcing according to below theory
(please yell if its off!) which would say (and has questions for you):
During the cool period of the Late Maunder Minimum (approximately
1675-1715), sunspots were generally missing, and solar irradince is
believed to have been smaller. This period will be used in Section 9.6 to
discuss climate sensitivity; therefore we discuss its radiative forcing
estimates . The estimated difference between present day solar irradiance
and the late 17th century Maunder Minimum is presently -1.1 W/m2 (best
estimate, range -0.5 to -2 W/m2 , Chapter 2), but with large
uncertainties. This leads to a best estimate radiative forcing of -0.2
W/m2 (-0.1 to -0.35 W/m2 67% confidence interval; note that solar forcing
from 1750 to the present is estimated having increased by 0.1 W/m2 ,
chapter 2). Many radiative forcing changes, particularly those associated
with industrialization,  are very similar from the present to the Maunder
Minimum as they are from the present to preindustrial (total forcing
estimated of -1.53 W/m2, see 9.2.1.2). CO2 may have been slightly lower
(by???), and land cover changes may also have been glightly greater
between the Maunder Minimum and 1750.  This yields an approximate net
radiative forcing of-1.8 W m-2 (between the late Maunder Minimum and the
present, with large uncertainties.
>
> > Hi David et al, > > I spent some more time pondering the MM forcing.
> I think the best place to start is the updated chapter 2 forcing
> from preindustrial, which is (according to what Joyce pulled out of
> ch 2, so hope its correct):
>
> -1.53 from present to the 1750 period (all included that they deem
> relevant, so no volcanoes because episodic, but all else in there
> including contrails and other weird small stuff, I THINK it also
> includes land cover changes)
>
> We would have to add -0.1 for the more reduced solar (given +0.1 1750 to
> now from ch2, and 0.2 from MM on), and maybe some number for the
> somewhat lower CO2 between 1700 and 1750 (what would that be)? and
> maybe another number for additional changes in land cover?
>
> Overall, the number you had before of -1.8 (after adjusting solar down
> to recent wisdom) seems now pretty good to me.
> Should we keep it, or do you ahve another suggestion?
> I am glad we didn't loose the forcing from MM to present :)))
>
> greetings, let me know what would be good for us to write (and then I'll
> do the arithmetic for the best guess sensitivity once you guys also
> check my numbers for high/low estimates of annual temp changes at that
> period, right now its -0.45 Mann to -1.5 Moberg-readoffplotinahurry by me)
>
> Thanks in advance, I think we are very close to resolve this!
>
> Gabi
>
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, David Rind wrote:
>
> > As this continuing exchange has clarified, what's in Chapter 6 is
> > inconsistent with what is in Chapter 2 (and Chapter 9 is caught in
> > the middle!). Worse yet, we've managed to make global warming go
> > away! (Maybe it really is that easy...:)
> >
> > David
> >
> > At 9:49 AM -0600 8/5/05, Bette Otto-Bliesner wrote:
> > >Gabi,
> > >
> > >In Chap 6, we use 2.2 with a range of 1.9 to 2.6 W/m2.  The
> > >uncertainty range includes both uncertainties in the ice core
> > >measurements and uncertainties in the radiative transfer
> > >calculations.
> > >
> > >Bette
> > >
> > >_
> >
> >
> > >At 2:27 PM -0400 8/4/05, Gabi Hegerl wrote:
> > >
> > >David, so with the Judith correction only (solar down by 0.4), we
> > >get a total forcing of
> > >0.95 to MM, (after subtracting the 0.85 not realized yet according to Jim)
> > >
> > >Then, if the indirect effect and black carbon is added, wouldn't
> > >this reduce the forcing to nearly nothing?
> > >(or what am I doing wrong, 2.2 changes to 1.8 with new solar, black
> > >carbon and ind aerosol takes away
> > >0.9. yielding 0.9 W/m**2, then Jim says 0.85 of that is unrealized???)
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gabriele Hegerl
> Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment
> Duke University, Durham NC 27708
> phone 919-684-6167, fax 919-684-5833
> email: hegerl@duke.edu
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriele Hegerl
Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment
Duke University, Durham NC 27708
phone 919-684-6167, fax 919-684-5833
email: hegerl@duke.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
--
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


OK.  I agree with her on most. I was looking at the file over the
weekend.  The new 3.8.4 has helped as will the new ones on DTR
when we get them  In the longer run I would like to get 3.7.1 and
3.7.2 redone - at least plotted better.
Also, in time, we will need to get the Sahel plot updated to
have 2004 and 2005 in. Neil Ward was here for a few hours last
week. He's now back at IRI, but he was surprised by the UK
media and their reporting of the famine in Niger -
saying it was all down to lack of rainfall. June in the region
was above normal. Problems last year and locusts are the
reason. The real reason may not matter on the ground, but
the problems will recur as very little is planted this year.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:10 08/08/2005, you wrote:
I had an email exchange with Susan the preceded this.
She is making an early start on reading the chapter and started with ours, using the
version I posted on thursday: so she is referring to the figure file for Ch 3.
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:
Which ones ?  Which version is she looking at?
Susan's been suggesting figures for the paleo chapter. At
least we haven't had to cope with that.
