Alleged CRU Emails - 25 results below

Original Filename: 965750123.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "S. Fred Singer" <singer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Raymond S. Bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re:Your msg about climate/energy policy
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 11:55:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pjm8x@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>Dear Ray

You sent me this op-ed (?) (Letter to editor?) about the need to convert
the US from a carbon-based economy to a hydrogen-based economy. I can't
guess why you wanted me to know your views, but it does help me to better
understand what motivates your scientific work and judgment. It also
throws some doubt about your impartiality in promoting the "hockey stick'
temperature curve that a number of us have been critical of.

In any case, I doubt if espousal of this energy policy will help BP and
ARCO discover a source of hydrogen somewhere.

You quote the "progressive" Business Council approvingly: "We accept the
views of most scientists that enough is known about the science and
environmental impacts of climate change for us to take actions to address
its consequences." And from BP chairman : "the time to consider the policy
dimensions of policy change is not when the link between greenhouse gases
and climate change is conclusively proven, but when the possibility cannot
be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part."

I note that BP and ARCO are still out there exploring for oil; they don't
seem to be quite ready yet to put real money where their mouth is.

You call for the US to take leadership in stabilizing the
climate. Perhaps the government will turn to you to learn how to do
this. A far less ambitious goal would be to stabilize the atmospheric
concentration of CO2. According to the IPCC this would require an emission
reduction of 60 to 80 percent (with respect to 19xxx xxxx xxxxWORLDWIDE.

Have you ever considered the consequences of such a policy -- assuming it
could really be adopted?

Best wishes ,

Fred
**********************************
At 10:34 AM 8/1/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:

> WASHINGTON, DC -- In August 1997, a few months before the Kyoto
> Conference on Climate Change, the Global Climate Coalition (GCC)
> helped launch a massive advertising campaign designed to prevent the
> United States from endorsing any meaningful agreement to reduce global
> carbon emissions. This group included in its ranks some of the world's most
> powerful corporations and trade associations involved with fossil
> fuels. The
> campaign effectively undermined public support of U.S. efforts to lead the
> international effort to stabilize climate.
> While the public image of the GCC was that of a unified group, there was
> dissent. John Browne, Chairman of British Petroleum, on May 19, 1997,
> announced that "the time to consider the policy dimensions of policy change
> is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is
> conclusively proven, but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is
> taken seriously by the society of which we are part. We in BP have
> reached that point."
> BP withdrew from the Global Climate Coalition. Dupont had already left.
> The following year, Royal Dutch Shell left.
> In 1999, Ford withdrew from the GCC. A company spokesman noted,
> "Over the course of time, membership in the Global Climate Coalition has
> become something of an impediment for Ford Motor Company to
> achieving our environmental objectives."
> In rapid succession in the early months of 2000, Daimler Chrysler, Texaco,
> and General Motors announced that they too were leaving the Coalition.
> This accelerating exodus reflected the conflict emerging within GCC ranks
> between firms that were clinging to the past and those that were planning
> for the future.
> Some of the exiting companies, such as BP Amoco, Shell, and Dupont,
> joined a progressive new group, the Business Environmental Leadership
> Council, which says, "We accept the views of most scientists that enough is
> known about the science and environmental impacts of climate change for
> us to take actions to address its consequences."
> Membership requires companies to have programs for reducing carbon
> emissions. BP Amoco, for example, plans to bring its carbon emissions to
> 10 percent below its 1990 level by 2010, exceeding the Kyoto goal of
> roughly 5 percent for industrial countries.
> Dupont has already cut its 1990 greenhouse gas emissions by 45 percent
> and plans to reduce them by 65 percent by 2010.
> There is a growing acceptance among the key energy players that the
> world is in the early stages of the transition from a carbon-based to a
> hydrogen-based energy economy. In February 1999, ARCO CEO
> Michael Bowlin said, "We've embarked on the beginning of the Last Days
> of the Age of Oil." He then discussed the need to convert our
> carbon-based energy economy into a hydrogen-based energy economy.
> With the organization that so effectively undermined U.S. leadership in
> Kyoto no longer a dominant player in the global climate debate, the
> stage is
> set for the United States to resume leadership of the global climate
> stabilization effort.
>Raymond S. Bradley
>Professor and Head of Department
>Department of Geosciences
>University of Massachusetts
>Amherst, MA 01xxx xxxx xxxx
>
>Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
>Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>Climate System Research Center: xxx xxxx xxxx
>Climate System Research Center Web Page:
><http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/climate.html>
>Paleoclimatology Book Web Site (1999):
>http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/paleo/html


S. Fred Singer, President
Science & Environmental Policy Project
9812 Doulton Court
Fairfax, VA 22032
http://www.sepp.org
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
e-fax xxx xxxx xxxx(your fax will be sent as email to my
computer)

**********
"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses
to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism
is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin."
Thomas H. Huxley
**********
"That theory is worthless. It isn't even wrong!" - W. Pauli
**********

</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 970663670.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: John Daly <daly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Chick Keller <cfk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Hockey Sticks References
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 08:47:50 +1000
Reply-to: daly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: VINCENT GRAY <vinmary.gray@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Onar

Original Filename: 971992541.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <T.Osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: JGR paper
Date: Thu Oct 19 17:55:xxx xxxx xxxx

I am just having to go so I will think about the "should we?" . The answer to the "can we?"
is yes. I have spoken to the person organising the editorial review and she has promised me
she will get it to us in the next week or so. If we can get it back immediattely she says
we can make the December issue. Therefore it is possible to do the edits if it means very
little change to the text. I have also confirmed that we will pay 1500 dollars for the
colour and they say they are working on these now. I really want to get this into the 2000
so I can include it in the RAE. Ed is here now and has some great looking extended PDSI
reconstructions (1000 years) for the western US.
I am suspicious as to whether the negative trend in Mike's Hockey stick prior to the 20th
century is not at least partly the result of a trend in the long high elevation western US
trees he uses . Malcolm sent me some figures for the HIHOL meeting and in this work he cuts
off the juvenile growth sections of the long tree data but does no detrending on the
remainder. This might leave a linear age trend in these data. I remember that Mike in his
long reconstruction , stated that the pc representing the western US stuff was essential
for getting a verifiable result. Interesting , but only a diversion. We can discuss the JGR
and other stuff in Avignon. Hope your weekend was a god one. I tend to agree a
bout the NAO meeting- you could use the money (and perhaps time) to better effect.
At 04:24 PM 10/19/00 +0100, you wrote:

Keith,
have you had to produce the camera-ready copy for the age-banded JGR paper
yet? If not, then is it possible to make some minor changes to it? For the
comparison with the Mann et al. reconstruction, I had previously just taken
their land&marine full northern hemisphere mean annual temperature time series
and re-calibrated it against the instrumental land north of 20N Apr-Sep mean
temperature time series. Well, I have not taken the Mann et al. spatial
temperature field reconstructions, and computed a land north of 20N area mean.
I still have to re-calibrate it against the instrumental series because it is
an annual rather than Apr-Sep mean. After doing all this, you'll be pleased
to know that the final figure is only slightly different (the Mann et al.
curve is very slightly more of an outlier during the 1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod, and is
cooler and closer to observations post-1950, but not much different
elsewhere). What does change, however, are the correlations. The
correlations with instrumental data are slightly worse (from 0.76 to 0.73, and
from 0.92 to 0.89 decadal), but I'm not sure that we show these anyway. But
the cross-correlations between the Mann et al. and the other reconstructions
(which we do show) are all stronger than previously - which now seems a little
unfair on them.
Cross-correlations between unfiltered series:
Mann versus: Jones, Briffa (ABD), Briffa (Torn+Tai+Yam)
before: 0.47, 0.36, 0.33
now: 0.50, 0.37, 0.34
Cross-correlations between 50-yr smoothed series:
Mann versus: Jones, Briffa (ABD), Briffa (T+T+Y), Overpeck, Crowley
before: 0.78, 0.43, 0.50, 0.86, 0.76
now: 0.81, 0.51, 0.55, 0.86, 0.78
I don't have a copy of the paper in front of me, but the 'before' values
should match those in one of the tables. Some of the 50-yr smoothed new
values are noticeably stronger.
Can we make these changes still, or is it too late? And do you think we
should?
Cheers
Tim

Original Filename: 981859677.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "John L. Daly" <daly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Chick Keller <ckeller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Hockey Sticks again
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 21:47:57 +1100
Reply-to: daly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: "P. Dietze" <p_dietze@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Michael E Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wallace@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Thomas Crowley <tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, sfbtett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, daly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, onar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jarl.ahlbeck@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, richard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, McKitrick <rmckit@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bjarnason <agust@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Harry Priem <priem@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, vinmary.gray@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, balberts@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Martin Manning <m.manning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Albert Arking <arking@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Sallie Baliunas <baliunas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jack Barrett <100436.3604@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Sonja Boehmer-Cristianse <sonja.b-c@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Nigel Calder <nc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Christy <christy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, cpaynter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, driessen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dwojick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Myron Ebell <mebell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ellsaesser <hughel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Emsley <j.emsley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jim Goodridge <jdg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, gsharp@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Peter Holle <cog@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Douglas V Hoyt <dhoyt1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "W. S. Hughes" <wsh@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Wibj

Original Filename: 983207072.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,"Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Wally
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:04:32 +0000
Cc: <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,"Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, tom crowley <tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,<tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>

Dear All,
I was away over the weekend at Bowdoin College in Maine, giving a
talk about the
last 1000 years. There were three others as well on other paleo aspects,
Richard Alley,
Gary Clow and Wally Broecker ! The latter briefly mentioned to me that
he had had
something in last Friday's Science, which was getting at the Mann et al.
series. He
didn't have a copy so we've not seen it here yet. I tried to get a copy
of Science on
the bookstand at Logan airport last night - I guess it's not sold that way !
Wally was going on about this 1500 yr cycle of Bond's, which seemed
pretty flimsy.
I was showing all the various series in a general talk - and I used some
of the overheads
from the upcoming Science paper. This is due to appear in the issue for
the last week
of April. It is all accepted now. I will forward if you'll all abide by
the Science rules. Both
Wally and Alley seem convinced that the climate of Greenland changed by
10 C in
the space of 2-3 years at times in the past (Y Dryas etc). I had long
talks with both
and they don't seem to have got their heads around spatial scales (local
changes
and hemispheric). Also they don't seem to realise where we are coming
from. He
has a downer on trees (believes all the multiproxy series depend
exclusively on
trees) but he thinks Ed Cook is a great scientist. The latter is true,
but he might
just think that because he's at Lamont. I did tell him that Keith's paper
on the age
banding is out in JGR. I should send him a reprint and maybe ask that great
scientist to go and explain it to him ! Ed's in NZ at the moment. Also
Wally believes
much more in glacier advances/retreats. I'll get Keith to send him
Sarah's paper
where the long Tornetrask reconstruction is shown to agree with Storglaciaren
advance/retreat dates from moraine evidence. Also Sarah's been working on
similar
glaciers in the Swiss Alps with long tree-ring reconstructions. One
interesting
thing was he didn't seem to realise that a lot of the tree-ring
reconstructions use
density. Seemed to think they were all ring widths and there had to be
moisture
changes we were not accounting for.
It is easy to respond to a Perspectives piece. Some of you did it
with respect to
one of mine. I'm not sure it will achieve much - it won't come out before
the paper
in the last week of April. I need to wait to se what he says. Our paper
(me, Tim and
Keith) clearly says that the MWP couldn't have been warmer (for the NH
average)
than the late 20th century.
Another possible reason for not doing anything is that the IPCC
report will be out
soon. The summary is written in pretty clear language.
The above is my first thoughts, not having read the piece and just
got off the
flight back.

Best to ignore Woijcek. All he seems to want to do is deflect us into
responding.

Cheers
Phil



At 11:47 25/02/xxx xxxx xxxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
>Dear all,
>WHat mechanism does "Science" have for repsonding to Perspective pieces? Most
>of the answer to Wally is contained within his own piece - he comments on the
>ambiguity of the record, which, in various ways, we have all done. What he
>doesn't offer, however, is anything other than an anecdotal alternative. As
>always, he seeks to damn ( in this case with faint praise) the records or
>work
>that don't serve his purpose , and to elevate any scrap of evidence that does
>serve it. I think it will be important for us to stick closely to what we
>have
>written in published papers. CHeers, MAlcolm
>
>Quoting "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
>
> > Dear Phil, Ray,
> >
> > What do you guys think. If we're all on board, than an appropriately
> > toned,
> > "high road" response here might be appropriate. We don't want to engage
> > Wally in a personal battle, but simply should correct the record where
> > Wally has muddied it. Again, Phil et al do have a Science article in
> > press
> > that serves this purpose to some extent, so I'm especially interested in
> > what
> > Phil thinks (Phil?)...
> >
> > mike
> >
> > At 02:52 PM 2/24/xxx xxxx xxxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
> > >Dear Mike et al., I think we should definitely let Wojick stew in his
> > own
> > >juice - as Mike pointed out to me the other day he, and his like, have
> > a
> > >specific agenda, and anything we write will be pressed into the service
> > of
> > that
> > >agenda. I'm not so sure about Wally. I share Tom's disinclination to
> > get
> > into a
> > >street fight with Wally - generally I take the view that life's too
> > short and
> > >uncertain for such activities. On the other hand, would we let such a
> > shoddy
> > >piece of work(and editing) go by if it were from another author? There
> > are so
> > >many holes in Wally's argument, and such a selective choice of evidence
> > that it
> > >should beggar belief. One of the more obvious holes is that he writes
> > of the
> > >Great Basin droughts of the 10th through 14th centuries as proof of
> > warmer
> > >conditions then, but doesn't explain why we don't have such conditions
> > now.
> > >Interestingly, Larry Benson, Dave Meko and others have good evidence
> > that
> > these
> > >same multidecadal periods were marked by a great excess of
> > precipitation
> > just a
> > >few hundred miles north in northern Nevada and California and southern
> > Oregon.
> > >He just hasn't grasped that the methods that are appropriate for
> > tracking the
> > >consequences of major changes in boundary conditions don't work in the
> > late
> > >Holocene. I've been trying to figure out the issue of "Was there a
> > Medieval
> > >Warm Period, and if so where and when" for a decade or so, and still
> > have the
> > >impression that the records for the 9th through 14th centuries are
> > extremely
> > >mixed. But then, I didn't come to the investigation with a certain
> > knowledge of
> > >the absolute truth, and have had to 'misfortune' to work with people
> > who let
> > >careful analysis get in the way - Henry Diaz, Ray and Mike, and others.
> >
> > >Anyway, the point of this rant is that I think we should give careful
> > >consideration to making a measured response to Wally. Cheers, Malcolm
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Quoting "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
> > >
> > >> Hi Tom,
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for your quick reply. I agree with you entirely. I think its
> > very
> > >> unfortunate he's chosen to disinform the community rather than engage
> > in
> > >> a
> > >> constructive dialogue (we tried the latter w/ him in a series of
> > emails
> > >> last
> > >> year, but clearly to no avail).
> > >>
> > >> On the other hand, think that a war of words w/ Broecker would be
> > >> exploited
> > >> by the skeptics, and perhaps we should just try to let this thing
> > die...
> > >>
> > >> I'm not sure. I'd appreciate knowing what others think?
> > >>
> > >> mike
> > >>
> > >> At 10:25 AM 2/24/xxx xxxx xxxx, tom crowley wrote:
> > >> >Mike,
> > >> >
> > >> >I was not aware of the Broecker piece - I am dismayed but not
> > >> surprised. I
> > >> >do not know what to do - I personally cannot stand the combative
> > >> personal
> > >> >approach Broecker relishes but it does seem as if some rebuttal is
> > >> called
> > >> >for. Maybe you Ray Phil I and Malcolm could pen a response - we are
> > >> >heading to Germany in a week, for a month, so I am not sure how much
> > I
> > >> can
> > >> >keep up on this but it seems as if some response is called for.
> > >> >
> > >> >What think ye?
> > >> >
> > >> >Tom
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >>Dear Mike,
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Thanks for passing this along.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Wojick of course completely misrepresents Broecker, and puts his
> > >> >>conventional intellectually dishonest spin on this.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>That having been said, it is a bit disappointing that Wally
> > continues
> > >> to
> > >> >>cling to some of his flawed beliefs which aren't supported from
> > either
> > >> our
> > >> >>best current understanding of the observations or of the results of
> > >> careful
> > >> >>modeling experiments. My own perception is that the climate
> > community,
> > >> >>modelers as well as observationalists, simply don't take seriously
> > >> anymore
> > >> >>the idea that the history of climate change over the past 1000
> > years
> > >> is
> > >> >>part of an internal oscillation. The sediment core evidence oft
> > cited
> > >> by
> > >> >>Broecker (e.g. Bond et al) for this is tremendously weak, and I, as
> > >> well as
> > >> >>the vast majority of my colleagues, simply don't buy it for even a
> > >> second.
> > >> >>But people don't like to challenge Broecker publically. He can and
> > >> will
> > >> >>play hardball.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>There is an odd irony. Broecker refused to accept the modeling
> > >> evidence
> > >> >>that the 100 kyr ice age Pleistocene variations were part of an
> > >> internal
> > >> >>oscillation paced by insolation variations, favoring instead the
> > >> >>discredited notion that they were a direct response to (too weak)
> > >> >>eccentricity forcing, until the evidence became insurmountable
> > (from
> > >> my
> > >> >>adviser, Barry Saltzman, may he rest in piece, and people like Dick
> > >> >>Peltier). Ironically, Broecker then took credit for the very
> > >> proposition he
> > >> >>had fought w/ tooth and nail.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Broecker is even more wrong, and unfortunately equally stubborn, in
> > >> this case.
> > >> >>And, again, the reason: because his pet theory, that climate
> > >> variability is
> > >> >>a simple millennial oscillation, is finally being challenged w/
> > hard
> > >> data
> > >> >>and hard facts.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Broecker misrepresents the nature of that data that we and others
> > have
> > >> >>used, and misunderstands the source of the muted hemispheric trends
> > >> (there
> > >> >>*is* a hemispheric "medieval warm period" and "little ice age",
> > just
> > >> not of
> > >> >>the magnitude or the distinctiveness that Broecker imagines).
> > >> Individual
> > >> >>regions in our reconstructions, and Phils, and others, vary by
> > several
> > >> >>degrees C, ie, the proxies we use have no problem whatsoever in
> > >> resolving
> > >> >>high-amplitude temperature variations in the past. The problem is
> > that
> > >> when
> > >> >>we look at the different regions we find that periods of cold and
> > >> warm
> > >> >>often occur at very different times in different regions, and so in
> > a
> > >> >>hemispheric or global average, a lot of purely regional variability
> > >> cancels
> > >> >>out. The resulting trends are somewhat smaller. I remained
> > befuddled
> > >> as to
> > >> >>why Wally doesn't understand this point. Its been explained to him
> > >> time and
> > >> >>time again. Maybe he's just not listening, or doesn't want to
> > >> listen...
> > >> >>
> > >> >>In fact, Tom Crowley has clearly shown that the observed millennial
> > >> >>temperature reconstruction is precisely consistent w/ our
> > >> understanding of
> > >> >>*forced* climate change over the past 1000 years (solar changes,
> > >> volcancic
> > >> >>output, and recent greenhouse gas concentrations). There is, simply
> > >> put, no
> > >> >>room for a global millennial internal oscillation. Regionally, such
> > >> types
> > >> >>of climate phenomena, associated for example with changes in the
> > North
> > >> >>Atlantic ocean circulation, are supported by the observations. This
> > >> >>explains why, for example, European temperature variations are
> > >> somewhat
> > >> >>larger than those in other regions not effected so strongly by such
> > >> climate
> > >> >>processes.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Other recent perspectives, by Ray Bradley and myself provide a far
> > >> more
> > >> >>balanced and nuanced (and less dogmatic or defensive) viewpoint.
> > I'm
> > >> not
> > >> >>sure a written response to Broecker is worthwhile (this is,
> > afterall,
> > >> a
> > >> >>"perspective" and everyone understands that a scientist may have a
> > >> flawed
> > >> >>perspective). If Wally wants this to be his legacy, so be it...
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Phil and others have a review article coming out in the near future
> > >> which
> > >> >>also provides a much more balanced perspective on the climate
> > changes
> > >> of
> > >> >>the past millennium, and will set the record straight once again
> > (good
> > >> >>timing Phil!). Science's embargo policy prevents me from saying
> > much
> > >> more
> > >> >>at this time, but if Phil or anyone else wishes to comment further,
> > >> I'd
> > >> >>encourage it.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Well, I've still got some snow to shovel here in Charlottesville!
> > >> Happy
> > >> >>weekend to all,
> > >> >>
> > >> >>mike
> > >> >>
> > >> >>p.s. For those with electronic subscriptions, Broecker's latest
> > piece
> > >> can
> > >> >>be found here:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> PALEOCLIMATE:
> > >> >> Was the Medieval Warm Period Global?
> > >> >> Wallace S. Broecker
> > >> >> Science Feb xxx xxxx xxxx: 1xxx xxxx xxxx. [Summary] [Full Text]
> > >> >>
> > >> >>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5508/1497
> > >> >>
> > >> >>While my previous perspective piece is here:
> > >> >> CLIMATE CHANGE:
> > >> >> Lessons for a New Millennium
> > >> >> Michael E. Mann
> > >> >> Science 2000 July 14; 289: xxx xxxx xxxx. (in Perspectives) [Summary]
> > >> [Full
> > >> >>Text]
> > >> >>URL:
> > >>
> > >>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/289/5477/253?maxtoshow=&HIT
> S=10&h
> > >>
> > >>its=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=Mann&searchid=QID_NOT_SET&stored_search=&
> FIRSTI
> > >> >>NDEX=&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=2/28/2001
> > >> >>
> > >> >>and Bradley's is here:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> PALEOCLIMATE: Enhanced: 1000 Years of Climate Change
> > >> >> Ray Bradley
> > >> >> Science 2000 May 26; 288: 1xxx xxxx xxxx. (in Perspectives) [Summary]
> > >> [Full
> > >> >>Text]
> > >> >>
> > >> >>URL:
> > >>
> > >>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/288/5470/1353?maxtoshow=&HI
> TS=10&
> > >>
> > >>hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=Bradley&searchid=QID_NOT_SET&stored_sear
> ch=&FI
> > >> >>RSTINDEX=&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=2/28/2001
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>Dear Michael--The third point below has comments on the
> > controversy
> > >> >>>betweenyou and Broecker--I'd be interested in your response (did
> > >> Wally not
> > >> >>>just understand what your data show?).
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>Mike
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>Three Wojick Pieces on Climate Change.
> > >> >>>I've been busy busy.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>David
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>FIRST, the latest issue of Insight Magazine includes a
> > >> point-counterpoint
> > >> >>>between measly old me and the great Robert Watson. Boy has he got
> > >> >>>credentials! Too bad he's wrong.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>><http://www.insightmag.com/archive/200103143.shtml>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>Symposium: Do scientists have compelling evidence of global
> > warming?
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>Yes: Rising sea levels worldwide and retreating Arctic glaciers
> > are
> > >> ominous
> > >> >>>signs.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>By Robert T. Watson -- chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel
> > on
> > >> >>>Climate Change, chief scientist at the World Bank and former chief
> > >> science
> > >> >>>advisor to the Clinton White House.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>No: Despite the overheated rhetoric, there is no new evidence of
> > >> warming
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>By David E. Wojick -- covers climate policy for Electricity Daily
> > and
> > >> is a
> > >> >>>science adviser to the Greening Earth Society
> > >> >>><http://www.greeningearthsociety.org>, as well as Undereditor of
> > the
> > >> >>>Washington Pest <http://www.WashingtonPest.com>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>SECOND, the February 15 Eco-logic on-line has published "The Black
> > >> Hole of
> > >> >>>Global Climate Government" by David Wojick, my detailed attack on
> > the
> > >> >>>Framework Convention on Climate Change. It includes a lot of the
> > >> actual
> > >> >>>treaty language.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>><http://www.eco.freedom.org/el/20010202/wojick.shtml>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>THIRD, here is a draft Electricity Daily article of mine. Seems
> > I'm
> > >> not the
> > >> >>>only one who thinks the IPCC is nuts.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>Climate Guru Kicks The Hockey Stick
> > >> >>>by David Wojick (dwojick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx)
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>Global warming is natural and the recent warming is probably no
> > >> exception.
> > >> >>>This is the controversial argument made by prominent climatologist
> > >> Wallace
> > >> >>>S. Broecker in today's issue of Science.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>Broecker's bombshell bears the seemingly innocent title "Was the
> > >> Medieval
> > >> >>>Warm Period Global?" It may seem esoteric, but whether the
> > apparent
> > >> warmth
> > >> >>>reported in Europe about 1000 years ago was global or simply local
> > is
> > >> >>>becoming a central issue in climate science. What makes it
> > >> contentious is
> > >> >>>the recent claims by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on
> > >> Climate
> > >> >>>Change that the earth is warmer now than it has been for
> > millennia,
> > >> and
> > >> >>>that therefore human carbon dioxide emissions are to blame.
> > Broecker,
> > >> a
> > >> >>>leading figure at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia
> > >> University,
> > >> >>>questions both IPCC claims.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>The focus of the debate is a 1000-year temperature reconstruction
> > >> known in
> > >> >>>climate circles as the "hockey stick". Produced in 1999 by M. E.
> > >> Mann, R.
> > >> >>>S. Bradley, M. K. Hughes, the long handle of the hockey stick
> > shows
> > >> global
> > >> >>>temperatures for the first 8 centuries as basically unchanging,
> > >> followed by
> > >> >>>the sharply up-tilting blade of the last 150 years or so. The Mann
> > et
> > >> al
> > >> >>>hockey stick is the central feature of the recently released IPCC
> > >> working
> > >> >>>group one Summary for Policy makers, which claims to embody the
> > best
> > >> of
> > >> >>>climate science.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>Broecker does not like the hockey stick, nor the conclusions the
> > IPCC
> > >> draws
> > >> >>>from it. He says " A recent, widely cited reconstruction (Mann's)
> > >> leaves
> > >> >>>the impression that the 20th century warming was unique during the
> > >> last
> > >> >>>millennium. It shows no hint of the Medieval Warm Period (from
> > around
> > >> 800
> > >> >>>to 1200 A.D.) during which the Vikings colonized Greenland,
> > >> suggesting that
> > >> >>>this warm event was regional rather than global. It also remains
> > >> unclear
> > >> >>>why just at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution and before the
> > >> emission
> > >> >>>of substantial amounts of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, Earth's
> > >> >>>temperature began to rise steeply. Was it a coincidence? I do not
> > >> think so.
> > >> >>>Rather, I suspect that the post-1860 natural warming was the most
> > >> recent in
> > >> >>>a series of similar warmings spaced at roughly 1500-year intervals
> > >> >>>throughout the present inter-glacial, the Holocene."
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>Broecker presents the evidence for a global Medieval Warm Period,
> > as
> > >> well
> > >> >>>as for a Little Ice Age from around 1300 to 1860, when the present
> > >> >>>temperature rise begins. He also argues that the "proxy" evidence
> > >> used by
> > >> >>>Mann et al, such as tree ring data, is ill suited to the time
> > period
> > >> and
> > >> >>>temperature variation -- less than one degree C -- in question.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>As he puts it, "In my estimation, at least for time scales greater
> > >> than a
> > >> >>>century or two, only two proxies can yield temperatures that are
> > >> accurate
> > >> >>>to 0.5 C: the reconstruction of temperatures from the elevation of
> > >> mountain
> > >> >>>snowlines and borehole thermometry. Tree ring records are useful
> > for
> > >> >>>measuring temperature fluctuations over short time periods but
> > cannot
> > >> pick
> > >> >>>up long-term trends because there is no way to establish the
> > >> long-term
> > >> >>>evolution in ring thickness were temperatures to have remained
> > >> constant."
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>Broecker acknowledges that the proxy evidence is necessarily
> > somewhat
> > >> >>>"murky", but his conclusion is that "climatic conditions have
> > >> oscillated
> > >> >>>steadily over the past 100,000 years, with an average period close
> > to
> > >> 1500
> > >> >>>years... The swing from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice
> > >> Age was
> > >> >>>the penultimate of these oscillations." The implication being that
> > >> some, if
> > >> >>>not all, of the present warming is the natural swing out of the
> > >> Little Ice
> > >> >>>Age, and that Mann et al, as well as the IPCC, are mistaken.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>--
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>Dr. David E. Wojick
> > >> >>>President
> > >> >>>Climatechangedebate.org
> > >> >>>Subscribe to the free debate listserv at
> > >> http://www.climatechangedebate.org
> > >> >>>Non subscribers can follow the debate at
> > >> >>>http://www.eScribe.com/science/ClimateChangeDebate/
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >>
> > >>_______________________________________________________________________
> > >> >> Professor Michael E. Mann
> > >> >> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
> > >> >> University of Virginia
> > >> >> Charlottesville, VA 22903
> > >>
> > >>_______________________________________________________________________
> > >> >>e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (804)
> > >> xxx xxxx xxxx
> > >> >> http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.html
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >Thomas J. Crowley
> > >> >Dept. of Oceanography
> > >> >Texas A&M University
> > >> >College Station, TX 77xxx xxxx xxxx
> > >> >xxx xxxx xxxx
> > >> >xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
> > >> >xxx xxxx xxxx(alternate fax)
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > >> Professor Michael E. Mann
> > >> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
> > >> University of Virginia
> > >> Charlottesville, VA 22903
> > >>
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > >> e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (804)
> > xxx xxxx xxxx
> > >> http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.html
> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Professor Michael E. Mann
> > Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
> > University of Virginia
> > Charlottesville, VA 22903
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
> > http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.html
> >
> >
> >

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

</x-flowed>

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

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

Dear Mike et al,

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

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

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

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

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


... a few more minor comments

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


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


Regards,
Tom Delworth

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

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


"Michael E. Mann" wrote:

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

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

Original Filename: 988831541.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Edward Cook <drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: hockey stick
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 15:25:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: tom crowley <tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Hi Mike,

No problem. I am quite happy to work this stuff through in a careful way
and am happy to discuss it all with you. I certainly don't want the work to
be viewed as an attack on previous work such as yours. Unfortunately, this
global change stuff is so politicized by both sides of the issue that it is
difficult to do the science in a dispassionate environment. I ran into the
same problem in the acid rain/forest decline debate that raged in the
1980s. At one point, I was simultaneous accused of being a raving tree
hugger and in the pocket of the coal industry. I have always said that I
don't care what answer is found as long as it is the truth or at least
bloody close to it.

Cheers,

Ed

>Hi Ed,
>
>This is fair enough, and I'm sorry if my spelling out my concerns
>sounded defensive to you. It wasn't meant to be that way.
>
>Lets figure this
>all out based on good, careful
>work and see what the data has to say in the end. We're working towards
>this ourselves, using revised methods and including borehole data, etc.
>and will keep everyone posted on this.
>
>I don't in any way doubt yours and Jan's integrity here.
>
>I'm just a bit concerned that the result is getting used publically, by
>some, before it has gone through the gauntlet of peer review.
>Especially because it is, whether you condone it or not, being used as
>we speak to discredit the work of us, and Phil et al, this is dangerous.
>I think there are some legitimate issues that need to be sorted out
>with regard to the standardization method, and would like to see
>this play out before we jump to conclusions regarding revised estimates
>of the northern hemisphere mean temperature record and the nature of
>the "MWP".
>
>I'd
>be interested to be kept posted on what the status of the manuscript is.
>
>Thanks,
>
>mike
>
>On Wed, 2 May 2001, Edward Cook wrote:
>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> >A few quick points Ed,
>> >
>> >These "Wally seminars" are self-promoting acts on Broecker's part, and I
>> >think the community has to reject them as having any broader significance.
>> >If Broecker had pulled this w/ Ray, Malcolm, Keith, Phil, and Tom around,
>> >he wouldn't get away w/ such a one-sided treatment of the issue. I've been
>> >extremely troubled by what I have heard here.
>>
>> It appears that you are responding in a way that is a bit overly defensive,
>> which I regret. I am not supporting Broecker per se and only explained in a
>> very detailed fashion the origin of the work by Esper and me and how it was
>> presented to refute a very unfair characterization of tree-ring data in
>> Wally's perspective piece. The fact that Esper compared his series with
>> Jones, Briffa, and Mann et al. should not be viewed as an attack on your
>> work. It was never intended to be so, but it is was a clearly legitimate
>> thing to do. As I said, I have no control over Broecker. But it is unfair
>> and indeed incorrect to start out by dismissing the "Special Wally
>> Seminars" as self-promoting acts. To say that is simply wrong. He doesn't
>> bring people in to only express support for his point of view or pet
>> theory, as you are implying. So, I suggest that you cool down a bit on this
>> matter. It detracts from the scientific issues that should properly be
>> debated here. This is the only point on which I will defend Broecker.
>>
>> >I'm also a bit troubled by your comparisons w/ glacial advances, etc. and
>> >how these correlate w/ your reconstruction. Malcolm, Ray, Phil, and others
>> >have been over this stuff time and again, and have pointed out that these
>> >data themselves don't support the notion of globally-synchronoous changes.
>> >You seem to be arguing otherwise? And with regard to association w/
>> >volcanic forcing, Tom has already shown that the major volcanic events are
>> >captured correctly in the existing reconstructions, whether or not the
>> >longer-term trends are correct or not...
>>
>> I am not arguing for "globally-synchronous changes" and never have. To
>> quote what I said about neo-glacial advances, some of the fluctuations in
>> Esper's series "correspond well with known histories of neo-glacial advance
>> in some parts of the NH". Note the use of the word "some" in that quote.
>> That is a fair statement and why shouldn't I say it if it is true,
>> coincidently or not. Whether or not it argues for "globally-synchronous
>> changes" is up to you. I would never argue that everything happening on
>> multi-decadal time scales is phase-locked across the NH. That would be a
>> silly thing to say. But it is perfectly valid to point out the degree to
>> which independent evidence for cold periods based on glacier advances
>> appears to agree with a larger-scale indicator of temperature variablity. I
>> thought this is how science to supposed to proceed. I also don't see your
>> point about volcanic forcing. I mentioned this purely in the spirit of the
>> work of Crowley and others to suggest that the Esper series is probably
>> capturing this kind of signal as well. It has nothing to do with the issue
>> of centennial trends in temperature. You are reading far more into what I
>> wrote than I ever intended or meant.
>>
>> >Re the boreholes. Actually, if Tom's estimates are correct, and it is also
>> >correct that the boreholes have the low-frequency signal correct over the
>> >past few centuries, we are forced to also accept Tom's result that the
>> >so-called "MWP", at the hemispheric scale, is actually even COOLER relative
>> >to present than our result shows! That was clear in Tom's presentation at
>> >the workshop. So lets be clear about that--Tom's work and the boreholes in
>> >no way support Broecker's conclusion that the MWP was warmer than we have
>> >it--it actually implies the MWP is colder than we have it!
>> >Tom, please speak up if I'm not correct in this regard!
>>
>> I am not saying that Tom's results are wrong. And, I am certainly not
>> saying that Broecker is right. I merely described the results of a new
>> analysis of a somewhat new set of long tree-ring records from the
>> extra-tropics. My statement that the MWP appeared to be comparable to the
>> 20th century does not imply, nor was it meant to imply, that somehow the
>> 20th century temperature is not truly anomalous and being driven by
>> greenhouse gases. To quote from my email, "I would not claim (and nor would
>> Jan) that it exceeded the warmth of the late 20th century. We simply do not
>> have the precision or the proxy replication to say that yet." Note the use
>> of the word "precision". This clearly relates to the issue of error
>> variance and confidence intervals, a point that you clearly emphasize in
>> describing your series. Also note the emphasis on "late 20th century". I
>> think that most researchers in global change research would agree that the
>> emergence of a clear greenhouse forcing signal has really only occurred
>> since after 1970. I am not debating this point, although I do think that
>> there still exists a signficant uncertainty as to the relative
>> contributions of natural and greenhouse forcing to warming during the past
>> xxx xxxx xxxxyears at least. Note that I also tried to emphasize the
>> extra-tropical nature of this series, and it may be that the tropics do not
>> show the same strength of warming. But I do argue strongly that we do not
>> have the high-resolution proxy data needed to test for a MWP in the
>> tropics. Please correct me if I am wrong here.
>>
>> >We are in the process of incorporating the borehole data into the
>> >low-frequency component of the reconstruction. The key difference will be
>> >that they are going to be calibrated against the instrumental record and
>> >weighted by the spatial coherence within the borehole data rather than what
>> >Pollack has done. I expect the results will be different, but in any case
>> >quite telling...
>>
>> Fine.
>>
>> >I'll let Malcolm and Keith respond to the issues related to the
>> >standardization of the Esper chronologies, though it immediately sounds to
>> >me quite clear that there is the likelihood of of having contaminated the
>> >century-scales w/ non-climatic info. Having now done some work w/
>> >chronologies in disturbed forests myself now (in collaboration w/ Dave
>> >Stahle), I know how easy it is to get lots of century-scale variability
>> >that has nothing to do w/ climate. I imagine the reviewers of the
>> >manuscript will have to be convinced that this is the case w/ what Esper
>> >has done. I'm very skeptical. I'm also bothered that Broecker has promoted
>> >this work prior to any formal peer review. There are some real issues w/
>> >the standardization approach and there is a real stretch in promoting this
>> >as a hemispheric temperature reconstruction.
>>
>> I appreciate your skepticism and I hope that Jan and I can convince you
>> otherwise. I also encourage you to continue getting your shoulders sore and
>> hands dirty on tree-ring sampling and analysis. Esper's analysis is not
>> perfect. Nor is anyone elses who works in this game. But if Esper's series
>> is wrong on century time scales, then Jones and Briffa are wrong too. If
>> Esper's series is also wrong on inter-decadal time scales, then your series
>> is wrong as well because on that time scale of variablity, his series
>> agrees very well with yours. So, I would be very cautious about declaring
>> that Esper's series is in some sense invalid. Finally, as I have said ad
>> nausem, I have no control over what Broecker thinks or does beyond
>> presenting to him a convincing case for the ability of certain tree-ring
>> series to preserve long-term temperature variability. And again, "I also
>> tried to emphasize the extra-tropical nature of this series." Please give
>> me a break here.
>>
>> >Finally, what is the exact spatial distribution of the sparse data he used.
>> >Scott R. drove home the point regarding the importance of taking into
>> >account spatial sampling in his talk at the workshop. A sparse
>> >extratratropical set of indicators, no matter how
>> >locally-temperature-sensitive they are, will not, unless you're *very*
>> >lucky w/ the locations, be an accurate indicator of true N. Hem temp. In
>> >general it will overestimate the variance at all timescales. The true N.Hem
>> >temperature (ie, weighted largely by tropical ocean SST) has much less
>> >variance than extratrpoical continents. There may be a large apples and
>> >oranges component to the comparisons you describe.
>>
>> I know your argument and I am sensitive to it, hence my emphasis on
>> "extra-tropical". So, don't look for disagreement on the importance of the
>> tropical SSTs to any estimate of NH temperatures. But let's be honest here.
>> Your reconstruction prior to roughly AD 1600 is dominated by extra-tropical
>> proxies. So, in a way, you are caught in the same dilemma as all other
>> people who have tried to do this.
>>
>> >We've shown that are reconstructions in continental extratropical regions
>> >have lots more variance and variability. It is, as we have all shown, the
>> >averaging over many regions that reduces the amplitude of variability. Our
>> >regional reconstructions show far more significant warm and cold periods.
>> >But they cancel out spatially!
>>
>> Understood, but it is still unclear how this all happens as your
>> reconstruction proceeds back in time with an increasingly limited and
>> spatially-restricted set of proxies. Confidence limits that you place on
>> your series is laudable and I agree, to first order, that the MWP in your
>> series could easily have been cooler than what you show. But it implicitly
>> assumes that the estimates are equally unbiased (or equally biased for that
>> matter) back in time. I don't know if that is an issue here, but I believe
>> that the issue of bias using an increasingly sparse number of predictors
>> scattered irregularly over space has not be investigated. Please correct me
>> if I am wrong here.
>>
>> >If a legitimate argument were to be made that we have significnatly
>> >understiamted, within the context of our uncertainty estimates, the
>> >amplitude of the MWP at the hemispheric scale, I'd be the first to accept
>> >it (note that, as Phil et al pointed out in their recent review article in
>> >Science, we do not dispute that temperatures eearly in the millennium,
>> >within the uncertainty estimates, may have been comparable to early/mid
>> >20th centurys--just not late 20th century temperatures).
>>
>> We are in agreement here. See my earlier comments.
>>
>> >Frankly though Ed, I really don't see it here. We may have to let the
>> >peer-review process decid this, but I think you might benefit from knowing
>> >the consensus of the very able group we have assembled in this email
>> >list, on what Esper/you have done?
>>
>> Of course, I know everyone in this "very able group" and respect their
>> opinions and scientific credentials. The same obviously goes for you. That
>> is not to say that we can't disagree. Afterall, consensus science can
>> impede progress as much as promote understanding.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> >Comments or thoughts?
>> >
>> >cheers,
>> >
>> >mike
>> >
>> >At 10:59 AM 5/2/xxx xxxx xxxx, Edward Cook wrote:
>> >> >Ed,
>> >> >
>> >> >heard some rumor that you are involved in a non-hockey stick
>>reconstruction
>> >> >of northern hemisphere temperatures. I am very intrigued to learn about
>> >> >this - are these results suggesting the so called Medieval Warm
>>Period may
>> >> >be warmer than the early/mid 20th century?
>> >> >
>> >> >any enlightenment on this would be most appreciated, Tom
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Thomas J. Crowley
>> >> >Dept. of Oceanography
>> >> >Texas A&M University
>> >> >College Station, TX 77xxx xxxx xxxx
>> >> >xxx xxxx xxxx
>> >> >xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
>> >> >xxx xxxx xxxx(alternate fax)
>> >>
>> >>Hi Tom,
>> >>
>> >>As rumors often are, the one you heard is not entirely accurate. So, I
>>will
>> >>take some time here to explain for you, Mike, and others exactly what was
>> >>done and what the motivation was, in an effort to hopefully avoid any
>> >>misunderstanding. I especially want to avoid any suggestion that this work
>> >>was being done to specifically counter or refute the "hockey stick".
>> >>However, it does suggest (as do other results from your EBM, Peck's work,
>> >>the borehole data, and Briffa and Jones large-scale proxy estimates) that
>> >>there are unresolved (I think) inconsistencies in the low-frequency
>>aspects
>> >>of the hockey stick series compared to other results. So, any comparisons
>> >>with the hockey stick were made with that spirit in mind.
>> >>
>> >>What Jan Esper and I are working on (mostly Jan with me as second author)
>> >>is a paper that was in response to Broecker's Science Perspectives
>>piece on
>> >>the Medieval Warm Period. Specifically, we took strong exception to his
>> >>claim that tree rings are incapable of preserving century time scale
>> >>temperature variability. Of course, if Broecker had read the
>>literature, he
>> >>would have known that what he claimed was inaccurate. Be that as it may,
>> >>Jan had been working on a project, as part of his post-doc here, to
>>look at
>> >>large-scale, low-frequency patterns of tree growth and climate in long
>> >>tree-ring records provided to him by Fritz Schweingruber. With the
>>addition
>> >>of a couple of sites from foxtail pine in California, Jan amassed a
>> >>collection of 14 tree-ring sites scattered somewhat uniformly over the
>> >>xxx xxxx xxxxdegree NH latitude band, with most extending back 1xxx xxxx xxxxyears.
>> >>All of the sites are from temperature-sensitive locations (i.e. high
>> >>elevation or high northern latitude. It is, as far as I know, the largest,
>> >>longest, and most spatially representative set of such
>> >>temperature-sensitive tree-ring data yet put together for the NH
>> >>extra-tropics.
>> >>
>> >>In order to preserve maximum low-frequency variance, Jan used the Regional
>> >>Curve Standardization (RCS) method, used previously by Briffa and myself
>> >>with great success. Only here, Jan chose to do things in a somewhat
>>radical
>> >>fashion. Since the replication at each site was generally insufficient to
>> >>produce a robust RCS chronology back to, say, AD 1000, Jan pooled all of
>> >>the original measurement series into 2 classes of growth trends:
>>non-linear
>> >>(~700 ring-width series) and linear (~500 ring-width series). He than
>> >>performed independent RCS on the each of the pooled sets and produced
>>2 RCS
>> >>chronologies with remarkably similar multi-decadal and centennial
>> >>low-frequency characteristics. These chronologies are not good at
>> >>preserving high-frquency climate information because of the scattering of
>> >>sites and the mix of different species, but the low-frequency patterns are
>> >>probably reflecting the same long-term changes in temperature. Jan than
>> >>averaged the 2 RCS chronologies together to produce a single chronology
>> >>extending back to AD 800. It has a very well defined Medieval Warm
>>Period -
>> >>Little Ice Age - 20th Century Warming pattern, punctuated by strong
>>decadal
>> >>fluctuations of inferred cold that correspond well with known histories of
>> >>neo-glacial advance in some parts of the NH. The punctuations also appear,
>> >>in some cases, to be related to known major volcanic eruptions.
>> >>
>> >>Jan originally only wanted to show this NH extra-tropical RCS
>>chronology in
>> >>a form scaled to millimeters of growth to show how forest productivity and
>> >>carbon sequestration may be modified by climate variability and change
>>over
>> >>relatively long time scales. However, I encouraged him to compare his
>> >>series with NH instrumental temperature data and the proxy estimates
>> >>produced by Jones, Briffa, and Mann in order bolster the claim that his
>> >>unorthodox method of pooling the tree-ring data was producing a record
>>that
>> >>was indeed related to temperatures in some sense. This he did by linearly
>> >>rescaling his RCS chronology from mm of growth to temperature
>>anomalies. In
>> >>so doing, Jan demonstrated that his series, on inter-decadal time scales
>> >>only, was well correlated to the annual NH instrumental record. This
>>result
>> >>agreed extremely well with those of Jones and Briffa. Of course, some of
>> >>the same data were used by them, but probably not more than 40 percent
>> >>(Briffa in particular), so the comparison is based on mostly, but not
>> >>fully, independent data. The similarity indicated that Jan's approach was
>> >>valid for producing a useful reconstruction of multi-decadal temperature
>> >>variability (probably weighted towards the warm-season months, but it is
>> >>impossible to know by how much) over a larger region of the NH
>> >>extra-tropics than that produced before by Jones and Briffa. It also
>> >>revealed somewhat more intense cooling in the Little Ice Age that is more
>> >>consistent with what the borehole temperatures indicate back to AD 1600.
>> >>This result also bolsters the argument for a reasonably large-scale
>> >>Medieval Warm Period that may not be as warm as the late 20th century, but
>> >>is of much(?) greater significance than that produced previously.
>> >>
>> >>Of course, Jan also had to compare his record with the hockey stick since
>> >>that is the most prominent and oft-cited record of NH temperatures
>>covering
>> >>the past 1000 years. The results were consistent with the differences
>>shown
>> >>by others, mainly in the century-scale of variability. Again, the Esper
>> >>series shows a very strong, even canonical, Medieval Warm Period - Little
>> >>Ice Age - 20th Century Warming pattern, which is largely missing from the
>> >>hockey stick. Yet the two series agree reasonably well on inter-decadal
>> >>timescales, even though they may not be 1:1 expressions of the same
>> >>temperature window (i.e. annual vs. warm-season weighted). However, the
>> >>tree-ring series used in the hockey stick are warm-season weighted as
>>well,
>> >>so the difference between "annual" and "warm-season weighted" is probably
>> >>not as large as it might seem, especially before the period of
>>instrumental
>> >>data (e.g. pre-1700) in the hockey stick. So, they both share a
>>significant
>> >>degree of common interdecal temperature information (and some, but not
>> >>much, data), but do not co-vary well on century timescales. Again,
>>this has
>> >>all been shown before by others using different temperature
>> >>reconstructions, but Jan's result is probably the most comprehensive
>> >>expression (I believe) of extra-tropical NH temperatures back to AD 800 on
>> >>multi-decadal and century time scales.
>> >>
>> >>Now back to the Broecker perspectives piece. I felt compelled to refute
>> >>Broecker's erroneous claim that tree rings could not preserve long-term
>> >>temperature information. So, I organized a "Special Wally Seminar" in
>>which
>> >>I introduced the topic to him and the packed audience using Samuel
>> >>Johnson's famous "I refute it thus" statement in the form of "Jan
>>Esper and
>> >>I refute Broecker thus". Jan than presented, in a very detailed and well
>> >>espressed fashion, his story and Broecker became an instant convert. In
>> >>other words, Wally now believes that long tree-ring records, when properly
>> >>selected and processed, can preserve low-frequency temperature variability
>> >>on centennial time scales. Others in the audience came away with the same
>> >>understanding, one that we dendrochronologists always knew to be the case.
>> >>This was the entire purpose of Jan's work and the presentation of it to
>> >>Wally and others. Wally had expressed some doubts about the hockey stick
>> >>previously to me and did so again in his perspectives article. So, Jan's
>> >>presentation strongly re-enforced Wally's opinion about the hockey stick,
>> >>which he has expressed to others including several who attended a
>> >>subsequent NOAA meeting at Lamont. I have no control over what Wally says
>> >>and only hope that we can work together to reconcile, in a professional,
>> >>friendly manner, the differences between the hockey stick and other proxy
>> >>temperature records covering the past 1000 years. This I would like to do.
>> >>
>> >>I do think that the Medieval Warm Period was a far more significant event
>> >>than has been recognized previously, as much because the high-resolution
>> >>data to evaluate it had not been available before. That is much less
>>so the
>> >>case now. It is even showing up strongly now in long SH tree-ring series.
>> >>However, there is still the question of how strong this event was in the
>> >>tropics. I maintain that we do not have the proxies to tell us that now.
>> >>The tropical ice core data are very difficult to interpret as temperature
>> >>proxies (far worse than tree rings for sure and maybe even unrelated to
>> >>temperatures in any simple linear sense as is often assumed), so I do not
>> >>believe that they can be used alone as records to test for the
>>existence of
>> >>a Medieval Warm Period in the tropics. That being the case, there are
>> >>really no other high-resolution records from the tropics to use, and the
>> >>teleconnections between long extra-tropical proxies and the tropics are, I
>> >>believe, far too tenuous and probably unstable to use to sort out this
>> >>issue.
>> >>
>> >>So, at this stage I would argue that the Medieval Warm Period was probably
>> >>a global extra-tropical event, at the very least, with warmth that was
>> >>persistent and probably comparable to much of what we have experienced in
>> >>the 20th century. However, I would not claim (and nor would Jan) that it
>> >>exceeded the warmth of the late 20th century. We simply do not have the
>> >>precision or the proxy replication to say that yet. This being said, I do
>> >>find the dismissal of the Medieval Warm Period as a meaningful global
>>event
>> >>to be grossly premature and probably wrong. Kind of like Mark Twain's
>> >>commment that accounts of his death were greatly exaggerated. If, as some
>> >>people believe, a degree of symmetry in climate exists between the
>> >>hemispheres, which would appear to arise from the tropics, then the
>> >>existence of a Medieval Warm Period in the extra-tropics of the NH and SH
>> >>argues for its existence in the tropics as well. Only time and an enlarged
>> >>suite of proxies that extend into the tropics will tell if this is true.
>> >>
>> >>I hope that what I have written clarifies the rumor and expresses my views
>> >>more completely and accurately.
>> >>
>> >>Cheers,
>> >>
>> >>Ed
>> >>
>> >>==================================
>> >>Dr. Edward R. Cook
>> >>Doherty Senior Scholar
>> >>Tree-Ring Laboratory
>> >>Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
>> >>Palisades, New York 10964 USA
>> >>Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
>> >>Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>> >>Email: drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> >>==================================
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________________________________
>> > Professor Michael E. Mann
>> > Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
>> > University of Virginia
>> > Charlottesville, VA 22903
>> >_______________________________________________________________________
>> >e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
>> > http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
>>
>>
>> ==================================
>> Dr. Edward R. Cook
>> Doherty Senior Scholar
>> Tree-Ring Laboratory
>> Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
>> Palisades, New York 10964 USA
>> Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
>> Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>> Email: drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> ==================================
>>
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
> Professor Michael E. Mann
> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, VA 22903
>_______________________________________________________________________
>e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
> http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.html


==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Doherty Senior Scholar
Tree-Ring Laboratory
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Palisades, New York 10964 USA
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Email: drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
==================================

Original Filename: 990718382.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: christy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: FYI: Fwd: Re: IPCC
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 11:33:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tom crowley <tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Folland, Chris" <ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jouzel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, steig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
John:

For future reference, I think its also important to clarify for you what
the Dahl-Jensen, Clow et al borehole results actually show (see Dahl-Jensen
et al, "Past Temperatures Directly from the Greenland Ice Sheet", Science,
282, October 1998).

In fact, the results show that the amplitude of variability over the past
1000+ years differs by a factor of 2 between the GRIP and Dye 3 borehole
estimates (the latter only 865 km to the south). This is an example of
extreme regional-scale variability, which should give pause to those who
want to draw large-scale inferences.

However, even more importantly, they show in the case of Dye 3, the mid
20th century warm period in the record actually exceeds the Medieval warm
peak! (see Fig 4, lower panel, blue curve). So here we have two temperature
histories less than 1000 km apart in Greenland, which give different
stories regarding the level of Medieval warmth, with at least one of the
histories conforming precisely to the hemispheric trends presented in IPCC
chapter 2 (note that in the chapter, we actually discuss the evidence of
conflicting temperature trends in Greenland, though not specifically
referring to Dahl-Jensen et al).

So do I understand correctly that you are referring to the results of
Dahl-Jensen et al as conflicting with what we say in the chapter? At the
face of it, this argument has no merit whatsoever. I think we should all
use a better explanation from you, since you seem to be arguing publically
that the Dahl-Jensen et al record undermines what we've said in the chapter.

Thanks in advance,

mike

p.s. I've cc'd in Eric Steig, a collaborator of Clow's and a Greenland &
Antarctic Ice Core expert, to make sure my facts above have been presented
accurately. Perhaps Eric woudl be kind enough to forward my email to Gary
Clow, and Gary can let us know directly if he disagrees with any of my
remarks above.

At 03:30 PM 5/23/xxx xxxx xxxx, Michael E. Mann wrote:
>John,
>
>I appreciate your reply.
>
>However, I don't agree at all w/ your assessment. It was determined early
>on that the ice core borehole results would be discussed in the context of
>the millennial-scale variability section, as they arguably don't have the
>resolution to address the timescales relevant to the past 1000 years. So
>this was in Jean's domain, not mine, and if the cross-references between
>the sections aren't clear enough in that regard, that is indeed our fault.
>
>However, there is considerable discussion of the fact that the
>Arctic/North Atlantic regions are inappropriate for inferences into
>hemispheric-scale temperature patterns, and this remains fundamentally
>from any reasonable treatment of the underlying climate dynamics that
>influence that region.
>
>The various hemispheric temperature reconstructions discussed in our
>chapter (the emphasis was on the commonality between them), including Mann
>et al, Jones et al, Briffa et al, Crowley and Lowery, and others, make
>considerable use of just about all of the available reliable low-res and
>high-res paleo data available, and come to a clear concensus regarding the
>relative warmth of the Medieval period at the hemispheric/global scale.
>Crowley's modeling results come to the same conclusion, and it entirely
>independent of
>any empirical paleoclimate reconstructions.
>
>You misrepresent the Mann et al reconstruction--it is not based on "tree
>rings", but uses all high-resolution proxy information commonly available.
>We have shown, in fact, that our reconstruction is robust to the
>inclusion/disclusion of tree ring information. The Crowley and Lowery
>reconstruction, which is discussed in our chapter, makes use of almost no
>tree ring data, and employs lower-resolution proxy indicators, including
>the very records (Keigwin, Lamb's central england temperature record,
>GISP2 o18) that are often used to argue for a warmer MWP, and yet comes to
>the same conclusion. And Tom shows that when averaged across the
>hemisphere, a warmer-than-present-day MWP just doesn't hold up.
>
>Our treatment of this subject in the chapter was far more careful, far
>more inclusive and detailed, and far more nuanced than you give us credit
>for. Your comments below remain disturbingly selective and myopic, and we
>have dealt w/ similar comments many times over...
>
>If ABC is looking to do a hatchet job on IPCC so be it (this doesn't
>surprise me--Stossel has an abysmal record in his treatment of
>environmental issues, from what I had heard), but I'll be very disturbed
>if you turn out to have played into this in a way that is unfair to your
>co-authors on chapter 2, and your colleagues in general. This wouldn't
>have surprised me coming from certain individuals, but I honestly expected
>more from you...
>
>Mike
>
>>Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:50:xxx xxxx xxxx
>>From: John Christy <christy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
>>To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>Subject: Re: IPCC
>>
>>Hi Mike:
>>
>>Here's what happened. ABC News 20/20 with Stossel wanted me to be part
>>of a segment that will air at the end of June on the climate change
>>issue. Specifically the piece will be dealing with the alarmist
>>rhetoric that tends to be found in the media. I am more than happy to
>>talk about that because I've been very disappointed with what has gone
>>on even with respect to some of the IPCC elders and their pronouncements
>>for forthcoming disasters.
>>
>>In one of the pre-interviews they asked about the "Hockey Stick". I
>>told them of my doubts about the intercentury precision of the record,
>>especially the early part, and that other records suggested the period
>>1000 years ago was warmer. I remember saying that "you must give the
>>author credit for including the large error bars for that time series in
>>the figure." I also specifically said that the most precise record of
>>century scale precision, Greenland Borehole temps, was very important to
>>note but that the figure was not in the IPCC. I then looked quickly at
>>the IPCC reference list and saw the citation of Dahl-Jensen and assumed
>>that it was at least commented on in the 1000 year time series material
>>and told ABC as much.
>>
>>ABC called back a few days later and said they couldn't find a reference
>>to the Greenland stuff in the IPCC discussion of the past 1000 years.
>>So I read the final version, and ABC was right. I said this was an
>>omission that should not have happened - and that I take part of the
>>blame because I had mentioned it at each of our Lead Author meetings.
>>
>>Last Thursday night, I was one of the guys flown to NY City for the
>>taping of the show. There was only one question on this particular
>>issue (it was even after Stossel had left the room) and I gave much the
>>same answer as I indicated above (as best as I can remember)- that the
>>"Hockey Stick" (I don't think I used the term "Hockey Stick", and I'm
>>almost positive I did not mention your name at any point) is one
>>realization of temperatures but that other data are not included and
>>that I had thought the "other" data were clearly mentioned in the IPCC,
>>but weren't. I mentioned the large error bars (as a credit to you) and
>>that I was partly to blame for this omission. If they use my remark,
>>they could slice and dice it to make it as provocative as possible.
>>
>>Four of us were taped for almost 2 hours, and from this they will select
>>about 8 minutes, so I doubt my remarks will make the show. When Stossel
>>came back in after all was said and done, he said to me that I might be
>>a good scientist but I didn't have the emotion and passion necessary to
>>excite the audience. In one way, that is a compliment I suppose. I
>>think Pat M. will have a good chunk of air time (I don't remember
>>whether he added any comments on the 1000-year time series, but he may
>>have).
>>
>>Whatever is shown, just keep it in context. There is no way a clear
>>scientific point with all the caveats and uncertainties can come across
>>in such venues. However, I do agree with Stossel's premise (though I
>>don't know what the piece will actually look like so I may be
>>disappointed) that the dose of climate change disasters that have been
>>dumped on the average citizen is designed to be overly alarmist and
>>could lead us to make some bad policy decisions. (I've got a good story
>>about the writers of the TIME cover piece a couple of months ago that
>>proves they were not out to discuss the issue but to ignore science and
>>influence government.)
>>
>>It is not bad science to look at arguably the most precise measure of a
>>point temperature (actually two boreholes) when that point shows a 600+
>>year period of greater warmth than today. On that time scale, the
>>equivalent spatial scale is much larger than any of the regional
>>oscillations we now identify. But, there are several other (admittedly
>>less robust) measures that suggest greater warmth 1000 years ago that
>>are outside the N. Atlantic area. I just don't think tree rings, if
>>averaged over a century, can tell us which century was warmest. We've
>>never had two complete, independent centuries of global instrumental
>>data (separated by more than one century) to even test this idea. (By
>>the way, I came to my own conclusions long before Broekers piece
>>appeared.) This is an area of further work that I promoted to the NRC
>>about 2 months ago (more funding for Paleo work to assess intercentury
>>precision of all proxy records.)
>>
>>Regarding the IPCC. The IPCC TAR is good, but it is not perfect nor
>>sacred and is open to criticism as any document should be. In some
>>cases it is already outdated. Some of the story lines used to generate
>>high temperature changes are simply ridiculous. The IPCC is us. We are
>>under no gag rule to keep our thoughts to ourselves. I thought our
>>chapter turned out pretty good overall, and I attribute that to the
>>open, working relationship we all had (some other chapter groups did not
>>experience this) and to the tireless efforts of our convening lead
>>authors.
>>
>>Good to hear from you.
>>
>>John C.
>>
>>
>>--
>>************************************************************
>>John R. Christy
>>Director, Earth System Science Center voice: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>Professor, Atmospheric Science fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>Alabama State Climatologist
>>University of Alabama in Huntsville
>>http://www.atmos.uah.edu/atmos/christy.html
>>
>>Mail: University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville AL 35899
>>Express: NSSTC/ESSC 320 Sparkman Dr., Huntsville AL 35805
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
> Professor Michael E. Mann
> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, VA 22903
>_______________________________________________________________________
>e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
> http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
>

_______________________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (8xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (8xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

</x-flowed>

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

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

Mike:

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

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

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

John:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope this helps
Regards
Kevin

i.e. the result is not as advertized.

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

2) wrt Lindzen's paper

Here is the text from my recent Senate testimony

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

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

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


Subject: Re: Recent Lindzen paper

Kevin Trenberth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






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

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

Original Filename: 1000154718.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Ed Cook <drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: the real message
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 16:45:xxx xxxx xxxx

Hi Keith,

You probably haven't seen the newest version, which has not yet been
submitted, but I CLEARLY state that several of the data sets/sites used in
the paper have been used before and I reference all of the relevant papers.
I never implied anywhere that this was the first successful use of RCS. I
also reference your Quat. Sci. Rev. paper and your Age Banding paper. I
also state in the concluding section that what has been shown is not new,
but it is somewhat novel (the separation of the data into RC curve classes
and the regionalization of the data on the scale described) and
informative. I stand by that completely. So, the version I am working on
covers (hopefully) some of your concerns/complaints. I will do my best to
be "fair" before I finally submit it. However, this is a Report to Science
(~2500 word limit), so I can't do the kind of review of the literature and
detailed discussiion of results that would be possible in more normal size
papers.

Sorry for sounding a bit testy here. I've been fielding a whole raft of
questions, comments, and criticisms from Mike Mann, Tom Crowley, and
Malcolm Hughes. Some of them useful, many of them tiresome or besides the
point. I never wanted to get involved in this quixotic game of producing
the next great NH temperature reconstruction because of the professional
politics and sensitivities involved. All I wanted to do was demonstate with
Jan that Broecker was wrong, something that you have obviously done a few
times before but in journals that Broecker and others don't follow closely
(I guess. I should also say that the amount of ignorance about tree rings
in the global change/paleo/modeling community is staggering given what has
been published. Like it or not, they simply don't read our papers.). In so
doing, it seemed reasonable to compare the RCS chronology against the
hockey stick because that is the series that Broecker was railing against.
That is why I didn't bother to compare the series against all the other
records produced by you, Phil, and others. Jan originally did that, but I
chose to restrict the comparison to tighten the focus of the paper. More
reference to your results is clearly justified, so maybe I was wrong here.

This all reinforces my determination to leave this NH/global temperature
reconstruction junk behind me once I get this paper submitted. It's not
worth the aggravation. However, the paper is something that I need to do
for Jan. And I still think it is a good paper.

Cheers,

Ed

>What I really mean is that you have written this paper implying that you
>are getting low-frequency NH temperatures out of tree-ring data for the
>first time- using the RCS. You set up this question then use a lot of data
>in your analysis and the RCS as though they have not been analysed like
>this before and then show you get more of a LIA than Mann , while
>ignoring the fact that I have already produced calibrated summer
>temperature curves (in the Science Perspective piece) from RCS ring width
>data in Sweden , Urals , Taimyr and (in the JGR paper) using banded
>density - which both show more low frequency than MBH. The real question is
>whether MBH use data in tropical and mid latitudes that supress what is
>really a high latitude summer signal in their northen predictors ? I just
>don't think you are being very fair here- despite how many times you cite
>me ( perhaps the citations should anyway reflect the useful contributions
>to a particular area even if they number more than a token couple)
>that's off my chest now
>cheers
>Keith
>
>--
>Professor Keith Briffa,
>Climatic Research Unit
>University of East Anglia
>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>
>Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
>Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>
>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/


==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Doherty Senior Scholar
Tree-Ring Laboratory
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Palisades, New York 10964 USA
Email: drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
==================================

Original Filename: 1000168453.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Ed Cook <drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Esper/Cook paper
Date: Mon Sep 10 20:34:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Malcolm K. Hughes" <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Crowley_Hegerl <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jto@u.arizona.edu, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Jan Esper <esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Ed
I still believe you are not showing sufficient comparisons with series
besides the MBH ; necessary to demonstrate the true extent of "new" information in this
work. At the very least this needs to acknowledge that other (and other tree-ring-based )
series are out there , that use at least some of the data you employ , and use the RCS
method to process may of their constituent series - i.e. the Northern chronology series
shown in my QSR paper. What is similar and what is different in your series and this one?
You give the impression here that you are using the RCS and new data to demonstrate the
possibility of getting more low frequency signal from tree-ring data - but then you base
this on a comparison with MBH only. Surely what is needed here is to establish WHY MBH
don't get as much LIA for example . By not showing that other tree-ring data that have also
shown a LIA , and not exploring why MBH does not (despite using some of the same -and note
-already RCS standardised data) is perhaps confusing rather than clarifying the issue.
When we discussed this here, I also suggested the need to show separate "north" and more
"south" curves ,separated in your data set, to try to get at least some handle on the
independent expression of the centennial trends in a region south of the over-exploited
northern network . At the very least it should be clearly stated that many of the site data
used here and in previous work (see our Science perspectives piece) are common and other
series already produce more low-frequency signal than is implied in MBH .
Sorry for this rushed comment but I wanted to get this point over as we had talked about it
before but you don't seem to have taken it on board.
cheers
Keith
At 02:51 PM 9/10/xxx xxxx xxxx, Ed Cook wrote:

Hi Mike et al.,
Okay, here is an overlay plot of MBH vs. RCS, with RCS scaled to the
1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod of MBH, and with 95% confidence limits. This has been done
for the 40-yr low-pass RCS data to be consistent with the low-pass MBH
series you sent me. The 95% confidence limits of the RCS are also scaled
appropriately. Since correlations with both instrumental and MBH are
O(0.95) after even 20-year smoothing because of the trend, the RCS limits
are effectively based on the bootstrap 95% limits of the 14 chronologies.
Assuming that the original RCS C.I.s are reasonably accurate (which I think
they are), what is apparent (to me anyway) is that the confidence limits of
MBH are uniformly narrower after AD 1600. Prior to that, they are
comparable to RCS back to ca. AD 1200 where RCS C.I.s get bigger. Of course
this is an odd comparison because the confidence limits are not derived the
same way. However, I do think that they are somewhat informative
nonetheless. What is also apparent is the much great amplitude of
variability in the RCS estimates. This is consistent with the understanding
that extratropical temperatures are more variable than tropical
tempertures, which supports the idea that the MBH record does have more
tropical temperature information in it. The other interesting thing about
expressing the RCS data this way and overlaying it on MBH is the appearance
that MBH is missing the LIA rather than the MWP, at least on
multi-centennial timescales. This turns some of Broecker's criticism of the
"hockey stick" on its head. I'm not sure where all this leads.
Any comments and further suggestions are welcome as long as they come in by
tomorrow. I am definately submitting the paper within a day or two.
Cheers,
Ed
==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Doherty Senior Scholar
Tree-Ring Laboratory
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Palisades, New York 10964 USA
Email: drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
==================================

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

Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa[2]/

References

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

Original Filename: 1060002347.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Jim Salinger" <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Barrie.Pittock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Neville Nicholls" <n.nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: Recent climate sceptic research and the journal Climate Research
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 09:05:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: n.nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Peter.Whetton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Roger.Francey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, David.Etheridge@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Ian.Smith@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Simon.Torok@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Willem.Bouma@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Greg.Ayers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Rick.Bailey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Graeme.Pearman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,

Dear Jim,
Thanks for your continued interest and help w/ all this. It's nice to know that our friends
down under are doing their best to fight the misinformation. It is true that the skeptics
twist the truth clockwise rather than counterclockwise in the Southern Hemisphere?
There was indeed a lot of activity last week. Hans Von Storch's resignation as chief editor
of CR, which I think took a lot of guts, couldn't have come at a better time. It was on the
night before before the notorious "James Inhofe", Chair of the Senate "Environment and
Public Works Committee" attempted to provide a public stage for Willie Soon and David
Legates to peddle their garbage (the Soon & Baliunas junk of course, but also the usual
myths about the satellite record, 1940s-1970s cooling, "co2 is good for us" and "but water
vapor is the primary greenhouse gas!").
Fortunately, these two are clowns, neither remotely as sharp as Lindzen or as slick as
Michaels, and it wasn't too difficult to deal with them. Suffice it to say, the event did
*not* go the way Inhofe and the republicans had hoped. The democrats, conveniently, had
received word of Hans' resignation, but the republicans and Soon/Legates had not. So when,
quite fittingly, Jim Jeffords (you may remember--he's the U.S. senator who was in the news
a couple years ago for tilting the balance of power back to the democrats when he left the
republican party in protest) hit them with this news at the hearing, they were caught
completely off guard. The "Wall Street Journal" article you cited was icing on the cake.
Inhofe, who rails against the liberal media, will have a difficult time doing so against
the WSJ!
Also of interest to you (attached) might be the op-ed that Ray Bradley, Phil, and I have
written and submitted to the "Seattle News Tribune" in response to an op-ed by Baliunas
(also attached) that some industry group has been sending around to various papers over the
last week. Only two (Providence Journal and Seattle NT) have thusfar bitten...
There is a rumour that Harvard may have had enough w/ their name being dragged through the
mud by the activities of Baliunas and Soon, and that "something is up". Baliunas and Soon,
as alluded to in the WSJ article, are now no longer talking to the media. Will keep you
posted on that...
mike
At 03:58 PM 8/4/2003 +1200, Jim Salinger wrote:

Dear Mike et al
I also share Neville's thanks to you all for the reasoned and evaluated responses over
the last few months. They have been good, and separated out 'academic standards'
from 'academic freedom', which we have to be careful not to abuse.
I also note the following, come through over the weekend from the Wall Street Journal
(below) and would also compliment those of you who, with Hans Von Storch resigned
your editorships when information that should be published was clearly supressed.
If you have further information that you feel free to share on last week's events then
we
in New Zealand would appreciate hearing it, as we have been extremely concerned
about academic standards in the reviewing of articles from New Zealand sources.
Again thanks to all on your stands.
Best regards
Jim
>>>> July 31, 2003
>>>> DEBATING GLOBAL WARMING
>>>>
>>>> Global Warming Skeptics
>>>> Are Facing Storm Clouds
>>>>
>>>> By ANTONIO REGALADO
>>>> Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
>>>>
>>>> A big flap at a little scientific journal is raising questions about
>>>> a study that has been embraced by conservative politicians for its
>>>> rejection of widely held global-warming theories.
>>>>
>>>> The study, by two astronomers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
>>>> Astrophysics, says the 20th century wasn't unusually warm compared
>>>> with earlier periods and contradicts evidence indicating man-made
>>>> "greenhouse" gases are causing temperatures to rise.
>>>>
>>>> Since being published last January in Climate Research, the paper has
>>>> been widely promoted by Washington think tanks and cited by the White
>>>> House in revisions made to a recent Environmental Protection Agency
>>>> report. At the same time, it has drawn stinging rebukes from other
>>>> climate scientists.
>>>>
>>>> This week, three editors of Climate Research resigned in protest over
>>>> the journal's handling of the review process that approved the study;
>>>> among them is Hans von Storch, the journal's recently appointed
>>>> editor in chief. "It was flawed and it shouldn't have been
>>>> published," he said.
>>>>
>>>> Dr. von Storch's resignation was publicly disclosed Tuesday by Sen.
>>>> James Jeffords (I., Vt.), a critic of the administration's
>>>> environmental policies, during a hearing of the Senate Environment
>>>> and Public Works Committee called by its chairman, Sen. James Inhofe
>>>> (R., Okla.).
>>>>
>>>> The debate over global warming centers on the extent to which gases
>>>> released from the burning of fossil fuels -- mainly carbon dioxide --
>>>> are trapping the sun's heat in the Earth's atmosphere, creating a
>>>> greenhouse effect. The political fight has intensified as the Senate
>>>> votes on a major energy bill. Sens. John McCain (R., Ariz.) and
>>>> Joseph Lieberman (D., Conn.) planned to introduce an amendment this
>>>> week that would cap carbon-dioxide emissions at 2000 levels starting
>>>> in 2010 for select industries. The Bush administration is opposed to
>>>> imposing caps, and the measure isn't expected to become law.
>>>>
>>>> The Harvard study has become part of skeptics' arguments. Mr. Inhofe,
>>>> who is leading the opposition to the emissions measures, cited the
>>>> research in a speech on the Senate floor Monday in which he said,
>>>> "the claim that global warming is caused by man-made emissions is
>>>> simply untrue and not based on sound science."
>>>>
>>>> The paper was authored by astronomers Willie Soon and Sallie
>>>> Baliunas, and looked at studies of tree rings and other indicators of
>>>> past climate. Their basic conclusion: The 20th century wasn't the
>>>> warmest century of the past 1,000 years. They concluded temperatures
>>>> may have been higher during the "Medieval Warm Period," the time
>>>> during which the Norse settled Greenland.
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Soon couldn't be reached and Dr. Baliunas declined comment. In
>>>> his testimony before Mr. Inhofe's committee, Dr. Soon reiterated the
>>>> findings of his study, which was partly funded by the American
>>>> Petroleum Institute.
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Soon's findings contradict widely cited research by another
>>>> scientist, Michael E. Mann of the University of Virginia. Dr. Mann's
>>>> reconstruction of global temperatures shows a distinct pattern shaped
>> >> like a hockey stick: Temperatures stayed level for centuries, with a
>>>> sudden upturn during recent decades.
>>>>
>>>> A reference to Dr. Soon's paper previously found its way into
>>>> revisions suggested by the White House to an EPA report on
>>>> environmental quality. According to an internal EPA memorandum
>>>> disclosed in June, agency scientists were concerned the version
>>>> containing the White House edits "no longer accurately represents
>>>> scientific consensus on climate change." Dr. Mann's data showing the
>>>> hockey-stick temperature curve was deleted. In its place,
>>>> administration officials added a reference to Dr. Soon's paper, which
>>>> the EPA memo called "a limited analysis that supports the
>>>> administration's favored message."
>>>>
>>>> The EPA says the memo appears to be an internal e-mail between
>>>> staffers but isn't an "official" document. A spokesman at the White
>>>> House's Council on Environmental Quality says the addition of the
>>>> citation to Dr. Soon's paper to the draft report was suggested during
>>>> an interagency review process overseen by the White House.
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Mann and 13 colleagues published a critique of Dr. Soon's paper
>>>> in Eos, a publication of the American Geophysical Union, this month.
>>>> They said the Harvard team's methods were flawed and their results
>>>> "inconsistent with the preponderance of scientific evidence."
>>>>
>>>> Then, last week Dr. von Storch was contacted by Sen. Jeffords's
>>>> staff, which was looking into the paper in preparation for Tuesday's
>>>> hearing, where Dr. Soon and Dr. Mann were scheduled to appear. After
>>>> hearing from Sen. Jeffords, Dr. von Storch says he decided to speed
>>>> an editorial into print criticizing publication of the paper.
>>>>
>>>> But publisher Otto Kinne blocked the move, saying that while he
>>>> favored publication of the editorial, Dr. von Storch's proposals were
>>>> still opposed by some of the other editors. "I asked Hans not to rush
>>>> the editorial," Mr. Kinne said in an e-mail.
>>>>
>>>> That is when Dr. von Storch resigned, followed by two other editors.
>>>>
>>>> --John J. Fialka contributed to this article.
On 30 Jul 2003 at 8:26, Neville Nicholls wrote:
> Dear Mike et al:
>
> Despite my reluctance to get involved in preparing a public response
> to the SB03 papers, and my feeling that we would be better off
> ignoring it, I have to record my appreciation of the job you have done
> in preparing the EOS 8 July commentary. I thought it was an excellent,
> scientific, calm evaluation of SB03. Fortuitously, it arrived the same
> day I had to prepare a brief about SB03 for my political masters. It
> was very helpful to have your commentary to include in this brief.
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Neville Nicholls
> Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre
> PO Box 1289K, Melbourne, AUSTRALIA, 3001
> Street address: 13th floor, 150 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne, AUSTRALIA,
> 3000 Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx; Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>
********************************************
Dr Jim Salinger, CRSNZ Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
NIWA Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
P O Box xxx xxxx xxxx, (269 Khyber Pass Road) e-mail: j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Newmarket, Auckland,
New Zealand
****************************************************************************************
***

______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachSeattleNewsTribune-oped-final.doc" Attachment
Converted: "c:eudoraattachBaliunasProvidenceJournal25Jul03.pdf"

References

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Original Filename: 1091798809.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Janice Lough" <j.lough@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: liked the paper
Date: Fri Aug 6 09:26:xxx xxxx xxxx

Janice,
Most of the data series in most of the plots have just appeared on the CRU web site.
Go to data then to paleoclimate. Did this to stop getting hassled by the skeptics for the
data series. Mike Mann refuses to talk to these people and I can understand why. They are
just trying to find if we've done anything wrong. I sent one of them loads of series
and he barely said a thankyou. It seems they are now going for Tom Crowley, Lonnie
Thompson and Gordon Jacoby as most of their series are not on web sites.
Below is a link to an awful piece by Legates. He told me he is a writing a paper, but
wrote the press release first ! The pdf is worth getting for a couple of sentences, when
he
said that MJ restricted their use of paleo series to those that had correlations with
instrumental data ! It is a classic. 'Our uncertainty estimates are based solely on how
well
the proxy records match the observed data' !
The Legates piece must have been sent to loads of environment correspondents across
the world and a number of op-ed pieces appeared. Some were awful. Most have had
responses from Ray Bradley, Caspar Amman and others.
Hope all is well with you and all the best to all. Glad you enjoyed the paper.
Cheers
Phil
PS Do you want to get involved in IPCC this time? I'm the CLA of the atmospheric obs.
chapter with Kevin Trenberth and we'll be looking for Contributing Authors to help the
Lead Authors we have. Paleo is in a different section this time led by Peck and Eystein
Janssen. Keith is a lead author as well.
Phil Jones has made a valid point in that some of the articles cited
in my critique do not 'directly' address problems with Mann and Jones (MJ)
but rather, address problems with earlier works by Mann, Bradley, and
Hughes (MBH) and other colleagues. Fair enough - I have changed the
critique to reflect that fact. The revised version has been posted since
July 19 at:
[1]http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba478/ba478.pdf
However, I still contend that most of my original arguments - namely, the
problems with the shaft, blade, and sheath - apply equally to Mann and
Jones as well as the other Mann et al. manifestations of the 'hockey
stick'.
MJ incorporate data from a number of the same sources as those used
by MBH; for example, Mann's unpublished PC1 from the western North
American tree-ring data, Cook's Tasmanian tree rings, Thompson's Quelccaya
and Dunde ice core oxygen isotope records (the latter embedded in Yang's
Chinese composite), and Fisher's stacked Greenland ice core oxygen isotope
record. Calibration and verification of MJ includes the flawed MBH curve.
Thus, any errors in MBH effectively undermine the calibration-verification
results of MJ, leaving this study unsupported and any problems with the
underlying common proxies identified in critiques of MBH will also result
in identical problems in MJ.
My criticism regarding the blade is that 0.6 deg C warming for the
last century is noted by the IPCC whereas MJ (and other M et al
representations) have up to 0.95 deg C warming in their observed record.
See MJ's figure 2 where for the global and NH reconstruction, their
estimates for 2000 exceed +0.4 and +0.5 (nearly +0.6), respectively.
MJ's NH curve is included in the attached graph. Thus, I stand by my
criticism of MJ on this point, which is more egregious in MJ than other M
et al representations.
>From Jones: "The trend over the 20th century in the Figure and in the
instrumental data. IPCC quotes 0.6 deg C over the 1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod. Fact
- but Legates is eyeballing the curve to get 0.95 deg C. A figure isn't
given in Mann and Jones (2003). Take it from me the trend is about the
same as the instrumental record."
Funny, but there IS a figure in MJ - see their Figure 2. As for me
'eyeballing' an apparently non-existent curve, I attach a figure from Soon
et al. (2004) that contains a portion of MJ's Figure 2 to allow others to
decide for themselves whether MJ suggest a twentieth century warming of
0.6 deg C or 0.95 deg C. Moreover, maybe someone can explain why every
time Mann and his colleagues draft another curve, the temperature in 2000
gets warmer and warmer after the fact...
My criticisms regarding the sheath (largely from a paper on which I
am working) stem from the characterization of the uncertainty by MJ that
arises solely from the 'fit' statistics to the 1xxx xxxx xxxxperiod using
cross-validation with, not observations, but composites of three
previously compiled reconstructions, including that developed by MBH - the
focus of known flaws and errors in the shaft. Note that some of the same
data are used in both MBH and MJ, which doesn't allow for a truly
independent cross-validation. My rather obvious point was not that fit
statistics should not be included (as Jones asserts) but that MJ included
no errors in either input realization (observations or proxy data) or
other obvious sources of error. The claim by MBH and MJ is that only the
model lack-of-fit contributes to uncertainty is inherently flawed.
Considerable errors exist in the representation of both fields -
annual temperatures from both observations and proxy records - and must be
incorporated. Clearly, there is a spatial bias associated with
observations that are biased away from the oceans, high latitudes, and
high altitudes. The spatial problem is far more pronounced when only a
handful of proxies are used to represent the global temperatures at
earlier time periods. Both MBH and MJ are equally guilty in this regard.
David R. Legates
At 15:55 06/08/2004 +1000, you wrote:

Dear Phil
Just finished reading your paper with Mike M in Rev of Geophysics which I
very much enjoyed - will let you know when it hits the Mission Beach
Chronicle!
Hope all is well
best wishes
Janice
Janice M. Lough
Principal Research Scientist
Australian Institute of Marine Science
PMB 3, Townsville MC
Queensland 4810
Australia
email: j.lough@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Tel: (xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: (xxx xxxx xxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained within this transmission is for the use of
the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or
legally privileged material and/or material the subject of copyright
and/or personal information and/or sensitive information that is
subject to the Privacy Act 1988. Any review, re-transmission,
disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in
reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited.

If you have received this email in error please notify the AIMS
Privacy Officer on (xxx xxxx xxxxand delete all copies of this
transmission together with any attachments.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

References

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

Original Filename: 1096382684.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Andy Revkin <anrevk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: mann's thoughts
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:44:xxx xxxx xxxx

<x-flowed>
that is a useful way to look at it.

again, takeaway msg is that mann method can only work if past variability
same as variability during period used to calibrate your method.

so it could be correct, but could be very wrong as well.
by the way, von storch doesn't concur with osborn/briffa on the idea that
higher past variability would mean there'd likley be high future
variability as well (bigger response to ghg forcing).
he simply says it's time to toss hockeystick and start again, doesn't take
it further than that.


is that right?

At 09:40 AM 9/28/2004, you wrote:
>Dear Andy,
>
>our schematic figure is attached.
>
>Tim
>
>
>
>Dr Timothy J Osborn
>Climatic Research Unit
>School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
>Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
>
>e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
>fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
>sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm


Andrew C. Revkin, Environment Reporter, The New York Times
229 West 43d St. NY, NY 10036
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx, Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx(via www.efax.com, received as email)


</x-flowed>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original Filename: 1104945887.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] IPCC last 2000 years data
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:24:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, cddhr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Fortunat Joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Ricardo Villalba" <ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Hi Keith and Co - I think David likes a good debates, so the main
thing is to consider his comments and respond appropriately. Although
the first priority has to be on the ZOD text and display items, maybe
you can go back over his comments AFTER the looming deadline and
further discuss things with David and others. For now, just work away.

The biggest issue is how to handle forcing and simulations - i.e.,
where to put different pieces in the chapter. Eystein and I will help
the team work through this. More soon, but for now just proceed as
you have been proceeding. There is real merit to the concept that
your section is about how climate varied over the last 2ka, and what
caused these variations. The flip side is that we need to get a clear
vision of how this differs from what goes into the other sections.
Eystein and I will work more on this asap.

Your plan re: glaciers is good. That's a tough one, but it has to be
boiled WAY down. Moreover, my gut is to focus on the extent to which
these complicated natural archives (e.g., complicated by ppt change)
support or do not support the other proxy evidence/conclusions. This
is why I was thinking we might think about a box, and to include the
Lonnie perspective in it - e.g., glaciers are now melting everywhere
(almost - we know why they are not in those places) in a manner
unprecedented in the last xxxx years. Make sense? See what Olga says,
and if needbe, I can help focus that stuff more.

Thanks! Peck

>Hi Peck (et al)
>I am considering comments (including David's) re last 2000 years -
>some are valid = some are not . Will try to chop out bits but we
>need this consensus re the forcing and responses bit - I am for
>keeping the forcings in as much as they relate to the specific model
>runs done - and results for last 1000 years as I suspect that they
>will not be covered in the same way elsewhere . David makes couple
>good points - but extent to which forcings different (or
>implementation) perhaps need addressing here. The basic agreement I
>mean is that the recent warming is generally unprecedented in these
>simulations.
>It will take time and input from the tropical ice core /coral people
>to do the regional stuff well . I think the glaciological stuff is a
>real problem - other than just showing recent glacial states (also
>covered elsewhere) - of course difficult to interpret any past
>records without modelling responses (as in borehole data), but this
>requires considerable space . My executive decision would be to ask
>Olga to try to write a couple of papragraphs on limits of
>interpretation for inferring precisely timed global temperature
>changes? What do others think? I only heaved Olga's stuff in at
>last moment rather than not include it - but of course it needs
>considerable shortening. The discussion of tree-ring stuff is
>problematic because it requires papers to be published eg direct
>criticism of Esper et al. We surely do not want to waste space HERE
>going into this esoteric topic? All points on seasonality , I agree
>with , but the explicit stuff on M+M re hockey stick - where is
>this? ie the bit about normalisation base affecting redness in
>reconstructions - sounds nonsense to me ?
>
>I have to consider the comments in detail but am happy for hard
>direction re space and focus. If concensus is no forcings and model
>results here fine with me - Peck and Eystein to rule
>Keith
>


--
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: 1105024270.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: solomina@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] IPCC last 2000 years data
Date: Thu Jan 6 10:11:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: jto@u.arizona.edu,Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Olga
am sending this to get you in this loop re the discussion for slimming down the 2000 year
section Basically , IN THIS BIT - the decision is to reduce the glacier evidence to a very
much smaller piece , coached in the sense of how the glacier evidence is problematic for
interpreting precise and quantitative indications of the extent of regional or Hemispheric
Warmth (and even cold) - issues of translating tongue position or volume into specific
temperature and precipitation forcing . Hence , I am having to remove the stuff you sent
and am asking if you could consider trying to write a brief section dealing with the issues
I raise ? I also attach some initial comments by David Rind (on the full first draft of the
chapter sent round by Eystein) for consideration Sorry about this - but presumable (as you
suggested earlier) some of this can go in the 10K bit. You can shout at me (and the others)
later!
cheers
Keith

X-Sender: jto@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:24:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] IPCC last 2000 years data
Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, cddhr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
Fortunat Joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
"Ricardo Villalba" <ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at email.arizona.edu
X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Hi Keith and Co - I think David likes a good debates, so the main thing is to consider
his comments and respond appropriately. Although the first priority has to be on the ZOD
text and display items, maybe you can go back over his comments AFTER the looming
deadline and further discuss things with David and others. For now, just work away.
The biggest issue is how to handle forcing and simulations - i.e., where to put
different pieces in the chapter. Eystein and I will help the team work through this.
More soon, but for now just proceed as you have been proceeding. There is real merit to
the concept that your section is about how climate varied over the last 2ka, and what
caused these variations. The flip side is that we need to get a clear vision of how this
differs from what goes into the other sections. Eystein and I will work more on this
asap.
Your plan re: glaciers is good. That's a tough one, but it has to be boiled WAY down.
Moreover, my gut is to focus on the extent to which these complicated natural archives
(e.g., complicated by ppt change) support or do not support the other proxy
evidence/conclusions. This is why I was thinking we might think about a box, and to
include the Lonnie perspective in it - e.g., glaciers are now melting everywhere (almost
- we know why they are not in those places) in a manner unprecedented in the last xxxx
years. Make sense? See what Olga says, and if needbe, I can help focus that stuff more.
Thanks! Peck

Hi Peck (et al)
I am considering comments (including David's) re last 2000 years - some are valid =
some are not . Will try to chop out bits but we need this consensus re the forcing and
responses bit - I am for keeping the forcings in as much as they relate to the specific
model runs done - and results for last 1000 years as I suspect that they will not be
covered in the same way elsewhere . David makes couple good points - but extent to which
forcings different (or implementation) perhaps need addressing here. The basic agreement
I mean is that the recent warming is generally unprecedented in these simulations.
It will take time and input from the tropical ice core /coral people to do the regional
stuff well . I think the glaciological stuff is a real problem - other than just showing
recent glacial states (also covered elsewhere) - of course difficult to interpret any
past records without modelling responses (as in borehole data), but this requires
considerable space . My executive decision would be to ask Olga to try to write a couple
of papragraphs on limits of interpretation for inferring precisely timed global
temperature changes? What do others think? I only heaved Olga's stuff in at last moment
rather than not include it - but of course it needs considerable shortening. The
discussion of tree-ring stuff is problematic because it requires papers to be published
eg direct criticism of Esper et al. We surely do not want to waste space HERE going into
this esoteric topic? All points on seasonality , I agree with , but the explicit stuff
on M+M re hockey stick - where is this? ie the bit about normalisation base affecting
redness in reconstructions - sounds nonsense to me ?
I have to consider the comments in detail but am happy for hard direction re space and
focus. If concensus is no forcings and model results here fine with me - Peck and
Eystein to rule
Keith

--
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
[1]http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
[2]http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/

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

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

References

1. http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
2. http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

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: 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: 1108399027.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: WSJ
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:37:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

A good comparison of all of the reconstruction constructive by William Connelly, which
makes it clear that the take-home point is robust, is available here:
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
mike
At 10:58 AM 2/14/2005, Tom Wigley wrote:

Mike,
I'm sorry we had no time to talk at Stanford.
Here is the answer to the LIA bounce back idea ...
For 20th century warming to be a bounce back, the
heat must come from somewhere. The only source
consistent with the bounce back idea is the ocean.
The Levitus data show that heat has been going INTO
the ocean, not coming out of it.
This is really obvious, but I have never seem it stated
anywhere.
----------
Re WSJ. They say ...
"Statistician Francis Zwiers of Environment Canada, a government agency,
says he now agrees that Dr. Mann's statistical method "preferentially
produces hockey sticks when there are none in the data."
Dr. Mann, while agreeing that his mathematical method tends to find
hockey-stick shapes, says this doesn't mean its results in this case are
wrong. Indeed, Dr. Mann says he can create the same shape from the
climate data using completely different math techniques."
-----------------
It is a bit worrying that Francis agrees with M&M -- but it seems that
you do too.
My questions are:
(1) Do other reconstructions (not including Lonnie Thompson's of course)
suffer from this standardization problem?
(2) You have stated that simply averaging the data together gives the
same result. Has this elementary method been published?
(2a) I note that the PC1 amplitude time series invariably correlates highly
with the (non-areally-weighted) 'area average'. So this brings up the issue
of whether you use some area weighting in your PCA -- as we
invariably do when doing PCA of gridded data?
(3) From what I can see without reading their full GRL paper,
M&M think that the RE statistic has an odd sampling distribution.
It is easy to show this by Monte Carlo simulation -- have you done
this (i.e., in the abstract, as a statistical exercise, not for the specific
case of MBH98, etc.)?
Tom.

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

References

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
2. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

Original Filename: 1108594561.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jmahlman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: RE: WSJ article
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:56:xxx xxxx xxxx

Interesting that Antonio R. doesn't (or at least claims not to) recognize a lack of balance
in the article.
Please treat this email as confidential. I don't believe that sending a letter to the
editor myself would be the best avenue. But perhaps someone else is interested in pursuing
this?
Mike

Subject: RE: WSJ article
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:43:xxx xxxx xxxx
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: WSJ article
Thread-Index: AcUUaIg6ON4Ck5ANQ2OfoGmU0QNsvAAAEqMA
From: "Regalado, Antonio" <Antonio.Regalado@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Feb 2005 22:43:10.0610 (UTC) FILETIME=[E423A720:01C51478]
X-UVA-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at fork11.mail.virginia.edu


Hi Mike,

On the personal stuff, Id go with your first impressions, rather than the perceptions of
others. This isnt a one-sided story. Anyway, I certainly want to find out who is right
here and so I am open to writing more as the papers come out and the facts become
clearer, just as I have written in the past about the Soon and Balliunias business (p.
A3not bad) and about paleo-climate (p. 1 story in 2002 about Gary Comers funding,
feature story on Lonnie Thompsons melting glaciers), etc. Would it surprise you to
hear that anytime I write a story which seems to favor global warming I am also deluged
by accusations of bias and demands for corrections etc.?
Regarding Moberg, I think the issue you are raising is a question of emphasis and not a
matter for a correction. The specific sentences youre thinking of (Indeed, new research
from Stockholm University on historical temperatures suggests past fluctuations were
nearly twice as great as the hockey stick shows. That could mean the 20th-century jump
isn't quite so anomalous. ) seem to me be not only factual but precisely to the point of
what the mainstream of science is discussing vis a vis MBH, which was the topic of that
part of my story. For instance, in the Anderson/Woodhouse commentary that accompanied
Moberg in the same issue of Nature, they too stress the increased variability just as I
did and they make no mention of the late 1990s. And as per my email Monday, my article
does also say that other reconstructions also indicate that the 20^th Century was
unusually warm and that the punch line is the same.
Im sure youre fully sick of writing letters, but this may be right opportunity for a
letter to the editor from you or someone who you can second. The person to send a letter
to is [1]Karen.Pensiero@xxxxxxxxx.xxx. If you want, CC: me and my editor,
[2]Elyse.tanouye@xxxxxxxxx.xxx. Or even an editorial on the broader topic of where the
science is at. I can give you the name for who to send an editorial to if you want it.
It is probably worth pointing out that no amount of debate can change the facts buried
in those tree rings, etc..
Yes, I will continue to write about climate. The next topic is impacts. What do you
think is the best story there? Id like to write about current impacts rather than only
projected ones as these will be more tangible for the reader. Also, since the Arctic has
been well covered Id be interested in impacts at lower latitudes.
Antonio






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

References

1. mailto:Karen.Pensiero@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:Elyse.tanouye@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

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

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

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

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

Francis,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

1. http://www.cccma.bc.ec.gc.ca/

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

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


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

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

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