Alleged CRU Emails - 25 results below

Original Filename: 878654527.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re:
Date: Tue Nov 4 09:42:xxx xxxx xxxx

Tom
please do. Actually I would be interested to know whether Malcolm mentioned these results to Dave as he was in Krasnoyarsk a few months ago when I showed this stuff. I will be over in New York in a few weeks to discuss with Ed the possibility of putting in an NSF/NERC proposal to look at the tree biomass change question. Also,the initial impetus to redo this stuff was as part of a NERC project we have running in colllaboration with Ian Woodward - i which we are inputting high resolution climate data to Dolly to assess the roll of such variability on carbon uptake
cheers
Keith

At 02:54 PM 11/3/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
>Keith,
>
>Malcolm Hughes was here on Friday to see Dave Schimel about precisely the
>issue you raise. Dave wants to see if he can validate his ecosystem model
>using tree ring data. Sounds as if you already have the data to do this.
>Can I show your e-mail to Dave?
>
>Tom
>
>On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, Keith Briffa wrote:
>
>>
>> Tom
>> thanks for the info. Actually this is a chance for me to to mention that
>> we have for the last few months at least, been reworking the idea of
>> looking in the Schweingruber network data for evidence of increasing tree
>> growth and hence ,potentially at least, evidence of changing tree(read
>> biomass) uptake of carbon.
>> The results are dramatic - not to say earth shattering because they
>> demonstrate major time-dependent changes - but changes that are consistent
>> in different areas of the network. We have regionalised over 350 site
>> collections , each with ring width and density data , age-banded the data
>> so that we look only at relative growth in similar ages of trees through
>> time and recombined the standardisd curves to produce growth changes in
>> each region. Basically growth is roughly constant (except for relatively
>> small climate variablity forcing) from 1700 to about 1850. It then
>> increases linearly by about up until about 1950 after which time young ( up
>> to 50 year old) basal area explodes but older trees remain constant . The
>> implication is a major increase in carbon uptake before the mid 20th
>> century - temperatue no doubt partly to blame but much more likely to be
>> nitrate/Co2 . Equally important though is the levelling off of carbon
>> uptake in the later 20th century. This levelling is coincident with the
>> start of a density decline - we have a paper coming out in Nature
>> documenting the decline . In relative terms (i.e. by comparison with
>> increasing summer temperatures) the decline is represented in the ring
>> width and basal area data as a levelling off in the long-timescale inrease
>> ( which you only see when you process the data as we have). The density
>> data do not show the increase over and above what you expect from
>> temperature forcing.
>> I have been agonising for months that these results are not some
>> statistical artifact of the analysis method but we can't see how. For just
>> two species (spruce in the western U.S. Great Basin area and larch in
>> eastern Siberia) we can push the method far enough to get an indication of
>> much longer term growth changes ( from about 1400) and the results confirm
>> a late 20th century apparent fertilization! The method requires
>> standardizing (localized mean subtraction and standard deviation division)
>> by species/age band so we reconstruct relative (e.g. per cent change) only .
>> We have experimented with integrating the different signals in basal area
>> and density(after extracting intra ring ring width and density data where
>> available) within a 'flat mass' measure which shows a general late 20th
>> century increase - but whether this incorporates a defensible relative
>> waiting on the different components (and what the relative carbon
>> components are) is debatable. We now need to make some horrible simplistic
>> assumptions about absolute carbon in these (relatively small) components of
>> the total biomass carbon pool and imlpications for terrestrial and total
>> carbon fluxes over the last few hundred years - and beyond! Without these
>> implications we will have difficulty convincing Nature that this work is
>> mega important.
>> There are problems with explaining and interpreting these data but they are
>> by far the best produced for assessing large scale carbon-cycle-relevant
>> vegetation changes - at least as regards well-dated continous trends. I
>> will send you a couple of Figures ( a tiny sample of the literally hundreds
>> we have) which illustrate some of this. I would appreciate your reaction.
>> Obviously this stuff is very hush hush till I get a couple of papers
>> written up on this. We are looking at a moisture sensive network of data at
>> the moment to see if any similar results are produced when
>> non-temperature-sensitive data are used. You would expect perhaps a greater
>> effect in such data if Co2 acts on the water use efficiency .
>> At 09:30 AM 11/3/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
>> >Dear Keith,
>> >
>> >Look at Tremblay et al. GRL 24, 2xxx xxxx xxxx(1997) and Dyke et al. Arctic 50,
>> >xxx xxxx xxxx(1997). These papers deal with driftwood in the Arctic over the past
>> >9000 years. They note that genera can be distinguished, but not species
>> >Hence, they can't say where the wood comes from, North America versus
>> >Europe. Surely cross-dating could do this? May be worth getting in touch
>> >with Dyke et al.
>> >
>> >Tom
>> >
>> --
>> Dr. Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia,
>> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom
>> Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>
>
>
> **********************************************************
> *Tom M.L. Wigley *
> *Senior Scientist *
> *National Center for Atmospheric Research *
> *P.O. Box 3000 *
> *Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx *
> *USA *
> *Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx *
> *Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx *
> *E-mail: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx *
> **********************************************************
>
>

Original Filename: 900972000.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: mnoguer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: scenarios@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Scenarios issues
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 18:00 +0000 (GMT)

Dear colleagues,

I will like to post here some correspondence which is clearly relevant for this
"scenarios discussion group" regarding some issues related to the use of the new
emission scenarios, simple models, etc. Please post any comments on these issues
or any other issue that you may want to raise to the following address
"scenarios@xxxxxxxxx.xxx".

I have added the following experts to the list posted in my first Email:
P Wagner
R Watson
J Edmonds
S Smith
G Marland

Many thanks.

Maria Noguer

***********************************
Issues raised by J Mitchell:

1. There are several uses for scenarios:
a) Conversion to concentration using chemistry models to produce forcing curves
b) Forcings for GCM runs
c) Use in simpler models to produce global mean curves of concentrations,
forcing, temperature and sea level. This would requires a simple model which is
documented and calibrated against one (preferably several) climate models.
The final IPCC approved scenarios will not be available until February 2000, so
we should decide now on which draft scenarios to use

2. The provisional emissions will be made available imminently. These need to be
evaluated as there are four basic families and many variants. How is the median
scenario defined?

3. What criteria are to be set for the simpler models used for global mean
projections?

*************************************
Issue raised by Tom Wigley and reponses:

Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 11:00:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Sir John Houghton <jthoughton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Patricia WAGNER <wagner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Hugh Pitcher <hm_pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Robert Watson <rwatson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Jae Edmonds <ja_edmonds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike Hulme
<m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Atul Jain <jain@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Fortunat Joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Richard Richels <rrichels@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Dave Schimel <schimel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, ssmith@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: IPCC CO2 Emissions Scenarios

Dear Bob, Hugh, Naki and John,

Mike Hulme has told me something that is quite alarming about the
soon-to-be-released 'IPCC' CO2 emissions scenarios. If this is correct,
you/IPCC should try to remedy it as a matter of some urgency. He said
that the new 'IPCC' CO2 emissions scenarios will still begin in 1990 and
will not use observed (Marland) emissions for the 1990s.

You may either not realize, or not remember, that during the preparation
of the SAR and (especially) TPs 2 and 4, IPCC was frequently criticized
for using out-of-date emissions data that were manifestly wrong during the
1990s. It would be extremely embarrassing to be subject to the same
criticism with the TAR. Indeed, since the criticism is a justifiable one,
it would be inexcusable not to have responded to it.

Equally embarrassing should be the fact that, in the published literature
(my 1997 Nature and 1998 GRL papers), this 'error' has already been
avoided.

How can you get around this problem? Ideally, the energy-economics models
need to be revised to begin in or around 2000 instead of 1990. Indeed, in
talking to Rich Richels about this issue, as well as echoing my concern,
he noted that his model (MERGE) is currently being updated in just this
way. He also pointed out that beginning an energy-economics model run in
1990 leads to considerable 'flexibility' in 2000 emissions; when, in fact,
the 2000 emissions will already be fixed and known by the time the TAR
comes out.

It is probably impossible to make this ideal type of 'fix', but a 'fix'
can still be made. What you could do is just what I have done in the above
two papers. This is a simple procedure that CAN be used since it is in the
published literature. All I did was use observed emissions to 1996 (as far
as data were available), linearly extrapolate these to 2000 (under the
assumption that this was a better projection than the corresponding IS92a
projection), and then use IS92a CHANGES from 2000. You may be able to
improve on the second step, but this is unimportant. The crucial thing is
to get the beginning years of the record to match observed emissions as
far as such data are available.

The above, by the way, does not have to be applied to emissions from
land-use change because of the way we deal with initialization with the
carbon cycle models. We do not use historical land-use- change emissions.

You may argue that, in terms of projected CO2 concentrations, incorrect
1990s emissions have only a minor effect. This is such an obviously
specious argument that I won't bother to discuss it. Not least, it will
not satisfy the critics.

A parallel issue does, however, arise with the CO2 concentration
stabilization profiles. The 'S' profiles are already ludicrous, since
their concentrations and implied emissions already diverge markedly from
observations. The WRE profiles diverge less, but still enough for me to
deem that they need revising. I have, in fact, already done this. I would
be happy to pass the new profiles on to IPCC.

Best wishes,
Tom
=======================================================
>From Robert Watson on July 13:

Tom: I appreciate you bringing this critical issue to the fore - you are
absolutely right that we must not look naive. I assume that Naki and Jon
et al. Will deal with this while I an on vacation for the next four days.

Bob
=========================================================
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 02:18:09 +0000
From: David Schimel <dave.schimel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: IPCC CO2 Emissions Scenarios

Tom,

I raised this issue at the scoping meeting in Bad (very bad)
Munstereieffel, where it was greeted with general agreement but it
appeared to come as a complete surprise to many that scenarios should have
a relationship to reality.

There was also general mild surprise at the degree of non GCM-community
interest in following Kyoto and stabilization rather than 1% per year and
similar reactions to the fact that 1% year doubles the current rate of
change.
But the wind is shifting

DS
========================================================
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 09:46:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: Atul Jain <jain@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> To: Tom Wigley
<wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Sir John Houghton <jthoughton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Patricia WAGNER <wagner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Hugh Pitcher <hm_pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Jae Edmonds <ja_edmonds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Fortunat Joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Richard Richels <rrichels@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Dave Schimel <schimel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
ssmith@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Subject: Re: IPCC CO2 Emissions Scenarios

Dear Tom,

I got the same impression from Hugh's talk during the last week Community
Meeting on IA, which was sponsored by NSF. It does not matter so much
whether the starting point for the scenario calculations is 1990 or 2000.
The main concern is that the emission scenarios should reflect the recent
changes in fossil emissions, which show a decreasing trend from 1990 to
1995 in Annex B emissions. Using projected emissions that are incorrect,
rather than updating them with observed emissions, is clearly not
acceptable.

I agree with you that the effects of these emissions on CO2 concentration
is minor. However, recent observed emissions will have a major impact on
estimates of the cost of CO2 abatement, which depend mainly on cumulative
emissions rather than on concentration. It is important, especially in
light of Kyoto commitments, not to produce inaccurate emission pathways
that overestimate emissions from 1xxx xxxx xxxx, since they may be used as
baselines for producing cost estimates.

Cheers! Atul
=========================================================
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 08:19:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: "Pitcher, Hugh M" <hugh.pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "'jain@xxxxxxxxx.xxx'" <jain@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Sir John Houghton <jthoughton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Patricia WAGNER <wagner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Hugh Pitcher <hm_pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Robert Watson <rwatson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Jae Edmonds <ja_edmonds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Fortunat Joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Richard Richels <rrichels@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Dave Schimel <schimel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
ssmith@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Subject: RE: IPCC CO2 Emissions Scenarios

Dear Tom et al
In setting up the MiniCAM to do the scenario work for the SRES, we tuned
the 2005 energy and hence emissions numbers to reproduce the latest IEA
forecast, which explicitly incorporates the slowdown in 1990 to 1995. The
only problem here is that informal feedback from within Russia(Igor
Bashmakov) suggests the IEA data significantly overstate the reduction in
energy use. Our scenarios all go through the short term forecast for 2005
and then diverge onto alternative paths.

Getting a good handle on recent historical data and a
consistent/reasonable forecast for tuning the short term aspect of the
scenarios is going to be increasingly critical as we try to sort out
strategies and costs of strategies. This is a separate problem from the
long term scenario work, and requires rather different tools.

cheers, hugh

=========================================================
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 14:27:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Pitcher, Hugh M" <hugh.pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "'jain@xxxxxxxxx.xxx'" <jain@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Sir John Houghton <jthoughton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Patricia WAGNER <wagner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hugh Pitcher <hm_pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Robert Watson <rwatson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jae Edmonds <ja_edmonds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Fortunat Joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Richard Richels <rrichels@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Dave Schimel <schimel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gregg Marland <gum@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
ssmith@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: RE: IPCC CO2 Emissions Scenarios

Dear all,

I appreciate the responses regarding my concern about the new 'IPCC'
fossil CO2 emissions scenarios. However, no-one seems to be willing to
grasp the nettle and suggest what can be done about it. From what Hugh
says, all scenarios go through the same 2005 value, so this suggests an
obvious 'fix'.

(I am curious to know what this 2005 value is, and how close it is to what
I used in my Kyoto papers.)

Hugh also suggests the 'IPCC' 2005 value may be open to improvement, but I
presume it is too late to do this now. So ... what should be done? The
obvious solution would be to use Gregg Marland's 'observed' values as far
as they go, and then linearly interpolate from his latest year to 2005.

When I did my work, I had Gregg's values to 1995, and was able to make a
good guess from what he told me about what the 1996 value would be. By
now, 1996 should be available, and a good estimate may be possible for
1997. If so, then the linear interpolation would go over 1997 to 2005.

Do you all agree with this strategy? ... or does someone have a better
idea??

I'm copying this to Gregg to see what more recent data he can provide.

Cheers,
Tom

Original Filename: 924120405.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: oops typo. disregard previous message
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 16:06:xxx xxxx xxxx(EDT)

Dear Tim,

Thanks for your comments. Some responses to them are
given below. I'll be too busy for further correspondance
as I prepare for travel, leaving Friday morning for a week.

Since I will be away and unreachable through next wednesday.
I would thus request that you and Keith correspond with
my co-authors Ray Bradley (who should be able to
respond upon his return from current travel on Sunday
/Monday) and Malcolm Hughes on the revisions (please cc to
me so I can read upon my return), as I will be unreachable.

I'm sure we can come up with something mutually agreeable
to all of us with this piece, as is my goal with IPCC, as
long as their is proper communication and mutual understanding
by all concerned. Lets strive for this--choice of language
is a nontrivial element...

best regards,

mike.


____________________________COMMENTS________________________
One additional new comment:

0) 1st page, "In attemping to do this...Mann at al...exemplifies"
is unacceptable language to us. We confront the very problems
that are being discussed here, so it is a disservice to us
to say our paper "exemplifies" these problems. It "exposes"
or "confronts" would be fair language, but "exmemplifies" is
unacceptable.

responses to your responses to my original comments:

1) I'm not sure how to interpret your response vis-a-vis
my original comments here. My point is that our use
of southern hemisphere records in the reconstructions
is fundamentally sound, from the point of view of some very
basic principles of optimal interpolation, etc., and given
the domain we are reconstructing, which is not NH only,
although we diagnose NH from our pattern reconstructions
as a key index. There is no basis for what sounds like
a criticism of our use of such data. I couldn't tell
if you were agreeing with this or not from your commments.

2) The uncertainties are determined from the uncalibrated
variance given a certain predictor network. The predictor
network is unchanged from 1820 to present, so the verification
period (1xxx xxxx xxxx) unresolved variance is an independent check on the
calibration period unresolved variance. Both gives numbers in
the range of 30% for the NH mean temperature reconstruction,
meaning that the error bars we determine from verification period
are essentially the same as those we determine from the calibration
period. IN this sense, the error bars as determined
from calibration and verification are essentially identical,
The bottom line, if we had used the verification period
to estimate the error bars, the eye would barely see the difference.

There may be a considerable misunderstanding on your/Keiths part, regarding
regarding what is actually shown by the spectrum of calibration residuals
in our GRL paper. It does not in any way conflict with what I indicate
above. What this particular diagnostic shows is that
there is no evidence of any increase in unresolved secular variance
(ie century-scale and longer) in our reconstructions at least
back to 1600. In contrast, there is evidence that such frequencies
are not as well resolved as higher frequencies with the sparser
predictor network available before 1600. Our estimates of
uncertainty TAKE THIS FACT *EXPLICITLY* INTO ACCOUNT. Our uncertainties
estimates are made up of two components that add in quadrature,
including a component of uncertainty in the lowest-frequency variability
as estimated from the spectrum shown, and a component of the
highest-frequency variability from the spectrum shown. THese are
approximated as a step-wise break in the mean (white noise) level of
unresolved variance at the edge of the secular band. Unlike any
previous study, we have actually estimated the increased uncertainty due
to the loss of low-frequency variability as it can best be estimated,
and this is explicitly incorporated into our error bars, which
is why those error bars expand considerably before 1600. This
is discussed in the GRL paper, and is a VERY important fact. It
would be very unfortunate if this fact were misrepresented!

3) I'll leave this to Keith and Malcolm to discuss (Malcom?). I
think it is pretty clear in the paper what our assumptions are
here, and what the justification is of those assumptions. There
is of course room for differing opinions on this stuff, as
it is all somewhat speculative, and we indicate that this is so
in our paper.

4) good enough

5) I really doubt that the 2000 year trend is meaningful and, unlike
the results we have shown, there is no confirmation that these 3
sites accurately reflect northern hemisphere mean temperatures
to any reasonable level during the modern era.

Work by us and others looking at similar
data would suggest that series in such regions are not adequately
representative of the largest-scale trends. There is, further, no
verification of the frequency-domain attributes pass any satisfactory
test. For these reasons, I have informed Julia Uppenbrink directly
that I don't believe this series should be shown in this context.
I agree it is an important series, and it will be appropriate
to discuss it in IPCC. But it should not be considered on a
par with more statistically-verified true Northern Hemisphere
mean temperature reconstructions, and it is very misleading to
show it along with the NH mean reconstructions. The 2000 year
trend runs absolutely counter to everything we know about
the mid holocene. Extratropical Northern Hemisphere summer
temperatures should have been at an absolute peak 4xxx xxxx xxxxybp,
and the 2000 year trend *ought* to at least be heading in that
direction. The fact that is doesn't, and that the trend hasn't
been verified in the sense discussed above, causes me real
concern. It would be misleading to argue we have any reason
to believe that NH mean temperatures have done what that series
does 2000 years back in time...

Re, the adjustment of the series, I believe it is fundamentally
unsound. Essentially, agreement over the period we can best
constrained (20th century) has been sacrifices for agreement
during the period we can't constrain, apparently for the sake
of getting the different series to align during the 19th century.
Please download the figures I have prepared for the latest IPCC
report.

ftp://eclogite.geo.umass.edu/pub/mann/IPCC/nhemcompare-ipcc.gif

OR

ftp://eclogite.geo.umass.edu/pub/mann/IPCC/nhemcompare-ipcc.ps

You will see how I have aligned the series based on a 1xxx xxxx xxxx
reference period for the instrumental series, and a 20th baseline
adjustment for the alignment of all series. To me, this is the
most reasonable adjusment of the series if they are to be shown
together. It also shows the different that latitudinal variations
make EXPLICITLY by showing the difference between our
TRUE xxx xxxx xxxxlat weighted) NH annual mean temp series, and
an extratropical xxx xxxx xxxxdeg lat) average from our pattern
reconstructions, which approaches quite closely the Overpeck
et al '97 and Jones et al '98 series. Seasonal distinctions
then the key remain difference. This is, I believe, the
best approach to the comparisons, and the one I will favor
in IPCC.

The alternative is that true NH mean temperatures and
extratropical NH mean temperatures must be shown on separate plots,
because adjusting them the way Keith has provides a misleading
picture, and one that I don't believe can be justified for the
purposes of IPCC, regardless of what you choose to do with your
Science piece.

Original Filename: 926026654.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Straight to the Point
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 17:37:34 +0100
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx


Mike,
Just back from two weeks away and from discussions with Keith
and Tim and some emails you seem quite pissed off with us
all in CRU. I am somewhat at a loss to understand why. It is
clear from the emails that this relates to the emphasis placed
on a few words/phrases in Keith/Tim's Science piece. These may not
be fully resolved but the piece comes out tomorrow. I don't want
to open more wounds but I might by the end of the email.
I've not seen the censored email that Ray has mentioned but this
doesn't, to my way of working, seem to be the way you should be
responding - ie slanging us all off to Science. We are all
trying to work together for the good of the 'Science'. We have
disagreements - Ray, Malcolm, Keith and me have in the past,
but they get aired and eventually forgotten. We have never
resorted to slanging one another off to a journal ( as in this
case) or in reviewing papers or proposals. You may think Keith
or I have reviewed some of your papers but we haven't. I've
reviewed Ray's and Malcolm's - constructively I hope where I
thought something could have been done better. I also know
you've reviewed my paper with Gabi very constructively.

So why all the beef now ?

Maybe it started with my Science piece last summer. When asked
to do this it was stressed to that I should discuss how your
Nature paper fitted in to the current issues in
paleoclimatology. This is what I thought I was doing. Julia
Uppenbrink asked me to do the same with your GRL paper but
I was too busy and passed it on to Keith. Again it seems a
very reasoned comment.

I would suspect that you've been unhappy about us coming out
with a paper going back 1000 years only a few months after
your Nature paper (back to 1400). Ray knew all about this as
he was one of the reviewers. Then the second Science comment
has come out with a tentative series going back 2000 years.
Both Science pieces give us a chance to discuss issues highly
relevant to the 'science', which is what we have both tried to
do.

