The below are part of a series of alleged emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, released on 20 November 2009.
Original Filename: 1047489122.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:12:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Tim,
Thanks for your rapid replies and your help. This is all very useful.
Well, lets see what this gives...
There are some notable differences just between our relative comparisons of the different
series which must have something to do with the relative scaling and aligning of the
series. The position of Crowley and Lowery, in particular, is quite inconsistent between
our respective comparisons. When we scale the various series to the full N. Hem
instrumental annual mean CRU record 1xxx xxxx xxxx, we get a a very different relative ordering
of the different series, as shown in the attached figure from my Science perspective piece
from last year
This should not, however, influence the EOF decomposition if all series are zero-mean and
standardized prior to the EOF analysis, but the scaling and alignment of the result, in the
end, will be sensitive to all of these various issues.
So, in short, lets see what we get, and then discuss any similarities/differences w/ your
result, then make a decision as to what to show in the Eos piece. I'm sure we can come up
w/ something we're all happy with...
Please do send us your & Keith's preferred version of the MXD reconstruction--we'll collect
the others from the individual sources (most we already have, I think)...,
mike
At 04:53 PM 3/12/2003 +0000, Tim Osborn wrote:
At 16:29 12/03/03, Michael E. Mann wrote:
but there are many variables here [not the least of which is the choice of scaling the
series to an extratropical summer mean, which as we have argued before, we don't think
is appropriate for a full N. Hem mean because of changes in meridional temperature
gradient over time, and the choice of calibration period--I wonder if 1xxx xxxx xxxxor
1xxx xxxx xxxxgives a more stable result).
True, but as I indicated I have tried alternatives. The attached is what I get with
annual mean temperature as the target series - still taken only from land >20N though
[but I have extracted that domain from your spatial reconstructions to produce the time
series that I used for "Mann et al." - which should make it reasonably appropriate back
to 1400 at least]. I have also tried different calibration periods (including not
calibrating against instrumental data at all!). All give qualitatively similar results
- see attached .pdf and compare with the first one I sent.
The point is, that (I believe) the approach will introduce a *new* result and while that
is interesting it wouldn't be appropriate for a short EOS piece - and having found this
out, I was trying to save you the effort.
But, on reflection, it would be good if you went ahead and did this anyway, because the
results might well be useful to publish in another paper, even if they weren't deemed
suitable for the EOS piece.
I could provide the 7 series that I have used, but would prefer that you got them from
the original sources to ensure that you have the most up-to-date/correct versions.
Cheers
Tim
Dr Timothy J Osborn | phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Senior Research Associate | fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Climatic Research Unit | e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
School of Environmental Sciences | web-site:
University of East Anglia __________| [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
Norwich NR4 7TJ | sunclock:
UK | [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[3]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachmannpersp2002.gif"
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
3. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1047503776.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:16:16 +0000
Cc: Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
This is an excellent idea, Mike, IN PRINCIPLE at least. In practise,
however, it raises some interesting results (as I have found when
attempting this myself) that may be difficult to avoid getting bogged down
with discussing.
The attached .pdf figure shows an example of what I have produced (NB.
please don't circulate this further, as it is from work that is currently
being finished off - however, I'm happy to use it here to illustrate my point).
I took 7 reconstructions and re-calibrated them over a common period and
against an observed target series (in this case, land-only, Apr-Sep, >20N -
BUT I GET SIMILAR RESULTS WITH OTHER CHOICES, and this re-calibration stage
is not critical). You will have seen figures similar to this in stuff
Keith and I have published. See the coloured lines in the attached figure.
In this example I then simply took an unweighted average of the calibrated
series, but the weighted average obtained via an EOF approach can give
similar results. The average is shown by the thin black line (I've ignored
the potential problems of series covering different periods). This was all
done with raw, unsmoothed data, even though 30-yr smoothed curves are
plotted in the figure.
