To: Peter Stott <pastott@meadow>, Gareth Jones <gsjones@meadow>, Myles Allen <email@example.com>, Phil Jones <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Keith Briffa <email@example.com>
Subject: Tuesday Meeting
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:01:45 +0000
thank you for the meeting on tuesday. I think it went well. Here as
promised and slightly late is a summary of what we discussed. Myles can
you forward the message to Michael. Can you let me know if you are all
happy with this and once I have made any corrections you want I'd like
to send it to John, Geoff and Tim Barnett -- anyone else you think
should get it?
Proxy Climate forcing.
Solar -- Beer has a Be based proxy reconstruction of Solar ACTIVITY
which can be converted to irradiance changes. [Is it different from LBB
or H&S ?] Has the LBB dataset been updated? Has Svensmark got a better
handle on his proposed physical mechanisms to amplify solar irradiance
changes? [Someone to check at RMS meeting which I won't be able to
attend] Want forcing back to 1600?? though HC would find it hard to
justify doing runs that early -- me to see if John/Geoff think useful or
Me to check with William the source of the rumour about problems with
the H&S dataset.
Volcanoes. Volcanoes are an important climate forcings [Issue for
IPCC??] Do volcanic erruptions cluster? Myles to "persuade" a student to
look at Phil/Keith's dataset and see if there is evidence for this? Are
there other indices of volcanic activity? Is climate response to
volcanoes sensitive to mean state?? i.e. in cooler climate get bigger
response. [Gareth could see from our model if Krakota response
significantly different from Pinatubo]
Proxy Climate data + comparision with obs and models.
Keith/Phil have 400 sites of high quality tree ring density data which
there are willing to let HC (Mat) use to do a crude model/data
comparision. Mat and Tim to liase on what they are doing. Note that
funny things are happening in the density data post 1950. Also available
may be some borehole data [Phil to talk to Pollock/Wang about
possibility] which could use to compare with model -- should consider
using lower soil temperature rather than 1. m temp. There are a few
sites with data from 0A to 2000 as well as many sites with data for 1700
to 2000 -- should consider both. There may be some other tree ring data
which tells us something about SW USA precip and thus ENSO.
Tim wants to compare patterns of temperature var from the proxy data
and compare that with the models i.e compare "observed" and modelled
covariance structure rather than just the variability. Also Tim wants to
try and unpick Mann's stuff.... HC to provide solar forced run from 1700
-- Me to check if it goes from 1700!
Our approach will be to compare model data "directly" with Proxy data
rather than do Interpolation a la GISST or Mann et al.
Not clear if in this years framework 5 call there will be room for
Detection/Attribution proposals (which is how we'd like to frame a
model/proxy comparision). Other issue is that QUARCC 2 and model/proxy
comparision could involve similar institutions which could cause
problems. Phil to check if room this year for proposal. Keith pointed
out that we can't just recycle the NERC thematic proposal (PRESIENT).
There is good news on that fron which suggests the proposal will go
through with an 8 million pound budget!!!
Ad Hoc detn group.
Not much said on that (or at least I didn't note it) Phil -- you have
some advice for me on that?
In the next 1-2 years there may be new reasonable quality ice core and
sedimentation data available. Data availablity from the proxy and
modelling groups is an issue (another reason for an EU proposal!).
Phil pointed out that there is a lot of instrumental data (in "funny"
units) which could be digitised in Europe.
Keith is planning on writting a "call to arms" paleo data paper.
I think I need to come up with a list of actions.... Anyone want to