From: Caspar Ammann <ammann@ucar.

edu>
To: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Re: pdf
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:18:51 -0700

Phil,

will do. And regarding TSI, it looks like that 1361 or 1362 (+/-) are going to
be the new
consensus. All I hear is that this seems to be quite robust. Fodder for the
critics: all
these modelers, they always put in too much energy - no wonder it was warming -
and now
they want to reduce the natural component? The SORCE meeting is going to be on
that
satellite stuff but also about climate connections : Sun-Earth. Tom Crowley is
going to be
there, Gavin Schmidt, David Rind, and a few others; of course Judith.

Thanks for Bo Vinther's manuscript!

Caspar

On Jan 30, 2008, at 3:12 PM, [1]P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote:

Caspar,

OK. Keep me informed. Also I'd like to know more the conclusions

of the meeting you're going to on the solar constant.

Just that it can change from 1366.5 to 1361!!

Cheers

Phil

Phil,

we should hook together on this 1257 event (I call it 1257 because of

the timings but its just a bit better than an informed guess). We now

have these simulations of contemporary high-lat eruptions and can

compare them with low-lat ones.

Just a couple thoughts

pro high-lat:

- climate signal looks better in short and longer term

- potential for in-ice-core migration of some sulfur species ... some

new work that has been done ...

con:

- deposition duration

- old fingerprints

- no high-lat calderas/flows of appropriate size : compare it to

Eldgja or Laki, this thing is bigger!

- no large ash layers

What we need is fingerprinting. I'm participating in a project

Icelandic volcanism and climate in the last 2000 years. There we have

money to do some chemical fingerprinting. I'm pursuing to get

somebody to run these samples. That will be the deciding thing.

Remember, instrumentation has dramatically increased in sensitivity,

so I think it should be possible. its not that one would have to go

dig around too much in the ice cores as the depth/location of that

monster sulfate spikes are well known.

Should be interesting.

Caspar

On Jan 30, 2008, at 2:57 PM, [2]P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote:

Caspar,

The meeting I'm at is less interesting than IDAG.

I'll send the Greenland isotope data when I get back.

536 is a good story. 1258/9 needs to be good story too...

I think it isn't at the moment.

Cheers

Phil

Thanks Phil,

will have a look. I certainly like it, and I only was a bit picky on

the "largest eruption" versus "largest volcanic signal in trees". I

like the isotope work very much and will now look if I can pick on

something more substantial ;-)

Caspar
 On Jan 30, 2008, at 1:24 PM, [3]P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote:

<2007GL032450.pdf>

Caspar M. Ammann

National Center for Atmospheric Research

Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology

1850 Table Mesa Drive

Boulder, CO 80307-3000

email: [4]ammann@ucar.edu tel: 303-497-1705 fax: 303-497-1348

Caspar M. Ammann

National Center for Atmospheric Research

Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology

1850 Table Mesa Drive

Boulder, CO 80307-3000

email: [5]ammann@ucar.edu tel: 303-497-1705 fax: 303-497-1348

Caspar M. Ammann
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology
1850 Table Mesa Drive
Boulder, CO 80307-3000
email: [6]ammann@ucar.edu tel: 303-497-1705 fax: 303-497-1348

References

1. mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk
2. mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk
3. mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk
4. mailto:ammann@ucar.edu
5. mailto:ammann@ucar.edu
6. mailto:ammann@ucar.edu