The thick black line is what I get when I re-calibrate the average record
against my target observed series. THIS IS THE IMPORTANT BIT. The
*re-calibrated* mean of the reconstructions is nowhere near the mean of the
reconstructions. It has enhanced variability, because averaging the
reconstructions results in a redder time series (there is less common
variance between the reconstructions at the higher frequencies compared
with the lower frequencies, so the former averages out to leave a smoother
curve) and the re-calibration is then more of a case of fitting a trend
(over my calibration period 1xxx xxxx xxxx) to the observed trend. This results
in enhanced variability, but also enhanced uncertainty (not shown here) due
to fewer effective degrees of freedom during calibration.
Obviously there are questions about observed target series, which series to
include/exclude etc., but the same issue will arise regardless: the
analysis will not likely lie near to the middle of the cloud of published
series and explaining the reasons behind this etc. will obscure the message
of a short EOS piece.
It is, of course, interesting - not least for the comparison with
borehole-based estimates - but that is for a separate paper, I think.
My suggestion would be to stick with one of these options:
(i) a single example reconstruction;
(ii) a plot of a cloud of reconstructions;
(iii) a plot of the "envelope" containing the cloud of reconstructions
(perhaps also the envelope would encompass their uncertainty estimates),
but without showing the individual reconstruction best guesses.
How many votes for each?
Cheers
Tim
At 15:32 12/03/03, Michael E. Mann wrote:
>p.s. The idea of both a representative time-slice spatial plot emphasizing
>the spatial variability of e.g. the MWP or LIA, and an EOF analysis of all
>the records is a great idea. I'd like to suggest a small modification of
>the latter:
>
>I would suggest we show 2 curves, representing the 1st PC of two different
>groups, one of empirical reconstructions, the other of model simulations,
>rather than just one in the time plot.
>
>Group #1 could include:
>
>1) Crowley & Lowery
>2) Mann et al 1999
>3) Bradley and Jones 1995
>4) Jones et al, 1998
>5) Briffa et al 200X? [Keith/Tim to provide their preferred MXD
>reconstruction]
>6) Esper et al [yes, no?--one series that differs from the others won't
>make much of a difference]
>
>I would suggest we scale the resulting PC to the CRU 1xxx xxxx xxxxannual
>Northern Hemisphere mean instrumental record, which should overlap w/ all
>of the series, and which pre-dates the MXD decline issue...
>
>Group #2 would include various model simulations using different forcings,
>and with slightly different sensitivities. This could include 6 or so
>simulation results:
>
>1) 3 series from Crowley (2000) [based on different solar/volcanic
>reconstructions],
>2) 2 series from Gerber et al (Bern modeling group result) [based on
>different assumed sensitivities]
>1) Bauer et al series (Claussen group EMIC result) [includes 19th/20th
>century land use changes as a forcing].
>
>I would suggest that the model's 20th century mean is aligned with the
>20th century instrumental N.Hem mean for comparison (since this is when we
>know the forcings best).
>
>
>I'd like to nominate Scott R. as the collector of the time series and the
>performer of the EOF analyses, scaling, and plotting, since Scott already
>has many of the series and many of the appropriate analysis and plotting
>tools set up to do this.
>
>We could each send our preferred versions of our respective time series to
>Scott as an ascii attachment, etc.
>
>thoughts, comments?
>
>thanks,
>
>mike
>
>At 10:08 AM 3/12/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Michael E. Mann wrote:
>>Thanks Tom,
>>
>>Either would be good, but Eos is an especially good idea. Both Ellen M-T
>>and Keith Alverson are on the editorial board there, so I think there
>>would be some receptiveness to such a submission.t
>>
>>I see this as complementary to other pieces that we have written or are
>>currently writing (e.g. a review that Ray, Malcolm, and Henry Diaz are
>>doing for Science on the MWP) and this should proceed entirely
>>independently of that.
>>
>>If there is group interest in taking this tack, I'd be happy to contact
>>Ellen/Keith about the potential interest in Eos, or I'd be happy to let
>>Tom or Phil to take the lead too...
>>
>>Comments?
