cc: johann.hiebl@zamg.ac.at, "'michele'" , "'David Frank'" date: Thu Jun 19 11:08:20 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: AW: EI-paper to: maurizio.maugeri@cinfai.it, Reinhard Boehm Reinhard, A few thoughts. Can you concentrate on the sections after the introduction? I wouldn't put in anything about solar and volcanic forcing. The diagrams you have are out of date and the subject is changing rapidly. I'd omit the model run. I can help you write the Introduction setting the stage for the rest of the paper. What I don't want to be said is something like the following: - a climate model says it was cooler before 1850 - trees suggest it was cooler before this time - so we've decided to adjust the observations These are the sorts of simplistic things the skeptics will say. So paper should be indicating the adjustment needed as a result of the Kremsmunster work. The trees and the other proxies are just an aside, and all this would fit better in another paper - not necessarily the one I started. Even suggesting the cold or warm solution to the problem is probably not the way to go. I know this is how we've been talking about the issue, but there are well-known arguments that the temperatures measured before screens are likely biased particularly in the summer season. What a good way of finishing the paper would be is to replot the figure for summer from the IPCC report. I could easily add the GAR average for JJA to the plot. It doesn't matter that one is Central Europe and the other the GAR - as all is relative to a common base period. They will look much the same from 1880 and then diverge a little before. Cheers Phil At 17:59 18/06/2008, maurizio.maugeri@cinfai.it wrote: Dear Reinhard, I'm in favour of just adding one or two comparative figures with the proxy series and cancel the planned section two. Anyway your idea is the best: let's look to the paper when we have finished all the other sections. I have just a short comment to the introduction. The text is very good and gives a clear picture of the situation, but I do not like very much the last sentence. Here you refer to previous attempts on EIP-climate data reconstruction and analysis and give some references. But the list of references seems to be rather poor as, e.g. the Central England record is not included. Of course we can considere all the important records that were analysed, but if the focus is on Europe it seems not easy to get a complete list of all the relevat pepers, reports, etc. So my suggestion is: i) to start the sentence introducting the reader to the HISTALP data set, ii) to write that even though some analyses of the HISTALP EIP-climate records are available (here we can really give all the relevant references) so far none of them tackled the EIP-problem and iii) to give the goal of our paper. As far as the special issue of Climatic Change is considered, I suggest to check what other contributions will be included in it. I partecipated in 2002 to a special number which included the results of the EU-IMPROVE project. The result was very good (we produced also a book which included a CD with the station data) and I'm happy with it, but there is also a negative side-effect. In many cases the pepers that refer to this results refer to the editors of this special number (i.e. they refer to Camuffo and Jones (eds), 2002)) and so the 2 papers on the Milan records that are included in this special issue have probably less citations than they would have if I published them outside such a special issue. Also in your draft you give reference just to the editors.... In our case it seems that such a problem will not be relevant, as the Millenium special issue will probably include papers that cover a wider range of subjects. But anyway let's considere also this problem.... Ciao Maurizio ----- Original Message ----- From: [1]Reinhard Boehm To: [2]'David Frank' Cc: [3]P.Jones@uea.ac.uk ; [4]'Maurizio Maugeri' ; [5]johann.hiebl@zamg.ac.at ; [6]'michele' Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:51 AM Subject: AW: AW: EI-paper Hi David, Thanks fort he compliment, but there is still something to do, before the draft is finished. Nevertheless thank you also for your comments. As to the authors question you were mentioning earlier, I am aware that we should include somebody else, and I am also not afraid of having many authors (I think you know our list of the Auer et al, 2007 HISTALP-paper), but let us postpone the question till I see clearer how intensively the proxies will be described in section 2. I have mentioned them shortly already now in the introduction and I am playing with the idea to only add one or two comparative figures with all those mentioned proxy series and cancel the planned section two. In this case I would not include too many additional co-authors, just mentioning the sources for the figure. In case we really write a longer section two, then I expect to receive something like one page of text from each new co. But let me decide on that after having finished all the sections except section two, look how long it then is and then decide on doing a longer section two (with several additional cos then) or not. Regarding you and Johann, the story is different. You were the two which really started the thing going with your two papers therefore it is no question og having you two in the team. And I also have a little Hintergedanken that you might be so kind to perform a perfect language trimming at the end to make my Austro-English a bit better than I can do. Is this allright? Best regards Reinhard P.S.: I hope you all agree that I would prefer to send the paper to Climatic Change. This makes my situation easier, because I have promised Rudolf Brazdil several months ago to write something about the early instrumental period for a special issue devoted to the Millennium project. So using our paper for this makes sense I think and helps me with my time problems, and it has finally kicked me to postpone other things and really start writing our paper now. By the way, Phil, Rudolf is rather optimistic that an online version of the paper will not have the usual Climatic Change delays. This relies also on keeping our own deadline (early July), but I see no problem on that. _______________________________________________________________________________ Von: David Frank [[7]mailto:david.frank@wsl.ch] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Juni 2008 07:04 An: Reinhard Boehm Betreff: Re: AW: EI-paper Hi Reinhard, That is a big jump between having an outline and a draft in a short amount of time! (I wish i could do this too...) Included in the text are a some minor comments/suggestions. Most of these go in the direction of trying to help a reader who is not aware of the EI problem, realize more quickly how/why this might be a problem. I still like the idea to include the modelling aspect as part of a composite figure with proxy evidence. Best wishes, David Dear Maurizio, dear all Find attached yesterday's new version of the paper. It contains a rather detailed "Introduction" which already shortly discusses the proxy evidence. This may serve, as You Maurizio and also Phil claimed for, to keep the proxy section short enough and thus leave more place for the core of the paper. What would be nice for the (still missing) proxy section would be (one?) comparative Figure showing several (all?) proxi records together. But the problem is that not all of them are really reconstructed temperatures - so what to do with things like "dust content", delta 18O, ©? Finally I want to draw your attention on the short section in the introduction on natural forcings and on respective modelling results. I am still in favour of at least mentioning this, although the majority of you seems not really to like it. Maybe you change your mind having had a look at the examples shown in the second attached file (I hope the German captions are not too enigmatic for some of you, I took the examples from my new book which is in German). Best regards Reinhard _______________________________________________________________________________ Von: Maurizio Maugeri [[8]mailto:maurizio.maugeri@unimi.it] Gesendet: Montag, 16. Juni 2008 18:42 An: Reinhard Boehm Betreff: Re: EI-paper Dear Reinhard, I agree with you. The paper will probably benefit of an additional section on "the evidence for the ei problem". Anyway I suggest a not-too-long section and I'm not so in favour of including a part on the models. I think that we should concentrate on the main focus of the paper (the correction of the EI series) and so I suggest to considere the section on "the evidence for the ei problem" as a section that clearly explains why we have to concern with a bias in the EI records. But can model data help us to do that? Ciao Maurizio ----- Original Message ----- From: [9]Reinhard Boehm To: [10]'Maurizio Maugeri' ; [11]'michele' ; [12]'Phil Jones' ; [13]johann.hiebl@zamg.ac.at ; [14]'David Frank' Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 2:22 PM Subject: EI-paper Friends, Find attached my proposal for the structure of our common paper. Please comment on it, I am going to start writing then soon. Please comment particularly on the section about "evidence for the ei-problem©". For this I have already received several contributions (of about 1 page each) from the proxy-people. The intention of this section is to illustrate existing systematic biases instrumental vs. proxy or not. I think this is a necessary section, but it increases of course the length of the paper. I am in favour of doing it, but I would like to hear your comments. Of course then we have to increase also the number of co-authors by the following persons: Karin Koinig (lake sediments, Univ. Innsbruck), Dietmar Wagenbach (Icecores, Univ. Heidelberg) and Jürg Lutherbacher (Grapeharvest Swiss plateau, Univ. Bern). I also would like to ask Eduardo Zorita (GKSS) to send the GAR-section of their ERIK-model runs, which would add another independent information. For your information I have attached two of his historic model runs he sent me some months ago for my "Heiße Luft"-Book. What you see on the attached file is JJAS-average over continental Europe. If GAR is not too different from it, this would again be a hint towards our new corrected datasets. Looking forward to your comments Best regards Reinhard Attachment converted: MacDave:draft-2008-06-16.doc (WDBN/«IC») (002044E6) Attachment converted: MacDave:FORCING-MODELLING-EXAMPLES.doc (WDBN/«IC») (002044E7) 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------