Phil
At 15:01 08/08/2005, you wrote:
FYI
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: wow
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 18:08:21 -0600
From: Susan Solomon [1]
To: [2]trenbert@ucar.edu
References: [3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
Kevin,
some amazing figures in your chapter, wow
Susan
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                              e-mail: [7]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR                  [8]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000,                                 (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                               (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80303
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    [9]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                              e-mail: [10]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR                  [11]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000,                                 (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                               (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80303
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. mailto:ssolomon@al.noaa.gov
2. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
3. mailto:p06020416bf194a5ef9bc@%5B140.172.240.163%5D
4. mailto:4001.128.117.68.3.1123283585.squirrel@webmail.cgd.ucar.edu
5. mailto:p0602040bbf19a6388172@%5B140.172.240.163%5D
6. mailto:4148.24.8.173.64.1123285320.squirrel@webmail.cgd.ucar.edu
7. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
8.
9. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
10. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
11.


Thanks for the comments Jason/Henry.  Just wanted to let you know that I've dropped the
uncertainty ranges to be consistent with the other records and also cut the borehole series
at the median sampling dates.
Cheers
Tim
At 16:45 04/08/2005, Jason E Smerdon wrote:
Hi Tim,
Henry and I apologize for not being available the last few days.  Henry has been out of
town and I have been in the midst of moving to New York. Nevertheless, we had the chance
to cross paths today and discuss the figure and caption.  We hope it is not too late to
add our two cents.
We agree that the uncertainties on the borehole curves should be removed to make the
display more consistent.  We have also decided that it would be best to truncate the
borehole curves at their median logging dates. For Australia and Africa those years are
1972 and 1986, respectively.  If you wish to discuss the sampling densities, the total
number of boreholes in Australia and Africa are 57 and 92, respectively.  The SH has a
total of 165 holes, compared to 695 in the NH.
Let us know if you need anything else.  I hope this has not arrived too late and good
luck with everything.
Best Regards,
Jason


Dear all again,
here is the MWP figure and caption.  Note that I don't know what number it should have, because it is for a box not a standard section.  So I've just called it "mwpbox" for now.  Please can you give it the correct number and put it in the right place in the figures file?  Also, when you have numbered it, please let us know so that we can refer to it in the MWP box text.
The figure now goes right up to the present, as requested!
I've attached a word document with caption and .gif figure embedded, but also separate .gif, .pdf and .ps files for the figure.  If you don't want all these different formats, then please tell me which one(s) you want and I'll only send those in future!
Cheers
Tim


Peck and Eystein
in case you tried (!), my phone has been broken for the last few days (yes - honestly).
I am sorry I had to rush off - and stay longer than I had anticipated . The funeral was
delayed
while a post-mortem examination had to be held to establish the precise cause of death.
Ironic
that dad had struggled on having had at least 3 heart attacks, 2 strokes, chronic diabetes
and partial liver and kidney failure for some years (besides being virtually immobile and
completely blind for 18 months). All in all , though it was a release, the actual demise
was sudden and unexpected and I managed to arrive too late to be with him at the end.
Given the time constraint , this "final" revision is not as considered as it might have
been , but we have tried to take into account all comments available , and have given
considerable attention to the IPCC terminology and emphasis on the bullet points . At this
stage , however, there are some clear areas where future work will be required to keep
abreast of recent developments and , perhaps, to re-balance the emphasis and structure. I
apologise for not having responded directly to Fortunat, Stefan, Ricardo.Olga, David and
Tom, but please be aware that I have considered all of their comments and done what I could
to address them .Thanks Fortunat and Ricardo (and Ed - who should be added to the list of
CAs) for the text and Figures and Henry and Jason for the help and data . David's
suggestions about re-ordering the paragraphs was particularly difficult to resolve in my
own mind , because I do see the logic , but equally , did not want to interfere with the
time line approach to describing post- TAR work that underlies the current structure. as
you can see I decided to leave the order as it was. It would be great if David and Fortunat
could check cross Chapter referencing (eg in relation to forcings and detection chapters).
We can revisit this , and the issue of McIntyre and McKitrick (centering of PCs in Mann et
al reconstruction - which is clearly unfounded) until such time as the numerous responses
are published.
The new SH section is in , and the MWP box slightly amended to take account of the new
Figure.
Peck, I have considered your text on the regional section - and you will see that I have
edited out some relating to future (and association between drought and SSTs) . I feel
strongly that you are venturing into "observational" territory and speculation beyond what
we should say. I have also amended the bullet points to reflect this. YOU ARE THE ULTIMATE
ARBITERS and it is up to you if you wish to re-insert , but I will give you a continuing
argument later about our overstepping the "paleo" boundary. Note also that the bullet on
European summer 2004 has bee altered to reflect what was a last minute , one-sentence ,
insertion in the first paragraph regarding Jurg Lutterbacher's Science paper - as there was
no mention of it otherwise. We had to remove the reference to "700 years in France" as I am
not sure what this is , and it is not in the text anyway. The use of "likely" , "very
likely" and my additional fudge word "unusual" are all carefully chosen where used.
Tim has been a rock in the last minute rush here - not only doing the Figures , but also
helping with the text. I am really grateful to him. He has sent the text , with some
comments, and highlighted references, that need attention. If Oyvind can identify
references and handle these problems with Endnote , we are also really grateful.
The final references , if missing , are probably in the current text, the previous Endnote
library , or in sections of text sent by Ricardo, Fortunat, Peck and Eystein. I trust when
you guys have stiched the new text back in and the Figures etc. we will perhaps get a last
chance to correct and check references etc. Thanks
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.


Peter, Kevin
Not having seen Ch 4, I agree that the term 'local heat budget' can be ambiguous. Are
you also discussing the issue of 'dirty' glaciers? For the Alps, the Swiss (well Wilfried
Haeberli) reckon that temperature alone cannot explain all the retreat in some recent
summers (especially 2003). Would local heat budgets include the effects of local
anthropogenic pollutants making the snow less white?
Lonnie Thompson has been on Quelccaya in the last couple of months and reports
that it is in an awful state. Like Kilimanjaro, the recent annual layers aren't
distinguishable. Lonnie reckons a lot of retreat is caused by sublimation. On Quelccaya
Lonnie and Ray Bradley have put up an AWS (on Sajama too). They've not got as much
data as they hoped as both have fallen over due to melting and also the guide who
helped them put one on Quelccaya later went back and brought it back down to
try and sell !
I'm happy with Kevin's draft, if local heat budgets is explained in your chapter.
Cheers
Phil
At 17:29 09/08/2005, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Peter, Thanks (sorry I can't get rid of the blue).
I am cc'ing Phil on this:  Georg has suggested instead the following.
The temperature increases are consistent with the observed nearly worldwide reduction
in glacier and ice cap mass and extent with strongest recession rates in the 1930s and
1940s and after 1990 and little changes around 1970. Tropical glacier changes are
synchronous with global ones, Kilimanjaro being an exception with radiatively forced
constant retreat of the plateau ice. 20^th Century glacier retreats are consistent with
temperature variations. Before 1900, glacier fluctuations are probably not only
reflecting temperature variations but mainly precipitation anomalies. In the Tropics,
glacier changes are related to atmospheric moisture variations which, in turn, correlate
with sea surface temperatures in the respective source regions and varying atmospheric
circulation modes. In some regions (Alaska, Patagonia, Karakoram) moderately increased
accumulation is observed indicating an amplified hydrological cycle.
I am not altogether happy with this wording.  In this bullet it reflects findings from
your chapter and ours (wrt precip, temp, circulation etc).  I would propose the
following as a compromise between the old text and the proposed:
The temperature increases are consistent with the observed nearly worldwide reduction in
glacier and ice cap mass and extent in the 20th century. Tropical glacier changes in
South America, Africa and Tibet are synchronous with global ones, and all have shown
declines in recent decades. If continued, some may disappear within the next 30 years.
Local temperature records all show a slight warming, but not of the magnitude required
to explain the rapid reduction in mass of such glaciers (e.g., on Kilimanjaro), which
instead depends on local heat budgets. Glaciers and ice caps respond not only to
temperatures but also changes in precipitation, and before 1900, glacier fluctuations
are probably not only reflecting temperature variations but mainly precipitation
anomalies. In some regions moderately increased accumulation observed in recent decades
is consistent with changes in atmospheric circulation and associated increases in winter
precipitation (e.g., southwestern Norway, parts of coastal Alaska, Patagonia, Karakoram,
and Fjordland of the South Island of New Zealand).
Note I have retained a bit more detail on the regions affected, and tried to stay away
from "radiatively forced" (whatever that means) and vague terms like "amplified
hydrological cycle".  I also want to retain more specific reference to the precip and
circulation changes going together.  Whether "local heat budgets" is adequate is my main
question?  I gather this is related to changes in cloud and sunshine, increased heating
that goes into melting and ablation rather than temp increases.  Should we spell that
out?  Do you deal with that?  I also did not add the detail on the dates in first
sentence as those should be in your chapter and they don't relate directly to the other
variables.
Are my terms "20th century" and "recent decades" correct?
Thanks
Kevin
Peter Lemke wrote:
Dear Kevin,
after his return from the Kilimanjaro Georg has supplied a modification to the text in
3.9 concerning the glaciers.
I have made a tiny change further down in the text replacing "order" by "approximately"
meaning 1mm/year and not implying, say, 3mm/year.
Best regards,
Peter
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                              e-mail: [1]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR                  [2]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000,                                 (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                               (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80303
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
2.


Fine with me. Let's hope they agree by tomorrow.
Phil
At 17:11 10/08/2005, you wrote:
Ok so here is how it now reads:
The temperature increases are consistent with the observed nearly worldwide reduction in
glacier and ice cap mass and extent in the 20^th century. Tropical glacier changes in
South America and Africa, and those in Tibet are synchronous with higher latitude ones,
and all have shown declines in recent decades. Local temperature records all show a
slight warming, but not of the magnitude required to explain the rapid reduction in mass
of such glaciers (e.g., on Kilimanjaro). Glaciers and ice caps respond not only to
temperatures but also changes in precipitation, and both global mean winter accumulation
and summer melting have increased over the last half century in association with
temperature increases.  Other factors in recent ablation include changes in cloudiness
and water vapour and associated radiation, and surface sensible heat exchange.
Precipitation anomalies are also important before 1900 in glacier fluctuations. In some
regions moderately increased accumulation observed in recent decades is consistent with
changes in atmospheric circulation and associated increases in winter precipitation
(e.g., southwestern Norway, parts of coastal Alaska, Patagonia, Karakoram, and Fjordland
of the South Island of New Zealand) even as enhanced ablation has led to marked declines
in mass balances in Alaska and Patagonia.
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:
Sort of arguing that way. It is also the before 1900 part. Precip and temp anomalies
are important at all times for glaciers. Their influence didn't change around 1900.
So what about Precipitation anomalies are also important before 1900.
I'd not got the implication. Adding also makes it clearer.
Phil
At 16:56 10/08/2005, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Phil is arguing for changes to 4.5.  Maybe the statement is too strong although it is
consistent with the last para of 4.5.2.? An alternative might be:  Precipitation
anomalies are important before 1900.  In the context this implies in addition to
temperature.
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:
Georg,
I've now also looked at the figures you sent from Ch 4. Kevin has the sentence,
which Peter may have added? I reckon this is too strong. Can we omit it?
Sentence is
Before 1900, glacier fluctuations probably mainly reflect precipitation anomalies.
Reasoning
Is this a general statement. I wonder if we need it. Oerlemans uses estimated
glacier termini positions (and related ELA changes) to infer past temperatures
and you have his figure. I know he assumes precip to have remained essentially
the same but he backs out temperature.  Also glaciers in Europe advanced
in the 17th and 18th centuries. It was cooler then (more so in winter than
summer). I also have a paper resubmitted to JGR where Alpine precip shows
no long-term changes since 1800. This uses loads of stations and is from the
ALP-IMP project that ZAMG co-ordinate (Reinhard Boehm).
So the advances are caused by more precip, but the retreats by higher summer T
and maybe less winter precip.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:23 10/08/2005, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi Georg
Many thanks for the attachments.  I had looked at the ZOD but this is much more
informative.  Based on your comments and the 4.5 section I have come up with the
following bullet.  Note that here we are writing for a general audience.  I have now
tried to include more clearly the factors involved.  I think these are consistent with
your chapter but the language in your chapter might be improved in a couple of places.
For instance an important forcing is radiation (solar and IR) which are greatly impacted
by clouds, water vapor, and albedo (the dirty cover on top of snow Phil referred to),
and I thought these could be brought out better in your chapter.  These are perhaps more
basic that temperature lapse rates and precipitation gradients which are consequences.
In 4.5.2 you use the term "radiatively forced" but it is not clear what that means.  I
suggest using some of these terms.  Also it is not clear what "amplified hydrological
cycle" means.  [FYI, the expectation is for more intense precipitation, not necessarily
for more total (owing to pollution effects).  The former is determined by increased
water vapor].  I took some of your words in the following.  We need to emphasize that
glaciers are not just high latitudes. I retained Kilimanjaro as that has received a lot
of publicity. Some of this is necessarily abrupt, but there will be a reference to 4.5
immediately following this bullet.  So the recent reversals in NZ and Norway can not be
dealt with here.
Let me know if you have further suggestions.  Again, many thanks
Regards
Kevin
o The temperature increases are consistent with the observed nearly worldwide reduction
in glacier and ice cap mass and extent in the 20^th century. Tropical glacier changes in
South America and Africa, and those in Tibet are synchronous with higher latitude ones,
and all have shown declines in recent decades. Local temperature records all show a
slight warming, but not of the magnitude required to explain the rapid reduction in mass
of such glaciers (e.g., on Kilimanjaro). Glaciers and ice caps respond not only to
temperatures but also changes in precipitation, and both global mean winter accumulation
and summer melting have increased over the last half century in association with
temperature increases.  Other factors in recent ablation include changes in cloudiness
and water vapour and associated radiation, and surface sensible heat exchange. Before
1900, glacier fluctuations probably mainly reflect precipitation anomalies. In some
regions moderately increased accumulation observed in recent decades is consistent with
changes in atmospheric circulation and associated increases in winter precipitation
(e.g., southwestern Norway, parts of coastal Alaska, Patagonia, Karakoram, and Fjordland
of the South Island of New Zealand) even as enhanced ablation has led to marked declines
in mass balances in Alaska and Patagonia.
Georg Kaser wrote:
Kevin,
Have many thanks for compiling and editing 3.9. I agree that the "radiatively forced"
and the "amplified hydrological cycle" should be removed and I also agree with Phil's
comment on the "local heat budget". In glaciology, the sum of each energy flux toward
and from the respective snow/ice surface is considered to make up the "local heat
budget". This also includes the sensible heat flux.
There are some other points in the text which I would like to comment:
1. Tropical glaciers are considered those in the South American Andes between Venezuela
and Norhern Boliva, those in East Africa and those in Irian Jaya (New Guinea). In
Chapter 4, Tibetean glaiers are taken as part of the Asian High Mountains (find the
present state Chapter 4.5. "Glaciers and Ice Caps attached).