>>
>>mike
>>
>>At 09:15 AM 3/12/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Tom Crowley wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Phil et al,
>>>
>>>I suggest either BAMS or Eos - the latter would probably be better
>>>because it is shorter, quicker, has a wide distribution, and all the
>>>points that need to be made have been made before.
>>>
>>>rather than dwelling on Soon and Baliunas I think the message should be
>>>pointedly made against all of the standard claptrap being dredged up.
>>>
>>>I suggest two figures- one on time series and another showing the
>>>spatial array of temperatures at one point in the Middle Ages. I
>>>produced a few of those for the Ambio paper but already have one ready
>>>for the Greenland settlement period xxx xxxx xxxxshowing the regional nature
>>>of the warmth in that figure. we could add a few new sites to it, but
>>>if people think otherwise we could of course go in some other direction.
>>>
>>>rather than getting into the delicate question of which paleo
>>>reconstruction to use I suggest that we show a time series that is an
>>>eof of the different reconstructions - one that emphasizes the
>>>commonality of the message.
>>>
>>>Tom
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dear All,
>>>> I agree with all the points being made and the multi-authored
>>>> article would be a good idea,
>>>> but how do we go about not letting it get buried somewhere. Can we
>>>> not address the
>>>> misconceptions by finally coming up with definitive dates for the LIA
>>>> and MWP and
>>>> redefining what we think the terms really mean? With all of us and
>>>> more on the paper, it should
>>>> carry a lot of weight. In a way we will be setting the agenda for
>>>> what should be being done
>>>> over the next few years.
>>>> We do want a reputable journal but is The Holocene the right
>>>> vehicle. It is probably the
>>>> best of its class of journals out there. Mike and I were asked to
>>>> write an article for the EGS
>>>> journal of Surveys of Geophysics. You've not heard of this - few
>>>> have, so we declined. However,
>>>> it got me thinking that we could try for Reviews of Geophysics. Need
>>>> to contact the editorial
>>>> board to see if this might be possible. Just a thought, but it
>>>> certainly has a high profile.
>>>> What we want to write is NOT the scholarly review a la Jean Grove
>>>> (bless her soul) that
>>>> just reviews but doesn't come to anything firm. We want a critical
>>>> review that enables
>>>> agendas to be set. Ray's recent multi-authored piece goes a lot of
>>>> the way so we need
>>>> to build on this.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At 12:55 11/03/xxx xxxx xxxx, Michael E. Mann wrote:
>>>>>HI Malcolm,
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for the feedback--I largely concur. I do, though, think there
>>>>>is a particular problem with "Climate Research". This is where my
>>>>>colleague Pat Michaels now publishes exclusively, and his two closest
>>>>>colleagues are on the editorial board and review editor board. So I
>>>>>promise you, we'll see more of this there, and I personally think
>>>>>there *is* a bigger problem with the "messenger" in this case...
>>>>>
>>>>>But the Soon and Baliunas paper is its own, separate issue too. I too
>>>>>like Tom's latter idea, of a more hefty multi-authored piece in an
>>>>>appropriate journal (Paleoceanography? Holocene?) that seeks to
>>>>>correct a number of misconceptions out there, perhaps using Baliunas
>>>>>and Soon as a case study ('poster child'?), but taking on a slightly
>>>>>greater territory too.
>>>>>
>>>>>Question is, who would take the lead role. I *know* we're all very busy,
>>>>>
>>>>>mike
>>>>>
>>>>> At 10:28 AM 3/11/xxx xxxx xxxx, Malcolm Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>I'm with Tom on this. In a way it comes back to a rant of mine
>>>>>>to which some of you have already been victim. The general
>>>>>>point is that there are two arms of climatology:
>>>>>> neoclimatology - what you do based on instrumental records
>>>>>>and direct, systematic observations in networks - all set in a
>>>>>>very Late Holocene/Anthropocene time with hourly to decadal
>>>>>>interests.
>>>>>>paleoclimatology - stuff from rocks, etc., where major changes
>>>>>>in the Earth system, including its climate, associated with
>>>>>>major changes in boundary conditions, may be detected by
>>>>>>examination of one or a handful of paleo records.
>>>>>>Between these two is what we do - "mesoclimatology" -
>>>>>>dealing with many of the same phenomena as neoclimatology,
>>>>>>using documentary and natural archives to look at phenomena
>>>>>>on interannual to millennial time scales. Given relatively small
>>>>>>changes in boundary conditions (until the last couple of
>>>>>>centuries), mesoclimatology has to work in a way that is very
>>>>>>similar to neoclimatology. Most notably, it depends on heavily
>>>>>>replicated networks of precisely dated records capable of
>>>>>>being either calibrated, or whose relationship to climate may
>>>>>>be modeled accuarately and precisely.
>>>>>>Because this distinction is not recognized by many (e.g.
>>>>>>Sonnechkin, Broecker, Karlen) we see an accumulation of
>>>>>>misguided attempts at describing the climate of recent
>>>>>>millennia. It would be better to head this off in general, rather
>>>>>>than draw attention to a bad paper. After all, as Tom rightly
>>>>>>says, we could all nominate really bad papers that have been
>>>>>>published in journals of outstanding reputation (although there
>>>>>>could well be differences between our lists).
>>>>>>End of rant, Cheers, Malcolm
>>>>>> > Hi guys,
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > junk gets published in lots of places. I think that what could be
>>>>>> > done is a short reply to the authors in Climate Research OR a SLIGHTLY
>>>>>> > longer note in a reputable journal entitled something like "Continuing
>>>>>> > Misconceptions About interpretation of past climate change." I kind
>>>>>> > of like the more pointed character of the latter and submitting it as
>>>>>> > a short note with a group authorship carries a heft that a reply to a
>>>>>> > paper, in no matter what journal, does not.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Tom
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > > Dear All,
>>>>>> > > Apologies for sending this again. I was expecting a stack of
>>>>>> > >emails this morning in
>>>>>> > > response, but I inadvertently left Mike off (mistake in pasting)
>>>>>> > >and picked up Tom's old
>>>>>> > > address. Tom is busy though with another offspring !
>>>>>> > > I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling -
>>>>>> > >worst word I can think of today
>>>>>> > > without the mood pepper appearing on the email ! I'll have time to
>>>>>> > >read more at the weekend
>>>>>> > > as I'm coming to the US for the DoE CCPP meeting at Charleston.
>>>>>> > >Added Ed, Peck and Keith A.
>>>>>> > > onto this list as well. I would like to have time to rise to the
>>>>>> > >bait, but I have so much else on at
>>>>>> > > the moment. As a few of us will be at the EGS/AGU meet in Nice, we
>>>>>> > >should consider what
>>>>>> > > to do there.
>>>>>> > > The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper
>>>>>> > >determine the answer they get. They
>>>>>> > > have no idea what multiproxy averaging does. By their logic, I
>>>>>> > >could argue 1998 wasn't the
>>>>>> > > warmest year globally, because it wasn't the warmest everywhere.
>>>>>> > >With their LIA being 1300-
>>>>>> > >1900 and their MWP xxx xxxx xxxx, there appears (at my quick first
>>>>>> > >reading) no discussion of
>>>>>> > > synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental
>>>>>> > >record, the early and late
>>>>>> > > 20th century warming periods are only significant locally at
>>>>>> > >between 10-20% of grid boxes.
>>>>>> > > Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do
>>>>>> > >something - even if this is just
>>>>>> > > to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think
>>>>>> > >the skeptics will use
>>>>>> > > this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >years if it goes
>>>>>> > > unchallenged.
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having
>>>>>> > >nothing more to do with it until they
>>>>>> > > rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the
>>>>>> > >editorial board, but papers
>>>>>> > > get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > Cheers
>>>>>> > > Phil
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > Dear all,
>>>>>> > > Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore
>>>>>> > >probably, so don't let it spoil your
>>>>>> > > day. I've not looked at it yet. It results from this journal
>>>>>> > >having a number of editors. The
>>>>>> > > responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >a few papers through by
>>>>>> > > Michaels and Gray in the past. I've had words with Hans von Storch
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >about this, but got nowhere.
>>>>>> > > Another thing to discuss in Nice !
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > Cheers
>>>>>> > > Phil
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >>X-Sender: f055@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>>>> > >>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
>>>>>> > >>Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:32:14 +0000
>>>>>> > >>To: p.jones@uea
>>>>>> > >>From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>>>>> > >>Subject: Soon & Baliunas
>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>> > >>Dr Timothy J Osborn | phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>>> > >>Senior Research Associate | fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>>> > >>Climatic Research Unit | e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>>>> > >>School of Environmental Sciences | web-site: University of East
>>>>>> > >>Anglia __________| http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ Norwich NR4
>>>>>> > >>7TJ | sunclock: UK |
>>>>>> > >>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >Prof. Phil Jones
>>>>>> > >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>>> > >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>>> > >University of East Anglia
>>>>>> > >Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>>>> > >NR4 7TJ
>>>>>> > >UK
>>>>>> > >---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> > >-------
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Soon & Baliunas 2003.pdf (PDF
>>>>>> > >/CARO) (00016021)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > --
>>>>>> > Thomas J. Crowley
>>>>>> > Nicholas Professor of Earth Systems Science
>>>>>> > Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences
>>>>>> > Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences
>>>>>> > Box 90227
>>>>>> > 103 Old Chem Building Duke University
>>>>>> > Durham, NC 27708
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>>>> > xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>>> > xxx xxxx xxxxfax
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Malcolm Hughes
>>>>>>Professor of Dendrochronology
>>>>>>Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
>>>>>>University of Arizona
>>>>>>Tucson, AZ 85721
>>>>>>xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>>>fax xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>>>> Professor Michael E. Mann
>>>>> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
>>>>> University of Virginia
>>>>> Charlottesville, VA 22903
>>>>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>>>>e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>> http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
>>>>
>>>>Prof. Phil Jones
>>>>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>University of East Anglia
>>>>Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>>NR4 7TJ
>>>>UK
>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>Thomas J. Crowley
>>>Nicholas Professor of Earth Systems Science
>>>Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences
>>>Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences
>>>Box 90227
>>>103 Old Chem Building Duke University
>>>Durham, NC 27708
>>>
>>>tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>xxx xxxx xxxxfax
>>
>>______________________________________________________________
>> Professor Michael E. Mann
>> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
>> University of Virginia
>> Charlottesville, VA 22903
>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
>> http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
>
>______________________________________________________________
> Professor Michael E. Mann
> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, VA 22903
>_______________________________________________________________________
>e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
> http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
</x-flowed>
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachsynth1.pdf"
<x-flowed>
Dr Timothy J Osborn | phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Senior Research Associate | fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Climatic Research Unit | e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
School of Environmental Sciences | web-site:
University of East Anglia __________| http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
Norwich NR4 7TJ | sunclock:
UK | http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1048106475.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Bert Metz <Bert.Metz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Armin Haas <haas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: AMS project
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:41:15 +0100
Cc: Alex Haxeltine <Alex.Haxeltine@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Philippe Ambrosi <ambrosi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Antonella Battaglini <antonella.battaglini@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Antoni Rosell <antoni.rosell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Asbj
Original Filename: 1048799107.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Earth Government <earthgov@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Press release from Earth Government and April Newsletter
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:05:xxx xxxx xxxx
Press release from Earth Government and April Newsletter
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
This Press release from Earth Government is found at
[1]http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov/HNewsPR05.htm
Formation of Earth Government for the good of all
March 27th, 2003
To all Peoples of the Earth,
Earth has long been waiting for a truly global governing body based on universal values,
human rights, global concepts and democracy. Earth Government might as well be created now,
there is no longer any reason to wait. We are the Earth Community, and we will form the
Earth Government. Earth management is a priority and is a duty by every responsible person.
A democratically elected Earth Government will now be formed, and we want you to reflect on
future effects of such an event on the history of humanity. Certainly one will expect
extraordinary changes: a reorganizing of human activities all over the planet;
participation by all societies on the planet in solving local and global problems; new
alliances forming; north meeting with south (eradication of poverty will be the price to
pay to get votes from the south) in order to gather more votes within the newly created
Earth Government to satisfy power struggles between European, Asian and Western countries;
adoption of democratic principles, human and Earth rights, global concepts, and universal
values by every human being; expansion of consciousness; gathering and coordinating of
forces to resolve social and political problems in a peaceful way (no more conflicts or
wars); gathering and coordinating of forces (technologies, scientific research, exploration
work, human resources, etc.) to resolve global problems such as global climate,
environment, availability of resources, poverty, employment, etc. Thousands more changes!
Let your heart and mind reflect on 'the good' of a democratically elected Earth Government.
Everyone is part of Earth Community by birth and therefore everyone has a right to vote.
Everyone should be given a chance to vote. Decisions will be made democratically.
Earth Government is proposing that:
a) different nations may require different political systems at different times
b) a democratic system is not a "must have it" to be a responsible member nation of the
Earth Government
c) all democracies are to be upgraded, or improved upon, to be a responsible member nation
of the Earth Government. The Scale of Human and Earth Rights and the Charter of the Earth
Government are the newly added requirements to all democratic systems of the world.
In today's Earth Government it is important for our survival to cooperate globally on
several aspects such as peace, security, pollution in the air, water and land, drug trade,
shelving the war industry, keeping the world healthy, enforcing global justice for all,
eradicating poverty worldwide, replacing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the
Scale of Human and Earth Rights, and entrenching the Charter of Earth Government as a way
of life for the good of all.
Earth needs urgently a world system of governance. The United Nations fail to satisfy the
needs of the people of the 21st Century. It has never improved upon the old ways and
thinking of the middle of the 20th Century. Its voting system no longer satisfy the 6.157
billion people on Earth. The challenges are different and require a world organization up
for dealing with the needs of all these people.
During the past several years, the Earth Government has been pleading the United Nations
leaders to make changes in the UN organizational structure and ways of doing things. There
has been an urgent need for fundamental changes in the United Nations organization. The
decision of the United States Government to invade the Middle East nations and Afghanistan
has shown to be a result of this incapacity for changes on the part of the United Nations.
A lack of leadership at the United Nations is a major threat to the security of the world.
The world wants a true democratic world organization. The UN is not!
The most fundamental requirement of a world organization is a democratic system of voting.
Democracy must be a priority. The right that the greatest number of people has by virtue of
its number (50% plus one) is a human right. It should be respected. The actual UN system of
voting is undemocratic, unfair and noone likes it. It does not work! Earth Government has
proposed a voting system based on democracy.
Of the 190 Member States of the United Nations, it takes only one of the five permanent
members to overthrow any decision or proposal during a meeting. This means 1/189 or 0.5% of
the membership is more powerful than the remaining 99.5%. If that is not a dictature, what
is it? It does not say much about democracy at the UN. More like a dictature of the five
permanent members. In the Preamble of the Charter of the United Nations, it says "WE THE
PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS " but in fact it should say "WE THE FIVE PERMANENT MEMBERS".
The voting system for Earth Government is very simple and practical. One representative per
million people. If all countries in the world had decided now to participate with this
process we would have today 6,114 elected representatives to form Earth Government. They
would form the Legislative body of Earth Government. They could actually all stay home to
govern or from some place in their communities. Today communications are more than good
enough to allow voting and discussing issues, etc. through the Internet and video
conferencing. That would cut cost of governing down to a minimum, at least administrative
costs. The Executive body would also govern in this way to cut cost down to a minimum.
Ministers can administer their Ministries from where they live if they wish to. There will
be a place for the Headquarters. We will show that it costs very little to administer Earth
Government, and that we can achieve immense results. There is no limit to the good the
Earth Government can achieve in the world. Think! What can do a unified 6.114 billion
people determined to make things work to keep Earth healthy?
For the first time in human history, and the first time this millennium, humanity has
proposed a benchmark:
* formation of Earth Government
* formation of global ministries in all important aspects of our lives
* the Scale of Human and Earth Rights as a replacement to the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights
* an evolved Democracy based on the Scale of Human and Earth Rights and the Charter of
the Earth Government
* a central organization for Earth management, the restoration of the planet and Earth
governance: the Global Community Assessment Centre (GCAC)
* the Earth Court of Justice to deal with all aspects of the Governance and Mangement of
the Earth
* a new impetus given to the way of doing business and trade
* more new, diversified (geographical, economical, political, social, business,
religious) symbiotical relationships between nations, communities, businesses, for the
good and well-being of all
* the event and formation of the human family and the Soul of Humanity
* proposal to reform the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the World Bank,
the IMF, NAFTA, FTAA, and to centralize them under Earth Government, and these
organizations will be asked to pay a global tax to be administered by Earth Government
* the Peace Movement of the Earth Government and shelving of the war industry from
humanity
* a global regulatory framework for capitals and corporations that emphasizes global
corporate ethics, corporate social responsibility, protection of human and Earth rights,
the environment, community and family aspects, safe working conditions, fair wages and
sustainable consumption aspects
* the ruling by the Earth Court of Justice of the abolishment of the debt of the poor or
developing nations as it is really a form of global tax to be paid annually by the rich
or industrialized nations to the developing nations
* establishing freshwater and clean air as primordial human rights
The political system of an individual country does not have to be a democracy. Political
rights of a country belong to that country alone. Democracy is not to be enforced by anyone
and to anyone or to any community. Every community can and should choose the political
system of their choice with the understanding of the importance of such a right on the
Scale of Human and Earth Rights. On the other hand, representatives to Earth Government
must be elected democratically in every part of the world. An individual country may have
any political system at home but the government of that country will have to ensure (and
allow verification by Earth Government) that representatives to Earth Government have been
elected democratically. This way, every person in the world can claim the birth right of
electing a democratic government to manage Earth: the rights to vote and elect
representatives to form the Earth Government.
In order to elect representatives to Earth Government it is proposed the following:
A. Each individual government in the world will administer the election of
representatives to Earth Government with an NGO and/or members of Earth Government be
allowed to verify all aspects of the process to the satisfaction of all parties
involved.
B. Representatives be elected every five years to form a new Earth Government.
C. It is proposed here that there will be one elected representative per 1,000,000
people. A population of 100 million people will elect 100 representatives. This process
will create a feeling of belonging and participating to the affairs of the Earth
Community and Earth Government.
D. A typical community of a million people does not have to be bounded by a geographical
or political border. It can be a million people living in many different locations all
over the world. The Global Community is thus more fluid and dynamic. We need to let go
the archaic ways of seeing a community as the street where I live and contained by a
border. Many conflicts and wars will be avoided by seeing ourselves as people with a
heart, a mind and a Soul, and as part of a community with the same.
E. Earth population is now 6.114 billion people. If all representatives had been elected
this year there would be 6,114 representatives to form Earth Government. They would be
the Legislative elected body of Earth Government. They would participate in some ways in
choosing the Executive and Judiciary bodies of Earth Government.
Humanity has now a Vision of the Earth in the years to come and a sense of direction.
May the DIVINE WILL come into our lives and show us the way.
May our higher purpose in life bring us closer to the Soul of Humanity and God.
Germain Dufour, President
Earth Community Organization (ECO) and Earth Government
___________________________________________________________________________________________
The Newsletter can be found at the following location:
April 2003 Newsletter
[2]http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov/NewsA.htm
There are no costs in reading our Newsletters
([3]http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov/EarthGovernment.htm).
The Table of Contents of the Newsletter is shown here.
