Mike,
Been away in Japan the last week or so. Malcolm was there in a wheelchair
because of his ruptured achilles. We both mentioned the lack of evidence
for global scale change related to the MWE and LIA, but all the later
Japanese speakers kept saying the same old things.
As for the TAR Chap 2 it seems somewhat arbitrary divison to exclude the
tree-ring only reconstructions. Keith's reconstruction is of a different
character to other tree-ring work as it is as 'hemispheric in scale' as
possible so is unlike any other tree-ring related work that is reported
upon.
If we go as is suggested then there would be two diagrams - one simpler
one with just Mann et al and Jones et al and in another section Briffa et
al. This might make it somewhat awkward for the reader trying to put them
into context.
The most important bit of the proxy section is the general discussion of
'Was there an MWE and a LIA' drawing all the strands together. Keith and I
would be happy to look through any revisions of the section if there is
time.
One other thing, did you bring up the possibility of having a proxy-only
chapter ( albeit short) for the next assessment ?
On Venice I suggested to Peck that you and Keith give talks on the
reconstructions - frank and honest etc emphasising issues and I lead a
discussion with you both and the rest of those there where the issues
can be addressed ( ie I would like to get the views of other proxy types and
the modellers/detectors there). I suggested to Peck that this was early
in the week as I have to leave on the Thursday to go to the last day of
a Working Group meeting of the Climate Change Detection group in Geneva
( a joint WMO Commission for Climatology/CLIVAR). I hope to report on the
main findings of the Venice meeting.
Another issue I would like to raise is availability of all the series
you use in your reconstructions. That old chestnut again !
How is life in Charlottesville ?  Do you ever bump into Michaels or is
always off giving skeptical talks ?
Tim Osborn is making great progress with his NERC grant and will be
looking
into dates soon for coming to see you.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hi everyone
Let me say that I don't mind what you put in the policy makers summary if there is a general concensus. However some general discussion would be valuable . First , like Phil , I think that the supposed separation of the tree-ring reconstruction from the others on the grounds that it is not a true "multi-proxy" series is hard to justify. What is true is that these particular tree-ring data best represent SUMMER temperatures mostly at the northern boreal forest regions. By virtue of this , they also definately share significant variance with Northern Hemisphere land and land and marine ANNUAL temperatures - but at decadal and multidecadal timescales - simply by virtue of the fact that these series correlated with the former at these timescales. The multi proxy series (Mann et al . Jones et al) supposedly represent annual and summer seasons respectively, and both contain large proportions of tree-ring input. The latest tree-ring density curve ( i.e. our data that  have been processed to retain low frequency information) shows more similarity to the other two series- as do a number of other lower resolution data ( Bradley et al, Peck et al ., and new Crowley series  - see our recent Science piece) whether this represents 'TRUTH' however is a difficult problem. I know Mike thinks his series is the 'best' and he might be right - but he may also be too dismissive of other data and possibly over confident in his (or should I say his use of other's). After all, the early ( pre-instrumental) data are much less reliable as indicators of global temperature than is apparent in modern calibrations that include them and when we don't know the precise role of particular proxies in the earlier portions of reconstruction it remains problematic to assign genuine confidence limits at multidecadal and longer timescales. I still contend that multiple regression against the recent very trendy global mean series  is potentially dangerous. You could calibrate the proxies to any number of seasons , regardless of their true optimum response . Not for a moment am I saying that the tree-ring , or any other proxy data, are better than Mike's series - indeed I am saying that the various reconstructions are not independent but that they likely contribute more information about reality together than they do alone. I do believe   , that it should not be taken as read that Mike's series (or Jone's et al. for that matter) is  THE CORRECT ONE. I prefer a Figure that shows a multitude of reconstructions (e.g similar to that in my Science piece). Incidently, arguing that any particular series is probably better on the basis of what we now about glaciers or solar output is flaky indeed. Glacier mass balance is driven by the difference mainly in winter accumulation and summer ablation , filtered in a complex non-linear way to give variously lagged tongue advance/retreat .Simple inference on the precidence of modern day snout positions does not translate easily into absolute (or relative) temperature levels now or in the past. Similarly, I don't see that we are able to substantiate the veracity of different temperature reconstructions through reference to Solar forcing theories without making assumptions on the effectiveness of (seasonally specific ) long-term insolation changes in different parts of the globe and the  contribution of solar forcing to the observed 20th century warming .
There is still a potential problem  with non-linear responses in the very recent period of some biological proxies ( or perhaps a fertilisation through high CO2 or nitrate input) . I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don't have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue  be ignored in the chapter.
For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future background variability of our climate.  I think the Venice meeting will be a good place to air these isssues.
Finally I appologise for this rather self-indulgent ramble, but I thought I may as well voice these points to you . I too would be happy to go through the recent draft of the chapter when it becomes available.
cheers to all
Keith
At 01:07 PM 9/22/99 +0100, Folland, Chris wrote:
>Dear All
>
>A proxy diagram of temperature change is a clear favourite for the Policy
>Makers summary. But the current diagram with the tree ring only data
>somewhat contradicts the multiproxy curve and dilutes the message rather
>significantly. We want the truth. Mike thinks it lies nearer his result
>(which seems in accord with what we know about worldwide mountain glaciers
>and, less clearly, suspect about solar variations). The tree ring results
>may still suffer from lack of multicentury time scale variance.  This is
>probably the most important issue to resolve in Chapter 2 at present.
>
>Chris
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:	Phil Jones [SMTP:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
>> Sent:	22 September 1999 12:58
>> To:	Michael E. Mann; k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
>> Cc:	ckfolland@meto.gov.uk; tkarl@ncdc.noaa.gov
>> Subject:	Re: IPCC revisions
>>
>>
>>  Mike,
>>    Been away in Japan the last week or so. Malcolm was there in a
>> wheelchair
>>  because of his ruptured achilles. We both mentioned the lack of evidence
>>  for global scale change related to the MWE and LIA, but all the later
>>  Japanese speakers kept saying the same old things.
>>
>>    As for the TAR Chap 2 it seems somewhat arbitrary divison to exclude
>> the
>>  tree-ring only reconstructions. Keith's reconstruction is of a different
>>  character to other tree-ring work as it is as 'hemispheric in scale' as
>>  possible so is unlike any other tree-ring related work that is reported
>>  upon.
>>    If we go as is suggested then there would be two diagrams - one simpler
>>  one with just Mann et al and Jones et al and in another section Briffa et
>>  al. This might make it somewhat awkward for the reader trying to put them
>>  into context.
>>    The most important bit of the proxy section is the general discussion
>> of
>>  'Was there an MWE and a LIA' drawing all the strands together. Keith and
>> I
>>  would be happy to look through any revisions of the section if there is
>>  time.
>>
>>    One other thing, did you bring up the possibility of having a
>> proxy-only
>>  chapter ( albeit short) for the next assessment ?
>>
>>    On Venice I suggested to Peck that you and Keith give talks on the
>>  reconstructions - frank and honest etc emphasising issues and I lead a
>>  discussion with you both and the rest of those there where the issues
>>  can be addressed ( ie I would like to get the views of other proxy types
>> and
>>  the modellers/detectors there). I suggested to Peck that this was early
>>  in the week as I have to leave on the Thursday to go to the last day of
>>  a Working Group meeting of the Climate Change Detection group in Geneva
>>  ( a joint WMO Commission for Climatology/CLIVAR). I hope to report on the
>>  main findings of the Venice meeting.
>>
>>     Another issue I would like to raise is availability of all the series
>>  you use in your reconstructions. That old chestnut again !
>>
>>     How is life in Charlottesville ?  Do you ever bump into Michaels or is
>>  always off giving skeptical talks ?
>>
>>     Tim Osborn is making great progress with his NERC grant and will be
>> looking
>>  into dates soon for coming to see you.
>>
>>  Cheers
>>  Phil
>>
>>
>> Prof. Phil Jones
>> Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
>> School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
>> University of East Anglia
>> Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
>> NR4 7TJ
>> UK
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --
>>
>>
>


Thanks for your comments Phil,
They look quite reasonable, and I will seek to incorporate them. I'll need
Keith's comments by tomorrow morning (my time) at the very latest if I am
to have time to assess them and incorporate them.
Some important specifics:
1) I am definitely using the version of the Briffa et al series you sent
in which Keith had restandardized to retain *more* low-frequency variability
relative to the one shown by Briffa et al (1998). So already, the
reconstruction I'm using is one-step removed from the published series
(as far as I know!) and that makes our use of even this series a bit
tenuous in my mind, but I'm happy to do it and let the reviewers tell us if
they see any problem. If I understand you correctly, there is yet a new
version of this series that is two steps removed from Briffa et al (1998)?
Frankly, at this stage I think we have to go w/ what we have (please see
Ian Macadam's plot
when it is available--I think the story it tells isn't all that bad,
actually) for the time being. Things as you say will change following
review anyways.
2) One other thingp--I'm actually averse to shortening the section on
sediments. Even if they haven't contributed to some of the multiproxy
studies (they certainly *did* contribute to Overpeck et al!) there are some
important
results there  irrespective of the role of the proxies in multiproxy
studies. Lets, again, wait for reviews before shortening this...
3) We could eliminate the map of the boreholes, although I actually think
it is essential to see what the contributing spatial sampling (and,
accordingly, the potential bias of that sampling in determining "global
mean temperature") actually is. So I vote for keeping it for the time
being. Again, it's an
extremity that we can afford to lose if necessary in the end..
