cc: Phil Jones
, Sandy Tudhope , Chris Turney , simon Tett , Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn , Chris Jones , Rob Allan , Philip Brohan , "Bass, Catherine"
date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:58:18 +0100
from: "Cox, Peter"
subject: RE: Proposed 2 pager
to: Rob Wilson , Gabi Hegerl
Dear Folks
I don't think holding an Exeter funded discussion meeting to discuss a proposal for July 2010 is really an option.
The university has provided funding on the basis that we prepare a proposal for the Dec 2009 round, and the key university support for this proposal (Catherine Bass) is only available to work with us until December.
So I think we either decide to meet up soon (and spend the University's seed funds) with a view to submitting in December, or we delay the whole thing and don't meet this year.
Although I agree that the proposal lacks a little focus (although Philip's version is much better), I don't actually think this focus will emerge magically if we wait for 6 months. So I vote for going full-steam ahead for the December call.
Can the rest of you give a preference for (a) meeting in Sept and submitting in Dec, or (b) putting the whole thing on ice ?
All the best
Peter
Prof Peter Cox
Professor of Climate System Dynamics
School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics
University of Exeter
Exeter
EX4 4QF
UK
Tel: 01392 269220
Mob: 07827 412572
________________________________________
From: Rob Wilson [rjsw@st-andrews.ac.uk]
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 4:32 PM
To: Gabi Hegerl
Cc: Phil Jones; Sandy Tudhope; Chris Turney; simon Tett; Keith Briffa; Tim Osborn; Chris Jones; Cox, Peter; Rob Allan; Philip Brohan; Bass, Catherine
Subject: Re: Proposed 2 pager
Hi All,
I think I am also keener for July 2010
If all goes to plan, I will be submitting 2 NERC standard grants for Dec
1st as a PI and co-PI and I do not think I am allowed to be a co-PI on
another proposal if I have read the guidelines correctly.
I also have a lot less teaching next semester :-)
Rob
Gabi Hegerl wrote:
> Hi all, just a quick followup: I like Phils idea. Maybe more serious
> modelling along the line of sensitivity
> etc, as I suggested earlier, could come in a followup
> later. It would be important to have some modellers involved for
> something along the line Phil is suggesting, to
> test methods and answer questions about dataneeds.
>
> The difficulty is funding something that is integrative ....
> I'd also vote for a July submission, and for meeting in November to
> get thoughts clearer.
>
> Gabi
>
> Phil Jones wrote:
>>
>> Chris et al (Rob, Sandy, Simon, Gabi),
>> Lots of good comments and useful suggestions. To summarise, we
>> have a number
>> of strands:
>>
>> - extending the instrumental records
>> - extending the proxy records, and identifying where extra series
>> are needed
>>
>> (both of these making use of all our collaborators around the
>> world, as Rob and Sandy allude to,
>> and we also have these for instrumental data also)
>>
>> - and then there are the model integrations and the comparisons
>> between models and obs.
>>
>> Most important of all though is the justification for the
>> consortium and what the
>> proposed work seeks to achieve. One thrust could be bringing all
>> the proxy and
>> early instrumental data together. There are now probably two orders
>> of magnitude more proxy
>> data than were available at the beginning of the 1990s. This could
>> reassess all these
>> diverse sources in a consistent way, addressing what each is good
>> for (or not) and
>> seasonal and maybe timescale limitations. This would eventually lead
>> to new larger-scale
>> reconstructions, of which a few would be more spatially detailed (in
>> a few regions). This
>> would be good to work on together (parallel post-docs and or PhDs),
>> but it wouldn't be main justification.
>> Thinking in terms of PhDs, we'd have to come up with specific topics
>> for the students.
>>
>> A parallel thrust could be emphasizing the uncertainties in all the
>> reconstructions. As Rob
>> says this is quite difficult with the proxy data as each discipline
>> has a specific set of
>> limitations. I'd also expect the uncertainties to expand, as we
>> brought more things in.
>>
>> The other thrust is the modelling, but this seems from a number of
>> the emails to be going to
>> happen anyway. Perhaps then, we don't need the models in the
>> consortium bid. Just
>> putting together all the proxy and instrumental data would be
>> enough. It will be difficult to sell,
>> but it would be extremely useful for the whole community. The proxy
>> data center at NCDC (Boulder)
>> does this but doesn't rate the proxies. They just make the series
>> available.
>>
>> Not sure where this is taking us. There are a lot of good
>> scientific issues when
>> considering combining proxies. In reconstructions like MBH, which
>> ones do the work
>> and which are superfluous. The longer instrumental records that are
>> coming along -
>> on both land and sea will enable many of these issues to be
>> addressed, enabling the
>> robustness of large-scale reconstructions to be quantified.
>>
>> Groups all around the world are trying to do this at
>> local-to-regional scales with some
>> looking more globally. What is needed is co-ordination of these
>> efforts, bringing together
>> all the contacts each of us has.
>>
>> Better quantified reconstructions should eventually lead to
>> reductions in climate sensitivity,
>> but it will be a long process.
>>
>> As for timing, I think a July 2010 submission would be better to
>> bring all the parts
>> together - showing how the consortium is bringing together numerous
>> efforts going
>> on across the world. We do need to meet at some point to thrash out
>> most of the issues.
>>
>> One small point. Reanalyses are important but refer to those from
>> ERA-40
>> and ERA-INTERIM as they are much better than NCEP. I'm involved in a
>> paper
>> on ERA-INTERIM and efforts through an EU project called EURO4M to
>> improve the
>> input these get given. We do need efforts in analysing the longer
>> 20th century reanalyses.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>
>> At 09:26 21/08/2009, Rob Wilson wrote:
>>> Morning All,
>>> from the proxy point of view, it seems to me that there should be a
>>> good rationale for the consortium if we emphasise the importance of
>>> a coordinated 'update' and 'new' sampling of key proxies and
>>> regions. Only through a consortium could we ensure that by, for
>>> example, year 3, we have updated (to present) reconstructions for
>>> New Zealand, Tasmania, South America and key areas in the tropics.
>>> Presumably if new model runs may need to be made, they can be
>>> grinding away in the back ground for the first couple of years and
>>> then the full strength of the consortium kicks in during year 3 when
>>> we all start putting it together. Also during the first couple of
>>> years, the consortium can focus on the methodological issues of
>>> calibration and uncertainty estimates - probabilistic or otherwise.
>>>
>>> some random comments w.r.t. proxy data
>>>
>>> Millennium has NO plans, as far as I know, to produce spatial
>>> reconstructions for the last 500 years for Europe. The focus is on
>>> millennium long reconstructions and there simply is not enough data
>>> for a "true" spatial reconstruction. We will have "reasonably"
>>> robust summer temperature reconstructions for the Alpine and
>>> Scandinavian regions however. Of course there is a whole myriad of
>>> other local based reconstructions, but for different seasons and
>>> parameters.
>>>
>>> At Mike Mann's session at the EGU, there was this interesting talk.
>>> Do you know this group Sandy? This current series used only growth
>>> rates. I am not sure if they have plans to measure isotopes on this
>>> record.
>>> C. Saenger, A. L. Cohen, D. W. Oppo, and J. Carilli
>>> A coral-based reconstruction of Atlantic sea surface temperature
>>> trends and variability since 1552
>>>
>>> I have spoken with Rosanne and Ed w.r.t. New Zealand and Tasmania.
>>> In principle there should be no problem with updating these areas
>>> and maybe sampling more sites. Perhaps scope for a one or two PhDs.
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sandy Tudhope wrote:
>>>> Hi Chris et al,
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks for the draft, and sorry for the slow reply but I was
>>>> off email for a few days. I've seen responses from Rob Wilson,
>>>> Simon and Gabi. I don't know if you received any more.
>>>>
>>>> I agree with most of the points made by Simon, Gabi and Rob. Some
>>>> more specific comments:
>>>>
>>>> a) WHY NOW? Even although we don't have much space in two pages,
>>>> I think we need to highlight more explicitly the nature of the
>>>> current opportunity ... why are we going to be able to make
>>>> significant progress now in an area that people have been working
>>>> in for quite some time? In terms of the climate reconstruction
>>>> from proxies, we can point to a number of advances, e.g., for corals:
>>>>
>>>> - the recent demonstration of the potential of using networks of
>>>> coral sites for pan-tropical and regional climate reconstruction
>>>> (e.g., some of Rob Wilson et als papers).
>>>> - the fact that some of the necessary long coral cores already
>>>> exist through our collaborators, and ongoing efforts from
>>>> ourselves, and that with a relatively modest field effort we are
>>>> now in a position to provide a more complete and hence robust
>>>> coverage for tropical SST reconstruction.
>>>>
>>>> b) CONSORTIUM: The justification for a consortium still needs work.
>>>> My one experience on the NERC Consortium panel suggested that the
>>>> justification for a needed to be closer to "can only be done
>>>> through a consortium approach" rather than "can be more effectively
>>>> approached". I still wonder if we can make some significant
>>>> advances in the way we approach estimating and using uncertainties
>>>> in the proxy data and their interpretation. As I've said before,
>>>> the inclusion of isotopes in models is going to provide some
>>>> excellent opportunities to better understand what we can and can't
>>>> say from some forms of proxy data.
>>>>
>>>> c) TIME FRAME: We can sort out details later, but just so
>>>> everybody knows, realistically we should be looking to the corals
>>>> to provide a reasonable tropical network back to around 1750-1800AD
>>>> getting sparser back beyond than and hardly anything prior to
>>>> 1600AD (in terms of continuous records from living corals).
>>>> d) NERC PROPOSAL: Again, just for information: Gabi and I (with
>>>> Mat Collins at the Met Office and a large cast of other
>>>> collaborators) currently have a proposal submitted to NERC that is
>>>> focussed around ENSO variability over the past 5,000 years, using a
>>>> combination of analysis of fossil corals in Galapagos, integration
>>>> to other climate proxy data (to look at stability of
>>>> teleconnections), and climate model evaluation and runs (using the
>>>> CMIP5 archive plus new isotope enabled HadCM3 model runs). One of
>>>> our periods of focus is, naturally, the last millennium.
>>>> Obviously, we have no idea if this will be funded, but if it is, it
>>>> would provide additional proxy data (mostly short floating
>>>> chronologies), plus modelling.
>>>>
>>>> e) DECEMBER? I understand Chris' enthusiasm for moving forward,
>>>> but like Simon feel we've not yet really pinned down the scope and
>>>> novelty of our approach as much as we need to. December 1st would
>>>> be a rush, so, personally, I'd suggest July but with the schedule
>>>> of meetings as currently proposed (although I can't make the
>>>> September one).
>>>> However, if the consensus is to attempt a 1st December submission,
>>>> I will do what I can to contribute.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Sandy
>>>>
>>>> Chris Turney wrote:
>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>
>>>>> Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I'm in a very cold
>>>>> and wet Bergen at the moment and the internet access is not the best.
>>>>> Many thanks for all your comments and suggestions. This all looks
>>>>> great. I've tried to incorporate these into the concept note.
>>>>> The more detailed points I've kept in a folder for us to thrash
>>>>> out the detail for the next round. Can you let me know what you
>>>>> think of the attached by Wednesday this week? If you're happy for
>>>>> us to proceed, perhaps we can send in for Friday? As I head north
>>>>> the internet access will probably get worse of if we can do it
>>>>> before I fall off the edge of the known world that would be great.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I've contacted Eric Wolff to see if he would be interested
>>>>> in being involved and as soon as I hear back I'll let you know.
>>>>>
>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris
>>>>> ****************************************************
>>>>> *Professor Chris Turney FRSA FRGS*
>>>>>
>>>>> Director of Carbonscape , /Fixing
>>>>> carbon the way nature intended/
>>>>> //
>>>>>
>>>>> Author of Ice, Mud and Blood: Lessons from Climates Past
>>>>>
>>>>> Popular science website: www.christurney.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Journal of Quaternary Science
>>>>> Asian and
>>>>> Australasian Regional Editor
>>>>> School of Geography
>>>>> The University of Exeter
>>>>> Exeter
>>>>> Devon
>>>>> EX4 4RJ
>>>>> UK
>>>>>
>>>>> Home page:
>>>>> www.sogaer.ex.ac.uk/geography/people/staff/c_turney/main.shtml
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> E-mail: c.turney@exeter.ac.uk
>>>>> Office Tel.: +44 (0)1392 263331
>>>>> Fax.: +44 (0)1392 263342
>>>>>
>>>>> ****************************************************
>>>>>
>>>>> *Slartibartfast: * Science has achieved some wonderful things of
>>>>> course, but I'd far rather be happy than right any day.
>>>>> *Arthur Dent:* And are you?
>>>>> *Slartibartfast:* No. Thats where it all falls down of course.
>>>>> *Arthur Dent:* Pity. It sounded like quite a good lifestyle
>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>> /The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy/, Douglas Adams
>>>>>
>>>>> ****************************************************
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Dr. Rob Wilson
>>> Lecturer in Physical Geography
>>> School of Geography & Geosciences
>>> University of St Andrews
>>> St Andrews. FIFE
>>> KY16 9AL
>>> Scotland. U.K.
>>> Tel: +44 01334 463914
>>> Fax: +44 01334 463949
>>>
>>> http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/gg/people/wilson/
>>>
>>> ".....I have wondered about trees.
>>>
>>> They are sensitive to light, to moisture, to wind, to pressure.
>>> Sensitivity implies sensation. Might a man feel into the soul of a tree
>>> for these sensations? If a tree were capable of awareness, this faculty
>>> might prove useful. "
>>>
>>> "The Miracle Workers" by Jack Vance
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>> 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
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Rob Wilson
Lecturer in Physical Geography
School of Geography & Geosciences
University of St Andrews
St Andrews. FIFE
KY16 9AL
Scotland. U.K.
Tel: +44 01334 463914
Fax: +44 01334 463949
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/gg/people/wilson/
".....I have wondered about trees.
They are sensitive to light, to moisture, to wind, to pressure.
Sensitivity implies sensation. Might a man feel into the soul of a tree
for these sensations? If a tree were capable of awareness, this faculty
might prove useful. "
"The Miracle Workers" by Jack Vance
-----------------------------------------------------------------------