2. Alaska, Patagonia, Karakoram, Norway and NZ cannot be merged in the respective
statement. In Alaska and Patagonia, moderately increase accumulation is accompanied by
strongly enhanced ablation making the mass balances markedly negative. From
glaciological site, no studies concerning atmospheric circulation patterns are provided
in the respective studies.
In the Karakoram mountains, enhanced accumulation has led to considerable glacier
advances, increased winter accumulation from the Westerlies is only suggested but not
subject of detailed studies. Heavy debris loads on the tongues probably prevent from
enhanced abaltion.
In Southwest Norway and NZ South Island, glaciers advances have ceded around 2000. I
don't know whether their advances shall still be mentioned in extension; I would not do
so beyond the respective statement in Ch. 4.5.
3. "If continued, some may disappear within the next 30 years." This sentence can stand
for every mountain region in the world and should not be used for tropical mountains
only. Everywhere, many small glaciers have disappeared since the 19th Century maxima and
many will disappear soon in the Alps, the Caucasus, in the Asian High mountains etc. as
well as in the Tropics. From the today's perspective Mount Kenya, all Mountains in the
Rwenzori Range except Mt. Stanley, Irain Jaya will be without glaciers soon, probably
sooner than Kilimanjaro; well known and studied glaciers in the Andes like Chacaltaya,
Charquini and Pastoruri will also disappear soon. This is not because of a particular
regional climate feature but just because they were already small when retreats started.
As you will see from Figure 4.5.5. Kilimanjaro's plateau ice is particular, slope
glaciers are less. The plateau glaciers retreat from their vertical walls where no
accumulation is possible and since they do so, there is no way to find an equilibrium
besides disappearance. The vertical walls are a result of cold temperatures high
sublimation and strong solar radiance. There is no way to replace the retreat by ice
dynamics on the flat summit plateau. Slope glaciers are only partially subject of this
kind of ablation and their retreat rate seems to have slowed markedly (See insert of Fig
4.5.5). If Kilimanjaro is mentioned in 3.9. it must also be added that it is a
particular case with complex relation to climate change.
4. All studies which investigate tropical glacier retreat and climate show the dominance
of changes in energy and mass balance terms which are related to the atmospheric
moisture content rather than locally measured air temperatures. Both increased and
reduced moisture can lead to negative mass balances and it has done so in most cases
studied (Cordillera Blanca, Peru, Cordillera Real, Bolivia, Antisana, Ecuador, Rwenzori,
Mt. Kenia, Kilimanjaro). Yet, wherever respective analyses were made, correlations were
found to anomalies in ENSO or Indian Oceans Indian Ocean Dipole Mode respectively
strongly indicating global warming as the principle reason of th eretreat.
I give you this lengthy explanation in order to make sure that the very compressed and
condensed bullet in 3.9. gets the right content. I have started to change your paragraph
suggestion accordingly but have to admit that, not being a native speaker myself, it
either becomes very long or very awkward.
I also appreciate Phil's statement about Quelccaya and Sajama. Doug Hardy and Ray
Bradley run AWS' there since a couple of years as well as on Kilimanjaro with all the
problems of recording data at such high elevation sites. Doug is preparing a paper on
the climate records there but it has still not reached it's final state.
Information on sublimation on Quelccaya is not published such as the positive mass
balances and advances on several Andean glaciers between 1998 and 2002 are not
published. Kilimanjaro has experienced both ablation as well as accumulation layers on
the horizontal surfaces over the last years. I have just come back from fieldwork there
last week and the last half year was a mass loss year. Being very much involved into
tropical glaciers myself, I have to accept that such detailed information would be
available for several hundreds of glaciers in the world each one providing 10 or more
publications. Going into such details cannot be the aim of the report, I am afraid.
Best wishes,
Georg
Georg Kaser
-------------------------------------------------
Institut fuer Geographie
Innrain 52
A-6020 INNSBRUCK
Tel: ++43 512 507 5407
Fax: ++43 512 507 2895
[1]
--
****************
Kevin E.
Trenberth
e-mail:
[2]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section,
NCAR
[3]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box
3000,
(303) 497
1318
Boulder, CO
80307
(303) 497
1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80303
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    [4]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
****************
Kevin E.
Trenberth
e-mail:
[5]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section,
NCAR
[6]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box
3000,
(303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO
80307
(303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80303
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    [7]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                              e-mail: [8]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR                  [9]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000,                                 (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                               (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80303
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.
2. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
3.
4. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
5. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
6.
7. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
8. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
9.


Hi Caspar,
Thanks for the comments. Frankly, Von storch is being duplicitous here.
He may tell certain audiences (like the NCAR group last month) that he
is not suggesting that the GKSS simulation is reealistic, because he
knows he'll get skewered if he claims othewise. But then he turns around
to the press, and talks about how the Moberg et al reconstruction
matches their model, etc.  I  frankly consider this dishonest, at best!
If what Stefan says is true (that the entire long-term trend, including
the cold LIA in the model, is all due to the spinup problem), then it
completely invalidates the use of that model for testing statistical
reconstruction methodologies which require physically-consistent
patterns of variance in the calibration period to reconstruct the past.
But that's a separate issue.
As we now know, the far more damning fact is that Von Storch et al
knowingly applied a procedure which is not the MBH98 procedure, and they
think they can get away w/ admitting this now in some obscure Italian
journal which isn't even in the ISI database.   Tim/Phil/Keith: you may
not know about the latter, but Caspar should be able to fill you in on
this shortly...
Meanwhile, lets enjoy the media fiesta on MSU...
Mike
Caspar Ammann wrote:
> Stefan,
>
> this is very important news indeed. The runs will get a huge hit from
> this. The only way a coupled model can get a continued trend (without
> invoking an energy leak somewhere) is when there is a terrible
> deep-ocean spin up available even for their present day
> initialization, not to speak about the subsequent shock to
> pre-industrial conditions. Did you really say 1.5 degrees? Wow, that
> is quite a bit. Seems to me they must have used Levitus ocean data
> with an atmospheric restart file, then hit it with the solar/GHG
> changes. It seems rather large of a drop to come from a fully coupled
> stage. 1.5 degrees is about 30% too large to be exclusively from the
> atmospheric composition and solar irradiance, thus my suspicion
> regarding levitus. Now it would be important to know what happend
> because some people are using the run as a possible real-world
> scenario (although Hans in talks does not claim so).
>
> Caspar
>
> PS Now, bare in mind that the Science paper applies to the
> reconstruction, and for the general discussion the influence of spinup
> should not make that big of a difference (other than inflating the
> difference of the coldest period to the calibration period, which
> creates some issues discussed by Mike previously).
>
>
>
> Michael E. Mann wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Subject:
>> Storch drift
>> From:
>> Stefan Rahmstorf
>> Date:
>> Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:37:27 +0200
>> To:
>> mann@psu.edu
>>
>> To:
>> mann@psu.edu
>> CC:
>> Gavin Schmidt
, Keith Briffa
>>
, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
>>
>>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> here is some interesting new info on the drift problem in the VS04
>> runs. Irina Fast and Gerd Bürger submitted a comment about this to
>> Science some months ago; it was rejected and they did not pursue it.
>> I'm trying to encourage them to resubmit this elsewhere. I do not
>> have the ms. but have seen several graphs. There are two key points.
>>
>> 1. The ECHO-G run started at year 900, the VS04 paper of course shows
>> only results starting from year 1000. I've seen the full run now.
>> Between 900 and 1000, the NH temperature drops by about 1.5 ºC!
>> That's how severe their initialisation problem is. From my experience
>> of how the THC responds after such step-function changes in forcing,
>> the strong warming from 1050-1150 in VS04 could well be a rebound
>> effect from the 1.5 ºC cooling that precedes it, since the THC tends
>> to oscillate on such a time scale when forced rapidly.
>>
>> 2. Irina has run ECHO-G initialised with modern climate and then
>> switching to pre-industrial conditions similar to the run shown by
>> VS04, but without any further variability in the forcing. Thus, this
>> shows the pure drift from initialising this run - this is what Tim
>> has been estimating in MAGICC. The actual drift in ECHO-G is even
>> larger and more persistent than what Tim found: there is a cooling
>> between the years 1000 and 2000 of over 0.6 ºC, and this is an almost
>> linear trend over the whole time. I.e., not just drifting during the
>> first few centuries, but over the entire 1000-year period.
>>
>> Cheers, Stefan
>>
>
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University      email:  mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013


Mike,
Yes it was him !
Phil
At 17:17 12/08/2005, you wrote:
Hi Phil,
Yeah--I've been told that one of the co-authors of the chapter (w/ the initials D.R.)
has behaved poorly. Fortunately, w/ Peck, Stefan R., and Keith all authors on the
chapter, it sounds as if the voices of reason are prevailing...
mike
Phil Jones wrote:
OK.  Keith is also away next week. He's
already gone.
He'll need to look more at all this before the
next IPCC meeting in December.
You should have seen some of the crap
comments he got.  Not yours, but some
of the other authors on the paleo chapter.
People who you think ought to know
better. Most relating to MM. All mostly
ignored. You'll be able to register to get
the draft by early Sept.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:49 12/08/2005, you wrote:
Thanks Phil,
Can you tell Keith (confidentially) that Ammann and Wahl are submitting a comment to
Science pointing out that von Storch knowingly did not apply the MBH98 procedure, and
that all of the conclusions in that paper are wrong!  There may be calls on Science to
retract VS04, because the mistake undermines every single conclusion!!
mike
Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
We have the Italian paper Well Keith does for his AR4 work.
Submission day for AR4 is today by the way.
I think the Italian journal is the one from a conf I went to
3 weeks after the Berne meeting. I didn't bother sending
anything to the Italian meeting either, just like Berne. The
journal the Italians were planning did look obscure when
I was there, but I didn't write anything down, as I had
no intention of sending anything.
Yes the MSU stuff is out.  There will be something
in Nature next week on it.
Off next week as a break from IPCC.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:21 12/08/2005, you wrote:
Hi Caspar,
Thanks for the comments. Frankly, Von storch is being duplicitous here. He may tell
certain audiences (like the NCAR group last month) that he is not suggesting that the
GKSS simulation is reealistic, because he knows he'll get skewered if he claims
othewise. But then he turns around to the press, and talks about how the Moberg et al
reconstruction matches their model, etc.  I
frankly consider this dishonest, at best!
If what Stefan says is true (that the entire long-term trend, including the cold LIA in
the model, is all due to the spinup problem), then it completely invalidates the use of
that model for testing statistical reconstruction methodologies which require
physically-consistent patterns of variance in the calibration period to reconstruct the
past. But that's a separate issue.
As we now know, the far more damning fact is that Von Storch et al knowingly applied a
procedure which is not the MBH98 procedure, and they think they can get away w/
admitting this now in some obscure Italian journal which isn't even in the ISI database.
Tim/Phil/Keith: you may not know about the latter, but Caspar should be able to fill you
in on this shortly...
Meanwhile, lets enjoy the media fiesta on MSU...
Mike
Caspar Ammann wrote:
Stefan,
this is very important news indeed. The runs will get a huge hit from this. The only way
a coupled model can get a continued trend (without invoking an energy leak somewhere) is
when there is a terrible deep-ocean spin up available even for their present day
initialization, not to speak about the subsequent shock to pre-industrial conditions.
Did you really say 1.5 degrees? Wow, that is quite a bit. Seems to me they must have
used Levitus ocean data with an atmospheric restart file, then hit it with the solar/GHG
changes. It seems rather large of a drop to come from a fully coupled stage. 1.5 degrees
is about 30% too large to be exclusively from the atmospheric composition and solar
irradiance, thus my suspicion regarding levitus. Now it would be important to know what
happend because some people are using the run as a possible real-world scenario
(although Hans in talks does not claim so).
Caspar
PS Now, bare in mind that the Science paper applies to the reconstruction, and for the
general discussion the influence of spinup should not make that big of a difference
(other than inflating the difference of the coldest period to the calibration period,
which creates some issues discussed by Mike previously).
Michael E. Mann wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
Storch drift
From:
Stefan Rahmstorf
Date:
Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:37:27 +0200
To:
mann@psu.edu
To:
mann@psu.edu
CC:
Gavin Schmidt
, Keith Briffa
,
t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
Hi Mike,
here is some interesting new info on the drift problem in the VS04 runs. Irina Fast and
Gerd Bürger submitted a comment about this to Science some months ago; it was rejected
and they did not pursue it. I'm trying to encourage them to resubmit this elsewhere. I
do not have the ms. but have seen several graphs. There are two key points.
1. The ECHO-G run started at year 900, the VS04 paper of course shows only results
starting from year 1000. I've seen the full run now. Between 900 and 1000, the NH
temperature drops by about 1.5 ºC! That's how severe their initialisation problem is.
From my experience of how the THC responds after such step-function changes in forcing,
the strong warming from 1050-1150 in VS04 could well be a rebound effect from the 1.5 ºC
cooling that precedes it, since the THC tends to oscillate on such a time scale when
forced rapidly.
2. Irina has run ECHO-G initialised with modern climate and then switching to
pre-industrial conditions similar to the run shown by VS04, but without any further
variability in the forcing. Thus, this shows the pure drift from initialising this run -
this is what Tim has been estimating in MAGICC. The actual drift in ECHO-G is even
larger and more persistent than what Tim found: there is a cooling between the years
1000 and 2000 of over 0.6 ºC, and this is an almost linear trend over the whole time.
I.e., not just drifting during the first few centuries, but over the entire 1000-year
period.
Cheers, Stefan
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University      email:  mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
[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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University      email:  mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
[2]
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University      email:  mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
[3]
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.
2.
3.


Ben and Tom,
Congratulations on the paper coming out on Aug 12.
I did talk to Nature about the three papers.
Last week seems to have been a good one to have had off.
I did this because of the IPCC submission deadline of Aug 12.
As you said Tom, there were some stupid messages going
around. If only these people would try and write peer-review
papers, provided they get proper reviews. The one from
Sonia should be kept as it proves that E&E is not a
proper journal.
I almost missed the one with Pielke's resignation in. Is this
going to make your CCSP task easier or harder? Presumably
now you'll get all his comments to officially deal with. Maybe
you'll be able to ignore them?
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Christoph,
It also looks OK to me. The bit highlighted in blue, should probably say
something like ...identify the key issues.
I agree with Mike that the last two names on the list should be removed.
I have sent an email about the 4th meeting of IPCC, which I
think is June 26-30, 2006. Just checking it is still that week, so
there won't be a clash.
Cheers
Phil
At 13:40 25/08/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote:
>Dear Christoph,
>
>Looks pretty good to me. Only one issue. In our discussion of possible
>participants in Bern, I think (someone correct me if I'm wrong) we
>concluded that the last two on the list (w/ question marks) would be
>unwise choices because they are likely to cause conflict than to
>contribute to concensus and progress. A preferred alternative who was
>mentioned was Simon Tett (though, it was pointed out, he may not be able
>to participate for other reasons). We also noted that both Keith B. and
>Tim. O are in the same European project as the two individuals in
>question, and could adequately (better, in my opinion) represent any
>contributions to the discussion from that project.
>
>mike
>
>Christoph Kull wrote:
>
>>Dear Phil, Keith, Mike and Heinz,
>>After dealing with the PAGES OSM the past weeks I made an attempt to
>>finalize our "Past Millennia Workshop Concept" in order to contact CLIVAR as
>>soon as possible for requesting support.
>>I incorporated your comments and suggestions in a balanced way and hope that
>>finally all of you may agree to the presented attached draft.
>>
>>Please get back to me with final remarks by Monday next week. I will
>>afterwards contact the CLIVAR office.
>>
>>All the best, thanks a lot for your cooperation and help!
>>Looking forward setting up a hopefully successful project.
>>Christoph
>
>
>--
>Michael E. Mann
>Associate Professor
>Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
>
>Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
>503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
>The Pennsylvania State University      email:  mann@psu.edu
>University Park, PA 16802-5013
>
>
>
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Phil et al,
I agree on Mike Evans. I'm afraid I don't agree on Zorita. He has engaged in some very
nasty, and in my opinion unprofessional email exchanges with some close colleagues of mine
who have established some fundamental undisclosed errors in work he co-published with von
Storch.  Given this, I don't believe he can be involved in constructive dialogue of the
sort we're looking for at this workshop. There are some similarly problematic issues w/
Cubasch, who like von Storch, who has engaged in inflammatory and ad hominem public
commentary. There is no room for that on any side of the debate.
If the Germans need to be represented here, I would suggest instead someone from the
Potsdam group, such as Eva Bauer, who has been doing some very interesting work on
modelling the climate of the past 2K,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:
Christoph,
I have checked with IPCC and their 4th meeting is in the June 26-30
week in Bergen..
As for Heinz's suggestions
- Mike Evans would be OK
- I'm nor sure that Mikami would contribute much
See Keith's comment on Zorita
Cheers
Phil
At 14:39 26/08/2005, Heinz Wanner wrote:
Dear Christoph,
I have only a few additional comments concerning the planned workshop.
First of all, I support this concept. Related to the topics, I heavily support to
organize a discussion about how we can reconstruct different paremeters independently.
It is important to try to reconstruct air pressure as a basic circulation parameter - if
possible.
Concerning the participants:
- Write GooSSe;
- Mikami from Japan (Tokyo Metropolitan University) could be an interesting Asian
participant;
- You mentioned Kevin Trenberth or Mark Cane. Both are absolutely okay, but why not
invite a younger colleague like Mike Evans from Tucson?
- If Phil and Mike do not support von Storch it does not make sense to invite him (and
Eduardo Zorita?);
- For me Ulrich Cubasch is an interesting modeler with good ideas about paleomodeling.
Maybe Gavin can comment this when he is back from his China trip?
Cheers,   Heinz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Dr. Heinz Wanner
Prof., Director NCCR Climate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Office Institute:                                  Office NCCR Climate:
Institute of Geography                        NCCR Climate
Climatology and Meteorology              Management Center
Hallerstrasse 12                                Erlachstrasse 9a
CH-3012 Bern                                   CH-3012 Bern
Phone +41 (0)31 631 88 85                Phone +41 (0)31 631 31 60
Fax     +41 (0)31 631 85 11                Fax     +41 (0)31 631 43 38
[1]www.giub.unibe.ch/klimet/                 [2]www.nccr-climate.unibe.ch
[3]wanner@giub.unibe.ch
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
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    [4]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University      email:  [5]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
[6]
References
1.
2.
3. mailto:wanner@giub.unibe.ch
4. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
5. mailto:mann@psu.edu
6.


Dear Christoph,
I have only a few additional comments concerning the planned workshop.
First of all, I support this concept. Related to the topics, I heavily support to organize
a discussion about how we can reconstruct different paremeters independently. It is
important to try to reconstruct air pressure as a basic circulation parameter - if
possible.
Concerning the participants:
- Write GooSSe;
- Mikami from Japan (Tokyo Metropolitan University) could be an interesting Asian
participant;
- You mentioned Kevin Trenberth or Mark Cane. Both are absolutely okay, but why not invite
a younger colleague like Mike Evans from Tucson?
- If Phil and Mike do not support von Storch it does not make sense to invite him (and
Eduardo Zorita?);
- For me Ulrich Cubasch is an interesting modeler with good ideas about paleomodeling.
Maybe Gavin can comment this when he is back from his China trip?
Cheers,   Heinz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Dr. Heinz Wanner
Prof., Director NCCR Climate
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Office Institute:                                  Office NCCR Climate:
Institute of Geography                        NCCR Climate
Climatology and Meteorology              Management Center
Hallerstrasse 12                                Erlachstrasse 9a
CH-3012 Bern                                   CH-3012 Bern
Phone +41 (0)31 631 88 85                Phone +41 (0)31 631 31 60
Fax     +41 (0)31 631 85 11                Fax     +41 (0)31 631 43 38
[1]www.giub.unibe.ch/klimet/                 [2]www.nccr-climate.unibe.ch
[3]wanner@giub.unibe.ch
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
References
1.
2.
3. mailto:wanner@giub.unibe.ch


Tom,
Can you crossdate these two series (trw and mxd) for the Polar Urals?
Particularly check the 1032 value when only 3 samples.
Found this on the blogg site that Tim sent round. Whatever you do,
don't respond on the blogg.
Cheers
Phil and 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.