Anyway that's enough for now - I'll see how you'll respond,
if at all.

There are two things I'm going to say though :

1) Keith didn't mention in his Science piece but both of us
think that you're on very dodgy ground with this long-term
decline in temperatures on the 1000 year timescale. What
the real world has done over the last 6000 years and what
it ought to have done given our understandding of Milankovic
forcing are two very different things. I don't think the
world was much warmer 6000 years ago - in a global sense
compared to the average of the last 1000 years, but this is
my opinion and I may change it given more evidence.

2) The errors don't include all the possible factors. Even
though the tree-ring chronologies used have robust rbar
statistics for the whole 1000 years ( ie they lose nothing
because core numbers stay high throughout), they have lost
low frequency because of standardization. We've all tried
with RCS/very stiff splines/hardly any detrending to keep
this to a minimum, but until we know it is minimal it is
still worth mentioning. It is better we ( I mean all of us
here) put the caveats in ourselves than let others put them
in for us.

3) None of us here are trying to get material into IPCC. I've
given you my input through the review of the chapter in
Asheville. I may get a chance to see the whole thing again
at some stage, but I won't be worried if I don't.

I can't think of a good ending, but hoping for a favourable
response, so we can still work together.

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: 929044085.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Folland, Chris" <ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: VARIANCE PROBLEM
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:48:05 +0100
Cc: d.parker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx


Chris,
Sorry to be flooding you with another email, but I was discussing
this with Tim. Tim reminded me of a paper that he'd written
in that well known journal Dendrocronologia ! I've sent down
a copy of the proofs to you both. The paper has been in press for
the last 2 years ! This must be the slowest journal in the
world. This has some more theory in it and some variance
corrections for tree-ring and temperature series.

We are going ahead with the method I've outlined over the
last few emails. Tim and I have modified a couple of things
slightly :

1) Using the present combined dataset ( Jones, 1994 and Parker
et al. 1995) we will calculate monthly rbars for each 5 by 5
box. The grid-box time series will be filtered with a 30-
year Gaussian filter. rbar will be calculated from the residual
grid-box time series. Tim reckons that a longer filter is better
(an analysis in the paper). He suggests 40 years, but this
involves more problems with the ends, so we'll go with 30. I
don't think 20,30,40 will make that much difference to the
rbar values.

We are using the combined dataste for the estimation as this
should produce better rbar values around coasts and islands. If we
used the land only dataset we would have real problems with
isolated islands and with some coasts ( where all neighbouring
boxes will be in one direction from the coastal box).

2) Having got fields of the monthly rbars we'll then apply the
formula to the land-only dataset. As you're doing something
similar with the marine dataset, we can remerge the two
variance corrected datasets using David's merging ( growing
land and neighbour checking) program.

3) We will then write this up as a small paper for GRL, about
the land only results. Both of you can be on this if you want.
We can decide later what to do about the merged dataset.

4) applying the correction in real time in the future will mean
that we will always be slightly changing approximately the last
15 years data - because of the filter end effects. Best would
seem to be to maintain the present version we have and apply
this variance correction every few years ( eg the IPCC cycle !).

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: 932773964.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Sarah Raper <s.raper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: tar13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Chapter 13 review
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 19:52:44 +0100
Cc: mnoguer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pvanderlinden@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

COMMENTS ON CH. 13 (SCENARIOS) FROM TOM WIGLEY
(Page and line numbers are from the May 14 zero order draft.)

*****************************************************************

Dear contributors to Ch. 13,

Here are my comments on your chapter. I think you all know me
well enough that you will not be offended by my occasional
bluntness. The chapter needs a lot of work (not surprisingly),
but it has at least touched most of the bases. It suffers from
a lack of overview perspective, making the detail hard to wade
through. I was disturbed by the lack of credit given to
MAGICC/SCENGEN, since this software already addresses many of the
key issues that arise in scenario development.

Apologies for not proof reading this. By the time I got to the
end of typing it, I'd had enough.

*****************************************************************

Page 3 (lines 86-89) : Critically, this information doesn't give
a full assessment of uncertainties.
3 (xxx xxxx xxxx) : Sentence too long.
3 (1xxx xxxx xxxx: State 'illuminate uncertainty' earlier, since this
is a primary purpose of, e.g., MAGICC/SCENGEN.
3 (1xxx xxxx xxxx: 'indeterminate' is far too strong.
4 (xxx xxxx xxxx) : Not clear.
4 (1xxx xxxx xxxx: What is 'integrated assessment'? Define and/or
explain earlier.
5 (1xxx xxxx xxxx: Clumsy grammar.
5 (xxx xxxx xxxx) : Silly! Scenarios per se do not have ANY uncertainty
associated with them, by definition. They are, however, a very
(if not the most) useful tool for assessing and quantifying
uncertainties. For example, a primary purpose of MAGICC/SCENGEN
is to quantify uncertainties. Major text revision is needed to
clarify this point.
Part of the problem here is that the boundary between scenarios
and predictions/projections is indistinct (as is the distinction
between predictions and projections -- this too needs to be
clarified). One could argue that 'scenarios' developed using
MAGICC/SCENGEN are actually better predictions of some aspects
of future climate change than any O/AGCM results. Certainly,
'scenarios' based on scaling are much more than just scenarios
as defined here -- they are true predictions, based on some
assumed scenario (this is the correct word here!) for future
emissions.
Substantial work is required to the present text to clarify
these issues -- they are the crux of the matter.
5 (xxx xxxx xxxx) : Note earlier that scenarios (a word I will continue
to use even though it may be inappropriate in many cases)
usually define CHANGES in climate. They are not, in these
cases, 'scenarios', but 'scenarios of change'. Strict (i.e.,
absolute) scenarios are then constructed from them by adding
the changes to a baseline climatology. This needs to be
explained up front.
5 (1xxx xxxx xxxx: Delete '(and art)'. This is a derogatory term, likely
to be misinterpreted/misrepresented.
6 (2xxx xxxx xxxx: Comma after 'scenarios'. The text contains many
stylistic and grammatical errors (the most common being the
failure to isolate parenthetical clauses). I will assume that
someone with a better grasp of grammar will catch all these
at some stage, so I will not comment further on them.
6 (22xxx xxxx xxxx: A critical item missed here is inter-variable
consistency. Later, consistency between climate and CO2 is
mentioned; but there is no mention of consistency between, e.g.,
temperature and precipitation, etc. This is a major issue!
7 (2xxx xxxx xxxx: Instrumentally-based analogue scenarios were first
introduced by Wigley et al. (Nature, 1979). Credit should be
given. Also, the USDOE 'State of the Art (sic)' reports (1985)
and the Bolin et al. SCOPE report (1986) both review this and
other methods. This reviews should be cited.
7 (xxx xxxx xxxx) : What does 'extrapolating ...' mean?
7 (2xxx xxxx xxxx: Wigley et al. (1979) should also be cited here.
8 (3xxx xxxx xxxx: Nevertheless, they may do a better job of getting the
inter-variable correlations 'right' than GCMs!
8 (3xxx xxxx xxxx: Delete 'questionable'. This word is entirely unnecessary
here. More importantly, the authors need to be more careful in
their choice of words, since there are many critics out there who
will be looking for things that can be taken out of context,
misinterpreted, or misrepresented.
8 (xxx xxxx xxxx) : Control run? So what? This is only relevant if the
control is used in scenario development. This raises the issue
of 'Definition 1' versus 'Definition 2' for defining climate
change (a terminology introduced by Santer et al., 1994, JGR).
(Later, this difference is attributed to Cubasch et al., but
it was first clearly enuncited by Santer et al.) The difference
is whether or not one subtracts the control from the perturbed
result. More needs to be said about this. It is often assumed
that subtracting the control will remove any spurious drift in
the perturation experiment. This, of course, is clearly wishful
thinking, both a priori, and as shown by Raper and Cubasch (1996).
Basically, there is no way to reliably remove drift in a
perturbation experiment; which makes it all the more important
to have drift-free models. Flux adjustments do not necessarily
remove drift -- just look at some of the ECHAM control-run
results. There are some very important issues here, central to
the use of O/AGCMs in scenario generation. They need better
coverage. More is said later, but this is still inadequate.
9 (3xxx xxxx xxxx: Yes, they can be different, but so what? The issue is
whether the differences are statistically significant. To my
knowledge, no one has addressed this issue properly.
9 (3xxx xxxx xxxx: I'm sure (at least I hope) you don't mean 'observed'.
The issue is the difference between the equilibrium PATTERNS
of change and the MODELLED (NOT 'observed') transient patterns
of change.
9 (to 361) : You've missed the most inportant point! The advantage
of an equilibrium result over an O/AGCM result is that the
former is pure signal.
9 (to 376) : The Definition 1 versus Definition 2 issue is relevant
here.
9 (3xxx xxxx xxxx: Please don't propogate garbage. The issue here is
natural internally generated variability. There is no need for
such variability to be chaotic, so you should eschew use of
this word.
9 (to 387) : I presume here that you are talking about O/AGCMs.
You should not use just 'GCM' -- you must be specific. Also,
you've missed some vital points: the natural internal variability
problem (i.e., output is signal plus noise -- noted elsewhere,
but must be stated here); and the model-specific natureof the
climate sensitivity.
10(3xxx xxxx xxxx: Please give credit to the first work on this (Santer
et al., 1990). I should point out that this was actually my
idea.
10(xxx xxxx xxxx) : Totally unclear.
10(xxx xxxx xxxx) : Poor wording. Should be '.. to which changes are added'.
10(4xxx xxxx xxxx: Delete 'appropriate'.
10(4xxx xxxx xxxx: Insert 'based' after 'period'.
10(4xxx xxxx xxxx: 'weather generators' comes as a non sequitur here. In
any event, you haven't said what they are!
10(xxx xxxx xxxx) : So what? The issue is what period one is measuring the
impacts from. In most cases it will be some nominal 'present-day',
so the baseline climatology must refer to the same period.
Whether or not the period has some sulphate effect in it is
utterly irrelevant.
10(xxx xxxx xxxx) : What garbage. See above.
11(xxx xxxx xxxx) : More garbage -- think about it! The reason 1990 is
not so useful as a reference 'period' is because the impacts
variable is probably not adequately definable over a single
year. You have really messed up this issue.
11(4xxx xxxx xxxx: Yet more garbage! Given what I have tried to explain
above, it is ludicrous to consider daily data as part of the
baseline climatology. The impacts variable may require daily data
from a baseline period in order to define ITS reference level
(but probably not), but this is NOT the same thing. Either all
this is very badly worded, or you don't know what your doing.
11(4xxx xxxx xxxx: No!! Think about it!
11(4xxx xxxx xxxx: No!! This is NOT the reason.
11(4xxx xxxx xxxx: No!! Not 'observed' (which is past or present), but
FUTURE data.
11(xxx xxxx xxxx) : Duplication.
12(to 492) : This is a very confused paragraph.
12(xxx xxxx xxxx) : Wrong. For upper air, their is a major paper by Santer
et al. (JGR, 1999), which also touches on some surface issues.
There are also a number of papers by Trenberth that are relevant.
12(5xxx xxxx xxxx: Again, introduction of an undefined term/concept
(downscaling).
12(5xxx xxxx xxxx: At last, mention of changes. Sadly, it is inappropriate
here, since this is NOT the reason.
12(5xxx xxxx xxxx: Why should this Figure be here?
12(5xxx xxxx xxxx: Wrong. As a scenario, this could be justified. You are
confusing scenario (as you have defined it, which I have already
criticized) with prediction/projection.
12(5xxx xxxx xxxx: See above.
12(xxx xxxx xxxx) : This is the Def. 1 vs Def. 2 issue. However, you have
the history and motivation wrong.
12(xxx xxxx xxxx) : Wrong. This issue has nothing to do with cold start vs
warm start; it is to get over the drift problem (which it fails
to do).
12(5xxx xxxx xxxx: Not 'especially'; mor appropriate may be 'but only'.
13(5xxx xxxx xxxx: 'were'; grammar!
13(xxx xxxx xxxx) : Not clear.
13(xxx xxxx xxxx) : Not clear.
13(xxx xxxx xxxx) : So what? Given your definition of scenario, this
doesn't matter.
14(5xxx xxxx xxxx: Why use 'perceived'?
14(6xxx xxxx xxxx: This issue was first raised by Kim et al. (1987?).
It was first addressed in a credible manner by Wigley et al.
(1990).
14(6xxx xxxx xxxx: 'appending' is a ridiculous word to use. Try 'adding'.
14(6xxx xxxx xxxx: 'often' to 'usually'.
14(6xxx xxxx xxxx: 'appended' to 'added'.
14(6xxx xxxx xxxx: 'appended' to 'added'.
14(6xxx xxxx xxxx: 'appended' to 'added'.
14(627,628) : Please cite the key initial papers by Kim et al. and
Wigley et al.
15(635,636) : Clumsy sentence.
15(6xxx xxxx xxxx: Isn't the word 'physical' usually used? The process
does not just involve dynamics.
15(xxx xxxx xxxx) : Mention of 1-way vs 2-way nesting needed here.
15(xxx xxxx xxxx) : You have failed to mention the most important reason
for using LAMs, orography/topography.
16(6xxx xxxx xxxx: Please cite the key initial papers by Kim et al. and
Wigley et al.
16(6xxx xxxx xxxx: 'predict and' to 'predictand'.
16(xxx xxxx xxxx) : Once again, you fail to mention the main advantage;
viz. that statistical downscaling involve real-world data and
so ensures that inter-variable relationships are realistic. Of
course, these relationships may change; but LAMs don't even get
the correct relationships for the present.
16(703)-17(716): These are VERY important results. They need far
greater emphasis.
17(7xxx xxxx xxxx: In Australia? Or anywhere for that matter.
17(xxx xxxx xxxx) : See, e.g., Wigley (1999 - Pew report- and material
cited therein).
17(7xxx xxxx xxxx: 'mulitple'?
17(xxx xxxx xxxx) : Not clear.
17(xxx xxxx xxxx) : This sentence sounds stupid. Rephrase.
17(7xxx xxxx xxxx: You cannot say 'most areas' and then cite only
agriculture cases.
17(7xxx xxxx xxxx: The first clear exposition of this is in the oft-cited
paper by Wigley (Nature, 1985). See also later paper in Climate
Monitor.
17(xxx xxxx xxxx) : I disagree. Both methods have strengths and weaknesses.
18(7xxx xxxx xxxx: At last! A definition of 'weather generators'.
18(xxx xxxx xxxx) : Unclear.
18(7xxx xxxx xxxx: What means 'more definitive'?
18(8xxx xxxx xxxx: "Wilk's" to "Wilks'".
18(8xxx xxxx xxxx: Hence, the work is irrelevant in the present context.
Delete irrelevant text.
19(to 821) : Most of the agriculture studies dealing with the
effects of variability changes are flawed since they fail to
separate the low-frequency effect of induced changes in
winter soil moisture levels from the specific effect of
within-growing-season variability changes.
19(xxx xxxx xxxx) : Since this should refer back to lines 823,824,
this whole section amounts to a giant non sequitur.
20(8xxx xxxx xxxx: One could be much stronger than this. The use of
high spatial resolution information is more than just
'warranted', it is absolutely essential. However, there is
another approach that you have failed to mention at all.
This is 'upscaling' of the impacts model. There is some
relevant work on this in papers by Jarvis and McNaughton
(and vice versa). Another related approach is the direct
modelling of spatial patterns of agricultural yield (as
in work by Wigley and Tu Qipu, which relates yield patterns
to climate patterns). Presumably one could apply a similar
approach to direct modelling of river flow. These approaches
complement the rather boring direct approach of downcsaling,
and they may well circumvent some of its problems.
20(8xxx xxxx xxxx: Under this comes: model errors; sensitivity
uncertainties; aerosol forcing uncertainties; lag uncer-
tainties, regionalization versus global-mean uncertainties.
21(9xxx xxxx xxxx: lesser or greater than what??
21(9xxx xxxx xxxx: 'adequacy' is not the right word; hoe about
'appropriateness'?
21(9xxx xxxx xxxx: I disagree. Re-analysis data for precipitation are
simply not good enough, and precipitation is the key variable
in most impact areas. Also, in the regions where scenario
data are most needed, real observational data are available.
Re-analyses largely provide useful new data in regions where
data are not needed. The authors seem not to have thought
this through.
21(to 931) : There are two papers by Wigley (conference
proceedings, edited by Hanisch) which address the issue of
the relative magnitudes of different sources of uncertainty
in global-mean projections (emissions, aerosol forcing,
carbon cycle, other trace gases, climate sensitivity).
These papers are singularly relevant to this section.
21(9xxx xxxx xxxx: Actually, the range for total emissions is from
7.9 to 29.0GtC/yr. For fossil CO2 emissions, the range is
6.5 to 28.8GtC/yr.
21(9xxx xxxx xxxx: Not just 'time-dependent evolution', but anything
that has a specific time attached to it.
22(9xxx xxxx xxxx: The reference to Alcamo et al. here seems either
perverse or ignorant. Recall that the topic is CLIMATE
scenarios. In this context, MAGICC/SCENGEN is FAR better
suited to exploring the consequences (right down the line)
of emissions 'uncertainties'.
22(xxx xxxx xxxx) : MAGICC/SCENGEN already does this at the global-mean
level. Furthermore, at least three O/AGCMs have fully embedded
sulphur cycles already.
22(9xxx xxxx xxxx: 'specifications' is the wrong word. These things
are NOT 'specified'.
22(9xxx xxxx xxxx: 'determine' to 'have'
22(9xxx xxxx xxxx: See also Wigley's Pew report (1999).
22(xxx xxxx xxxx) : Not straightforward? This really is utter garbage.
In MAGICC/SCENGEN, this is extremely easy and straightforward.
22(9xxx xxxx xxxx: Ah ha! The 1-way/2-way nesting issue surfaces at last!
22(xxx xxxx xxxx) : See above.
23(9xxx xxxx xxxx: Actually, this issue was first raised in Santer et al.
(1990). It has also been addressed in papers by Wigley and
Palutikof (probably before anyone else).
23(1xxx xxxx xxxx): The wording here is not quite right.
23(10xxx xxxx xxxx: First done in Santer et al. (1990).
23(10xxx xxxx xxxx: If one assumes stable patterns, which has been shown
to be okay for the CO2 component of change, then the SNR problem
can be minimized by using changes over a long time interval.
23(10xxx xxxx xxxx: This average response method was alluded to in
Santer et al. (1990). It was first implemented in ESCAPE and
later in MAGICC/SCENGEN. A good illustration of the method,
including some relevant discussion of it, is given in the
Wigley Pew report (1999). One of the critical aspects of this
method (which is not even mentioned here!) is that the results
must be normalized by the global-mean temperature before
averaging.
24(10xxx xxxx xxxx: Is this the ACACIA program run out of NCAR? This
program was established some years ago, and it would be
extremely confusing if there were two programs with the same
acronym.
24(10xxx xxxx xxxx: Not 'a few', but many -- CMIP1.
24(10xxx xxxx xxxx: 'rations' to 'ratios'.
24(1xxx xxxx xxxx): Not clear.
24(10xxx xxxx xxxx: What means 'non-standard forcing'? In my view, something
like IS92a forcing would be 'standard', whereas 1% compound CO2
is 'non-standard' (i.e., unrealistic and artificial).
24(1xxx xxxx xxxx): Really? Why? I think this statement is wrong. There
are a number of ways to determine SNR values from a single O/AGCM
run. (Note the continuing confusing use of 'GCM', instead of
O/AGCM.)
24(10xxx xxxx xxxx: I don't think 'uncertainties' is quite the right word
here. Input emissions scenarios, which are scenarios in the
strict sense of the word, do not directly address uncertainty
issues (although they can, with some trepidation and a not-
inconsiderable amount of ingenuity, be used to define
uncertainties). By the way, as far as I can see, the only
scenario development method/software that does address the
input and uncertainty issues is MAGICC/SCENGEN.
25(10xxx xxxx xxxx: Again, these are not the most appropriate references.
Key references are Santer et al. (1990), and papers on ESCAPE
and MAGICC/SCENGEN.
25(10xxx xxxx xxxx: What means 'annotation' here?
25(11xxx xxxx xxxx: Actually, it was my idea.
25(1105,1106): No! The key assumption is actually linear superposition.
This is the way that SO4 effects are handled. There are a number
of papers that show that this assumption works well for
temperature, and a paper by Ramaswamy and Chen in GRL that shows
that it works also for precipitation. The tricky thing for this
variable would be to prove statistically that it doesn't work.
Given the SNR, it would be very difficult to reject the null
hypothesis that P(A)+P(B)=P(A+B), where A,B are the forcings
and P(.) is the response pattern.
25(11xxx xxxx xxxx: Plus numerous other papers.
25(1112,1113): This is very galling. The method may have been used
in IMAGE, but they got it from ESCAPE, which goes back to
Santer et al. (1990). MAGICC/SCENGEN pushes the idea as far
as is possible. Schlesinger's COSMIC does things quite
similarly tp MAGICC/SCENGEN. (Schlesinger was a co-author of
the Santer et al. paper.)
25(11xxx xxxx xxxx: Not clear.
25(11xxx xxxx xxxx: All you can say here is 'may not hold', not 'probably
does not hold'. Indeed, there are reasons to expect it to hold
quite well.
25(11xxx xxxx xxxx: Could begin new paragraph with 'Uncertainties'.
25(1123,1124): I think this statement is categorically wrong. MAGICC/
SCENGEN incorporates SO4 influences, as does COSMIC. There is
no evidence at all that the uncertainties are thereby amplified.
Indeed, there is evidence to the contrary (e.g. Penner et al.,
1997). Idle and unsupported speculations like this do nobody
any good.
25(1124,1125): I suspect you argument here would have to hinge on
the possible spatial effects of a THC slowdown or shutdown.
If so, say so. But, if this is the case, you must also note
that the latest non-flux-corrected O/AGCMs do not show these
major THC changes, and scaling approaches may well work out
very well for these situations, even in stabilization cases.
Please avoid jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions.
25(11xxx xxxx xxxx: I refereed this paper, and I judged it to be an
appalling display of ignorance. It should not be cited.
26(11xxx xxxx xxxx: Why is this Figure here?
26(11xxx xxxx xxxx: Ah ha! At last the normalization issue. This must
come much earlier.
26(1xxx xxxx xxxx): This is simply wrong. It is true that Ramaswamy and
Chen dreamed up a case with big hemispheric-scale responses
but little global-mean response, but this was totally
unrealistic. In all cases that I have looked at, using the
method employed by MAGICC/SCENGEN and COSMIC, this is simply
NOT a problem.
26(1147,1148): Again, this is just WRONG!
26(115xxx xxxx xxxx: Again, this is my idea, and it was first implemented
in MAGICC/SCENGEN. Please give credit where due.
26(1xxx xxxx xxxx): Isn't this ALWAYS the case. In other words, the
scaling method is almost universally applicable and useful.
26(1xxx xxxx xxxx): I do not think this has been proven.
26(1164,1165): There are other methods, too.
26(11xxx xxxx xxxx: Oh come on! Scaling handles MANY types of uncertainty
(perhaps all), not just 'one type'.
27(11xxx xxxx xxxx: 'documented' to 'quantified'?
27(to 1185) : etc., etc.
27(11xxx xxxx xxxx: MAGICC/SCENGEN allows the user to consider this issue
by providing data on global precipitation pattern correlations.
Indeed, this software was the first to consider this issue (in
spite of the Whetton and Pittock paper cited on line 1199).
27(1xxx xxxx xxxx): Very clumsy text.
27(1xxx xxxx xxxx): This is an issue we considered years ago in developing
ESCAPE and MAGICC/SCENGEN. The trouble with judging a model on
its regional performance is one of statistical significance.
It is much easier to get a good regional result by chance than
to get results that are good globally.
27(1xxx xxxx xxxx): Very clumsy text.
27(to 1214) : You have failed to mention a key issue. Is model skill
in simulating present-day climate a reliable indicator of its
skill in predicting future climate change? There is no evidence
to support this idea, although it does sound a priori reasonable.
You must at least raise the issue.
28(12xxx xxxx xxxx: Cite Morgan and Keith (1995) here.
28(12xxx xxxx xxxx: This is a critical point. It needs more emphasis.
28(123xxx xxxx xxxx: What about inter-variable consistency? This needs to
be discussed.
28(12xxx xxxx xxxx: 'the manifold' to 'possible'.
28(12xxx xxxx xxxx: Insert 'give' after 'chapters'.
28(12xxx xxxx xxxx: Not clear.
28(12xxx xxxx xxxx: So what? It is almost certainly irrelevant unless the
CO2 changes are bigger than anything anticipated, or unless there
are nonlinear effects associated with THC changes (which looks
increasingly unlikely).
28(12xxx xxxx xxxx: 'mimics'? You must be joking! How about 'approximates'?
28(12xxx xxxx xxxx: 'equal' (grammar).
28(1262,1263): How can smart people like this make such an elementary
mistake!
29(1280,1281): This does not seem to be an appropriate reference.
29(12xxx xxxx xxxx: 'albino' to 'albedo'.
29(12xxx xxxx xxxx: This sea level consistency issue was first addressed
by Wigley and Raper (Warrick et al. sea level book). It is,
of course, avoided in MAGICC/SCENGEN.
29(12xxx xxxx xxxx: 'dependable' to 'dependent'.
29(1xxx xxxx xxxx): A giant red herring! Maybe some ignorant people
produced inconsistent scenarios like this years ago, but the
issue was also resolved years ago. All you need to say is that
comprehensive software suites avoid these naive problems.
Concentrate on the strengths of existing methods/software;
don't reraise issues that were solved long ago.
29(1xxx xxxx xxxx): Another misleading red herring, that fails to reflect
the current state of the science. Global-mean responses to
aerosol forcing CAN be used to drive regional patterns. This
is just what is done in MAGICC/SCENGEN and COSMIC.
29(1310,1311): Not clear.
29(13xxx xxxx xxxx: Delete 'scenario'.
29(13xxx xxxx xxxx: 'to daily' to 'in daily'.
30(1329,1330): 'stimulated new techniques' Oh yeah? The MAGICC/SCENGEN
method has not changed in 7 years, and it still represents the
state of the science.
30(1332,1333): True, but you have not explained them very well. Could
you not have a summary Table that lists the strengths and
weaknesses of the various methods, including the direct use of
O/AGCM output. This would have helped you a lot in planning
and structuring this chapter. It can still help in revising it;
and be useful to readers.
30(1xxx xxxx xxxx): Not clear.
30(13xxx xxxx xxxx: You have mentioned this before, but you have failed
to tell us what it is or given any example. A mention alone is
valueless.
30(13xxx xxxx xxxx: What means 'semi-formal'. I thought it was a dress
protocol.
30(general) : A crucial need for scenarios (and for simple models)
is to expand the range of cases covered by O/AGCMs.

END *********************************************************************

******************************
* Dr. Sarah Raper *
* Climatic Research Unit *
* University of East Aglia *
* Norwich *
* NR4 7TJ *
* *
* Tel. xxx xxxx xxxx *
* Fax. xxx xxxx xxxx *
******************************

Original Filename: 938108054.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Folland, Chris" <ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Folland, Chris" <ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: IPCC revisions
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 13:34:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Thanks for your comments Phil,

They look quite reasonable, and I will seek to incorporate them. I'll need
Keith's comments by tomorrow morning (my time) at the very latest if I am
to have time to assess them and incorporate them.

Some important specifics:

1) I am definitely using the version of the Briffa et al series you sent
in which Keith had restandardized to retain *more* low-frequency variability
relative to the one shown by Briffa et al (1998). So already, the
reconstruction I'm using is one-step removed from the published series
(as far as I know!) and that makes our use of even this series a bit
tenuous in my mind, but I'm happy to do it and let the reviewers tell us if
they see any problem. If I understand you correctly, there is yet a new
version of this series that is two steps removed from Briffa et al (1998)?
Frankly, at this stage I think we have to go w/ what we have (please see
Ian Macadam's plot
when it is available--I think the story it tells isn't all that bad,
actually) for the time being. Things as you say will change following
review anyways.

2) One other thingp--I'm actually averse to shortening the section on
sediments. Even if they haven't contributed to some of the multiproxy
studies (they certainly *did* contribute to Overpeck et al!) there are some
important
results there irrespective of the role of the proxies in multiproxy
studies. Lets, again, wait for reviews before shortening this...

3) We could eliminate the map of the boreholes, although I actually think
it is essential to see what the contributing spatial sampling (and,
accordingly, the potential bias of that sampling in determining "global
mean temperature") actually is. So I vote for keeping it for the time
being. Again, it's an
extremity that we can afford to lose if necessary in the end..

4) One important note on references: We don't have time at this late stage
to dig up incomplete citations, so you'll need to give me full citations
for any suggested added references (e.g. the Villalba paper). FYI, the
Crowley and Lowery paper is Tom's Ambio paper. He observes a mean warming
of about 0.5 C since the 17th century giving us yet another datapoint in
the scatter of
estimates...

5) I agree, the ranking of centuries is more specific than it needs to be.
I don't know what I was thinking. You sure that didn't come from the text
you originally contributed?? In any case, we can eliminate much of it in my
opinion too...

On the whole, I have never been under the assumption that you and I would
have independently assessed the evidence quite the same way. I would hope
we would have come up w/ the same key points, and so your comments in that
regard are reassuring. I feel confident in my ability to defend the science
that is presented here, so let the reviews fall where they may. I'm sure we
will be forced to admit some changes, as well as "minority viewpoints" and
alternative interpretations along the way. That's what will make this all
interesting...

mike

At 05:20 PM 9/23/99 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:
>
> Mike,
> Here are my thoughts on the text you sent. Keith will be sending some
> as well hopefully later today. One important aspect Keith will address is
> whether you're using the latest Briffa et al curve. We know you're not but
>the
> one with the greater low frequency and therefore much better chance of
> looking much better with the other two series, isn't yet published. We know
> it looks better in plots we have here.
>
> Specifics :
>
> p1 line xxx xxxx xxxxsay mid-19th century rather than the 20th century
>
> lines xxx xxxx xxxxseems a bit too much here with three refs on laminated
> sediments.
>
> line 46 Add Briffa et al (1998b) to Cook(1995).
>
> p2 line xxx xxxx xxxxI would suggest changing 'a particularly' to 'the most' .
>
> line xxx xxxx xxxxI would add a reference here to the paper by Crowley and
> Kim (1999) in GRL (July) where this aspect is also discussed.
>
> p3 line xxx xxxx xxxxI would add Argentina as well as Chile adding a ref to
> Villalba (1990 ) in QR.
>
> line 108 change 'key' to 'vital'
>
> line 119 'have providing' to 'provide' . There are several instances
> where the text doesn't read that well. I suspect as there are several
> iterations to go it is not that important yet !
>
> The coral section is just about the right size now and is justly
> devoid of references !
>
> p4 line 151 I would add a reference here to Morgan and van Ommen (1997)
> 'Seasonality in late-Holocene climate from ice core records',
> The Holocene 7, 351-4. This is the Law Dome core which is the best
> available with regards to dating in either hemisphere. It should be
>there.
>
> As with the coral section the ice core section expresses some
> cautionary notes with regard to dating etc which I think are justified.
> I suspect teh contrast with the tree-ring section will draw some
> criticism. Just a warning !
>
> As none of the multiproxy reconstuctions use any sediment information
> this section seems overlarge and could be reduced.
>
> p189 century-scale add in the 'y'
>
> p5 The borehole section is also a bit overlong. I don't know whether the
> map really adds something. Not that vehement on this.
>
> With respect to comapring high and low frequency aspects the diagram
> comparing CET with the UK boreholes is now out. I've sent a copy to
> Chris. It is in :
>
> Jones PD, 1999 : Classics in physical geography revisited - Manley's
> CET series. Progress in Physical Geography 23, xxx xxxx xxxx.
>
> line 245 the 'is' is not needed.
>
> p6 I still think that a reference to Raper et al (1996) would be good
> here. This models a glacier in northern Sweden using the northern
> Fennoscandian temperature reconstructions since AD 500. Again it shows
> how a low frequency estimate (the glacial snout position) can be compared
> with a high-frquency temperature reconstruction from trees.
>
> Raper, SCB, Briffa KR and Wigley TML, 1996: Glacial change in northern
> Sweden from AD 500: a simple geometric model of Storglaciaren. Journal
> of Glaciology 42, xxx xxxx xxxx.
>
> line 268 IPCC(1996) earlier - is it 95 or 96
>
> p 7 line 295 I would like to add my paper in Reviews of Geophysics in 1999
> as that also says that 1998 was likely to be the warmest year of the
> millennium.
>
> line 334 I would like to see Bradley (1999). I must get a copy from
> Ray in Venice.
>
> pxxx xxxx xxxxAll need a careful read through for English and the arguments.
>
> At the bottom of p8 I think you make too much of the differences in the
> ranking of the centuries. The boreholes would agree with my series with
> the 17th being colder than the 19th, although they may not be able to
> resolve the timescales then.
>
> Is the Crowley and Lowery (1999) the paper Tom's submitted to Ambio ?
>
> I've not commented much on this final section as again I suspect there
> are many things you will have to justify in the next two sets of reviews.
> On the whole I think most is OK and I support the final paragraph. I
> don't believe the astronomical argument as an explaination over the
> last 1000 years but we can differ on that.
>
> I know I would have written this final section 2.3.3 somehat differently
> with different emphases and slants but the basic final conclusion would
> have been the same.
>
> 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: (8xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.html

Original Filename: 938121656.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Folland, Chris" <ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Folland, Chris" <ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: IPCC revisions
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 17:20:56 +0100
Cc: tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx


Mike,
Here are my thoughts on the text you sent. Keith will be sending some
as well hopefully later today. One important aspect Keith will address is
whether you're using the latest Briffa et al curve. We know you're not but
the
one with the greater low frequency and therefore much better chance of
looking much better with the other two series, isn't yet published. We know
it looks better in plots we have here.

Specifics :

p1 line xxx xxxx xxxxsay mid-19th century rather than the 20th century

lines xxx xxxx xxxxseems a bit too much here with three refs on laminated
sediments.

line 46 Add Briffa et al (1998b) to Cook(1995).

p2 line xxx xxxx xxxxI would suggest changing 'a particularly' to 'the most' .

line xxx xxxx xxxxI would add a reference here to the paper by Crowley and
Kim (1999) in GRL (July) where this aspect is also discussed.

p3 line xxx xxxx xxxxI would add Argentina as well as Chile adding a ref to
Villalba (1990 ) in QR.

line 108 change 'key' to 'vital'

line 119 'have providing' to 'provide' . There are several instances
where the text doesn't read that well. I suspect as there are several
iterations to go it is not that important yet !

The coral section is just about the right size now and is justly
devoid of references !

p4 line 151 I would add a reference here to Morgan and van Ommen (1997)
'Seasonality in late-Holocene climate from ice core records',
The Holocene 7, 351-4. This is the Law Dome core which is the best
available with regards to dating in either hemisphere. It should be
there.

As with the coral section the ice core section expresses some
cautionary notes with regard to dating etc which I think are justified.
I suspect teh contrast with the tree-ring section will draw some
criticism. Just a warning !

As none of the multiproxy reconstuctions use any sediment information
this section seems overlarge and could be reduced.

p189 century-scale add in the 'y'

p5 The borehole section is also a bit overlong. I don't know whether the
map really adds something. Not that vehement on this.

With respect to comapring high and low frequency aspects the diagram
comparing CET with the UK boreholes is now out. I've sent a copy to
Chris. It is in :

Jones PD, 1999 : Classics in physical geography revisited - Manley's
CET series. Progress in Physical Geography 23, xxx xxxx xxxx.

line 245 the 'is' is not needed.

p6 I still think that a reference to Raper et al (1996) would be good
here. This models a glacier in northern Sweden using the northern
Fennoscandian temperature reconstructions since AD 500. Again it shows
how a low frequency estimate (the glacial snout position) can be compared
with a high-frquency temperature reconstruction from trees.

Raper, SCB, Briffa KR and Wigley TML, 1996: Glacial change in northern
Sweden from AD 500: a simple geometric model of Storglaciaren. Journal
of Glaciology 42, xxx xxxx xxxx.

line 268 IPCC(1996) earlier - is it 95 or 96

p 7 line 295 I would like to add my paper in Reviews of Geophysics in 1999
as that also says that 1998 was likely to be the warmest year of the
millennium.

line 334 I would like to see Bradley (1999). I must get a copy from
Ray in Venice.

pxxx xxxx xxxxAll need a careful read through for English and the arguments.

At the bottom of p8 I think you make too much of the differences in the
ranking of the centuries. The boreholes would agree with my series with
the 17th being colder than the 19th, although they may not be able to
resolve the timescales then.

Is the Crowley and Lowery (1999) the paper Tom's submitted to Ambio ?

I've not commented much on this final section as again I suspect there
are many things you will have to justify in the next two sets of reviews.
On the whole I think most is OK and I support the final paragraph. I
don't believe the astronomical argument as an explaination over the
last 1000 years but we can differ on that.

I know I would have written this final section 2.3.3 somehat differently
with different emphases and slants but the basic final conclusion would
have been the same.

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: 956161482.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Christoph Schmutz <schmutz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Your recent GRL paper (fwd)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 12:24:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Juerg Luterbacher <juerg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Elena Xoplaki <xoplaki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Heinz Wanner <wanner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Dimitrios Gyalistras <gyalistr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cullen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, druidrd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, christian.pfister@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Christoph,

I have time for just a few brief comments. I'll leave Ed and the others to
follow up if they wish...

mike mann

At 05:13 PM 4/19/00 +0200, you wrote:
>
>Dear Prof. Cook
>
>I have received your comments and the comments of Prof. Mann (Juerg
>kindly forwarded me the messages).
>
>First I would like to point out that our paper clearly has the intention
>to contribute in a constructive way to the discussion of proxy-based
>climate reconstructions. This was the reason for fitting available
>proxy-based indices onto J, in order to assess the potential of the
>complementary information in the proxy data. In fact, we need proxy-data
>to go further back. But it is essential to know the limitations and there
>ARE obviously major limitations.
>
>As you mentioned, there might be some non-stationarities in the NAO.
>


Hmmm. I *think* what Ed actually meant is that if one samples e.g. only a
subset of the quadrapole set of temperature "lobes" of the NAO (especially,
if one samples only, say, one of them--the European one), then one will
necessarily be seeing a combination of the NAO, and any other climate
patterns that have a distinct regional overprint in that region. In the case
of Europe, there are several. So the "nonstationarity" isn't in the *true*
NAO, it is
an the attempt to *define* the NAO in terms of an insufficent subsample of
regions influence by it.

>However, the signature of the NAO shows to be quite robust for most of the
>20.th century. As you said, we do not know if there is in fact a probably
>strongly biased signal towards the European continent back in time.
>

>I have downloaded the preprint paper by Cullen et al. In a first overview
>it seems to me that one of my main conclusions, which states that it is
>important to use the complementary information in the data is confirmed by
>their work. In fact this was already one of the conclusions in the
>Luterbacher et al. 1999 paper (number of used predictors are an important
>factor for the obtained skill).
>
>It would have been nice to find the Luterbacher et al. 1999 index in the
>analyses of the mentioned Cullen et al. paper (e.g. in the Tables 1 to 3).

In fact, the Cullen et al paper was originally written and submitted well
before the paper you cite (GRL has an extremely fast turnaround time
relative to Paleoceanography), and it wouldn't have been appropriate for
Heidi Cullen to redo all the analyses using this additional index, at the
time the paper was already in review/in press.

>
>The loss of skill (1xxx xxxx xxxx) found in table 3 of the mentioned Cullen et
>al. paper implies again that proxy-based index reconstructions have to be
>verified rigorously in the pre-1850 period. The Luterbacher et al. 1999
>index might give some help for the validation of proxy-based
>reconstruction attempts. This index will be open to the public after the
>EGS2000 conference. (http://www.giub.unibe.ch/klimet)
>
>Since I'm not a specialist in tree-ring proxy-data you could probably
>better explain the following questions that I (honestly) can not explain:
>
>Why are the different proxy-indices not significantly correlated back in
>time (if one considers a serious significance testing procedure) on the
>interannual and decadal time-scale?

Hmmm. I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion from the results we show.
Several proxy indices are in fact quite significantly correlated (the
Appenzeller index is the only one that doesn't show close correlation with
the others).

>How is it possible (from a biological and physical point of view) to
>relate the mid- and high latitude tree-ring density and width to the
>main winter circulation pattern in Europe?
>

I'm sure Ed and Keith can point you to the relevant wealth of literature on
this.
>
>
>Sincerely yours, Christoph Schmutz
>
>
>> From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> To: Ed Cook <drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
>> Juerg Luterbacher <juerg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> Cc: cullen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, druidrd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
>> k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> Subject: Re: Your recent GRL paper
>>
>> Thanks for your comments Ed,
>>
>> I agree with them, and think this needs to be looked into further. I would
>> encourage those who haven't yet, to take a look at the Cullen et al
>> manuscript which covers the same territory and comes to somewhat different
>> conclusions. The manuscript is now in-press in Paleoceanography, and is
>> available in
>> preprint form here (both as postscript and pdf file):
>>
>> http://rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu/climategroup/papers/
>>
>> Would be interested in peoples thoughts.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> mike
>> At 04:34 PM 4/18/xxx xxxx xxxx, Ed Cook wrote:
>> >Dear Juerg,
>> >
>> >I have just completed reading your most recent GRL paper (Schmutz et al.,
>> >2000) on NAO reconstructions in which you show that proxy-based NAO
>> >reconstructions are probably wanting. It is not possible to strongly defend
>> >my reconstruction at this time (indeed I was extremely cautious in my
>> >description of it with regards to over-fitting problems, etc.). However, I
>> >do think that there are some issues that have not been fully explored,
>> >which could help explain some of the non-stationarity in the relationships
>> >found between your index and mine (at least) based on proxy data alone.
>> >First, my NAO reconstruction is based on 6 North American and 4 European
>> >tree-ring chronologies. Because the putuative NAO information in these
>> >records spans the North Atlantic and nicely brackets the NAO centers of
>> >action as we know them now, they potentially contain past information that
>> >is missing from a purely European-based estimate of NAO. This could occur
>> >if the NAO did not affect climate on both sides of the North Atlantic in
>> >the same roughly symmetric way back in time as it does now. If this were
>> >the case (and we have no way of knowing that now as far as I know), then it
>> >is conceivable that your L index is excessively biased towards Europe, as
>> >would be the extended Jones SLP index. If so, any comparisons between your
>> >L index and my proxy index with the Jones index would be hopelessly biased
>> >in your favor. This is not to say that my reconstruction is as good as
>> >yours, but it might not be as bad as your results indicate either.
>> >
>> >Indeed, I did make some effort to "verify" my reconstruction against early
>> >instrumental records, with somewhat contradictory and potentially
>> >interesting results. Over the 1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod, my record correlates
>> >significantly with Stykkisholmer SLP (-0.456) and Oslo temperatures
>> >(0.323), but not Bermuda SLP (0.156) and Central England temperatures
>> >(0.211). The "appearance" of significant verification with only the more
>> >northerly instrumental records may be telling us something about
>> >differences in circulation and SSTs over the North Atlantic from what is
>> >now the case. This could affect the way in which the NAO affects climate
>> >jointly over North America and Europe. Of course, when I added some earlier
>> >observations (same stations) to the verification tests (Table 4 of my
>> >paper), the results weakened considerably. So, maybe this means that my NAO
>> >reconstruction is indeed poor. However, I must admit to having doubts about
>> >the quality of the early instrumental records despite the great efforts
>> >made to homogenize and correct them. This is especially the case with
>> >regards to low-frequency variability, but can also extend to individual
>> >values as well. I talked with Phil Jones about one suspect datum in the
>> >early portion of his extended NAO record that largely destroys any
>> >correlation with proxy-based NAO estimates (the sign of the instrumental
>> >index appears to be wrong to me). Yet, Phil is convinced that that datum is
>> >good and he may very well be right. Either way, more robust methods of
>> >association between series may be jusitified to guard anomalous values.
>> >
>> >Last year I asked you to please send my your reconstruction of the NAO (L).
>> >I never received it and ask you again to please send it.
>> >
>> >Regards,
>> >
>> >Ed
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Professor Michael E. Mann
>> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
>> University of Virginia
>> Charlottesville, VA 22903
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
>> http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.html
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Christoph Schmutz
> Climatology and Meteorology Tel: (+41) (0xxx xxxx xxxx
> Institute of Geography Fax: (+41) (0xxx xxxx xxxx
> University of Bern
> Hallerstrasse 12
> CH-3012 Bern E-Mail: schmutz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.html

Original Filename: 965416206.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: climate reconstructions
Date: Fri Aug 4 15:10:xxx xxxx xxxx

Dear Fortunat
I am pleased to hear from you. I have still not been in touch about the data I showed you
in Vienna! As for your question - of course I will send the series you mention - but it is
only an average of three regional tree-ring chronologies ( Northern Sweden, Yamal,Taimyr)
and not calibrated in terms of temperature. Nevertheless, it is representative of summer
warmth over a large Russian region, We have recently submitted a paper describing a
different standardization approach ( for preserving low frequency variance) applied to a
big high-latitude network of tree-density data. This yields regional (up to 600-year)
calibrated reconstructions and a hemispheric curve - all representing april-sept season. I
have asked my colleague Tim Osborn here to send the data and a copy of the papers to you, I
am on the verge of leaving for 2 weeks so if you need more information contact him.
As for other areas of the world - Phil Jones has an alternative Hemisphere curve and there
are some southern hemisphere chronologies ( temp. sensitive). There are short precip
reconstructions for several spots - but systematic Palmer Drought Indices for the U.S. from
about 1700. I will be happy to talk on the phone about all these in two weeks.
best wishes
Keith
At 11:01 AM 7/19/00 +0200, you wrote:

Dear Keith,
How are you? Hope everything is going well.
I am writing because I am interested in your climate reconstruction for
the last millennium.
The Etheridge ice core data of CO2 indicate that CO2 was below average
in the 17th and 18th centuries by a few ppm. Very few (1-2 points) of
ice core C13 data (Francey tellus, 99) suggest that this drawdown was
caused by additional terrestrial carbon storage (Joos et al, GRL, 99;
Trudinger, Tellus, 99). We try to investigate this suggestion using the
Lund-Potsdam-Jena dynamical global vegetation model (LPJ-DGVM).
A diploma student of mine, Philippe Bruegger, has used the Mann et al
annual mean temperature patterns (2 EOFs only) in combination with the
Etheridge CO2 record to drive the LPJ model. Instead of absorbing
carbon, the model is releasing carbon due to a reduced CO2 fertilization
effect in the model that outweights any climatic effects. Thus, the
model results is clearly not compatible with the ice core results.
Obviously, the study is hampered by the limitation of the climate
reconstruction (as well as by the few C13 ice core data). Instead of
changes in monthly values of Temp and precip (and cloud cover) changes
in ANNUAL mean temperature were used to force LPJ.
Could you or Phil Jones provide alternative forcing fields that focus
e.g. more on summer temperature? Any info about precipitation?
I would also appreciate very much to obtain reprints of your most recent
articles, namely the article in Quaternary Science Rev. 2000.
Thanks for any help you can provide.
Regards, Fortunat
--
NEW FAX NUMBER; NEW FAX NUMBER; NEW FAX NUMBER; NEW FAX NUMBER;
Fortunat Joos, Climate and Environmental Physics
Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern
Phone: ++41(0xxx xxxx xxxx Fax: ++41(0xxx xxxx xxxx
e-mail: joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Internet:
[1]http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/

References

1. http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/

Original Filename: 967231160.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: cool bristlecone, etc
Date: Fri Aug 25 15:19:xxx xxxx xxxx

Hi again Malcolm
I am forwarding the data in another message (from Tim). I am sending the whole lot for
simplicity. Please don't pass on until we hear whether the paper is accepted or not.
Remember that , although they are strongly correlated with them, these data are not
identical in the high frequency domain to the equivalent data standardised using say a
Hugershoff function. The main purpose here was to extract long-timescale variations and I
still consider the inter annual to decadal variability to be better defined using the
'traditional' approach. For a first look anyway these are fine
best wishes
Keith
At 04:14 AM 8/24/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:

Dear Keith,
It was good to talk with you this morning. This is a reminder about
sending your Western North America banded record as you
suggested. I suspect that you are right to think that it would eventually
be best to use a customized banded set, but as a start, I think it would
be good to compare the WNW record with the mean series Graybill
and Idso used in their 1993 paper, and with the single site Campito
Mountain record. I'll start with a simple graphical comparison and
then move to comparing waveforms extracted by, for example, SSA.
My hope is that we can fairly rapidly generate a note to something like
GRL or JoC's new short format, putting a believable version of these
records out there for general use.
Please reply to the mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx address. I'm sending it
from my other address as well as a 'belt-and-braces' approach
because of recent e-mail problems. Looking forward to working on
this with you, Cheers, Malcolm
Malcolm Hughes
Professor of Dendrochronology
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
xxx xxxx xxxx
fax xxx xxxx xxxx

Original Filename: 969652057.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Status of our JGR paper
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 15:47:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: roeckner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ktaylor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, boyle@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, sailes1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, doutriau@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, meehl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, bengtsson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

***************
Ben (or, really, everybody else),

I don't know whether you have all seen the paper analyzing the observed
data that Ben and I sent to J. Climate ?? This is where the JGR paper
began, and it is useful to compare both papers. In the J. Climate paper
we assessed the best fits using a subjective balance of raw and lowpass
filtered results. The reason for this was because of the difficulty of
setting up an automated procedure -- which is the problem that Ben is
currently having to deal with. In the next iteration of the JGR paper,
the reason for moving to a more automated procedure will be explained.
Both the subjective and automated procedures have their advantages and
disadvantages. The latter procedure, of course, is in no way
'objective'. Many subjective choices have to be made in setting up the
procedure. This is why the word 'automated' is used above, rather than
'objective'.

If you have not seen the J. Climate paper, let me know and I will send
you a copy. There is a companion paper that has been accepted by GRL
that I will send at the same time.

Cheers, Tom.
***************

Ben Santer wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> I just wanted to keep you informed about the status of our draft JGR paper.
> First, thanks to all of you for your comments - they were very helpful. I am now
> in the process of revising the paper, and hope to have a new draft ready by Oct.
> 10th. After several discussions with Tom, I have decided to repeat the
> volcano/ENSO signal separation for the observed data and for the GSOP
> experiment.
>
> The reason for this is that there was a conceptual flaw in what I had done
> previously. The flaw related to the determination of the "pre-eruption"
> reference temperature, used as a baseline for estimating the maximum
> volcanically-induced cooling. Let's call this baseline temperature "TBASE".
> Previously, I was estimating TBASE for Pinatubo and El Chichon from either the
> raw or Gauss-filtered temperature data at time t=0 (the eruption month).
> If I was calculating TBASE from the filtered data, the estimate of TBASE was
> biased by "contamination" from post-eruption cooling. In other words, since I
> was using a 13-term Gaussian filter, temperature values from t=0 + 6 months were
> influencing TBASE, likely leading to an underestimate of the true TBASE value.
> I've now modified the program so that TBASE is not computed from the filtered
> data; instead, it is an average of the temperature anomalies in the MREF months
> prior to the eruption. There is some sensitivity to the choice of MREF (I've
> been experiment with values ranging from xxx xxxx xxxxmonths), which again underscores
> the uncertainties inherent in separating ENSO and volcanic signals.
>
> The maximum volcanically-induced cooling is still estimated using filtered data,
> but now I'm using a 5-term binomial filter rather than the 13-term Gaussian.
>
> These changes require repeating most of the analyses in the paper. Preliminary
> results indicate that the revised estimation of TBASE increases the ratio of the
> Chichon/Pinatubo maximum coolings, and brings this closer to the ratio of the
> Chichon/Pinatubo radiative forcings.
>
> Tom has also made a number of useful suggestions regarding reorganization and
> shortening of various sections of the manuscript. Hopefully the next iteration
> will be a little shorter than the current version of the paper!
>
> I will be out of my office next week, but should be back by October 2nd.
>
> With best regards, and thanks again for all your help,
>
> Ben
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Benjamin D. Santer
> Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
> P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-264
> Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
> Tel: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
> FAX: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
> email: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
**********************************************************
Tom M.L. Wigley
Senior Scientist
ACACIA Program Director
National Center for Atmospheric Research
P.O. Box 3000
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx
USA
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
E-mail: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Web: http://www.acacia.ucar.edu
**********************************************************

Original Filename: 969652335.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: OOPS. RETURN EMAIL GLITCHES IN ORIGINAL
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 15:52:xxx xxxx xxxx

>Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 15:50:xxx xxxx xxxx
>To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Subject: Re: my visit
>Cc: srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@uea, p.jones@uea
>Bcc: mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000922092400.007ed450@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>References: <3.0.6.32.20000919101130.00aad100@xxxxxxxxx.xxxginia.
edu> <3.0.6.32.20000919135642.008114b0@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>
>HI Tim,
>
>Very busy, so just a short response for the time being.
>
>Regarding our MBH98 and GRL99 datasets, I'm pretty sure that Scott put those
>on anonymous ftp for you some months ago. So you *should* already have had
access to all the data we used. In fact, it was only a few select series of
Malcolm's that weren't made available from the get-go. So data has never
>been an issue for us. I'm happy to hear that it is not an issue for
you/keith/phil and that you are ready to make your density data available...
>
>A few points of clarification might help here:
>
>The revised method (based on ridge regression) is currently in development
as far as paleoreconstruction is concerned (we have a paper to be submitted
on application to the instrumental record only). We intend to test it on
synthetic proxy datasets (as described in my previous email) before
applying it to actual proxy data, so your visit, unfortunately, occurs at a
time that is too premature for comparison with results from this method.
Rather, we were hoping
>you shared some of the interest along the lines of
developmental/methodological
>issues.
>
>Comparison between warm-season reconstructions would be fine, but you should
>be aware of the extreme caveats with regard to our seasonal
reconstructions, as spelled out in detail in our "Earth Interactions"
article. We don't do nearly as well for warm-season or cold-season as for
annual-mean, and we believe this is consistent w/ the mix of seasonal
information contained in the multiproxy dataset. Obviously, things are
somewhat different for the more seasonally homogeneous density chronology
dataset. So to us, this comparison might not
>seem as worthwhile as it would for you all, but we can do it if all provisos
>and caveats are fully recognized and embraced from the start...
>
>The idea of testing wavelet methods of distinguish contributions on
different timescales sounds like it is of interest to all of us, and
perhaps we can
>move in that direction during your visit.
>
>In any case, we'll have more than enough to do, talk about, investigate,
and no need to necessarily hammer it all out beforehand.
>
>Comments from others (Scott, Phil, Keith?) welcome,
>
>mike
>
>At 09:24 AM 9/22/00 +0100, Tim Osborn wrote:
>>At 10:11 19/09/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
>>>I will put you up at the "Red Roof Inn" for the 10 nights...
>>>Will have reservations made for you for the night of the 10th through 19th,
>>>checking out morning of the 20th...
>>
>>That sounds great. Thanks.
>>
>>
>>Mike,
>>
>>I've talked over various ideas with Keith and Phil (and I'm cc'ing this to
>>them as well as to Scott), and I've now made some slightly firmer/clearer
>>suggestions, combining your ideas and ours.
>>
>>(1) We're still keen to spend part of the time on reconstruction method
>>issues, since that is one of the specifics that our current funded project
>>needs to address. To avoid being too retrospective, we could do something
>>that combined both your Nature98 and your revised methods:
>>
>>(a) compare your summer/warm season reconstructions (old & new methods)
>>with our reconstructions of Apr-Sep temperature from tree-ring densities
>>(regional/hemispheric averages and spatial comparisons).
>>
>>(b) In (a), we would be comparing reconstructions based on different
>>palaeodata *and* different statistical reconstruction methods. So a better
>>approach would be to use your (old & new) methods with our tree-ring
>>density data set to reconstruct Apr-Sep temperature fields, and then
>>compare with our reconstructions. This would be a good way of comparing
>>methods.
>>
>>(c) We could exchange data/methods to continue comparisons after the end of
>>my visit. We would be keen, for example, to obtain your Nature98 & GRL99
>>datasets and software to play around with after my return. In exchange, we
>>can provide you with our tree-ring density data set and the reconstructions
>>that we have produced from it. Of course, such subsequent work would
>>continue to be collaborative, keeping each other informed/involved with the
>>work.
>>
>>(d) If the tree-ring density data provided useful "added value" to your
>>reconstructions (perhaps at the higher frequencies and providing finer
>>spatial detail?), then we could use an appropriate method (perhaps your new
>>revised one) to produce a new reconstruction using all palaeodata. Such a
>>reconstruction might prove to be an important and well-used product.
>>
>>(2) Of your two specific suggestions I quite strongly prefer the first.
>>The reason is that, again, our project specifically requires comparison of
>>palaeo and model data and the development of appropriate methods to do
>>this. Your first suggestion would take us along those lines. There are
>>two related strands here. The first is to use the model outputs to assess
>>the reliability of the reconstructions (i.e., following the ideas you laid
>>out in your e-mail), which is certainly of interest. The second is to use
>>the reconstructions to evaluate the model simulations of "natural"
>>variability. We've done some comparisons with the HadCM2 and HadCM3
>>simulations - I shall brings papers/results along. What we need to develop
>>further are ways of incorporating the paleo biases/errors in such
>>comparisons. We have begun this, but when I visit we might be able to come
>>up with better methods and apply them to Hadley Centre and/or GFDL
>>comparisons.
>>
>>Your second suggestion, while interesting, is less appealing at this stage,
>>principally because we won't have time to do everything. As it happens,
>>Keith and I have just submitted a paper (to that well-known(!) journal
>>"Dendrochronologia") about timescale-dependent calibration of tree-ring
>>data - I shall bring a copy with me. My feeling is that the quantity of
>>data overlap available for calibration would be a strongly limiting factor
>>in most timescale-dependent approaches, whether they use wavelets or some
>>other filtering-type approach. What interests me more would be the
>>application of wavelets to the full palaeorecords to facilitate in the
>>definition of timescale-dependent coherent patterns (PCs?), rather than
>>just to the calibration period. Anyway, we can talk these ideas over even
>>if there's no time to begin any work yet.
>>
>>I think that a chance to exchange preprints, data, and discuss ongoing
>>developments of our work and yours will, in itself, prove to be a useful
>>outcome of my visit.
>>
>>Best regards
>>
>>Tim
>>
>>
>>
>>Dr Timothy J Osborn | phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>Senior Research Associate | fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>Climatic Research Unit | e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>School of Environmental Sciences | web-site:
>>University of East Anglia __________| http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
>>Norwich NR4 7TJ | sunclock:
>>UK | http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
>>
>>
>>
_______________________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.html

Original Filename: 983452785.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Thomas L. Delworth" <td@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: letter to Science
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 08:19:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hpollack@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear Mike et al,

I offer the following comments on your letter
for your consideration.

It seems to me there are 2 primary issues to
address:
(A) what does proxy evidence say about whether
the Medieval Warm period was global
(B) what do we know about potential mechanisms
for the Medieval Warm period
(i) evidence for a forced phenomenon
(ii) evidence for internal variability

Issue (A) is currently dealt with in your sections (1) and
(2). One point that could be perhaps conveyed more
clearly is the necessity of using the spatial information
conveyed in (multi) proxy reconstructions, rather than
overly interpreting sets of local proxy evidence. I
felt this point could have been stressed more, and is one
which the casual reader may not appreciate.

Issue (B, Bi) is in your section (3). I suggest a more
explicit mention of conclusions with regard to the
Medieval Warm period in recent work on this topic.
The first statement in this section doesn't provide
(I don't think) explicit evidence to back itself up. The
sentence starting "These results ..." could be more
explicit about what those studies show with respect to
the Medieval Warm period, in addition to the more general
statement about the partitionng between forced and internal
variability. A reader could ask "Ok, if 50% of the variability
is explained by volcanic and solar forcing, that doesn't
exclude the other 50% playing a strong role for events such as
the Medieval Warming." Such a question could be dealt with
in advance by stating what role these studies suggest for
radiative forcing in the Medieval Warm period.

For issue (Bii), I would suggest being explicit that
it is incumbent upon authors to provide some evidence to
support their speculation. What evidence can the author
provide to support his speculation concerning the role of
the THC in the Medieval Warm period? Rather than explicitly
stating this is not a likely mechanism, I would contrast the
speculation he has offered on this topic to the stronger
(in my opinion) evidence provided by modeling studies to
support the idea of the importance of radiative forcing.


... a few more minor comments

(1) I agree with the overall message you are conveying, but
might choose somewhat differing wording in a place or
two. The statement is made "(1) It cannot reasonably be
argued that the Middle Ages were as warm as the
20th century at global or hemispheric scales." This
might be a bit strong ... I would think one can have
a reasoned discussion on this topic. Perhaps something
like "We strongly disagree with the assertion that the
Middle Ages were as warm as the 20th century at global
or hemispheric scales."


(2) In the second to last sentence, I would add the
qualifying phrase "on planetary scales" after the
text "... responsible for centennial-millenial changes ...".


Regards,
Tom Delworth

ps The central issue is one that I have not been heavily
involved in, and thus don't think it's appropriate for
me to sign on as an author. Good luck, and please
send me a copy of your final submission.

pps I previously provided to Tom correlations between the
THC and global/hemispheric temperature based on a 900 year
run of our R30 coupled model. These correlations were
relatively low (0.27), but probably significant. The
applicability of those correlations to the issue of the
Medieval Warming may not be strong. If the Medieval Warming
is a multi-century event, then I should really be looking at
the correlations of low frequency (>50 years) filtered model
output from a run of several millenia duration. Thus, the
900 year run may not be applicable. I will revisit this
topic using a multi-millenial R15 coupled run, but probably
won't have any results today. I don't think that would
change the essential conclusions, however. I recall that
experiments with the R15 model in which the THC was substantially
weakened through the addition of fresh water to the North
Atlantic provided strong regional temperature anomalies, but
their global expression was small. These experiments are
being repeated with the higher resolution model.
In light of these issues, I suggest that the focus be
not so much on saying the THC cannot be responsible for the
Medieval Warming, but rather on saying (1) there is strong
evidence for a substantial role of radiative forcing, and (2) the
burden is on the author to provide evidence for the role of
the THC.
?


"Michael E. Mann" wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Below is a draft of a short letter to Science that Tom Crowley and I
> have put together, after discussing w/ Phil, Ray, and Malcolm. We
> feel that a reply to Broecker's recent "Perspectives" piece is
> warranted to correct several misconceptions that Wally unfortunately
> chose to perpetuate (attached as an html file FYI). We have been given
> encouragement to submit this by Julia Uppenbrink at Science.
>
> We are working under a very tight timeline owing to Tom's travel
> schedule (leaves on an extended travel on friday) so we would greatly
> appreciate it if you could respond ASAP w/ comments, suggestions, etc.
> Please note that we are currently near the length limitations (and
> probably shouldn't include more than 15 references) so we're looking
> to sharpen and hone, but not lengthen the piece at this point.
>
> Thanks in advance for your feedback,
>
> mike
>
> _________________________________________
>
> Medieval Warming Redux
> In a recent "Perspectives" opinion piece, W. Broecker suggests that
> the
> "hockey stick" reconstruction of climate change over the past 1000
> years -
> with extreme warming only in the late 20th century - is incorrect, and
> that
> the so-called "Medieval Warm Period" was at least as warm as the 20th
> century and due to oscillations in the thermohaline circulation. To
> reach
> this conclusion, Dr. Broecker rejects traditional empirical "proxy"
> climate
> indicators of past climate (e.g. tree ring, ice core, coral, and long
> historical documentary records) that are the foundation of a number of
>
> hemispheric reconstructions, as well as our current best physical
> understanding of the factors controlling climate at
> century-to-millennial
> timescales. We disagree with Broecker on several major points:
> (1) It cannot reasonably be argued that the Middle Ages were as warm
> as the
> 20th century at global or hemispheric scales. Although regional warmth
>
> during the Middle Ages may have sometimes been significantly greater
> than
> present, four different hemispheric-scale reconstructions (Jones,
> Mann,
> Briffa, Crowley) have been completed for the last 1000 years -- all of
> them
> showing warmth in the Middle Ages that is either no warmer or
> significantly
> less than mid-20th century warmth. This is because it has been known
> for a
> quarter of a century that the timing of warmth during the Middle Ages
> was
> significantly different in different regions (Lamb, Dansgaard,
> Hughes).
> Failure to take this observation into account can lead to serious
> errors in
> the inference of hemispheric temperature trends. Although one analysis
> of
> heat flow measurements suggests warmer temperatures than the surface
> proxies during the Middle Ages (Huang and Pollack, GRL. 1997), the
> considerable sensitivity of the resulting trends to a priori
> statistical
> assumptions has lead borehole researchers to restrict their attention
> to
> the more reliably interpretable temperature fluctuations during the
> past
> five centuries (Huang and Pollack, Nature). Our conclusion is also
> supported by measurements from tropical glaciers indicating an
> unprecedented level of recent warming with respect to the last
> 1,000-2,000
> years (Thompson).
> (2) High-resolution proxy climate records which form the foundation of
>
> recent hemispheric temperature reconstructions are far more reliable
> indicators of century-to-millennial scale climate variability than is
> implied by Broecker. The potential limitations in interpreting
> long-term
> climate change from proxy indicators such as tree rings, have been
> long
> recognized by dendroclimatologists (e.g., Cook "segment curse" paper)
> and
> are almost always taken into account in framing interpretations of
> long-term trends. For example, Mann et al (1999) verified that a
> significant subset of multiple-millennial length tree ring and ice
> core
> proxy climate indicators used to reconstruct the trend over the past
> millennium passed rigorous statistical tests for fidelity at the
> millennial
> timescale, and that the basic attributes of the hemispheric
> reconstruction
> using more recent non-tree ring proxies available over the past few
> centuries yielded essentially the same result as that based on both
> tree
> ring and non-tree ring based information (Mann et al, Earth
> Interactions,
> 2000). Several independent reconstructions (Jones et al and Crowley
> and
> Lowery ), using a wide variety of proxy climate indicators and
> different
> statistical approaches, yield similar hemispheric temperature trends.
> Even
> the centennial-scale changes within the so-called "Little Ice Age" of
> the
> 15th-19th centuries are largely in agreement. Furthermore these
> centennial
> changes have been shown to be in "agreement" , rather than "in
> opposition"
> (as argued by Broecker) with evidence from alpine glacial advances
> (Raper
> reference).
> (3) Physical considerations show that external forcing, not internal
> variability, played the dominant role in the transition from the
> "Medieval
> Warm Period" to "Little Ice Age" (these terms are used loosely and
> are, in
> fact, ill advised in the context of hemispheric or global temperature
> changes -see e.g. Bradley and Jones, 1993; Hughes and Diaz, 1994). One
> of
> the major points of Broecker's argument is that changes in the
> thermohaline circulation are a primary driver of climate change on
> this
> time scale. These results do not consider recent modeling studies
> (Free,
> Crowley) that demonstrate at a high significance level (>99%) that
> about
> 50% of the pre-anthropogenic (pre-1850) variance can be explained by
> changes in volcanism and low frequency solar irradiance. Although the
> latter term is still not well constrained from observational studies,
> there
> are a number of independent lines of evidence suggesting such changes
> (Hoyt, Lean, Lockwood).
> (4) It is not justifiable to argue that changes in the thermohaline
> circulation cause significant hemispheric or global changes in
> temperature.
> Although changes in the conveyor play a major role in the Atlantic
> Basin,
> to a first approximation changes in ocean circulation simply
> redistribute
> heat on the planet without significantly raising global temperature,
> or
> even hemispheric temperature. This conclusion is born out by very low
> correlations between warmth in the Greenland sector and the
> hemispheric
> indices over the last 1000 years (Crowley footnote ref.), a low
> correlation
> that is shared by coupled model experiments (Delworth citation)? In
> fact,
> sediment core data from the subtropical North Atlantic often cited as
> indicative of a distinct "Medieval Warm Period" and "Little Ice Age"
> (Keigwin Sargasso Sea), has recently been shown to be more consistent
> with
> changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation (Keigwin and Pickart),
> implying a
> zero sum pattern of regionally alternating warm and cold superimposed
> on
> far more modest hemispheric variations over the past 1000 years. This
> pattern itself may be forced, rather than internal in nature, and
> would
> explain the limited evidence for more dramatic cold and warm periods
> in
> regions such as Europe (see Mann, Sci Perspective, 2000).
> The above arguments lead us to conclude that, although the conveyor
> may be
> changing, radiative forcing perturbations were primarily responsible
> for
> centennial-millennial changes in the last 1000 years, with attendant
> implications for interpretation of earlier Holocene oscillations (e.g,
>
> Denton and Karlen). Furthermore, the weight of evidence indicates that
> the
> late 20th century hemispheric warming is significantly greater than
> the
> Middle Ages.
>
> Michael E. Mann
> Thomas J. Crowley
> WHO ELSE???
>
> ___________
> ___________________________________________________________
> Professor Michael E. Mann
> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, VA 22903
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (804)
> xxx xxxx xxxx
> http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.html

--
Thomas L. Delworth
GFDL/NOAA e-mail: td@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
P.O. Box xxx xxxx xxxx Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Princeton, NJ 08542 USA FAX: xxx xxxx xxxx

Original Filename: 990718506.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Recent Paper from the Competitive Enterprise Institute
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 11:35:xxx xxxx xxxx(MDT)
Reply-to: <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, tom crowley <tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <jto@u.arizona.edu>, <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Folland, Chris" <ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Mike:

You are right: this is a disinformation campaign.
Some remarks

1) On the Christy et al grl paper, I sent the following to John following
the IPCC Shanghai mtg.:

Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:39:xxx xxxx xxxx(MST)
From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: John Christy <christy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: your grl paper

John:

Just back from IPCC. One surprise was the strong Saudi delegation
distributed your recent grl paper and wanted it inserted into the SPM! In
spite of the fact that you are a lead author on Chapter 2 , the paper is
referenced, etc. In fact Simon Brown was there.

Chris Folland made a comment about his hypothesis for this: related to
changes/growth in ships. My hypothesis focusses on the buoy data.
See our recent paper submitted to jgr:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/jgr2001b/jgr2.html also

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/jgr2001a/jgr_interann.html

This shows that during and following El Nino there is an anomalous flux of
heat out of ocean into atmosphere in the east Pacific of order 50 W m-2 over
many months: so ocean T warms relative to air. During La Lina flux goes
other way. i.e. air warms relative to ocean.

So your results must be affected by 1xxx xxxx xxxxevent at end of series and that
may explain trend differential.

Hope this helps
Regards
Kevin

i.e. the result is not as advertized.

=====================

2) wrt Lindzen's paper

Here is the text from my recent Senate testimony

The determination of the climatic response to the changes in heating and
cooling is complicated by feedbacks. Some of these can amplify the original
warming (positive feedback) while others serve to reduce it (negative
feedback). If, for instance, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
were suddenly doubled, but with other things remaining the same, the outgoing
long-wave radiation would be reduced and instead trapped in the atmosphere.
To restore the radiative balance, the atmosphere must warm up and, in the
absence of other changes, the warming at the surface and throughout the
troposphere would be about 1.2dg C. In reality, many other factors will
change, and various feedbacks come into play, so that the best IPCC estimate
of the average global warming for doubled carbon dioxide is 2.5dg C. In
other words, the net effect of the feedbacks is positive and roughly doubles
the response otherwise expected. The main positive feedback comes from
increases in water vapor with warming.

In 2001, the IPCC gave special attention to this topic. The many issues with
water vapor and clouds were addressed at some length in Chapter 7 (of which I
was a lead author, along with Professor Richard Lindzen (M.I.T.), and
others). Recent possibilities that might nullify global warming (Lindzen
2001) were considered but not accepted because they run counter to the
prevailing evidence, and the IPCC (Stocker et al., 2001) concluded that ``the
balance of evidence favours a positive clear sky water vapour feedback of the
magnitude comparable to that found in the simulations."

===
Here is a more complete rebuttal, written March 23 to MacCracken.


Subject: Re: Recent Lindzen paper

Kevin Trenberth

1) The paper is based on very simple conceptual ideas that do not mesh with
reality. Fig. 2 is simply not correct. For a more correct view of the
overturning see:

Trenberth, K. E., D. P. Stepaniak and J. M. Caron, 2000: The global monsoon
as seen through the divergent atmospheric circulation. {J. Climate},
13, 3xxx xxxx xxxx.

This paper also shows that the flow in the tropics is dominated by transients
(and thus mixing) of all kinds. The mean overturning is only about a third
of the daily mean variance for a month and much less if the intra diurnal
variations and interannual variations are included.

2) The "observations" analysis makes absolutely no sense to me at all. There
is a totally inadequate description of what is done and no way to decipher
what a dot in Fig 5 or Fig 6 is. Given 20 months, and daily values (how
was that done?) why are there only about 330 points? Why isn't Fig 6 part
of Fig. 5?

In any event the results are totally at odds with other evidence. Here I
refer to the Goes Precipitation Index which uses 3 hourly data on OLR, and
thus on high cloud, as an index of rainfall, and it is clear from many
studies that OLR generally decreases (convection and high cloud increase)
with SST, the reverse of the relationship in Fig. 5.

Moreover the whole conceptual basis for anything here is surely flawed. As
stated, on short time scales SST is not changing. But clouds are NOT caused
by local SST, rather they arise from either transients, like the MJO, or for
the ITCZ and SPCZ (which are major operators in this region), they come from
moisture convergence (P>>E) and so it is the patterns of SST (gradients) as
well as where the warmest water is that determines where the convergence and
clouds occur. Now in the warm pool, the convergence is focussed more on the
edges, as that is where the pressure gradients are greater, and so the
convergence is not where SST is necessarily highest.

In any case, moisture is not equal to cloudy air. Many analyses show that
moisture is much more extensive, see for example
Trenberth, K. E., and C. J. Guillemot, 1998: Evaluation of the atmospheric
moisture and hydrological cycle in the NCEP/NCAR reanalyses. {Climate
Dyn.}, {14}, xxx xxxx xxxx.


Even with such results, other factors need to be considered.
One process might be
High SST => convergence => rainfall and cloud
OR
Less cloud => more solar radiation => higher SST

Those give opposite relations and both operate. The latter is more important
in the Indian Ocean where subsidence (from the Pacific) dominates.
However, it also operates over the oceans in the region in question in
northern summer, because that is the monsoon season, and the main convection
is over land, meaning subsidence over the ocean.

None of this is sorted out in any way in this paper.
In fact it is so bad in this regard I do not know how it got published.

In Fig 5 etc, no correlations are given, nor are their significance levels.
My rough estimate is that the correlation is about 0.2 to 0.3 and that is
significant if the 330 or so points are independent. But why should I have
to guess at that.
Again I would question the editorial and review process.

3) Finally, I refer you to chapter 7 of IPCC which is a more balanced
assessment. Lindzen was a coauthor of that with me and others. Lindzen
wrote 7.2.1 and the same figure 1 in the BAMS article was included as 7.1 in
chapter 7 along with similar ones from models, showing that these things are
fully simulated in good models, although better with higher resolution.
Anyway, his arguments were fully considered in chapter 7 and you can read it
to see the result. The whole of 7.2.1, including 7.2.1.1. 7.2.1.2 and
7.2.1.3 was put together originally by Lindzen, Pierrehumbert and Le Treut,
but basically the final version was rewritten by me to provide better
balance. Pierrehumbert is an agnostic of sorts: disbelieves everything
including models but seems to have faith in simple theories. Le Treut was
sound on the modeling. I did not change the substance of what they prepared,
I did reshape it and polish and it ended up in a form they accepted.

Note at the end it clearly states:
"the balance of evidence favours a positive clear sky water vapour feedback of
the magnitude comparable to that found in the simulations."

The 4 subsections together are quite long and throughly air the issue, much
moreso than any previous IPCC report. For those of you who do not have it:
7.2.1 "Physics of the water vapour and cloud feedbacks" (draft written by
Lindzen) is 1.3 pages, 7.2.1.1 (I think Pierrehumbert) "Water vapour
feedback", is 1 page, 7.2.1.2 "Representation of watre vapour in models" is
1.5 pages (Le Treut) and 7.2.1.3 "Summary on water vapour feedbacks" is half
a page or so.

---------------
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR, ML www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, [1850 Table Mesa Drive] (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80307 [80305] (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
*******************************






On Thu, 24 May 2001, Michael E. Mann wrote:

> FYI. I received this from a colleague. This gives you some idea of who is
> behind this latest disinformation push.
>
> A note to all regarding the Broecker piece, which has been heavily referred
> to in this and other similar recent pieces (though it is an opinion piece,
> and not peer-reviewed).
> A response by Bradley, Briffa, Crowley, Hughes, Jones, and Mann appears in
> tomorrows issue of "Science". This response simply points out that old
> fallacies that are simply reiterated in Broecker's piece...
>
> mike
>
>
>
>
>
> > COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
> >
> >
> > Advancing the principles of free enterprise and
> > limited government
> >
> >
> > 5/16/01
> >
> > Latest Global Warming Report Already Obsolete
> >
> > By Paul J. Georgia
> >
> >
> >
> > The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
> >(IPCC) is
> > conducting a campaign of fear to convince us that energy
> >suppression is
> > our only salvation. The "Summary for Policymakers" of the
> >group's latest
> > report ? the report itself has not been officially released ?
> >paints a horrific
> > picture of a climate system gone mad.
> >
> > The new report, known as the "Third Assessment Report" (TAR),
> >is
> > expected to be the focal point for policymakers for the next
> >five years as
> > they decide what to do about global warming, just as the 1995
> >Second
> > Assessment Report has guided policymakers for the last five
> >years.
> > Indeed, the bureaucrats driving the global warming process
> >are using the
> > IPCC to justify their anti-energy policies. Klaus Toepfer,
> >executive
> > director of the United Nations Environment Programme, said,
> >"The
> > scientific consensus presented in this comprehensive report
> >about
> > human induced climate change should sound alarm bells in
> >every
> > national capital and in every local community."[1]
> >
> > In the midst of this campaign, however, the science continues
> >to move
> > apace, leaving many of the IPCC's underlying assumptions and
> > subsequent conclusions in shambles. A sampling of scientific
> >studies
> > published after the completion of the final drafts of the TAR
> >is presented
> > here to give the reader a taste of the constant flux of
> >scientific inquiry and
> > our rapidly changing understanding of the climate system.
> >Indeed, if
> > recent studies are correct there would be little
> >justification for Kyoto-style
> > policies that would ultimately impede humanity's ability to
> >provide itself
> > with the wealth- and health-enhancing benefits of modern
> >civilization.
> >
> > Water Vapor Feedback. The biggest uncertainty in climate
> >science
> > remains "feedback" effects on the climate. The conventional
> >explanation
> > by proponents of global warming theory always assumes that
> > human-induced increases in atmospheric concentrations of
> >greenhouse
> > gases, primarily carbon dioxide, could lead to catastrophic
> >warming of
> > the planet. Man-made greenhouse gas emissions, however, are
> >only an
> > indirect cause of the forecasted warming. A doubling of
> >carbon dioxide
> > concentrations alone would lead to slight warming of about
> >one degree
> > Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) over the next 100 years.
> >This small
> > amount of warming, according to standard global warming
> >theory, speeds
> > up evaporation, thereby increasing the amount of water vapor
> >(a major
> > greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere. This "positive water
> >vapor feedback"
> > effect is where most of the predicted warming comes from.
> >This
> > assumption has never been tested.
> >
> > A recent study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological
> >Society
> > suggests that the reverse is true.[2] The authors find a
> >negative water
> > vapor feedback effect that is powerful enough to offset all
> >other positive
> > feedbacks. Using detailed daily observations of cloud cover
> >from
> > satellites in the tropics and comparing them to sea surface
> >temperatures,
> > the researchers found that there is an "iris effect" in which
> >higher
> > temperatures reduce the warming effect of clouds.
> >
> > According to a NASA statement about the study, "Clouds play a
> >critical
> > and complicated role in regulating the temperature of the
> >Earth. Thick,
> > bright, watery clouds like cumulus shield the atmosphere from
> >incoming
> > solar radiation by reflecting much of it back into space.
> >Thin, icy cirrus
> > clouds are poor sunshields but very efficient insulators that
> >trap energy
> > rising from the Earth's warmed surface. A decrease in cirrus
> >cloud area
> > would have a cooling effect by allowing more heat energy, or
> >infrared
> > radiation, to leave the planet."[3]
> >
> > The researchers found that a one degree Celsius rise in ocean
> >surface
> > temperature decreased the ratio of cirrus cloud area to
> >cumulus cloud
> > area by 17 to 27 percent, allowing more heat to escape.
> >
> > In an interview, lead author Dr. Richard S. Lindzen said the
> >climate
> > models used in the IPCC have the cloud physics wrong. "We
> >found that
> > there were terrible errors about clouds in all the models,
> >and that that will
> > make it impossible to predict the climate sensitivity because
> >the
> > sensitivity of the models depends primarily on water vapor
> >and clouds.
> > Moreover, if clouds are wrong, there's no way you can get
> >water vapor
> > right. They're both intimately tied to each other." Lindzen
> >argues that
> > due to this new finding he doesn't expect "much more than a
> >degree
> > warming and probably a lot less by 2100."[4]
> >
> > The study is the best empirical confirmation to date of the
> >negative
> > feedback hypothesis proposed by Lindzen early on in the
> >global warming
> > debate. It builds on earlier empirical work by Drs. Roy
> >Spencer of NASA
> > and William Braswell of Nichols Research Corporation. Their
> >1997 study
> > also cast doubt on the assumption of a positive water vapor
> >feedback
> > effect.[5] They found that the tropical troposphere, the
> >layer of air
> > between 25,000 and 50,000 feet, is much dryer than climate
> >modelers
> > previously thought. Further empirical work will no doubt
> >confirm whether
> > this phenomenon is common throughout the tropics, which act
> >as the
> > Earth's exhaust vents for escaping heat.
> >
> >
> > Black Carbon. In 1995, the IPCC had to explain in its Second
> > Assessment Report why its previous predictions of global
> >temperature
> > change were nearly three times larger than observed in the
> >actual
> > temperature record. The SAR concluded that emissions of
> >sulfate
> > aerosols from burning coal were offsetting the warming that
> >should be
> > caused by carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Sulfate
> >aerosols,
> > according to this explanation, reflect incoming solar
> >radiation back to
> > space, thereby cooling the planet.
> >
> >
> > The TAR takes the sulfate aerosol idea even further. The SAR
> >had
> > predicted a temperature rise of 1 to 3.5 degrees C (1.8 to
> >6.3 degrees F)
> > over the next 100 years. The TAR goes even further,
> >anticipating a 1.4 to
> > 5.8 degrees C (2.52 to 10.44 degrees F) rise in temperature.
> >The
> > extreme case scenario of a 5.8 degrees C of warming, for
> >instance, is
> > based partly on assumptions that the whole world will raise
> >its level of
> > economic activity to that of the U.S., will equal U.S. per
> >capita energy
> > use, and energy use will be carbon intensive. The primary
> >assumption
> > behind the new scenario, however, is that sulfate aerosol
> >emissions will
> > be eliminated by government regulation, giving carbon dioxide
> >free
> > reign.[6]
> >
> > Sulfate aerosols, then, are a key component of catastrophic
> >global
> > warming scenarios. Without them, the IPCC cannot explain why
> >the
> > earth is not warming according to their forecasts, nor can
> >they
> > reasonably claim that global warming will lead to
> >catastrophes of biblical
> > proportions.
> >
> > A new study in Nature eliminates sulfate aerosols as a
> >corrective for the
> > models. [7] The author, Mark Jacobson, a professor with the
> >Department
> > of Civil & Environmental Engineering at Stanford University,
> >examines
> > how black carbon aerosols affect the Earth's climate. Unlike
> >other
> > aerosols that reflect solar radiation back into space, black
> >carbon (soot)
> > absorbs solar radiation, thereby raising atmospheric
> >temperatures.
> >
> > Until now the warming influence of black carbon was thought
> >to be minor,
> > leading researchers to ignore it. James Hansen, with the
> >Goddard
> > Institute for Space Studies, in a paper published in August
> >2000, first
> > suggested that black carbon plays an important role in global
> > warming.[8] Jacobson found "a higher positive forcing from
> >black carbon
> > than previously thought, suggesting that the warming effect
> >from black
> > carbon may nearly balance the net cooling effect of other
> >anthropogenic
> > aerosol constituents."
> >
> > There you have it. Soot offsets the cooling effect of other
> >aerosols,
> > meaning we are back at square one. Scientists still do not
> >have a
> > plausible explanation for why the Earth has failed to warm in
> >line with
> > climate model results. Indeed, all the prognostications of
> >the IPCC are
> > wrong if the Nature study is right.
> >
> >
> > Natural Cycles. The main propaganda device of the TAR is the
> >"hockey
> > stick graph." The graph is a temperature record derived from
> >tree rings
> > dating back to 1000 AD and running through 1900, with the
> >20th century
> > thermometer-based temperature data attached at the end.[9]
> >It claims to
> > show that global temperatures have remained steady or even
> >decreased
> > during the last millennium until the industrial age, when
> >there was an
> > anomalous warming represented by the blade of the hockey
> >stick. The
> > hockey stick is largely bogus, however. The margin of error
> >is so large
> > that nearly any temperature trend could be drawn to fit
> >within it.
> >
> >
> >
> > The hockey stick features prominently in all of IPCC Chairman
> >Robert
> > Watson's speeches, and to the uninitiated it is very
> >persuasive. Senator
> > John McCain (R-AZ), for example, expressed alarm when he saw
> >the
> > graph at Commerce Committee hearings last May.
> >
> >
> > Watson uses the hockey stick to claim that current warming is
> >greater
> > than at any other time in the last 1,000 years. The Medieval
> >Warm
> > Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA) were two naturally
> >occurring
> > events during the last millennium where the range of global
> >temperature
> > change exceeded that of the 20th century. During the MWP,
> >global
> > temperatures were higher than they are today. The MWP,
> >however, does
> > not show up in the hockey stick graph.
> >
> > The hockey stick has effectively been dismantled in a recent
> >study in
> > Science, however.[10] Wallace Broecker, of the
> >Lamont-Doherty Earth
> > Observatory, argues that the MWP and the LIA were indeed
> >global
> > phenomena. Referring to the hockey stick, Broecker notes, "A
> >recent,
> > widely cited reconstruction leaves the impression that the
> >20th century
> > warming was unique during the last millennium. It shows no
> >hint of the
> > Medieval Warm Period (from around 800 to 1200 A.D.) during
> >which the
> > Vikings colonized Greenland, suggesting that this warm event
> >was
> > regional rather than global. It also remains unclear why just
> >at the dawn
> > of the Industrial Revolution and before the emission of
> >substantial
> > amounts of anthropogenic [manmade] greenhouse gases, Earth's
> > temperature began to rise steeply."
> >
> >
> > Broecker reviewed several scientific studies which
> >reconstruct the Earth's
> > temperature history into the distant past using various
> >proxies. He
> > concludes, "The post-1860 natural warming was the most recent
> >in a
> > series of similar warmings spaced at roughly 1500-year
> >intervals
> > throughout the present interglacial, the Holocene."[11] In
> >other words,
> > the current warm period may just be attributable to natural
> >cycles.
> >
> >
> > Flawed Temperature Data. The National Oceanic and
> >Atmospheric
> > Administration (NOAA) claimed that the year 2000 was the
> >sixth
> > warmest since 1880. Other temperature records find less
> >warming.[12]
> > Last year was only the 14th warmest, or 9th coolest, year
> >since 1979
> > according to the satellite temperature record,[13] and only
> >the 9th
> > warmest, according to records that include only measurements
> >from
> > meteorological stations.[14]
> >
> > The NOAA data, which is cited by government officials and the
> >news
> > media, may be the least accurate, according to a study that
> >recently
> > appeared in Geophysical Research Letters.[15] The NOAA
> >datasets "are
> > a mixture of near-surface air temperatures over land and sea
> >water
> > temperatures over oceans," according to lead author Dr. John
> >Christy,
> > professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth
> >System
> > Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
> >
> > Since actual air temperature data over many large ocean areas
> >are
> > nonexistent, the NOAA uses sea surface temperatures as a
> >"proxy,"
> > assuming that sea surface temperatures and air temperatures
> >move in
> > lock step. This is not the case, according to the data
> >compiled by
> > Christy and his colleagues at the Hadley Centre of the United
> >Kingdom's
> > Meteorological Office, who worked on the study. The
> >researchers used
> > buoy data in the tropical Pacific Ocean to compare "long-term
> >xxx xxxx xxxxyear)
> > trends for temperatures recorded one meter below the sea
> >surface and
> > three meters above it."
> >
> > What they found was a significant discrepancy. "For each
> >buoy in the
> > Eastern Pacific, the air temperatures measured at the three
> >meter height
> > showed less of a warming trend than did the same buoy's water
> > temperatures at one meter depth," the study said. The
> >difference is a
> > near-surface seawater warming trend of 0.37 degrees C per
> >decade and
> > an air temperature trend of only 0.25 degrees C per decade
> >during the
> > 20-year period tested. Replacing the sea surface
> >temperatures with the
> > air temperature data reduces the Earth's global warming trend
> >by a third,
> > from 0.19 to 0.13 degree C per decade.
> >
> > This is significant due to difficulties with reconciling the
> >various global
> > temperature data sets, particularly the discrepancy between
> >tropospheric
> > temperatures measured by satellites that show little to no
> >warming, and
> > the surface-based temperature data that show slightly more
> >warming.
> > Last year, the National Research Council stated that both
> >temperature
> > records are correct and speculated about an explanation.[16]
> >
> > This brings up another problem, however. The standard
> >explanation of
> > the greenhouse effect suggests warming occurs first five
> >kilometers
> > above the earth's surface in the atmospheric layer known as
> >the
> > troposphere. How events at the surface are connected to what
> >happens
> > high in the atmosphere is not clear, but it is believed that
> >surface
> > warming would follow tropospheric warming through climatic
> >processes
> > such as air circulation.[17] If both temperature records are
> >correct, then
> > this explanation of the greenhouse effect is wrong. Christy
> >et al. brings
> > the surface temperature data into closer agreement with the
> >satellite
> > data, suggesting that a better explanation for the
> >discrepancy is flawed
> > surface data.
> >
> > Progressive Science. At a press conference at the National
> >Press
> > Club on April 18, Mr. Jan Pronk, chairman of the Sixth
> >Conference of the
> > Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
> >Change
> > said most issues were still on the table in the ongoing Kyoto
> >negotiations
> > but the scientific basis of catastrophic global warming could
> >not be
> > questioned. That would be like going back ten years, he
> >said. This is a
> > myopic and erroneous view of science. Science is not static
> >but
> > dynamic. It reaches tentative conclusions at best, and those
> > conclusions constantly give way to new data. The IPCC is a
> >static
> > process, however. The Third Assessment Report is already
> >obsolete and
> > it has not even been released yet. With these four recent
> >studies, it may
> > be time to bid catastrophic global warming theory a warm
> >farewell.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [1] "Evidence of Rapid Global Warming Accepted by 99 Nations,"
> >Environment News Service, January 22,
> > 2001.
> > [2] Richard S. Lindzen, Ming-Dah Chou, and Arthur Y. Hou, "Does the
> >Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?,
> > Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 82:417-32, March
> >2001.
> > [3] ftp://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/PAO/Releases/2001/01-18.htm
> > [4] "Is Globe Warming? Sure, But Far Less than Alarmists Say,"
> >Tech Central Station
> > (http://www.techcentralstation.com/BigShotFriday.asp), March 5,
> >2001.
> > [5] Roy W. Spencer and William D. Braswell, "How Dry is the
> >Tropical Free Troposphere? Implications for
> > Global Warming Theory," Bulletin of the American Meteorological
> >Society, 78:1xxx xxxx xxxx.
> > [6] In correspondence with Nature magazine, one of the IPCC's
> >coordinating lead authors, Thomas Stocker of
> > the Physics Institute at the University of Bern in Switzerland,
> >wrote, "First, although climate modeling has
> > advanced during the past five years, this is not the main reason
> >for the revised range of temperature
> > projections. The higher estimates of maximum warming by the year
> >2100 stem from a more realistic view of
> > sulphate aerosol emissions. The new scenarios assume emissions
> >will be reduced substantially in the coming
> > decades, as this becomes technically and economically feasible, to
> >avoid acid rain. Sulphate emissions have
> > a cooling effect, so reducing them leads to higher estimates of
> >warming." See "Climate panel looked at all
> > the evidence," Nature, 410: 299, March 15, 2001.
> > [7] Mark Z. Jacobson, "Strong radiative heating due to the mixing
> >state of black carbon in atmospheric
> > aerosols," Nature, 409: 695-72, February 8, 2001.
> > [8] James D. Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, Andrew Lacis, and
> >Valdir Oinas, "Global Warming in the
> > twenty-first century: An alternative scenario," Proceedings of the
> >National Academy of Sciences,
> > 97:9xxx xxxx xxxx.
> > [9] The tree ring data originated with Michael E. Mann, Raymond S.
> >Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes,
> > "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium:
> >Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations,"
> > Geophysical Research Letters, 26: 759, March 15, 1999.
> > [10] Wallace S. Broecker, "Was the Medieval Warm Period Global?"
> >Science, 291: 1497-99, February 23,
> > 2001.
> > [11] Also see H.H. Lamb, Climate History and the Modern World, (New
> >York: Routledge, 1985), and Brian
> > Fagan, The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History, 1xxx xxxx xxxx,
> >(New York: Basic Books, 2000).
> > [12] http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/research/2000/ann/ann.html
> > [13] http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html
> > [14] http://www.john-daly.com/press/press-01.htm#Phil
> > [15] John R. Christy, David E. Parker, Simon J. Brown, Ian Macadam,
> >Martin Stendal, and William B. Norris,
> > "Differential Trends in Tropical Sea Surface and Atmospheric
> >Temperatures since 1979," Geophysical
> > Research Letters, 28:183.
> > [16] Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change,
> >National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.,
> > 2000.
> > [17] Richard S. Lindzen, "Climate Forecasting: When Models are
> >Qualitatively Wrong," George C. Marshall
> > Institute, Washington, D.C., 2000.
> >
> >
> >
> >

Original Filename: 1036182485.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: Re: paleo data
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 15:28:05 +0000

X-Sender: hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 09:56:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: Gabi Hegerl <hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: paleo data
No worries, I can wait till next week!
It would be great to hear from you next week particularly if you
feel I have overlooked something, I am planning to submit a little
GRL paper on the detection results based on paleodata soon, and so a warning
if I am doing something wrong would be great.
Its not surprising that the detection results are stable, since other than volcanic
forcing is mainly driven by the low-f component anyway.
But it looks to me like the volcanic response is not smaller or even a bit larger in the
annual JGR data (except for one real real big peak in
the 1998 data).
Greetings, have a good weekend and good luck for Keith's back
Gabi

Gabi,
I have printed the files, but I do not know the answer. Keith is off today with a
bad back -
seeing a chiropractor. I need to talk to him before we can reply. I will be away
Mon/Tues
next week, so we will not be able to reply until later next week.
Cheers
Phil
At 11:27 31/10/xxx xxxx xxxx, Gabi Hegerl wrote:

Dear Keith and Phil,
I checked and found that we did indeed use the JGR 2001 data (by reloading them
from your JGR data file). I also got the
1998 data from the volcano paper, and did some checking. My detection results
appear quite unimpressed by if I filter the 2001 data to focus on lower
frequencies or not (the estimated amplitudes of solar, volcanic and ghg signals
are virtually identical, volcanism gets a bit tougher to detect if you remove
the high-frequency component).
Then I redid the Epoch analysis comparing the
response of your data old and new to volcanism, and find somewhat bigger volcanic
signals on average (using 50 eruptions between 1400 and 1940) in the
JGR paper record. I high-passed both datasets and get somewhat more variability
in the JGR record, not the 1998 record.
I am wondering is there something I am overlooking?
I append a figure of the high-passed (var > ca 10 yrs removed) records,
and the volcanic response in both datasets (averaging years xxx xxxx xxxxafter the eruption,
and removing the best-estimate solar and ghg signal before the analysis).
The analysis omits years with another volcanic eruption within the 20 yrs.
I also append one version of the figure where the upper 95%ile of the ghg signal (which
appears underestimated in Briffa 98 data) is removed rather than the
best estimate, in that case, the volcanic signals in both data appear nearly
identical.
Greetings, and please let me know if I am doing something wrong with your data!
Also, what is the best reference to a discussion on the difference between both
datasets?
Thanks in advance
Gabi

Dear Tom
after a little detective work we have deduced that the data sent to you constitute a
version of Northern Hemisphere Land temperatures (april- sept) produced by PCA
regression using regional average density chronologies (ie the JGR paper you refereed I
believe). It is true that high frequency component is not in my opinion optimal in
describing the relative magnitude of extreme inter-annual extremes. This is to do with
the unpredictable weighting ascribed to certain areas (tree-density series) in the
averaging of the original raw data ( this is boring and I won't go into it unless you
really want me to). Te relative differences in year-to-year values are likely better
represented in the N.Hemisphere series produced by averaging regional series produced
using a different approach in which the initial data are high-pass filtered and then
merged in a more straight forward way. This is more equivalent to the series on volcanic
signals described in our Nature paper, though the low-frequency component in this series
is definitely not represented. There is another series , that one could consider a good
compromise . That is a composite of the Age-Banding approach (JGR) low-frequency
variance added to the earlier (Nature) high-frequency component. We did this for Figure
6 in the JGR paper , but did not provide the data on our web site I now realize. However
this composite series is VERY highly correlated with the "better" high frequency data -
see the correlations (Table 1 and related text in
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/jgr2001/Briffa2001.pdf
There are many possible ways of producing a "Northern Hemisphere" average , involving
different prior regionalisation and secondary weighting (in space and through time) of
the constituent series) . Non can be considered "correct". If you would like us to dig
out the composite series or discuss specific aspects of the logic or uncertainties
associated with the different large averages let me know. Perhaps it would be better to
discuss this on the phone? As for longer series , we can provide the 2000 year
N.Eurasian data (a composite of ring width chronologies in N.Sweden, The Yamal
peninsula, and Taimyr ) . I will soon be able to provide a 4000-year version , that is
now being worked on.
or a similar Northern tree-ring chronology incorporating more data eg see
[2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/qsr1999/
We do not have the bristlecone data - but they are available I presume from the
International Tree-Ring Data bank , part of the NGDC holdings?
At 02:29 PM 10/1/02 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:

Tom,
Been away and going again tomorrow. Had a chat with Keith and Tim and one of them
will send a reply and data later this week.
Cheers
Phil
At 11:28 26/09/xxx xxxx xxxx, Tom Crowley wrote:

Hi Phil,
thanks for all your help on the bams paper
DOE is being exceedingly slow in processing the paperwork for our new round - I will
keep you posted.
I am also wondering whether we can get some data from you:
Gabi is comparing our 2d ebm run with the briffa et al 2001 jgr time series in order to
compare the model prediction of - I think you mentioned at one point something to the
effect that, although this series is good for estimating low resolution temperature
variability, it may dampen high frequency variability. if my memory is correct in this
case, would you please send gabi the record you consider best for comparing with the
model predicted interannual response to volcanic eruptions?
on another matter we are extending our runs back in time - I have now compiled a record
of global volcanism back to 4000 BP for both hemispheres - extended back to 8000 BP for
30-90N. we are therefore trying to compile paleo records older than AD 1000 to at least
get some reconstruction we can compare with.
I seem to recall that Keith or you may have published some longer reconstructionn but
cannot recall where it is? if so, would you be so kind as to send it to me? also I am
trying to find a long record from the eastern California for the bristlecone pine - for
some reason I am having difficulty finding one. if you have a long record - even going
back beyond 2000 BP, it would be very much appreciated.
thanks for any help you can give us on this and best wishes, Tom
--
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

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 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/

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gabriele Hegerl - NOTE CHANGE IN ADDRESS FORMAT
Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences,
Nicholas School for the Environment,
Box 90227
Duke University, Durham NC 27708
Ph: xxx xxxx xxxx, fax xxx xxxx xxxx
email: hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [4]http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gabriele Hegerl - NOTE CHANGE IN ADDRESS FORMAT
Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences,
Nicholas School for the Environment,
Box 90227
Duke University, Durham NC 27708
Ph: xxx xxxx xxxx, fax xxx xxxx xxxx
email: hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [5]http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html

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.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/jgr2001/Briffa2001.pdf
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/qsr1999/
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
4. http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html
5. http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html

Original Filename: 1051156418.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Danny Harvey <harvey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert wilby <rob.wilby@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jto <jto@u.arizona.edu>, "simon.shackley" <simon.shackley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "tim.carter" <tim.carter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "p.martens" <p.martens@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "peter.whetton" <peter.whetton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "c.goodess" <c.goodess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "a.minns" <a.minns@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Wolfgang Cramer <Wolfgang.Cramer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "j.salinger" <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "simon.torok" <simon.torok@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mark Eakin <mark.eakin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Neville Nicholls <n.nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ray Bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Barrie Pittock <Barrie.Pittock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Greg.Ayers" <Greg.Ayers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: My turn
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 23:53:xxx xxxx xxxx

Dear friends,

[Apologies to those I have missed who have been part of this email
exchange -- although they may be glad to have been missed]

I think Barrie Pittock has the right idea -- although there are some
unique things about this situation. Barrie says ....

(1) There are lots of bad papers out there
(2) The best response is probably to write a 'rebuttal'

to which I add ....

(3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in the 4AR.

____________________

Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years ago by Legates
and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, pp. 2xxx xxxx xxxx, 1997) that was nothing more
than a direct
and pointed criticism of some work by Santer and me -- yet neither of us
was asked to review the paper. We complained, and GRL admitted it was
poor judgment on the part of the editor. Eventually (> 2 years later)
we wrote a response (GRL 27, 2xxx xxxx xxxx, 2000). However, our response was
more that just a rebuttal, it was an attempt to clarify some issues on
detection. In doing things this way we tried to make it clear that the
original Legates/Davis paper was an example of bad science (more
bluntly, either sophomoric ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation).

Any rebuttal must point out very clearly the flaws in the original
paper. If some new science (or explanations) can be added -- as we did
in the above example -- then this is an advantage.

_____________________________

There is some personal judgment involved in deciding whether to rebut.
Correcting bad science is the first concern. Responding to unfair
personal criticisms is next. Third is the possible misrepresentation of
the results by persons with ideological or political agendas. On the
basis of these I think the Baliunas paper should be rebutted by persons
with appropriate expertise. Names like Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley,
Jones, Hughes come to mind. Are these people willing to spend time on
this?

_______________________________

There are two other examples that I know of where I will probably be
involved in writing a response.

The first is a paper by Douglass and Clader in GRL (vol. 29, no. 16,
10.1029/2002GL015345, 2002). I refereed a virtually identical paper for
J. Climate, recommending rejection. All the other referees recommended
rejection too. The paper is truly appalling -- but somehow it must have
been poorly reviewed by GRL and slipped through the net. I have no
reason to believe that this was anything more than chance. Nevertheless,
my judgment is that the science is so bad that a response is necessary.

The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in Climate Research
(vol. 23, pp. 1

Original Filename: 1051202354.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mark.eakin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: My turn
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:39:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Danny Harvey <harvey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert wilby <rob.wilby@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jto <jto@u.arizona.edu>, "simon.shackley" <simon.shackley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "tim.carter" <tim.carter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "p.martens" <p.martens@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "peter.whetton" <peter.whetton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "c.goodess" <c.goodess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "a.minns" <a.minns@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Wolfgang Cramer <Wolfgang.Cramer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "j.salinger" <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "simon.torok" <simon.torok@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Neville Nicholls <n.nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ray Bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Barrie Pittock <Barrie.Pittock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson.4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Greg.Ayers" <Greg.Ayers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, wuebbles@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, christopher.d.miller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
HI Mark,

Thanks for your comments, and sorry to any of you who don't wish to receive
these correspondances...

Indeed, I have provided David Halpern with a written set of comments on the
offending paper(s) for internal use, so that he was armed w/ specifics as
he confronts the issue within OSTP. He may have gotten additional comments
from other individuals as well--I'm not sure. I believe that the matter is
in good hands with Dave, but we have to wait and see what happens. In any
case, I'd be happy to provide my comments to anyone who is interested.

I think that a response to "Climate Research" is not a good idea. Phil and
I discussed this, and agreed that it would be largely unread, and would
tend to legitimize a paper which many of us don't view as having passed
peer review in a legitimate manner. On the other hand, the in prep. review
articles by Jones and Mann (Rev. Geophys.), and Bradley/Hughes/Diaz
(Science) should go along way towards clarification of the issues (and, at
least tangentially, refutation of the worst of the claims of Baliunas and
co). Both should be good resources for the FAR as well...

cheers,

mike

p.s. note the corrections to some of the emails in the original
distribution list.

At 09:27 AM 4/24/xxx xxxx xxxx, Mark Eakin wrote:
>At this point the question is what to do about the Soon and Baliunas
>paper. Would Bradley, Mann, Hughes et al. be willing to develop and
>appropriate rebuttal? If so, the question at hand is where it would be
>best to direct such a response. Some options are:
>
>1) A rebuttal in Climate Research
>2) A rebuttal article in a journal of higher reputation
>3) A letter to OSTP
>
>The first is a good approach, as it keeps the argument to the level of the
>current publication. The second would be appropriate if the Soon and
>Baliunas paper were gaining attention at a more general level, but it is
>not. Therefore, a rebuttal someplace like Science or Nature would
>probably do the opposite of what is desired here by raising the attention
>to the paper. The best way to take care of getting better science out in a
>widely read journal is the piece that Bradley et al. are preparing for
>Nature. This leaves the idea of a rebuttal in Climate Research as the
>best published approach.
>
>A letter to OSTP is probably in order here. Since the White House has
>shown interest in this paper, OSTP really does need to receive a measured,
>critical discussion of flaws in Soon and Baliunas' methods. I agree with
>Tom that a noted group from the detection and attribution effort such as
>Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley, Jones and Hughes should spearhead such a
>letter. Many others of us could sign on in support.
>This would provide Dave Halpern with the ammunition he needs to provide
>the White House with the needed documentation that hopefully will dismiss
>this paper for the slipshod work that it is. Such a letter could be
>developed in parallel with a rebuttal article.
>
>I have not received all of the earlier e-mails, so my apologies if I am
>rehashing parts of the discussion that might have taken place elsewhere.
>
>Cheers,
>Mark
>
>
>
>Michael E. Mann wrote:
>
>>Dear Tom et al,
>>
>>Thanks for comments--I see we've built up an impressive distribution list
>>here!
>>
>>This seemed like an appropriate point for me to chime in here. By in
>>large, I agree w/ Tom's comments (and those of Barrie's as well). A
>>number of us have written reviews and overviews of this topic during the
>>past couple years. There has been a lot of significant scientific process
>>in this area (both with regard to empirical "climate reconstruction" and
>>in the area of model/data comparison), including, in fact, detection
>>studies along the lines of what Barrie Pittock asked about in a previous
>>email (see. e.g. Tom Crowley's Science article from 2000). Phil Jones and
>>I are in the process of writing a review article for /Reviews of
>>Geophysics/ which will, among other things, dispel the most severe of the
>>myths that some of these folks are perpetuating regarding past climate
>>change in past centuries. My understanding is that Ray Bradley, Malcolm
>>Hughes, and Henry Diaz are working, independently, on a solicited piece
>>for /Science/ on the "Medieval Warm Period".
>>Many have simply dismissed the Baliunas et al pieces because, from a
>>scientific point of view, they are awful--that is certainly true. For
>>example, Neville has pointed out in a previous email, that the standard
>>they applied for finding "a Medieval Warm Period" was that a particular
>>proxy record exhibit a 50 year interval during the period AD xxx xxxx xxxx
>>that was anomalously *warm*, *wet*, or *dry* relative to the "20th
>>century" (many of the proxy records don't really even resolve the late
>>20th century!) could be used to define an "MWP" anywhere one might like
>>to find one. This was the basis for their press release arguing for a
>>"MWP" that was "warmer than the 20th century" (a non-sequitur even from
>>their awful paper!) and for their bashing of IPCC and scientists who
>>contributed to IPCC (which, I understand, has been particularly viscious
>>and ad hominem inside closed rooms in Washington DC where their words
>>don't make it into the public record). This might all seem laughable, it
>>weren't the case that they've gotten the (Bush) White House Office of
>>Science & Technology taking it as a serious matter (fortunately, Dave
>>Halpern is in charge of this project, and he is likely to handle this
>>appropriately, but without some external pressure).
>>
>>So while our careful efforts to debunk the myths perpetuated by these
>>folks may be useful in the FAR, they will be of limited use in fighting
>>the disinformation campaign that is already underway in Washington DC.
>>Here, I tend to concur at least in sprit w/ Jim Salinger, that other
>>approaches may be necessary. I would emphasize that there are indeed, as
>>Tom notes, some unique aspects of this latest assault by the skeptics
>>which are cause for special concern. This latest assault uses a
>>compromised peer-review process as a vehicle for launching a scientific
>>disinformation campaign (often viscious and ad hominem) under the guise
>>of apparently legitimately reviewed science, allowing them to make use of
>>the "Harvard" moniker in the process. Fortunately, the mainstream media
>>never touched the story (mostly it has appeared in papers owned by
>>Murdoch and his crowd, and dubious fringe on-line outlets). Much like a
>>server which has been compromised as a launching point for computer
>>viruses, I fear that "Climate Research" has become a hopelessly
>>compromised vehicle in the skeptics' (can we find a better word?)
>>disinformation campaign, and some of the discussion that I've seen (e.g.
>>a potential threat of mass resignation among the legitimate members of
>>the CR editorial board) seems, in my opinion, to have some potential merit.
>>
>>This should be justified not on the basis of the publication of science
>>we may not like of course, but based on the evidence (e.g. as provided by
>>Tom and Danny Harvey and I'm sure there is much more) that a legitimate
>>peer-review process has not been followed by at least one particular
>>editor. Incidentally, the problems alluded to at GRL are of a different
>>nature--there are simply too many papers, and too few editors w/
>>appropriate disciplinary expertise, to get many of the papers submitted
>>there properly reviewed. Its simply hit or miss with respect to whom the
>>chosen editor is. While it was easy to make sure that the worst papers,
>>perhaps including certain ones Tom refers to, didn't see the light of the
>>day at /J. Climate/, it was inevitable that such papers might slip
>>through the cracks at e.g. GRL--there is probably little that can be done
>>here, other than making sure that some qualified and responsible climate
>>scientists step up to the plate and take on editorial positions at GRL.
>>
>>best regards,
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>At 11:53 PM 4/23/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Tom Wigley wrote:
>>
>>>Dear friends,
>>>
>>>[Apologies to those I have missed who have been part of this email
>>>exchange -- although they may be glad to have been missed]
>>>
>>>I think Barrie Pittock has the right idea -- although there are some
>>>unique things about this situation. Barrie says ....
>>>
>>>(1) There are lots of bad papers out there
>>>(2) The best response is probably to write a 'rebuttal'
>>>
>>>to which I add ....
>>>
>>>(3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in the 4AR.
>>>
>>>____________________
>>>
>>>Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years ago by Legates
>>>and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, pp. 2xxx xxxx xxxx, 1997) that was nothing more
>>>than a direct
>>>and pointed criticism of some work by Santer and me -- yet neither of us
>>>was asked to review the paper. We complained, and GRL admitted it was
>>>poor judgment on the part of the editor. Eventually (> 2 years later)
>>>we wrote a response (GRL 27, 2xxx xxxx xxxx, 2000). However, our response was
>>>more that just a rebuttal, it was an attempt to clarify some issues on
>>>detection. In doing things this way we tried to make it clear that the
>>>original Legates/Davis paper was an example of bad science (more
>>>bluntly, either sophomoric ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation).
>>>
>>>Any rebuttal must point out very clearly the flaws in the original
>>>paper. If some new science (or explanations) can be added -- as we did
>>>in the above example -- then this is an advantage.
>>>
>>>_____________________________
>>>
>>>There is some personal judgment involved in deciding whether to rebut.
>>>Correcting bad science is the first concern. Responding to unfair
>>>personal criticisms is next. Third is the possible misrepresentation of
>>>the results by persons with ideological or political agendas. On the
>>>basis of these I think the Baliunas paper should be rebutted by persons
>>>with appropriate expertise. Names like Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley,
>>>Jones, Hughes come to mind. Are these people willing to spend time on
>>>this?
>>>
>>>_______________________________
>>>
>>>There are two other examples that I know of where I will probably be
>>>involved in writing a response.
>>>
>>>The first is a paper by Douglass and Clader in GRL (vol. 29, no. 16,
>>>10.1029/2002GL015345, 2002). I refereed a virtually identical paper for
>>>J. Climate, recommending rejection. All the other referees recommended
>>>rejection too. The paper is truly appalling -- but somehow it must have
>>>been poorly reviewed by GRL and slipped through the net. I have no
>>>reason to believe that this was anything more than chance. Nevertheless,
>>>my judgment is that the science is so bad that a response is necessary.
>>>
>>>The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in Climate Research
>>>(vol. 23, pp. 19, 2002). Danny Harvey and I refereed this and said it
>>>should be rejected. We questioned the editor (deFreitas again!) and he
>>>responded saying .....
>>>
>>>The MS was reviewed initially by five referees. ... The other three
>>>referees, all reputable atmospheric scientists, agreed it should be
>>>published subject to minor revision. Even then I used a sixth person
>>>to help me decide. I took his advice and that of the three other
>>>referees and sent the MS back for revision. It was later accepted for
>>>publication. The refereeing process was more rigorous than usual.
>>>
>>>On the surface this looks to be above board -- although, as referees who
>>>advised rejection it is clear that Danny and I should have been kept in
>>>the loop and seen how our criticisms were responded to.
>>>
>>>It is possible that Danny and I might write a response to this paper --
>>>deFreitas has offered us this possibility.
>>>
>>>______________________________
>>>
>>>This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that
>>>deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the
>>>skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions.
>>>How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of
>>>individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by
>>>an unscrupulous editor to ensure that 'anti-greenhouse' science can get
>>>through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas,
>>>Soon, and so on).
>>>
>>>The peer review process is being abused, but proving this would be
>>>difficult.
>>>
>>>The best response is, I strongly believe, to rebut the bad science that
>>>does get through.
>>>
>>>_______________________________
>>>
>>>Jim Salinger raises the more personal issue of deFreitas. He is clearly
>>>giving good science a bad name, but I do not think a barrage of ad
>>>hominem attacks or letters is the best way to counter this.
>>>
>>>If Jim wishes to write a letter with multiple authors, I may be willing
>>>to sign it, but I would not write such a letter myself.
>>>
>>>In this case, deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply
>>>disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat Michaels'
>>>PhD is at the same level).
>>>
>>>______________________________
>>>
>>>Best wishes to all,
>>>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
>> http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
>
>
>--
>C. Mark Eakin, Ph.D.
>Chief of NOAA Paleoclimatology Program and
>Director of the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
>
>NOAA/National Climatic Data Center
>325 Broadway E/CC23
>Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx
>Voice: xxx xxxx xxxx Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>Internet: mark.eakin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html
>
>

_______________________________________________________________________
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

</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1051230500.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Danny Harvey <harvey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert wilby <rob.wilby@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jto <jto@u.arizona.edu>, "simon.shackley" <simon.shackley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "tim.carter" <tim.carter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "p.martens" <p.martens@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "peter.whetton" <peter.whetton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "c.goodess" <c.goodess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "a.minns" <a.minns@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Wolfgang Cramer <Wolfgang.Cramer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "j.salinger" <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "simon.torok" <simon.torok@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mark Eakin <mark.eakin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Neville Nicholls <n.nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ray Bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Barrie Pittock <Barrie.Pittock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Greg.Ayers" <Greg.Ayers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: And again from the south!
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 20:28:20 +1200

Dear friends and colleagues

This will be the last from me for the moment and I believe we are all
arriving at a consensus voiced by Tom, Barrie, Neville et al., from
excellent discussions.

Firstly both Danny and Tom have complained to de Freitas about
his editorial decision, which does not uphold the principles of good
science. Tom has shared the response. I would be curious to find
out who the other four cited are - but a rebuttal would be excellent.

Ignoring bad science eventually reinforces the apparent 'truth' of
that bad science in the public mind, if it is not corrected. As
importantly, the 'bad science' published by CR is used by the
sceptics' lobbies to 'prove' that there is no need for concern over
climate change. Since the IPCC makes it quite clear that there are
substantial grounds for concern about climate change, is it not
partially the responsibility of climate science to make sure only
satisfactorily peer-reviewed science appears in scientific
publications? - and to refute any inadequately reviewed and wrong
articles that do make their way through the peer review process?

I can understand the weariness which the ongoing sceptics'
onslaught would induce in anyone, scientist or not. But that's no
excuse for ignoring bad science. It won't go away, and the more
we ignore it the more traction it will gain in the minds of the general
public, and the UNFCCC negotiators. If science doesn't uphold the
purity of science, who will?

We Australasians (including Tom as an ex pat) have suggested
some courses of action. Over to you now in the north to assess
the success of your initiatives, the various discussions and
suggestions and arrive on a path ahead. I am happy to be part of it.

Warm wishes to all

Jim


On 23 Apr 2003, at 23:53, Tom Wigley wrote:

> Dear friends,
>
> [Apologies to those I have missed who have been part of this email
> exchange -- although they may be glad to have been missed]
>
> I think Barrie Pittock has the right idea -- although there are some
> unique things about this situation. Barrie says ....
>
> (1) There are lots of bad papers out there
> (2) The best response is probably to write a 'rebuttal'
>
> to which I add ....
>
> (3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in the 4AR.
>
> ____________________
>
> Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years ago by
> Legates and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, pp. 2xxx xxxx xxxx, 1997) that was
> nothing more than a direct and pointed criticism of some work by
> Santer and me -- yet neither of us was asked to review the paper. We
> complained, and GRL admitted it was poor judgment on the part of the
> editor. Eventually (> 2 years later) we wrote a response (GRL 27,
> 2xxx xxxx xxxx, 2000). However, our response was more that just a rebuttal,
> it was an attempt to clarify some issues on detection. In doing things
> this way we tried to make it clear that the original Legates/Davis
> paper was an example of bad science (more bluntly, either sophomoric
> ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation).
>
> Any rebuttal must point out very clearly the flaws in the original
> paper. If some new science (or explanations) can be added -- as we did
> in the above example -- then this is an advantage.
>
> _____________________________
>
> There is some personal judgment involved in deciding whether to rebut.
> Correcting bad science is the first concern. Responding to unfair
> personal criticisms is next. Third is the possible misrepresentation
> of the results by persons with ideological or political agendas. On
> the basis of these I think the Baliunas paper should be rebutted by
> persons with appropriate expertise. Names like Mann, Crowley, Briffa,
> Bradley, Jones, Hughes come to mind. Are these people willing to spend
> time on this?
>
> _______________________________
>
> There are two other examples that I know of where I will probably be
> involved in writing a response.
>
> The first is a paper by Douglass and Clader in GRL (vol. 29, no. 16,
> 10.1029/2002GL015345, 2002). I refereed a virtually identical paper
> for J. Climate, recommending rejection. All the other referees
> recommended rejection too. The paper is truly appalling -- but somehow
> it must have been poorly reviewed by GRL and slipped through the net.
> I have no reason to believe that this was anything more than chance.
> Nevertheless, my judgment is that the science is so bad that a
> response is necessary.
>
> The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in Climate
> Research (vol. 23, pp. 1

Original Filename: 1051915601.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: belated thanks for review and questions
Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 18:46:xxx xxxx xxxx

HI Keith,
No problem, I know how hectic the past couple months have been for you, so no apologizes
necessary whatsoever!
Call me old fashioned, but I still tend to prefer the "blind" reviewer convention, so I'd
prefer to remain anonymous unless you think that revealing my identity would be help in any
particular way.
I agree w/ your take on this--a journal like GRL is probably more appropriate, or even
"Climatic Change" because a number of similar papers have been published there in the past
(by folks like Nychka, Bloomfield, and others). I'm not sure if Steve Schneider is sick and
tired of those papers though...
Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can be of any additional help w/ this.
Looking forward to seeing you one of these days,
mike
At 02:36 PM 5/2/2003 +0100, you wrote:

Mike
in hassling another reviewer , I realised that I did not thank you properly for the
review you did of the manuscript by Gil-Alana (fractionally integrated techniques used
to show increased persistence in global temperature record in 20th century). So this is
by way of thanks and to ask whether you wish me to reveal your name to the reviewer
(considering you make some very helpful suggestions for further analysis)? I would
otherwise assume no. As it happens I can not get a response from the other reviewer -
but rather than prolong the wait for the submitter , I am tempted (on the basis of my
reading also) to just send your comments and reject the manuscript as it is - I suppose
they could resubmit a major rework following your suggestions - but I tend to the
opinion that it would be better suited to another journal anyway - GRL comes to mind.
What do you think
Cheers
Keith
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

______________________________________________________________
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.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
2. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

Original Filename: 1054666269.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Raymond Bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: revised NH comparison manuscript
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:51:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Mike Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>


Attached to this e-mail is a revision of the northern hemisphere
comparison manuscript. First some general comments. I tried as best as
possible to incorporate everyone's suggestions. Typically this meant
adding/deleting or clarifying text. There were cases where we disagreed
with the suggested changes and tried to clarify in the text why.

In this next round of changes I encourage everyone to make specific
suggestions in terms of wording and references (e.g. Rutherford et al.
GRL 1967 instead of "see my GRL paper"). I also encourage everyone to
make suggestions directly in the file in coloured text or by using
Microsquish Word's "Track Changes" function (this will save me
deciphering cryptic penmanship; although I confess, my writing is worse
than anyone's). If you would prefer to use the editing functions in
Adobe Acrobat let me know and I will send a PDF file. If you still feel
strongly that I have not adequately addressed an issue please say so.
I will incorporate the suggestions from this upcoming round into a
manuscript to be submitted. After review, everyone will get a crack at
it again.

I will not detail every change made (if anyone wants the file with the
changes tracked I can send it). Here are the major changes:

1) removal of mixed-hybrid approach and revised discussions/figures
2) removal of CE scores from the verification tables
3) downscaling of the Esper comparison to a single figure panel and one
paragraph.
4) revised discussion of spatial maps and revised figure (figure 8).
5) seasonal comparisons have been revised

Several suggestions have been made for where to submit. These are
listed on page 1 of the manuscript. Please indicate your preference
ASAP and I will tally the votes.

I would like to submit by late July, so if you could please get me
comments by say July 15 that would be great. I will send out a reminder
in early July. If I don't hear from you by July 15 I will assume that
you are comfortable with the manuscript.

Please let me know if you have difficulty with the file or would prefer
a different format.

Regards,

Scott


</x-flowed>

Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachnhcomparison_v7_1.doc"
<x-flowed>

______________________________________________
Scott Rutherford

Marine Research Scientist
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island
e-mail: srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
snail mail:
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882
</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1054736277.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: Prospective Eos piece?
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:17:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Thanks Phil, and Thanks Tom W and Keith for your willingness to help/sign on. This
certainly gives us a "quorum" pending even a few possible additional signatories I'm
waiting to hear back from.
In response to the queries, I will work on a draft today w/ references and two suggested
figures, and will try to send on by this evening (east coast USA). Tom W indicated that he
wouldn't be able look at a draft until Thursday anyway, so why doesn't everyone just take
a day then to digest what I've provided and then get back to me with comments/changes
(using word "track changes" if you like).
I'd like to tentatively propose to pass this along to Phil as the "official keeper" of the
draft to finalize and submit IF it isn't in satisfactory shape by the time I have to leave
(July 11--If I hadn't mentioned, I'm getting married, and then honeymoon, prior to IUGG in
Sapporo--gone for about 1 month total). Phil, does that sound ok to you?
Re Figures, what I had in mind were the following two figures:
1) A plot of various of the most reliable (in terms of strength of temperature signal and
reliability of millennial-scale variability) regional proxy temperature reconstructions
around the Northern Hemisphere that are available over the past 1-2 thousand years to
convey the important point that warm and cold periods where highly regionally variable.
Phil and Ray are probably in the best position to prepare this (?). Phil and I have
recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many
of which are available nearly 2K back--I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K,
rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the
memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet
have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back [Phil and I have one in
review--not sure it is kosher to show that yet though--I've put in an inquiry to Judy
Jacobs at AGU about this]. If we wanted to be fancy, we could do this the way certain plots
were presented in one of the past IPCC reports (was it 1990?) in which a spatial map was
provided in the center (this would show the locations of the proxies), with "rays"
radiating out to the top, sides, and bottom attached to rectanges showing the different
timeseries. Its a bit of work, but would be a great way to convey both the spatial and
temporal information at the same time.
2) A version of the now-familiar "spaghetti plot" showing the various reconstructions as
well as model simulations for the NH over the past 1 (or maybe 2K). To give you an idea of
what I have in mind, I'm attaching a Science piece I wrote last year that contains the same
sort of plot.
However, what I'd like to do different here is:
In addition to the "multiproxy" reconstructions, I'd like to Add Keith's maximum latewood
density-based series, since it is entirely independent of the multiproxy series, but
conveys the same basic message. I would also like to try to extend the scope of the plot
back to nearly 2K. This would be either w/ the Mann and Jones extension (in review in GRL)
or, if that is deemed not kosher, the Briffa et al Eurasian tree-ring composite that
extends back about 2K, and, based on Phil and my results, appears alone to give a
reasonably accurate picture of the full hemispheric trend.
Thoughts, comments on any of this?
thanks all for the help,
mike
At 09:25 AM 6/4/2003 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
This is definitely worth doing and I hope you have the time before the 11th, or can
pass
it on to one of us at that time. As you know I'm away for a couple of days but back
Friday.
So count me in. I've forwarded you all the email comments I've sent to reporters/fellow
scientists, so you're fully aware of my views, which are essentially the same as all of
the list
and many others in paleo. EOS would get to most fellow scientists. As I said to you the
other
day, it is amazing how far and wide the SB pieces have managed to percolate. When it
comes
out I would hope that AGU/EOS 'publicity machine' will shout the message from rooftops
everywhere. As many of us need to be available when it comes out.
There is still no firm news on what Climate Research will do, although they will
likely
have two editors for potentially controversial papers, and the editors will consult
when papers
get different reviews. All standard practice I'd have thought. At present the editors
get no
guidance whatsoever. It would seem that if they don't know what standard practice is
then
they shouldn't be doing the job !
Cheers
Phil
At 22:34 03/06/xxx xxxx xxxx, Michael E. Mann wrote:

Dear Colleagues,
Eos has invited me (and prospective co-authors) to write a 'forum' piece (see below).
This was at Ellen Mosely-Thompson's suggestion, upon my sending her a copy of the
attached memo that Michael Oppenheimer and I jointly wrote. Michael and I wrote this to
assist colleagues who had been requesting more background information to help counter
the spurious claims (with which I believe you're all now familiar) of the latest
Baliunas & Soon pieces.
The idea I have in mind would be to use what Michael and I have drafted as an initial
starting point for a slightly expanded piece, that would address the same basic issues
and, as indicated below, could include some references and figures. As indicated in
Judy Jacobs' letter below, the piece would be rewritten in such a way as to be less
explicitly (though perhaps not less implicitly) directed at the Baliunas/Soon claims,
criticisms, and attacks.
Phil, Ray, and Peck have already indicated tentative interest in being co-authors. I'm
sending this to the rest of you (Tom C, Keith, Tom W, Kevin) in the hopes of broadening
the list of co-authors. I strongly believe that a piece of this sort co-authored by 9
or so prominent members of the climate research community (with background and/or
interest in paleoclimate) will go a long way ih helping to counter these attacks, which
are being used, in turn, to launch attacks against IPCC.
AGU has offered to expedite the process considerably, which is necessary because I'll be
travelling for about a month beginning June 11th. So I'm going to work hard to get
something together ASAP. I'd would therefore greatly appreciate a quick response from
each of you as to whether or not you would potentially be willing to be involved as a
co-author. If you're unable or unwilling given other current commitments, I'll
understand.
Thanks in advance for getting back to me on this,
mike

Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 20:19:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson.4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: position paper by Mann,
Bradley et al that is a refutation to Soon et al
X-Sender: ethompso@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: Judy Jacobs <JJacobs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3
Judy and Mike -
This sounds outstanding.
Am I right in assuming that Fred reviews and approves the Forum pieces?
If so, can you hint about expediting this. Timing is very critical here.
Judy, thanks for taking the bull by the horns and getting the ball rolling.
Best regards,
Ellen
At 07:33 PM 06/03/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Judy Jacobs wrote:

Dear Dr. Mann,
Thanks for the prompt reply.
Based on what you have said, it sounds to me as if Mann, Bradley, et al. will not be in
violation of AGU's prohibition on duplicate publication.
The attachment to your e-mail definitely has the look and feel of something that would
be published in Eos under the "FORUM" column header. FORUM pieces are usually comments
on articles of any description that have been published in previous issues of Eos; or
they can be articles on purely scientific or science policy-related issues around which
there is some controversy or difference of opinion; or articles on current public issues
that are of interest to the geosciences; or on issues--science or broader policy
ones---0n which there is an official AGU Position Statement. In this last category, I
offer, for example, the teaching of creationism in public schools, either alongside
evolution, or to the exclusion of evolution.
AGU has an official Position Statement, "Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases," which
states, among other things, that there is a high probability that man-made gases
primarily from the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to a gradual rise in mean
globab temperatures. In this context, your proto-article---in the form of the attachment
you sent me-- would seem right on target for a Forum piece. However, since the Soon et
al. article wasn't actually published in Eos, anything that you and Dr. Bradley craft
will have to minimize reference to the specific article or articles, and concentrate on
"the science" that is set forth in these papers. Presumably this problem could be
solved by simply referencing these papers.
A Forum piece can be as long as 1500 words, or approximately 6 double-spaced pages. A
maximum of two figures is permitted. A maximum of 10 references is encouraged, but if
the number doesn't exceed 10 too outrageously, I don't make a fuss, and neither will
Ellen.
Authors are now asked to submit their manuscripts and figures electronically via AGU's
Internet-based Geophysical Electronic Manuscript System (GEMS), which makes it possible
for the entire submission-review process to be conducted online.
If you have never used GEMS before, you can register for a login and password, and get
initial instructions, by going to
[1]http://eos-submit.agu.org/
If you would like to have a set of step-by-step instructions for first-time GEMS users,
please ask me.
Ellen indicated that she/you would like to get something published sooner rather than
later. The Eos staff can certainly expedite the editorial process for anything you and
your colleagues submit.
Don't hesitate to contact me with any further questions.
Best regards,
Judy Jacobs
Michael E. Mann wrote:

Dear Judy,
Thanks very much for getting back to me on this. Ellen had mentioned this possibility,
and I have been looking forward to hearing back about this.
Michael Oppenheimer and I drafted an informal memo that we passed along to colleagues
who needed some more background information so that they could comment on the Soon et al
papers in response to various inquiries they were receiving from the press, etc. I've
attached a copy of this memo.
It has not been our intention for this memo to appear in print, and it has not been
submitted anywhere for publication. On the other hand, when Ellen mentioned the
possibility of publishing something *like* this in e.g. the "Eos" forum, that seemed
like an excellent idea to me, and several of my colleagues that I have discussed the
possibility with.
What we had in mind was to produce a revised version of the basic memo that I've
attached, modifying it where necessary, and perhaps expanding it a bit, seeking broader
co-authorship by about 9 or so other leading climate scientists. So far, Phil Jones of
the University of East Anglia, Ray Bradley of the University of Massachusetts, and
Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona, have all indicated their interest in
co-authoring such a piece. We suspect that a few other individuals would be interested
in being co-authors as well. I didn't want to pursue this further, however, until I
knew whether or not an Eos piece was a possibility.
So pending further word from you, I would indeed be interested in preparing a
multi-authored "position" paper for Eos in collaboration with these co-authors, based
loosely on the memo that Ihave attached.
I look forward to further word from you on this.
best regards,
mike mann
At 04:59 PM 6/3/2xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:

Dear Dr. Mann,
I am the managing editor for Eos, the weekly newspaper of the American
Geophysical Union.
Late last week, the Eos editor for atmospheric sciences, Ellen
Mosley-Thompson, asked me if Eos would publish what she called "a
position paper" by you, Phillip Bradley, et al that would, in effect,
be a refutation to a paper by Soon et al. that was published in a
British journal, Energy & Environment a few weeks ago. This Energy &
Environment article was subsequently picked up by the Discovery
Channel and other print and electronic media that reach the general
public.
Before I can answer this question, I need to ask if you and your
colleagues intend for this position paper to be published
simultaneously in outlets other than Eos. If this is the case, I'm
afraid it being published in Eos is a moot point, because of AGU's no
duplicate publication policy: if the material has been published
elsewhere first, AGU will not publish it.
I look forward to your response.
Best regrds,
Judy Jacobs

______________________________________________________________
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

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
[4]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachMannPersp20021.pdf"

References

1. http://eos-submit.agu.org/
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: 1054757526.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Prospective Eos piece?
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 16:12:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Dear All,
I've attached a draft (attached word document), incorporating many of the suggestions,
wording, etc. I've already recieved from various of you. Some specific
comments/inquiries/requests for help indicated in yellow highlighting. Waiting to hear
back from Peck and Tom C (guys: if you're out there, can you give a holler, to let me know
your disposition? thanks). Otherwise everyone else has indicated they're on board.
I've been in touch w/ Judy Jacobs at AGU to clarify the ground rules. Apparently we *can*
refer, where necessary, to press releases, parenthetically in the piece. I think this is
important in our case because there is a subtle, but important, distinction between what
the papers actual purport to show, and what the authors (and their promoters) have
*claimed* they show (e.g. in the Harvard-Smithsonian press release). We need to draw out
this distinction-I sent Judy my paragraph on that, and she said it looks fine--so
apparently its kosher.
I've avoided any reference to unpublished work however (e.g. Mann and Jones), because this
opens up a can of worms. We can nicely make use of work that Keith has already done to
provide a suggestion of the longer-term (past 2K) changes, for greater context...
Re, references--we necessarily have to go well over the normal 10 or so, because part of
the strength of our piece is the wealth of recent studies supporting our basic conclusions.
Judy said that's ok too--especially since our text is short (by about 100 words) relative
to the official (1200 word) limit. So we should try to keep it that way..ie, we need to
play a zero-sum game, as much as possible, with any suggested revisions.
Re figures, Scott Rutherford has generously offered to help prepare a draft of figure 1
which I'll send on to everyone once its available.
I've also described, in the figure caption, my concept of Figure 2--clearly it would be
helpful if Phil and Ray could collaborate on the preparation of this one (guys?).
Looking forward to comments, and suggested revisions. I'll just accumulate these from
everyone in whatever form you prefer to provide them (emailed comments, word file w/ track
changes or highlighting of changes used, etc) and try to prepare a revised draft once I've
heard back from everyone.
Thanks again to everyone for their willingness to help with this and to be involved with
this,
mike

Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:17:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tom Wigley
<wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck
<jto@u.arizona.edu>
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Prospective Eos piece?
Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Thanks Phil, and Thanks Tom W and Keith for your willingness to help/sign on. This
certainly gives us a "quorum" pending even a few possible additional signatories I'm
waiting to hear back from.
In response to the queries, I will work on a draft today w/ references and two
suggested figures, and will try to send on by this evening (east coast USA). Tom W
indicated that he wouldn't be able look at a draft until Thursday anyway, so why doesn't
everyone just take a day then to digest what I've provided and then get back to me with
comments/changes (using word "track changes" if you like).
I'd like to tentatively propose to pass this along to Phil as the "official keeper" of
the draft to finalize and submit IF it isn't in satisfactory shape by the time I have to
leave (July 11--If I hadn't mentioned, I'm getting married, and then honeymoon, prior to
IUGG in Sapporo--gone for about 1 month total). Phil, does that sound ok to you?
Re Figures, what I had in mind were the following two figures:
1) A plot of various of the most reliable (in terms of strength of temperature signal
and reliability of millennial-scale variability) regional proxy temperature
reconstructions around the Northern Hemisphere that are available over the past 1-2
thousand years to convey the important point that warm and cold periods where highly
regionally variable. Phil and Ray are probably in the best position to prepare this (?).
Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this
category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back--I think that trying to adopt a
timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made
w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP",
even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back
[Phil and I have one in review--not sure it is kosher to show that yet though--I've put
in an inquiry to Judy Jacobs at AGU about this]. If we wanted to be fancy, we could do
this the way certain plots were presented in one of the past IPCC reports (was it 1990?)
in which a spatial map was provided in the center (this would show the locations of the
proxies), with "rays" radiating out to the top, sides, and bottom attached to rectanges
showing the different timeseries. Its a bit of work, but would be a great way to convey
both the spatial and temporal information at the same time.
2) A version of the now-familiar "spaghetti plot" showing the various reconstructions as
well as model simulations for the NH over the past 1 (or maybe 2K). To give you an idea
of what I have in mind, I'm attaching a Science piece I wrote last year that contains
the same sort of plot.
However, what I'd like to do different here is:
In addition to the "multiproxy" reconstructions, I'd like to Add Keith's maximum
latewood density-based series, since it is entirely independent of the multiproxy
series, but conveys the same basic message. I would also like to try to extend the scope
of the plot back to nearly 2K. This would be either w/ the Mann and Jones extension (in
review in GRL) or, if that is deemed not kosher, the Briffa et al Eurasian tree-ring
composite that extends back about 2K, and, based on Phil and my results, appears alone
to give a reasonably accurate picture of the full hemispheric trend.
Thoughts, comments on any of this?
thanks all for the help,
mike
At 09:25 AM 6/4/2003 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
This is definitely worth doing and I hope you have the time before the 11th, or can
pass
it on to one of us at that time. As you know I'm away for a couple of days but back
Friday.
So count me in. I've forwarded you all the email comments I've sent to reporters/fellow
scientists, so you're fully aware of my views, which are essentially the same as all of
the list
and many others in paleo. EOS would get to most fellow scientists. As I said to you the
other
day, it is amazing how far and wide the SB pieces have managed to percolate. When it
comes
out I would hope that AGU/EOS 'publicity machine' will shout the message from rooftops
everywhere. As many of us need to be available when it comes out.
There is still no firm news on what Climate Research will do, although they will
likely
have two editors for potentially controversial papers, and the editors will consult
when papers
get different reviews. All standard practice I'd have thought. At present the editors
get no
guidance whatsoever. It would seem that if they don't know what standard practice is
then
they shouldn't be doing the job !
Cheers
Phil
At 22:34 03/06/xxx xxxx xxxx, Michael E. Mann wrote:

Dear Colleagues,
Eos has invited me (and prospective co-authors) to write a 'forum' piece (see below).
This was at Ellen Mosely-Thompson's suggestion, upon my sending her a copy of the
attached memo that Michael Oppenheimer and I jointly wrote. Michael and I wrote this to
assist colleagues who had been requesting more background information to help counter
the spurious claims (with which I believe you're all now familiar) of the latest
Baliunas & Soon pieces.
The idea I have in mind would be to use what Michael and I have drafted as an initial
starting point for a slightly expanded piece, that would address the same basic issues
and, as indicated below, could include some references and figures. As indicated in
Judy Jacobs' letter below, the piece would be rewritten in such a way as to be less
explicitly (though perhaps not less implicitly) directed at the Baliunas/Soon claims,
criticisms, and attacks.
Phil, Ray, and Peck have already indicated tentative interest in being co-authors. I'm
sending this to the rest of you (Tom C, Keith, Tom W, Kevin) in the hopes of broadening
the list of co-authors. I strongly believe that a piece of this sort co-authored by 9
or so prominent members of the climate research community (with background and/or
interest in paleoclimate) will go a long way ih helping to counter these attacks, which
are being used, in turn, to launch attacks against IPCC.
AGU has offered to expedite the process considerably, which is necessary because I'll be
travelling for about a month beginning June 11th. So I'm going to work hard to get
something together ASAP. I'd would therefore greatly appreciate a quick response from
each of you as to whether or not you would potentially be willing to be involved as a
co-author. If you're unable or unwilling given other current commitments, I'll
understand.
Thanks in advance for getting back to me on this,
mike

Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 20:19:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson.4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: position paper by Mann,
Bradley et al that is a refutation to Soon et al
X-Sender: ethompso@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: Judy Jacobs <JJacobs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3
Judy and Mike -
This sounds outstanding.
Am I right in assuming that Fred reviews and approves the Forum pieces?
If so, can you hint about expediting this. Timing is very critical here.
Judy, thanks for taking the bull by the horns and getting the ball rolling.
Best regards,
Ellen
At 07:33 PM 06/03/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Judy Jacobs wrote:

Dear Dr. Mann,
Thanks for the prompt reply.
Based on what you have said, it sounds to me as if Mann, Bradley, et al. will not be in
violation of AGU's prohibition on duplicate publication.
The attachment to your e-mail definitely has the look and feel of something that would
be published in Eos under the "FORUM" column header. FORUM pieces are usually comments
on articles of any description that have been published in previous issues of Eos; or
they can be articles on purely scientific or science policy-related issues around which
there is some controversy or difference of opinion; or articles on current public issues
that are of interest to the geosciences; or on issues--science or broader policy
ones---0n which there is an official AGU Position Statement. In this last category, I
offer, for example, the teaching of creationism in public schools, either alongside
evolution, or to the exclusion of evolution.
AGU has an official Position Statement, "Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases," which
states, among other things, that there is a high probability that man-made gases
primarily from the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to a gradual rise in mean
globab temperatures. In this context, your proto-article---in the form of the attachment
you sent me-- would seem right on target for a Forum piece. However, since the Soon et
al. article wasn't actually published in Eos, anything that you and Dr. Bradley craft
will have to minimize reference to the specific article or articles, and concentrate on
"the science" that is set forth in these papers. Presumably this problem could be
solved by simply referencing these papers.
A Forum piece can be as long as 1500 words, or approximately 6 double-spaced pages. A
maximum of two figures is permitted. A maximum of 10 references is encouraged, but if
the number doesn't exceed 10 too outrageously, I don't make a fuss, and neither will
Ellen.
Authors are now asked to submit their manuscripts and figures electronically via AGU's
Internet-based Geophysical Electronic Manuscript System (GEMS), which makes it possible
for the entire submission-review process to be conducted online.
If you have never used GEMS before, you can register for a login and password, and get
initial instructions, by going to
[1]http://eos-submit.agu.org/
If you would like to have a set of step-by-step instructions for first-time GEMS users,
please ask me.
Ellen indicated that she/you would like to get something published sooner rather than
later. The Eos staff can certainly expedite the editorial process for anything you and
your colleagues submit.
Don't hesitate to contact me with any further questions.
Best regards,
Judy Jacobs
Michael E. Mann wrote:

Dear Judy,
Thanks very much for getting back to me on this. Ellen had mentioned this possibility,
and I have been looking forward to hearing back about this.
Michael Oppenheimer and I drafted an informal memo that we passed along to colleagues
who needed some more background information so that they could comment on the Soon et al
papers in response to various inquiries they were receiving from the press, etc. I've
attached a copy of this memo.
It has not been our intention for this memo to appear in print, and it has not been
submitted anywhere for publication. On the other hand, when Ellen mentioned the
possibility of publishing something *like* this in e.g. the "Eos" forum, that seemed
like an excellent idea to me, and several of my colleagues that I have discussed the
possibility with.
What we had in mind was to produce a revised version of the basic memo that I've
attached, modifying it where necessary, and perhaps expanding it a bit, seeking broader
co-authorship by about 9 or so other leading climate scientists. So far, Phil Jones of
the University of East Anglia, Ray Bradley of the University of Massachusetts, and
Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona, have all indicated their interest in
co-authoring such a piece. We suspect that a few other individuals would be interested
in being co-authors as well. I didn't want to pursue this further, however, until I
knew whether or not an Eos piece was a possibility.
So pending further word from you, I would indeed be interested in preparing a
multi-authored "position" paper for Eos in collaboration with these co-authors, based
loosely on the memo that Ihave attached.
I look forward to further word from you on this.
best regards,
mike mann
At 04:59 PM 6/3/2xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:

Dear Dr. Mann,
I am the managing editor for Eos, the weekly newspaper of the American
Geophysical Union.
Late last week, the Eos editor for atmospheric sciences, Ellen
Mosley-Thompson, asked me if Eos would publish what she called "a
position paper" by you, Phillip Bradley, et al that would, in effect,
be a refutation to a paper by Soon et al. that was published in a
British journal, Energy & Environment a few weeks ago. This Energy &
Environment article was subsequently picked up by the Discovery
Channel and other print and electronic media that reach the general
public.
Before I can answer this question, I need to ask if you and your
colleagues intend for this position paper to be published
simultaneously in outlets other than Eos. If this is the case, I'm
afraid it being published in Eos is a moot point, because of AGU's no
duplicate publication policy: if the material has been published
elsewhere first, AGU will not publish it.
I look forward to your response.
Best regrds,
Judy Jacobs

______________________________________________________________
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

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
[4]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
[5]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachEosForum.doc"

References

1. http://eos-submit.agu.org/
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
5. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

Original Filename: 1056133160.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: VERY VERY IMPORTANT
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:19:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Hi Phil et al,
Re, Malcolm co-authorship--big oversight on my part. Can you ask Ellen if we can add his
name (i.e., just say it was 'accidentally left off'), where it belongs alphabetically in
the list.
I've talked to Malcolm on the phone. The PC #1 *is* the right one--but Malcolm has raised
the valid point that we need to cover our behinds on what was done here, lest we be
vulnerable to the snipings of the Idsos and co (i.e., that non-climatic influences on
recent growth were nominally dealt w/, as in MBH99).
Malcolm is supposed to be sending some text to Phil.
So, can we incorporate his small bit of text, and add his name, and then resubmit to AGU
ASAP?
Thanks all for all the help here. Now, I better get back to my newlywed wife!
mike
At 05:25 PM 6/20/2003 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
Malcolm has just called Keith. He's been with Ray. Apart from probably being a
little
miffed off he's not on the article, he says that the W. US series in Figure 2 is wrong.
He says
it looks the first PC (which I said it was), but that this isn't the corrected one (for
CO2 growth
effects). Can you check whether it is the right one? Malcolm says that Idso (who was
on
E&E) will say that the increase in that series is not climatic but due to
fertilization. This
would not look good obviously. Idso was on a paper with Don Graybill re fertilisation
effects
on bristlecones.
If you need to send a revised series for this top series in Fig 2 then send it to
Tim.
Tim has done this plot so can make the alterations if another series is needed. If you
think
that the series is OK then we'll leave it. If you do change it will affect Fig 2 of
the GRL also
but probably not to any noticeable effect - at least at the size the plot will be.
Tim will send round the copyright forms to all and reprint forms. Tell Tim if you
want any.
Seems like the pdf will do.
Cheers
Phil
PS Tell Lorraine I'm not always emailing you - but Malcolm thought the above was
important.
I assumed you would have sent the corrected one you used in GRL in 1999.
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
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

References

1. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

Original Filename: 1056477985.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Raymond S. Bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: ice cores/China series (FYI)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:06:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Thanks Keith,
I just read your email after reading the others. We actually eliminate records with
negative correlations (this is mentioned breifly in the GRL article,), and we investigated
a variety of weighting schemes to assure the basic robustness of the composite--but I
certainly endorse your broader point here. Many of these records have some significant
uncertainties or possible sources of bias, and this isn't the place to get into that. The
uncertainties get at this, at some level, and other places (e.g. the Reviews of Geophysics
paper Phil and I are drafting) will provide an opportunity to discuss these kinds of issues
in more detail--we will certainly be seeking advice (either officially or unofficially)
from each of you once we have finalized the draft of that...
Now back to my honeymoon...
mike
At 02:38 PM 6/24/2003 +0100, Keith Briffa wrote:

To keep you informed , here is a reply to Tom Wigley re his request to "deal with Ray's
Comments" re the China series in EOS piece
Tom
Tim has just told me of your message expressing concern about the China series , and
your statement of the necessity to "deal with Ray's comment" and add in the "small
adjustment to the Figure Caption". .
We (I and Tim) decided to get this off as soon as possible to Ellen (AGU) , as we had
been asked to do (and as requested by Ellen). Hence it went off earlier today (and
before your message arrived). Mike was aware of Ray's comment and was happy to leave any
amendment to the text "until the proof stage" .
In my opinion it is not practical (or desirable) to try to "qualify " any one record in
this limited format. It was a majority decision to leave the Mann and Jones 2000-year
series in the Figure 1 (as it was to remove the Briffa and Osborn tree-ring based one) ,
and the details of the logic used to derive the Mann and Jones series is to be found in
the (cited) text of their paper. Signing on to this letter , in my mind. implies
agreement with the text and not individual endorsement of all curves by each author. I
too have expressed my concern to Phil (and Ray) over the logic that you leave all series
you want in but just weight them according to some (sometimes low) correlation (in this
case based on decadal values). I also believe some of the series that make up the
Chinese record are dubious or obscure , but the same is true of other records Mann and
Jones have used (e.g. how do you handle a series in New Zealand that has a -0.25
correlation?) . Further serious problems are still (see my and Tim's Science comment on
the Mann 1999 paper) lurking with the correction applied to the Western US tree-ring PC
amplitude series used (and shown in Figure 2). There are problems (and limitations )
with ALL series used. At this stage , singling out individual records for added (and
unavoidably cursory added description) is not practical. We were told to cut the text
and References significantly - and further cuts are implied by Ellen's messages to us.
If you wish to open this up to general discussion , it may be best to wait 'til the
proof stage and then we can all consider the balance of emphasis - but we had also
better guard against too "selective" a choice of data to present? If you want to get a
somewhat wider discussion of this point going in the meantime , feel free to forward
this to whoever you wish along with your disagreement , while we wait on the response
from AGU.
Best wishes
Keith
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

______________________________________________________________
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.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
2. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml