Tuesday, December 20, 2011

1143227779.txt

From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
To: Martin Manning <mmanning@al.noaa.gov>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>,Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no>, <oyvind.paasche@bjerknes.uib.no>, Bette Otto-Bleisner <ottobli@ncar.ucar.edu>, Melinda Marquis <Marquis@ucar.edu>
Subject: Re: SUPER URGENT IPCC help needed
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 14:16:19 +0000
Cc: ssolomon@al.noaa.gov,averyt@ucar.edu

<x-flowed>
Dear all,

we (Keith and I) agree that it isn't appropriate to cite only Jones
and Mann (2004) as a reference for the NCAR CSM curves in figure 6.13.

Another alternative to deleting the curves, however, would be to
reference Mann, Rutherford, Wahl and Ammann (2005), which should
already be in the reference list. This might be an appropriate
reference because it includes Ammann as a co-author and provides a
more information about the simulation than Jones and Mann
(2004). However it still relies upon the submitted Ammann et al.
paper as the main reference -- so maybe still not good enough? I've
attached a PDF of Mann et al. (2005) for you to consider.

From earlier discussions (and perhaps also in relation to chapters
using new model runs of future climate), I thought that a new
unpublished run with an existing published model under published
forcing might be allowed (in the same way that updated 2005 or 2006
instrumental temperatures could be included, even if not published,
providing they were compiled following the procedures described in an
earlier paper). For instance, the EMIC runs we included as an extra
panel probably fall in this category. Maybe the CSM run falls in
this category too? Have other runs with this model been
published? And the forcing used in this run was presented in Goosse
et al. (2005; GRL 32, L06710, again it includes Ammann as a
co-author) as well as in Jones and Mann (2004). So, maybe CSM can be
included under this reasoning?

I don't want to sound as if we are arguing strenuously to keep the
CSM curves in the figure -- if the preferred decision is to drop it,
then so be it. If so, then the modified figure looks ok.

Cheers

Tim

At 02:11 23/03/2006, Martin Manning wrote:
>Dear Jonathan
>
>Thanks for trying to sort this out quickly for us and for the
>information that the Ammann et al paper is not available.
>
>Susan and I have discussed your two options and have to say that we
>can not agree to option 1 in the circumstances. Although the Jones
>and Mann (2004) paper shows the NCAR simulation, the key point is
>that it cites it as "C. Ammann et al private communication 2003". So
>in effect option 1 would be bringing in material that was not peer
>reviewed and not even separately documented. Anyone wanting to
>discredit your chapter would highlight the fact that you appear to
>be depending on work done in 2003 that had still not been peer-reviewed.
>
>Option 2 is the only way to meet the standard that we have set all
>along of basing the assessment very firmly on peer reviewed literature.
>
>Kristen Averyt found that she could edit the EPS files that you had
>sent us earlier for Fig 6.13 and take out the curves in question
>labelled AJS2006. The result is attached.
>
>If you can confirm that this edited figure looks correct we are now
>proposing to drop that into your chapter in place of the original
>one. We would also remove the [S4] row in Table 6.2 referring to
>this study. We would also of course use the edited version of the
>figure in the TS (Fig TS-26 in current draft).
>
>If you can see any other implications of this approach to resolving
>the problem that we need to be aware of please let me know. If the
>author team wants to provide a redrawn figure that might be an
>improvement on the attached version we can still wait until Monday
>morning for that.
>
>Best regards
>Martin
>
>At 04:25 PM 3/22/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>Hi Keith and Tim - need FAST help. Figure 6.13, and Table 6.2 cite
>>Amman et al., for the CSM curve. Since this paper doesn't yet exist
>>in "in press" form (I checked w/ Bette, who is a co-author), we
>>have two choices. I think choice one below could be ok, but want to
>>have confirmation from Keith or Tim, and it it's not ok, (NOTE) Tim
>>and Keith need to get new Fig and Table to Melinda and Martin at
>>the TSU by Monday.
>>
>>Option 1: we can cite Jones, P.D., and M.E. Mann, 2004: Climate
>>over past millennia. Reviews of Geophysics, 42(2) - this paper
>>(already in references - there is hope!) has the CSM simulation in
>>its Fig 8, but of course it's not the idea original reference
>>describing the simulation.
>>
>>Option 2: we (Tim) creates new fig 6.13, and Table 6.2 without any
>>reference to this simulation.
>>
>>PLEASE NOTE - if Keith and Tim (or Martin) feels we must go w/
>>option 2, Tim has to send the new fig and table to TSU (Melinda
>>Marguis and Martin) by Monday AM at the absolute latest.
>>
>>Thanks for your quick help, Peck
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>Jonathan T. Overpeck
>>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
>>Professor, Department of Geosciences
>>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
>>
>>Mail and Fedex Address:
>>
>>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
>>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
>>University of Arizona
>>Tucson, AZ 85721
>>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
>>fax: +1 520 792-8795http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
>>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
>
>--
>Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov
>** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address
>Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit
>NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory Phone: +1 303 497 4479
>325 Broadway, DSRC R/AL8 Fax: +1 303 497 5628
>Boulder, CO 80305, USA

</x-flowed>

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\mann 2005 pseudoproxy.pdf"
<x-flowed>
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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
</x-flowed>

No comments:

Post a Comment