Alleged CRU Emails - 25 results below

Original Filename: 918146589.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Jonathan T. Overpeck" <jto@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Frank Oldfield <frank.oldfield@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Finances and futures
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 11:43:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: messerli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, domraynaud@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pedersen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Hi Frank and friends - I'm happy to see the budget looking sound and feel
Franks suggestions are good ones in terms of money to spend this year.
Building on the Swiss paleoclimate course is a good idea, and, of course,
we should decide on future REDIE investments at future SSC's. My gut
feeling is that REDIE will have to continue to be a lower priority in the
future, BUT that we should stay committed to getting scientists (including
youngsters) from developing countries to our science mtgs - makes more
sense than training probably, given tight budgets. Thanks,Peck

>Dear colleagues,
>
>I now share with you some ideas about our financial situation in PAGES. I
>think the information should be treated confidentially at this stage and
>certainly with some discretion.
>
>During the course of last year, it was very difficult to keep track of our
>financial position from month to month, partly because it took our
>financial contacts in the University of Bern an inordinately long time to
>sort out the financial implications of the OSM, partly because, in the
>course of doing this, they made some understandable but very significant
>and confusing errors. Niklaus has now managed to sort these out and we also
>have our confirmed budget for 1999 - which means that we can begin to do
>some real planning.
>
>The first significant point is that we are carrying over into 1999 a
>surplus some US$15k greater than we began with in 1998. In fact we have
>been building up our 'carry-over' steadily since the beginning of 1996 and
>it is now around $67k - between 13% and 14% or our annual budget and a much
>higher proprtion of that part of our budget that is uncommitted each year.
>Whilst I believe it would be unwise to eliminate it entirely, I do think we
>should aim to reduce it significantly provided there is a good rationale
>for the means we choose.
>
>I have attached a summary of how I see things for 1999. You will see that
>even if we spend all the funds committed to workshops at our Pallanza
>meeting, we still have a very healthy surplus. On past experience, I do not
>think this sum will be exceeded during 1999 - even if we have one or two
>more urgent requests, they are more than likely to be offset by delayed
>workshops, so I think this is actually likely to be an over-estimate.
>Moreover, I have assumed that ALL the money allocated by IGBP for Synthesis
>will be spent in 1999. We are under some pressure to do this, but the pace
>of the exercise makes me suspect that we may have difficulty.
>
>At the end of the Table, I list 3 additional commitments I would like to
>propose for prioiritizing and I discuss each briefly below:
>
>1. REDIE (which you may remember stands for Regional Educational and
>Infrastructure Efforts (about which we have, so far, said very little and
>done even less).
>
> In this area, one of the ideas gently simmering on the back burner has
>been the notion of winning support from START to run something like a
>Summer School for selected young scientists from developing countries. This
>emerged from an informal discussion between ouselves in the Office, Bruno
>and Roland Fuchs, the Director of START, when he was over here on a visit.
>At the time, he seemed quite keen on the idea, but has since been silent.
>No matter, I still feel it is an idea worth working towards at least up to
>the pre-commitment stage and I have been exploring informally the
>possibility of basing such a course in London.
>
>This coming summer, I think we may have a chance to do a kind of partial
>trial run. Thomas Stocker and Andy Lotter (a first class paleolimnologist
>here in Bern) plan to run a Summer School nearby this year. Thomas
>approached me some time ago to see if PAGES could support participation by
>any overseas students and my reply was a very cautious one to the effect
>that we would normally expect to be approached and have an input at the
>planning stage and that we would only really consider such a possibility in
>the context of training for scientists from developing countries. Having
>discussed the whole thing more fully with him, I begin to wonder whether
>it may offer quite an interesting possibility. My plan would be to seek
>nomination of/applications from say 3 to 5 young scientists from different
>parts of the developing/former eastern bloc world (represnting each of the
>PEP Transects) and bring them to Bern both for the course and for a short
>period linked into the PAGES Office. The ideas behind the latter part of
>the suggestion would be to
> - support their participation if need be,
> - give them some sense of PAGES and its role in nternational global
>change science/IGBP etc and
> - solicit feedback and advice about what the shape of an ideal course for
>developing country scientists interested in PAGES activities might be.
>
>I believe that even if we did not have something like REDIE in our
>Implementation Plan it should be an important commitment; since we do, it
>is an absolute obligation which we ignore at the risk of serious
>allegations of bad faith.
>
>2. I feel there will be a need to follow up my PEP II visit to Australia
>with something positive there. John Dodson is responding well to
>suggestions about more co-ordination and bringing in more colleagues to
>share the responsibility, but I think that if whatever we agree in Perth is
>actually to work, there will be a need to fund a WORKshop (as distinct from
>a mini-symposium) of thematic and/or regional co-ordinators to get their
>act together. We should offer money for this.
>
>3. The difference it has made having Cathy Stickley (based at UCL) working
>for PEP III is fantastic, but we risk losing her input unless something can
>be done. I'm negotiating with ESF, but it will be over a year before their
>finely grinding mills deliver anything. Rick and Francoise are also going
>to apply to EC for Framework 5 funding, but that will be no quicker. I am
>seriously considering asking Zimmie to help bridge the gap since he did not
>quite close the door when I last talked this through with him, but I feel
>that if I do this, PAGES might need to put up a bit more colateral, the
>more so since we are in credit.
>
>Both 2 and 3 reflect my view that the PEP's remain an absolutely vital part
>of the PAGES structure and need to be supported if that is the only way
>they can achieve their objectives.
>
>All three of the above suggestions require some endorsement in principle
>before I take them any further. If we were to spend all the funds envisaged
>before the end of 1999, our budget credit would be very much reduced -
>probably by too much, but I believe the PEP funding would probably be paced
>over a longer period and that the other items in our budget are more likely
>to be marginally under- than over-spent, so I do not feel we are proposing
>any unreasonable risk.
>
>I look forward to any reactions members of EXCOMM may have to these
>suggestions.
>
>Withh all good wishes,
>
>Frank
>
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Budget for 1999 (RTF /MSWD) (0000B314)
>____________________________________________
>Frank Oldfield
>
>Executive Director
>PAGES IPO
>Barenplatz 2
>CH-3011 Bern, Switzerland
>
>e-mail: frank.oldfield@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>
>Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx; Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>http://www.pages.unibe.ch/pages.html


Dr. Jonathan T. Overpeck
Head, NOAA Paleoclimatology Program
National Geophysical Data Center
325 Broadway E/GC
Boulder, CO 80303

tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
jto@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

For OVERNIGHT (e.g., Fedex) deliveries,
PLEASE USE:

Dr. Jonathan Overpeck
NOAA National Geophysical Data Center
3100 Marine Street, RL3, Rm A136
Boulder, CO 80303
tel: xxx xxxx xxxx

Original Filename: 925823304.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Trevor Davies <t.d.davies@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,j.palutikof@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: CRU Board
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 09:08:24 +0100

Mick,

CONFIDENTIAL



I think I'm missing out on something here (refer also to Keith's email
where he talked about "CRU being railroaded by ENV"). My recollection was
that it was agreed that I should approach Reading to see if they are up to
anything & sound out if they might be interested in talking about a joint
bid. The suggestion may have been mine originally, but I do not have
absolute recollection over that. Southampton have approached us via the
Registrar and via Peter Liss. As far as I am aware, nobody from UEA has
approached them (although I have certainly argued with Jean that we should
at least talk with them).

I now have a leaked document which spells out some of the research
councils' thinking. I will get a copy over to CRU today. Please keep this
document within the CRU5, since it may compromise the source. NERC and
EPSRC are signed up. ESRC are not yet. Given the EPSRC stake, it will
certainly be be useful to get RAL etc involved. The funding might be
2million per year. That might imply that the Councils favour multi-site,
clusters, etc, but they stress they have no preconceptions.

Given some of their requirements, the JIF bid may be useful.

An important requirement seems to be to attract an "internationally
renowned and charismatic scientist" to be overall Director. Do you think we
should sound out Schneider? Watson? ??

Trevor
At 11:17 01/05/99 +0100, Mick Kelly wrote:
>I can't make the re-arranged date so here is my input on some of the items
>I know are on the agenda:
>
>National Climate Centre:
>
>1. I feel even more strongly after learning more of the opposition that we
>should make a single site bid and capitalise on our proven track record as
>the only UK university which has covered and can cover all aspects of the
>climate issue from hard science to policy and philosophy.
>We should
>continue to firm up our links with NERC institutes, Hadley Centre, etc.
>But if we reach out to other universities we will:
>a) reveal what we see to be our sectoral weaknesses - a very bad strategic
>move
>b) have to split what is a limited pot of cash
>c) create a potential adminstrative monster that we know ERSC don't like
>from CSERGE experience
>d) weaken our comparative advantage as the place where all aspects of the
>issue are covered.
>It's my understanding that the CRU 5 have already decided in previous
>discussions that this is the way we should go? Trevor - do you want to
>argue against this? It's notable that we haven't been approached by other
>universities!
>
>2. Kerry reckons that likely limited lifetime of ESRC presence
>(Global Env programme office) at SPRU means it's not worth approaching
>them - so I haven't.
>
>3. I propose a working group be set up to move forward the centre proposal
>and ensure coordination/representation of views. 2 from CRU Bd,
>2 from CSERGE (Kerry and Neil?), Dean. Chair from CRU would be my vote -
>this should not all be loaded on Trevor's shoulders.
>
>Studentships
>To report on situation re my proposals:
>1. Craig Wallace (ex MSc) is reserve candidate (joint with Tim Osborn).
>2. My candidate for my solo topic was switched to the ESRC/NERC
>interdisciplinary bid by the studentship committee even though I'd told
>them we definitely couldn't put him forward for this - so that's
>scratched. They thought my topic was not NERC-friendly - but didn't tell
>me this till after the event. A number of phrases spring to mind but maybe
>they were just having a bad day.
>3. My feeling is best tactic for next year
>if we want more students - do we or are we at saturation point? - is to
>advertise early (now?), advertise applicants must have/be in line for a
>first or MSc with distinction, ensure we get feedback on topics from the
>committee and submit candidates early on in the process. Obvious, really.
>
>CRU 5 employment/salaries situation
>What is the current situation?
>
>AOB: Desk space for students
>Can I repeat that I think we should have policy on registration only ie
>post three year grad. students to be adopted when Nick finishes and before
>we hit the next late submitter? My feeling is a desk for 6 months then
>they move out to our overflow rooms in ENV. We should prioritise desk
>space in CRU for first year students. What does ENV do in this situation?
>
>Regards
>Mick
>
> ______________________________________________
>
>Mick Kelly Climatic Research Unit
>University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ
>United Kingdom
>Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>Email: m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/
>______________________________________________
>
>
>

++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Professor Trevor D. Davies
Dean, School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom

Tel. xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax. xxx xxxx xxxx
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Original Filename: 937153268.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Trevor Davies <t.d.davies@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: c.flack@uea,c.bentham@uea,p.jones@uea,j.palutikof@uea,p.liss@uea, m.hulme@uea,r.k.turner@uea,a.watkinson@uea,k.brown@uea,j.darch@uea, parryml@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Discussion document for Tues/Wed
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 12:21:08 +0100

Attached is a discussion document. It incorporates material provided by
Simon Shackley (UMIST) & Mike Hulme. Jean has commented on it. It is
intended to circulate this to consortium partners on Monday. if you have
chance to read it & comment on it before it goes, that would be good; but I
recognise that - in practice - time is too short. My apologies for that.
(However, I do think there is a danger in presenting our partners with too
'final' a draft application at this stage. And we do need their bright
ideas!).

CHRIS - please will you liaise with Jean to:

1. Get this document out to outside attendees.
2. Send out a list of attendees
3. Give outside people details of where to get the Research Councils'
document 'Information for applicants to run the Centre' (web), if they
don't already have it.
4. Send out an agenda (Jean is doing this)
5. Send out Kerry's diagram (Jean has)

CHRIS - will you also please fax copies of the ICER document (in your
tray) to John Shepherd (Southampton 596258) and Nigel Arnell (I don't have
fax number). [For info to others - we didn't send Soton a copy of the ICER
bid earlier, because they were sitting on the fence].

Very many thanks.


Trevor
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachClimate Change Centre.doc"


++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Professor Trevor D. Davies
Dean, School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom

Tel. xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax. xxx xxxx xxxx
++++++++++++++++++++++++++From ???@??? Fri Sep 24 13:44:xxx xxxx xxxx
Received: from [139.222.104.46] (helo=taff.cru.uea.ac.uk)
by mailserver1.uea.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 3.02 #1)
id 11UUPxxx xxxx xxxxQM-00; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:24:46 +0100
Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19990924132145.00a5ea6c@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Sender: e022@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32)
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:21:45 +0100
To: n.adger@uea,j.alexander@uea,g.bigg@uea,k.briffa@uea,p.brimblecombe@uea,
s.dorling@uea,k.heywood@uea,t.jickells@uea,m.kelly@uea,b.maher@uea,
j.plane@uea,a.jordan@uea,m.penkett@uea,s.raper@uea,c.vincent@uea,
a.j.watson@uea
From: Trevor Davies <t.d.davies@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Outline bid for new Climate Change Centre (CCC)
Cc: c.bentham@uea,p.jones@uea,j.palutikof@uea,p.liss@uea,m.hulme@uea,
r.k.turner@uea,a.watkinson@uea,k.brown@uea,j.darch@uea,parryml@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Status:

CONFIDENTIAL TO ENV - State of Play

The research councils want a 5000 word outline bid by mid-October. The
councils are putting up 2 million pounds per year for 5 years are NERC,
EPSRC and ESRC. The research councils are putting the emphasis on
"solutions" to climate change. They are clearly not looking for another
version of CRU, the Hadley Centre, or any other existing centre in the UK.
The focus is "downstream" of these existing centres.

Much of what they appear to want we anticipated in our JIF ICER (Institute
for Connective Environmental Sciences) bid and, indeed, we made a
provisional early strike for the CCC in that bid, although the research
councils' intentions were not known at that point. Even if the JIF ICER bid
is unsuccessful (& at this stage we are still optimistic), then we will
still be able to take advantage of this "early" thinking in the final CCC bid.

We are aware of 3-4 competitors, which are mainly consortia of some form.
Our consortium includes UMIST (number of departments), Southampton (number
of departments), Cambridge (Dept of Econometrics), Sussex (Science Policy
Research Unit), Cranfield (Ecotechnology Unit- Complex Systems Modelling),
and Leeds (Institute for Transport Studies). There will also be a number of
institutes associated with us, including Inst. Hydrology, BAS, Inst.
Terrestrial Ecology, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Building Research
Establishment, John Innes Centre, and possibly other Institutes such as the
Plymouth Marine Lab & the Proudman Oceanographic Lab. The hub of this
consortium will be UEA. Visiting fellows etc will work in the Centre (&
possibly also at 'secondary' centres like UMIST).

Business/industry links are important, as are links with relevant
institutes abroad. We anticipate writing in some industrial/business partners.

Our philosophy is not to seek to maximise the input of resources to UEA, or
to the consortium, in the short term, but to build a Centre which has the
credibility and the authority to identify, initiate, orchestrate research
programmes, and to include the best people available. We see this as the
likeliest way to attract long-term funding & to ensure the long-term future
of the CCC.

We have a fairly clear idea of the "science framework" of the CCC and,
together with our partners, are now agreeing the "research challenges". At
the moment the research challenges look something like this:


1. DEVELOPING THE TOOLKIT

Given that the Centre's starting point is to take advantage of the best
research internationally (extant, on-going, and planned), it will be
necessary to apply, refine, and develop methods of 'integration'. Much
science and engineering research is focused on specific disciplinary
issues. This has to be brought together with critical analyses of social
and economic factors, to design more adaptive and effective policies, and
more effective and appropriate engineering/technology. The best aspects of
'integrated assessments' will be applied with a UK focus. An important part
of such assessments will be isolate emerging opportunities (for
business/industry) afforded by climate change - in order to identify
competitive opportunities it will be necessary to consider global pressure
points. Existing models need to be linked. Reduced complexity modelling has
a significant role.

The Toolkit can also be developed and tested via geographically-focused
studies. For example, integrated coastal (incl. estuaries) management which
will include: risk analysis; valuation of coastal environments; effects of
adaptation (soft/hard engineering solutions) on coastline;
ecological/economic models; etc.

Methods to characterise/measure vulnerability and adaptive capacity.

The Toolkit will also include some of the consultation/inclusion techniques
outlined in UEA's JIF bid for ICER.


2. ABRUPT CHANGES AND EXTREMES

'Climate' research on abrupt/non-linear changes (in 'underlying' climate)
and on changes in extreme event frequency (some of the Tools will need to
be applied - or adapted for - this Challenge: for example,
vulnerability/adaptation, risk analysis, reduced complexity modelling). Of
particular importance is how the possibility of abupt/non-linear change
should be assimilated into decision-making frameworks (perception/risk
analyses, etc.).

It will be necessary to consider the implications of non-climate 'shocks' -
political and economic shocks; or combinations, for example,
climate/weather extremes influencing perceptions (amongst business
community and politicians) leading to sudden shifts of policy, investments,
etc.


3 CARBON MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

Adoption of clean technology (includes 'alternative' energy sources, and
removal of C from emissions). In particular, clean technologies and
solutions for developing countries link into identifying business
opportunities. The impacts of clean technologies - landscape/lifestyle
valuation. Incorporation (technological) into existing
infrastructure/supply networks.

a. Carbon 'sequestration' - options, waste C recycling, use in building
materials, long-term storage, etc. Oceans. Ambitious bio-engineering?
(discussions with Norwich's John Innes Centre on-going).

b. Energy efficiency (technological), including control systems, especially
when concentrated on one of the scale 'foci' (e.g. the household).


4. MANAGEMENT OF SOCIAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE.

Factor 4 and beyond 1. We will need to go well beyond Factor 4 to stabilise
the climate system. This programme would analyse and assess different
emission trajectories, and look at how we would in practice achieve Factor
4+. It would include assessment of tools such as: C trading, domestic
tradeable carbon quotas, regulation and taxation, voluntary agreements,
opportunities for win-win scenarios through resource use minimisation,
etc. Also, it would look at changes to a low-C economy at different
scales: households, SMEs, large firms, MNCs; local to regional to national
to global, etc., to sectoral: transport, energy supply, heavy & light
manufacturing, services & finance, etc. Techhnology uptake. This includes
reducing transport emissions and exploring low-consumption (water, energy,
carbon) households. What about air traffic?


The research challenges above are not intended to be all-inclusive. We
intend to use Research Challenges such as these 4, as "examplars" of the
sort of thingw we will expand upon in the final bid.

The research councils have emphasised the importance of attracting a
top-rate international scientist as Research Director. They also wish us to
name the Executive Director at this point. We believe it should be someone
with a reputation in climate research in their own right, good links etc
with the "impacts" people and with funders, as well as being a good
manager/organiser. We anticipate naming Mike Hulme. From what we have
heard, that will give us an additional advantage over other bids.

At this point, we will welcome your comment, input, suggestions.

Trevor




++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Professor Trevor D. Davies
Dean, School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom

Tel. xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax. xxx xxxx xxxx
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Original Filename: 939235897.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: outline bid for Centre
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 14:51:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
Cc: j.Rotmans@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hasslemann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Stephen H. Schneider" <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Dear Mike,

I've not yet looked at your Tyndall biography, but I see your logic in
suggesting his name. His 1861 papers in Phil. Mag. Ser. 4, 22, xxx xxxx xxxx
and xxx xxxx xxxxwere arguable the first reasonable descriptions of the CO2
(or, in his words, "carbonic acid") greenhouse effect. However, it is
generally believed that Fourier, in 1827, was the first person to allude
to a greenhouse effect and to suggest that human activities might affect
the climate (see, e.g., Ramanathan, Science 240, xxx xxxx xxxx, 1988).

In my view, however, neither Tyndall nor Fourier would be appropriate for
naming a climate centre devoted to human-induced change. Tyndall is not
appropriate because he did not consider (or even dream of) the human
influence; while Fourier is not appropriate because it would not be P.C.
to name a UK centre after a Frenchman. Furthermore, both Tyndall and
Fourier are well-known and well-recognized for their contributions in
*other* areas.

The person who really deserves the credit is Callendar who, in 1938, not
only suggested that human influences were causing CO2 to increase, but
also that this was causing global warming. Furthermore, he did an amazing
job documenting both the CO2 build up *and* the warming. Essentially, it
was Callendar who, more than 60 years ago, really exposed the problem that
is our current concern. His work was a quantum leap above anything done
previously; and, one could argue, was not really improved upon until
Manabe and Wetherald's seminal 1967 (JAS 24, xxx xxxx xxxx) paper. I doubt
whether there is an intellectual milestone in *any* field that compares
with this.

Best wishes,


Tom


On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, Mike Hulme wrote:

> Dear 'Advisory Board member',
>
> As tentative nominees for the 'Advisory Board' for the UEA-led bid for the
> new UK National Climate Change Centre, I am sending you a first full draft
> of our outline bid. This is due with the Council's on the 15th October.
> Needless to say, please regard this document as confidential and do *not*
> circulate it to third parties.
>
> I would like to invite your comments in the next few days on the draft. I
> can accept comments until Tuesday 12th October, but earlier comments will
> prove most useful. Appended below is the communication sent out to our
> co-applicants with this draft. Please bear in mind that this is the first
> full draft we have put together and it is very rough and ready.
>
> You may find it easier to download from the named web site.
>
> Thank you for your time. Please direct any comments to the Consortium via me.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
**********************************************************
*Tom M.L. Wigley *
*Senior Scientist *
*National Center for Atmospheric Research *
*P.O. Box 3000 *
*Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx *
*USA *
*Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx *
*Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx *
*E-mail: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx *
**********************************************************

Original Filename: 939437868.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Wolfgang Cramer <Wolfgang.Cramer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: apologies
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 22:57:48 +0200
Reply-to: Wolfgang Cramer <Wolfgang.Cramer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Dear Mike,

I can understand you very well. I would have been more nervous about
this, hadn't the preparations AND registrations been going as well as
they have done: just now, I feel pretty comfortable about the meeting.
Sure, it's a pity not having you around, but I guess you are taking
the appropriate decision under your particular circumstances.

Perhaps I shouldn't be doing this, but let me add a VERY CONFIDENTIAL
piece of information for you. It won't make your life less stressful
during the next few days, and I really MUST ask you to keep this
confidential at your end (since I am effectively breaking a
confidentiality here, and I wouldn't want Edinburgh to know that), but
I received the following e-mail on October 6:


Dear Dr Cramer,

I am contacting you on behalf of Prof Paul Jarvis to check whether you
are willing to have your name mentioned in association with a project
he is hoping to undertake. The project is part of a much larger package
of projects which forms the nucleus of a bid being made by the
University of Edinburgh and other partners to host a new Climate Change
Centre, to be funded by the UK Research Councils at 10 million GBP over
5 years (for further details of this opportunity see:
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/press/aooclim.html). I work in a small unit of
the University of Edinburgh that has responsibility for co-ordinating
multi-disciplinary environmental research bids. Currently we are
preparing the Outline Bid (deadline 15 October), so nothing should be
regarded as firm, and details will be open to modification in the Full
Bid, which we will prepare if the Outline Bid is successful.

Below I reproduce the text we are proposing to include in the Outline
Bid. Please confirm whether or not you are willing to have your name
included.

Please treat this email as confidential.

Best regards,

Simon Allen.
========================================================================
Dr S J Allen, Research Co-ordinator
Centre for the study of Environmental Change and Sustainability (CECS)
University of Edinburgh
John Muir Building, King's Buildings, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JK

Tel: 0xxx xxxx xxxx Email: simon.allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Fax: 0xxx xxxx xxxx http://www.cecs.ed.ac.uk
========================================================================


Issue: Will terrestrial carbon sinks saturate?

It has been proposed that the assimilation of CO2 by vegetation will
reach saturation within the foreseeable future as atmospheric CO2
concentrations continue to rise and that, conversely, increase in
temperature will lead to open-ended increase in respiration by soil
heterotrophs, so that at some point in the not too distant future, CO2
efflux will come to exceed CO2 influx.

This far-reaching assumption derives from global models that lack a
consideration of acclimation, feed backs and biological constraints
acting on these processes. This proposition will be critically
evaluated using Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVM's) that include
appropriate feed backs derived from new data that are becoming
available from on-going experiments in the UK and elsewhere. This core
project will be executed over two years by a research fellow at the
University of Edinburgh, under the supervision of Professor Paul
Jarvis, FRS. The project will involve close collaboration with: the Max
Planck Institut fur Biogeochemie (Prof I Colin Prentice) and the
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research (Dr Wolfgang Cramer)
where fully operational DGVMs are in use; the Dept of Production
Ecology, University of Uppsala (Prof Sune Linder), currently conducting
soil warming experiments in northern Sweden.

Costs (GBP): Yr xxx xxxx xxxxYr 2

Research fellow 50 k 52 k
Travel/interaction 4 k 4 k

Total project cost: 54 k 56 k

-----end of Edinburgh mail-----

To me, this comes at a very strange moment, since I am, with Bert
Bolin, in a very strange situation with the completion of our second
draft of the IPCC Special Report on Sinks due Land Use and Forestry.
The very issue they propose to collaborate with Colin and myself about
was the most contentious one of all, and Paul on one side, and several
others including myself on the other side, had diametrically opposing
opinions. In fact, I simply believe Jarvis either wasn't able or not
wasn't willing to understand what the real issue was.

Anyway, I don't know whether, and if, in which way, this may or may
not affect your completion of the UEA bid, but I thought I'd better
let you know. Obviously I discussed this with Colin, and his response
is that he a) would place his bet on your rather than the Edinburgh
bid in terms of potential success, and b) that he nevertheless thinks
Edinburgh is proposing the appropriate thing to do here, and that he
therefore will reply positive to their request for collaboration.
Unless you see a strong reason for recommending me to NOT do the same
(we can talk about this in Brussels of course), I shall probably reply
in the same positive way.

Take care,

Wolfgang

PS: I am really uncertain whether I do something terribly bad in
sending this to you, after the explicit request for confidentiality -
so please keep this among the two of us...

On Freitag, 8. Oktober 1999, you wrote:

> Wolfgang,

> I shall have to apologise, but I will not be able to make the ECLAT meeting
> at all. The pressures of getting our UK National Climate Change Centre
> outline bid together for the 15th October are now such that I have to be
> here on the 13th and 14th (being in Brussels in the 12th is not very
> helpful either, but I can at least get back to UEA for Wednesday/Thursday
> to wrap up the bid). I have the lead responsibility now at UEA for
> co-ordinating our proposal - 8 institutions, 24-co-applicants, so you can
> imagine the headaches involved. But we want to make sure Hans-Joachim has
> a good proposal tabled from UEA when he meets with the Assessment Panel
> later in November!

> I really regret not being there - you have done a great job in pulling the
> programme and people together amidst IPCC activities. I have asked Tim
> Carter to present the IPCC/ACACIA speech and I am sure he will!

> Tim Carter and David Viner will co-ordinate over what needs doing for the
> proceedings which I insist will be a Cramer et al. (ed) (1999/2000)
> publication. David and Ruth will bring several dozen copies of the
> Helsinki book for distribution. It is important to get the breakout groups
> to get text together on their deliberations while at the meeting. You will
> see what we have done to the Helsinki material. For the Green Workshop we
> should not exceed 100pp. (cf. 128pp. for Helsink) and colour should be
> avoided where possible. CRU will take over the sub-editing and desk-top
> publishing role again.

> I guess I will see you in Brussels anyway.

> Gabi ......... please cancel my hotel reservation and travel pick-up.
> Thank you for your efficiency in organising all this.

> Best regards,

> Mike



mailto:Wolfgang.Cramer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Original Filename: 941483736.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: CONFIDENTIAL: CRU scenarios
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:15:xxx xxxx xxxx(MST)
Cc: rwatson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear Mike,

Thanks for your detailed response about your use of the SRES scenarios.
I'm sure it will be useful to Bob Watson. I wish I could explain better
what Bob's problem entails -- it is intensely political. My judgement is
that, if I tell you more, then this will indirectly help Bob in answering
the questions posed of him by Sensenbrenner; particularly should Bob need
to get back to you. Please note that this is confidential information.
Please note, too, that I am making my own judgement on this in the
interest of clarifying a complex issue. I have not been authorized by
Bob, or anyone associated with IPCC, to divulge this information.

The stated concern of Sensenbrenner is that the use of the SRES scenarios
prior to their ratification might, in some way, jeopardize IPCC's
"independence and objectivity". Sensenbrenner apparently uses as
guidelines in making his judgement "IPCC's 'Principles' (as) approved in
Vienna, Austria in October 1998" together with "June 11 and 28, 1999
letters" giving "Appendix A to the Principles, which is entitled
'Procedures for the Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Approval and
Publication of IPCC Reports' (which was) approved ... in April 1999".
Sensenbrenner implies that these documents "raise concerns about the use
of preliminary IPCC material by Dr. Wigley and the Pew Center on Global
Climate Change for non-IPCC purposes, apparently without IPCC sanction".
He considers that "these issues (are) significant because they relate
directly to the integrity of the IPCC process".

In my case, I bypassed the "IPCC process" by obtaining permission, in
writing, from the 4 groups who produced the marker scenarios. I did not
acknowledge the CIESIN web site. In your case, apparently, you did. The
problem here is that this site stated very clearly that the data were "not
for citation or quotation". Did you take notice of this?

My view is, and has always been, that contributors to such data sets or
distribution sites do not give up the intellectual property rights to
their own data. They could do so, of course, by signing appropriate
legal/copyright documents; but I have never done this, nor, as far as I
know, has anyone who contributed to the CIESIN site. This is why I went
to the individual authors in order to obtain permission to use their data
in my Pew report. I hope you can see that there is an important
difference between what you did and what I did. At face value, it would
appear that you have ignored the clearly-stated message that the CIESIN
site data were "not for citation or quotation". (More on this point
below.)

You refer back to the July 1998 Bureau meeting agreeing that the
preliminary SRES scenarios (in your words) "could, and should, be used by
scientists". From my reading of the background material, this is subtly
wrong -- the Bureau only agreed that the data could be used by "the GCM
modeling community". As it happens, I am part of that community, and I
acted as the interface between the scenarios and the rest of the NCAR GCM
team, providing SRES data to them in a form that could be used for our GCM
runs. I do not think you can claim to have filled this particular and
quite specific role in your work.

However, there are some interesting subtleties here that, I think,
vindicate your position. The issue is what is meant by the "GCM modeling
community". In my view, anyone who uses GCM data either to provide data
sets to the impacts community or to carry out diagnostic studies directly
to improve GCMs is part of this community. (Note that this does *not*
allow one to include the impacts modelers as part of the GCM community.)
The two stated aspects are precisely what you do. Furthermore, SCENGEN
(which I presume you have used in your work) makes direct use of GCMs in
order to produce spatially-specific climate results based on any given
emissions scenarios (including the SRES scenarios). The SCENGEN method is
simply an alternative way of translating emissions scenarios into
GCM-based and GCM-type output. In my view, anyone using the SRES
scenarios in the development of SCENGEN, or applying SCENGEN to produce
spatially-specific climate results for dissemination to others, must be
included as part of the "GCM modeling community" referred to in the
Bureau's agreement regarding use of the SRES scenarios. You may have
interpreted the Bureau's statements even more broadly than this -- but
this is of no consequence, since what you have done also falls squarely
within the more restricted interpretation that I have given above.

Nevertheless, I think it would have been wiser for you to have done things
the way I did, rather than to have acknowledged the CIESIN site as your
source.

The next issue, raised in your email, concerns the DDC. I have not looked
at this site, but I presume it duplicates what was on the CIESIN site. If
so, then its use (and the use of the preliminary SRES data) must be
controlled by the rules under which the DDC was set up and operates. The
key questions, therefore, are:

(1) Do these rules allow the use of these data by anyone?
(2) Do the SRES data, as it appears on this site, include the statement
"not for citation or quotation"?
(3) Does this make moot the whole issue of the use of the SRES scenarios?

In other words, if these data are available to all and sundry, with no
restrictions, through DDC, then no one can complain about their use.
(Although, in your case, since you acknowledged CIESIN rather than DDC,
you may still be subject to criticism.)

What this could amount to is a loophole in the IPCC rules of procedure.
Sensenbrenner might then argue that this loophole should be closed by
clarifying and tightening the rules for the DDC.

The bottom line is that I think you have done things in a perfectly
legitimate way. Even acknowledging the CIESIN site is legitimate, since
your primary application was in the production of climate change scenarios
as a member of the "GCM modeling community" as I believe this community
should be defined. You have then distributed these results to the global
climate impacts community who, in turn, will be feeding their results back
into the IPCC process through WGII. Your chosen method of distribution
(especially the WWF pathway) might be judged as less than ideal; but I
cannot see anything that you have done that goes explicitly or implicitly
against IPCC regulations.

Below the bottom line is the concern expressed by Sensenbrenner that these
actions (yours and mine) might, in some way, have undermined the
"integrity of the IPCC process". It would be interesting to hear from
Sensenbrenner just how he thinks that might have happened. All we have
done is distribute credible and defensible scientific information. If
this information were to be in conflict with the currently best-available
science, this might be an issue of concern -- but it is not. The more
such credible scientific information is distributed to the community,
particularly when it is presented in an easily-read, non-technical yet
authoritative way, the better. I can see no way that this can distort the
IPCC process. Some people, however, appear to think that it might. (A
less kind interpretation might be that they are just trying to slow down
the process by tying it up in legal and procedural knots -- but I have no
evidence that this is what they are trying to do.)

I hope you can see from the above quotes and somewhat convoluted arguments
what a legal and political minefield this is. These sorts of issues do
not seem to arise outside of the USA; but here they take on an enormous
importance. One must tread very cautiously.


Cheers,


Tom





On Sat, 30 Oct 1999, Mike Hulme wrote:

> Bob,
>
> You will have seen Tom Wigley's email asking me about the climate scenarios
> I prepared for WWF and which were distributed 2 weeks ago. I have just got
> back from a trip away and am concerned that *you* are concerned, hence my
> immediate reply.
>
> These CRU/WWF regional/national scenarios *do* use the preliminary SRES98
> emissions scenarios that are posted on the CIESIN and IPCC DDC web sites.
> The CRU/WWF reports state that preliminary emissions scenarios sre used,
> they acknowledge the CIESIN source of these emissions, and they make it
> clear that the derived climate scenarios are the work and responsibility of
> the authors alone.
>
> Maybe some background would help explain why I do not think that from my
> perspective there is cause for concern (although I am aware of the
> criticism the SRES report has increasingly been receiving and that the
> issues are bigger than I may realise):
>
> __________________________________________
>
> July '98: IPCC Bureau meeting agreed that the preliminary SRES emissions
> scenarios could, and should, be used by scientists in their unapproved
> form.
>
> Dec '98: the above was reiterated to WGI scientists at the Paris LA
> meeting. In particular, it was recognised that SAR science would have to
> be used in the interim (i.e., next xxx xxxx xxxxmonths) to generate the climatic
> (and consequently impact) implications of the SRES emissions.
>
> Jan '99: the SRES Open Process ended. The IPCC DDC placed the preliminary
> SRES98 emissions scenarios on the open DDC web site as requested by the
> IPCC Task Group on Climate Scenarios for Impact Assessment (Chair Martin
> Parry). The objective of the DDC right from its original 1997 commission
> was to provide timely access to emissions scenarios, observed climate
> datasets and new GCM experiments (all of which would be assessed in the
> IPCC TAR), thus enabling impact scientists worldwide to construct and apply
> consistent climate scenarios (this information has already been used by
> several 100 scientists, including many in developing countries). Only in
> this way would it be at all possible for WGII to have access to
> impact/adaptation science that was in any way consistent with the WGIII
> (SRES emissions) and WGI (climate modelling) material. The placing of the
> SRES98 emissions on the DDC web site was widely discussed in the TGCIA and
> was publicised at the time to the research community using the DDC,
> including through the A4-flier advertising the DDC that was sent to the WGI
> (and WGII?) mailing list.
>
> Feb '99: Hulme&Carter used the preliminary SRES98 emissions (and other DDC
> products) to develop climate scenarios
> for the European Union as part of the EU-funded ACACIA assessment
> (unrelated to Tom's US-based ACACIA). The approach
> I took in using the SRES98 emissions for the ACACIA climate scenarios was
> *my* decision and was not part of any IPCC activity. The ACACIA climate
> scenarios, and indeed entire EU ACACIA impacts assessment, have been widely
> reviewed within Europe, and are part of the draft report presented to
> Brussels last month. They will published in their final form in June 2000.
> This EU-ACACIA activity has done in my view *exactly* what the DDC was
> intended to do, namely allow impact scientists to generate results using
> consistent scenarios and assumptions; these results provide the raw
> material for IPCC LAs to assess in their TAR chapters!
>
> My approach for converting the preliminary SRES98 emissions into climate
> scenarios is also being used in many other EU and UK-funded impact research
> programmes and is generating a variety of scientific reports and papers -
> several of the latter are under peer-review at the moment and may be
> citeable in time for the 2nd-order WGII drafts.
>
> ***Is an apology needed for this activity? If so, then I and others on the
> IPCC TGCIA totally misunderstood the brief of the DDC and the intent of the
> July 98 and Dec. 98 IPCC decisions.***
>
> May '99: WWF commissioned me to prepare a set of national/regional climate
> scenarios for them to launch in October 1999. It seemed entirely
> appropriate and legitimate to me to use the same method I had adopted for
> EU-ACACIA to generate these WWF scenarios.
>
> June '99: Tom's Pew Report was published using SRES98 emissions is a not
> dissimilar way to me (i.e., using them to drive a simple climate model
> based on SAR science).
>
> July '99: following some controversy over the Pew Report, there was an
> email circular from WGI TSU (Griggs) reminding LAs that there was 'active
> encouragement' from IPCC for scientists to use the preliminary SRES98
> emissions in modelling work. The conditions were that it should be stated
> that they were unapproved by IPCC (i.e, preliminary) and that work using
> them should ideally be peer-reviewed and published. Tom Wigley followed-up
> on this circular by explaining *his* use of SRES98 in the Pew Report, the
> conditions he met and his justification for using them. I noted this
> correspondence at the time and did not feel that my use of SRES98 emissions
> in my WWF work was out of order.
>
> Oct '99: the 15 sets of CRU/WWF regional/national scenarios were published
> and widely distributed by WWF. These leaflets state that 'preliminary IPCC
> emissions scenarios' are used, acknowledge the source of these emissions as
> the CIESIN site, and make clear that the climate scenarios are the work of
> the authors alone and no other organisation. Furthermore, the approach I
> have taken (which I originally designed back in December 1998) has been
> subject to a diversity of peer-review activities, and will shortly be
> published.
> _______________________________
>
> Sorry for making this a lengthy reply, but it seems best to spell out the
> history and my thinking to avoid any room for misunderstanding. In
> summary, the only two grounds on which I think I could be criticised for
> using the SRES98 emissions in my CRU/WWF climate scenarios are if:
>
> 1) the IPCC DDC was wrong to put the SRES98 emissions on its web site back
> in January 1999 and to publicise its purpose in doing so. If we *were*
> wrong, then this error goes back to January 1999 and the TGCIA
> fundamentally misunderstood its brief.
> 2) the pronouncements of the IPCC in July 1998 and December 1998 were
> intended to apply *only* to scientists who had a formal role in the IPCC
> and that the SRES98 emissions could only be used for 'official' IPCC
> scientific activities whatever these may be. This would draw a very
> dubious line between science done for IPCC and science done 'not for IPCC'.
> IPCC's brief is to assess *all*, done by no matter whom or for what
> purpose.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Mike
>
> Dr Mike Hulme
> Reader, Climatic Research Unit
> School of Environmental Sciences
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich NR4 7TJ
> (tel: xxx xxxx xxxx; fax: xxx xxxx xxxx)
> (email: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx)
> (web: http//www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~mikeh)
>
> ----------
> > From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> > To: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> > Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> > Subject: CONFIDENTIAL: CRU scenarios
> > Date: 27 October 1999 19:02
> >
> > ****In strictest confidence****
> >
> > Dear Mike,
> >
> > Bob Watson contacted me last week asking about some climate results that
> > he apparently saw on the CRU and/or WWF web pages. The CRU web site
> > states that you have produced (and already distributed) a set of regional
> > scenario leaflets based on "new ghg emissions scenarios", which I think
> is
> > what Bob may be concerned about.
> >
> > I hope that "new" does not refer to the SRES scenarios. You may recall
> > that, when I was in CRU, I showed you, in confidence, a letter from F.
> > James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives
> > Committee on Science, criticizing IPCC for "allowing" me to use these
> > scenarios in my Pew Report.
> >
> > Unfortunately, this issue is not going away, and any further perceived
> > "misuse" of the SRES scenarios prior to their IPCC ratification would
> > exacerbate the problem considerably.
> >
> > I do hope, therefore, that you have *not* used the SRES scenarios. I
> > expect not, since I explained the potential problems to you in July.
> > Please reassure me -- and Bob.
> >
> > If, by chance, you *have* used the SRES scenarios, but not yet
> distributed
> > the WWF leaflets, I urge you to hold fire until you have contacted Bob.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> >
> > **********************************************************
> > *Tom M.L. Wigley *
> > *Senior Scientist *
> > *National Center for Atmospheric Research *
> > *P.O. Box 3000 *
> > *Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx *
> > *USA *
> > *Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx *
> > *Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx *
> > *E-mail: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx *
> > **********************************************************
> >
> >
> >
>


**********************************************************
Tom M.L. Wigley
Senior Scientist
National Center for Atmospheric Research
P.O. Box 3000
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx
USA
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
E-mail: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Web: http://www.acacia.ucar.edu
**********************************************************

Original Filename: 950712852.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Sujata Gupta" <sujatag@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Tyndall Centre bid
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:54:12 +0530
Cc: <ritu.kumar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >, "R K Pachauri" <pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Dear Mike

Thank you for sending the outline bid submitted last October. After reviewing the document, my colleagues and I were of the view that TERI should go non-exclusive. Our primary interest is to be part of the project and given that we (TERI) would have the role of an affiliate in both the bids, it was decided that we go non-exclusive.

We understand that the outline bid is confidential and I can assure you that it will not be shared with anyone outside the concerned colleagues at TERI. Also, I assure you of all possible support TERI can provide in developing the final bid. We look forward to a fruitful association with you on the project.

Wishing you all the best in securing the bid.

Kind regards

Sujata



Sujata Gupta Ph.D.
Fellow and Dean
Policy Analysis Division
************************************************************************
TERI's SILVER JUBILEE CONFERENCES
Celebrating 25 years of innovation and change
Meet on 'Global Sustainable Development in the 21st Century'
xxx xxxx xxxxFebruary 2000, New Delhi, India
Come shape a common practical and achievable agenda
Be a part of the future.
More details at http://www.teriin.org/25years/
************************************************************************
T E R I
New Delhi - xxx xxxx xxxx/ India
Fax xxx xxxx xxxxor xxx xxxx xxxxCountry code 91
Tel. xxx xxxx xxxxor xxx xxxx xxxxCity code 11
Web www.teriin.org

>>> Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> 02/12/00 11:56PM >>>
Dear Sujata,

I attach a copy of our outline bid from last October - it is now evolving
rapidly of course in preparation for final submission. This gives you a
quick idea about our Consortium and plans. You will also see the names and
institutes of our partners. May I re-iterate that this document is
confidential and must not be disclosed to anyone outside your immediate
colleagues in TERI.

TERI was *not* listed as a formal co-applicant (non-UK institutions are not
eligible to be formal co-applicants), but was listed as an 'affiliated
organisation' along with about 10 others here in the UK. We would propose
to do the same in the final bid, but say a little bit more about where and
how TERI would interact with us were we to win the Centre.

If you decide to remain exclusively with our bid, then I will send you the
first draft of our final submission during the next week - this will
indicate more details about our research programmes and where TERI may be
seen to interact with us as a key overseas collaborator.

However, if you decide to join with both bids - Imperial and UEA - then we
will simply continue to list you as a collaborator, but we could not then
agree to any further interaction over the next 2 weeks.

Best Regards,

Mike


At 10:45 10/02/00 +0530, you wrote:
>Dear Mike
>
>Thank you for your email. I appreciate your understanding of our
position. TERI is essentially interested in working on the project. I can
assure you that we will not disclose any information provided by you to the
other finalist or anyone else for that matter and maintain strict
confidentiality.
>
>However, I did not receive the original bid document or an outline of the
proposal. We are not clear if TERI has been listed as a partner up-front or
has been mentioned as an associate. I would greatly appreciate it if you
could let me know TERI's status in the original document. This will help in
our taking a decision on the exclusivity front, as yet we are still
debating on the matter and have not reverted to the Imperial team. Also,
who are the other members of the team headed by you.
>
>We look forward to working with you and hope we are able to reach a
decision which is mutually beneficial.
>
>Best wishes
>
>Sujata
>
>
>
>Sujata Gupta Ph.D.
>Fellow and Dean
>Policy Analysis Division
>************************************************************************
>TERI's SILVER JUBILEE CONFERENCES
>Celebrating 25 years of innovation and change
>Meet on 'Global Sustainable Development in the 21st Century'
>xxx xxxx xxxxFebruary 2000, New Delhi, India
>Come shape a common practical and achievable agenda
>Be a part of the future.
>More details at http://www.teriin.org/25years/
>************************************************************************
>T E R I
>New Delhi - xxx xxxx xxxx/ India
>Fax xxx xxxx xxxxor xxx xxxx xxxxCountry code 91
>Tel. xxx xxxx xxxxor xxx xxxx xxxxCity code 11
>Web www.teriin.org
>
>>>> Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> 02/08/00 01:49AM >>>
>Dear Sujata,
>
>I have consulted with colleagues in our Consortium and we consider the
>following to be the position .....
>
>- we clearly would prefer TERI to affiliate to only one of the two
>finalists, and obviously we prefer that one to be our bid. This is
>espeically the case since we made our initial approach to you last
>September when there were still seven bids in the making; no-one else
>approached you at that stage and therefore we feel we have some preference
>through prior approach.
>
>- we recognise that *you* may now consider it in your interest to affiliate
>to both finalists to cover yourselves either way (although *we* consider
>there are strong grounds for you not to do so). This is your choice of
>course, although were you to do this then I must point out the following
>two consequences:
>
>a) since I believe I sent you last October/November a copy of our outline
>bid for the Centre I would need to insist that you do not divulge the
>contents of this outline to Imperial College. This is clearly a case of
>professional integrity which we are sure you understand.
>
>b) if you indicate that you are also joining with Imperial then this
>effectively precludes any further dialogue between us over the remaining 3
>weeks before submission. All that we would be able to do would be to name
>you and your expertise in our submission rather than engage you
>interactively in shaping 1-2 of our ideas (which was my original intention
>as our final bid shapes up).
>
>Please let me know how you wish to proceed - either way, I look forward to
>a fruitful association between us in the event of our bid succeeding with
>the UK Research Councils.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Mike
>
>At 16:00 01/02/00 +0530, you wrote:
>>Dear Mike,
>>
>>TERI has a presence in London as of 25 January. My colleague Dr Ritu Kumar
>there has been approached by the consortia led by Imperial College
>>for TERI to join them. I am writing to explore the possibility of TERI
>joining both consortia on a non-exclusive basis. This would of course imply
>that we do not share/participate in the preparation of the bid. Any inputs
>provided by TERI would be common to both consortia, unless it was in
>response to a specific request by a particular partner.
>>
>>As we have committed to you first, we will revert to Imperial College for
>a non-exclusive tie-up, only after discussing the matter with you.
>>
>>I am copying this email to my colleague Dr Kumar.
>>
>>Looking forward to hearing from you.
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>Sujata
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Sujata Gupta Ph.D.
>>Fellow and Dean
>>Policy Analysis Division
>>************************************************************************
>>TERI's SILVER JUBILEE CONFERENCES
>>Celebrating 25 years of innovation and change
>>Meet on 'Global Sustainable Development in the 21st Century'
>>xxx xxxx xxxxFebruary 2000, New Delhi, India
>>Come shape a common practical and achievable agenda
>>Be a part of the future.
>>More details at http://www.teriin.org/25years/
>>************************************************************************
>>T E R I
>>New Delhi - xxx xxxx xxxx/ India
>>Fax xxx xxxx xxxxor xxx xxxx xxxxCountry code 91
>>Tel. xxx xxxx xxxxor xxx xxxx xxxxCity code 11
>>Web www.teriin.org
>>
>>>>> Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> 01/19/00 02:52PM >>>
>>Thank you Sujata ...... I will keep you informed about our needs for
>>bidding for the UK Climate Change Centre.
>>
>>And it *was* me that you had a conversation with in Canberra about
>>reviewers for Chapter 3 on scenarios. I will forward your suggestion on to
>>the TSU II.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>
>>At 11:56 19/01/00 +0530, you wrote:
>>>Dear Dr Hulme
>>>
>>>TERI will be happy to provide sole support to the consortium led by you
>>and UEA. I was on travel and hence could not respond earlier. Please let
>>me know if we can assist in any way in the preparation of the bid.
>>>
>>>If I recollect we had a discussion on a possible reviewer for the
>>scenarios chapter from India who was thus far not involved with the IPCC
>>process. I can suggest the name of Dr Shreekant Gupta at the Delhi School
>>of Economics, New Delhi. It is quite possible that I had this discussion
>>with Tom Downing. Please let me know if I am communicating to the wrong
>>person on this matter.
>>>
>>>Best wishes for the new year
>>>
>>>Sujata
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Sujata Gupta Ph.D.
>>>Fellow and Dean
>>>Policy Analysis Division
>>>************************************************************************
>>>TERI's SILVER JUBILEE CONFERENCES
>>>Celebrating 25 years of innovation and change
>>>Meet on 'Global Sustainable Development in the 21st Century'
>>>xxx xxxx xxxxFebruary 2000, New Delhi, India
>>>Come shape a common practical and achievable agenda
>>>Be a part of the future.
>>>More details at http://www.teriin.org/25years/
>>>************************************************************************
>>>T E R I
>>>New Delhi - xxx xxxx xxxx/ India
>>>Fax xxx xxxx xxxxor xxx xxxx xxxxCountry code 91
>>>Tel. xxx xxxx xxxxor xxx xxxx xxxxCity code 11
>>>Web www.teriin.org
>>>
>>>>>> Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> 01/05/00 06:54PM >>>
>>>Dear Colleague,
>>>
>>>Thank you very much for your support for our bid to run the new UK Climate
>>>Change Centre being established by three of our national research councils.
>>> We have heard that just two of the seven outline bids have been invited to
>>>submit detailed proposals and that the Consortium led by UEA is one of
>>>these two. Final bids are required by 29th February. The UEA-led bid
>>>proposes the new Centre to be called the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change
>>>Research (named after the 19th century British physicist who experimented
>>>with the radiative properties of greenhouse gases, John Tyndall).
>>>
>>>Assuming you are happy to continue sole support for our initiative, and on
>>>the undertaking that you do not disclose our outline bid to other parties
>>>who may be aligned with the other finalist (a Consortium led by Imperial
>>>College and involving the Environmental Change Institute at Oxford and the
>>>U. Edinburgh), then I will send you a copy of our outline proposal.
>>>
>>>There are a number of aspects of this outline bid that we will change and
>>>develop before 29th Feb. and it may be that I am back in contact with you
>>>to ask for some additional text of support about some concrete ways the UK
>>>Tyndall Centre could collaborate with your organisation.
>>>
>>>We would also, of course, welcome any suggestions you may have about such
>>>future collaboration.
>>>
>>>Best wishes for the New Year,
>>>
>>>Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>*************************************************************************
***
>>>****
>>>Dr Mike Hulme
>>>Reader in Climatology tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>Climatic Research Unit fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>School of Environmental Science email: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>University of East Anglia web site:
>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~mikeh/
>>>Norwich NR4 7TJ
>>>*************************************************************************
***
>>>****
>>> The estimated annual mean temperature in Central England for 1999 is +1.16
>>>degC above the 1xxx xxxx xxxxaverage, the warmest year recorded in 341
>>>years
>>> *****************************************************************
>>> The estimated global-mean surface air temperature anomaly for
1999 is
>>> +0.33 deg C above the 1xxx xxxx xxxxaverage, the 5th warmest year yet
>recorded
>>>*************************************************************************
***
>>>****
>>> Neither of these estimates have yet been confirmed
>>> **************************************************
>>>
>>>
>>***************************************************************************
>>Dr Mike Hulme
>>Reader in Climatology tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>Climatic Research Unit fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>School of Environmental Science email: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>University of East Anglia web site:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~mikeh/
>>Norwich NR4 7TJ
>>***************************************************************************
>>The unconfirmed annual mean temperature in Central England for 1999 was
>+1.16
>> degC above the 1xxx xxxx xxxxaverage, the warmest year recorded in 341 years
>> *****************************************************************
>> The unconfirmed global-mean surface air temperature anomaly for 1999 was
>> +0.33 deg C above the 1xxx xxxx xxxxaverage, the 5th warmest year yet recorded
>>***************************************************************************
>>
>>
>***************************************************************************
>Dr Mike Hulme
>Reader in Climatology tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
>Climatic Research Unit fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>School of Environmental Science email: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>University of East Anglia web site: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~mikeh/
>Norwich NR4 7TJ
>***************************************************************************
>The unconfirmed annual mean temperature in Central England for 1999 was
+1.16
> degC above the 1xxx xxxx xxxxaverage, the warmest year recorded in 341 years
> *****************************************************************
> The unconfirmed global-mean surface air temperature anomaly for 1999 was
> +0.33 deg C above the 1xxx xxxx xxxxaverage, the 5th warmest year yet recorded
>***************************************************************************
>
>

Original Filename: 954268691.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Trevor Davies <t.d.davies@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: r.k.turner@uea,g.bentham@uea,t.oriordan@uea,n.pidgeon@uea,p.jones@uea, j.palutikof@uea,n.adger@uea,i.bateman@uea,m.hulme@uea,a.lovett@uea
Subject: JIF news
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:38:11 +0100

We have heard from ESRC that the ICER bid has been successful. We are to be
funded at a "reduced level", although we don't know what that is yet. Our
guess is that it will be close to the 10 million we were asked to approach
(the revised bid was about 12.5 million).

Well done everyone.

The letter asks us not to make any public announcement, publicity or press
releases until 4 April, when there will be a JIF press conference (altho we
are encouraged to prepare the press as soon as possible). Please,
therefore, continue to regard this information as confidential as far as
the outside world is concerned - I shall ask the Press Office to do the
necessary.

I will send a note out to all faculty later this afternoon.

Trevor


++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Professor Trevor D. Davies
Dean, School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom

Tel. xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax. xxx xxxx xxxx
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Original Filename: 986486371.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: s.torok
Subject: Fwd: RE: kyoto survey - press inquiry from the THES
Date: Thu Apr 5 11:59:xxx xxxx xxxx

Simon,
Could you - or Vanessa - buy a THES today from the paper shop and check this out. I would
quite like to draft a short letter to THES as suggested by Steve. But I need to see how
the issue was presented in this week's issue.
Thanks,
Mike

From: "Farrar, Steve" <steve.farrar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: 'Mike Hulme' <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: kyoto survey - press inquiry from the THES
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:45:33 +0100
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Dear Mike,
thanks for that. I feel terrible but despite the pain it cost to reply to the survey,
the deadline has now passed. We had such a high response rate that we decided to run the
piece in this week's paper while the issue of the US withdrawl from the protocol was
still high in everyone's mind. So I cannot include your responses. However, you make a
number of very significant points, not least your reply to question 2 on the strength of
the evidence and the political framework outlined in your final sentences. I wonder -
and I know this is pushing it - whether you might consider rearranging some of these
sentences to form a brief letter to the editor for the following week's paper? I would
like this issue to stay alive in the THES and allow the paper to play a small role in
persuading as many scientists as possible to take part in a scientific/political debate
that may contribute to influencing those people who *can* change things. Not an original
objective, I know, but the THES does have a fairly unique position within the academic
community and hence a responsibility. Anyhow, sorry for the bad news
best wishes
Steve
***********************
Steve Farrar
Science Reporter
Times Higher Education Supplement
xxx xxxx xxxxEast Smithfield
London E1W 1BX
United Kingdom
[1]www.thes.co.uk
Tel: (xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: (xxx xxxx xxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Hulme [[2]mailto:m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: 04 April 2001 19:57
To: Farrar, Steve
Subject: Re: kyoto survey - press inquiry from the THES
Steve,
I hate these sort of questionnaires since Y or N answers are barely
adequate. However, I've given it a go with some other comments .............
(by the way, Prof. Trevor Davies is Head of my School here at UEA - I am
only Director of a Centre within the School, albeit a highly relevant one!).
You can quote me if appropriate, but let me know before hand.
Mike
At 12:30 02/04/01 +0100, you wrote:
>Dear Mike,
>
>hope you're well. I am conducting a survey of heads of UK university
>departments of environmental science for the Times Higher Education
>Supplement. I am keen to explore views concerning the United States and
>the Kyoto agreement. I wonder if you could answer the following Yes/No
>questions when you get a moment. Note, I will not identify you unless you
>specifically state that you do not mind being quoted.
>
>I do hope you can help
>
>all the bets
>
>Steve
>
>1: Do you believe human activities are at least in part responsible for
>driving global climate change?
YES
>2: Do you feel the evidence for this is sufficiently strong to start
>reducing emissions?
NO - to reduce emissions requires more evidence than that humans are
altering climate. We need to know something about the potential risks
associated with future climate change, whether these risks can be minimised
through adaptive action and then have some socially negotiated basis for
deciding about the necessity and extent of desirable emissions
reductions. On none of these issues do we have a good basis to work
from. The precautionary principle, if chosen, would imply start reducing
emissions now - but I am not convinced a blind application of the
precautionary principle in this case is the most appropriate instrument.
>3: Do you think the measures proposed at Kyoto were too weak, correct, or
>too strong?
The 5.2% emissions reduction by 2010 by Annex I countries were not driven
by science but by real-politik. By definition they were the best
achievable. The real issue however is not about target setting - it's
about the dynamics of change worldwide in energy technologies, investment
strategies, consumer and community behaviour and aspirations, etc. It is
*these* things that in the end will deliver a safer climate - not the
Protocol per se. More attention should be directed at the diverse and
myriad set of actions needed to decarbonise our societies.
>4: Are you disappointed that George Bush has abandoned the Kyoto agreement?
YES - but it is too early to say that Kyoto is dead. The USA does not have
the power of veto - and Bush will have to propose some climate management
strategy of his own. We wait and see.
>5: Should the rest of the world press on with the agreement without the
>United States?
Probably YES. This can be achieved and should provide valuable lessons in
global climate management which we can learn from in the long-term.
>6: Do you feel the US should be allowed to count carbon sequestration
>measures such as planting new forests towards any carbon emissions
>reduction target?
YES. The UK are doing it in their national climate change programme so why
not the USA?
>7: Are you optimistic that there will be a new emissions control agreement
>within the next 12 months?
A 'new' one? We haven't got one yet. I would think maybe not in the next
12 months, but the critical issues about global climate management will be
clearer.
>8: Should the Kyoto preliminary targets be watered down to gain the
>Americans' support?
NO. If the USA don't like them, let them not ratify or propose a strategy
of their own.
>If you would like to add any comments to this survey as to the
>implications of the US's rejection of Kyoto for the planet, what UK can do
>about it or what role scientists can play in this debacle, please do so.
In a literal sense the implications for global climate are trivial - what
will affect the course of global climate (and only then climate beyond
about 2030 - up until then climate is pretty much pre-determined by inertia
in the system) in the long-run are the effects of cumulative decisions
taken by many, many people/governments/businesses over the next 10-20
years. Let's not kid ourselves that the USA President is more powerful
than he would like to think. The planetary system is much bigger than one
4-year term of a US president.
The UK is playing a key role both within the negotiating machinery of the
FCCC, in pioneering new scientific analyses, and in working out new forms
of adapting to climate change. This momentum in the UK is not going to be
halted by Bush.
Scientists need to be there to point out the long-term nature of the
problem - it is not a classic political issue where a one-term government
can solve or worsen the problem. Scientists need to point out that for
long-term planetary management we need new analytical tools, new criteria
for investment decisions, a new appreciation of the concept of global
citizenship. What climate change forces us to do is to think about the
influence we are having on the quality of life for the next generation but
one - not our own generation or even our children's
generation. Conventional politics is not a system geared up for this
challenge.
>***********************
>Steve Farrar
>Science Reporter
>Times Higher Education Supplement
>xxx xxxx xxxxEast Smithfield
>London E1W 1BX
>United Kingdom
>[3]www.thes.co.uk
>Tel: (xxx xxxx xxxx
>Fax: (xxx xxxx xxxx
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended solely for the
>intended recipient. It may contain confidential and/or privileged
>information. If you are not the intended recipient, any reliance on, use,
>disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail or
>attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
>error, please notify the sender by telephone xxx xxxx xxxxand delete
>the e-mail and all attachments immediately.
>
>If you wish to know whether the statements and opinions contained in this
>email are endorsed by News International or its associated companies (NI
>Group), or wish to rely on them, please request written confirmation from
>Corporate Affairs. In the absence of such confirmation NI Group accepts no
>responsibility or liability.
>
>NI Group reserves the right to monitor emails in accordance with the
>Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of
>Communications) Regulations 2000.
>
>[NI Group does not accept liability for any virus introduced by this
>e-mail or any attachment and you are advised to use up-to-date virus
>checking software.]
>
>News International plc is the holding company for the News International
>group of companies and is registered in England No 81701, with its address
>at 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY
*****************************************************************************
Dr Mike Hulme
Executive Director
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
UK
tel: +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx(or 593900)
fax: +44 (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx
mobile: 07xxx xxxx xxxx
email: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
web site: [4]www.tyndall.uea.ac.uk
************************************************************************************
The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
.... integrated research for sustainable responses ....
The Tyndall Centre is a new research initiative funded by three UK
Research Councils - NERC, ESRC, EPSRC - with support from the DTI.
************************************************************************************

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended solely for the intended recipient.
It may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended
recipient, any reliance on, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of
this e-mail or attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
error, please notify the sender by telephone xxx xxxx xxxxand delete the e-mail and
all attachments immediately.
If you wish to know whether the statements and opinions contained in this email are
endorsed by News International or its associated companies (NI Group), or wish to rely
on them, please request written confirmation from Corporate Affairs. In the absence of
such confirmation NI Group accepts no responsibility or liability.
NI Group reserves the right to monitor emails in accordance with the Telecommunications
(Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000.
[NI Group does not accept liability for any virus introduced by this e-mail or any
attachment and you are advised to use up-to-date virus checking software.]
News International plc is the holding company for the News International group of
companies and is registered in England No 81701, with its address at 1 Virginia St,
London E98 1XY

References

1. http://www.thes.co.uk/
2. mailto:m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. http://www.thes.co.uk/
4. http://www.tyndall.uea.ac.uk/

Original Filename: 1051638938.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Edward Cook <drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Review- confidential
Date: Tue Apr 29 13:55:xxx xxxx xxxx

Thanks Ed
Can I just say that I am not in the MBH camp - if that be characterized by an unshakable
"belief" one way or the other , regarding the absolute magnitude of the global MWP. I
certainly believe the " medieval" period was warmer than the 18th century - the equivalence
of the warmth in the post 1900 period, and the post 1980s ,compared to the circa Medieval
times is very much still an area for much better resolution. I think that the geographic /
seasonal biases and dating/response time issues still cloud the picture of when and how
warm the Medieval period was . On present evidence , even with such uncertainties I would
still come out favouring the "likely unprecedented recent warmth" opinion - but our
motivation is to further explore the degree of certainty in this belief - based on the
realistic interpretation of available data. Point re Jan well taken and I will inform him
At 07:59 AM 4/29/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:

Hi Keith,
I will start out by sending you the chronologies that I sent Bradley, i.e. all but
Mongolia. If you can talk Gordon out of the latter, you'll be the first from outside
this lab. The chronologies are in tabbed column format and Tucson index format. The
latter have sample size included. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or even Bradley
after I warned him about small sample size problems) to realize that some of the
chronologies are down to only 1 series in their earliest parts. Perhaps I should have
truncated them before using them, but I just took what Jan gave me and worked with the
chronologies as best I could. My suspicion is that most of the pre-1200 divergence is
due to low replication and a reduced number of available chronologies. I should also say
that the column data have had their means normalized to approximately 1.0, which is not
the case for the chronologies straight out of ARSTAN. That is because the site-level
RCS-detrended data were simply averaged to produce these chronologies, without concern
for their long-term means. Hence the "RAW" tag at the end of each line of indices.
Bradley still regards the MWP as "mysterious" and "very incoherent" (his latest
pronouncement to me) based on the available data. Of course he and other members of the
MBH camp have a fundamental dislike for the very concept of the MWP, so I tend to view
their evaluations as starting out from a somewhat biased perspective, i.e. the cup is
not only "half-empty"; it is demonstrably "broken". I come more from the "cup half-full"
camp when it comes to the MWP, maybe yes, maybe no, but it is too early to say what it
is. Being a natural skeptic, I guess you might lean more towards the MBH camp, which is
fine as long as one is honest and open about evaluating the evidence (I have my doubts
about the MBH camp). We can always politely(?) disagree given the same admittedly
equivocal evidence.
I should say that Jan should at least be made aware of this reanalysis of his data.
Admittedly, all of the Schweingruber data are in the public domain I believe, so that
should not be an issue with those data. I just don't want to get into an open critique
of the Esper data because it would just add fuel to the MBH attack squad. They tend to
work in their own somewhat agenda-filled ways. We should also work on this stuff on our
own, but I do not think that we have an agenda per se, other than trying to objectively
understand what is going on.
Cheers,
Ed

Ed
thanks for this - and it is intriguing , not least because of the degree of coherence in
these series between 1200 and 1900 - more than can be accounted for by either
replication of data between the series (of which there is still some) or artifact of the
standardisation method (with the use of RCS curves which are possibly inappropriate for
all the data to which each is applied) . Having then got some not insubstantial
confidence in the likelihood of a real temperature signal in this period - the question
of why the extreme divergence in the series pre-1200 and post 1900? A real geographic
difference in the forcing , replication and standardisation problems? - both are likely.
We would like the raw cores for each site: the RCS indices upon which you base the
chronologies ; the site chronologies (which I think you sent to Ray?). At first we will
simply plot the site chronologies , correlate each with local climate and come back to
you again. We will also plot each "set" of indices and compare site RCS curves and
reconsider the validity of the classification into linear and non-linear growth
patterns. I know you have done all this but we need to get a feel for these data and do
some comparisons with my early produce ring-width RCS chronologies for ceratin sites and
compare the TRW series with the same site MXD chronologies - all a bit suck and see at
first. I am talking with Tim later today about the review idea and I will email/phone
before 16.00 my time today.
Thanks
Keith
At 10:01 AM 4/28/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:

Hi Keith,
Here is the new Esper plot with three different forms of regionalization: linear vs.
nonlinear (as in the original paper), north vs. south as defined in the legend, and east
vs. west (i.e. eastern hemisphere vs. western hemisphere). All of the series have been
smoothed with a 50-yr spline after first averaging the annual values. The number of
cores/chronologies are given in the legend in parentheses. Not surprisingly, the north
and south chronologies deviate most in the post-1950 period. Before 1950 and back to
about 1200 the series are remarkably similar (to me anyway). Prior to 1200 there is more
chaos, perhaps because the number of chronologies have declined along with the
within-chronology replication. However, there is still some evidence for spatially
coherent above-average growth. I showed this plot at the Duke meeting. Karl Taylor
actually told me that he thought it looked fairly convincing, i.e. that the
low-frequency structure in the Esper series was not an artefact of the RCS method.
Cheers,
Ed

Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.

Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

--

==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Doherty Senior Scholar and
Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Palisades, New York 10964 USA
Email: drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
==================================

--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.

Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa[3]/

References

1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

Original Filename: 1052774789.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Edward Cook <drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Review- confidential
Date: Mon May 12 17:26:xxx xxxx xxxx

Ed
just back from really sunny Austria and very pleasant south of France. Have talked at
length with Jan and he says it is fine to send the raw and detrended cores series
(segmented for each site if possible). Do you also have a convenient Table with the Lats
and Longs you used to plot the sites map? This would mean I don't have to look them all up.
I will phone to report on our discussions and ask several things that arose from these.
Just have to do essential other stuff first - so probably tuesday afternoon (my time) Do
you have that review yet?
love and kisses
Keith
At 07:59 AM 4/29/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:

Hi Keith,
I will start out by sending you the chronologies that I sent Bradley, i.e. all but
Mongolia. If you can talk Gordon out of the latter, you'll be the first from outside
this lab. The chronologies are in tabbed column format and Tucson index format. The
latter have sample size included. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or even Bradley
after I warned him about small sample size problems) to realize that some of the
chronologies are down to only 1 series in their earliest parts. Perhaps I should have
truncated them before using them, but I just took what Jan gave me and worked with the
chronologies as best I could. My suspicion is that most of the pre-1200 divergence is
due to low replication and a reduced number of available chronologies. I should also say
that the column data have had their means normalized to approximately 1.0, which is not
the case for the chronologies straight out of ARSTAN. That is because the site-level
RCS-detrended data were simply averaged to produce these chronologies, without concern
for their long-term means. Hence the "RAW" tag at the end of each line of indices.
Bradley still regards the MWP as "mysterious" and "very incoherent" (his latest
pronouncement to me) based on the available data. Of course he and other members of the
MBH camp have a fundamental dislike for the very concept of the MWP, so I tend to view
their evaluations as starting out from a somewhat biased perspective, i.e. the cup is
not only "half-empty"; it is demonstrably "broken". I come more from the "cup half-full"
camp when it comes to the MWP, maybe yes, maybe no, but it is too early to say what it
is. Being a natural skeptic, I guess you might lean more towards the MBH camp, which is
fine as long as one is honest and open about evaluating the evidence (I have my doubts
about the MBH camp). We can always politely(?) disagree given the same admittedly
equivocal evidence.
I should say that Jan should at least be made aware of this reanalysis of his data.
Admittedly, all of the Schweingruber data are in the public domain I believe, so that
should not be an issue with those data. I just don't want to get into an open critique
of the Esper data because it would just add fuel to the MBH attack squad. They tend to
work in their own somewhat agenda-filled ways. We should also work on this stuff on our
own, but I do not think that we have an agenda per se, other than trying to objectively
understand what is going on.
Cheers,
Ed

Ed
thanks for this - and it is intriguing , not least because of the degree of coherence in
these series between 1200 and 1900 - more than can be accounted for by either
replication of data between the series (of which there is still some) or artifact of the
standardisation method (with the use of RCS curves which are possibly inappropriate for
all the data to which each is applied) . Having then got some not insubstantial
confidence in the likelihood of a real temperature signal in this period - the question
of why the extreme divergence in the series pre-1200 and post 1900? A real geographic
difference in the forcing , replication and standardisation problems? - both are likely.
We would like the raw cores for each site: the RCS indices upon which you base the
chronologies ; the site chronologies (which I think you sent to Ray?). At first we will
simply plot the site chronologies , correlate each with local climate and come back to
you again. We will also plot each "set" of indices and compare site RCS curves and
reconsider the validity of the classification into linear and non-linear growth
patterns. I know you have done all this but we need to get a feel for these data and do
some comparisons with my early produce ring-width RCS chronologies for ceratin sites and
compare the TRW series with the same site MXD chronologies - all a bit suck and see at
first. I am talking with Tim later today about the review idea and I will email/phone
before 16.00 my time today.
Thanks
Keith
At 10:01 AM 4/28/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:

Hi Keith,
Here is the new Esper plot with three different forms of regionalization: linear vs.
nonlinear (as in the original paper), north vs. south as defined in the legend, and east
vs. west (i.e. eastern hemisphere vs. western hemisphere). All of the series have been
smoothed with a 50-yr spline after first averaging the annual values. The number of
cores/chronologies are given in the legend in parentheses. Not surprisingly, the north
and south chronologies deviate most in the post-1950 period. Before 1950 and back to
about 1200 the series are remarkably similar (to me anyway). Prior to 1200 there is more
chaos, perhaps because the number of chronologies have declined along with the
within-chronology replication. However, there is still some evidence for spatially
coherent above-average growth. I showed this plot at the Duke meeting. Karl Taylor
actually told me that he thought it looked fairly convincing, i.e. that the
low-frequency structure in the Esper series was not an artefact of the RCS method.
Cheers,
Ed

Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.

Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

--

==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Doherty Senior Scholar and
Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Palisades, New York 10964 USA
Email: drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
==================================

--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.

Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa[3]/

References

1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

Original Filename: 1053461261.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Soon et al. paper
Date: Tue May 20 16:07:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Jerry Meehl <meehl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Mike and Tom and others
My silence to do with the specific issue of the Soon and Baliunas conveys general strong
agreement with all the general remarks (and restatement of many in various forms ) by Tom
Crowley, Mike Mann, Neville Nichols and now Tom Wigley regarding the scientific value of
the paper and its obvious methodological flaws.
I have to say that I tended towards the "who cares" camp , in as much as those who are
concerned about the science should see through it anyway . I also admit to thinking that
some of you seem a little paranoid (especially in the implication that Climate Research is
a pro sceptic journal) but I am changing my mind regarding the way the "meaning" of the BS
paper is being presented to the wider public - in response to some very poor recent
reporting in the British press and several requests from the US that indicate that those of
you who work there can not simply rely on the weight of good science eventually showing
through as regards the public perception . As Tom W. states , there are uncertainties and
"difficulties" with our current knowledge of Hemispheric temperature histories and valid
criticisms or shortcomings in much of our work. This is the nature of the beast - and I
have been loathe to become embroiled in polarised debates that force too simplistic a
presentation of the state of the art or "consensus view". Having read Tom W's and Mike's
latest statements I now agree about the need to make some public comment on BS . (I too
have given my personal view of the work to David Appell who I assume is writing a balanced
view of this paper for Scientific American). I see little need to get involved in a over
detailed critic of all the points in the paper , because I am not sure what audience would
benefit from it, but the points made by those I listed above could usefully be fashioned
into a simple letter to Climate Research, signed by those who wish. This would then go on
record as a simple statement of refutation of the method employed and corresponding
limitation of the work for informing the "global warming " debate . This could be quickly
citable when talking to the media.
The one additional point I would make that seems to have been overlooked in the discussions
up to now , is the invalidity of assuming that the existence of a global Medieval Warm
period , even if shown to be as warm as the current climate , somehow negates the
possibility of enhanced greenhouse warming. The business of constructing a reliable climate
history is only one part of establishing the relative roles of natural and anthropogenic
forcings, now and in the future. Without reference to the roles of natural forcings in
recent and past times , comparisons with other periods are of very limited value anyway.
So I agree with Tom and Mike that something needs to go "on record" . The various papers
apparently in production, regardless of their individual emphasis or approaches, will find
their way in to the literature and the next IPCC can sift and present their message(s) as
it wishes., but in the meantime , why not a simple statement of the shortcomings of the BS
paper as they have been listed in these messages and why not in Climate Research?
Keith
At 05:04 PM 5/16/xxx xxxx xxxx, Michael E. Mann wrote:

Tom,
Thanks for your response, which I will maintain as confidential within the small group
of the original recipients (other than Ray whom I've included in as well), given the
sensitivity of some of the comments made.
Whether or not their comments are ad hominem or potentially libelous is probably
immaterial here (some people who have read them think they might be--in certain places,
alterior motives are implied on the part of individually named scientists in the
discussion of scientific methodologies).
However, the real issue, as you point out, is whether or not their arguments and
criticisms are valid. I would argue that very few of them are--I have prepared (and have
attached) a draft of replies to some of the specifics in their two papers--this is
rough, and I'm working on preparing a refined version of this for use by those who are
trying to combat the disinformation that the Baliunas and co. supporters are working at
spreading within the beltway, with the full support of industry, and perhaps the
administration. By necessity this is brief and focus on the most salient points--a
point-by-point rebuttal would take a very long time.
In the meantime, Phil and I, and Ray/Malcolm/Henry D are independently working on review
pieces (ours for R.O.G., Ray et al's for Science) that will also correct in more detail
some of the most egregious untruths put forward by the Baliunas/Soon pieces (what one
colleague of mine aptly chooses to abbreviate as "BS").
The most fundamental criticism, of course, is that the hypothesis, methods, and
assumptions are absolutely nonsensical by construction--as you already pointed out. One
could demonstrate that with an example, but then again, why do so when it is self
evident that defining an anomaly of either wetter or dryer (what does that leave out?)
relative to the 20th century (a comparison which is itself also ill-defined by the
authors, since they don't use a uniform 20th century reference period for defining their
qualitative anomalies, and discuss proxy records with variable resolution and temporal
sampling of the 20th century) was "warmer than the 20th century" is nonsense at the
most fundamental level. It defies the most elementary logic, and thus is difficult to
reply to other than noting that it is nonsense by its very nature.
Would we be compelled to provide a counterexample to disprove the authors if they had
asserted that "1=2"? What they have done isn't that much different...
So its one thing to throw out a bunch of criticisms, very few of which are valid. But to
then turn around and present a fundamentally ill-posed, supposed "analysis" which
doesn't even attempt to provide a quantitative "alternative" to past studies, to claim
to have disproven those past studies, and to supposedly support the non-sequitor
conclusion that the "MWP was warmer than the 20th century" is irresponsible, deceptive,
dishonest, and a violation of the very essence of the scientific approach in my view.
One or two people can't fight that alone, certainly not with the "artillary" (funding
and political organization) that has been lined up on the other side. In my view, it is
the responsibility of our entire community to fight this intentional disinformation
campaign, which represents an affront to everything we do and believe in. I'm doing
everything I can to do so, but I can't do it alone--and if I'm left to, we'll lose this
battle,
mike
At 02:18 PM 5/16/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Tom Wigley wrote:

Dear folks,
I have just read the Soon et al. paper in E&E. Here are some comments, and a request.
Mike said in an email that he thought the paper contained possibly
'legally actionable' ad hominem attacks on him and others. I do not
agree that there are ad hominem attacks. There are numerous criticisms, usually
justified (although not all the justifications are valid). I did not notice any
intemperate language.
While many of the criticisms are invalid, and some are irrelevant, there are a number
that seem to me to be quite valid. Probably, most of these can be rebutted, and perhaps
some of these are already covered in the literature. In my view, however, there a small
number of points that are valid criticisms.
[Off the record, the most telling criticisms apply to Tom Crowley's work -- which I do
not hold in very high regard.]
The real issue that the press (to a limited extent) and the politicians (to a greater
extent) have taken up is the conclusions of the paper's original research.
First, Soon et al. come down clearly in favor of the existence of a MWE and a LIA. I
think many of us would agree that there was a global-scale cool period that can be
identified with a LIA. The MWE is more equivocal. There are real problems in identifying
both of these 'events' with certainty due to (1) data coverage, (2) uncertainty in
transfer functions, and (3) the noise of internally generated variability on the
century time scale. [My paper on the latter point is continually ignored by the paleo
community, but it is still valid.]
So, we would probably say: there was a LIA; but the case for *or against* a MWE is not
proven. There is no strong diagreement with Soon et al. here.
The main disagreements are with the methods used by Soon et al. to draw their LIA/MWE
conclusion, and their conclusion re the anomalousness/uniqueness of the 20th century (a
conclusion that is based on the same methods).
So what is their method? I need to read the paper again carefully to check on this, but
it seems that they say the MWE [LIA] was warm [cold] if at a particular site there is a
50+ year period that was warm, wet, dry [cold, dry, wet] somewhere in the interval
xxx xxxx xxxx[1xxx xxxx xxxx], where warm/cold, wet, dry are defined relative to the 20th
century.
The problems with this are .....
(1) Natural internally generated variability alone virtually guarantees that these
criteria will be met at every site.
(2) As Nev Nicholls pointed out, almost any period would be identified as a MWE or LIA
by these criteria -- and, as a corollary, their MWE period could equally well have been
identified as a LIA (or vice versa)
(3) If the identified warm blips in their MWE were are different times for different
locations (as they are) then there would be no global-mean signal.
(4) The reason for including precip 'data' at all (let alone both wet and dry periods in
both the MWE and LIA) is never stated -- and cannot be justified. [I suspect that if
they found a wet period in the MWE, for example, they would search for a dry period in
the LIA -- allowing both in both the MWE and LIA seems too stupid to be true.]
(5) For the uniqueness of the 20th century, item (1) also applies.
So, their methods are silly. They seem also to have ignored the fact that what we are
searching is a signal in global-mean temperature.
The issue now is what to do about this. I do not think it is enough to bury criticisms
of this work in other papers. The people who have noticed the Soon et al paper, or have
had it pointed out to them, will never see or become aware of such rebuttals/responses.
Furthermore, I do not think that a direct response will give the work credibility. It is
already 'credible' since it is in the peer reviewed literature (and E&E, by the way, is
peer reviewed). A response that says this paper is a load of crap for the following
reasons is *not* going to give the original work credibility -- just the opposite.
How then does one comprehensively and concisely demolish this work? There are two issues
here. The first is the point by point response to their criticisms of the literature. To
do this would be tedious, but straightforward. There will be at least some residual
criticisms that must be accepted as valid, and this must be admitted. Cross-referencing
to other review papers would be legitimate here.
The second is to demolish the method. I have done this qualitatively (following Nev
mainly) above, but this is not enough. What is needed is a counter example that uses the
method of reductio ad absurdem. This would be clear and would be appropriate since it
avoids us having to point out in words that their methods are absurd. I have some ideas
how to do this, but I will let you think about it more before going further.
You will see from this email that I am urging you to produce a response. I am happy to
join you in this, and perhaps a few others could add their weight too. I am copying this
to Jerry since he has to give some congressional testimony next week and questions about
the Soon et al work are definitely going to be raised. I am also copying this to Caspar,
since the last millenium runs that he is doing with paleo-CSM are relevant.
Best wishes,
Tom.

______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.

Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa[3]/

References

1. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

Original Filename: 1054748574.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Edward Cook <drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Review- confidential REALLY URGENT
Date: Wed Jun 4 13:42:xxx xxxx xxxx

I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review - Confidentially I now need a hard
and if required extensive case for rejecting - to support Dave Stahle's and really as soon
as you can. Please
Keith
At 08:00 AM 5/28/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:

Hi Keith,
Okay, here is a zipped archive containing Jan's ring-width measurement series. The
directory names are:
random
all
slope
flat
"All" contains files with "all" series; "slope" has those series Jan reckoned had
curvilinear growth trends; "flat" has those series with linear growth trends; "random"
are those series that Jan chose not to use. Note that I had to pull out the Mongolia
data set. I would love to give you it, but Gordon would go nuts if he found out. I don't
know any way around this problem.
The file names are:
01ath Athabasca
02bor Boreal
03cam Camphill
04que Quebec
05upp Upper Wright
06got Gotland
07jae Jaemtland
08lau Lauenen (site not used in paper)
09tir Tirol
10tor Tornestrask
11man Mangazeja
13pol Polar Urals
14tay Taymir
15zha Zhaschiviersk
I can't put my hands on the derived RCS indices for these sites just now, but I can find
them if you want them. This at least gives you the basic data and how it was partitioned
by Jan. I did not participate in this stage of the analysis, so any questions about it
should be directed to Jan.
Cheers,
Ed
--
==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Doherty Senior Scholar and
Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Palisades, New York 10964 USA
Email: drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
==================================

--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.

Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa[2]/

References

1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

Original Filename: 1054756929.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Edward Cook <drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Review- confidential REALLY URGENT
Date: Wed Jun 4 16:02:xxx xxxx xxxx

Hi Big Boy
You just caught me as I was about to slope off after a brutal day - we spent all day
yesterday interviewing for a job we have and then someone accepted it - and now Janice
tells us we don't have the money to pay at therate the job was advertised for! This attack
sounds like the last straw- from what you say it is a waste of time my looking at it but
send a copy anyway. The file you have is an old version of a reconstruction output for one
Tornetrask reconstruction - if it was labelled something like 990 it is the original Nature
one , but 997 (i Think//1) would make it the Climate Dynamics one . Trouble is I will have
to go back and find out which . Please ring if I haven't my tomorrow to remind me - and
concentrate on the review for now. I will also talk about an extended nearby data set
(temp) that might allow a longer more rigorous validation . Kirsten has just done Math GCSE
and Amy her driving test so I have to go and picjk them up. I will looke at the file and be
ready with an answer by midday my time. the best and a beer til then
Keith
At 09:50 AM 6/4/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:

Hi Keith,
Okay, today. Promise! Now something to ask from you. Actually somewhat important too. I
got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and
Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims
that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression)
is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your Tornetrask recon as the main
whipping boy. I have a file that you gave me in 1993 that comes from your 1992 paper.
Below is part of that file. Is this the right one? Also, is it possible to resurrect the
column headings? I would like to play with it in an effort to refute their claims.
If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to
review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It
won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically,
but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies,
without showing that their improved inverse regression method is actually better in a
practical sense. So they do lots of monte carlo stuff that shows the superiority of
their method and the deficiencies of our way of doing things, but NEVER actually show
how their method would change the Tornetrask reconstruction from what you produced.
Your assistance here is greatly appreciated. Otherwise, I will let Tornetrask sink into
the melting permafrost of northern Sweden (just kidding of course).
Cheers,
Ed
TORNETRASK RECONSTRUCTION
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.31
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.39
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.25
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.34
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.34
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.25
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.24
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.33
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.31
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.27
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.29
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.35
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.28
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.27
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.29
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.26
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.27
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.25
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.26
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.26
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.26
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.38
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.37
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.24
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.25
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.24
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.25
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.28
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.25
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.25
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.24
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.28
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.29
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.24
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.35
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.95
2.xxx xxxx xxxx.70
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.64
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.32
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.47
2.xxx xxxx xxxx.45
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.19
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.55
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.34
-2.xxx xxxx xxxx.20
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.23
2.xxx xxxx xxxx.22
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.74
2.xxx xxxx xxxx.34
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.10
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.15
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.42
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.11
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.27
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.07
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.08
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.95
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.72
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.39
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.74
-2.xxx xxxx xxxx.05
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.61
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.48
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.17
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.31
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.62
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.34
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.72
2.xxx xxxx xxxx.03
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.53
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.29
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.12
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.22
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.12
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.19
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.32
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.70
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.38
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.43
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.15
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.81
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.87
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.21
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.74
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.15
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.26
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.74
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.71
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.19
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.64
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.41
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.20
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.14
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.07
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.88
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.56
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.37
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.52
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.24
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.32
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.80
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.42
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.25
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.13
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.10
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.12
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.40
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.05
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.69
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.40
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.71
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.18
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.22
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.24
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.49
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.24
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.46
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.07
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.60
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.18
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.79
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.66
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.38
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.02
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.47
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.10
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.01
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.03
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.61
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.38
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.84
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.11
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.89
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.24
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.32
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.52
-2.xxx xxxx xxxx.44
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.02
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.42
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.64
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.11
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.05
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.06
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.69
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.55
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.70
-2.xxx xxxx xxxx.10
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.22
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.55
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.51
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.71
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.60
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.00
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.55
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.02
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.79
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.23
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.99
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.29
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.50
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.84
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.61
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.91
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.65
-2.xxx xxxx xxxx.51
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.78
2.xxx xxxx xxxx.02
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.68
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.39
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.87
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.12
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.93
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.85
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.35
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.75
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.12
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.23
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.02
-2.xxx xxxx xxxx.84
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.64
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.46
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.49
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.10
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.75
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.06
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.18
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.10
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.14
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.21
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.02
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.25
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.58
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.42
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.21
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.21
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.74
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.27
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.77
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.36
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.88
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.98
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.05
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.37
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.86
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.48
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.26
3.xxx xxxx xxxx.39
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.49
2.xxx xxxx xxxx.91
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.99
2.xxx xxxx xxxx.71
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.67
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.42
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.70
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.20
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.32
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.50
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.69
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.69
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.18
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.50
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.81
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.71
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.62
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.64
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.43
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.20
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.74
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.67
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.14
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.11
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.52
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.73
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.23
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.34
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.26
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.38
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.37
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.11
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.70
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.32
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.42
2.xxx xxxx xxxx.76
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.73
-2.xxx xxxx xxxx.94
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.32
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.31
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.77
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.90
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.32
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.98
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.39
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.02
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.19
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.17
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.65
-2.xxx xxxx xxxx.01
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.07
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.79
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.42
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.09
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.74
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.82
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.46
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.13
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.13
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.21
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.07
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.10
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.37
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.54
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.05
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.40
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.03
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.12
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.00
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.18
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.85
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.85
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.30
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.12
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.62
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.51
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.23
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.02
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.90
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.62
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.48
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.29
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.83
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.06
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.02
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.59

I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review - Confidentially I now need a hard
and if required extensive case for rejecting - to support Dave Stahle's and really as
soon as you can. Please
Keith
At 08:00 AM 5/28/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:

Hi Keith,
Okay, here is a zipped archive containing Jan's ring-width measurement series. The
directory names are:
random
all
slope
flat
"All" contains files with "all" series; "slope" has those series Jan reckoned had
curvilinear growth trends; "flat" has those series with linear growth trends; "random"
are those series that Jan chose not to use. Note that I had to pull out the Mongolia
data set. I would love to give you it, but Gordon would go nuts if he found out. I don't
know any way around this problem.
The file names are:
01ath Athabasca
02bor Boreal
03cam Camphill
04que Quebec
05upp Upper Wright
06got Gotland
07jae Jaemtland
08lau Lauenen (site not used in paper)
09tir Tirol
10tor Tornestrask
11man Mangazeja
13pol Polar Urals
14tay Taymir
15zha Zhaschiviersk
I can't put my hands on the derived RCS indices for these sites just now, but I can find
them if you want them. This at least gives you the basic data and how it was partitioned
by Jan. I did not participate in this stage of the analysis, so any questions about it
should be directed to Jan.
Cheers,
Ed
--
==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Doherty Senior Scholar and
Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Palisades, New York 10964 USA
Email: drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
==================================

--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

--

==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Doherty Senior Scholar and
Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Palisades, New York 10964 USA
Email: drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
==================================

--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.

Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa[3]/

References

1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

Original Filename: 1067005233.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: evelyn.smith@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Christopher D Miller" <Christopher.D.Miller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: confidential assessment of GCxxx xxxx xxxx
Date: Fri Oct 24 10:20:xxx xxxx xxxx

Dear Evelyn and Chris,
re. proposal review GCxxx xxxx xxxx, Meko et al. "A synthesis of 19th century climate data for the
United States from paleo, archival and instrumental sources".
I have read the "Reviewer conflict of interest and confidentiality..." document and can
state that I have no conflict of interest and will abide by the confidentiality provisions
etc.
I reviewed a very similar proposal by this group 1 year ago, and enclose my review of that
proposal below. The new proposal has taken into account my two main concerns from last
time, which were:
(i) that creation only of a blended data set that contained a time varying mixture of proxy
and instrumental data would limit the usefulness because its quality would be time varying,
perhaps in an unquantified way, and independent study of errors between proxy and observed
data would be prevented; and
(ii) that the proposed work was not very innovative in terms of the applications for which
the new information would be used.
Both of these points have been addressed adequately and so I now rate it "Excellent (5)"
for scientific/technical merit, and "High (5)" for importance/relevance and applicability.
One issue that I would like to raise, however, is that the need for quantifying
uncertainty/error in the reconstructions/database is not given much coverage in the
proposal. It is mentioned, but not focused on. For many applications (testing models,
comparison with other reconstructions, detection of unusual climate trends/events),
explicitly quantified error estimates are essential. These often change magnitude through
time, and thus should be estimated in such a way as to allow this. They may also change
with time scale (often being lower for, e.g., a decadal mean than for a single year's
value), and again the error estimation method should capture this. I do not think that
this issue detracts from the quality of the proposal. Instead I am mentioning it in the
hope that this comment can be passed on to the proposers, in the event that the project is
funded, so that they can be prompted into placing the appropriate emphasis on quantifying
uncertainty.
Apologies for being late yet again, and best regards,
Tim

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:14:31 +0000
Subject: confidential assessment of GCxxx xxxx xxxx
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <irma.dupree@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
CC: <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
<christopher.d.miller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear Irma and Chris,
Re. proposal review GCxxx xxxx xxxx, PI: David Meko "A 19th century data catalog"
First of all, I confirm that there is no conflict of interest etc.
Now to my review...
(1) Scientific Merit
Rating: Good
Comments:
I completely agree with the rationale behind improving data sets of 19th
century climate (see my comments below on "Relevance to climate change
programme"), and the proposers have identified the most relevant data
sources available for the US. The objectives and workplan are generally
reasonable, but I have rated it "good" rather than "very good" or
"excellent" because it does not seem as scientifically innovative or
challenging as it might. Some particular concerns are highlighted below.
I am very wary about the proposed approach of integrating the data sources
together to produce a single climate product. Obviously the data sources
have to be used in combination, for calibration of proxy data or for
assessment of possibly dubious early instrumental data, *but* combining them
all into a single product only will be very restrictive for future use,
assessment, improvements. Much better would be to produce intrumental-only
series for whatever length is available, and tree-ring only series for the
full length (i.e., into the late 19th and 20th centuries, despite the
availability of instrumental data for these periods). Blending them into a
single analysis is of some, but limited, use and comparisons of different
periods and with (e.g.) model simulations can only ever be done by taking
into account error bars that vary dramatically in time and are only
estimates of the "true" errors - and the error estimates may be
underestimates if based only on residuals or covariances during the 20th
century.
No mention is made of using the 19th century data to consider key issues
such as difference between tree-ring and ground borehole temperatures (they
differ more in the 19th century, in terms of trend, than in other
centuries), possibly taking into account land-use change. No mention is
made of using the 19th century data to assess multi-century temperature
reconstructions and why they differ. These are issues of great importance.
No mention is investigating seasonal dependence of temperature changes,
which are greater in existing temperature products during the 19th century
than in the 20th century and which has important implications for the
calibration of proxy (including tree-ring) data against summer or annual
data and the need to more clearly define the true seasonal response of proxy
data.
Despite these concerns, the proposed work is certainly worthy of funding and
the extra items of interest that I mention above could be achieved using the
data generated here, in some future project.
(2) Relevance to climate change programme
Rating: High
Comments:
The 19th century is certainly of particular importance, not just for the
reasons outlined in the proposal but also because this century shows some of
the biggest disagreements in warming trend between various quasi-hemispheric
temperature reconstructions and between proxy and instrumental data and
between different seasons of instrumental data. Additional data sources are
definitely required, and additional digitisation, homogenisation and
intercomparison of data sets is necessary. For these reasons, work such as
that proposed here is essential for helping to refine answers to questions
such as how unusual is late twentieth century climate and detection of
climate change signals against the noise of natural climate variability.
Best regards
Tim

Original Filename: 1067194064.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Ray Bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Malcolm Hughes" <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, tom crowley <tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, asocci@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim_Profeta@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gabi Hegerl <hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson.4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Lonnie G. Thompson" <thompson.3@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: CONFIDENTIAL Fwd:
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 13:47:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear All,
This has been passed along to me by someone whose identity will remain in confidence.
Who knows what trickery has been pulled or selective use of data made. Its clear that
"Energy and Environment" is being run by the baddies--only a shill for industry would have
republished the original Soon and Baliunas paper as submitted to "Climate Research" without
even editing it. Now apparently they're at it again...
My suggested response is:
1) to dismiss this as stunt, appearing in a so-called "journal" which is already known to
have defied standard practices of peer-review. It is clear, for example, that nobody we
know has been asked to "review" this so-called paper
2) to point out the claim is nonsense since the same basic result has been obtained by
numerous other researchers, using different data, elementary compositing techniques, etc.
Who knows what sleight of hand the authors of this thing have pulled. Of course, the usual
suspects are going to try to peddle this crap. The important thing is to deny that this has
any intellectual credibility whatsoever and, if contacted by any media, to dismiss this for
the stunt that it is..
Thanks for your help,
mike

two people have a forthcoming 'Energy & Environment' paper that's being unveiled tomoro
(monday) that -- in the words of one Cato / Marshall/ CEI type -- "will claim that Mann
arbitrarily ignored paleo data within his own record and substituted other data for
missing values that dramatically affected his results.
When his exact analysis is rerun with all the data and with no data
substitutions, two very large warming spikes will appear that are greater than the 20th
century.
Personally, I'd offer that this was known by most people who understand Mann's
methodology: it can be quite sensitive to the input data in the early centuries.
Anyway, there's going to be a lot of noise on this one, and knowing Mann's very thin
skin I am afraid he will react strongly, unless he has learned (as I hope he has) from
the past...."

______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

References

1. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

Original Filename: 1089318616.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:xxx xxxx xxxx

Mike,
Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY - don't pass on. Relevant paras are the last
2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia
for years. He knows the're wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him
to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !
I didn't say any of this, so be careful how you use it - if at all. Keep quiet also
that you have the pdf.
The attachment is a very good paper - I've been pushing Adrian over the last weeks
to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also
for ERA-40. The basic message is clear - you have to put enough surface and sonde
obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand
out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.
The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also
losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see
it.
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them
out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil
Mike,
For your interest, there is an ECMWF ERA-40 Report coming out soon, which
shows that Kalnay and Cai are wrong. It isn't that strongly worded as the first author
is a personal friend of Eugenia. The result is rather hidden in the middle of the report.
It isn't peer review, but a slimmed down version will go to a journal. KC are wrong
because
the difference between NCEP and real surface temps (CRU) over eastern N. America doesn't
happen with ERA-40. ERA-40 assimilates surface temps (which NCEP didn't) and doing
this makes the agreement with CRU better. Also ERA-40's trends in the lower atmosphere
are all physically consistent where NCEP's are not - over eastern US.

I can send if you want, but it won't be out as a report for a couple of months.
Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original Filename: 1091798809.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Janice Lough" <j.lough@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: liked the paper
Date: Fri Aug 6 09:26:xxx xxxx xxxx

Janice,
Most of the data series in most of the plots have just appeared on the CRU web site.
Go to data then to paleoclimate. Did this to stop getting hassled by the skeptics for the
data series. Mike Mann refuses to talk to these people and I can understand why. They are
just trying to find if we've done anything wrong. I sent one of them loads of series
and he barely said a thankyou. It seems they are now going for Tom Crowley, Lonnie
Thompson and Gordon Jacoby as most of their series are not on web sites.
Below is a link to an awful piece by Legates. He told me he is a writing a paper, but
wrote the press release first ! The pdf is worth getting for a couple of sentences, when
he
said that MJ restricted their use of paleo series to those that had correlations with
instrumental data ! It is a classic. 'Our uncertainty estimates are based solely on how
well
the proxy records match the observed data' !
The Legates piece must have been sent to loads of environment correspondents across
the world and a number of op-ed pieces appeared. Some were awful. Most have had
responses from Ray Bradley, Caspar Amman and others.
Hope all is well with you and all the best to all. Glad you enjoyed the paper.
Cheers
Phil
PS Do you want to get involved in IPCC this time? I'm the CLA of the atmospheric obs.
chapter with Kevin Trenberth and we'll be looking for Contributing Authors to help the
Lead Authors we have. Paleo is in a different section this time led by Peck and Eystein
Janssen. Keith is a lead author as well.
Phil Jones has made a valid point in that some of the articles cited
in my critique do not 'directly' address problems with Mann and Jones (MJ)
but rather, address problems with earlier works by Mann, Bradley, and
Hughes (MBH) and other colleagues. Fair enough - I have changed the
critique to reflect that fact. The revised version has been posted since
July 19 at:
[1]http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba478/ba478.pdf
However, I still contend that most of my original arguments - namely, the
problems with the shaft, blade, and sheath - apply equally to Mann and
Jones as well as the other Mann et al. manifestations of the 'hockey
stick'.
MJ incorporate data from a number of the same sources as those used
by MBH; for example, Mann's unpublished PC1 from the western North
American tree-ring data, Cook's Tasmanian tree rings, Thompson's Quelccaya
and Dunde ice core oxygen isotope records (the latter embedded in Yang's
Chinese composite), and Fisher's stacked Greenland ice core oxygen isotope
record. Calibration and verification of MJ includes the flawed MBH curve.
Thus, any errors in MBH effectively undermine the calibration-verification
results of MJ, leaving this study unsupported and any problems with the
underlying common proxies identified in critiques of MBH will also result
in identical problems in MJ.
My criticism regarding the blade is that 0.6 deg C warming for the
last century is noted by the IPCC whereas MJ (and other M et al
representations) have up to 0.95 deg C warming in their observed record.
See MJ's figure 2 where for the global and NH reconstruction, their
estimates for 2000 exceed +0.4 and +0.5 (nearly +0.6), respectively.
MJ's NH curve is included in the attached graph. Thus, I stand by my
criticism of MJ on this point, which is more egregious in MJ than other M
et al representations.
>From Jones: "The trend over the 20th century in the Figure and in the
instrumental data. IPCC quotes 0.6 deg C over the 1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod. Fact
- but Legates is eyeballing the curve to get 0.95 deg C. A figure isn't
given in Mann and Jones (2003). Take it from me the trend is about the
same as the instrumental record."
Funny, but there IS a figure in MJ - see their Figure 2. As for me
'eyeballing' an apparently non-existent curve, I attach a figure from Soon
et al. (2004) that contains a portion of MJ's Figure 2 to allow others to
decide for themselves whether MJ suggest a twentieth century warming of
0.6 deg C or 0.95 deg C. Moreover, maybe someone can explain why every
time Mann and his colleagues draft another curve, the temperature in 2000
gets warmer and warmer after the fact...
My criticisms regarding the sheath (largely from a paper on which I
am working) stem from the characterization of the uncertainty by MJ that
arises solely from the 'fit' statistics to the 1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod using
cross-validation with, not observations, but composites of three
previously compiled reconstructions, including that developed by MBH - the
focus of known flaws and errors in the shaft. Note that some of the same
data are used in both MBH and MJ, which doesn't allow for a truly
independent cross-validation. My rather obvious point was not that fit
statistics should not be included (as Jones asserts) but that MJ included
no errors in either input realization (observations or proxy data) or
other obvious sources of error. The claim by MBH and MJ is that only the
model lack-of-fit contributes to uncertainty is inherently flawed.
Considerable errors exist in the representation of both fields -
annual temperatures from both observations and proxy records - and must be
incorporated. Clearly, there is a spatial bias associated with
observations that are biased away from the oceans, high latitudes, and
high altitudes. The spatial problem is far more pronounced when only a
handful of proxies are used to represent the global temperatures at
earlier time periods. Both MBH and MJ are equally guilty in this regard.
David R. Legates
At 15:55 06/08/2004 +1000, you wrote:

Dear Phil
Just finished reading your paper with Mike M in Rev of Geophysics which I
very much enjoyed - will let you know when it hits the Mission Beach
Chronicle!
Hope all is well
best wishes
Janice
Janice M. Lough
Principal Research Scientist
Australian Institute of Marine Science
PMB 3, Townsville MC
Queensland 4810
Australia
email: j.lough@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Tel: (xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: (xxx xxxx xxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained within this transmission is for the use of
the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or
legally privileged material and/or material the subject of copyright
and/or personal information and/or sensitive information that is
subject to the Privacy Act 1988. Any review, re-transmission,
disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in
reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited.

If you have received this email in error please notify the AIMS
Privacy Officer on (xxx xxxx xxxxand delete all copies of this
transmission together with any attachments.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

1. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba478/ba478.pdf

Original Filename: 1092418712.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: IJOC040512 review
Date: Fri Aug 13 13:38:xxx xxxx xxxx

Mike,
I'd rather you didn't. I think it should be sufficient to forward the para from Andrew
Conrie's
email that says the paper has been rejected by all 3 reviewers. You can say that the
paper was an extended and updated version of that which appeared in CR.
Obviously, under no circumstances should any of this get back to Pielke.
Cheers
Phil
At 08:11 13/08/2xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:

Thanks a bunch Phil,
Along lines as my other email, would it be (?) for me to forward this to the chair of
our commitee confidentially, and for his internal purposes only, to help bolster the
case against MM??
let me know...
thanks,
mike
At 03:43 AM 8/13/2004, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
The paper ! Now to find my review. I did suggest to Andrew to find 3 reviewers.
Phil

From: "Andrew Comrie" <comrie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "'f028'" <P.Jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: IJOC040512 review
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 01:29:xxx xxxx xxxx
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024
Importance: Normal
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
X-UEA-MailScanner-SpamScore: ssss
<<...>>
Dear Phil,
IJOC040512 "A Socioeconomic Fingerprint on the Spatial Distribution of Surface Air
Temperature Trends"
Authors: RR McKitrick & PJ Michaels
Target review date: July 5, 2004
Following from our email, many thanks for agreeing to review the paper above that has
been submitted to the International Journal of Climatology for consideration. I have
attached the manuscript, and the information for reviewers is provided below. Please let
me know that you receieved the file.
In the interests of expediting the review process, I encourage you to email your review
as soon as is convenient. I would like to hear from you by the target date above, or as
soon after as possible.
Referee's names are kept anonymous. When composing your review, please keep your
"Comments to the Author" separate from your confidential comments to the editor. With
your comments to me, please be sure to provide one of these summary recommendations:
1. Accept without further revision.
2. Accept subject to minor revisions (changes to the text only, or simple follow-on
analyses).
3. Accept subject to major revisions (major text changes, recalculations or new
analyses).
4. Reject.
In the case of minor revisions, the revised manuscript will be checked only by the
editor. For major revisions, the revised manuscript may be sent to you again for a
second review. It will also be useful if you will grade the contribution overall on the
following scale:
A. Very good (a continuing and useful advance in an area of importance).
B. Good (satisfactory and of sufficient importance to merit publication).
C. Adequate (of marginal interest).
D. Poor (not significant enough to merit publication).
E. Very poor (trivial, or incorrect, or of no interest, or not new, etc.).
For your review, please also comment if any of the following points are not satisfactory
or suitable: topic appropriate for the journal, correctness of the title, reduction in
paper length, quality and quantity of illustrations, units, use of English, and key
words.
Your contribution to the review process is essential and greatly valued.
Sincerely,
Andrew Comrie
Dr. Andrew C. Comrie
Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies
Dept. of Geography and Regional Development
University of Arizona
409 Harvill Building
Tucson, AZ 85xxx xxxx xxxx, USA
Tel: (+1) (5xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: (+1) (5xxx xxxx xxxx
E-mail: comrie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Web: [1]http://geog.arizona.edu/~comrie/
Regional Editor for the Americas, International Journal of Climatology
[2]http://www.interscience.wiley.com/ijoc
-----Original Message-----
From: f028 [[3]mailto:f028@xxxxxxxxx.xxx] On Behalf Of f028
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 1:04 AM
To: Andrew Comrie
Subject: RE: IJOC040512 review
Andrew,
I can do this. I am in France this week but back in the UK all June.
So send and it will be waiting my return.
Phil
>===== Original Message From "Andrew Comrie" <comrie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
=====
>Dear Prof. Jones,
>
>IJOC040512 "A Socioeconomic Fingerprint on the Spatial Distribution of
>Surface Air Temperature Trends"
>Authors: RR McKitrick & PJ Michaels
>Target review date: July 5, 2004
>
>I know you are very busy, but do you have the time to review the above
>manuscript for the International Journal of Climatology? If yes, can
>you complete the review within about five to six weeks, say by the
>target review date listed above? I will send the manuscript
>electronically.
>
>If no, can you recommend someone who you think might be a good choice to
>review this paper?
>
>Thanks for considering my request.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Andrew Comrie
>
>Dr. Andrew C. Comrie
>Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies
>Dept. of Geography and Regional Development
>University of Arizona
>409 Harvill Building
>Tucson, AZ 85xxx xxxx xxxx, USA
>Tel: (+1) (5xxx xxxx xxxx
>Fax: (+1) (5xxx xxxx xxxx
>E-mail: comrie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>Web: [4]http://geog.arizona.edu/~comrie/
>Regional Editor for the Americas, International Journal of Climatology
>[5]http://www.interscience.wiley.com/ijoc

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[6]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

1. http://geog.arizona.edu/~comrie/
2. http://www.interscience.wiley.com/ijoc
3. mailto:f028@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. http://geog.arizona.edu/~comrie/
5. http://www.interscience.wiley.com/ijoc
6. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

Original Filename: 1092433030.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: John.Birks@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,dirk.verschuren@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,Laurent.Labeyrie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,juerg.beer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,A.Lotter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,hufischer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx ,dan.charman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,karin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: IMPRINT
Date: Fri Aug 13 17:37:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: wanner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Basil.Davis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,sigfus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,guiot@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,Ian.Snowball@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,antti.ojala@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,atle.nesje@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,atte.korhola@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,Keith.Barber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,Sandy.Tudhope@xxxxxxxxx.xxx ,eavaganov@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Rick Battarbee <r.battarbee@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, , Jan Esper <esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, brazdil@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, benito@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear Colleagues,

This note is to solicit your possible collaboration in an application to the European
Commission under Framework 6, possibly as one of the partners in IMPRINT. This is an
integrated palaeoclimate/climate modelling project concerned primarily with the Holocene,
but also incorporating specific studies on other interglacial warm periods. AT THIS STAGE
THIS IS A PROVISIONAL ENQUIRY RATHER THAN A DEFINITE REQUEST FOR YOUR INVOLVEMENT.
The project has been some time (years) in gestation and has evolved from other proposals.
An unfinished draft is appended to this message for your information - but we would ask
that you respect its confidentiality , whether or not you are interested in working with
us. Eystein Jansen has agreed to coordinate IMPRINT. We are now refining the initial
submission. I, and Valerie Masson, are nominally fronting WorkPackage 1: concerned with
assembling, reinterpreting, amalgamating and analysing the climate data; a combination of
instrumental, documentary and other indirect, proxy climate information. This Workpackage
will also organise the aggregation of best possible climate forcing proxy evidence, as
means of exploring links with the empirical climate data, but also as input to the
significant effort in climate modelling to be undertaken in other workpackages.
WorkPackage 1 has been divided into a number of sub themes or Tasks and these, along with
the content of all Workpackages, is described in the attached document. Note that this is
very much work in progress at this stage and your comments and input to all parts will be
welcome. We will refine the wider list of collaborating institutes at a later stage.

At this stage we envisage a total budget application of about 17 million Euro with a
nominal share of 5 million for WorkPackage 1. While this is a large sum, I am sure you
will appreciate that when distributed among many partners and stretched over five years it
imposes a severe limitation on the total number of partners that can be feasibly included.
Therefore we have had to conceive of different degrees, or levels, of involvement of the
very many colleagues and institutions that are required to make this project a success.
Thus, we envisage a distinction between a number of full partners, though again with
varying resource allocation depending on specific inputs and requirements (still to be
determined), and a larger number of collaborators. Specific funding will be allocated to
facilitate the involvement of these many other groups, who we see taking part in workshops,
in return for full access to joint data and modelling results. This is the only way that
we see of overcoming the envisaged restriction imposed by the EC on total partner numbers.

We have chosen partners who we hope will be able to furnish expertise in specific research
areas and, hopefully, facilitate data assembly and exchange between members of the wider
communities.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THOSE PEOPLE LISTED IN THE "TO" LINE OF ADDRESSES ARE THOSE TENTATIVELY
EARMARKED TO BE TASK LEADERS WITHIN WORKPACKAGE 1. THOSE LISTED UNDER THE "CC" HEADING ARE
EARMARKED TO be PARTNERS - ORGANISING WORK AND DATA EXCHANGE WITHIN THEIR COMMUNITY. We
have a suggested list of many others who we would hope to involve - but not at full
partner level. Your input to the compleinon of this list will be asked for later. We would
ask that , for now, you do not circulate this provisional proposal .
We realise that many other partners could have been fully justifiably included, but the
need for pragmatism must eventually limit their formal roles. We hope that this reality
will be accepted by those colleagues not included as primary partners and they will still
be willing to collaborate to achieve the wider aims of IMPRINT.

The specific partner roles, as suggested to date, are described in the Workpackage 1
section of the appended IMPRINT document. Would you now please indicate whether or not you
are willing to join this effort, and please feel free to comment on any aspect: of
Workpackage 1 to myself and Valerie; or of the project as a whole to Eystein.

With very best wishes,

Keith

--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.

Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx

Original Filename: 1106338806.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: FOIA
Date: Fri Jan 21 15:20:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Tom,
I'll look at what you've said over the weekend re CCSP.
I don't know the other panel members. I've not heard any
more about it since agreeing a week ago.
As for FOIA Sarah isn't technically employed by UEA and she
will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University.
I wouldn't worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get
used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well.
Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people,
so I will be hiding behind them. I'll be passing any
requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to
deal with them.
Cheers
Phil
At 14:35 21/01/2005, Tom Wigley wrote:

Phil,
Thanks for the quick reply.
The leaflet appeared so general, but it was prepared by UEA so
they may have simplified things. From their wording, computer code
would be covered by the FOIA. My concern was if Sarah is/was still
employed by UEA. I guess she could claim that she had only written
one tenth of the code and release every tenth line.
Sorry I won't see you, but I will not come up to Norwich until
Monday.
Let me fill you in a bit (confidentially). You probably know the panel
members. We were concerned that the chair would be a strong person.
It is Jerry Mahlman -- about the best possible choice. Richard Smith
is the statistician -- also excellent. Dave Randall, too -- very good.
As token skeptic there is Dick Lindzen -- but at least he is a smart
guy and he does listen. He may raise his paper with Gianitsis that
purports to show low climate sensitivity from volcanoes. I will
attach our paper that proves otherwise, in press in JGR.
Preparing the report has been a good and bad experience. I think
I had the worst task with the Exec. Summ. -- it tied up most of
my time for the past 3 months. The good has been the positive
interactions between most of the people -- a really excellent bunch.
I have been very impressed by Carl Mears and John Lanzante.
At meetings, John Christy has been quite good -- and there were
good and positive interactions between John and Roy and the RSS
gang that helped clarify a lot. Outside the meeting, in the email world,
he has been more of a pain. He has made a lot of useful suggestions
for the ExSumm -- but he keeps accusing the AOGCMers of
faking their models (not quite as bluntly as this). In the emails there
are some very useful exchanges from Jerry Meehl, Ramaswamy and
Ben detailing the AOGCM development process. We will be
writing a BAMS article on this in the summer -- much of what happens
in model development is unknown to the rest of the community. The
'faking' idea prompted me to write a tongue in cheek note -- also
attached. As far as I know, John will not raise this particular issue
in his dissentin views.
To accommodate dissenting views, the report will have a "dissenters'
appendix", with responses. You will get this at some stage -- the
deadline for dissenters to produce is Jan 31, and we will not finish
our rebuttals until mid Feb. The dissenters are John C, and (far worse)
Roger Pielke Sr. All of the rest of us disagree with these persons'
dissenting views. Roger has been extremely difficult -- but the details
are too complex to put in an email. On the other hand he has made
a number of useful contributions to the ExSumm and other chapters.
Suffice to say that he has some strange ideas (often to do with the
effects of landuse change) that are interesting but still, in my view,
speculative -- but testable.
We have yet to see the dissents -- and it would not be ethical for
me to say any more than I have already.
Best wishes,
Tom.
Phil Jones wrote:

Tom,
I hope the VTT panel doesn't prove a meeting too many
at this time. It is currently scheduled for Feb xxx xxxx xxxxand
I only get back from an 8 day workshop in Pune on
Feb 20.
The IPCC Chapter with Kevin is now with WGI in
Boulder. We did put you down as one of our
potential reviewers. Don't know whether you'll
have time or whether WGI will select you -
regional balance etc.
Next week I'll be in Reading and Exeter, so
won'be be in CRU. Have to be at an RMS Awards
meeting then something on Reanalysis, then I
have to collect some data from the archives
in Exeter for a small project we have. It is
easier for me to get this than explain to
someone how to do it. So I'll miss you -
not back till Thursday night.
On the FOI Act there is a little leaflet we
have all been sent. It doesn't really clarify
what we might have to do re programs or
data. Like all things in Britain we will only
find out when the first person or organization
asks. I wouldn't tell anybody about the FOI
Act in Britain. I don't think UEA really knows
what's involved.
As you're no longer an employee I would
use this argument if anything comes along.
I think it is supposed to mainly apply to
issues of personal information - references for
jobs etc.
Sorry I'll miss you next week. If you're in
on Sunday perhaps you could come round to
our new house in Wicklewood. Phone number
is still the same as 01xxx xxxx xxxx. Keith and
Sarah know where it is even if they did get lost the
first time they came.
Cheers
Phil
At 02:59 21/01/2005, you wrote:

Phil,
Tom Karl told me you will be on the VTT review panel. This is
very good news.
Unfortunately I will not be at the meeting on the 23rd -- I will
be in midair half way across the Pacific to spend a couple of
weeks in Adelaide.
I got a brochure on the FOI Act from UEA. Does this mean
that, if someone asks for a computer program we have to give
it out?? Can you check this for me (and Sarah).
I will be at CRU next Mon, Tue, Wed in case Sarah did not
tell you.
Thanks,
Tom.

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original Filename: 1106346062.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "PJ Valdes, Geographical Sciences" <P.J.Valdes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: EU
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:21:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: oyvind.paasche@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
Keith,

It is purely a matter of resources, and since Simon will be doing the
millenial stuff with the Hadley model within IMPRINT, and I think that
probably my resources will be best focussed in some of the other work
packages. But it is possible and I will try to do it if the opportunity
arises.

Cheers
Paul

--On 21 January 2005 17:12 +0000 Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:

> Great Paul
> but I still do not see , if we do get funded, why you can not do some
> runs (in keeping with the wider hemisphere isotope records) that fit with
> your wishes within IMPRINT.
>
> At 15:16 21/01/2005, PJ Valdes, Geographical Sciences wrote:
>> Keith and Eystein,
>>
>> Thanks for your comments. Without modelling MILLENNIUM is a very much
>> weaker project. I admit that I am attracted to doing something with them
>> because I have wanted to get more involved in the last 1000 years, and
>> it would be a good opportunity to run our new isotope enabled version
>> of the Hadley model.
>>
>> However, IMPRINT is a much stronger project overall and and I also
>> prefer the broader range of timescales offered by IMPRINT (although
>> whether we have ended up being too broad is another issue). Given this
>> and the other things discussed, I will decline the offer from Danny
>> Carroll
>>
>> Best Wishes
>> Paul
>>
>> --On 20 January 2005 22:24 +0100 Eystein Jansen
>> <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Keith and Paul,
>>>
>>> I think Millennium might be a problem, but if the project does not
>>> employ a hierarchy of models and have a comprehensive modelling
>>> component it is hard to see how it fits the work program of the call.
>>> We disussed this kind of situation in one of our first meetings and
>>> agreed that we on an institutional basis should not be involved in
>>> competing projects, and I think we need to re-emphasise this agreement
>>> in our London meeting. I also gave Valerie the same opinion as some of
>>> the people in her lab had been asked to join the McCarroll proposal
>>> This said, it is clear that we have work to do with Imprint, we need to
>>> scrutinize budgets and the size of the partnership, look at how we best
>>> focus the science and give enough funds to the critical aspects. I do
>>> hope that the Imprint partners remain loyal to the project and that we
>>> keep it as intended: the best paleoscientists in Europe joined
>>> together. Best regards,
>>> Eystein
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 13:31 +0xxx xxxx xxxx, Keith Briffa wrote:
>>>> Paul
>>>> there is no doubt that Danny's project presents
>>>> something of a problem for us. As far as I
>>>> understand ,yes, it and IMPRINT are the only two
>>>> contenders. I know (confidentially) that they
>>>> have been criticised for not having any
>>>> modelling . Danny approached Hans von Storch
>>>> (and presumably others) , but Hans decided not
>>>> to go with them . At the outset of our
>>>> deliberations regarding IMPRINT , we did discuss
>>>> the possibility that we would impose an
>>>> exclusivity clause on participants - asking them
>>>> to agree not to subscribe to any other project
>>>> (I think Rick Battarbee had been involved in
>>>> another project that did this) . Hence at least
>>>> several of us , in the early (HOLCLIM) stage
>>>> agreed to this - but it was never reinstituted
>>>> after the project expanded to its present size.
>>>> Personally , I worry that we are too large and
>>>> possibly could be seen as not focused enough -
>>>> but this is then hard to square with the recent
>>>> referees' comments suggesting our geographic
>>>> scope was too narrow! On paper , I believe the
>>>> whole formulation and partnership of IMPRINT is
>>>> superior to MILLENNIUM , but that did not stop
>>>> me being interested when Danny asked me, some
>>>> time ago , if I would also them. Like you , I do
>>>> not wish to cut off possible fingers in possible
>>>> pies - but I felt that I could not be formally
>>>> included in both .
>>>> The problem is that one has no idea which way
>>>> the anonymous referees will view the judging
>>>> criteria. Surely , in terms of scientific scope
>>>> , our project is superior (though how well it
>>>> ever works and how well we integrate in practise
>>>> is any ones bet ).
>>>> The bottom line as I see it is that as only one
>>>> project can be funded , MILLENNIUM should still
>>>> be seen as competition - with you as part of it
>>>> , it would be much stronger competition.
>>>> As for the funding - I know things are
>>>> ill-defined at best at present. I do not think
>>>> anything should be seen as rigid - though we
>>>> certainly have too large a group .
>>>>
>>>> Don't know if this helps
>>>> Keith
>>>>
>>>> At 12:47 20/01/2005, you wrote:
>>>>> Keith,
>>>>>
>>>>> I've just tried to phone you but you were not in your office.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been contacted by Danny Carroll and
>>>>> invited to join his EU project MILLENNIUM. I
>>>>> gather that this project has also passed the
>>>>> first hurdle and, according to Danny, there are
>>>>> only two such projects so I assume that
>>>>> MILLENNIUM is directly competing against
>>>>> IMPRINT.
>>>>>
>>>>> The modelling he wants me to do is different to
>>>>> anything I will be doing for IMPRINT so there
>>>>> is no scientific reason why I shouldn't say yes
>>>>> to him, and of course it would also allow me to
>>>>> keep a foot in both camps! However there are
>>>>> clear political/strategic issues to consider
>>>>> and I rate IMPRINT higher on my agenda, even
>>>>> though (judging from the IMPRINT indictative
>>>>> money which was very low for Bristol despite
>>>>> having Colin, Sandy and myself involved) it
>>>>> seems likely that the IMPRINT resources will be
>>>>> very limited.
>>>>>
>>>>> Before I respond to him, I wanted to know if
>>>>> you (or anyone else at UEA) are involved in
>>>>> MILLENNIUM. From what I can see, it is very
>>>>> close to your interests. If you are not, was
>>>>> this because you wanted to focus entirely on
>>>>> IMPRINT.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't misinterpret this email. As I said, I do
>>>>> see IMPRINT higher than MILLENNIUM. However, I
>>>>> would just like more info before deciding how
>>>>> best to respond to Danny.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Prof. Paul Valdes Tel: +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>> School of Geographical Sciences Fax: +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>> University of Bristol Email: P.J.Valdes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>>> University Road Http: www.bridge.bris.ac.uk
>>>>> Bristol BS8 1SS
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Professor Keith Briffa,
>>>> Climatic Research Unit
>>>> University of East Anglia
>>>> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>>>
>>>> Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>> Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> Eystein Jansen
>>> Professor/Director
>>> Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
>>> Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen
>>> All

Original Filename: 1106934832.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Stephen Juggins" <Stephen.Juggins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Eystein Jansen" <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <imprint-ssc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Imprint vs. Millennium
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:53:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: <oyvind.paasche@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Erick Larson" <Erick.Larson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Hi Eystein

I received these comments below from our research office. This outlines the Newcastle approach.

In one case at least it is clear that the idea that groups would not join another consortium as agreed by the ssc had not been passed on to partners outside those discussions. To apply this retrospectively could be seen as unfair - this is obviously how Millennium interpret it. One option that would avoid a split and limit any wider damage or bad feeling would be to get partners to sign a confidentiality agreement now. This would restrict or stop the flow of information between consortia, which, after all, is the main cause for concern.

Cheers, Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Tuck [mailto:Alan.Tuck@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: 28 January 2005 11:40
To: Tony Stevenson
Subject: RE: Question on ethics


Sharp practice certainly. Not necessarily unethical I would have
thought.

In a number of cases we have been asked by coordinators to sign up to an
exclusitivity agreement whereby we will not take part in other consortia
who are applying under the same call.

However, we have resisted this saying that we cannot restrict the
activities of other academics on the campus, although we have been
prepared to sign up to such an agreement that would limit the activities
of the particular PI and his/her immediate research group. That way, all
of those involved are fully aware of the commitment and its
implications. Of course, if they are not happy about this we would not
sign up but that in turn would probably mean exclusion from the
consortium.

Additionally, and this applies to any collaboration during the
preparatory stage, we would recommend that a confidentiality agreement
were put in place; this at least would limit the onward transmission of
information that could help another grouping.

In this instance I guess that we are where we are.

As it was not established at the outset that a party could only be
involved with one group it may be difficult to move to that position
now, not so much because of issues with the other Coordinator but more
importantly because it could jeopardise ongoing relationships with
fellow collaborators who would be made to choose sides. There again, as
these are the probably the very parties who have operated as split
personalities there is the question of working with them again.

In any event, it may still be sensible to try to implement a
confidentiality agreement so that access to information is restricted
and not used to help the other consortium's cause.

Of course, there is the other option of possibly joining forces. The
result could be an even stronger application.


Alan

Steve Juggins
School of Geography, Politics & Sociology
University of Newcastle Tel: +44 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx
Newcastle upon Tyne Fax: +44 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx
NE1 7RU, UK Mobile: xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.campus.ncl.ac.uk/staff/Stephen.Juggins/


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tett, Simon [mailto:simon.tett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> Sent: 28 January 2005 09:23
> To: Michael Diepenbroek; simon.tett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Eystein
> Jansen; imprint-ssc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> Cc: oyvind.paasche@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Erick Larson
> Subject: RE: [Fwd: URGENT]
>
> One issue to stress in the proposal is that we are trying to
> build a new community. One that units parts of the broad
> paleo community with (part of) the climate modelling community.
> Simon
>
> Dr Simon Tett Managing Scientist, Data development and applications.
> Met Office Hadley Centre (Reading Unit)
> Meteorology Building, University of Reading Reading RG6 6BB
> Tel: +44 (0)xxx xxxx xxxxFax +44 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx
> Mobex: +44-(0)1xxx xxxx xxxx
> E-mail: simon.tett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
> Global climate data sets are available from http://www.hadobs.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Diepenbroek [mailto:mdiepenbroek@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> Sent: 27 January 2005 17:21
> To: simon.tett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; 'Eystein Jansen';
> imprint-ssc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> Cc: oyvind.paasche@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; 'Erick Larson'
> Subject: AW: [Fwd: URGENT]
>
>
> Simon, a forced merge could definitely happen if the
> commission feels that it is worth to have a paleo IP. The
> other outcome could be that they get the impression that the
> community is devived and thus this IP might fail to have the
> wanted impact. The result could be that there is no IP in the
> end. Michael
>
> Dr. Michael Diepenbroek
> WDC-MARE / PANGAEA - www.pangaea.de
> _____________________________________________
> MARUM - Institute for Marine Environmental Sciences
> University Bremen
> POP xxx xxxx xxxx
> 28359 Bremen
> Phone +xxx xxxx xxxx, Fax +xxx xxxx xxxx
> IP Phone +xxx xxxx xxxx
> e-mail mdiepenbroek@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>
>
>
> > -----Urspr

Original Filename: 1108594561.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jmahlman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: RE: WSJ article
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:56:xxx xxxx xxxx

Interesting that Antonio R. doesn't (or at least claims not to) recognize a lack of balance
in the article.
Please treat this email as confidential. I don't believe that sending a letter to the
editor myself would be the best avenue. But perhaps someone else is interested in pursuing
this?
Mike

Subject: RE: WSJ article
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:43:xxx xxxx xxxx
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: WSJ article
Thread-Index: AcUUaIg6ON4Ck5ANQ2OfoGmU0QNsvAAAEqMA
From: "Regalado, Antonio" <Antonio.Regalado@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Feb 2005 22:43:10.0610 (UTC) FILETIME=[E423A720:01C51478]
X-UVA-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at fork11.mail.virginia.edu


Hi Mike,

On the personal stuff, Id go with your first impressions, rather than the perceptions of
others. This isnt a one-sided story. Anyway, I certainly want to find out who is right
here and so I am open to writing more as the papers come out and the facts become
clearer, just as I have written in the past about the Soon and Balliunias business (p.
A3not bad) and about paleo-climate (p. 1 story in 2002 about Gary Comers funding,
feature story on Lonnie Thompsons melting glaciers), etc. Would it surprise you to
hear that anytime I write a story which seems to favor global warming I am also deluged
by accusations of bias and demands for corrections etc.?
Regarding Moberg, I think the issue you are raising is a question of emphasis and not a
matter for a correction. The specific sentences youre thinking of (Indeed, new research
from Stockholm University on historical temperatures suggests past fluctuations were
nearly twice as great as the hockey stick shows. That could mean the 20th-century jump
isn't quite so anomalous. ) seem to me be not only factual but precisely to the point of
what the mainstream of science is discussing vis a vis MBH, which was the topic of that
part of my story. For instance, in the Anderson/Woodhouse commentary that accompanied
Moberg in the same issue of Nature, they too stress the increased variability just as I
did and they make no mention of the late 1990s. And as per my email Monday, my article
does also say that other reconstructions also indicate that the 20^th Century was
unusually warm and that the punch line is the same.
Im sure youre fully sick of writing letters, but this may be right opportunity for a
letter to the editor from you or someone who you can second. The person to send a letter
to is [1]Karen.Pensiero@xxxxxxxxx.xxx. If you want, CC: me and my editor,
[2]Elyse.tanouye@xxxxxxxxx.xxx. Or even an editorial on the broader topic of where the
science is at. I can give you the name for who to send an editorial to if you want it.
It is probably worth pointing out that no amount of debate can change the facts buried
in those tree rings, etc..
Yes, I will continue to write about climate. The next topic is impacts. What do you
think is the best story there? Id like to write about current impacts rather than only
projected ones as these will be more tangible for the reader. Also, since the Arctic has
been well covered Id be interested in impacts at lower latitudes.
Antonio






______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[3]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

References

1. mailto:Karen.Pensiero@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:Elyse.tanouye@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

Original Filename: 1116611126.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Empire Strikes Back - return of proper science !
Date: Fri May 20 13:45:xxx xxxx xxxx

Mike,

Just reviewed Caspar's paper with Wahl for Climatic Change. Looks pretty good.
Almost reproduced your series and shows where MM have gone wrong. Should keep
them quiet for a while. Also they release all the data and the R software. Presume
you know all about this. Should make Keith's life in Ch 6 easy !
Also, confidentially for a few weeks, Christy and Spencer have admitted
at the Chicago CCSP meeting that their 2LT record is wrong !! They used the wrong
sign for the diurnal correction ! Series now warms - not quite as much as the surface
but within error bands. Between you and me, we'll be going with RSS in Ch 3
and there will be no discrepancy with the surface and the models. Should make Ch 3
a doddle now ! Keep quiet about this until Bern at least. Can tell you more then.
RSS (Carl Mears and Frank Wentz) found the mistake !
The skeptic pillars are tumbling !
Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------