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 -----------------------------------------------------------------------