5287, “a direct carbon dioxide effect ... is far from proven”
22 Sep 2000 06:22:50
from mhughes...
subject: Re: old stuff
to: tom@...
I tried to imply in my e-mail, but will now say it directly, that although a direct carbon dioxide effect is still the best candidate to explain this effect, it is far from proven. In any case, the relevant point is that there is no meaningful correlation with local temperature. Not all high-elevation tree-ring records from the West that might reflect temperature show this upward trend. It is only clear in the driest parts (western) of the region (the Great Basin), above about 3150 meters elevation, in trees old enough (>~800 years) to have lost most of their bark – ‘stripbark’ trees. As luck would have it, these are precisely the trees that give the chance to build temperature records for most of the Holocene.
5305, “independent” peer-review
22 Sep 2000 06:22:50
from mhughes...
subject: Re: old stuff
to: tom@...
I tried to imply in my e-mail, but will now say it directly, that although a direct carbon dioxide effect is still the best candidate to explain this effect, it is far from proven. In any case, the relevant point is that there is no meaningful correlation with local temperature. Not all high-elevation tree-ring records from the West that might reflect temperature show this upward trend. It is only clear in the driest parts (western) of the region (the Great Basin), above about 3150 meters elevation, in trees old enough (>~800 years) to have lost most of their bark – ‘stripbark’ trees. As luck would have it, these are precisely the trees that give the chance to build temperature records for most of the Holocene.
5305, “independent” peer-review
Jun 26 14:38:23 2008
from Keith Briffa
from Keith Briffa
subject: Re: in confidence
to: drdendro...
to: drdendro...
Only you could confuse me with a yes or no answer!!! Is it yes or no? [The previous question was: “have you been asked to review a paper by the New Zealanders for Nature? Just yes or no”] When I have finished reviewing it (to ensure independence) I would value a few words with you about it
5322, there was a Mediæval Warm period?
Oct 7 12:49:12 2002
from Keith Briffa
subject: Re: NER/T/S/2002/00440
to: RAPID...
The last 1000 years are important. But several paleo records show the period ~1000-1500 years ago encompasses the very warm earliest part of the Medieval Warm period. This period is critical in assessing 20th century warming but prior widely cited studies (Mann et al, Crowley) are limited to the last 1000 years yet form the basis for statements about the causes of relative warmth in the 20th century. Effort should be made to include even the few proxy record going back 1500-2000 years before present. We agree entirely with this referee that the period just prior to the last 1000 years has relevance to the issue of climate change detection. Yes, we will make efforts to collect and amalgamate data prior to AD 1000, but this will not be a priority in the final analysis because the synergy in the work we propose lies in analyzing the overlap between empirical data and model-derived (principally GCM) data and this is clearly limited to the more recent period by the availability of appropriate simulations.
from Keith Briffa
subject: Re: NER/T/S/2002/00440
to: RAPID...
The last 1000 years are important. But several paleo records show the period ~1000-1500 years ago encompasses the very warm earliest part of the Medieval Warm period. This period is critical in assessing 20th century warming but prior widely cited studies (Mann et al, Crowley) are limited to the last 1000 years yet form the basis for statements about the causes of relative warmth in the 20th century. Effort should be made to include even the few proxy record going back 1500-2000 years before present. We agree entirely with this referee that the period just prior to the last 1000 years has relevance to the issue of climate change detection. Yes, we will make efforts to collect and amalgamate data prior to AD 1000, but this will not be a priority in the final analysis because the synergy in the work we propose lies in analyzing the overlap between empirical data and model-derived (principally GCM) data and this is clearly limited to the more recent period by the availability of appropriate simulations.
5323, manufacturing consensus
30 Jun 1997 20:54:29
from Mike Hulme
from Mike Hulme
subject: Re: Climate Statement Version 4
to: alcamo...
This is the current idea:
1. You, Rob Swart and I should first consult with a manageable-number of people about the content of the Statement. The three of us would act as “Coordinators” of the Statement.
2. After this fairly small group agrees on the content of the Statement we should try and convince ten or so “prominent” scientists from different parts of Europe to be official signers. The names of these prominent people would appear on the same page as the Statement. Rob and I have not discussed who these ten people should be. Some could be from the original circle that we consult in step 1.
3. After “The Ten” have signed on, we need an enthusiastic organization to carry out the time-consuming task of collecting as many signatures of scientists in Europe as possible, so that we can say “1,865 European scientists, including (the prominent ten) have signed a Statement that says .. and so forth”. I don’t think that either you or Rob or I have the time to do this. For the American statement this job was done by an organization called “Redefining Progress”. Perhaps for us it could be WWF. What do you think.
4. The last step would be to hold a press conference(s) to announce the Statement. For this we would try and get as many of “The Ten” as possible to attend. My idea would be to aim for the AGBM meeting in October, when the debate should be pretty hot, and media interest in anticipation of Kyoto should be increasing.
1. You, Rob Swart and I should first consult with a manageable-number of people about the content of the Statement. The three of us would act as “Coordinators” of the Statement.
2. After this fairly small group agrees on the content of the Statement we should try and convince ten or so “prominent” scientists from different parts of Europe to be official signers. The names of these prominent people would appear on the same page as the Statement. Rob and I have not discussed who these ten people should be. Some could be from the original circle that we consult in step 1.
3. After “The Ten” have signed on, we need an enthusiastic organization to carry out the time-consuming task of collecting as many signatures of scientists in Europe as possible, so that we can say “1,865 European scientists, including (the prominent ten) have signed a Statement that says .. and so forth”. I don’t think that either you or Rob or I have the time to do this. For the American statement this job was done by an organization called “Redefining Progress”. Perhaps for us it could be WWF. What do you think.
4. The last step would be to hold a press conference(s) to announce the Statement. For this we would try and get as many of “The Ten” as possible to attend. My idea would be to aim for the AGBM meeting in October, when the debate should be pretty hot, and media interest in anticipation of Kyoto should be increasing.
5329, the “trend runs absolutely counter to everything we know”
14 Apr 1999 16:01:45
from Michael Mann
subject: reply to comments on Science piece
to: k.briffa..., mann..., mhughes..., rbradley..., t.osborn...
The 2000 year trend runs absolutely counter to everything we know about the mid holocene. Extratropical Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures should have been at an absolute peak 4000-6000 ybp, and the 2000 year trend *ought* to at least be heading in that direction. The fact that is doesn’t, and that the trend hasn’t been verified in the sense discussed above, causes me real concern. It would be misleading to argue we have any reason to believe that NH mean temperatures have done what that series does 2000 years back in time...
[...]
The alternative is that true NH mean temperatures and extratropical NH mean temperatures must be shown on separate plots, because adjusting them the way Keith has provides a misleading picture, and one that I don’t believe can be justified for the purposes of IPCC, regardless of what you choose to do with your Science piece.
5341, “an excellent case for adaptation ... so why are we worrying about mitigation?”
from Michael Mann
subject: reply to comments on Science piece
to: k.briffa..., mann..., mhughes..., rbradley..., t.osborn...
The 2000 year trend runs absolutely counter to everything we know about the mid holocene. Extratropical Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures should have been at an absolute peak 4000-6000 ybp, and the 2000 year trend *ought* to at least be heading in that direction. The fact that is doesn’t, and that the trend hasn’t been verified in the sense discussed above, causes me real concern. It would be misleading to argue we have any reason to believe that NH mean temperatures have done what that series does 2000 years back in time...
[...]
The alternative is that true NH mean temperatures and extratropical NH mean temperatures must be shown on separate plots, because adjusting them the way Keith has provides a misleading picture, and one that I don’t believe can be justified for the purposes of IPCC, regardless of what you choose to do with your Science piece.
5341, “an excellent case for adaptation ... so why are we worrying about mitigation?”
09 Oct 1998 16:09:24
from Robert Nicholls
subject: Re: IMPORTANT:NATURE COMMENTARY
to: m.hulme..., nwa1..., arnell61..., PARRYML...
All numbers are correct and I find the new text fine. The two additional paragraphs make an excellent case for adaptation.
However, an implicit message of Table 2 is that adaptation could handle climate change alone (the -15% option), so why are we worrying about mitigation? I think that this will be noted by many readers and it would be best if the piece had an explicit view on this, or delete the -15% option.
from Robert Nicholls
subject: Re: IMPORTANT:NATURE COMMENTARY
to: m.hulme..., nwa1..., arnell61..., PARRYML...
All numbers are correct and I find the new text fine. The two additional paragraphs make an excellent case for adaptation.
However, an implicit message of Table 2 is that adaptation could handle climate change alone (the -15% option), so why are we worrying about mitigation? I think that this will be noted by many readers and it would be best if the piece had an explicit view on this, or delete the -15% option.
2 comments:
Wind storms often create disturbance in routine activities but this is extraordinary. In my view it could be a technical error. The revolving fans designs should be reviewed again to discover any possible weakness. Vivid Climate changes can also be the reason because there are not good signs by the current climate system through out the world. Floods, earth quakes and heavy storms are increasing. There are a number of factors which effect climate system.
Mirza Faraz Baig: “Floods, earth quakes and heavy storms are increasing”.
Really? Would you care to provide some proof?
Post a Comment