Sunday, April 1, 2012

3055.txt

cc: tkarlatXYZxyzc.noaa.gov
date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 13:07:08 +0100
from: "Folland, Chris" <ckfollandatXYZxyzo.gov.uk>
subject: RE: IPCC revisions
to: 'Phil Jones' <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Michael E. Mann" <mannatXYZxyztiproxy.evsc.virginia.edu>, k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk

Dear All

A proxy diagram of temperature change is a clear favourite for the Policy
Makers summary. But the current diagram with the tree ring only data
somewhat contradicts the multiproxy curve and dilutes the message rather
significantly. We want the truth. Mike thinks it lies nearer his result
(which seems in accord with what we know about worldwide mountain glaciers
and, less clearly, suspect about solar variations). The tree ring results
may still suffer from lack of multicentury time scale variance. This is
probably the most important issue to resolve in Chapter 2 at present.

Chris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Jones [SMTP:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
> Sent: 22 September 1999 12:58
> To: Michael E. Mann; k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk
> Cc: ckfolland@meto.gov.uk; tkarlatXYZxyzc.noaa.gov
> Subject: Re: IPCC revisions
>
>
> Mike,
> Been away in Japan the last week or so. Malcolm was there in a
> wheelchair
> because of his ruptured achilles. We both mentioned the lack of evidence
> for global scale change related to the MWE and LIA, but all the later
> Japanese speakers kept saying the same old things.
>
> As for the TAR Chap 2 it seems somewhat arbitrary divison to exclude
> the
> tree-ring only reconstructions. Keith's reconstruction is of a different
> character to other tree-ring work as it is as 'hemispheric in scale' as
> possible so is unlike any other tree-ring related work that is reported
> upon.
> If we go as is suggested then there would be two diagrams - one simpler
> one with just Mann et al and Jones et al and in another section Briffa et
> al. This might make it somewhat awkward for the reader trying to put them
> into context.
> The most important bit of the proxy section is the general discussion
> of
> 'Was there an MWE and a LIA' drawing all the strands together. Keith and
> I
> would be happy to look through any revisions of the section if there is
> time.
>
> One other thing, did you bring up the possibility of having a
> proxy-only
> chapter ( albeit short) for the next assessment ?
>
> On Venice I suggested to Peck that you and Keith give talks on the
> reconstructions - frank and honest etc emphasising issues and I lead a
> discussion with you both and the rest of those there where the issues
> can be addressed ( ie I would like to get the views of other proxy types
> and
> the modellers/detectors there). I suggested to Peck that this was early
> in the week as I have to leave on the Thursday to go to the last day of
> a Working Group meeting of the Climate Change Detection group in Geneva
> ( a joint WMO Commission for Climatology/CLIVAR). I hope to report on the
> main findings of the Venice meeting.
>
> Another issue I would like to raise is availability of all the series
> you use in your reconstructions. That old chestnut again !
>
> How is life in Charlottesville ? Do you ever bump into Michaels or is
> always off giving skeptical talks ?
>
> Tim Osborn is making great progress with his NERC grant and will be
> looking
> into dates soon for coming to see you.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
>

No comments:

Post a Comment