Alleged CRU Emails - 25 results below

Original Filename: 1102687002.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mprather@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, robert.berner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rjs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dshindell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rmiller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxxbey, td@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, aclement@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, james.white@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hfd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wuebbles@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, thompson.3@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, thompson.4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, juerg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu, tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, schrag@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jlean@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, weaver@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, djt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, robock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, schlesin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dkaroly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, berger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, david@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, davet@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mcane@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, meehl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, myles.allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, natasha@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.manning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, nmantua@u.washington.edu, Jeffrey.Park@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jseveringhaus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, bengtsson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jcole@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, juliebg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rich@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dcayan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, goosse@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, atimmermann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ajb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, penner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jmahlman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbierbau@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: RealClimate.org
Date: 10 Dec 2004 08:56:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Mike Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eric Steig <steig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, aclement@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rasmus.benestad@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx


Colleagues,

No doubt some of you share our frustration with the current state of
media reporting on the climate change issue. Far too often we see
agenda-driven "commentary" on the Internet and in the opinion columns of
newspapers crowding out careful analysis. Many of us work hard on
educating the public and journalists through lectures, interviews and
letters to the editor, but this is often a thankless task.

In order to be a little bit more pro-active, a group of us (see below)
have recently got together to build a new 'climate blog' website:
RealClimate.org which will be launched over the next few days at:

http://www.realclimate.org

The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where
we can mount a rapid response to supposedly 'bombshell' papers that are
doing the rounds and give more context to climate related stories or
events.

Some examples that we have already posted relate to combatting
dis-information regarding certain proxy reconstructions and supposed
'refutations' of the science used in Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.
We have also posted more educational pieces relating to the
interpretation of the ice core GHG records or the reason why the
stratosphere is cooling. We are keeping the content strictly scientific,
though at an accessible level.

The blog format allows us to update postings frequently and clearly as
new studies come along as well as maintaining a library of useful
information (tutorials, FAQs, a glossary etc.) and past discussions. The
site will be moderated to maintain a high signal-to-noise ratio.

We hope that you will find this a useful resource for your own outreach
efforts. For those more inclined to join the fray, we extend an open
invitation to participate, for instance, as an occasional guest
contributor of commentaries in your specific domain, as a more regular
contributor of more general pieces, or simply as a critical reader.
Every time you explain a basic point of your science to a journalist
covering a breaking story, think about sharing your explanation with
wider community. RealClimate will hopefully make that easier. You can
contact us personally or at contrib@xxxxxxxxx.xxx for more
information.

This is a strictly volunteer/spare time/personal capacity project and
obviously nothing we say there reflects any kind of 'official' position.
We welcome any comments, criticisms or suggestions you may have, even if
it is just to tell us to stop wasting our time! (hopefully not though).

Thanks,

Gavin Schmidt

on behalf of the RealClimate.org team:
- Gavin Schmidt
- Mike Mann
- Eric Steig
- William Connolley
- Stefan Rahmstorf
- Ray Bradley
- Amy Clement
- Rasmus Benestad
- William Connolley
- Caspar Ammann

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

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

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

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

References

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

Original Filename: 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: 1105386027.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] comments to 6.3.2.1 (mainly for Keith)
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:40:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, cddhr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
I agree; Keith should have the room, and section 6.5.8 should be
compatible - has Fortunat followed the discussion between
David/Stefan. Can you guys (David, Stefan, Keith, and Fortunat)
ensure this?

Thanks, Peck

>Hi,
>interesting discussion on an important topic. If space is the
>limiting factor we may have to evaluate whether to cut back on less
>central issues elswhere in the chapter. We will to a large extent be
>judged on how we tackle the hockey stick, sensitivity, unprecedented
>20th century warming isuues in view of palaeo, and if a slight
>expansion is what it takes to do this properly, then I am
>sympathetic to that (without having heard Peck on the issue).
>Cheers,
>Eystein
>
>
>
>At 16:32 +0xxx xxxx xxxx, Keith Briffa wrote:
>>thanks David
>>have to say that it is very difficult to say much in the minimal
>>space - and we really need a page to discuss the problems in the
>>reconstruction and and interpretation of the various forcings in
>>different models - I am just going to put this down in an over
>>abbreviated way and ask for specific corrections for you and Stefan
>>et al. The detail perhaps depends on what the final Figure looks
>>like and Tim is trying to put it together but lots of weird and
>>interesting stuff / questions arise as we do - especially relating
>>to past estimates of solar irradiance used by different people. At
>>15:29 10/01/2005, David Rind wrote:
>>>(I tried to send this earlier and it got hung up; apologies if it
>>>eventually gets through and you get a second version.)
>>>
>>>Well, yes and no. If the mismatch between suggested forcing, model
>>>sensitivity, and suggested response for the LIA suggests the
>>>forcing is overestimated (in particular the solar forcing), then
>>>it makes an earlier warm period less likely, with little
>>>implication for future warming. If it suggests climate sensitivity
>>>is really much lower, then it says nothing about the earlier warm
>>>period (could still have been driven by solar forcing), but
>>>suggests future warming is overestimated. If however it implies
>>>the reconstructions are underestimating past climate changes, then
>>>it suggests the earlier warm period may well have been warmer than
>>>indicated (driven by variability, if nothing else) while
>>>suggesting future climate changes will be large.
>>>
>>>This is the essence of the problem.
>>>
>>>David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>At 9:28 AM +0000 1/10/05, Keith Briffa wrote:
>>>>THanks Stefan
>>>>At 21:13 07/01/2005, Stefan Rahmstorf wrote:
>>>>>Keith,
>>>>>
>>>>>some comments added in the text for the past millennium, plus I
>>>>>wrote some extra sentences on the implications of the dispute
>>>>>(repeated below).
>>>>>Hope it is useful,
>>>>>Stefan
>>>>>
>>>>>>Note that the major differences between the proxy
>>>>>>reconstructions and between the model simulations for the past
>>>>>>millennium occur for the cool periods in the 17th-19th
>>>>>>Centuries; none of these reconstructions or models suggests
>>>>>>that there was a warmer period than the late 20th Century in
>>>>>>the record.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A larger amplitude of preindustrial natural climate variability
>>>>>>does not imply a smaller anthropogenic contribution to 20th
>>>>>>Century warming (which is estimated from 20th Century data, see
>>>>>>Chapter XXX on attribution), nor does it imply a smaller
>>>>>>sensitivity of climate to CO2, or a lesser projected warming
>>>>>>for the future.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Stefan Rahmstorf
>>>>><http://www.ozean-klima.de>www.ozean-klima.de
>>>>>www.realclimate.org
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list
>>>>>Wg1-ar4-ch06@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>>>http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Professor Keith Briffa,
>>>>Climatic Research Unit
>>>>University of East Anglia
>>>>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>>>
>>>>Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>
>>>>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list
>>>>Wg1-ar4-ch06@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>>http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list
>>>Wg1-ar4-ch06@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06
>>
>>--
>>Professor Keith Briffa,
>>Climatic Research Unit
>>University of East Anglia
>>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>
>>Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>
>>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
>>_______________________________________________
>>Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list
>>Wg1-ar4-ch06@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06
>
>
>--
>______________________________________________________________
>Eystein Jansen
>Professor/Director
>Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
>Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen
>All

Original Filename: 1105661725.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: comments on Briffa, last millennium
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:15:25 +0100
Cc: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Dear Keith,

you've done a great job on the touchy subject of the last millennium,
which is central to our whole chapter.
My comments to that are threefold:
(1) If you could shorten the text somewhat, it could become more powerful
(2) Some small edits & comments are in the attached doc
(3) I propose some improvements to the figures as follows.
- Fig 1a the land temps seem to go off plot, temperature scale needs to
be extended
- we need a break between panels a and the rest, since it's a different
time scale on the x axis
- Fig 1c also has one curve going off the top
- Panels 1b-d might run the time axis up to 2010 or so, else the
important rise at the end is hidden in the tick-marks and less obvious
than it should be
- the legends need to say what the baseline period (zero line of y-axis)
is (hard to find this in the axis label)
- this baseline should be the same for all curves, i.e. 1xxx xxxx xxxx. Fig
2d says 1xxx xxxx xxxxit's not ideal to have a different one, as compared
to Fig 1. Also, is it true? Surely the Storch curve is not shown
relative to this baseline, it's way above it. Aligning it like this
could lead to the dangerous misunderstanding that Storch suggests a much
warmer medieval time compared to everyone else, which of course is not
the case.

I hope this helps.

Cheers, Stefan

--
Stefan Rahmstorf
www.ozean-klima.de
www.realclimate.org


</x-flowed>

Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachBriffa_ed_sr .doc"

Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachgoosse_et_al_2005.pdf"

Original Filename: 1105663624.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Subject: Box 6.1: The Medieval Warm Period
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:47:04 +0100
Cc: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Valerie Masson-Delmotte <Valerie.Masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Hi friends,

good idea for a box. Just want to make sure you're aware of the attached
paper by Goosse et al., which may be helpful in illustrating what we all
know, but what here is shown in a citeable way: local climate variations
are dominated by internal variability (redistribution of heat), only
very large scale averages can be expected to reflect the global forcings
(GHG, solar) over the past millennium.

Stefan

--
Stefan Rahmstorf
www.ozean-klima.de
www.realclimate.org


</x-flowed>

Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachgoosse_et_al_20051.pdf"

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: 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: 1121875880.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: David Rind <drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Comments on Section 6.3
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:11:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: wg1-ar4-ch06@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
Dear Stefan,

The distinction here is that GCMs attempt to calculate from first
principles the zeroth and first order processes that dominate the
problem they are studying, whereas EMICs parameterize many of those
processes. The fact that EMICs can reproduce GCM results suggest that
their parameterizations have been tuned to do so - but this does not
in any way imply that if one alters the forcing or boundary
conditions outside of a small range, or apply them to completely
different problems, that the two types of models will react
similarly. In fact, there is a history of this - the first "EMICs"
had a very large sensitivity to a 2% solar insolation change; then
they had to be re-tuned to prevent that from happening. EMICs are
used for paleo-problems because of their ability to take large
time-steps, but there is no free lunch - in doing so, they sacrifice
calculating the fundamental physical processes the way the real world
does it. GCMs have storms, they have real water vapor transports,
they have winds calculated from solving the conservation of momentum
equation, etc. etc. There is a quantum difference between the
fundamental approaches - it is not a continuum, in which there are no
real differences, everything is simply a matter of opinion, there is
no such thing as truth - that's the argument that greenhouse
skeptics use to try to make science go away.

Because we can't use GCMs for long-time scale problems, we do the
best we can - we use these heavily parameterized models. If we could
use GCMs for those problems, EMICs could then be tuned to produce the
GCM results on those time-scales as well. But in this case we have no
way to validate the EMIC results - and since the first principles are
not being used, we cannot know whether they represent a physically
consistent solution or not. Therefore all they can do is suggest
interactions among processes, a useful though not definitive addition
to the field.

David

ps - concerning CLIMBER-2, I asked a number of leading climate
scientists to read the model description paper. Peter Stone was the
only person I asked who thought the model was at all useful for
studying the types of problems we are discussing. And it was not only
GCM scientists. If you want to hear further cogent arguments
concerning its inapplicability, consider contacting Bill Rossow (the
recent winner of a major honor as a leading climate scientist) but
make sure your email program or telephone accepts unexpurgated text.

At 4:22 PM +0200 7/20/05, Stefan Rahmstorf wrote:
>Dear David,
>
>I take from your response that you consider all models that
>parameterise an important first-order process "conceptual models". I
>can live with that - but then there are only conceptual climate
>models around. Any coupled climate GCM that I know of parameterises
>oceanic convection (and in a very crude way), hence it is a
>conceptual model in your terms, and there is no fundamental
>distinction of category between your model and our model.
>
>To me the scientific question is not whether an important process is
>parameterised (many are in GCMs) - it is how well this
>parameterisation works, for the task at hand. We have tested the
>feedbacks in great detail (e.g., the cloud, water vapour, lapse rate
>and snow/ice albedo feedbacks for 2xCO2) in our model and they
>perform quantitatively within the range simulated by various GCMs.
>The same is true for many other diagnostics - the model has taken
>part in model intercomparisons with GCMs and always falls within the
>range of different GCMs, in a quantitative way. To repeat that
>point, the quantitative differences between different GCMs are
>larger than the typical difference between our model and a GCM. So I
>see no basis for your claim that this model can only "suggest orders
>of magnitude". That's just plain wrong from all the evidence that I
>have seen (a lot). If you have concrete evidence to the contrary,
>other than just knowing one person who happens to agree with you,
>please come forward with it.
>
>Stefan
>
>--
>To reach me directly please use: rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>(My former addresses @pik-potsdam.de are read by my assistant Brigitta.)
>
>Stefan Rahmstorf
>www.ozean-klima.de
>www.realclimate.org

_______________________________________________
Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list
Wg1-ar4-ch06@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06
</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1121877545.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: David Rind <drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Comments on Section 6.3
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:39:05 +0200
Cc: Eystein Jansen <Eystein.Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Dear chapter 6 friends,
I have a request on procedure. In the interest of a good and constructive working
atmosphere, I would suggest that all of us focus on sober scientific arguments and refrain
from unneccessarily derogatory comments about the work of colleagues. I'm referring in this
case to David's comment

- this reference is overused, especially for such a simplistic model

The reference concerned is our theory of DO events which appeared in Nature in 2001 and has
since been cited 133 times according to the Web of Science (a sign of overuse?) The model
concerned is the CLIMBER-2 model, featured in over 50 peer-reviewed publications since
1998, including 7 in Nature and Science.
This model is different from David's model, because it has been constructed for a
differenet purpose, but it is not "simplistic". It would never occur to me to call David's
model "simplistic" because it does not include an interactive continental ice sheet model,
vegetation model, carbon cycle model, sediment model and isotope model.
I'm absolutely open to any rational scientific criticism and discussion, but I can see no
purpose in derogatory statements like the above, which include not even a trace of
scientific argument. This kind of thing only poisons the working atmosphere in our group,
which I thought was very positive and a great pleasure in Beijing.
Regards, Stefan
--
To reach me directly please use: [1]rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
(My former addresses @pik-potsdam.de are read by my assistant Brigitta.)

Stefan Rahmstorf
[2]www.ozean-klima.de
[3]www.realclimate.org

_______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list
Wg1-ar4-ch06@xxxxxxxxx.xxx http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06

References

1. mailto:rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. http://www.ozean-klima.de/
3. http://www.realclimate.org/

Original Filename: 1122394173.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Last Millennium section 6.5 - comments by SR
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:09:33 +0200
Cc: wg1-ar4-ch06@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Eystein Jansen <Eystein.Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Hi Keith and all, (please everyone have a look at point (4))
I think section 6.5 is in remarkably good shape (certainly compared to my own..).
There are some comments from me:
(1) About the new proxy reconstructions, the section says: "Most of these are shown..." in
the Figure. This immediately raises the question: why not all? Which one is not shown? This
section will be scrutinised with great suspicion by some people, so we need to be careful.
Can you clarify which one you left out, and why? Or can we just write: "These are shown..."
That would be much nicer.
(2) Several times you say "simply scaled" - would "scaled" do as well? The "simply" in this
context sounds a bit like we criticise that.
(3) Is "predictand" a word that everybody knows? I'd never seen it before.
(4) Now here is my biggest question, that I think we need to discuss in the whole group.
Figure 6.5.2-1 shows simulations of the past millennium, relative to 1xxx xxxx xxxxmeans. Is
this really the best reference period?
Contra: it differs from how we show the data reconstructions, i.e., relative to 1xxx xxxx xxxx.
Everyone knows what that climate actually was, since there are good instrumental data for
1xxx xxxx xxxx, so that it makes sense to look at changes relative to that period. Nobody knows
what the real 1xxx xxxx xxxxmean was, so this is a fictitious baseline.
Pro: it gets rid of "end effects", i.e. model initialisation problems at the beginning (as
in Von Storch 04), and different anthropogenic forcings used at the end (e.g. some ignore
aerosols); the simulations look closer together in this way (right?)
I have not formed a clear opinion on what is best.
(5) Also on the figures: I like the grey bands, but here's a suggestion for improvement:
instead of leaving the core region between those two bands white, I think they should also
be shaded - either the same grey, or a darker shade of grey. This makes it more clear that
we are talking about one, wide uncertainty band here, not about two seperate things. It had
me confused at first when I saw it, even though I was there when we discussed this in
Beijing.
Final point: we need to keep an eye on developments concerning the model tests of the proxy
method, there seem to be several important things in the pipeline there.
Cheers, Stefan
--
To reach me directly please use: [1]rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
(My former addresses @pik-potsdam.de are read by my assistant Brigitta.)

Stefan Rahmstorf
[2]www.ozean-klima.de
[3]www.realclimate.org

References

1. mailto:rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. http://www.ozean-klima.de/
3. http://www.realclimate.org/

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

Original Filename: 1139504822.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: paper in this Friday's Science
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 12:07:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
Guys,

A final revised version attached. I'm expecting the embargo to lift at
midnight east coast U.S., but let me know if you hear otherwise. I will
make sure the science website has posted the paper before posting myself...

mike

Tim Osborn wrote:

> Hi Mike,
>
> thanks for putting this together, Mike. It is a nice summary plus
> drawing out of the important strands etc. I especially like "might be
> likened in shape to a certain implement used in a popular North
> American winter sport" - Keith thinks you must mean a "ski"?
>
> The only negative thing I have to say is that you get in a couple of
> "digs" at the sceptics which might unnecessarily rankle readers. e.g.
> *astronomers* Soon and Baliunas; *unbridled* cherry picking. Still,
> it's your name that's attached to this piece, so it's up to you to dig
> if you want.
>
> Cheers and thanks again
>
> Tim
>
> At 13:42 09/02/2006, Michael E. Mann wrote:
>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> Maybe Science can still fix (at least, the online version?). I
>> wouldn't lose sleep over this though. As typos go, its relatively minor.
>>
>> I must confess that I scavanged a figure off your page proofs. As the
>> piece won't go online until after the article goes up on Science's
>> website, shouldn't matter what the source was though...
>>
>> I've attached the piece in word format. Hyperlinks are still there,
>> but not clickable in word format. I've already given it a good
>> go-over w/ Gavin, Stefan, and William Connelley (our internal "peer
>> review" process at RC), so I think its in pretty good shape. Let me
>> know if any comments...
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> Tim Osborn wrote:
>>
>>> Bugger. You read and re-read the manuscript and the proofs and
>>> *still* you miss things! Yes, it should be 1856. Thanks for
>>> spotting this.
>>>
>>> I didn't reply yet about RealClimate because I thought Keith or I
>>> would have to prepare something and wasn't sure if we'd have time
>>> (IPCC deadlines!), but as you've done the work instead, that's great
>>> - though we'd like to see it beforehand if possible. Did you
>>> need/want a copy of a figure or have you got hold of one from
>>> Science/journalist?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> At 19:53 08/02/2006, Michael E. Mann wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tim/Keith,
>>>>
>>>> I've worked up an article for RC to go online when the embargo is
>>>> lifted. Will send later when finalized. One issue came up in an
>>>> interview w/ a writer at Science, and I didn't know the answer. Is
>>>> the shorter reference period you mention in caption of fig 3 really
>>>> 1865, or is that a typo (i.e., supposed to be 1856). I couldn't
>>>> think of a reason for why the latter date would be used, and
>>>> guessed that "65" just got transposed accidentally? Please let me
>>>> know if you can what the answer is. Its a minor point, but nice to
>>>> get things right if possible...
>>>>
>>>> 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:
>>>> <mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>> University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm>http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dr Timothy J Osborn
>>> Climatic Research Unit
>>> School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
>>> Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
>>>
>>> e-mail: <mailto:t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>> phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>> fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>> web:
>>> <http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
>>> sunclock:
>>> <http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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:
>> <mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
>>
>> <http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm>http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
>>
>>
>
> 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
>


--
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

http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm



</x-flowed>

Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachOsbornBriffa06Post1.doc"

Original Filename: 1141143688.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: latest draft of 2000-year section text
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:21:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cddhr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Hi Tim, Keith and Stefan - We certainly can't get into the details of
the debate, both for space reasons, and because K & T have gotten us
away from the more "defensive" impression our FOD gave reviewers and
others. Although I share Stefan's concern that we almost have to
hammer the misinformation to death, I think we'll be ok dealing with
it succinctly, and focusing on the bigger picture - Mann et al., and
all the controversy is history - we know much more now, and it makes
for stronger statements. Keith and Tim have done a nice job balancing
all this, and we have to hope that all the Mann et al controversy
will start sounding as dated as it is. I know I make that point
pretty clearly when I talk to the media.

BUT, I leave it to Keith and Tim to tweak the discussion to reflect
Stafan's concern as appropriate.

thanks, Peck

>Hi Stefan,
>
>our (Keith and mine) understanding of this issue is that Burger et
>al. (2006, Tellus, already published and therefore citable) already
>point out the von Storch et al. (2004) mistake in implementing the
>Mann et al. (1998) method. But we haven't stated this (or cited the
>Science in press comment) because Burger et al. also demonstrate
>that when they implement the method without the detrending step
>(i.e., following the Mann et al. approach more accurately than von
>Storch et al. did) then the bias is still there, though of smaller
>magnitude than von Storch et al. (2004) suggested. Given that we
>already say that the extent of any bias is uncertain, it does not
>seem necessary to go into the details any further by discussing the
>implementation by von Storch et al. of the Mann et al. method.
>
>Finally, I think (though here it is less clear from their paper and
>I am relying on my recollection of talking to Gerd Burger) that
>Burger et al. also show that the amount of noise von Storch et al.
>added to create the pseudo-proxies yields a pseudo-reconstruction
>that has much better verification skill than obtained by Mann et al.
>(1998) for their real reconstruction. If they increase the noise
>added (deteriorating the "skill" of the pseudo-proxies) until they
>get similar verification statistics as Mann et al. report, then the
>size of the bias gets bigger. In fact, the bias they obtain with
>the higher noise but "correct" no-detrending method is actually very
>similar to the bias von Storch et al. reported with lower noise but
>incorrect detrending method! So where does that leave us? I don't
>think there's room to put all this in. Of course the magnitude of
>the bias cannot be determined from any pseudo-proxy simulation
>anyway, and will be different for different models.
>
>We'd be interested to know if your (or others on the cc list)
>interpretation of Burger et al. (2006) is significantly different to
>this.
>
>Cheers
>
>Tim
>
>At 16:42 28/02/2006, Stefan Rahmstorf wrote:
>>Hi Keith and others,
>>
>>attached is the draft Keith sent on 21 Feb of the 2000-year
>>section, with comments and edits (grey) from me.
>>
>>I note that Von Storch et al. 2004 is cited without it being
>>mentioned that they did not implement the Mann et al. method
>>correctly - by detrending before calibration, the performance of
>>the method was greatly degraded in their model. I guess you left
>>this out because the comment to Science showing this is still in
>>press? Will it be added once this has been published? I think it is
>>a major point, as it was such a high-profile paper - Von Storch's
>>contention that the "hockey stick" is "nonsense" (cited in the US
>>Senate) is based on a mistake.
>>
>>Cheers, Stefan
>>
>>--
>>To reach me directly please use: rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>(My former addresses @pik-potsdam.de are read by my assistant Brigitta.)
>>
>>Stefan Rahmstorf
>>www.ozean-klima.de
>>www.realclimate.org
>>
>>
>
>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


--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences

Mail and Fedex Address:

Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1141164645.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: latest draft of 2000-year section text
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:10:45 +0000
Cc: jto@u.arizona.edu,eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Fortunat Joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
Hi Stefan,

our (Keith and mine) understanding of this issue is that Burger et
al. (2006, Tellus, already published and therefore citable) already
point out the von Storch et al. (2004) mistake in implementing the
Mann et al. (1998) method. But we haven't stated this (or cited the
Science in press comment) because Burger et al. also demonstrate that
when they implement the method without the detrending step (i.e.,
following the Mann et al. approach more accurately than von Storch et
al. did) then the bias is still there, though of smaller magnitude
than von Storch et al. (2004) suggested. Given that we already say
that the extent of any bias is uncertain, it does not seem necessary
to go into the details any further by discussing the implementation
by von Storch et al. of the Mann et al. method.

