Kevin,
Read everything over the weekend, and here are a few comments. Glad I did this
yesterday, as not thinking too well at the moment as daughter-in-law in labour for the
last 4 hours. No news yet - just waiting !
Haven't made any alterations yet. Here are my thoughts.
3.1 I'll make a few cosmetic changes - mainly to refer to the Appendices a couple of times
re significance.
Box 3.3 Reads better, will replace with this one when merge is done.
3.4   3.4.1.5 needs some work. Doesn't seem to read or flow that well.
3.4.2.1  Maybe need to expand on homogeneity tests.
3.4.2.2  4th para seems a little at odds with previous one?
3.4.2.3, 3.4.2.4 OK
3.4.3 Clouds. Needs some more work to develop a clearer message. You're aware
of this.
3.4.4 Radiation. Similar comments to the cloud section.  I have some specific
notes for both. Despite this, probably OK for the ZOD. Maybe all we need to
do is to highlight this to the reviewers.
3.5  Section seems overlong. I know you've reduced it a lot !  Contains a number
of sentences where English could be improved.
3.5.1. OK
3.5.2 Significance levels for Fig 3.5.1 need some discussion. We'll need to work
some on this Figure.
3.5.3 and 3.5.4  OK for the ZOD with a few better sentences.
3.5.5 and 3.5.6   Both sections seem overlong. Again know you've reduced this
a lot, but if we need reductions here is a good place.
3.5.7 OK
Box 3.5 OK
3.6  Generally good.
3.6.1 OK
3.6.2  Probably remove the impact para - leave for the moment, though.
3.6.3 OK
3.6.4  I can improve this a little. It isn't all Scandinavian glaciers that are
advancing, just those in SW Norway.  Those in the north of Sweden are
retreating.
3.6.5 OK
3.6.6/ 3.6.7 Basically OK. May need more re ACW and SAM link if we can say
anything.
3.7  This is probably too long, so would be another area for some reduction.
Agree on your suggestions for deletions as repetitive.
3.7.1.1-3.7.1.3  OK though all a little long.
3.7.1.4  This is the one where there is some repetition. Not much on monsoon.
A lot here is already in 3.8 on extremes and the Dai et al (2004) paper is now
referred to in 3.3, here and in 3.8.  Suggest it should just be in 3.3 and again
in 3.9 (it isn't there yet).
Your figures seem in better shape than those in my section. We will likely need
to work on the one Dennis is doing. Will need some colour.  You're aware of
which need more work from your comments. We can leave these in for
reviewer and LA thoughts.
Dave has sent me a first go at the figures. Made loads of suggestions.
Dave was aware colour choices poor and will be doing more on them today.
Is Chris Landsea the only person you've removed from the CA list so
far?  It seems so.
I should have time tomorrow onwards to do merging and send out the
3 files to all our LAs.  Are you happy with me merging in your refs list?
I'll keep the discard ones at end in a separate list.  Still hopeful of
doing all this by close of play here on Thursday. All day in London
on Friday and CRU party today week from 11am onwards. Going for
Dec 16 means I will only be able to get some of the Figures in 3.2
and 3.3 properly into the text.
Will send Dave's next Figure versions if they are much better. No point
with current one.
Still no news !
Cheers
Phil
At 21:16 10/12/2004, you wrote:
Phil
Attached are the three sections.  Please use these for any suggested edits.  Of the
text, 3.7 is losest and needs careful comparison with 3.3 to check for inconsistencies.
There is model stuff in there that is not quite right or incomplete: I removed some.
There is reduncdant ENSO-related stuff.  A lot of the monsoon variability is linked to
ENSO and we could say that succinctly but it would decimate what the CAs and Panmao have
done.  I think we will need to do this in Beijing, but I left it for now.  Note the refs
has a list of discards at the end.
Suggest we keep this, perhaps in a different file, and if stuff gets deleted with
references, then the refs get moved there.
Some of the figures are not quite in order in 3.6 and their is the extra figure that
Dennis generated, not currently referred to.  Key question is whether to follow up on
this and how to make the multiple figs in 3.6 more compatible.  I know you have
suggestions on long time series and I urge you to keep in mind the purpose here: to show
the past variability and place recent trends in that context.  A lot could be done on
indices and assoc plots, and patterns.  I think we have license to do some of this as
long as the figs are in literature.  But we may not be able to reproduce the results???
I have hedged a lot on clouds and radiation, and maybe clarification will come?  See if
you think it is OK for now.
Note these 3 versions are dated 1210: 10 Dec.  They replace entirely the 1204 versions
which you can discard.
Kevin
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                              e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR                  [1]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000,                                 (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                               (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80303
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.


Hi Keith,
I have to head out around 11:30 AM (40 minutes from now). You can try reaching me at my
cell phone after that (434-227-6969)...
Thanks,
Mike
At 08:03 AM 12/13/2004, Michael E. Mann wrote:
HI Keith,
I'll be working at home this morning. You can call me at: 434-977-7688
Mike
At 07:25 AM 12/13/2004, Keith Briffa wrote:
Mike
could you confirm a telephone number to call you on in 3 hours say
thanks
Keith
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[1]
______________________________________________________________
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
[2]
______________________________________________________________
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]
References
1.
2.
3.


HI Keith,
Thanks again for your phone call, and the (informal) opportunity to help out where I can.
I'm perfectly happy in that role (as an informal contributor and a formal reviewer, for
example), if you and Peck, for example, are both comfortable with that.
First, "RealClimate" should be helpful. It deals w/ the skeptic claims, etc. but using the
legitimate
peer-reviewed research as a basis for the discussion.
The "hockey stick" overview should be helpful:
[1]
as well as itemized esponses  to the various contrarian propaganda/myths:
[2]
and the specific discrediting of the claims of McIntyre and McKitrick, based both on our
response to their rejected Nature comment:
[3]
and the discussion of the analysis in the Rutherford et al (2004) paper in press in Journal
of Climate, that independently discredits them:
[4]
In the following emails, I'll attach some other materials (submitted papers) that deal w/
the McIntyre and Mckitrick matter, and the von Storch matter,
Please let me know if there is anything we discussed that I forget to provide you. Will
also draft an email to the small group (you, me, Scott, Caspar, Gene) about the prospective
additional RegEM/Mann et al method model analyses,
cheers,
Mike
______________________________________________________________
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
[5]
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.


Keith,
This paper is in review, and can be referred to (just clear w/ Caspar or Gene first) for
IPCC draft purposes. They basically show that the  McIntyre and McKitrick paper is total
crap, and they provide an online version of the Mann et al method (and the proxy data), so
individuals can confirm for themselves...
Mike
______________________________________________________________
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
[1]
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Wahl_MBH_Recreation_JClimLett_Nov22.pdf"
References
1.


Keith,
Attached is the Stendel et al paper (submitted to "Climate Dynamics" last month) and a
corrected version of their Figure 3 (using the correct Mann and Jones NH series).
The importance of this paper is that they use the same model as von Storch (higher
resolution in fact), and get a temperature history that looks much like the
reconstructions/other models. Also, they appear to get the negative NAO pattern in the
Maunder Minimum, which von Storch et al do not...
Again, this should be referenceable in the zero order draft, but would be good to contact
Martin Stendel first about this...
Mike
______________________________________________________________
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
[1]
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\stendel_et_al_ClimDyn.pdf" Attachment Converted:
"c:\eudora\attach\nh-extend.pdf"
References
1.


Keith,
I think the attached comment (in press in "Science") is pretty self-explanatory. It raises
the main objections to the von Storch et al paper (some of which you and Tim already had
raised, really)...
Mike
______________________________________________________________
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
[1]
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\VonStorchReply04-submitrevised.pdf"
References
1.


HI Keith,
here (w/ the supplementary info also attached) is the paper summarizing the results I
showed in Victoria of the RegEM analysis of pseudoproxies in the forced CSM simulation.
This is in review as a "letter" in Journal of Climate, and can be referred to as
"submitted" in the zero-order draft.
As we discussed, parallel experiments are being done using the MBH98 method, but regardless
of those results, this suggests, at least, that the RegEM-based NH reconstructions (e.g. in
the Rutherford et al paper you're co-author on) are unlikely to be impacted by the bias
discussed by von Storch et al...
Mike
______________________________________________________________
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
[1]
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\pseudoproxy-jclimlett1.pdf" Attachment Converted:
"c:\eudora\attach\supplementary1.pdf"
References
1.


Hi Ricardo - good to hear from you. Thanks too for the interesting figure. I have some
comments on this section (6.5.4) and also for the others' you're helping to lead.
Regarding 6.5.4 - I hope Dick and Keith will have jump in to help you lead, and I can too.
I think the hardest, yet most important part, is to boil the section down to 0.5 pages. In
looking over your  good outline, sent back on Oct. 17 (my delay is due to fatherdom just
after this time), you cover ALOT. The trick may be to decide on the main message and use
that to guid what's included and what is left out. For the IPCC, we need to know what is
relevant and useful for assessing recent and future climate change. Moreover, we have to
have solid data - not inconclusive information. My take:
ENSO - coral records sensitive to ENSO (e.g., Urban et al. and Cobb et al - attached)
suggest ENSO has changed in response to past forcing change (Cobb et al - updated interp by
mann et al - see recent email attachment) and recent climate change (Urban et al). Ditto
for Indian Ocean - not sure if can connect to dipole - I could ask Julie Cole? NAO - lots
of papers and what's the consensus? I'm not sure, but I think it is that we can't say for
sure what has happend to the NAO - or AO for sure (Keith might no more - recent Ed Cook
paper might be the key? - I'm not an expert here). Same thing for PDO (not an expert, but
aren't their recons that don't agree - see cole et al for one- attached). In both these
cases, the recons don't always agree. Or do they say the NAO variability has stayed pretty
constant?
Tropical Atlantic - Black et al 1999 (attached to prev email) also says 12year mode (no
consensus if diapole is the correct name for what Chang first described - see ref in Black
attached)  has been constant for 800 years.
Annual modes - does paleo have anything definitive to say yet? I'm a coauthor on a soon to
be submitted AO recon paper, but I'm not sure reviewers will go for it - nor does it match
D'Arrigo's recent AO recon paper (can't find).
So, the trick is for you to lead us (Dick, Keith, me - maybe Julie - ENSO expert) to
produce 0.5 pages of HIGHLY focused and relevant stuff. Can you take another crack at your
outline and then tell us what you need? Thanks!
Regarding 6.5.9 - can you help Dan, Ramesh and others to make quick headway on this one -
it's totally missing. Thanks!
Regarding 6.3.2.1 - Keith will need help, no doubt - particularly with a good S. Hemisphere
perspective (he can override me on this, but since I'm contacting you...) thanks! What do
we have for the southern hem? Southern S. America, New Zealand, Tasmania, ice core?
Regarding 6.3.2.2 - what's your opinion of where this section stands?
Thanks - hope you are enjoying summer - although Tucson never gets that cold!
Best, Peck
----- Original Message -----
From: [1]Ricardo Villalba
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 2:55 PM
Subject: Fw: Section on Modes of Variability
Dear IPCC colleagues
Please, find attached a preliminary draft of the proposed figure for the section: Modes
of variability.  The caption follows. Best regards,
Modes of variability
Figure caption. Coherent modes of climate variability across the Pacific Ocean during
the past four centuries. The upper part of this figure compare temperature-sensitive
tree-ring records (red triangles) from high-latitude, Western North and South America
with a geochemical coral record (yellow triangle) from Raratonga, tropical South
Pacific. The series shown from top to bottom are:  Spring/Summer Gulf of Alaska
temperature reconstruction (1600-1994; Wiles et al., 1998), Sr/Ca coral record from
Rarotonga (1726-1996; Linsley et al. 2004) and annual Northern Patagonia temperature
reconstruction (1641-1989; Villalba et al., 2003).  Correlation coefficients between
records are indicated. To facilitate the comparison, the Sr/Ca coral record is shown
reversed.
Interdecadal to centennial variability in each time series was isolated by using
singular spectrum analysis (SSA; lower part of the figure).  For each record, all SSA
reconstructed components with mean frequencies longer than 20 years where summed.
Correlation coefficients between these long-term modes of variability are also shown.
Thin and thick arrows indicate coincidences in oscillations between the Raratonga and
one or two high-latitude records, respectively.
Linsley, B., G. Wellington, D. Schrag, L. Ren, M. Salinger and A. Tudhope, 2004:
Geochemical evidence from corals for changes in the amplitude and spatial pattern of
South Pacific interdecadal climate variability over the last 300 years. Climate
Dynamics, 22, 1-11.
Villalba, R., Lara, A., Boninsegna, J.A., Masiokas, M., Delgado, S., Aravena, J.C.,
Roig, F.A., Schmelter, A., Wolodarsky, A., Ripalta, A.  2003. Large-scale temperature
changes across the southern Andes: 20th-century variations in the context of the past
400 years. Climatic Change, 59: 177-232.
Wiles, G. C., D'Arrigo, R.D. and Jacoby, G.C., 1998. Gulf of Alaska atmosphere-ocean
variability over recent centuries inferred from coastal tree-ring records. Climatic
Change, 38, 289-306.
Ricardo
Ricardo Villalba
Departamento de Dendrocronologa
e Historia Ambiental
IANIGLA - CRICYT
C.C. 330, (5500) Mendoza, Argentina
Tel: +54 (261) 4287029 ext. 48
Fax: +54 (261) 4285940
e-mail: [2]ricardo@lab.cricyt.edu.ar
PAGES SSC: [3]
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:modes of variation.jpg (JPEG/prvw) (000C0BD1)
_______________________________________________
Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list
Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu

--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Cobb2003Nature.pdf" Attachment Converted:
"c:\eudora\attach\Cooketal2002GRL.pdf" Attachment Converted:
"c:\eudora\attach\Urbanetal00.nature.pdf" Attachment Converted:
"c:\eudora\attach\Coleetal2002GRL.pdf"
References
1. mailto:ricardo@lab.cricyt.edu.ar
2. mailto:ricardo@lab.cricyt.edu.ar
3.


Kevin,
I will be around tomorrow (so Dec 21) until Dec 23 inclusive. Then again from Jan 3.
I will be checking email during the break from Dec 28 onwards.
Are you in control of the glossary additions and modifications?
As to change of base period - this seems like a decision for the whole of WGI. To redo
the global temperature average, I can just move the series up/down, but this isn't
the correct way to do it. I should talk out a new base period from all the individual
stations and recalculate anomalies for the oceans. For the oceans this isn't a
problem, but the land it is a serious problem. Many stations have good (i.e. near
complete base periods for 1961-90) but I'll lose hundreds, maybe over a thousand,
stations if I went to 1981-2000.
For both surface temperature and precipitation we don't have spatially complete datasets
(like models) so it will be quite difficult.
For the circulation indices (like SOI and NAO) based on station pairs there is a
variance term (SD). Some of the character of the series will change. We could
easily adjust all these series by simple offsetting but it isn't doing it properly.
I'm in the throws of a project with the HC checking all the 61-90 normals we have
for series that are incomplete, to ensure we don't have any biases.  This has taken
quite a time and I don't want to waste the effort.
The arguments of Albert and Dave make a lot of sense - continuity with the TAR etc.
These sort of things can be explained, but then the FOD will not be compatible with
all the papers we are referring to.  This will lead to lots of confusion. I would like to
stick with 1961-90. I don't want to change this until 1981-2010 is complete, for 3
reasons : 1) We need 30 years and 81-10 will get all the MSU in nicely, and 2)
I will be near retirement !!  3) is one of perception.  As climatologists we are
often changing base periods and have done for years. I remember getting a number
of comments when I changed from 1951-80 to 1961-90. If we go to a more recent one
the anomalies will seem less warm - I know this makes no sense scientifically, but
it gives the skeptics something to go on about ! If we do the simple way, they will say
we aren't doing it properly.
Best idea might be to show some maps of 1981-2000 minus 1961-90 to show spatially
where it makes a difference for temp and precip.  Showing it is quite small and likely
within the intermodel differences for years which are only nominally 1981-2000. This
might
keep both sides happy.
We also probably need to consider WGII. Also the paleo chapter will find 1981-2000
impossible.  1961-90 is difficult for them but not insurmountable.
Cheers
Phil
PS Fatima has received all the emails - her email only came to me.  Not heard from
some of our LAs.
At 15:44 20/12/2004, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi all
I have received comments on this from Albert, David, Dave, and Jim.  Some below.
As I commented to Jim, the choice of a base period affects the zero line.  In some of
our plots, namely the ones that have series of bars from the zero line to the anomaly
value, thereby infilling between the anomaly and the zero, the zero base value is
greatly emphasized.  This is in contrast to a simple time series with points joined,
especially if the zero line is not also drawn.  In the latter case, it is simple to move
the axis up or down to fit with the new base period.  But it makes a bigger difference
to the bar plots.  Now maybe that is a comment on the use and utility of bar plots,
because the relative values do not change.
The choice also affects any anomaly plots for any subperiod.  But this is where the
comparison with models is most likely to occur.  In this case there is a spatial pattern
to the offset, namely the difference between means for 1961-90 and 1981-2000.  We could
also derive that difference for certain fields and provide it to modelers to enable
comparisons with our plots.     For trends over certain subperiod, this makes no
difference.
It seems that whatever we do, we will need an extra appendix explaining some of this and
perhaps even giving plots of these differences.
In the meantime, let me suggest to those of you making computations, that you consider
doing it both ways, rather than having to go back and do it over later.
Regards
Kevin
I agree with Albert, this would make comparisons with the TAR figures difficult.
Dave
Klein Tank, Albert wrote:
Hi Kevin,
My immediate response is that the choice for another base period will probably not
affect our assessment of results, but it will change all figures w.r.t the TAR. This
will be difficult to communicate and will take much more space to explain.
Albert.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: "Model Mean Climate" for AR4]
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 13:06:44 +0000
From: Parker, David (Met Office) [1]
To: Kevin Trenberth [2]
References: [3]
Kevin
It is obviously possible to use 1980-2000 though it would require some
data-processing work. The main objection is that anomalies (of
temperature) would appear to be reduced relative to previous
publications and readers/policymakers could become confused. A minor
objection is that 1980-2000 is a bit short. Satellite data are of course
in its favour. In due course, 1981-2010 will be ideal!
Regards
David
On Fri, 2004-12-17 at 21:17, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> All
> Please note the discussion below.  Note the proposed base period of
> 1980-2000.  Can we get your reactions?   If it is decided to use this,
> what difficulties would it create?  Other comments?
> Kevin
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>                           Subject:
> Re: "Model Mean Climate" for AR4
>                              Date:
> Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:14:58 -0700
>                              From:
> Kevin Trenberth
> [4]
>                                To:
> Wood, Richard
> [5]
>                                CC:
>
>                        References:
> [6]
>
> Richard
>
> The current base period being used in Chapter 3 is anomalies
> determined with respect to the 1961-1990 base period.   In
> observations there is a strong emphsis on using 30 year periods and
> the more recent one, 1971-2000 is not yet available.  We would need to
> discuss whether to try to switch to that.  It certainly won't be in
> any ZOD.   Otherwise, though, we are placing a lot of emphasis on
> trends from 1979 on.  The grounds for this are 1) The 1976-77 shift
> seems to be about when anthropogenic climate change took off: prior to
> then we are under the realm of natural variability (basically a TAR
> result);  and 2) 1979 is when a whole bunch of satellite data and
> other analyses (like global reanalyses) become much more reliable and
> global.  So 1979 is the closest proxy to 1976/77.
>
> If 1981-2000 is to be used, it will, of course, include some climate
> perceptible climate change that may influence peceptions of
> anomalies.  But I agree there is a lot to be said for consistency.
> Moreover, it is manageable for observational data bases.  Because of
> the satellite effects on obs it is important to start on or after 1979
> and stop while we still have obs. So for round numbers 1981-2000 makes
> most sense.  I think that was the conclusion we came to in Trieste,
> but it is not reflected in any material I have seen yet in our
> chapter.
>
> Phil is not available till after New Year, I believe.
>
> Regards
> Kevin
>
> Wood, Richard wrote:
> > Dear Jerry and other CLAs,
> >
> > Jerry: would you be willing to do this please, once some text is agreed?
> > All: any comments on the proposed text? (esp from observational chapters
> > re meaning periods). An early response would be appreciated as if we
> > send this to PIs it needs to be done as soon as possible.
> >
> >
> >  We've just had a meeting of Chapter 8 LAs in San Francisco. One issue
> > that came up was what period of what run to use for the analysis of the
> > 'mean climate' in the AR4 models, for Chapter 8. Clearly we hope there
> > will be a number of diagnostic projects looking at the models over the
> > next few months, and the more uniformly that analysis can be done the
> > better.
> >
> >   To cut a long story short, we felt that given the choice it would be
> > most appropriate to define models' 'mean climate' by looking at the
> > 1981-2000 mean from the all forcings 20th Century runs (or the ensemble
> > mean if there is an ensemble). That would be consistent with the base
> > period Chapter 10 is using for the projections. We recognise that there
> > could be all sorts of reasons why that is not appropriate in particular
> > cases, both scientific and practical (e.g. the observational dataset
> > covers another period, or a longer time mean is needed because of
> > particular modes of variability, or there is a problem with model drift
> > or trends). So we wouldn't want to be prescriptive, but all other things
> > being equal we would suggest that as the analysis period. If there are
> > no show-stoppers for this, we were thinking it would be good to send out
> > a brief email to the PIs of the diagnostic projects to request that they
> > bear this in mind in their analysis. Jerry, there were a few other
> > topics that might be raised in such an email and Karl Taylor will
> > contacting you about those.
> >
> >  To be definite, I suggest below some straw-man text that could be sent
> > out.
> >
> >      Thanks and best wishes,
> >        Richard
> >
> > "Defining model 'mean climate':
> > In defining the 'mean climate state' of a model for comparison against
> > observations there are number of choices that could be made, e.g. use
> > model 'control runs' (which may have either preindustrial or present day
> > trace gases), or use the '20th Century all forcings' runs (many of which
> > are available as ensembles started from varying initial conditions). For
> > the 20th Century integrations there is also a choice of meaning period.
> > It is recognised that the optimal choice for a given problem may depend
> > on a number of factors including the period over which obervations are
> > available, and the need for a non-drifting or non-trending model
> > solution. We also recognise that some projects have already begun their
> > analysis based on a particular choice. We therefore do not wish to
> > prescribe a solution to this problem and leave it to the judgement of
> > individual projects. However, in cases where there is a choice, we wish
> > to encourage as much uniformity in the analysis as possible, and
> > therefore propose that other things being equal, model mean climate is
> > defined based on the 1981-2000 period of the 'all forcings 20th
> > Centrury' runs (or the ensemble mean where appropriate)."
> >
> >
> > --------------
> > Richard Wood
> > Met Office Fellow and Manager Ocean Model Evaluation
> > Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
> > FitzRoy Road, Exeter EX1 3PB, UK
> > Phone +44 (0)1392 886641  Fax +44 (0)1392 885681
> > Email [7]richard.wood@metoffice.gov.uk  [8]
> >
--
****************
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. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. mailto:david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk
2. mailto:trenbert@cgd.ucar.edu
3. mailto:41C34CDA.3060304@cgd.ucar.edu
4. mailto:trenbert@cgd.ucar.edu
5. mailto:richard.wood@metoffice.gov.uk
6. mailto:FCE86FAA6B302A42AF7F9C6255745E3703C5F4@exxmail2.desktop.frd.metoffice.com
7. mailto:richard.wood@metoffice.gov.uk
8.
9. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
10.


Kevin,
No idea how Chris Folland got this. Presumably David Parker forwarded it !
Anyway, it doesn't matter.  The questions are:
When will you be sending me your signed-off draft?
Will this be the complete doc file of text?
Will you be modifying any of the figures?
On the latter just want to know if I'm keeping track of figs as well as Refs. I've got
the two you sent last night.
I'll be off from 5pm on Dec 23. I'll begin reading the draft from Dec 29. Will likely
be in at least once on Dec 29-31, but will be checking email from Dec 29.
Cheers
Phil
All
As someone who dealt with these matters in the past, a decision about the climate
normals period was regarded as so important that all of WG1 debated it and agreed the
outcome. So that should be the route again, I believe, if a change is wanted. From a
personal perspective, I tend to agree with Phil that this time we should stick (in
general) to 1961-90 normals, and that IPCC 2013 should perhaps change to 1981-2010.
Having said that, we may produce 1981-2000 normals in the next year for SST if we can
solve adequately remaining problems (for climate change monitoring) with satellite SSTs.
A key goal is monitoring changes in the Southern Ocean. Solutions are likely to include
use of some corrected (to bulk SST data) ATSR data. This depends on work elsewhere in
the Met Office. However, some less well corrected AVHRR data is needed as well to extend
normals adequately back to 1981 in much of the Southern Ocean.This may give a new
perspectives on the southern ocean SST changes; are likely to be significantly different
in the southern half of the southern ocean from the global average. This is suggested by
the lack of reduction of Antarctic sea ice, in contrast to the Arctic, which still
persists. Such work may or may not get into IPCC FAR but if it did, it could be a
special case. But it would need careful handling for conversion to advice to policy
makers.
Chris
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hey Keith,
I hope your visit w/ your family went well...
I went ahead and tried to make some constructive comments on what you sent (figured it
would be nice to get this out of the way before the holidays come round)..
Let me say I think it's shaping up very nicely--looks like it should be a significant
improvement on the '01 report. You've handled the various controversies and points of
dispute delicately and adeptly, while still driving home in the end the key point (that the
evidence appears to point to anomalous late 20th century behavior).
I made a dozen or so minor comments--please make use of them as you see fit.
Lets reconvene on this after the holidays. Thanks again for including me in and giving me
an opportunity to comment.
I hope the rest of your holidays go well,
mike
At 01:31 PM 12/22/2004, you wrote:
Mike
don't know what the status of the whole chapter is - but I thought I would send this
very first and rough
draft to you anyway - I have to wait and see the whole thing and hear from Peck before
doing more.
Just heard my dad is now pretty much bedridden and officially declared blind (diabetes
etc) and have to fit in a visit to him and mum (who I have not seen for ages) and spend
at least a few days with the kids so there is no way I can work more on this till later
- as I said  - really appreciate your input , have a great Christmas and for f..ks sake
keep the right priorities to the fore as the years progress
cheers
Keith
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 18:23:02 +0000
To: Jonathan Overpeck
From: Keith Briffa
Subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] IPCC last 2000 years data
Cc: Eystein Jansen
Bcc: t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk,Tim Osborn
Peck and Eystein
I have to break off now for the christmas period
This is unavoidable. I am sending what I have now
even though I am not at all happy with it.
It is obviously only part way there. Getting the data
to produce Figures and work out how to design them
is going to be time very consuming
and I will rely entirely on Tim here to do them
- and the regional input
stuff if wanted will need input from a number of people
that I have not been able to contact (see later)
The borehole discussion (contributed to by Henry Pollack) will need
batting around and Henry (and Mike , who contributed
a section on regional forced changes) will need to be kept
on board. There will be loads to say on the simulated
temperature histories and Tim will help here also
- but much is unpublished or
even unanalysed (hence Simon and Eduardo will need
to contribute eventually). The glacier bit at the end is what
Olga sent and I have not had time to work through it.
You two need to give some direction as to how
much you wish to have explicitly looking at the mass of
NAO?AO reconstructions , ditto ENSO or PDO and all the
simulations of these - but at this stage not sure where in overall
plan all this going. Do we really want a discussion on MWP
and LIA per se ?  The regional descriptions , including Southern Hemisphere
could be infinite length and I suppose we should only discuss longest or
pre assimilated information - but will need specific input here from colleagues
if we are to do these regional (including precipitation ) sections .
I know Julie and Ed , and presumably Eystein , will be the best people to ask.
I am attaching the current text and placeholder ideas for Figures .
Not feasible to work more on these until know wider priorities re space.
Have had bad experience with ENDNOTE - and Tom Melvin here will forward
the biblio file later.
I wanted to do more , but that is all I can manage til after Xmas
Here is wishing you (and your loved ones) all the best
Keith
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[1]
______________________________________________________________
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
[2]
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\IPCCFAR_6-3-2-1_ mem23-12-04.doc"
References
1.
2.


FYI.
Just look at the attachment. Don't refer to it or send it on to anybody
yet. I guess you could refer to it in the IPCC Chapter - you will have to
some day !
Cheers
Phil
X-Sender: mem6u@multiproxy.evsc.virginia.edu
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.1.1
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 09:22:02 -0500
To: Phil Jones
From: "Michael E. Mann"
Subject: Re: Fw: Rutherford et al. [2004]
X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-UEA-MailScanner-SpamScore: s
Phil,
I would immediately delete anything you receive from this fraud.
You've probably seen now the paper by Wahl and Ammann which independently exposes
McIntyre and McKitrick for what it is--pure crap. Of course, we've already done this on
"RealClimate", but Wahl and Ammann is peer-reviewed and independent of us. I've attached
it in case you haven't seen (please don't pass it along to others yet). It should be in
press shortly. Meanwhile, I would NOT RESPOND to this guy. As you know, only bad things
can come of that. The last thing this guy cares about is honest debate--he is funded by
the same people as Singer, Michaels, etc...
Other than this distraction, I hope you're enjoying the holidays too...
talk to you soon,
mike
At 09:02 AM 12/30/2004, you wrote:
Mike,
FYI.  Just in for an hour or so today as still off until Jan 4.
Not replied to this - too much else with IPCC etc. Not read this
in detail - just printed it off.
Have a good New Year's Eve.
Cheers
Phil
From: "Steve McIntyre"
To: "Phil Jones"
Subject: Fw: Rutherford et al. [2004]
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:08:18 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Dear Phil,
I have noticed the following statements in Rutherford et al [2004], in which you are a
co-author. As compared with some of your co-authors, I get the impression that, while
you feel very strongly about your views, you are also concerned with getting to the
bottom of matters and are less concerned with scoring meaningless debating points. In
this spirit, I draw your attention to some incorrect statements in Rutherford et al.
[2004] concerning our material. There is really a quite serious problem with the PC
methods in MBH98 and the comments made in Rutherford et al [2004] are really quite
misleading. For the reasons set out below, I request that these comments be removed from
the manuscript.
Regards, Steve McIntyre
----- Original Message -----
From: [1]Steve McIntyre
To: [2]David Randall
Cc: [3]Scott Rutherford ; [4]Paul Kushner ; [5]Cindy Carrick ; [6]Ross McKitrick
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 1:48 PM
Subject: Rutherford et al. [2004]
Dear Dr. Randall,
Recently, at the website [7]www.realclimate.org, Michael Mann publicized a submission by
Rutherford et al. to Journal of Climate, entitled Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere
Surface Temperature Reconstructions: Sensitivity to Method, Predictor Network, Target
Season, and Target Domain. This paper contains some untrue statements and
mischaracterizations regarding criticisms we (McIntyre and McKitrick) made of Mann et
al. (1998) [MBH98] in a 2003 paper and subsequent exchanges under the auspices of
Nature. We are writing to request that these untrue statements be removed from the paper
before any further processing of the document by Journal of Climate takes place.
First, Rutherford et al. states that McIntyre and McKitrick [2003] used an incorrect
version of the Mann et al. (1998) proxy indicator dataset. The history of this matter is
summarized below (all relevant emails and other documentation are available at
[8] .
In April 2003, we requested from Mann the FTP location of the dataset used in MBH98.
Mann advised me that he was unable to recall the location of this dataset and referred
the request to Rutherford. Rutherford eventually directed us to a file (pcproxy.txt)
located at a URL at Manns FTP site. In using this data file, we noticed numerous
problems with it, not least with the principal component series. We sought specific
confirmation from Mann that this dataset was the one used in MBH98; Mann said that he
was too busy to respond to this or any other inquiry. Because of the many problems in
this data set, we undertook a complete new re-collation of the data, using the list of
data sources in the SI to MBH98 and using original archived versions wherever possible.
After publication of McIntyre and McKitrick [2003], Mann said that dataset at his FTP
site to which we had been referred was an incorrect version of the data and  that this
version had been prepared especially for me; through a blog, he provided a new URL which
he now claimed to contain the correct data set. The file creation date of the incorrect
version was in 2002, long prior to my first request for data, clearly disproving his
assertion that it was prepared in response to my request. Mann and/or Rutherford then
deleted this incorrect version with its date evidence from his FTP site.
It is false and misleading for Rutherford et al. to now allege that we used the wrong
dataset. We used the dataset they directed us to at their FTP site. More importantly,
for our analysis, to avoid the problems with the principal component series, we
re-collated the tree ring data identified in MBH98 from ITRDB archives, calculated fresh
principal component series; in addition, we re-collated other proxy data from archived
versions wherever possible. Thus, our own calculations were not affected by the errors
in the supplied file as we did NOT use the incorrect version in our calculations. To
suggest otherwise, as is done in Rutherford et al [2004], is highly misleading. To date,
no source code or other evidence has been provided to fully demonstrate that the
incorrect version (now deleted) did not infect some of Manns and Rutherfords other work.
In this respect, we note that the now deleted file pcproxy.txt occurs in a legend in a
graphic at Rutherfords website, indicating possible use elsewhere by Rutherford of the
incorrect version.
Accordingly, we request that the above claim be removed from the manuscript.
Secondly, Rutherford et al. [2004] argues that the difference between MBH98 results and
MM03 results occurs because of our misunderstanding of a stepwise procedure in MBH98 for
the calculation of principal component series for tree ring networks. Again, this claim
is misleading on its face. While our 2003 paper did not implement the (then undisclosed)
stepwise procedure, as soon as this matter was raised in subsequent correspondence in
November 2003, we implemented it and we continued to observe the discrepancies in
principal component series and final  results. The current manuscript ignores a refereed
exchange at Nature in which we specifically clarified (in response to a reviewers
question) that we had obtained such  results while using the exact stepwise procedure
described in MBH98. Mann is aware of this refereed exchange.
The reason for the difference between our results and MBH98 results  is primarily due to
the fact that the tree ring principal component series in MBH98 cannot be replicated
using a conventional principal components method. The MBH98 principal component series
can only be replicated by standardizing on a short segment a procedure nowhere mentioned
in MBH98 and only recently acknowledged in the SI to the Corrigendum of Mann et al.
[Nature 2004] in response to our concerns  on the subject expressed to Nature. In
effect, MBH98 did not use a conventional centered PC calculation, but used an uncentered
PC calculation on de-centered data. The impact of this method is the subject of ongoing
controversy, which is well-known to the authors, but the existence of the method in
MBH98 is no longer in doubt. In discussions of PC calculations in 2004 exchanged with
the authors through Nature, we implemented the stepwise procedures of MBH98 referred to
in the present manuscript and demonstrated that important differences remain even with
stepwise procedures, as long as  the uncentered and decentered methods of MBH98 are
used. The differences in PC series resulting from using centered and uncentered series
has been fully agreed to by all parties in the Nature exchange, although the parties
continue to disagree on the ultimate effect on final NH temperature calculations.
Accordingly, the discussion in Rutherford et al. [2004] is very incomplete and
misleading in this respect. While we recognize that Mann et al. have argued that they
can salvage MBH98-type results using alternative methodologies (e.g. increasing the
number of PC series used in the 1400-1450 period), these salvage efforts are themselves
a matter of controversy and do not validate the claims being put forward in the
Rutherford et al. paper.
Accordingly we ask that this claim also be deleted from the manuscript.
Regards,
Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick
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
[9]
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my
documents\eudora\attach\Wahl_MBH_Recreation_JClimLett_Nov22.pdf"
References
1. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca
2. mailto:randall@atmos.colostate.edu
3. mailto:srutherford@rwu.edu
4. mailto:j.climate@atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca
5. mailto:cindy@atmos.colostate.edu
6. mailto:rmckitri@uoguelph.ca
7.
8.
9.


Hi Keith - Happy new year. Hopefully, you had a good holiday. I've had a chance to read
your section and hopefully you've had a chance to read what I sent just before the
holidays. The purpose of this email is to help get a focus on the finish line (just a few
days away) and to get a dialog going that will hopefully help you finish section 6.3.2.1.
If you'd like to talk on the phone, just let me know.
Please see my email from right before xmas holidays for original comments. Plus, here are
the new ones from both me and David Rind:
0) as leader of this KEY section, we need you to take the lead integrating everything you
think should be integrated, editing and boiling it down to just ca 4 pages of final text
(e.g., 8 pages of typed text plus figs). This means cutting some material (e.g., forcings
and simulations) and perhaps moving glacier record (MUCH boiled down) to a box. See below.
00) note that we can also perhaps move some of the details to the appendix (although we
won't write this until after the current ZOD crunch, save an outline of what you might want
in there).
1) I like your figure ideas, with the comments:
1a) I don't think you need figure 1d - the SH recons are sketchy since not much data, and
it might be better to just discuss in a sentence or three. Any space saved is good too. Not
sure about your proposed 1e - have to see it, I guess.
1b) Figure 2 looks interesting. I'm trying to get the latest Arctic recon from Konrad
Hughen - it is quite robust and a significant multi-proxy update. Should be published in
time, though not sure thing since he's still hot on including his (our) AO recon which is
more sketchy
1c) I think we can save space and improve organization if we DO NOT include Fig 3. However,
this is open for debate - see David's comments below.
2) I agree with David's comments in general - so see them below. The prickly issue is where
to put the forcings and simulated changes. I am close to having the prose from the
radiation chapter, including the latest Lean and Co's view on solar - this will make many
of the existing simulations involving inferred past solar forcing suspect (I will send in a
day or so I hope). This means that we might be best saving space and downplaying this work
some. I'm not sure, but wanted to debate it with you. Also, Chap 9 will have simulations in
spades, so we can save space by letting them do it. Also, as David points out, we can focus
on it elsewhere in our chapter more concisely - leaving you to focus on the VERY important
obs record of temp and other changes. Can you tell, I'm still not 100% sure? I'll send
another email to you and others about this in a bit.
3) Your section is too long and needs to be condensed. Thus, you need to think through
what's most important and what's less so. For example, we need to figure out how to
condense the glacier record of change. David thinks it should be a separate section that
cuts across time scales (i.e., Holocene and last 2000 years). Perhaps we should try to make
it into a box - 3 to 5 short paragraphs and a figure or two. Either way we have to really
wack it. What do you think - you and I should be on the same page with Eystein before
discussing w/ Olga perhaps. Or you can discuss with her - you're the lead on this section.
4) you're doing an impressive job! Lots to keep track of.
Next, here is what David has offered. Take it all with a grain of salt, but I have read it
and he has many good points. On the structural or any other points, I'm happy to discuss on
the phone, or you can just debate with him and me on email.
******* From David Rind 1/4/05 ****************
6.3 Understanding Past Climate System Change (forcing and response)
6.3.1 Introduction (0.5 pages)
6.3.2 The Current Interglacial
6.3.2.1 Last 2000 years (4 pages)
Figure 1 should be of the last 2000 years, with appropriate caveats, not just since 1860
(which will undoubtedly be in other chapters).
pp. 8-18:  The biggest problem with what appears here is in the handling of the greater
variability found in some reconstructions, and the whole discussion of the 'hockey stick'.
The tone is defensive, and worse, it both minimizes and avoids the problems. We should
clearly say (e.g., page 12 middle paragraph) that there are substantial uncertainties that
remain concerning the degree of variability - warming prior to 12K BP, and cooling during
the LIA, due primarily to the use of paleo-indicators of uncertain applicability, and the
lack of global (especially tropical) data. Attempting to avoid such statements will just
cause more problems.
In addition, some of the comments are probably wrong - the warm-season bias (p.12) should
if anything produce less variability, since warm seasons (at least in GCMs) feature smaller
climate changes than cold seasons. The discussion of uncertainties in tree ring
reconstructions should be direct, not referred to other references - it's important for
this document. How the long-term growth is factored in/out should be mentioned as a prime
problem. The lack of tropical data - a few corals prior to 1700 - has got to be discussed.
The primary criticism of McIntyre and McKitrick, which has gotten a lot of play on the
Internet, is that Mann et al. transformed each tree ring prior to calculating PCs by
subtracting the 1902-1980 mean, rather than using the length of the full time series (e.g.,
1400-1980), as is generally done. M&M claim that when they used that procedure with a red
noise spectrum, it always resulted in a 'hockey stick'. Is this true? If so, it constitutes
a devastating criticism of the approach; if not, it should be refuted. While IPCC cannot be
expected to respond to every criticism a priori, this one has gotten such publicity it
would be foolhardy to avoid it.
In addition, there are other valid criticisms to the PC approach. Assuming that the PC
structure stays the same was acknowledged in the Mann et al paper as somewhat risky, given
the possibility of altered climate forcing (e.g., solar). Attempting to reconstruct
tropical temperatures using high latitude PCs assumes that the PCs are influenced only by
global scale processes. In a paper we now have in review in JGR, and in other papers
already published, it is shown that high latitude climate changes can directly affect the
local expression of the modes of variability (NAO in particular).  So attempting to fill in
data at other locations from PCs that could have local influences may not work well; at the
least, it has large uncertainties associated with it.
The section from p.18-20 - simulations of temperature change over the last millennium ,
including regional expressions - should not be in this section. It is covered in the
modeling section (several different times), and will undoubtedly be in other chapters as
well. And the first paragraph on p. 19 is not right - only by using different forcings have
models been able to get similar responses (which does not constitute good agreement). The
discussion in the first paragraph of p. 20 is not right - the dynamic response is almost
entirely in winter, which would not have affected the 'warm season bias'
paleoreconstructions used to prove it. It also conflicts with ocean data (Gerard Bond,
personal communication). Anyway, it's part of the section that should be dropped.
pp. 20-28: The glacial variations should be summarized in a coherentglobal  picture.
Variations as a function of time should be noted - not just lumped together between 1400
and 1850 - for example, it should be noted where glaciers advanced during the 17th century
and retreated during the 19th century, for that is important in understanding possible
causes for the Little Ice Age (as well as the validity of the 'hockey stick'). The
discussion on the bottom of p.25-27  as to the causes of the variations is inappropriate
and should be dropped - note if solar forcing is suspect, every paragraph that relates
observed changes to solar forcing will be equally suspect (e.g., see also p. 44, first
paragraph).
Bottom of p. 27: Greene et al. (GRL, 26, 1909-1912, 1999) did an analysis of 52 glaciated
areas from 30-60N and found that the highest correlation between their ELA variations in
the last 40 years was with summer season freezing height and winter season precip. The warm
season freezing height was by far more important. Therefore, the relationship of glacier
variations to NAO changes (which are important only in winter), as discussed in this
paragraph, while perhaps valid for a period of time in southern Norway, is not generally
applicable.
p. 34-36 on forcings: note that this is redundant to what is discussed in several later
sections (e.g., 6.5.2); and other chapters), and that is true of forcing in general for the
whole of section 6.2. I would strongly suggest dropping forcing from section 6.3.2.1, at
least, and perhaps giving it its own number, or referring to othersubsections for it. It
has a different flavor from the responses, and the section is already very big. Forcing
does need to be discussed in the paleoclimate chapter, for reasons of climate sensitivity
and explaining observations, but that is what Chapter 6.5 is about.
(In summary - 6.3.2.1 already is taking on one controversy - paleotemperatures, which is
needs to do better,  It should not have to deal with the forcing problems as well, and
especially not in an off-handed way.)
Specific comments: p. 36: 6 ppm corresponds to a temperature response of 0.3 to 0.6°K using
the IPCC sensitivity range.
p. 36, last paragraph: one could equally well conclude that the reconstructions are showing
temperature changes that are too small.  This is the essence of the problem with the last
2000 years: if the reconstructions are right, either there was no solar forcing, or climate
sensitivity is very low. If the real world had more variability, either there was solar
forcing, or climate sensitivity is high (as is internal variability). I've tried to say
this in the climate sensitivity sub-chapter.
pp. 37-41: obviously a lot of overlap, but it shouldn't be hard to combine these.
p. 39, first paragraph: but can the models fully explain what is thought to have happened?
Quantification is important here, because many of the same climate/veg models are being
used to assess future changes in vegetation.
p. 42 - first full paragraph: what are the implications of the methane drop without a CO2
drop?
p. 43, middle paragraph: obviously should mention solar-orbital forcing in this paragraph.
p. 44, first paragraph: again, assuming a solar forcing
p. 45, first paragraph: overlap with pp. 20-28.
Second paragraph: overlap with p.39, last full paragraph
p. 52 - repeat of p. 43.
******* END From David Rind 1/4/05 ****************
Thanks! Cheers, peck
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\BriffaComments.doc"


Hi Keith - great (!) to hear from you - hope you had a good holiday.
Your reward (ha) is the attached paper and comment below from Konrad.
He can supply data if needed for a synthetic figure, but we can add
this later once the Science paper he mentions (w/ us a co-authors
among millions, I assume) gets vetted more. Your call.
I'm still not convinced about the AO recon, and am worried about the
late 20th century "coolness" in the proxy recon that's not in the
instrumental, but it's a nice piece of work in any case.
Now, for all the issues you raise on other stuff in your email, I'll
address to you and that crowd.
thanks, Peck
>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 10:53:56 -0500
>From: Konrad Hughen
>Organization: WHOI
>X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
>To: Jonathan Overpeck
>Subject: Re: the Arctic paper and IPCC
>X-Virus-Status: No
>X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at email.arizona.edu
>
>Hey Peck,
>
>Here's a pdf of a draft of Peter's methods paper.  The figures will
>be what goes into the Science paper.  I've sent the whole thing to
>help explain the figs, but let me know if you guys have questions.
>Also, I have a movie of reconstructed Arctic temp through time.  Too
>big to attach but I'll try and get it to you somehow.  Pretty cool.
>We're planning to include the movie and supplemental figs
>("robustness" tests, etc.) into the new website Matt's working on.
>
>Good to talk yesterday.  I'll get a CV to you today.
>
>-Konrad
>
--
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: "c:\eudora\attach\ArcticOct16.pdf"


Hi Keith and Co - I think David likes a good debates, so the main
thing is to consider his comments and respond appropriately. Although
the first priority has to be on the ZOD text and display items, maybe
you can go back over his comments AFTER the looming deadline and
further discuss things with David and others. For now, just work away.
The biggest issue is how to handle forcing and simulations - i.e.,
where to put different pieces in the chapter. Eystein and I will help
the team work through this. More soon, but for now just proceed as
you have been proceeding. There is real merit to the concept that
your section is about how climate varied over the last 2ka, and what
caused these variations. The flip side is that we need to get a clear
vision of how this differs from what goes into the other sections.
Eystein and I will work more on this asap.
Your plan re: glaciers is good. That's a tough one, but it has to be
boiled WAY down. Moreover, my gut is to focus on the extent to which
these complicated natural archives (e.g., complicated by ppt change)
support or do not support the other proxy evidence/conclusions. This
is why I was thinking we might think about a box, and to include the
Lonnie perspective in it - e.g., glaciers are now melting everywhere
(almost - we know why they are not in those places) in a manner
unprecedented in the last xxxx years. Make sense? See what Olga says,
and if needbe, I can help focus that stuff more.
Thanks! Peck
>Hi Peck (et al)
>I am considering comments (including David's) re last 2000 years -
>some are valid =  some are not . Will try to chop out bits but we
>need this consensus re the forcing and responses bit - I am for
>keeping the forcings in as much as they relate to the specific model
>runs done - and results for last 1000 years as I suspect that they
>will not be covered in the same way elsewhere . David makes couple
>good points - but extent to which forcings different (or
>implementation) perhaps need addressing here. The basic agreement I
>mean is that the recent warming is generally unprecedented in these
>simulations.
>It will take time and input from the tropical ice core /coral people
>to do the regional stuff well . I think the glaciological stuff is a
>real problem - other than just showing recent glacial states (also
>covered elsewhere) - of course difficult to interpret any past
>records without modelling responses (as in borehole data), but this
>requires considerable space . My executive decision would be to ask
>Olga to try to write a couple of papragraphs on limits of
>interpretation for inferring precisely timed global temperature
>changes? What do others think?  I only heaved Olga's stuff in at
>last moment rather than not include it - but of course it needs
>considerable shortening. The discussion of tree-ring stuff is
>problematic because it requires papers to be published eg direct
>criticism of Esper et al. We surely do not want to waste space HERE
>going into this esoteric topic?  All points on seasonality , I agree
>with , but the explicit stuff on M+M re hockey stick - where is
>this? ie the bit about normalisation base affecting redness in
>reconstructions - sounds nonsense to me ?
>
>I have to consider the comments in detail but am happy for hard
>direction re space and focus. If concensus is no forcings and model
>results here fine with me - Peck and Eystein to rule
>Keith
>
--
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


Neil,
Just to reiterate David's points, I'm hoping that IPCC will stick with 1961-90.
The issue of confusing users/media with new anomalies from a
different base period is the key one in my mind. Arguments about
the 1990s being better observed than the 1960s don't hold too much
water with me.
There is some discussion of going to 1981-2000 to help the modelling
chapters. If we do this it will be a bit of a bodge as it will be hard to do
things properly for the surface temp and precip as we'd lose loads of
stations with long records that would then have incomplete normals.
If we do we will likely achieve it by rezeroing series and maps in
an ad hoc way.
There won't be any move by IPCC to go for 1971-2000, as it won't
help with satellite series or the models.  1981-2000 helps with MSU
series and the much better Reanalyses and also globally-complete
SST.
20 years (1981-2000) isn't 30 years, but the rationale for 30 years
isn't that compelling. The original argument was for 35 years around
1900 because Bruckner found 35 cycles in some west Russian
lakes (hence periods like 1881-1915). This went to 30 as it
easier to compute.
Personally I don't want to change the base period till after I retire !
Cheers
Phil
At 09:22 05/01/2005, Parker, David (Met Office) wrote:
Neil
There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC
AR4 to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change
of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than
before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global
warming will be muted. Also we may wish to wait till there are 30 years
of satellite data, i.e until we can compute 1981-2010 normals, which
will then be globally complete for some parameters like sea surface
temperature.
Regards
David
On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 21:58, Neil Plummer wrote:
> Hi Hama, Tom
> (and David, Blair)
> Re: the issue of using the 1971-2000 normals in CLIMAT rather than
> 1961-1990 normals.
>
> Happy New Year!
> I have copied the relevant text from CCl XIII below, which provides
> reasons for staying with the 1961-90 standard.
> My initial recommendation is the same as Tom's, i.e. stay with the
> standard for now.
>
> I think there are two main factors to consider here - capability and
> demand. While there are clearly advantages with widespread use of
> normals derived using the later period there must be the capacity to
> do so.
>
> Perhaps in the lead-up to CCl-XIV, OPAG 2 can find out the extent of
> the support for the change among users of CLIMAT and OPAG 1 can find
> out more about capabilities. (Note, however, that this is not strictly
> on issue for OPAG 1 according to the ToRs for the ICT and any of the
> ETs. Happy to assist though).
>
> We may use the climate working groups in the Regional Associations to
> assist with surveying members capabilities and could do the same
> regarding the demand question though I think Tom's CCl/CLIVAR ET is
> best placed to give that guidance.
>
> *** David, Blair - Interested in your thoughts on this matter.
>
> Cheers
> Neil
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From CCl XIII ...
>
> 6.1.2 The Commission noted with satisfaction that
>
> the 19611990 Standard Normals were now complete
>
> and expressed its appreciation to NCDC for assembling
>
> the data as well as to those Members who had contributed
>
> data. It further noted that the 19611990
>
> Standard Normals would remain in use for global purposes
>
> until the next Standard Normals for the period
>
> 19912020 were completed.
>
> 6.1.3 The Commission noted that, in addition to the
>
> 1961 to 1990 WMO Standard Normals, many countries
>
> had produced climatic normals using the 1971 to 2000
>
> period. The Commission also noted the discussion held
>
> among Members on whether the standard 30-year normals
>
> should be accompanied by normals calculated over
>
> a more current period or a shorter period to reflect
>
> recent climate variability. The Commission noted the
>
> usefulness of periods other than the contiguous 30-year
>
> period for certain analyses below the global scale.
>
> However it decided to maintain the Climatological
>
> Standard Normals process, as it provided a common reference
>
> period for climate research and monitoring
>
> worldwide.
>
>
>
>
> Neil Plummer
>
> Senior Climatologist
>
> National Climate Centre
>
> Bureau of Meteorology
>
> 700 Collins Street, Melbourne, VIC 3001, Australia
>
> Tel +61 3 9669 4714; Fax: +61 3 9669 4725; Mobile 0419 117865
>
> Email n.plummer@bom.gov.au
>
>
>
>
>         ______________________________________________________________
>         From: Thomas C Peterson [[1]mailto:Thomas.C.Peterson@noaa.gov]
>         Sent: Tuesday, 4 January 2005 1:11 AM
>         To: H Kontongomde
>         Cc: Hans Teunissen; Neil Plummer
>         Subject: Re: Fwd: Monthly CLIMATbulletins
>
>
>         Thanks for responding, Hama.  I agree with you on both
>         points.  I wonder how many countries produced 71-2000
>         Normals?  I'll cc Neil Plummer on this as the ET on Observing
>         Requirements and Standards for Climate is under his
>         leadership.
>         Regards,
>                Tom
>
>         H Kontongomde wrote:
>         > Dear Tom and Hans,
>         >
>         > Happy New Year! I apologize for responding so late. I was on annual
>         > leave since 13 December. The question of which "Normal" between
>         > 1961-1990 and 1971-2000 is now  frequently asked by many WMO Members.
>         > Depending on the practical use of the normal, one of the two Normal can
>         > be preffered to the other.  However, the policy for CLIMAT messages is
>         > to use the 1961-1990 Normals and until CCl change the standard, I would
>         > also recommend that our colleagues of Turkey continue to use these 61-90
>         > normals. This allows spatial comparisons for the entire globe, because,
>         > not all countries have their 1971-2000 averages ready for use.
>         >
>         > However, I think it is time that the CCl Expert Team on Observing
>         > Requirements and Standards for Climate clarifies the problem in
>         > explaining why the 61-90 Normals should continue to be the standard or
>         > why it is time to change.
>         >
>         > I will respond to our colleagues of Turkey.
>         >
>         > Best regards,
>         >
>         > Hama Kontongomde
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         > > > > Hans Teunissen 1/3/2005 12:16:00 PM >>>
>         > > > >
>         > Thanks for those suggestions, Tom. I'm not sure if your two questions
>         > below were meant to be different (is a word 'change' missing from the
>         > first?), but I think I get the gist from the answers. Re the CLIMAT code
>         > official standards, I don't think Dick (or GCOS) is really the right
>         > person to go to. That would be Hama, or, it seems, OSY (Sasha Karpov)
>         > since they arranged the publication of TD-1188. Is that right, Hama? And
>         > are you OK to use Tom's suggestion in the reply to Turkey?
>         >
>         > Hans.
>         >
>         >
>         > > > > "Thomas C Peterson"
17.12.04 19:58:42
>         > > > >
>         > > > >
>         > Dear Hans & Hama,
>         >
>         > As you may remember, I was just in Turkey in October interacting with
>         > many people in their climate group.  They have a pretty good team.
>         >
>         > The question as I understand it is not the reliability of their data
>         > that are transmitted (e.g., for December 2004) but for the section of
>         > the CLIMAT code which shows anomalies to a base period or what quintile
>         > the precipitation falls in.  Turkey indicates that they think their
>         > 1971-2000 Normals are more reliable than their 1961-1990 Normals.  I
>         > would agree with them that they are probably correct in that.  I believe
>         > the same could be said about the US Normals.
>         >
>         > However, as I recall, not all countries redo their Normals every 10
>         > years.  Many only redo them every 30 years, which, I believe is the WMO
>         > Standard.  So for this WMO coded transmission (CLIMAT) I expect that
>         > they specify the 1961-1990 Normals.
>         >
>         > 1.  Would it make a difference in climate monitoring?  Yes for those
>         > users who make use of the anomaly values it could make a big difference.
>         >  More important, probably, than reliability is that the climate changes
>         > over a decade and taking 1961-1970 out and substituting in 1991-2000 to
>         > the base period calculation may make a big difference in some cases.
>         >
>         > 2.  Would it make a difference in climate monitoring?  Probably not as
>         > most climate monitoring groups don't use the reported anomalies each
>         > month but rather take the observations and use them with Normals they
>         > already have in a different file.
>         >
>         > In sum, if my memory was correct on the coding, I would recommend that
>         > they continue to use the official standard even if they have something
>         > better out there because it has the potential for making a significant
>         > difference and it is important that all groups follow the official
>         > standard.
>         >
>         > Does this sound reasonable? I'm not an expert in the CLIMAT code, so
>         > you might want to check with Dick about official standards for CLIMAT
>         > before you answer.
>         >
>         >     Regards,
>         >
>         >           Tom
>         >
>         > Hans Teunissen wrote:
>         > Hama: This one looks like it's definitely a concern for CCl/WCD. From
>         > theGCOS side, it seems just an issue of what's to be in the GSN archive
>         > -1971 to 2000 (reliable) or 1961 to 1990 (possibly unreliable). My
>         > votewould be for the former, but I don't know what CCl policy would be.
>         > Tom,do you agree re the GSN archive? (I see 6 stations for Turkey are
>         > inthere now, some with very long records; not sure what implication
>         > ofthis proposal really would be for those...are you?) Or would you
>         > preferto try to salvage some of the older data there (at NCDC)?  Could
>         > you letus know? I then suggest that Hama respond for the WMO/CCl
>         > 'system'. Doesthat sound OK? I'll be away from tomorrow until 3 January.
>         > Best wishes for the Holidays and the New Year, Hans.
>         > =================================================================Dr.
>         > Hans W. Teunissen
>         > Tel:+41.22.730.8086Global Climate Observing System (GCOS)     Fax:
>         > +41.22.730.8052c/o World Meteorological Organization
>         > E-mail:HTeunissen@wmo.int7 bis, Ave. de la PaixCP 2300, CH-1211
>         > Geneva
>         >
2Switzerland=================================================================
>         >
>         >
>         > Subject:
>         > Fwd: Monthly CLIMATbulletinsFrom:
>         > "Alexander Karpov"
Date:
>         > Fri, 17 Dec 2004 11:52:43 +0100To:
>         > "Hans Teunissen"
>         > Dear Hans,As per attached query, I am kindly relying on your expertise
>         > how to best navigate the solisitor.Best regards,Sasha   *zden Dokuyucu
>         >
17/12/04 08:58:21 >>>         Dear
>         > colleagues,First of all I want to say that, I find out your e-mail
>         > addresses from the Web site of WMO. Please excuse me if this question
>         > doesn't concern you. But if you know who concern this matter, could you
>         > forward him/her this mail to get answer. I will be very gladif you pay
>         > attention me.Thanks. We are a group of people who has been working in
>         > the division of Climate Section,which is the sub departmentof
>         > Agricultural Meteorology in Turkish State Meteorological Service. This
>         > department is responsible for collecting all climatedata from the
>         > observing stations, recording and transmitting them via the
>         > telecommunication system to the data collectingcentre and archiving them
>         > properly. This division is also responsible for transmitting monthly
>         > CLIMAT bulletins to the WMO's relevant service. On behalf of Turkey, we
>         > consider the climate data, which iclude the period of between 1971 and
>         > 2000 years, are more trustworty because of the development in
>         > technological, telecommuniational and training fields. Our experiences
>         > are supporting this situation. We want to ask you, does it any effect on
>         > global monitoring system, if we use the period of years 1971-2000
>         > instead of 1961-1990in transmitting monthly CLIMAT REPORTS.We would be
>         > very pleasure if you could get us more information.Yours Sincerely.
>         > Ozden DOKUYUCUEngineerAgricultural Meteorology and Climatology Analysis
>         > DepartmentTurkish State Meteorological ServiceP.O. Box: 401 Ankara,
>         > TurkeyTelephone    :+90-312-3022446Fax
>         > :+90-312-3612371e-mail          : odokuyucu@meteor.gov.tr
>         > -- Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D.Climate Analysis BranchNational Climatic
>         > Data Center151 Patton AvenueAsheville, NC 28801Voice:
>         > +1-828-271-4287Fax: +1-828-271-4328
>         >
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. mailto:Thomas.C.Peterson@noaa.gov


Olga
am sending this to get you in this loop re the discussion for slimming down the 2000 year
section Basically , IN THIS BIT - the decision is to reduce the glacier evidence to a very
much smaller piece , coached in the sense of how the glacier evidence is problematic  for
interpreting precise and quantitative indications of  the extent of regional or Hemispheric
Warmth (and even cold) - issues of translating tongue position or volume into specific
temperature and precipitation forcing . Hence , I am having to remove the stuff you sent
and am asking if you could consider trying to write a brief section dealing with the issues
I raise ? I also attach some initial comments by David Rind (on the full first draft of the
chapter sent round by Eystein) for consideration Sorry about this - but presumable (as you
suggested earlier) some of this can go in the 10K bit. You can shout at me (and the others)
later!
cheers
Keith
X-Sender: jto@jto.inbox.email.arizona.edu
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:24:47 -0700
To: Keith Briffa
From: Jonathan Overpeck
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] IPCC last 2000 years data
Cc: Eystein Jansen
, cddhr@giss.nasa.gov,
Fortunat Joos
, joos
,
"Ricardo Villalba"
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at email.arizona.edu
X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Hi Keith and Co - I think David likes a good debates, so the main thing is to consider
his comments and respond appropriately. Although the first priority has to be on the ZOD
text and display items, maybe you can go back over his comments AFTER the looming
deadline and further discuss things with David and others. For now, just work away.
The biggest issue is how to handle forcing and simulations - i.e., where to put
different pieces in the chapter. Eystein and I will help the team work through this.
More soon, but for now just proceed as you have been proceeding. There is real merit to
the concept that your section is about how climate varied over the last 2ka, and what
caused these variations. The flip side is that we need to get a clear vision of how this
differs from what goes into the other sections. Eystein and I will work more on this
asap.
Your plan re: glaciers is good. That's a tough one, but it has to be boiled WAY down.
Moreover, my gut is to focus on the extent to which these complicated natural archives
(e.g., complicated by ppt change) support or do not support the other proxy
evidence/conclusions. This is why I was thinking we might think about a box, and to
include the Lonnie perspective in it - e.g., glaciers are now melting everywhere (almost
- we know why they are not in those places) in a manner unprecedented in the last xxxx
years. Make sense? See what Olga says, and if needbe, I can help focus that stuff more.
Thanks! Peck
Hi Peck (et al)
I am considering comments (including David's) re last 2000 years - some are valid =
some are not . Will try to chop out bits but we need this consensus re the forcing and
responses bit - I am for keeping the forcings in as much as they relate to the specific
model runs done - and results for last 1000 years as I suspect that they will not be
covered in the same way elsewhere . David makes couple good points - but extent to which
forcings different (or implementation) perhaps need addressing here. The basic agreement
I mean is that the recent warming is generally unprecedented in these simulations.
It will take time and input from the tropical ice core /coral people to do the regional
stuff well . I think the glaciological stuff is a real problem - other than just showing
recent glacial states (also covered elsewhere) - of course difficult to interpret any
past records without modelling responses (as in borehole data), but this requires
considerable space . My executive decision would be to ask Olga to try to write a couple
of papragraphs on limits of interpretation for inferring precisely timed global
temperature changes? What do others think?  I only heaved Olga's stuff in at last moment
rather than not include it - but of course it needs considerable shortening. The
discussion of tree-ring stuff is problematic because it requires papers to be published
eg direct criticism of Esper et al. We surely do not want to waste space HERE going into
this esoteric topic?  All points on seasonality , I agree with , but the explicit stuff
on M+M re hockey stick - where is this? ie the bit about normalisation base affecting
redness in reconstructions - sounds nonsense to me ?
I have to consider the comments in detail but am happy for hard direction re space and
focus. If concensus is no forcings and model results here fine with me - Peck and
Eystein to rule
Keith
--
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
[1]
[2]
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[3]
References
1.
2.
3.


Susan,
Thanks for the quick reply. Kevin might have thoughts, but I'll give it some thought
over the next few months. It isn't crucial till well after our second meeting.
Kevin can relay our thoughts on references next week, and we can come up
with specific suggestions here if these need to be discussed with WG2 and WG3
before all the second lead author meetings. I know we can reduce our number of
references with more work, but I suspect we will be requested at the time of the
FOD and SOD (and maybe the ZOD) to consider many others. A lot of NMSs,
University Depts. and Research Institutes measure success as seeing their work
cited by IPCC !  I reviewed KNMI this time last year and they did exactly this.
This shouldn't be a measure, but we will likely be under pressure to cite many
more papers for this reason.
Cheers
Phil
At 13:58 06/01/2005, Susan Solomon wrote:
Phil,
Happy new year to you too.   It's good to hear that your chapter is progressing
well.   I'll see Kevin next week at the AMS meeting and perhaps we can discuss
its high points, along with the more basic issue of references, etc.
You've raised a number of concerns that are always an issue not only for IPCC
but also for other assessments and even for our own individual key papers at
times.   But you have made no suggestions as to how to deal with them.
Could you please let me know if you have any suggestions to put forward?
Thanks,
Susan
>>  Susan,
>          Happy New Year !
>   I'm working hard on the Chapter that Kevin has put sterling efforts on over
>  the Christmas break. It'll be with you by Jan 14, hopefully earlier.
>
>      I've been talking to Keith Briffa here and there is a lot of email
>traffic
>  from the skeptics about the last 1K years. Also Senator Inhofe's speech
>  from Jan 4 is doing the rounds.
>
>      I know you've probably thought all this through, but there will be
>  a number of key issues in AR4. Likely candidates that I'm aware of
>  are the MSU issue (where we seem to be making some progress)
>  and the last 1K years (where we might be but as this is about paleo
>  it does take time).
>
>     Well the issue is, once the FOD goes out to all -in say Sept/Oct 05 -
>  what will stop the drafts getting onto web sites, in the media etc - and
>  the whole thing blowing up then instead of being properly aired in 2007.
>  I know we won't have an SPM, but those that want will say - they are
>  only referring to papers that endorse their views and they are not
>  referring to scientists with contrary ones. AR4 will get a bad press
>  only half way through it's development.
>
>     I know you will have phrases like 'draft only'  and 'not for distribution'
>  but can we really police this.
>
>     Once the ZOD is in, Kevin and me will be sending you some ideas
>  about referencing - formats, abbreviations, smaller fonts etc. We currently
>  have about 3 times what we allowed for (7 pages of 70).
>
>  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
>----------------------------------------------------------------
------------
>
>
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,
May I have your part of the text (2ka) to have a look, please. As far as I understand we decided to have glacier fluctuations separately in a frame. In this case, shall we keep glacier variations in the Holocene or we will extract it to place in this frame? I will contact Georg Kaser (ch 04)to see what they already have to comment on glacier/climate links. They must have treated this problem already. Besides it is more natural to concider it using the instrumental data. In this case we will deal with the paleo problem only, i.e. the dating of moraines, the errased traces of old advances, the use of lacustrine deposits to reconstruct the glacier erosion (size), the reconstruction of former ELAs, the sizes of retreated glacier etc. Shall we discuss the accumulation reconstructed from the ice cores or it will be just the problem of glacier front variations?
Another possibility is to have a common frame with the ch 04: How glaciers reflect climate and what they say about the climate in the Holocene (last 2ka).
I need the answers before I begin.
Please notice the change of my e-mail address. I will check both addresses a while, but have to move to a new one olgasolomina@yandex.ru
Regards,
olga


I agree; Keith should have the room, and section 6.5.8 should be
compatible - has Fortunat followed the discussion between
David/Stefan. Can you guys (David, Stefan, Keith, and Fortunat)
ensure this?
Thanks, Peck
>Hi,
>interesting discussion on an important topic. If space is the
>limiting factor we may have to evaluate whether to cut back on less
>central issues elswhere in the chapter. We will to a large extent be
>judged on how we tackle the hockey stick, sensitivity, unprecedented
>20th century warming isuues in view of palaeo, and if a slight
>expansion is what it takes to do this properly, then I  am
>sympathetic to that (without having heard Peck on the issue).
>Cheers,
>Eystein
>
>
>
>At 16:32 +0000 10-01-05, Keith Briffa wrote:
>>thanks David
>>have to say that it is very difficult to say much in the minimal
>>space - and we really need a page to discuss the problems in the
>>reconstruction and and interpretation of the various forcings in
>>different models - I am just going to put this down in an over
>>abbreviated way and ask for specific corrections for you and Stefan
>>et al. The detail perhaps depends on what the final Figure looks
>>like and Tim is trying to put it together but lots of weird and
>>interesting stuff / questions arise as we do - especially relating
>>to past estimates of solar irradiance used by different people. At
>>15:29 10/01/2005, David Rind wrote:
>>>(I tried to send this earlier and it got hung up; apologies if it
>>>eventually gets through and you get a second version.)
>>>
>>>Well, yes and no. If the mismatch between suggested forcing, model
>>>sensitivity, and suggested response for the LIA suggests the
>>>forcing is overestimated (in particular the solar forcing), then
>>>it makes an earlier warm period less likely, with little
>>>implication for future warming. If it suggests climate sensitivity
>>>is really much lower, then it says nothing about the earlier warm
>>>period (could still have been driven by solar forcing), but
>>>suggests future warming is overestimated. If however it implies
>>>the reconstructions are underestimating past climate changes, then
>>>it suggests the earlier warm period may well have been warmer than
>>>indicated (driven by variability, if nothing else) while
>>>suggesting future climate changes will be large.
>>>
>>>This is the essence of the problem.
>>>
>>>David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>At 9:28 AM +0000 1/10/05, Keith Briffa wrote:
>>>>THanks Stefan
>>>>At 21:13 07/01/2005, Stefan Rahmstorf wrote:
>>>>>Keith,
>>>>>
>>>>>some comments added in the text for the past millennium, plus I
>>>>>wrote some extra sentences on the implications of the dispute
>>>>>(repeated below).
>>>>>Hope it is useful,
>>>>>Stefan
>>>>>
>>>>>>Note that the major differences between the proxy
>>>>>>reconstructions and between the model simulations for the past
>>>>>>millennium occur for the cool periods in the 17th-19th
>>>>>>Centuries; none of these reconstructions or models suggests
>>>>>>that there was a warmer period than the late 20th Century in
>>>>>>the record.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A larger amplitude of preindustrial natural climate variability
>>>>>>does not imply a smaller anthropogenic contribution to 20th
>>>>>>Century warming (which is estimated from 20th Century data, see
>>>>>>Chapter XXX on attribution), nor does it imply a smaller
>>>>>>sensitivity of climate to CO2, or a lesser projected warming
>>>>>>for the future.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Stefan Rahmstorf
>>>>>
www.ozean-klima.de
>>>>>www.realclimate.org
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list
>>>>>Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Professor Keith Briffa,
>>>>Climatic Research Unit
>>>>University of East Anglia
>>>>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>>>
>>>>Phone: +44-1603-593909
>>>>Fax: +44-1603-507784
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list
>>>>Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu
>>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list
>>>Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu
>>>
>>
>>--
>>Professor Keith Briffa,
>>Climatic Research Unit
>>University of East Anglia
>>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>
>>Phone: +44-1603-593909
>>Fax: +44-1603-507784
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list
>>Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu
>>
>
>
>--
>______________________________________________________________
>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
>-----------------------
>The Bjerknes Training site offers 3-12 months fellowships to PhD students
>More info at: www.bjerknes.uib.no/mcts
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list
>Wg1-ar4-ch06@joss.ucar.edu
>
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795


V - well said. Eystein and I will be working on your Holo section -
more tomorrow. thx, Peck
>2 comments
>
>- the various NH T reconstr use polar records : to my knowledge only
>use of melt index that itself does not calibrate properly in Mann's
>reconstruction. I sent you Keith winter d18O from Vinther 2003 which
>provides a reconstruction of NAO changes (I think this is the more
>detailed calibration study for Greenland isotopes).
>On a decadal time scale calibration studies for Antarctica (Vostok
>and Law Dome, inland vs coastal sites) using available instr records
>(50 years) show correct decadal scale temperature signals. Even at
>places with subannual resolution like Law Dome I think that you
>cannot use the isotopes on a yearly basis but only decadal scale.
>
>- tropical glaciers : works conducted here on Andean ice cores
>together with modelling of isotopes in a GCM all showed a consistent
>decadal variability on the 20th century, most of which interpreted
>to be related to precip change (see for instance Hoffmann et al,
>Science, "Taking the pulse of the tropical water cycle", Science,
>2003).  For more ancient past periods it is thought that part of the
>signal is due to T (and vertical lapse rate change), part to
>precip.I would not like to cosign any text claiming for a T
>reconstruction based on Andean ice cores.
>
>
>Keith Briffa wrote:
>
>>I agree with suggestion - there is the problem of the isotopic
>>analyses from tropical (and to some extent polar) ice cores still .
>>I am not happy simply to show these in a Figure relating to the
>>large-scale temperature changes - because we are not sure of the
>>extent to which they can be interpreted as such . The various NH
>>reconstructions use some polar isotope records but looking at plots
>>of the tropical records throws up some strange behavior over the
>>last 2000 years . I am not happy to write about these as Valerie
>>and Olga are better qualified and because I would like to see more
>>formal calibration against even short temperature records . I have
>>therefore , not as yet explicitly said anything about these
>>tropical records. I will sendthe latest text and latest draft
>>FIgure 1 later today
>>
>>At 10:03 09/01/2005, Jansen@geo.uib.no wrote:
>>
>>>Dear Olga,
>>>My suggestion would be, and I believe this is echoed by Peck, is
>>>that the box
>>>we produce comes in the overall Holocene sub-chapter, thus to avoid
>>>repetition. The figure should mainly give syntheses of the glacier extent
>>>variations through the Holocene, if possible, or a fraction of it
>>>if data only
>>>exists e.g. for the last few millennia, for those regions where there is a
>>>reliable data set. Then with text explaining what we think drove these
>>>variations.  I think it should be a box in Ch6, and could also include the
>>>recent trends  I have just talked with Atle and he is able to contribute
>>>curves for Scandinavia and the Alps into a figure before the end of the week
>>>(in a couple of days). He feels putting something together for North America
>>>and perhaps New Zealand is feasible, but he cannot do this before the ZOD
>>>deadline. Perhaps you might be able? If we get something for the
>>>tropics from
>>>Lonnie and Ellen and what you have, I will be able to put this together in a
>>>figure for the box via assistance here. We can in such a figure leave space
>>>open for curves we anticipate including for the First Draft.
>>>It might be a good idea to in this figure also include the recent,
>>>instrumental evidence for the same regions, akin to what will be in Ch4, and
>>>of course, in the next iteration come back to possible joint Ch4
>>>and 6 figure.
>>>
>>>How does this sound?
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>Eystein
>>
>>
>>--
>>Professor Keith Briffa,
>>Climatic Research Unit
>>University of East Anglia
>>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>
>>Phone: +44-1603-593909
>>Fax: +44-1603-507784
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:masson 5.vcf (TEXT/ttxt) (000C2383)
--
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


Valerie,
Thanks for putting together the chaper so well. I
think it is quite comprehensive now. I have made
a few changes in the enclosed document and also
added a comment( pops up if you mark the yellow
field).
I tend to like the questions, and think it
highlights the relevance elements of the chapter.
The missing references I have suggested, we can
take care of in the final editorial process from
our side.
As for figures one figure showing the evidence
for  Holocene warrmt and the abrupt character of
the 5-4ka cooling, perhaps with a low latitude
data set that shows another  evolution would be
good to have, as you indicate, but we cannot
bombard the chapter with wiggly lines, so the
most characteristic exampes would be best.
If you need high lat.ocean data I can provide, or
perhaps NorthGrip O-18 is best?
Cheers,
Eystein
Cheers,
Eystein
At 11:13 +0100 11-01-05, Valerie Masson-Delmotte wrote:
>Valerie Masson-Delmotte wrote:
>
>>I tried the question style for the Holocene
>>section... Any feedback would be appreciated
>>together with missing references (Fortunat).
>>Valerie.
>>
>>Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>
>>>Hi all leads and seconds of our Chap 6.5
>>>Synthesis sections. Fortunat came up with a
>>>interesting way to highlight what's important
>>>and why in his section 6.5.3, and Eystein and
>>>I would like feedback from you - particularly
>>>the leads - on whether this approach would
>>>work for each of your subsections.
>>>
>>>He used a question and answer style. If people
>>>do not like this then the question at the
>>>beginning of the paragraphs can of course be
>>>easily dropped and replaced by a statement.
>>>BUT, what do you say about using this
>>>convention throughout 6.5??? Note that some
>>>sections might have much more text per unit
>>>question.
>>>
>>>Please respond asap. Thanks, Peck and Eystein
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>Attachment converted: Sauvignon blanc:Holocene-VMD3.doc (WDBN/MSWD) (004575F7)
>Attachment converted: Sauvignon blanc:masson 8.vcf (TEXT/ttxt) (004575F8)
--
______________________________________________________________
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
-----------------------
The Bjerknes Training site offers 3-12 months fellowships to PhD students
More info at: www.bjerknes.uib.no/mcts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Holocene-VMD3_ej_com.doc"