Dear Valerie, Keith, Eystein and Peck,
Here are my comments on the glaciers box and suggestions for some improvements. I apologize that I am commenting the text that I was supposed to write myself, but we all know the reason – it was done in a rush and I had very limited access to the literature in the fall. I spent two weeks in Lamont (just came back) and had opportunity to read more.  I want to say that I very much appreciate the help and contribution from all people who saved the situation to get the draft for the ZOD, and I hope that we can sharpen it further now.
In general my main concerns are the following:
1.	We are focusing on the continuous records, which is one of the main achievement of the last years, indeed. But the real continuous records come from Scandinavia only – even the Alps are mostly based on moraine datings (wood etc.). The records from FJL and Brooks Range are not continuous, they are just the same as in any other place in the World, presented as continuous curves. So, two potential strategies can be suggested – to forget the rest of the World and keep the picture Scandinavia and Alps only or add more discontinuos records drawn as curves. I would go for the second solution for obvious reason to keep the global prospective. I attach more curves that I got from publications + I asked Tom Lowell and Wibjorn Karlen to make something of this kind for NZealand and Africa. I suggest to focus in detail (with dates etc.)on the Scandinavian records (as we did in our text), but briefly discuss the general picture of Holocene glacier variations referring to the updated picture. I need your opinion before changing the graphics (see comments and suggestions in “Box comments SO” file)
2.	During a good half  of the Holocene the glaciers were SMALLER than now. I attach here the figure with the same axes as at the Valerie’ picture (warmest/wettest periods), and the detailed comments on it. To be “scientifically correct” we probably can shade these periods for the regions that we are presenting at our figure (see a separate file “smaller than now” ). What is unusual about the modern retreat is the RATE, though we do not know much about the rate of the former retreat (again because of the lack of continuous records).
3.	I changed the introduction. I believe that it is really important to keep the general prospective and mention the exceptions, namely glacier advances (at a Holocene global scale) reflect mostly temperature, therefore a kind of global synchroniety can be visible, though occasionally precipitation may trigger certain advances – maritime and tropical regions are likely to experience it more often than the rest of the World) .  Two papers justifying this point of view appeared recently (Oerlemans, 2005, Mayewski et al., 2004) and deserve attention. I included the refs in the updated text. I am ready to discuss further this part, but I believe that we need changes here!
I am aware that this will require rather big changes in the text and figure, but I hope we are still at the stage when we can change, can we?
I will come soon with  comments on the whole text and suggestions for the links to Ch4 (cryosphere), but I am really concern about those glaciers in the box, you know…
Regards,
olga
Thanks! Peck
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>Thanks a lot for the remaind. I (eventually!) got access to the
>>literature (in Columbia University where I am now) and will come
>>soon with comments and improvement of the etxt - at list concerning
>>the glaciers in the Holocene and last two millennia.
>>
>>Regards,
>>olga
>>
>>
>>>Hi all - We have heard from a good number of you, but also have not
>>>heard from some of you. Please note the deadline for the first round
>>>of post-ZOD feedback was yesterday, and more is due next week. If you
>>>have not sent your material, or contacted us yet, please do so as
>>>soon as possible. A small delay is ok, but we need to hear from you
>>>in any case - please respond if you have not already done so.
>>>
>>>Thanks, Peck and Eystein
>>>
>>>>Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:15:25 -0700
>>>>To: wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu,betteotto-b
>>>>From: Jonathan Overpeck
>>>>Subject: The next round of work is upon us - IMPORTANT
>>>>Cc:
>>>>Bcc:
>>>>X-Attachments: :Macintosh HD:370627:Glossary WgI TARChap6.doc:
>>>>
>>>>Greetings Chap 6 Lead Authors:
>>>>
>>>>By now, the rush up to the ZOD is hopefully but a fond memory, and
>>>>you're ready to get back into the thick of IPCC chapter work. Both
>>>>Chapter 6 and the other chapters are now on the WG 1 website for all
>>>>of you to enjoy and critique. See your email from the WG1 TSU for
>>>>information on how to get ZOD chapters.
>>>>
>>>>As you read our chapter, you will no doubt be thinking - "it's
>>>>really too bad we did so much at the last minute, and that the ZOD
>>>>is so rough." The science is in there, and you all did a great job,
>>>>but in the future, we won't have the luxury of sending an incomplete
>>>>draft to the TSU. The purpose of this email is to set a deliberate
>>>>pace to ensure that our FOD is as perfect and polished as possible.
>>>>Anything short of this will look bad to our colleagues, and will
>>>>cost us more work in the official post-FOD IPCC review process.
>>>>PLEASE MEET ALL DEADLINES below.
>>>>
>>>>Please read all of this communication and NOTE the deadlines - we
>>>>are asking that you all respond quickly on a couple issues.
>>>>
>>>>****1) Due as soon as you read this email - we would like to
>>>>consider a pre-May LA meeting involving all, or a sub-set of LAs,
>>>>and would like to know when you are available to meet for 2 days
>>>>(plus travel to/from US East Coast). The purpose would be to get
>>>>much further ahead with the FOD and to be able make the most of the
>>>>Beijing LA2 meeting in May. Remember how frustrating the Trieste
>>>>meeting was due to the lack of time. Please let us know if you are
>>>>available to meet April 12,13 (Tues/Wed) and April 19,20 (Tues/Wed).
>>>>We will pick the dates that work best. Funding would be handled in
>>>>the usual IPCC manner.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>****2) Due February 24, 2005 - each person should read ALL of the
>>>>Chapter 6 ZOD. As you do this, please compiling a list of all the
>>>>issues/tasks you think need to be dealt with and completed before
>>>>the FOD. For example:
>>>>
>>>>o what important issues or disagreements remain unresolved and what
>>>>needs to be done to resolve them?
>>>>o what work is needed to make the text better?
>>>>o what key (relevant) science is missing?
>>>>o what key references are missing or need to be updated?
>>>>o are there key display items that need to be deleted or added?
>>>>o what work is needed to make final draft display items?
>>>>
>>>>Each LA should provide the above information to PECK and EYSTEIN on
>>>>a section-by-section basis by February 24. Please let us know NOW if
>>>>you can't meet this deadline.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>****3) Due March 3, 2005 -  (we have to meet a key IPCC deadline)
>>>>-Now that we have our ZOD, we have been requested to provide input
>>>>for the official IPCC AR4 Glossary. Please see the attached glossary
>>>>document, and follow the instructions included at the top of that
>>>>file. THIS IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS OUR OTHER WORK. Each LA should
>>>>provide this information TO PECK AND EYSTEIN by March 3. Please let
>>  >>us know NOW if you can't meet this deadline.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>****4) Due March 10, 2005 - in Trieste, we assigned Chapter Liaisons
>>>>for each of the other WG1 chapters. This liaison list is attached
>>>>below. Please note that some of you are liaisons for more than one
>>>>other chapter. For each chapter for which you are liaison (and more
>>>>if you are so inspired), please compile:
>>>>
>>>>o a list of substantive scientific suggestions for the LAs of that
>>>>chapter, particularly as they relate to Chapter 6 - don't get bogged
>>>>down in general editing.
>>>>o a list of issues that our Chapter 6 team must work on to ensure
>>>>compatibility with other chapters; in each case, describe the issue
>>>>and how you think it should best be resolved. Ideally, we can do
>>>>much of this before Beijing.
>>>>
>>>>Each LA should provide the above information to PECK and EYSTEIN by
>>>>March 10. Please let us know NOW if you can't meet this deadline.
>>>>
>>>>********************************
>>>>Lastly, we have some good news. As you all know, Bette Otto-Bleisner
>>>>did a great last-minute job in helping with section 6.4.2
>>>>(Equilibrium model evaluations), and has made it possible for us to
>>>>tap into PMIP2 in a much needed manner. We clearly need her
>>>>continued major contribution, and thus asked the IPCC WG1 Bureau to
>>>>appoint her to our LA team. Susan Solomon supported this request and
>>>>we recently received a positive response. So, welcome to the team,
>>>>Bette!
>>>>
>>>>PLEASE work hard to meet deadlines - I think we all know what
>>>>happens when deadlines are not met, and we cannot afford to miss
>>>>deadlines any longer.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks, Peck and Eystein
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Chapter Six - Paleoclimate
>>>>Cross-Chapter Liaisons
>>>>
>>>>Frequency Asked Questions		Stefan
>>>>
>>>>Chapter 1. Historical		Dominique (served on SAR)
>>>>
>>>>Chapter 2. Radiation		Dominique (trace gas, aerosol)
>>>>			David (solar, volcanic, aerosol)
>>>>
>>>>Chapter 3. Atmo Obs		Keith
>>>>			Ramesh
>>>>
>>>>Chapter 4. Cyro Obs		Dick (ice sheets
>>>>			Olga (mountain ice)
>>>>
>>>>Chapter 5. Ocean Obs.		Jean-Claude
>>>>			Eystein
>>>>
>>>>Chapter 7. Biogeochem		Fortunat (biogeochem)
>>>>			Ricardo (veg dynamics)
>>>>
>>>>Chapter 8. Model Eval		Bette
>>>>			Dick
>>>>			Stefan
>>>>			David
>>>>
>>>>Chapter 9. Attribution		David
>>>>			Valerie
>>>>			Keith
>>>>
>>>>Chapter 10. Projections		David
>>>>			Stefan
>>>>
>>>>Chapter 11. Regional		Dan
>>>>			Ramesh
>>>>			Zhang
>>>>			Overpeck
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>
>>>>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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--
>>Dr.Olga Solomina
>>Corresponding Member of Russian Academy of Sciences
>>Institute of Geography RAS
>>Staromonetny-29
>>Moscow, Russia
>>tel: 007-095-125-90-11, 007-095-939-01-21
>>fax: 007-095-959-00-33
>>e-mail: olgasolomina@yandex.ru
>>PAGES Web:www.pages-igbp.org
>
>
>--
>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.Olga Solomina
Corresponding Member of Russian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Geography RAS
Staromonetny-29
Moscow, Russia
tel: 007-095-125-90-11, 007-095-939-01-21
fax: 007-095-959-00-33
e-mail: olgasolomina@yandex.ru
PAGES Web:www.pages-igbp.org
--
ñÎÄÅËÓ.ðÏÞÔÁ: ÏÂßÅÍ ÐÏÞÔÏ×ÏÇÏ ÑÝÉËÁ ÎÅÏÇÒÁÎÉÞÅÎ!
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Box commentsSO.doc"
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\ipcc smaller than now.doc"


Dear Peck,
Thanks for your message.   I'll look forward to hearing what you and
your colleagues think.
Susan
At 9:26 AM -0700 3/15/05, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>Hi Susan - thanks for sending these along with some interesting
>ideas. I'll cc this email to Keith Briffa, along with Eystein, to
>see if the three of us could chat about the issues. Personally, I
>think the idea of showing the instrumental data near the paleo sites
>is excellent - but we have to see what Keith thinks since it would
>be his (and CA Tim Osborn's) job to do this. But, it makes lots of
>sense. I also like having the composite (average) lines (paleo and
>instrumental) for the simple reason that they connects back to all
>the other reconstructions, and thus make the point that these other
>recons are not so "misleading" after all.
>
>Funny coincidence - Julie and I have been working on the coral trend
>story, and just yesterday decided to do what you are suggesting in
>terms of instrumental data. I'm learning that the coral data are
>trickier than I thought, but this is a good way of figuring out what
>we really can or cannot say with these time series.
>
>More soon, thanks again, Peck
>
>>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>>X-Sender: ssolomon@mailsrvr.al.noaa.gov
>>Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:40:35 -0700
>>To: Jonathan Overpeck
>>From: Susan Solomon
>>Subject: last millennium
>>Cc: Martin Manning
>>X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at email.arizona.edu
>>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.001 required=7 tests=BAYES_50
>>X-Spam-Level:
>>
>>Hi Jonathan,
>>Here's some cool plots that Tom Crowley whipped up, as per our
>>phone discussion.   He indicated that it was OK to send to you.
>>
>>It seems to me that showing these records explicitly will address a
>>lot of the issues in the temperature records for the last
>>millennium. One might or might not choose to try to construct the
>>composites (see slide 2 versus 3 in the attached).   To be totally
>>consistent, it would be nice to show individual records for the
>>twentieth century near the sites of the tree ring/cores as well,
>>rather than just the mean over that period.    If one did that, the
>>resulting diagram would avoid any averaging (is it really needed to
>>make the point?). A remaining issue would be the calibration of the
>>paleo proxies and how that affects the spread (or lack thereof, in
>>the overlap period).
>>
>>What do you think?
>>Susan
>>
>>
>>--
>>******************************************
>>Please note my new email address for your records:
>>
>>Susan.Solomon@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
>
>
>
>Attachment converted: Discovery:crowley.mwp.mar.14.ppt (SLD8/PPT3) (000F0F48)
--
******************************************
Please note my new email address for your records:
Susan.Solomon@noaa.gov
*******************************************


Mike,
On Horizon, I'm supposed to be called in a few minutes by someone. Not sure who
yet. This program is generally good. They did something on global dimming a few months
ago and now want to do something on the truth about global warming, IPCC and
skeptics.
That's all I know so far. Person's name is Paul Olding. Should be calling
at 2pm, so 5 minutes time.
Cheers
Phil
At 13:21 17/03/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote:
HI Phil,
I agree-like all of these sources (e.g. boreholes, tree-rings, etc.) each one has its
own potential weaknessses--in this case, I think cold-season precip could be playing a
greater role w/ the mid-latitude glaciers than Oerlemans cares to admit. Not clear that
should give a systematic bias towards underestimating temperature variations though,
which is the argument you'd need to make if you're a boreholer.
The important thing is that it is entirely independent of everything else that has come
before, and looks remarkably like the Bradley and Jones/Mann et al/Jones et al/Crowley &
Lowery/Mann & Jones type reconstructions. Somehow the word hasn't really gotten out on
this.
I've got a call in from a different BBC reporter today, Ben Dempsey, who seems much
better. He's doing something for "Horizon" on climate change.
Do you know anything about this?
Thanks,
mike
At 08:02 AM 3/17/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Reporter was Paul Rincon ("Paul Rincon-NEWSi"
).
No-one seems to have picked up on Oerleman's paper yet. You did send me that
earlier, so I should have told him about that.
Sarah Raper here has some doubts about Oerleman's work, but it does
reproduce the curve very well. Need to be objective though in interpreting it.
Cheers
Phil
At 12:48 17/03/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Hi Phil,
Yes, BBC has been disappointing in the way they've dealt with this--almost seems to be a
contrarian element there.
Do you remember the name of the reporter you spoke to?
Thanks,
Mike
p.s. Interesting that they also don't seem to be aware of the Oerleman's paper, which
reproduces the "Hockey Stick" using completely independent data and method (glacial mass
balance). I've attached in case you haven't seen...
At 03:26 AM 3/17/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Ray,
I tried to convince the reporter here there wasn't a story, but he went with it
anyway.
At least he put in a quote from me that there are loads of other series that show
similar-ish series to MBH and MJ. Had to mention the Moberg et al series to achieve
this.
The reporter said he'd not seen Moberg et al., and it wasn't flagged up by Nature
to them at the appropriate time. Odd !  Then why are you running with this GRL paper
as there are 10s issued each week. Well, it turns out, not surprisingly, that MM have
issued numerous press releases themselves - using their networks.
Waterhouse is at Anglian Polytechnic Uni (APU) - it's in Cambridge and Chelmsford.
Keith said what does John Waterhouse know about paleo - my thoughts also !
We've worked with John several years ago on an isotopes in trees project, that didn't
produce much. APU is OK when it comes to counselling studies. Ruth works for them
teaching at Yarmouth !
His quote is typical of many I get to here. Pity the reporter didn't mention this
to me.
My response would have been what is the point of doing any more paleo work, if we
are constrained by the answer we are allowed to get. If we don't have the MWP and LIA
then we are wrong. We have orders of magnitude more data than when these came into
vogue in the 1960s, but we still are expected to find them.
Cheers
Phil
Cheers
Phil
At 17:20 16/03/2005, you wrote:
ray saw this story on BBC News Online and thought you
should see it.
** Message **
Anglia Polytechnic?!!!!
** New row on climate 'hockey stick' **
New controversy has erupted over one of the most provocative symbols of the global
warming debate: the so-called "hockey stick" graph.
** BBC Daily E-mail **
Choose the news and sport headlines you want - when you want them, all
in one daily e-mail
** Disclaimer **
The BBC is not responsible for the content of this
e-mail, and anything said in this e-mail does not necessarily reflect
the BBC's views.
If you don't wish to receive such mails in the future, please e-mail
webmasters@bbc.co.uk making sure you include the following text: I do
not want to receive "E-mail a friend" mailings.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[3]
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[4]
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.
2.
3.
4.


Ben,
I will be at Duke. Get to the airport about 6.30pm on the 29th. Looking forward to
seeing you there.
I should have signed off on the CCSP report by Easter. We have to get everything
done by March 28. We had a conf. call last Friday.
I can see the argument about an assessment and 'new information'. It is a similar
thing in IPCC. Glad to hear you're going to submit it for a paper, because I think it
is important. It will unlikely change some peoples views, though.
Just had a long call with Chris Folland. He says that the next CCSP vtt meeting is
going to be scheduled for Chicago for the week we should be doing the HC review !
Hope you're still going to come to Exeter. You should have less to do than all the
other chapters !
See you on the 29th late or more likely for breakfast on the 30th.
Cheers
Phil
At 23:16 18/03/2005, you wrote:
Dear Phil,
Sorry about the delay in replying to your email. I picked up a chest infection while I
was at the IPCC meeting in Hawaii, and it proved to be very persistent. I think a
weekend's rest will do me good.
It was great to see you in Chicago, even though the meeting itself was quite difficult
to sit through. As may have been apparent, Roger and I really rub each other the wrong
way. Working with him on this CCSP Report has been a very unpleasant experience.
I am taking your advice, and trying to write up the "amplification factor" stuff that I
showed in Chicago. I presented this in Hawaii, and it sparked a lot of discussion. Just
between you and me, Susan Solomon argued quite forcefully that  this new information
should NOT go into the CCSP Report, and that we should not be performing science in
support of an assessment. She was concerned that the CCSP Report might be subject to
unjustified criticism if key conclusions of the Report relied on unpublished work. I
have considerable sympathy with this view. It does seem important to get this work
submitted to a peer-reviewed publication as soon as possible, and then worry later about
whether the material should or should not appear in CCSP.
Are you going to the Duke IDAG meeting? If so, I look forward to seeing you there.
Best regards to you and Ruth,
Ben
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-2486
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Philip,
I'm not unhappy at all. If I am it is more about HadCRUT2 and 3.
I read through the report to DEFRA and will be sending some comments later
today. I also commented on what Harry has written as a report for you. I've
left those comments with him as he's away this week and I'm off April 6-15.
It is a bit odd with HadCRUT2 that the problem has surfaced now and my
old mask hasn't made any difference.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:33 01/04/2005, Brohan, Philip wrote:
Phil.
I've just had a chat with Peter Thorne about HadCRUT2 and 3, and I get the
impression that you are concerned, so we thought I should clarify what is going on.
In particular I want to assure you that we are not trying to change the system
without your approval.
To make things quite clear, we have two HadCRUT systems here:
1) Peter is running HadCRUT2. This is our operational system which produces
the new data every month that we send to you and everyone. This is a fixed
system, it does exactly what you agreed with Peter a couple of years ago. We
don't plan to change it at all.
We did, unfortunately, make a mistake while running the system; we think a
land-mask file was changed. This is what Peter's recent messages have been about.
We're still not quite sure how this happened, but whatever fix we apply will be
to restore the system to the original, agreed state.
2) I am coordinating HadCRUT3. This currently encompasses Harry's work on the data,
Simon's work on blending, John Kennedy's work on variance correction, and my work on
errors and gridding. Some combination of this work will become the new dataset.
I have a clear picture of what I think should form the new dataset. However, we
won't produce HadCRUT3 unless you (and all the other contributors) agree. If I
can't persuade you of the value of a change, it won't happen. In particular, I
see the land station data as entirely under your control, both now and in the
future.
If I (or Peter) misread the vibes and you were not worrying about any of this,
please don't start. There are not serious problems with either system.
Have fun,
Philip.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hi Keith and Tim - sorry for the delay in responding. I think the
issues you raise are worth discussing, but we can do that in Beijing,
and hopefully with Susan. She is keen on the idea, and my gut says
it's a good idea to include such "crowley" plots somewhere - at least
in the appendix, for example. But, let's talk in person.
In the meantime, we really need your comments on the ZOD - including
what you feel has to be done with your section, but also with the
others. We have comments from most others, and are expecting the
external review comments soon, so please send yours ASAP so they can
be included in this important stage.
Thanks! Best, peck
>Jonathan
>
>I am slowly getting teaching duties behind me and certainly turning
>my attention back to IPCC. I have spoken wit Phil re the
>observations chapter and we have discussed the need to show pre 20th
>instrumental data in our chapter in a manner that is relevant to the
>comparison with more recent instrumental (ie N.Hemisphere or global
>mean) records , and the possibility of showing ensembles of regional
>temperature records , and composites in a way that possibly bares on
>the discussions with Susan. We are still considering this question ,
>but certainly there needs to be some "frozen grid" curves as flagged
>in the ZOD.
>I am not sure of the context of the discussion you are having with
>Susan , or the logic for what Tom Crowley is trying to do with the
>ensemble curves of various palaeo-series.
>
>I flagged clearly at the outset that I would like to do some
>regional comparisons of various data/reconstructions . This required
>more time and input than was achievable for the ZOD. I still think
>this is desirable though. Similarly , there is far too little in the
>current version about moisture variability in the last 2000 years
>and too little on the S.Hemisphere in general. It was always clear
>that there would be much more discussion on the scaling issue and
>specific reference to work that will explore the effect of regional,
>seasonal and methodological differences in aggregation and scaling
>(including timescale dependent effects). The problem is that the
>work on much of this is not yet done or published. It should be
>immediately apparent that our greatest enemy , acting against a
>thorough exposition of these issues , is the lack of sufficient
>allotted space.
>
>Now , returning to the Crowley Figures , I do not see how not
>showing an integrated and "appropriately" scaled record helps to
>clarify the picture on the precedence of recent warming in any clear
>way. On the contrary , it merely confuses the issue by omitting to
>tackle the knotty problem  of expressing an underlying mean
>large-scale signal , that emerges from the regional noise only
>through aggregation of demonstrably appropriate palaeo-records .
>This aggregation should allow quantification (with appropriate
>uncertainty) of the extent of warming and provide clearly defined
>target for comparison with model simulations.
>
>If it thought appropriate , yes we can show individual records , but
>just normalising them over  a common base ignores the different
>sensitivities and regional distribution issues . I am not convinced
>this selective presentation clarifies anything.  I would be happy
>for this discussion to opened to the rest of the author team.
>
>best wishes
>
>Keith
>
>  At 16:28 15/03/2005, you wrote:
>>Hi Keith - I can't remember when you said you'd be able to get back
>>into the IPCC fray, but I hope it is soon. Please let me and
>>Eystein know what you think regarding the email I just cc'd to you.
>>We should respond to Susan asap. Hope things are going well.
>>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
>>
>>
>
>--
>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


Kevin,
I plan to look through your 3.4.1 draft tomorrow or later this week. At the same
time I also plan to have a go at section 3.2. David has sent me some new figures
and there are two new papers to add in. I am having difficulty finding some quality
time at the moment, but hope this will come later this week.
I did read all the CCSP report. The review group are having a conf call tomorrow
on this, but they have chosen your afternoon, so I can't take part. There were 6
reviewers of the review and one other almost wrote as much as you. Most were
positive on the review saying that the report authors have a lot to do, particularly for
Chapters 1 and 6. How all this pans out is impossible to tell. The next meeting of the
authors is being scheduled for the week after Beijing.
I agree some of their figures are useful, but I too doubt whether we will have
much useful for the FOD we have to write. We will likely be doing them in parallel -
which is hardly ideal.
I wouldn't send our 3.4.1 to Tom at this time - at least wait till Brian, David and I
have been through yours. Also I wouldn't want Tom passing it on to the CCSP VTT
authors. I think they will have a lot of hard thinking when they get the NRC review, to
worry too much about what we're doing. We do need to have our chapter and their
report meshing at some time, but this might have to wait till the SOD (by which time
their report might be finished).
Cheers
Phil
At 17:35 18/04/2005, Parker, David (Met Office) wrote:
Kevin
Thanks. You have saved me some work because on my journey back from
Geneva I also studied the comments on 3.4.1 (on paper) and was
considering making an electronic revised section. I came to the
conclusion that 3.4.1 should say that there are 2 schools of thought
about Fu et al and other aspects of the temperatures-aloft issue: the
jury is still out. That would be a assessment (as opposed to a review)
of the current state of the science. Fu may not be correct as he seems
to imply upper tropospheric warming rates well outside the error-bars
implied by the radiosondes (though I am aware of their problems too). I
have not yet read your attachment but will consider it in the next few
days.
I looked at the surface temperature comments too and feel it may be best
to wait until in Beijing, as most comments are about what diagrams to
choose. I could try to re-order the urban warming section as reviewers
suggest, but we may still wish to contact Tsutsumi (who didn't reply to
my email a couple of months ago) to write something.
Regards
David
On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 17:13, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> Hi Phil and David, and  Brian
>
> I believe you three are probably closest to the satellite temperature
> record issue and so I am sending this to you.  I have thoroughly gone
> over all the comments we received and I have prepared a revised 3.4.1
> which is attached.  This is the cleaned up version.  The actual
> version has tracking turned on but the changes are so extensive that
> they are very hard to follow.  As you know, I have read the entire
> CCSP report and commented extensively on it.  I know Phil was on the
> review team and David was there as a lead author.  However David and
> Phil may not be as familiar with the whole report.
>
> Obviously this remains a controversial topic.  Many of the comments we
> received were diametrically opposed to one another.  The rhetoric was
> disappointing (especially from Peter Thorne).  In fact Peter's
> comments are mostly not useful and reveal very strong biases against
> Fu and reanalyses.  Previously, you'll recall that David provided most
> of the text and I edited it and updated it with the Fu material in a
> somewhat ad hoc fashion that got almost everyone mad.  Probably a good
> thing to do in retrospect, as this next version will look so much
> better.  Note that I have done nothing with the appendices at this
> point, so that needs to be addressed.  I have taken out all the
> tables??
>
> You will see even in the current text that I have 2 sections I would
> like to delete.
>
> While individual comparisons of radiosonde station data with
> collocated satellite data (Christy and Norris, 2004) suggest that the
> median trends of radiosonde temperatures in the troposphere are
> generally very close to UAH trends and a little less than RSS trends,
> trends at individual radiosonde sites vary and root mean square
> differences of UAH satellite data with radiosondes are substantial
> (Hurrell et al., 2000). Moreover, as noted in 3.4.1.1, comparisons
> with radiosonde data are compromised by the multiple problems with the
> latter, and there are diurnal cycle influences on them over land. In
> the stratosphere, radiosonde trends are more negative than both MSU
> retrievals, especially RSS. [DELETE THIS?]
>
> The problem here is the rhetoric of Christy et al.  In his
> contribution Christy justifies the UAH record by saying that "median
> trends agree with those of sondes".  But he actually sent to us his
> Fig. 2 showing the lack of agreement in general.  It is only the
> median that agrees, the agreement with sondes individually is not good
> and this is just for trends. [Hence the median depends on the
> selection of stations].  It is even worse if rms differences are
> examined (as in Hurrell et al 2000).  The only reason to include this
> is to rebut Christy's claim.  For most other readers it has no
> business being there.  Your suggestions appreciated.  Maybe this
> should go in the appendix?
>
> You will see that I have stolen 2 figures from the CCSP report.  I
> made up the 3rd figure from data provided from the CCSP report plus
> extra material (only the global is in the current draft).  It would
> also be nice to include a spatial map of trends at the surface and for
> the troposphere (T2 corrected as from Fu) but no such figure exists
> anywhere, yet.  We can get trends from RSS and UAH for T2.  It would
> be good to have access to the originals so we can modify them and
> clean up the terminology.  {On that score, I don't think the CCSP
> terminology is tenable given the new retrievals of Fu et al (2005) and
> ours, using T2, T3, and T4 is much easier).
>
> At present the CCSP report is not very useful to us. Some figures are
> useful.  It may become so, but I actually have my doubts, given the
> vested interests of the authors.
>
> I am tempted to send this to Tom Karl in his role as editor of our
> chapter, and of course he is head of the CCSP effort, but I would NOT
> want him to use it for CCSP (except that it might highlight the
> differences in assessments).  What do you think?  Via Tom we might get
> better access to the figures and updates?  Also I'l l cc David
> Easterling.
> This would be the main basis for FOD.
>
> Ideally also it is desirable to get the figures updated thru 2004, but
> can we?
>
> Please read this version and let me know what you think?  (Please be
> kind, I have put in a LOT of work on this)
>
> Best regards
> Kevin
>
> --
> ****************
> Kevin E. Trenberth                            e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu
> Climate Analysis Section, NCAR                [1]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
> P. O. Box 3000,                               (303) 497 1318
> Boulder, CO 80307                             (303) 497 1333 (fax)
>
> Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80303
--
David E Parker
A2_W052 Met Office FitzRoy Road EXETER EX1 3PB UK
email: david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk
Tel: +44-1392-886649     Fax: +44-1392-885681
Global climate data sets are available from [2]
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.
2.


Dear All,
In addition to Kevin's comments and from a quickish look through parts of Chapters
4, 6 and 9, here are a few suggestions.
First for best use of time, I would suggest that Cluster B gets broken into two parts.
Basically separating off the overlap with the paleo and instrumental record including
borehole temperatures and glacier length changes from the sea ice/SST, snow/temperature.
OHC/SST, salinity/precip and SLR etc. The latter can be dealt with by Chs 5, 3 and 4.
The former is really for 6, 3 and 4.
Issues for 3 and 6 are the interface of the instrumental and paleo records,
particularly
how the early 19th century is dealt with. This period of instrumental records is believed
by many in the paleo community not to exist, but in Europe and a few other regions it
exists back in good order to the late 18th century. The 19th century is, I believe, the
key
to resolving much of the discussion about the millennium. Much more should be made of
this period when comparisons with long forced GCM runs are analyzed. Europe may be a
small continent, but the 200-250 year 'perfect proxy' records (which have all seasons!)
need
to be studied more. As any conclusions relate to Ch 6, the main text should be there, with
perhaps a box on the early instrumental period in Ch 3.
Somewhat related to the above, Ch 4 has a section on the recent Oerlemans (2005) work
- attached for reference. Mike Mann sent me a figure (see jpg) comparing this with most
other
reconstructions of parts of the millennium. It seems that this piece of work should be
with
all the others in Ch 6 and not Ch 4.  When producing plots like this getting the right
base level
is crucial - not just for Oerlemans' series, but also for the boreholes. Also, the degree
of
smoothing and the y-scale used can easily determine the takeaway message.
Chapter 9 has an interest in both these issues.
Finally, there is one other issue. Do we want to consider having a web site
(distributed?) where
the data for some selected time series can be downloaded from - not just the
smoothed/plotted
series, but on the original timescale as well. This possibly comes back also to a
consistent way
of smoothing time series.
Cheers
Phil
At 08:11 20/04/2005, Peter Lemke wrote:
Dear Martin,
I am also willing to co-chair the cluster B. (As always) Kevin has done a very good job
in listing the most important issues.
Therefore, I have nothing to add at the moment. I will think about this on the weekend.
Best regards,
Peter
Kevin Trenberth schrieb:
Hi Martin
Yes I will do this.
Firstly on cluster A:
I/we have an issue which is: what about changes in radiative forcing from water vapor
(or feedback if you prefer), it is of order 1 W m-2.
So this relates to water vapor changes in chapter 3.
Cluster B:  Consistency in observed climate change: atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere.  This
may also extend to paleo, chapter 6.
Issues:
*Consistency of:*
* sea ice with SST
* snow cover with snowfall and temperature
* glacier melting and permafrost changes vs temperatures
* borehole temperatures, glacier changes and paleo record
* overlap between paleo record and instrumental record
* salinity vs precipitation
* ocean heat content with SST and surface fluxes
* sea level rise as an integrator: ocean expansion, melting of
land ice, increased water storage on land, and changes in TOA
radiation (presumably led by Chapter 5.)
Issues consist of use of consistent temperature and precipitation records (don't use
NCEP surface temperatures as in Ch 4 CQ).
Points of contention:
1) consistency
2) overlap and redundancy
3) where to place integrated assessment?
* sea level: Chapter 5
* snow, ice, temperature chapter 3 section 3.9
* paleo record vs instrumental chapter 6
* overall view including sea level chapter 3, in 3.9
* T increase (land, SST, subsurface ocean), snow retreat, sea ice
retreat, thinning, freezing season shorter, glacier melt, sea
level rise.
* Precip changes, drought, salinity, ocean currents, P-E, snowfall.
Please see the draft of 3.9.
So in terms of the agenda, the main points are:
1) Ensuring consistency among variables across chapters
2) Agreement on which chapter and what person will handle what, and in particular, that
3.9 will have a look ahead aspect to the chapters that follow.
The above points could all be briefly on the table with the focus on cross-chapter
issues.
Desirable to circulate draft section 3.9 (1 page).
Peter may wish to add or change this?
Regards
Kevin
Martin Manning wrote:
Dear Kevin and Peter
Please find attached our current program for the second Lead Author meeting on May 10 -
12.  We will shortly be sending out some more details on the plans for the meeting and
in particular would like to clarify what needs to be done in the Overlap Cluster
meetings shown in the program on Wednesday 11th.
This is to ask if you would be prepared to jointly co-chair the session on Overlap
Cluster B dealing with "Consistency in covering observed climate change" and which will
involve discussion among chapters 3, 4, 5, 9 and 11. The attached program lists, on the
last page, overlap / consistency areas that have been mentioned in the ZOD.
We would really be most grateful for your assistance in this, and if you agree, we would
like to ask that you each to specify what in your view would be the 2 or 3 most
important issues to resolve during the overlap cluster session. We will then use your
input to draw up a specific agenda and circulate agendas for all overlap clusters to all
CLAs prior to the meeting. We hope in this way that we can reach a shared understanding
of the most important overlap and consistency issues and the corresponding key decisions
that will have to be made in Beijing.
I would be grateful if you could let me know whether you are able to help us with this
by Wednesday 20th.
Regards
Martin
--
*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/AL8                Fax: +1 303 497 5628
Boulder, CO 80305, USA
-- ****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                              e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR                  [1]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000,                                 (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                               (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80303
--
****************************************************
Prof. Dr. Peter Lemke
Alfred-Wegener-Institute
for Polar and Marine Research
Postfach 120161
27515 Bremerhaven
GERMANY
e-mail: plemke@awi-bremerhaven.de
Phone: ++49 (0)471 - 4831 - 1751/1750
FAX:   ++49 (0)471 - 4831 - 1797
[2]
****************************************************
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.
2.


Kevin - ah yes, good fun. Talked w/ Susan about some of this, and we're hoping that Keith
Briffa might be able to participate in "Cluster B" while the rest of our chap 6 team
discusses things that bore Keith. I'll forward this to relevant chap 6 folks. Thx, Peck
Jon
FYI wrt Beijing and overlap issues with chapter 6.  You may find some exchanges of
interest as well.
Kevin
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:  Re: WG1 LA2 meeting - Overlap cluster A
Date:    Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:12:41 +0100
From:    Phil Jones
To:       Kevin Trenberth
References:
Kevin,
Right on !  Assumes precip doesn't change - i.e. it's constant. Difficult to do
much more for some regions, but could do a lot better for the Alps.  Ch 4 has swallowed
this hook, line and sinker and it is really a Ch 6 issue. Ch 6 wasn't even aware of it.
Can't decide who on Ch 4 knew about it as Oerlemans isn't there and the Swiss Glacier
people didn't know about the paper 2 weeks ago when I saw them.
I like the curve as does Mike Mann, but its not for any scientific reason.
Any jury is still out on whether this is right, but I'm glad someone has tried the
approach. It is a quantification of what people have assumed, but there likely isn't
enough detail in the paper to show how it was done.
I've not seen this paper in a proper issue of Science yet. As such I've not been
able to get the supporting material.
This paper is totally independent of all other paleo work. It is much better science
than Mobeg et al. in Nature in February.  Susan has been sending a few emails to
Ch 6 about how to display the various millennium series - some of which she's not
thought through.
Just be glad we haven't got paleo in out chapter !
Cheers
Phil
At 16:20 20/04/2005, you wrote:
Hi Phil
I had not read Oerleman's paper, I have now.  Some things don't make sense to me: chanes
in precip not included and the time series (esp N America)  Also magnitude of implied
early 20Th C warming.  What is your take?
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:
Dear All,
In addition to Kevin's comments and from a quickish look through parts of Chapters
4, 6 and 9, here are a few suggestions.
First for best use of time, I would suggest that Cluster B gets broken into two
parts.
Basically separating off the overlap with the paleo and instrumental record including
borehole temperatures and glacier length changes from the sea ice/SST,
snow/temperature.
OHC/SST, salinity/precip and SLR etc. The latter can be dealt with by Chs 5, 3 and 4.
The former is really for 6, 3 and 4.
Issues for 3 and 6 are the interface of the instrumental and paleo records,
particularly
how the early 19th century is dealt with. This period of instrumental records is
believed
by many in the paleo community not to exist, but in Europe and a few other regions it
exists back in good order to the late 18th century. The 19th century is, I believe, the
key
to resolving much of the discussion about the millennium. Much more should be made of
this period when comparisons with long forced GCM runs are analyzed. Europe may be a
small continent, but the 200-250 year 'perfect proxy' records (which have all seasons!)
need
to be studied more. As any conclusions relate to Ch 6, the main text should be there,
with
perhaps a box on the early instrumental period in Ch 3.
Somewhat related to the above, Ch 4 has a section on the recent Oerlemans (2005)
work
- attached for reference. Mike Mann sent me a figure (see jpg) comparing this with most
other
reconstructions of parts of the millennium. It seems that this piece of work should be
with
all the others in Ch 6 and not Ch 4.  When producing plots like this getting the right
base level
is crucial - not just for Oerlemans' series, but also for the boreholes. Also, the
degree of
smoothing and the y-scale used can easily determine the takeaway message.
Chapter 9 has an interest in both these issues.
Finally, there is one other issue. Do we want to consider having a web site
(distributed?) where
the data for some selected time series can be downloaded from - not just the
smoothed/plotted
series, but on the original timescale as well. This possibly comes back also to a
consistent way
of smoothing time series.
Cheers
Phil
At 08:11 20/04/2005, Peter Lemke wrote:
Dear Martin,
I am also willing to co-chair the cluster B. (As always) Kevin has done a very good job
in listing the most important issues.
Therefore, I have nothing to add at the moment. I will think about this on the weekend.
Best regards,
Peter
Kevin Trenberth schrieb:
Hi Martin
Yes I will do this.
Firstly on cluster A:
I/we have an issue which is: what about changes in radiative forcing from water vapor
(or feedback if you prefer), it is of order 1 W m-2.
So this relates to water vapor changes in chapter 3.
Cluster B:  Consistency in observed climate change: atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere.  This
may also extend to paleo, chapter 6.
Issues:
*Consistency of:*
* sea ice with SST
* snow cover with snowfall and temperature
* glacier melting and permafrost changes vs temperatures
* borehole temperatures, glacier changes and paleo record
* overlap between paleo record and instrumental record
* salinity vs precipitation
* ocean heat content with SST and surface fluxes
* sea level rise as an integrator: ocean expansion, melting of
land ice, increased water storage on land, and changes in TOA
radiation (presumably led by Chapter 5.)
Issues consist of use of consistent temperature and precipitation records (don't use
NCEP surface temperatures as in Ch 4 CQ).
Points of contention:
1) consistency
2) overlap and redundancy
3) where to place integrated assessment?
* sea level: Chapter 5
* snow, ice, temperature chapter 3 section 3.9
* paleo record vs instrumental chapter 6
* overall view including sea level chapter 3, in 3.9
* T increase (land, SST, subsurface ocean), snow retreat, sea ice
retreat, thinning, freezing season shorter, glacier melt, sea
level rise.
* Precip changes, drought, salinity, ocean currents, P-E, snowfall.
Please see the draft of 3.9.
So in terms of the agenda, the main points are:
1) Ensuring consistency among variables across chapters
2) Agreement on which chapter and what person will handle what, and in particular, that
3.9 will have a look ahead aspect to the chapters that follow.
The above points could all be briefly on the table with the focus on cross-chapter
issues.
Desirable to circulate draft section 3.9 (1 page).
Peter may wish to add or change this?
Regards
Kevin
Martin Manning wrote:
Dear Kevin and Peter
Please find attached our current program for the second Lead Author meeting on May 10 -
12.  We will shortly be sending out some more details on the plans for the meeting and
in particular would like to clarify what needs to be done in the Overlap Cluster
meetings shown in the program on Wednesday 11th.
This is to ask if you would be prepared to jointly co-chair the session on Overlap
Cluster B dealing with "Consistency in covering observed climate change" and which will
involve discussion among chapters 3, 4, 5, 9 and 11. The attached program lists, on the
last page, overlap / consistency areas that have been mentioned in the ZOD.
We would really be most grateful for your assistance in this, and if you agree, we would
like to ask that you each to specify what in your view would be the 2 or 3 most
important issues to resolve during the overlap cluster session. We will then use your
input to draw up a specific agenda and circulate agendas for all overlap clusters to all
CLAs prior to the meeting. We hope in this way that we can reach a shared understanding
of the most important overlap and consistency issues and the corresponding key decisions
that will have to be made in Beijing.
I would be grateful if you could let me know whether you are able to help us with this
by Wednesday 20th.
Regards
Martin
--
*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/AL8                Fax: +1 303 497 5628
Boulder, CO 80305, USA
-- ****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                              e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000,                                 (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                               (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80303
--
****************************************************
Prof. Dr. Peter Lemke
Alfred-Wegener-Institute
for Polar and Marine Research
Postfach 120161
27515 Bremerhaven
GERMANY
e-mail: plemke@awi-bremerhaven.de
Phone: ++49 (0)471 - 4831 - 1751/1750
FAX:   ++49 (0)471 - 4831 - 1797

****************************************************
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1fde5ff.jpg
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                              e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR                  www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000,                                 (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                               (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80303
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                                  e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR                 www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000,                                    (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                                 (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80303
Jon
FYI wrt Beijing and overlap issues with chapter 6.  You may find some exchanges of
interest as well.
Kevin
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: WG1 LA2 meeting - Overlap cluster A Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:12:41 +0100
From: Phil Jones [1]
To: Kevin Trenberth [2]
References: [3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
Kevin,
Right on !  Assumes precip doesn't change - i.e. it's constant. Difficult to do
much more for some regions, but could do a lot better for the Alps.  Ch 4 has swallowed
this hook, line and sinker and it is really a Ch 6 issue. Ch 6 wasn't even aware of it.
Can't decide who on Ch 4 knew about it as Oerlemans isn't there and the Swiss Glacier
people didn't know about the paper 2 weeks ago when I saw them.
I like the curve as does Mike Mann, but its not for any scientific reason.
Any jury is still out on whether this is right, but I'm glad someone has tried the
approach. It is a quantification of what people have assumed, but there likely isn't
enough detail in the paper to show how it was done.
I've not seen this paper in a proper issue of Science yet. As such I've not been
able to get the supporting material.
This paper is totally independent of all other paleo work. It is much better science
than Mobeg et al. in Nature in February.  Susan has been sending a few emails to
Ch 6 about how to display the various millennium series - some of which she's not
thought through.
Just be glad we haven't got paleo in out chapter !
Cheers
Phil
At 16:20 20/04/2005, you wrote:
Hi Phil
I had not read Oerleman's paper, I have now.  Some things don't make sense to me: chanes
in precip not included and the time series (esp N America)  Also magnitude of implied
early 20Th C warming.  What is your take?
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:
Dear All,
In addition to Kevin's comments and from a quickish look through parts of Chapters
4, 6 and 9, here are a few suggestions.
First for best use of time, I would suggest that Cluster B gets broken into two
parts.
Basically separating off the overlap with the paleo and instrumental record including
borehole temperatures and glacier length changes from the sea ice/SST,
snow/temperature.
OHC/SST, salinity/precip and SLR etc. The latter can be dealt with by Chs 5, 3 and 4.
The former is really for 6, 3 and 4.
Issues for 3 and 6 are the interface of the instrumental and paleo records,
particularly
how the early 19th century is dealt with. This period of instrumental records is
believed
by many in the paleo community not to exist, but in Europe and a few other regions it
exists back in good order to the late 18th century. The 19th century is, I believe, the
key
to resolving much of the discussion about the millennium. Much more should be made of
this period when comparisons with long forced GCM runs are analyzed. Europe may be a
small continent, but the 200-250 year 'perfect proxy' records (which have all seasons!)
need
to be studied more. As any conclusions relate to Ch 6, the main text should be there,
with
perhaps a box on the early instrumental period in Ch 3.
Somewhat related to the above, Ch 4 has a section on the recent Oerlemans (2005)
work
- attached for reference. Mike Mann sent me a figure (see jpg) comparing this with most
other
reconstructions of parts of the millennium. It seems that this piece of work should be
with
all the others in Ch 6 and not Ch 4.  When producing plots like this getting the right
base level
is crucial - not just for Oerlemans' series, but also for the boreholes. Also, the
degree of
smoothing and the y-scale used can easily determine the takeaway message.
Chapter 9 has an interest in both these issues.
Finally, there is one other issue. Do we want to consider having a web site
(distributed?) where
the data for some selected time series can be downloaded from - not just the
smoothed/plotted
series, but on the original timescale as well. This possibly comes back also to a
consistent way
of smoothing time series.
Cheers
Phil
At 08:11 20/04/2005, Peter Lemke wrote:
Dear Martin,
I am also willing to co-chair the cluster B. (As always) Kevin has done a very good job
in listing the most important issues.
Therefore, I have nothing to add at the moment. I will think about this on the weekend.
Best regards,
Peter
Kevin Trenberth schrieb:
Hi Martin
Yes I will do this.
Firstly on cluster A:
I/we have an issue which is: what about changes in radiative forcing from water vapor
(or feedback if you prefer), it is of order 1 W m-2.
So this relates to water vapor changes in chapter 3.
Cluster B:  Consistency in observed climate change: atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere.  This
may also extend to paleo, chapter 6.
Issues:
*Consistency of:*
* sea ice with SST
* snow cover with snowfall and temperature
* glacier melting and permafrost changes vs temperatures
* borehole temperatures, glacier changes and paleo record
* overlap between paleo record and instrumental record
* salinity vs precipitation
* ocean heat content with SST and surface fluxes
* sea level rise as an integrator: ocean expansion, melting of
land ice, increased water storage on land, and changes in TOA
radiation (presumably led by Chapter 5.)
Issues consist of use of consistent temperature and precipitation records (don't use
NCEP surface temperatures as in Ch 4 CQ).
Points of contention:
1) consistency
2) overlap and redundancy
3) where to place integrated assessment?
* sea level: Chapter 5
* snow, ice, temperature chapter 3 section 3.9
* paleo record vs instrumental chapter 6
* overall view including sea level chapter 3, in 3.9
* T increase (land, SST, subsurface ocean), snow retreat, sea ice
retreat, thinning, freezing season shorter, glacier melt, sea
level rise.
* Precip changes, drought, salinity, ocean currents, P-E, snowfall.
Please see the draft of 3.9.
So in terms of the agenda, the main points are:
1) Ensuring consistency among variables across chapters
2) Agreement on which chapter and what person will handle what, and in particular, that
3.9 will have a look ahead aspect to the chapters that follow.
The above points could all be briefly on the table with the focus on cross-chapter
issues.
Desirable to circulate draft section 3.9 (1 page).
Peter may wish to add or change this?
Regards
Kevin
Martin Manning wrote:
Dear Kevin and Peter
Please find attached our current program for the second Lead Author meeting on May 10 -
12.  We will shortly be sending out some more details on the plans for the meeting and
in particular would like to clarify what needs to be done in the Overlap Cluster
meetings shown in the program on Wednesday 11th.
This is to ask if you would be prepared to jointly co-chair the session on Overlap
Cluster B dealing with "Consistency in covering observed climate change" and which will
involve discussion among chapters 3, 4, 5, 9 and 11. The attached program lists, on the
last page, overlap / consistency areas that have been mentioned in the ZOD.
We would really be most grateful for your assistance in this, and if you agree, we would
like to ask that you each to specify what in your view would be the 2 or 3 most
important issues to resolve during the overlap cluster session. We will then use your
input to draw up a specific agenda and circulate agendas for all overlap clusters to all
CLAs prior to the meeting. We hope in this way that we can reach a shared understanding
of the most important overlap and consistency issues and the corresponding key decisions
that will have to be made in Beijing.
I would be grateful if you could let me know whether you are able to help us with this
by Wednesday 20th.
Regards
Martin
--
*Recommended Email address: [8]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/AL8                Fax: +1 303 497 5628
Boulder, CO 80305, USA
-- ****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                              e-mail: [9]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR                  [10]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000,                                 (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                               (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80303
--
****************************************************
Prof. Dr. Peter Lemke
Alfred-Wegener-Institute
for Polar and Marine Research
Postfach 120161
27515 Bremerhaven
GERMANY
e-mail: [11]plemke@awi-bremerhaven.de
Phone: ++49 (0)471 - 4831 - 1751/1750
FAX:   ++49 (0)471 - 4831 - 1797
[12]
****************************************************
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    [13]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Untitled 2
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                            e-mail: [14]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR                 [15]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000,                                    (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                                 (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80303
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    [16]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                            e-mail: [17]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR                 [18]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000,                                    (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                                 (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80303
--
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

Embedded Content: Untitled 2.jpg: 00000001,648cb53d,00000000,00000000
References
1. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
2. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
3. mailto:5.2.0.9.2.20050418185815.0303d0d0@mailsrvr.al.noaa.gov
4. mailto:42654140.2080509@ucar.edu
5. mailto:42660091.9060600@awi-bremerhaven.de
6. mailto:6.1.2.0.0.20050420101527.01d3f508@pop.uea.ac.uk
7. mailto:42667322.4070101@ucar.edu
8. mailto:mmanning@al.noaa.gov
9. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
10.
11. mailto:plemke@awi-bremerhaven.de
12.
13. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
14. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
15.
16. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
17. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
18.


Martin I think you are right: the paleo instrumental issue is likely to
involve mainly Briffa from Chap 6 and Phil from our chapter, so they might
well spin off at some point.  Are there others Phil?
Kevin
> Dear Kevin and Phil
>
> As you say Chapter 6 was not implicated in the cluster B overlap issues
> based on the author notes we received with the ZOD. You may want to cover
> the point raised by Phil and in particular where the long instrumental
> records fit, but as this seems to involve only a small number of LAs you
> could consider dealing with that more efficiently in a small group
> separately from the cluster meeting. So the choice is up to you.
>
> If it would be helpful, the TSU could start to compile a list of small
> group meetings requested by CLAs and look for some way of setting up a
> practical timetable for lunch time meetings. But we would need advice on
> the specific individuals who should be involved in each case and all I am
> offering is a "dating service" that would distribute a suggested list of
> times and names that we could possibly update in real time during the
> meeting in Beijing.
>
> Regards
> Martin
>
> At 09:07 AM 4/20/2005, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>>Hi Martin
>>I agree with what Phil says, but I note that cluster B does not actually
>>have chapter 6 as part of it.  So the question is whether chapter 6 will
>>be involved?.  If so then we may well want to split into 2 parts.  Last
>>night I had a quick look at Chap 9 and I am concerned about redundancy
>> and
>>overlap and conflicts: they are doing some similar things with
>>observations but maybe different obs, and coming to different conclusions
>>e.g. wrt things like dimming.
>>Kevin
>>
>>Phil Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>  Dear All,
>>>       In addition to Kevin's comments and from a quickish look through
>>> parts of Chapters
>>>  4, 6 and 9, here are a few suggestions.
>>>
>>>      First for best use of time, I would suggest that Cluster B gets
>>> broken into two parts.
>>>  Basically separating off the overlap with the paleo and instrumental
>>> record including
>>>  borehole temperatures and glacier length changes from the sea ice/SST,
>>> snow/temperature.
>>>  OHC/SST, salinity/precip and SLR etc. The latter can be dealt with by
>>> Chs 5, 3 and 4.
>>>  The former is really for 6, 3 and 4.
>>>
>>>     Issues for 3 and 6 are the interface of the instrumental and paleo
>>> records, particularly
>>>  how the early 19th century is dealt with. This period of instrumental
>>> records is believed
>>>  by many in the paleo community not to exist, but in Europe and a few
>>> other regions it
>>>  exists back in good order to the late 18th century. The 19th century
>>> is, I believe, the key
>>>  to resolving much of the discussion about the millennium. Much more
>>> should be made of
>>>  this period when comparisons with long forced GCM runs are analyzed.
>>> Europe may be a
>>>  small continent, but the 200-250 year 'perfect proxy' records (which
>>> have all seasons!) need
>>>  to be studied more. As any conclusions relate to Ch 6, the main text
>>> should be there, with
>>>  perhaps a box on the early instrumental period in Ch 3.
>>>
>>>      Somewhat related to the above, Ch 4 has a section on the recent
>>> Oerlemans (2005) work
>>>  - attached for reference. Mike Mann sent me a figure (see jpg)
>>> comparing this with most other
>>>  reconstructions of parts of the millennium. It seems that this piece
>>> of
>>> work should be with
>>>  all the others in Ch 6 and not Ch 4.  When producing plots like this
>>> getting the right base level
>>>  is crucial - not just for Oerlemans' series, but also for the
>>> boreholes. Also, the degree of
>>>  smoothing and the y-scale used can easily determine the takeaway
>>> message.
>>>
>>>    Chapter 9 has an interest in both these issues.
>>>
>>>     Finally, there is one other issue. Do we want to consider having a
>>> web site (distributed?) where
>>>  the data for some selected time series can be downloaded from - not
>>> just the smoothed/plotted
>>>  series, but on the original timescale as well. This possibly comes
>>> back
>>> also to a consistent way
>>>  of smoothing time series.
>>>
>>>  Cheers
>>>  Phil
>>>
>>>
>>>At 08:11 20/04/2005, Peter Lemke wrote:
>>>>Dear Martin,
>>>>I am also willing to co-chair the cluster B. (As always) Kevin has done
>>>>a very good job in listing the most important issues.
>>>>Therefore, I have nothing to add at the moment. I will think about this
>>>>on the weekend.
>>>>Best regards,
>>>>Peter
>>>>
>>>>Kevin Trenberth schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>>Hi Martin
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes I will do this.
>>>>>
>>>>>Firstly on cluster A:
>>>>>I/we have an issue which is: what about changes in radiative forcing
>>>>>from water vapor (or feedback if you prefer), it is of order 1 W m-2.
>>>>>So this relates to water vapor changes in chapter 3.
>>>>>
>>>>>Cluster B:  Consistency in observed climate change: atmosphere, ocean,
>>>>>cryosphere.  This may also extend to paleo, chapter 6.
>>>>>Issues:
>>>>>*Consistency of:*
>>>>>
>>>>>     * sea ice with SST
>>>>>     * snow cover with snowfall and temperature
>>>>>     * glacier melting and permafrost changes vs temperatures
>>>>>     * borehole temperatures, glacier changes and paleo record
>>>>>     * overlap between paleo record and instrumental record
>>>>>     * salinity vs precipitation
>>>>>     * ocean heat content with SST and surface fluxes
>>>>>     * sea level rise as an integrator: ocean expansion, melting of
>>>>>       land ice, increased water storage on land, and changes in TOA
>>>>>       radiation (presumably led by Chapter 5.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Issues consist of use of consistent temperature and precipitation
>>>>>records (don't use NCEP surface temperatures as in Ch 4 CQ).
>>>>>
>>>>>Points of contention:
>>>>>1) consistency
>>>>>2) overlap and redundancy
>>>>>3) where to place integrated assessment?
>>>>>
>>>>>     * sea level: Chapter 5
>>>>>     * snow, ice, temperature chapter 3 section 3.9
>>>>>     * paleo record vs instrumental chapter 6
>>>>>     * overall view including sea level chapter 3, in 3.9
>>>>>     * T increase (land, SST, subsurface ocean), snow retreat, sea ice
>>>>>       retreat, thinning, freezing season shorter, glacier melt, sea
>>>>>       level rise.
>>>>>     * Precip changes, drought, salinity, ocean currents, P-E,
>>>>> snowfall.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Please see the draft of 3.9.
>>>>>
>>>>>So in terms of the agenda, the main points are:
>>>>>1) Ensuring consistency among variables across chapters
>>>>>2) Agreement on which chapter and what person will handle what, and in
>>>>>particular, that 3.9 will have a look ahead aspect to the chapters
>>>>> that
>>>>>follow.
>>>>>The above points could all be briefly on the table with the focus on
>>>>>cross-chapter issues.
>>>>>Desirable to circulate draft section 3.9 (1 page).
>>>>>
>>>>>Peter may wish to add or change this?
>>>>>Regards
>>>>>Kevin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Martin Manning wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Dear Kevin and Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Please find attached our current program for the second Lead Author
>>>>>>meeting on May 10 - 12.  We will shortly be sending out some more
>>>>>>details on the plans for the meeting and in particular would like to
>>>>>>clarify what needs to be done in the Overlap Cluster meetings shown
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>the program on Wednesday 11th.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is to ask if you would be prepared to jointly co-chair the
>>>>>>session on Overlap Cluster B dealing with "Consistency in covering
>>>>>>observed climate change" and which will involve discussion among
>>>>>>chapters 3, 4, 5, 9 and 11. The attached program lists, on the last
>>>>>>page, overlap / consistency areas that have been mentioned in the
>>>>>> ZOD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We would really be most grateful for your assistance in this, and if
>>>>>>you agree, we would like to ask that you each to specify what in your
>>>>>>view would be the 2 or 3 most important issues to resolve during the
>>>>>>overlap cluster session. We will then use your input to draw up a
>>>>>>specific agenda and circulate agendas for all overlap clusters to all
>>>>>>CLAs prior to the meeting. We hope in this way that we can reach a
>>>>>>shared understanding of the most important overlap and consistency
>>>>>>issues and the corresponding key decisions that will have to be made
>>>>>>in Beijing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would be grateful if you could let me know whether you are able to
>>>>>>help us with this by Wednesday 20th.
>>>>>>Regards
>>>>>>Martin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>*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/AL8                Fax: +1 303 497 5628
>>>>>>Boulder, CO 80305, USA
>>>>>
>>>>>-- ****************
>>>>>Kevin E. Trenberth                              e-mail:
>>>>>
trenbert@ucar.edu
>>>>>Climate Analysis Section,
>>>>>NCAR
>>>>>
www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
>>>>>P. O. Box 3000,                                 (303) 497 1318
>>>>>Boulder, CO 80307                               (303) 497 1333 (fax)
>>>>>
>>>>>Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80303
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>****************************************************
>>>>Prof. Dr. Peter Lemke
>>>>Alfred-Wegener-Institute
>>>>for Polar and Marine Research
>>>>Postfach 120161
>>>>27515 Bremerhaven
>>>>GERMANY
>>>>
>>>>e-mail:
plemke@awi-bremerhaven.de
>>>>Phone: ++49 (0)471 - 4831 - 1751/1750
>>>>FAX:   ++49 (0)471 - 4831 - 1797
>>>>

>>>>****************************************************
>>>
>>>Prof. Phil Jones
>>>Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
>>>School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
>>>University of East Anglia
>>>Norwich                          Email
>>>
p.jones@uea.ac.uk
>>>NR4 7TJ
>>>UK
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>d85f1d.jpg
>>
>>
>>--
>>****************
>>Kevin E. Trenberth                              e-mail:
>>
trenbert@ucar.edu
>>Climate Analysis Section,
>>NCAR
www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
>>P. O. Box 3000,                                 (303) 497 1318
>>Boulder, CO 80307                               (303) 497 1333 (fax)
>>
>>Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80303
>>
>
> --
> 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/AL8                Fax: +1 303 497 5628
> Boulder, CO 80305, USA


Martin,
You are right, it should just be the two of us and as Keith is just across the corridor
we can have the meeting beforehand or on the way together. If you add this though to
your list of possible meetings you might find that some others are interested. This
meeting of 3 and 6 can occur at the same time as 3 and 4, so during Cluster B. There
does need to be some discussion between 4 and 6 though to decide where Oerlemans
work is best located within AR4.
There is also the issue of Ch 9 as Kevin mentioned. As with Ch 4 using an NCEP
temperature series for the Arctic, there might be issues with some other chapters
using observed datasets which Ch 3 might think inappropriate or saying things about
them that differ from what we do.  Hopefully all these sorts of issues which get flagged
when the overviews of the whole of AR4 get discussed (and also at LA3 and LA4).
Cheers
Phil
At 02:46 21/04/2005, trenbert@ucar.edu wrote:
Martin I think you are right: the paleo instrumental issue is likely to
involve mainly Briffa from Chap 6 and Phil from our chapter, so they might
well spin off at some point.  Are there others Phil?
Kevin
> Dear Kevin and Phil
>
> As you say Chapter 6 was not implicated in the cluster B overlap issues
> based on the author notes we received with the ZOD. You may want to cover
> the point raised by Phil and in particular where the long instrumental
> records fit, but as this seems to involve only a small number of LAs you
> could consider dealing with that more efficiently in a small group
> separately from the cluster meeting. So the choice is up to you.
>
> If it would be helpful, the TSU could start to compile a list of small
> group meetings requested by CLAs and look for some way of setting up a
> practical timetable for lunch time meetings. But we would need advice on
> the specific individuals who should be involved in each case and all I am
> offering is a "dating service" that would distribute a suggested list of
> times and names that we could possibly update in real time during the
> meeting in Beijing.
>
> Regards
> Martin
>
> At 09:07 AM 4/20/2005, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>>Hi Martin
>>I agree with what Phil says, but I note that cluster B does not actually
>>have chapter 6 as part of it.  So the question is whether chapter 6 will
>>be involved?.  If so then we may well want to split into 2 parts.  Last
>>night I had a quick look at Chap 9 and I am concerned about redundancy
>> and
>>overlap and conflicts: they are doing some similar things with
>>observations but maybe different obs, and coming to different conclusions
>>e.g. wrt things like dimming.
>>Kevin
>>
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


>Hi Keith,
got this paper from Jens Hesselbjerg. Interesting
with respect to the von Storch story.
Eystein
>A few comments in English:
>We have used a different version of the MPI
>coupled modeling system from that described by
>von Storch et al. to simulate the last 500
>years. The model we have used has a different
>ocean component (OPYC in stead of HOPE) and a
>higher resolution in the atmosphere (T42 in
>stead of T31 - by many considered to be a
>substantial improvement in terms of representing
>synoptic behavior). Moreover, we have used
>different reconstructions of the external
>forcing. All these differnces leads to somewhat
>differnt behaviours compared to von Storch, and
>yet the model does seem to depict many of the
>observed major climatic events. Details are
>given in the paper.
>
>venlig hilsen
>Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen
>
>
>
--
______________________________________________________________
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
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\stendel_et_al_ClimDyn_final.pdf"


Hi Keith and Phil - Thanks. I read this to say that the issue of
pre-1860 instrumental data is figured out ok? Plan outlined below
sounds good if ok with you both.
Best, Peck
>Peck
>FYI
>Phil and have have talked about the need t adress (even if briefly)
>the pre 1860 climate data - and both feel that the overlap with the
>paleo records (see our 1st Figure) in the 2000 year section , is one
>place to address this - though more needs to be done about the
>regional bias in these data
>
>>X-Sender: f028@pop.uea.ac.uk
>>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.2.0
>>Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:57:05 +0100
>>To: trenbert@ucar.edu,"Martin Manning"
>>From: Phil Jones
>>Subject: Re: WG1 LA2 meeting - Overlap cluster A
>>Cc: "Peter Lemke"
,
>>  "Susan Solomon"
,ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov,
>>  k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
>>
>>
>>  Martin,
>>     You are right, it should just be the two of us and as Keith is
>>just across the corridor
>>  we can have the meeting beforehand or on the way together. If you
>>add this though to
>>  your list of possible meetings you might find that some others are
>>interested. This
>>  meeting of 3 and 6 can occur at the same time as 3 and 4, so
>>during Cluster B. There
>>  does need to be some discussion between 4 and 6 though to decide
>>where Oerlemans
>>  work is best located within AR4.
>>      There is also the issue of Ch 9 as Kevin mentioned. As with Ch
>>4 using an NCEP
>>  temperature series for the Arctic, there might be issues with some
>>other chapters
>>  using observed datasets which Ch 3 might think inappropriate or
>>saying things about
>>  them that differ from what we do.  Hopefully all these sorts of
>>issues which get flagged
>>  when the overviews of the whole of AR4 get discussed (and also at
>>LA3 and LA4).
>>
>>  Cheers
>>  Phil
>>
>>
>>At 02:46 21/04/2005, trenbert@ucar.edu wrote:
>>>Martin I think you are right: the paleo instrumental issue is likely to
>>>involve mainly Briffa from Chap 6 and Phil from our chapter, so they might
>>>well spin off at some point.  Are there others Phil?
>>>Kevin
>>>
>>>
>>>>  Dear Kevin and Phil
>>>>
>>>>  As you say Chapter 6 was not implicated in the cluster B overlap issues
>>>>  based on the author notes we received with the ZOD. You may want to cover
>>>>  the point raised by Phil and in particular where the long instrumental
>>>>  records fit, but as this seems to involve only a small number of LAs you
>>>>  could consider dealing with that more efficiently in a small group
>>>>  separately from the cluster meeting. So the choice is up to you.
>>>>
>>>>  If it would be helpful, the TSU could start to compile a list of small
>>>>  group meetings requested by CLAs and look for some way of setting up a
>>>>  practical timetable for lunch time meetings. But we would need advice on
>>>>  the specific individuals who should be involved in each case and all I am
>>>>  offering is a "dating service" that would distribute a suggested list of
>>>>  times and names that we could possibly update in real time during the
>>>>  meeting in Beijing.
>>>>
>>>>  Regards
>>>>  Martin
>>>>
>>>>  At 09:07 AM 4/20/2005, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>>>>>Hi Martin
>>>>>I agree with what Phil says, but I note that cluster B does not actually
>>>>>have chapter 6 as part of it.  So the question is whether chapter 6 will
>>>>>be involved?.  If so then we may well want to split into 2 parts.  Last
>>>>>night I had a quick look at Chap 9 and I am concerned about redundancy
>>>>>  and
>>>>>overlap and conflicts: they are doing some similar things with
>>>>>observations but maybe different obs, and coming to different conclusions
>>>>>e.g. wrt things like dimming.
>>>>>Kevin
>>>>>
>>
>>Prof. Phil Jones
>>Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
>>School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
>>University of East Anglia
>>Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
>>NR4 7TJ
>>UK
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>--
>Professor 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


Mike,
Presumably you've seen all this - the forwarded email from Tim. I got this email from
McIntyre a few days ago. As far as I'm concerned he has the data - sent ages ago. I'll
tell him this, but that's all - no code. If I can find it, it is likely to be hundreds of
lines of
uncommented fortran !  I recall the program did a lot more that just average the series.
I know why he can't replicate the results early on - it is because there was a variance
correction for fewer series.
See you in Bern.
Cheers
Phil
Dear Phil,
In keeping with the spirit of your suggestions to look at some of the other multiproxy
publications, I've been looking at Jones et al [1998]. The methodology here is obviously
more straightforward than MBH98. However, while I have been able to substantially emulate
your calculations, I have been unable to do so exactly. The differences are larger in the
early periods.
Since I have been unable to replicate the results exactly based on available materials, I
would appreciate a copy of the actual data set used in Jones et al [1998] as well as the
code used in these calculations.
There is an interesting article on replication by Anderson et al., some distinguished
economists, here   [1] discussing the
issue of replication in applied economics and referring favorably to our attempts in
respect to MBH98.
Regards, Steve McIntyre
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.0.14
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 13:28:53 +0100
To: Phil Jones
,"Keith Briffa"
From: Tim Osborn
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: DEBUNKING THE "DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE" SCARE
Keith and Phil,
you both feature in the latest issue of CCNet:
(4) GLOBAL WARMING AND DATA
Steve Verdon, Outside the Beltway, 25 April 2005
[2]
A new paper ([3] from the St. Luis
Federal Reserve Bank has an interesting paer on how important it is to archive not only
the data but the code for empirical papers. While the article looks mainly at economic
research there is also a lesson to be drawn from this paper about the current state of
research for global warming/climate change. One of the hallmarks of scientific research
is that the results can be replicable. Without this, the results shouldn't be considered
valid let alone used for making policy.
Ideally, investigators should be willing to share their data and programs so as to
encourage other investigators to replicate and/or expand on their results.3 Such
behavior allows science to move forward in a Kuhn-style linear fashion, with each
generation seeing further from the shoulders of the previous generation.4 At a minimum,
the results of an endeavor-if it is to be labeled "scientific"-should be replicable,
i.e., another researcher using the same methods should be able to reach the same result.
In the case of applied economics using econometric software, this means that another
researcher using the same data and the same computer software should achieve the same
results.
However, this is precisely the problem that Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have run
into since looking into the methodology used by Mann, Hughes and Bradely (1998) (MBH98),
the paper that came up with the famous "hockey stick" for temperature reconstructions.
For example, this post here shows that McIntyre was prevented from accessing Mann's FTP
site. This is supposedly a public site where interested researchers can download not
only the source code, but also the data. This kind of behavior by Mann et. al. is simply
unscientific and also rather suspicious. Why lock out a researcher who is trying to
verify your results...do you have something to hide professors Mann, Bradley and Huges?
Not only has this been a problem has this been a problem for McIntyre with regards to
MBH98, but other studies as well. This post at Climate Audit shows that this problem is
actually quite serious.
Crowley and Lowery (2000)
After nearly a year and over 25 emails, Crowley said in mid-October that he has
misplaced the original data and could only find transformed and smoothed versions. This
makes proper data checking impossible, but I'm planning to do what I can with what he
sent. Do I need to comment on my attitude to the original data being "misplaced"?
Briffa et al. (2001)
There is no listing of sites in the article or SI (despite JGR policies requiring
citations be limited to publicly archived data). Briffa has refused to respond to any
requests for data. None of these guys have the least interest in some one going through
their data and seem to hoping that the demands wither away. I don't see how any policy
reliance can be made on this paper with no available data.
Esper et al. (2002)
This paper is usually thought to show much more variation than the hockey stick. Esper
has listed the sites used, but most of them are not archived. Esper has not responded to
any requests for data. '
Jones and Mann (2003); Mann and Jones (2004)
Phil Jones sent me data for these studies in July 2004, but did not have the weights
used in the calculations, which Mann had. Jones thought that the weights did not matter,
but I have found differently. I've tried a few times to get the weights, but so far have
been unsuccessful. My surmise is that the weighting in these papers is based on
correlations to local temperature, as opposed to MBH98-MBH99 where the weightings are
based on correlations to the temperature PC1 (but this is just speculation right now.)
The papers do not describe the methods in sufficient detail to permit replication.
Jacoby and d'Arrigo (northern treeline)
I've got something quite interesting in progress here. If you look at the original 1989
paper, you will see that Jacoby "cherry-picked" the 10 "most temperature-sensitive"
sites from 36 studied. I've done simulations to emulate cherry-picking from persistent
red noise and consistently get hockey stick shaped series, with the Jacoby northern
treeline reconstruction being indistinguishable from simulated hockey sticks. The other
26 sites have not been archived. I've written to Climatic Change to get them to
intervene in getting the data. Jacoby has refused to provide the data. He says that his
research is "mission-oriented" and, as an ex-marine, he is only interested in a "few
good" series.
Jacoby has also carried out updated studies on the Gaspé series, so essential to MBH98.
I've seen a chronology using the new data, which looks completely different from the old
data (which is a hockey stick). I've asked for the new data, but Jacoby-d'Arrigo have
refused it saying that the old data is "better" for showing temperature increases. Need
I comment? I've repeatedly asked for the exact location of the Gaspé site for nearly 9
months now (I was going to privately fund a re-sampling program, but Jacoby, Cook and
others have refused to disclose the location.) Need I comment?
Jones et al (1998)
Phil Jones stands alone among paleoclimate authors, as a diligent correspondent. I have
data and methods from Jones et al 1998. I have a couple of concerns here, which I'm
working on. I remain concerned about the basis of series selection - there is an obvious
risk of "cherrypicking" data and I'm very unclear what steps, if any, were taken to
avoid this. The results for the middle ages don't look robust to me. I have particular
concerns with Briffa's Polar Urals series, which takes the 11th century results down
(Briffa arguing that 1032 was the coldest year of the millennium). It looks to me like
the 11th century data for this series does not meet quality control criteria and Briffa
was over-reaching. Without this series, Jones et al. 1998 is high in the 11th century.
Note that none of this actually "disproves" the global warming hypothesis. However, it
does raise very, very serious questions in my opinion. We are talking about enacting
policies to curb global warming that could cost not billions, but trillions of dollars.
Shouldn't we at least be allowed to see the source code, the data and ask for
replication at a minimum? I think the answer is simple: YES!!
Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
phone:    +44 1603 592089
fax:      +44 1603 507784
web:      [4]~timo/
sunclock: [5]~timo/sunclock.htm
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.
2.
3.
4. ~timo/
5. ~timo/sunclock.htm


Ben,
Tom was here yesterday. He said you were going to the CCSP meeting for a day
in Chicago, then flying on to the UK for the HC meeting May 18-19 (and 17th evening).
Do you still want to come on up to Norwich afterwards?
Glad to hear from Tom you've been writing up your CCSP chapter and extending
it significantly. He gave me a brief summary. I signed off yesterday on the CCSP
report. You should be getting it through Tom Karl later today, or by Monday. As I did
Ch 5, if you want to check anything with me feel free to. I wasn't able to stop some
comments being put in by Lindzen, but Tom has a paper as does Myles which are
enough to ignore his and the Douglass papers.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------