Finally, I think (though here it is less clear from their paper and I
am relying on my recollection of talking to Gerd Burger) that Burger
et al. also show that the amount of noise von Storch et al. added to
create the pseudo-proxies yields a pseudo-reconstruction that has
much better verification skill than obtained by Mann et al. (1998)
for their real reconstruction. If they increase the noise added
(deteriorating the "skill" of the pseudo-proxies) until they get
similar verification statistics as Mann et al. report, then the size
of the bias gets bigger. In fact, the bias they obtain with the
higher noise but "correct" no-detrending method is actually very
similar to the bias von Storch et al. reported with lower noise but
incorrect detrending method! So where does that leave us? I don't
think there's room to put all this in. Of course the magnitude of
the bias cannot be determined from any pseudo-proxy simulation
anyway, and will be different for different models.

We'd be interested to know if your (or others on the cc list)
interpretation of Burger et al. (2006) is significantly different to this.

Cheers

Tim

At 16:42 28/02/2006, Stefan Rahmstorf wrote:
>Hi Keith and others,
>
>attached is the draft Keith sent on 21 Feb of the 2000-year section,
>with comments and edits (grey) from me.
>
>I note that Von Storch et al. 2004 is cited without it being
>mentioned that they did not implement the Mann et al. method
>correctly - by detrending before calibration, the performance of the
>method was greatly degraded in their model. I guess you left this
>out because the comment to Science showing this is still in press?
>Will it be added once this has been published? I think it is a major
>point, as it was such a high-profile paper - Von Storch's contention
>that the "hockey stick" is "nonsense" (cited in the US Senate) is
>based on a mistake.
>
>Cheers, Stefan
>
>--
>To reach me directly please use: rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>(My former addresses @pik-potsdam.de are read by my assistant Brigitta.)
>
>Stefan Rahmstorf
>www.ozean-klima.de
>www.realclimate.org
>
>
>

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: 1141169545.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: latest draft of 2000-year section text
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:32:25 +0100
Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jto@u.arizona.edu, eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Fortunat Joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Hi Tim,
my simplistic interpretation as an outside observer of this field is:
VS04 published a high-profile analysis in Science concluding that the performance of the
MBH method is disastrously bad. Subsequently, VS in the media called the MBH result
"nonsense", accused Nature of putting their sales interests above peer review when
publishing MBH, and called the IPCC "stupid" and "irresponsible" for highlighting the
results of MBH. This had *major* political impact - I know this e.g. from EU negotiators
who were confronted with this stuff by their US colleagues.
Then it turns out that they implemented the method incorrectly. If it is done as MBH did,
variance is still somewhat underestimated in the same pseudoproxy test, but only a little,
within the error bars given by MBH and shown by IPCC. Certainly nothing dramatic - one
could conclude that the method works reasonably well but needs improvement. This would have
been a technical discussion with not much political impact.
What VS and their colleagues are doing now, rather than publishing a correction of their
mistake, is saying: "well, but if we add a lot more noise, or use red noise, then the MBH
method is still quite bad..."
The question here is: should our IPCC chapter say something to correct the wrong impression
which had the political impact, namely that the MBH method is disastrously bad? This is not
the same as the legitimate discussion about the real errors in proxy reconstructions, which
accepts that these reconstructions have some errors but are still quite useful, rather than
being "nonsense".
Cheers, Stefan
--
To reach me directly please use: [1]rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
(My former addresses @pik-potsdam.de are read by my assistant Brigitta.)

Stefan Rahmstorf
[2]www.ozean-klima.de
[3]www.realclimate.org

References

1. mailto:rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. http://www.ozean-klima.de/
3. http://www.realclimate.org/

Original Filename: 1167752455.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: not so fast
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 10:40:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "raymond s. bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Eric Steig <steig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rasmus.benestad@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, garidel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Connelley <wmconnolley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, d-archer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rtp1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

we still don't have an adequat explanation as to how Jack "cooked up" that figure - I do
not believe it was purely out of thin air - look at the attached - which I used in the
Crowley-Lowery composite just because it was "out there" - I made no claim that it was the
record of record, but just that it had been used beforer. the Lamb ref. is his book dated
1966. I will have to dig up the page ref later. Dansgaard et al. 1975 Nature paper on
Norsemen...etc used that figure when comparing what must have been their Camp Century
record - have to check that too - where the main point of that paper was that the timing of
Medieval warmth was different in Greenlandn and England!
25 years later my provocation for writing the CL paper came from a strong statement on the
MWP by Claus Hammer that the canonical idea of the MWP being warming than the present was
correct and that the 1999 Mann et al was wrong. he kept going on like that I reminded him
that he was a co-author on the 1975 paper! that is also what motivated to do my "bonehead"
sampling of whatever was out there just to see what happened when you added them all
together - the amazing result was that it looked pretty much like Mann et al. ther rest is
history -- much ignored and forgotten.
I might also pointn out that in a 1996 Consequences article I wrote - and that Fred Singer
loves to cite -- Jack (who was the editor of the journal) basically shoehorned me into
re-reproducing that figure even though I didn't like it - there was not an alternative. in
the figure caption it has a similar one to Zielinski except that it states "compiled by
R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J.T. Houghton....so that puts a further twist on this
because it point to Houghton not Bradley/Eddy as the source. Jack must have written that
part of the figure caption because I don't think I knew those details.
but we still don't know where the details of the figure came from - the MWP is clearly more
schematic than the LIA (actually the detailsl about timing of the samll wiggles in the LIA
are pretty good) - maybe there was a meshing of the Greenland and the England records to do
the MWP part - note that the English part gets cooler. they may also have thrown in the
old LaMarche record - which I also have. maybe I can schlep something together using only
those old three records.
tom
Michael E. Mann wrote:

Ray, happy holidays and thanks for the (quite fascinating) background on this. It would be
good material for a Realclimate article. would be even better if someone could get Chris on
record confirming that this is indeed the history of this graphic...
mike
raymond s. bradley wrote:

I believe this graph originated in a (literally) grey piece of literature that Jack Eddy
used to publish called "Earth Quest". It was designed for, and distributed to, high
school teachers. In one issue, he had a fold-out that showed different timelines,
Cenozoic, Quaternary, last 100ka, Holocene, last millennium, last century etc. The idea
was to give non-specialists a perspective on the earth's climate history. I think this
idea evolved from the old NRC publication edited by L. Gates, then further elaborated on
by Tom Webb in the book I edited for UCAR, Global Changes of the Past. (This was an
outcome of the wonderful Snowmass meeting Jack master-minded around 1990).

I may have inadvertently had a hand in this millennium graph! I recall getting a fax
from Jack with a hand-drawn graph, that he asked me to review. Where he got his version
from, I don't know. I think I scribbled out part of the line and amended it in some
way, but have no recollection of exactly what I did to it. And whether he edited it
further, I don't know. But as it was purely schematic (& appears to go through ~1950)
perhaps it's not so bad. I note, however, that in the more colourful version of the
much embellished graph that Stefan circulated ([1]
http://www.politicallyincorrect.de/2006/11/klimakatastrophe_was_ist_wirkl_1.html
the end-point has been changed to 2000, which puts quite a different spin on things.
They also seem to have fabricated a scale for the purported temperature changes. In any
case, the graph has no objective basis whatsoever; it is purely a "visual guess" at what
happened, like something we might sketch on a napkin at a party for some overly
persistent inquisitor..... (so make sure you don't leave such things on the table...).
What made the last millennium graph famous (notorious!) was that Chris Folland must have
seen it and reproduced it in the 1995 IPCC chapter he was editing. I don't think he
gave a citation and it thus appeared to have the imprimatur of the IPCC. Having
submitted a great deal of text for that chapter, I remember being really pissed off that
Chris essentially ignored all the input, and wrote his own version of the paleoclimate
record in that volume.

There are other examples of how Jack Eddy's grey literature publication was misused. In
a paper in Science by Zielinski et al. (1994) [v.264, p.xxx xxxx xxxx]--attached-- they
reproduced [in Figure 1c] a similarly schematic version of Holocene temperatures giving
the following citation, "Taken from J. A. Eddy and R. S. Bradley, Earth-quest 5 (insert)
(1991), as modified from J. T. Houghton, G. J. Jenkins, J. J. Ephraums, Climate Change,
The IPCC Scientific Assessment (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1990)."
But I had nothing to do with that one!
So, that's how a crude fax from Jack Eddy became the definitive IPCC record on the last
millennium!
Happy New Year to everyone
Ray

Raymond S. Bradley
Director, Climate System Research Center*
Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts
Morrill Science Center
611 North Pleasant Street
AMHERST, MA 01xxx xxxx xxxx
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
*Climate System Research Center: xxx xxxx xxxx
<[2] http://www.paleoclimate.org>
Paleoclimatology Book Web Site: [3]http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/paleo/html
Publications (download .pdf files):
[4]http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradleypub.html

--
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: [5]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx

[6]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm


Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachLamb_ext.pdf"

References

1. http://www.politicallyincorrect.de/2006/11/klimakatastrophe_was_ist_wirkl_1.html
2. http://www.paleoclimate.org/
3. http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/paleo/html
4. http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradleypub.html
5. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

Original Filename: 1167754725.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: not so fast
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 11:18:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: "raymond s. bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Eric Steig <steig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rasmus.benestad@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, garidel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Connelley <wmconnolley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, d-archer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rtp1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

for those who are interested, there is a paper by Goosse et al (I'm a co-author) explaining
why parts of Europe such as central england would have experienced warmer summer conditions
relative to present than other regions, related to early land-use change:
Goosse, H., Arzel, O., Luterbacher, J., Mann, M.E., Renssen, H., Riedwyl, N., Timmermann,
A., Xoplaki, E., Wanner, H., [1]The origin of the European "Medieval Warm Period", Climate
of the Past, 2, xxx xxxx xxxx, 2006.
paper available as pdf here:
[2]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/Goosseetal-CP06.pdf
meanwhile, winter warmth could have been due to a strong AO/NAO pattern associated with
decreased volcanism and high solar, as discussed in the various Shindell et al paper.
this simply underscores the point that we all often make, that one needs to take into
account regional factors when interpreting regional records. This is especially relevant to
the extrapolation of a long record from England to the entire NH (which appears to have
been tacitly done by Jack Eddy?),
mike
Tom Crowley wrote:

we still don't have an adequat explanation as to how Jack "cooked up" that figure - I do
not believe it was purely out of thin air - look at the attached - which I used in the
Crowley-Lowery composite just because it was "out there" - I made no claim that it was the
record of record, but just that it had been used beforer. the Lamb ref. is his book dated
1966. I will have to dig up the page ref later. Dansgaard et al. 1975 Nature paper on
Norsemen...etc used that figure when comparing what must have been their Camp Century
record - have to check that too - where the main point of that paper was that the timing of
Medieval warmth was different in Greenlandn and England!
25 years later my provocation for writing the CL paper came from a strong statement on the
MWP by Claus Hammer that the canonical idea of the MWP being warming than the present was
correct and that the 1999 Mann et al was wrong. he kept going on like that I reminded him
that he was a co-author on the 1975 paper! that is also what motivated to do my "bonehead"
sampling of whatever was out there just to see what happened when you added them all
together - the amazing result was that it looked pretty much like Mann et al. ther rest is
history -- much ignored and forgotten.
I might also pointn out that in a 1996 Consequences article I wrote - and that Fred Singer
loves to cite -- Jack (who was the editor of the journal) basically shoehorned me into
re-reproducing that figure even though I didn't like it - there was not an alternative. in
the figure caption it has a similar one to Zielinski except that it states "compiled by
R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J.T. Houghton....so that puts a further twist on this
because it point to Houghton not Bradley/Eddy as the source. Jack must have written that
part of the figure caption because I don't think I knew those details.
but we still don't know where the details of the figure came from - the MWP is clearly more
schematic than the LIA (actually the detailsl about timing of the samll wiggles in the LIA
are pretty good) - maybe there was a meshing of the Greenland and the England records to do
the MWP part - note that the English part gets cooler. they may also have thrown in the
old LaMarche record - which I also have. maybe I can schlep something together using only
those old three records.
tom
Michael E. Mann wrote:

Ray, happy holidays and thanks for the (quite fascinating) background on this. It would be
good material for a Realclimate article. would be even better if someone could get Chris on
record confirming that this is indeed the history of this graphic...
mike
raymond s. bradley wrote:

I believe this graph originated in a (literally) grey piece of literature that Jack Eddy
used to publish called "Earth Quest". It was designed for, and distributed to, high
school teachers. In one issue, he had a fold-out that showed different timelines,
Cenozoic, Quaternary, last 100ka, Holocene, last millennium, last century etc. The idea
was to give non-specialists a perspective on the earth's climate history. I think this
idea evolved from the old NRC publication edited by L. Gates, then further elaborated on
by Tom Webb in the book I edited for UCAR, Global Changes of the Past. (This was an
outcome of the wonderful Snowmass meeting Jack master-minded around 1990).

I may have inadvertently had a hand in this millennium graph! I recall getting a fax
from Jack with a hand-drawn graph, that he asked me to review. Where he got his version
from, I don't know. I think I scribbled out part of the line and amended it in some
way, but have no recollection of exactly what I did to it. And whether he edited it
further, I don't know. But as it was purely schematic (& appears to go through ~1950)
perhaps it's not so bad. I note, however, that in the more colourful version of the
much embellished graph that Stefan circulated ([3]
http://www.politicallyincorrect.de/2006/11/klimakatastrophe_was_ist_wirkl_1.html
the end-point has been changed to 2000, which puts quite a different spin on things.
They also seem to have fabricated a scale for the purported temperature changes. In any
case, the graph has no objective basis whatsoever; it is purely a "visual guess" at what
happened, like something we might sketch on a napkin at a party for some overly
persistent inquisitor..... (so make sure you don't leave such things on the table...).
What made the last millennium graph famous (notorious!) was that Chris Folland must have
seen it and reproduced it in the 1995 IPCC chapter he was editing. I don't think he
gave a citation and it thus appeared to have the imprimatur of the IPCC. Having
submitted a great deal of text for that chapter, I remember being really pissed off that
Chris essentially ignored all the input, and wrote his own version of the paleoclimate
record in that volume.

There are other examples of how Jack Eddy's grey literature publication was misused. In
a paper in Science by Zielinski et al. (1994) [v.264, p.xxx xxxx xxxx]--attached-- they
reproduced [in Figure 1c] a similarly schematic version of Holocene temperatures giving
the following citation, "Taken from J. A. Eddy and R. S. Bradley, Earth-quest 5 (insert)
(1991), as modified from J. T. Houghton, G. J. Jenkins, J. J. Ephraums, Climate Change,
The IPCC Scientific Assessment (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1990)."
But I had nothing to do with that one!
So, that's how a crude fax from Jack Eddy became the definitive IPCC record on the last
millennium!
Happy New Year to everyone
Ray

Raymond S. Bradley
Director, Climate System Research Center*
Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts
Morrill Science Center
611 North Pleasant Street
AMHERST, MA 01xxx xxxx xxxx
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
*Climate System Research Center: xxx xxxx xxxx
<[4] http://www.paleoclimate.org>
Paleoclimatology Book Web Site: [5]http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/paleo/html
Publications (download .pdf files):
[6]http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradleypub.html

--
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: [7]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx

[8]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm


--
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: [9]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx

[10]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

References

1. file://localhost/tmp/Goosseetal-CP06.pdf
2. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/Goosseetal-CP06.pdf
3. http://www.politicallyincorrect.de/2006/11/klimakatastrophe_was_ist_wirkl_1.html
4. http://www.paleoclimate.org/
5. http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/paleo/html
6. http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradleypub.html
7. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
9. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
10. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

Original Filename: 1168124326.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Rasmus Benestad" <rasmus.benestad@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Figure 7.1c from the 1990 IPCC Report
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 17:58:xxx xxxx xxxx(GMT)
Reply-to: rasmus.benestad@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <wmc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <steig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <rasmus.benestad@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <garidel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <d-archer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <rtp1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <john.f.mitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <geoff.jenkins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <David.Warrilow@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mafb5@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

I think that this story could possible catch on and make headlines, so I
agree that we should be careful. But it's important that we bring the
*true* picture out, and it is best that this is done by RealClimate rather
than a sceptic site. The general scientific side of the IPCC report (i.e.
all the peer-reviewed papers ad the scientific theories) is still sound,
but to explain how *one* figure was shoe-horned into the report is harder
to defend. The sceptics may argue that the IPCC reports are political
after all, and this is also what it sounds like if governments 'hoisted
the national flag' by having it's own figures inserted last minute.
However, by providing an account of the 'evolution of the IPCC report
writing', we could possibly give the story a softer landing. E.g. how many
times of review the first report underwent as compared to the present
report. We should also put this in perspective - the report is large and
covers a wide range of topics, and most (all but our case?) is true to the
science. There are sometimes a few rotten apples in a good batch,
unfortunately. But the important part is that we don't accept rotten
apples and that we sort it out! Forthcoming and up-front. Another
important side is that this can provide a lesson for the scientific
communities.

Rasmus

> Phil, I fully agree. The point is not to blame anyone at all - at least
> my point was to track down the source in order to be able to show the
> skeptics (or in my special case, the school authorities) that this old
> graph is completely superseded and should not be used any more in
> teaching! And I also see your problem: what we are finding out now makes
> the IPCC process look somewhat unsophisticated back in 1990, so it is a
>
> diplomatic conundrum how to be completely truthful in reporting this, as
> we need to be as scientists, without providing the skeptics undue
> fodder for attacking IPCC. But maybe we're too concerned - the skeptics
> can't really attack IPCC easily in this case without shooting
> themselves in the foot.
>
> Cheers, Stefan
>
> --
> Stefan Rahmstorf
> www.ozean-klima.de
> www.realclimate.org


--
Rasmus E. Benestad
Skype: rasmus.e.benestad
Rasmus.Benestad@xxxxxxxxx.xxx or @met.no
mobile xxx xxxx xxxx

Original Filename: 1169050678.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: See the attached
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:17:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
Phil,

I've seen this junk already. Look at the co-authors! DeFrietas, Bob
Carter: a couple of frauds. I dont' think anyone will take this seriously...

Do you have any advance knowledge you could pass along that would help
us gear up to do something on RealClimate? I assume that there will be
no surprises in the paleoclimate chapter, but I haven't seen the final
draft. Any hints you can drop would be great...

thanks,

mike

Phil Jones wrote:

>
>> Mike,
>
> You've probably seen this. We are slated about p189/190.
> I hope this doesn't come up at the final IPCC meeting in
> Paris. I've nothing to worry about anyway. I wish they
> wouldn't keep going on about it.
>
> The press release after Paris from WG1, by the way will be Feb 2.
> You might like to gear up Real Climate for the week after. Only the
> SPM will be available then. The chapters come later as you'll know -
> I've heard June mentioned. CUP are doing them again.
>
> 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------




--
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

http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm


</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1175952951.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: urgent help re Augusto Mangini
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 09:35:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Valerie Masson-Delmotte <Valerie.Masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Hi Stefan - Valerie was the lead on the Holocene section, so I'll cc
her. I agree that your approach is the smart one - it's easy to show
proxy records (e.g., speleothems) from a few sites that suggest
greater warmth than present at times in the past, but our assessment
was that there wasn't a period of GLOBAL warmth comparable to
present. We used the term likely, however, since there still is a
good deal of work to do on this topic - we need a better global
network of sites.

Keith can comment on the last 1300 years, but again, I think there is
no published evidence to refute what we assessed in the chapter.
Again, one or two records does not hemispheric or global make.

I think Keith or Valerie could comment further if they're not
Eastering. Eystein, likewise might have something, but I think it is
his national responsibility to hit the glaciers over Easter.

Best, Peck


>Dear Peck and IPCC coauthors,
>
>- I know it's Easter, but I'm having to deal with Augusto Mangini, a
>German colleague who has just written an article calling the IPCC
>paleo chapter "wrong", claiming it has been warmer in the Holocene
>than now, and stalagmites show much larger temperature variations
>than tree rings but IPCC ignores them. What should I answer?
>
>One of my points is that IPCC shows all published large-scale proxy
>reconstructions but there simply is none using stalagmites - so
>please tell me if this is true?!! My main point will be the local
>vs hemispheric issue, saying that Mangini only provides local
>examples, while the IPCC statement is about hemispheric or global
>averages.
>
>But how about local variations - do stalagmites show much larger
>ones than tree rings? Any suggestions what other counter-arguments I
>could write? Do we have a stalagmite expert on the author team,
>other than contributing
>author Dominik Fleitmann, whom I've already identified?
>I have to submit my response to the newspaper tomorrow.
>
>Thanks, Stefan
>
>--
>Stefan Rahmstorf
>www.ozean-klima.de
>www.realclimate.org
>
>
>
>
>--
>Stefan Rahmstorf
>www.ozean-klima.de
>www.realclimate.org


--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences

Mail and Fedex Address:

Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1188478901.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:01:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
thanks Phil,

I did take the liberty of discussing w/ Gavin, who can of course be
trusted to maintain the confidentiality of this. We're in agreement that
Keenan has wandered his way into dangerous territory here, and that in
its current form this is clearly libellous; there is not even a pretense
that he is only investigating the evidence. Furthermore, while many of
us fall under the category of 'limited public figures' and therefore the
threshold for proving libel is quite high, this is *not* the case for
Wei-Chyung. He is not a public figure. I believe they have made a major
miscalculation here in treating him as if he is. In the UK, where E&E is
published, the threshold is even lower than it is in the states for
proving libel. We both think he should seek legal advice on this, as
soon as possible.

With respect to Peiser's guest editing of E&E and your review, following
up on Kevin's suggestions, we think there are two key points. First, if
there are factual errors (other than the fraud allegation) it is very
important that you point them out now. If not, Keenan could later allege
that he made the claims in good faith, as he provided you an opportunity
to respond and you did now. Secondly, we think you need to also focus on
the legal implications. In particular, you should mention that the
publisher of a libel is also liable for damages - that might make Sonja
B-C be a little wary. Of course, if it does get published, maybe the
resulting settlement would shut down E&E and Benny and Sonja all
together! We can only hope, anyway. So maybe in an odd way its actually
win-win for us, not them. Lets see how this plays out...

RealClimate is of course always available to you as an outlet, if it
seems an appropriate venue. But we should be careful not to jump the gun
here.

Kevin: very sorry to hear about Dennis. Please pass along my best wishes
for a speedy recovery if and when it seems appropriate to do so...

Mike

Phil Jones wrote:
> Mike, Kevin,
> Thanks for your sets of thoughts. I've been in touch with Wei-Chyung,
> who's in China at the moment. He forwarded the 'paper!' to the people
> dealing
> with Keenan's allegations at SUNY. He got a reply to say that Keenan
> has now violated the confidentiality agreement related to
> the allegation. So, it isn't right to respond whilst this is
> ongoing. I will
> draft something short though, whilst it's all fresh in my mind. Then
> I can
> get onto something else.
> I did send the email below to Peiser clarifying whether he wanted
> a review or just thoughts. I got the amazing reply - sent to three
> reviewers!
> So, letting the SUNY process run its course. Once finished, Real
> Climate
> may be one avenue to lay out all the facts/details.
>
> Away tomorrow. I think you have Monday off, so have a good long
> weekend!
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>> Subject: RE: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
>> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:48:43 +0100
>> X-MS-Has-Attach:
>> X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
>> Thread-Topic: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
>> thread-index: AcfqVG3NykjMc9doTBWIfTqkHPH+xwACAfp3
>> From: "Peiser, Benny" <B.J.Peiser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> To: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2007 16:53:26.0748 (UTC)
>> FILETIME=[1E7969C0:01C7EA5D]
>> X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
>> X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
>> X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>>
>> Dear Phil
>>
>> The paper has been sent to three reviewers. Of course I will take
>> your comments and assessment into consideration. Indeed, if the
>> claims are unsubtantiated, I would certainly reject the paper.
>>
>> I hope this clarifies your query.
>>
>> With best regards
>> Benny
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
>> Sent: Wed 8/29/2007 16:51
>> To: Peiser, Benny
>> Subject: Re: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Benny,
>> Energy and Environment is presumably a peer-review journal. Your
>> email wasn't clear as to whether you want me to review the paper?
>> If you
>> want me to, will you take any notice of what I might say - such as
>> reject the paper? Or has the contribution already been reviewed?
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>> At 15:18 29/08/2007, you wrote:
>> >Dear Dr Jones
>> >
>> >I have attached a copy of Doug Keenan's paper on the alleged Wang fraud
>> >that was submitted for the forthcoming issue of Energy & Environment
>> >http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene.
>> >
>> >
>> >I was wondering whether you would be happy to comment on its content
>> and
>> >factual accuracy. Your comments and suggestions would be much
>> >appreciated. We would need your feedback by Sept 17.
>> >
>> >I look forward to hearing from you.
>> >
>> >Yours sincerely
>> >
>> >Benny Peiser
>> >Guest editor, E&E
>> >Liverpool John Moores University, UK
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Prof. Phil Jones
>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>> University of East Anglia
>> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> NR4 7TJ
>> UK
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
> 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

http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm


</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1189797973.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: recent WSJ article
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:26:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Richard Somerville <richard.somerville@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Kevin,
can you send me the link once its up?
thanks,
Mike
Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Mike
You should have seen the first version. I drafted that yesterday and then today toned it
down. I did add a couple of points, including the link you suggested. Will try to send off
later today but just to nature.com
Thanks
Kevin
Michael E. Mann wrote:

guys, I've got a few minutes before I have to head out again.
Kevin--thanks for helping return the Nature blog to respectability after a dubious
start...I'd like to direct RealClimate readers to your piece as soon as it is up, so please
let me know when that happens...
Looks like Phil has hit several of the key points, but here are a few more:
1. The 'discrediting' that Akasofu cites has been discredited. IPCC Chapter 6 rejected the
McIntyre and McKitrick's claims in no uncertain terms, referencing the Wahl and Ammann work
(reprints attached) who show that (a) the reconstruction is readily reproducible and (b)
McIntyre and McKitrick only failed to reproduce the reconstruction because of multiple
errors on their part. This is true in addition to the more general point that Kevin has
made (that multiple independent studies confirm and in fact now extend the previous
conclusions, rather than contradict them).
2. To the extent that the "LIA" and "MWP" can be meaningfully defined, there has been much
work (published in Nature, Science, etc.) showing that the main variations (both in terms
of hemispheric mean changes and spatial patterns) can indeed be explained in terms of the
response of the climate system to natural radiative forcing changes (solar and volcanism).
Only someone completely unfamiliar with the advances of the past ten years in climate
science would claim that there are no explanations for these.
3. Continuing in this theme, to claim that the modern warming is some sort of 'rebound'
reflects a thorough apparent lack of understanding of how the climate system works. The
climate doesn't rebound. It responds (with some lag) to changes in radiative forcing. The
main patterns of variation of past centuries have been explained in terms of such responses
to natural radiative forcing changes. As shown in countless studies, the late 20th century
warming can only be explained in terms of the response to anthropogenic changes in
radiative forcing. Kevin has more or less already made this point, in different words, in
the current draft.
4. The bogus talking point that co2 lagging the warming in the ice cores has been debunked
countless times before, and its an embarassment that it continues to be raised by one who
ostensibly considers himself a scientist. This is total nonsense, and a nice refutation has
been provided by Eric Steig on RealClimate here:
[1]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
Perhaps worth just linking to that explanation?
Kevin, perhaps you're too gentle in attributing this simply to some 'confusion' about the
facts. Either Mr. Akasofu has literally no familiarity whatsoever with the advances in
climate science of the past two decades, or he has intentionally sought to deceive. In
either case, his piece is embarassment.
Finally, let me withdraw my initial suggestion. For strategic reasons, it might make sense
to submit this as letter to editor to WSJ (easy and quick to do online), and then publish
it on the Nature blog in short order. I sea that as win-win because you can either call
the WSJ for refusing to run your letter (which is very likely what will happen), or use
the Nature blog piece to draw attention to your letter, should WSJ actually choose to
publish your letter...
please don't hesitate to let me know if I can be of any further help here. Will be back
online a bit later today,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:

Kevin,

A few quick thoughts. Article is awful as we all know.

It is important to learn about past climate change, especially over the past 1000
years, but it is even important to use new and improved evidence from proxy
sources (i.e. not to cling to outdated concepts of the past such as the MWP
and LIA). How can we ever hope to progress if we have conform to incorrect
concepts?
On the early mid-20th century warming - look at the figures in Ch 9.
The decrease from 1xxx xxxx xxxxdidn't happen if you look at global records.
MBH was published in 1998 and wasn't just a tree-ring study.
The Thames doesn't and never did freeze solid. It did so 25 times
between 1400 and 1820. Only about 5-6 of these were frost fairs. Most
of these have CET data, so what is the use of the freeze dates!
He plucks various figures out of the air!
I think the reductions in Arctic sea ice this summer/September are
alarming. They are 20% below the 2005 record. He comes from
Alaska. Has he not seen the effects on the coast there?
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 [2]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: [3]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx

[4]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm


--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [5]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [6]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)

Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305

--
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: [7]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx

[8]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

References

1. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
2. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
5. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
7. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

Original Filename: 1196872660.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Even more on Loehle's 2000 year climate analysis]
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 11:37:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

well put Phil,
I think you've put your finger right on it. JGR-Atmospheres has been publishing some truly
awful papers lately; we responded (Gavin, me, James Annan) to the awful Schwartz
sensitivity estimate paper, but there are so many other bad papers that are appearing there
(Chylak, etc.) that its just impossible to respond to them all.
I hadn't seen this latest one though. McKitrick and Michaels team up again, wow! maybe
McKitrick has figured ou the difference between radians and degrees this time!
talk to you later,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
Also I see him writing things - then people saying you should
write this up for a paper, as though it can be knocked up in an
afternoon. He realises he can't do this - as it takes much longer.
Then we wastes more and more time opening up new threads.
He doesn't seem clever enough to realise this.
Gavin and Rasmus have seen the attached piece of garbage!
UAH is correct, therefore the land surface must be wrong.
Let's adjust it for a dodgy reason - ah, it now agrees with UAH.
Let's forget that the land now disagrees with the ocean surface.
If only I'd thought of that first, I could have not bothered with
the awful analysis. If only I'd just believed RSS in the first place.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:16 05/12/2007, you wrote:

HI Phil,
thanks--thats good.
Re, Loehle, McIntyre. Funny--w/ each awful paper E&E publishes, McIntyre realizes that
it compromises the integrity of his own "work" even further. He can't distance himself
from E&E much as he'd like to. He also seems to be losing lots of credibility now w/
all but his most loyal followers, which is good to see...
mike
Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
Yes the 1990 graphic is in an Appendix. The last few are being regularly hassled
by Thorsten. The guy from EPRI (Larry) really wants something submitted soon.
So working here to get something in by end of Jan. Keith is going to get
it fast-tracked through the Holocene - well that's the plan.
The Loehle paper is awful as you know. So is another article on the IPCC process
in E&E. I did look at Climate Audit a week or two back - I got the impression
that McIntyre is trying to distance himself from some of these E&E articles by
saying we have to be equally skeptical about them as well.
Cheers
Phil

At 14:00 04/12/2007, you wrote:

Hey Phil,
thanks--nice coincidence in timing. So the 1990 graphic will be discussed in this review
paper, right? Perfect, I'll let Gavin know.
Will look into the AGU fellowship situation ASAP.
I don't read E&E, gives me indigestion--I don't even consider it peer-reviewed science,
and in my view we should treat it that way. i.e., don't cite, and if journalists ask us
about a paper, simply explain its not peer-reviewed science, and Sonja B-C, the editor,
has even admitted to an anti-Kyoto agenda!
I do hope that Wei-Chyung pursues legal action here.
So didn't see this recent paper, nor have I heard about the IJC paper, Christy and
Spencer continue to lose more and more scientific credibility with each awful paper they
publish.
Gavin is planning to do something on the Loehle paper on RealClimate, I'm staying away
from it. I have a revised set of hemispheric reconstructions which I'll send you soon,
its basically what I showed at AGU last year. Submitted to PNAS--more soon on that,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
Some text came last night from Caspar. Keith/Tim writing their parts still.
I have text from Francis, so almost all here now. Still need to find some time
- maybe the Christmas/New Year break here - to put it all together. There
is so much else going on here at the moment with other papers, it will
be hard to find some time. I wish they had all responded much sooner!
As for AGU - just getting one of their Fellowships would be fine.
I take it you've seen the attached in E&E. I've not heard any more from
Wei-Chyung in the past couple of months. I'm working on a paper
on urbanization. I can show China is hardly affected. Will send for you
to look over when I have it in a form that is sendable. Would appreciate
your thoughts on how I will have said things.
Have another awful pdf of a paper accepted in IJC !! It ws rejected
by all three reviewers for GRL! It is by Douglass, Christy , Singer et al
- thus you'll know what it is on.
Have booked flights for Tahiti in April, just need to do the hotel now.
Cheers
Phil
Cheers
Phil
At 02:07 04/12/2007, you wrote:

Hi Phil,
I hope things are going well these days, and that the recent round of attacks have died
down. seems like some time since I've heard from you.
Please see below: Gavin was wondering if there is any update in status on this?
By the way, still looking into nominating you for an AGU award, I've been told that the
Ewing medal wouldn't be the right one. Let me know if you have any particular options
you'd like me to investigate...
thanks,
mike
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Even more on Loehle's 2000 year climate analysis
Date: 03 Dec 2007 20:59:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: Gavin Schmidt [1]<gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael E. Mann [2]<mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
References: [3]<3.0.3.32.20071203130209.0123fd18@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[4]<3.0.3.32.20071202224717.012384a8@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[5]<3.0.3.32.20071201123550.01237954@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[6]<3.0.3.32.20071201123550.01237954@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[7]<3.0.3.32.20071202224717.012384a8@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[8]<3.0.3.32.20071203130209.0123fd18@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[9]<3.0.3.32.20071203141259.0126c33c@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[10]<475457F3.9070102@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
this reminds me. What's the status of Phil Jones and Caspar's
investigation of the IPCC90 curve? Phil wanted us to hold off for some
reason, but is that done with?

That's a great story that needs to be told.

Gavin

On Mon, 2xxx xxxx xxxxat 14:24, Michael E. Mann wrote:
> thanks Eric,
>
> That's great. I've again copied in Gavin so that he has this info
too.
>
> Will keep you in the loop!
>
> mike
>
> Eric Swanson wrote:
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > I do hope you all are able to put this all together.
> > There were several comments on CA about RealClimate,
suggesting
that
> > RC wouldn't say anything, as E&E publication has such a
bad
rap.
> >
> > Perhaps my biggest complaint was also one mentioned by another
> > poster
> > on CA. I don't like using a simple linear interpolation between
> > data points for these series where there are many years
between
> > samples.
> > Here's the other fellow's comments:
> >
> >



[11]
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380#comment-162478
> >


[12]
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380#comment-162654
> >



[13]
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380#comment-162665
> >
> > I would go further than that. These data sets represent
samples
of
> > time records. The sampling does not produce a value for a
single
> > year.
> > Rather, each sample represents some number of years of the
variable
> > as averaged in the process of collecting the material to be
> > analyzed.
> >
> > Consider an ocean sediment core, such as Keigwin's data. The
> > subcores
> > are sampled every 1.0 cm. Assume the material is taken with a
device
> > that
> > collects mud from a 0.4 cm area along the core. Thus, the
sample
> > would
> > contain 4/10 of the material deposited at that 1 cm per sample
rate
> > of
> > change in time. If the age/depth model at that point yields a
100
> > year
> > per cm rate, then the sample would represent an average over
40
> > years.
> > Simple linear interpolation assumes a continuously varying
change
> > between
> > the points, while the sampling process would give a brief 40
year
> > value
> > with the other 60 years being unknown. What if the entire cm
of
the
> > core
> > were analyzed? One would not know unless one had contacted
each
> > research
> > group that did the analysis and requested more information
than
that
> > which
> > might be found in the published reports.
> >
> > NOTE: I looked at Keigwin's data when I wrote a comment on
Loehle's
> > 2004 paper
> >
> > Comments on "Climate change: detection and attribution of
trends
> > from long-term
> > geologic data" by C. Loehle [Ecological Modelling 171 (4)
(2004)
> > xxx xxxx xxxx],
> > Ecological Modelling 192 (20xxx xxxx xxxx
> >
> > You may add my name to the list for what it's worth.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Eric Swanson
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > At 01:18 PM 12/3/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
> > >>>>
> > Eric--this is
great, thanks for all of the info. I've taken
> > the liberty of
forwarding to Gavin, as we're thinking of
> > doing an RC
post on this, and this would be very useful. We
> > should
certainly list you as a "co-author" on this, if thats
> > ok w/ you?
> >
> > Looking
forward
to hearing what else you find here!
> >
> > 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: [14]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx
>
>



[15]
http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
>




--
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: [16]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx




[17]
http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.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 [18]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: [19]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx



[20]
http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.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 [21]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: [22]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx

[23]
http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.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 [24]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: [25]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
University Park, PA 16xxx xxxx xxxx

[26]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

References

Visible links
1. mailto:gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:3.0.3.32.20071203130209.0123fd18@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:3.0.3.32.20071202224717.012384a8@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:3.0.3.32.20071201123550.01237954@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:3.0.3.32.20071201123550.01237954@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. mailto:3.0.3.32.20071202224717.012384a8@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. mailto:3.0.3.32.20071203130209.0123fd18@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
9. mailto:3.0.3.32.20071203141259.0126c33c@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
10. mailto:475457F3.9070102@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
11. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380#comment-162478
12. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380#comment-162654
13. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380#comment-162665
14. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
15. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
16. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
17. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
18. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
19. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
20. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
21. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
22. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
23. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
24. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
25. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
26. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

Hidden links:
27. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm