Alleged CRU Emails - 25 results below

Original Filename: 1067522573.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "raymond s.bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Can you believe it???
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 09:02:xxx xxxx xxxx

Guys, can you take a look at this.
I think that everything I say here is true! But we've got to be sure.
There are more technical things they did wrong that I want to add, but this is the critical
bit--what do you think. Comments? Thanks...
mike
________________________________________
The recent paper by McIntyre and McKitrick (Energy and Environment, 14, xxx xxxx xxxx) claims to
be an "audit" of the analysis of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) or "MBH98". An audit
involves a careful examination, using the same data and following the exact procedures used
in the report or study being audited. McIntyre and McKitrick ("MM") have done no such
thing, having used neither the data nor the procedures of MBH98. Their analysis is notable
only in how deeply they have misrepresented the data, methods, and results of MBH98.
Journals that receive critical comments on a previously published papers always provide the
authors who are being criticized an opportunity to review the study prior to publication,
and offer them the chance to respond. This is standard operating procedure in any
legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journal. Mann and colleagues were never given this
opportunity, nor were any other leading paleoclimate scientists that we're familiar with.
It is unfortunate that the profound errors, and false and misleading statements, and
entirely spurious results provided in the McIntyre and McKitrick article were ever allowed
to see the light of day by those would have been able to detect them. . We suspect the
extremely checkered history of "Energy and Environment" has some role to play in this. The
authors should retract their article immediately, and issue a public apology to the climate
research community for the injustice they have done in publishing and promoting this deeply
deceptive and flawed analysis.

Not only were critical errors made in their analysis that render it thoroughly invalid, but
there appear to have been several strikingly subjective decisions made to remove key
indicators of the original MBH98 network prior to AD 1600, with a dramatic impact on the
resulting reconstruction. It is precisely the over which the numerous indicators were
removed (pre 1600 period) during which MM reconstruct anomalous warmth that is in sharp
opposition to the cold conditions observed in MBH98 and nearly all other independent
published estimates that we know of.

While the authors dutifully cite the small inconsistency between the number of proxy
indicators reported by, and found in the public data archive, of Mann et al back in time
(there indeed appear to have been some minor typos in the MBH98 paper), it is odd that they
do not cite the number of indicators in their putative version of the Mann et al network
based on the independent collection of data, back time. The reader is literally left to do
a huge amount of detective work, based on the tables in their pages 20-23, to determine
just what data have been eliminated from the original Mann et al network. It seems odd,
indeed, that their "substitutions" of other versions (or in some case, only apparent, and
not actual, versions) of proxy data series for those in the original Mann et al (1998)
network has the selective effect of deleting key proxy indicators that contribute dramatic
cooling during the 16th century, when the MM reconstruction shows an anomalous warming
departure from the Mann et al (1998) and all other published Northern Hemisphere
temperature reconstructions.

Here are some blatant examples:

1) The authors (see their Figure 4) substitute a younger version of one of the Jacoby et al
Northern Treeline series for the older version used by MBH98. This substitution has effect
of removing a predictor of 15th century cooling [Incidentally, MM make much of the tendency
for some tree ring series, such as this one, to show an apparent cooling over the past
couple decades. Scientists with expertise in dendroclimatology know that this behavior
represents a decrease in the sensitivity to temperature in recent decades that likely is
related to conditions other than temperature which are limiting tree growth]

2) The authors eliminate, without any justification, the entire dataset of 70 Western North
American (WNA) tree-ring series available between 1400 and 1600 (this dataset is
represented, by MBH98, in terms of a smaller number of representative Principal Component
time series). The leading pattern of variance in this data set exhibits conditions from
1xxx xxxx xxxxthat are dramatically colder than the mid and late 20th century, and a very
prominent cooling in the 15th century in particular. The authors eliminated this entire
dataset because they claimed that the underlying data was not available in the public
domain.

In point of fact, not only were the individual WNA data all available on the public ftp
site provided by Mann and colleagues:
[1]ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/, but they were also
available, despite the claims to the contrary by MM, on NOAA's website as well:
[2]ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/treering/chronologies/northamerica/usa

The deletion of this critical (see Mann et al, 1999) dataset appears to one of the more
important censorings performed by MM that allows them to achieve their spurious result of
apparent 15th-16th century warmth.

We have not, as yet, finished determining just how many important indicators were subtly
censored from the MBH98 dataset by the various subjective substitutions described on pages
20-23. However, given the relatively small number of indicators available between 1xxx xxxx xxxx
in the MBH98 network (22-24) and their elimination of some of the more critical ones, it
would appear that this subjective censoring of data, alone, explains the spurious,
misleading, and deceptive result achieved by the authors.

Incidentally, MBH98 go to great depths to perform careful cross-validation experiments as a
function of increasing sparseness of the candidate predictors back in time, to demonstrate
statistically significant reconstructive skill even for their earlier (1xxx xxxx xxxx)
reconstruction interval. MM describe no cross-validation experiments. We wonder what the
verification resolved variance is for their reconstruction based on their 1xxx xxxx xxxx
available network, during the independent latter 19th century period?

There are numerous other serious problems that would render the MM analysis completely
invalid, even in the absence of the serious issue raised above, and these are detailed
below

.
.
.

______________________________________________________________
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

References

1. ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/
2. ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/treering/chronologies/northamerica/usa
3. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

Original Filename: 1067596623.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: f055 <T.Osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "p.jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "raymond s. bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, f055 <T.Osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: CLIMLIST
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 05:37:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: mhughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Thanks very much Tim,
I was hoping that the revisions would ally concerns people had.
I'll look forward to your comments on this latest draft. I agree w/ Malcolm on the need to
be careful w/ the wording in the first paragraph. The first paragraph is a bit of relic of
a much earlier draft, and maybe we need to rethink it a bit. Takinig the high road is
probably very important here. If *others* want to say that their actions represent
scientific fraud, intellectual dishonesty, etc. (as I think we all suspect they do), lets
let *them* make these charges for us!
Lets let our supporters in higher places use our scientific response to push the broader
case against MM. So I look forward to peoples attempts to revise the first par. particular.
I took the liberty of forwarding the previous draft to a handfull of our closet colleagues,
just so they would have a sense of approximately what we'll be releasing later today--i.e.,
a heads up as to
how MM achieved their result...
look forward to us finalizing something a bit later--I still think we need to get this out
ASAP...
mike
SAt 03:01 AM 10/31/2003 +0000, f055 wrote:

Dear all,
I've just finished preparing a detailed response offline, only to log on to
send it to you all and find new versions from Mike plus more comments
and information. Well, I don't have time to change my message now, so
will paste it below this message. But bear in mind that the new draft may
well have allayed many of my concerns - in particular, a quick glance
shows the figure to be much more convincing than the one Mike circulated
earlier, indeed it seems to be utterly convincing! I'll reply again on
Friday
morning once I've had time to read the new draft. In the meantime, here is
my message as promised.
************************************************************
Dear MBH (cc to CRU),
The number of emails has been rather overwhelming on this issue and
I'm struggling to catch up with them! But I will attempt to catch up with a
few things here...
(1) The single worst thing about the whole M&M saga is not that they did
their study, not that they did things wrong (deliberately or by accident), but
that neither they nor the journal took the necessary step of investigating
whether the difference between their results and yours could be explained
simply by some error or set of errors in their use of the data or in their
implementation of your method. If it turns out, as looks likely from Mike's
investigation of this, that their results are erroneous, then they and the
journal will have wasted countless person-hours of time and caused
much damage in the climate policy arena.
(2) Given that this is the single worst thing about the saga, we must not go
and do exactly the same in rushing out a response to their paper. If some
claims in the response turned out to be wrong, based on assumptions
about what M&M did or assumptions about how M&M's assumptions
affect the results, then it would end up with a number of iterations of claim
and counter claim. Ultimately the issue might be settled, but by then the
waters could be so muddied that it didn't matter.
(3) Not only do I advise against an overly rushed response, but I'm also
wondering whether it really ought to be only from MBH, for three reasons.
(i) It is your paper/results that are being attacked.
(ii) It is difficult to endorse everything that Mike has put in the draft
response because I don't know 100% of the details of MBH and the MBH
data. Sure, I can endorse some things, but others I wouldn't know. Sure,
I accept Mike's explanation because he's looked at this stuff for 4 days
and I believe he'll have got it right - but that's different to an independent
check. That must come from Ray or Malcolm if possible.
(iii) If it does come to any independent assessment of who's right and
who's wrong, then it would be difficult for us to be involved if we had
already signed up to what some might claim to be a knee-jerk reaction to
the M&M paper. If that happened, then you would want us to be free to get
involved to make sure the process was fair and informed.
This sounds like a cop out, but - like I say - I'm not sure about point (3) so
feel free to try to convince me otherwise if you wish. Anyway Keith or Phil
may be happy to sign up to a (quick or slow) response, despite my
reservations above.
I really advise a very careful reading of M&M and their supplementary
website to ensure that everything in the response is clearly correct -
precisely to avoid point (2). I've only just started to do this, but already
have some questions about the response that Mike has drafted.
(a) Mike, you say that many of the trees were eliminated in the data they
used. Have you concluded this because they entered "NA" for "Not
available" in their appendix table? If so, then are you sure that "NA"
means they did not use any data, rather than simply that they didn't
replace your data with an alternative (and hence in fact continued to use
what Scott had supplied to them)? Or perhaps "NA" means they couldn't
find the PC time series published (of course!), but in fact could find the
raw tree-ring chronologies and did their own PCA of those? How would
they know which raw chronologies to use? Or did you come to your
conclusion by downloading their "corrected and updated" data matrix and
comparing it with yours - I've not had time to do that, but even if I had and
I
found some differences, I wouldn't know which was right seeing as I've
not done any PCA of western US trees myself? My guess would be that
they downloaded raw tree-ring chronologies (possibly the same ones you
used) but then applied PCA only to the period when they all had full data -
hence the lack of PCs in the early period (which you got round by doing
PCA on the subset that had earlier data). But this is only a guess, and
this is the type of thing that should be checked with them - surely they
would respond if asked? - to avoid my point (2) above. And if my guess
were right, then your wording of "eliminated this entire data set" would
come in for criticism, even though in practise it might as well have been.
(b) The mention of ftp sites and excel files is contradicted by their email
record on their website, which shows no mention of excel files (they say
an ASCII file was sent) and also no record that they knew the ftp address.
This doesn't matter really, since the reason for them using a corrupted
data file is not relevant - the relevant thing is that it was corrupt and had
you been involved in reviewing the paper then it could have been found
prior to publication. But they will use the email record if the ftp sites and
excel files are mentioned.
(c) Not sure if you talk about peer-review in the latest version, but note
that
they acknowledge input from reviewers and Fred Singer's email says he
refereed it - so any statement implying it wasn't reviewed will be met with
an easy response from them.
(d) Your quick-look reconstruction excluding many of the tree-ring data,
and the verification RE you obtain, is interesting - but again, don't rush
into
using these in any response. The time series of PC1 you sent is certainly
different from your standard one - but on the other hand I'd hardly say you
"get a similar result" to them, the time series look very different (see their
fig 6d). So the dismal RE applies only to your calculation, not to their
reconstruction. It may turn out that their verification RE is also very
negative, but again we cannot assume this in case we're wrong and they
easily counter the criticism.
(e) Claims of their motives for selective censoring or changing of data, or
for the study as a whole, may well be true but are hard to prove. They
would claim that their's is an honest attempt at reproducing a key
scientific result. If they made errors in what they did, then maybe they're
just completely out of their depth on this, rather than making deliberate
errors for the purposes of achieving preferred results.
(f) The recent tree-ring decline they refer to seems related to
tree-ring-width not density. Regardless of width of density, this issue
cannot simply be dismissed as a solved problem. Since they don't make
much of an issue out of it, best just to ignore it.
(g) [I'm rambling now into an un-ordered list of things, so I'll stop soon!]
The various other problems relating to temperature data sets, detrended
standard deviations, PCs of tree-ring subsets etc. sound likely errors -
though I've got no way of providing the independent check that you asked
for. But it is again a bit of a leap of faith to say that these *explain* the
different results that they get. Certainly they throw doubt on the validity
of
their results, but without actually doing the same as them it's not possible
to say if they would have replicated your results if they hadn't made these
errors. After all, could the infilling of missing values have made much
difference to the results obtained, something that they made a good deal
of fuss about?
(h) To say they "used neither the data nor the procedures of MBH98" will
also be an easy target for them, since they did use the data that was sent
to them and seemed to have used approximately the method too (with
some errors that you've identified). This reproduced your results to some
extent (certainly not perfectly, but see Fig 6b and 6c). Then they went
further to redo it with the "corrected and updated" data - but only after
first
doing approximately what they claimed they did (i.e. the audit).
These comments relate to random versions of the draft response, so
apologies if they don't all seem relevant to the current draft. I don't have
these in front of me, here at home, so I'm doing this from memory of what
I've read over the past few days. But nevertheless, the point is that a quick
response would ultimately require making a number of assumptions
about what they did and assumptions about whether this explains the
differences or not - assumptions that might be later shot down (in part
only, at most, but still sufficient to muddy the debate for most outsiders).
A quick response ought to be limited to something like:
---------------------------------------------
The recent paper by McIntyre and McKitrick (2003; hereafter MM03) claims
to be an "audit" of the analysis of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998;
hereafter MBH98). MM03 are unable to reproduce the Northern
Hemisphere temperature reconstruction of MBH98 when attempting to
use the same proxy data and methods as MBH98, though they obtain
something similar with clearly anomalous recent warming (their Figure
6c). They then make many modifications to the proxy data set and repeat
their analysis, and obtain a rather different result to MBH98.
Unfortunately neither M&M nor the journal in which it was published took
the necessary step of investigating whether the difference between their
results and MBH98 could be explained simply by some error or set of
errors in their use of the data or in their implementation of the MBH98
method. This should have been an essential step to take in a case such
as this where the difference in results is so large and important. Simple
errors must first be ruled out prior to publication. Even if the authors had
not undertaken this by presenting their results to the authors of MBH98,
the journal should certainly have included them as referees of the
manuscript.
A preliminary investigation into the proxy data and implementation of the
method has already identified a number of likely errors, which may turn
out to be the cause of the different results. Rather than repeating M&M's
failure to follow good scientific practise, we are witholding further
comments until we can - by collaboration with M&M if possible - be certain
of exactly what changes to data and method were made by M&M, whether
these changes can really explain the differences in the results, and
eventually which (if any) of these changes can be justified as equally valid
(given the various uncertainties that exist) and which are simply errors that
invalidate their results.
-----------------------------------------
Hope you find this all helpful, and despite my seemingly critical approach,
take them in the spirit with which they are aimed - which is to obtain a
strong and hard hitting rebuttal of bad science, but a rebuttal that cannot
be buried by any minor innaccuracies or difficult-to-prove claims.
Best regards
Tim

______________________________________________________________
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: 1068239573.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,"Keith Briffa" <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: Re: McIntyre-McKitrick and Mann-Bradley-Hughes
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:12:53 +0000

<x-flowed>

>From: "Sonja.B-C" <Sonja.B-C@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:58:06 +0000
>To: Steve McIntyre <smcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Subject: Re: McIntyre-McKitrick and Mann-Bradley-Hughes
>Cc: L.A.Love@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
> Ross McKitrick <rmckitri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Priority: NORMAL
>X-Mailer: Execmail for Win32 5.1.1 Build (10)
>
>Dear Steve
>Please send your material for comment direct to Tim, Osborne.I
>would like to publish the whole debate early next year, but
>'respectful' comments in the meantime can only help and the CRU people
>seem genuinely interested and have integrity. I have never heard of
>such bad behaviour here as appears to have been the case between
>Sallie and Soon and the rest..the US adversarial system and too many
>egos??
>As you know ,the contact is Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> and I take
>the liberty to forward this to him now. You seem to suggest that this
>is welcome and are making make direct comments on his remarks to me
>concerning your paper.
>
>We shall get the printed proof, as a single electronic file today, and
>shall look through it early next week. I am sure you do not want to see
>your paper again? I think that adding anymore now (the exchanges
>between you and Mann/Bradley and perhaps now Tim as well) is premature
>and we shall wait until the next issue. Mann is said to be writing
>something, but he has not yet contacted me, though I just hang up on
>that journalist Appell who keeps on ringing. I told him that I will
>deal only directly with Mann. What cheek, after threatening me with
>litigation...Just keep me in the loop. Thanks.
>
>Sonja
>PS .By the way The Economist has taken up a previous paper from E&E
>(Castles and Henderson, the social science critique of teh emission
>scenarios), and teh Australian and UK Treasuries have become involved.
>I have not seen it yet. As you know, I have always argued that the real
>'driver' of teh IPCC deception, if that is the right word, has been on
>teh social /technology forcing side, with focus of WG III.
>
>In London I heard two days ago that the WTO might make ratification of
>Kyoto conditional for something Russia wants. The source was speaker
>from the Deutsche Bank, a Justin Mundy, former advisor to the EU
>Commission on EU-Russia coordination and once senior advisor to the
>European Centre for Nature Conservation, he also worked for the World
>Bank.)
>Sonja
>
>On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 09:50:xxx xxxx xxxx
>Steve McIntyre <smcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> > Dear Sonja,
> >
> > > > The interesting thing about their preliminary response, however, is
> that it
> > > > indicates that the difference in results might be fully explained by a
> > > > simple error in not using many of the early tree-ring data. If
> this is
> > > > confirmed by their fuller response, then, even though there may be
> some
> > > > problems with the proxy data used by Mann et al., it implies that
> these
> > > > problems do not actually make a lot of difference to the results -
> the main
> > > > difference comes from omitting the early tree-ring data. A paper that
> > > > identifies some problems with the proxy data used by Mann et al. would
> > > > still be interesting, but if these problems made very little
> difference to
> > > > the results obtained, then it would be of rather minor importance.
> > >
> > > (1) IMHO the data issues rise above "some problems". When you're
> doing a prospectus, audit or engineering-level feasibility study, there
> is a concerted effort to eliminate every error. I have never seen such
> sloppy data as MBH98. Perhaps from my business experience, I am used to
> a more demanding approach to data integrity than the above comment
> suggests about academic studies. Even the MBH response criticizes us for
> failing to use obsolete data. How silly is that. Bradley has also said
> that an "audit" should use original data and should not verify against
> source data and says that I should know better. I think that my
> experience with audits and engineering studies is more substantial than
> Bradley's and this is an extraordinarily silly thing for him to
> say. After the fact, one of the key mis-steps in the Bre-X fraud was
> the engineering report in which ore reserves were calculated using false
> data supplied to the consulting engineers by Bre-X, without any
> verification being carried out by the engineers.
> > > (2) There was not a "simple error" of simply not using many of the
> early tree-ring data. The early tree-ring data in question are principal
> components of North American tree ring sites and of Stahle/SWM (also
> North American) tree ring sites . MBH98 states that they used
> conventional principal components methods for temperature. They do not
> explicitly say that they used conventional principal components methods
> for tree ring regions, but, in the absence of disclosure otherwise, this
> is certainly the most reasonable interpretation of the public disclosure
> (leaving aside Mann's refusal to provide clarification in response to our
> inquiries on methods.) A "conventional" principal component calculation
> requires that there be no missing data. Accordingly this indicator became
> unavailable in the earlier years using conventional principal component
> calculations - it was not "left out". MBH now disclose for the very
> first time that they used a "stepwise principal components approach",
> although this is nowhere disclosed in MBH98 or in the SI thereto. They
> have still not disclosed the rosters of principal components involved. If
> this method is material to their results, as they now state, then it was
> a material omission in their prior disclosure. It seems like a very
> strange rebuttal for MBH to say: you're at fault because we made a
> material non-disclosure on methodology in our papers. If I were in MBH's
> shoes, I would be embarrassed at this non-disclosure and mitigating the
> situation by making full disclosure now. . When you do a prospectus, you
> have to sign an affidavit that there are no material omissions. I have
> approached disclosure questions on the basis that prospectus-level
> disclosure is the minimum level of public disclosure in this matter,
> assuming that this level of disclosure would be exceeded.
> >
> > (3) I've redone calculations with a re-calculated US PC1 in and get
> results similar to those in E&E, rather than the MBH response. This is
> not a guarantee that I have fully replicated still undisclosed MBH
> methodology. However, MBH disclosure of their methodology is very
> inadequate and without full disclosure by MBH of their methods, it is
> possible to be somewhat at cross-purposes. This defective disclosure is
> entirely their responsibility. It should be remedied immediately through
> FTP disclosure of their computer programs and full description of their
> methodology.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >
> > > > >>It is quite obvious that if the opinion of these three people
> from the
> > > > >>UK University of East Anglia concerning publication of teh M&M paper
> > > > >>had been sought and taken, there would not have been no publication.
> > > >
> > > > Then I suggest you read our commentary again, which does not state
> this at all.
> >
> >
> > Part 2 has been drafted and I would be delighted to obtain comments on
> it from UEA/CRU. Indeed, I think that it would be very constructive,
> since Part 2 is significantly more hard-edged than Part 1. Because we
> have stated that we would post up a reply to the MBH response, we would
> have to disclose something on our websites, but I'd be prepared to deal
> with this. Intuitively, full, true and plain disclosure would be to state
> that we have prepared a reply and submitted it to UEA/CRU for
> comments. I think that the many data errors will be self-evident to
> UEA/CRU; we have organized our materials to show this, as will be the
> material non-disclosures on methodology by MBH. However, if they are
> prepared to comment, this would have to be agreed on very quickly as we
> are very close to finalizing our repy.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Steve
>
>----------------------
>Dr.Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
>Reader,Department of Geography,
>Editor, Energy & Environment
>(Multi-science,www.multi-science.co.uk)
>Faculty of Science
>University of Hull
>Hull HU6 7RX, UK
>Tel: (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx/6341/5385
>Fax: (0)1xxx xxxx xxxx
>Sonja.B-C@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm

</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1068652882.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Keith Briffa" <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,"Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: MBH98
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:01:22 +0000

<x-flowed>
Keith and Phil,

you will have seen Stephen McIntyre's request to us. We need to talk about
it, though my initial feeling is that we should turn it down (with
carefully worded/explained reason) as another interrim stage and prefer to
make our input at the peer-review stage.

In the meantime, here is an email (copied below) to Mike Mann from
McIntyre, requesting data and programs (and making other criticisms). I do
wish Mike had not rushed around sending out preliminary and incorrect early
responses - the waters are really muddied now. He would have done better
to have taken things slowly and worked out a final response before
publicising this stuff. Excel files, other files being created early or
now deleted is really confusing things!

Anyway, because McIntyre has now asked Mann directly for his data and
programs, his request that *we* send McIntyre's request to Mann has been
dropped (I would have said "no" anyway).

So it's just the second bit, that we review part 2 of this response, that
needs to be answered.

Cheers

Tim


>From: "Steve McIntyre" <smcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Cc: "Tim Osborn" <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
> "Ross McKitrick" <rmckitri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Subject: MBH98
>Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 23:39:xxx xxxx xxxx
>
>November 11, 2003
>
>
>
>Professor Michael E. Mann
>
>School of Earth Sciences
>
>University of Virginia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Dear Professor Mann,
>
>
>
>We apologize for not sending you a copy of our recent paper ("MM") in
>Energy and Environment for comment, as we understood from your email of
>September 25, 2003 that time constraints prevented you from considering
>our material. We notice that you seem to have subsequently changed your
>mind and hope that you will both be able to clarify some points for us and
>to rectify the public record on other points.
>
>
>
>1) You have claimed that we used the wrong data and the wrong
>computational methodology. We would like to reconcile our results to
>actual data and methodology used in MBH98. We would therefore appreciate
>copies of the computer programs you actually used to read in data (the 159
>data series referred to in your recent comments) and construct the
>temperature index shown in Nature (1998) ("MBH98"), either through email
>or, preferably through public FTP or web posting.
>
>
>
>2) In some recent comments, you are reported as stating that we requested
>an Excel file and that you instead directed us to an FTP site for the
>MBH98 data. You are also reported as saying that despite having pointed us
>to the FTP site, you and your colleague took trouble to prepare an Excel
>spreadsheet, but inadvertently introduced some collation errors at that
>time. In fact, as you no doubt recall, we did not request an Excel
>spreadsheet, but specifically asked for an FTP location, which you were
>unable or unwilling to provide. Nor was an Excel spreadsheet ever supplied
>to us; instead we were given a text file, pcproxy.txt. Nor was this file
>created in April 2003. After we learned on October 29, 2003 that the
>pertinent data was reported to be located on your FTP site
><ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub>ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub
>(and that we were being faulted for not getting it from there), we
>examined this site and found it contains the exact same file (pcproxy.txt)
>as the one we received, bearing a date of creation of August 8, 2002. On
>October 29, 2003, your FTP site also contained the file pcproxy.mat, a
>Matlab file, the header to which read: "MATLAB 5.0 MAT-file, Platform:
>SOL2, Created on: Thu Aug 8 10:18:xxx xxxx xxxx." Both files contain identical
>data to the file pcproxy.txt emailed to one of us (McIntyre) in April
>2003, including all collation errors, fills and other problems identified
>in MM. It is therefore clear that the file pcproxy.txt as sent to us was
>not prepared in April 2003 in response to our requests, nor was it
>prepared as an Excel spreadsheet, but in fact it was prepared many months
>earlier with Matlab. It is also clear that, had we gone to your FTP site
>earlier, we would simply have found the same data collation as we received
>from Scott Rutherford. Would you please forthwith issue a statement
>withdrawing and correcting your earlier comments.
>
>
>
>3) In reported comments, you also claimed that we overlooked the collation
>errors in pcproxy.txt and "slid" the incorrect data into our calculations,
>a statement which is untrue and made without a reasonable basis. In MM, we
>described numerous errors including, but not limited to, the collation
>errors, indicating quite obviously that we noticed the data problems. We
>then describe how we "firewalled" our data from the errors contained in
>the data you provided us, by re-collating tree ring proxy data from
>original sources and carrying out fresh principal component calculations.
>We request that you forthwith withdraw the claim that we deliberately used
>data we knew to be in error.
>
>
>
>4) On November 8, 2003, when we re-visited your FTP site, we noticed the
>following changes since October 29, 2003: (1) the file pcproxy.mat had
>been deleted from your FTP site; (2) the file pcproxy.txt no longer was
>displayed under the /sdr directory, where it had previously been located,
>although it could still be retrieved through an exact call if one
>previously knew the exact file name; (3) without any notice, a new file
>named "mbhfilled.mat" prepared on November 4, 2003 had been inserted into
>the directory. Obviously, the files pcproxy.mat and pcproxy.txt are
>pertinent to the comments referred to above and we view the deletion of
>pcproxy.mat from the archival record under the current circumstances as
>unjustifiable. Would you please restore these files to your FTP site,
>together with an annotated text file documenting the dates of their
>deletion and restoration.
>
>
>
>5) We note that the new file mbhfilled.mat is an array of dimension
>381x2016. Could you state whether this file has any connection to MBH98,
>and, if so, please explain the purpose of this file, why it has been
>posted now and why it was not previously available at the FTP site.
>
>
>
>6) Can you advise us whether the directory MBH98 has been a subdirectory
>within the folder "pub" since July 30, 2002 or whether it was transferred
>from another (possibly private) directory at a date after July 30, 2002?
>If the latter, could you advise on the date of such transfer.
>
>
>
>
>
>We have prepared a 3-part response to your reply to MM. The first, which
>we have released publicly, goes over some of the matters raised in points
>#2-#5 above. The second is undergoing review. It deals with additional
>issues of data quality and disclosure, resulting from inspection of your
>FTP site since October 29, 2003. The third part will consider the points
>made in your response, both in terms of data and methodology, and will
>attempt a careful reconciliation of our calculation methods, hence the
>necessity of our request in point #1. Thank you for your attention.
>
>
>
>
>
>Yours truly,
>
>
>
>Stephen McIntyre Ross McKitrick
>
>
>
>
>cc: Timothy Osborn

Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm

</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1075750656.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Rashit Hantemirov <rashit@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re[2]: Stephen McIntyre
Date: Mon Feb 2 14:37:xxx xxxx xxxx

Rashit
that sounds great - at least I am happy you are working on the sub fossil material still. I
have done some work comparing the Swedish and Finnish long series after standard RCS
detrending and there is good similarity at the century timescale for some considerable
periods - but significant differences over some others , even allowing for uncertainty in
the series These are only 300 km separated so this is an interesting indication of changes
in continentality perhaps. I am also interested in extending the high-frequency density
series before 1400 AD , to show earlier volcanoes , even though the spatial coverage is
poor. It would be interesting to see your extreme year series - do you have a preprint of
your paper? I would really like to get support to continue a wider collaboration ,
including other northern long series to produce wide scale integrated series . What is the
latest state of your tree-line reconstruction , for periods earlier than you showed in the
Holocene paper? I am still hoping such support may come again from Europe.
very best wishes
Keith
At 07:28 PM 2/2/04 +0500, you wrote:

Dear Keith,
it is very nice to hear from you.
We live and work in the old way. Stepan has been updated his woody
vegetation descriptions in the Polar Urals to reconstruct dynamics of
forest structure near upper timberline for the last century.
Because of some reasons (sometimes without any reasons) the work on
constructing Yamal chronology is going not very well. Duration of
chronology is now 7315 years (7314 BC - AD 2000). The last valuable
field work has been realized in 2000, when we have collected 370
subfossil samples. Half of them have been dated. Now I successfully
collect money for field work (for helicopter rent). I hope this field
season will be fruitful. Meantime we have analyzed frost- and
light-ring frequency in Yamal tree rings for the last 2100 years to
reconstruct extreme events. The later half of this reconstruction, I
hope, will be published this year in Palaeo3. Now I contracted
(together with Stepan) to write by June something like textbook on
tree-ring dating for archeologists (in Russian). Then I'm going to
return to work on Yamal chronology. It would be pleasure to keep on
our joint work.
Best regards
Rashit Hantemirov
Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
8 Marta St., 202
Ekaterinburg, 620144
Russia
Tel: +7(3432xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: +7(3432xxx xxxx xxxx
E-mail: rashit@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Monday, February 2, 2004, 1:57:37 PM, you wrote:
KB> Dear Rashit
KB> thanks for this - these people ask many questions as they try constantly to
KB> attack the global warming proponents . I answer sometimes , but it usually
KB> means they come back with many more questions. All part of science I suppose.
KB> How are you , and Stepan? I have a student working on trying to refine the
KB> RCS approach , to allow less trees and reduce bias that comes from using
KB> only recent data . Hope to get him to test new methods on your and
KB> Vaganov's data if that is OK with you . I wish to work towards a new
KB> EuroSiberian series for several millennia at least. Are you still adding
KB> new data? How are you all?
KB> 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[2]/

References

1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

Original Filename: 1075768111.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Rashit Hantemirov <rashit@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re[2]: Stephen McIntyre
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 19:28:31 +0500
Reply-to: Rashit Hantemirov <rashit@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Dear Keith,
it is very nice to hear from you.

We live and work in the old way. Stepan has been updated his woody
vegetation descriptions in the Polar Urals to reconstruct dynamics of
forest structure near upper timberline for the last century.

Because of some reasons (sometimes without any reasons) the work on
constructing Yamal chronology is going not very well. Duration of
chronology is now 7315 years (7314 BC - AD 2000). The last valuable
field work has been realized in 2000, when we have collected 370
subfossil samples. Half of them have been dated. Now I successfully
collect money for field work (for helicopter rent). I hope this field
season will be fruitful. Meantime we have analyzed frost- and
light-ring frequency in Yamal tree rings for the last 2100 years to
reconstruct extreme events. The later half of this reconstruction, I
hope, will be published this year in Palaeo3. Now I contracted
(together with Stepan) to write by June something like textbook on
tree-ring dating for archeologists (in Russian). Then I'm going to
return to work on Yamal chronology. It would be pleasure to keep on
our joint work.


Best regards

Rashit Hantemirov

Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
8 Marta St., 202
Ekaterinburg, 620144
Russia
Tel: +7(3432xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: +7(3432xxx xxxx xxxx
E-mail: rashit@xxxxxxxxx.xxx


Monday, February 2, 2004, 1:57:37 PM, you wrote:

KB> Dear Rashit

KB> thanks for this - these people ask many questions as they try constantly to
KB> attack the global warming proponents . I answer sometimes , but it usually
KB> means they come back with many more questions. All part of science I suppose.
KB> How are you , and Stepan? I have a student working on trying to refine the
KB> RCS approach , to allow less trees and reduce bias that comes from using
KB> only recent data . Hope to get him to test new methods on your and
KB> Vaganov's data if that is OK with you . I wish to work towards a new
KB> EuroSiberian series for several millennia at least. Are you still adding
KB> new data? How are you all?
KB> Keith

Original Filename: 1075836638.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Rashit Hantemirov <rashit@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re[3]: Stephen McIntyre
Date: Tue Feb 3 14:30:xxx xxxx xxxx

Rashit
thanks for these - I think you are making magnificent progress , and I wish you the very
best . I would like to see the information you mention if you do not mind . It would be
useful to compare with the long density data.
cheers again
Keith
At 07:20 PM 2/3/04 +0500, you wrote:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1251
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by alanllein.uran.ru id
i13EL9co081373
Dear Keith,
attached manuscript concerning frost and light rings has been
submitted to Paleo3 special issue (PAGES conference in Moscow in
2002). I'm still waiting for final decision.
Meantime we prepare next version of extremes reconstruction (on the
base of Yamal data only) for the last 2100 years using frost, light,
missing and very narrow rings. Unfortunately, I could not find time to
prepare even draft version of this paper. I can send to you the
picture and list of the "extreme" years for this period, if you are
interested. Now analysis is going on, little by little. Most probably,
we will prepare for publication data for longer reconstruction (up to
4000 years).
As to tree-line reconstruction, we have almost no progress. To get
more reliable reconstruction we need more samples from sites
northwards of 68

Original Filename: 1075931629.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Rashit Hantemirov <rashit@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re[4]: Stephen McIntyre
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 16:53:49 +0500
Reply-to: Rashit Hantemirov <rashit@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Dear Keith,
attached file contains results of analysis of anomalous rings in Yamal
material for 100BC - 2000 AD.

I forgot to inform you about one more thing. We have
organized data bank of Russian tree-ring chronologies.
Unfortunately (for you), in Russian.
http://ipae.uran.ru/dendrochronology/
(and then click on the icon in the bottom (in center) of page).
This databank is made for archeologists and people that need to date
woody constructions and etc. The aim is to give them information about
where and what kind of chronologies there are in Russia. For some
locations chronology is available or links to other databanks, for
others - information only. Site is still filling up. If you are
interested to see you can ask Vladimir Shishov to translate. By the
way, you can remind him about my request to place chronologies of their
lab in this bank.

Best regards

Rashit Hantemirov

Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
8 Marta St., 202
Ekaterinburg, 620144
Russia
Tel: +7(3432xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: +7(3432xxx xxxx xxxx
E-mail: rashit@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Tuesday, February 3, 2004, 7:30:38 PM, you wrote:

KB> Rashit
KB> thanks for these - I think you are making magnificent progress , and I wish
KB> you the very best . I would like to see the information you mention if you
KB> do not mind . It would be useful to compare with the long density data.
KB> cheers again
KB> Keith
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachExtreme2100.pdf"

Original Filename: 1076083097.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Peter H. Gleick" <pgleick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mearns Linda O <lmearns@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: MBH Submission (fwd)
Date: Fri Feb 6 10:58:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, N.W.Arnell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, frtca@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, d.camuffo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, scohen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pmfearn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jfoley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, harvey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ahssec@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rwk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rik.leemans@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, diana.liverman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mccarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, lindam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rmoss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ogilvie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pfister@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, barrie.pittock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pollard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, nj.rosenberg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, h.j.schellnhuber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dgvictor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, F.I.Woodward@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gyohe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, yurganov@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear All,
So now it seems that we're separating 'providing the code' from 'running the code'. I
can't
see the purpose of one without the other. Even if Mike complies I suspect there will need
to be several sessions of interaction, which neither side will be very keen on. As I said
before
I know the code will involve lots of combinations (for different periods with different
proxies).
Also I would expect, knowing the nature of the PC-type regression approach, that there
will
be library routines. If the code is sent, there needs to be conditions. We don't want
McIntyre
(MM) to come out and say he can't get it to work after a few days.
So, it is far some simple. I'm still against the code being given out. Mike has made
the
data available. That is all they should need. The method is detailed in the original
paper -
in the online (methods) and also in several other papers Mike has written.
As an aside, Mike is now using a different method from MBH98. Also, as an aside,
whilst we've been deliberating, MM have submitted another comment on MBH98 to another
journal. In this they say they have a program that replicates MBH98 (although it isn't
very convincing that they have it exactly right, as they never show a like for like
comparison) , but
most of the comment goes on about the results being different due to different
combinations of
proxies. The latter isn't surprising.
It might appear they want the code to check whether their version works properly. If
this
is the case, then there are issues of IPR. So, if they get the code, how do we stop them
using it for anything other than this review.
Cheers
Phil
At 11:40 04/02/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Peter H. Gleick wrote:

Yes, excellent point. This should be what we do. Further, we can point out that we've
bent over backward here and provided more than typically necessary in order to satisfy
persistent but inappropriate demands.
Peter
At 08:46 PM 2/4/04 +0100, Mearns Linda O wrote:

Peter et al.,
Thanks for reminding me about the new email list.
My point about the code is still that 'providing the code' can be
interpreted alot of ways. I have thought about this, and imagined if in
one of my larger and more complex projects, I was asked to provide all
code. I could do that just by sending the pieces with a summary file
explaining what each piece was used for. It still theoretically allows
someone to see how coding was done. And I do think that is a far sight
easier than providing stuff that can be run, etc. I am suggesting that
one could do the minimum. Then the point is, one isn't faced with garish
headlines about 'refusal to provide code'. I think it is harder to come
up with a garish headline about 'refusal to provide completely documented
code with appropriate readme files and handholding for running it'.
Linda

Dr. Peter H. Gleick
Director, 2003 MacArthur Fellow
Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security
654 13th Street
Oakland, California 94612
xxx xxxx xxxxphone
xxx xxxx xxxxfax
[1]www.worldwater.org (World Water site)
[2]www.pacinst.org (Pacific Institute site)

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.worldwater.org/
2. http://www.pacinst.org/

Original Filename: 1076336623.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Tas van Ommen" <tas.van.ommen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: FW: Law Dome O18
Date: Mon Feb 9 09:23:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear Tas,
Thanks for the email. Steve McIntyre hasn't contacted me directly about Law Dome
(yet), nor about any of
the series used in the 1998 Holocene paper or the 2003 GRL one with Mike. I suspect (hope)
that he won't. I
had some emails with him a few years ago when he wanted to get all the station temperature
data we use here
in CRU. At that time, I hid behind the fact that some of the data had been received from
individuals and not
directly from Met Services through the Global Telecommunications Service (GTS) or through
GCOS.
I've cc'd Mike on this, just for info. Emails have also been sent to some other paleo
people asking for
datasets used in 1998 or 2003. Keith Briffa here got one, for example. Here, they have
also been in contact with
some of Keith's Russian contacts. All seem to relate to trying to get series we've used.
In the Russian case,
issues relate to the Russian (Rashit Hantemirov) having a paper out with the same series
Keith used (for the
Yamal Peninsula). Series are different for two reasons. One Keith used the RCS
standardization method
and secondly Rashit has added some series since Keith got the data a couple of years ago.
I'll just sit tight here and do nothing. Mike will likely do the same, but we'll
expect another publication in
the nearish future.
As for the series for LD you sent us, we used it in the paper for Reviews of
Geophysics. This paper has
had 4 good reviews and we've just sent back a revised version. This will likely get
reviewed by 1 or 2 of
the same reviewers of the editor, but I think it will come out this year some time. When
it does, we
will put all the series onto a web site. Hope this is OK with you. It will unlikely be
before our summer
months.
Cheers
Phil


At 17:56 09/02/2004 +1100, you wrote:

Dear Phil,

What you will find below is (in reverse chronological order) an email interchange
between Steve McIntyre and myself. He has been asking for LD data for a while (since
your GRL paper came out) and to my chagrin, I have put him off once already, for reasons
I spell out below. For your information, I am close to submitting the full LD isotope
record, which I hope to present at SCAR Bremen, along with some interesting spectral
analyses and comparison to EPICA Dome C.

Anyway, I am aware of McIntyre's controversial history and am trying to handle things in
a non-inflammatory way. He seems not to be troubling me over my own delay, but has
asked for data that was used in your Holocene paper of 1998. For this, I have referred
him to you. I expect he wants to replicate your synthesis, and so he should use the
identical data set, and I give you permission to pass on whatever it was I gave you for
that work - with the caveat that it is representative of where the LD proxy record was
in 1997, not 2004. I leave it to you to decide how to deal with this - you may prefer
to ignore the issue, and I would understand.

Let me know if there is anything I can do to assist.

Cheers,
Tas


___________________________________________________________________
Dr Tas van Ommen, Principal Research Scientist | Postal Address:
Australian Antarctic Division and | ACE CRC
Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems CRC | Private Bag 80
Tel: +61 (xxx xxxx xxxxFax: +61 (xxx xxxx xxxx| Hobart
[1]www.antcrc.utas.edu.au/~tas | Tasmania 7001
[2]tas.van.ommen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx | Australia
___________________________________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Tas van Ommen [[3]mailto:tas.van.ommen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Monday, 9 February 2004 17:46
To: 'Steve McIntyre'
Subject: RE: Law Dome O18
Dear Stephen,

I suggest you ask Phil Jones for a copy of that older data set. Jones et al cite Morgan
and van Ommen 1997, although that data set was heavily smoothed (gaussian of rms=13
years from memory), so the one they show is not a direct version of Morgan and van Ommen
1997. I think that I provided them with a high resolution version, and from their
notation, it seems that they are using a November-April subset, but you would have to
ask Phil - especially if what you seek is to replicate their analyses. Apart from
anything else, our set has been continually in a state of development, which is why I
have not wanted to widely circulate it until now. Over this period we have had made new
measurements (which improved our layer counted dating and filled the gap that you see in
Jones et al.), retreived more cores using better technology and derived a robust
gas-tied flow-model that dates the core to 90ky. Now that the new development has
ceased, we will soon be releasing the full data set, as I have indicated to you. This is
the set I would want to see in wider use, and it is worth noting that it is essentially
the same as the portion used by Mann and Jones in their GRL paper in 2003.

All the best,

Tas

___________________________________________________________________
Dr Tas van Ommen, Principal Research Scientist | Postal Address:
Australian Antarctic Division and | ACE CRC
Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems CRC | Private Bag 80
Tel: +61 (xxx xxxx xxxxFax: +61 (xxx xxxx xxxx| Hobart
[4]www.antcrc.utas.edu.au/~tas | Tasmania 7001
[5]tas.van.ommen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx | Australia
___________________________________________________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve McIntyre [[6]mailto:stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Monday, 9 February 2004 09:46
To: Tas van Ommen
Subject: Re: Law Dome O18
There is a Law Dome O18 data set which was used in Jones et al (Holocene 1998) and
printed as a graphic. Is this one available? Regards, Steve McIntyre

----- Original Message -----
From: [7]Tas van Ommen
To: [8]'Steve McIntyre'
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 11:15 PM
Subject: RE: Law Dome O18
Dear Stephen,

The 18O data used in Mann and Jones 2003 was provided as an advance copy in 2003,
and you are welcome to have access to it and it will certainly be placed in public
archives.

The data in question is part of the full 90 ky isotope record from Law Dome, for
which a peer-reviewed dating scale has only recently been published (actually it is
in press see van Ommen et al, in press Annals of Glaciology 39 at
[9]http://www.antcrc.utas.edu.au/~tas/home/openaccess.html#vanommen04LD1). Now this
job is done, I am finalizing a paper that will allow me to release the isotope
record more widely.

It is this next paper that controls the timeframe for release to you and archives.
While I should await peer review for a release to the archives, I am happy to pass
on a copy of the data set to you on an advance basis as soon as the paper is
submitted I expect in a couple of months. You will appreciate that at this time of
the year, we in the south are in our vacation season, not to mention dealing with
our Antarctic Summer field program, so I thank you for your patience. Do check back
with me in a while if you dont hear more.

Regards,

Tas

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve McIntyre [[10]mailto:stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Sunday, 8 February 2004 6:29 AM
To: Tas Van Ommen
Subject: Law Dome O18

Dear Dr van Ommen,

some time ago I inquired as to the availability of the O18 data set which was used
in Mann and Jones 2003. Is this the same data as was used in Jones et al 1998
(Holocene) . Do you plan to archive this data? Otherwise, I would appreciate an
email copy of the data.

Thanks for your consideration.
Stephen McIntyre

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.antcrc.utas.edu.au/~tas
2. mailto:tas.van.ommen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:tas.van.ommen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. http://www.antcrc.utas.edu.au/~tas
5. mailto:tas.van.ommen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. mailto:tas.van.ommen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
9. http://www.antcrc.utas.edu.au/~tas/home/openaccess.html#vanommen04LD1
10. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Original Filename: 1076359809.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fw: Law Dome O18
Date: Mon Feb 9 15:50:xxx xxxx xxxx

Mike,
These were two simple ones to provide. Also Tas told him I had one of them. I guess
these
are the ones that aren't available on web sites.
Anyway, it is done now. If he starts asking for them in dribs and drabs, I'll baulk at
that.
Ben waded in with very positive comments re the CC issue. Steve's going to find it
very
hard to ask you to send the code. Those that say on the CC board that you should send the
code, have little idea what is involved. Most are on the social science side.
Cheers
Phil
At 10:19 09/02/2xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:

HI Phil,
Personally, I wouldn't send him anything. I have no idea what he's up to, but you can be
sure it falls into the "no good" category.
There are a few series from our '03 paper that he won't have--these include the latest
Jacoby and D'Arrigo, which I digitized from their publication (they haven't made it
publicly available) and the extended western North American series, which they wouldn't
be able to reproduce without following exactly the procedure described in our '99 GRL
paper to remove the estimated non-climatic component.
I would not give them *anything*. I would not respond or even acknowledge receipt of
their emails. There is no reason to give them any data, in my opinion, and I think we do
so at our own peril!
talk to you later,
mike
At 02:46 PM 2/9/2004 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
FYI. Sent him the two series - the as received versions. Wonder what he's up to?
Why these two series ? Used a lot more in the 1998 paper. Didn't want the Alerce
series.
Must already have the Tassy series from Ed. I know Ed has a more recent series than we
used in 1998. Got this for the 2003 work.
Cheers
Phil

From: "Steve McIntyre" <stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fw: Law Dome O18
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 08:05:xxx xxxx xxxx
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH LOGIN at
fep04-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com from [65.49.25.138] using ID
<nmcintyre77@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> at Mon, 9 Feb 2004 08:02:xxx xxxx xxxx
Dear Phil,
Tas van Ommen has refered me to you for the version of his dataset that you used in
Jones et al Holocene 1998 and I would appreicate a copy. I would also appreciate a copy
of the Lenca series used in this study. Regards, Steve McIntyre




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

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.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

Original Filename: 1083962092.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RoG Data
Date: Fri May 7 16:34:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Scott and Mike,

It's been a long week catching up from 3 weeks away. Getting another email from
McIntyre asking me for paleo data series I don't have (I'm not going to reply, by the way
even though he calls me Phil and other emails he sends me are to Dr Crowley and Dr.
Briffa who've also not replied) reminded me that I agreed with Mike to put together as
many of the series from the RoG paper onto a page on the CRU web site.
So, with this in mind, can you send me the data for the various plots. I checked the
paper and Fig 1 doesn't need anything, so this leave Figs 3 (on the boreholes), 5 (with
the various NH/SH/Global series) and 8 (with all the various model runs).
Figure 3 should be trivial as borehole data are only every 50 years. For the other
2 plots
I'm after the annual values of each series and the smoothed ones that get plotted. Hope
this
won't take too long to do. I'm going to send emails to a few people to check we can make
the
data available (mainly the modellers, but also Tas van Ommen).
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: 1083962601.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Tas van Ommen" <tas.van.ommen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Subject: RoG paper
Date: Fri May 7 16:43:xxx xxxx xxxx

Dear Tas and Caspar,

Attached is the proof version of the RoG paper with Mike Mann. This is about 99.99%
the final one. Mike and I sent back a few small changes to AGU a month or so ago. Keep
this to yourself for a while yet - I would expect the paper out sometime in the
July/August
period.
Many of us in the paleo field get requests from skeptics (mainly a guy called
Steve McIntyre in Canada) asking us for series. Mike and I are not sending anything,
partly because we don't have some of the series he wants, also partly as we've got the
data
through contacts like you, but mostly because he'll distort and misuse them.
Despite this, Mike and I would like to make as many of the series we've used in the
RoG
plots available from the CRU web page. Can we do this with the series we've got from
you? You don't have to do anything, except to reply yes or no !
Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original Filename: 1090610951.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: dwlarson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re:
Date: Fri Jul 23 15:29:xxx xxxx xxxx

Doug,
Maybe Steve sent you the two emails I've resent. Ignore my ramblings at the end of one,
but I was getting a little fed up. The Legates email is at the end, in case you're
interested.
The pdf is worth a read. Odd that he writes a press release, then starts working on a
paper.
We've very occasionally written a press release, but only after the paper has come out.
I tried to explain the 'missing' rings. They aren't missing, but due to the samples not
being right for density measurements. All Schweingruber's chronologies are constructed
this way - traditional ring width measurements aren't made. Some of the Russian groups
he's worked with have added extra ring width cores and sometime get longer series, but
all the data Keith and I work with is from Fritz, so if density is missing, then RW is
also.
Fritz did almost all the coring - 99% of the sites. We only help coring on a couple of
occasions.
This comes from alignment tracking as you say, but Fritz also says it is partly due to
the need to extract the lignin and to avoid resin. When we cored together, he was always
saying we weren't doing it properly getting twisted cores. I'm not a proper dendro
person,
as I only got into this because of Keith - it may not be lignin, but something has to be
extracted with solvents.
The Polar Urals site was collected by Fritz and Stepan Shiyatov. There are living trees
back to the 1500s and then stumps at a slightly higher elevation. Stepan has been back
more recently and regeneration is occurring at higher levels, but it is taking time. Tree
lines
take a while to respond to the recent warmth in some regions. Once the trees are
established
and not killed by frosts/snow in winter they survive even if it gets cooler. I discussed
this
in a review paper in RoG attached. The section on the issue is brief.
All the cores were collected over a couple of days. Fritz made a mistake with the
labelling
for one core and that explains the 400 years of missing values. Someone at WDCP
must have combined the cores with the same ids. Dendro people are always looking for the
oldest trees and we kept the earliest series in. Steve seems to have a thing about these
and the 10th and 11th centuries, but they are correctly dated. Fritz uses loads of plots
and pointer years and doesn't make mistakes normally. There is a very distinct year at
AD 1032. Fritz is also cross dating with LWW and EWW and other features and not just
on RW. I say not just, he normally does with density. At the coring stage Fritz had no
idea
of the ages of the stumps (well just the number of years). There may have been samples
off the front that couldn't be dated at all, for all I know. I suspect though they are
roughly
the same calendar age, as the site has distinct dates for the start of trees, which
represent
regeneration periods. Maybe you can try and explain the tree-line argument to Steve.
When he had to omit parts of cores, he was always able to know where the two parts sat
in the sequence. We need to keep them together to do things like RCS.
Anyway, I have to go home - it's been very wet lately and the grass has grown. The
lawn must be mowed when the sun shines.
Keep pushing that he should write up what he does (and Ross) in proper journals. E&E
and Climate Research are not read by many now. I only look at them when I get
alerted and I remain exasperated.
Cheers
Phil
Legates email
Phil Jones has made a valid point in that some of the articles cited
in my critique do not 'directly' address problems with Mann and Jones (MJ)
but rather, address problems with earlier works by Mann, Bradley, and
Hughes (MBH) and other colleagues. Fair enough - I have changed the
critique to reflect that fact. The revised version has been posted since
July 19 at:
[1]http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba478/ba478.pdf
However, I still contend that most of my original arguments - namely, the
problems with the shaft, blade, and sheath - apply equally to Mann and
Jones as well as the other Mann et al. manifestations of the 'hockey
stick'.
MJ incorporate data from a number of the same sources as those used
by MBH; for example, Mann's unpublished PC1 from the western North
American tree-ring data, Cook's Tasmanian tree rings, Thompson's Quelccaya
and Dunde ice core oxygen isotope records (the latter embedded in Yang's
Chinese composite), and Fisher's stacked Greenland ice core oxygen isotope
record. Calibration and verification of MJ includes the flawed MBH curve.
Thus, any errors in MBH effectively undermine the calibration-verification
results of MJ, leaving this study unsupported and any problems with the
underlying common proxies identified in critiques of MBH will also result
in identical problems in MJ.
My criticism regarding the blade is that 0.6 deg C warming for the
last century is noted by the IPCC whereas MJ (and other M et al
representations) have up to 0.95 deg C warming in their observed record.
See MJ's figure 2 where for the global and NH reconstruction, their
estimates for 2000 exceed +0.4 and +0.5 (nearly +0.6), respectively.
MJ's NH curve is included in the attached graph. Thus, I stand by my
criticism of MJ on this point, which is more egregious in MJ than other M
et al representations.
>From Jones: "The trend over the 20th century in the Figure and in the
instrumental data. IPCC quotes 0.6 deg C over the 1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod. Fact
- but Legates is eyeballing the curve to get 0.95 deg C. A figure isn't
given in Mann and Jones (2003). Take it from me the trend is about the
same as the instrumental record."
Funny, but there IS a figure in MJ - see their Figure 2. As for me
'eyeballing' an apparently non-existent curve, I attach a figure from Soon
et al. (2004) that contains a portion of MJ's Figure 2 to allow others to
decide for themselves whether MJ suggest a twentieth century warming of
0.6 deg C or 0.95 deg C. Moreover, maybe someone can explain why every
time Mann and his colleagues draft another curve, the temperature in 2000
gets warmer and warmer after the fact...
My criticisms regarding the sheath (largely from a paper on which I
am working) stem from the characterization of the uncertainty by MJ that
arises solely from the 'fit' statistics to the 1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod using
cross-validation with, not observations, but composites of three
previously compiled reconstructions, including that developed by MBH - the
focus of known flaws and errors in the shaft. Note that some of the same
data are used in both MBH and MJ, which doesn't allow for a truly
independent cross-validation. My rather obvious point was not that fit
statistics should not be included (as Jones asserts) but that MJ included
no errors in either input realization (observations or proxy data) or
other obvious sources of error. The claim by MBH and MJ is that only the
model lack-of-fit contributes to uncertainty is inherently flawed.
Considerable errors exist in the representation of both fields -
annual temperatures from both observations and proxy records - and must be
incorporated. Clearly, there is a spatial bias associated with
observations that are biased away from the oceans, high latitudes, and
high altitudes. The spatial problem is far more pronounced when only a
handful of proxies are used to represent the global temperatures at
earlier time periods. Both MBH and MJ are equally guilty in this regard.
David R. Legates
Several people have asked me for the full references to the works I have
cited. They are:
Chapman, D.S., M.G. Bartlett, and R.N. Harris (2004): Comment on 'Ground
vs. surface air temperature trends: Implications for borehole surface
temperature reconstructions' by M.E. Mann and G. Schmidt. Geophysical
Research Letters, 31, L07205, doi:10.1029/2003GL019054.
Esper, J, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002): Low-frequency signals
in long tree-ring chronologies for reconstructing past temperature
variability, Science, 295, 2xxx xxxx xxxx.
Esper, J, D.C. Frank, and R.J.S. Wilson (2004): Climate reconstructions:
Low-frequency ambition and high-frequency ratification. EOS, Transactions
of the American Geophysical Union, Vol. 85 (12):113,120.
IPCC TAR (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Third Assessment
Report) (2001): Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Houghton,
J.T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D.J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P. J., Dai, X.,
Maskell, K., Johnson, C.A. (Eds.), Cambridge University Press.
Mann, M.E., R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1998): Global-Scale
Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries,
Nature, 392, xxx xxxx xxxx. [see also the correction in Nature - Mann, Bradley,
and Hughes, 2004]
Mann, M.E., R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999): Northern Hemisphere
Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and
Limitations. Geophysical Research Letters, 26, xxx xxxx xxxx.
Mann, M.E., and P.D. Jones (2003): Global surface temperature over the
past two millennia, Geophysical Research Letters, 30(15), 1820, doi:
10.1029/2003GL017814.
Mann, M.E., and G. Schmidt (2003): Ground vs. surface air temperature
trends: Implications for borehole surface temperature reconstructions.
Geophysical Research Letters, 30(12), 1607, doi:10.1029/2003GL017170.
McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick (2003): Corrections to the Mann et al
(1998) Proxy Data Based and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature
Series. Energy and Environment, 14, xxx xxxx xxxx.
Pollack, H.N., and J.E. Smerdon (2004): Borehole climate reconstructions:
Spatial structure and hemispheric averages. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 109, D11106, doi:10.1029/2003JD004163.
Rutherford, S., and M.E. Mann (2004): Correction to 'Optimal surface
temperature reconstructions using terrestrial borehole data'. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 109, D11107, doi:10.1029/2003JD004290.
Soon, W.-H., S.L. Baliunas, C. Idso, S. Idso, and D.R. Legates (2003):
Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years:
A Reappraisal. Energy and Environment, 14:xxx xxxx xxxx.
Soon, W.-H., D.R. Legates, and S.L. Baliunas (2004): Estimation and
Representation of Long-Term (>40 year) trends of
Northern-Hemisphere-gridded Surface Temperature: A Note of Caution.
Geophysical Research Letters, 31(3).

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

1. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba478/ba478.pdf

Original Filename: 1102956436.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: email #1: some background info first...
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:47:xxx xxxx xxxx

HI Keith,
Thanks again for your phone call, and the (informal) opportunity to help out where I can.
I'm perfectly happy in that role (as an informal contributor and a formal reviewer, for
example), if you and Peck, for example, are both comfortable with that.
First, "RealClimate" should be helpful. It deals w/ the skeptic claims, etc. but using the
legitimate
peer-reviewed research as a basis for the discussion.
The "hockey stick" overview should be helpful:
[1]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=7
as well as itemized esponses to the various contrarian propaganda/myths:
[2]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11
and the specific discrediting of the claims of McIntyre and McKitrick, based both on our
response to their rejected Nature comment:
[3]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8
and the discussion of the analysis in the Rutherford et al (2004) paper in press in Journal
of Climate, that independently discredits them:
[4]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=10
In the following emails, I'll attach some other materials (submitted papers) that deal w/
the McIntyre and Mckitrick matter, and the von Storch matter,
Please let me know if there is anything we discussed that I forget to provide you. Will
also draft an email to the small group (you, me, Scott, Caspar, Gene) about the prospective
additional RegEM/Mann et al method model analyses,
cheers,
Mike

______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[5]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

References

1. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=7
2. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11
3. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8
4. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=10
5. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

Original Filename: 1102956446.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: email #2: paper in review in J. Climate (as a letter), discrediting McIntyre and McKitrick
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:47:xxx xxxx xxxx

Keith,
This paper is in review, and can be referred to (just clear w/ Caspar or Gene first) for
IPCC draft purposes. They basically show that the McIntyre and McKitrick paper is total
crap, and they provide an online version of the Mann et al method (and the proxy data), so
individuals can confirm for themselves...
Mike

______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachWahl_MBH_Recreation_JClimLett_Nov22.pdf"

References

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

Original Filename: 1104855751.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: Re: Fw: Rutherford et al. [2004]
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 11:22:31 +0000

FYI.
Just look at the attachment. Don't refer to it or send it on to anybody
yet. I guess you could refer to it in the IPCC Chapter - you will have to
some day !
Cheers
Phil

X-Sender: mem6u@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.1.1
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 09:22:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fw: Rutherford et al. [2004]
X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-UEA-MailScanner-SpamScore: s
Phil,
I would immediately delete anything you receive from this fraud.
You've probably seen now the paper by Wahl and Ammann which independently exposes
McIntyre and McKitrick for what it is--pure crap. Of course, we've already done this on
"RealClimate", but Wahl and Ammann is peer-reviewed and independent of us. I've attached
it in case you haven't seen (please don't pass it along to others yet). It should be in
press shortly. Meanwhile, I would NOT RESPOND to this guy. As you know, only bad things
can come of that. The last thing this guy cares about is honest debate--he is funded by
the same people as Singer, Michaels, etc...
Other than this distraction, I hope you're enjoying the holidays too...
talk to you soon,
mike
At 09:02 AM 12/30/2004, you wrote:

Mike,
FYI. Just in for an hour or so today as still off until Jan 4.
Not replied to this - too much else with IPCC etc. Not read this
in detail - just printed it off.
Have a good New Year's Eve.
Cheers
Phil

From: "Steve McIntyre" <stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fw: Rutherford et al. [2004]
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:08:xxx xxxx xxxx
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Dear Phil,

I have noticed the following statements in Rutherford et al [2004], in which you are a
co-author. As compared with some of your co-authors, I get the impression that, while
you feel very strongly about your views, you are also concerned with getting to the
bottom of matters and are less concerned with scoring meaningless debating points. In
this spirit, I draw your attention to some incorrect statements in Rutherford et al.
[2004] concerning our material. There is really a quite serious problem with the PC
methods in MBH98 and the comments made in Rutherford et al [2004] are really quite
misleading. For the reasons set out below, I request that these comments be removed from
the manuscript.

Regards, Steve McIntyre



----- Original Message -----
From: [1]Steve McIntyre
To: [2]David Randall
Cc: [3]Scott Rutherford ; [4]Paul Kushner ; [5]Cindy Carrick ; [6]Ross McKitrick
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 1:48 PM
Subject: Rutherford et al. [2004]
Dear Dr. Randall,

Recently, at the website [7]www.realclimate.org, Michael Mann publicized a submission by
Rutherford et al. to Journal of Climate, entitled Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere
Surface Temperature Reconstructions: Sensitivity to Method, Predictor Network, Target
Season, and Target Domain. This paper contains some untrue statements and
mischaracterizations regarding criticisms we (McIntyre and McKitrick) made of Mann et
al. (1998) [MBH98] in a 2003 paper and subsequent exchanges under the auspices of
Nature. We are writing to request that these untrue statements be removed from the paper
before any further processing of the document by Journal of Climate takes place.

First, Rutherford et al. states that McIntyre and McKitrick [2003] used an incorrect
version of the Mann et al. (1998) proxy indicator dataset. The history of this matter is
summarized below (all relevant emails and other documentation are available at
[8]http://www.climate2003.com/file.issues.htm .

In April 2003, we requested from Mann the FTP location of the dataset used in MBH98.
Mann advised me that he was unable to recall the location of this dataset and referred
the request to Rutherford. Rutherford eventually directed us to a file (pcproxy.txt)
located at a URL at Manns FTP site. In using this data file, we noticed numerous
problems with it, not least with the principal component series. We sought specific
confirmation from Mann that this dataset was the one used in MBH98; Mann said that he
was too busy to respond to this or any other inquiry. Because of the many problems in
this data set, we undertook a complete new re-collation of the data, using the list of
data sources in the SI to MBH98 and using original archived versions wherever possible.
After publication of McIntyre and McKitrick [2003], Mann said that dataset at his FTP
site to which we had been referred was an incorrect version of the data and that this
version had been prepared especially for me; through a blog, he provided a new URL which
he now claimed to contain the correct data set. The file creation date of the incorrect
version was in 2002, long prior to my first request for data, clearly disproving his
assertion that it was prepared in response to my request. Mann and/or Rutherford then
deleted this incorrect version with its date evidence from his FTP site.

It is false and misleading for Rutherford et al. to now allege that we used the wrong
dataset. We used the dataset they directed us to at their FTP site. More importantly,
for our analysis, to avoid the problems with the principal component series, we
re-collated the tree ring data identified in MBH98 from ITRDB archives, calculated fresh
principal component series; in addition, we re-collated other proxy data from archived
versions wherever possible. Thus, our own calculations were not affected by the errors
in the supplied file as we did NOT use the incorrect version in our calculations. To
suggest otherwise, as is done in Rutherford et al [2004], is highly misleading. To date,
no source code or other evidence has been provided to fully demonstrate that the
incorrect version (now deleted) did not infect some of Manns and Rutherfords other work.
In this respect, we note that the now deleted file pcproxy.txt occurs in a legend in a
graphic at Rutherfords website, indicating possible use elsewhere by Rutherford of the
incorrect version.

Accordingly, we request that the above claim be removed from the manuscript.

Secondly, Rutherford et al. [2004] argues that the difference between MBH98 results and
MM03 results occurs because of our misunderstanding of a stepwise procedure in MBH98 for
the calculation of principal component series for tree ring networks. Again, this claim
is misleading on its face. While our 2003 paper did not implement the (then undisclosed)
stepwise procedure, as soon as this matter was raised in subsequent correspondence in
November 2003, we implemented it and we continued to observe the discrepancies in
principal component series and final results. The current manuscript ignores a refereed
exchange at Nature in which we specifically clarified (in response to a reviewers
question) that we had obtained such results while using the exact stepwise procedure
described in MBH98. Mann is aware of this refereed exchange.

The reason for the difference between our results and MBH98 results is primarily due to
the fact that the tree ring principal component series in MBH98 cannot be replicated
using a conventional principal components method. The MBH98 principal component series
can only be replicated by standardizing on a short segment a procedure nowhere mentioned
in MBH98 and only recently acknowledged in the SI to the Corrigendum of Mann et al.
[Nature 2004] in response to our concerns on the subject expressed to Nature. In
effect, MBH98 did not use a conventional centered PC calculation, but used an uncentered
PC calculation on de-centered data. The impact of this method is the subject of ongoing
controversy, which is well-known to the authors, but the existence of the method in
MBH98 is no longer in doubt. In discussions of PC calculations in 2004 exchanged with
the authors through Nature, we implemented the stepwise procedures of MBH98 referred to
in the present manuscript and demonstrated that important differences remain even with
stepwise procedures, as long as the uncentered and decentered methods of MBH98 are
used. The differences in PC series resulting from using centered and uncentered series
has been fully agreed to by all parties in the Nature exchange, although the parties
continue to disagree on the ultimate effect on final NH temperature calculations.
Accordingly, the discussion in Rutherford et al. [2004] is very incomplete and
misleading in this respect. While we recognize that Mann et al. have argued that they
can salvage MBH98-type results using alternative methodologies (e.g. increasing the
number of PC series used in the 1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod), these salvage efforts are themselves
a matter of controversy and do not validate the claims being put forward in the
Rutherford et al. paper.

Accordingly we ask that this claim also be deleted from the manuscript.

Regards,
Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick


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
[9]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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment Converted: "c:documents and settingstim osbornmy
documentseudoraattachWahl_MBH_Recreation_JClimLett_Nov22.pdf"

References

1. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:randall@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:j.climate@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:cindy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:rmckitri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. http://www.realclimate.org/
8. http://www.climate2003.com/file.issues.htm
9. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

Original Filename: 1104893567.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] IPCC last 2000 years data
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 21:52:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, cddhr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Hi Keith - Happy new year. Hopefully, you had a good holiday. I've had a chance to read
your section and hopefully you've had a chance to read what I sent just before the
holidays. The purpose of this email is to help get a focus on the finish line (just a few
days away) and to get a dialog going that will hopefully help you finish section 6.3.2.1.
If you'd like to talk on the phone, just let me know.

Please see my email from right before xmas holidays for original comments. Plus, here are
the new ones from both me and David Rind:

0) as leader of this KEY section, we need you to take the lead integrating everything you
think should be integrated, editing and boiling it down to just ca 4 pages of final text
(e.g., 8 pages of typed text plus figs). This means cutting some material (e.g., forcings
and simulations) and perhaps moving glacier record (MUCH boiled down) to a box. See below.
00) note that we can also perhaps move some of the details to the appendix (although we
won't write this until after the current ZOD crunch, save an outline of what you might want
in there).
1) I like your figure ideas, with the comments:
1a) I don't think you need figure 1d - the SH recons are sketchy since not much data, and
it might be better to just discuss in a sentence or three. Any space saved is good too. Not
sure about your proposed 1e - have to see it, I guess.
1b) Figure 2 looks interesting. I'm trying to get the latest Arctic recon from Konrad
Hughen - it is quite robust and a significant multi-proxy update. Should be published in
time, though not sure thing since he's still hot on including his (our) AO recon which is
more sketchy
1c) I think we can save space and improve organization if we DO NOT include Fig 3. However,
this is open for debate - see David's comments below.
2) I agree with David's comments in general - so see them below. The prickly issue is where
to put the forcings and simulated changes. I am close to having the prose from the
radiation chapter, including the latest Lean and Co's view on solar - this will make many
of the existing simulations involving inferred past solar forcing suspect (I will send in a
day or so I hope). This means that we might be best saving space and downplaying this work
some. I'm not sure, but wanted to debate it with you. Also, Chap 9 will have simulations in
spades, so we can save space by letting them do it. Also, as David points out, we can focus
on it elsewhere in our chapter more concisely - leaving you to focus on the VERY important
obs record of temp and other changes. Can you tell, I'm still not 100% sure? I'll send
another email to you and others about this in a bit.
3) Your section is too long and needs to be condensed. Thus, you need to think through
what's most important and what's less so. For example, we need to figure out how to
condense the glacier record of change. David thinks it should be a separate section that
cuts across time scales (i.e., Holocene and last 2000 years). Perhaps we should try to make
it into a box - 3 to 5 short paragraphs and a figure or two. Either way we have to really
wack it. What do you think - you and I should be on the same page with Eystein before
discussing w/ Olga perhaps. Or you can discuss with her - you're the lead on this section.
4) you're doing an impressive job! Lots to keep track of.
Next, here is what David has offered. Take it all with a grain of salt, but I have read it
and he has many good points. On the structural or any other points, I'm happy to discuss on
the phone, or you can just debate with him and me on email.
******* From David Rind 1/4/05 ****************
6.3 Understanding Past Climate System Change (forcing and response)
6.3.1 Introduction (0.5 pages)
6.3.2 The Current Interglacial
6.3.2.1 Last 2000 years (4 pages)
Figure 1 should be of the last 2000 years, with appropriate caveats, not just since 1860
(which will undoubtedly be in other chapters).

pp. 8-18: The biggest problem with what appears here is in the handling of the greater
variability found in some reconstructions, and the whole discussion of the 'hockey stick'.
The tone is defensive, and worse, it both minimizes and avoids the problems. We should
clearly say (e.g., page 12 middle paragraph) that there are substantial uncertainties that
remain concerning the degree of variability - warming prior to 12K BP, and cooling during
the LIA, due primarily to the use of paleo-indicators of uncertain applicability, and the
lack of global (especially tropical) data. Attempting to avoid such statements will just
cause more problems.
In addition, some of the comments are probably wrong - the warm-season bias (p.12) should
if anything produce less variability, since warm seasons (at least in GCMs) feature smaller
climate changes than cold seasons. The discussion of uncertainties in tree ring
reconstructions should be direct, not referred to other references - it's important for
this document. How the long-term growth is factored in/out should be mentioned as a prime
problem. The lack of tropical data - a few corals prior to 1700 - has got to be discussed.
The primary criticism of McIntyre and McKitrick, which has gotten a lot of play on the
Internet, is that Mann et al. transformed each tree ring prior to calculating PCs by
subtracting the 1xxx xxxx xxxxmean, rather than using the length of the full time series (e.g.,
1xxx xxxx xxxx), as is generally done. M&M claim that when they used that procedure with a red
noise spectrum, it always resulted in a 'hockey stick'. Is this true? If so, it constitutes
a devastating criticism of the approach; if not, it should be refuted. While IPCC cannot be
expected to respond to every criticism a priori, this one has gotten such publicity it
would be foolhardy to avoid it.
In addition, there are other valid criticisms to the PC approach. Assuming that the PC
structure stays the same was acknowledged in the Mann et al paper as somewhat risky, given
the possibility of altered climate forcing (e.g., solar). Attempting to reconstruct
tropical temperatures using high latitude PCs assumes that the PCs are influenced only by
global scale processes. In a paper we now have in review in JGR, and in other papers
already published, it is shown that high latitude climate changes can directly affect the
local expression of the modes of variability (NAO in particular). So attempting to fill in
data at other locations from PCs that could have local influences may not work well; at the
least, it has large uncertainties associated with it.
The section from p.xxx xxxx xxxxsimulations of temperature change over the last millennium ,
including regional expressions - should not be in this section. It is covered in the
modeling section (several different times), and will undoubtedly be in other chapters as
well. And the first paragraph on p. 19 is not right - only by using different forcings have
models been able to get similar responses (which does not constitute good agreement). The
discussion in the first paragraph of p. 20 is not right - the dynamic response is almost
entirely in winter, which would not have affected the 'warm season bias'
paleoreconstructions used to prove it. It also conflicts with ocean data (Gerard Bond,
personal communication). Anyway, it's part of the section that should be dropped.
pp. 20-28: The glacial variations should be summarized in a coherentglobal picture.
Variations as a function of time should be noted - not just lumped together between 1400
and 1850 - for example, it should be noted where glaciers advanced during the 17th century
and retreated during the 19th century, for that is important in understanding possible
causes for the Little Ice Age (as well as the validity of the 'hockey stick'). The
discussion on the bottom of p.xxx xxxx xxxxas to the causes of the variations is inappropriate
and should be dropped - note if solar forcing is suspect, every paragraph that relates
observed changes to solar forcing will be equally suspect (e.g., see also p. 44, first
paragraph).
Bottom of p. 27: Greene et al. (GRL, 26, 1xxx xxxx xxxx, 1999) did an analysis of 52 glaciated
areas from 30-60N and found that the highest correlation between their ELA variations in
the last 40 years was with summer season freezing height and winter season precip. The warm
season freezing height was by far more important. Therefore, the relationship of glacier
variations to NAO changes (which are important only in winter), as discussed in this
paragraph, while perhaps valid for a period of time in southern Norway, is not generally
applicable.

p. xxx xxxx xxxxon forcings: note that this is redundant to what is discussed in several later
sections (e.g., 6.5.2); and other chapters), and that is true of forcing in general for the
whole of section 6.2. I would strongly suggest dropping forcing from section 6.3.2.1, at
least, and perhaps giving it its own number, or referring to othersubsections for it. It
has a different flavor from the responses, and the section is already very big. Forcing
does need to be discussed in the paleoclimate chapter, for reasons of climate sensitivity
and explaining observations, but that is what Chapter 6.5 is about.
(In summary - 6.3.2.1 already is taking on one controversy - paleotemperatures, which is
needs to do better, It should not have to deal with the forcing problems as well, and
especially not in an off-handed way.)
Specific comments: p. 36: 6 ppm corresponds to a temperature response of 0.3 to 0.6

Original Filename: 1106322460.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Your concerns with 2004GL021750 McIntyre
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:47:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Michael E. Mann wrote:

> Hi Malcolm,
>
> This assumes that the editor/s in question would act in good faith.
> I'm not convinced of this.
>
> I don't believe a response in GRL is warranted in any case. The MM
> claims in question are debunked in other papers that are in press and
> in review elsewhere. I'm not sure that GRL can be seen as an honest
> broker in these debates anymore, and it is probably best to do an end
> run around GRL now where possible. They have published far too many
> deeply flawed contrarian papers in the past year or so. There is no
> possible excuse for them publishing all 3 Douglass papers and the Soon
> et al paper. These were all pure crap.
>
> There appears to be a more fundamental problem w/ GRL now,
> unfortunately...
>
> Mike
>
> At 08:47 PM 1/20/2005, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
>
>> Mike - I found this sentence in the reply from the GRL
>> Editor-in-Chief to be
>> interesting:
>> "As this manuscript was not written as a Comment, but rather as
>> a full-up scientific manuscript, you would not in general be asked to
>> look it over."
>> Does it not then follow that if you were to challenge their "work" in
>> a "full-
>> up scientific manuscript", but not as a "Comment" it, too, should be
>> reviewed
>> without reference to MM?
>> Maybe the editor-in-chief should be asked if this is the case, or simply
>> challenged by a submission?
>> Cheers, Malcolm
>> Quoting "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks Tom,
>> >
>> >
>> > Yeah, basically this is just a heads up to people that something
>> might be
>> > up here. What a shame that would be. It's one thing to lose "Climate
>> > Research". We can't afford to lose GRL. I think it would be
>> > useful if people begin to record their experiences w/ both Saiers and
>> > potentially Mackwell (I don't know him--he would seem to be
>> complicit w/
>> > what is going on here).
>> >
>> >
>> > If there is a clear body of evidence that something is amiss, it
>> could be
>> > taken through the proper channels. I don't that the entire AGU
>> hierarchy
>> > has yet been compromised!
>> >
>> >
>> > The GRL article simply parrots the rejected Nature comment--little
>> > substantial difference that I can see at all.
>> >
>> >
>> > Will keep you all posted of any relevant developments,
>> >
>> >
>> > mike
>> >
>> >
>> > At 04:30 PM 1/20/2005, Tom Wigley wrote:
>> >
>> > Mike,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > This is truly awful. GRL has gone downhill rapidly in recent years.
>> > I
>> >
>> > think the decline began before Saiers. I have had some unhelpful
>> >
>> > dealings with him recently with regard to a paper Sarah and I have
>> >
>> > on glaciers -- it was well received by the referees, and so is in
>> > the
>> >
>> > publication pipeline. However, I got the impression that Saiers was
>> >
>> > trying to keep it from being published.
>> >
>> >
>> > Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that
>> > Saiers
>> >
>> > is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find
>> > documentary
>> >
>> > evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get
>> >
>> > him ousted. Even this would be difficult.
>> >
>> >
>> > How different is the GRL paper from the Nature paper? Did the
>> >
>> > authors counter any of the criticisms? My experience with Douglass
>> >
>> > is that the identical (bar format changes) paper to one previously
>> >
>> > rejected was submitted to GRL.
>> >
>> >
>> > Tom.
>> >
>> > ===============
>> >
>> >
>> > Michael E. Mann wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear All,
>> >
>> >
>> > Just a heads up. Apparently, the contrarians now have an
>> > "in" with GRL. This guy Saiers has a prior connection w/ the
>> > University of Virginia Dept. of Environmental Sciences that causes me
>> > some unease.
>> >
>> >
>> > I think we now know how the various Douglass et al papers w/
>> Michaels and
>> > Singer, the Soon et al paper, and now this one have gotten published in
>> > GRL,
>> >
>> >
>> > Mike
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Subject: Your concerns with
>> > 2004GL021750 McIntyre
>> >
>> > Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:42:xxx xxxx xxxx
>> >
>> > X-MS-Has-Attach:
>> >
>> > X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
>> >
>> > Thread-Topic: Your concerns with 2004GL021750 McIntyre
>> >
>> > Thread-Index: AcT/MITTfwM54m4OS32mJvW4BluE+A==
>> >
>> > From: "Mackwell, Stephen"
>> > <mackwell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> >
>> > To:
>> > <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> >
>> > Cc: <cjr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
>> > <james.saiers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> >
>> > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jan 2005 20:42:12.0740 (UTC)
>> > FILETIME=[84F55440:01C4FF30]
>> >
>> > X-UVA-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at fork7.mail.virginia.edu
>> >
>> > X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by
>> multiproxy.evsc.Virginia.EDU
>> > id j0KKgLO11138
>> >
>> >
>> > Dear Prof. Mann
>> >
>> > In your recent email to Chris Reason, you laid out your concerns that I
>> > presume were the reason for your phone call to me last week. I have
>> > reviewed the manuscript by McIntyre, as well as the reviews. The editor
>> > in this case was Prof. James Saiers. He did note initially that the
>> > manuscript did challenge published work, and so felt the need for an
>> > extensive and thorough review. For that reason, he requested
>> reviews from
>> > 3 knowledgable scientists. All three reviews recommended
>> > publication.
>> >
>> > While I do agree that this manuscript does challenge (somewhat
>> > aggresively) some of your past work, I do not feel that it takes a
>> > particularly harsh tone. On the other hand, I can understand your
>> > reaction. As this manuscript was not written as a Comment, but
>> rather as
>> > a full-up scientific manuscript, you would not in general be asked to
>> > look it over. And I am satisfied by the credentials of the reviewers.
>> > Thus, I do not feel that we have sufficient reason to interfere in the
>> > timely publication of this work.
>> >
>> > However, you are perfectly in your rights to write a Comment, in which
>> > you challenge the authors' arguments and assertions. Should you
>> elect to
>> > do this, your Comment would be provided to them and they would be
>> offered
>> > the chance to write a Reply. Both Comment and Reply would then be
>> > reviewed and published together (if they survived the review process).
>> > Comments are limited to the equivalent of 2 journal pages.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> > Steve Mackwell
>> >
>> > Editor in Chief, GRL
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ______________________________________________________________
>> >
>> >
>> > 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
>> >
>> > ______________________________________________________________
>> >
>> >
>> > Professor Michael E. Mann
>> >
>> > Department
>> > of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
>> >
>> >
>> > University of Virginia
>> >
>> >
>> > Charlottesville, VA 22903
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________________________________
>> >
>> > e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
>> > FAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
>> >
>> >
>> > 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
> http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
>
Hi Mike - of course we shouldn't make that assumption. If the issues are
being dealt with elsewhere in the peer-reviewed literature soon (in time
for IPCC to be aware of them) then there would be no reason for a
riposte in GRL. Even so, it might be worth putting the hypothetical case
to the Editor-in-Chief to test his response. Cheers, Malcolm
</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1107899057.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: Re: FW: "hockey stock" methodology misleading
Date: Tue Feb 8 16:44:xxx xxxx xxxx

X-Sender: mem6u@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.1.1
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 16:04:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
tom crowley <tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, tom crowley <tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: Re: FW: "hockey stock" methodology misleading
X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-UEA-MailScanner-SpamScore: s
sorry, forgot to attach the paper...
mike

Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:54:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tom Crowley, Tom Crowley,
mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: Re: FW: "hockey stock" methodology misleading

Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:52:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: Andy Revkin <anrevk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: FW: "hockey stock" methodology misleading
Hi Andy,
The McIntyre and McKitrick paper is pure scientific fraud. I think you'll find this
reinforced by just about any legitimate scientist in our field you discuss this with.
Please see the RealClimate response:
[1]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=111
and also:
[2]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=114
The Moberg et al paper is at least real science. But there are some real problems with
it (you'll want to followup w/ people like Phil Jones for a 2nd opinion).
While the paper actually reinforces the main conclusion of previous studies (it also
finds the late 20th century to be the warmest period of the past two millennia), it
challenges various reconstructions
using tree-ring information (which includes us, but several others such as Jones et al,
Crowley, etc). I'm pretty sure, by the way, that a very similar version of the paper was
rejected previously by Science. A number of us are therefore very surprised that Nature
is publishing it, given a number of serious problems:
Their method for combining frequencies is problematic and untested:
A. they only use a handful of records, so there is a potentially large sampling bias.
B. worse, they use different records for high-frequencies and low-frequencies, so the
bias isn't even the same--the reconstruction is apples and oranges.
C. The wavelet method is problematic. We have found in our own work that you cannot
simply combine the content in different at like frequencies, because different proxies
have different signal vs. noise characteristics at different frequencies--for some
records, there century-scale variability is likely to be pure noise. They end up
therfore weighting noise as much as signal. For some of the records used, there are real
age model problems. The timescale isn't known to better than +/- a couple hundred years
in several cases. So when they average these records together, the century-scale
variability is likely to be nonsense.
D. They didn't do statistical verification. This is absolutely essential for such
reconstructions (see e.g. the recent Cook et al and Luterbacher et al papers in
Science). They should have validated their reconstruction against long-instrumental
records, as we and many others have. Without having done so, there is no reason to
believe the reconstruction has any reliability. This is a major problem w/ the paper. It
is complicated by the fact that they don't produce a pattern, but just a hemispheric
mean--that makes it difficult to do a long-term verification. But they don't attempt any
sort of verification at all! There are some decades known to be warm from the available
instrumental records (1730s, some in the 16th century) which the Moberg reconstruction
completely misses--the reconstruction gives the impression that all years are cold
between 1500 and 1750. The reconstruction would almost certainly fail cross-validation
against long instrumental records. If so, it is an unreliable estimate of past changes.
We're surprised the Nature Reviewers didn't catch this.
E. They also didn't validate their method against a model (where I believe it would
likely fail). We have done so w/ our own "hybrid frequency-domain" method that combines
information separately at low and high-frequencies, but taking into account the problem
mentioned above. This is described in:
Rutherford, S., Mann, M.E., Osborn, T.J., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Hughes, M.K.,
Jones, P.D., [3]Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Reconstructions:
Sensitivity to Methodology, Predictor Network, Target Season and Target Domain, Journal
of Climate, in press (2005).
In work that is provisionally accepted in "Journal of Climate" (draft attached), we show
that our method gives the correct history using noisy "pseudoproxy" records derived from
a climate model simulation with large past changes in radiative forcing. Moberg et al
have not tested their method in such a manner.
F. They argue selectively for favorable comparison w/ other work:
(1) Esper et al: when authors rescaled the reconstruction using the full instrumental
record (Cook et al, 2004), they found it to be far more similar to Mann et al, Crowley
and Lowery, Jones et al, and the roughly dozen or so other empirical and model estimates
consistent w/ it. Several studies, moreover [see e.g.: Shindell, D.T., Schmidt, G.A.,
Mann, M.E., Faluvegi, G., [4]Dynamic winter climate response to large tropical volcanic
eruptions since 1600, Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, D05104, doi:
10.1029/2003JD004151, 2004.] show that extratropical, land-only summer temperatures,
which Esper et al emphasises, are likely to biased towards greater variability--so its
an apples and oranges comparison anyway.
(2) von Storch et al: There are some well known problems here: (a) their forcing is way
too large (Foukal at al in Science a couple months back indicates maybe 5 times too
large), DKMI uses same model, more conventional forcings, and get half the amplitude and
another paper submitted recently by the Belgium modeling group suggests that some severe
spin-up/initialization problems give the large century-scale swings in the model--these
are not reproducible.
(3) Boreholes: They argue that Boreholes are "physical measurements" but many papers in
the published literature have detailed the various biases in using continental ground
surface temperature to estimate past surface air temperature changes--changing snow
cover gives rise to a potentially huge bias (see e.g. : Mann, M.E., Schmidt, G.A.,
[5]Ground vs. Surface Air Temperature Trends: Implications for Borehole Surface
Temperature Reconstructions,Geophysical Research Letters, 30 (12), 1607, doi:
10.1029/2003GL017170, 2003).
Methods that try to correct for this give smaller amplitude changes from borehole
temperatures:
Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., Keimig, F.T., [6]Optimal
Surface Temperature Reconstructions using Terrestrial Borehole Data, Journal of
Geophysical Research, 108 (D7), 4203, doi: 10.1029/2002JD002532, 2003]
[[7]Correction(Rutherford and Mann, 2004)]
Most reconstructions and model estimates still *sandwich" the Mann et al reconstruction.
See e.g. figure 5 in: Jones, P.D., Mann, M.E., [8]Climate Over Past Millennia, Reviews
of Geophysics, 42, RG2002, doi: 10.1029/2003RG000143, 2004.
Ironically, MM say our 15th century is too cold, while Moberg et al say its too warm.
Hmmm....
To recap, I hope you don't mention MM at all. It really doesn't deserve any additional
publicity. Moberg et al is more deserving of discussion, but, as outlined above, there
are some real problems w/ it. I have reason to believe that Nature's own commentary by
Schiermeier will actually be somewhat critical of it.
I'm travelling and largely unavailable until monday. If you need to talk, you can
possibly reach me at xxx xxxx xxxxover the weekend.
I hope this is of some help. Literally got to run now...
mike
At 02:14 PM 2/4/2005, Andy Revkin wrote:

Hi all,
There is a fascinating paper coming in Nature next week (Moberg of Stockholm Univ., et
al) that uses mix of sediment and tree ring data to get a new view of last 2,000 years.
Very warped hockeystick shaft (centuries-scale variability very large) but still
pronounced 'unusual' 1990's blade.
i'd like your reaction/thoughts for story i'll write for next thursday's Times.
also, is there anything about the GRL paper forthcoming from Mc & Mc that warrants a
response?
I can send you the Nature paper as pdf if you agree not to redistribute it (you know the
embargo rules).
that ok?
thanks for getting in touch!
andy

______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[9]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[10]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[11]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.

Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[12]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

References

1. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=111
2. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=114
3. http://www.realclimate.org/RuthetalJClim2004.pdf
4. ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/Shindelletal-jgr04.pdf
5. ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/gissgst03.pdf
6. ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/borehole-jgr03.pdf
7. http://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/shared/articles/JGRBoreholeCorrection04.pdf
8. ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/JonesMannROG04.pdf
9. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
10. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
11. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
12. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

Original Filename: 1109018144.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: Re: Canadians and the Millennium
Date: Mon Feb 21 15:35:xxx xxxx xxxx

Mike,
FYI only - here is a reply from Francis. He's still onside,
just stuck learning French.
Cheers
Phil

X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 07:14:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: Francis Zwiers <Francis.Zwiers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Canadians and the Millennium
Cc: "francis.zwiers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <francis.zwiers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Hi Phil,
At 02:29 21/02/2005, you wrote:

Francis,

Been away for the last week and off again tomorrow for the rest of this week.
I was surprised to see comments from you in WSJ saying that McIntyre and
McKittrick were likely right and the Mann reconstruction is wrong. I hope it is
a case of misreporting !

Well, this isn't what I said, and its also not what is reported in the WJS article. The
article quotes me as saying that the technique preferentially produces hockey sticks
(actually, I *think* I said that it preferentially produces PC1s with hockey stick
shapes, but that's a distinction that may have escaped the reporter - or I may have
miss-spoken). In any case, this does not mean that the general form of the
reconstruction (illustrating the unusual nature of the 20th century) is wrong - and I
went to pains in the interview to also make that point.

The nearest composite reconstruction to MM in the 15th century is
MBH98. All the others have the 15th century cooler than MBH98. There is no
way MM are right in the 15th century. Also Moberg et al (2005) has too
much long-term variability.
Sorry for the short email, I have loads of others to go through before
the end of today. We can discuss in more detail at Duke !

Unfortunately, I won't be at Duke because I'm still stuck in a particular type of
Canadian purgatory called french training.
Cheers, Francis

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

___________________________________________________________
Francis Zwiers, Chief
Canadian Ctr for Climate Modelling and Analysis
Meteorological Service of Canada
c/o University of Victoria
PO Box 1700, STN CSC
Victoria, BC V8W 2Y2
Phone: (250)xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: (250)xxx xxxx xxxx
Web: [1]http://www.cccma.bc.ec.gc.ca

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.cccma.bc.ec.gc.ca/

Original Filename: 1109021312.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "raymond s. bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Malcolm Hughes" <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>


Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use
this to our advantage to get the series updated !
Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere
rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don't realise that Moberg et al used the
Jones and Moberg updated series !
Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed
that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn't bother
with that. Also ignored Francis' comment about all the other series looking similar
to MBH.
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

X-Sender: f023@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.0.6
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:40:05 +0000
To: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO
DISCLOSE SECRET DATA

Subject: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:02:xxx xxxx xxxx
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: pressure grows on climate modellers to relase secret data
Thread-Index: AcUXiV64e/f3Ii8uQSa0X88pndSQgQAl2O1w
From: "Peiser, Benny" <B.J.Peiser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "cambridge-conference" <cambridge-conference@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean
CCNet 22/2xxx xxxx xxxxFebruary 2005
PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This should have produced a healthy scientific debate. Instead, Mr. Mann tried
to shut down debate by refusing to disclose the mathematical algorithm by which
he arrived at his conclusions. All the same, Mr. Mann was forced to publish a
retraction of some of his initial data, and doubts about his statistical methods
have since grown.
--The Wall Street Journal, 18 February 2005
But maybe we are in that much trouble. The WSJ highlights what Regaldo and McIntyre
says is Mann's resistance or outright refusal to provide to inquiring minds his
data, all details of his statistical analysis, and his code. So this is what I
say to Dr. Mann and others expressing deep concern over peer review: give up your
data, methods and code freely and with a smile on your face.
--Kevin Vranes, Science Policy, 18 February 2005
Mann's work doesn't meet that definition [of science], and those who use Mann's
curve in their arguments are not making a scientific argument. One of Pournelle's
Laws states "You can prove anything if you can make up your data." I will now add
another Pournelle's Law: "You can prove anything if you can keep your algorithms
secret."
--Jerry Pournelle, 18 February 2005
The time has come to question the IPCC's status as the near-monopoly source of
information and advice for its member governments. It is probably futile to propose
reform of the present IPCC process. Like most bureaucracies, it has too much momentum
and its institutional interests are too strong for anyone realistically to suppose
that it can assimilate more diverse points of view, even if more scientists and
economists were keen to join up. The rectitude and credibility of the IPCC could be
best improved not through reform, but through competition.
--Steven F. Hayward, The American Enterprise Institute, 15 February 2005
(1) HOCKEY STICK ON ICE
The Wall Street Journal, 18 February 2005
(2) SCIENCE AND OPEN ALGORITHMS: "YOU CAN PROVE ANYTHING WITH SECRET DATA AND
ALGORITHMS"
Jerry Pournell, 18 February 2005
(3) OPEN SEASON ON HOCKEY AND PEER REVIEW
Science Policy, 18 February 2005
(4) CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE: TIME FOR TEAM "B"?
The American Enterprise Institute, 15 February 2005
(5) BRING THE PROXIES UP TO DATE!
Climate Audit, 20 February 2005
(6) CARELESS SCIENCE COSTS LIVES
The Guardian, 18 February 2005
(7) RE: MORE TROUBLE FOR CLIMATE MODELS
Helen Krueger <hkrueger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
(8) HOW TO HANDLE ASTEROID 2004 MN4
Jens Kieffer-Olsen <dstdba@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
(9) AND FINALLY: EUROPE FURTHER FALLING BEHIND IN TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH
EU Observer, 10 February 2005
==================
(1) HOCKEY STICK ON ICE
The Wall Street Journal, 18 February 2005
[1]http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB110869271828758608-IdjeoNmlah4n5yta4GHaqyIm4
,00.html
On Wednesday National Hockey League Commissioner Gary Bettman canceled the season, and
we guess that's a loss. But this week also brought news of something else that's been
put on ice. We're talking about the "hockey stick."
Just so we're clear, this hockey stick isn't a sports implement; it's a scientific
graph. Back in the late 1990s, American geoscientist Michael Mann published a chart that
purported to show average surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere over the past
1,000 years. The chart showed relatively minor fluctuations in temperature over the
first 900 years, then a sharp and continuous rise over the past century, giving it a
hockey-stick shape.
Mr. Mann's chart was both a scientific and political sensation. It contradicted a body
of scientific work suggesting a warm period early in the second millennium, followed by
a "Little Ice Age" starting in the 14th century. It also provided some visually
arresting scientific support for the contention that fossil-fuel emissions were the
cause of higher temperatures. Little wonder, then, that Mr. Mann's hockey stick appears
five times in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's landmark 2001 report on
global warming, which paved the way to this week's global ratification -- sans the U.S.,
Australia and China -- of the Kyoto Protocol.
Yet there were doubts about Mr. Mann's methods and analysis from the start. In 1998,
Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
published a paper in the journal Climate Research, arguing that there really had been a
Medieval warm period. The result: Messrs. Soon and Baliunas were treated as heretics and
six editors at Climate Research were made to resign.
Still, questions persisted. In 2003, Stephen McIntyre, a Toronto minerals consultant and
amateur mathematician, and Ross McKitrick, an economist at Canada's University of
Guelph, jointly published a critique of the hockey stick analysis. Their conclusion: Mr.
Mann's work was riddled with "collation errors, unjustifiable truncations of
extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect
calculations of principal components, and other quality control defects." Once these
were corrected, the Medieval warm period showed up again in the data.
This should have produced a healthy scientific debate. Instead, as the Journal's Antonio
Regalado reported Monday, Mr. Mann tried to shut down debate by refusing to disclose the
mathematical algorithm by which he arrived at his conclusions. All the same, Mr. Mann
was forced to publish a retraction of some of his initial data, and doubts about his
statistical methods have since grown. Statistician Francis Zwiers of Environment Canada
(a government agency) notes that Mr. Mann's method "preferentially produces hockey
sticks when there are none in the data." Other reputable scientists such as Berkeley's
Richard Muller and Hans von Storch of Germany's GKSS Center essentially agree.
We realize this may all seem like so much academic nonsense. Yet if there really was a
Medieval warm period (we draw no conclusions), it would cast some doubt on the
contention that our SUVs and air conditioners, rather than natural causes, are to blame
for apparent global warming.
There is also the not-so-small matter of the politicization of science: If climate
scientists feel their careers might be put at risk by questioning some orthodoxy, the
inevitable result will be bad science. It says something that it took two non-climate
scientists to bring Mr. Mann's errors to light.
But the important point is this: The world is being lobbied to place a huge economic bet
-- as much as $150 billion a year -- on the notion that man-made global warming is real.
Businesses are gearing up, at considerable cost, to deal with a new regulatory
environment; complex carbon-trading schemes are in the making. Shouldn't everyone look
very carefully, and honestly, at the science before we jump off this particular cliff?
Copyright 2005, The Wall Street Journal
=============
(2) SCIENCE AND OPEN ALGORITHMS: "YOU CAN PROVE ANYTHING WITH SECRET DATA AND
ALGORITHMS"
Jerry Pournell, 18 February 2005
[2]http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view349.html#hockeystick
Science and Open Algorithms: You can prove anything with secret data and algorithms.
There is a long piece on the global "hockey stick" in today's Wall Street Journal that
explains something I didn't understand: Mann, who generated the "hockey stick" curve
purporting to show that the last century was unique in all recorded history with its
sharp climb in temperature, has released neither the algorithm that generated his curve
nor the data on which it was based.
I had refrained from commenting on the "hockey stick" because I couldn't understand how
it was derived. I've done statistical analysis and prediction from uncertainty much of
my life. My first job in aerospace was as part of the Human Factors and Reliability
Group at Boeing, where we were expected to deal with such matters as predicting
component failures, and deriving maintenance schedules (replace it before it fails, but
not so long before it fails that the costs including the cost of the maintenance crew
and the costs of taking the airplane out of service are prohibitive) and other such
matters. I used to live with Incomplete Gamma Functions and other complex integrals; and
I could not for the life of me understand how Mann derived his famous curve. Now I know:
he hasn't told anyone. He says that telling people how he generated it would be
tantamount to giving in to his critics.
More on this after my walk, but the one thing we may conclude for sure is that this is
not science. His curve has been distributed as part of the Canadian government's
literature on why Canada supports Kyoto, and is said to have been influential in causing
the "Kyoto Consensus" so it is certainly effective propaganda; but IT IS NOT SCIENCE.
Science deals with repeatability and openness. When I took Philosophy of Science from
Gustav Bergmann at the University of Iowa a very long time ago, our seminar came to a
one-sentence "practical definition" of science: Science is what you can put in a letter
to a colleague and he'll get the same results you did. Now I don't claim that as
original for it wasn't even me who came up with it in the seminar; but I do claim
Bergmann liked that formulation, and it certainly appealed to me, and I haven't seen a
better one-sentence practical definition of science. Mann's work doesn't meet that
definition, and those who use Mann's curve in their arguments are not making a
scientific argument.
One of Pournelle's Laws states "You can prove anything if you can make up your data." I
will now add another Pournelle's Law: "You can prove anything if you can keep your
algorithms secret."
=============
(3) OPEN SEASON ON HOCKEY AND PEER REVIEW
Science Policy, 18 February 2005
[3]http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000355open_seaso
n_on_hocke.html
By Kevin Vranes
The recent 2/14 WSJ article ("Global Warring..." by Antonio Regaldo) addresses the
debate that most readers of this site are well familiar with: the Mann et al. hockey
stick. The WSJ is still asking - and trying to answer - the basic questions: hockey
stick or no hockey stick? But the background premise of the article, stated explicitly
and implicitly throughout, is that it was the hockey stick that led to Kyoto and other
climate policy. Is it?
I think it's fair to say that to all of us in the field of climatology, the notion that
Kyoto is based on the Mann curve is utter nonsense. If a climatologist, or a policy
advisor charged with knowing the science well enough to make astute recommendations to
his/her boss, relied solely on the Mann curve to prove definitively the existence of
anthropogenic warming, then we're in deeper trouble than anybody realizes. (This is
essentially what Stephan Ramstorf writes in a 1/27 RealClimate post.) And although it's
easy to believe that national and international policy can hinge on single graphs, I
hope we give policy makers more credit than that.
But maybe we are in that much trouble. The WSJ highlights what Regaldo and McIntyre says
is Mann's resistance or outright refusal to provide to inquiring minds his data, all
details of his statistical analysis, and his code. The WSJ's anecdotal treatment of the
subject goes toward confirming what I've been hearing for years in climatology circles
about not just Mann, but others collecting original climate data.
As concerns Mann himself, this is especially curious in light of the recent RealClimate
posts (link and link) in which Mann and Gavin Schmidt warn us about peer review and the
limits therein. Their point is essentially that peer review is limited and can be much
less than thorough. One assumes that they are talking about their own work as well as
McIntyre's, although they never state this. Mann and Schmidt go to great lengths in
their post to single out Geophysical Research Letters. Their post then seems a bit
ironic, as GRL is the journal in which the original Mann curve was published (1999, vol
26., issue 6, p. 759), an article which is now receiving much attention as being flawed
and under-reviewed. (For that matter, why does Table 1 in Mann et al. (1999) list many
chronologies in the Southern Hemisphere while the rest of the paper promotes a Northern
Hemisphere reconstruction? Legit or not, it's a confusing aspect of the paper that
should never have made it past peer review.)
Of their take on peer review, I couldn't agree more. In my experience, peer review is
often cursory at best. So this is what I say to Dr. Mann and others expressing deep
concern over peer review: give up your data, methods and code freely and with a smile on
your face. That is real peer review. A 12 year-old hacker prodigy in her grandparents'
basement should have as much opportunity to check your work as a "semi-retired Toronto
minerals consultant." Those without three letters after their name can be every bit as
intellectually qualified, and will likely have the time for careful review that typical
academic reviewers find lacking.
Specious analysis of your work will be borne out by your colleagues, and will enter the
debate with every other original work. Your job is not to prevent your critics from
checking your work and potentially distorting it; your job is to continue to publish
insightful, detailed analyses of the data and let the community decide. You can be part
of the debate without seeming to hinder access to it.
===============
(4) CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE: TIME FOR TEAM "B"?
The American Enterprise Institute, 15 February 2005
[4]http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.21974/pub_detail.asp
By Steven F. Hayward
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is currently working on its fourth
assessment report. Despite the IPCC's noble intent to generate a scientific consensus, a
number of factors have compromised the research and drafting process, assuring that its
next assessment report will be just as controversial as previous reports in 1995 and
2001. Efforts to reform this large bureaucratic effort are unlikely to succeed. Perhaps
the time has come to consider competition as the means of checking the IPCC's monopoly
and generating more reliable climate science.
As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) moves toward the release of its
fourth assessment report (fourth AR) in 2007, the case of Chris Landsea offers in
microcosm an example of why the IPCC's findings are going to have credibility problems.
Last month Landsea, a climate change scientist with the U.S. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), resigned as a participant in the producing the
report. Landsea had been a chapter author and reviewer for the IPCC's second assessment
report in 1995 and the third in 2001, and he is a leading expert on hurricanes and
related extreme weather phenomena. He had signed on with the IPCC to update the state of
current knowledge on Atlantic hurricanes for the fourth report. In an open letter,
Landsea wrote that he could no longer in good conscience participate in a process that
is "being motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and is "scientifically unsound."[1]
Landsea's resignation was prompted by an all too familiar occurrence: The lead author of
the fourth AR's chapter on climate observations, Kevin Trenberth, participated in a
press conference that warned of increasing hurricane activity as a result of global
warming.[2] It is common to hear that man-made global warming represents the "consensus"
of science, yet the use of hurricanes and cyclones as a marker of global warming
represents a clear-cut case of the consensus being roundly ignored. Both the second and
third IPCC assessments concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the
hurricane record. Moreover, most climate models predict future warming will have only a
small effect--if any--on hurricane strength. "It is beyond me," Landsea wrote, "why my
colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane
activity has been due to global warming."[3] Landsea's critique goes beyond a fit of
pique at the abuse of his area of expertise. The IPCC, he believes, has become
thoroughly politicized, and is unresponsive to criticism. "When I have raised my
concerns to the IPCC leadership," Landsea wrote, "their response was simply to dismiss
my concerns."[4]
Landsea's frustration is not an isolated experience. MIT physicist Richard Lindzen,
another past IPCC author who is not participating in the fourth report, has written: "My
experiences over the past 16 years have led me to the discouraging conclusion that we
are dealing with the almost insoluble interaction of an iron triangle with an iron rice
bowl." (Lindzen's "iron triangle" consists of activists misusing science to get the
attention of the news media and politicians; the "iron rice bowl" is the parallel
phenomenon where scientists exploit the activists' alarm to increase research funding
and attention for the issue.[5]) And Dr. John Zillman, one of Australia's leading
climate scientists, is another ex-IPCC participant who believes the IPCC has become
"cast more in the model of supporting than informing policy development."[6]
And when the IPCC is not ignoring its responsible critics like Landsea and Lindzen, it
is demonizing them. Not long ago the IPCC's chairman, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, compared
eco-skeptic Bjorn Lomborg to Hitler. "What is the difference between Lomborg's view of
humanity and Hitler's?" Pachauri asked in a Danish newspaper. "If you were to accept
Lomborg's way of thinking, then maybe what Hitler did was the right thing."[7] Lomborg's
sin was merely to follow the consensus practice of economists in applying a discount to
present costs for future benefits, and comparing the range of outcomes with other world
problems alongside climate change. It is hard to judge what is worse: Pachauri's
appalling judgment in resorting to reductio ad Hitlerum, or his abysmal ignorance of
basic economics. In either case, it is hard to have much confidence in the policy advice
the IPCC might have. [...]
Time for "Team B"?
The time has come to question the IPCC's status as the near-monopoly source of
information and advice for its member governments. It is probably futile to propose
reform of the present IPCC process. Like most bureaucracies, it has too much momentum
and its institutional interests are too strong for anyone realistically to suppose that
it can assimilate more diverse points of view, even if more scientists and economists
were keen to join up. The rectitude and credibility of the IPCC could be best improved
not through reform, but through competition....
FULL PAPER at [5]http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.21974/pub_detail.asp
===========
(5) BRING THE PROXIES UP TO DATE!
Climate Audit, 20 February 2005
[6]http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=89#more-89
Steve McIntyre
I will make here a very simple suggestion: if IPCC or others want to use "multiproxy"
reconstructions of world temperature for policy purposes, stop using data ending in 1980
and bring the proxies up-to-date. Let's see how they perform in the warm 1990s - which
should be an ideal period to show the merit of the proxies. I do not believe that any
responsible policy-maker can base policy, even in part, on the continued use of obsolete
data ending in 1980, when the costs of bringing the data up-to-date is inconsequential
compared to Kyoto costs.
I would appreciate comments on this note as I think that I will pursue the matter with
policymakers.
For example, in Mann's famous hockey stick graph, as presented to policymakers and to
the public, the graph used Mann's reconstruction from proxies up to 1980 and
instrumental temperatures (here, as in other similar studies, using Jones' more lurid
CRU surface history rather than the more moderate increases shown by satellite
measurements). Usually (but not always), a different color is used for the instrumental
portion, but, from a promotional point of view, the juxtaposition of the two series
achieves the desired promotional effect. (In mining promotions, where there is
considerable community experience with promotional graphics and statistics, securities
commission prohibit the adding together of proven ore reserves and inferred ore reserves
- a policy which deserves a little reflection in the context of IPCC studies).
Last week, a brand new multiproxy study by European scientists [Moberg et al., 2005] was
published in Nature. On the very day of publication, I received an email from a
prominent scientist telling me that Mann's hockeystick was yesterday's news, that the
"community" had now "moved on" and so should I. That the "community" had had no
opportunity to verify Moberg's results, however meritorious they may finally appear,
seemed to matter not at all.
If you look at the proxy portion of the new Moberg graphic, you see nothing that would
be problematic for opponents of the hockey stick: it shows a striking Medieval Warm
Period (MWP), a cold Little Ice Age and 20th century warming not quite reaching MWP
levels by 1979, when the proxy portion of the study ends. (I'm in the process of
examining the individual proxies and the Moberg reconstruction is not without its own
imperfections.) In the presentation to the public - see the figure in the Nature article
itself, once again, there is the infamous splice between reconstruction by proxy (up to
1980) and the instrumental record thereafter (once again Jones' CRU record, rather than
the satellite record).
One of the first question that occurs to any civilian becoming familiar with these
studies (and it was one of my first questions) is: what happens to the proxies after
1980? Given the presumed warmth of the 1990s, and especially 1998 (the "warmest year in
the millennium"), you'd think that the proxy values would be off the chart. In effect,
the last 25 years have provided an ideal opportunity to validate the usefulness of
proxies and, especially the opportunity to test the confidence intervals of these
studies, put forward with such assurance by the multiproxy proponents. What happens to
the proxies used in MBH99 or Moberg et al [2005] or Crowley and Lowery [2000] in the
1990s and, especially, 1998?
This question about proxies after 1980 was posed by a civilian to Mann in December at
realclimate. Mann replied:
Most reconstructions only extend through about 1980 because the vast majority of
tree-ring, coral, and ice core records currently available in the public domain do not
extend into the most recent decades. While paleoclimatologists are attempting to update
many important proxy records to the present, this is a costly, and labor-intensive
activity, often requiring expensive field campaigns that involve traveling with heavy
equipment to difficult-to-reach locations (such as high-elevation or remote polar
sites). For historical reasons, many of the important records were obtained in the 1970s
and 1980s and have yet to be updated. [my bold]
Pause and think about this response. Think about the costs of Kyoto and then think again
about this answer. Think about the billions spent on climate research and then try to
explain to me why we need to rely on "important records" obtained in the 1970s. Far more
money has been spent on climate research in the last decade than in the 1970s. Why are
we still relying on obsolete proxy data?
As someone with actual experience in the mineral exploration business, which also
involves "expensive field campaigns that involve traveling with heavy equipment to
difficult-to-reach locations", I can assure readers that Mann's response cannot be
justified and is an embarrassment to the paleoclimate community. The more that I think
about it, the more outrageous is both the comment itself and the fact that no one seems
to have picked up on it.
It is even more outrageous when you look in detail at what is actually involved in
collecting the proxy data used in the medieval period in the key multiproxy studies. The
number of proxies used in MBH99 is from fewer than 40 sites (28 tree ring sites being
U.S. tree ring sites represented in 3 principal component series).
As to the time needed to update some of these tree ring sites, here is an excerpt from
Lamarche et al. [1984] on the collection of key tree ring cores from Sheep Mountain and
Campito Mountain, which are the most important indicators in the MBH reconstruction:
"D.A.G. [Graybill] and M.R.R. [Rose] collected tree ring samples at 3325 m on Mount
Jefferson, Toquima Range, Nevada and 11 August 1981. D.A.G. and M.R.R. collected samples
from 13 trees at Campito Mountain (3400 m) and from 15 trees at Sheep Mountain (3500 m)
on 31 October 1983."
Now to get to Campito Mountain and Sheep Mountain, they had to get to Bishop,
California, which is hardly "remote" even by Paris Hilton standards, and then proceed by
road to within a few hundred meters of the site, perhaps proceeding for some portion of
the journey on unpaved roads.
The picture below illustrates the taking of a tree ring core. While the equipment may
seem "heavy" to someone used only to desk work using computers, people in the mineral
exploration business would not regard this drill as being especially "heavy" and I
believe that people capable of operating such heavy equipment can be found, even in
out-of-the way places like Bishop, California. I apologize for the tone here, but it is
impossible for me not to be facetious.
There is only one relatively remote site in the entire MBH99 roster - the Quelccaya
glacier in Peru. Here, fortunately, the work is already done (although, needless to say,
it is not published.) This information was updated in 2003 by Lonnie Thompson and should
be adequate to update these series. With sufficient pressure from the U.S. National
Science Foundation, the data should be available expeditiously. (Given that Thompson has
not archived data from Dunde drilled in 1987, the need for pressure should not be
under-estimated.)
I realize that the rings need to be measured and that the field work is only a portion
of the effort involved. But updating 28 tree ring sites in the United States is not a
monumental enterprise nor would updating any of the other sites.
I've looked through lists of the proxies used in Jones et al. [1998], MBH99, Crowley and
Lowery [2000], Mann and Jones [2003], Moberg et al [2005] and see no obstacles to
bringing all these proxies up to date. The only sites that might take a little extra
time would be updating the Himalayan ice cores. Even here, it's possible that taking
very short cores or even pits would prove adequate for an update and this might prove
easier than one might be think. Be that as it may, any delays in updating the most
complicated location should not deter updating all the other locations.
As far as I'm concerned, this should be the first order of business for multiproxy
studies.
Whose responsibility is this? While the costs are trivial in the scheme of Kyoto, they
would still be a significant line item in the budget of a university department. I think
that the responsibility here lies with the U.S. National Science Foundation and its
equivalents in Canada and Europe. The responsibilities for collecting the proxy updates
could be divided up in a couple of emails and budgets established.
One other important aspect: right now the funding agencies fund academics to do the work
and are completely ineffective in ensuring prompt reporting. At best, academic practice
will tie up reporting of results until the publication of articles in an academic
journals, creating a delay right at the start. Even then, in cases like Thompson or
Jacoby, to whom I've referred elsewhere, the data may never be archived or only after
decades in the hands of the originator.
So here I would propose something more like what happens in a mineral exploration
program. When a company has drill results, it has to publish them through a press
release. It can't wait for academic reports or for its geologists to spin the results.
There's lots of time to spin afterwards. Good or bad - the results have to be made
public. The company has a little discretion so that it can release drill holes in
bunches and not every single drill hole, but the discretion can't build up too much
during an important program. Here I would insist that the proxy results be archived as
soon as they are produced - the academic reports and spin can come later. Since all
these sites have already been published, people are used to the proxies and the updates
will to a considerable extend speak for themselves.
What would I expect from such studies? Drill programs are usually a surprise and maybe
there's one here. My hunch is that the classic proxies will not show anywhere near as
"loud" a signal in the 1990s as is needed to make statements comparing the 1990s to the
Medieval Warm Period with any confidence at all. I've not surveyed proxies in the 1990s
(nor to my knowledge has anyone else), but I've started to look and many do not show the
expected "loud" signal e.g. some of the proxies posted up on this site such as Alaskan
tree rings, TTHH ring widths, and theories are starting to develop. But the discussions
so far do not explicit point out the effect of signal failure on the multiproxy
reconstruction project.
But this is only a hunch and the evidence could be otherwise. The point is this: there's
no need to speculate any further. It's time to bring the classic proxies up to date.
=============
(6) CARELESS SCIENCE COSTS LIVES
The Guardian, 18 February 2005
[7]http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1417224,00.html
Dick Taverne
In science, as in much of life, it is believed that you get what you pay for. According
to opinion polls, people do not trust scientists who work for industry because they only
care about profits, or government scientists because they suspect them of trying to
cover up the truth. Scientists who work for environmental NGOs are more highly regarded.
Because they are trying to save the planet, people are ready to believe that what they
say must be true. A House of Lords report, Science and Society, published in 2000,
agreed that motives matter. It argued that science and scientists are not value-free,
and therefore that scientists would command more trust "if they openly declare the
values that underpin their work".
It all sounds very plausible, but mostly it is wrong. Scientists with the best of
motives can produce bad science, just as scientists whose motives may be considered
suspect can produce good science. An obvious example of the first was Rachel Carson,
who, if not the patron saint, was at least the founding mother of modern
environmentalism. Her book The Silent Spring was an inspiring account of the damage
caused to our natural environment by the reckless spraying of pesticides, especially
DDT.
However, Carson also claimed that DDT caused cancer and liver damage, claims for which
there is no evidence but which led to an effective worldwide ban on the use of DDT that
is proving disastrous. Her motives were pure; the science was wrong. DDT is the most
effective agent ever invented for preventing insect-borne disease, which, according to
the US National Academy of Sciences and the WHO, prevented over 50 million human deaths
from malaria in about two decades. Although there is no evidence that DDT harms human
health, some NGOs still demand a worldwide ban for that reason. Careless science cost
lives.
Contrast the benefits that have resulted from the profit motive, a motive that is held
to be suspect by the public. Multinationals, chief villains in the demonology of
contemporary anti-capitalists, have developed antibiotics, vaccines that have eradicated
many diseases like smallpox and polio, genetically modified insulin for diabetics, and
plants such as GM insect-resistant cotton that have reduced the need for pesticides and
so increased the income and improved the health of millions of small cotton farmers. The
fact is that self-interest can benefit the public as effectively as philanthropy.
Motives are not irrelevant, and unselfish motives are rightly admired more than selfish
ones. There are numerous examples of misconduct by big companies, and we should examine
their claims critically and provide effective regulation to control abuses of power and
ensure the safety of their products. Equally, we should not uncritically accept the
claims of those who act from idealistic motives. NGOs inspired by the noble cause of
protecting our environment often become careless about evidence and exaggerate risks to
attract attention (and funds). Although every leading scientific academy has concluded
that GM crops are at least as safe as conventional foods, this does not stop Greenpeace
reiterating claims about the dangers of "Frankenfoods". Stephen Schneider, a
climatologist, publicly justified distortion of evidence: "Because we are not just
scientists but human beings as well ... we need to ... capture the public imagination
... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and
make little mention of any doubts we have."
But in the end motives are irrelevant to the validity of science. It does not matter if
a scientist wants to help mankind, get a new grant, win a Nobel prize or increase the
profits of her company. It does not matter whether a researcher works for Monsanto or
for Greenpeace. Results are no more to be trusted if the researcher declares his values
and confesses that he beats his wife, believes in God, or is an Arsenal supporter. What
matters is that the work has been peer-reviewed, that the findings are reproducible and
that they last. If they do, they are good science. If not, not. Science itself is
value-free. There are objective truths in science. We can now regard it as a fact that
the Earth goes rounds the sun and that Darwinism explains the evolution of species.
A look at the history of science makes it evident how irrelevant the values of
scientists are. Newton's passion for alchemy did not invalidate his discovery of the
laws of gravitation. To quote Professor Fox of Rutger's University: "How was it relevant
to Mendel's findings about peas that he was a white, European monk? They would have been
just as valid if Mendel had been a Spanish-speaking, lesbian atheist."

Original Filename: 1114607213.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: DEBUNKING THE "DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE" SCARE
Date: Wed Apr 27 09:06:xxx xxxx xxxx

Mike,
Presumably you've seen all this - the forwarded email from Tim. I got this email from
McIntyre a few days ago. As far as I'm concerned he has the data - sent ages ago. I'll
tell him this, but that's all - no code. If I can find it, it is likely to be hundreds of
lines of
uncommented fortran ! I recall the program did a lot more that just average the series.
I know why he can't replicate the results early on - it is because there was a variance
correction for fewer series.
See you in Bern.
Cheers
Phil
Dear Phil,

In keeping with the spirit of your suggestions to look at some of the other multiproxy
publications, I've been looking at Jones et al [1998]. The methodology here is obviously
more straightforward than MBH98. However, while I have been able to substantially emulate
your calculations, I have been unable to do so exactly. The differences are larger in the
early periods.

Since I have been unable to replicate the results exactly based on available materials, I
would appreciate a copy of the actual data set used in Jones et al [1998] as well as the
code used in these calculations.

There is an interesting article on replication by Anderson et al., some distinguished
economists, here [1]http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2005/2xxx xxxx xxxx.pdf discussing the
issue of replication in applied economics and referring favorably to our attempts in
respect to MBH98.

Regards, Steve McIntyre

X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.0.14
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 13:28:53 +0100
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,"Keith Briffa" <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: DEBUNKING THE "DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE" SCARE
Keith and Phil,
you both feature in the latest issue of CCNet:

(4) GLOBAL WARMING AND DATA
Steve Verdon, Outside the Beltway, 25 April 2005
[2]http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/10200
A new paper ([3]http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2005/2xxx xxxx xxxx.pdf) from the St. Luis
Federal Reserve Bank has an interesting paer on how important it is to archive not only
the data but the code for empirical papers. While the article looks mainly at economic
research there is also a lesson to be drawn from this paper about the current state of
research for global warming/climate change. One of the hallmarks of scientific research
is that the results can be replicable. Without this, the results shouldn't be considered
valid let alone used for making policy.
Ideally, investigators should be willing to share their data and programs so as to
encourage other investigators to replicate and/or expand on their results.3 Such
behavior allows science to move forward in a Kuhn-style linear fashion, with each
generation seeing further from the shoulders of the previous generation.4 At a minimum,
the results of an endeavor-if it is to be labeled "scientific"-should be replicable,
i.e., another researcher using the same methods should be able to reach the same result.
In the case of applied economics using econometric software, this means that another
researcher using the same data and the same computer software should achieve the same
results.
However, this is precisely the problem that Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have run
into since looking into the methodology used by Mann, Hughes and Bradely (1998) (MBH98),
the paper that came up with the famous "hockey stick" for temperature reconstructions.
For example, this post here shows that McIntyre was prevented from accessing Mann's FTP
site. This is supposedly a public site where interested researchers can download not
only the source code, but also the data. This kind of behavior by Mann et. al. is simply
unscientific and also rather suspicious. Why lock out a researcher who is trying to
verify your results...do you have something to hide professors Mann, Bradley and Huges?
Not only has this been a problem has this been a problem for McIntyre with regards to
MBH98, but other studies as well. This post at Climate Audit shows that this problem is
actually quite serious.
Crowley and Lowery (2000)
After nearly a year and over 25 emails, Crowley said in mid-October that he has
misplaced the original data and could only find transformed and smoothed versions. This
makes proper data checking impossible, but I'm planning to do what I can with what he
sent. Do I need to comment on my attitude to the original data being "misplaced"?
Briffa et al. (2001)
There is no listing of sites in the article or SI (despite JGR policies requiring
citations be limited to publicly archived data). Briffa has refused to respond to any
requests for data. None of these guys have the least interest in some one going through
their data and seem to hoping that the demands wither away. I don't see how any policy
reliance can be made on this paper with no available data.
Esper et al. (2002)
This paper is usually thought to show much more variation than the hockey stick. Esper
has listed the sites used, but most of them are not archived. Esper has not responded to
any requests for data. '
Jones and Mann (2003); Mann and Jones (2004)
Phil Jones sent me data for these studies in July 2004, but did not have the weights
used in the calculations, which Mann had. Jones thought that the weights did not matter,
but I have found differently. I've tried a few times to get the weights, but so far have
been unsuccessful. My surmise is that the weighting in these papers is based on
correlations to local temperature, as opposed to MBH98-MBH99 where the weightings are
based on correlations to the temperature PC1 (but this is just speculation right now.)
The papers do not describe the methods in sufficient detail to permit replication.
Jacoby and d'Arrigo (northern treeline)
I've got something quite interesting in progress here. If you look at the original 1989
paper, you will see that Jacoby "cherry-picked" the 10 "most temperature-sensitive"
sites from 36 studied. I've done simulations to emulate cherry-picking from persistent
red noise and consistently get hockey stick shaped series, with the Jacoby northern
treeline reconstruction being indistinguishable from simulated hockey sticks. The other
26 sites have not been archived. I've written to Climatic Change to get them to
intervene in getting the data. Jacoby has refused to provide the data. He says that his
research is "mission-oriented" and, as an ex-marine, he is only interested in a "few
good" series.
Jacoby has also carried out updated studies on the Gasp

Original Filename: 1122669035.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Tett, Simon" <simon.tett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Bristlecones!
Date: Fri Jul 29 16:30:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Simon,
If you go to this web page
[1]http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml
You can click on a re-evaluation of MBH, which leads to a paper submitted
to Climatic Change. This shows that MBH can be reproduced. The R-code
to do this can be accessed and eventually the data - once the paper has been
accepted.
IPCC will likely conclude that all MM arguments are wrong and have
been answered in papers that have either come out or will soon. MBH
is just one curve of many - more now than there were in 2001. MBH is
still in the spaghetti of curves, and is not an outlier. If there are outliers
it will be Esper et al. and another one.
Bristlecones are only crucial to the issue if you are MM. They misused
them, by their PCA application. This is all well-known to those in the know.
I have reviewed the CC paper by Wahl and Ammann. It reproduces all
the mistakes MM have made, so they know how and why their results
have been achieved. I can send you the paper if you want, subject
to the usual rules.
MBH have all responded to the same requests as IPCC got from the
US Senate. Their responses are all posted at [2]http://www.realclimate.org/
The skeptics have shot themselves in the foot over this one.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:17 29/07/2005, Tim Osborn wrote:

At 14:27 28/07/2005, Tett, Simon wrote:

John Houghton is being quized by bits of the US senate. One question is
"Whats the status of the review of the Mann hockey stick temperature
curve? I understand that studies by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick
suggest that it relied on the statistically insignificant bristlecone
pine. Is the IPCC taking another look at that work, which forms the
basis for much of todays climate change debate?"
My current thoughts on an answer is to say that other reconstructions
show a similar pattern (though not magnitude). However how many of the
other reconstructions use the bristlecone data? [I suspect yours does
not]

Hi Simon - I was away yesterday, so couldn't answer then. Hopefully it isn't too late
to answer today.
(1) I don't understand what they mean by describing the bristlecone pine as
"statistically insignificant".
(2) The Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH1999) reconstruction is only one small piece of
information in today's climate change debate.
(3) As far as I understand, then yes the MBH1999 reconstruction does give quite a lot of
weight to a few western US tree-ring series, which are mostly bristlecone pines for the
longest records.
(4) Other reconstructions show similar shape (though not magnitude) and support similar
conclusions (regarding the unprecedented nature of recent warmth/warming trend). This
is the main argument to make, as you thought. Some of these other reconstructions do
not include these bristlecones (e.g. Briffa, 2000; Crowley et al., 2003; Moberg et al.,
2005; Briffa et al., 2001). Crowely and Moberg use different Bristlecone records I
think. Other reconstructions do use the same Bristlecone pines (e.g., Mann and Jones,
2004). BUT the critical thing is that the studies either do not use these Bristlecone
pines, or if they do use them, then they give them much more similar weighting to the
other records used. I think MBH1999 is the only one that might give them a dominant
weighting.
(5) IPCC is assessing all published work that relates to these issues in preparation for
the AR4 in 2007. This includes the McIntyre and McKitrick papers as well as papers that
report results contrary to McIntyre/McKitrick, such as the paper in press by Wahl and
Amman that shows the Mann et al. results are reproducible.
cc'd for additional comments to Phil and Keith (when he's back).
Cheers
Tim
Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
web: [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: [4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm

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.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml
2. http://www.realclimate.org/
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
4. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm

Original Filename: 1123163394.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Out in latest J. Climate
Date: Thu Aug 4 09:49:xxx xxxx xxxx

Mike,
Gabi was supposed to be there but wasn't either. I think Gabi isn't
being objective as she might because of Tom C. I recall Keith
telling me that her recent paper has been rejected, not sure if outright
or not.
Gabi sees the issue from a D&A perspective, not whether any curve
is nearer the truth, but just what the envelope of the range might be.
There is an issue coming up in IPCC. Every curve needs error
bars, and having them is all that matters. It seems irrelevant whether
they are right or how they are used. Changing timescales make this
simple use impractical.
We have a new version of HadCRUT just submitted, so soon
the'll be HadCRUT3v and CRUTEM3v. The land doesn't change much.
This has errors associated with each point, but the paper doesn't yet
discuss how to use them.
I'll attach this paper. Only just been submitted to JGR - not
in this format though. This format lays it out better.
Thanks for reminding Scott.
Cheers
Phil
At 08:48 04/08/2005, you wrote:

Hi Phil,
Thanks for the heads up. Will be prepared for this then. I thought that Gabi Hegerl was
involved with this guy? Doesn't she know better? It is disturbing that she hasn't set
them straight on this.
By the way, as you may or may not have heard, its been discovered that there is a major
error in Von Storch et al '04 that they now appear to be trying to hide (they have some
obscure article in an Italian journal where they attempt to justify the error). There
are several comments that have been or are soon to be submitted to Science about this.
As it turns out, they introduces a spurious step in their supposed implementation of the
MBH98 procedure in which they detrended the series first, gives completely wrong
results.. Caspar Ammann and Gene Wahl and David Ritson of Stanford have both
independently discovered this, because they noticed that amplitude of the calibrated
signal in VS04 scales with the signal-to-noise ratio--this was the first clue that there
was a major problem. There may be calls upon Science for them to retract their paper.
The results are completely wrong, aside from the problems w/ the GKSS simulation. You
can expect to hear more about this soon...
I'll remind Scott about the proxies. He and Zhang are in the process of screening the
proxy series for temperature signals, etc. Once they've done that, should be more
useful. I expect we'll be able to get you some stuff by late August.
I did hear about the 3 papers coming out in Science. Apparently Donald Kennedy is doing
an editorial that will discuss this in the context of the whole Barton business. That
should be interesting...There will be articles by both Gavin and Steve Sherwood on
"RealClimate" in coordination with the publication of the papers in Science Express.
This should help turn the debate around.
talk to you later,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
He's been working with Myles Allen. Tim went to the first meeting of this
Dutch funded project near Oxford last week.
Tim said they were doing some odd things, like correlating all the proxy series
they had with CET (yes CET)! Even the few SH proxies they have. The others
who went to the meeting were Zorita and Moberg. Zorita was still showing the
GKSS run with Moberg series, even though its forcing is too large, it doesn't
have aerosols in the 20th century and has spin up problems for the first
200 years.
Meeting wasn't that productive according to Tim. There was a belief amongst
those there that all trees you used have lost low-freq, but this isn't true as you
know.
Also, it was a good job Keith wasn't there (he didn't go as his father died the
weekend before and he's not been in CRU since) as Martin assumed that RCS
was developed by Esper (who also wasn't there). Tim put them right on this
one, but RCS isn't applicable for normal tree sites, nor useful for bristlecones.
Tim said Esper was wrong is his use of RCS, but they wouldn't accept that
as Esper wasn't there to defend himself!
Basically only Tim knew anything about proxy data especially trees. Tim
got the impression that they wanted to find that MBH is wrong. Given the
previous comment, as you weren't there they are using double standards.
So, in conclusion, act carefully. Don't jump in, but some carefully thought
through comments should be productive. Suggest they read the RevG article.
Martin isn't associated with the contrarians, but he's not in possession
of the all the facts. He isn't aware of Casper's work, nor your latest study
which you sent the other day, nor Rutherford et al.
There still seems to be a belief in these lower responding proxies. This is
something we want to work on more here, as the only way it seems to show
that these lower-freq proxies aren't that great is to use higher-freq proxies.
When you're back or sometime, can you remind Scott to send your
latest set of proxies. I'll have some time in the autumn to work on them
as the AR4 should be in by Aug 12.
Science should be publishing 3 papers on the MSU issue by the end of Aug
or early Sept. This is Mears/Wentz, Santer et al. and Sherwood et al. Latter
shows that sondes are only truly reliable when flown at night. Daytime ones
have all manner of problems with heating, just like air temps on board ships -
hence the NMAT series.
I'll forward another email for interest.
Cheers
Phil
At 03:40 04/08/2005, you wrote:

Hi Phil,
Thanks, yes I'm in China now. As you might imagine, ,things have been very busy, but
calming down a bit. Looks like Barton may be backing down...
Martin Juckes has an invited talk in my session. I invited him, because he was working
w/ Stott et al, and so I assume he was legit, and not associated with the contrarians.
But if he's associated w/ the Dutch group, he may actually be a problem. Do you have
additional information about him and what he has been up to?
Thanks,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
Good to hear it is out !
Hope the changeover is going OK and life is getting back to normal.
If you're not gone to China yet - you'll meet someone called Martin
Dukes (?). He's giving a talk at your session. He knows about maths
etc but not much about paleo ! Might need some education, but
is probably OK. Not met him, but Tim has. Doing some worked
funded by the Dutch govt on the hockey stick.
Cheers
Phil
At 04:05 03/08/2005, you wrote:

Dear Colleagues,
FYI, two papers attached:
First (reprint), Rutherford et al, is now out in latest issue of Journal of Climate.
This paper, aside from addressing other more scientifically-worthwhile issues, also
happens to discredit most of the McIntyre and McKitrick claims.
Second (preprint), Mann et al, is formally in press (i.e., has gone off to the AMS
production staff) in Journal of Climate. This paper strongly challenges the conclusions
of von Storch et al (2004), and raises some methodological issues w/ the approach used
by Moberg et al (2005).
Feel free to pass along to others. Thanks
Mike
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

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