date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:07:03 -0600 from: Eugene Wahl subject: Re: Remake of IPCC Figure to: Tim Osborn Hi Tim: 1) Dave and I have talked at some length, including consideration of the caveats you rightly raise, and we would like to go ahead with a modified IPCC WG1 Fig 6:10c for the Climate Change Science Plan Unified Synthesis Product document. What we have decided on is to have 5 (or maybe 7) time series in the graphic: the temperature of most overlap, and the corresponding high/low 10%, 5%, and 2.5% overlap temperatures. If you could provide us with just these time series, we would do the graphing of them here, as there may be a combining of this adapted 6:10c graphic with the CO2 record (higher-level committee has yet to decide). Let me know if that can work -- we hope it would be fairly straightforward. Please send the time series to Dave Anderson David.M.Anderson@noaa.gov and "cc" me, for reasons outlined in (3) below. 2) On the topic of a visit. I asked Dave about me coming there supported by NOAA, and he was very much positive about it, as am I. That being said, the politics here have set up the situation where our part of the US Federal Government is operating since October 1 on what is called a "continuing resolution". This means that our budget into this fiscal year (started Oct 1) is set at the same level as last FY. This will likely not get resolved until at least after our elections here in early November, and quite likely not until after the new congress and administration formally take office in January! Because of this, all foreign travel is on-hold for now within our part of NOAA. So, we will have to wait, at least for the moment. 3) On a strictly personal note, [[[redacted: health, 3rd party]]] I'll try to keep in touch with email at a lesser level than usual, but how much I will be able to do is not clear. That is why I suggest sending the time series directly to Dave. I hope this finds you all well. Peace, Gene Eugene.R.Wahl wrote: > Hi Tim: > > You are very gracious. I'll respond at greater length after Dave A. > and I talk about all this, with which I agree, and yet I think the > same problem is there with "traditional" (ouch) spaghetti-graphs. > > I'll also respond to the kind invitation. Short response -- I'd love > to come, both my wife (Barbara) and I love the UK, and have visited > several times. > > More later. > > Peace, Gene > > > > Tim Osborn wrote: >> Hi Gene, >> >> to replot the figure as you suggest is feasible for me. >> >> Are you sure about this though? It has always struck me (and Keith, >> with whom I devised this way of visualising the published results) as >> a rather ad-hoc approach and subject to various lines of attack (e.g. >> should we really combine reconstructions that represent rather >> different things [annual vs. summer, full NH vs. land], what does it >> mean if the published uncertainty ranges overlap from multiple >> studies if some of those studies have overlapping input proxy series >> and others have few overlaps?). >> >> I don't want to put you off, and our IPCC chapter co-authors didn't >> seem put off despite our (Keith and mine) prior expectations that >> they would. I just wanted to make sure that you're clear about the >> possible criticisms. >> >> Finally (I'm sure you know this anyway!), note that post-AR4 studies >> are not, of course(!), represented here. e.g. Mann et al. 2008, >> Juckes et al. 2007, others? Is that a problem? >> >> Thanks for your best wishes. Things are ok here in Norwich, >> September has been mild and I even got up to the beach (north >> Norfolk) a couple of times! New students are now here and so I'll be >> spending much time teaching during the next 2 months. I have a new >> PhD student who will probably be studying blocking circulation >> patterns and whether they are altered by climate change. >> >> If you ever want to pay us a visit (especially if you're coming to >> the UK for other meetings) here in Norwich, then you'd be very welcome. >> >> Tim >> >> At 06:26 30/09/2008, you wrote: >>> Hi Tim: >>> >>> Woops...here is a correction. I meant the 10% overlap lines on both >>> the high and low sides (rather than the 10% and 90% overlap lines). >>> This can be 5% overlap on the high and low sides if that makes >>> better sense. >>> Also, re: the mid line...it occurs to me that there could be >>> temperature "ties" for the highest percentage of overlap for any >>> given year, so in such a case, I'm imagining that the mid line would >>> be in the middle of such a range of overlap. Would that be a >>> sufficient tiebreaking rule to deal with all cases? >>> >>> Thanks, Gene >>> >>> >>> Eugene Wahl wrote: >>>> Hi Tim: >>>> >>>> I'm working with David Anderson, my supervisor here at NOAA-Paleo, >>>> and others higher up in NOAA on paleoclimate information to go into >>>> the US Government's official overview document on climate change >>>> research. >>>> It is called the "Climate Change Science Plan Unified Synthesis >>>> Product", and is like a kind-of US version of the IPCC SPM--Working >>>> Group 1. The goal is to have this ready for the new government >>>> administration as early next year as possible. >>>> >>>> We are trying to decide concerning a figure to summarize the >>>> high-resolution NH paleo-climate record for the past 1000 years -- >>>> the last version of the document had MBH 99 superposed with the CO2 >>>> recored for the same time period. One thought that came down to >>>> Dave and myself from others was to use the new Mann et al, 2008, >>>> Figure 3 over the past millennium or some part of it. Dave and I >>>> think the IPCC WG1 Ch. 6 Figure 6:10c is a better representation of >>>> the last millennium from a reconstruction standpoint, especially >>>> representing the uncertainties involved. CO2 would just be left >>>> out. [We also considered IPCC WG1 Ch. 6 Figure 14d as even better, >>>> as it shows the EMICs mostly follow the middle range of the >>>> reconstructions' overlap, except that those that don't have >>>> anthropogenic forcing deviate more and more cooler after the >>>> mid-20th century. This coupling of the forcings-driven EMICs with >>>> the reconstruction record we find much more powerful than a >>>> superposition of one or more reconstructions and the CO2 curve. >>>> However, this suggestion will not go for the synthesis product, as >>>> it is considered too abstract for that situation.] >>>> Indeed, even Figure 6:10c as it is may be too complex for the >>>> target audience we want to reach with the synthesis product. >>>> >>>> In light of the foregoing, the question Dave and I would like to >>>> ask you is this: would it be feasible to ask you to recreate >>>> Figure 6:10c with just three lines? These three lines would be a >>>> heavy mid line of the temperature anomalies where the highest >>>> percentage of overlap occurs for each year, and the 10% and 90% >>>> overlap lines (all overlap percentages defined exactly as in the >>>> original IPCC graphics). It is our understanding that you created >>>> Figure 6:10c, which is where this request comes from. >>>> Alternatively, could you provide us with these three time series, >>>> or direct us how to extract them from the the IPCC c. 6 archives we >>>> keep here? We understand that you are quite busy and we want to >>>> minimize any impact on you in this request. >>>> >>>> Please let us know what you think. >>>> >>>> Here is hoping you are well, and that the weather there not yet to >>>> coolish. I get a weekly commentary on nature and spirituality >>>> written from near UEA ("Word from Wormingford" it is called), and >>>> often think of you-all there as I read it. Please also say hello >>>> to Phil and Keith when you see them. >> >> Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow >> 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 >> >> >