The below are part of a series of alleged emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, released on 20 November 2009.
Original Filename: 876171248.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Nebojsa Nakicenovic <naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, knut.alfsen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dennis.anderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, becon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Ged.R.Davis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ja_edmonds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, j.fenhann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, fisher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, stuart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Fewewar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kennethgregory@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gruebler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ehaites@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, bhare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jefferson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tyjung@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kram@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, emilio@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, brahman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Rik.Leemans@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, vc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dpid@[169.158.128.138], Doug.D.Mckay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, laurie.michaelis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mori@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t-morita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rmoss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, nassef@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wpepper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hm_pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, lkprice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rogner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, leo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, J.F.Skea@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, leena@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rob.swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Bert.de.Vries@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, weyant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, e.worrell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dgvictor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: IPCC - a) Meeting, 17-19. Sept. 97; b) New Bureau
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 16:54:08 +0200
Cc: macdon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jaeger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, leo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, johnson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mcdonald@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-rich>Dear Colleagues,
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of you who have attended the
SRES Lead Authors' meeting xxx xxxx xxxxSeptember 1997) and Rob Swart and
his colleagues from RIVM for organizing and hosting the meeting.
We have achieved a lot in the three short days as you will soon also see
from the minutes. The minutes of the meeting will be forwarded to you later this week
together with the revised SRES work plan that we have discussed during the meeting.
Sorry that it took a while longer this time for the completion of the minutes,
but I hope that they will refresh you memory about the outcome of the meeting.
Erik Haites just e-mailed that he returned from the IPCC plenary meeting in
Maldives and that the new IPCC Bureau has been appointed. It consists of
30 members: the Chair (Bob Watson), 5 Vice-Chairs (R. Pachuari (India), R.
Odingo (Kenya), G. Meira Filho (Brazil), Y. Izrael (Russia), K. Seiki
(Japan), and 8 Bureau members for each of the three Working Groups. The
Bureau for Working Group III (responsible for SRES) is B. Metz
(Netherlands), O. Davidson (Sierra Leone), E. Jochem (Germany), M.
Munasinghe (Sri Lanka), E. Calvo (Peru), R. Madruga (Cuba), R.T.M.
Sutamihardja (Indonesia), and L. Lorentsen (Norway).
Best regards,
Naki
<center>Nebojsa Nakicenovic
Project Leader
Environmentally Compatible Energy Strategies
International Institute for | Email: naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Applied Systems Analysis | Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria | Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx</center>
</x-rich>
Original Filename: 901894140.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: mnoguer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: scenarios@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Scenarios - SRES description 2
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:09 +0000 (GMT)
As promised here is the second part of the SRES description:
----------
SRES WRITING TEAM
ADDRESS LIST
Dr. Joseph M. Alcamo
Professor, Scientific Center for
Environmental Systems Research
University of Kassel, Germany
Dr. Knut H. Alfsen
Director, Center for International Climate and Environmental Protection (CICERO)
University of Oslo, Norway
Prof. Akhiro Amano
Dean, School of Policy Studies
Kwansei Gakuin University, Japan
Dr. Dennis Anderson
Professor, Oxford University
Oxford, UK
Dr. Zhou Dadi
Energy Research Institute
State Planning Commission
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Beijing, China
Dr. Gerald R. Davis
Group Planning
Shell International Petroleum
London, UK
Dr. Bert de Vries
National Institute for Public Health
and Environmental Hygiene (RIVM)
Bilthoven, the Netherlands
Dr. Jae Edmonds
Senior Research Scientist
Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Mr. J/0rgen Fenhann
Energy Systems Group and
UNEP Collag. Ctr. on Energy
and Environment
Ris/0 National Laboratory
Roskilde, Denmark
Dr. Stuart R. Gaffin
Atmosphere Program
Environmental Defense Fund
New York, NY, U.S.A.
Dr. Henryk Gaj
Polish Foundation for Energy
Efficiency (FEWE)
Warsaw, Poland
Dr. Ken Gregory
Centre for Business and the Environment
Middlesex, UK
Dr. Arnulf Gruebler
Environmentally Compatible
Energy Strategies
International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis
Laxenburg, Austria
Mr. William Hare
Greenpeace International
Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Dr. Erik Haites
Margaree Consultants, Inc.
Toronto, ONT, Canada
Dr. Tae-Yong Jung
Korea Energy Economics Institute
Euiwang-Si, Kyunggi-Do, Korea
Dr. Thomas Kram
Project Head of ETSAP
ECN Policy Studies
Netherlands Energy Research
Foundation
Petten, the Netherlands
Dr. Emilio Lebre La Rovere
COPPE/UFRJ
Universidade Federal do
Rio de Janeiro
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Prof. Matthew Luhanga
University of Dar es Salaam
Dar es Salaam, United Republic
of Tanzania
Dr. Laurie Michaelis
Environment Directorate
OECD
Paris, France
Dr. Shunsuke Mori
Department of Industrial Administration
Faculty of Science and Engineering
Science University of Tokyo
Tokyo, Japan
Dr. Tsuneyuki Morita
Head of Global Warming Response Team
National Institute for Environmental
Studies
Tsukuba, Japan
Dr. Richard Moss
Head of Technical Support Unit
IPCC Working Group II
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Prof. Nebojsa Nakicenovic
Project Leader
Environmentally Compatible
Energy Strategies
International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis
Laxenburg, Austria
Dr. William Pepper
ICF Kaiser
Fairfax, VA, U.S.A.
Mr. Hugh Martin Pitcher
Senior Scientist, Global Change Group
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Ms. Lynn Price
Energy Analysis Program
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.
Dr. Hans-Holger Rogner
Section Head, Planning and Economic
Studies Section
International Atomic Energy Agency
Vienna, Austria
Dr. Priyadarshi Shukla
Indian Institute of Technology
Ahmedabad, India
Mr. Alexei Sankovski
ICF Kaiser
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Dr. Robert Swart
Air Research Laboratory
Policy Analysis and Scenarios
RIVM
Bilthoven, the Netherlands
Prof. John P. Weyant
Director
Energy Modeling Forum
Stanford University
Stanford, CA, U.S.A.
Dr. Ernst Worrell
Energy Analysis Program
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.
/p/ecs/general/admin/ipcc-sr/corr/open process/naki-short.doc 06/26/98,
11:34 AM
Original Filename: 1049745840.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Eystein Jansen" <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Keith Briffa" <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Re: Holclim follow up
Date: Mon 7 Apr 2003 16:04
Dear Keith.
I had a chat with Dominique Reynaud on this matter today here in Nice. His impression is the same, but added that he thinks Brussels would insist on a NoE rather than an IP. If we wish to have an IP it needs lobbying it seems. He told about the meeting in Brussels inJune. I am not invited as far as I can tell. Dominique mentioned that Nick Shackleton would be there and I will talk with him. The key thing would be to sort out what the most exciting science our community can offer when we integrate the communities.
In terms of meetings it seems to depend alittle of what comes out of the June meeting in Brusseks.
Cheers
Eystein
>---- Original Message ---
>From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>To: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Subject: Re: Holclim follow up
>
>
>Eystein
>your point is exactly correct , that only one project (and I believe it=20
>should be an IP) will be allowed and with the shrinking general scale of=20
>these things, it likely needs to be very clearly focused (on integrating=20
>evidence and providing some state-of-the-art product on climate history and=
>=20
>its causes) . I am not in Nice (have to go to 2 other meetings in May) . I=
>=20
>am still leaning towards your institute co-ordinating this . I have not=20
>discussed anything with the rest of the HOLIVAR committee.
>We do need some sort of meeting but only small - there is no chance of a 25=
>=20
>million Euro project and many people are likely to be disappointed . I have=
>=20
>to be in Brussels for a meeting with Brelen in June . What are you thinking=
>=20
>about , re. a meeting?
>Keith
>At 10:01 PM 4/3/03 +0200, you wrote:
>>Dear Keith,
>> I was just wondering whether you were coming the the EGS meeting in Nice=
>=20
>> next week, in order for us to exchange some ideas about how to proceed=20
>> for FP6. Recent rumors says that the palaeoclimate variablity item is in=
>=20
>> the books for the third call, and that the call will be issued by the=20
>> turn of the year, thus we should start discussing how to proceed. So far=
>=20
>> my DOCC initiative is dormant, and I am more inclined to develop or take=
>=20
>> part in developing an IP if the call for proposals allow for one. But the=
>=20
>> size of these IPs seems to be diminishing, hence a careful focussing=20
>> needs to be undertaken in order for there to be resources for the science=
>=20
>> teams. I would be happy to discuss idea with you on this in Nice or=20
>> sometime else if you=B4re not there.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Eystein
>>
>>
>>
>>Eystein Jansen
>>prof/director
>>Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research
>>All=E9gaten 55, N5007 Bergen, Norway
>>tel: +4755583491/secr:+4755589803/fax:+4755584330
>>eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, www.bjerknes.uib.no
>
>--
>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/
>
>
Original Filename: 1062592331.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Edward Cook <drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: An idea to pass by you
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 08:32:xxx xxxx xxxx
<x-flowed>
Hi Keith,
After the meeting in Norway, where I presented the Esper stuff as
described in the extended abstract I sent you, and hearing Bradley's
follow-up talk on how everybody but him has fucked up in
reconstructing past NH temperatures over the past 1000 years (this is
a bit of an overstatement on my part I must admit, but his air of
papal infallibility is really quite nauseating at times), I have come
up with an idea that I want you to be involved in. Consider the
tentative title:
"Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Over The Past Millennium: Where Are
The Greatest Uncertainties?"
Authors: Cook, Briffa, Esper, Osborn, D'Arrigo, Bradley(?), Jones
(??), Mann (infinite?) - I am afraid the Mike and Phil are too
personally invested in things now (i.e. the 2003 GRL paper that is
probably the worst paper Phil has ever been involved in - Bradley
hates it as well), but I am willing to offer to include them if they
can contribute without just defending their past work - this is the
key to having anyone involved. Be honest. Lay it all out on the table
and don't start by assuming that ANY reconstruction is better than
any other.
Here are my ideas for the paper in a nutshell (please bear with me):
1) Describe the past work (Mann, Briffa, Jones, Crowley, Esper, yada,
yada, yada) and their data over-laps.
2) Use the Briffa&Osborn "Blowing Hot And Cold" annually-resolved
recons (plus Crowley?) (boreholes not included) for comparison
because they are all scaled identically to the same NH extra-tropics
temperatures and the Mann version only includes that part of the NH
(we could include Mann's full NH recon as well, but he would probably
go ballistic, and also the new Mann&Jones mess?)
3) Characterize the similarities between series using unrotated
(maybe rotated as well) EOF analysis (correlation for pure
similarity, covariance for differences in amplitude as well) and
filtering on the reconstructions - unfiltered, 20yr high-pass, xxx xxxx xxxx
bandpass, 100 lowpass - to find out where the reconstructions are
most similar and different - use 1st-EOF loadings as a guide, the
comparisons of the power spectra could also be done I suppose
4) Do these EOF analyses on different time periods to see where they
differ most, e.g., running 100-year EOF windows on the unfiltered
data, running 300-year for 20-lp data (something like that anyway),
and plot the 1st-EOF loadings as a function of time
5) Discuss where the biggest differences lie between reconstructions
(this will almost certainly occur most in the 100 lowpass data),
taking into account data overlaps
6) Point out implications concerning the next IPCC assessment and EBM
forcing experiments that are basically designed to fit the lower
frequencies - if the greatest uncertainties are in the >100 year
band, then that is where the greatest uncertainties will be in the
forcing experiments
7) Publish, retire, and don't leave a forwarding address
Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I
almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will
show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year
extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we
believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know fuck-all about what
the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know
with certainty that we know fuck-all).
Of course, none of what I have proposed has addressed the issue of
seasonality of response. So what I am suggesting is strictly an
empirical comparison of published 1000 year NH reconstructions
because many of the same tree-ring proxies get used in both seasonal
and annual recons anyway. So all I care about is how the recons
differ and where they differ most in frequency and time without any
direct consideration of their TRUE association with observed
temperatures.
I think this is exactly the kind of study that needs to be done
before the next IPCC assessment. But to give it credibility, it has
to have a reasonably broad spectrum of authors to avoid looking like
a biased attack paper, i.e. like Soon and Balliunas.
If you don't want to do it, just say so and I will drop the whole
idea like a hot potato. I honestly don't want to do it without your
participation. If you want to be the lead on it, I am fine with that
too.
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
==================================
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1102948164.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Some weekend thoughts
Date: Mon Dec 13 09:29:xxx xxxx xxxx
Kevin,
Read everything over the weekend, and here are a few comments. Glad I did this
yesterday, as not thinking too well at the moment as daughter-in-law in labour for the
last 4 hours. No news yet - just waiting !
Haven't made any alterations yet. Here are my thoughts.
3.1 I'll make a few cosmetic changes - mainly to refer to the Appendices a couple of times
re significance.
Box 3.3 Reads better, will replace with this one when merge is done.
3.xxx xxxx xxxx.4.1.5 needs some work. Doesn't seem to read or flow that well.
3.4.2.1 Maybe need to expand on homogeneity tests.
3.4.2.2 4th para seems a little at odds with previous one?
3.4.2.3, 3.4.2.4 OK
3.4.3 Clouds. Needs some more work to develop a clearer message. You're aware
of this.
3.4.4 Radiation. Similar comments to the cloud section. I have some specific
notes for both. Despite this, probably OK for the ZOD. Maybe all we need to
do is to highlight this to the reviewers.
3.5 Section seems overlong. I know you've reduced it a lot ! Contains a number
of sentences where English could be improved.
3.5.1. OK
3.5.2 Significance levels for Fig 3.5.1 need some discussion. We'll need to work
some on this Figure.
3.5.3 and 3.5.4 OK for the ZOD with a few better sentences.
3.5.5 and 3.5.6 Both sections seem overlong. Again know you've reduced this
a lot, but if we need reductions here is a good place.
3.5.7 OK
Box 3.5 OK
3.6 Generally good.
3.6.1 OK
3.6.2 Probably remove the impact para - leave for the moment, though.
3.6.3 OK
3.6.4 I can improve this a little. It isn't all Scandinavian glaciers that are
advancing, just those in SW Norway. Those in the north of Sweden are
retreating.
3.6.5 OK
3.6.6/ 3.6.7 Basically OK. May need more re ACW and SAM link if we can say
anything.
3.7 This is probably too long, so would be another area for some reduction.
Agree on your suggestions for deletions as repetitive.
3.7.1.1-3.7.1.3 OK though all a little long.
3.7.1.4 This is the one where there is some repetition. Not much on monsoon.
A lot here is already in 3.8 on extremes and the Dai et al (2004) paper is now
referred to in 3.3, here and in 3.8. Suggest it should just be in 3.3 and again
in 3.9 (it isn't there yet).
Your figures seem in better shape than those in my section. We will likely need
to work on the one Dennis is doing. Will need some colour. You're aware of
which need more work from your comments. We can leave these in for
reviewer and LA thoughts.
Dave has sent me a first go at the figures. Made loads of suggestions.
Dave was aware colour choices poor and will be doing more on them today.
Is Chris Landsea the only person you've removed from the CA list so
far? It seems so.
I should have time tomorrow onwards to do merging and send out the
3 files to all our LAs. Are you happy with me merging in your refs list?
I'll keep the discard ones at end in a separate list. Still hopeful of
doing all this by close of play here on Thursday. All day in London
on Friday and CRU party today week from 11am onwards. Going for
Dec 16 means I will only be able to get some of the Figures in 3.2
and 3.3 properly into the text.
Will send Dave's next Figure versions if they are much better. No point
with current one.
Still no news !
Cheers
Phil
At 21:16 10/12/2004, you wrote:
Phil
Attached are the three sections. Please use these for any suggested edits. Of the
text, 3.7 is losest and needs careful comparison with 3.3 to check for inconsistencies.
There is model stuff in there that is not quite right or incomplete: I removed some.
There is reduncdant ENSO-related stuff. A lot of the monsoon variability is linked to
ENSO and we could say that succinctly but it would decimate what the CAs and Panmao have
done. I think we will need to do this in Beijing, but I left it for now. Note the refs
has a list of discards at the end.
Suggest we keep this, perhaps in a different file, and if stuff gets deleted with
references, then the refs get moved there.
Some of the figures are not quite in order in 3.6 and their is the extra figure that
Dennis generated, not currently referred to. Key question is whether to follow up on
this and how to make the multiple figs in 3.6 more compatible. I know you have
suggestions on long time series and I urge you to keep in mind the purpose here: to show
the past variability and place recent trends in that context. A lot could be done on
indices and assoc plots, and patterns. I think we have license to do some of this as
long as the figs are in literature. But we may not be able to reproduce the results???
I have hedged a lot on clouds and radiation, and maybe clarification will come? See if
you think it is OK for now.
Note these 3 versions are dated 1210: 10 Dec. They replace entirely the 1204 versions
which you can discard.
Kevin
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [1]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303
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.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
Original Filename: 1104893567.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] IPCC last 2000 years data
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 21:52:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, cddhr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi Keith - Happy new year. Hopefully, you had a good holiday. I've had a chance to read
your section and hopefully you've had a chance to read what I sent just before the
holidays. The purpose of this email is to help get a focus on the finish line (just a few
days away) and to get a dialog going that will hopefully help you finish section 6.3.2.1.
If you'd like to talk on the phone, just let me know.
Please see my email from right before xmas holidays for original comments. Plus, here are
the new ones from both me and David Rind:
0) as leader of this KEY section, we need you to take the lead integrating everything you
think should be integrated, editing and boiling it down to just ca 4 pages of final text
(e.g., 8 pages of typed text plus figs). This means cutting some material (e.g., forcings
and simulations) and perhaps moving glacier record (MUCH boiled down) to a box. See below.
00) note that we can also perhaps move some of the details to the appendix (although we
won't write this until after the current ZOD crunch, save an outline of what you might want
in there).
1) I like your figure ideas, with the comments:
1a) I don't think you need figure 1d - the SH recons are sketchy since not much data, and
it might be better to just discuss in a sentence or three. Any space saved is good too. Not
sure about your proposed 1e - have to see it, I guess.
1b) Figure 2 looks interesting. I'm trying to get the latest Arctic recon from Konrad
Hughen - it is quite robust and a significant multi-proxy update. Should be published in
time, though not sure thing since he's still hot on including his (our) AO recon which is
more sketchy
1c) I think we can save space and improve organization if we DO NOT include Fig 3. However,
this is open for debate - see David's comments below.
2) I agree with David's comments in general - so see them below. The prickly issue is where
to put the forcings and simulated changes. I am close to having the prose from the
radiation chapter, including the latest Lean and Co's view on solar - this will make many
of the existing simulations involving inferred past solar forcing suspect (I will send in a
day or so I hope). This means that we might be best saving space and downplaying this work
some. I'm not sure, but wanted to debate it with you. Also, Chap 9 will have simulations in
spades, so we can save space by letting them do it. Also, as David points out, we can focus
on it elsewhere in our chapter more concisely - leaving you to focus on the VERY important
obs record of temp and other changes. Can you tell, I'm still not 100% sure? I'll send
another email to you and others about this in a bit.
3) Your section is too long and needs to be condensed. Thus, you need to think through
what's most important and what's less so. For example, we need to figure out how to
condense the glacier record of change. David thinks it should be a separate section that
cuts across time scales (i.e., Holocene and last 2000 years). Perhaps we should try to make
it into a box - 3 to 5 short paragraphs and a figure or two. Either way we have to really
wack it. What do you think - you and I should be on the same page with Eystein before
discussing w/ Olga perhaps. Or you can discuss with her - you're the lead on this section.
4) you're doing an impressive job! Lots to keep track of.
Next, here is what David has offered. Take it all with a grain of salt, but I have read it
and he has many good points. On the structural or any other points, I'm happy to discuss on
the phone, or you can just debate with him and me on email.
******* From David Rind 1/4/05 ****************
6.3 Understanding Past Climate System Change (forcing and response)
6.3.1 Introduction (0.5 pages)
6.3.2 The Current Interglacial
6.3.2.1 Last 2000 years (4 pages)
Figure 1 should be of the last 2000 years, with appropriate caveats, not just since 1860
(which will undoubtedly be in other chapters).
pp. 8-18: The biggest problem with what appears here is in the handling of the greater
variability found in some reconstructions, and the whole discussion of the 'hockey stick'.
The tone is defensive, and worse, it both minimizes and avoids the problems. We should
clearly say (e.g., page 12 middle paragraph) that there are substantial uncertainties that
remain concerning the degree of variability - warming prior to 12K BP, and cooling during
the LIA, due primarily to the use of paleo-indicators of uncertain applicability, and the
lack of global (especially tropical) data. Attempting to avoid such statements will just
cause more problems.
In addition, some of the comments are probably wrong - the warm-season bias (p.12) should
if anything produce less variability, since warm seasons (at least in GCMs) feature smaller
climate changes than cold seasons. The discussion of uncertainties in tree ring
reconstructions should be direct, not referred to other references - it's important for
this document. How the long-term growth is factored in/out should be mentioned as a prime
problem. The lack of tropical data - a few corals prior to 1700 - has got to be discussed.
The primary criticism of McIntyre and McKitrick, which has gotten a lot of play on the
Internet, is that Mann et al. transformed each tree ring prior to calculating PCs by
subtracting the 1xxx xxxx xxxxmean, rather than using the length of the full time series (e.g.,
1xxx xxxx xxxx), as is generally done. M&M claim that when they used that procedure with a red
noise spectrum, it always resulted in a 'hockey stick'. Is this true? If so, it constitutes
a devastating criticism of the approach; if not, it should be refuted. While IPCC cannot be
expected to respond to every criticism a priori, this one has gotten such publicity it
would be foolhardy to avoid it.
In addition, there are other valid criticisms to the PC approach. Assuming that the PC
structure stays the same was acknowledged in the Mann et al paper as somewhat risky, given
the possibility of altered climate forcing (e.g., solar). Attempting to reconstruct
tropical temperatures using high latitude PCs assumes that the PCs are influenced only by
global scale processes. In a paper we now have in review in JGR, and in other papers
already published, it is shown that high latitude climate changes can directly affect the
local expression of the modes of variability (NAO in particular). So attempting to fill in
data at other locations from PCs that could have local influences may not work well; at the
least, it has large uncertainties associated with it.
The section from p.xxx xxxx xxxxsimulations of temperature change over the last millennium ,
including regional expressions - should not be in this section. It is covered in the
modeling section (several different times), and will undoubtedly be in other chapters as
well. And the first paragraph on p. 19 is not right - only by using different forcings have
models been able to get similar responses (which does not constitute good agreement). The
discussion in the first paragraph of p. 20 is not right - the dynamic response is almost
entirely in winter, which would not have affected the 'warm season bias'
paleoreconstructions used to prove it. It also conflicts with ocean data (Gerard Bond,
personal communication). Anyway, it's part of the section that should be dropped.
pp. 20-28: The glacial variations should be summarized in a coherentglobal picture.
Variations as a function of time should be noted - not just lumped together between 1400
and 1850 - for example, it should be noted where glaciers advanced during the 17th century
and retreated during the 19th century, for that is important in understanding possible
causes for the Little Ice Age (as well as the validity of the 'hockey stick'). The
discussion on the bottom of p.xxx xxxx xxxxas to the causes of the variations is inappropriate
and should be dropped - note if solar forcing is suspect, every paragraph that relates
observed changes to solar forcing will be equally suspect (e.g., see also p. 44, first
paragraph).
Bottom of p. 27: Greene et al. (GRL, 26, 1xxx xxxx xxxx, 1999) did an analysis of 52 glaciated
areas from 30-60N and found that the highest correlation between their ELA variations in
the last 40 years was with summer season freezing height and winter season precip. The warm
season freezing height was by far more important. Therefore, the relationship of glacier
variations to NAO changes (which are important only in winter), as discussed in this
paragraph, while perhaps valid for a period of time in southern Norway, is not generally
applicable.
p. xxx xxxx xxxxon forcings: note that this is redundant to what is discussed in several later
sections (e.g., 6.5.2); and other chapters), and that is true of forcing in general for the
whole of section 6.2. I would strongly suggest dropping forcing from section 6.3.2.1, at
least, and perhaps giving it its own number, or referring to othersubsections for it. It
has a different flavor from the responses, and the section is already very big. Forcing
does need to be discussed in the paleoclimate chapter, for reasons of climate sensitivity
and explaining observations, but that is what Chapter 6.5 is about.
(In summary - 6.3.2.1 already is taking on one controversy - paleotemperatures, which is
needs to do better, It should not have to deal with the forcing problems as well, and
especially not in an off-handed way.)
Specific comments: p. 36: 6 ppm corresponds to a temperature response of 0.3 to 0.6
Original Filename: 1123685358.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Peter Lemke <plemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: 3.9
Date: Wed Aug 10 10:49:xxx xxxx xxxx
Peter, Kevin
Not having seen Ch 4, I agree that the term 'local heat budget' can be ambiguous. Are
you also discussing the issue of 'dirty' glaciers? For the Alps, the Swiss (well Wilfried
Haeberli) reckon that temperature alone cannot explain all the retreat in some recent
summers (especially 2003). Would local heat budgets include the effects of local
anthropogenic pollutants making the snow less white?
Lonnie Thompson has been on Quelccaya in the last couple of months and reports
that it is in an awful state. Like Kilimanjaro, the recent annual layers aren't
distinguishable. Lonnie reckons a lot of retreat is caused by sublimation. On Quelccaya
Lonnie and Ray Bradley have put up an AWS (on Sajama too). They've not got as much
data as they hoped as both have fallen over due to melting and also the guide who
helped them put one on Quelccaya later went back and brought it back down to
try and sell !
I'm happy with Kevin's draft, if local heat budgets is explained in your chapter.
Cheers
Phil
At 17:29 09/08/2005, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Peter, Thanks (sorry I can't get rid of the blue).
I am cc'ing Phil on this: Georg has suggested instead the following.
The temperature increases are consistent with the observed nearly worldwide reduction
in glacier and ice cap mass and extent with strongest recession rates in the 1930s and
1940s and after 1990 and little changes around 1970. Tropical glacier changes are
synchronous with global ones, Kilimanjaro being an exception with radiatively forced
constant retreat of the plateau ice. 20^th Century glacier retreats are consistent with
temperature variations. Before 1900, glacier fluctuations are probably not only
reflecting temperature variations but mainly precipitation anomalies. In the Tropics,
glacier changes are related to atmospheric moisture variations which, in turn, correlate
with sea surface temperatures in the respective source regions and varying atmospheric
circulation modes. In some regions (Alaska, Patagonia, Karakoram) moderately increased
accumulation is observed indicating an amplified hydrological cycle.
I am not altogether happy with this wording. In this bullet it reflects findings from
your chapter and ours (wrt precip, temp, circulation etc). I would propose the
following as a compromise between the old text and the proposed:
The temperature increases are consistent with the observed nearly worldwide reduction in
glacier and ice cap mass and extent in the 20th century. Tropical glacier changes in
South America, Africa and Tibet are synchronous with global ones, and all have shown
declines in recent decades. If continued, some may disappear within the next 30 years.
Local temperature records all show a slight warming, but not of the magnitude required
to explain the rapid reduction in mass of such glaciers (e.g., on Kilimanjaro), which
instead depends on local heat budgets. Glaciers and ice caps respond not only to
temperatures but also changes in precipitation, and before 1900, glacier fluctuations
are probably not only reflecting temperature variations but mainly precipitation
anomalies. In some regions moderately increased accumulation observed in recent decades
is consistent with changes in atmospheric circulation and associated increases in winter
precipitation (e.g., southwestern Norway, parts of coastal Alaska, Patagonia, Karakoram,
and Fjordland of the South Island of New Zealand).
Note I have retained a bit more detail on the regions affected, and tried to stay away
from "radiatively forced" (whatever that means) and vague terms like "amplified
hydrological cycle". I also want to retain more specific reference to the precip and
circulation changes going together. Whether "local heat budgets" is adequate is my main
question? I gather this is related to changes in cloud and sunshine, increased heating
that goes into melting and ablation rather than temp increases. Should we spell that
out? Do you deal with that? I also did not add the detail on the dates in first
sentence as those should be in your chapter and they don't relate directly to the other
variables.
Are my terms "20th century" and "recent decades" correct?
Thanks
Kevin
Peter Lemke wrote:
Dear Kevin,
after his return from the Kilimanjaro Georg has supplied a modification to the text in
3.9 concerning the glaciers.
I have made a tiny change further down in the text replacing "order" by "approximately"
meaning 1mm/year and not implying, say, 3mm/year.
Best regards,
Peter
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [1]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [2]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303
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. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
Original Filename: 1123708417.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re:
Date: Wed Aug 10 17:13:xxx xxxx xxxx
Fine with me. Let's hope they agree by tomorrow.
Phil
At 17:11 10/08/2005, you wrote:
Ok so here is how it now reads:
The temperature increases are consistent with the observed nearly worldwide reduction in
glacier and ice cap mass and extent in the 20^th century. Tropical glacier changes in
South America and Africa, and those in Tibet are synchronous with higher latitude ones,
and all have shown declines in recent decades. Local temperature records all show a
slight warming, but not of the magnitude required to explain the rapid reduction in mass
of such glaciers (e.g., on Kilimanjaro). Glaciers and ice caps respond not only to
temperatures but also changes in precipitation, and both global mean winter accumulation
and summer melting have increased over the last half century in association with
temperature increases. Other factors in recent ablation include changes in cloudiness
and water vapour and associated radiation, and surface sensible heat exchange.
Precipitation anomalies are also important before 1900 in glacier fluctuations. In some
regions moderately increased accumulation observed in recent decades is consistent with
changes in atmospheric circulation and associated increases in winter precipitation
(e.g., southwestern Norway, parts of coastal Alaska, Patagonia, Karakoram, and Fjordland
of the South Island of New Zealand) even as enhanced ablation has led to marked declines
in mass balances in Alaska and Patagonia.
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:
Sort of arguing that way. It is also the before 1900 part. Precip and temp anomalies
are important at all times for glaciers. Their influence didn't change around 1900.
So what about Precipitation anomalies are also important before 1900.
I'd not got the implication. Adding also makes it clearer.
Phil
At 16:56 10/08/2005, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Phil is arguing for changes to 4.5. Maybe the statement is too strong although it is
consistent with the last para of 4.5.2.? An alternative might be: Precipitation
anomalies are important before 1900. In the context this implies in addition to
temperature.
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:
Georg,
I've now also looked at the figures you sent from Ch 4. Kevin has the sentence,
which Peter may have added? I reckon this is too strong. Can we omit it?
Sentence is
Before 1900, glacier fluctuations probably mainly reflect precipitation anomalies.
Reasoning
Is this a general statement. I wonder if we need it. Oerlemans uses estimated
glacier termini positions (and related ELA changes) to infer past temperatures
and you have his figure. I know he assumes precip to have remained essentially
the same but he backs out temperature. Also glaciers in Europe advanced
in the 17th and 18th centuries. It was cooler then (more so in winter than
summer). I also have a paper resubmitted to JGR where Alpine precip shows
no long-term changes since 1800. This uses loads of stations and is from the
ALP-IMP project that ZAMG co-ordinate (Reinhard Boehm).
So the advances are caused by more precip, but the retreats by higher summer T
and maybe less winter precip.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:23 10/08/2005, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi Georg
Many thanks for the attachments. I had looked at the ZOD but this is much more
informative. Based on your comments and the 4.5 section I have come up with the
following bullet. Note that here we are writing for a general audience. I have now
tried to include more clearly the factors involved. I think these are consistent with
your chapter but the language in your chapter might be improved in a couple of places.
For instance an important forcing is radiation (solar and IR) which are greatly impacted
by clouds, water vapor, and albedo (the dirty cover on top of snow Phil referred to),
and I thought these could be brought out better in your chapter. These are perhaps more
basic that temperature lapse rates and precipitation gradients which are consequences.
In 4.5.2 you use the term "radiatively forced" but it is not clear what that means. I
suggest using some of these terms. Also it is not clear what "amplified hydrological
cycle" means. [FYI, the expectation is for more intense precipitation, not necessarily
for more total (owing to pollution effects). The former is determined by increased
water vapor]. I took some of your words in the following. We need to emphasize that
glaciers are not just high latitudes. I retained Kilimanjaro as that has received a lot
of publicity. Some of this is necessarily abrupt, but there will be a reference to 4.5
immediately following this bullet. So the recent reversals in NZ and Norway can not be
dealt with here.
Let me know if you have further suggestions. Again, many thanks
Regards
Kevin
o The temperature increases are consistent with the observed nearly worldwide reduction
in glacier and ice cap mass and extent in the 20^th century. Tropical glacier changes in
South America and Africa, and those in Tibet are synchronous with higher latitude ones,
and all have shown declines in recent decades. Local temperature records all show a
slight warming, but not of the magnitude required to explain the rapid reduction in mass
of such glaciers (e.g., on Kilimanjaro). Glaciers and ice caps respond not only to
temperatures but also changes in precipitation, and both global mean winter accumulation
and summer melting have increased over the last half century in association with
temperature increases. Other factors in recent ablation include changes in cloudiness
and water vapour and associated radiation, and surface sensible heat exchange. Before
1900, glacier fluctuations probably mainly reflect precipitation anomalies. In some
regions moderately increased accumulation observed in recent decades is consistent with
changes in atmospheric circulation and associated increases in winter precipitation
(e.g., southwestern Norway, parts of coastal Alaska, Patagonia, Karakoram, and Fjordland
of the South Island of New Zealand) even as enhanced ablation has led to marked declines
in mass balances in Alaska and Patagonia.
Georg Kaser wrote:
Kevin,
Have many thanks for compiling and editing 3.9. I agree that the "radiatively forced"
and the "amplified hydrological cycle" should be removed and I also agree with Phil's
comment on the "local heat budget". In glaciology, the sum of each energy flux toward
and from the respective snow/ice surface is considered to make up the "local heat
budget". This also includes the sensible heat flux.
There are some other points in the text which I would like to comment:
1. Tropical glaciers are considered those in the South American Andes between Venezuela
and Norhern Boliva, those in East Africa and those in Irian Jaya (New Guinea). In
Chapter 4, Tibetean glaiers are taken as part of the Asian High Mountains (find the
present state Chapter 4.5. "Glaciers and Ice Caps attached).
2. Alaska, Patagonia, Karakoram, Norway and NZ cannot be merged in the respective
statement. In Alaska and Patagonia, moderately increase accumulation is accompanied by
strongly enhanced ablation making the mass balances markedly negative. From
glaciological site, no studies concerning atmospheric circulation patterns are provided
in the respective studies.
In the Karakoram mountains, enhanced accumulation has led to considerable glacier
advances, increased winter accumulation from the Westerlies is only suggested but not
subject of detailed studies. Heavy debris loads on the tongues probably prevent from
enhanced abaltion.
In Southwest Norway and NZ South Island, glaciers advances have ceded around 2000. I
don't know whether their advances shall still be mentioned in extension; I would not do
so beyond the respective statement in Ch. 4.5.
3. "If continued, some may disappear within the next 30 years." This sentence can stand
for every mountain region in the world and should not be used for tropical mountains
only. Everywhere, many small glaciers have disappeared since the 19th Century maxima and
many will disappear soon in the Alps, the Caucasus, in the Asian High mountains etc. as
well as in the Tropics. From the today's perspective Mount Kenya, all Mountains in the
Rwenzori Range except Mt. Stanley, Irain Jaya will be without glaciers soon, probably
sooner than Kilimanjaro; well known and studied glaciers in the Andes like Chacaltaya,
Charquini and Pastoruri will also disappear soon. This is not because of a particular
regional climate feature but just because they were already small when retreats started.
As you will see from Figure 4.5.5. Kilimanjaro's plateau ice is particular, slope
glaciers are less. The plateau glaciers retreat from their vertical walls where no
accumulation is possible and since they do so, there is no way to find an equilibrium
besides disappearance. The vertical walls are a result of cold temperatures high
sublimation and strong solar radiance. There is no way to replace the retreat by ice
dynamics on the flat summit plateau. Slope glaciers are only partially subject of this
kind of ablation and their retreat rate seems to have slowed markedly (See insert of Fig
4.5.5). If Kilimanjaro is mentioned in 3.9. it must also be added that it is a
particular case with complex relation to climate change.
4. All studies which investigate tropical glacier retreat and climate show the dominance
of changes in energy and mass balance terms which are related to the atmospheric
moisture content rather than locally measured air temperatures. Both increased and
reduced moisture can lead to negative mass balances and it has done so in most cases
studied (Cordillera Blanca, Peru, Cordillera Real, Bolivia, Antisana, Ecuador, Rwenzori,
Mt. Kenia, Kilimanjaro). Yet, wherever respective analyses were made, correlations were
found to anomalies in ENSO or Indian Oceans Indian Ocean Dipole Mode respectively
strongly indicating global warming as the principle reason of th eretreat.
I give you this lengthy explanation in order to make sure that the very compressed and
condensed bullet in 3.9. gets the right content. I have started to change your paragraph
suggestion accordingly but have to admit that, not being a native speaker myself, it
either becomes very long or very awkward.
I also appreciate Phil's statement about Quelccaya and Sajama. Doug Hardy and Ray
Bradley run AWS' there since a couple of years as well as on Kilimanjaro with all the
problems of recording data at such high elevation sites. Doug is preparing a paper on
the climate records there but it has still not reached it's final state.
Information on sublimation on Quelccaya is not published such as the positive mass
balances and advances on several Andean glaciers between 1998 and 2002 are not
published. Kilimanjaro has experienced both ablation as well as accumulation layers on
the horizontal surfaces over the last years. I have just come back from fieldwork there
last week and the last half year was a mass loss year. Being very much involved into
tropical glaciers myself, I have to accept that such detailed information would be
available for several hundreds of glaciers in the world each one providing 10 or more
publications. Going into such details cannot be the aim of the report, I am afraid.
Best wishes,
Georg
Georg Kaser
-------------------------------------------------
Institut fuer Geographie
Innrain 52
A-6020 INNSBRUCK
Tel: +xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: +xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://meteo9.uibk.ac.at/IceClim/CRYO/cryo_a.html
--
****************
Kevin E.
Trenberth
e-mail:
[2]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section,
NCAR
[3]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box
3000,
(3xxx xxxx xxxx
1318
Boulder, CO
80307
(3xxx xxxx xxxx
1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303
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 [4]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
****************
Kevin E.
Trenberth
e-mail:
[5]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section,
NCAR
[6]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box
3000,
(3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO
80307
(3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303
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 [7]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [8]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [9]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303
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://meteo9.uibk.ac.at/IceClim/CRYO/cryo_a.html
2. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
4. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
7. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
9. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
Original Filename: 1139242164.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Olga Solomina" <olgasolomina@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Jonathan Overpeck" <jto@u.arizona.edu>, "Eystein Jansen" <Eystein.Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: glacier box sod
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 11:09:24 +0300
Cc: "Ricardo Villalba" <ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Keith Briffa" <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Val?rie Masson-Delmotte <Valerie.Masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Dear Eystein and Peck,
Many thanks for your relpy and contribution for the glacier box. Everything
is fine with me except for the sentence:
"Comparing the ongoing retreat of glaciers with the reconstructed records,
it is evident that the current global pattern is unprecedented within the
Holocene, as there is no known period with a global homogenous trend of
retreating glaciers over centennial and shorter timescales."
The reason of my disagreement is the following: the resolution and the
spatial and temporal coverage of the Holocene glacial records is not enough
to compare it seriousely at the century level. For most of regions we even
cannot estimate the synchroniety of the records. Looking at the figure a
reader will see that there was actually a period with "a global homogenous
trend of retreating glaciers" during at least a millennium (at least
7xxx xxxx xxxxbp) - not a century like now! To resolve this problem we can
discuss in a braoder audience and ask the opinion of more experts if you
wish - I can think of Luckman, Nesje, Grove, Porter, Karlen.
I corrected a little the second paragraph - removed three references - they
are not used in our picture and, in fact not that good in terms of real
reconstructions. I think we should stress clearly that the records from
Scandinavia is now the most reliable and detailed.
Regards,
olga
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eystein Jansen" <Eystein.Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Olga Solomina" <olgasolomina@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "Jonathan Overpeck" <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 3:04 AM
Subject: Fwd: Re: glacier box
Dear Olga,
both Peck and I like the new version, both figure and shorter text.
Please find enclosed a suggestion from us with
some revisions, one file with track changes, one
with all changes accepted.I have added a little
to your short text, but not much. If you are
happy with this, please send the final version
inserted into the template of the SOD we sent out
so that the style is correct, the figure
separately, and an endnote file with references.
Best wishes and thanks for all your efforts,
Eystein
--
______________________________________________________________
Eystein Jansen
Professor/Director
Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen
All?gaten 55
N-5007 Bergen
NORWAY
e-mail: eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxxHome: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
</x-flowed>
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachglboxsodso.doc"
Original Filename: 1151577820.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Christoph Kull <christoph.kull@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: climate reconstruction challenge
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 06:43:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Hi Christoph,
sounds excellent. 20th is a good target with three weeks left. Let me
launch one full round to solicit comments and ideas, and then I can send
you what we have to build the web site. I'll check with Mike about
having him fold this into the report.
Cheers
Caspar
Christoph Kull wrote:
> Dear Caspar and Tim,
> Thanks for putting this issue forward!!
> PAGES/CLIVAR may help communicating this challenge to the community.
>
> We will be able to setup the website with the data sets and the call etc.:
> - let me know what you need! It would be best for us to have first a simple
> "word document with the structure, headings and text. We will then produce a
> "hidden site" that can be updated and finalized before it will go public
> online.
>
> We will be able to announce the challenge to the community via the
> Newsletter and e-news:
> - we need a respective experiment description.
> - the next Newsletter is going to be published by end of July. Can you
> provide me this information by the 20th? This would also fit with the
> planned announcement in the workshop report for EOS...Mike will draft this
> report.
> I suggest to directly contact him for an incorporation of this call.
>
> All the best, thanks a lot and greetings from Bern,
> Christoph
>
>
> On 23.06.2006 19:23, "Caspar Ammann" <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>
>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> just back from the various trips and meetings, most recently
>> Breckenridge and the CCSM workshop until yesterday. This coincided with
>> the release of the NRC report...
>>
>> Thanks Tim for getting in touch with Simon and Eduardo. And I would
>> think it would be excellent if you would be on the reconstruction side
>> of things here. We really need to make sure that all the reconstruction
>> groups (the ones that show up in the spaghetti-graph) also provide
>> reconstructions for the Challenge. By the way, Mike Mann is fine with
>> the participation of the german group in this as he has spoken now
>> favorably on the project.
>>
>> I think the separation you point at is absolutely crucial. So, as I
>> indicated in Wengen, I would suggest that we could organize a small
>> group of modelers to define the concepts of the experiments, and then
>> make these happen completely disconnected from standard data-centers. A
>> Pseudo-Proxy group should then develop concepts of how to generate
>> pseudo-proxy series and tell the modelers where they need what data. But
>> what they do is not communicated to the modelers. Based
>>
>> The underlying concept as well as the technical procedure of how we
>> approach the pseudo-proxies should be made public, so that everybody
>> knows what we are dealing with. We could do this under the PAGES-CLIVAR
>> intersection umbrella to better ensure that the groups are held separate
>> and to give this a more official touch. Below a quick draft, we should
>> iterate on this and then contact people for the various groups.
>>
>> So long and have a good trip to Norway,
>> Caspar
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Here a very quick and simple structural draft we can work from: (all
>> comments welcome, no hesitations to shoot hard!)
>>
>>
>> Primary Goals:
>>
>> - cross-verification of various emulations of same reconstruction
>> technique using same input data
>> - comparison of skill at various time scales of different techniques if
>> fed with identical pseudo-proxy data
>> - sensitivities of hemispheric estimates to noise, network density
>> - identify skill of resolving regional climate anomalies
>> - isolate forced from unforced signal
>> - identify questionable, non-consistent proxies
>> - modelers try to identify climate parameters and noise structure over
>> calibration period from pseudo-proxies
>>
>>
>> Number of experiments:
>>
>> - available published runs
>> - available unpublished, or available reordered runs
>> - CORE EXPERIMENTS OF CHALLENGE: 1-3 brand new experiments
>> ^one experiment should look technically realistic: trend in
>> calibration, and relatively reasonable past (very different phasing)
>> ^one experiment should have no trend in calibration at all, but
>> quite accentuated variations before
>> ^...one could have relatively realistic structure but contains a
>> large landuse component (we could actually do some science here...)
>>
>>
>>
>> Pseudo-Proxies and "instrumental-data":
>>
>> - provide CRU-equivallent instrumental data (incl. some noise) that is
>> degrading in time
>> - provide annually resolved network of pseudo proxies ((we could even
>> provide a small set of ~5 very low resolution records with some
>> additional uncertainty in time))
>> - 2 networks: one "high" resolution (100 records), one "low" resolution
>> (20), though only one network available for any single model experiment
>> to avoid "knowledge-tuning", or through time separation: first 500-years
>> only low-red, then second 500-years with both.
>> - pseudo-proxies vary in representation in climate (temperature, precip,
>> combination), time (annual, seasonal) and space (grid-point, small region)
>>
>>
>>
>> Organization of three separate and isolated groups, and first steps:
>>
>> - Modeler group to decide on concept of target climates, forcing series.
>> Provide only network information to Proxy-Group (People? Ammann, Zorita,
>> Tett, Schmidt, Graham, Cobb, Goosse...).
>> - Pseudo-proxy group to decide on selection of networks, and
>> representation of individual proxies to mimic somewhat real world
>> situation, but develop significant noise (blue-white-red) concepts,
>> non-stationarity, and potential "human disturbance" (People? Brohan,
>> Schweingruber, Wolff, Thompson, Overpeck/Cole, Huybers, Anderson, ...).
>> - Reconstruction group getting ready for input file structures: netCDF
>> for "instrumental", ascii-raw series for pseudo-proxy series. Decide
>> common metrics and reconstruction targets given theoretical pseudo-proxy
>> network information. (People: everybody else)
>>
>>
>>
>> Direct science from this: (important!)
>>
>> - Forced versus internal variations in climate simulations (Modelers)
>> - Review and catalog of pseudo-proxy generation: Noise and stationarity
>> in climate proxy records, problems with potential human/land use
>> influence (Proxy Group)
>> - Detection methods and systematic uncertainty estimates (Reconstruction
>> Group)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Tim Osborn wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Caspar and Christoph,
>>>
>>> I just wanted to let you know that:
>>>
>>> (1) I have emailed Simon Tett (for HadCM3) and Eduardo Zorita (for
>>> ECHO-G Erik-I, not sure about Erik-II) to ask if they would be
>>> prepared for surface temperature fields to be made available from
>>> their model runs and placed on a pseudo-proxy website for use in
>>> pseudo-proxy studies. I'll let you know their response.
>>>
>>> (2) In Wengen I suggested that Philip Brohan, a colleague of Simon
>>> Tett, might be interested in creating pseduo-proxies from the output
>>> of Caspar's secret model simulation, because of Philip's interest in
>>> statistical error models (e.g. in the error model he just published of
>>> the instrumental temperature record, HadCRUT3). I have emailed Philip
>>> to ask him if he would be interested. Again, I'll let you know his
>>> response.
>>>
>>> With regard to the "climate reconstruction challenge", Keith and I
>>> were wondering how it is going to be run. Obviously some kind of
>>> organising group would be useful to ensure it is designed to be as
>>> scientifically useful an experiment as possible. Yet there needs to
>>> be a clear distinction between provided experimental design advice
>>> (and things like convening EGU sessions) and having too much knowledge
>>> of the setup that would prevent such people from taking part in the
>>> challenge. Keith and I would be interested in the former, but would
>>> also like to keep our distance and take part in the challenge. I'm
>>> not sure that it was clear in Wengen exactly who is to organise this all.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
>>> Climatic Research Unit
>>> School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
>>> Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
>>>
>>> e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>> phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>> fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>> web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
>>> sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
>>>
>>> **Norwich -- City for Science:
>>> **Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
--
Caspar M. Ammann
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology
1850 Table Mesa Drive
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx
email: ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx tel: xxx xxxx xxxxfax: xxx xxxx xxxx
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1154697504.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Anders Moberg <anders.moberg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Martin Juckes <m.n.juckes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: McIntyre, McKitrick & MITRIE ...
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 09:18:24 +0100
Cc: Anders <anders@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eduardo.Zorita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.allen1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, weber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
Dear Martin and all others,
Having read the new manuscript, I would like to draw the attention of
all of you to the section about McIntyre&McKitrick vs Mann et al. I am
not entirely happy with this section. It may be that I am not fully
updated about all details on their dispute, but it appears to be some
mistakes in this section of our manuscript. Therefore, I ask all of you
to check how this section can be improved and clarified. This is very
important! If we refer incorrectly to the MM-Mann dispute, I am
convinced that all of us will be involved in lengthy frustrating e-mail
discussions later on. I anticipiate this from personal experience! Let's
do our best to avoid this.
The problematic bit of text starts on p. 16, para 4: ("The failure of
MM2003 ... is partly due to a misunderstanding of the stepwise
reconstruction method") and slightly below: ("MM2003 only calculate
principal components for the period when all chronologies are present").
I read through the MM2003 paper yesterday. From what is written there,
on p. xxx xxxx xxxx, it appears that they were well aware of the stepwise
method. On p. 763, about at the middle of the page, they write:
"Following the description of MBH98 ... our construction is done
piecewise for each of the periods listed in Table 8, using the roster of
proxies available through the period and the selection of TPCs for each
period listed in Table 8".
This is clearly at odds to what is written in our manuscript. Has it
been documented somewhere else that MM2003, despite what they wrote,
really misunderstood the stepwise technique? If it is so, we need to
insert a reference. If this is not the case, we need to omit the lines
about the misunderstanding. We also need to explain better why the
MM2003 calculations differ from MBH.
Moreover, our sentence ("MM2003 only calculate principal components for
the period when all chronologies are present") imply that MM2003 only
calculated PCs for the period 1xxx xxxx xxxx, as this would be the period
when all chronologies are present according to the MM2003 Table 8.
Obviously, they calculated PCs beyond 1820, as their calculations
actually extend back to 1400.
The problem continues in the legend to our Fig. 2. (" Each of the 212
data series is shown ... The red rectangle indicates the single block
used by MM2003, neglecting all data prior to 1619"). The last sentence
is inconsistent with the information in MM2003 in three ways; a) MM2003
clearly show in their Table 8 that they analysed the same blocks of data
as MBH. b) The year 1619 as a starting point of a data block is
inconsistent with MM Table 8. Where does the year 1619 come from? It is
not mentioned anywhere in MM2003. c). The red block implies that MM2003
made calculations back only to 1619, but they did back to 1400.
Moreover, the numbers given in the graph of our Fig. 2 indicate that the
total number of series is 211, whereas the text in the legend and also
in the main text on p. 16 says 212. Which number is correct?
I suppose that some of you others will know this subject much better
than I. I have just read the MM2003 paper, and find our reference to it
to be inconsistent with it. I hope you all can make efforts to make this
bit crystal clear. If not, I fear we will get problems!
Finally, I would like to draw your attention to the related sentence in
our conclusions on p. 26: ("Papers which claim to refute ... have been
reviewed and found to contain serious flaws"). Are all of you happy with
this statement? Would it sound better with a somewhat less offending
sentence, something like:
"Papers which claim to refute ... have been reviewed and found to
essentially contribute with insignificant information that does not
affect the consensus, and even to include some flaws."
I attach the MM2003 paper.
I will send some comments to the other parts of the text in a separate mail.
Cheers,
Anders
Martin Juckes wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> here is another draft. I've added a new reconstruction, using 19 independent
> proxies series from Jones et al., Mann et al., Esper et al. and Moberg et al.
> This gives a good fit to the calibration data, such that 2 recent years exceed
> the maximum pre-industrial estimate by 4 sigma levels. I've included this
> because without it I found it hard to draw precise and useful conclusions
> from the 4 partially overlapping reconstructions I had done before.
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> documentclass[cpd,11pt]{egu}
>
> input macs
> voffset 5cm
> hoffset 1.5cm
>
> begin{document}
>
> title
> {bf Millennial Temperature Reconstruction Intercomparison and Evaluation
> }
>
> runningtitle{Millennial Temperature}
> runningauthor{M.~N.~Juckes et al}
> author{Martin Juckes$^{(1)}$,
> Myles Allen$^{(2)}$,
> Keith Briffa$^{(3)}$,
> Jan Esper$^{(4)}$,
> Gabi Hegerl$^{(5)}$,
> Anders Moberg$^{(6)}$,
> Tim Osborn$^{(3)}$,
> Nanne Weber$^{(7)}$,
> Eduardo Zorita$^{(8)}$}
> correspondence{Martin Juckes (M.N.Juckes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx)}
> affil{
> British Atmospheric Data Centre, SSTD,
> Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> Chilton, Didcot,
> Oxfordshire, OX11 0QX,
> United Kingdom
> }
>
> affil{1: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory,
> 2: University of Oxford,
> 3: University of East Anglia,
> 4: Swiss Federal Research Institute,
> 5: Duke University,
> 6: Stockholm University,
> 7: Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI),
> 8: GKSS Research Centre
> }
> date{Manuscript version from 31 Oct 2005 }
> msnumber{xxxxxx}
>
> pubyear{}
> pubvol{}
> pubnum{}
>
> received{}
> %pubacpd{} % ONLY applicable to ACP
> revised{}
> accepted{}
>
> firstpage{1}
>
> maketitle
>
> begin{abstract}
> There has been considerable recent interest in paleoclimate reconstructions of the temperature history of
> the last millennium. A wide variety of techniques have been used.
> The interrelation among the techniques is sometimes unclear, as different studies often
> use distinct data sources as well as distinct methodologies.
> Recent work is reviewed with an aim to clarifying the import of
> the different approaches.
> A range of proxy data collections used by different authors are passed
> through two reconstruction algorithms: firstly, inverse regression and,
> secondly, compositing followed by variance matching.
> It is found that the first method tends to give large weighting to
> a small number of proxies and that the second approach is more robust
> to varying proxy input.
> A reconstruction using 19 proxy records extending back to 1000AD shows a
> maximum pre-industrial temperature of 0.227K (relative to the 1866 to 1970 mean).
> The standard error on this estimate, based on the residual in the calibration
> period is 0.149K. Two recent years (1998 and 2005) have exceeded the pre-industrial
> estimated maximum by more than 4 standard errors.
> end{abstract}
>
>
> %%openup 1jot
>
> introductionlabel{sec:intro}
>
> The climate of the last millennium has been the subject of much
> debate in recent years, both in the scientific literature
> and in the popular media.
> This paper reviews reconstructions of past temperature,
> on the global, hemispheric, or near-hemispheric scale, by
> citet{jones_etal1998} [JBB1998],
> citet{mann_etal1998a} [MBH1998],
> citet{mann_etal1999} [MBH1999],
> citet{huang_etal2000} [HPS2000],
> citet{crowley_lowery2000} [CL2000],
> citet{briffa_etal2001} [BOS2001],
> citet{esper_etal2002b} [ECS2002],
> citet{mann_jones2003} [MJ2003],
> citet{moberg_etal2005} [MSH2005],
> citet{oerlemans2005} [OER2005],
> citet{hegerl_etal2006+} [HCA2006].
> %%The criticism
> %%directed at them (mainly MBH1999) by citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2003} [MM2003] and others.
>
>
> Climate variability can be partitioned into contributions from
> internal variability of the climate system and response to forcings,
> which the forcings being further partitioned in natural and
> anthropogenic.
> The dominant change in forcing in the late 20th century
> arises from human impact in the form of
> greenhouse gases citep[primarily carbon dioxide, methane and
> chloro-fluoro carbons:][]{IPCC2001}.
> The changes in concentration of these gases in the atmosphere
> are well documented and their radiative properties which reduce,
> for a given temperature difference, radiative loss of heat to space
> from the mid and lower troposphere
> citep[for carbon dioxide, this was first documented by][]{arrhenius1896}
> are beyond dispute.
>
> However, there remains some uncertainty on two issues:
> firstly, how much of the observed change is due to greenhouse forcing as
> opposed to natural forcing and internal variability;
> secondly, how significant, compared to past natural changes, are the
> changes which we now observe and expect in the future?
>
> The first question is not answered by the IPCC conclusion cited above because
> that conclusion only compares the anthropogenic forcing of the late 20th century
> with the natural forcings of the same period. Further back in the past, it is
> harder to make definitive statements about the amplitude of variability in natural
> forcings. The second question reflects the uncertainty in the response of the
> climate system to a given change in forcing. In the last century both the
> variations in forcing and the variations in response have been measured with
> some detail, yet there remains uncertainty about the contribution of
> natural variability to the observed temperature fluctuations.
> In both cases, investigation is hampered by the fact that
> estimates of global mean temperature based on reliable direct measurements
> are only available from 1856 onwards citep{jones_etal1986}.
>
> Climate models are instrumental in addressing both questions,
> but they are still burdened with
> some level of uncertainty and there is a need for more detailed knowledge
> of the behaviour of the actual climate on multi-centennial timescales
> both in order to evaluate the climate models and in order to address the
> above questions directly.
>
> The scientific basis for proxy based climate reconstructions may be stated simply: there are
> a number of physical indicators
> which contain information about the past environmental variability.
> As these are not direct measurements, the term proxy is used.
>
>
> citet{jones_mann2004} review evidence for climate change in
> the past millennium and conclude that there had been a
> global mean cooling since the 11th century
> until the warming period initiated in the 19th century, but the issue remains
> controversial. This paper reviews recent contributions and evaluates the impact
> of different methods and different data collections used.
>
> Section 2 discusses recent contributions, which have developed a range of new
> methods to address aspects of the problem.
> Section 3 discusses the technique used by MBH1998/9
> in more detail in the context of criticism by citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2003}
> (hereafter MM2003).
> Section 4 presents some new results using the data collections from 5 recent studies.
>
>
> section{A survey of recent reconstructions}
>
> This section gives brief reviews of recent
> contributions, displayed in Fig.~1.
> Of these, 5 are estimates of the Northern Hemisphere mean temperature
> (MBH1999, HPS2000, CL2000, MSH2005, HCA2006),
> 2 of the Northern Hemisphere extra tropical mean temperature (BOS2001, ECS2002)
> and 3 of the global mean temperature (JBB1998, MJ2003, OER2005).
> All, except the inherently low resolution reconstructions of HPS2000 and OER2005,
> have been smoothed with a 40 year running mean.
> With the exception of HPS2000 and OER2005, the reconstructions
> use partly overlapping methods and data, so they
> cannot be viewed as independent from a statistical viewpoint.
> In addition to exploiting a range of different data sources,
> the above works also use a range of techniques.
> The subsections below cover different scientific themes,
> ordered according to the date of key publications.
> Some reconstructions which do not extend all the way
> back to 1000AD are included because of their
> importance in addressing specific issues.
> The extent to which the global, northern hemisphere and northern hemisphere
> extratropical reconstructions might be expected to agree
> is discussed in Sect.~2.10 below.
>
> subsection{High-resolution paleoclimate records}
>
> citet{jones_etal1998} [JBB1998] present the first annually resolved
> reconstructions of temperatures back to 1000AD, using
> a composite of standardised 10 proxies for the northern hemisphere and 7 for the southern,
> with variance damped in the early part of the series to account for the
> lower numbers of proxies present (6 series extend back to 1000AD), following citet{osborn_etal1997}.
> The composites are
> scaled by variance matching (Appendix A) against the annual mean summer temperatures for 1xxx xxxx xxxx.
> Climate models are also employed to investigate the temperature coherency
> between proxy sites and it is shown that there are strong large scale
> coherencies in the proxy data which are not reproduced by
> the climate model. An evaluation of each individual
> proxy series against instrumental data from 1881 to 1980
> shows that tree-rings and historical reconstructions
> are more closely related to temperature than those
> from corals and ice-cores.
>
> With regard to the temperatures of the last millennium,
> the primary conclusion of JBB1998 is that
> the twentieth century was the warmest of the millennium.
> There is clear evidence of a cool period from 1500 to 1900,
> but no strong ``Medieval Warm Period" [MWP] (though the second warmest
> century in the northern hemisphere reconstruction is
> the 11th). The MWP is discussed further in Sect.~2.4 below.
>
> JBB1998 draw attention to the limitations of some of the proxies
> on longer timescales (see Sect.~3.5 below).
> Homogeneity of the data record and
> its relation with temperature may not be guaranteed on longer timescale.
> This is an important issue, since
> many climate reconstructions assume a constant relationship between
> temperature anomalies and the proxy indicators
> (there are also problems associated with timescale-dependency in the
> relationship which are discussed further in Sect.~2.6 below).
>
> MJ2003 include some additional proxy series and extend to study period back a
> further millennium and conclude that the late 20th century warmth
> is unprecedented in the last two millennia.
>
> subsection{Climate field reconstruction}
>
> citet{mann_etal1999} published
> the first reconstruction of the last thousand years northern hemispheric mean
> temperature which included objective error bars,
> based on the analysis of the residuals in the calibration period.
> The authors concluded not only
> that their estimate of the temperature over the whole period 1000AD to 1860AD
> was colder than the late twentieth century, but also that 95% certainty limits
> were below the last decade of the twentieth century.
> The methods they used were presented in MBH1998
> which described a reconstruction back to 1400AD.
>
> MBH1998 use a collection of 415 proxy time indicators, many more than used in citet{jones_etal1998},
> but many of these are too close geographically to be considered
> as independent, so they are combined into a smaller number of representative
> series.
> The number of proxies also decreases significantly with age:
> only 22 independent proxies extend back to 1400AD,
> and, in
> MBH1999, 12 extend back to 1000AD (7 in the Northern Hemisphere).
> MBH1998 and MBH1999 have been the subject of much debate since the latter was cited
> in the IPCC (2001) report, though the IPCC
> conclusionsfootnote{citet{IPCC2001} concluded that
> ``The 1990s are likely to have been the warmest decade of the millennium in
> the Northern Hemisphere, and 1998 is likely to have been the warmest
> year," where ``likely'' implies a greater than 66% probability.
> Since 2001 it has been recognised that there is a need to explicitly
> distinguish between an expression of confidence, as made by the IPCC in this quote,
> which should include expert assessment of the robustness of statistical methods
> employed, and simple citation of the results of statistical test.
> In the language of
> citet{manning_etal2004} we can say that MBH1999 carried out statistical
> tests which concluded that the 1990s have been the warmest decade of the
> millenium with 95% likelihood, while IPCC (2001), after assessing all
> available evidence had a 66% confidence in the same statement.}
> were weaker than those of MBH1999.
>
> This work also differ from Jones et al. (1998) in using spatial patterns of temperature
> variability rather than hemispheric mean temperatures. In this way the study aims
> to exploit proxies which are related to temperature indirectly: for
> instance, changes in temperature may be associated with changes in
> wind and rainfall which might affect proxies more strongly than
> temperature. Since wind and rainfall are correlated with
> changes in temperature patterns, it is argued, there may be important non-local
> correlations between proxies and temperature.
>
> Different modes of atmospheric variability are evaluated through an
> Empirical Orthogonal Function [EOF] analysis of the time period 1902 to 1980,
> expressing the global field as a sum of spatial patterns (the EOFs) multiplied by
> Principal Components (PCs -- representing the temporal evolution).
> Earlier instrumental data are too sparse to be used for this purpose:
> instead they are used in a validation calculation to determine how
> many EOFs should be included in the reconstruction.
> Time series for each mode of variability are then reconstructed from the proxy data using
> a optimal least squares inverse regression.
>
> Finally, the skill of the regression of each PC is tested using the
> 1856 to 1901 validation data.
> Prior to 1450AD it is determined that only
> one PC can be reconstructed with
> any accuracy. This means that the main advantage of the
> Climate Field Reconstruction method does not apply at earlier dates.
> The methodology will be discussed further in Sect.~3 below.
>
> The reconstructed temperature evolution (Fig.~1) is rather less variable than that of Jones et al. (1998),
> but the differences are not statistically significant.
> The overall picture is of gradual cooling until the mid 19th century,
> followed by rapid warming matching that evaluated by the earlier work.
>
> subsection{Borehole temperatures}
>
> citet{huang_etal2000} [HPS2000] estimate northern hemisphere temperatures
> back to 1500AD using
> measurements made in 453 boreholes (their paper also presents global and
> southern hemisphere results using an additional 163 southern hemisphere boreholes).
> The reconstruction is included here, even though it does not extend back to 1000AD,
> because it has the advantage of being completely
> independent of the other reconstructions shown.
> Temperature fluctuations at the surface propagate slowly downwards, so that measurements
> made in the boreholes at depth contain a record of past surface temperature fluctuations.
> HPS2000 used measurements down to around 300m.
> The diffuse nature of the temperature anomaly means that short time scale fluctuations
> cannot be resolved. Prior to the 20th century, the typical resolution is about 100 years.
>
> citet{mann_etal2003} analyse the impact of changes in land use and snow cover
> on borehole temperature reconstructions and conclude that
> it results in significant errors.
> This conclusions has been refuted by
> citet{pollack_smerdon2004} (on statistical grounds), citet{gonzalez-rouco_etal2003}
> (using climate simulations) and citet{huang2004} (using an expanded network of 696
> boreholes in the northern hemisphere).
>
> subsection{Medieval Warm Period}
>
> Despite much discussion
> citep[e.g.][]{hughes_diaz1994, bradley_etal2003}, there is no clear quantitative
> understanding of what is meant by the ``Medieval Warm Period'' [MWP].
> citet{crowley_lowery2000}
> [CL2000] discuss the evidence for a global MWP, which they interpret as
> a period of unusual warmth in the 11th century. All the reconstructions
> of the 11th century temperature shown
> in Fig.~1 estimate that century to have been warmer than most of the
> past millennium. However, the question of practical importance is not
> whether it was warmer than the 12th to 19th centuries, which is
> generally accepted, but whether it was a period of comparable
> warmth to the late 20th century. MBH1999 concluded, with 95% confidence, that
> this was not so. CL2000 revisit the question
> using 15 proxy records, of which 9 were not used in the studies
> described above. Several of the series used have extremely low temporal resolution.
> %%CL2000 sought to select tree ring chronologies with consistent quality
> %%throughout their length, as measured by the "sample replication"
> %%citep{cook_etal2004}.
> %%[check usage of "sample replication" -- cook etal (QSR) is available from Jan's website]]
>
> They draw attention to the spatial localization of the MWP in their proxy series:
> it is strong in North America, North Atlantic and Western Europe, but not
> clearly present elsewhere. Periods of unusual warmth
> do occur in other regions, but these are short and asynchronous.
>
> Their estimate of northern hemispheric temperature over the past millennium is consistent
> with the works discussed above. They conclude that the occurrence of decades of
> temperatures similar to those of the late 20th century cannot be unequivocally ruled
> out, but that there is, on the other hand, no evidence to support the claims
> that such an extended period of large-scale warmth occurred.
>
> citet{soon_baliunas2003} carry out an analysis of local climate reconstructions.
> They evaluate the number of such reconstructions which show (a) a sustained ``climate
> anomaly" during xxx xxxx xxxxAD, (b) a sustained ``climate
> anomaly" during 1xxx xxxx xxxxAD and (c)
> their most anomalous 50 year period in the 20th century.
> Their definition of a ``sustained climate anomaly" is 50 years of warmth,
> wetness or dryness for (a) and (c) and 50 years of coolness, wetness
> or dryness in (b).
> It should be noted that they do not carry out evaluations which allow direct comparison between
> the 20th century and earlier times:
> they compare the number of extremes occurring in the 20th century with the
> number of anomalies occurring in periods of 3 and 4 centuries in the past.
> Both the use of sampling periods of differing length and different selection criteria make interpretation
> of their results problematic.
> They have also been criticised for interpreting
> regional extremes which occur at distinct times as being indicative of a global
> climate extremes citep{jones_mann2004}. This issue is discussed further in
> Sect.~2.9 below.
> citet{osborn_briffa2006} perform a systematic analysis along the lines of citet{soon_baliunas2003}
> and conclude that the proxy records alone, by-passing the problem of proxy calibration
> against instrumental temperatures, show an unprecedented anomaly in the 20th century.
>
> subsection{Segment length curse}
>
> citet{briffa_etal2001} and citet{briffa_etal2002} discuss the impact of
> the ``segment length curse'' citep{cook_etal1995a, briffa_etal1996, briffa2000} on
> temperature reconstructions from tree rings.
> Tree rings have been shown to have much greater sensitivity
> than other proxies on short timescales (JBB1998), but there is a concern that this may not
> be true on longer timescales. Tree ring chronologies are often made up of
> composites of many trees of different ages at one site.
> The width of the annual growth ring
> depends not only on environmental factors but also on the age of the
> tree. The age dependency on growth is often removed by subtracting
> a growth curve from the tree ring data for each tree. This process,
> done empirically, will not only remove age related trends but also any environmental
> trends which span the entire life of the tree.
> citet{briffa_etal2001} use a more sophisticated method
> (Age Band Decomposition [ABD], which
> forms separate chronologies from tree rings in different age bands,
> and then averages all the age-band chronologies)
> to construct northern hemisphere
> temperatures back to 1400AD, and show that
> a greater degree of long term variability is preserved.
> The reconstruction lies between those
> of MBH1999 and JBB1998, showing the cold 17th century of the former,
> but the relatively mild 19th century of the latter.
>
> The potential impact of the segment length limitations is analysed further
> by citet{esper_etal2002b, esper_etal2003}, using `Regional Curve Standardisation' (RCS)
> citep{briffa_etal1992}.
> In RCS composite growth curves (different curves reflecting
> different categories of growth behaviour) are obtained from all the trees
> in a region and this, rather than a fitted curve, is subtracted
> from each individual series. Whereas ABD circumvents the need to
> subtract a growth curve, RCS seeks to evaluate a growth curve which
> is not contaminated by climate signals.
> The ECS2002 analysis agrees well with that of MBH1999 on short
> time scales, but has greater centennial variability citep{esper_etal2004}.
> ECS2002 suggest that this may be partly due to the lack of tropical proxies
> in their work, which they suggest should be regarded as an extratropical
> Northern Hemisphere estimate. The extratropics are known to have
> greater variability than the tropics.
> %[check]:from eduardo:: Table 1 in MBH GRL 99 --add ref??
> However, it has to be also noted that among the proxies used by MBH1999
> (12 in total), just 2 of them are located in the tropics, both at one location
> (see table 1 below).
>
> citet{cook_etal2004} study the data used by ECS2002 and pay particular attention
> to potential loss of quality in the earlier parts of tree-ring chronologies
> when a relatively small number of tree samples are available. Their analysis
> suggests that tree ring chronologies prior to 1200AD should be treated with
> caution.
>
> subsection{Separating timescales}
>
> citet{moberg_etal2005} follow BOS2001 and ECS2002 in trying to address
> the ``segment length curse'', but rather than trying to improve the
> tree-ring chronologies by improving the standardizations,
> they discard low frequency component of the tree-ring data,
> and replace this with low-frequency information from proxies with lower temporal resolution.
> A wavelet analysis is used to filter different temporal scales.
>
> Each individual proxy series is first scaled to unit variance and then wavelet transformed.
> Averaging of the wavelet transforms is made separately for tree ring data
> and the low-resolution data.
> The average wavelet transform of tree-ring data for timescales less than 80
> years is combined with the averaged wavelet transform of the low-resolution data for
> timescales longer than 80 years to form one single wavelet transform covering all timescales.
> This composite wavelet transform is inverted to create a dimensionless temperature
> reconstruction, which is calibrated against the instrumental record of
> northern hemisphere mean temperatures, AD 1xxx xxxx xxxx, using a variance matching method.
>
> Unfortunately, the calibration period is too short to independently calibrate the
> low frequency component. The variance matching represents a form of cross-calibration.
> In all calibrations against instrumental data, the long period (multi-centennial)
> response is determined by a calibration which is dominated by
> sub-centennial variance. The MSH2005 approach makes this explicit and
> shows a level of centennial variability which is much larger than in
> MBH1999 reconstruction and
> similar to that in simulations of the past millennium with two
> different climate models, ECHO-G citep{storch_etal2004} and NCAR CSM
> (``Climate System Model'') citep{mann_etal2005}.
>
> subsection{Glacial advance and retreat}
>
> citet{oerlemans2005} provides another independent estimate of the global mean temperature
> over the last 460 years from an analysis of glacial advance and retreat.
> As with the bore hole based estimate of HPS2000, this work uses a
> physically based model rather than an empirical calibration.
> The resulting curve lies within the
> range spanned by the high-resolution proxies, roughly midway between
> the MBH1999 Climate Field Reconstruction and the HPS2000 bore hole estimate.
>
> Unlike the borehole estimate, but consistent with most other works presented
> here, this analysis shows a cooling trend prior to 1850, related to glacial
> advances over that period.
> It should be noted that
> the technique used to generate the bore hole estimate citep{pollack_etal1998}
> assumes a constant temperature prior to 1500AD. The
> absence of a cooling trend after this date may be influenced by this
> boundary condition.
>
> subsection{Regression techniques}
>
> Many of the reconstructions listed above depend on empirical relationships
> between proxy records and temperature. citet{storch_etal2004} suggest
> that the regression technique used by MBH1999
> under-representsfootnote{This is sometimes referred to as ``underestimating'',
> which will mean the same thing to many people, but something slightly different
> to statisticians. Any statistical model (that is, a set of assumptions about the
> noise characteristics of the data being examined) will deliver estimates of
> an expected value and variability. The variability of the expected value is
> not generally the same as the expected value of the variability.}
> the variability of past climate.
> This conclusion is drawn after a applying a method similar to that of MBH1999 to output from a
> climate model using a set of pseudo-proxies: time series generated from
> the model output and degraded with noise which is intended to match the noise
> characteristics of actual proxies.
> citet{mann_etal2005} use the same approach and arrive at a different conclusion:
> namely, that their regression technique is sound.
> citet{mann_etal2005} show several implementations of their
> Climate Field Reconstruction Method in the CSM simulation, using different levels
> of white noise in their synthetic pseudo proxies.
> For a case of pseudo-proxies with a realistic signal-to-noise ratio of 0.5, they use
> a calibration period (1xxx xxxx xxxx) which is longer than that
> used in MBH1998 and MBH1999 (1xxx xxxx xxxx).
> It turns out that the difference in the length of the calibration period is critical
> for the skill of the method (Zorita, personal communication et al., submitted).
> % (I think you can refer to Buerger et al 2006 here. Check with Eduardo if this is OK.
> % By the way, update the reference list: Tellus, 58A, xxx xxxx xxxx) [AM]
>
> There is some uncertainty about the true nature of noise on the proxies, and
> on the instrumental record, as will be discussed further below.
> The optimal least squares estimation technique of MBH1998 effectively
> neglects the uncertainties in the proxy data relative to uncertainties
> in the temperature.
> Instead,
> citet{hegerl_etal2006+} use total least squares regression citep{allen_stott2003, adcock1878}.
> This approach
> allows the partitioning of noise between instrumental temperatures
> and proxy records to be estimated, on the assumption that the instrumental
> noise is known. citet{hegerl_etal2006+} show that this approach leads to greater variability in the reconstruction.
>
> citet{rutherford_etal2005} take a different view. They compare reconstructions
> from 1400AD to present using a regularised expectation maximisation technique citep{schneider2001}
> and the MBH1998 climate field reconstruction method and find only minor differences.
> Standard regression techniques assume that we have a calibration period, in which
> both sets of variables are measured, and a reconstruction (or prediction) period
> in which one variable is estimated, by regression, from the other.
> The climate reconstruction problem is more complex:
> there are hundreds of instrumental records
> which are all of different lengths, and similar numbers of proxy records,
> also of varying length. The expectation maximisation technique
> citep{little_rubin1987}
> is well suited to deal with this: instead of imposing an
> artificial separation between a calibration period and a reconstruction
> period, it fills in the gaps in a way which exploits all data present.
> Regularised expectation maximisation is a generalisation
> developed by citet{schneider2001} to deal with ill posed problems.
> Nevertheless, there is still a simple regression equation at the heart of the technique.
> That used by citet{rutherford_etal2005} is similar to that used by
> %new: corrected
> MBH1998, so the issue raised by citet{hegerl_etal2006+} is unanswered.
>
> subsection{Natural variability and forcings}
>
> Global temperature can fluctuate through internally generated variability of
> the climate system (as in the El Ni~no phenomenon), through
> variability in natural forcings (solar insolation, volcanic aerosols,
> natural changes to greenhouse gas concentrations) and human changes.
> Reconstructions of variations in the external forcings for the last
> millenium have been
> put forward citep{crowley2000}, although recent studies have
> suggested a lower amplitude
> of low-frequency solar forcing citep{lean_etal2002, foukal_etal2004}.
>
> Analysis of reconstructed temperatures of MBH1999 and CL2000 and
> simulated temperatures using reconstructed solar and volcanic forcings
> shows that changes in the forcings can explain the reconstructed long
> term cooling through most of the millenium
> and the warming in the late 19th century citep{crowley2000}.
> The relatively cool climate in the second half of the 19th century may be
> attributable to cooling from deforestation citep{bauer_etal2003}.
> citet{hegerl_etal2003} analyse the correlations between four
> reconstructions (MBH1999, BOS2001, ECS2002, and a modified version of
> CL2000)
> and estimated forcings citep{crowley2000}.
> They find that that natural forcing, particularly by
> volcanism, explains a substantial fraction of decadal variance.
> Greenhouse gas forcing is detectable
> with high significance levels in all analyzed reconstructions except
> MSH2005, which ends in 1925.
> citet{weber2005b} carries out a similar analysis with a wider range
> of reconstructions. It is shown that the regression of reconstructed
> global temperatures on the forcings has a similar dependence on timescale
> as regressions derived from the climate model. The role of solar forcing is
> found to be larger for longer timescales, whereas volcanic forcing dominates
> for decadal timescales.
> The trend component over the period 1000 to 1850 is, however, in all
> reconstructions larger than the trend implied by the forcings.
>
> The methods employed by
> citet{hegerl_etal2006+} attribute about a third of the early 20th
> century warming, sometimes
> more, in high-variance reconstructions to greenhouse gas forcing.
> These results indicate that enhanced variability in the past does not
> make it more difficult to detect greenhouse warming, since a large
> fraction of the variability can be attributed to external forcing.
> Quantifying the influence of external forcing on the proxy records is
> therefore more relevant to understanding climate variability and its
> causes than determining if past periods were possibly as warm as the
> 20th century.
>
> citet{goosse_etal2005} investigate the role of internal variability using
> an ensemble of 25 climate model simulations of the last millennium
> and forcing estimates from citet{crowley2000}.
> They conclude that internal variability dominates local and regional
> scale temperature anomalies, implying that most of the variations
> experienced by a region such as Europe over the last millennium could
> be caused by internal variability. On the hemispheric and global scale,
> however, the forcing dominates.
> This agrees with results from a long
> solar-forced model simulation by citet{weber_etal2004}.
> %%similar This reinforces similar statements made by JOS1998. [where does this come from?]
> citet{goosse_etal2005}
> make the new point, that noise can lead to regional temperature anomalies
> peaking at different times to the forcing, so that disagreements in
> timing between proxy series should not necessarily be interpreted as
> meaning there is no common forcing.
>
> subsection{The long view}
>
> The past sections have drawn attention to the problems of calibrating
> temperature reconstructions using a relatively short
> period over which instrumental records are available.
> For longer reconstructions, with lower temporal resolution,
> other methods are available. Pollen
> reconstructions of climate match the ecosystem types with those
> currently occurring at different latitudes. The changes in
> ecosystem can then be mapped to the temperatures at which
> they now occur citep[e.g.][]{bernabo1981, gajewski1988}.
> These reconstructions cannot resolve decadal variability,
> but they provide an independent estimate of local low-frequency
> temperature variations. The results of citet{weber_etal2004}
> and
> citet{goosse_etal2005} suggest that such estimates
> centennial mean temperatures can provide some information about
> global mean anomalies, as they strongly reflect the external forcings on
> centennial and longer timescales. However, there has, as yet,
> been no detailed intercomparison between the pollen based
> reconstructions and the higher resolution reconstructions.
>
>
> section{Critics of the IPCC consensus on millennial temperatures}
>
> The temperature reconstructions described in the previous section
> represent (including their respective differences and similarities)
> the scientific consensus, based on objective analysis
> of proxy data sources which are sensitive to temperature.
> Nevertheless, there are many who are strongly attached to the view that past
> temperature variations were significantly larger and that, consequently,
> the warming trend seen in recent decades should not be considered
> as unusual.
>
>
> The criticism has been directed mainly at the citet{mann_etal1998a, mann_etal1999}
> work.
> Therefore, this section focuses mainly on this criticism.
> %new
> Though some of the critics identify the consensus with the MBH1998 work,
> this is not the case: the consensus rests on a broader body of work, and
> as formulated by IPCC2001 is less strong than the conclusions of
> MBH1998 (Sect.~3.2).
> citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2003} [MM2003]
> criticize MBH1998 on many counts, some related to deficiencies
> in the description of the data used and possible irregularities in the data
> themselves. These issues have been largely resolved in citet{mann_etal2004}.
> %%footnote{ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MANNETAL1998}.
>
> As noted above, the MBH1998 analysis is considerably more complex than others,
> and uses a greater volume of data.
> There are 3 main stages of the algorithm: (1) sub-sampling of
> regions with disproportionate numbers of proxies, (2) regression,
> (3) validation and uncertainty estimates.
>
> Stage (1) is necessary because some parts of the globe, particularly
> North America and Northern Europe, have a disproportionate number of
> proxy records. Other authors have dealt with this by using only
> a small selection of the available data or using regional
> averages citep[BOS2001;][]{hegerl_etal2006+}. MBH1998
> use a principal component analysis to extract the common signal from the records in
> densely sampled regions.
>
> The failure of MM2003 to replicate the MBH1998 results is partly due to
> a misunderstanding of the stepwise reconstruction method. MBH1998 use
> different subsets of their proxy database for different time periods.
> This allows more data to be used for more recent periods.
>
> For example, Fig.~2 illustrates
> how the stepwise approach applies to the North American tree ring network.
> Of the total of 212 chronologies, only 66 extend back beyond 1400AD.
> MM2003 only calculate principal components for the period when all
> chronologies are present. Similarly, MBH1998 use one principal
> component calculated from 6 drought sensitive tree-rings chronologies from South West Mexico
> and this data is omitted in MM2003.
> %%[is this clear now?? (AM)]]
> %new
> %%Table 7 of MM2003 indicates only 20 series for the region, as the
> %%supplementary information provided with MBH2003 omitted 2
> %%citep{mann_etal2004}.
> %endnew
> citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005a} [MM2005] continue the criticism of the techniques
> used by MBH1998 and introduce a ``hockey stick index": defined in terms of the ratio
> of the variance at the end of a time series
> to the variance over the remainder of the series.
> MM2005 argue that the way in which
> a principal component analysis is carried out in MBH generates an artificial
> bias towards a high ``hockey-stick index" and that the statistical significance of
> the MBH results may be lower that originally estimated.
>
> The issue arises because the tree ring chronologies are standardized:
> this involves subtracting a mean and dividing by a variance.
> MBH1998 use the mean and variance of the detrended series evaluated
> over the calibration period. MM2005 are of the view that this is
> incorrect.
> They suggest that each series should be standardised with respect to the
> mean and variance its full length.
>
> The code used by MM2005 is not, at the time of writing available,
> but the code fragments included in the text imply
> that their calculation used data which had been
> centred (mean removed) but had not been normalized to unit variance (standardised).
> Figure 3 shows the effect of the changes, applied to the
> North American tree ring sub-network of the data used by MBH1998,
> using those chronologies which extend back to 1400AD.
> The calculation used here does not precisely reproduce the archived MBH1998
> result, but the differences may be due to small differences in
> mathematical library routines used to do the decomposition.
> The effect of replacing the MBH1998 approach with centering and
> standardising on the whole time series is small, the effect of
> omitting the standardisation as in MM2005 is much larger:
> this omission causes the 20th century trend to be removed from the
> first principal component.
>
> citet{storch_zorita2005} look at some of the claims made in MM2005
> and analyses them in the context of a climate simulation.
> They find the impact of the modifications suggested by McIntyre and McKitrick to
> be minor.
> citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005b} clarify their original claim, stating that the
> standardisation technique used by MBH98 does not create the ``hockey-stick" structure
> but does ``steer" the selection of this structure in principal component
> analysis.
>
> citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005c} [MM2005c] revisit the MM2003 work and correct
> their earlier error by taking the stepwise reconstruction technique into account.
> They assert that the results of MM2003, which show a 15th century
> reconstruction 0.5K warmer than found by MBH1998,
> are reproduced with only minor changes to the MBH1998 proxy data base.
> Examination of the relevant figures, however, shows that this is not entirely
> true. The MM2005c predictions for
> the 15th century are 0.3K warmer than the MBH1998
> result: this is still significant, but, unlike the discredited MM2003 result, it
> would not make the 15th century the warmest on record.
>
> MM20005c and citet{wahl_ammann2005} both find that
> excluding the north American bristlecone pine data from the proxy
> data base removes the skill from the 15th century reconstructions.
> MM2005c justify this removal on the grounds that the first principal component
> of the North American proxies, which is dominated by the
> bristlecone pines, is a statistical outlier with respect to the joint distribution
> of $R^2$ and the difference in mean between 1400 to 1450 and 1902 to 1980.
> %%first ref to table 1
> Table 1, which lists a range of proxies extending back to 1000,
> shows that the North American first principal component (``ITRDB [pc01]'' in that table)
> is not an outlier
> in terms of its coherence with northern hemispheric mean temperature from 1856 to 1980.
>
> begin{table}[t]
> small
> %% output from mitrie/pylib/multi_r2.py, editted
> begin{tabular}{|p{7.0cm}|r|r|l|r|l|}
> hline
> Name & Lat. & Lon. & Id & $R^2$ & Type cr
> hline
> GRIP: borehole temperature (degC) (Greenland)$^1$ & 73 & -38 & *,Mo & 0.67 & [IC] cr
> China: composite (degC)$^2$ & 30 & 105 & *,Mo & 0.63 & [MC] cr
> Taymir (Russia) & 72 & 102 & He & 0.60 & [TR C] cr
> Eastern Asia & 35 & 110 & He & 0.58 & [TR C] cr
> Polar Urals$^3$ & 65 & 67 & Es, Ma & 0.51 & [TR] cr
> Tornetraesk (Sweden)$^4$ & 58 & 21 & Mo & 0.50 & [TR] cr
> ITRDB [pc01] & 40 & -110 & Ma & 0.49 & [TR PC] cr
> Mongolia & 50 & 100 & He & 0.46 & [TR C] cr
> Arabian Sea: Globigerina bull$^5$ & 18 & 58 & *,Mo & 0.45 & [CL] cr
> Western Siberia & 60 & 60 & He & 0.44 & [TR C] cr
> Northern Norway & 65 & 15 & He & 0.44 & [TR C] cr
> Upper Wright (USA)$^6$ & 38 & -119 & *,Es & 0.43 & [TR] cr
> Shihua Cave: layer thickness (degC) (China)$^7$ & 40 & 116 & *,Mo & 0.42 & [SP] cr
> Western Greenland & 75 & -45 & He & 0.40 & cr
> Quelcaya 2 [do18] (Peru)$^8$ & -14 & -71 & *,Ma & 0.37 & [IC] cr
> Boreal (USA)$^6$ & 35 & -118 & *,Es & 0.32 & [TR] cr
> Tornetraesk (Sweden)$^9$ & 58 & 21 & *,Es & 0.31 & [TR] cr
> Taymir (Russia)$^{10}$ & 72 & 102 & *,Es, Mo & 0.30 & [TR] cr
> Fennoscandia$^{11}$ & 68 & 23 & *,Jo,Ma & 0.28 & [TR] cr
> Yamal (Russia)$^{12}$ & 70 & 70 & *,Mo & 0.28 & [TR] cr
> Northern Urals (Russia)$^{13}$ & 66 & 65 & *,Jo & 0.27 & [TR] cr
> hline
> end{tabular}
> caption{Continued overleaf.}
> end{table}
>
> renewcommand{thetable}{arabic{table}}
> addtocounter{table}{-1}
> begin{table}[t]
> small
> begin{tabular}{|p{7.0cm}|r|r|l|r|l|}
> hline
> Name & Lat. & Lon. & Id & $R^2$ & Type cr
> hline
> ITRDB [pc02] & 42 & -108 & Ma & 0.21 & [TR PC] cr
> Lenca (Chile)$^{14}$ & -41 & -72 & Jo & 0.18 & [TR] cr
> Crete (Greenland)$^{15}$ & 71 & -36 & *,Jo & 0.16 & [IC] cr
> Methuselah Walk (USA) & 37 & -118 & *,Mo & 0.14 & [TR] cr
> Greenland stack$^{15}$ & 77 & -60 & Ma & 0.13 & [IC] cr
> Morocco & 33 & -5 & *,Ma & 0.13 & [TR] cr
> North Patagonia$^{16}$ & -38 & -68 & Ma & 0.08 & [TR] cr
> Indian Garden (USA) & 39 & -115 & *,Mo & 0.04 & [TR] cr
> Tasmania$^{17}$ & -43 & 148 & Ma & 0.04 & [TR] cr
> ITRDB [pc03] & 44 & -105 & Ma & -0.03 & [TR PC] cr
> Chesapeake Bay: Mg/Ca (degC) (USA)$^{18}$ & 38 & -76 & *,Mo & -0.07 & [SE] cr
> Quelcaya 2 [accum] (Peru)$^{8}$ & -14 & -71 & *,Ma & -0.14 & [IC] cr
> France & 44 & 7 & *,Ma & -0.17 & [TR] cr
> hline
> end{tabular}
> caption{(continued)
> The primary reference for each data set is indicated by the superscript in the first column as
> follows:
> 1: citep{dahl-jensen_etal1998}, 2: citet{yang_etal2002}, 3: citet{shiyatov1993}, 4: citet{grudd_etal2002}, 5: citet{gupta_etal2003},
> 6: citet{lloyd_graumlich1997}, 7: citet{tan_etal2003}, 8: citet{thompson1992},
> 9: citet{bartholin_karlen1983}, 10: citet{naurzbaev_vaganov1999}, 11: citet{briffa_etal1992},
> 12: citet{hantemirov_shiyatov2002}, 13: citet{briffa_etal1995}, 14: citet{lara_villalba1993},
> 15: citet{fisher_etal1996}, 16: citet{boninsegna1992}, 17: citet{cook_etal1991}, 18: citet{cronin_etal2003}.
> the "Id" in column 4 refers to the reconstructions in which the data were used.
> The type of proxy is indicated in column 6:: tree-ring [TR], tree-ring composite [TR C],
> tree-ring principle component [TR PC], coral [CL], sediment [SE], ice core [IC],
> multi-proxy composite [MC]. The 19 proxy series marked with a "*" in column 4 are used in the
> ``Union'' reconstruction.
> }
> end{table}
>
> citep[][; MM2005c]{briffa_osborn1999} suggest that
> rising CO$_2$ levels may have contributed significantly to the
> 19th and 20th century increase in growth rate in some trees,
> particularly the bristlecone pines, but such an
> effect has not been reproduced in controlled experiments with mature trees
> citep{korner_etal2005}.
>
> Once a time series purporting to represent past temperature has been obtained,
> the final, and perhaps, most important, step is to verify its
> and estimate uncertainty limits. This is discussed further in the next section.
>
> section{Varying methods vs. varying data}
>
> One factor which complicates the evaluation of the various reconstructions is
> that different authors have varied both method and data collections. Here we will
> run a representative set of proxy data collections through two algorithms:
> inverse regression and scaled composites. These two methods, and the different
> statistical models from which they may be derived, are explained in the
> Appendix A.
>
> Esper et al. (2005) investigated the differing calibration approaches used in the recent literature, including
> regression and scaling techniques, and concluded that the methodological differences in calibration result in differences
> in the reconstructed temperature amplitude/variance of about 0.5K.
> This magnitude is equivalent to the mean annual temperature change for the Northern Hemisphere reported in the last
> IPCC report for the 1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod.
> citet{burger_etal2006} take another approach and investigate a family of 32 different regression algorithms
> derived by adjusting 5 binary switches, using pseudo-proxy data.
> They show that these choices, which
> have all been defended in the literature, can lead to a wide variety of different
> reconstructions given the same data.
> They also point out that the uncertainty is greater when we
> attempt to estimate the climate of periods which lie outside the range experienced
> during the calibration period. The relevance of this point to the last millennium is
> under debate: the glacier based temperature estimates of OER2005 suggest that the
> coldest northern hemisphere mean temperatures occurred close to the start of
> the instrumental record, in the 19th century. The borehole reconstructions,
> however, imply that there were colder temperatures experienced in the 16th to 18th centuries.
> For the question as to whether the warmth of the latter part of the calibration
> period has been experienced in the past, however,
> this particular issue is not directly relevant.
>
> As noted above, much of the MBH1999 algorithm is irrelevant to reconstructions
> prior to AD 1450, because before that date the data only suffice,
> according to estimates in that paper, to determine one degree of freedom.
> Hence, we will only look at direct evaluation of the hemispheric mean temperature.
>
> Several authors have evaluated composites and calibrated those composites
> against instrumental temperature. Many of the composites contain more samples in later
> periods, so that the calibration may be dominated by samples which do
> not extend into the distant past. Here, we will restrict attention to
> records which span the entire reconstruction period.
> The data series used are listed in table 1.
>
> subsection{Proxy data quality issues}
>
> As noted previously, their has been especially strong criticism of
> MBH1998, 1999, partly concerning some aspects of their data collection.
> Figures 4 and 5 show reconstructions made using the MBH1999 and MBH1998 data respectively.
> Regression against northern hemispheric mean temperature from 1856 to 1980 is used
> instead of regression against principal components of
> temperature from 1902 to 1980. There are differences, but key features remain.
> MM2003 draw attention to the fact that one time series,
> ``CANA036" in the ITRDB classification, contributed
> by Gasp'e, appears twice in the MBH1998 database.
> This error is corrected in the red dashed curve of Fig.~5,
> which is almost identical to the green curve, which retains the duplication.
>
> subsection{Reconstruction using a union of proxy collections}
>
> The following subsection will discuss a range of reconstructions using different
> data collections. The first 5 of these collections are defined as those proxies used by
> JBB1998, MBH1999, ECS2002, MSH2005 and HCA2006, respectively, which extend back to 1000AD.
> These will be referred to below as the JBB, MBH, ECS, MSH, HCA composites below
> to distinguish them from the composites used in the published articles, which include
> additional, shorter, proxy data series.
> Finally there is a `Union' composite made using 19 independent northern
> hemisphere proxy series marked with ``*" in table 1. Apart from the China composite
> record, all the data used are individual series. The PCs used by MBH1999 have been
> omitted in favour of individual series used in other studies.
> Two southern hemisphere tropical series, both from the Quelcaya glacier, Peru,
> are included ensure adequate representation of tropical temperatures.
> This 'Union' collection contains 11 tree-ring series, 4 ice-cores, and one each of
> coral, speleothem, lake sediment and a composite record including historical data.
>
> subsection{Intercomparison of proxy collections}
>
> Figure 6 shows reconstructions back to 1000AD using
> composites of proxies and variance matching [CVM] (for the proxy
> principal components in the MBH1998, MBH1999 data collections the sign
> is arbitrary: these series have, where necessary, had the sign reversed so that
> they have a positive correlation with the northern hemisphere
> temperature record).
> Surprisingly, the `Union' does not lie in the range spanned by the other reconstructions,
> and reaches colder temperatures than any of them. It does, however, fit the calibration period
> data better than any of the sub-collections.
>
> The reconstructions shown in Fig.~7 use the same data is used: this time
> using inverse regression [INVR] (Appendix A), as used by MBH1998
> (the method used here differs from that of MBH1998 in using northern hemisphere
> temperature to calibrate against, having a longer calibration period,
> and reconstructing only a single variable instead of multiple EOFs).
> The spread of values is substantially increased relative to the CVM reconstruction.
>
> With INVR, only one reconstruction (that using the ECS2001
> data) shows temperatures warmer than the mid 20th century.
> The inverse regression technique applies weights to the
> individual proxies which are proportional to the
> correlation between the proxies and the calibration temperature
> signature.
> For this time series the 5 proxies are weighted as:
> 1.7 (Boreal); 2.9 (Polar Urals); 1.7 (Taymir); 1.8 (Tornetraesk); and 2.3 (Upper Wright).
> Firstly, it should be noted that this collection samples North America and the
> Eurasian arctic only. The bias towards the arctic is strengthened by the weights
> generated by the inverse regression algorithm, such that the reconstruction has poor geographical coverage.
>
> The MBH1999 and HPS2000 published reconstructions are shown in Fig.~6 for comparison: the MBH1999
> reconstruction lies near the centre of the spread of estimates, while the HPS2000 reconstruction
> is generally at the lower bound.
>
> Much of the current debate revolves around the level of
> centennial scale variability in the past.
> The CVM results generally suggest
> a low variance scenario comparable to MBH1999. The inverse regression
> results, however, suggest greater variability. It should be noted
> that the MBH1999 inverse regression result use greater volumes of
> data for recent centuries, so that the difference in Fig.~7 between the
> dashed red curve and the full green curve in the 17th
> century is mainly due to reduced proxy data input in the latter
> (there is also a difference because MBH1999 used inverse regression
> against temperature principle components rather than northern hemisphere
> mean temperature as here).
>
> Table 2 shows the cross correlations of the reconstructions in Fig.~6,
> for high pass (upper right) and low pass (lower left) components
> of the series, with low pass being defined by a 40 year running mean.
> The low pass components are highly correlated.
>
> begin{table}[t]
> %% output from mitrie/pylib/pp.py
> begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
> hline
> & Ma & Mo & Es & Jo & He & Unioncr
> hline
> Ma & -- & 14% & 25% & 60% & 20% & 61% cr
> Mo & 69% & -- & 37% & 11% & 13% & 60% cr
> Es & 64% & 77% & -- & 14% & 36% & 57% cr
> Jo & 62% & 51% & 46% & -- & 11% & 35% cr
> He & 72% & 75% & 85% & 53% & -- & 26% cr
> Union & 67% & 71% & 62% & 45% & 84% & -- cr
> hline
> end{tabular}
> caption{Cross correlations between reconstructions from
> different proxy data bases: Mann et al (Ma), Moberg et al (Mo),
> Esper et al (Es), Jones et al (Jo), Hegerl et al (He).
> Lower left block correspond to low pass filtered series,
> upper right to high pass filtered.}
> end{table}
>
> The significance of the correlations between these five proxy data samples
> and the instrumental temperature data during the calibration period (1xxx xxxx xxxx)
> has been evaluated using a Monte-Carlo simulation
> with (1) a first order Markov model and (2) random time series
> which reproduces the lag correlation structure of the data samples (see Appendix A).
> Figure 8 shows the lag correlations. The instrumental record had a pronounced
> anti-correlation on the 40 year time-scale. This may be an artifact of the short
> data record, but it is retained in the significance calculation as the best available
> estimate which is independent of the proxies.
> The `Union' composite shows multi-centennial correlations which are not present in the other data.
> The MBH and JBB composites clearly underestimate the decadal scale correlations, while
> the HCA and 'Union' composites overestimate it.
> %%first ref to table 3
> Results are shown in table 3.
> If the full lag correlation structure of the data were known, it would be true,
> as argued by MM2005, that the first order approach generally
> leads to an overestimate of significance. Here, however, we only have a
> estimated correlation structure based on a small sample. Using this finite
> sample correlation is likely to overestimate long-term correlations and hence
> lead to an underestimate of significance. Nevertheless, results are presented here
> to provide a cautious estimate of significance.
> For the MBH and JBB composites, which have short lag-correlations, the difference
> between the two methods is minimal. For other composites there is a substantial difference.
> In all cases the $R^2$ values exceed the 99% significance level. When
> detrended data are used the $R^2$ values are lower, but still above the 95%
> level -- with the exception of the Hegerl et al. data. This data has only decadal
> resolution, so the lower significance in high frequency variability is to be expected.
>
>
> begin{table}[t]
> %% output from mitrie/pylib/sum_ac.py
> begin{tabular}{|l||c|c||c|c||c||c|p{1.1cm}|}
> hline
> Source & $R^2_{95|h}$ & $R^2_{95|AR}$ & $R^2$ & $R^2_{detr}$ & $sigma$ & Signif. & Signif. (detrended) cr
> hline
> Mann et al. & 0.205 & 0.170 & 0.463 & 0.286 & 0.186 & 99.99% & 98.75%cr
> hline
> Moberg et al., (hi+lo)/2 & 0.225 & 0.183 & 0.418 & 0.338 & 0.153 & 99.87% & 99.25%cr
> hline
> Esper et al. & 0.335 & 0.220 & 0.613 & 0.412 & 0.158 & 99.96% & 98.11%cr
> hline
> Jones et al. & 0.187 & 0.180 & 0.371 & 0.274 & 0.203 & 99.93% & 99.17%cr
> hline
> Hegerl et al. & 0.440 & 0.266 & 0.618 & 0.357 & 0.133 & 99.56% & 90.13%cr
> hline
> Union & 0.337 & 0.236 & 0.655 & 0.414 & 0.149 & 99.98% & 97.91%cr
> hline
> end{tabular}
> caption{
> $R^2$ values evaluated using the Northern Hemisphere mean temperature (1856 to 1980) and various
> proxy records.
> Columns 2 and 3 show $R^2$ values for the 95% significance
> levels, evaluated using a Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 realisations. In columns
> 2, 7 and 8 the full lag-correlation structure of the data is used, in column
> 3 a first order auto-regressive model is used, based on the lag one auto-correlation.
> Column 4 shows the $R^2$ value obtained from the data and column 5 shows the same
> using detrended data.
> Column 6 shows the standard error (root-mean-square residual) from the calibration
> period. Columns 7 and 8 show significance levels, estimated using
> Monte Carlo simulations as in column 2, for the full and detrended $R^2$ values.
> }
> end{table}
>
> Figure 9 plots this reconstruction,
> with the instrumental data
> in the calibration period.
> The composite tracks the changes in northern hemisphere temperature well,
> capturing the steep rise between 1910 and 1950 and much of the decadal
> scale variability. This is reflected in the significance scores (Tab.~3)
> which are high both for the full series and for the detrended series.
> The highest temperature in the reconstructed data, relative to the 1xxx xxxx xxxxmean is
> 0.227K in 1091AD. This temperature was first exceeded in the instrumental record in 1878,
> again in 1937 and frequently thereafter. The instrumental record has not gone below this level since 1986.
> Taking $sigma=0.149$ as the root-mean-square residual in the calibration period
> 1990 is the first year when the 1091 maximum was exceed by $2sigma$.
> This happened again in 1995 and every year since 1997.
> 1998 and every year since 2001 have exceeded the preindustrial maximum by $3sigma$.
>
> conclusionslabel{sec:end}
>
> There is general agreement that global temperatures cooled
> over the majority of the last millennium and have risen sharply
> since 1850. In this respect, the recent literature has not produced
> any change to the conclusions of JBB1998, though there remains
> substantial uncertainty about the magnitude of centennial scale variability
> superimposed over longer term trends.
>
> The IPCC 2001 conclusion that temperatures of the past millennium
> are unlikely to have been as warm, at any time prior to the 20th
> century, as the last decades of the 20th century is supported
> by subsequent research and by the results obtained here.
>
> The greatest range of disagreement among independent
> assessments occurs during the coolest centuries, from 1500 to
> 1900, when the departure from recent climate conditions
> was strongest and may have been outside the range of
> temperatures experienced during the later
> instrumental period.
>
> There are many areas of uncertainty and disagreement within
> the broad consensus outlined above, and also some who
> dissent from that consensus. Papers which claim to refute the
> IPCC2001 conclusion on the climate of the past millennium have been
> reviewed and found to contain serious flaws.
>
> A major area of uncertainty concerns the accuracy of the long time-scale
> variability in the reconstructions. This is particularly
> so for timescale of a century and longer. There does not appear to be any
> doubt that the proxy records would capture rapid change on
> a 10 to 50 year time scale such as we have experienced in recent decades.
>
> Using two different reconstruction methods on a range of proxy data
> collections, we have found that inverse regression
> tends to give large weighting to
> a small number
Original Filename: 1168353155.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Melinda Marquis <marquis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: AR4 Paleoclimate Teleconference
Date: Tue Jan 9 09:32:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: chen zhenlin <chenzhenlin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, czl <cdccc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan Solomon <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Martin Manning <mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
THis time is fine for me and the number you have is correct. Cheers
Keith
At 18:38 08/01/2007, Melinda Marquis wrote:
Dear Peck, Eystein and Keith,
Thank you for agreeing to meet this week (Thurs., Jan. 11) to discuss paleoclimate
items. Martin will send you a follow-up email with an agenda to focus the
teleconference discussion.
In the meantime, if you would please confirm or correct the phone numbers where you can
be reached, I would be grateful.
Jonathan Overpeck
Tucson, AZ, U.S.
9:00 a.m., Jan. 11 (Thurs.)
xxx xxxx xxxx
Eystein Jansen
Bergen, Norway (Oslo-time)
5:00 p.m., Jan. 11 (Thurs.)
xxx xxxx xxxx
Keith Briffa
Norwich, U.K. (London-time)
4:00 p.m., Jan. 11 (Thurs.)
xxx xxxx xxxx
____
Chen Zhenlin
Beijin, China [Please send phone for a midnight call.]
12 midnight Thurs.-Fri.
Cheers,
Melinda
--
Dr Melinda Marquis, Deputy Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit
NOAA/ESRL Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
325 Broadway, DSRC R/CSDxxx xxxx xxxxFax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80305, USA
--
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/
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1182255717.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Thomas.R.Karl" <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: FW: retraction request
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:21:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Wei-Chyung Wang <wang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Thanks Phil,
We R now responding to a former TV weather forecaster who has got press, He has a web site
of 40 of the USHCN stations
showing less than ideal exposure. He claims he can show urban biases and exposure biases.
We are writing a response for our Public Affairs. Not sure how it will play out.
Regards, TOm
Phil Jones said the following on 6/19/2007 4:22 AM:
Wei-Chyung and Tom,
The Climate Audit web site has a new thread on the Jones et al. (1990)
paper, with lots of quotes from Keenan. So they may not be going to
submit something to Albany. Well may be?!?
Just agreed to review a paper by Ren et al. for JGR. This refers
to a paper on urbanization effects in China, which may be in press
in J. Climate. I say 'may be' as Ren isn't that clear about this in
the text, references and responses to earlier reviews. Have requested
JGR get a copy a copy of this in order to do the review.
In the meantime attaching this paper by Ren et al. on urbanization
at two sites in China.
Nothing much else to say except:
1. Think I've managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA
requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.
2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said
they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are
threads on it about Australian sites.
3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning)
about the availability of the responses to reviewer's at the various
stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on
paleo.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:48 12/06/2007, Wei-Chyung Wang wrote:
FYI. WCW
PS I am flying out to Norway this afternoon. Keep in touch.
-----Original Message-----
From: Wei-Chyung Wang [[1]mailto:wang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 11:46 AM
To: [2]doug.keenan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: 'WCW'; '[3]Kld@xxxxxxxxx.xxx'
Subject: RE: retraction request
Date: June 12, 2007
To: D. J. Keenan
Cc: K. Demerjian, Director, ASRC/SUNY-Albany
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Keenan,
The only valid scientific issue described in your June 11, 2007 e-mailed pdf
file (attached here as reference) concerning our 1990 GRL paper is the
"station histories", while others are strictly your own opinions and
therefore irrelevant to your inquiry. So let me elaborate further on this
issue.
Digitization of the hard copies of "station histories" was prepared in
1xxx xxxx xxxxby Ms. Zhao-Mei Zeng (IAP/CAS) only for the 60-station network,
while the "station histories" of other stations, including those we used in
1990 urban warming study, were available in paper form, as I have already
indicated in my 4/30/07 e-mail to you. Therefore, the use of the word
"fabrication" in your document is totally absurd.
Concerning the current status of these hard copies of "station histories",
Ms. Zeng told me when I was in Beijing in April 2007, that she no longer has
the access to these information because it has been a long time (since 1990)
and also IAP has moved office. But if you are interested, you can make an
inquiry to the China Meteorological Administration using the web site:
[4]http://211.147.16.25/ywwz/about/cma.php.
I believe that I have made it very clear what we had done with regard to the
"station histories" in 1990 urban warming study. What and how you are going
to proceed from now on is entirely your decision.
WCW
*********************************************
Dr. Wei-Chyung Wang
Professor of Applied Sciences
Atmospheric Sciences Research Center
State University of New York
251 Fuller Road
Albany, New York 12203
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
E-mail: [5]wang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
*********************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: D.J. Keenan [[6]mailto:doug.keenan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 8:43 AM
To: Wei-Chyung Wang
Subject: Re: retraction request
Dear Dr. Wang,
I had something urgent arise, and so had to leave this matter for a while.
Please find attached a rough draft report. If you believe the report to be
inaccurate or misrepresentative, kindly let me know.
I hope that you will reconsider. If you decide to publish retractions, I
will cease to bring this forward.
Sincerely,
Douglas Keenan
----- Original Message -----
From: [7]<wang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "'D.J. Keenan'" [8]<doug.keenan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "'Phil Jones'" [9]<p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; [10]<Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>;
"'Wei-Chyung Wang'" [11]<wang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>; "'Zeng Zhaomei'"
[12]<zzm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Monday, 30 April, 2007 6:14
Subject: Re: retraction request
> Dr. Keenan,
>
> The discussion with Ms. Zeng last week in Beijing have re-affirmed
> that she used the hard copies of station histories to make sure that
> the selected stations for the study of urban warming in China have
> relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or
> observation times over the study period (1xxx xxxx xxxx).
>
> Regards,
>
> WCW
>
> ---------------------4/22/2007 4:46 PM e-mail Wang to Keenan---------
> Dear Dr. Keenan,
>
> I was really surprised to see your e-mail (below) after I logged into
> SUNYA webmail in Nanjing/China, after several days of disconnection
> (from internet) while travelling in central China.
>
> I flew to China early morning on 4/14, the day after your call to my
> office when I was in a meeting. My understanding was that you are
> going to call me again, but you never did.
>
> In any case, becuase of 4/14 trip to China, I origionally plan to
> respond to your 4/11 e-mailed questions when I return to Albany the
> end of this month. To answer your questions more accurately, I need
> to look into the file (if I can find it since it has been a long
> time), and also contact the co-author, Ms. Zeng, who brought the data
> and visited SUNYA as a visiting scientist from the Institute of
> Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, during that time.
>
> Regards,
>
> WCW
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D.J. Keenan" [13]<doug.keenan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> Date: Friday, April 20, 2007 8:31 am
> Subject: retraction request
>
>> Dear Dr. Wang,
>>
>> Regarding the Chinese meteorological data analyzed by Wang et al.
>> [GRL, 1990] and Jones et al. [Nature, 1990], it now seems clear that
>> there are severe problems. In particular, the data was obtained
>> from 84 meteorological stations that can be classified as follows.
>> 49 have no histories
>> 08 have inconsistent histories
>> 18 have substantial relocations
>> 02 have single-year relocations
>> 07 have no relocations
>> Furthermore, some of the relocations are very distant--over 20 km.
>>
>> Others are to greatly different environments, as illustrated here:
>> [14]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1323#comment-102970
>>
>> The above contradicts the published claim to have considered the
>> histories of the stations, especially for the 49 stations that have
>> no histories. Yet the claim is crucial for the research conclusions.
>>
>> I e-mailed you about this on April 11th. I also phoned you on April
>> 13th: you said that you were in a meeting and would get back to me.
>> I have received no response.
>>
>> I ask you to retract your GRL paper, in full, and to retract the
>> claims made in Nature about the Chinese data. If you do not do so, I
>> intend to publicly submit an allegation of research misconduct to
>> your university at Albany.
>>
>>
>> Douglas J. Keenan
>> [15]http://www.informath.org
>> phone xxx xxxx xxxx2
>> The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, 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 [16]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Dr. Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D.
Director
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center
Veach-Baley Federal Building
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28xxx xxxx xxxx
Tel: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
[17]Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
References
1. mailto:wang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:doug.keenan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:Kld@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. http://211.147.16.25/ywwz/about/cma.php
5. mailto:wang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:doug.keenan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. mailto:wang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. mailto:doug.keenan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
9. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
10. mailto:Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
11. mailto:wang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
12. mailto:zzm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
13. mailto:doug.keenan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
14. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1323#comment-102970
15. http://www.informath.org/
16. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
17. mailto:Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx