The below are part of a series of alleged emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, released on 20 November 2009.
Original Filename: 857677215.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Eugene Vaganov <evag@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: from Vaganov
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 97 14:40:15 +0000 (KRS)
06.03.97
fAJL partid.txt
2.xxx xxxx xxxxCO
2.xxx xxxx xxxxProfessor
2.xxx xxxx xxxxHead of Group
2.xxx xxxx xxxxM
2.xxx xxxx xxxxFritz
2.6
2.xxx xxxx xxxxSchweingruber
2.8.1 Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape
Research
2.8.2 Department of Ecology
2.8.3 Forest and Climate Research Unit
2.9
2.10 Zuercherstrasse 111
2.11
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.13 Birmensdorf
2.14 CH
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.17 fritz.schweingruber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxxCR
2.xxx xxxx xxxxDoctor of Philosophy
2.xxx xxxx xxxxSenior Research Associate
2.xxx xxxx xxxxM
2.xxx xxxx xxxxKeith
2.6
2.xxx xxxx xxxxBriffa
2.8.1 University of East Anglia
2.8.2 School of Environmental Sciences
2.8.3 Climatic Research Unit
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12 NR4 7TJ
2.13 Norwich
2.14 GB
2.xxx xxxx xxxx90
2.xxx xxxx xxxx84
2.17 k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxx,000
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxx,000
2.xxx xxxx xxxx,000
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxxCR
2.xxx xxxx xxxxDoctor of Biological Sciences
2.xxx xxxx xxxxHead of the Laboratory of Dendrochronology
2.xxx xxxx xxxxM
2.xxx xxxx xxxxStepan
2.xxx xxxx xxxxGrigor'evich
2.xxx xxxx xxxxShiyatov
2.8.1 Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
2.8.2
2.8.3 Laboratory of Dendrochronology
2.xxx xxxx xxxxUral Branch RAS
2.xxx xxxx xxxxMarta Street 202
2.11
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.13 Ekaterinburg
2.14 RU
2.xxx xxxx xxxx0
2.xxx xxxx xxxx1
2.17 plant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxxCR
2.xxx xxxx xxxxDoctor of Biological Sciences
2.xxx xxxx xxxxDirector of Forest Institute
2.xxx xxxx xxxxM
2.xxx xxxx xxxxEvgeny
2.xxx xxxx xxxxAlexandrovich
2.xxx xxxx xxxxVaganov
2.8.1 Institute of Forest
2.8.2
2.8.3 Laboratory of Dendrochronology
2.xxx xxxx xxxxSiberian Branch RAS
2.10
2.11
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.13 Krasnoyarsk
2.14 RU
2.xxx xxxx xxxx9
2.xxx xxxx xxxx6
2.17 evag@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
2.xxx xxxx xxxx
fAJL power.txt
"MULTI-MILLENNIAL-LENGTH DENDROCLIMATIC RECONSTRUCTIONS AT
HIGH-LATITUDE REGIONS OF SIBERIA".
By signing this declaration, I certify that the information given
in this proposal relating to me and the team I represent is to
the best of my knowledge true and complete. I have been involved
in the preparation of the full proposal and I agree with its
contents. I am fully authorised to commit myself and the team I
represent to be ready to set up and execute all tasks, duties and
obligations assigned to us in this research proposal, if
selected.
I hereby authorise the co-ordinator as lawful attorney and
administrator and empower him to act all of the necessary actions
to administrate validly the herein said rights on behalf of me in
case the proposal should be selected by INTAS, inter alia, to
negotiate and to conclude the co-operation agreement, as well as
any amendments, variations or additions to the co-operation
agreement on my behalf.
Laboratory of Dendrochronology
Institute of Forest SB RAS
Krasnoyarsk
Dr.Eugene A.Vaganov
5 March, 1997
fAJL projid.txt
1.1 Multi-millennial-length dendroclimatic reconstructions
at high-latitude regions of Siberia.
1.2 5
1.xxx xxxx xxxx
1.4 36
1.5 Oct-97
1.6 4
1.xxx xxxx xxxx
By signing this proposal, I certify that the information given in
this proposal is the best of my knowledge, true and complete as
received from all project participants; that all participants
were involved in the preparation, agree with this project
proposal and have declared themselves ready to perform the
project as proposed in case of selection.
I am fully authorised to commit myself and the team I represent
to be ready to set up and execute all tasks, duties and
obligations assigned to us in this research proposal and I am
ready to act as the co-ordinator of the project.
The proposal contains ..... pages.
PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR First name and family name:
Fritz Schweingruber
Date: ..... March,1xxx xxxx xxxxOriginal signature:
fAJL sum.txt
4.1. TITLE OF THE PROJECT
Multi-millennial-length dendroclimaticreconstructions
at high-latitude regions of Siberia
4.2. SUMMARY
This research will make a major contribution to our knowledge of
high-resolution climate variability at high latitudes of Western
and Middle Siberia throughout the Holocene using the unique
potential of tree-ring data.
The specific objectives of this proposal are the development of
two supra-long (each spanning xxx xxxx xxxxyears up to present)
continuous larch ring-width chronologies at two distant each
other high-latitude locations of Siberia (Yamal and Taimyr
peninsulas). Ring-width chronologies developed from coniferous
trees growing at the polar timberline in Siberia contain a very
strong climatic signal, mainly summer air temperatures. With
these chronologies high-resolution continuous and quantitative
reconstruction of summer temperatures will be made.
As in the areas of the past and present polar and upper
timberlines trees megafossils have been preserved properly in
large quantities in the Holocene deposits (alluvial, lacustrine
and peat), there is a good possibility to develop continuous,
multi-millennial tree-ring chronologies.
Now the material already collected and measured (1800 subfossil
wood samples from Yamal and 280 samples from Taimyr) has yielded
the ring-width chronologies continuously spanning the last 3200
years (Yamal) and 950 years (Taimyr).
However, there are also many more samples that have been measured
and have provided data, now assembled in a number of provisionally
"floating" chronologies covering much of the period from 7000 to
1700 B.C. (based on some 70 radiocarbon dates of samples of this
wood). There is a fair chance that a xxx xxxx xxxxyear continuous
chronologies will be constructed within the span of the proposed
project.
These chronologies and temperature reconstructions will be the
first to be so long, reliable, annually-resolved and
precisely-dated with known reliability across the whole of
northern Hemisphere. These reconstructions will allow to compare
and contrast the details of temperature changes at the
moderate-continental region of Yamal Peninsula with the
continental region of Taimyr Peninsula and allow modern and
predicted temperature patterns to be compared with variability
patterns of pre-industrial era. Participants of the proposed
project are the well-known institutions which are engaged in the
field of dendrochronology and dendroclimatology and have
collaborated with each other during the last 6 years.
fAJL workpro.txt
3.1 TITLE
Multi-millennial-length dendroclimatic reconstructions
at high-latitude regions of Siberia
3.2 OBJECTIVES
This research will make a major contribution to our knoweledge of
high-resolution climate variability at high latitudes of Western
and Middle Siberia throughout the Holocene using the unique
potential of tree-ring data.
The specific objectives of this proposal are as follows:
- to develop two supra-long (each spanning xxx xxxx xxxxyears up to
present) continuous ring-width larch chronologies at two
high-latitude locations of Siberia;
- using these tree-ring chronologies, tomake a multi-millennial
high-resolution continuous and quantitative reconstruction of
summer temperatures;
- to analyse spatio-temporal patterns of temperature variability
at these locations over a range of timescales (annual, decadal,
multi-decadal and centennial) and their connections with various
forcing factors and other annual resolution records being
developed elsewhere in the Arctic and Subarctic.
3.3. BACKGROUND
Reconstruction and analysis of natural climatic changes through
the whole Holocene at high latitudes are of great importance as
climatic conditions, especially air temperature, are most
variable and sensitive to various forcing functions (Budyko,
1980; Jones and Kelly, 1983; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, 1990). However, there are a minute quantity of long,
precisely-dated and high-resolution proxy climatic series for
these regions.
The territory of Yamal Peninsula located on the eastern boundary
of influence of the Atlantic air masses and the territory of the
eastern part of Taimyr Peninsula located between the Arctic High
and Siberian High are of major importance for monitoring regional
and global-mean air temperatures and assessing theories and
models concerned with past, current and future climate changes
(Lamb, 1977; Briffa and Jones, 1993; Moses et al., 1987).
Tree rings as a proxy indicator of the past climatic conditions
are of special interest as they allow to reconstruct climatic
parameters with seasonal and annual resolution for many hundred
and thousand years, to provide an exact absolute and relative
dating of the tree-ring data, to establish high-frequency climate
changes (from interannual to centennial timescales) with high
confidence, to obtain dendroclimatic information practically for
every site where trees grow at present or grew in the past.
Intensive dendroclimatic investigations are carrying out in many
countries and regions, mainly in temperate and subtropic zones
(Fritts, 1976, 1991 ). At high latitudes such works began later
(during the last two decades) and living trees were used
primarily for developing tree-ring chronologies of xxx xxxx xxxxyears
long (Aniol and Eckstein, 1984; Shiyatov, 1984, 1986; Jacoby and
D'Arrigo, 1989; Schweingruber, Briffa and Nogler, 1993; Briffa,
Jones, Schweingruber, Shiyatov and Vaganov,1996; Jacoby, Wiles,
D'Arrigo, 1996; Vaganov, Shiyatov and Mazepa, 1996). As in the
areas of the past and present polar and upper timberlines trees
megafossils have been preserved properly in large quantities on
the surface and in the Holocene deposits (alluvial, lacustrine
and peat), there is a possibility to develop continuous,
multi-millennium and sensitive to climate tree-ring chronologies.
Such works began in the Polar Ural Mountains (Shiyatov, 1986;
Graybill and Shiyatov, 1992; Briffa, Jones, Schweingruber,
Shiyatov and Cook, 1995), in the southern part of Yamal Peninsula
(Shiyatov, Surkov, 1980; Hantemirov, 1995), in Finnish Lapland
and Northern Sweden (Zetterberg, Eronen and Briffa, 1995), in
the eastern part of Taimyr Peninsula (Vaganov, Naurazbaev,
Schweingruber and Briffa, in press) and in the Lower Indigirka
River at present. Now the longest, continuous and absolute-dated
ring-width chronologies developed for the Yamal Peninsula
(spanning 3200 years) and for the Northern Scandinavia (spanning
2160 years) and the "floating" chronologies dated by the
radiocarbon method extended back 9500 and over 7000 years
respectively.
Ring-width chronologies developed from coniferous trees growing
at the polar timberline in moderate-continental and continental
regions of Siberia contain a very strong climatic signal, mainly
summer air temperatures of tree growth year (Graybill and
Shiyatov, 1992; Briffa, Jones, Schweingruber, Shiyatov and Cook,
1995; Hantemirov, 1995; Vaganov, Shiyatov and Mazepa, 1996).The
explained variance over the calibration and verification periods
is highest reported in the literature to date (65-70%) and it
allows to make a quantitative reconstructions of summer
temperatures. These chronologies and temperature reconstructions
will be the first to be so long, reliable, annually-resolved and
precisely-dated with known reliability across the whole of
northern Hemisphere. These reconstructions will allow to compare
and contrast the details of temperature changes at the
moderate-continental region of Yamal Peninsula with the
continental region of Taimyr Peninsula and allow modern and
predicted temperature patterns to be compared with variability
patterns of pre-industrial era.
Participants of the proposed project are the well-known
institutions which are engaged in the field of dendrochronology
and dendroclimatology and have collaborated with each other
during the last 6 years.
- The Group of Tree-Ring and Site of the Swiss Federal Institute
for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (Birmensdorf,
Switzerland). The Group is currently engaged on a major programme
of densitometric and ring-width chronology development involving
many sites across the whole of the Northern Hemisphere including
sites with living trees in the polar timberline area of Russia.
This work is specifically designed to provide
climatically-sensitive data for use in large spatial climate
reconstruction work. Dr. F.H.Schweingruber, Head of the Group, is
known throughout the world for his work in wood anatomy and
dendrochronology and the development of tree-ring densitometry.
He has published extensively in different areas of wood anatomy
and tree-growth research and has authored several classic books.
- The Laboratory of Dendrochronology of the Institute of Plant
and Animal Ecology of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
Ekaterinburg, Russia is one of the leading laboratory in the
field of dendrochronology in Russia. The Laboratory has an
international reputation for its work on the developing
ring-width chronologies at high latitudes and altitudes,
reconstruction of climatic conditions, developing long-term
chronologies, studying cycles in tree-ring series, using
tree-ring data for studies of the upper and polar timberlines
dynamics and forest succession. Dr. S.G.Shiyatov, Head of the
Laboratory, is one of the pioneers of dendrochronology in Russia
and has worked for more than 30 years in the Far North and
mountains of the Urals, Siberia, Far East and Middle Asia. He has
published more than 130 articles and three monographs. Dr.
Shiyatov was the first who began to collect subfossil wood in
Russia for developing long-term chronologies.
- The Laboratory of Dendrochronology of the Institute of Forest
of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Krasnoyarsk, Russia is
another leading laboratory in the field of dendrochronology in
Russia. Dr. E.A.Vaganov, Director of the Institute of Forest and
Head of the Laboratory of Dendrochronology, has an international
reputation for his work on the cell structure of wood lyers of
coniferous trees, seasonal growth variations and cambium
activity, developing simulation models of seasonal tree growth,
developing ring-width and cell chronologies, reconstructing
climatic conditions of the past using tree-ring chronologies. He
has published more than 100 articles and 5 monographs.
- The Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia,
Norwich, Great Britain is one of the world's leading research
organisation specialising in the study of climate change: climate
history, current climates, projected changes and impacts. Dr.
K.R.Briffa, Senior Research Associate at the Climatic Research
Unit, has considerable experience in climatology and with the use
of statistical methods of climate analyses and dendroclimatic
reconstruction, especially with regard to large-spatial-scale
reconstructions of climate patterns and published many articles
on the theoretical and practical aspects of dendrochronology and
dendroclimatology, and on use of paleoclimate data for
understanding current and possible future climates.
3.4 SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
3.4.1. RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
Tree-ring data will be obtained from living trees and subfossil
wood of Siberian larch (Larix sibirica Ledeb.) in western Siberia
and Gmelini larch (Larix Gmelini Pilger) in central Siberia. The
first location is situated in the southern part of Yamal
Peninsula xxx xxxx xxxxN, xxx xxxx xxxxE), the second location in the eastern
part of Taimyr Peninsula xxx xxxx xxxxN, xxx xxxx xxxxE). There is a great
many properly preserved subfossil wood in the Holocene deposits
at both locations, mainly in the alluvial and peat deposits.
The main variable measured will be ring width. This variable
reflects properly climate influences on tree growth at the polar
timberline areas of Siberia having a continental climate.
Ring-width chronologies for the last xxx xxxx xxxxyears will be
developed from the oldest living trees. Extensions to these
chronologies back further in time will be made by using subfossil
material, joined with the living material by standard crossdating
procedures. High-precision radiocarbon dates will be used for
rough dating of "floating" tree-ring chronologies.
The sampling subfossil wood and development of the Yamal's
supra-long chronology began since 1982 by the workers of the
Laboratory of Dendrochronology (Ekaterinburg). Most intensively
this work was carried out during the last five years. Now the
material already collected and measured (1800 subfossil wood
cuts) has yielded the ring-width chronology continuously spanning
the last 3200 years. However, there are also many more samples
that have been measured and have provided data, now assembled in
a number of provisionally "floating" chronologies covering much
of the period from 7000 to 1700 B.C. (based on some 45
radiocarbon dates of samples of this wood). These chronologies
separated by 50 to 500 year length gaps. There is a fair chance
that a 9000-year continuous chronology will be constructed for
this location within the span of the proposed project.
Similarly, work with a shorter history than the Yamal's research
has clearly established potential to build a chronology at least
as long in the Taimyr Peninsula where the modern polar timberline
extends to about 72830'N, most northern over the world. This work
is not so advanced as in Yamal, but the work to date suggests
that very rapid progress is likely. Samples from living and dead
trees have already been assembled at the Laboratory of
Dendrochronology (Krasnoyarsk) into the 950-year continuous
chronology. The collections from this location are not so
extensive as those made to date at Yamal (280 subfossil wood
samples), but there is an abundant supply of subfossil trees,
many with over 300 annual rings. 25 radiocarbon dates of samples
of this material suggest major phases of tree growth around 8500
B.P. and 5000 B.P. The general distribution of the radiocarbon
dates suggests that, eventually, sufficient trees can probably be
located to span the whole of the last 10000 years. It is not
expected that a continuous 10000-year ring-width chronology will
be produced within timeframe of this project. However, there are
good prospects of producing a xxx xxxx xxxxyear chronology to the
present.
3.4.2 RESEARCH RESULTS
During three years we expect to develop the continuous and
good-replicated tree-ring 9000-year larch chronology for the
Yamal Peninsula and the xxx xxxx xxxxyear larch chronology for the
Taimyr Peninsula. Using these chronologies we intend to
reconstruct and analyse a summer temperature variation at several
time scales (annual, decadal, multi-decadal and centennial) and
compare the data obtained with other high-resolution
Holocene-length proxy data (ice cores, laminated sediments,
historical documents).
The results of this project will be published primarily in the
scientific literature in Russian and English and presented at
different national and international conferences. Because of the
fundamental interdisciplinarity and collaborative interaction
within the subgroups, a number of multi-authored papers will be
produced. The individual and mean ring-width chronologies and the
reconstructions produced will be distributed to the international
scientific community through submission to the International
Tree-Ring Data Bank (Boulder, Colorado, USA) and to other
national and international institutions and data centres.
3.5 MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
3.5.1 TASK DIVISION
Dr F.H.Schweingruber (Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow
and Landscape Research) will be the project co-ordinator on the
proposed project from the INTAS countries.
Dr S.G.Shiyatov (Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology) will be
the responsible scientist on the proposed project and he will
take part in collecting, dating, developing and analysing the
multi-millennial ring-width chronology at the area of Yamal
Peninsula. The next young scientists of the Institute will be
involved in the project:
Rashit M. Hantemirov, Candidate of Biological Sciences,
34 years old. He will take part in collecting, cross-dating
and analysing the material.
Alexander Yu. Surkov, technician, 30 years old. He will take part
in collecting, preparing and measuring the subfossil wood samples.
Dr E.A.Vaganov (Institute of Forest) will be the responsible
scientist on the proposed project and he will take part in
collecting, dating, developing and analysing the multi-millennial
ring-width chronology at the area of Taimyr Peninsula. The next
young scientists will be involved in the project:
Mukhtar M. Naurazbaev, junior research fellow,35 years old.
He will take part in collecting, preparing, measuring, cross-
dating and analysing the material.
Alexander V.Kirdyanov, post-graduate, 25 years old.
He will take part in data processing, density measurements,
chronology analysis.
Dmitry V.Ovchinnikov, post-graduate, 26 years old.
He will take part in cross-dating, data processing,
chronology analysis.
Dr K.R.Briffa (Climatic Research Unit) will be the responsible
scientist on the proposed project and he will take part in
analysing growth-climate relationships, developing statistical
models of tree growth, extracting climatic signal, reconstructing
and analysing climatic conditions of the remote past.
3.5.2 PLANNING
To carry-out the objectives of this proposal the workers of the
Russian laboratories will carry out an intensive collecting
subfossil wood during summers of 1xxx xxxx xxxxat two high-latitude
locations (Yamal and Taimyr peninsulas) using helicopters, boats
and ships. To finish the development of the Yamal chronology it
is necessary to collect additionally no less than xxx xxxx xxxxcuts of
subfossil wood. Much more intensive collecting (xxx xxxx xxxxcuts for
two field seasons) is needed to develop the Taimyr chronology.
All samples collected during these two years and earlier will be
measured and cross-dated at Ekaterinburg and Krasnoyarsk
laboratories until the middle of 1999.
The Russian laboratories together with the Climatic Research Unit
of the University of East Anglia during 1xxx xxxx xxxxwill be
analysing the material obtained (standardization of individual
series, development of mean chronologies, studying growth-climate
relationships, developing statistical models of tree growth,
extracting climatic signal, reconstructing and analysing climatic
conditions of the remote past). This work will be finished at the
end of 1999.
3.5.3 EQUIPMENT
Participants of the proposed project have the necessary equipment
for fieldwork, measuring equipment and compatible software.
3.5.4 SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES
Briffa, K.R., Jones, P.D., Schweingruber, F.H., Shiyatov, S.G.
and Cook, E.R. Unusual twentieth-century summer warmth in a
1,000-year temperature record from Siberia. Nature, 1995, Vol.
376, 13 July, xxx xxxx xxxx.
Briffa, K.R., Jones, P.D., Schweingruber, F.H., Shiyatov, S.G.,
Vaganov, E.A. Development of a North Eurasian chronology network:
Rationale and preliminary results of comparative ring-width and
densitimetric analyses in Northern Russia. Radiocarbon, 1996,
25-41.
Hantemirov, R.M. A 2,305 year tree-ring reconstruction of mean
June-July temperature deviations in the Yamal Peninsula.
Publication of the Academy of Finland,1995, 6, xxx xxxx xxxx.
Shiyatov, S.G., Mazepa, V.S., Vaganov, E.A., Schweingruber, F.H.
Summer temperature variations reconstructed by tree-ring Data at
the polar timberline in Siberia. Radiocarbon, 1996, 61-70.
Vaganov, E.A., Shiyatov, S.G., Mazepa, V.S. Dendroclimatic Study
in Ural-Siberian Subarctic. Novosibirsk: "Nauka", Siberian
Publishing Firm RAS, 1996, 246 pp. (in Russian).
Original Filename: 860182002.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: m.salmon@uea
Subject: from Rashit
Date: Fri Apr 4 14:26:xxx xxxx xxxx
>To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>Organization: ECOLOGY INSTITUTE
>From: "Tatiana M. Dedkova" <tatm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Date: Mon, 9 Dec 96 14:19:37 +0500
>Return-Receipt-To: tatm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>Subject: from Rashit
>Return-Receipt-To: tatm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>Lines: 106
>
>Dear Keith,
>we received your letters concerning our paper for Dendrochronologia
>and three long chronologies.
>1. As regards individual ring width data of living trees from
>Yamal we would remind you that you have them. Stepan gave to you
>in England one diskette. There are data for Larix sibirica from
>three sites (KHA - from Khadyta river, 67812'N 69850'E; JAH -
>from Yahody river 67807'N 69854'E and POR - from Portsa river
>67827'N 71800'E) and for Picea obovata from two points (SCH -
>Shtshutshya river 66849'N 69850'E and KHD - from Khadyta river
>67807'N 69854'E).
>2. We would be very gratefull if you can do some corrections and
>additions in the paper for Dendrochronologia. We did not quite
>understand what we have to do on missing rings? Just enumerate
>years when missing rings occur? If so, these are following years:
>
> Year absent % ind % Year absent % ind %
>-1xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 31
>-1xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 31
>-1xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 33
>-1xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 38
>-1xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 67
>-1xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 12
>-1xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 10
>-1xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 14
> -xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 34
> -xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 12
> -xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 30
> -xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 25
> -xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 61
> -xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 59
> -xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 28
> -xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 28
> -xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 8
> -xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 28
> -xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 36
> -xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 15
> -xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 44
> -xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 18
> -xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 58
> -xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 18
> -xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 53
> -xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 8
> -xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 14
> -xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 38
> -xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 9
> -xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 20
> -xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 24
> -xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 30
> -xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 10
> -xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxliving
> -xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof 16 6%
> xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxxof 16 6%
> xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxxof 20 5%
> xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxxof 20 10%
> xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof 20 5%
> xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxxof 20 15%
> xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxxof 20 5%
> xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxxof 21 5%
> xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxxof 21 5%
> xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxxof 22 5%
> xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxxof 22 5%
> xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxxof 22 5%
> xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxxof 22 5%
> xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxxof 22 5%
> xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxxof 22 5%
> xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxxof 22 5%
> xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxxof 22 5%
> xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxxof 22 5%
> xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof 22 73%
> xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxxof 22 5%
> xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof 22 64%
> xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxxof 22 27%
> xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof 22 55%
> xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 66
> l i v i n g
> 1xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 38
> 1xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 47
> 1xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 28
> 1xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 31
> 1xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 49
> 1xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 21
> 1xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 39
> 1xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 50
> 1xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 29
> 1xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 28
> 1xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 20
> 1xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 32
> 1xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 46
> 1xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 45
> 1xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 46
> 1xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 40
> 1xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 102
> 1xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 50
> 1xxx xxxx xxxxof xxx xxxx xxxx% 40
>
>We have to note that frequency of missing rings on increment
>cores of living trees higher, because on samples of subfossil
>trees we try to find this kind of rings on whole disc.
>Some periods are notable for missing rings: xxx xxxx xxxxBC, 882 BC,
>143 AD, xxx xxxx xxxxAD (especially 640 AD), xxx xxxx xxxxAD, 1453 AD
>and beginning of 1800th AD.
>3. Stepan ask what about book by Bailey?
>Best wishes,
>Rashit
>
>
Original Filename: 862839883.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Tatiana M. Dedkova" <tatm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: from Shiyatov
Date: Mon, 5 May 97 09:44:43 +0500
Dear Keith,
After our long silence we would like inform you about our
sucesses, problems and plans.
1. The main success to our mind is the next. We have filled up
the gap (1xxx xxxx xxxxBC) between the absolutely dated 3250-year
Yamal chronology and the nearest floating chronology. It was
happened few weeks ago using samples collected in 1996. Now
there are no obstacles to develop in the nearest future the
7xxx xxxx xxxxyear length continuous chronology. Now we are
working with ancient samples: searching the places of missing
and false rings, making more precise datings of individual
chronologies and so on. During this time interval we have some
problems. For example, no more samples were found up to now to
confirm the absence of false ring near 360 BC.
2. This summer we intend to hold an expedition from the end of
June to the middle of August in the southern part of Yamal
peninsula to collect more samples of subfossil wood which have
a great many of rings, are sensitive and cover the intervals
represented by insufficient quantity of samples at present. We
think that during this field season we must collect a necessary
quantity of samples to develop a well represented 7xxx xxxx xxxx
years chronology. Next year we intend to collect subfossil
samples of wood from the middle part of Yamal peninsula to
reconstruct the dynamics of polar timberline during the
Holocene in detail using a large number of tree remnants
absolutely dated by dendrochronological method.
2. This year we have a small grant the from the Russsian
Science Foundation for developing the Yamal supra-long
chronology (approximately 4000 USD). But we are not sure
that all this sum we will receive. For example, last year we
have received 37% from the promised sum of money. As cost of
helicopter's rent is increased again this year (about $ 2.000
for one hour), we have the problem how to reach our research
area in the Yamal peninsula. E. Vaganov have the same problem
with organisation of field works over the territory of Taimyr
peninsula. That is why we and E.Vaganov ask you to transfer
each of us 7-8.000 USD until the end of June from the ADVANCE
project, if it is possible. Last summer, when I was in England,
you promised to help us with money to organise field works this
year.
3. I am finishing a measurements of rings of subfossil wood
samples collected last year on the surface and in one lake
and some bogs in the Polar Ural Mountains. I found a little
more ancient wood (not all samples are dated until now) and
can prolong this chronology at least up to one hundred years.
This summer I will be in the mountains and try to collect
wood from other lakes. I want to develop the Polar Urals
chronology for the last 2.000 years.
4. Now we are preparing the paper concerning Yamal project
in Russian and we need to cite the paper prepared for
Dendrochronologia in English. Could you send to us the last
version of this articles by e-mail or by post?
We wish you and your family the best. We wish the same to
Phil Jones and his family.
Sincerely yours
Stepan Shiyatov and Rashit Hantemirov
Original Filename: 865941506.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Isaak M. Khalatnikov" <khalat@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Keith Briffa
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 97 07:18:26 +0400 (MSD)
Dear Keith,
Thank you for the message of 5 June, 1997.
I am anderstanding your difficulties with transfering money and I
think the best way for us if you will bring money to Krasnoyarsk
and I give you a receipt.
Rashit will go to Yamal at the end of June and I go to the Polar
Urals at the beginnind of July. We can find money temporary at our
Institute and other sources for three months to fulfill our fieldworks.
Now I am at two weeks holiday with my wife and granddother near Moscow
after the meeting of Russian Academy of Sciences where E.Vaganov was
elected as the Academician. It is important for dendrochronological
srudies at our country and international collaboration.
Sincerely yours Stepan Shiyatov
Original Filename: 866572566.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Tatiana M. Dedkova" <tatm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: from Shiyatov
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 97 14:36:06 +0500
Dear Keith,
I am not sure you received my message sent the last week from
Moscow. Therefore I decided to repeat it.
Thank you for the message of 5 June,1997.
I am anderstanding your difficulties with transfering money and I
think the best way for us if you will bring money to Krasnoyarsk
and I give you a receipt.
Rashit will go to Yamal at the end of June and I go to the Polar
Urals at the beginning of July. We can find money temporary at our
Institute and other sources for three months to fulfill our fieldworks.
Now I am at two weeks holiday with my wife and grand-daughter near Moscow
after the meeting of Russian Academy of Sciences where E.Vaganov was
elected as the Academician of RAS. It is important for dendrochronological
studies at our country and international collaboration.
Sincerely yours Stepan Shiyatov
Original Filename: 870465098.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Arnulf Gruebler <gruebler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, knut.alfsen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dennis.anderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, becon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, g.r.davis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, fisher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gruebler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ja_edmonds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, j.fennhann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, stuart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Fewewar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kennethgregory@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ehaites@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, bhare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jefferson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tyjung@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, emilio@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, brahman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, vc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dpid@[169.158.128.138], d.mckay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, laurie.michaelis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mori@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t-morita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rmoss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ynassef@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wpepper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hm_pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, lkprice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, J.F.Skea@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, leena@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ipcc_sec@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rob.swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rwatson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, weyant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, e.worrell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rogner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: No Subject
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 15:51:38 +0200
<x-rich>
Dear Participants,
Please find attached the Minutes of the SRES Meeting in Laxenburg, June 14-16. 1997.
Please note that the list of participants will be sent additionally Monday, 4th of August.
Best regards,
Arnulf
</x-rich>
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachfinalmin.doc"
<x-rich>
<center>Dr. Arnulf Gruebler
Environmentally Compatible Energy Strategies
International Institute for | Email: gruebler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Applied Systems Analysis | Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria | Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx</center></x-rich>
Original Filename: 872202064.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Wallace, Helen" <helen.wallace@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "'t.mcmichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx'" <t.mcmichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx'" <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Letter
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 18:21:04 +0100
Dear Tony and Michael,
The final draft of the letter to the Times is attached, incorperating
your changes (I hope I have combined them in a way that you are both
happy with).
Brian Hoskins and Adrian Jenkins have both decided that they prefer not
to sign the letter, although agreeing with its message. I haven't been
able to contact anyone else in the short time available, so I leave it
up to you to decide whether you are still both happy to go ahead.
If so, Mike could you please reply to both Tony and myself and let us
know, and Tony could you then send it as agreed?
Thank you both very much for your time and trouble.
Best regards,
Helen
Dr Helen Wallace
Senior Scientist
Greenpeace UK
Greenpeace, Canonbury Villas, London, N1 2PN
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
---------------------------
FINAL DRAFT
Letters Editor
The Times
Fax: 0xxx xxxx xxxx
Email: letters@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
21 June 1997
Dear Sir,
Without wishing to comment on the dispute between BP and Greenpeace
(Editorial, 20 August), we would like to remind your readers of the
seriousness of the potential threat caused by our continued use of
fossil fuels. This damage occurs both locally - as evidenced by the
deterioration of air quality in UK cities in the past few weeks - and
also globally.
As scientists studying the impacts of climate change, we consider the
global threat from greenhouse gases to be serious and to need
addressing. Adverse effects on human populations are likely to result
from changes in weather patterns, shifts in storm frequencies, rises in
sea level and the spread of certain pests and infectious diseases. A
wide variety of ecosystems throughout the world will be at increasing
risk.
We have little idea whether or not we can manage such adverse effects
and therefore the prudent course of action is to limit the cause of the
threat.
Major shifts in investment away from fossil fuels will therefore be
required to make the necessary reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide
to the atmosphere. Large companies like British Petroleum seem to us to
be well placed to take an active part in investing in these changes.
There is no doubt the need for precautionary, preventative action is
urgent.
Yours sincerely,
Prof. A.J. McMichael
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
University of London
Keppel Street
London
WC1E 7HT
Dr. M. Hulme
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich
NR4 7TJ
Original Filename: 876171248.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Nebojsa Nakicenovic <naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, knut.alfsen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dennis.anderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, becon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Ged.R.Davis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ja_edmonds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, j.fenhann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, fisher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, stuart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Fewewar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kennethgregory@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gruebler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ehaites@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, bhare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jefferson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tyjung@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kram@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, emilio@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, brahman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Rik.Leemans@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, vc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dpid@[169.158.128.138], Doug.D.Mckay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, laurie.michaelis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mori@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t-morita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rmoss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, nassef@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wpepper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hm_pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, lkprice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rogner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, leo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, J.F.Skea@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, leena@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rob.swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Bert.de.Vries@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, weyant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, e.worrell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dgvictor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: IPCC - a) Meeting, 17-19. Sept. 97; b) New Bureau
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 16:54:08 +0200
Cc: macdon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jaeger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, leo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, johnson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mcdonald@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-rich>Dear Colleagues,
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of you who have attended the
SRES Lead Authors' meeting xxx xxxx xxxxSeptember 1997) and Rob Swart and
his colleagues from RIVM for organizing and hosting the meeting.
We have achieved a lot in the three short days as you will soon also see
from the minutes. The minutes of the meeting will be forwarded to you later this week
together with the revised SRES work plan that we have discussed during the meeting.
Sorry that it took a while longer this time for the completion of the minutes,
but I hope that they will refresh you memory about the outcome of the meeting.
Erik Haites just e-mailed that he returned from the IPCC plenary meeting in
Maldives and that the new IPCC Bureau has been appointed. It consists of
30 members: the Chair (Bob Watson), 5 Vice-Chairs (R. Pachuari (India), R.
Odingo (Kenya), G. Meira Filho (Brazil), Y. Izrael (Russia), K. Seiki
(Japan), and 8 Bureau members for each of the three Working Groups. The
Bureau for Working Group III (responsible for SRES) is B. Metz
(Netherlands), O. Davidson (Sierra Leone), E. Jochem (Germany), M.
Munasinghe (Sri Lanka), E. Calvo (Peru), R. Madruga (Cuba), R.T.M.
Sutamihardja (Indonesia), and L. Lorentsen (Norway).
Best regards,
Naki
<center>Nebojsa Nakicenovic
Project Leader
Environmentally Compatible Energy Strategies
International Institute for | Email: naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Applied Systems Analysis | Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria | Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx</center>
</x-rich>
Original Filename: 876250531.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Angela.LIBERATORE@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: "m.hulme" <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Martin.OConnor" <Martin.OConnor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, alcamo <alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jaeger <jaeger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, dvm <dvm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, eepriia <eepriia@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, hourcade <hourcade@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "t.jackson" <t.jackson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jaeger <jaeger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, vertic <vertic@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "pier.vellinga" <pier.vellinga@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, pweingart <pweingart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, fy1 <fy1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Copy of: climate: Japanese proposal
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 14:55:31 +0200
From: Andrew Kerr <101322.3724@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Sender: Andrew Kerr <101322.3724@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Peter DEBRINE <Peter.Debrine@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Patricia DESMARES <patricia.desmares@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Cherry FARROW <cfarrow@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Elizabeth FOLEY <EFOLEY@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Karen GILL <kgill@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
"Merylyn HEDGER (wwfnet)" <mmhedger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Martin HILLER <mhiller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Aldo IACOMELLI <aldo.jacomelli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Lars Georg JENSEN <wwf2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve JUDD <smjudd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Paolo LOMBARDI <mc2236@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tony LONG <tlong@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Sten LUNDBERG <sten.lundberg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Nick MABEY <nmabey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Adam MARKHAM <ADAM.MARKHAM@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Gisele McAULIFFE <gisele.mcauliffe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Konrad MEYER <konrad.meyer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Stefan MOIDL <STEFAN_MOIDL@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Lee POSTON <LEE.POSTON@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Michael RAE <wwfmrae@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Andrea RIES <andrea.ries@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Sible SCHONE <sschone@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stephan SINGER <singer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Marc van den TWEEL <mtweel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Marijke UNGER <marijke.unger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Koichi WATANABE 2 <LDN02771@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Helge WEINBERG <weinberg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Michael Brown <mvbrown@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
"Kornelis BLOK (ecofys)" <k.blok@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
"Kornelis BLOK (univ)" <blok@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Yvo de BOER <y.y.deboer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Michael BROWN <100563.1340@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Renate CHRIST <Renate.CHRIST@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Kirsty HAMILTON <KIRSTY.HAMILTON@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Kirsty HAMILTON 2 <khamilton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Sabri ZAIN <sabriz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bill HARE 1 <BHARE@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Bill HARE 2 <bill.hare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Martina KRUEGER <MKRUEGER@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Penehuro LEFALE <lefale@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Yasuko MATSUMOTO <yasuko.matsumoto@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Paul METZ <pemetz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Katarina PANJI <KPanji@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
"Michel RAQUET (dg11)" <Michel.RAQUET@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Holger ROENITZ <hroenitz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Cornelia SIDLER <Cornelia.Sidler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
"Ad van WIJK (ecofys)" <a.vanwijk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
"Ad van WIJK (uu)" <vwijk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: climate: Japanese proposal
Message-ID: <199710051347_MC2-22DC-A5E4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Andrew Kerr, WWF Climate Change Campaign
re.: "scandalous" Japanese climate change proposal
Dear All
I am in Japan for the next week. If you need to, you can contact me by
phone at the following numbers:
* Monday - xxx xxxx xxxx(Yurika?s mobile)
* Tuesday-Thursday - via WWF Japan. Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx; fax: 3xxx xxxx xxxx.
* Friday - Tokyo Grand Hotel. Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
Tomorrow the Japanese government is due to formally announce its emission
reduction proposal for the industrialised world for the Kyoto climate
summit: a maximum of a 5% reduction from 1990 levels for a basket of three
greenhouse gases over the period 2xxx xxxx xxxx. In a second period up to 2017,
industrialised countries would not be obliged to make further reductions.
See below for fuller details and an analysis of the emission
reduction implications for various industrialised nations.
The information has been well-leaked. In a talk to the Foreign
Correspondents Club of Japan last Friday I described the proposal as a
"joke". This was well picked up by the written press here.
Now more details have emerged, the proposal is even weaker than first
thought. We are faxing a press release out this afternoon to Japan-based
agencies and press with WWF?s reaction (see below). You might like to join
in the condemnation of what Japan is proposing and ensure that your country
flatly rejects the proposal.
Japan?s Special Ambassador, Toshiaki Tanabe, is on a world tour canvassing
for the support of other industrialised nations. After visiting Washington
DC he moved on to Hawaii a few days ago for an informal conference
including Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US. Today's Yomiuri
Shimbun gave front-page coverage to Australia?s outrage over the stringency
of the Japanese proposal!
Tanabe is moving to Europe for talks in the next few days. It is vital that
European governments reject the proposal in no uncertain terms and urge
Japan to at least support the EU standpoint. (Note: the WWF policies and
measures study for Japan identifies how to cut CO2 emissions 8.8% below
1990 levels by 2005 and 14.8% by 2010 - very similar to the EU position).
It would also be very useful if progressive business groups would express
their horror at the new economic opportunities which will be foregone if
Kyoto is a flop.
Best wishes, Andrew
---
CLIMATE CHANGE: JAPANESE PROPOSAL FOR KYOTO
To be formally announced by the Japanese government, Monday 6 October 1997
Following information is from the Nikkei Journal, 4 October 1997
A. Content of the proposal
1. First period: the five years from 2008 to 2012
Reduction of 5%; Base year: 1990
1) Gases: CO2, methane, Nitrous oxide
2) Target figures will be flexible according to the future energy
situation, changes in industrial structures, etc. But in any case, the
total emission should not exceed 1990 level.
3) Each country's target would be based on emission per GDP, emission per
capita, and population growth rate.
If emission per GDP of 1990 (A) is smaller than emission per GDP of all
countries (B), the reduction rate should be 5%x(A/B)
If per capita emission of 1990(C) is smaller than per capita emission of
all countries (D), the reduction rate should be 5%x(C/D).
If population growth rate from 1990 to 1995 is more than the population
growth rate of all other countries, the reduction target of that country
should put into consideration their high population growth rate.
Banking, Borrowing, Joint Implementaion and Emission Trading schemes should
be introduced with certain conditions.
2. Second period: 2xxx xxxx xxxx
Emission should not exceed the level of the first period.
More sophisticated differentiation scheme should be adopted for the second
period.
B. Implications of the proposal
Resulting emission reduction targets for the five years 2xxx xxxx xxxx, relative
to 1990:
%
Australia 1.8
Czech Republic 5.0
Denmark 2.5
Germany 3.1
Italy 2.5
Japan 2.5
Portugal 1.6
Russia 5.0
Spain 2.2
Switzerland 1.3
UK 3.7
US 2.6
Overall reduction for all industrialised countries: 3.2 %
---
WWF PRESS RELEASE
JAPAN PROPOSAL FOR KYOTO SUMMIT SCANDALOUS, WWF SAYS
KYOTO, JAPAN, 5 October 1997 ? The World Wide Fund for Nature condemned as
"scandalous" the Japanese government?s proposal for reducing greenhouse
gases responsible for climate change, Sunday, and called on industrialised
nations to flatly reject it.
As full details of the proposal emerged over the weekend, it was revealed
that Japan suggests allowing industrialised countries to make extremely
marginal reductions in their emissions by as late as 2xxx xxxx xxxx. In a
second five-year period up to 2017, countries would only be required to
ensure their emissions were lower than in 1990.
"The Japanese plan presents a bleak future for the environment, already
suffering from the serious impacts of global warming including rising
sea-levels, rising sea temperatures, and increased extreme weather patterns
? to name just a few," said Andrew Kerr of WWF?s international Climate
Change Campaign. "The plan is laughable when you consider that some
European nations already have cut their greenhouse gas emissions by several
times more than the amount Japan proposes for emission reductions more than
a decade from now."
According to the just released "WWF State of the Climate" report that
evaluates the global impacts of climate change, a long list of impacts
already are visible today including the destruction of several land and
marine ecosystems in Asia and around the world because they cannot keep up
with the pace of global warming.
The Japanese proposal also proves the government is back-tracking on a
Ministerial Declaration concluded at the 1996 climate summit in Geneva. At
that conference, 130 countries, including Japan, agreed that the Kyoto
Summit should agree on "legally-binding objectives for emission limitations
and significant overall reductions" of greenhouse gases. At the Geneva
meeting, the Ministers recognised that climate change science showed human
activities, primarily the burning of coal, oil and gasoline, are already
affecting the planet?s climate and the impacts would be wide-ranging and
irreversible, posing threats to food supplies, public health and the
survival of many species. Nations also agreed that "significant reductions
in net greenhouse gas emissions are technically possible and economically
feasible".
WWF is calling on industrial nations to cut their carbon dioxide emissions
20 percent below 1990 levels by 2005. A WWF report written by Dr. Haruki
Tsuchiya of the Research Institute for Systems Technology, in Tokyo, (to be
released by WWF later this month) shows that Japan can reduce its carbon
dioxide emissions by nearly nine percent by 2005 and by almost 15 percent
by 2010 without damaging the economy. Policies and measures suggested by
the WWF report would stimulate the economy and help position Japan as a
world leader in the development of new, energy efficient technologies.
"Environmentally, Japan?s plan is worse than no plan whatsoever because it
pretends to legitimise an emissions cut that is so low it will produce no
tangible result in the effort to combat climate change, " said Kerr. "Even
more alarming, it encourages many nations also to cut their emissions by
much less than they now plan. This proposal is an embarrassment for Japan
because it spells disaster for the Kyoto Summit in December which will be
seen as an absolute failure by several European nations and the entire
environmental community if such meagre greenhouse gas emission cuts are
adopted."
The complicated emission-reduction formulae that Japan proposes would
require Japan to make only a 2.5 percent cut in emissions. The United
States, responsible for over one-fifth of world releases of carbon dioxide,
would only need to make a 2.6 percent reduction. Highlighting the
political irrelevance of the Japanese formula, Germany, Denmark and the UK
would have to make reductions of 3.1 percent, 2.5 percent and 3.7 percent
respectively. But Germany already has achieved around half of its national
target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 25 percent by 2005. Denmark
is aiming for a 20 percent reduction by the same date and the UK?s target
is a 20 percent cut by 2010.
Contact: Andrew Kerr or Yurika Ayukawa. Mobile tel: xxx xxxx xxxxand
Hearton Hotel, xxx xxxx xxxx.
Original Filename: 876437553.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Joseph Alcamo <alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Rob.Swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Mike, Rob,
Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.
I would like to weigh in on two important questions --
Distribution for Endorsements --
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as
possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is
numbers. The media is going to say "1000 scientists signed" or "1500
signed". No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
different story.
Conclusion -- Forget the screening, forget asking
them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those
names!
Timing -- I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late.
1. We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was
a sag in related news, but in the week before Kyoto we should expect
that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.
2. If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am
afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any
time to pay attention to it. We should give them a few weeks to hear
about it.
3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have
it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread
the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn't be so
bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a
diffeent day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two
very different directions.
Conclusion -- I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17
November at the latest.
Mike -- I have no organized email list that could begin to compete
with the list you can get from the Dutch. But I am still
willing to send you what I have, if you wish.
Best wishes,
Joe Alcamo
----------------------------------------------------
Prof. Dr. Joseph Alcamo, Director
Center for Environmental Systems Research
University of Kassel
Kurt Wolters Strasse 3
D-34109 Kassel
Germany
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Original Filename: 876860264.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Ben Santer <bsanter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: ritson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, covey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tbarnett-ul@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: (Fwd) Re: Your Holocene paper with Barnett et al 6.xxx xxxx xxxxpage 255
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:17:xxx xxxx xxxx
Dear Dr. Ritson,
Your email to Phil Jones suggests that there are serious discrepancies between
the ECHAM1/LSG power spectrum that I computed for the 1995 Barnett et al.
Holocene paper and the ECHAM1/LSG power spectrum that Curt Covey posted on the
WWW. This is not the case. At the time that Tim Barnett, Phil Jones, Keith
Briffa and I performed the research that is the subject of the Holocene paper,
only 600 years of control run data were available from ECHAM1/LSG. This is
stated on page 256 of the Holocene paper. The first ca. xxx xxxx xxxxyears of this
control integration incorporated a large, non-linear climate drift component.
This was manifested both in globally-averaged temperature and in other climate
variables (see Santer et al., 1995, JGR 100, 10,693-10,725).
Prior to computing the spectrum I removed the overall (i.e., 600-year)
least-squares linear trend. There is still considerable low-frequency variance
in the residuals, in part (but not wholly) due to the non-linearity of the
drift component in the first few centuries. This residual drift explains some
portion of the GFDL-versus-ECHAM1 power discrepancies at timescales of >100
years.
The CMIP project received data from MPI well after the completion of the
research described in the Barnett et al. paper. At that time, I believe that
1,250 years of ECHAM1/LSG control run data were made available. My
understanding is that Curt did not use the first (drift-contaminatedxxx xxxx xxxxyears
of the ECHAM1/LSG control run when he computed the ECHAM1 spectrum displayed on
the CMIP WWW page. HIs analysis relied on the last 1,000 years of the data.
Not surprisingly, neglecting the first 250 years makes a big difference to the
computed spectrum. This is particularly apparent at low frequencies, and also
in the variance ratio (between periods of 300 and 2 years) that you compute.
I hope this clarifies things. Should you still have residual concerns about our
method of spectral analysis (which is standard and follows Jenkins and Watts),
I'd be happy to provide you with a copy of the program that was used to
generate the spectra.
Sincerely,
Ben Santer
--- Forwarded mail from Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:42:29 +0100
To: ritson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Your Holocene paper with Barnett et al 6.xxx xxxx xxxxpage 255
Cc: bsanter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
David,
I can only suggest you contact Ben Santer who did the
analysis for Table 1. Ben is generally very busy - his
email is bsanter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx .
Cheers
Phil
At 01:10 PM 10/13/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
> Two quick questions about your Fig 1, power spectrum of global mean
>averaged temperature.
>
>1) You don't provide units. I would have expected that
>
> <DT**2> Integral(G(f).df)
>
>would be the normalization with G(f) being the power spectrum and DT the
>RMS variance. Obviously this is not what you used. What are your units?
>
>2) I checked your ECHAM1 results for the ratio of the power spectrum at
>a period of 300 years to the value at 2 years against the posted CMIP
>LLNL power spectrum on the WWW. Aside from units the ratios of CMIP
>and yours appear to differ by a factor of the order of 6. As you are both
>using the same data base(?) and Curtis Covey of LLNL said he used Ben Santers
>program for power spectra this discrepancy seems a litle strange. Who is
right
>or are you both right?
>
>I would check it myself in a matter of day(s) but getting model data bases
>is a bureacratic nightmare.
>
>Dave
>
Dr Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
592xxx xxxx xxxxSchool of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0)
1xxx xxxx xxxxUniversity of East Anglia
Norwich
Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---End of forwarded mail from Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Original Filename: 878654527.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re:
Date: Tue Nov 4 09:42:xxx xxxx xxxx
Tom
please do. Actually I would be interested to know whether Malcolm mentioned these results to Dave as he was in Krasnoyarsk a few months ago when I showed this stuff. I will be over in New York in a few weeks to discuss with Ed the possibility of putting in an NSF/NERC proposal to look at the tree biomass change question. Also,the initial impetus to redo this stuff was as part of a NERC project we have running in colllaboration with Ian Woodward - i which we are inputting high resolution climate data to Dolly to assess the roll of such variability on carbon uptake
cheers
Keith
At 02:54 PM 11/3/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
>Keith,
>
>Malcolm Hughes was here on Friday to see Dave Schimel about precisely the
>issue you raise. Dave wants to see if he can validate his ecosystem model
>using tree ring data. Sounds as if you already have the data to do this.
>Can I show your e-mail to Dave?
>
>Tom
>
>On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, Keith Briffa wrote:
>
>>
>> Tom
>> thanks for the info. Actually this is a chance for me to to mention that
>> we have for the last few months at least, been reworking the idea of
>> looking in the Schweingruber network data for evidence of increasing tree
>> growth and hence ,potentially at least, evidence of changing tree(read
>> biomass) uptake of carbon.
>> The results are dramatic - not to say earth shattering because they
>> demonstrate major time-dependent changes - but changes that are consistent
>> in different areas of the network. We have regionalised over 350 site
>> collections , each with ring width and density data , age-banded the data
>> so that we look only at relative growth in similar ages of trees through
>> time and recombined the standardisd curves to produce growth changes in
>> each region. Basically growth is roughly constant (except for relatively
>> small climate variablity forcing) from 1700 to about 1850. It then
>> increases linearly by about up until about 1950 after which time young ( up
>> to 50 year old) basal area explodes but older trees remain constant . The
>> implication is a major increase in carbon uptake before the mid 20th
>> century - temperatue no doubt partly to blame but much more likely to be
>> nitrate/Co2 . Equally important though is the levelling off of carbon
>> uptake in the later 20th century. This levelling is coincident with the
>> start of a density decline - we have a paper coming out in Nature
>> documenting the decline . In relative terms (i.e. by comparison with
>> increasing summer temperatures) the decline is represented in the ring
>> width and basal area data as a levelling off in the long-timescale inrease
>> ( which you only see when you process the data as we have). The density
>> data do not show the increase over and above what you expect from
>> temperature forcing.
>> I have been agonising for months that these results are not some
>> statistical artifact of the analysis method but we can't see how. For just
>> two species (spruce in the western U.S. Great Basin area and larch in
>> eastern Siberia) we can push the method far enough to get an indication of
>> much longer term growth changes ( from about 1400) and the results confirm
>> a late 20th century apparent fertilization! The method requires
>> standardizing (localized mean subtraction and standard deviation division)
>> by species/age band so we reconstruct relative (e.g. per cent change) only .
>> We have experimented with integrating the different signals in basal area
>> and density(after extracting intra ring ring width and density data where
>> available) within a 'flat mass' measure which shows a general late 20th
>> century increase - but whether this incorporates a defensible relative
>> waiting on the different components (and what the relative carbon
>> components are) is debatable. We now need to make some horrible simplistic
>> assumptions about absolute carbon in these (relatively small) components of
>> the total biomass carbon pool and imlpications for terrestrial and total
>> carbon fluxes over the last few hundred years - and beyond! Without these
>> implications we will have difficulty convincing Nature that this work is
>> mega important.
>> There are problems with explaining and interpreting these data but they are
>> by far the best produced for assessing large scale carbon-cycle-relevant
>> vegetation changes - at least as regards well-dated continous trends. I
>> will send you a couple of Figures ( a tiny sample of the literally hundreds
>> we have) which illustrate some of this. I would appreciate your reaction.
>> Obviously this stuff is very hush hush till I get a couple of papers
>> written up on this. We are looking at a moisture sensive network of data at
>> the moment to see if any similar results are produced when
>> non-temperature-sensitive data are used. You would expect perhaps a greater
>> effect in such data if Co2 acts on the water use efficiency .
>> At 09:30 AM 11/3/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
>> >Dear Keith,
>> >
>> >Look at Tremblay et al. GRL 24, 2xxx xxxx xxxx(1997) and Dyke et al. Arctic 50,
>> >xxx xxxx xxxx(1997). These papers deal with driftwood in the Arctic over the past
>> >9000 years. They note that genera can be distinguished, but not species
>> >Hence, they can't say where the wood comes from, North America versus
>> >Europe. Surely cross-dating could do this? May be worth getting in touch
>> >with Dyke et al.
>> >
>> >Tom
>> >
>> --
>> Dr. Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia,
>> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom
>> Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>
>
>
> **********************************************************
> *Tom M.L. Wigley *
> *Senior Scientist *
> *National Center for Atmospheric Research *
> *P.O. Box 3000 *
> *Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx *
> *USA *
> *Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx *
> *Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx *
> *E-mail: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx *
> **********************************************************
>
>
Original Filename: 879365369.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: richard.tol@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: "m.hulme" <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: re: positives and negatives
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 97 15:09:29 CET
Cc: "timothy.mitchell" <timothy.mitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>It would indeed be interesting to poll all of our invitees using a more
>sophisticated
>questionnaire, but this is not what we are about. For example, if you
>disagree
>with the Statement I would be interested to know the grounds of your
>disagreement.
Mike,
Thanks.
I am always worried about this sort of things. Even if you have 1000
signitures, and appear to have a strong backup, how many of those asked did
not sign?
Also, I happen to be of the opinion that the US proposal for Kyoto is too
ambitious. But of course I am thinking of real policies, not of
negotiation-rhetoric.
Finally, I think that the text conveys the message that it is a scientific
defense for the EU position. There is not any. Even DG11 finds a hard to
defend (at least, in the draft version of their attempt -- I don't think the
final version has appeared yet). Whatever you think about long-term goals,
2010 is pretty soon. At the moment, no country has any experience with
serious emission reduction POLICY. Minus 15% is serious, particularly because
of the effort that will be spend on the monetary union and because the UK and
Germany are too optimistic on their baseline emissions. Rash action instead
careful thinking may well run serious, international climate policy deep into
the ground.
Cheers
Richard
Original Filename: 879803996.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Richard Baker <r.baker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Finalising PRAPROC! 21st November 1997
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 16:59:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: r.baker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Mike
> I hope you had my comments from a few weeks ago.
Yes, sorry I've taken so long to reply.
> 1. Overheads: we charge EU projects 20% overheads and these are totally
> acceptable
Yes, you are quite right.
> 2. Budget: I will need to redraft our budget. Please tell me estimated
> start data and for how long the project will run. I envisage our budget
> remaining in the bracket 60-70k ECU
I guess we are looking to April 1998 at the very earliest. I heard that
some SMT projects take up to 2 years to get going even after they've
been approved due to wrangles over the budget. We have 1 million ECU for
3 years....so some project budgets will have to be cut. Yours looks
fine.
> 3. Workplan: I am assuming the basic climate tasks remain pretty much as
> before, namely:
>
> a) 10' gridded monthly climate data for Europe for 1xxx xxxx xxxxlinked to a weather
> generator that will yield daily data. Key variables: precip., tmin, tmax,
> vapour pressure, sunshine/radiation, wind, wet days, frost days.
Yes, that'll do nicely!
> b) for the world a 0.5deg gridded dataset for 1xxx xxxx xxxxat monthly timesteps
Excellent!
> c) what was decided about very high resolution climate surfaces for 1-2
> regions?
> This was in the original proposal but got dropped I think. Adding this back
> to our work plan would involve extra time and hence resources. How
> important are
> these test 1km (?) resolution datasets?
We've had a problem contacting the Spaniards which is a bit of a blow
because they gave a nice geospatial feel to the project. The Norwegians
are proposing to conduct a high resolution study near Oslo..I think
they'll be interpolating locally collected data. I'll send you their
proposal as soon as I can get it into a little better shape but, in
principle, I think it would be best if you could, at this stage, just
stick to the low resolution work.
> 4. Other EU projects: I suggest you mention my involement in CLIVARA
> which is
> funded through the Environment/CLimate programme of DGXII. This is running
> from
> 1xxx xxxx xxxxand is concerned with mapping and modelling agriculture across the
> EU under 1xxx xxxx xxxxconditions and also under future climate change.
> Co-ordinated
> by Environmental Change Unit at University of Oxford. let me know if you want
> more info. on this.
A brief update to your "partner information" would be great.
> Can you confirm for me which forms I need to get completed? Do you
> have copies to send me or should I get them from here.
I'm putting some in the post for you.
> I shall not be able to be with you in York on Friday, but I am here
> all this week if there are questions.
many thanks..there are sure to be some.
All the very best
Richard
Original Filename: 880476729.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: jan.goudriaan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, grassl_h@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Klaus Hasselmann <klaus.hasselmann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jill Jaeger <jaeger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rector@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, oriordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, uctpa84@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, john@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mparry@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pier.vellinga@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: ATTENTION. Invitation to influence Kyoto.
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 11:52:xxx xxxx xxxx(MST)
Reply-to: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, t.mitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Eleven,
I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get
others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of
this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the
IPCC "view" when you say that "the latest IPCC assessment makes a
convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions." In contrast
to the one-sided opinion expressed in your letter, IPCC WGIII SAR and TP3
review the literature and the issues in a balanced way presenting
arguments in support of both "immediate control" and the spectrum of more
cost-effective options. It is not IPCC's role to make "convincing cases"
for any particular policy option; nor does it. However, most IPCC readers
would draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors the
emissions trajectories given in the WRE paper. This is contrary to your
statement.
This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a
dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is
apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed,
balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not
be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In
issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their
personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others
when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their
scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.
Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal
views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No
scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever
endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully
themselves. You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just
this! I fear that some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief
that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science
-- when, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords
with IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on
the subject.
Let me remind you of the science. The issue you address is one of the
timing of emissions reductions below BAU. Note that this is not the same
as the timing of action -- and note that your letter categorically
addresses the former rather than the latter issue. Emissions reduction
timing is epitomized by the differences between the Sxxx and WRExxx
pathways towards CO2 concentration stabilization. It has been clearly
demonstrated in the literature that the mitigation costs of following an
Sxxx pathway are up to five times the cost of following an equivalent
WRExxx pathway. It has also been shown that there is likely to be an
equal or greater cost differential for non-Annex I countries, and that the
economic burden in Annex I countries would fall disproportionately on
poorer people.
Furthermore, since there has been no credible analysis of the benefits
(averted impacts) side of the equation, it is impossible to assess fully
the benefits differential between the Sxxx and WRExxx stabilization
profiles. Indeed, uncertainties in predicting the regional details of
future climate change that would arise from following these pathways, and
the even greater uncertainties that attend any assessment of the impacts
of such climate changes, preclude any credible assessment of the relative
benefits. As shown in the WRE paper (Nature v. 379, pp. xxx xxxx xxxx), the
differentials at the global-mean level are so small, at most a few tenths
of a degree Celsius and a few cm in sea level rise and declining to
minuscule amounts as the pathways approach the SAME target, that it is
unlikely that an analysis of future climate data could even distinguish
between the pathways. Certainly, given the much larger noise at the
regional level, and noting that even the absolute changes in many
variables at the regional level remain within the noise out to 2030 or
later, the two pathways would certainly be indistinguishable at the
regional level until well into the 21st century.
The crux of this issue is developing policies for controlling greenhouse
gas emissions where the reductions relative to BAU are neither too much,
too soon (which could cause serious economic hardship to those who are
most vulnerable, poor people and poor countries) nor too little, too late
(which could lead to future impacts that would be bad for future
generations of the same groups). Our ability to quantify the economic
consequences of "too much, too soon" is far better than our ability to
quantify the impacts that might arise from "too little, too late" -- to
the extent that we cannot even define what this means! You appear to be
putting too much weight on the highly uncertain impacts side of the
equation. Worse than this, you have not even explained what the issues
are. In my judgment, you are behaving in an irresponsible way that does
you little credit. Furthermore, you have compounded your sin by actually
putting a lie into the mouths of innocents ("after carefully examining the
question of timing of emissions reductions, we find the arguments against
postponement to be more compelling"). People who endorse your letter will
NOT have "carefully examined" the issue.
When scientists color the science with their own PERSONAL views or make
categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such
statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what
they are doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is,
in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than
the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics, Michaels, Singer et al. I
find this extremely disturbing.
Tom Wigley
On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Tim Mitchell wrote:
> Reference: Statement of European Climate Scientists on Actions to Protect
> Global Climate
>
> Dear Colleague,
>
> Attached at the end of this email is a Statement, the purpose of which is
> to bolster or increase governmental and public support for controls of
> emissions of greenhouse gases in European and other industrialised
> countries in the negotiations during the Kyoto Climate Conference in
> December 1997. The Statement was drafted by a number of prominent European
> scientists concerned with the climate issue, 11 of whom are listed after
> the Statement and who are acting as formal sponsors of the Statement.
>
> ***** The 11 formal sponsors are: *****
>
> Jan Goudriaan Hartmut Grassl Klaus Hasselmann Jill J
Original Filename: 881356379.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Stepan,Eugene
Subject: papers/Holocene/etc.
Date: Fri Dec 5 16:12:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: fritz.schweingruber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Stepan and Eugene
I don't know whether you have received your copies of the 1996 issue of Dendrochronologia yet but in case not I have seen the issue and it looks very good. Your two papers on Yamal and Taimyr are there and they both look excellent. Stepan I received receipt for money and the data and photographs your sent . I am very grateful for all . Thankyou. Again I can only say sorry about the problems of money transfer.
The first thing I wish to say is that I know we have been unsuccessful with our recent applications to INTAS and COPERNICUS . However , if you agree , I would like to resubmit a new proposal to INTAS in March to continue the development of the long chronologies. I will write it and stress the success todate and the need to carry on the formal collaboration. What is your joint opinion on this?
The Nature paper on the decline story is now officially accepted and I still hope it may come out before Christmas or at least shortly afterwards. I will be writing a story about increasing basal area on the long term as I showed in Krasnoyarsk and I also intend to submit this to Science or Nature and you will be coauthors on that. We also have done a lot of work on the growing season degree day reconstructions and will write up another joint paper on this soon - but I am trying to get the ringwidth data produced by you two incorporated with the ringwidth data produced from the density measurements - because Stepan told me these may be longer and anyway they will help the quality of the ringwidth data anyway. You may therefore get some messages or questions from Harry (Ian Harris) who works for me asking about the locations. Please be patient and try to help him with this if necessay.
Unfortunately, next year I have several major meetings to attend and present our joint results. Each of these meetings is very important. In March, I must give a major review paper at the PAGES open Science meeting in London. This must cover all dendro - or at least the best of it - which of course includes our own work! Early next year I will ask for the full data sets as they then stand, for Yamal and Taimyr so that I can try restandardising and calibrating against regional mean climate data. If there are not likely to be more data than I already have , can you let me know. Also in March, I will go to Copenhagen for an European Community meeting of project leaders of projects dealing with Arctic climates. This is the sort of meeting I must attend and put on a good show if we hope to get further funding in 1999 onwards. Later in the year there is a big climate conference here at which I must give a review of dendroclimatic research.
By January , we are supposed to exchange data within the project for possible research - but with the proviso that nothing can be written about work using others data without full collaboration and coauthorship. Are you both willing to let your chronologies as published be released to the rest of the group at that time?
Finally, I have got permission (provided I can find the money to pay for it) to have a special issue of The Holocene dedicated to the results (todate) of the ADVANCE-10K project. It will contain a series of major articles describing each piece of the work and I wish these to include large ,detailed papers on the Yamal and Taimyr chronologies , and perhaps a separate paper on the Northern Urals work. I hope to get a firm committment now from Both of you that you will be prepared to do this. I would be happy to help with specific ideas and some analysis and plotting of all Figures and retyping if you wish. The provisional deadline for the production of the papers would be late summer or autumn at the earliest.
I am of course very keen to continue our collaboration and next year as soon as I know more about the details of the European Community Framework 5 plan ( which , incidently now contains a heading 'Global Change') I will be putting together another application. I will try my best to include you both as full partners in this if it is at all possible.
After the Krasnoyarsk meeting I heard nothing about the final decision regarding an application for a Transect Office in Krasnoyarsk ( at some time someone had asked me would I coauthor an application) . Has this idea died? Also will there be a proceedings book arising out of the meeting ? Do I have to prepare something?
Eugene, I have a revised version of the paper you gave me to read some time ago about the cell growth model work. Do you intend me to send this to Dendrochronologia or just send the annotated manuscript back to you? I have a question about meaning that held me up and needs your answer - can I fax you something?
Finally , - I wish you each and everyone in your laboratories and all your families the very best christmas and new year .
Keith
Original Filename: 884731847.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Nebojsa Nakicenovic <naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Joseph M. Alcamo" <alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Knut H. Alfsen" <knut.alfsen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Dennis Anderson <dennis.anderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Zhou Dadi <becon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Gerald R. Davis" <Ged.R.Davis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Dessus <benjamin.dessus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jae Edmonds <ja_edmonds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, (although he cancelled) Joergen Fenhann <j.fenhann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Stuart R. Gaffin" <stuart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Henryk Gaj <Fewewar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ken Gregory <kennethgregory@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "A. Gruebler" <gruebler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Erik Haites <EHaites@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Hare <bhare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Jefferson <jefferson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tae-Yong Jung <tyjung@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Kram <kram@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Emilio Lebre La Rovere <emilio@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mathew Luhanga <vc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Douglas McKay <Doug.D.Mckay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Julio Torres Martinez <dpid@[169.158.128.138]>, Laurie Michaelis <laurie.michaelis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Shunsuke Mori <mori@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tsuneyuki Morita <t-morita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Richard Moss <rmoss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Youssef H. Nassef" <nassef@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Pepper <wpepper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Hugh M. Pitcher" <hm_pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Lynn Price <lkprice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hans-Holger Rogner <h.h.rogner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Cynthia Rosenzweig <crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Jim F. Skea" <J.F.Skea@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Priyadarshi Shukla <shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leena Srivastava <leena@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Rob Swart <rob.swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "H.J.M. de Vries" <Bert.de.Vries@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "John P. Weyant" <weyant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ernst Worrell <e.worrell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Invitation to the SRES meeting in Berkeley
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 17:50:47 +0100
<x-rich>Dear Colleagues,
I would like to confirm that we will hold the next SRES meeting on 7-8 February
at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California. Lynn
Price is the organizer of the meeting. Below is her contact information.
Ms. Lynn Price
Energy Analysis Program
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
MS xxx xxxx xxxx, 1 Cyclotron Road
Berkeley, CA 94720
U.S.A.
(xxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxx
(xxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxx
e-mail: lkprice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
The main purpose of the meeting is to review the work progress of the four
modeling groups that have been involved in first quantifications of the
four storylines. My expectation is that we can harmonize various model
runs into four initial scenarios. Thus, this will be primarily a modelers'
meeting focusing on technical issues, storyline interpretation and
consistency of first quantifications. It will not have the character of a
Lead Authors meeting in the strict sense. It is nevertheless an important
meeting for all modeling groups who have volunteered to quantify
storylines, since this work needs to proceed in order for us to meet our
original timetable and cannot be postponed until the next Lead Authors'
meeting in the spring.
I hope that most of you can attend. Your input would be
valuable in this early stage of modeling work. Furthermore, it would be
good to also take the opportunity of this meeting to review the so-called
zero-order-drafts (ZODs). The deadline for the submission of the final
versions of the ZODs is 15 January (Thursday), so I expect that we will
also have new material to discuss.
Although I realize that this meeting will take place on rather short
notice and not all of you will be able to obtain the necessary approvals
and visas to attend, I nonetheless believe that it is important at this
stage to hold an informal meeting with the four modeling groups. I have
funds available for the four lead authors from developing countries:
Matthew Luhanga, Zhou Dadi, Henryk Gaj, and Emilio La Rovere. As noted
above, a more formal meeting of the complete writing team will be held
sometime in March or April, at which time I hope everyone will be able to
attend.
Please confirm your attendance for the February meeting with me as soon as
possible (this week if you can), so that we can reserve sufficient hotel
space in Berkeley.
Again, for those of you who are working on Zero Order Drafts, please
remember that this Thursday is the deadline for completion. I look forward to
receiving these.
Best Regards,
Naki
<center>Katalin Kuszko
Environmentally Compatible Energy Strategies
International Institute for | Email: kuszko@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Applied Systems Analysis | Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria | Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx</center>
</x-rich>
Original Filename: 884787012.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: P R Shukla <shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Nebojsa Nakicenovic <naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Invitation to the SRES meeting in Berkeley
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 09:10:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: "Joseph M. Alcamo" <alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Knut H. Alfsen" <knut.alfsen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Dennis Anderson <dennis.anderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Zhou Dadi <becon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Gerald R. Davis" <Ged.R.Davis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Dessus <benjamin.dessus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jae Edmonds <ja_edmonds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "(although he cancelled) Joergen Fenhann" <j.fenhann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Stuart R. Gaffin" <stuart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Henryk Gaj <Fewewar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ken Gregory <kennethgregory@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "A. Gruebler" <gruebler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Erik Haites <EHaites@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Hare <bhare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Jefferson <jefferson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tae-Yong Jung <tyjung@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Kram <kram@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Emilio Lebre La Rovere <emilio@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mathew Luhanga <vc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Douglas McKay <Doug.D.Mckay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Julio Torres Martinez <dpid@[169.158.128.138]>, Laurie Michaelis <laurie.michaelis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Shunsuke Mori <mori@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tsuneyuki Morita <t-morita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Richard Moss <rmoss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Youssef H. Nassef" <nassef@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Pepper <wpepper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Hugh M. Pitcher" <hm_pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Lynn Price <lkprice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hans-Holger Rogner <h.h.rogner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Cynthia Rosenzweig <crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Jim F. Skea" <J.F.Skea@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Priyadarshi Shukla <shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leena Srivastava <leena@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Rob Swart <rob.swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "H.J.M. de Vries" <Bert.de.Vries@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "John P. Weyant" <weyant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ernst Worrell <e.worrell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Naki,
Thanks for the invitation to the SRES meeting.
Given the funds situation at your disposal, I am opting out of attending
the meeting. I would however like to offer any assistance on issues
concerning developing / Asian countries. Specifically, I have data on
structural changes of GDP and energy for countries in Asia-Pacific. The
structural transitions in these countries offer interesting insights and
directions for scenarios. I have passed an analysis of 12 countries to
Tae. The countries include the important economies in Asia-Pacific,
namely China, India, Japan, Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand,
Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. I think the structural changes in developing
countries is a very vital aspect for specifying future emissions. Also,
well documented and specified information on this shall help the policy
exercises later which shall use our emissions scenarios as reference.
I think the modelling groups may also require some inputs (and insights)
for handling developing country specifications in the models. In the
past we have pointed out several lacunas - such as neglect of
traditional biomass, disequilibrium, informal economy, geopolitical
realities etc. These also influence technological assumptions and
constraints. In fact our scenarios are very well suited to handle some
of these aspects differently. The modellers may have to be advised to
handle these aspects suitably. This is vital since we aim to specify the
emissions regionally.
An another issue I wish to bring to your attention relates to discount
rates. I know your competence on this issue. However, the modelling
difficulties (and paradigm itself) often stop us from using different
discount rates. The persistence of high discount rates in developing
economies is an observed fact. This may not equalize globally during the
next half century (or more). Even if we may not want to have different
discount rates (since this upsets the underlying neoclassical paradigm),
we may just ask the modellers to ensure that the results are not
sensitive to this.
A more interesting issue concerning the discount rates for our scenarios
is that the different futures (scenarios) would have different
associated discount rates. The sustainable development type scenarios
(e.g. B1 scenario) may have lower discount rate than our A scenarios. If
we run all scenarios with same discount rate, this would be a
contradiction. I know there are no easy answers around this since we do
not want to confuse the users of scenarios later on with too many
different parameters. However it may be worth providing different
specifications for important parameters or caveats where we anticipate
contradictions.
Given the recent developments in East Asia, it may be worth to take a
relook at A1 scenario and consider whether the Tiger World would transit
to A1 or A2. This is just an aside.
Wishing you a very happy new year.
P.R. Shukla
**************************************************************
P.R. Shukla, Professor
Indian Institute of Management, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad 380015, India
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx, Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Email: shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/~shukla
***************************************************************
Original Filename: 884964368.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: frank.oldfield@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Poster competition
Date: Fri Jan 16 10:26:xxx xxxx xxxx
Frank
I do not recall what Kyrdianov has worked on - sorry. However, Hantemirov has done outstanding work putting together and as yet preliminarily analysing what wii no doubt become a world famous sub fossil chronology in the Yamal area of northern Siberia. Indeed I will feature this work in my presentation.
Frank , an important point requiring your instant help! Some time ago I got a request to write something for a NERC(?) publication related to my talk in April. Now I can't find it and desperately need to contact the guy about length and deadine - which may have passed. Can you help? I know you coordinated with him.
Yes I know I'm a _anker!
Keith
At 10:12 AM 1/16/98 +0100, you wrote:
>Dear Keith,
>
>I'm trying to draw up a short list for the 5 young scientists who will
>receive financial support from UCL. I need to balance them for theme and
>region and it seems that one of them should probably be a former USSR
>dendro-person. I've consulted Gene who points to Hantemirov and
>Kyrdianov as the two most worthy. Do you have any advice? Both abstracts
>look good and Gene thinks highly of each piece of work. seems better to
>get a second opinion from the dendro-world than to leave it open or try
>to resolve the question from a non-specialist perspective.
>
>I look forward to hearing from you,
>
>Cheers,
>
>Frank
>____________________________________________
>Frank Oldfield
>
>Executive Director
>PAGES IPO
>Barenplatz 2
>CH-3011 Bern, Switzerland
>
>e-mail: frank.oldfield@xxxxxxxxx.xxx *** NOTE CHANGE ***
>
>Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx; Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>http://www.pages.unibe.ch/pages.html
>
Original Filename: 885208555.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: GERNER THOMSEN <gerner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Ph.D. in Sweden
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 06:15:55 +0100
Reply-to: gerner <gerner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear Keith!
I contacted Hakan Grudd last week. He is also positive about a Ph.D. for me
in Stockholm.
I have tried to make a formulation of a project. Please, read it and let me
know what you think. Maybe the project is overlapping with that of Grudd or
maybe you have better ideas. It could also be that I have misunderstood
some points.
I have sent the project formulation to Schweingruber, Grudd and Kalen. I
send it to Schweingruber because I already contacted him last week (before
I got the message from you). He is also interested in the project and
anyway he will get involved if I am going to train in Birmensdorf.
Best regards from:
Gerner Thomsen
Description of project
1. Background
Dendroclimatology can be defined as the use of tree rings to study and
reconstruct past and present climate (Kaennel & Schweingruber, 1995).
Global average surface temperatures have risen by 0.3-0.6
Original Filename: 885318160.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Lynn Price <lkpocd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Nebojsa Nakicenovic <naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Confirmation of Attendance for Next IPCC SRES Meeting
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 12:42:xxx xxxx xxxx(PST)
Reply-to: Lynn Price <lkpocd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "Joseph M. Alcamo" <alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Knut H. Alfsen" <knut.alfsen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Dennis Anderson <dennis.anderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Zhou Dadi <becon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Gerald R. Davis" <Ged.R.Davis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Dessus <benjamin.dessus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jae Edmonds <ja_edmonds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Joergen Fenhann <j.fenhann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Stuart R. Gaffin" <stuart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Henryk Gaj <Fewewar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ken Gregory <kennethgregory@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "A. Gruebler" <gruebler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Erik Haites <EHaites@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Hare <bhare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Jefferson <jefferson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tae-Yong Jung <tyjung@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Kram <kram@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Emilio Lebre La Rovere <emilio@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mathew Luhanga <vc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Douglas McKay <Doug.D.Mckay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Julio Torres Martinez <dpid@[169.158.128.138]>, Laurie Michaelis <laurie.michaelis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Shunsuke Mori <mori@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tsuneyuki Morita <t-morita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Richard Moss <rmoss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Youssef H. Nassef" <nassef@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Pepper <wpepper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Hugh M. Pitcher" <hm_pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Lynn Price <lkprice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hans-Holger Rogner <h.h.rogner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Cynthia Rosenzweig <crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Jim F. Skea" <J.F.Skea@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Priyadarshi Shukla <shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leena Srivastava <leena@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Rob Swart <rob.swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "H.J.M. de Vries" <Bert.de.Vries@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "John P. Weyant" <weyant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ernst Worrell <e.worrell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, ASM@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rrichels@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, johnson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Kuszko@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi everyone,
I need to have a firm number of attendees by the end of the day tomorrow
(Wednesday January 21st) in order to hold rooms at the hotel. At the end
of this e-mail I have listed the information that I currently have
regarding who is planning to attend, who is not planning to attend, and
who has not responded.
I will hold a room for each of the people listed below as attending
unless I hear otherwise from you.
If you are in the list of people who have not yet responded and you plan
to attend, please let me know ASAP.
If I have not heard from you by the end of the day tomorrow I will assume
that you will make your own arrangements for accommodations.
For those of you who want me to hold a room for you, I will send
information on how to make your reservations in a day or so.
Thanks,
Lynn
*************************************
Lynn Price
Energy Analysis Program
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
1 Cyclotron Road, MS xxx xxxx xxxx
Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
(5xxx xxxx xxxx
fax (5xxx xxxx xxxx
*************************************
Confirmed as attending:
Nebojsa Nakicenovic
Zhou Dadi
Stuart Gaffin
Henryk Gaj
Ken Gregory
Arnulf Gruebler
Erik Haites
Tae-Yong Jung
Emilio Lebre La Rovere
Alan Manne
Tsuneyuki Morita
Richard Moss
Hugh Pitcher
Rich Richels
Rob Swart
H.J.M. de Vries
Ernst Worrell
Not attending:
Knut Alfsen
Dennis Anderson
Joergen Fenhann
Laurie Michaelis
Priyadarshi Shukla
Jim Skea
Have not responded:
Joseph Alcamo
Ged Davis
Benjamin Dessus
Jae Edmonds
William Hare
Michael Hulme
Michael Jefferson
Tom Kram
Mathem Luhanga
Douglas McKay
Julio Torres Martinez
Shunsuke Mori
Youssef Nassef
William Pepper
Hans-Holger Rogner
Cynthia Rosenzweig
Leena Srivastava
John Weyant
Original Filename: 887057295.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: New MAGICC/SCENGEN
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 15:48:xxx xxxx xxxx(MST)
Reply-to: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: hm_pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, o.brown@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Mike,
Thanks for the quick response. Responses to responses follows....
(1) I tried the composite GHG plus UIUC SUL on Norm's machine, in just
the way you said. However, the results for the USA seem to be identical
to those using *only* UIUC GHG input. I'll try again.
(2) You are right in saying one shouldn't scale GHG patterns by
GHG+SUL dTs. However, to be strictly consistent one should never allow
GHG patterns to be used alone. So you are *not* being consistent if you
allow this---which you do. The point then is to minimize the extent of
the inconsistency.
It is unarguably correct that the global-mean temperature to use
is the one containing all forcings (i.e., column 6 in *DRIVE.OUT). The
choice then is what pattern(s) to use. If we had no SUL information, we
would have to use GHG patterns; as in the original SCENGEN. Scaling these
with the MAGICC GHG output would give both incorrect patterns and
incorrect global-mean warming. Scaling with column 6 at least gets the
global-mean warming correct (within MAGICC uncertainties). You seem to
have chosen to get *both* things wrong, instead of just the patterns.
I can see some logic in your method; I just think (strongly) that
it is wrong. At the very least, it will be confusing to the user.
If the user selects only GHG model patterns, then won't they wonder why
the global-mean temperature is inconsistent with MAGICC? To take an
extreme case, suppose the full dT is 2degC and the GHG-alone dT is 3degC.
Is it better to scale an approximate pattern (i.e., the GHG pattern) by
2degC or 3degC? In my view, GHG scaled by 2degC would be much closer to
GHG+SUL scaled by 2degC than GHG scaled by 3degC. Surely the real issue
(given that it is impossible to be entirely consistent in this case) is to
get a result that is as close to the 'right' result as possible. I feel
quite sure that scaling by column 6 is best on this basis---especially
given that the patterns are much more uncertain than the global-means. I
think this is absolutely beyond doubt.
The bottom line here is that consistency is impossible if one uses
only GHG patterns. Column 6 was included deliberately, and after some
thought (along the lines noted above).
Of course, it is possible to get column 6 results by adding
columns 2, 3, 4 and 5 as they now stand (and as they are in the version
that you have). However, one cannot do this with the correct *raw*
column 3, 4, and 5 output because of the nonlinear direct forcing effect.
It just happens that, in your version, I 'faked up' column 5 as the
difference between column 6 and the sum of columns 2, 3 and 4. I did this
simply to get the code working; but (as you now know) I never got around
to fixing it up until now. In the latest version, column 6 is again equal
to the sum of columns 2, 3, 4 and 5 because I scale columns 3, 4 and 5 to
ensure that this is so.
(3) Re HadCM2, again it is impossible to be consistent. What I said
before is that the reason for adding these results is simply to make them
readily available. I do *not* advocate using them in combination with any
other model results. It is, I believe, perfectly reasonable to scale
these results with column 6 data. Of course, this 'hides' an assumption
about the relative magnitudes of the GHG and SUL components---i.e., it
assumes that the HadCM2 relative magnitudes are okay. The point of
scaling, however, is to account for other factors that change the
global-mean temperature relative to HadCM2 results, such as different
sensitivities.
I agree with you that it would not be an efficient use of time
splitting the HadCM2 SUL results into GHG and 'aerosol' component
patterns. The whole point of the sulphate part of SCENGEN is to look at
the influence of different SO2 emissions patterns. Splitting up HadCM2
wouldn't help here at all.
I also think it would be valueless to hardwire HadCM2 dT results
into SCENGEN---again, this would defeat the purpose of including these
results. It would introduce an additional inconsistency; since HadCM2
patterns change with time, it would not be logical to scale the 2xxx xxxx xxxx
pattern with (e.g.xxx xxxx xxxxdT. Of course, you could argue that it is
illogical to scale this pattern with (e.g.xxx xxxx xxxxdT from MAGICC; but
this is a different issue that I don't think is worth discussing at this
time.
(4) Thanks for explaining the UIUC 'other data' problem. I will ask
Michael whether he can provide full global fields for the other variables,
since it really would be valuable to include them. If he can give us
these data, could you add them to SCENGEN? (re this, see below)
(5) I appreciate your problems with Olga and Mike Salmon. As far as I
can see, incorporating the revised MAG.FOR code into MAGICC/SCENGEN
shouldn't be too difficult. I can, however, get hold of some money to pay
for some of Mike's time to do other work---perhaps $5000 or so. Can we
set something up? The contractual side would be easy---just a matter of
agreeing a brief statement of work, and having CRU send a bill. If this
is useful and possible, then can you check it out with Mike and Trevor?
Cheers,
Tom
On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Mike Hulme wrote:
> Tom,
>
> Got your fax and email. Five responses:
>
> 1. UIUC SUL results *can* be combined with any GHG pattern (or
> combination). Simply click on the relevant GCMs in the GCMs menu. You can
> choose all 15 GHG patterns and also the UIUC SUL pattern simultaneously if
> you want. Not sure how you missed this one.
>
> 2. We do *not* allow GHG patterns to be scaled by GHG+SUL dTs from MAGICC
> (what you call 'global sulphate'); i.e., we never use column 6 in the
> *DRIVE files. We always follow the 'disaggregated sulphate' route by using
> columns 2, 3, 4 and 5. I still maintain it is not correct to scale GHG
> patterns by a global dT that results from GHG+SUL forcing. The way we have
> designed SCENGEN is so that the choice of what columns in *DRIVE to use is
> governed by what GCMs are selected in the GCMs menu. If only GHG patterns
> are chosen we use column 2. If only SUL patterns are chosen we use columns
> 3, 4 and 5 with the appropriate weightings applied (i.e., we have three
> UIUC SUL pattern files corresponding to the three SCENGEN regions,
> re-combined of course from Schlesinger's six original regions). If *both*
> GHG and SUL patterns are chosen then we combine the various patterns using
> columns 2, 3, 4 and 5. You will see that the global dT displayed in red on
> the main screen changes in keeping with these selections (i.e., GHG only,
> SUL only or GHG+SUL).
>
> If we allowed GHG patterns to be scaled by dTs from MAGICC that resulted
> from GHG and SUl forcing I believe that we break the consistency of our
> method. Column 6 is therefore redundant and serves only to check the
> summing of the other columns.
>
> 3. This parallels an earlier discussion about using HADCM2 SUL results in
> SCENGEN. Strictly, we should not use them since they are SO2 pattern
> specific. Allowing the user to scale HADCM2 SUL by a set of dTs resulting
> from *any* SO2 pattern is plainly wrong. A compromise would be to allow
> HADCM2 SUL to be scaled by the dT from the HADCM2 SUL simulation (i.e.,
> hard-wiring these dTs into SCENGEN and using only these if the user wants
> HADCM2 SUL). Of course, other GCM patterns should not then be added to
> this. There is another way of using HADCM2 SUL results more flexibly and
> that is by differencing HADCM2 GHG from HADCM2 SUL (2xxx xxxx xxxx),
> standardising the result according to the dTs from the three SCENGEN
> regions and then treating these standardised HADCM2 SUL only patterns as
> independent aerosol patterns to be used in SCENGEN. This would be my
> approach but again requires more time and effort.
>
> 4. We only include T and P from UIUC for the very good reason that only T
> and P contain complete global fields (at least from the ftp site data).
> The other variables exist only for land areas. Since the UIUC grid is 4
> (lat) by 5 deg and SCENGEN is 5 by 5 we would need to regrid (and the
> longitudes are displaced by 0.5 a box as well which complicates matters).
> Regridding land only grids onto a different land only grid is non-trivial
> (possible, but would take some working at). For example, UIUC have no
> Iceland or Caribbean islands so what do we give to SCENGEN for these boxes?
> We have to tell SCENGEN something since we add other GCMs together.
> Faking up data here is very time-consuming. If UIUC have other fields
> apart from T and P for a full global grid but just not put them on the web
> site then fine, the problem is quite straightfoward. If not, then we have
> a messy problem on our hands.
>
> 5. Points about revised MAGICC code noted and we will have a look at the
> new code when it is here. Please also note that apart from Olga not being
> paid by me now, neither is Mike Salmon. Indeed, Mike's contract is rather
> uncertain again. But I hope I can pursuade him (and Trevor) to keep pace
> with MAGICC changes for all our sakes.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>
> At 19:23 06/02/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
> >Dear Mike,
> >
> >Some rather urgent SCENGEN issues have arisen from my meeting with Norm
> >Rosenberg, Hugh Pitcher et al. at Battelle. While at Battelle, I had my
> >first chance to look at the new SCENGEN, since I have not had time to try
> >to get it working under NT. (I haven't had time to try your new batch
> >file yet.)
> >
> >The first thing is that you seem to have constrained things so that
> >Schlesinger's sulphate results can only be added to *his* ghg results.
> >This defeats the purpose of the method. The sulphate patterns,
> >appropriately scaled, can be added to *any* (or any combination) of ghg
> >(i.e., CO2 alone) results. I am at a loss to understand why you did this,
> >because it seems to me that the coding should be easier for the more
> >general case. The way it should work is this:
> >
> >First, the user selects the MAGICC output; low, mid, high or user climate
> >output. This determines which file to use to get the normalized pattern
> >weights, LODRIVE, MIDDRIVE, HIDRIVE OR USRDRIVE.
> >
> >The user must then select whether to use global sulphate or disaggregated
> >sulphate. This determines whether to use the last column only in *DRIVE
> >(labeled SUM) to weight the ghg (or composite ghg) pattern (global
> >sulphate case); or to use the second, third, fourth and fifth columns of
> >*DRIVE (labeled GHG, ESO21, ESO22, ESO23) to weight, respectively, the ghg
> >(or composite ghg), region-1 sulphate, region-2 sulphate and region-2
> >sulphate patterns---and then sum these weighted patterns.
> >
> >What you seem to be doing now is to only allow SCENGEN to use
> >Schlesinger's ghg pattern for weighting with the GHG column. It should be
> >trivial to fix this. The ghg (or composite ghg) pattern should be
> >calculated no matter whether the user selects the global or disaggregated
> >sulphate case. You may have switched this calculation off for the
> >disaggregated case---but you *shouldn't*. As I noted above, the coding
> >should be easier for the proper working of the model.
> >
> >You may recall that I said earlier that I think there is still a glitch in
> >the sulphate pattern weights. On looking at the *DRIVE outputs again I
> >still think this is a problem. Have a look yourself and see whether you
> >think the numbers look reasonable or not. Ill check this out further over
> >the weekend.
> >
> >The second thing that came up in the Battelle meeting was the fact that
> >the only data sets for Schlesinger's output seem to be temperature and
> >precipitation. Battelle wants to do some sulphate cases (driving crop and
> >hydrology models with SCENGEN output), and they need the other variables.
> >They are working to a tight deadline, so getting these data into SCENGEN
> >is much higher priority that plugging HadCM2 SUL into SCENGEN. This is
> >why I am going to spend some time (at last!) checking out the pattern
> >weights a.s.a.p. I hope you can help out with these things. The first
> >should be easy---but I realize the second could be both tedious and
> >somewhat time consuming. There is clearly a lot of scope for using
> >SCENGEN to define the pattern consequences of sulphate aerosol forcing;
> >both to look at the implications of different SO2 emissions scenarios and
> >to investigate uncertainties. We can't do this until I've fixed the
> >MAGICC end to get the weights working properly. It is something we could
> >spend some time on (i.e., writing something up for publication) when I'm
> >in CRU in the summer (and/or earlier).
> >
> >Thanks for your help on this. The people at Battelle are very impressed
> >by SCENGEN--as am I.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Tom
> >
> >
> >
> > **********************************************************
> > *Tom M.L. Wigley *
> > *Senior Scientist *
> > *National Center for Atmospheric Research *
> > *P.O. Box 3000 *
> > *Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx *
> > *USA *
> > *Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx *
> > *Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx *
> > *E-mail: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx *
> > **********************************************************
> >
> >
>
**********************************************************
*Tom M.L. Wigley *
*Senior Scientist *
*National Center for Atmospheric Research *
*P.O. Box 3000 *
*Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx *
*USA *
*Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx *
*Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx *
*E-mail: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx *
**********************************************************
Original Filename: 887665729.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Nebojsa Nakicenovic <naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Joseph Alcamo <alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Knut Alfsen <knut.alfsen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Dessus <benjamin.dessus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Dennis Anderson <dennis.anderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Zhou Dadi <becon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gerald Davis <Ged.R.Davis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Dessus <Benjamin.Dessus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bert de Vries <Bert.de.Vries@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jae Edmonds <ja_edmonds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Joerg Fenhann <j.fenhann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stuart Gaffin <stuart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Henryk Gaj <Fewewar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kenneth Gregory <kennethgregory@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Arnulf Gruebler <gruebler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Erik Haites <ehaites@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Hare <bhare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Jefferson <jefferson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tae-Yong Jung <tyjung@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas Kram <kram@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Emilio La Rovere <emilio@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mathew Luhanga <vc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Julio Torres Martinez <dpid@[169.158.128.138]>, Douglas McKay <Doug.D.Mckay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Laurie Michaelis <laurie.michaelis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Shunsuke Mori <mori@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tsuneyuke Morita <t-morita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Richard Moss <rmoss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Nebojsa Nakicenovic <Naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Youssef Nassef <nassef@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Pepper <WPepper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hugh Pitcher <hm_pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Lynn Price <lkprice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Holger Rogner <rogner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Cynthia Rosenzweig <crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Priyadarshi Shukla <shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Skea <J.F.Skea@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leena Srivastava <leena@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert Swart <rob.swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Weyant <weyant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx.>, Ernst Worrell <e.worrell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: minutes of the SRES informal modelers' meeting
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 16:48:49 +0100
Cc: kuszko@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Colleagues,
Please find attached the minutes of the SRES informal modelers' meeting,
7-8 February 1998 in Berkeley, California. I would like to thank those who
participated in the meeting and Lynn Price in particular, both for the
excellent organization of the meeting and for drafting the minutes. Please
note the deadlines detailed in our
work plan; for those of you completing the next two rounds on model runs
and storylines, this will be especially important. Additional submissions
to the SRES scenario database would be also greatly appreciated. Finally,
if anyone would like to receive a hard copy of the materials we discussed
in Berkeley, please contact Anne Johnson at johnson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx. (The same
material was sent to you by e-mail on January 30).
With best regards,
Naki
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachdraft-minutes1.doc"
Nebojsa NAKICENOVIC
International Institute for | Email: naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Applied Systems Analysis | Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria | Fax: xxx xxxx xxxxFrom ???@??? Fri Feb 20 10:42:xxx xxxx xxxx
Return-path: <dlroberts@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Envelope-to: f037@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Delivery-date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:41:40 +0000
Received: from mailgate3.uea.ac.uk [139.222.230.3]
by cpca11.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.73 #1)
id 0y5ptk-0005i2-00; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:41:40 +0000
Received: from thorn.meto.gov.uk by mailgate3.uea.ac.uk with SMTP (PP);
Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:41:22 +0000
Received: from thorn.meto.gov.uk (MEADOW)
by thorn.meto.gov.uk (PMDF V5.1-9 #26370) with ESMTP
id <01ITST3966TC0044ID@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> for m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:40:27 GMT
Received: from hc0800 ([151.170.1.12])
by meadow.meto.gov.uk (PMDF V5.1-9 #26370) with ESMTP
id <01ITST3LEWEW006LUJ@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> for m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:40:44 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from hc1300 by hc0800 with ESMTP (1.39.111.2/1.1) id AA146051261;
Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:41:02 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:41:01 +0000 (GMT)
From: David L Roberts <dlroberts@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: From dlroberts@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Message-id: <199802201041.AA146051261@hc0800>
Posted-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:41:01 GMT
Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:41:02 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="X-roman8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Status:
Dear Mike,
What is the current state of play regarding definition of
improved sulphur emission scenarios? I have the 'zero-order
draft' by Arnulf Grubler that you sent me at the beginning of
November, as well as a shorter note by Hugh Pitcher. Have there
been more developments since then?
As you can probably guess, this enquiry results from Geoff
Jenkins's visit to Brussels (?) a few days ago. Geoff is now
keen that we should use better emission scenarios than IS92a
and is pressing me for action, even if this means using an
interim scenario that has not yet been agreed by IPCC.
Best regards,
David
Original Filename: 888364876.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Nebojsa NAKICENOVIC <naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Joseph Alcamo <alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Knut Alfsen <knut.alfsen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Dessus <benjamin.dessus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Dennis Anderson <dennis.anderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Zhou Dadi <becon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gerald Davis <Ged.R.Davis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Dessus <Benjamin.Dessus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bert de Vries <Bert.de.Vries@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jae Edmonds <ja_edmonds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Joerg Fenhann <j.fenhann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stuart Gaffin <stuart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Henryk Gaj <Fewewar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kenneth Gregory <kennethgregory@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Arnulf Gruebler <gruebler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Erik Haites <ehaites@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Hare <bhare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Jefferson <jefferson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tae-Yong Jung <tyjung@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas Kram <kram@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Emilio La Rovere <emilio@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mathew Luhanga <vc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Julio Torres Martinez <dpid@[169.158.128.138]>, Douglas McKay <Doug.D.Mckay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Laurie Michaelis <laurie.michaelis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Shunsuke Mori <mori@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tsuneyuke Morita <t-morita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Richard Moss <rmoss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Nebojsa Nakicenovic <Naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Youssef Nassef <nassef@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Pepper <WPepper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hugh Pitcher <hm_pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Richard G. Richels" <rrichels@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Lynn Price <lkprice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Holger Rogner <rogner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Cynthia Rosenzweig <crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Priyadarshi Shukla <shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Skea <J.F.Skea@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leena Srivastava <leena@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert Swart <rob.swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert Watson <rwatson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Weyant <weyant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx.>, Ernst Worrell <e.worrell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Next SRES Meeting, week of 27 April in Washington
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 19:01:16 +0100
Dear Colleagues,
I am writing to let you know that the next IPCC-SRES Full Authors meeting
will be held the week of 27 April 1998 (instead the week of 6 April) in
Washington, D.C. Bob Watson of
the IPCC will attend. The exact dates during that week are not yet fixed,
but I expect that we will have a full authors meeting for two days,
preceded by a two-day modelers meeting. Please let me know soon--today if
possible--whether you will be available during this week; it is critical
that we finalize the dates early so there will be sufficient time to ensure
funding for our colleagues from developing countries who need IPCC support.
I look forward to hearing from you very soon.
Best regards,
Naki
Prof. Dr. Nebojsa Nakicenovic
Project Leader
Environmentally Compatible Energy Strategies
International Institute for | Email: naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Applied Systems Analysis | Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria | Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Original Filename: 888609364.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: climat@xxxxxxxxx.xxx (L.Kitaev)
Subject: Re: for Proff.A.Krenke, Moscow
Date: Fri Feb 27 14:56:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: eugene,stepan
Dear Prof. Krenke
I am happy to submit the proposal from here or to be associated with it in collaboration with our ongoing tree-ring development work ( with Fritz Schweingruber, Eugene Vaganov and Stepan Shiyatov) but you will have to take the initiative in writing and organising the proposal. I am very tied up with meetings and I have to write and submit another INTAS proposal with the people I mentioned to continue development and analysis of the long chronologies at Yamal and Taimyr. The others need not be listed if you do not wish but I would ask you to discuss with Prof. Vaganov how he sees this being balanced with his priorities and our ongoing work. We will use our own transfer function approach ( in our ADVANCE European project ) to reconstruct circulation in summer based only on the tree-ring data but this is no worry for you. If you can get the draft to me soon - with details of all participants and money I will then look at it and revise and submit as you wish.If this is to happen you must take the initiative of putting it together.
please let me know what you intend as soon as possible. I am here only for one more week!
Keith
At 09:56 AM 2/24/98 +0300, you wrote:
>
>
>Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachBRIFFA2.TXT"
>