date: Mon Nov 1 10:53:16 2004 from: Phil Jones subject: Mann papers in press to: santer1@llnl.gov Ben, The second is the paper I was referring to earlier. Much of the email text relates to a visit David Bellamy made to the HC. He's another idiot who just spouts the same garbage. Yes, he is the well-known ecologist. Believes putting up wind turbines will ruin biodiversity - and doesn't like them spoiling the landscape ! One final thing - all this stuff from Muller, Bellamy and also Legates getting at Mann and MBH doesn't realise that if climate variability were larger over the millennium, then future change will be larger ! Point is made at the end of comment piece on Von Storch by Tim and Keith. Cheers Phil X-Sender: mem6u@multiproxy.evsc.virginia.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.1.1 Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 10:13:56 -0400 To: Gabi Hegerl , Phil Jones From: "Michael E. Mann" Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: Timetable for Bellamy visit] Cc: "Stott, Peter" , tcrowley@duke.edu, jto@u.arizona.edu X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-UEA-MailScanner-SpamScore: s Dear All, This is a good discussion. Peter: IPCC should *not* over-react to the skeptics, and I'm a bit surprised at Chris's statements. I'm glad Phil has forwarded him the Reviews of Geophysics paper to read. I think the rest of the group has echoed the right attitude towards this. As Gabi notes, even if various researchers disagree about scaling (and I'm not sure the disagreements are that big, and they depend on seasonal and spatial sampling issues that are somewhat debatable at present--see one of the attached papers by Rutherford et al), the qualitative picture doesn't change--i.e., the anomalous nature of late 20th century warmth remains, regardless of how you scale the reconstruction. Qualitatively, Tom', ours, Phil's, and all of the other reconstructions are similar--they mostly differ in overall amplitudes of variability, and by a modest amount. Now, the GKSS run should be viewed in the context of a dozen other published model runs (see e.g. the Review of Geophysics paper) that are in excellent agreement w/ the paleoreconstructions. These runs use more reasonable forcing estimates. In the GKSS runs, the solar constant varies by about 8W/m^2. According to the solar physicists (e.g. Judith Lean), that could be as much as 10 times too large!! No wonder they get the huge medieval peak, and an unreasonable estimate that 40% of 20th century warmth is solar!! Christensen et al at DKMI have done runs using the same model (GKSS) but more traditional forcing estimtes, and get a very similar result to the existing paleoreconstructions, and nothing at all like the GKSS run using that model. Its all in the forcings, and the GKSS group does not have reasonable forcing estimates... Anyways, that's my two cents. Now for my plug: I've attached 2 papers that are quite relevant to these issues, both now in press in "Journal of Climate"... Thanks all for your efforts here, Mike p.s. I've added Peck to the mix for good measure... At 09:38 AM 9/8/2004, Gabi Hegerl wrote: ps on the vines: I also learned in some lecture about medieval eating and drinking habits that they all grew their local wine, and when it was sour they sweetened it, or spiced it or whatever. (had nothing to do with climate, it was a talk about findings from well archeology). They also found crazy cherries (Tollkirschen) suggesting that some local brewers had watered the beer and then put poisonous cherries into it to make sure it still had an effect ;) - that was the reason for the beer purity law later. So you can't compare medieval wine growing with present day at all! I agree with Phil - the proof lies with them. Taking Hans' analysis at face value, it still doesn;t question the 20th century being the warmest - it just questions the variability and signal size. And it assumes teleconnections in the model being right. I used his run too to fake Tom's reconstruction, it works fairly well. Gabi Phil Jones wrote: Peter, I don't expect the AR4 to withdraw what they said in the TAR. I did have an email exchange with Chris the other day as he's seeing Bellamy as well. What we say in our IDAG paper is fine. I'm happy with probably, but don't think it is necessary. You should be putting the argument the other way round - i.e. it is up to those that don't think the finding is robust to disprove it. As Gabi says, CRU (me, Keith and Tim), Tom C. and Mike (and Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes) have performed the most comprehensive analyses. We've analysed all the data we can get our hands on. If Bellamy takes issue with this - tell him to do proper analyses, rather than just parrotting what some web sites in the US say. Also it is no good just saying we all know it was warmer in the Medieval period and in Roman times - vines in Yorkshire etc. (Aside - our new house had two vines in different parts of the garden. Both had grapes on when we arrived in early July. All bunches have turned purple - despite the wet August ! Just need to read up on how to prune the things !). Tell him they are growing in my garden in Norfolk,with no help at all ! What would they do with some tlc - the medieval monks ahd all the time in the world. I sent Chris a pdf of my review with Mike in Rev. Geophysics. Suggest you print one off and suggest he reads it. The other aspect is that we are all talking about global (and NH) averages in the paleo time. The only way to do this is to get series from as many locations as possible and average them together. No one region is more representative for hemispheric conditions than any other (despite many people saying their pet region is important). Even if England were warmer in Medieval times, it is the NH and Globe we are talking about. Not everywhere in the instrumental period has the 1990s decade as the warmest (e.g. Iceland/Greenland), but it is the warmest for the NH, the SH and the Globe. I don't think von Storch's work will change anyone's views. It is based on a model. The skeptics are making something of it - but they seem to forget they have to believe the model to this. They decry other models as not being realistic, but accept them when their conclusions are to their liking. The ECHAM model volcanic forcing is far too strong - no model gets the seasonal nature of the response correct. Have fun tomorrow ! Cheers Phil At 12:43 08/09/2004, hegerl@duke.edu wrote: Yes, since its only the scaling (the overall amplitude) that is under question for analyses that are averages of a fixed number of sites like Tom's analyses, or Phil's. Mann et al is a bit more complex, but its easiest to argue with simple reconstruction based on a limited number of sites. THey tend to give the early 20th century as the warmest of the reconstruction, and we know the second half was way warmer than the first, and the first finding does not depend on scaling, and the second only to a small extent. The scaling is not as much uncertain for records with good correlations with what they are trying to reconstruct (order 10%) during the calibration period. poppycock, hm, good luck Gabi On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, Stott, Peter wrote: > Dear Gabi, Tom and Phil, > > I'm meeting David Bellamy tomorrow along with a group of colleagues from > the Hadley Centre. Those in the UK at least know that David Bellamy has > been saying that global warming is "poppycock". > > At the moment I have the plot from EOS and the statement (I put the > probably back in) > "Temperatures during the last two decades of the 20th century were > probably the warmest of the last millennium." > > The question is, is this conclusion likely to be robust to the > reanalyses of the paleo reconstructions being done at the moment; I'm > thinking of von Storch et al but also of Gabi's recent work. > My most immediate concern is to whether to leave this statement in or > whether I should remove it in the anticipation that by the time of the > 4th Assessment Report we'll have withdrawn this statement - Chris > Folland at least seems to think this is possible. Of course this issue > also affects what we say in the IDAG paper. > > Thanks and greetings, > Peter > > -- > Dr. Peter Stott Climate Scientist Met Office > Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research (Reading Unit) > Meteorology Building, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB > Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5613 Fax: +44 (0)118 378 5615 > Mobile: 07753880683 > E-mail:peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk [1]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > NOTE WILL ALSO BE AT EXETER PART OF EACH WEEK > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > -------------------------------------------------------------------- Gabriele Hegerl Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment Duke University, Durham NC 27708 phone 919-684-6167, fax 919-684-5833 email: hegerl@duke.edu [2]http://www.eos.duke.edu/Faculty/hegerl.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, Box 90227 Duke University, Durham NC 27708 Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 email: hegerl@duke.edu, [3]http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html ______________________________________________________________ Professor Michael E. Mann Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 22903 _______________________________________________________________________ e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137 [4]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------