Sunday, May 13, 2012


date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:03:53 -0400
subject: Re: quick question IPCC
to: Keith Briffa <>

Good thanks Keith - we have that caution in, still, too, as far
as I remember. We got one reviewer worrying about it, but even Mike
agreed that he didn't necessarily believe that recon, so I left the
caution in (Andronova et al find poor agreement between their SH
forced run and the recon, and I figured it was the recon since NH
worked just fine).

I know exactly what you mean by "lack of enthusiasm".
I seem to still not have recovered from
IPCC (apart from SPM and TS stuff coming at me still at regular intervals).
I think I'll be fine after about a 6 month vacation, except that wont
happen in the near future.....(and then there is the omitted reviews that get
me emails from editors and prgram directors about when-am-i-planning-to
etc and my
little research program that came to a grinding halt in last few months
and needs to be accelerated again etc etc)


Quoting Keith Briffa <>:

> Gabi
> I was away yesterday - a cold and lack of enthusiasm! The answer to
> your question is that NO - "we" do not believe the 2003
> reconstruction - or the earlier (Jones et al. ) one either. These
> rely heavily on two long tree-based reconstructions by Ricardo
> Villalba and Antonio Lara and colleagues, in Argentina and Chile ,
> both based on a tree called Fitzroya . Now , I doubt that these
> authors would sanction either reconstruction , or the processing
> methods used to produce the chronologies. I am copying this to
> Ricardo in case he would like to disagree or expand. In Chapter 6 we
> now say that there are not sufficient data to produce a mean Southern
> Hemisphere curve , but rather we are best to consider the present
> evidence as "limited regional indicators".
> I quote, (Section 6.6.2)
> "Taken together, the very sparse evidence for Southrern Hemisphere
> temperatures prior to the periiod of instrumental records indicates
> that unusual warming is occuring in some regions. However, more proxy
> data are required to verify the apparent warm trend."
> cheers
> Keith
> At 19:42 06/09/2006, you wrote:
>> ps Keith, even Mike agrees they are uncetain, so I just leave that
>> caution in
>> Gabi Hegerl wrote:
>>> Keith, do you say that SH temperature reconstructions are
>>> substantially more uncertain, and what
>>> section should I cite? (refrencing Andrononova et al showing that
>>> EBM runs with volcanism dont well
>>> agree with Mann 2003 SH recon, but do we believe that recon?)
>>> Gabi
>> --
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas
>> School for the Environment and Earth Sciences,
>> Box 90227
>> Duke University, Durham NC 27708
>> Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833
>> email:,
> --
> Professor Keith Briffa,
> Climatic Research Unit
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
> Phone: +44-1603-593909
> Fax: +44-1603-507784


No comments:

Post a Comment