cc: Chris Turney <turneychris@gmail.com>, simon Tett <simon.tett@ed.ac.uk>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>, Gabi Hegerl <Gabi.Hegerl@ed.ac.uk>, Chris Jones <chris.d.jones@metoffice.gov.uk>, Peter Cox <P.M.Cox@exeter.ac.uk>, Rob Allan <rob.allan@metoffice.gov.uk>, Philip Brohan <philip.brohan@metoffice.gov.uk>, Catherine Bass <C.J.Bass@exeter.ac.uk>
date: Fri Aug 21 13:55:23 2009
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Re: Proposed 2 pager
to: Rob Wilson <rjsw@st-andrews.ac.uk>, Sandy Tudhope <sandy.tudhope@ed.ac.uk>

    Chris et al (Rob, Sandy, Simon, Gabi),
        Lots of good comments and useful suggestions.  To summarise, we have a number
    of strands:
    - extending the instrumental records
    - extending the proxy records, and identifying where extra series are needed
     (both of these making use of all our collaborators around the world, as Rob and Sandy
   allude to,
    and we also have these for instrumental data also)
    - and then there are the model integrations and the comparisons between models and obs.
     Most important of all though is the justification for the consortium and what the
    proposed work seeks to achieve.  One thrust could be bringing all the proxy and
    early instrumental data together. There are now probably two orders of magnitude more
   proxy
    data than were available at the beginning of the 1990s. This could reassess all these
    diverse sources in a consistent way, addressing what each is good for (or not) and
    seasonal and maybe timescale limitations. This would eventually lead to new larger-scale
    reconstructions, of which a few would be more spatially detailed (in a  few regions). This
    would be good to work on together (parallel post-docs and or PhDs), but it wouldn't be
   main justification.
    Thinking in terms of PhDs, we'd have to come up with specific topics for the students.
    A parallel thrust could be emphasizing the uncertainties in all the reconstructions. As
   Rob
    says this is quite difficult with the proxy data as each discipline has a specific set of
    limitations. I'd also expect the uncertainties to expand, as we brought more things in.
    The other thrust is the modelling, but this seems from a number of the emails to be going
   to
    happen anyway. Perhaps then, we don't need the models in the consortium bid. Just
    putting together all the proxy and instrumental data would be enough. It will be difficult
   to sell,
    but it would be extremely useful for the whole community. The proxy data center at NCDC
   (Boulder)
    does this but doesn't rate the proxies. They just make the series available.
     Not sure where this is taking us. There are a lot of good scientific issues when
    considering combining proxies. In reconstructions like MBH, which ones do the work
    and which are superfluous. The longer instrumental records that are coming along -
    on both land and sea will enable many of these issues to be addressed, enabling the
    robustness of large-scale reconstructions to be quantified.
      Groups all around the world are trying to do this at local-to-regional scales with some
    looking more globally. What is needed is co-ordination of these efforts, bringing together
    all the contacts each of us has.
      Better quantified reconstructions should eventually lead to reductions in climate
   sensitivity,
    but it will be a long process.
      As for timing, I think a July 2010 submission would be better to bring all the parts
    together - showing how the consortium is bringing together numerous efforts going
    on across the world. We do need to meet at some point to thrash out most of the issues.
      One small point. Reanalyses are important but refer to those from ERA-40
    and ERA-INTERIM as they are much better than NCEP. I'm involved in a paper
    on ERA-INTERIM and efforts through an EU project called EURO4M to improve the
    input these get given. We do need efforts in analysing the longer 20th century reanalyses.
    Cheers
    Phil

   At 09:26 21/08/2009, Rob Wilson wrote:

     Morning All,
     from the proxy point of view, it seems to me that there should be a good rationale for
     the consortium if we emphasise the importance of a coordinated 'update' and 'new'
     sampling of key proxies and regions. Only through a consortium could we ensure that by,
     for example, year 3, we have updated (to present) reconstructions for New Zealand,
     Tasmania, South America and key areas in the tropics. Presumably if new model runs may
     need to be made, they can be grinding away in the back ground for the first couple of
     years and then the full strength of the consortium kicks in during year 3 when we all
     start putting it together. Also during the first couple of years, the consortium can
     focus on the methodological issues of calibration and uncertainty estimates -
     probabilistic or otherwise.
     some random comments w.r.t. proxy data
     Millennium has NO plans, as far as I know, to produce spatial reconstructions for the
     last 500 years for Europe. The focus is on millennium long reconstructions and there
     simply is not enough data for a "true" spatial reconstruction. We will have "reasonably"
     robust summer temperature reconstructions for the Alpine and Scandinavian regions
     however. Of course there is a whole myriad of other local based reconstructions, but for
     different seasons and parameters.
     At Mike Mann's session at the EGU, there was this interesting talk.
     Do you know this group Sandy? This current series used only growth rates. I am not sure
     if they have plans to measure isotopes on this record.
     C. Saenger, A. L. Cohen, D. W. Oppo, and J. Carilli
     A coral-based reconstruction of Atlantic sea surface temperature trends and variability
     since 1552
     I have spoken with Rosanne and Ed w.r.t. New Zealand and Tasmania. In principle there
     should be no problem with updating these areas and maybe sampling more sites. Perhaps
     scope for a one or two PhDs.
     Rob
     Sandy Tudhope wrote:

     Hi Chris et al,
     Many thanks for the draft, and sorry for the slow reply but I was off email for a few
     days.  I've seen responses from Rob Wilson, Simon and Gabi.  I  don't know if you
     received any more.
     I agree with most of the points made by Simon, Gabi and Rob.  Some more specific
     comments:
     a)  WHY NOW?  Even although we don't have much space in two pages, I think we need to
     highlight more explicitly the nature of the current opportunity ... why are we going to
     be able to make significant progress now in an area that people have been working in for
     quite some time?  In terms of the climate reconstruction from proxies, we can point to a
     number of advances, e.g., for corals:
     -  the recent demonstration of the potential of using networks of coral sites for
     pan-tropical and regional climate reconstruction (e.g., some of Rob Wilson et als
     papers).
     -  the fact that some of the necessary long coral cores already exist through our
     collaborators, and ongoing efforts from ourselves, and that with a relatively modest
     field effort we are now in a position to provide a more complete and hence robust
     coverage for tropical SST reconstruction.
     b)  CONSORTIUM:  The justification for a consortium still needs work.
     My one experience on the NERC Consortium panel suggested that the justification for a
     needed to be closer to "can only be done through a consortium approach" rather than "can
     be more effectively approached".  I still wonder if we can make some significant
     advances in the way we approach estimating and using uncertainties in the proxy data and
     their interpretation.  As I've said before, the inclusion of isotopes in models is going
     to provide some excellent opportunities to better understand what we can and can't say
     from some forms of proxy data.
     c)  TIME FRAME:  We can sort out details later, but just so everybody knows,
     realistically we should be looking to the corals to provide a reasonable tropical
     network back to around 1750-1800AD getting sparser back beyond than and hardly anything
     prior to 1600AD (in terms of continuous records from living corals).
     d)  NERC PROPOSAL:  Again, just for information:  Gabi and I (with Mat Collins at the
     Met Office and a large cast of other collaborators) currently have a proposal submitted
     to NERC that is focussed around ENSO variability over the past 5,000 years, using a
     combination of analysis of fossil corals in Galapagos, integration to other climate
     proxy data (to look at stability of teleconnections), and climate model evaluation and
     runs (using the CMIP5 archive plus new isotope enabled HadCM3 model runs).  One of our
     periods of focus is, naturally, the last millennium.  Obviously, we have no idea if this
     will be funded, but if it is, it would provide additional proxy data (mostly short
     floating chronologies), plus modelling.
     e)  DECEMBER?  I understand Chris' enthusiasm for moving forward, but like Simon feel
     we've not yet really pinned down the scope and novelty of our approach as much as we
     need to.  December 1st would be a rush, so, personally, I'd suggest July but with the
     schedule of meetings as currently proposed (although I can't make the September one).
     However, if the consensus is to attempt a 1st December submission, I will do what I can
     to contribute.
     Cheers,
     Sandy
     Chris Turney wrote:

     Hi guys,
     Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I'm in a very cold and wet Bergen at the
     moment and the internet access is not the best.
     Many thanks for all your comments and suggestions.  This all looks great.  I've tried to
     incorporate these into the concept note.  The more detailed points I've kept in a folder
     for us to thrash out the detail for the next round.  Can you let me know what you think
     of the attached by Wednesday this week?  If you're happy for us to proceed, perhaps we
     can send in for Friday? As I head north the internet access will probably get worse of
     if we can do it before I fall off the edge of the known world that would be great.
     Also, I've contacted Eric Wolff to see if he would be interested in being involved and
     as soon as I hear back I'll let you know.
     All the best,
     Chris
     ****************************************************
     *Professor Chris Turney FRSA FRGS*
     Director of Carbonscape <[1]http://www.carbonscape.com>, /Fixing carbon the way nature
     intended/
     //
     Author of Ice, Mud and Blood: Lessons from Climates Past
     <[2]http://us.macmillan.com/icemudandblood>
     Popular science website: [3]www.christurney.com <[4]http://www.christurney.com>
     Journal of Quaternary Science <[5]http://www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/jqs> Asian
     and Australasian Regional Editor
     School of Geography
     The University of Exeter
     Exeter
     Devon
     EX4 4RJ
     UK
     Home page: [6]www.sogaer.ex.ac.uk/geography/people/staff/c_turney/main.shtml
     <[7]http://www.sogaer.ex.ac.uk/geography/people/staff/c_turney/main.shtml>
     E-mail: c.turney@exeter.ac.uk <[8]mailto:c.turney@exeter.ac.uk>
     Office Tel.: +44 (0)1392 263331
     Fax.: +44 (0)1392 263342
     ****************************************************
     *Slartibartfast: * Science has achieved some wonderful things of course, but I'd far
     rather be happy than right any day.
     *Arthur Dent:*  And are you?
     *Slartibartfast:*  No. Thats where it all falls down of course.
     *Arthur Dent:*  Pity. It sounded like quite a good lifestyle otherwise.
     /The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy/, Douglas Adams
     ****************************************************


     --
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------
     Dr. Rob Wilson
     Lecturer in Physical Geography
     School of Geography & Geosciences
     University of St Andrews
     St Andrews. FIFE
     KY16 9AL
     Scotland. U.K.
     Tel: +44 01334 463914
     Fax: +44 01334 463949
     [9]http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/gg/people/wilson/
     ".....I have wondered about trees.
     They are sensitive to light, to moisture, to wind, to pressure.
     Sensitivity implies sensation. Might a man feel into the soul of a tree
     for these sensations? If a tree were capable of awareness, this faculty
     might prove useful. "
     "The Miracle Workers" by Jack Vance
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------

   Prof. Phil Jones
   Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
   School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
   University of East Anglia
   Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
   NR4 7TJ
   UK
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

