Hi Keith,
Thanks.
My concerns comes from the following. I am not convinced that one gets
the same response when forcing a model with smoothed volcanic forcing
instead with the spikes. I suspect that the ocean will gain more heat in
the later case due to the longer time to respond to the forcing.
However, this remains to be tested, but nobody has done this as far as I
know. In other words, postprocessing the output of a model forced with
high resolution data does not necessarily give the same results as
forcing the model with smoothed input. There is a chance to get
different results. That is why I prefer to show the real forcing, i.e.
the volcanic spikes. As long as nobody has done such tests run I would
prefer to be scientifically on the save side with the figure. Sorry, but
this is my modellers view on this.
Forcings do not need to be on the same scale here. We know that
temporarily volcanic forcing, albeit negative, is much larger than
anthropogenic forcing. Why should we hide this well-know fact? Sceptics
my call on this. Readers of our chapter are hopefully able to interpret
the y-axis.
The TS-team (in this case neither me nor Peck) asked us to show the
volcanic spikes.
A  point of the figure is to show the implication of low solar forcing
(WLS versus Bard) that is why I prefer to blow the solar panel somewhat
up. We have varied solar forcing between the different runs. Of course
the point about the natural forcing only simulation not able to get the
20th century warming is very important. Indeed, I believe that this
important conclusion is underscoored if we make it very clear that we
have varied solar forcing over a wide range (by a factor of 3).
It would also be nice to show the 11-yr solar cycle that is in the data
(sun spots, but also 14C).
As far as normalisation of the forcing is concerned. I have no strong
opinion. There is a consistency issue with chapter 2 where radiative
forcing is always defined relative to 1750 (1750==0). This point may
especially be important for the TS. There is also the issue about
agreement over recent decades. This is why I slightly prefer to
normalize the forcing to be zero around 1750.
The sulfur figure will show volcanic spikes. We have agreed in Bergen
that we add a sentence to the caption to point out that sulfate
deposition may strongly vary regionally.
I think we have with fig 13 and 14 now the opportunity to convey to the
readers the same information in two different ways. Perhaps, we should
not miss this opportunity. In any case, we will find a solution and then
go forward.
Cheers, Fortunat
Keith Briffa wrote:
> Fortunat et al
> My opinions were consistent with Tim's expression - we discussed his
> response. The importance of consistency between different modelling
> Figures ( time response of filters and in the absolute magnitude of
> forcing scale) are the most important aspects. To start showing
> apparently different volcanic spikes (in the sulphate and EMIC Figure )
> will lead to confusion also. Ultimately we should remember that the
> point of this Figure is to show that you can not get simulated
> temperatures to match observations without anthropogenic forcing - not
> to show proportional responses to different solar or volcanic events.
> cheers
> Keith
>
> At 13:45 18/07/2006, Fortunat Joos wrote:
>
>> Dear Tim,
>>
>> Sorry, that was a very careless and a totally inappropriate choice of
>> words. I seriously apologize. Of course smoothing is not dishonest (I
>> do it also all the time). To the contrary, I very much apreciate all
>> your hard work to do these figures. I know that it is very time
>> consuming from own experience ... (that is perhaps why I did not
>> reflect on my wording when writing the e-mail). What I wanted to say
>> is that if one has the opportunity to show directly  what forcing was
>> used by the model than I very much prefer to do so. I hope there
>> remains no misunderstanding. I realize now that I should have used
>> more modest wording at various places.
>>
>> Let us see what Eystein, Peck and Keith are thinking about it.
>>
>> With best wishes, Fortunat
>>
>> Tim Osborn wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> thanks for the responses, Peck and Fortunat.
>>> I drafted the new figure 6.14 following as closely as possible the
>>> approach used for the original forcing/simulation figure (now 6.13).
>>> This is why I smoothed all series and used a common anomalisation
>>> period for all curves across all panels.  It can greatly help to
>>> interpret why the simulated temperature responds in the way it does,
>>> because the zero (or "normal" level) is comparable across plots and
>>> because the strengths of different forcings can be compared *on the
>>> same timescale* as the simulated temperatures are shown.  And, for
>>> 6.13, with so many different forcings and models shown, it would have
>>> been impossible to use unsmoothed series without making the
>>> individual curves indistinguishable (or indeed fitting them into such
>>> a compact figure).
>>> Now that the EMIC panels are separate from the original 6.13, we do
>>> have the opportunity to make different presentational choices.  But I
>>> think, nevertheless, that some of the reasons for (i) proportional
>>> scaling, (ii) common anomalisation period; and (iii) smoothing to
>>> achieve presentation on comparable time scales, that held for 6.13
>>> probably also hold in 6.14.
>>> However, I also appreciate the points raised by Fortunat,
>>> specifically that (i) it is nice to be able to compare the magnitude
>>> of the 11-yr solar cycles with the magnitude of the low-frequency
>>> solar variations; and (ii) that using a modern reference period
>>> removes the interpretation that we don't even know the forcing today.
>>> So we have various advantages and disadvantages of different
>>> presentational choices, and no set of choices will satisfy all these
>>> competing demands.
>>> One thing that I am particularly perturbed about is Fortunat's
>>> implication that to show smoothed forcings would be scientifically
>>> dishonest.  I disagree (and I was also upset by your choice of
>>> wording).  If it were dishonest to show smoothed data, then
>>> presumably the same holds for 6.13 (but its impossible to distinguish
>>> all the different volcanic forcings if shown unsmoothed), but also to
>>> every other graphic... should I be showing the EMIC simulated
>>> temperatures without smoothing too, so you can see the individual
>>> yearly responses to the volcanic spikes?  But annual means are formed
>>> from the temperatures simulated on the model timesteps, so we still
>>> wouldn't be showing results that had not been post-processed.  Most
>>> climate models, even GCMs, respond in a quasi-linear way, such that
>>> the smoothed response to unsmooth forcing is very similar to the
>>> response to smooth forcing.  So if we are interested in the
>>> temperature response on time scales of 30 years and longer, it seems
>>> entirely appropriate (and better for interpretation/comparison of
>>> forcings) to show the forcings on this time scale too, because the
>>> forcing variations on those time scales are the ones that are driving
>>> the temperature response (even though the forcing may be intermittent
>>> like volcanoes or have 11-yr cycles like solar).
>>> The choice of smoothing / no smoothing is not, therefore, anything to
>>> do with honesty/dishonesty, but is purely a presentational choice
>>> that can made accordingly to what the purpose of the figure is.  Here
>>> our purpose seems to be long-term climate changes, rather than
>>> response to individual volcanoes or to the 11-yr solar cycle.
>>> So the position is:
>>> (1) smoothing or no smoothing: there are arguments for both choices,
>>> though clearly I prefer smoothing and Fortunat prefers no smoothing.
>>> I could make a figure which kept the smooth lines but put the raw
>>> annual histogram volcanic spikes underneath in pale grey, as Peck
>>> requested anyway (and possibly put the 11-yr solar cycles in pale
>>> brown underneath the smoothed brown solar series).  This would be a
>>> compromise but the main problem is that the scale of the largest
>>> volcanic spikes would far exceed the scale I am using to show the
>>> smoothed series (so the panel is not large enough to do this)!
>>> (2) pre-industrial or present-day anomalisation reference period:
>>> again there are arguments for both choices.  Whatever we choose, I
>>> firmly believe it should be the same for *all* curves in this figure
>>> (which can make a dramatic difference).
>>> (3) exaggeration of solar scale or proportional vertical scales: this
>>> is the one that I have the firmest opinion about.  I see no reason to
>>> exaggerate the scale of the solar forcings relative to volcanic or
>>> anthropogenic forcings.  The difference between the forcings looks
>>> clear enough in the version of the figure that I made.  Exaggerating
>>> it will wrongly make the Bard 2.5% case look (at first glance) bigger
>>> than the anthropogenic forcing, and make it look more important than
>>> volcanic forcing.
>>> I'll hold off from making any more versions till decisions are made
>>> on these issues.
>>> Cheers
>>> Tim
>>> At 09:01 18/07/2006, Fortunat Joos wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Tim and co,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the figure. I like the figure showing the model results
>>>> and the general outline/graphic style.
>>>>
>>>> However, I am concerned about what is shown in the forcing figure.
>>>>
>>>> 1) Volcanic panel: I strongly believe that we should show what was
>>>> used by the model and not some 40 year smoothed curves for volcanic
>>>> forcing or any other forcing. So please use the original data file.
>>>> Scientific honesty demands to show what was used and not something
>>>> post-processed.
>>>>
>>>> 2) solar panel:
>>>> 2a) We must show the Wang-Lean-Shirley data on the original
>>>> resolution as used to drive the models. In this way, we also
>>>> illustrate the magnitude of the 11-yr annual cycle in comparison
>>>> with the background trend. The record being flat, apart from the
>>>> 11-yr cycle, during the last decades is a reality.
>>>> 2b) Do not apply any smooting to the Bard data. Just use them as
>>>> they are and how they were published by Bard and used in the model.
>>>> 2c) It is fine to supress the Bard 0.08 case after 1610 (not done in
>>>> my figure version)
>>>> 2d) the emphasis of the figure is on the solar forcing differences.
>>>> So, please show solar somewhat overproportional in comparison to
>>>> volcanic and other forcings.
>>>>
>>>> 3) other forcings: again no smoothing needed here. It would be hard
>>>> to defend a double smoothing.
>>>>
>>>> 4)- normalisation of solar forcing to some period mean. If the
>>>> different solar forcings disagree for today as in your option, we
>>>> may send the signal that we do not even know solar forcing today.
>>>> Thus, I slightly prefer to have the same mean forcing values for all
>>>> solar records during the last few decades as shown in the attached
>>>> version. However, I also can see some arguments for other
>>>> normalisations.
>>>>
>>>> To illustrate points 1 to 4, I have prepared and attached a version
>>>> of the forcing panel.
>>>>
>>>> other points
>>>>
>>>> - Your choice of colors is fine
>>>> - time range 1000-2000 AD is fine
>>>> - suggest to remove the text from the y-labels except the units W/m2.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for this additional comments coming a bit late. However, I did
>>>> not realise that you planned to smoothed the model input data in any
>>>> way.
>>>>
>>>> With best wishes,
>>>>
>>>> Fortunat
>>>>
>>>> Tim Osborn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Peck, Eystein and Fortunat,
>>>>> I've drafted two versions of the new fig 6.14, comprising a new
>>>>> panel showing the forcing used in the EMIC runs, plus the old fig
>>>>> 6.13e panel showing the EMIC simulated NH temperatures.  Keith has
>>>>> seen them already.
>>>>> First you should know what I did, so that you (especially Fortunat)
>>>>> can check that what I did was appropriate:
>>>>> (1) For the volcanic forcing, I simply took the volcanic RF forcing
>>>>> from Fortunat's file and applied the 30-year smoothing before
>>>>> plotting it.
>>>>> (2) For the solar forcing there are 2 curves.  For the first, I
>>>>> took the Bard 0.25% column from Fortunat's RF file.  For the
>>>>> second, I took the Bard 0.08% column from Fortunat's RF file from
>>>>> 1001 to 1609, and then appended the WLS RF forcing from 1610 to
>>>>> 1998.  Then I smoothed the combined record.  NOTE that for the
>>>>> Bard0.25%, the line is flat from 1961 onwards which probably isn't
>>>>> realistic, even though that is what was used in the model runs.
>>>>> (3) For the "all other forcings" there are 2 curves.  For the
>>>>> first, I took the CO2 concentrations provided by Fortunat, then
>>>>> used the "standard" IPCC formula from the TAR (in fact the first of
>>>>> the three options for CO2 in IPCC TAR Table 6.2) to convert this to
>>>>> a radiative forcing.  I then added this to the non-CO2 radiative
>>>>> forcings data from Fortunat's file, to get the total radiative
>>>>> forcing.  For the second, I replaced all values after 1765 with the
>>>>> 1765 value (for the natural forcings case).  Then I smoothed the
>>>>> combined record (as in fig 6.13c, I only applied a 10-year
>>>>> smoothing when plotting the "all other forcings", because it is
>>>>> fairly smooth anyway and using a high smoothing results in lower
>>>>> final values when there is a strong trend at the end of a time
>>>>> series).
>>>>> Now, some comments on the figures themselves (please print them and
>>>>> refer to them when reading this):
>>>>> (1) File 'chap6_f6.14_option1.pdf' is strongly preferred by Keith
>>>>> and me.  This shows the three forcing components separately, which
>>>>> helps with understanding the individual causes of specific warming
>>>>> and cooling periods.  I have managed to reduce the size of this
>>>>> considerably, compared to the equivalent panel in fig 6.13, because
>>>>> with only a few series on it I could squeeze them together more and
>>>>> also reduce the range of the vertical axes.
>>>>> (2) Although we don't prefer it, I have also made
>>>>> 'chap6_f6.14_option2.pdf' which is even smaller by only showing the
>>>>> sum of all the forcings in the top panel.
>>>>> Which version do you prefer?  Please let me know so I can make
>>>>> final changes only to the preferred version.
>>>>> Some more comments:
>>>>> (1) Fig 6.14b was originally Fig 6.13e.  When it was part of that
>>>>> figure, the colour bar showing the shades of grey used to depict
>>>>> the overlapping ranges of the published temperature reconstructions
>>>>> was only on Fig 6.13d.  Do you think I should now also add it to
>>>>> the EMIC panel (6.14b), now that it is in a separate figure?  It
>>>>> will be a bit of a squeeze because of the legend that is already in
>>>>> 6.14b.
>>>>> (2) Another carry over from when 6.14b was part of 6.13, is that
>>>>> the time range of all panels had to match (900-2010).  Now that the
>>>>> EMICs are in a separate figure, I could start them in year 1000,
>>>>> which is when the forcing and simulations begin.  Unless you want
>>>>> 6.13 and 6.14 to remain comparable?  Again please comment/decide.
>>>>> (3) I wasn't sure what colours to use for the forcing series.  In
>>>>> option 1, the volcanic and other forcings apply to all runs, so I
>>>>> chose black (with thick/thin used to distinguish the "all" forcings
>>>>> from the "natural-only" forcings (basically the thin flat line in
>>>>> "all other forcings).  The cyan-green-blue runs used strong solar
>>>>> forcing, so I used blue for that forcing.  The red-orange-brown
>>>>> runs used weak solar forcing, so I used brown for that forcing.
>>>>> Sound ok?
>>>>> Sorry for the long email, but I wanted to get everything explained
>>>>> to avoid too many iterations.
>>>>> Please let me know your decisions/comments on these questions, or
>>>>> on any other aspects of the new figure.
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Tim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
>>> 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
>>> **Norwich -- City for Science:
>>> **Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>   Climate and Environmental Physics,
>>   Physics Institute, University of Bern
>>   Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern
>>   Phone:    ++41(0)31 631 44 61      Fax:      ++41(0)31 631 87 42
>>   Internet: ~joos/
>
>
> --
> Professor Keith Briffa,
> Climatic Research Unit
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>
> Phone: +44-1603-593909
> Fax: +44-1603-507784
>
>
--
Climate and Environmental Physics,
Physics Institute, University of Bern
Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern
Phone:    ++41(0)31 631 44 61      Fax:      ++41(0)31 631 87 42
Internet: ~joos/


Hi Henry - excellent feedback, thanks. I think it
should be easy for Valerie (Holocene issues in
6.5) and Keith/Tim.Ricardo (last 2k, section 6.6)
to deal with the 'expert' review issues regarding
this paper. It sounds to me like that is the
place for discussion of this paper, rather than
in the text itself. BUT, it is important that the
responses to review comments be thorough and
convincing - Valerie and Keith - please update
your responses in this respect.
thanks all, Peck
>Hi Peck and others,
>
>Attached is a brief discussion of the subject
>paper and the questions you have asked me to
>address. Let me know if you need additional
>clarification.
>
>Cheers,
>Henry
>
>  ___    ___    Henry N. Pollack
>[   \  /   ]   Professor of Geophysics
>  |   \/   |    Department of Geological Sciences
>  |MICHIGAN|    University of Michigan
>[___]\/[___]   Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1005, U.S.A.
>
>  Phone: 734-763-0084   FAX: 734-763-4690
>  e-mail: hpollack@umich.edu
>  URL:  www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~hpollack/
>  URL:  www-personal.umich.edu/~hpollack/book.html
>
>
>Quoting Jonathan Overpeck
:
>
>>Hi again Henry - I've attached an 1997 paper of
>>your's and wonder if you could shed some
>>up-to-date insights on how to best interpret.
>>In particular:
>>
>>1) it has been pointed out to us that the
>>result in this paper argue for a globally warm
>>period during the middle Holocene that was
>>warmer than today. Our assessment (i.e., Figure
>>6.9) indicates that there was likely no period
>>during the Holocene that was warmer around the
>>global than the late 20th century. Especially
>>outside of the tropics, there were periods
>>warmer than today during the Holocene, but
>>these regionally warm periods were not
>>synchronous - at least at the centennial scale
>>we can examine with proxy data. Thus, although
>>Huang et al. 1997, indicates greater mean
>>annual global warmth, it was unlike the
>>synchronous global warming of the late 20th
>>century.
>>
>>Plus, we believe the warmth of the Holocene was
>>driven by orbital forcing, and that what we see
>>makes sense in that regard. Huang et al, 1997
>>can be explained perhaps (this is a question)
>>by the heavy borehole coverage in the Northern
>>mid- to high-latitudes? We also know that proxy
>>data shown in Fig 6.9 also indicate more
>>warming (again, not synchronous) in Southern
>>Hem mid-latitudes - where there are also many
>>boreholes.
>>
>>Obviously, another issue is that the boreholes
>>don't give the same temporal resolution as the
>>other proxy records we synthesized/assessed,
>>and at least in your paper, there isn't
>>regional information either.
>>
>>So - the point is not (unless you suggest
>>otherwise) that Huang et al 97 is wrong, but
>>rather than within the limits of the data, it
>>is compatible with what the higher-resolution,
>>regionally-specific, multi-proxy data are
>>showing in Fig 6.9, and that there was likely
>>no period during the Holocene that was warmer
>>synchronously around the global than the during
>>the late 20th century. Do you agree with this,
>>and is our reasoning accurate and complete?
>>
>>2) Huang et al 1997 also shows evidence for
>>warmth within the last 500-1000 years that was
>>greater than during the 20th century AND a cool
>>minima 200 years ago. Both of these are
>>highlighted in your abstract, and both seem
>>incompatible with other evidence. For example,
>>your own more recent work has shown the coolest
>>temperatures to be about 500 years ago.
>>
>>We didn't think it was within our focus to
>>comment on these issues, but we are being asked
>>to by reviewers, and it would be good to have
>>your help in addressing these issues -
>>hopefully in our responses to review comments
>>rather than in our main text (which has to be
>>shortened).
>>
>>Many thanks for your help with this paper and the issues it raises.
>>
>>Best, Peck
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Jonathan T. Overpeck
>>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
>>Professor, Department of Geosciences
>>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
>>
>>Mail and Fedex Address:
>>
>>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
>>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
>>University of Arizona
>>Tucson, AZ 85721
>>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
>>fax: +1 520 792-8795
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:GRL 1997.doc (WDBN/«IC») (00141CBF)
--
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 - can you comment, help? thx, Peck
>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>X-Virus-checked: by University of Berne
>Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:51:05 +0200
>From: Fortunat Joos
>Organization: University of Bern
>X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
>To: Jonathan Overpeck
>Cc: Ricardo Villalba
,
>	Eystein Jansen
, cddhr@giss.nasa.gov,
>	Keith Briffa
, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: Gavin Smchmidt'comment
>
>
>
>Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>Hi Fortunat - Glad you're on this, and thanks for helping us get it
>>right. I agree we need assurance from Chap 2 (David, can you make
>>sure we've got it) that the deleted issues are, indeed, covered in
>>Chap 2.
>
>In particular, I am not sure that chap 2 covers the Solanki et al. issue
>
>>
>>thanks again, Peck
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>What we agreed was actually to keep line 25 to line 34 on p 6-35
>>>and not just until line 30. (As well line 50, p-36 line 2-7).
>>>
>>>The sentence on line 32/33 that there is general agreement in the
>>>evolution of the different proxies is important as there is in
>>>general much confusion about this and this is a chapter 6
>>>statement covering the whole millennium. The sentence also links
>>>nicely to the next sentence on line 50. Yes, as agreed in Bergen
>>>delete the other parts if chapter 2 indeed is going to cover it. I
>>>have not done so in my revision as I wanted to hear what chap 2 is
>>>doing before deleting.
>>>
>>>Peck, in total we will delete 22 line. Note that I have also
>>>squezzed out a few line in the sulfur section. Making progress!
>>>
>>>Regards, Fortunat
>>>
>>>David Rind wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jonathan,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Keith and I discussed this at the meeting; basically what we need
>>>>to keep is:
>>>>
>>>>P. 6-25, lines 25-30, first sentence on line 50, and P. 6-26 the
>>>>first paragraph (lines 2-7).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>All the rest is discussed in one form or another in Chapter 2, pp. 55-56.
>>>>
>>>>Concerning the volcanic forcing, there isn't nearly as much
>>>>overlap, and Chapter 6 did not have very much anyway - I think it
>>>>would be useful to keep what's there, adding just a reference to
>>>>Chapter 2 (add: "see also  Chapter 2", at the end of line 26).
>>>>(I'm assuming that Fig. 6-13a still includes the solar and
>>>>volcanic forcing).
>>>>
>>>>David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At 11:40 AM -0600 7/18/06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hi David - it's good to know you can get to work before someone,
>>>>>even if they live in Europe.
>>>>>
>>>>>Your plan sounds good, and is it safe to assume that you will be
>>>>>making sure Chap 2 gets the right material from chap 6, and that
>>>>>we can thus pare our discussion of past solar and volcanic
>>>>>forcing down to a minimum? Can you give us an update of what
>>>>>they will not cover that we should (i.e., looking at section
>>>>>6.6)?
>>>>>
>>>>>Many thanks, Peck
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[It's a sad state of affairs if I'm the one who gets to work
>>>>>>sooner! (regardless of the time difference).]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What is discussed below is basically what we thought in
>>>>>>response to Gavin's comment - that we would basically
>>>>>>cross-reference chap 2, where the primary discussion would
>>>>>>occur. It's consistent with chapter 2's general discussion of
>>>>>>how forcings have changed over time, and would seem odd if
>>>>>>chapter 2 left out past solar and volcanic forcing. Chapter 2
>>>>>>should feel free to utilize anything that existed in Chapter 6
>>>>>>on these issues to complement their discussion, if the need
>>>>>>arises. Once that is finalized, Chapter 6 can then make the
>>>>>>proper cross-references.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>At 10:26 AM -0600 7/18/06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hi Ricardo - good points. We did discuss this in Bergen, and
>>>>>>>David Rind (as a Chap 2 CA) was going to help make sure we
>>>>>>>kept things covered in chap 2, while cutting our solar and
>>>>>>>volcanic discussions in chap 6. The key will be
>>>>>>>cross-referencing chap 2 carefully. So, Keith, Ricardo and
>>>>>>>David - please interact to figure out how to work this
>>>>>>>efficiently. Perhaps David could comment first since he's at
>>>>>>>work sooner.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks... Best, Peck
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hi all!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In comment 6-811, Gavin Schmidt points out that our sections
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>6.6.3.1   Solar forcing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>6.6.3.2   Volcanic forcing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>largely replicate the discussion in Chap. 2 on the same
>>>>>>>>topics. I checked
>>>>>>>>Chap. 2, and they provide a large (almost 8 pages in the SOD)
>>>>>>>>discussion
>>>>>>>>mainly on solar and but also on volcanic forcings.  Gavin
>>>>>>>>suggests that only
>>>>>>>>the implementation issues should be discussed in our chapter
>>>>>>>>and leave the
>>>>>>>>most general information in Chapter 2. We can substantially short our
>>>>>>>>section following his advice.  Please, find below the outline of the
>>>>>>>>sections in Chap. 2 dealing with solar and volcanic forcings. Cheers,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ricardo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2.7 Natural Forcings
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2.7.1 Solar Variability
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2.7.1.1 Direct observations of solar irradiance
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2.7.1.1.1 Satellite measurements of total solar irradiance
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2.7.1.1.2 Observed decadal trends and variability
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2.7.1.1.3 Measurements of solar spectral irradiance
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2.7.1.2 Estimating past solar radiative forcing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2.7.1.2.1 Reconstructions of past variations in solar irradiance
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2.7.1.2.2 Implications for solar radiative forcing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2.7.1.3 Indirect effects of solar variability
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2.7.2 Explosive Volcanic Activity
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2.7.2.1 Radiative effects of volcanic aerosols
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>2.7.2.2 Thermal, dynamic and chemistry perturbations forced by volcanic
>>>>>>>>aerosols
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>From: "Tim Osborn"
>>>>>>>>To: "Jonathan Overpeck"
; "Keith Briffa"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Cc: "Eystein Jansen"
; "Ricardo Villalba"
>>>>>>>>
; "joos"
>>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 12:25 PM
>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: Special instructions/timing adjustment
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  I'm halfway through these changes and will get the revised figures
>>>>>>>>>  out to you probably tomorrow, except maybe the SH one, because:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  I'm not sure if the van Ommen (pers. comm.) data shown by Jones &
>>>>>>>>>  Mann and suggested by Riccardo are the data to use or not.  Is it
>>>>>>>>>  published properly?  I've seen the last 700 years of the Law Dome 18O
>>>>>>>>>  record published, so perhaps we should show just the period since
>>>>>>>>>  1300 AD?  That period appears in:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Mayewski PA, Maasch KA, White JWC, et al.
>>>>>>>>>  A 700 year record of Southern Hemisphere extratropical
>>>>>>>>>climate variability
>>>>>>>>>  ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY 39: 127-132 2004
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Goodwin ID, van Ommen TD, Curran MAJ, et al.
>>>>>>>>>  Mid latitude winter climate variability in the South Indian and
>>>>>>>>>  southwest Pacific regions since 1300 AD
>>>>>>>>>  CLIMATE DYNAMICS 22 (8): 783-794 JUL 2004
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  See below for some more comments in respect to individual figures.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  At 21:36 30/06/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>>>>>>>>  >Figure 6.10.
>>>>>>>>>  >1. shade the connection between the top and middle panels
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  yes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  >2. remove the dotted (long instrumental) curve from the middle panel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  yes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  >3. replace the red shaded region in the bottom panel with the
>>>>>>>>>  >grey-scale one used in Fig 6.13
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  yes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  >4. label only every increment of 10 in the grey-scale bar (formally
>>>>>>>>>  >color) in the bottom panel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  yes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  >5. Increase font sizes for axis numbering and axis labeling - all
>>>>>>>>>  >are too small. You can figure out the best size by reducing figs to
>>>>>>>>>  >likely page size minus margins. We guess the captions need to be
>>>>>>>>>  >bigger by a couple increments at least.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  yes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  >Figure 6.11.
>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>  >1. This one is in pretty good shape except that Ricardo has to
>>>>>>>>>  >determine if S. African boreholes need to be removed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  I think Henry said they were published and could stay
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  >Figure 6.12
>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>  >1. again, please delete S. African borehole if Ricardo indicates
>>>>>>>>>  >it's still not published.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  I think Henry said they could stay.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  >2. consider adding Law Dome temperature record - Ricardo is
>>>>>>>>>  >investigating, but perhaps Keith/Tim can help figure out if it's
>>>>>>>>>  >valid to include. Feel free to check with Valerie on this too, as
>>>>>>>>>  >she seems to know these data at least a little
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Already discussed above.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  >3. also, please increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10 -
>>>>>>>>>  >probably better to use bold fonts
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  You are right that I've mixed bold and non-bold.  When reduced to
>>>>>>>>>  small size, the non-bold actually read more clearly than the bold, I
>>>>>>>>>  think, so I'll standardise on non-bold.  It's not possible to
>>>>>>>>>  completely standardise on the size, because each figure I provide
>>>>>>>>>  might be scaled by different amounts.  I don't know final figure
>>>>>>>>>  size, so will make a good guess.  Should be ok.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  >Figure 6.13
>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>  >1. we are going to split the existing 6.13 into two figure. The
>>>>>>>>>  >first is 100% Tim's fig., and is just an upgrade of the existing
>>>>>>>>>  >6.13 a-d, with the only changes being:
>>>>>>>>>  >1a. delete the old ECHO-G red dashed line curve in panel d, and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Keith says this was discussed and rejected, so I should
>>>>>>>>>keep old ECHO-G
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>in?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  >1b. please also increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10
>>>>>>>>>  >and 12 - please use bold fonts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  ok, as discussed above.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  >2. The existing 6.13e is going to become a new 6.14, with the
>>>>>>>>>  >addition of a new forcings panel "a" on top of the existing panel e
>>>>>>>>>  >(which becomes 6.14b). To make this happen, Tim and Fortunat have to
>>>>>>>>>  >coordinate, as Tim has the forcing data (and knows what we what) and
>>>>>>>>>  >Tim has the existing figure. We suspect it will be easier for
>>>>>>>>>  >Fortunat to give Tim data and layout advice, and for Tim to make a
>>>>>>>>>  >figure that matches the other figs he's doing. PLEASE NOTE that this
>>>>>>>>>  >fig can't be as large as the existing 6.13a-d, but needs to be more
>>>>>>>>>  >compact to permit its inclusion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  done.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Cheers
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Tim
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
>>>>>>>>>  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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  **Norwich -- City for Science:
>>>>>>>>>  **Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>>>>>>
>>>>>>///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>   Climate and Environmental Physics,
>>>   Physics Institute, University of Bern
>>>   Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern
>>>   Phone:    ++41(0)31 631 44 61      Fax:      ++41(0)31 631 87 42
>>>   Internet: ~joos/
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>
>   Climate and Environmental Physics,
>   Physics Institute, University of Bern
>   Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern
>   Phone:    ++41(0)31 631 44 61      Fax:      ++41(0)31 631 87 42
>   Internet: ~joos/
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795


Here's the new 6.11 and 6.12.  Very few changes necessary.
At 21:36 30/06/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
Figure 6.11.
1. This one is in pretty good shape except that Ricardo has to determine if S. African
boreholes need to be removed.
It turned out that these could stay.  All I've done is to add some white latitude/longitude
lines.
Figure 6.12
1. again, please delete S. African borehole if Ricardo indicates it's still not
published.
Not necessary.
2. consider adding Law Dome temperature record - Ricardo is investigating, but perhaps
Keith/Tim can help figure out if it's valid to include. Feel free to check with Valerie
on this too, as she seems to know these data at least a little
We decided not to do this, but to discuss in the text instead.
3. also, please increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10 - probably better to
use bold fonts
Fonts are bigger.  Decided to standardise on non-bold fonts for all these plots.
Cheers
Tim


Hi Tim - Thanks. If you don't mind, let's see
what the new grey in panel c,  and also the 5-95%
range on a. Also, another alternative to the grey
and red could be some other color that is just
less bright - perhaps blue?
Agree there is no reason to switch the reviewed
panel c uncertainty approach. It argues a bit
that we leave panel a as is too. I'm unsure what
is best, so maybe see what Keith thinks too - and
discuss more with Phil - he is right that most
are trying to go with 5-95 where possible.
Thanks again.
>Hi again,
>
>I still have the red option built into the
>program, so can easily revert to it.  Of course
>the grey has the advantage of consistency with
>the model and EMIC panels, which really must be
>grey so that all the coloured lines indicating
>the simulated temperatures will show up (red
>isn't really an option for the reconstruction
>shading in those figures).  I'll see if I can
>make it clearer yet keep it in grey.
>
>On a different note, Phil Jones just popped in
>and said why are we using "+-2SE" shading in the
>top instrumental panel when it has apparently
>been decided to show the smaller 5-95% range (he
>says this is only 0.8225 times the +-2SE range)
>in all IPCC WG1 figures.  Shall I change this?
>If I do, then the brown and orange curves will
>fall outside this narrower range more often than
>they fall outside the current wider SE range.
>
>The grey shading in panel (c) is also computed
>from the overlap of the +-1 SE and +-2 SE ranges
>of individual reconstructions, but I guess this
>can stay unchanged, rather than needing to be
>recalculated using the overlap of the ?-?% and
>5-95% ranges?
>
>Cheers
>
>Tim
>
>At 16:05 19/07/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>Hi Tim - thanks! Now I can see why you went
>>with the red rather than grey in the bottom
>>panel - it's hard to see. I'd like to float the
>>idea with everyone on the email that we
>>consider going back to red, or try something
>>else. All else is good (thanks) perhaps make
>>the bottom/top axis labels bigger still? (both
>>numbers and "Year").
>>
>>Thx again, Peck
>>
>>>Hi Peck et al.,
>>>
>>>revised fig 6.10 is attached.
>>>
>>>At 21:36 30/06/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>>>Figure 6.10.
>>>>
>>>>1. shade the connection between the top and middle panels
>>>
>>>It was already shaded.  Your poor old eyes must be failing you ;-)
>>>
>>>Ok, so it *was* rather pale!  I've made it a bit darker.
>>>
>>>>2. remove the dotted (long instrumental) curve from the middle panel
>>>
>>>Done
>>>
>>>>3. replace the red shaded region in the
>>>>bottom panel with the grey-scale one used in
>>>>Fig 6.13
>>>
>>>Done - how does it look now?  I had to outline
>>>the instrumental series with a narrow white
>>>band to ensure it could be seen against the
>>>very dark grey shading.
>>>
>>>>4. label only every increment of 10 in the
>>>>grey-scale bar (formally color) in the bottom
>>>>panel
>>>
>>>Done
>>>
>>>>5. Increase font sizes for axis numbering and
>>>>axis labeling - all are too small. You can
>>>>figure out the best size by reducing figs to
>>>>likely page size minus margins. We guess the
>>>>captions need to be bigger by a couple
>>>>increments at least.
>>>
>>>Increased the axis numbering/labelling by a couple of points.
>>>
>>>Cheers
>>>
>>>Tim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:chap6_f6.10.pdf (PDF /«IC») (00141E77)
>>>Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
>>>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
>>>
>>>**Norwich -- City for Science:
>>>**Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006
>>
>>
>>--
>>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
>>
>>
>
>Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
>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
>
>**Norwich -- City for Science:
>**Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006
--
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


I should also say, Caspar, that I've not forwarded any documents to Philip yet with more
details about the challenge.  I thought that you should do that instead, because you will
have (more likely) kept track of where the latest version is.
Cheers
Tim
--------------------
Hi Caspar,
I forgot to forward to you Philip Brohan's positive response to my invitation for him to be
involved in the production of pseudo-proxy and pseudo-instrumental data for the climate
reconstruction challenge.
It is copied below and you can find his contact details below too.
Best wishes
Tim
From: philip.brohan@metoffice.gov.uk
Subject: Re: pseudo-proxies for the climate reconstruction challenge
To: Tim Osborn
Cc: simon.tett@metoffice.gov.uk, Keith Briffa
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 11:08:54 +0100
Hi Tim.
Thanks for your notes from the workshop. It sounds both interesting and
very positive - I was afraid that the relations between the participants
would break down completely, but you've clearly made good progress.
I think a blind test of reconstruction methods is an excellent idea,
and I'm happy to support it in any capacity. I've done this before with
nuclear fuel performance models, and the results were both alarming and
instructive. Doing it properly won't be easy though, I think several
different stretches of model simulation will be required.
So yes - volunteer me to Caspar (or the organising committee) to make
pseudo-proxy and pseudo-instrumental data.
Philip
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 16:48, Tim Osborn wrote:
> Hi Philip (cc Simon & Keith),
>
> Please read my report-back from Wengen workshop first.  You'll see
> that a "climate reconstruction challenge" was suggested and that this
> would be a "blind" test where participating groups would not know
> what the real answer is.
>
> Caspar Ammann would provide and keep secret a suitable model
> simulation.  But we discussed who should make the pseudo-proxy data
> from the model output.  I wondered whether you (Philip) would be
> interested in this, given your experience with the instrumental error
> model and interest in statistical models for proxy error.  What do
> you think of this idea, Philip?  A number of proxy people, including
> us, might liaise with you about how such an error model might be
> structured, but ultimately we would not be allowed to know precise
> details about how you generated a set of pseudo-proxies otherwise we
> wouldn't be allowed to take part in the challenge ourselves.
>
> Would you be interested in participating in this "challenge" in this
> way, and have time to do so?  It would preclude you from entering the
> challenge of course.
>
> Please let me know and I will liaise with whoever else is involved in
> organising this challenge (at least Caspar, but it's not yet clear who else).
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
>
--
Philip Brohan,  Climate Scientist
Met Office   Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
Tel: +44 (0)1392 884574    Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681
Global climate data sets are available from [1]
References
1.


Hi Keith:
I hope you are well in all this!!
I have done my best this evening to digest the issues you asked me to look at, and to give perspective on them.  Here is what I can offer at this point.
1)  Thoughts and perspective concerning the reviewer's comments per se.  These are coded in blue and are in the "Notes" column between pages 103 and 122 inclusive.  It got to the point that I could not be exhaustive, given the very lengthy set of review thoughts, so I am also attaching a review article Caspar and I plan to submit to Climatic Change in the next few days.  [The idea is that this would accompany the Wahl-Ammann article, to summarize and amplify on it -- given all the proper and non-proper interpretation WA has received and the need for subsequent analysis that WA only lightly touches on.  Steve Schneider is aware that it is coming.]  I think a read through this, especially the part on PCs and Bristlecones, can say about all I might offer additionally.  It is not lengthy.
Please note that this Ammann-Wahl text is sent strictly confidentially -- it should not be cited or mentioned in any form, and MUST not be transmitted without permission.  However, I am more than happy to send it for your use, because it succinctly summarizes what we have found on all the issues that have come up re: MBH.  As you can see, we agree at some level with some of the criticisms raised by MM and others, but we do not find that they invalidate MBH in any substantial way.
2)  I have added a brief suggested alteration to page 6-3 of the draft text you sent, to take into account the fact Wahl-Ammann decidely settles the issue concerning how proxy PC calculations impact the MBH style reconstruction.  These changes are encoded using WORD's "Track Changes" feature.
I did not get into suggesting how that paragraph might otherwise be rewritten.  You can see more generally where Caspar and I have gone in the attached text, and how our work relates generally to the MM, von Storch, etc. "examinations" of MBH. Thinking further, the  "Validation Thresholds and Measures of Merit" and "Amplitude Issues" sections might also be well worth a look.  The former will help you see how over-strong and one-sided are the arguments Steven McIntyre puts forth in this area.  (Cf. Wahl-Ammann Appendix 1 also on this topic -- McIntyre strongly avoids, or simply chastizes as ad hoc, the false negative issues at lower frequencies that we raise concerning the use of r2.)  He has done with the IPCC just what he did in reviewing the Wahl-Ammann paper--and indeed in all his efforts--write volumes of very strongly worded, one-sided critiques, which can take a lot of time to see through and then respond to.  I hope what we have written can help you in this way.  I note that Mike Mann, Richard Alley, and others have written response comments, which would be useful for getting perspective also.
Finally, note also that I corrected the reference to Wahl, Ritson, Ammann (Wahl et al., 2006) on page 6-6, and put the correct publication information in the reference section.
I hope this all helps.  I would be happy to do my best to answer any further questions you might have.
All the best, and Peace, Gene
Dr. Eugene R. Wahl
Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies
Alfred University
607-871-2604
1 Saxon Drive
Alfred, NY 14802
________________________________
From: Keith Briffa
Sent: Tue 7/18/2006 10:20 AM
To: Wahl, Eugene R
Subject: confidential
Gene
I am taking the liberty (confidentially) to send you a copy of the
reviewers comments (please keep these to yourself) of the last IPCC
draft chapter. I am concerned that I am not as objective as perhaps I
should be and would appreciate your take on the comments from number
6-737 onwards , that relate to your reassessment of the Mann et al
work. I have to consider whether the current text is fair or whether
I should change things in the light of the sceptic comments. In
practise this brief version has evolved and there is little scope for
additional text , but I must put on record responses to these
comments  - any confidential help , opinions are appreciated . I have
only days now to complete this revision and response.
note that the sub heading 6.6 the last 2000 years
is page 27 line35 on the original (commented) draft.
Cheers
Keith
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\AW_Editorial_July15.doc"
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\AR4SOR_BatchAB_Ch06_ERW_comments.doc"
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Ch06_SOD_Text_TSU_FINAL_2000_12jul06_ERW_suggestions.doc"


I suggest only one of us - Fortunat - make these changes in his version , otherwise we are
all going to do it slightly differently.
Keith
At 08:16 19/07/2006, Fortunat Joos wrote:
Hi,
What we agreed was actually to keep line 25 to line 34 on p 6-35 and not just until line
30. (As well line 50, p-36 line 2-7).
The sentence on line 32/33 that there is general agreement in the evolution of the
different proxies is important as there is in general much confusion about this and this
is a chapter 6 statement covering the whole millennium. The sentence also links nicely
to the next sentence on line 50. Yes, as agreed in Bergen delete the other parts if
chapter 2 indeed is going to cover it. I have not done so in my revision as I wanted to
hear what chap 2 is doing before deleting.
Peck, in total we will delete 22 line. Note that I have also squezzed out a few line in
the sulfur section. Making progress!
Regards, Fortunat
David Rind wrote:
Jonathan,
Keith and I discussed this at the meeting; basically what we need to keep is:
P. 6-25, lines 25-30, first sentence on line 50, and P. 6-26 the first paragraph (lines
2-7).
All the rest is discussed in one form or another in Chapter 2, pp. 55-56.
Concerning the volcanic forcing, there isn't nearly as much overlap, and Chapter 6 did
not have very much anyway - I think it would be useful to keep what's there, adding just
a reference to Chapter 2 (add: "see also
Chapter 2", at the end of line 26). (I'm assuming that Fig. 6-13a still includes the
solar and volcanic forcing).
David
At 11:40 AM -0600 7/18/06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
Hi David - it's good to know you can get to work before someone, even if they live in
Europe.
Your plan sounds good, and is it safe to assume that you will be making sure Chap 2 gets
the right material from chap 6, and that we can thus pare our discussion of past solar
and volcanic forcing down to a minimum? Can you give us an update of what they will not
cover that we should (i.e., looking at section 6.6)?
Many thanks, Peck
Hi All,
[It's a sad state of affairs if I'm the one who gets to work sooner! (regardless of the
time difference).]
What is discussed below is basically what we thought in response to Gavin's comment -
that we would basically cross-reference chap 2, where the primary discussion would
occur. It's consistent with chapter 2's general discussion of how forcings have changed
over time, and would seem odd if chapter 2 left out past solar and volcanic forcing.
Chapter 2 should feel free to utilize anything that existed in Chapter 6 on these issues
to complement their discussion, if the need arises. Once that is finalized, Chapter 6
can then make the proper cross-references.
David
At 10:26 AM -0600 7/18/06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
Hi Ricardo - good points. We did discuss this in Bergen, and David Rind (as a Chap 2 CA)
was going to help make sure we kept things covered in chap 2, while cutting our solar
and volcanic discussions in chap 6. The key will be cross-referencing chap 2 carefully.
So, Keith, Ricardo and David - please interact to figure out how to work this
efficiently. Perhaps David could comment first since he's at work sooner.
Thanks... Best, Peck
Hi all!
In comment 6-811, Gavin Schmidt points out that our sections
6.6.3.1   Solar forcing
6.6.3.2   Volcanic forcing
largely replicate the discussion in Chap. 2 on the same topics.  I checked
Chap. 2, and they provide a large (almost 8 pages in the SOD) discussion
mainly on solar and but also on volcanic forcings.  Gavin suggests that only
the implementation issues should be discussed in our chapter and leave the
most general information in Chapter 2. We can substantially short our
section following his advice.  Please, find below the outline of the
sections in Chap. 2 dealing with solar and volcanic forcings. Cheers,
Ricardo
2.7 Natural Forcings
2.7.1 Solar Variability
2.7.1.1 Direct observations of solar irradiance
2.7.1.1.1 Satellite measurements of total solar irradiance
2.7.1.1.2 Observed decadal trends and variability
2.7.1.1.3 Measurements of solar spectral irradiance
2.7.1.2 Estimating past solar radiative forcing
2.7.1.2.1 Reconstructions of past variations in solar irradiance
2.7.1.2.2 Implications for solar radiative forcing
2.7.1.3 Indirect effects of solar variability
2.7.2 Explosive Volcanic Activity
2.7.2.1 Radiative effects of volcanic aerosols
2.7.2.2 Thermal, dynamic and chemistry perturbations forced by volcanic
aerosols
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Osborn"
To: "Jonathan Overpeck"
; "Keith Briffa"
Cc: "Eystein Jansen"
; "Ricardo Villalba"
; "joos"
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: Special instructions/timing adjustment
Hi all,
I'm halfway through these changes and will get the revised figures
out to you probably tomorrow, except maybe the SH one, because:
I'm not sure if the van Ommen (pers. comm.) data shown by Jones &
Mann and suggested by Riccardo are the data to use or not.  Is it
published properly?  I've seen the last 700 years of the Law Dome 18O
record published, so perhaps we should show just the period since
1300 AD?  That period appears in:
Mayewski PA, Maasch KA, White JWC, et al.
A 700 year record of Southern Hemisphere extratropical climate variability
ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY 39: 127-132 2004
and
Goodwin ID, van Ommen TD, Curran MAJ, et al.
Mid latitude winter climate variability in the South Indian and
southwest Pacific regions since 1300 AD
CLIMATE DYNAMICS 22 (8): 783-794 JUL 2004
See below for some more comments in respect to individual figures.
At 21:36 30/06/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>Figure 6.10.
>1. shade the connection between the top and middle panels
yes
>2. remove the dotted (long instrumental) curve from the middle panel
yes
>3. replace the red shaded region in the bottom panel with the
>grey-scale one used in Fig 6.13
yes
>4. label only every increment of 10 in the grey-scale bar (formally
>color) in the bottom panel
yes
>5. Increase font sizes for axis numbering and axis labeling - all
>are too small. You can figure out the best size by reducing figs to
>likely page size minus margins. We guess the captions need to be
>bigger by a couple increments at least.
yes
>Figure 6.11.
>
>1. This one is in pretty good shape except that Ricardo has to
>determine if S. African boreholes need to be removed.
I think Henry said they were published and could stay
>
>Figure 6.12
>
>1. again, please delete S. African borehole if Ricardo indicates
>it's still not published.
I think Henry said they could stay.
>2. consider adding Law Dome temperature record - Ricardo is
>investigating, but perhaps Keith/Tim can help figure out if it's
>valid to include. Feel free to check with Valerie on this too, as
>she seems to know these data at least a little
Already discussed above.
>3. also, please increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10 -
>probably better to use bold fonts
You are right that I've mixed bold and non-bold.  When reduced to
small size, the non-bold actually read more clearly than the bold, I
think, so I'll standardise on non-bold.  It's not possible to
completely standardise on the size, because each figure I provide
might be scaled by different amounts.  I don't know final figure
size, so will make a good guess.  Should be ok.
>Figure 6.13
>
>1. we are going to split the existing 6.13 into two figure. The
>first is 100% Tim's fig., and is just an upgrade of the existing
>6.13 a-d, with the only changes being:
>1a. delete the old ECHO-G red dashed line curve in panel d, and
Keith says this was discussed and rejected, so I should keep old ECHO-G
in?
>1b. please also increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10
>and 12 - please use bold fonts.
ok, as discussed above.
>2. The existing 6.13e is going to become a new 6.14, with the
>addition of a new forcings panel "a" on top of the existing panel e
>(which becomes 6.14b). To make this happen, Tim and Fortunat have to
>coordinate, as Tim has the forcing data (and knows what we what) and
>Tim has the existing figure. We suspect it will be easier for
>Fortunat to give Tim data and layout advice, and for Tim to make a
>figure that matches the other figs he's doing. PLEASE NOTE that this
>fig can't be as large as the existing 6.13a-d, but needs to be more
>compact to permit its inclusion.
done.
Cheers
Tim
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
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:      [1]~timo/
sunclock: [2]~timo/sunclock.htm
**Norwich -- City for Science:
**Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006
--
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
[3]
[4]
--
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
--
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
[5]
[6]
--
Climate and Environmental Physics,
Physics Institute, University of Bern
Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern
Phone:    ++41(0)31 631 44 61      Fax:      ++41(0)31 631 87 42
Internet: [7]~joos/
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[8]
References
1. ~timo/
2. ~timo/sunclock.htm
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. ~joos/
8.


Need Fortunat to check the Gavin simplification (with David) and awaiting comments from
Henry - though I have had a go at the relevant ones. Still needs the paragraph on tree
rings and I have to incorporate Ricardo's bit. But this gives you a near overview of where
we are - the inputting of the very many comment responses nearly there.
Keith
Is any body out there - any chance of call her in next half hour - or at home later
44 1953 8510 - Peck?
Peck and Eystein
OK I am still struggling . I will not be able to get stuff to you til tuesday I reckon -
masses of typing and having to re-read and consult with others (Henry will get back to me
early next week) on the borehole stuff. Discussing stuff with Eugene Wahl (confidentially)
and still need to check corrections and balance text. Tim still working on Figures. We are
doing best to get stuff back asap - but if I have to incorporate Ricardo's stuff and put
into version by Fortunat , it is getting more complicated. Fortunat should do edits
relating to the rationalising of the forcing text (as per Gavin comment - or has he
already?) . Best if Oyvind puts the lot together then.
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.


Hi Fortunat and Keith - thanks for keeping close track of the
volcanic and solar forcing aspects of 6.6, including coordination w/
Chap 2. The more you can do at this stage, Keith, the better (i.e.,
mystery changes), but there will be time to update re: chap 2 later.
Thanks again! Peck
>Hi,
>
>Three points:
>
>- Reference to MacFarling Meure already changed in my revision.
>
>- solar: It will probably not be a big deal to delete a few lines,
>when we have seen what chap 2 is doing.
>
>- Note that I am away for two weeks from July 29 to August 12, but I
>have time to work  on remaining issues during the second half of
>August.
>
>With best wishes, Fortunat
>
>Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>Hi all - we probably have to cite this one, no? Thx, Peck
>>
>>>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>>>Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 11:07:59 -0600
>>>To: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no, jto@u.arizona.edu
>>>From: Martin Manning
>>>Subject: Fwd: Law Dome GHG reference
>>>Cc: Melinda Marquis
, ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov
>>>
>>>Hi Eystein, Peck
>>>
>>>The following from Dave Etheridge gives the citation for the
>>>published version of the MacFarling Meure et al paper. Not sure if
>>>you are switching to citing the GRL paper in preference to
>>>MacFarling Meure's thesis - but if you are here is the right
>>>reference.
>>>
>>>Cheers
>>>Martin
>>>
>>>>DomainKey-Signature: s=email; d=csiro.au; c=nofws; q=dns;
>>>>b=QFtbAVZCd84qWm9oHqL5Q+VatZDVO/wqkH4eZVeBGcwDj6LT57x2oyOdHwNvJZy8jbW0qelqAUxaZvAcwNqCdAvbK9kTL2qq3KXA2S21EvnS2a+f7LIXMAZdllfm2vAa;
>>>>X-IronPort-AV: i="4.07,164,1151848800";
>>>>    d="pdf'?scan'208,217"; a="103465294:sNHT485096344"
>>>>Subject: Law Dome GHG reference
>>>>Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 11:57:05 +1000
>>>>X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
>>>>X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
>>>>Thread-Topic: Law Dome GHG reference
>>>>Thread-Index: AcasaPcmdL+xIxSPRpytWeF8iOx2pg==
>>>>From:
>>>>To:
,
,
>>>>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jul 2006 01:57:05.0834 (UTC)
>>>>FILETIME=[F7AA30A0:01C6AC68]
>>>>X-Rcpt-To:
>>>>X-DPOP: Version number supressed
>>>>
>>>>Some of you were asking about this paper for IPCC AR4. It is now
>>>>published (today) in GRL. A pdf is attached.
>>>>
>>>>Regards
>>>>
>>>>David
>>>>
>>>>MacFarling Meure, C., Etheridge, D., Trudinger, C., Steele, P.,
>>>>Langenfelds, R., van Ommen, T., Smith, A. and Elkins, J. (2006).
>>>>The Law Dome CO2, CH4 and N2O Ice Core Records Extended to 2000
>>>>years BP. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, No. 14, L14810
>>>>10.1029/2006GL026152.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>>>>
>>>>Dr David Etheridge
>>>>CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research
>>>>Private Bag 1 (street address: 107-121 Station St.)
>>>>Aspendale, Victoria 3195, Australia
>>>>phone (61) 3 9239 4590 FAX (61) 3 9239 4444
>>>>email: david.etheridge@csiro.au
>>>>
>>>>website:

>>>>
>>>--
>>>Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov
>>>** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address
>>>Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit
>>>NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory            Phone: +1 303 497 4479
>>>325 Broadway, DSRC R/CSD8        Fax: +1 303 497 5628
>>>Boulder, CO 80305, USA
>>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>
>   Climate and Environmental Physics,
>   Physics Institute, University of Bern
>   Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern
>   Phone:    ++41(0)31 631 44 61      Fax:      ++41(0)31 631 87 42
>   Internet: ~joos/
--
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 again Tim et al - looks good to me. Obviously,
you and Keith need to nail the divergence issue
in the text, and also refer to it in the caption
for this fig, but otherwise, it's looking good.
Thanks, Peck
>Hi again,
>
>attached is the new MWP box figure.
>
>We reverted back to the figure used in the FOD
>because the decision to drop the panel from
>Osborn & Briffa (2006) meant that we were able
>to show a different selection of curves in the
>remaining panel from those we used in our paper.
>This allowed us to drop the shorter series that
>didn't span the medieval period, simplifying the
>figure and also dealing with a number of review
>comments that had been made about those series.
>
>The only differences from the FOD figure are
>that the font is now consistent with the others
>figures, the composite mean series has been
>removed, and the figure has been shrunk
>vertically to save space.
>
>Cheers
>
>Tim
>
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:chap6_box6.4_f1.pdf (PDF /«IC») (00143489)
>Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
>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
>
>**Norwich -- City for Science:
>**Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006
--
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 Peck et al.,
I've increased the axis labelling font size by another pt in all plots.
I attach two versions of 6.10, one in the grey (same as before except for bigger axis
labelling) and one in brown.  Brown looks like some old curry stain (or worse!).  Note that
conversion from postscript to PDF or GIF tends to alter the colours, which alter again on
different printers compared with the screen.  So there's not much point in me playing
around much more with the colours.
Also attached are new versions of 6.13 and 6.14.  Both have the bigger axis fonts and the
matching grey shading as 6.10.
6.13 has thicker lines for all models, so they show up better on the new darker grey
shading.
6.14 now has the EMIC forcing shown without any smoothing.  I have used a vertical scale
for the volcanoes which is half that of the solar and anthropogenic forcings.  Only one
spike (1258) hits the bottom of the plot with this choice of scaling, and only a couple
overlap the solar forcing lines.  What do you think now (Fortunat too)?  Oh, and I also
start now at 1000 rather than 900 AD.
Cheers
Tim
At 17:06 22/07/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
Hi Tim - this looks pretty nice, and I appreciate your chugging through to make the
switch to 5-95%. I'd still be keen to see what the fig looks like in some more modest
color than the old red. Grey could be the final choice, but it's not too much of a
hassle, could you try a color version that is a bit more sharp?
Also, it would be nice to make the x-axis labels (numbers and "Year") as large as makes
sense - they still seem too small.
Sorry to be nitpicky, but this figure is going to be a major one of the whole report, so
it makes sense to get it as perfect as we can.
Thanks! best, peck
Hi Peck and Eystein,
what do you think of the attached new version of 6.10?  Keith and I have spent some time
examining various options and think that this one looks clearer (less smudgy) while
still being a good representation of the data and in grey.
I spoke with Phil and Keith and the 5-95% range seems preferable for consistency with
other chapters.
So:
(1) I now use 5-95% range in panel (a).
(2) Panel (b) has no further changes to it.
(3) Panel (c) is now also based on the overlap of the 5-95% ranges of the individual
reconstructions, rather than on the +-2 standard error ranges (extra weight is still
given for temperatures that fall within the +-1 SE range). I also applied some week
smoothing prior to plotting.  I also now plot using just 10 grey shades, in 10% steps,
rather than the 20 shades in 5% steps that I used previously (in the last version, I
changed the scale bar to have 10 steps of 10%, but I had still plotted the data using 20
steps of 5%).
Hope you like it,
Tim
At 17:33 20/07/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
Hi Tim - Thanks. If you don't mind, let's see what the new grey in panel c,  and also
the 5-95% range on a. Also, another alternative to the grey and red could be some other
color that is just less bright - perhaps blue?
Agree there is no reason to switch the reviewed panel c uncertainty approach. It argues
a bit that we leave panel a as is too. I'm unsure what is best, so maybe see what Keith
thinks too - and discuss more with Phil - he is right that most are trying to go with
5-95 where possible.
Thanks again.
Hi again,
I still have the red option built into the program, so can easily revert to it.  Of
course the grey has the advantage of consistency with the model and EMIC panels, which
really must be grey so that all the coloured lines indicating the simulated temperatures
will show up (red isn't really an option for the reconstruction shading in those
figures).  I'll see if I can make it clearer yet keep it in grey.
On a different note, Phil Jones just popped in and said why are we using "+-2SE" shading
in the top instrumental panel when it has apparently been decided to show the smaller
5-95% range (he says this is only 0.8225 times the +-2SE range) in all IPCC WG1 figures.
Shall I change this? If I do, then the brown and orange curves will fall outside this
narrower range more often than they fall outside the current wider SE range.
The grey shading in panel (c) is also computed from the overlap of the +-1 SE and +-2 SE
ranges of individual reconstructions, but I guess this can stay unchanged, rather than
needing to be recalculated using the overlap of the ?-?% and 5-95% ranges?
Cheers
Tim
At 16:05 19/07/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
Hi Tim - thanks! Now I can see why you went with the red rather than grey in the bottom
panel - it's hard to see. I'd like to float the idea with everyone on the email that we
consider going back to red, or try something else. All else is good (thanks) perhaps
make the bottom/top axis labels bigger still? (both numbers and "Year").
Thx again, Peck
Hi Peck et al.,
revised fig 6.10 is attached.
At 21:36 30/06/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
Figure 6.10.
1. shade the connection between the top and middle panels
It was already shaded.  Your poor old eyes must be failing you ;-)
Ok, so it *was* rather pale!  I've made it a bit darker.
2. remove the dotted (long instrumental) curve from the middle panel
Done
3. replace the red shaded region in the bottom panel with the grey-scale one used in Fig
6.13
Done - how does it look now?  I had to outline the instrumental series with a narrow
white band to ensure it could be seen against the very dark grey shading.
4. label only every increment of 10 in the grey-scale bar (formally color) in the bottom
panel
Done
5. Increase font sizes for axis numbering and axis labeling - all are too small. You can
figure out the best size by reducing figs to likely page size minus margins. We guess
the captions need to be bigger by a couple increments at least.
Increased the axis numbering/labelling by a couple of points.
Cheers
Tim
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:chap6_f6.10.pdf (PDF /«IC») (00141E77)
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
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:      [1]~timo/
sunclock: [2]~timo/sunclock.htm
**Norwich -- City for Science:
**Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006
--
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
[3]
[4]
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
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:      [5]~timo/
sunclock: [6]~timo/sunclock.htm
**Norwich -- City for Science:
**Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006
--
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
[7]
[8]
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:chap6_f6.10 1.pdf (PDF /«IC») (001427F4)
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
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:      [9]~timo/
sunclock: [10]~timo/sunclock.htm
**Norwich -- City for Science:
**Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006
--
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
[11]
[12]
References
1. ~timo/
2. ~timo/sunclock.htm
3.
4.
5. ~timo/
6. ~timo/sunclock.htm
7.
8.
9. ~timo/
10. ~timo/sunclock.htm
11.
12.


Hi again,
attached is the new MWP box figure.
We reverted back to the figure used in the FOD because the decision
to drop the panel from Osborn & Briffa (2006) meant that we were able
to show a different selection of curves in the remaining panel from
those we used in our paper.  This allowed us to drop the shorter
series that didn't span the medieval period, simplifying the figure
and also dealing with a number of review comments that had been made
about those series.
The only differences from the FOD figure are that the font is now
consistent with the others figures, the composite mean series has
been removed, and the figure has been shrunk vertically to save space.
Cheers
Tim
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\chap6_box6.4_f1.pdf"
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
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
**Norwich -- City for Science:
**Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006


Guys
here is what I understand you want from me - revised text (only up Table of Key etc) - ie
not touched refs (understand Oyvind will put them in - most are given in text)
Tim sending Table and Figure captions separately. I am sending the text with my, Fortunat's
and Ricardo's changes - with minor edits of mine added to them.
I undersatand that Oyvind will sort this ou and insert in final Chapter. I am also sendoing
my reponses to data to most of my comments (Findicates that Fortunat has answered that one
) . I will also send my edited version of Ricardo's reponses that I tweeked - ignore if
wish) . I know I have not done all comments yet but the remaining ones can be done tomorrow
I hope and any changes needed put on next draft. I do not expect many - and I was not
clearwhether Peck wanted to respond to the regional (US) precip related ones anyway?
I have added in the rather large paragraph on the tree-ring issues in response to several
comments - I know you will scream at the size  but I think we need to pu it in and then get
Ricardo's
--
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.


Hi Keith - in our TS/SPM discussions, Susan has raised this question:
"In the TAR they spoke of 1998 being the warmest year in the
millennium and the 1990s the warmest decade.   I don't see that
chapter 6 addresses any of these time scales.   I am not saying you
should do so - but are you planning to say anything about it and why
you aren't doing so?   and if you're not planning to say anything at
all, can you please tell me what you think about it, just for my own
info?"
Would you please give me your feedback on this, with enough
thoughtful detail to hopefully make me/Susan fully informed (a para
should be enough).
Thanks, Peck
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795


Hi  Olga,
I agree with Valerie that the ice core evidence
is ambiguous. I would personally place more
weight on the alkenone data, which is a
reasonable well calibrated SST proxy. Foraminifer
transfer function based SSTs and some Mg/Ca
results that are available suggest a similar
picture as far as I know. Of course it is
possible and plausible that the tropical oceans
are behaving in a non consistent manner and not
all areas are showing the same signal, but a
sizeable portion appear to do so in order to
conclude as we do in the chapter in my opinion.
Some signals may be due to changes in in trade
wind induced coastal upwelling strength, but
there are enough cores with alkenone data outside
of these areas. If we were to say more about the
uncertainties it may be the fact that proxies are
seasonally skewed.
My conclusion is to let the chapter say what we say at the moment.
Cheers,
Eystein
At 09:42 +0200 31-07-06, Valérie Masson-Delmotte wrote:
>Thanks Olga.
>
>It seems to me that there is still a large
>uncertainty about the temperature versus
>precipitation effect on these tropical glaciers.
>Other indications from south America are related
>to lake levels with contrasted views in the low
>versus highlands.
>Several references suggest that there is the end
>of a wet period after the early Holocene in
>tropical south America ; this is expected to
>induce an increase of 18O signals.
>One review was conducted several years ago
>within the PEPI project
>( and
>references herein).
>I think that the state of the art is that we
>have no reliable proxy record that is sensivite
>to temperature only on the tropical lands for
>the Holocene; therefore the statement that was
>written for the Holocene was based on areas of
>the tropical oceans where SST reconstructions
>were published.
>Do we have to write more explicitely about the uncertainty?
>
>Valérie.
>
>Jonathan Overpeck a écrit :
>>Hi Olga - it is not too late to ask these good
>>questions. Glaciers can, of course, be affected
>>by both temp and precip changes, so the
>>question is really for Valerie (land) and
>>Eystein (ocean) - are the land and ocean data
>>from the tropics strong enough to outweigh what
>>the glaciers are saying about tropical temps
>>earlier in the Holocene?  Lonnie's Figure 8
>>(see attached) presents Hauscaran and
>>Kilimanjaro data that suggest early to mid
>>warmth in tropical South America and Africa
>>that is (if the O-isotopes are temp) greater
>>than today. Personally, I'm quite unsure that
>>these are reliable temperature records, BUT if
>>we want to make that case, we have to be
>>convincing. What do terrestrial and ocean temp
>>data say?
>>
>>Thanks Olga for sending the proposed revised
>>text - I think Eystein is putting finishing
>>touches on the next draft for LA etc. review.
>>
>>Best, Peck
>>
>>>¤
>>>Hello everybody,
>>>  I attach here a version of glacier box and
>>>suggestions (in red) how to include there the
>>>reference to the new Thompson et al., 2006
>>>paper.
>>>  In this relation - I am getting more and more
>>>concern about our statement that the Early
>>>Holocene was cool in the tropics - this paper
>>>shows that it was, actually, warm - ice core
>>>evidences+glaciers were smaller than now in
>>>the tropical Andes. The glaciers in the
>>>Southern Hemisphere (Porter, 2000, review
>>>paper) were also smaller than at least in the
>>>Neoglacial. We do not cite Porter's paper for
>>>the reason that we actually do not know how to
>>>explain this - orbital reason does not work
>>>for the SH, but if we do cite it (which is
>>>fair) we have to say that during the Early to
>>>Mid Holocene glaciers were smaller than later
>>>in both  Northen, and Southern Hemisphere,
>>>including the tropics, which would contradict
>>>to our statement in the Holocene chapter and
>>>the bullet. It is probably too late to rise
>>>these questions, but still just to draw your
>>>attention.
>>>  I am going to Kamchatka tomorrow, but will be
>>>avaliable by e-mail from time to time.
>>>  All the best,
>>>olga
>>>
>>>     ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>>     *From:* Jonathan Overpeck
>>>
>>>     *To:* Olga Solomina
>>>
>>>     *Cc:* Eystein Jansen
;
>>>     oyvind.paasche@bjerknes.uib.no
>>>
>>>
>>>     *Sent:* Sunday, July 30, 2006 3:42 AM
>>>
>>>     *Subject:* Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Fwd: Additional In-Press Papers
>>>
>>>
>>>     Hi Olga - I agree, and hope that you and òyvind make sure you
>>>     include it in the next round of edits, which will begin very
>>>     soon. We have all of the new text and Eystein is assembling for
>>>     authors to check. This same new draft will be the one that
>>>     Eystein and I work on to achieve more consistency and the proper
>>>     length. Although we've cut some text already, some received has
>>>     grown too. So... think about a way to include the reference to
>>>     Lonnie's work without lengthening if you can.
>>>
>>>
>>>     OK? Many thanks,  Peck
>>>
>>>>     Hi Peck,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         Lonnie's paper is a very good one and suitable for the
>>>         glacier box. If it is still possible I would add this reference.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         olga
>>>
>>>             ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>>             *From:* Jonathan Overpeck
>>>
>>>             *To:* wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu
>>>
>>>
>>>             *Sent:* Friday, July 28, 2006 6:32 PM
>>>
>>>             *Subject:* [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Fwd: Additional In-Press Papers
>>>
>>>
>>>             Hi Chap 6 LA's - here is another batch of papers from the
>>>             TSU to be considered using the guidelines provided below
>>>             - we don't want to add citations just to make our ref
>>>             list more complete.
>>>
>>>             Thanks, Peck and Eystein
>>>
>>>>             X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>>>>             Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:25:25 -0600
>>>>             From: IPCC-WG1
>>>
>
>>>>             X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
>>>
>>>                 To: Jonathan Overpeck
,
>>>                       Eystein Jansen
>>>                 Subject: Additional In-Press Papers
>>>
>>>                 Dear CLAs
>>>
>>>                 Please find attached additional paper(s) that are
>>>                 relevant to your chapter and have been submitted in
>>>                 response to our most recent guidelines for
>>>                 consideration of papers published in 2006 following
>>>                 the expert and government review. A separate
>>>                 spreadsheet file is attached listing: the submitter,
>>>                 file name of the paper, its acceptance date, and the
>>>                 chapter and section which the submitter feels is
>>>                 relevant.
>>>
>>>                 As discussed in Bergen, please note the following:
>>>                 * inclusion of additional papers in the final draft
>>>                 should not open up any substantive issues that were
>>>                 not in the second draft and so not previously reviewed;
>>>                 * additional papers should only be used where in the
>>>                 view of the LAs doing so provides a more balanced
>>>                 coverage of scientific views;
>>>                 * we anticipate that a quick reading of the abstract
>>>                 of each paper will enable a decision consistent with
>>>                 this and we would not encourage any lengthy
>>>                 consideration by the LA team.
>>>
>>>                 One additional point to keep in mind is that this
>>>                 most recent adjustment of our publication deadlines
>>>                 should not be perceived by others as a device for
>>>                 allowing the LAs to reference more of their own
>>>                 papers. We trust that you and your team will be both
>>>                 objective and vigilant when deciding to include or
>>>                 reject papers in this respect.
>>>
>>>                 Best regards,
>>>                 WG1 TSU
>>>
>>>                 --
>>>                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>                 IPCC WGI TSU
>>>                 NOAA Chemical Sciences Division
>>>                 325 Broadway DSRC CSD08
>>>                 Boulder, CO 80305, USA
>>>                 Phone: +1 303 497 7072
>>>                 Fax: +1 303 497 5686/5628
>>>                 Email: ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>             --
>>>
>>>             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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>             Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list
>>>             Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Glaciers 30
>>>july so.doc (WDBN/«IC») (00148B9A)
>>
>>
>>--
>>   Jonathan T. Overpeck
>>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
>>Professor, Department of Geosciences
>>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
>>
>>Mail and Fedex Address:
>>
>>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
>>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
>>University of Arizona
>>Tucson, AZ 85721
>>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
>>fax: +1 520 792-8795
>>
>>
--
______________________________________________________________
Eystein Jansen
Professor/Director
Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen
Allégaten 55
N-5007 Bergen
NORWAY
e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no
Phone:	+47-55-583491  -  Home: +47-55-910661
Fax: 	+47-55-584330


Dear all,
we have now updated the figure captions for our section and these are attached as a PDF together with the figures.  Unfortunately I forgot to highlight the caption changes in blue... can you just completely replace the old captions with the new ones?  We worked hard to make the captions as short as possible, while retaining their accuracy.
When updating the captions, we spotted minor inconsistencies in the labelling of figures 6.10 and 6.12 and so we have corrected these figures and new versions are incorporated in the attachment.  The labelling change also affects table 6.1.  I have attached the tables again too, with the new change highlighted in red (simply change 'CED2004' to 'ECS2002' in Table 6.1).
Hope this is all ok and now finalised.
If you want me to send the new figures as individual files (EPS format) then please say.  Also if you want the new captions/figures as Word rather than PDF, please say (the Word file is large and very slow to open on my PC).
Cheers
Tim & Keith


Dear all
attached is my latest (currently definitive) version of the responses to the
"sky-blue-highlighted" comments on text and Figures.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE HAVE CHANGED IN VARIOUS PLACES FROM WHAT I SENT EARLIER AS WELL AS
BEING UPDATED. I would suggest that they be cut and pasted into the document rather than
just including the new ones. Sorry  , but I had to reconsider a number of responses and
edit others to remove typos etc.
Even though marked in blue  - a few were not relevant to me. Two have been marked with
"Valerie " - (6-1072, 6-1073) . Those marked PECK (6-862 through 6-868; ie 7 comments) are
best dealt with by he. The comment 6-1110 is for Stefan. The comments marked F are those I
sent from Fortunat before and I also sent the edited version of Ricardo's. The two
outstanding ones he marked for me/Tim are here (6-818 and 6-819)
6-818  Noted - this issue will be reviewed , though the discussion of forcings must come
before that of comparison of simulation results.
6-819  Noted - the text is intended to provide examples only and will be modified to refer
to Table 6.2 , where details of all simulations used are provided.
I think that should be OK as far as my stuff goes. I will send minor changes to text
(separate message) that have arisen in dealing with final comments.
Cheers
Keith
At 10:37 01/08/2006, Eystein Jansen wrote:
Hi Keith,
could you send me responses to the reviewers´s comments received on the figures for 6.6?
The Batch i received only had responses for the comments to the main text. This relates
to comment 1074 and onwards. Only quite few comments.
We need to send the comments responses file to the  TSU by the week-end so this is
urgent. Hope you have time..
Cheers,
Eystein
--
______________________________________________________________
Eystein Jansen
Professor/Director
Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen
Allégaten 55
N-5007 Bergen
NORWAY
e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no
Phone:  +47-55-583491  -  Home: +47-55-910661
Fax:    +47-55-584330
--
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.


Hi Keith - thanks. This makes sense to me. I'll
cc Susan so she understands the issue better, and
also can advise on any strategy we should adopt
to make sure we communicate effectively.
thanks again
best, peck
>Peck,
>
>The TAR was, in my opinion, wrong to say
>anything about the precedence (or lack thereof)
>of the warmth of the individual year 1998.
>
>The reason is that all reconstructions have very
>wide uncertainty ranges bracketing
>individual-year estimates of part temperature.
>Given this, it is hard to dismiss the
>possibility that individual years in the past
>did exceed the measured 1998 value. These errors
>on the individual years are so wide as to make
>any comparison with the 1998 measured value very
>problematic, especially when you consider that
>most reconstructions do not include it in their
>calibration range (curtailed predictor network
>in recent times) and the usual estimates of
>uncertainty calculated from calibration (or
>verification) residual variances would not
>provide a good estimate of the likely error
>associated with it even if data did exist.
>
>I suspect that many/most reconstructions of NH
>annual mean temperature have greater fidelity at
>decadal to multidecadal timescales (based on
>examination of the covariance spectrum of the
>actual and estimated data over the calibration
>period. This is the reason many studies
>implicitly (Hegerl et al.,) or explicitly (Esper
>et a;., Cook et al.) choose to calibrate
>directly against decadally-smoothed data.
>
>The exception is the Briffa et al (tree-ring
>density network based) reconstruction back to ~
>1400. This has probably the best year-to-year
>fidelity – but for summer land only and does not
>go back anyway to the MWP.
>
>We are on much safer grounds focusing on
>decadal/multi-decadal timescales and so this is
>where we place the emphasis. As for the ‘warmest
>decade’ – this is likely to be the 1990s or the
>last 10 years – but again, the proxies do not
>cover this period, and we do anyway state that
>post 1980 is the warmest period – which I think
>is fair enough.
>
>
>--
>Professor Keith Briffa,
>Climatic Research Unit
>University of East Anglia
>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>
>Phone: +44-1603-593909
>Fax: +44-1603-507784
>
>
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795