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: 1053457075.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Clivar Conference 2004
Date: Tue May 20 14:57:xxx xxxx xxxx
Mike
Lennart has managed to confuse me with his latest message. At one point he mentioned that
you and I would do a joint overview paper . Now he suggests we choose xxx xxxx xxxxco-authors but
also refers to "other people in our section" who he has apparently already informed , need
"to consult with you (ie us) as required" (my emphasis).
As for my opinion of the theme or content of our section , I suggest it be "quantifying
Natural and Anthropogenic influences on the course of Global climate during recent
millennia" or some such . This allows for the review , redefinition of Global climate
history (Southern as well as Northern , and moisture as well as Temperature). Importantly ,
it also incorporates the issue of forcing history(ies) and work quantifying the influence
of these histories - using simple empirical techniques or using them in conjunction with
models of different complexity to attribute causes of this change.
I am happy to go with the "usual suspects" in the overview paper , but would be happy if we
considered others who are also running controlled model/data comparisons (examples are Von
Storch , Simon Tett , Caspar Ammann). We need first to clarify whether we will present one
large , multi-author presentation/paper or whether it is just me and you and the others
divided into other papers/presentations/posters. Should we copy this message to Lennart or
contact him directly with specific questions?
Keith
At 09:49 PM 5/18/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
I hope all is well.
Apparently, we're supposed to choose xxx xxxx xxxxadditional "co-authors"? I guess the obvious
ones would be Phil, Tim, Ray, Malcolm, perhaps Ed Cook, Scott Rutherford,...any other
suggestions?
As I understand it, the co-authors would be invited to attend and present in the poster
session; I assume they are listed separately from you and I who will jointly present the
oral overview. As for the theme, I'm assuming "climate changes of the past couple/few
millennia" or something like that. As we have 45 minutes total between the two of us, I
would suggest we each take about 20 minutes, and then we'll have 5 minutes left for
questions.
Any suggestions, thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
thanks,
mike
X-Sender: m214001@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 22:53:58 +0200
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: "Prof. Dr. Lennart Bengtsson" <bengtsson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Clivar Conference 2004
Cc: bengtsson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kornelia.mueller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
--
Dear Dr. Mann,
Dear Dr. Briffa,
The preparation of the Clivar conference is progressing well and all invited speakers
have now agreed (See attached draft program). As I have informed you previously Journal
of Climate will have a special issue devoted to the Conference and I expect you would be
willing to prepare a paper to be ready at the time of the conference. I have made
arrangements with the chief editor to make a flexible interpretation of the content of
the papers so to agree with the objective of the conference and the draft program.
We would now like you to come up with a suitable theme for your presentation at the
conference as well a list of names which you have selected as co-authors. As we
anticipate a broad and forward-looking contribution I believe some xxx xxxx xxxxpeople seems
appropriate. It was our intention that the first person listed should be the lead author
but you can arrange this otherwise if you prefer to do so. I have informed the other
speakers in your section to consult with you as required.
For the conference I expect a rather wide audience in addition to a broad scientific
community including representatives from different agencies such as the meteorological
services, as well as media representatives. For the media we intend to provide a special
set of information. In view of the societal importance of the CLIVAR program and the
considerable progress in extended range forecasts and climate change assessment and
prediction I believe there will be an excellent opportunity to bring the scientific
progress and associated applications of CLIVAR to the participants of the conference.
It would be very helpful if you could to let me know the status of your arrangements not
later than June 15. If you see any particular difficulties please let me know as soon as
possible.
As you can see from the attached program each part of the conference will have poster
sessions. The poster sessions will be an important part of the conference and I
anticipate that some of your co-authors will prepare such posters. We also plan to have
the poster contents on a CD ROM prior to the conference.
The practical planning of the conference as a whole is proceeding well. The arrangements
in Baltimore are quite excellent with the nearby Baltimore inner harbor as a particular
attractive focal point. There are all reasons that the conference will be a success both
scientifically and socially. See further the Clivar Conference website:
[1]http://www.clivar2004.org.
We are presently exploring the possibilities for financial support of selected
participants. However, any support you may manage to obtain from national funds would be
most helpful.
With my very best regards
Lennart Bengtsson
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa[4]/
References
1. http://www.clivar2004.org/
2. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
4. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1053461261.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Soon et al. paper
Date: Tue May 20 16:07:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Jerry Meehl <meehl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Mike and Tom and others
My silence to do with the specific issue of the Soon and Baliunas conveys general strong
agreement with all the general remarks (and restatement of many in various forms ) by Tom
Crowley, Mike Mann, Neville Nichols and now Tom Wigley regarding the scientific value of
the paper and its obvious methodological flaws.
I have to say that I tended towards the "who cares" camp , in as much as those who are
concerned about the science should see through it anyway . I also admit to thinking that
some of you seem a little paranoid (especially in the implication that Climate Research is
a pro sceptic journal) but I am changing my mind regarding the way the "meaning" of the BS
paper is being presented to the wider public - in response to some very poor recent
reporting in the British press and several requests from the US that indicate that those of
you who work there can not simply rely on the weight of good science eventually showing
through as regards the public perception . As Tom W. states , there are uncertainties and
"difficulties" with our current knowledge of Hemispheric temperature histories and valid
criticisms or shortcomings in much of our work. This is the nature of the beast - and I
have been loathe to become embroiled in polarised debates that force too simplistic a
presentation of the state of the art or "consensus view". Having read Tom W's and Mike's
latest statements I now agree about the need to make some public comment on BS . (I too
have given my personal view of the work to David Appell who I assume is writing a balanced
view of this paper for Scientific American). I see little need to get involved in a over
detailed critic of all the points in the paper , because I am not sure what audience would
benefit from it, but the points made by those I listed above could usefully be fashioned
into a simple letter to Climate Research, signed by those who wish. This would then go on
record as a simple statement of refutation of the method employed and corresponding
limitation of the work for informing the "global warming " debate . This could be quickly
citable when talking to the media.
The one additional point I would make that seems to have been overlooked in the discussions
up to now , is the invalidity of assuming that the existence of a global Medieval Warm
period , even if shown to be as warm as the current climate , somehow negates the
possibility of enhanced greenhouse warming. The business of constructing a reliable climate
history is only one part of establishing the relative roles of natural and anthropogenic
forcings, now and in the future. Without reference to the roles of natural forcings in
recent and past times , comparisons with other periods are of very limited value anyway.
So I agree with Tom and Mike that something needs to go "on record" . The various papers
apparently in production, regardless of their individual emphasis or approaches, will find
their way in to the literature and the next IPCC can sift and present their message(s) as
it wishes., but in the meantime , why not a simple statement of the shortcomings of the BS
paper as they have been listed in these messages and why not in Climate Research?
Keith
At 05:04 PM 5/16/xxx xxxx xxxx, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Tom,
Thanks for your response, which I will maintain as confidential within the small group
of the original recipients (other than Ray whom I've included in as well), given the
sensitivity of some of the comments made.
Whether or not their comments are ad hominem or potentially libelous is probably
immaterial here (some people who have read them think they might be--in certain places,
alterior motives are implied on the part of individually named scientists in the
discussion of scientific methodologies).
However, the real issue, as you point out, is whether or not their arguments and
criticisms are valid. I would argue that very few of them are--I have prepared (and have
attached) a draft of replies to some of the specifics in their two papers--this is
rough, and I'm working on preparing a refined version of this for use by those who are
trying to combat the disinformation that the Baliunas and co. supporters are working at
spreading within the beltway, with the full support of industry, and perhaps the
administration. By necessity this is brief and focus on the most salient points--a
point-by-point rebuttal would take a very long time.
In the meantime, Phil and I, and Ray/Malcolm/Henry D are independently working on review
pieces (ours for R.O.G., Ray et al's for Science) that will also correct in more detail
some of the most egregious untruths put forward by the Baliunas/Soon pieces (what one
colleague of mine aptly chooses to abbreviate as "BS").
The most fundamental criticism, of course, is that the hypothesis, methods, and
assumptions are absolutely nonsensical by construction--as you already pointed out. One
could demonstrate that with an example, but then again, why do so when it is self
evident that defining an anomaly of either wetter or dryer (what does that leave out?)
relative to the 20th century (a comparison which is itself also ill-defined by the
authors, since they don't use a uniform 20th century reference period for defining their
qualitative anomalies, and discuss proxy records with variable resolution and temporal
sampling of the 20th century) was "warmer than the 20th century" is nonsense at the
most fundamental level. It defies the most elementary logic, and thus is difficult to
reply to other than noting that it is nonsense by its very nature.
Would we be compelled to provide a counterexample to disprove the authors if they had
asserted that "1=2"? What they have done isn't that much different...
So its one thing to throw out a bunch of criticisms, very few of which are valid. But to
then turn around and present a fundamentally ill-posed, supposed "analysis" which
doesn't even attempt to provide a quantitative "alternative" to past studies, to claim
to have disproven those past studies, and to supposedly support the non-sequitor
conclusion that the "MWP was warmer than the 20th century" is irresponsible, deceptive,
dishonest, and a violation of the very essence of the scientific approach in my view.
One or two people can't fight that alone, certainly not with the "artillary" (funding
and political organization) that has been lined up on the other side. In my view, it is
the responsibility of our entire community to fight this intentional disinformation
campaign, which represents an affront to everything we do and believe in. I'm doing
everything I can to do so, but I can't do it alone--and if I'm left to, we'll lose this
battle,
mike
At 02:18 PM 5/16/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Tom Wigley wrote:
Dear folks,
I have just read the Soon et al. paper in E&E. Here are some comments, and a request.
Mike said in an email that he thought the paper contained possibly
'legally actionable' ad hominem attacks on him and others. I do not
agree that there are ad hominem attacks. There are numerous criticisms, usually
justified (although not all the justifications are valid). I did not notice any
intemperate language.
While many of the criticisms are invalid, and some are irrelevant, there are a number
that seem to me to be quite valid. Probably, most of these can be rebutted, and perhaps
some of these are already covered in the literature. In my view, however, there a small
number of points that are valid criticisms.
[Off the record, the most telling criticisms apply to Tom Crowley's work -- which I do
not hold in very high regard.]
The real issue that the press (to a limited extent) and the politicians (to a greater
extent) have taken up is the conclusions of the paper's original research.
First, Soon et al. come down clearly in favor of the existence of a MWE and a LIA. I
think many of us would agree that there was a global-scale cool period that can be
identified with a LIA. The MWE is more equivocal. There are real problems in identifying
both of these 'events' with certainty due to (1) data coverage, (2) uncertainty in
transfer functions, and (3) the noise of internally generated variability on the
century time scale. [My paper on the latter point is continually ignored by the paleo
community, but it is still valid.]
So, we would probably say: there was a LIA; but the case for *or against* a MWE is not
proven. There is no strong diagreement with Soon et al. here.
The main disagreements are with the methods used by Soon et al. to draw their LIA/MWE
conclusion, and their conclusion re the anomalousness/uniqueness of the 20th century (a
conclusion that is based on the same methods).
So what is their method? I need to read the paper again carefully to check on this, but
it seems that they say the MWE [LIA] was warm [cold] if at a particular site there is a
50+ year period that was warm, wet, dry [cold, dry, wet] somewhere in the interval
xxx xxxx xxxx[1xxx xxxx xxxx], where warm/cold, wet, dry are defined relative to the 20th
century.
The problems with this are .....
(1) Natural internally generated variability alone virtually guarantees that these
criteria will be met at every site.
(2) As Nev Nicholls pointed out, almost any period would be identified as a MWE or LIA
by these criteria -- and, as a corollary, their MWE period could equally well have been
identified as a LIA (or vice versa)
(3) If the identified warm blips in their MWE were are different times for different
locations (as they are) then there would be no global-mean signal.
(4) The reason for including precip 'data' at all (let alone both wet and dry periods in
both the MWE and LIA) is never stated -- and cannot be justified. [I suspect that if
they found a wet period in the MWE, for example, they would search for a dry period in
the LIA -- allowing both in both the MWE and LIA seems too stupid to be true.]
(5) For the uniqueness of the 20th century, item (1) also applies.
So, their methods are silly. They seem also to have ignored the fact that what we are
searching is a signal in global-mean temperature.
The issue now is what to do about this. I do not think it is enough to bury criticisms
of this work in other papers. The people who have noticed the Soon et al paper, or have
had it pointed out to them, will never see or become aware of such rebuttals/responses.
Furthermore, I do not think that a direct response will give the work credibility. It is
already 'credible' since it is in the peer reviewed literature (and E&E, by the way, is
peer reviewed). A response that says this paper is a load of crap for the following
reasons is *not* going to give the original work credibility -- just the opposite.
