cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, "'michele'" <m.brunettiatXYZxyzc.cnr.it>, "'David Frank'" <david.frankatXYZxyz.ch>
date: Thu Jun 19 11:08:20 2008
from: Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Re: AW: EI-paper
to: email@example.com, Reinhard Boehm <Reinhard.BoehmatXYZxyzg.ac.at>
A few thoughts. Can you concentrate on the sections after the introduction?
I wouldn't put in anything about solar and volcanic forcing. The diagrams you
have are out of date and the subject is changing rapidly. I'd omit the model
I can help you write the Introduction setting the stage for the rest of the paper.
What I don't want to be said is something like the following:
- a climate model says it was cooler before 1850
- trees suggest it was cooler before this time
- so we've decided to adjust the observations
These are the sorts of simplistic things the skeptics will say. So paper should
be indicating the adjustment needed as a result of the Kremsmunster work. The
trees and the other proxies are just an aside, and all this would fit better in
another paper - not necessarily the one I started.
Even suggesting the cold or warm solution to the problem is probably not the way
to go. I know this is how we've been talking about the issue, but there are well-known
arguments that the temperatures measured before screens are likely biased
particularly in the summer season.
What a good way of finishing the paper would be is to replot the figure for summer
from the IPCC report. I could easily add the GAR average for JJA to the
plot. It doesn't matter that one is Central Europe and the other the GAR - as all
is relative to a common base period. They will look much the same from 1880
and then diverge a little before.
At 17:59 18/06/2008, maurizio.maugeriatXYZxyzfai.it wrote:
I'm in favour of just adding one or two comparative figures with the proxy series and
cancel the planned section two. Anyway your idea is the best: let's look to the paper
when we have finished all the other sections.
I have just a short comment to the introduction. The text is very good and gives a clear
picture of the situation, but I do not like very much the last sentence. Here you refer
to previous attempts on EIP-climate data reconstruction and analysis and give some
references. But the list of references seems to be rather poor as, e.g. the Central
England record is not included. Of course we can considere all the important records
that were analysed, but if the focus is on Europe it seems not easy to get a complete
list of all the relevat pepers, reports, etc. So my suggestion is: i) to start the
sentence introducting the reader to the HISTALP data set, ii) to write that even though
some analyses of the HISTALP EIP-climate records are available (here we can really give
all the relevant references) so far none of them tackled the EIP-problem and iii) to
give the goal of our paper.
As far as the special issue of Climatic Change is considered, I suggest to check what
other contributions will be included in it. I partecipated in 2002 to a special number
which included the results of the EU-IMPROVE project. The result was very good (we
produced also a book which included a CD with the station data) and I'm happy with it,
but there is also a negative side-effect. In many cases the pepers that refer to this
results refer to the editors of this special number (i.e. they refer to Camuffo and
Jones (eds), 2002)) and so the 2 papers on the Milan records that are included in this
special issue have probably less citations than they would have if I published them
outside such a special issue. Also in your draft you give reference just to the
In our case it seems that such a problem will not be relevant, as the Millenium special
issue will probably include papers that cover a wider range of subjects. But anyway
let's considere also this problem....
----- Original Message -----
From: Reinhard Boehm
To: 'David Frank'
Cc: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk ; 'Maurizio Maugeri' ; firstname.lastname@example.org ;
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:51 AM
Subject: AW: AW: EI-paper
Thanks fort he compliment, but there is still something to do, before the draft is
finished. Nevertheless thank you also for your comments.
As to the authors question you were mentioning earlier, I am aware that we should
include somebody else, and I am also not afraid of having many authors (I think you
know our list of the Auer et al, 2007 HISTALP-paper), but let us postpone the
question till I see clearer how intensively the proxies will be described in section
2. I have mentioned them shortly already now in the introduction and I am playing
with the idea to only add one or two comparative figures with all those mentioned
proxy series and cancel the planned section two. In this case I would not include
too many additional co-authors, just mentioning the sources for the figure.
In case we really write a longer section two, then I expect to receive something
like one page of text from each new co.
But let me decide on that after having finished all the sections except section two,
look how long it then is and then decide on doing a longer section two (with several
additional cos then) or not. Regarding you and Johann, the story is different. You
were the two which really started the thing going with your two papers therefore it
is no question og having you two in the team.
And I also have a little Hintergedanken that you might be so kind to perform a
perfect language trimming at the end to make my Austro-English a bit better than I
can do. Is this allright?
P.S.: I hope you all agree that I would prefer to send the paper to Climatic Change.
This makes my situation easier, because I have promised Rudolf Brazdil several
months ago to write something about the early instrumental period for a special
issue devoted to the Millennium project. So using our paper for this makes sense I
think and helps me with my time problems, and it has finally kicked me to postpone
other things and really start writing our paper now.
By the way, Phil, Rudolf is rather optimistic that an online version of the paper
will not have the usual Climatic Change delays. This relies also on keeping our own
deadline (early July), but I see no problem on that.
Von: David Frank [mailto:email@example.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Juni 2008 07:04
An: Reinhard Boehm
Betreff: Re: AW: EI-paper
That is a big jump between having an outline and a draft in a short amount of time!
(I wish i could do this too...)
Included in the text are a some minor comments/suggestions. Most of these go in the
direction of trying to help a reader who is not aware of the EI problem, realize
more quickly how/why this might be a problem.
I still like the idea to include the modelling aspect as part of a composite figure
with proxy evidence.
Dear Maurizio, dear all
Find attached yesterday's new version of the paper. It contains a rather detailed
"Introduction" which already shortly discusses the proxy evidence. This may serve,
as You Maurizio and also Phil claimed for, to keep the proxy section short enough
and thus leave more place for the core of the paper.
What would be nice for the (still missing) proxy section would be (one?) comparative
Figure showing several (all?) proxi records together. But the problem is that not
all of them are really reconstructed temperatures - so what to do with things like
"dust content", delta 18O, �?
Finally I want to draw your attention on the short section in the introduction on
natural forcings and on respective modelling results. I am still in favour of at
least mentioning this, although the majority of you seems not really to like it.
Maybe you change your mind having had a look at the examples shown in the second
attached file (I hope the German captions are not too enigmatic for some of you, I
took the examples from my new book which is in German).
Von: Maurizio Maugeri [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Gesendet: Montag, 16. Juni 2008 18:42
An: Reinhard Boehm
Betreff: Re: EI-paper
I agree with you. The paper will probably benefit of an additional section on "the
evidence for the ei problem". Anyway I suggest a not-too-long section and I'm not so
in favour of including a part on the models. I think that we should concentrate on
the main focus of the paper (the correction of the EI series) and so I suggest to
considere the section on "the evidence for the ei problem" as a section that clearly
explains why we have to concern with a bias in the EI records. But can model data
help us to do that?
----- Original Message -----
From: Reinhard Boehm
To: 'Maurizio Maugeri' ; 'michele' ; 'Phil Jones' ;
email@example.com ; 'David Frank'
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 2:22 PM
Find attached my proposal for the structure of our common paper. Please
comment on it, I am going to start writing then soon. Please comment
particularly on the section about "evidence for the ei-problem�". For this I
have already received several contributions (of about 1 page each) from the
proxy-people. The intention of this section is to illustrate existing
systematic biases instrumental vs. proxy or not. I think this is a necessary
section, but it increases of course the length of the paper. I am in favour of
doing it, but I would like to hear your comments. Of course then we have to
increase also the number of co-authors by the following persons: Karin Koinig
(lake sediments, Univ. Innsbruck), Dietmar Wagenbach (Icecores, Univ.
Heidelberg) and J�rg Lutherbacher (Grapeharvest Swiss plateau, Univ. Bern). I
also would like to ask Eduardo Zorita (GKSS) to send the GAR-section of their
ERIK-model runs, which would add another independent information. For your
information I have attached two of his historic model runs he sent me some
months ago for my "Hei�e Luft"-Book. What you see on the attached file is
JJAS-average over continental Europe. If GAR is not too different from it,
this would again be a hint towards our new corrected datasets.
Looking forward to your comments
Attachment converted: MacDave:draft-2008-06-16.doc (WDBN/�IC�) (002044E6)
Attachment converted: MacDave:FORCING-MODELLING-EXAMPLES.doc (WDBN/�IC�) (002044E7)
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