Sunday, December 11, 2011

1057944829.txt

From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
To: Tom Crowley <tcrowley@duke.edu>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: Climate Research
Date: Fri Jul 11 13:33:49 2003

Hi Tom,
I'm not sure what format to try if ASCII doesn't work for you. I've attached the same ones
again, in case it was just some random reason that corrupted the files. If this doesn't
work, then please suggest a format I should try.
The name I have is Yamal not Yarnal. Yamal is coastwards (northward) of the "Polar Urals"
and is at a lower elevation than the Polar Urals record. The latitude/longitude I have for
it is:
67.5 N, 70 E
Hope that helps
Tim
At 21:40 07/07/2003, you wrote:

Hi Tim, thanks for sending the data - unfortunately I cannot open it, can you send it in
some other format? tom
ps what is the location of the Yarnal site?

Hi Tom
Sorry for not replying sooner - its been a hectic week (or two)!
The new Mann and Jones 2000-year series I don't actually have. It appears in Figure 1
of our EOS piece, of course, but Scott Rutherford generated that figure. I generated
Figure 2 for EOS and that has the Yamal, Tornetrask, western US and western Greenland
O18 stack in it. So I have these data and they are attached in the following files.
western US and western Greenland are in file "mann12prox.dat". I didn't have time to
extract just these two series from the full file, so the file contains 11 others series
too. Please do *not* use the others because I'm not sure whether I am free to
distribute them or not - I just haven't time to extract the 2 you want. I'm sure I can
trust you not to use anything that I shouldn't have sent! The top of the file lists the
13 series and the start/end years. These are in the same order as the 13 columns of data
that then follow (the first column is simply year AD). So you should be able to find
"westgrpfisher.dat" and "wustrees.dat".
The other files are "tornad.rcs" and "yamal.rcs" which are RCS-standardised tree-ring
width series. I would really strongly suggest that you contact Keith Briffa about
exactly what these series are and what the primary reference to them should be. The
reason is that there are multiple version of Tornetrask and Yamal series and the
differences are certainly not insignificant!
I'm not sure what the "units" of any of these series are, so I would suggest you
normalise them in some way or do your own calibration.
Hope that helps
Cheers
Tim
At 16:28 30/06/2003, you wrote:

Tim, would it be possible to obtain the time series listed below, plus the west
Greenland composite? (see below).
tom

X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
X-Sender: f028@pop.uea.ac.uk
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 08:10:57 +0100
To: Tom Crowley <tcrowley@duke.edu>
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Climate Research
Cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter, Duke University ([1]http://amavis.org/)
Tom,
I'm off tomorrow to NCDC and then onto IUGG, so away 3 weeks in all. I've asked Tim,
who's cc'd on this reply to send you what he can.
You also said sometime ago, you would send your new long series and your latest NH
average. Can you do this sometime? Mike and I are making progress on RoG. When we
get back we will be working on the figures. I realise you may want to add something
once
Tim sends you the series, so if I (and Mike) can get something by July 10 that would be
great.
We will be sending whole or part drafts of the RoG piece around - we have most of
the text,
but we need the figures for people to look at as well. So you might get a draft in
September.
Have a good few weeks.
Cheers
Phil
At 12:33 19/06/03 -0400, you wrote:

Phil,
would it be possible to obtain the Yamal, Tornetrask, and w. U.S. series you illustrate
in the eos article? I too am putting together a slightly different long composite and
would like to include these records.
would it also be possible to obtain the 2000 year northern hemisphere series? is that
30-90N summer? whatever, we have extended our forcing time series back to before 1 AD
and would like to compare with some longer data.
thanks and regards, Tom

Dear All,
Keith and I have discussed the email below. I don't want to start a discussion of
it and I
don't want you sending it around to anyone else, but it serves as a warning as to where
the debate might go should the EOS piece come out.
I think it might help Tom (W) if you are still going to write a direct response to
CR. Some of
de Freitas' views are interesting/novel/off the wall to say the least. I am glad that
he doesn't
consider himself a paleoclimatologist - the statement about the LIA having the lowest
temperatures since the LGM. The paleo people he's talked to didn't seem to mention the
YD,
8.2K or the 4.2/3K events - only the Holocene Optimum. There are also some snipes at
CRU and our funding, but we're ignoring these here. Also Mike comes in for some stick,
so stay
cool Mike - you're a married man now !
So let's keep this amongst ourselves .
I have learned one thing. This is that the reviewer who said they were too busy was
Ray.
I have been saying this to loads of papers recently (something Tom(w) can vouch for).
It is
clear from the differences between CR and the ERE piece that the other 4 reviewers did
not say much, so a negative review was likely to be partly ignored, and the article
would still
have come out. I say this as this might come out if things get nasty.
De Freitas will not say to Hans von Storch or to Clare Goodess who the 4 reviewers
were. I
believe his paleoclimatologist is likely to be Anthony Fowler, who does dendro at
Auckland.
Cheers
Phil

X-Sender: f037@pop.uea.ac.uk
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 09:29:22 +0100
To: c.goodess@uea,phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
From: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Climate Research
Clare, Phil,
Since Clare and CRU are named in it, you may be interested in Chris de Freitas' reply to
the publisher re. my letter to Otto Kinne. I am not responding to this, but await a
reply from Kinne himself.
Mike

From: "Chris de Freitas" <c.defreitas@auckland.ac.nz>
To: Inter-Research Science Publisher <ir@int-res.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:45:56 +1200
Subject: Re: Climate Research
Reply-to: c.defreitas@auckland.ac.nz
CC: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Otto (and copied to Mike Hulme)
I have spent a considerable amount of my time on this matter and had
my integrity attacked in the process. I want to emphasize that the
people leading this attack are hardly impartial observers. Mike
himself refers to "politics" and political incitement involved. Both
Hulme and Goodess are from the Climate Research Unit of UEA that is
not particularly well known for impartial views on the climate change
debate. The CRU has a large stake in climate change research funding
as I understand it pays the salaries of most of its staff. I
understand too the journalist David Appell was leaked information to
fuel a public attack. I do not know the source
Mike Hulme refers to the number of papers I have processed for CR
that "have been authored by scientists who are well known for their
opposition to the notion that humans are significantly altering
global climate." How many can he say he has processed? I suspect the
answer is nil. Does this mean he is biased towards scientists "who
are well known for their support for the notion that humans are
significantly altering global climate?
Mike Hulme quite clearly has an axe or two to grind, and, it seems, a
political agenda. But attacks on me of this sort challenge my
professional integrity, not only as a CR editor, but also as an
academic and scientist. Mike Hulme should know that I have never
accepted any research money for climate change research, none from
any "side" or lobby or interest group or government or industry. So I
have no pipers to pay.
This matter has gone too far. The critics show a lack of moral
imagination. And the Cramer affair is dragged up over an over again.
People quickly forget that Cramer (like Hulme and Goodess now) was
attacking Larry Kalkstein and me for approving manuscripts, in
Hulme's words, "authored by scientists who are well known for their
opposition to the notion that humans are significantly altering
global climate."
I would like to remind those who continually drag up the Cramer
affair that Cramer himself was not unequivocal in his condemnation of
Balling et al's manuscript (the one Cramer refereed and now says I
should have not had published - and what started all this off). In
fact, he did not even recommend that it be rejected. He stated in his
review: "My review of the manuscript is mainly with the conclusions
of the work. For technical assessment, I do not myself have
sufficient experience with time series analysis of the kind presented
by the authors." He goes on to recommend: "revise and resubmit for
additional review". This is exactly what I did; but I did not send it
back to him after resubmission for the very reason that he himself
confessed to ignorance about the analytical method used.
Am I to trundle all this out over and over again because of criticism
from a lobbyist scientists who are, paraphrasing Hulme, "well known
for their support for the notion that humans are significantly
altering global climate".
The criticisms of Soon and Baliunas (2003) CR article raised by Mike
Hume in his 16 June 2003 email to you was not raised by the any of
the four referees I used (but is curiously similar to points raided
by David Appell!). Keep in mind that referees used were selected in
consultation with a paleoclimatologist. Five referees were selected
based on the guidance I received. All are reputable
paleoclimatologists, respected for their expertise in reconstruction
of past climates. None (none at all) were from what Hans and Clare
have referred to as "the other side" or what Hulme refers to as
people well known for their opposition to the notion that humans are
significantly altering global climate." One of the five referees
turned down the request to review explaining he was busy and would
not have the time. The remaining four referees sent their detailed
comments to me. None suggested the manuscript should be rejected. S&B
were asked to respond to referees comments and make extensive
alterations accordingly. This was done.
I am no paleoclimatolgist, far from it, but have collected opinions
from other paleoclimatologists on the S&B paper. I summarise them
here. What I take from the S&B paper is an attempt to assess climate
data lost from sight in the Mann proxies. For example, the raising on
lowering of glacier equilibrium lines was the origin of the Little
Ice Age as a concept and still seems to be a highly important proxy,
even if a little difficult to precisely quantify.
Using a much larger number of "proxy" indicators than Mann did, S&B
inquired whether there was a globally detectable 50-year period of
unusual cold in the LIA and a similarly warm era in the MWP. Further,
they asked if these indicators, in general, would indicate that any
similar period in the 20th century was warmer than any other era.
S&B did not purport to do independent interpretation of climate time
series, either through 50-year filters or otherwise. They merely
adopt the conclusions of the cited authors and make a scorecard. It
seems pretty evident to me that temperatures in the LIA were the
lowest since the LGM. There are lots of peer-reviewed paleo-articles
which assert the existence of LIA.
Frankly, I have difficulty understanding this particular quibble.
Some sort of averaging is necessary to establish the 'slower' trends,
and that sort of averaging is used by every single study - they
average to bring out the item of their interest. A million year
average would do little to enlighten, as would detailed daily
readings. The period must be chosen to eliminate as much of the
'noise' as possible without degrading the longer-term signals
significantly.
As I read the S&B paper, it was a relatively arbitrary choice - and
why shouldn't it be? It was only chosen to suppress spurious signals
and expose the slower drift that is inherent in nature. Anyone that
has seen curves of the last 2 million years must recognize that an
averaging of some sort has taken place. It is not often, however,
that the quibble is about the choice of numbers of years, or the
exact methodology - those are chosen simply to expose 'supposedly'
useful data which is otherwise hidden from view.
Let me ask Mike this question. Can he give an example of any dataset
where the S&B characterization of the source author is incorrect? (I
am not vouching for them , merely asking.)
S&B say that they rely on the original characterizations, not that
they are making their own; I don't see a problem a priori on relying
on characterizations of others or, in the present circumstances, of
presenting a literature review. While S&B is a literature review, so
is this section of IPCC TAR, except that the S&B review is more
thorough.
The Mann et al multi-proxy reconstruction of past temperatures has
many problems and these have been well documented by S&B and others.
My reading of the IPCC TAR leads me to the conclusion that Mann et al
has been used as the basis for a number of assertions: 1. Over the
past millennium (at least for the NH) the temperature has not varied
significantly (except for the European/North Atlantic sector) and
hence the climate system has little internal variability. This
statement is supported by an analysis of model behaviour, which also
shows little internal variability in climate models. 2. Recent global
warming, as inferred from instrument records, is large and unusual in
the context of the Mann et al temperature reconstruction from multi-
proxies. 3. Because of the previous limited variability and the
recent warming that cannot be explained by known natural forcing
(volcanic activity and solar insolation changes) human activity is
the likely cause of the recent global change.
In this context, IPCC mounts a powerful case. But the case rests on
two main foundations; the past climate has shown little variability
and the climate models reflect the internal variability of the
climate system. If either or both are shown to be weak or fallacious
then the IPCC case is weakened or fails.
S&B have examined the premise that the globally integrated
temperature has hardly varied over the past millennium prior to the
instrumental record. I agree it is not rocket science that they have
performed. They have looked at the evidence provided by researchers
to see if the trend of the temperature record of the European/North
Atlantic sector (which is not disputed by IPCC) is reflected in
individual records from other parts of the globe (Their three
questions). How objective is their assessment? From a purely
statistical viewpoint the work can be criticised. But if you took a
purely statistical approach you probably would not have sufficient
data to reach an unambiguous conclusion, or you could try statistical
fiddles to combine the data and end up with erroneous results under
the guise of statistical significance. S&B have looked at the data
and reached the conclusion that probably the temperature record from
other parts of the globe follows the same pattern as that of the
European/North Atlantic sector. Of the individual proxy records that
I have seen I would agree that this is the case. I certainly have not
found significant regions of the NH that were cold during the
medieval period and warm during the Little Ice Age period that are
necessary offsets of the European/North Atlantic sector necessary to
reach a hemispherically flat pattern as derived by Mann et al.
S&B have put forward sufficient evidence to challenge the Mann et al
analysis outcome and seriously weaken the IPCC assertions based on
Mann et al. Paleo reconstruction of temperatures and the global
pattern over the past millennium and longer remains a fertile field
for research. It suggests that the climate system is such that a
major temporal variation as is universally recognised for the
European/North Atlantic region would be reflected globally and S&B
have given support to this view.
It is my belief that the S&B work is a sincere endeavour to find out
whether MWP and LIA were worldwide phenomena. The historical evidence
beyond tree ring widths is convincing in my opinion. The concept of
"Little Ice Age" is certainly used practically by all Holocene paleo-
climatologists, who work on oblivious to Mann's "disproof" of its
existence.
Paleoclimatologists tell me that, for debating purposes, they are
more inclined to draw attention to the Holocene Optimum (about 6000
BP) as an undisputed example of climate about 1-2 deg C warmer than
at present, and to ponder the entry and exit from the Younger Dryas
as an example of abrupt climate change, than to get too excited about
the Medieval Warm Period, which seems a very attenuated version.
However, the Little Ice Age seems valid enough as a paleoclimatic
concept. North American geologists repeatedly assert that the 19th
century was the coldest century in North America since the LGM. To
that extent, showing temperature increase since then is not unlike a
mutual fund salesmen showing expected rate of return from a market
bottom - not precisely false, but rather in the realm of sleight-of-
hand.
Regards
Chris

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.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Thomas J. Crowley
Nicholas Professor of Earth Systems Science
Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences
Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences
Box 90227
103 Old Chem Building Duke University
Durham, NC 27708
tcrowley@duke.edu
919-681-8228
919-684-5833 fax

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.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Thomas J. Crowley
Nicholas Professor of Earth Systems Science
Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences
Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences
Box 90227
103 Old Chem Building Duke University
Durham, NC 27708
tcrowley@duke.edu
919-681-8228
919-684-5833 fax

Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="mann12prox.dat"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="mann12prox.dat"
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:mann12prox.dat (????/----) (0001B5B5)
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="yamal.rcs"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="yamal.rcs"
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:yamal.rcs (????/----) (0001B5B6)
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="tornad.rcs"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="tornad.rcs"
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:tornad.rcs (????/----) (0001B5B7)
Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
phone: +44 1603 592089
fax: +44 1603 507784
web: [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm

--
Thomas J. Crowley
Nicholas Professor of Earth Systems Science
Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences
Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences
Box 90227
103 Old Chem Building Duke University
Durham, NC 27708
tcrowley@duke.edu
919-681-8228
919-684-5833 fax

References

1. http://amavis.org/
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm

No comments:

Post a Comment