How then does one comprehensively and concisely demolish this work? There are two issues
here. The first is the point by point response to their criticisms of the literature. To
do this would be tedious, but straightforward. There will be at least some residual
criticisms that must be accepted as valid, and this must be admitted. Cross-referencing
to other review papers would be legitimate here.
The second is to demolish the method. I have done this qualitatively (following Nev
mainly) above, but this is not enough. What is needed is a counter example that uses the
method of reductio ad absurdem. This would be clear and would be appropriate since it
avoids us having to point out in words that their methods are absurd. I have some ideas
how to do this, but I will let you think about it more before going further.
You will see from this email that I am urging you to produce a response. I am happy to
join you in this, and perhaps a few others could add their weight too. I am copying this
to Jerry since he has to give some congressional testimony next week and questions about
the Soon et al work are definitely going to be raised. I am also copying this to Caspar,
since the last millenium runs that he is doing with paleo-CSM are relevant.
Best wishes,
Tom.
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa[3]/
References
1. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1055004012.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Revised Version!
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 12:40:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Raymond S. Bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jto@u.arizona.edu, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Thanks Kevin,
Those are helpful--Tom C. has returned from travels and will be providing comments shortly.
Will incorporate those and any others I receive into a revised version, which I hope to
send out (w/ Figure 1 included) tonight or tomorrow,
mike
p.s. Tom W is taking the lead on preparing a companion, more targeted commentary, to be
submitted to "Climate Research". Any one else interested should contact Tom...
At 05:16 PM 6/6/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Good job. I am attaching marked up copy with few suggestions.
Kevin
Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear all,
Here is my best attempt to incorporate everyone's suggestions, views, etc. One major
change you'll notice is that the final item (the one on co2 increase and recent warming)
was eliminated, because it seemed to open a can of warms, and also distract from the
central message. Note that, with the number of references we have, we are currently just
about at the word limit for the piece. We shouldn't go over 1400 words, which puts some
tight constraint on any additions, etc.
I hope to forward a draft of Figure 1 later on this afternoon. I'm assuming that Phil
can take care of Figure 2 (Phil?--Scott has graciously indicated his willingness to help
if necessary), but its pretty clear what this figure will show, so I don't thinks its
that essential that we have that figure done to try to finalize the draft.
I'll attempt one final(?) revision of the text based on any remaining comments you may
have--please try, if possible, to keep the suggested changes minimal at this point. I'll
assume that anyone we haven't yet heard back from in the author list over the next day
or so is unable to be a co-author, and will respectfully drop them from the author list
any related future emailings.
Thanks all for your help. Its rare to have every single co-author make substantial
contributions to improving the draft, and that was clearly the case here...
mike
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: [1]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
--
****************
Kevin E.
Trenberth
e-mail:
[3]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section,
NCAR
[4]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box
3000,
(3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO
80307
(3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 3080 Center Green Drive, Boulder, CO 80301
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[5]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
References
1. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx%A0
2. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
3. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
5. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1055512559.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: EOS text
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:55:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Raymond S. Bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu
<x-flowed>
Hi all
On isotopes, see the paper by Werner et al (briefly discussed in our
Science perspectives) showing that isotopes don't sample the deep winter
well as there is inadequate precip then in Greenland during the past.
I had to send this as I have been getting 2 of everything and I so I
adjusted the cc list.
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:
>
> Tom,
> The W. Greenland series is based on a stack of 6 isotope series -
> see chapter by
> Fisher et al in book from 1996 by Jones, Bradley and Jouzel.
> Correlation of this series
> with Greenland Annual temps is 0.58 on annual timescale over 1901-80.
> It is one of the
> better ones of the series in Fig 2. Others are better with different
> seasons, but this one
> is good for annual. The averaging of the 6 sites improves it a lot.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>
> At 08:51 13/06/xxx xxxx xxxx, Tom Wigley wrote:
>
>> Phil,
>>
>> If W Greenland is based on isotopes, I note that the correlation
>> between these and temperature is very low. Do we really want to
>> perpetuate the myth that ice core isotopes are a good proxy for
>> temperature?
>>
>> Tom.
>> ___________________________
>>
>> Phil Jones wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> Keith, Tim and I have been at this for part of the day.
>>> Scott has also redrawn Fig 1.
>>> Attached is the latest draft, which includes Kevin's from about 1
>>> hour ago, but not Ray's
>>> latest email.
>>> Fig 1 from Scott is OK to us here. Fig 2 is a draft. Tim
>>> needs to space the series
>>> out a little. To use all these we've needed to add a load of
>>> references. Getting these and
>>> making the captions OK has taken most time and the drawing of Fig 2.
>>> Hopefully we can all agree to this in the next day or so,
>>> then I'll submit on say
>>> Thursday UK morning time, so you've all got all day today and
>>> tomorrow.
>>> We've been through the text carefully and all happy with it.
>>> Apologies - no time to make Fig 2 pdf. Hope all can see postscript.
>>> We still need to work
>>> on the captions and tidy the refs a little more.
>>> We'll be back at 8.30 tomorrow UK time. Peck - you've got 2
>>> days to say yes/no !
>>> Cheers
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>> Prof. Phil Jones
>>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>>> University of East Anglia
>>> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>> NR4 7TJ
>>> UK
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>>
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 3080 Center Green Drive, Boulder, CO 80301
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1058898765.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Caspar M Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Raymond Bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu, omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: letter to Senate
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 14:32:xxx xxxx xxxx
Dear fellow Eos co-authors,
Given the continued assault on the science of climate change by some on Capitol Hill,
Michael and I thought it would be worthwhile to send this letter to various members of the
U.S. Senate, accompanied by a copy of our Eos article.
Can we ask you to consider signing on with Michael and me (providing your preferred title
and affiliation). We would like to get this out ASAP.
Thanks in advance,
Michael M and Michael O
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachEOS.senate letter-final.doc"
References
1. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1058906971.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: letter to Senate
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:49:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Caspar M Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Raymond Bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu, omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Hi all - I'm not too comfortable with this, and would rather not sign - at least not
without some real time to think it through and debate the issue. It is unprecedented and
political, and that worries me.
My vote would be that we don't do this without a careful discussion first.
I think it would be more appropriate for the AGU or some other scientific org to do this -
e.g., in reaffirmation of the AGU statement (or whatever it's called) on global climate
change.
Think about the next step - someone sends another letter to the Senators, then we respond,
then...
I'm not sure we want to go down this path. It would be much better for the AGU etc to do
it.
What are the precedents and outcomes of similar actions? I can imagine a special-interest
org or group doing this like all sorts of other political actions, but is it something for
scientists to do as individuals?
Just seems strange, and for that reason I'd advise against doing anything with out real
thought, and certainly a strong majority of co-authors in support.
Cheers, Peck
Dear fellow Eos co-authors,
Given the continued assault on the science of climate change by some on Capitol Hill,
Michael and I thought it would be worthwhile to send this letter to various members of
the U.S. Senate, accompanied by a copy of our Eos article.
Can we ask you to consider signing on with Michael and me (providing your preferred
title and affiliation). We would like to get this out ASAP.
Thanks in advance,
Michael M and Michael O
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:EOS.senate letter-final.doc (WDBN/MSWD) (00055FCF)
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Faculty_Pages/Overpeck.J.html http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
Original Filename: 1059005592.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: letter to Senate
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 20:13:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Caspar M Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Raymond Bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Folks,
Here are some thoughts about the Soon issue, partly arising from talking
to Ben.
What is worrying is the way this BS paper has been hyped by various
groups. The publicity has meant that the work has entered the
conciousness of people in Congress, and is given prominence in some
publications emanating from that sector. The work appears to have the
imprimateur of Harvard, which gives it added credibility.
So, what can we as a community do about this? My concerns are two-fold,
and I think these echo all of our concerns. The first is the fact that
the papers are simply bad science and the conclusions are incorrect. The
second is that the work is being used quite openly for political purposes.
As scientists, even though we are aware of the second issue, we need to
concentrate on exposing the scientific flaws. We also need to do this in
as authoritative a way as possible. I do not think it is enough to speak
as individuals or even as a group of recognized experts. Even as a
group, we will not be seen as having the 'power' of the Harvard stamp of
approval.
What I think is necessary is to have the expressed support of both AGU
and AMS. It would also be useful to have Harvard disassociate themselves
from the work. Most importantly, however, we need the NAS to come into
the picture. With these 4 institutions, together with us (and others) as
experts, pointing out clearly that the work is scientific rubbish, we
can certainly win this battle.
I suggest that we try to get NAS to set up a committee to (best option)
assess the science in the two BS papers, or (less good, but still
potentially very useful) assess the general issue of the paleo record
for global- or hemispheric-scale temperature changes over the past 1000
years. The second option seems more likely to be acceptable to NAS. This
is arguably an issue of similar importance to the issue of climate
sensitivity uncertainties which NAS reviewed earlier this year (report
still in preparation).
I am not sure how to fold AGU and AMS into this -- ideas are welcome.
Similarly, perhaps some of you know some influential Harvard types
better than I do and can make some suggestions here.
The only way to counter this crap is to use the biggest guns we can
muster. The Administration and Congress still seem to respect the NAS
(even above IPCC) as a final authority, so I think we should actively
pursue this path.
Best wishes,
Tom.
Michael Oppenheimer wrote:
> Dear All:
>
> Since several of you are uncomfortable, it makes good sense to step back and
> think about a more considered approach. My view is that scientists are fully
> justified in taking the initiative to explain their own work and its relevance in
> the policy arena. If they don't, others with less scruples will be heard
> instead. But each of us needs to decide his or her own comfort zone.
>
> In this case, the AGU press release provides suitable context, so it may be that
> neither a separate letter nor another AGU statement would add much at this time.
> But this episode is unlikely to be the last case where clarity from individuals
> or groups of scientists will be important.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> Tom Wigley wrote:
>
>
>>Folks,
>>
>>I am inclined to agree with Peck. Perhaps a little more thought and time
>>could lead to something with much more impact?
>>
>>Tom.
>>_____________________________
>>
>>Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>
>>>Hi all - I'm not too comfortable with this, and would rather not sign -
>>>at least not without some real time to think it through and debate the
>>>issue. It is unprecedented and political, and that worries me.
>>>
>>>My vote would be that we don't do this without a careful discussion first.
>>>
>>>I think it would be more appropriate for the AGU or some other
>>>scientific org to do this - e.g., in reaffirmation of the AGU statement
>>>(or whatever it's called) on global climate change.
>>>
>>>Think about the next step - someone sends another letter to the
>>>Senators, then we respond, then...
>>>
>>>I'm not sure we want to go down this path. It would be much better for
>>>the AGU etc to do it.
>>>
>>>What are the precedents and outcomes of similar actions? I can imagine a
>>>special-interest org or group doing this like all sorts of other
>>>political actions, but is it something for scientists to do as individuals?
>>>
>>>Just seems strange, and for that reason I'd advise against doing
>>>anything with out real thought, and certainly a strong majority of
>>>co-authors in support.
>>>
>>>Cheers, Peck
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dear fellow Eos co-authors,
>>>>
>>>>Given the continued assault on the science of climate change by some
>>>>on Capitol Hill, Michael and I thought it would be worthwhile to send
>>>>this letter to various members of the U.S. Senate, accompanied by a
>>>>copy of our Eos article.
>>>>
>>>>Can we ask you to consider signing on with Michael and me (providing
>>>>your preferred title and affiliation). We would like to get this out ASAP.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks in advance,
>>>>
>>>>Michael M and Michael O
>>>
>>>>______________________________________________________________
>>>> Professor Michael E. Mann
>>>> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
>>>> University of Virginia
>>>> Charlottesville, VA 22903
>>>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>>>e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>> http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
>>>
>>>>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:EOS.senate letter-final.doc
>>>>(WDBN/MSWD) (00055FCF)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>Jonathan T. Overpeck
>>>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
>>>Professor, Department of Geosciences
>>>
>>>Mail and Fedex Address:
>>>
>>>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
>>>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
>>>University of Arizona
>>>Tucson, AZ 85721
>>>direct tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Faculty_Pages/Overpeck.J.html
>>>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
>>
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1061300885.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: POLL ON SOON-BALIUNAS
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:48:05 +0100
Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Raymond Bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Tom,
I once met Soon at a meeting organised by the ESA in Tenerife. I think he gave a talk
-
but only think, so it wasn't memorable in any way. As you say they don't come to the
regular meetings like EGU/S, AGU, AMS etc. I only went to Tenerife as the organisers paid
for me to go.
Citation ratings vary (there are several different scales/indicators as well) a lot
from year to year for most journals. I've never figured out how the counting is done wrt
the highly cited lists that Tom. W., Kevin and I are on. Do only first authorships count
for
example? Even with a common name like mine people still get it wrong and mistakes
persist.
Surprisingly Jim Hansen doesn't make the above list ([1]http://www.highlycited.com), but
then
he normally drops his E.
There are few more journals (QSR, Climate Change, IJC, AAR to give a few) where
paleo papers also appear.
Cheers
Phil
At 10:43 13/08/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Michael E. Mann wrote:
I checked this out prior to my senate hearing. Their science citations in the climate
literature are poor, as one would hope and expect.
Interestingly, they both drop their second initials when publishing in the climate
literature so that their names don't turn in up in ISI if you do a search on their
publications in the astronomy literature (which use the full initials)--apparently,
they don't want their astronomy colleagues to be aware that they're moonlighting as
supposed climatologists...
Their numbers are better in the astronomy literature, though Soon's numbers even here
are mediocre.
Baliunas had some well-cited publications more than a decade ago. This is her work on
the use of sun-like stars as a model for solar variability, etc., which is well
referenced in the astrophysics community. However, most of these appear to be her Ph.D.
work, and appear to have been published w/ her Ph.D adviser.
Not much evidence however that she has made any useful, independent contribution since
then. There are some additional papers she's published on time series analysis of solar
signals--looks like the kind of stuff you might expect to see from a graduate student
first-year research project....
In my opinion, its would be a mistake to evaluate these on their citations numbers in
astronomy. We should focus on their numbers in the climate literature, which are the
only ones relevant when discussing the issue of how their work on climate is received by
their fellow scientists,
mike
At 08:15 AM 8/13/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Tom Wigley wrote:
Might be interesting to see how frequently Soon and Baliunas, individually, are cited
(as astronomers). Are they any good in their own fields?
Perhaps we could start referring to them as astrologers (excusable as ... 'oops, just a
typo')
Tom.
++++++++++++++++
Tom Crowley wrote:
Hi there,
we need some data on Soon and Baliunas. one of my concerns is that they only publish in
low impact journals and completely bypass the normal give and take of presentations at
open scientific meetings (for example, I think I have probably heard 100 presentations
overall from the people on this mailing list).
it is therefore very important to inquire for the sake or our exchanges with
reporters/legislators etc as to how often any of you may have heard Soon or Baliunas
give a talk in an open meeting, where they could defend their analyses.
please respond to me as to whether you have heard either of them present something on
their paleo-analyses (I think I heard Baliunas speak once on her solar-type star work,
but that doesn't count).
I will let you know the results of the poll so that we may all be on the same grounds
with respect to the data and reporting such information to press inquiries/legislators
etc.
further fyi I list below the journal impact for six geophysical/climate/paleoclimate
journals:
Paleoceanography 3.821
J. Climate 3.250
J. Geophysical Res. (Climate) 2.245
Geophysical Research Letters 2.150
The Holocene 1.852
Climate Research 1.016
Science and Nature are much higher (26-30) but there citation numbers are I believe
inflated with respect to our field because their citation ranking also includes many
very widely cited biology publications.
hope to hear from you soon, Tom
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://www.highlycited.com/
2. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1062783293.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Something for the weekend !
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 13:34:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
sorry phil, one more relevant item. I've cc'd in Keith on this, since you had mentioned
that you had discussed the issue w/ him.
This is from Dave Meko's (quite nice!) statistics lecture notes:
[1]http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/~dmeko/notes_8.pdf
See page 2, section 8.1.
He provides two (in reality, as I mentioned before, there are really 3!) basic boundary
constraints on a smooth (ie, in "filtering"). The first method he refers to is what I
called the "minimum norm" constraint (assuming the long-term mean beyond the boundary).
The second, which he calls "reflecting the data across the endpoints", is the constraint I
have been employing which, again, is mathematically equivalent to insuring a point of
inflection at the boundary. This is the preferable constraint for non-stationary mean
processes, and we are, I assert, on very solid ground (preferable ground in fact) in
employing this boundary constraint for series with trends...
mike
At 05:20 PM 9/5/2003 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Attached some more plots.
1. Figure 7 - Forcing. Guess this is it. Could cut the y scale to -6 and say in
caption that
1258 or 1259 is the only event to go beyond this, then give value in caption. Scale
will then widen out. OK to do ? Caspar's solar now there.
2. Fig 2a - first go at coverage. This is % coverage over 1xxx xxxx xxxxfrom HadCRUT2v.
3. Fig 4 again. Moved legends and reduced scale. Talked to Keith and we both think
that
the linear trend padding will get criticised. Did you use this in GRL and or Fig 5 for
RoG
with Scott. If so we need to explain it.
On this plot all the series are in different units, so normalised over 1xxx xxxx xxxx(or
equiv for
decades) then smoothed. Again here I can reduce scale further and Law Dome can go
out of the plot. Thoughts ? Think all should be same scale.
Have got GKSS model runs for Fig 8. Were you happy Hans' conditions. If so I'll send
onto
Scott.
Next week I only have Fig 2b to do. This will be annual plot of NH, Europe and CET,
smoothed in some way.
For the SOI I and Tim reckon that it won't work showing this at interannual
timescale with
3 plots. It will then not be like the NAO plot.
Thoughts on colours as well.
Have a good weekend. Logging off once this has gone.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
References
1. http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/~dmeko/notes_8.pdf
2. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1062784268.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Something for the weekend !
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 13:51:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
sorry, meant "is just the minimum slope" constraint, in first sentence...
apologies for the multiple emails,
mike
At 01:47 PM 9/5/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Actually,
I think Dave's suggestion "reflecting the data across the endpoints" is really just the
"minimum norm" constraint, which insures zero slope near the boundary. In other words,
he's probably only talking about reflecting about the time axis. I assert that a
preferable alternative, when there is a trend in the series extending through the
boundary is to reflect both about the time axis and the amplitude axis (where the
reflection is with respect to the y value of the final data point). This insures a point
of inflection to the smooth at the boundary, and is essentially what the method I'm
employing does (I simply reflect the trend but not the variability about the trend--they
are almost the same)...
mike
At 01:34 PM 9/5/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Michael E. Mann wrote:
sorry phil, one more relevant item. I've cc'd in Keith on this, since you had mentioned
that you had discussed the issue w/ him.
This is from Dave Meko's (quite nice!) statistics lecture notes:
[1]http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/~dmeko/notes_8.pdf
See page 2, section 8.1.
He provides two (in reality, as I mentioned before, there are really 3!) basic boundary
constraints on a smooth (ie, in "filtering"). The first method he refers to is what I
called the "minimum norm" constraint (assuming the long-term mean beyond the
boundary). The second, which he calls "reflecting the data across the endpoints", is
the constraint I have been employing which, again, is mathematically equivalent to
insuring a point of inflection at the boundary. This is the preferable constraint for
non-stationary mean processes, and we are, I assert, on very solid ground (preferable
ground in fact) in employing this boundary constraint for series with trends...
mike
At 05:20 PM 9/5/2003 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Attached some more plots.
1. Figure 7 - Forcing. Guess this is it. Could cut the y scale to -6 and say in
caption that
1258 or 1259 is the only event to go beyond this, then give value in caption. Scale
will then widen out. OK to do ? Caspar's solar now there.
2. Fig 2a - first go at coverage. This is % coverage over 1xxx xxxx xxxxfrom HadCRUT2v.
3. Fig 4 again. Moved legends and reduced scale. Talked to Keith and we both think
that
the linear trend padding will get criticised. Did you use this in GRL and or Fig 5 for
RoG
with Scott. If so we need to explain it.
On this plot all the series are in different units, so normalised over 1xxx xxxx xxxx(or
equiv for
decades) then smoothed. Again here I can reduce scale further and Law Dome can go
out of the plot. Thoughts ? Think all should be same scale.
Have got GKSS model runs for Fig 8. Were you happy Hans' conditions. If so I'll send
onto
Scott.
Next week I only have Fig 2b to do. This will be annual plot of NH, Europe and CET,
smoothed in some way.
For the SOI I and Tim reckon that it won't work showing this at interannual
timescale with
3 plots. It will then not be like the NAO plot.
Thoughts on colours as well.
Have a good weekend. Logging off once this has gone.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[3]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[4]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
References
1. http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/~dmeko/notes_8.pdf
2. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
3. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
4. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1065636937.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: EOS: Soon et al reply
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:15:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Thanks Tom,
In fact, I'm almost done with a brief (<750 word) response that addresses all of these
issues, and I'll be looking forward to comments on this. Hope to send it out later today,
mike
At 12:05 PM 10/8/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Tom Wigley wrote:
Folks,
I agree with Kevin that any response should be brief.
On the second page of their comment, SBL quote some of the caveat statements in their
earlier papers. The irony is that they do not heed their own caveats. If taken
literally, all these proxy data problems would mean that one can draw no conclusions
about the existence or otherwise of the MWE or LIA as global phenomena. This is what we
say (I hope -- at least I have said this in the paper cited belowxxx xxxx xxxxbut our over-bold
skeptics say that these anomalous intervals *did* exist. You can't have it both ways --
and basically what BS are doing is a confidence trick.
What is still needed here is an analysis of the BS method to show that it could be used
to prove anything they wanted.
I am still concerned about 'our' dependence on treerings. Are our results really
dependent on one region pre 1400 as SNL state? Is the problem of nonclimate obfuscating
factors in the 20th century enough to screw up calibrations on moderate to long
timescales? If not, we need to state and document this clearly. Does this problem apply
to both widths and densities? Are the borehole data largely garbage? I recall a paper of
Mike's on this issue that I refereed last year -- and there was something in GRL (I
think) very recently pointing out some serious potential problems.
Finally, did we really say what SBL claim we did in their p. 1 point (2)? Surely the
primary motive for all of this paleo work is that it DOES have a bearing on
human-induced climate effects?
Tom.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
Michael E. Mann wrote:
Thanks Kevin,
I agree w/ your take on this. We need to come up with a short, but powerful rebuttal.
According to Judy Jacobs, we're only allowed 750 words, so we will need to be even more
sparing and precise in our words that in the original Eos piece. By the way, we have 3
weeks to submit (i.e., our response is due October 27).
We need to focus on the key new claims, while simply dismissing, by reference to earlier
writings, the recycled ones. The Kalnay et al paper seems to be the new darling of the
contrarians, and you're precise wording on this will be very helpful. Phil, Tim and
others should be able to put to rest, in one or two sentences, the myths about urban
heat bias on the CRU record. A few words from Malcolm and Keith on the biological tree
growth effects would help too. The comments on the various paleo figures are confusing
and inconsistent, but from what I can tell, just plain wrong. I'll draft some words on
that.
I'll just continue to assimilate info and suggestions from everyone over the next week
or so, and then try to put this in the form a rough draft rebuttal to send out.
Thanks for your quick reply. Looking forward to hearing back from others,
mike
At 09:16 AM 10/6/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi Mike et al
Firstly, you should know that comments by myself and the group at NCDC (Vose et al) on
the Kalnay and Cai Nature paper were accepted (after a rebuttal and review process), and
then fine tuned. But it is a slow process and Kalnay and Cai have yet to finalize their
rebuttal. I am attaching FYI the "final" version of my comment. NCDC deals with the
problems with the records.
My reaction to the reply is as follows:
The first page deals with comments on proxy records and their problems. I think we
should agree that there are issues with proxy records, they are not the same as
instrumental records (which have their own problems), but they are all we have.
However, some are better than others (e.g. borehole) and annual or better resolution is
highly desirable in particular to make sure that anomalies are synchronous. The records
are not really the issue here, it is there use (and abuse).
There are several charges about only US or Northern Europe that can be quickly dealt
with. However the main points are on p 2.
We know from the observational record that global or hemispheric means are typically
small residuals of large anomalies of opposite signs so that large warm spots occur
simultaneously with large cold regions (witness last winter).
This fact means that we need high temporal resolution (annual or better) AND an ability
to compute hemispheric averages based on a network. The Soon and Baliunas approach
fails dismally on both of these critical points.
BS point out that Fig 2 of Mann and Jones show some temperatures as high as those in the
20th C. (They are wrong, do they mean Fig 2 of
M03?) You can counter that by looking at China where this is far from true.
I would be inclined to respond with a fairly short minimalist but powerful rebuttal,
focussing mostly on the shortcomings of BS and not defending the M03 and other records.
It should point out (again) that their methodolgy is fundamentally flawed and their
conclusions are demonstrably wrong. For this, the shorter the better.
Regards
Kevin
Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Sorry to have to bother you all with this-- I know how busy our schedules are, and this
comes at an unfortunately busy time for many of us I would guss. But I think we *do*
have to respond, and I'm hoping that the response can be, again, something we all sign
our names to.
I've asked Ellen for further guidance on the length limits of our response, and the due
date for our response. The criticisms are remarkably weak, and easy to reply to in my
view. S&B have thus unwittingly, in my view, provided us with a further opportunity to
expose the most egregious of the myths perpetuated by the contrarians (S&B have managed
to cram them all in there) in the format of a response to their comment.
THeir comment includes a statement about how the article is all based on Mann et al
[1999] which is pretty silly given what is stated in the article, and what is shown in
Figure 1. It would be appropriate to begin our response by pointing out this obvious
straw man.
Then there is some nonsense about the satellite record and urban heat islands that Phil,
Kevin, and Tom W might in particular want to speak to. And Malcolm and Keith might like
to speak to the comments on the supposed problems due to non-biological tree growth
effects (which even if they were correctly described, which they aren't, have little
relevance to several of the reconstructions shown, and all of the model simulation
results shown). There is one paragraph about Mann and Jones [2003] which is right from
the Idsos' "Co2 science" website, and Phil and I and Tim Osborn and others have already
spoken too. I will draft a short comment on that.
I'd like to solicit individual comments, sentences or paragraphs, etc. from each of you
on the various points raised, and begin to assimilate this into a "response". I'll let
you know as soon as I learn from Ellen how much space we have to work with.
Sorry for the annoyance. I look forward to any contributions you can each provide
towards a collective response.
Thanks,
mike
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 08:23:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> <[1]mailto:ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<[2]mailto:rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<[3]mailto:k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley, "Malcolm Hughes" <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<[4]mailto:mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<[5]mailto:omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<[6]mailto:t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
<[7]mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu>, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<[8]mailto:srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<[9]mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<[10]mailto:wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> <[11]mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: EOS: Soon et al reply
Comments?
Mike
Delivered-To: mem6u@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <[12]mailto:mem6u@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 12:33:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson.4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> <[13]mailto:thompson.4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: EOS: Soon et al reply
X-Sender: ethompso@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<[14]mailto:ethompso@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> <[15]mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: lzirkel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <[16]mailto:lzirkel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jjacobs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<[17]mailto:jjacobs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22
Dear Dr. Mann (and co-authors of the Forum piece that appeared in EOS),
Dr. Willie Soon and his co-authors have submitted a reply to your Forum piece that I
have accepted. Let me outline below the official AGU procedure for replies so that you
know the options available. I have sent these same instructions to Dr. Soon.
As you wrote the original piece you now have the opportunity to see their comment
(attached) on your Forum piece. You may decide whether or not to send a reply. If you
choose not to reply - their reply will be published alone.
Should you decide to reply then your response will be published along with their comment
on your paper. One little twist is that if you submit a reply, they are allowed to see
the reply, but they can't comment on it. They have two options: they can let both
their and your comments go forward and be published together or (after viewing your
reply) they also have the option of withdrawing their comment. In the latter case, then
neither their comment or your reply to the comment will be published. Yes this is a
little contorted, but these are the instructions that I received from Judy Jacobs at
AGU.
I have attached the pdf of their comment. Please let me know within the next week
whether you and your colleagues plan to prepare a reply. If so, then you would have
several weeks to do this.
I have copied Lee Zirkel and Judy Jacobs of AGU as this paper is out of the ordinary and
I want to be sure that I am handling all this correctly.
I look forward to hearing from you regarding your decision on a reply.
Best regards,
Ellen Mosley-Thompson
EOS, Editor
cc: Judy Jacobs and Lee Zirkel
attachment
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <[18]mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx > Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX:
(4xxx xxxx xxxx
[19]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <[20]mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx > Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX:
(4xxx xxxx xxxx
[21]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
-- ****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<[22]mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [23]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
<[24]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/>
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[25]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[26]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
References
1. mailto:ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu
8. mailto:srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
9. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
10. mailto:wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
11. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
12. mailto:mem6u@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
13. mailto:thompson.4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
14. mailto:ethompso@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
15. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
16. mailto:lzirkel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
17. mailto:jjacobs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
18. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
19. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
20. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
21. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
22. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
23. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
24. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
25. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
26. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1065723391.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: draft
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 14:16:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
HI Tom,
My understanding of the papers from the borehole community ever since the 1997 GRL article
by Huang et al is that they no longer believe that the data has proper sensitivity to
variations prior to about AD 1500--in fact, I don't believe anyone in that community now
feels they can meaningfully go farther back that that. Huang contributed the section on
boreholes in chapter 2 for IPCC (2001), and wrote the very words to that effect...
Now, the possible influences on boreholes might lead to inferred trends in GST that are
different from those in SAT is a different one. A number of independent recently published
papers by (Beltrami et al; Stiglitz et al; Mann and Schmidt) and others have demonstrated
that there should be expectations for significant differences between past SAT (what we
care about) and GST variations (what boreholes in the best case scenario see) due to
snowcover influences, etc. We don't have time to discuss that in this very short piece, so
I tried, as briefly as possible, to cover our bases on this issue, in a way that doesn't
really stir up the pot w/ the borehole folks...
I'm interested in any further thoughts on the above,
mike
At 12:38 PM 10/9/xxx xxxx xxxx, Tom Crowley wrote:
Hi, I don't understand why we cannot cite the borehole data for the MWP - that in a
sense is the only legitimate data set that shows a ~1 C cooling from the MWP to the LIA
- forget the deforestation problem for the moment, that is later in time -
if the borehole data for the MWP are legitimate then there is still a case for
concluding that the MWP was significantly warmer than the LIA
tom
Thanks Phil,
a few brief responses and inquiries below...
cheers,
mike
At 04:17 PM 10/9/03 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Away Oct 11-16, so here are a few comments. A few times the tone could be a little
less
antagonistic. We don't want to inflame things any further. So remove the word laundry.
fair enough. You *should* have seen the first draft I wrote. This is quite toned down
now...
1. With the boreholes do we want to get one of the borehole group to sign up, eg Henry
Pollack?
Would add a lot of weight to the last 500 year argument.
this has merit. unfortunately though I think it might open up a hornets nest of the
author list is not identical to the original list of authors on the Eos article. Other
thoughts on this...
2. On the UHI, there was a paper in a very recent issue of J. Climate by Tom Peterson,
arguing
for the USA that this is non-existent. Issue with UHI is one of large versus local
scale. One
station doesn't influence large-scale averages. All studies which look at the UHI
comprehensively
find very little effect (an order of magnitude smaller than the warming). Also the
warming
in the 20th century is very similar between the NH and SH and between the land and
ocean
components.
let me see if I can fit one or two sentences in on this and keep the article under the
length.
Also, if we can't estimate temperature histories accurately, then SB can't say it
was
warmer in their MWP period. They believe the 20th century instrumental data when they
want to.
yes, one of a large number of amazing contradictions in their reasoning...
3. Keith is away till next week. I doubt we will have the space to do the 'tree issues'
justice.
Best just to say that there are an (equal) number of non tree-based proxy series??
I do think we need to address their spurious description of the putative biological
effects. Any way that you can get in touch w/ Keith for a response, perhaps just to
this one point? Also, Malcolm might want to comment on the current wording?
4. Ray, Malcolm and Henry Diaz have a Science Perspectives piece coming out in the next
couple of weeks on the MWP/E. This is also relevant.
good!
5. Don't think we will get away with the last paragraph. Whether we want it is an issue
??
Shouldn't we be sticking to the science.
ok, I wasn't sure myself--yet it is a powerful rebuke, and reminds people that the
objection to the validity of their work goes beyond just our article--and that's
important. Does someone want to try to rephrase this paragraph, maybe reducing it to a
couple sentences?
Cheers
Phil
At 21:37 08/10/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear co-authors,
Attached is a draft response, incorporating suggestions Kevin, Tom W, and Michael. I've
aimed to be as brief as possible, but hard to go much lower than 750 words and still
address all the key issues. 750 words, by the way, is our allotted limit.
Looking forward to any comments. Feel free to send an edited version if you prefer, and
I'll try to assimilate all of the suggested edits and suggestions into a single revised
draft. If you can get comments to me within the next couple days, that would be very
helpful as we're working on a late October deadline for the final version.
Thanks for your continued help,
mike
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
--
Thomas J. Crowley
Nicholas Professor of Earth Systems Science
Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences
Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences
Box 90227
103 Old Chem Building Duke University
Durham, NC 27708
tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
xxx xxxx xxxx
xxx xxxx xxxxfax
_______________________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[3]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.[4]shtml
References
1. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
2. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
3. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
4. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1066073000.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: draft
Date: Mon Oct 13 15:23:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
At 20:02 09/10/2003, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear All,
I like all of Kevin's changes. Please work with his version as a template for any
additional suggested changes. I'll incorporate the additional comments received from
Phil and Tom W and others afterwards...
thanks,
mike
Dear Mike and co-authors,
I've now had a chance to go through the drafts and comments etc. Working from Kevin's
version, here are some suggestions to consider:
(1) Are you sure that what we saw is the final version of S03, after any EOS editing,
etc.? Wouldn't want any of the S03 quotes used here to get changed if they had to edit to
reduce the length of their piece!
(2) Suggested re-ordering of the end of point (1): 'it holds in some cases for tree-ring
density measurements at higher latitudes, but rarely for annual ring widths.'
(3) Suggested re-wording near start of point (2): '"clearly shows temperatures in the MWP
that are as high as those in the 20th century" is misleading because it is true for only
the early 20th century. The hemispheric warmth of the late 20th century is anomalous in a
long-term context.' (with underlining of either 'late' or 'is' for emphasis). Of course,
this suggestion needs to be checked carefully (e.g., is it only the 'early' 20th century
that is exceeded by some earlier temperatures?). But it is an important change because it
is not actually 'false' or 'untrue' if some part of the 20th century was exceeded earlier -
they don't specify which part, so their statement is (probably deliberately) vague rather
than wrong. The above suggestion simply points this out.
(4) Related to this comment, is the question of whether the actual reconstruction (not
instrumental observations) in the late 20th century exceeds all reconstructed values
(central estimates) prior to the 20th century. My copy of Mann and Jones (2003) has poor
quality figures, so this is hard for me to tell. It appears that it might be true, but
only right at the end - i.e. the 1980 value of the filtered series. If it is really only
at the end, and a 40-year smoothing filter is used, then I would be concerned about this
statement appearing in the response if it depends upon applying the filter right up to the
end of the record. Doing so requires some assumption about values past the end of the
series. This in itself is problematic, but especially so if the assumption were that the
trend was extrapolated to produce values for input to the filter. Of course, if the
straight 40-year mean from 1xxx xxxx xxxxof the reconstruction exceeds all other 40-year means
of the reconstruction, then I'd be happy with the statement.
(5) I don't like point (3) on the boreholes. It relies on the "optimal" borehole series of
Mann et al. (2003), a result that I have some concerns about and which is being used here
to imply less uncertainty than really exists over this issue. In the EOS paper we included
this and the "non-optimal" gridded borehole series, so we were leaving open some
uncertainty. I'm not saying that I prefer/believe the Huang et al. series either, since I
agree that extracting the temperature signal from the borehole data is very difficult. I
just don't like to imply it has been solved when it hasn't.
(6) Can we provide a supporting reference for the statement in point (4) about land use
changes leading to an overall cooling?
(7) I like the final paragraph as it is, possibly dropping the last "We feel it is time to
move on" line.
Cheers
Tim
Original Filename: 1066077412.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: draft
Date: Mon Oct 13 16:36:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Mike and all
Hi , just back from a trip and only now catching up with important emails. Given
the restricted time and space available to furnish a response to SB comments ,
I offer the following mix of comment and specific wording changes:
I agree that the S+B response is designed to deflect criticism by confusing the issues
rather than answering our points.
In fact they fail to address any of the 3 specific
issues we raised Namely , 1. the need for critical evaluation of proxy inputs , 2. the
need for a consistent assimilation of widespread (dated and well resolved ) records,
3. the essential requirement for objective/quantitative calibration (scaling) of the input
records to allow for assessment of the uncertainties when making
comparisons of different reconstructions and when comparing early with recent
temperatures.
Their own , ill-conceived and largely subjective approach did not take
account of the uncertainties and problems in the use of palaeodata that they chose to
highlight in their opening remarks.
I would be in favour of stating something to this effect at the outset of our response.
Also , as regards the tree-ring bit , I fully concur with the sense of your text as
regards Section 1, but suggest the following wording (to replace ",rarely for annual
ring widths, and almost entirely at higher latitudes.")
"but in certain high-latitude regions only. Where this is the case , these relatively
recent
(ie post 1950) data are not used in calibrating temperature reconstructions. In many other
(even high-latitude) areas density or ring-width records display no bias."
In the spirit of healthy debate - I agree with Tim's remarks , warning against presenting a
too
sanguine impression that the borehole debate is closed ( though I do think it is closing!).
I also believe , as you already know, that the use of a recent padding algorithm to extend
smoothed data to the present time, is inappropriate if it assumes the continuation of a
recent
trend. This is likely to confuse , rather than inform, the wider public about the current
climate state .
Finally , I repeat my earlier remarks (made before EOS piece published) that we are missing
an opportunity to say that a warm Medieval period per se is not a refutation of
anthropogenic
warming , {as its absence is no proof}, if we do not understand the role of specific
forcings (natural
and anthropogenic) that influenced medieval and current climates.
Cheers
Keith
At 12:48 PM 10/9/xxx xxxx xxxx, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi all
Here are my suggested changes: toned down in several places. Tracking turned on
Kevin
Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear co-authors,
Attached is a draft response, incorporating suggestions Kevin, Tom W, and Michael. I've
aimed to be as brief as possible, but hard to go much lower than 750 words and still
address all the key issues. 750 words, by the way, is our allotted limit.
Looking forward to any comments. Feel free to send an edited version if you prefer, and
I'll try to assimilate all of the suggested edits and suggestions into a single revised
draft. If you can get comments to me within the next couple days, that would be very
helpful as we're working on a late October deadline for the final version.
Thanks for your continued help,
mike
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: [1]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [3]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [4]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa[6]/
References
1. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx%A0
2. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
3. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
5. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
6. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1066149334.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: draft
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:35:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
thanks Caspar,
I agree--its important to emphasize this point, and I'm glad you recognized that we were
underplaying it...
mike
At 10:25 AM 10/14/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Caspar Ammann wrote:
Mike,
looks good to me. It is one of these points where they can persuade journalists that
they are 'correct' and it actually got into newspapers and finally to the senate floor
this way. The more we are able to explain why the first half of the 20th century warmed
up naturally, the more confidence we get on the detection of the anthropogenic signal
afterwards.
Caspar
Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear All,
In response to Caspar's suggestion, which I agree with, I propose rephrasing item "2"
as follows:
2) The statement by S03 that the Mann and Jones [2003] reconstruction "clearly shows
temperatures in the MWP that are as high as those in the 20th century" is misleading if
not false. M03 emphasize that it is the late, and not the early or mid 20th century
warmth, that is outside the range of past variability. Mann and Jones emphasize
conclusions for the Northern Hemisphere, noting that those for the Southern Hemisphere
(and globe) are indeterminate due to a paucity of southern hemisphere data. Consistent
with M03, they conclude that, late 20th century Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures
are anomalous in a long-term (nearly two millennium) context.
Any comments?
Thanks,
mike
Delivered-To: [1]mem6u@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:18:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: Caspar Ammann [2]<ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Organization: NCAR
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: "Michael E. Mann" [3]<mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: draft
Hi Mike,
it now looks good to me indeed including the new last paragraph following Tom's wording.
The only point I would highlight a little more is in point 2): Maybe it could be stated
that the early part of the 20th century is within the natural range whereas the late
20th century, the main point of the AGU position statement and also in M03, is clearly
outside. Please also add a second 'n' in my name...
Cheers, and thanks for your momentum on this,
Caspar
Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear All,
I agree with each of Tom W's suggestions. Adopting them, by the way, brings us down to
738 words.
So pending any revised language from Keith/Malcolm in response to Michael O's comment on
paragraph 2, I'm putting out a last call for comments, sign-ons, etc...
Thanks,
mike
At 08:00 AM 10/14/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Tom Wigley wrote:
Some minor points ....
para. xxx xxxx xxxxshould it be 'an' ensuing rather than 'the' ensuing?
para. xxx xxxx xxxxI still think 'each' (line 3) is unnecessary
para. xxx xxxx xxxxno comma after '(and globe)'
re boreholes, does the point about comparing late 20th century with a 'much longer
period' 1000 years ago help us? Given that the 1000 years ago data is highly lowpass
filtered, if one *did* have a series with a temporal resolution that allowed a
legitimate comparison, then the likelihood of a warmer interval 1000 years ago must be
higher.
In any event, the time scale issue will not be meaningful to most readers. The key point
is the data reliability/uncertainty. I would just say something like ...
".... taken into account. For times more than 500 years ago, uncertainties in the
borehole reconstructions preclude any useful quantitative comparison."
Finally, I would like the last para. retained, but I suggest shorter wording as ...
".... as indicating that SB03 misinterpreted and misrepresented the paleoclimatological
literature. The controversy ....".
My problem here is twofold. First, they really say nothing directly about 'mainstream
scientific opinion' (except that they clearly disagree with it). At issue is not the
mainstream opinion, but their interpretation of the literature and their illogical
conclusions. Second, they may have misrepresented the results of their work, but we do
not address this issue so it comes here as a non sequitur. In fact, just what such
'misrepresentation' consists of, and why it might be judged as 'misrepresentation' is a
subtle issue. Hence my revision -- which retains the word 'misrepresentation', but in a
different context.
Tom.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
Michael E. Mann wrote:
Thanks Tim and Malcolm,
The latest round of suggestions were extremely helpful. I've accepted them w/ a few
minor tweaks (attached). We're at 765 words--I think AGU will let us get away w/ that...
So, comments from others?
Thanks,
mike
At 02:11 PM 10/14/2003 +0100, Tim Osborn wrote:
SO3 argue that borehole data provide a conflicting view of past temperature histories.
To the contrary, the borehole estimates for recent centuries shown in M03 may be
consistent with other estimates, provided consideration is given to statistical
uncertainties, spatial sampling and possible influences on the ground surface [e.g.,
snow cover changes--Beltrami and Kellman, 2003]. It is not meaningful to compare the
late 20th century with a much longer period 1000 years ago [Bradley et al., 2003],
especially given the acknowledged limitations [Pollack et al., 1998] of borehole data.
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: [4]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[5]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: [6]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[7]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
--
Caspar M. Ammann
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology
Advanced Study Program
1850 Table Mesa Drive
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx
email:
[8]ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
tel: xxx xxxx xxxxfax: xxx xxxx xxxx
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: [9]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[10]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
--
Caspar M. Ammann
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology
Advanced Study Program
1850 Table Mesa Drive
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx
email:
[11]ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
tel: xxx xxxx xxxxfax: xxx xxxx xxxx
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[12]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
References
1. mailto:mem6u@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
6. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
8. mailto:ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
9. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
10. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
11. mailto:ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
12. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1066337021.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: Correspondence on Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas views on climate
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:43:xxx xxxx xxxx
Dear All,
Thought you would be interested in this exchange, which John Holdren of Harvard has been
kind enough to pass along...
mike
Delivered-To: mem6u@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
X-Sender: jholdren@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:53:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: "Michael Mann" <mem6u@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Tom Wigley" <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: "John P. Holdren" <john_holdren@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Correspondence on Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas
views on climate
Michael and Tom --
I'm forwarding for your entertainment an exchange that followed from my being quoted in
the Harvard Crimson to the effect that you and your colleagues are right and my
"Harvard" colleagues Soon and Baliunas are wrong about what the evidence shows
concerning surface temperatures over the past millennium. The cover note to faculty
and postdocs in a regular Wednesday breakfast discussion group on environmental science
and public policy in Harvard's Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences is more or
less self-explanatory.
Best regards,
John
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:02:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: schrag@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, oconnell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, holland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
pearson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, eli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ingalls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
mlm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, avan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, moyer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
poussart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jshaman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, sivan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
bec@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, saleska@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: "John P. Holdren" <john_holdren@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: For the EPS Wednesday breakfast group: Correspondence on Harvard Crimson
coverage of Soon / Baliunas views on climate
Cc: jeremy_bloxham@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, william_clark@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
patricia_mclaughlin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
Bcc:
Colleagues--
I append here an e-mail correspondence I have engaged in over the past few days trying
to educate a Soon/Baliunas supporter who originally wrote to me asking how I could think
that Soon and Baliunas are wrong and Mann et al. are right (a view attributed to me,
correctly, in the Harvard Crimson). This individual apparently runs a web site on which
he had been touting the Soon/Baliunas position.
While it is sometimes a mistake to get into these exchanges (because one's interlocutor
turns out to be ineducable and/or just looking for a quote to reproduce out of context
in an attempt to embarrass you), there was something about this guy's formulations that
made me think, at each round, that it might be worth responding. In the end, a couple
of colleagues with whom I have shared this exchange already have suggested that its
content would be of interest to others, and so I am sending it to our "environmental
science and policy breakfast" list for your entertainment and, possibly, future
breakfast discussion.
The items in the correspondence are arranged below in chronological order, so that it
can be read straight through, top to bottom.
Best,
John
At 09:43 PM 9/12/2xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
Dr. Holdren:
In a recent Crimson story on the work of Soon and Baliunas, who have written for my
website [1]www.techcentralstation.com, you are quoted as saying:
My impression is that the critics are right. It s unfortunate that so much attention is
paid to a flawed analysis, but that s what happens when something happens to support the
political climate in Washington.
Do you feel the same way about the work of Mann et. al.? If not why not?
Best,
Nick
Nick Schulz
Editor
TCS
xxx xxxx xxxx
From: John P. Holdren [[2]mailto:john_holdren@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 11:06 AM
To: Nick Schulz
Subject: Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas controversy
Dear Nick Schultz --
I am sorry for the long delay in this response to your note of September 12. I have
been swamped with other commitments.
As you no doubt have anticipated, I do not put Mann et al. in the same category with
Soon and Baliunas.
If you seriously want to know "Why not?", here are three ways one might arrive at what I
regard as the right conclusion:
(1) For those with the background and patience to penetrate the scientific arguments,
the conclusion that Mann et al. are right and Soon and Baliunas are wrong follows from
reading carefully the relevant Soon / Baliunas paper and the Mann et al. response to it:
W. Soon and S. Baliunas, "Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000
years", Climate Research, vol. 23, pp 89ff, 2003.
M. Mann, C. Amman, R. Bradley, K. Briffa, P. Jones, T. Osborn, T. Crowley, M. Hughes, M.
Oppenheimer, J. Overpeck, S. Rutherford, K. Trenberth, and T. Wigley, "On past
temperatures and anomalous late-20th century warmth", EOS, vol 84, no. 27, pp 256ff, 8
July 2003.
This is the approach I took. Soon and Baliunas are demolished in this comparison.
(2) Those lacking the background and/or patience to penetrate the two papers, and
seriously wanting to know who is more likely to be right, have the option of asking
somebody who does possess these characteristics -- preferably somebody outside the
handful of ideologically committed and/or oil-industry-linked professional
climate-change skeptics -- to evaluate the controversy for them. Better yet, one could
poll a number of such people. They can easily be found by checking the web pages of
earth sciences, atmospheric sciences, and environmental sciences departments at any
number of major universities.
(3) The least satisfactory approach, for those not qualified for (1) and lacking the
time or initiative for (2), would be to learn what one can about the qualifications
(including publications records) and reputations, in the field in question, of the
authors on the two sides. Doing this would reveal that Soon and Baliunas are,
essentially, amateurs in the interpretation of historical and paleoclimatological
records of climate change, while the Mann et al. authors include several of the most
published and most distinguished people in the world in this field. Such an
investigation would also reveal that Dr. Baliunas' reputation in this field suffered
considerable damage a few years back, when she put her name on an incompetent critique
of mainstream climate science that was never published anywhere respectable but was
circulated by the tens of thousands, in a format mimicking that of a reprint from the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in pursuit of signatures on a petition
claiming that the mainstream findings were wrong.
Of course, the third approach is the least satisfactory because it can be dangerous to
assume that the more distinguished people are always right. Occasionally, it turns out
that the opposite is true. That is one of several good reasons that it pays to try to
penetrate the arguments, if one can, or to poll others who have tried to do so. But in
cases where one is not able or willing to do either of these things -- and where one is
able to discover that the imbalance of experience and reputation on the two sides of the
issue is as lopsided as here -- one ought at least to recognize that the odds strongly
favor the proposition that the more experienced and reputable people are right. If one
were a policy maker, to bet the public welfare on the long odds of the opposite being
true would be foolhardy.
Sincerely,
John Holdren
PS: I have provided this response to your query as a personal communication, not as
fodder for selective excerpting on your web site or elsewhere. If you do decide that
you would like to propagate my views on this matter more widely, I ask that you convey
my response in its entirety.
At 11:16 AM 10/13/2xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
I have the patience but, by your definition certainly, not the background, so I suppose
it s not surprising I came to a different conclusion. I guess my problem concerns what
lawyers call the burden of proof. The burden weighs heavily much more heavily, given
the claims on Mann et.al. than it does on Soon/Baliunas. Would you agree?
Falsifiability for the claims of Mann et. al. requires but a few examples, does it
not? Soon/Baliunas make claims that have no such burden. Isn t that correct?
Best,
Nick
From: John P. Holdren [[3]mailto:john_holdren@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 5:54 PM
To: Nick Schulz
Subject: RE: Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas controversy
Nick--
Yes, I can see how it might seem that, in principle, those who are arguing for a strong
and sweeping proposition (such as that "the current period is the warmest in the last
1000 years") must meet a heavy burden of proof, and that, because even one convincing
counter-example shoots the proposition down, the burden that must be borne by the
critics is somehow lighter. But, in practice, burden of proof is an evolving thing --
it evolves as the amount of evidence relevant to a particular proposition grows.
To choose an extreme example, consider the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
Both of these are "empirical" laws. Our confidence in them is based entirely on
observation; neither one can be "proven" from more fundamental laws. Both are very
sweeping. The first law says that energy is conserved in all physical processes. The
second law says that entropy increases in all physical processes. So, is the burden of
proof heavier on somebody who asserts that these laws are correct, or on somebody who
claims to have found an exception to one or both of them? Clearly, in this case, the
burden is heavier on somebody who asserts an exception. This is in part because the
two laws have survived every such challenge in the past. No exception to either has
ever been documented. Every alleged exception has turned out to be traceable to a
mistake of some kind. This burden on those claiming to have found an exception is so
strong that the US Patent Office takes the position, which has been upheld in court,
that any patent application for an invention that violates either law can be rejected
summarily, without any further analysis of the details.
Of course, I am not asserting that the claim we are now in the warmest period in a
millennium is in the same league with the laws of thermodynamics. I used the latter
only to illustrate the key point that where the burden is heaviest depends on the state
of prior evidence and analysis on the point in question -- not simply on whether a
proposition is sweeping or narrow.
In the case actually at hand, Mann et al. are careful in the nature of their claim.
They write along the lines of "A number of reconstructions of large-scale temperature
changes support the conclusion" that the current period is the warmest in the last
millennium. And they write that the claims of Baliunas et al. are "inconsistent with
the preponderance of scientific evidence". They are not saying that no shred of
evidence to the contrary has ever been produced, but rather that analysis of the
available evidence as a whole tends to support their conclusion.
This is often the case in science. That is, there are often "outlier" data points or
apparent contradictions that are not yet adequately explained, but still are not given
much weight by most of the scientists working on a particular issue if a strong
preponderance of evidence points the other way. This is because the scientists judge it
to be more probable that the outlier data point or apparent contradiction will
ultimately turn out to be explainable as a mistake, or otherwise explainable in a way
that is consistent with the preponderance of evidence, than that it will turn out that
the preponderance of evidence is wrong or is being misinterpreted. Indeed, apparent
contradictions with a preponderance of evidence are FAR more often due to measurement
error or analysis error than to real contradiction with what the preponderance
indicates.
A key point, then, is that somebody with a PhD claiming to have identified a
counterexample does not establish that those offering a general proposition have failed
in their burden of proof. The counterexample itself must pass muster as both valid in
itself and sufficient, in the generality of its implications, to invalidate the
proposition.
In the case at hand, it is not even a matter of an "outlier" point or other seeming
contradiction that has not yet been explained. Mann et al. have explained in detail why
the supposed contrary evidence offered by Baliunas et al. does NOT constitute a
counterexample. To those with some knowledge and experience in studies of this kind,
the refutation by Mann et al is completely convincing.
Sincerely,
John Holdren
At 08:08 AM 10/15/2xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
Dr. Holdren:
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I genuinely appreciate you taking the time.
You are quite right about the laws of thermodynamics. And you are quite right that Mann
et al is not in the same league as those laws and that s not to take anything from their
basic research.
You write to those with knowledge and experience in studies of this kind, the refutation
by Mann et all is completely convincing. Since I do not have what you would consider
the requisite knowledge or experience, I can t speak to that. I ve read the Mann papers
and the Baliunas Soon paper and the Mann rebuttal and find Mann s claims based on his
research extravagant and beyond what he can legitimately claim to know. That said, I m
willing to believe it is because I don t have the tools necessary to understand.
But if you will indulge a lay person with some knowledge of the matter, perhaps you
could clear up a thing or two.
Part of the confusion over Mann et al it seems to me has to do not with the research
itself but with the extravagance of the claims they make based on their research.
And yet you write: Mann et al. are careful in the nature of their claim. They write
along the lines of A number of reconstructions of large-scale temperature changes
support the conclusion that the current period is the warmest in the last millennium.
And they write that the claims of Baliunas et al. are inconsistent with the
preponderance of scientific evidence .
That makes it seem as if Mann s not claiming anything particularly extraordinary based
on his research.
But Mann claimed in the NYTimes in 1998 that in their Nature study from that year Our
conclusion was that the warming of the past few decades appears to be closely tied to
emission of greenhouse gases by humans and not any of the natural factors." Does that
seem to be careful in the nature of a claim? Respected scientists like Tom Quigley
responded at the time by saying "I think there's a limit to how far you can ever go." As
for using proxy data to detect a man-made greenhouse effect, he said, "I don't think
we're ever going to get to the point where we're going to be totally convincing." These
are two scientists who would agree on the preponderance of evidence and yet they make
different claims about what that preponderance means. There are lots of respected
climatologists who would say Mann has insufficient scientific basis to make that claim.
Would you agree? The Soon Baliunas research is relevant to that element of the debate
what the preponderance of evidence enables us to claim within reason. To that end, I
don t think claims of Soon Baliunas are inconsistent with the preponderance of
scientific evidence.
I ll close by saying I m willing to admit that, as someone lacking a PhD, I could be
punching above my weight. But I will ask you a different but related question How much
hope is there for reaching reasonable public policy decisions that affect the lives of
millions if the science upon which those decisions must be made is said to be by
definition beyond the reach of those people?
All best,
Nick
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:46:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: "Nick Schulz" <nschulz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: "John P. Holdren" <john_holdren@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas controversy
Nick--
You ask good questions. I believe the thoughtfulness of your questions and the progress
I believe we are making in this interchange contain the seeds of the answer to your
final question, which, if I may paraphrase just a bit, is whether there's any hope of
reaching reasonable public-policy decisions when the details of the science germane to
those decisions are impenetrable to most citizens.
This is a hard problem. Certainly the difficulty is not restricted to climate science
and policy, but applies also to nuclear-weapon science and policy, nuclear-energy
science and policy, genetic science and policy, and much more. But I don't think the
difficulties are insurmountable. That's why I'm in the business I'm in, which is
teaching about and working on the intersection of science and technology with policy.
Most citizens cannot penetrate the details of what is known about the how the climate
works (and, of course, what is known even by the most knowledgeable climate scientists
about this is not everything one would like to know, and is subject to modification by
new data, new insights, new forms of analysis). Neither would most citizens be able to
understand how a hydrogen bomb works (even if the details were not secret), or what
factors will determine the leak rates of radioactive nuclides from radioactive-waste
repositories, or what stem-cell research does and promises to be able to do.
But, as Amory Lovins once said in addressing the question of whether the public deserved
and could play a meaningful role in debates about nuclear-weapon policy, even though
most citizens would never understand the details of how nuclear weapons work or are
made, "You don't have to be a chicken to know what to do with an egg." In other words,
for many (but not all) policy purposes, the details that are impenetrable do not matter.
There CAN be aspects of the details that do matter for public policy, of course. In
those cases, it is the function and the responsibility of scientists who work across the
science-and-policy boundary to communicate the policy implications of these details in
ways that citizens and policy makers can understand. And I believe it is the function
and responsibility of citizens and policy makers to develop, with the help of scientists
and technologists, a sufficient appreciation of how to reach judgments about
plausibility and credibility of communications about the science and technology relevant
to policy choices so that the citizens and policy makers are NOT disenfranchised in
policy decisions where science and technology are germane.
How this is best to be done is a more complicated subject than I am prepared to try to
explicate fully here. (Alas, I have already spent more time on this interchange than I
could really afford from other current commitments.) Suffice it to say, for now, that
improving the situation involves increasing at least somewhat, over time, the scientific
literacy of our citizens, including especially in relation to how science works, how to
distinguish an extravagant from a reasonable claim, how to think about probabilities of
who is wrong and who is right in a given scientific dispute (including the question of
burden of proof as you and I have been discussing it here), how consulting and polling
experts can illuminate issues even for those who don't understand everything that the
experts say, and why bodies like the National Academy of Sciences and the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change deserve more credibility on the question of
where mainstream scientific opinion lies than the National Petroleum Council, the Sierra
Club, or the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.
Regarding extravagant claims, you continue to argue that Mann et al. have been guilty of
this, but the formulation of theirs that you offer as evidence is not evidence of this
at all. You quote them from the NYT in 1998, referring to a study Mann and co-authors
published in that year, as saying
"Our conclusion was that the warming of the past few decades appears to be closely
tied to emission of greenhouse gases by humans and not any of the natural factors."
and you ask "Does that seem to be careful in the nature of a claim?" My answer is:
Yes, absolutely, their formulation is careful and appropriate. Please note that they
did NOT say "Global warming is closely tied to emission of greenhouse gases by humans
and not any of the natural factors." They said that THEIR CONCLUSION (from a
particular, specified study, published in NATURE) was that the warming of THE PAST FEW
DECADES (that is, a particular, specified part of the historical record) APPEARS (from
the evidence adduced in the specified study) to be closely tied... This is a carefully
specified, multiply bounded statement, which accurately reflects what they looked at and
what they found. And it is appropriately contingent --"APPEARS to be closely tied" --
allowing for the possibility that further analysis or new data could later lead to a
different perspective on what appears to be true.
With respect, it does not require a PhD in science to notice the appropriate boundedness
and contingency in the Mann et al. formulation. It only requires an open mind, a
careful reading, and a degree of understanding of the character of scientific claims and
the wording appropriate to convey them that is accessible to any thoughtful citizen.
That is why I'm an optimist.
You go on to quote the respected scientist "Tom Quigley" as holding a contrary view to
that expressed by Mann. But please note that: (1) I don't know of any Tom Quigley
working in this field, so I suspect you mean to refer to the prominent climatologist Tom
Wigley; (2) the statements you attribute to "Quiqley" do not directly contradict the
careful statement of Mann (that is, it is entirely consistent for Mann to say that his
study found that recent warming appears to be tied to human emissions and for Wigley to
say that that there are limits to how far one can go with this sort of analysis, without
either one being wrong); and (3) Tom Wigley is one of the CO-AUTHORS of the resounding
Mann et al. refutation of Soon and Baliunas (see attached PDF file).
I hope you have found my responses to be of some value. I now must get on with other
things.
Best,
John Holdren
JOHN P. HOLDREN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy
& Director, Program in Science, Technology, & Public Policy,
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs,
John F. Kennedy School of Government
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy,
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
mail: BCSIA, JFK School, 79 JFK St, Cambridge, MA 02138
phone: xxx xxxx xxxx/ fax xxx xxxx xxxx
email: john_holdren@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
assistant: Patricia_McLaughlin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, xxx xxxx xxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN P. HOLDREN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy
& Director, Program in Science, Technology, & Public Policy,
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs,
John F. Kennedy School of Government
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy,
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
mail: BCSIA, JFK School, 79 JFK St, Cambridge, MA 02138
phone: xxx xxxx xxxx/ fax xxx xxxx xxxx
email: john_holdren@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
assistant: Patricia_McLaughlin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, xxx xxxx xxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[4]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
References
1. http://www.techcentralstation.com/
2. mailto:john_holdren@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:john_holdren@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1083962601.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Tas van Ommen" <tas.van.ommen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Subject: RoG paper
Date: Fri May 7 16:43:xxx xxxx xxxx
Dear Tas and Caspar,
Attached is the proof version of the RoG paper with Mike Mann. This is about 99.99%
the final one. Mike and I sent back a few small changes to AGU a month or so ago. Keep
this to yourself for a while yet - I would expect the paper out sometime in the
July/August
period.
Many of us in the paleo field get requests from skeptics (mainly a guy called
Steve McIntyre in Canada) asking us for series. Mike and I are not sending anything,
partly because we don't have some of the series he wants, also partly as we've got the
data
through contacts like you, but mostly because he'll distort and misuse them.
Despite this, Mike and I would like to make as many of the series we've used in the
RoG
plots available from the CRU web page. Can we do this with the series we've got from
you? You don't have to do anything, except to reply yes or no !
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Filename: 1084625760.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Sarah Raper <sraper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Sarah Raper <s.raper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: volc paper
Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 08:56:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Attachment: volc.doc
Dear Sarah,
Ben and I have had some long discussions about this paper, and I have
made quite a few changes as a consequence. Most of these are minor --
but I realized that my statement that the peak cooling depended
logarithmically on the sensitivity was potentially confusing. For this to be
the case one has to have a relationship like
Tmax = A + B ln(S)
which implies odd results for very low sensitivity. Instead, I have fitted
a relationship of the form
Tmax = A [S**n]
which gives Tmax = 0 when S = 0.
I have fitted a similar relationship to the decay time results, and I have
done the same for the LG98 results. All this information has been added
to the manuscript. It helps in understanding the differences between us and
LG98.
I had hoped to send this off earlier this week, i.e., before I go to Buenos
Aires (tomorrow), but I never received the copyright form from you. Then
I remembered that you were at that IPCC meeting in Ireland. So I have
asked Liz Rothney to send the ms off next week as soon as she gets the
copyright form from you. So please fax this back (xxx xxxx xxxx) as soon
as possible.
Best wishes,
Tom.
Original Filename: 1091798809.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Janice Lough" <j.lough@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: liked the paper
Date: Fri Aug 6 09:26:xxx xxxx xxxx
Janice,
Most of the data series in most of the plots have just appeared on the CRU web site.
Go to data then to paleoclimate. Did this to stop getting hassled by the skeptics for the
data series. Mike Mann refuses to talk to these people and I can understand why. They are
just trying to find if we've done anything wrong. I sent one of them loads of series
and he barely said a thankyou. It seems they are now going for Tom Crowley, Lonnie
Thompson and Gordon Jacoby as most of their series are not on web sites.
Below is a link to an awful piece by Legates. He told me he is a writing a paper, but
wrote the press release first ! The pdf is worth getting for a couple of sentences, when
he
said that MJ restricted their use of paleo series to those that had correlations with
instrumental data ! It is a classic. 'Our uncertainty estimates are based solely on how
well
the proxy records match the observed data' !
The Legates piece must have been sent to loads of environment correspondents across
the world and a number of op-ed pieces appeared. Some were awful. Most have had
responses from Ray Bradley, Caspar Amman and others.
Hope all is well with you and all the best to all. Glad you enjoyed the paper.
Cheers
Phil
PS Do you want to get involved in IPCC this time? I'm the CLA of the atmospheric obs.
chapter with Kevin Trenberth and we'll be looking for Contributing Authors to help the
Lead Authors we have. Paleo is in a different section this time led by Peck and Eystein
Janssen. Keith is a lead author as well.
Phil Jones has made a valid point in that some of the articles cited
in my critique do not 'directly' address problems with Mann and Jones (MJ)
but rather, address problems with earlier works by Mann, Bradley, and
Hughes (MBH) and other colleagues. Fair enough - I have changed the
critique to reflect that fact. The revised version has been posted since
July 19 at:
[1]http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba478/ba478.pdf
However, I still contend that most of my original arguments - namely, the
problems with the shaft, blade, and sheath - apply equally to Mann and
Jones as well as the other Mann et al. manifestations of the 'hockey
stick'.
MJ incorporate data from a number of the same sources as those used
by MBH; for example, Mann's unpublished PC1 from the western North
American tree-ring data, Cook's Tasmanian tree rings, Thompson's Quelccaya
and Dunde ice core oxygen isotope records (the latter embedded in Yang's
Chinese composite), and Fisher's stacked Greenland ice core oxygen isotope
record. Calibration and verification of MJ includes the flawed MBH curve.
Thus, any errors in MBH effectively undermine the calibration-verification
results of MJ, leaving this study unsupported and any problems with the
underlying common proxies identified in critiques of MBH will also result
in identical problems in MJ.
My criticism regarding the blade is that 0.6 deg C warming for the
last century is noted by the IPCC whereas MJ (and other M et al
representations) have up to 0.95 deg C warming in their observed record.
See MJ's figure 2 where for the global and NH reconstruction, their
estimates for 2000 exceed +0.4 and +0.5 (nearly +0.6), respectively.
MJ's NH curve is included in the attached graph. Thus, I stand by my
criticism of MJ on this point, which is more egregious in MJ than other M
et al representations.
>From Jones: "The trend over the 20th century in the Figure and in the
instrumental data. IPCC quotes 0.6 deg C over the 1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod. Fact
- but Legates is eyeballing the curve to get 0.95 deg C. A figure isn't
given in Mann and Jones (2003). Take it from me the trend is about the
same as the instrumental record."
Funny, but there IS a figure in MJ - see their Figure 2. As for me
'eyeballing' an apparently non-existent curve, I attach a figure from Soon
et al. (2004) that contains a portion of MJ's Figure 2 to allow others to
decide for themselves whether MJ suggest a twentieth century warming of
0.6 deg C or 0.95 deg C. Moreover, maybe someone can explain why every
time Mann and his colleagues draft another curve, the temperature in 2000
gets warmer and warmer after the fact...
My criticisms regarding the sheath (largely from a paper on which I
am working) stem from the characterization of the uncertainty by MJ that
arises solely from the 'fit' statistics to the 1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod using
cross-validation with, not observations, but composites of three
previously compiled reconstructions, including that developed by MBH - the
focus of known flaws and errors in the shaft. Note that some of the same
data are used in both MBH and MJ, which doesn't allow for a truly
independent cross-validation. My rather obvious point was not that fit
statistics should not be included (as Jones asserts) but that MJ included
no errors in either input realization (observations or proxy data) or
other obvious sources of error. The claim by MBH and MJ is that only the
model lack-of-fit contributes to uncertainty is inherently flawed.
Considerable errors exist in the representation of both fields -
annual temperatures from both observations and proxy records - and must be
incorporated. Clearly, there is a spatial bias associated with
observations that are biased away from the oceans, high latitudes, and
high altitudes. The spatial problem is far more pronounced when only a
handful of proxies are used to represent the global temperatures at
earlier time periods. Both MBH and MJ are equally guilty in this regard.
David R. Legates
At 15:55 06/08/2004 +1000, you wrote:
Dear Phil
Just finished reading your paper with Mike M in Rev of Geophysics which I
very much enjoyed - will let you know when it hits the Mission Beach
Chronicle!
Hope all is well
best wishes
Janice
Janice M. Lough
Principal Research Scientist
Australian Institute of Marine Science
PMB 3, Townsville MC
Queensland 4810
Australia
email: j.lough@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Tel: (xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: (xxx xxxx xxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained within this transmission is for the use of
the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or
legally privileged material and/or material the subject of copyright
and/or personal information and/or sensitive information that is
subject to the Privacy Act 1988. Any review, re-transmission,
disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in
reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited.
If you have received this email in error please notify the AIMS
Privacy Officer on (xxx xxxx xxxxand delete all copies of this
transmission together with any attachments.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba478/ba478.pdf
Original Filename: 1097078296.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: past 1000 yr
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:58:xxx xxxx xxxx
<x-flowed>
SEE CAPS
Tim Osborn wrote:
> Hi Tom - I'd be happy to contribute if I have something worth
> contributing! I'm a bit rushed today and away tomorrow, but can
> respond to further emails later in the week.
>
> At 14:31 03/10/2004, Tom Wigley wrote:
>
>> Caspar Ammann and I plan to publish some MAGICC
>> results for the past 100 years.
>
>
> Presume you mean 1000 years, hence relevance of ECHO-H/von Storch.
OOPS! YES.
>
>
>> Part of the reason is the new
>> solar forcing, as in my Science note with Peter Foukal.
>
>
> Yes I saw that. With a brief scan I didn't realise that you were
> presenting a new forcing history, just discussing reasons why
> long-term changes may be lower than previously estimated. But
> presumably you can use such reasoning to develop a new forcing history
> - or, better, a range or even a PDF of such histories. And then
> extend it using 14-C or 10-Be, or a combination?
WE SAY *NO* LOW FREQ FORCING. C-14/Be-10 ARE PROXIES FOR MAGNETIC FIELD
CHANGES. THERE
IS NO ADEQUATE THEORY RELATING THESE TO LUMINOSITY CHANGES -- IN FACT
THEORY SUGGESTS
THEY ARE *NOT* RELATED. SO WE ARE SUGGESTING A DIFFERENT FORCING
HISTORY, WITH
IMPLICATIONS AS IN THE FIGURE. NO SOLAR-INDUCED LIA, IN ACCORD WITH THE
PROXY CLIMATE
RECONSTRUXIONS. FURTHER, THERE IS SOME RECENT WORK SUGGESTING THAT PART
OF THE
C-14/Be-10 CHANGESW ARE DUE TOCHZNGES IN THE *EARTH'S* MAGNETIC FIELD.
>
>
>> So we
>> address both forcing and senstivity uncertainties. In
>> addition, the drift due to incorrect initialization is an issue.
>
>
> Surely not so in MAGICC? But yes, it is in GCMs and particularly so
> in ECHO-G.
OF COURSE WHAT I MEAN IS TO USE MAGICC TO QUANTIFY THE INITIALIZATION
'DRIFT'.
>
>
>> I have not yet read the Storch paper or your comment -- but
>> did you mention this problem?
>
>
> We said that ECHO-G had a redder spectrum than other model simulations
> (there was no room to say that it showed greater fluctuations, but we
> cited the Jones/Mann paper which has an intercomparison figure in
> it). We didn't talk about the reasons for this (drift early on,
> strong solar forcing throughout and no tropospheric aerosols to
> mitigate recent warming) because we'd already said that the simulation
> didn't necessarily represent real climate history.
>
>
>> Also, can you remind me just what was done with the ECHO
>> run?
>
>
> Main problem in terms of introducing "drift" (or "adjustment") was
> that they used a control run with present day CO2 as initial
> conditions. Although they allowed a 70-year spin-up (prior to AD
> 1000) to adjust back to pre-industrial CO2, this doesn't look long
> enough and the adjustment probably goes on for the first 400 years of
> the run - i.e. there is gradually disappearing cooling trend over this
> period. All based on MAGICC runs, but still fairly convincing
> (including non-zero heat flux out of the ocean in ECHO-G itself).
SEE THE STOUFFER PAPER IN CLIM DYN 23, 327 (2004).
>
>
>> If you have something to add on this, you can join as a co-author.
>
>
> I'm not quite sure what you plan, nor the input you need, but
> hopefully I can help.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE IS YOUR BEST ESTIMATE OF THE MAGNITUDE OF THE SPURIOUS
INITIALIZATION EFFECT IN
TERMS OF FORCING.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
>
>
> Dr Timothy J Osborn
> Climatic Research Unit
> School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
> Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
>
> e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
> fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
> web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
> sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
>
>
>
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1102687002.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mprather@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, robert.berner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rjs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dshindell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rmiller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxxbey, td@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, aclement@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, james.white@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hfd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wuebbles@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, thompson.3@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, thompson.4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, juerg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu, tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, schrag@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jlean@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, weaver@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, djt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, robock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, schlesin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dkaroly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, berger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, david@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, davet@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mcane@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, meehl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, myles.allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, natasha@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.manning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, nmantua@u.washington.edu, Jeffrey.Park@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jseveringhaus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, bengtsson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jcole@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, juliebg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rich@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dcayan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, goosse@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, atimmermann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ajb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, penner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jmahlman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbierbau@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: RealClimate.org
Date: 10 Dec 2004 08:56:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Mike Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eric Steig <steig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, aclement@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rasmus.benestad@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Colleagues,
No doubt some of you share our frustration with the current state of
media reporting on the climate change issue. Far too often we see
agenda-driven "commentary" on the Internet and in the opinion columns of
newspapers crowding out careful analysis. Many of us work hard on
educating the public and journalists through lectures, interviews and
letters to the editor, but this is often a thankless task.
In order to be a little bit more pro-active, a group of us (see below)
have recently got together to build a new 'climate blog' website:
RealClimate.org which will be launched over the next few days at:
http://www.realclimate.org
The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where
we can mount a rapid response to supposedly 'bombshell' papers that are
doing the rounds and give more context to climate related stories or
events.
Some examples that we have already posted relate to combatting
dis-information regarding certain proxy reconstructions and supposed
'refutations' of the science used in Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.
We have also posted more educational pieces relating to the
interpretation of the ice core GHG records or the reason why the
stratosphere is cooling. We are keeping the content strictly scientific,
though at an accessible level.
The blog format allows us to update postings frequently and clearly as
new studies come along as well as maintaining a library of useful
information (tutorials, FAQs, a glossary etc.) and past discussions. The
site will be moderated to maintain a high signal-to-noise ratio.
We hope that you will find this a useful resource for your own outreach
efforts. For those more inclined to join the fray, we extend an open
invitation to participate, for instance, as an occasional guest
contributor of commentaries in your specific domain, as a more regular
contributor of more general pieces, or simply as a critical reader.
Every time you explain a basic point of your science to a journalist
covering a breaking story, think about sharing your explanation with
wider community. RealClimate will hopefully make that easier. You can
contact us personally or at contrib@xxxxxxxxx.xxx for more
information.
This is a strictly volunteer/spare time/personal capacity project and
obviously nothing we say there reflects any kind of 'official' position.
We welcome any comments, criticisms or suggestions you may have, even if
it is just to tell us to stop wasting our time! (hopefully not though).
Thanks,
Gavin Schmidt
on behalf of the RealClimate.org team:
- Gavin Schmidt
- Mike Mann
- Eric Steig
- William Connolley
- Stefan Rahmstorf
- Ray Bradley
- Amy Clement
- Rasmus Benestad
- William Connolley
- Caspar Ammann
Original Filename: 1102956436.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: email #1: some background info first...
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:47:xxx xxxx xxxx
HI Keith,
Thanks again for your phone call, and the (informal) opportunity to help out where I can.
I'm perfectly happy in that role (as an informal contributor and a formal reviewer, for
example), if you and Peck, for example, are both comfortable with that.
First, "RealClimate" should be helpful. It deals w/ the skeptic claims, etc. but using the
legitimate
peer-reviewed research as a basis for the discussion.
The "hockey stick" overview should be helpful:
[1]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=7
as well as itemized esponses to the various contrarian propaganda/myths:
[2]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11
and the specific discrediting of the claims of McIntyre and McKitrick, based both on our
response to their rejected Nature comment:
[3]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8
and the discussion of the analysis in the Rutherford et al (2004) paper in press in Journal
of Climate, that independently discredits them:
[4]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=10
In the following emails, I'll attach some other materials (submitted papers) that deal w/
the McIntyre and Mckitrick matter, and the von Storch matter,
Please let me know if there is anything we discussed that I forget to provide you. Will
also draft an email to the small group (you, me, Scott, Caspar, Gene) about the prospective
additional RegEM/Mann et al method model analyses,
cheers,
Mike
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[5]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
References
1. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=7
2. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11
3. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8
4. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=10
5. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1102956446.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: email #2: paper in review in J. Climate (as a letter), discrediting McIntyre and McKitrick
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:47:xxx xxxx xxxx
Keith,
This paper is in review, and can be referred to (just clear w/ Caspar or Gene first) for
IPCC draft purposes. They basically show that the McIntyre and McKitrick paper is total
crap, and they provide an online version of the Mann et al method (and the proxy data), so
individuals can confirm for themselves...
Mike
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachWahl_MBH_Recreation_JClimLett_Nov22.pdf"
References
1. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1107899057.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: Re: FW: "hockey stock" methodology misleading
Date: Tue Feb 8 16:44:xxx xxxx xxxx
X-Sender: mem6u@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.1.1
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 16:04:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
tom crowley <tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, tom crowley <tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: Re: FW: "hockey stock" methodology misleading
X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-UEA-MailScanner-SpamScore: s
sorry, forgot to attach the paper...
mike
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:54:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tom Crowley, Tom Crowley,
mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: Re: FW: "hockey stock" methodology misleading
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:52:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: Andy Revkin <anrevk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: FW: "hockey stock" methodology misleading
Hi Andy,
The McIntyre and McKitrick paper is pure scientific fraud. I think you'll find this
reinforced by just about any legitimate scientist in our field you discuss this with.
Please see the RealClimate response:
[1]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=111
and also:
[2]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=114
The Moberg et al paper is at least real science. But there are some real problems with
it (you'll want to followup w/ people like Phil Jones for a 2nd opinion).
While the paper actually reinforces the main conclusion of previous studies (it also
finds the late 20th century to be the warmest period of the past two millennia), it
challenges various reconstructions
using tree-ring information (which includes us, but several others such as Jones et al,
Crowley, etc). I'm pretty sure, by the way, that a very similar version of the paper was
rejected previously by Science. A number of us are therefore very surprised that Nature
is publishing it, given a number of serious problems:
Their method for combining frequencies is problematic and untested:
A. they only use a handful of records, so there is a potentially large sampling bias.
B. worse, they use different records for high-frequencies and low-frequencies, so the
bias isn't even the same--the reconstruction is apples and oranges.
C. The wavelet method is problematic. We have found in our own work that you cannot
simply combine the content in different at like frequencies, because different proxies
have different signal vs. noise characteristics at different frequencies--for some
records, there century-scale variability is likely to be pure noise. They end up
therfore weighting noise as much as signal. For some of the records used, there are real
age model problems. The timescale isn't known to better than +/- a couple hundred years
in several cases. So when they average these records together, the century-scale
variability is likely to be nonsense.
D. They didn't do statistical verification. This is absolutely essential for such
reconstructions (see e.g. the recent Cook et al and Luterbacher et al papers in
Science). They should have validated their reconstruction against long-instrumental
records, as we and many others have. Without having done so, there is no reason to
believe the reconstruction has any reliability. This is a major problem w/ the paper. It
is complicated by the fact that they don't produce a pattern, but just a hemispheric
mean--that makes it difficult to do a long-term verification. But they don't attempt any
sort of verification at all! There are some decades known to be warm from the available
instrumental records (1730s, some in the 16th century) which the Moberg reconstruction
completely misses--the reconstruction gives the impression that all years are cold
between 1500 and 1750. The reconstruction would almost certainly fail cross-validation
against long instrumental records. If so, it is an unreliable estimate of past changes.
We're surprised the Nature Reviewers didn't catch this.
E. They also didn't validate their method against a model (where I believe it would
likely fail). We have done so w/ our own "hybrid frequency-domain" method that combines
information separately at low and high-frequencies, but taking into account the problem
mentioned above. This is described in:
Rutherford, S., Mann, M.E., Osborn, T.J., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Hughes, M.K.,
Jones, P.D., [3]Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Reconstructions:
Sensitivity to Methodology, Predictor Network, Target Season and Target Domain, Journal
of Climate, in press (2005).
In work that is provisionally accepted in "Journal of Climate" (draft attached), we show
that our method gives the correct history using noisy "pseudoproxy" records derived from
a climate model simulation with large past changes in radiative forcing. Moberg et al
have not tested their method in such a manner.
F. They argue selectively for favorable comparison w/ other work:
(1) Esper et al: when authors rescaled the reconstruction using the full instrumental
record (Cook et al, 2004), they found it to be far more similar to Mann et al, Crowley
and Lowery, Jones et al, and the roughly dozen or so other empirical and model estimates
consistent w/ it. Several studies, moreover [see e.g.: Shindell, D.T., Schmidt, G.A.,
Mann, M.E., Faluvegi, G., [4]Dynamic winter climate response to large tropical volcanic
eruptions since 1600, Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, D05104, doi:
10.1029/2003JD004151, 2004.] show that extratropical, land-only summer temperatures,
which Esper et al emphasises, are likely to biased towards greater variability--so its
an apples and oranges comparison anyway.
(2) von Storch et al: There are some well known problems here: (a) their forcing is way
too large (Foukal at al in Science a couple months back indicates maybe 5 times too
large), DKMI uses same model, more conventional forcings, and get half the amplitude and
another paper submitted recently by the Belgium modeling group suggests that some severe
spin-up/initialization problems give the large century-scale swings in the model--these
are not reproducible.
(3) Boreholes: They argue that Boreholes are "physical measurements" but many papers in
the published literature have detailed the various biases in using continental ground
surface temperature to estimate past surface air temperature changes--changing snow
cover gives rise to a potentially huge bias (see e.g. : Mann, M.E., Schmidt, G.A.,
[5]Ground vs. Surface Air Temperature Trends: Implications for Borehole Surface
Temperature Reconstructions,Geophysical Research Letters, 30 (12), 1607, doi:
10.1029/2003GL017170, 2003).
Methods that try to correct for this give smaller amplitude changes from borehole
temperatures:
Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., Keimig, F.T., [6]Optimal
Surface Temperature Reconstructions using Terrestrial Borehole Data, Journal of
Geophysical Research, 108 (D7), 4203, doi: 10.1029/2002JD002532, 2003]
[[7]Correction(Rutherford and Mann, 2004)]
Most reconstructions and model estimates still *sandwich" the Mann et al reconstruction.
See e.g. figure 5 in: Jones, P.D., Mann, M.E., [8]Climate Over Past Millennia, Reviews
of Geophysics, 42, RG2002, doi: 10.1029/2003RG000143, 2004.
Ironically, MM say our 15th century is too cold, while Moberg et al say its too warm.
Hmmm....
To recap, I hope you don't mention MM at all. It really doesn't deserve any additional
publicity. Moberg et al is more deserving of discussion, but, as outlined above, there
are some real problems w/ it. I have reason to believe that Nature's own commentary by
Schiermeier will actually be somewhat critical of it.
I'm travelling and largely unavailable until monday. If you need to talk, you can
possibly reach me at xxx xxxx xxxxover the weekend.
I hope this is of some help. Literally got to run now...
mike
At 02:14 PM 2/4/2005, Andy Revkin wrote:
Hi all,
There is a fascinating paper coming in Nature next week (Moberg of Stockholm Univ., et
al) that uses mix of sediment and tree ring data to get a new view of last 2,000 years.
Very warped hockeystick shaft (centuries-scale variability very large) but still
pronounced 'unusual' 1990's blade.
i'd like your reaction/thoughts for story i'll write for next thursday's Times.
also, is there anything about the GRL paper forthcoming from Mc & Mc that warrants a
response?
I can send you the Nature paper as pdf if you agree not to redistribute it (you know the
embargo rules).
that ok?
thanks for getting in touch!
andy
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[9]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[10]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[11]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[12]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
References
1. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=111
2. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=114
3. http://www.realclimate.org/RuthetalJClim2004.pdf
4. ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/Shindelletal-jgr04.pdf
5. ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/gissgst03.pdf
6. ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/borehole-jgr03.pdf
7. http://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/shared/articles/JGRBoreholeCorrection04.pdf
8. ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/JonesMannROG04.pdf
9. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
10. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
11. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
12. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1108248246.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Eugene R" <wahle@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re:
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:44:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
sorry. text revised yet again. no more changes until I receive comments from everyone.
thanks...
mike
At 12:03 PM 2/11/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Keith and Tim are here next week, but very busy with a proposal to the EU.
So you may have to hassle them a bit, or hang on for a week or two.
Nature dragged in the IPCC angle which annoyed me. I tried to explain to
him how IPCC works. IPCC won't be discussing this in Beijing in May - except
as part of Chapter 6. Hans von Storch will likely regret some of the words he's said.
FYI, just as NCAR have put up a web site to give the whole story re Chris Landseas's
'resignation' from a CA in the atmos. obs. chapter (to help Kevin Trenberth out), KNMI
are doing the same re Rob van Dorland and that Dutch magazine. The chief scientist
at KNMI has got involved as Rob didn't say the things attributed to him. I'll find
out more on this in Pune as a guy from KNMI will be there.
Several other CAs on our chapter pulled out, or just didn't do anything. Their
stories
never got run.
Dick's report was good and my bit in Nature cam across well.
Say hi to all there and wish Steve well.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:19 11/02/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Phil--thanks, that's great. Really happy to hear that everyone is on board with this.
I'm at a symposium honoring Steve Schneider out at stanford right now. Lots of folks
here--as I talk this over w/ them, and see Dick Kerr's coverage of this, etc. I realize
its not so bad--I was afraid this would be spun as bolstering the contrarians, but it
hasn't. In large part due to quotes from you and others pointing out that the study
actually reinforces the key conclusions, etc., and the fact Dick Kerr showed Keith and
Tim's plot showing the scattering of multiple reconstructions, etc. which takes the
focus off "Mann" a bit...
Nonetheless, I *am* convinced their methodology is suspect, as the analysis I sent
shows. So I will really appreciate input from Keith, Tim, and you to make sure the
language and wording are appropriate and fair...
I will revise as I get input from various people, with an aim to having this
submission-ready in about 10 days (so you can have one final look after you return, and
before you have to head out again).
looking forward to getting people's comments, feedback, etc.
thanks again,
mike
At 08:05 AM 2/11/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike et al,
I've talked to Keith and Tim here and it seems best if we all come in with you on
this response. What you have done is basically fine. We can discuss specific wording
later.
My problem is that I'm off tomorrow to Pune till Feb 20 and email may be
sporadic or non-existent. So can you discuss revised drafts with Keith and Tim,
but keep me on - lower down as I'm away. I'm here on Feb 21 then off to Chicago
to review the vertical temperature report for the NRC/NAS Feb 22-25.
Keep me on the emails in case email works well in Pune.
Cheers
Phil
At 23:35 10/02/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear Caspar, Gene, Scott, Phil,
I am attaching a response I've drafted to the Moberg et al paper (attached for those of
you who haven't seen it). The message is pretty clear and simple--their method
overemphasizes the low-frequency variability. To demonstrate this, I've made use of
stuff from Mann and Jones, and from the Mann/Rutherford/Wahl/Ammann J. Climate letter on
Pseudoproxies. So I would welcome any of you to be co-authors on this--just let me now
if you're interested. I've been in touch w/ Keith (he and Tim are potentially working on
their own independent response--waiting to hear further).
This is a very rough draft, so comments much appreciated.
Looking forward to hearing back,
Mike
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[3]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachMobergComment2.doc"
References
1. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
2. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
3. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml