Monday, March 12, 2012

2431.txt

cc: rahmstorfatXYZxyz-potsdam.de,drindatXYZxyzs.nasa.gov
date: Tue Jan 11 22:39:09 2005
from: Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: where I am !!!! !
to: jtoatXYZxyz.inbox.email.arizona.edu ,Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansenatXYZxyz.uib.no>

Basically , I need to send this to you to because there comes a point when I am just not
able to read it objectively.
I would really like you both - and David and Stefan (I am ccing to them only) to look at
it . Obviously it has grown too much, but the information in here is in my opinion all
important.
I suggest removing the regional simulations stuff from the end (as David said earlier!) but
feel this should be somewhere - also (sorry Eystein) perhaps the ocean section should go?
I have dropped the proposed Figure 2 _ after wasting a lot of time on it - there are too
many problems with getting and understanding data - and then making any sensible conclusion
on the basis of it. We really must have the two Figures left though - or some variants
(these need borehole curves including and some way of indicating envelope of uncertainty
around all reconstructions - perhaps as gray shading of different darkness depending on how
may confidence limits overlap).
I would really appreciate a dispassionate look by all of you at the conclusions drawn
after the the desciption of both Figures - in the light of the discussion we had about
interpreting these Figures. I am really happy if you and David and Stefan (and Fortunat?)
consider what is worth and not worth trying to say re the implications of these Figures,
beyond the TAR. I can not tell if what I am saying is balanced (I know Esper reconstruction
is very hairy and ECHO-G run has much too great long-term variability - but no evidence
PUBLISHED to support this - yet at least). Is what I say about the implications of the
reconstructions banal?
I have been battling with teaching today and fucked up course scheduling by the
administration that has outraged some students. Tomorrow I must take daughter back for new
term in Cambridge - and now must work on proposal for Russian who leaves Thursday and needs
to submit before then.
Do have a look and trim , cross reference as needed. The nightmare with these references
continues also and I will have to get someone to help out here - incidentally our secretary
has gone absent for a month . I will be back in hopefully by tomorrow afternoon . The
conclusions (bullets?) should be very brief - but can not see them yet - suggestions
welcome
I can try to do something for the methods but would rather you just told me exactly what is
needed. I will then work on this Thursday and likely happy to accept what you say re this
text. I know I have not contributed to the discussing on other sections - very frustrating
- but must wait til after ZOD . Sorry
Keith

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

Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

No comments:

Post a Comment