cc: ricardo@lab.cricyt.edu.ar date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:03:53 -0400 from: hegerl@duke.edu subject: Re: quick question IPCC to: Keith Briffa Good thanks Keith - we have that caution in, still, too, as far as I remember. We got one reviewer worrying about it, but even Mike agreed that he didn't necessarily believe that recon, so I left the caution in (Andronova et al find poor agreement between their SH forced run and the recon, and I figured it was the recon since NH worked just fine). I know exactly what you mean by "lack of enthusiasm". I seem to still not have recovered from IPCC (apart from SPM and TS stuff coming at me still at regular intervals). I think I'll be fine after about a 6 month vacation, except that wont happen in the near future.....(and then there is the omitted reviews that get me emails from editors and prgram directors about when-am-i-planning-to etc and my little research program that came to a grinding halt in last few months and needs to be accelerated again etc etc) Gabi Quoting Keith Briffa : > Gabi > I was away yesterday - a cold and lack of enthusiasm! The answer to > your question is that NO - "we" do not believe the 2003 > reconstruction - or the earlier (Jones et al. ) one either. These > rely heavily on two long tree-based reconstructions by Ricardo > Villalba and Antonio Lara and colleagues, in Argentina and Chile , > both based on a tree called Fitzroya . Now , I doubt that these > authors would sanction either reconstruction , or the processing > methods used to produce the chronologies. I am copying this to > Ricardo in case he would like to disagree or expand. In Chapter 6 we > now say that there are not sufficient data to produce a mean Southern > Hemisphere curve , but rather we are best to consider the present > evidence as "limited regional indicators". > > I quote, (Section 6.6.2) > > "Taken together, the very sparse evidence for Southrern Hemisphere > temperatures prior to the periiod of instrumental records indicates > that unusual warming is occuring in some regions. However, more proxy > data are required to verify the apparent warm trend." > > > cheers > Keith > > At 19:42 06/09/2006, you wrote: >> ps Keith, even Mike agrees they are uncetain, so I just leave that >> caution in >> >> Gabi Hegerl wrote: >> >>> Keith, do you say that SH temperature reconstructions are >>> substantially more uncertain, and what >>> section should I cite? (refrencing Andrononova et al showing that >>> EBM runs with volcanism dont well >>> agree with Mann 2003 SH recon, but do we believe that recon?) >>> >>> Gabi >> >> -- >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> 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, http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html >> > > -- > Professor Keith Briffa, > Climatic Research Unit > University of East Anglia > Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > > Phone: +44-1603-593909 > Fax: +44-1603-507784 > > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ > >