cc: William M Connolley <wmcatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Tom Crowley <tcrowleyatXYZxyze.edu>, "Michael E. Mann" <mannatXYZxyz.edu>, "raymond s. bradley" <rbradleyatXYZxyz.umass.edu>, Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorfatXYZxyzan-klima.de>, Eric Steig <steigatXYZxyz.washington.edu>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, David Archer <d-archeratXYZxyzicago.edu>, "Raymond P." <rtp1atXYZxyzsci.uchicago.edu>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, "Mitchell, John FB \(Chief Scientist\)" <john.f.mitchellatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk>, "Jenkins, Geoff" <geoff.jenkinsatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk>, "Warrilow, David \(GA\)" <David.WarrilowatXYZxyzra.gsi.gov.uk>, Tom Wigley <wigleyatXYZxyz.ucar.edu>, firstname.lastname@example.org, "Folland, Chris" <chris.follandatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk>
date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 07:35:12 -0700
from: Caspar Ammann <ammannatXYZxyzr.edu>
subject: Re: Figure 7.1c from the 1990 IPCC Report
to: Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by routt.cgd.ucar.edu id l05EW8cm017776
just for comparison, here is the superposition of Lamb's central England
(what ever season that might be) on the UK Dep. of Environment report
graph. This appears very much to be the same data, note all the little
bumps and wiggles are just the same, and then in the tails its
Phil Jones wrote:
>> Dear All,
> I've added a few extra names in the cc of this email list to
> see if we can
> definitively determine where the figure in the subject title comes
> from. The
> background is that the skeptics keep referring back to it and I'd like
> to prove that it is a schematic and it isn't based on real data, but on
> presumed knowledge at some point around the late 1980s. If you think
> it is based on something real.
> What we'd like to do is show this either on 'Real Climate' or
> as background
> in a future paper, or both.
> I'm attaching a few diagrams as background (attaching in order of
> introducing them) and giving some earlier thoughts. I assume you all
> a copy of the said diagram in the first IPCC report.
> 1. This is where the IPCC diagram came from - the top panel is also
> there, but the middle one from IPCC isn't. This is where Chris Folland
> knows it came from. He said it was shoehorned in at a very late date.
> This report comes from a UK Dept of the Environment document - where the
> first edition predates 1990. David Warrilow says that this was written by
> Geoff Jenkins and John Mitchell.
> John said the following
> I think it was based on a diagram A2 in the national Academy of Sciences
> boolet "Understanding climate change" cirica 1974 if rmeber correctly- I
> can find out in Reading tomorrow- which I can't find in the library- it
> was reproduced in one of John Gribbens books and I think a book claled
> the "1982 CO2 review". I think there 6 diagrams and I remember Tom
> Wigley commenting that only the first ( millions of years) and Last (
> instrumental record) had any credibility.
> National Research Council, US Committee for the Global Atmospheric
> Research Program, Understanding Climatic Change: A Program for Action,
> National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, (1975), appendix A.
> 2. This 1975 book has the 3rd attachment on p130 . This is very
> similar to one
> that David Warrilow said (also attached from Imbrie and Imbrie - second
> from David
> I can't be sure but I think the original diagram is from Imbrie and
> Imbrie :
> Imbrie, John and Katherine Palmer Imbrie. Ice ages: Solving the
> Mystery. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1979,
> 1986 (reprint). ISBN 0-89490-020-X; ISBN 0-89490-015-3; ISBN
> 0-674-44075-7. p. 25
> These look the same if you invert and rotate the one from 1975, and
> they both
> say 'winter conditions in Eastern Europe' - well Imbrie/Imbrie do. They
> also say adapted from Lamb (1969). This is the World Survey of
> series from Landsberg, vol2. I've been through this and I can't see much
> of a plot anything like those I've attached, so some adaptation. Also
> no idea what this Eastern European series is!
> The IPCC diagram and the UK report clearly don't originate here.
> 3. Caspar Amman had John Gribbin's 1982 book and sent the 4th
> attachment. This has a warmer MWP, but is far too cool recently.
> So even if this was resmoothed, it wouldn't before the IPCC one.
> 4. Ray Bradley sent this text:
> I believe this graph originated in a (literally) grey piece of
> literature that Jack Eddy used to publish called "Earth Quest". It
> was designed for, and distributed to, high school teachers. In one
> issue, he had a fold-out that showed different timelines, Cenozoic,
> Quaternary, last 100ka, Holocene, last millennium, last century etc.
> The idea was to give non-specialists a perspective on the earth's
> climate history. I think this idea evolved from the old NRC
> publication edited by L. Gates, then further elaborated on by Tom Webb
> in the book I edited for UCAR, /Global Changes of the Past/. (This
> was an outcome of the wonderful Snowmass meeting Jack master-minded
> around 1990).
> I may have inadvertently had a hand in this millennium graph! I
> recall getting a fax from Jack with a hand-drawn graph, that he asked
> me to review. Where he got his version from, I don't know. I think I
> scribbled out part of the line and amended it in some way, but have no
> recollection of exactly what I did to it. And whether he edited it
> further, I don't know. But as it was purely schematic (& appears to
> go through ~1950) perhaps it's not so bad. I note, however, that in
> the more colourful version of the much embellished graph that Stefan
> circulated (
> the end-point has been changed to 2000, which puts quite a different
> spin on things. They also seem to have fabricated a scale for the
> purported temperature changes. In any case, the graph has no
> objective basis whatsoever; it is purely a "visual guess" at what
> happened, like something we might sketch on a napkin at a party for
> some overly persistent inquisitor..... (so make sure you don't leave
> such things on the table...).
> What made the last millennium graph famous (notorious!) was that Chris
> Folland must have seen it and reproduced it in the 1995 IPCC chapter
> he was editing. I don't think he gave a citation and it thus appeared
> to have the imprimatur of the IPCC. Having submitted a great deal of
> text for that chapter, I remember being really pissed off that Chris
> essentially ignored all the input, and wrote his own version of the
> paleoclimate record in that volume.
> There are other examples of how Jack Eddy's grey literature
> publication was misused. In a paper in /Science/ by Zielinski et al.
> (1994) [v.264, p.448-452]--attached-- they reproduced [in Figure 1c] a
> similarly schematic version of Holocene temperatures giving the
> following citation, "Taken from J. A. Eddy and R. S. Bradley,
> Earth-quest 5 (insert) (1991), as modified from J. T. Houghton, G. J.
> Jenkins, J. J. Ephraums, Climate Change, The IPCC Scientific
> Assessment (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1990)."
> But I had nothing to do with that one!
> So, that's how a crude fax from Jack Eddy became the definitive IPCC
> record on the last millennium!
> 5. Finally, here's one from Stefan, to show how the IPCC diagram gets
> (first another one which appears to be the IPCC 1990 diagram).
> The one I want to attach seems to be within Stefan's email so that
> is the end of this email. You can also get to this by going to the link
> in Ray's piece above.
> It shows how you can embellish a diagram and even get Rembrandt in!
> I've also seen many other embellishments mentioning Greenland, the
> Vineyards in York, frost fairs on the Thames etc. Also I've emailed over
> the years for the numbers in the 1990 IPCC Figure. I even got a digitized
> version once from Richard Tol and told him what he'd done was
> 6. So who put to together? Do we blame Ray? Is it a whim of his
> excellent imagination? I know we will all likely agree with Ray that
> it is based on absolutely nothing. Tom Crowley thinks it might be
> based on Lamb and sent the final figure. Now all of those who are
> or were in CRU know, you should be very careful with Lamb diagrams!
> This one does not stand any scrutiny and there are several more
> recent papers by Tom Wigley, Astrid Ogilvie and Graham Farmer
> that have shown that this final diagram is irreproducible and it was
> much cooler in the 11-13th centuries. It is also England and summer
> only. The galling thing is, it does look like the IPCC Figure!!!!!!
> When Tom sent the figure, he added this text (see below).
> The figure looks like Figure 30 (I've not scanned this one), but will,
> from his 1982 (reprinted in 1985 and 1995) called Climate History
> and the Modern World. This figure has series for the year, JJA and
> Someone tell me it isn't based on a Lamb diagram, please....
> Tom Crowley said
> we still don't have an adequat explanation as to how Jack "cooked up"
> that figure - I do not believe it was purely out of thin air - look at
> the attached - which I used in the Crowley-Lowery composite just
> because it was "out there" - I made no claim that it was the record of
> record, but just that it had been used beforer. the Lamb ref. is his
> book dated 1966. I will have to dig up the page ref later. Dansgaard
> et al. 1975 Nature paper on Norsemen...etc used that figure when
> comparing what must have been their Camp Century record - have to
> check that too - where the main point of that paper was that the
> timing of Medieval warmth was different in Greenlandn and England!
> 25 years later my provocation for writing the CL paper came from a
> strong statement on the MWP by Claus Hammer that the canonical idea of
> the MWP being warming than the present was correct and that the 1999
> Mann et al was wrong. he kept going on like that I reminded him that
> he was a co-author on the 1975 paper! that is also what motivated to
> do my "bonehead" sampling of whatever was out there just to see what
> happened when you added them all together - the amazing result was
> that it looked pretty much like Mann et al. ther rest is history --
> much ignored and forgotten.
> I might also pointn out that in a 1996 Consequences article I wrote -
> and that Fred Singer loves to cite -- Jack (who was the editor of the
> journal) basically shoehorned me into re-reproducing that figure even
> though I didn't like it - there was not an alternative. in the figure
> caption it has a similar one to Zielinski except that it states
> "compiled by R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J.T. Houghton....so
> that puts a further twist on this because it point to Houghton not
> Bradley/Eddy as the source. Jack must have written that part of the
> figure caption because I don't think I knew those details.
> but we still don't know where the details of the figure came from -
> the MWP is clearly more schematic than the LIA (actually the detailsl
> about timing of the samll wiggles in the LIA are pretty good) - maybe
> there was a meshing of the Greenland and the England records to do the
> MWP part - note that the English part gets cooler. they may also have
> thrown in the old LaMarche record - which I also have. maybe I can
> schlep something together using only those old three records.
> Stefan said
> the reason why I started to worry about this is the attached graph.
> Recognise something?
> - Used in school teaching in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, is on a
> website with officially recommended teacher materials
> - Used in university teaching in Germany
> - Used in politics in Germany by people within the FDP.
> Note the vertical axis label on that, by the way. The text that goes
> with it claims the medieval warm period was 2-4 �C warmer than today.
> Climate sceptics material, of course.
> Cheers, Stefan
Caspar M. Ammann
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology
1850 Table Mesa Drive
Boulder, CO 80307-3000
email: ammannatXYZxyzr.edu tel: 303-497-1705 fax: 303-497-1348
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Lamb_on_EnvRep.jpg"