4) One important note on references: We don't have time at this late stage
to dig up incomplete citations, so you'll need to give me full citations
for any suggested added references (e.g. the Villalba paper). FYI, the
Crowley and Lowery paper is Tom's Ambio paper. He observes a mean warming
of about  0.5 C since the 17th century giving us yet another datapoint in
the scatter of
estimates...
5) I agree, the ranking of centuries is more specific than it needs to be.
I don't know what I was thinking. You sure that didn't come from the text
you originally contributed?? In any case, we can eliminate much of it in my
opinion too...
On the whole, I have never been under the assumption that you and I would
have independently assessed the evidence quite the same way.  I would hope
we would have come up w/ the same key points, and so your comments in that
regard are reassuring. I feel confident in my ability to defend the science
that is presented here, so let the reviews fall where they may. I'm sure we
will be forced to admit some changes, as well as "minority viewpoints" and
alternative interpretations along the way. That's what will make this all
interesting...
mike
At 05:20 PM 9/23/99 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:
>
> Mike,
>    Here are my thoughts on the text you sent. Keith will be sending some
> as well hopefully later today. One important aspect Keith will address is
> whether you're using the latest Briffa et al curve. We know you're not but
>the
> one with the greater low frequency and therefore much better chance of
> looking much better with the other two series, isn't yet published. We know
> it looks better in plots we have here.
>
>  Specifics :
>
> p1 line 10  - say mid-19th century rather than the 20th century
>
>    lines 18-20  - seems a bit too much here with three refs on laminated
>                  sediments.
>
>    line 46  Add Briffa et al (1998b) to Cook(1995).
>
> p2  line 59  - I would suggest changing 'a particularly' to 'the most' .
>
>     line 64  - I would add a reference here to the paper by Crowley and
>                Kim (1999) in GRL (July) where this aspect is also discussed.
>
> p3  line 101  - I would add Argentina as well as Chile adding a ref to
>                 Villalba (1990 ) in QR.
>
>     line 108  change 'key' to 'vital'
>
>     line 119  'have providing' to 'provide' . There are several instances
>      where the text doesn't read that well. I suspect as there are several
>      iterations to go it is not that important yet !
>
>     The coral section is just about the right size now and is justly
>     devoid of references !
>
> p4  line 151  I would add a reference here to Morgan and van Ommen (1997)
>      'Seasonality in late-Holocene climate from ice core records',
>      The Holocene 7, 351-4.  This is the Law Dome core which is the best
>     available with regards to dating in either hemisphere. It should be
>there.
>
>     As with the coral section the ice core section expresses some
>     cautionary notes with regard to dating etc which I think are justified.
>     I suspect teh contrast with the tree-ring section will draw some
>     criticism.  Just a warning !
>
>     As none of the multiproxy reconstuctions use any sediment information
>    this section seems overlarge and could be reduced.
>
> p189  century-scale  add in the 'y'
>
> p5  The borehole section is also a bit overlong.  I don't know whether the
>   map really adds something.  Not that vehement on this.
>
>    With respect to comapring high and low frequency aspects the diagram
>   comparing CET with the UK boreholes is now out. I've sent a copy to
> Chris.  It is in :
>
>   Jones PD, 1999 : Classics in physical geography revisited - Manley's
>   CET series.  Progress in Physical Geography 23, 425-428.
>
> line 245  the 'is' is not needed.
>
>  p6  I still think that a reference to Raper et al (1996) would be good
> here. This models a glacier in northern Sweden using the northern
> Fennoscandian temperature reconstructions since AD 500.  Again it shows
> how a low frequency estimate (the glacial snout position) can be compared
> with a high-frquency temperature reconstruction from trees.
>
>  Raper, SCB, Briffa KR and Wigley TML, 1996:  Glacial change in northern
>  Sweden from AD 500: a simple geometric model of Storglaciaren. Journal
>  of Glaciology 42, 341-351.
>
> line 268  IPCC(1996) earlier - is it 95 or 96
>
> p 7 line 295  I would like to add my paper in Reviews of Geophysics in 1999
>   as that also says that 1998 was likely to be the warmest year of the
>   millennium.
>
>  line 334  I would like to see Bradley (1999). I must get a copy from
>   Ray in Venice.
>
>  p7-9  All need a careful read through for English and the arguments.
>
>    At the bottom of p8 I think you make too much of the differences in the
>  ranking of the centuries. The boreholes would agree with my series with
> the 17th being colder than the 19th, although they may not be able to
>  resolve the timescales then.
>
>    Is the Crowley and Lowery (1999) the paper Tom's submitted to Ambio ?
>
>   I've not commented much on this final section as again I suspect there
>  are many things you will have to justify in the next two sets of reviews.
>  On the whole I think most is OK and I support the final paragraph. I
>  don't believe the astronomical argument as an explaination over the
>  last 1000 years but we can differ on that.
>
>   I know I would have written this final section 2.3.3 somehat differently
> with different emphases and slants but the basic final conclusion would
> have been the same.
>
> 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
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (804) 924-7770   FAX: (804) 982-2137


Thanks alot Keith,
Your comments and suggestions sound good on all counts.
Clearly there is one overiding thing to make sure of here: that
we have the right version of your series. I *think* that we do,
and you might have been looking at an old version of the comparison
Figure??
Please check out the data here ASAP:
ftp://eclogite.geo.umass.edu/pub/mann/IPCC/MILLENNIUM/
This directory has all the series, aligned as I described to have
a 1961-90 base climatology (or in the case of your series, a pseudo
1961-90 base climatology achieved by actually matching the mean of your
series and the instrumental record over the interval 1931-60 interval).
These are the data that Ian Macadam is hopefully presently plotting up,
and I don't think the discrepancies between the different series are
as bad as we percieved earlier (other than the late 19th century where
you are somewhat on the warm side relative to the rest). Please confirm
ASAP that we have the right version of the series (note, these have all
been 40 year lowpassed)...
One other thing, I think you misinterpreted my statement:
>
>SO I think we're in the position to say/resolve somewhat more than, frankly,
>than Keith does, about the temperature history of the past millennium.
>And the issues I've spelled out all have to be dealt with in the chapter.
>
I wasn't talking about the comparison of our two series! I was talking
about our two different opinions on how confident we are about our ability,
as a community, to assess the actual climate changes over this timeframe.
And perhaps we're closer here than I assumed anyways. Sorry about the
misunderstanding. With your interpretation, my comment must I have sounded
really obnoxious!
At 06:29 PM 9/23/99 +0100, Keith Briffa wrote:
>
>Dear Mike ( and all)
>
>Some remarks in response to your recent message
>
>I believe strongly that the strength in our discussion
>>will be the fact that certain key features of past climate estimates are
>>robust among a number of quasi-independent and truly independent estimates,
>>each
>>of which is not without its own limitations and potential biases
>
>Mike , I agree very much with the above sentiment. My concern was motivated
>by the possibility of expressing an impression of more concensus than might
>actually exist . I suppose the earlier talk implying that we should not
>'muddy the waters' by including contradictory evidence worried me . IPCC is
>supposed to represent concensus but also areas of uncertainty in the
>evidence. Of course where there are good reasons for the differences in
>series ( such as different seasonal responses or geographic bias) it is
>equally important not to overstress the discrepancies or suggest
>contradiction where it does not exist.
>
>
> And I
>>certainly don't want to abuse my lead authorship by advocating my own work.
>>
>
>I sincerely hope this was not implied in anything I wrote - It was not
>intended
>
>>I am perfectly amenable to keeping Keith's series in the plot, and can ask
>>Ian Macadam (Chris?) to add it to the plot he has been  preparing (nobody
>>liked my own color/plotting conventions so I've given up doing this myself).
>>The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a
>reasonable
>>way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith's,
>>we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding
mean
>>values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline.
>>
>
>Again I agree. Also , I am not sure which version of the curve you are now
>refering to. The original draft did show our higher frequency curve i.e.
>the version with background changes effectively filtered out (intended to
>emphasise the extreme interannual density excursions and their coincidence
>with volcanic eruptions) . The relevant one here is a smoothed version in
>which low-frequency changes are preserved. I can supply this and it will be
>in press by the time of the next reworking of the text.
>
>Your above point on correct scaling is relevant also to Phil's curve which
>was not originally calibrated ( in a formal regression sense) with the
>summer temperature data - it was just given the same mean and standard
>deviation over a specific period. Hence the issue of equivelent scaling of
>all series is vital if we are to discuss specific period temperature
>anomalies in different series or compare temperature trends in absolute
>degrees.
>
>>So if Chris and Tom (?) are ok with this, I would be happy to add Keith's
>>series. That having been said, it does raise a conundrum: We demonstrate
>>(through comparining an exatropical averaging of our nothern hemisphere
>>patterns with Phil's more extratropical series) that the major
>>discrepancies between Phil's and our series can be explained in terms of
>>spatial sampling/latitudinal emphasis (seasonality seems to be secondary
>>here, but probably explains much of the residual differences). But that
>>explanation certainly can't rectify why Keith's series, which has similar
>>seasonality
>>*and* latitudinal emphasis to Phil's series, differs in large part in
>>exactly the opposite direction that Phil's does from ours. This is the
>>problem we
>>all picked up on (everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this
>>was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably
>>concensus viewpoint we'd like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al
>>series.
>>
>
>I am not sure this is true if the relevant series of ours is used. We need
>to reexamine the curves and perhaps look at the different regional and
>seasonal data in the instrumental record and over common regions in the
>different reconstructed series. We would be happy to work with you on this.
>Also remember that our (density )series does not claim hemispheric or
>annual coverage.
>
>
>>So, if we show Keith's series in this plot, we have to comment that
>>"something else" is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Perhaps
>>Keith can
>>help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the series
>>and the potential factors that might lead to it being "warmer" than the
Jones
>>et al and Mann et al series?? We would need to put in a few words in this
>>regard. Otherwise, the skeptics have an  field day casting
>>doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these
>estimates
>>and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates.
>
>The best approach here is for us to circulate a paper addressing all the
>above points. I'll do this as soon as possible.
>
> I don't think that
>>doubt is scientifically justified, and I'd hate to be the one to have
>>to give it fodder!
>>
>>
>>The recent Crowley and Lowery multiproxy estimate is an important
>>additional piece  of information which I have indeed incorporated into the
>>revised draft.
>>Tom actually estimates the same mean warming since the 17th century in his
>>reconstruction, that we estimate in ours, so it is an added piece of
>>information that Phil and I are probably in the ballpark (Tom has used
>>a somewhat independent set of high and low-resolution proxy data and a very
>>basic compositing methodology, similar to Bradley and Jones, so there is
>>some independent new information in this estimate.
>>
>
>fair enough - but I repeat that the magnitude of the  observed warming in
>the 20th century is different in summer and annual data
>
>
>>One other key result with respect to our own work is from a paper in the
>>press in "Earth Interactions". An unofficial version is available here:
>>
>>
>>
>>THe key point  we emphasize in this paper is that the low-frequency
>>variability in our hemispheric temperature reconstruction is basically the
>>same if we don't use any dendroclimatic indicators at all (though we
>>certainly resolve less variance, can't get a skillful reconstruction as far
>>back, and there are notable discrepancies at the decadal and interannual
>>timescales). A believe I need to add a sentence to the current discussion
>>on this point,
>>since there is an unsubstantiated knee-jerk belief that our low-frequency
>>variability is suppressed by the use of tree ring data.
>>
>>We have shown that this is not the case: (see here:
>>
>>and specifically, the plot and discussion here:
>>
>>Ironically, you'll note that there is more low-frequency variability when
>>the tree ring data *are* used, then when only other proxy and
>>historical/instrumental data are used!
>>
>
>
>This is certainly relevant and sounds really interesting. I need to look at
>this in detail. The effect of the including tree-ring data or not, is
>moderated by the importance of the particular series in the various
>reconstructions ( relative coefficient magnitudes). There is certainly some
>prospect of affecting (reducing) the apparent magnitude of the 20th century
>warming by loading on high-pass filtered chronologies , but equally a
>danger of exagerating it if the series used or emphasised in th calibration
>have been fertilized by CO2 or something else. As you know we ( Tim, Phil
>and I ) would love to collaborate with you on exploring this issue (and the
>role of instrumental predictors) in the various approaches.
>The key here is knowing much more about the role of specific predictors
>through time and their associated strengths and weaknesses.
>
>
>>SO I think we're in the position to say/resolve somewhat more than, frankly,
>>than Keith does, about the temperature history of the past millennium.
>>And the issues I've spelled out all have to be dealt with in the chapter.
>>
>
>I certainly do not disagree with you - the scale of your input data
>undoubtedly must contain more information than our set . I have never
>implied anything to the contrary. I do not believe that our data are likely
>to tell us more than summer variability at northern latitudes . The
>discussion is only about how close our and your data likely represent what
>they are calibrated against , back in time. Let's not imagine a
>disagreement where there is none.
>
>
>
>>One last point: We will (like it or not) have SUBSTANTIAL
>>opportunity/requirement to revise much of this discussion after review, so
>>we don't have to resolve everything now. Just the big picture and the
>>important details...
>>
>>I'm sure we can can up with an arrangement that is amenable to all, and I'm
>>looking forward to hearing back from Keith, Phil, and Chris in particular
>>about the above, so we can quickly move towards finalizing a first draft.
>>
>>
>
>Yes indeed. The reviewing will lead to much comment and likely disagreement
>by the masses. This is the way of these things. It is always a thankless
>task undertaking these drafting jobs and I think you are doing a good job.
>Tommorrow I'll send some very minor comments on typos and the like if you
>want them - or have you picked many of them up? Anyway , keep up the good
>work .
>
>     best wishes
>               Keith
>
>--
>Dr. Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia,
>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom
>Phone: +44-1603-592090    Fax: +44-1603-507784
>
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (804) 924-7770   FAX: (804) 982-2137


Mike,
Here are my thoughts on the text you sent. Keith will be sending some
as well hopefully later today. One important aspect Keith will address is
whether you're using the latest Briffa et al curve. We know you're not but
the
one with the greater low frequency and therefore much better chance of
looking much better with the other two series, isn't yet published. We know
it looks better in plots we have here.
Specifics :
p1 line 10  - say mid-19th century rather than the 20th century
lines 18-20  - seems a bit too much here with three refs on laminated
sediments.
line 46  Add Briffa et al (1998b) to Cook(1995).
p2  line 59  - I would suggest changing 'a particularly' to 'the most' .
line 64  - I would add a reference here to the paper by Crowley and
Kim (1999) in GRL (July) where this aspect is also discussed.
p3  line 101  - I would add Argentina as well as Chile adding a ref to
Villalba (1990 ) in QR.
line 108  change 'key' to 'vital'
line 119  'have providing' to 'provide' . There are several instances
where the text doesn't read that well. I suspect as there are several
iterations to go it is not that important yet !
The coral section is just about the right size now and is justly
devoid of references !
p4  line 151  I would add a reference here to Morgan and van Ommen (1997)
'Seasonality in late-Holocene climate from ice core records',
The Holocene 7, 351-4.  This is the Law Dome core which is the best
available with regards to dating in either hemisphere. It should be
there.
As with the coral section the ice core section expresses some
cautionary notes with regard to dating etc which I think are justified.
I suspect teh contrast with the tree-ring section will draw some
criticism.  Just a warning !
As none of the multiproxy reconstuctions use any sediment information
this section seems overlarge and could be reduced.
p189  century-scale  add in the 'y'
p5  The borehole section is also a bit overlong.  I don't know whether the
map really adds something.  Not that vehement on this.
With respect to comapring high and low frequency aspects the diagram
comparing CET with the UK boreholes is now out. I've sent a copy to
Chris.  It is in :
Jones PD, 1999 : Classics in physical geography revisited - Manley's
CET series.  Progress in Physical Geography 23, 425-428.
line 245  the 'is' is not needed.
p6  I still think that a reference to Raper et al (1996) would be good
here. This models a glacier in northern Sweden using the northern
Fennoscandian temperature reconstructions since AD 500.  Again it shows
how a low frequency estimate (the glacial snout position) can be compared
with a high-frquency temperature reconstruction from trees.
Raper, SCB, Briffa KR and Wigley TML, 1996:  Glacial change in northern
Sweden from AD 500: a simple geometric model of Storglaciaren. Journal
of Glaciology 42, 341-351.
line 268  IPCC(1996) earlier - is it 95 or 96
p 7 line 295  I would like to add my paper in Reviews of Geophysics in 1999
as that also says that 1998 was likely to be the warmest year of the
millennium.
line 334  I would like to see Bradley (1999). I must get a copy from
Ray in Venice.
p7-9  All need a careful read through for English and the arguments.
At the bottom of p8 I think you make too much of the differences in the
ranking of the centuries. The boreholes would agree with my series with
the 17th being colder than the 19th, although they may not be able to
resolve the timescales then.
Is the Crowley and Lowery (1999) the paper Tom's submitted to Ambio ?
I've not commented much on this final section as again I suspect there
are many things you will have to justify in the next two sets of reviews.
On the whole I think most is OK and I support the final paragraph. I
don't believe the astronomical argument as an explaination over the
last 1000 years but we can differ on that.
I know I would have written this final section 2.3.3 somehat differently
with different emphases and slants but the basic final conclusion would
have been the same.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Mike ( and all)
Some remarks in response to your recent message
I believe strongly that the strength in our discussion
>will be the fact that certain key features of past climate estimates are
>robust among a number of quasi-independent and truly independent estimates,
>each
>of which is not without its own limitations and potential biases
Mike , I agree very much with the above sentiment. My concern was motivated by the possibility of expressing an impression of more concensus than might actually exist . I suppose the earlier talk implying that we should not 'muddy the waters' by including contradictory evidence worried me . IPCC is supposed to represent concensus but also areas of uncertainty in the evidence. Of course where there are good reasons for the differences in series ( such as different seasonal responses or geographic bias) it is equally important not to overstress the discrepancies or suggest contradiction where it does not exist.
And I
>certainly don't want to abuse my lead authorship by advocating my own work.
>
I sincerely hope this was not implied in anything I wrote - It was not intended
>I am perfectly amenable to keeping Keith's series in the plot, and can ask
>Ian Macadam (Chris?) to add it to the plot he has been  preparing (nobody
>liked my own color/plotting conventions so I've given up doing this myself).
>The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a reasonable
>way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith's,
>we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean
>values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline.
>
Again I agree. Also , I am not sure which version of the curve you are now refering to. The original draft did show our higher frequency curve i.e. the version with background changes effectively filtered out (intended to emphasise the extreme interannual density excursions and their coincidence with volcanic eruptions) . The relevant one here is a smoothed version in which low-frequency changes are preserved. I can supply this and it will be in press by the time of the next reworking of the text.
Your above point on correct scaling is relevant also to Phil's curve which was not originally calibrated ( in a formal regression sense) with the summer temperature data - it was just given the same mean and standard deviation over a specific period. Hence the issue of equivelent scaling of all series is vital if we are to discuss specific period temperature anomalies in different series or compare temperature trends in absolute degrees.
>So if Chris and Tom (?) are ok with this, I would be happy to add Keith's
>series. That having been said, it does raise a conundrum: We demonstrate
>(through comparining an exatropical averaging of our nothern hemisphere
>patterns with Phil's more extratropical series) that the major
>discrepancies between Phil's and our series can be explained in terms of
>spatial sampling/latitudinal emphasis (seasonality seems to be secondary
>here, but probably explains much of the residual differences). But that
>explanation certainly can't rectify why Keith's series, which has similar
>seasonality
>*and* latitudinal emphasis to Phil's series, differs in large part in
>exactly the opposite direction that Phil's does from ours. This is the
>problem we
>all picked up on (everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this
>was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably
>concensus viewpoint we'd like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al
>series.
>
I am not sure this is true if the relevant series of ours is used. We need to reexamine the curves and perhaps look at the different regional and seasonal data in the instrumental record and over common regions in the different reconstructed series. We would be happy to work with you on this. Also remember that our (density )series does not claim hemispheric or annual coverage.
>So, if we show Keith's series in this plot, we have to comment that
>"something else" is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Perhaps
>Keith can
>help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the series
>and the potential factors that might lead to it being "warmer" than the Jones
>et al and Mann et al series?? We would need to put in a few words in this
>regard. Otherwise, the skeptics have an  field day casting
>doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates
>and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates.
The best approach here is for us to circulate a paper addressing all the above points. I'll do this as soon as possible.
I don't think that
>doubt is scientifically justified, and I'd hate to be the one to have
>to give it fodder!
>
>
>The recent Crowley and Lowery multiproxy estimate is an important
>additional piece  of information which I have indeed incorporated into the
>revised draft.
>Tom actually estimates the same mean warming since the 17th century in his
>reconstruction, that we estimate in ours, so it is an added piece of
>information that Phil and I are probably in the ballpark (Tom has used
>a somewhat independent set of high and low-resolution proxy data and a very
>basic compositing methodology, similar to Bradley and Jones, so there is
>some independent new information in this estimate.
>
fair enough - but I repeat that the magnitude of the  observed warming in the 20th century is different in summer and annual data
>One other key result with respect to our own work is from a paper in the
>press in "Earth Interactions". An unofficial version is available here:
>
>
>
>THe key point  we emphasize in this paper is that the low-frequency
>variability in our hemispheric temperature reconstruction is basically the
>same if we don't use any dendroclimatic indicators at all (though we
>certainly resolve less variance, can't get a skillful reconstruction as far
>back, and there are notable discrepancies at the decadal and interannual
>timescales). A believe I need to add a sentence to the current discussion
>on this point,
>since there is an unsubstantiated knee-jerk belief that our low-frequency
>variability is suppressed by the use of tree ring data.
>
>We have shown that this is not the case: (see here:
>
>and specifically, the plot and discussion here:
>
>Ironically, you'll note that there is more low-frequency variability when
>the tree ring data *are* used, then when only other proxy and
>historical/instrumental data are used!
>
This is certainly relevant and sounds really interesting. I need to look at this in detail. The effect of the including tree-ring data or not, is moderated by the importance of the particular series in the various reconstructions ( relative coefficient magnitudes). There is certainly some prospect of affecting (reducing) the apparent magnitude of the 20th century warming by loading on high-pass filtered chronologies , but equally a danger of exagerating it if the series used or emphasised in th calibration have been fertilized by CO2 or something else. As you know we ( Tim, Phil and I ) would love to collaborate with you on exploring this issue (and the role of instrumental predictors) in the various approaches.
The key here is knowing much more about the role of specific predictors through time and their associated strengths and weaknesses.
>SO I think we're in the position to say/resolve somewhat more than, frankly,
>than Keith does, about the temperature history of the past millennium.
>And the issues I've spelled out all have to be dealt with in the chapter.
>
I certainly do not disagree with you - the scale of your input data undoubtedly must contain more information than our set . I have never implied anything to the contrary. I do not believe that our data are likely to tell us more than summer variability at northern latitudes . The discussion is only about how close our and your data likely represent what they are calibrated against , back in time. Let's not imagine a disagreement where there is none.
>One last point: We will (like it or not) have SUBSTANTIAL
>opportunity/requirement to revise much of this discussion after review, so
>we don't have to resolve everything now. Just the big picture and the
>important details...
>
>I'm sure we can can up with an arrangement that is amenable to all, and I'm
>looking forward to hearing back from Keith, Phil, and Chris in particular
>about the above, so we can quickly move towards finalizing a first draft.
>
>
Yes indeed. The reviewing will lead to much comment and likely disagreement by the masses. This is the way of these things. It is always a thankless task undertaking these drafting jobs and I think you are doing a good job. Tommorrow I'll send some very minor comments on typos and the like if you want them - or have you picked many of them up? Anyway , keep up the good work .
best wishes
Keith


Forumites,
Ouch, my hackles are rising so high, it hurts. (Just what exactly are
hackles, anyway?).
Yes, computer crossdating ring series with special problems is always
dangerous. But this is where good old skeleton-plot dating with
intensive and thorough visual examination of the WOOD becomes the way
to go.
I don't know about Thuja, but with the Juniperus species in the U.S.
I've worked with, rings piching in and out can be a problem. You can
lose 50-100 rings that way, sometimes. However, a different radius of
the sample may possess all those absent rings. It's nice to have
a cross-section of the subject tree, though I know this isn't always
possible.
I don't understand physiologically what's going on with the Canadian
cedars, but dendrochronologically speaking, absent rings are absent
rings, no matter what the reason for the rings not forming on any
given portion of the tree. I'll leave the reasons to scientists like
Frank Telewski.
I do know that with some dying trees -- like the pinyons from New
Mexico that died in the Great 1950s Drought -- the ring series on the
outside became so suppressed that individual rings were
indiscernable. Fortunately, other trees growing in more favorable
spots had distinguishable -- though still suppressed -- rings.
Traditional skeleton-plot croosdating -- along with its concomitant
intensive visual analysis -- made it possible to sort though these
problems.
I am not, however, an America-centrist skeleton-plot-dating  bigot! I
have a true appreciation for computer crossdating where it is
appropriate and indeed necessary. I myself was recently involved
dating high-elevation bristlecone pine from northern Arizona, U.S.A.
The multi-millenial length of the chronology -- as well as the
freedom from absent rings and the presence of frost-year marker rings
-- made computer crossdating advisable. Of course every significant
computer dating correlation was thoroughly checked out on the WOOD,
and if the visual characteristics of the tree rings themselves did
not support the computer dating, we threw out the date  -- right out
the window. Discarded computer dates collected on the parking lot
beneath our offices and needed to be hauled off to the dump everyday.
I apologize for the aggressive (though sincere) tone of this message,
but every few years I feel the need to rant and rave about the
importance of WOOD and "pure" forms of crossdating.
Best Regards,
Jim Parks
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
jparks@ltrr.arizona.edu


Dear All,
Here are some notes and suggestions for our national climate centre meeting
on Monday morning (1000hrs).  A suggested agenda of the main points we need
to cover is in this email.  The attached document has three components
(also appended as text to the email):
A suggested Outline Bid structure with some comments/questions
A draft of a possible 600-word opening statement
A draft of the six (from original four) research challenges (ca. 2,400
words)
We really need to aim to get a first full draft of the bid out to our
Partners by late Wednesday this week, thus allowing 7 days for iterations.
Mike
NCCC:  UEA Working Group Meeting, 4 October
Suggested Agenda
1. The research challenges (draft attached)
2. RD and Schneider (?)
3. The Assessment Panel; key issues for Schellnhuber
4. The structure of the outline proposal (see attached suggestion)
5. The name of the Centre
6. Timetable for submission (8 working days left)
****************************************************************************
**
Outline Proposal
Suggested Contents – cf. invitation to bid
Opening Statement (500 words)
Who are the co-applicants?
Hulme, Davies, Jones, Liss, Palutikof, Parry, Turner, Watkinson, Brown?
Allen, Arnell, Berkhout, Bristow, Cannell, Choularton, Halliday, Jenkins,
Kohler, Launder, Markvard, Reynard, Shepherd, Shackley? – is this too many?
The strengths of the UEA-led Team (1000 words)
- being drafted by UMIST
Research Director 100 words
Management team, structure, strategy (500 words)
Advisory Board - Hasselmann, Rotmans, McQuaid, Mary Archer (Chair of
National Energy Foundation), Basil Butler (RAE), Wigley, and named others?
Management Team, Programme Leaders,
What building do we use? – and a suggested physical presence at Southampton
and UMIST
Initial research plan/agenda - the Challenges (2000 words)
0-order draft (attached)
How will we achieve - integration, collaboration, exploit results, attract
funding? (500 words) (this might be folded into the discussion of the
strengths of the UEA Team)
integrated research
formal or informal integration; IAMs are one way, but I'm not so keen on
them.   Some research themes may develop their own limited IAMs, e.g.
optimal policy.  Overall informal integration may be achieved through a
common scenario approach/framework
collaboration in UK and abroad
establish MoUs with parallel centres abroad – RIVM (Neth.), PIK (Germany),
ICIS (Neth.), MIT (US), Batelle (US), TERI (India), CICERO (Norway), etc.
……..  Host an international conference early on to 'position' the UK NCCC
in the wider field.
relevant and strategic research results and knowledge-transfer
establish regular policy briefings, both written and verbal, targeted at
the business community; CBI link; UKCIP.  Have a strong media presence,
with a p-t communications person.
attract additional funding
may be not so easy, cf. UKCIP on impacts research have only been able to
mobilise small amounts of money.  Need some big corporate sponsors – what
do we say about this in the outline bid?.  Appoint a p-t 'marketing' person
(maybe the other half of communications).
Training strategy (250 words)
Ring-fence money for training/workshops/fellowships - how much?
Training not just for researchers, but also for managers in public/private
sectors.  These could be 1-day sessions, as well as longer 1-week courses
(cf. the Harvard course), and also longer-term secondments.
Should also maximise our links with the B.Council and DfID to bring
international scientists and policy-advisors into the loop.  These people
can act to facilitate the two-way flow and testing of ideas between UK and
developing countries.  Some of our research themes would have global
dimensions – optimal policy, C sequestration, ……
UNESCO Southampton
Financial plan - salaries, equipment, sub-contracted research,
collaboration expenses
- estimates from Trevor
Operations timetable - phases, etc.
- what ideas do we have for this?
Other contacts
institutions involved, but outside the bid
BRE, BAS, NRI, POL, LSHTM, AEA, Hadley Centre, UKCIP, etc.
other academic/user bodies who are relevant
RIVM, ICIS, TERI, RDBs, BP, Fuji, PowerGen, BP Solarex, ETSU/DTI
photovoltaic test facility, Severn-Trent,
Appendix
1 page CVs for co-applicants
signed statement from institution(s)
[extraction of purpose from the RC's document ……..  the integration of
scientific research that will shape and underpin sustainable solutions to
the climate change challenge].
Possible Opening Statement
The prospect of human-induced global climate change initially emerged as a
research challenge for the natural sciences.  Since the causes of climate
change are profoundly rooted in society and the consequences of climate
change for society can only be understood through social and cultural
insight, the social sciences have become increasingly engaged in the
research effort.  With attention now turning to 'solutions' to climate
change, new climate change management strategies need identifying and
promoting, need to be targeted at both mitigation and adaptation
objectives, and need to embrace a full array of emerging policy instruments
and engineering technologies.  The participation of the engineering and
technological sciences, alongside the environmental and social sciences,
has therefore become critical to meet this rapidly evolving research
agenda.
But climate change is not just intellectually embracing challenge.  It is
also an experiential one.  Climate change is unique in that it poses
questions on space and time scales over which individual humans (especially
space) and governments (especially time) are not used to thinking or do not
find it easy to think.  In this sense climate change is a problem of
ultimate penetration and of ultimate connectivity; penetration, because we
will all experience and react to climate change in some way, and
connectivity, because emissions are driven by a global economy, because the
response of the physical system is planetary, and because these social and
natural systems are intimately co-evolving.
The intellectual and experiential challenges of climate change create a new
and distinctive lens through which we can envision the future.  These
insights into the future - often termed scenarios - suggest to us various
tools and instruments that may allow us to fashion and shape the future.
This sets us out on a course of climate change management, an active and
considered pursual of desirable long-term objectives.  Establishing such
objectives is essential in order to adequately define the 'problem' of
climate change, and even more essential if 'solutions' to this problem are
going to be designed.  The prospect of climate change, at the very least
therefore, forces us to think about what sort of future we regard as
desirable.
The UEA-led Consortium sees the new national climate change centre as an
exciting opportunity to build connected research structures and outputs
that exploit partnerships between science and business, between the
household and government, and between the UK and emerging parallel
initiatives around the world.  With a strong foundation of
inter-disciplinary research, and through the engaging of both public and
private organisations and of both governments and individuals, there is a
real prospect that we can implement emerging 'solutions' to climate change
and create new ones.  These 'solutions' need to engage with both mitigation
and adaptation objectives and, most importantly, need to recognise and
function on a hierarchy of scales ranging from the household to the global.
The UK climate change centre will be built around three key principles:
The deployment of practised, inter-disciplinary research teams, who have
already pioneered new insights and approaches into the questions raised by
climate change, but releasing them to explore novel approaches for thinking
laterally across natural, social and engineering sciences.
The practising of an inclusionary process of research in which we explore -
with their developers - ways of mobilising many of the new technologies,
lifestyles, regulatory mechanisms that are emerging from our technological,
social and political cultures to allow us to manage climate change in the
twenty-first century.
The establishment of a focal point in the UK and abroad for the open and
constructive exchange of insights concerning climate change solutions
across cultural divides - public-private, households-corporations,
North-South.
These three key characteristics  - a research programme, an engagement with
stakeholders, and an educational/opinion-shaping role - are the three
central elements of the new centre as proposed by the UEA-led Consortium.
[Given the essential need for integration in all three of these elements,
we propose the centre by called the "UK Centre for Integrated Climate
Change Studies" (UK CICCS)].  The rest of this outline proposal will
demonstrate, in an indicative rather than an exhaustive way, how we would
operationalise these principles in terms of both management and research
ideas.  [refer to our conceptual schematic here or later?]
Proposed Challenges to be included in the Outline Bid
Draft, Mike Hulme, 2 October
[It may be worth including some examples of key stakeholder/client
interests under each of these.  These six research challenges are
exemplars, for the outline proposal, of the thinking behind our bid.  Each
of them may potentially involve all of the Centre's Partners - and numerous
organisations beyond - and each of them are therefore integrating
activities.  Each of these Challenges, if developed into Research
Programmes, would have a Programme Leader, appointed from within the
Consortium, and accountable to the Centre's Management Team.  Each of the
Challenges should be able to be contextualised by our (revised) conceptual
schematic of the process of integration - if we are still going to show
this.]
Challenge 1:  Carbon Management
Carbon management poses two fundamental questions.  Given a continuing
pre-dominance of fossil carbon fuels how can we combust less (the energy
efficiency question) and given that a proportion of this combusted carbon
will enter the atmosphere how can we sequester larger volumes within the
biosphere and oceans (the carbon sequestration question)?  In thinking
about improving our management of carbon, the Centre will address both
these questions.
Combined heat and power plants and decentralised energy generation for
energy intensive industries are areas where technology can make a
considerable contribution to emissions reduction.  Locations and markets
where investment in these technologies is both politically and economically
feasible need to be identified.  For LDCs, the provisions of the Kyoto
Protocol for Joint Implementation are relevant here.  Supplementary
engineering challenges in this area include energy storage systems, fuel
cell and novel transportation technologies.
Research should also be directed to the identification of business
opportunities in the mitigation of climate change. This would involve a
process of identifying 'climate change markets' where UK products and
technologies could be supplied.  One potential growth area is that of the
use of modern, cheap control technology to optimise the performance of
household energy management systems.  Where growth markets are identified,
suitable technology and service products can be developed.  Business could
be approached for ideas through the DTI-funded liaison officer.  This work
would also inform development and aid policy within the UK government.  We
would also draw upon the extensive experiences of UK agencies involved in
delivering 'win-win' energy and waste minimisation programmes (such as
Energy Efficiency and Environmental Technology Best Practice Programmes,
Ground Work Trust, Business Links, and so on).  Other country experiences
would also be useful input, for example the highly effective programmes of
boosting company productivity by reducing greenhouse gas emissions
developed in the USA.
The introduction of the climate change levy in March 2001 will be analysed
by the Centre in terms of its effectiveness at delivering emission
reductions and its costs/benefits to a range of units (firms, sectors,
regions, nationally).  In addition, the introduction of voluntary
agreements for some companies in return for a reduction in the levy charged
will be analysed along similar lines.  The DTI-ACBE led initiative on
voluntary use of tradeable emission schemes will provide important
empirical evidence on the relative costs of achieving given emission
reductions by a taxation scheme compared to emissions trading.
While conventional carbon sequestration technologies are not considered a
long-term solution to climate change, there is nevertheless a need to
research the most efficient ways of implementing such technologies and also
a need to research new, longer-term sequestration technologies through
bio-engineering and deep ocean sinks.  The Centre will explore the
feasibility of both these latter two technologies, in collaboration with
the John Innes Centre for the bio-engineering.  [We may only have 30 years
to get some 'emergency' carbon sequestration techniques sorted out under
the scenario that we don't manage to get enough CO2 emissions reduction.]
A mixture of methods and tools will be required to evaluate sequestration
options - life-cycle costing and LCA, environmental impact analysis,
technological assessment, public acceptance, etc.  Some work on biomass
sequestration may also be needed to feed into the global
assessments/evaluation of this option.  Given the sensitivity of this issue
under the terms of the Kyoto Protocol, the UK government needs excellent
advice on methods, assumptions, pitfalls, etc.
[Links outside the Centre to: JIC, many others …………………….
Challenge 2:  The Renewables Challenge
A parallel challenge to that of carbon management is how to stimulate and
release the full potential for zero- or low-carbon renewable energies?
This therefore is the third strand of the strategy to meet and surpass the
carbon emissions reduction obligations placed on developed nations by
Kyoto.  There are a number of research questions related to this Challenge
that again require engagement by the engineering, environmental and social
science communities within an integrated framework.  Too much work to date
has compartmentalised the three perspectives.
The EU has a target of 12 per cent of primary energy to be met from
renewable energy by the year 2010.  Meeting such a target, let alone moving
beyond it, has major implications for the electricity delivery systems in
the UK.  How to get this much renewable energy - from intermittent sources
– linked, delivered and purchased by customers?  Engineers and economists
need an opportunity to explore the long-term implications of such policy
objectives.  Related questions concern the landscape and infrastructural
implications of an expanded uptake of biofuels in the UK.
Many renewable technologies appear in various EPSRC research programmes,
but they need to be brought together to produce scenarios whose emissions
and life-cycle costs can be assessed in a common framework, thus enabling
more practical advice and comment on energy policy debates.  Some of these
scenarios could be taken further in the form of pilot-demonstration
projects.
There needs to be mechanisms established for the better integration of
architectural design with renewable energies, e.g. solar and wind.  The
design of these new technologies needs explicitly to consider the
architectural consequences for domestic, commercial and industrial
structures.  Partners who are directly involved in delivering design
solutions in this area will be invited by the Centre to establish
'demonstration' projects to explore how successful such solutions are in
practice.  [can we give some specific examples of Partners and projects
here?]
One of the obstacles to the more rapid exploitation of wind energy in the
UK relates to landscape value and aesthetics.  This is an issue that needs
the interaction of design technologists and social scientists - including
psychologists - to explore cultural and behavioural limits to new renewable
technology uptake.  We propose that the visualisation facility of the
Centre be exploited to research these issues through involving the wider
community.
[Links outside the Centre to: ……………………
Challenge 3:  Singularities, Non-Linear Changes and Extreme Events
The climate system is generally assumed to be 'well-behaved'.  Certainly,
much of the scenario and impacts work assessed by the IPCC (and that has
therefore fed through into climate policy) has assumed conditions of
relative regularity in future climate.  However, not only does the climate
system possess the potential for rapid, singular changes (i.e., a complex,
non-linear system being rapidly forced), but recent research has shown
using theoretical models and palaeo-evidence that such potential changes
can be and have been realised.  Elsewhere, thresholds and sensitivities of
natural/social systems to changing frequencies of extreme weather events
induce additional non-linearities in the environmental responses to climate
change.  There are also singularities and non-linear processes operating in
the social/political drivers of climate change - for example, political or
economic 'shocks' that may fundamentally and rapidly re-direct our
technological/economic futures away from 'conventional' pathways.
A particular Challenge to be addressed by the Centre will therefore be how
such potential for non-linear behaviour - in both climate and non-climate
systems - can be both modelled and introduced into scenario exercises.
Recent work with reduced-complexity models has shown the potential to model
such non-linear behaviour in a quasi-stochastic manner and such modelling
work will be developed by the Centre.  A corollary of this is to better
understand how such abrupt changes should be assimilated into
decision-making frameworks and policy analysis.  This requires the
involvement of risk theoreticians and risk analytic tools.  The possible
interactions between these two complex non-linear systems - the climate and
the social - is of particular importance.  For example, an abrupt climate
change or a string of short-term weather extremes can radically influence
perceptions amongst the business community and politicians and lead to
sudden shifts in policy, investment flows, etc.  The implications of such
singular behaviour for vulnerability and adaptation strategies have not
been well explored.  This kind of analysis would be important to many
commercial sectors, which are highly concerned about the unexpected and
about extremes.  This is an inter-disciplinary Challenge the Centre will be
uniquely well-placed to address.
[Links outside the Centre to: POL, Hadley Centre, PIK, ……………..
Challenge 4:  Managing the Coastal Zone
There are many geographic domains where climate change poses particular
problems for the management of natural and social assets - coasts, uplands,
cities, river basins, etc.  We propose that the Centre should pay
particular attention to one such domain, since these provide physical
entities within which many of the issues of climate change vulnerability
and adaptation play out in a given context of local/regional governance.
We suggest that the coastal zone best epitomises this challenge of
integrating our social, environmental and engineering knowledge.  A unique
feature of the interaction between climate change and the coastal zone is
the very long time-scales over which sea-level rise impacts will
materialise - of all the impacts of climate change these are least amenable
to mitigation and therefore where appropriately designed adaptation
strategies are most needed.
Research is first needed to improve our understanding of the threats posed
by climate change, most notably changing storm-surge frequencies along the
UK coast and changes in estuarine hydrology and ecology.  This will involve
coupled high resolution ocean-atmosphere modelling, estuarine
economic/ecological modelling, and the assimilation of such modelling
results into a risk analysis framework.
Designing an array of possible management options for the coastal zone
needs to involve economists, ecologists, marine scientists, and coastal
engineers.  A range of options from 'hard' engineering solutions to managed
retreat need identifying.  The desirability of any one or combination of
these management options for the coastal zone can then only be evaluated
following an understanding of the value of the coastal environment and the
services it delivers.  Such valuation needs to be a fully participatory
process involving local communities, local government, landowners, NGOs,
and national regulatory bodies.  We propose the Centre plays an active role
in bringing together insights from integrated modelling exercises and from
stakeholder participatory exercises, thus enabling better public
participation in the policy-forming process (see integration methodologies
- Challenge 6).  This role would involve novel visualisation techniques of
coastal environments to exploit both modelling results and individual
perceptions of coastal landscape value.
[Links outside the Centre to:  EA/MAFF, NGOs/Conservation, LAs, Railtrack,
construction companies, …………
Challenge 5:  Beyond Factor 4
There is a growing body of opinion that in order to mitigate climate
change, or even to adapt to it, significant changes in current patterns of
consumption, and therefore lifestyle, are necessary.  This raises the
question of how to direct consumption of goods and services towards more
sustainable paths.  The scale of the Challenge here suggests that we need
to go well beyond Factor 4 - doubling wealth, halving resource use.
One unsolved dilemma is that of expanding car use for personal
transportation.  The psychology, behavioural sociology and economics of
people's use of cars is reasonably well understood.  What needs to be
researched are methods to manage the ever-increasing demand for travel,
especially car and air travel, that ranges from taking the children to
school, to car-based salespeople, to international business and holiday
travel.  Research will also be needed into managing the overturning of the
vehicle stock and transport infrastructure under conditions of novel
transportation technologies - infrastructural inertia is an obstacle to new
technology uptake.
The concept of a low consumption household is a further desirable objective
which is easy to state and not straightfoward to achieve.  This way of
analysing human activity is inherently interdisciplinary and looks at the
activities of a household - housing, domestic appliances and  services,
transport needs, consumption, work and leisure time use, waste generation
and recycling - in terms of the interactions between them.  For example,
housing choice is partly determined by the work/leisure split, which then
determines the demand for transport; consumption generates waste and also
contributes to energy demand.  Another important example is that of home
insulation. The UK has a poorly insulated housing stock and even new
housing could be built to much higher standards of energy efficiency.
Research, in conjunction with the construction industry, is needed into the
adoption of new building standards and (politically acceptable) economic
incentives for low-energy housing is needed.  This is especially relevant
given the current debate about the millions of new households predicted for
the UK in the next 20-30 years and the greenfield/brownfield land use
argument.
Partners who are directly involved in delivering sustainable solutions will
be involved in setting up 'demonstration' projects to explore how
successful such methodologies are in practice.  For example, the Centre
will explore whether 'climate-friendly' households can be
demonstrated in practice.  Partners could include Going for Green, National
Centre for Business and Ecology, Forum for the Future, Sustainability
Northwest, United Utilities, Eastern Group, Anglian Water and other water
companies, etc.
[Links outside the Centre to:   ………………….
Challenge 6: Integration Methodologies
An important methodology which provides insights into the dynamics of
climate and social change, but which has not yet been fully developed for
the UK is that of integrated assessment.  Integrated assessment encompasses
formal modelling approaches and more participatory and qualitative
explorations of the future.  Integrated modelling includes both
reduced-form models and complex systems models.  All integrated assessment
is built around the concept of scenarios, used either in the more
traditional role of 'what-if' or in a 'back-casting' role.  While
integrated assessments of climate change have developed substantially over
the last decade, few have embraced the engineering community to explore the
feasibility of pathways with rapid uptake of new technologies.  The
Challenge for the Centre will be to develop further existing modelling and
participatory approaches for integrated assessment and apply them to the
five research Challenges identified above.
The integrated modelling framework that is required to address these
concerns is obviously extremely difficult to imagine. Recent advances based
on complex systems modelling do, however, suggest how such frameworks may
be achieved (e.g. NEXSUS, ESRC Priority Network).  These are constituted of
a spatial hierarchy of nested models representing the possible behaviours
of complex social, economic, ecological, and technological systems at
different spatial and temporal scales of resolution. They can explore the
possibility of emergent behaviour at larger scales, as well as the effects
of micro-responses and adaptations at smaller ones.  In order to address
the issues raised by climate change and its associated impacts and
responses, considerable development of this framework would be necessary.
However, without it, there seems little prospect of providing a rational
basis for the assessment of possible climate policies or actions.
The Centre will also develop parallel research into participatory
approaches for the development of integrated scenarios of the future.  This
will include the public perception of environmental risks caused by climate
change; peoples actions in response to these perceptions is also important.
Identification of suitable scenarios for presentation in participative
experiments on public/corporate response would involve the physical
sciences in co-operation with engineers, political scientists,
psychologists and economists.  Methods include surveys, focus groups,
citizens juries and stakeholder workshops.  [CSERGE/UMIST developing these
ideas; use the ICER Visualisation Laboratory].  More in-depth empirical
research could be undertaken to understand better individual and
organisational decision-making on climate change related issues, such as
energy consumption, transport choices, and so on.  This activity would have
the objective of developing methodologies for assessing the public response
to the particular problems identified in the Carbon Management, Renewables
and Factor 4+ Challenges above.  Through interactions with business it may
also open up the possibility of 'design-oriented scenarios', i.e., in which
the scenario identifies a need for a new kind of product/process design in
response to a prospective future socio-political change.
[Links outside the Centre to: other process modelling centres, ULYSSES,
……………….
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\outline.bid.doc"


Dear Tim,
Thanks for the information. I don't want to speak for Tom Karl, but I think it
may be a bit too late (past the Oct 1 deadline) to make further revisions
in the draft 1.0.  It would be a bit of an imposition on Tom at this point
given what he's been through in finalizing the draft. However, I see no
reason that we can't make that revision when the paper comes back from
expert review in a couple months. We'll have the further advantage that
the supporting  manuscript you describe should be available at that point
(a requirement in the IPCC peer-review process). I think we'll all be
looking forward to updating the plot w/ the latest series you describe...
As for decisions about the most appropriate baseline period to use for the
series, that is as you point out an important issue and one we have to
consider with some circumspection, especially if a "modern" calibration
(e.g., 1931-1960) to the instrumental record gives a substantially
different alignment
from the more 19th century-oriented calibration you describe. The tradeoff
of course is that the instrumental series itself is considerably less certain
prior to the 20th century while, as you point out, the non-climatic influence
on tree growth may be setting in by the mid 20th century. Something I think
we can iron out satisfactorily at the next juncture.
I hope the above sounds ok to you guys. Let me know. Thanks,
mike
At 04:18 PM 10/5/99 +0100, Tim Osborn wrote:
>Dear Mike and Ian
>
>Keith has asked me to send you a timeseries for the IPCC multi-proxy
>reconstruction figure, to replace the one you currently have.  The data are
>attached to this e-mail.  They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually
>stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that
>is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use.  I haven't put a 40-yr
>smoothing through them - I thought it best if you were to do this to ensure
>the same filter was used for all curves.
>
>The raw data are the same as used in Briffa et al. (1998), the Nature paper
>that I think you have the reference for already.  They are analysed in a
>different way, to retain the low-frequency variations.  In this sense, it
>is one-step removed from Briffa et al. (1998).  It is not two-steps removed
>from Briffa et al. (1998), since the new series is simply a *replacement*
>for the one that you have been using, rather than being one-step further.
>
>A new manuscript is in preparation describing this alternative analysis
>method, the calibration of the resulting series, and their comparison with
>other reconstructions.  We are consdering submitting this manuscript to J.
>Geophys. Res. when it is ready, but for now it is best cited as:
>Briffa KR, Osborn TJ, Schweingruber FH, Harris IC and Jones PD (1999)
>Extracting low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring
>density network. In preparation.
>Keith will be sending you a copy of the manuscript when it is nearer to
>completion.
>
>I have also attached a PS file showing the original Briffa et al. (1998)
>curve, with annotation of cold years associated with known volcanic
>eruptions.  Overlain on this, you will see a green curve.  This is the new
>series with a 40-yr filter through it.  This is just so that you can see
>what it should look like (***ignore the temperature scale on this
>figure***, since the baseline is non-standard).
>
>With regard to the baseline, the data I've sent are calibrated over the
>period 1881-1960 against the instrumental Apr-Sep tempratures averaged over
>all land grid boxes with observed data that are north of 20N.  As such, the
>mean of our reconstruction over 1881-1960 matches the mean of the observed
>target series over the same period.  Since the observed series consists of
>degrees C anomalies wrt to 1961-90, we say that the reconstructed series
>also represents degrees C anomalies wrt to 1961-90.  One could, of course,
>shift the mean of our reconstruction so that it matched the observed series
>over a different period - say 1931-60 - but I don't see that this improves
>things.  Indeed, if the non-temperature signal that causes the decline in
>tree-ring density begins before 1960, then a short 1931-60 period might
>yield a more biased result than using a longer 1881-1960 period.
>
>If you have any queries regarding this replacement data, then please e-mail
>me and/or Keith.
>
>Best regards
>
>Tim
>
>Calibrated against observed Apr-Sep temperature over 1881-1960
>averaged over all land grid boxes north of 20N
>
>
>Year  Reconstructed temperature anomaly (degrees C wrt 1961-90)
>1402    -0.283
>1403    -0.334
>1404    -0.286
>1405    -0.350
>1406    -0.152
>1407    -0.124
>1408    -0.220
>1409    -0.175
>1410    -0.100
>1411    -0.129
>1412    -0.226
>1413    -0.115
>1414    -0.386
>1415    -0.319
>1416    -0.277
>1417    -0.136
>1418    -0.172
>1419    -0.294
>1420    -0.280
>1421    -0.335
>1422    -0.406
>1423    -0.312
>1424    -0.207
>1425    -0.136
>1426    -0.354
>1427    -0.222
>1428    -0.305
>1429    -0.322
>1430    -0.282
>1431    -0.143
>1432    -0.212
>1433    -0.234
>1434    -0.076
>1435    -0.309
>1436    -0.411
>1437    -0.122
>1438    -0.272
>1439    -0.159
>1440    -0.330
>1441    -0.160
>1442    -0.105
>1443    -0.080
>1444    -0.308
>1445    -0.138
>1446    -0.317
>1447    -0.270
>1448    -0.301
>1449    -0.357
>1450    -0.137
>1451    -0.183
>1452    -0.207
>1453    -0.485
>1454    -0.265
>1455    -0.358
>1456    -0.241
>1457    -0.199
>1458    -0.366
>1459    -0.397
>1460    -0.252
>1461    -0.230
>1462    -0.252
>1463    -0.209
>1464    -0.174
>1465    -0.174
>1466    -0.280
>1467    -0.256
>1468    -0.256
>1469    -0.222
>1470    -0.237
>1471    -0.094
>1472    -0.122
>1473    -0.056
>1474    -0.320
>1475    -0.376
>1476    -0.133
>1477    -0.075
>1478     0.037
>1479    -0.161
>1480    -0.379
>1481    -0.513
>1482    -0.286
>1483    -0.354
>1484    -0.327
>1485    -0.208
>1486    -0.125
>1487    -0.380
>1488    -0.193
>1489    -0.245
>1490    -0.466
>1491    -0.244
>1492    -0.146
>1493    -0.278
>1494    -0.394
>1495    -0.526
>1496    -0.275
>1497    -0.264
>1498    -0.233
>1499    -0.169
>1500    -0.128
>1501    -0.415
>1502    -0.306
>1503     0.011
>1504    -0.013
>1505    -0.378
>1506    -0.226
>1507    -0.428
>1508    -0.192
>1509    -0.312
>1510    -0.157
>1511    -0.162
>1512    -0.188
>1513    -0.135
>1514    -0.418
>1515    -0.258
>1516    -0.381
>1517    -0.134
>1518    -0.180
>1519    -0.166
>1520    -0.035
>1521    -0.384
>1522    -0.302
>1523    -0.541
>1524    -0.371
>1525    -0.183
>1526    -0.289
>1527    -0.224
>1528    -0.247
>1529    -0.432
>1530    -0.291
>1531    -0.467
>1532    -0.343
>1533    -0.586
>1534    -0.183
>1535    -0.417
>1536    -0.350
>1537    -0.257
>1538    -0.451
>1539    -0.398
>1540    -0.497
>1541    -0.406
>1542    -0.584
>1543    -0.448
>1544    -0.317
>1545    -0.312
>1546    -0.289
>1547    -0.114
>1548    -0.459
>1549    -0.335
>1550    -0.009
>1551    -0.074
>1552    -0.047
>1553    -0.207
>1554    -0.285
>1555    -0.116
>1556    -0.141
>1557    -0.419
>1558    -0.174
>1559    -0.465
>1560    -0.287
>1561    -0.169
>1562    -0.231
>1563    -0.270
>1564    -0.347
>1565    -0.116
>1566    -0.202
>1567    -0.278
>1568    -0.445
>1569    -0.488
>1570    -0.465
>1571    -0.434
>1572    -0.674
>1573    -0.324
>1574    -0.493
>1575    -0.273
>1576    -0.623
>1577    -0.483
>1578    -0.521
>1579    -0.551
>1580    -0.473
>1581    -0.436
>1582    -0.382
>1583    -0.345
>1584    -0.280
>1585    -0.565
>1586    -0.409
>1587    -0.580
>1588    -0.530
>1589    -0.534
>1590    -0.354
>1591    -0.377
>1592    -0.407
>1593    -0.337
>1594    -0.591
>1595    -0.459
>1596    -0.436
>1597    -0.475
>1598    -0.152
>1599    -0.134
>1600    -0.381
>1601    -1.169
>1602    -0.403
>1603    -0.414
>1604    -0.472
>1605    -0.393
>1606    -0.564
>1607    -0.529
>1608    -0.822
>1609    -0.789
>1610    -0.617
>1611    -0.681
>1612    -0.670
>1613    -0.364
>1614    -0.733
>1615    -0.428
>1616    -0.698
>1617    -0.479
>1618    -0.485
>1619    -0.524
>1620    -0.706
>1621    -0.671
>1622    -0.714
>1623    -0.662
>1624    -0.387
>1625    -0.566
>1626    -0.671
>1627    -0.665
>1628    -0.759
>1629    -0.654
>1630    -0.379
>1631    -0.466
>1632    -0.330
>1633    -0.377
>1634    -0.521
>1635    -0.222
>1636    -0.265
>1637    -0.252
>1638    -0.396
>1639    -0.382
>1640    -0.400
>1641    -1.152
>1642    -1.067
>1643    -1.092
>1644    -0.649
>1645    -0.588
>1646    -0.632
>1647    -0.554
>1648    -0.368
>1649    -0.572
>1650    -0.215
>1651    -0.317
>1652    -0.529
>1653    -0.268
>1654    -0.343
>1655    -0.400
>1656    -0.372
>1657    -0.332
>1658    -0.359
>1659    -0.182
>1660    -0.260
>1661    -0.258
>1662    -0.433
>1663    -0.433
>1664    -0.353
>1665    -0.440
>1666    -0.837
>1667    -0.857
>1668    -0.816
>1669    -0.779
>1670    -0.871
>1671    -0.463
>1672    -0.434
>1673    -0.631
>1674    -0.663
>1675    -0.870
>1676    -0.523
>1677    -0.670
>1678    -0.794
>1679    -0.768
>1680    -0.701
>1681    -0.380
>1682    -0.518
>1683    -0.364
>1684    -0.369
>1685    -0.688
>1686    -0.178
>1687    -0.481
>1688    -0.351
>1689    -0.229
>1690    -0.254
>1691    -0.221
>1692    -0.545
>1693    -0.263
>1694    -0.316
>1695    -0.955
>1696    -0.816
>1697    -0.687
>1698    -1.054
>1699    -1.005
>1700    -0.630
>1701    -0.818
>1702    -0.510
>1703    -0.377
>1704    -0.420
>1705    -0.527
>1706    -0.328
>1707    -0.257
>1708    -0.465
>1709    -0.493
>1710    -0.288
>1711    -0.344
>1712    -0.345
>1713    -0.242
>1714    -0.390
>1715    -0.305
>1716    -0.390
>1717    -0.309
>1718    -0.270
>1719    -0.194
>1720    -0.110
>1721    -0.427
>1722     0.005
>1723    -0.193
>1724    -0.249
>1725    -0.497
>1726    -0.381
>1727    -0.241
>1728    -0.133
>1729    -0.261
>1730    -0.633
>1731    -0.723
>1732    -0.426
>1733    -0.371
>1734    -0.104
>1735    -0.373
>1736    -0.330
>1737    -0.206
>1738    -0.557
>1739    -0.291
>1740    -0.734
>1741    -0.594
>1742    -0.808
>1743    -0.378
>1744    -0.372
>1745    -0.418
>1746    -0.501
>1747    -0.150
>1748    -0.389
>1749    -0.328
>1750    -0.168
>1751    -0.343
>1752    -0.227
>1753    -0.218
>1754    -0.377
>1755    -0.328
>1756    -0.221
>1757    -0.259
>1758    -0.431
>1759    -0.340
>1760    -0.335
>1761    -0.261
>1762    -0.466
>1763    -0.291
>1764    -0.473
>1765    -0.378
>1766    -0.212
>1767    -0.429
>1768    -0.544
>1769    -0.343
>1770    -0.341
>1771    -0.265
>1772    -0.547
>1773    -0.421
>1774    -0.048
>1775    -0.289
>1776    -0.186
>1777    -0.288
>1778    -0.178
>1779    -0.550
>1780    -0.339
>1781    -0.251
>1782    -0.164
>1783    -0.757
>1784    -0.142
>1785    -0.141
>1786    -0.179
>1787    -0.432
>1788    -0.207
>1789    -0.235
>1790    -0.612
>1791    -0.163
>1792    -0.086
>1793    -0.023
>1794    -0.030
>1795    -0.243
>1796    -0.028
>1797    -0.565
>1798    -0.049
>1799    -0.228
>1800    -0.287
>1801    -0.413
>1802    -0.117
>1803     0.020
>1804     0.036
>1805    -0.094
>1806    -0.251
>1807    -0.089
>1808    -0.241
>1809    -0.460
>1810    -0.582
>1811    -0.353
>1812    -0.459
>1813    -0.545
>1814    -0.458
>1815    -0.588
>1816    -0.855
>1817    -0.861
>1818    -0.629
>1819    -0.680
>1820    -0.289
>1821    -0.351
>1822    -0.159
>1823    -0.246
>1824    -0.276
>1825    -0.263
>1826    -0.140
>1827    -0.293
>1828    -0.033
>1829    -0.087
>1830    -0.173
>1831    -0.045
>1832    -0.621
>1833    -0.660
>1834    -0.141
>1835    -0.647
>1836    -0.775
>1837    -0.771
>1838    -0.359
>1839    -0.267
>1840    -0.144
>1841    -0.077
>1842    -0.337
>1843    -0.435
>1844    -0.101
>1845    -0.412
>1846     0.106
>1847    -0.079
>1848    -0.346
>1849    -0.393
>1850    -0.261
>1851    -0.165
>1852    -0.100
>1853    -0.174
>1854    -0.138
>1855    -0.418
>1856    -0.250
>1857    -0.538
>1858    -0.126
>1859    -0.195
>1860    -0.231
>1861    -0.029
>1862    -0.555
>1863    -0.303
>1864    -0.407
>1865    -0.256
>1866    -0.437
>1867    -0.413
>1868    -0.119
>1869    -0.321
>1870    -0.213
>1871    -0.352
>1872    -0.163
>1873    -0.183
>1874    -0.372
>1875    -0.247
>1876    -0.487
>1877    -0.192
>1878     0.120
>1879    -0.152
>1880    -0.346
>1881    -0.184
>1882    -0.200
>1883    -0.183
>1884    -0.717
>1885    -0.534
>1886    -0.485
>1887    -0.281
>1888    -0.261
>1889    -0.153
>1890    -0.341
>1891    -0.313
>1892    -0.138
>1893    -0.301
>1894    -0.134
>1895    -0.128
>1896    -0.241
>1897    -0.016
>1898     0.065
>1899    -0.574
>1900    -0.218
>1901    -0.049
>1902    -0.287
>1903    -0.142
>1904    -0.205
>1905    -0.308
>1906    -0.034
>1907    -0.412
>1908    -0.048
>1909    -0.214
>1910    -0.147
>1911    -0.194
>1912    -0.631
>1913    -0.161
>1914    -0.294
>1915    -0.074
>1916    -0.277
>1917    -0.297
>1918    -0.460
>1919    -0.013
>1920    -0.272
>1921    -0.114
>1922    -0.036
>1923    -0.305
>1924    -0.141
>1925    -0.258
>1926    -0.115
>1927    -0.198
>1928    -0.018
>1929    -0.161
>1930     0.086
>1931     0.104
>1932     0.081
>1933    -0.057
>1934     0.007
>1935    -0.037
>1936    -0.019
>1937     0.060
>1938     0.163
>1939    -0.075
>1940     0.113
>1941    -0.200
>1942     0.128
>1943     0.053
>1944    -0.080
>1945     0.059
>1946    -0.016
>1947    -0.188
>1948    -0.038
>1949    -0.107
>1950    -0.269
>1951    -0.100
>1952    -0.118
>1953     0.161
>1954    -0.235
>1955    -0.127
>1956    -0.308
>1957    -0.194
>1958    -0.308
>1959    -0.224
>1960     0.076
>1961    -0.104
>1962    -0.289
>1963    -0.173
>1964    -0.479
>1965    -0.474
>1966    -0.171
>1967    -0.200
>1968    -0.599
>1969    -0.355
>1970    -0.353
>1971    -0.328
>1972    -0.563
>1973    -0.262
>1974    -0.336
>1975    -0.507
>1976    -0.558
>1977    -0.363
>1978    -0.698
>1979    -0.289
>1980    -0.612
>1981    -0.195
>1982    -0.522
>1983    -0.234
>1984    -0.335
>1985    -0.423
>1986    -0.430
>1987    -0.424
>1988    -0.161
>1989    -0.286
>1990    -0.275
>1991    -0.169
>1992    -0.175
>1993    -0.341
>1994    -0.320
>
>Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Briffa et al.ps"
>
>Dr Timothy J Osborn                 | phone:    +44 1603 592089
>Senior Research Associate           | fax:      +44 1603 507784
>Climatic Research Unit              | e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
>School of Environmental Sciences    | web-site:
>University of East Anglia __________|   ~timo/
>Norwich  NR4 7TJ         | sunclock:
>UK                       |   ~timo/sunclock.htm
>
_______________________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (804) 924-7770   FAX: (804) 982-2137