Table of Contents
1.xxx xxxx xxxxPresident's Message
2.xxx xxxx xxxxLetter to the Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chretien, concerning Peace in the
Middle East
3.xxx xxxx xxxxLetter to the American and British Peoples concerning the invasion of the Middle
East
4.xxx xxxx xxxxLetter to all Canadians concerning the total and global embargo on all US products,
all goods and services
5.xxx xxxx xxxxLetter to the Moslem and the Arab Peoples
6.xxx xxxx xxxxLetter to Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji of China, and to the Chinese People
7.xxx xxxx xxxxLetter to the United Nations
8.xxx xxxx xxxxArticles
Axxx xxxx xxxxHow women matter in decreasing world population
Bxxx xxxx xxxxThe energy we need
Cxxx xxxx xxxxMining the impacts
Dxxx xxxx xxxxSymbiotical relationship of religion and global life-support systems
Exxx xxxx xxxxCelebration of Life Day
Fxxx xxxx xxxxThe hidden agenda: China
Gxxx xxxx xxxxEarth Government now a priority
Hxxx xxxx xxxxThe splitting of America into separate independent states living at peace for the
good of all
Ixxx xxxx xxxxThe war industry: the modern evil at work in the Middle East
Jxxx xxxx xxxxEarth security
Kxxx xxxx xxxxEarth governance
Lxxx xxxx xxxxThe Earth Court of Justice holds the people of the U.S.A. and Britain as criminals
Mxxx xxxx xxxxFoundation for the new world order, Earth Government
Improved Democracy, Nonviolence, and Peace
Respect and Care for the Global Community of Life
Ecological Integrity
Social and Economic Justice
A new symbiotical relationship between that of spirituality and the
protection of the global life-support systems
Scale of Human and Earth Right
Earth Court of Justice
Charter of Earth Government
May the DIVINE WILL come into our lives and show us the way.
May our higher purpose in life bring us closer to the Soul of Humanity and God.
Germain Dufour, President
[4]Earth Community Organization (ECO) and [5]Earth Government
Website of the Earth Community Organization and of Earth Government
[6]http://www.telusplanet.net/public/gdufour/
[7]http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov
Email addresses
[8]gdufour@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
[9]gdufour@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
[10]earthgov@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
References
1. http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov/HNewsPR05.htm
2. http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov/NewsA.htm
3. http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov/EarthGovernment.htm
4. http://www.telusplanet.net/public/gdufour/
5. http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov
6. http://www.telusplanet.net/public/gdufour/
7. http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov
8. mailto:gdufour@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
9. mailto:gdufour@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
10. mailto:earthgov@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Original Filename: 1049745840.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Eystein Jansen" <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Keith Briffa" <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Re: Holclim follow up
Date: Mon 7 Apr 2003 16:04
Dear Keith.
I had a chat with Dominique Reynaud on this matter today here in Nice. His impression is the same, but added that he thinks Brussels would insist on a NoE rather than an IP. If we wish to have an IP it needs lobbying it seems. He told about the meeting in Brussels inJune. I am not invited as far as I can tell. Dominique mentioned that Nick Shackleton would be there and I will talk with him. The key thing would be to sort out what the most exciting science our community can offer when we integrate the communities.
In terms of meetings it seems to depend alittle of what comes out of the June meeting in Brusseks.
Cheers
Eystein
>---- Original Message ---
>From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>To: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>Subject: Re: Holclim follow up
>
>
>Eystein
>your point is exactly correct , that only one project (and I believe it=20
>should be an IP) will be allowed and with the shrinking general scale of=20
>these things, it likely needs to be very clearly focused (on integrating=20
>evidence and providing some state-of-the-art product on climate history and=
>=20
>its causes) . I am not in Nice (have to go to 2 other meetings in May) . I=
>=20
>am still leaning towards your institute co-ordinating this . I have not=20
>discussed anything with the rest of the HOLIVAR committee.
>We do need some sort of meeting but only small - there is no chance of a 25=
>=20
>million Euro project and many people are likely to be disappointed . I have=
>=20
>to be in Brussels for a meeting with Brelen in June . What are you thinking=
>=20
>about , re. a meeting?
>Keith
>At 10:01 PM 4/3/03 +0200, you wrote:
>>Dear Keith,
>> I was just wondering whether you were coming the the EGS meeting in Nice=
>=20
>> next week, in order for us to exchange some ideas about how to proceed=20
>> for FP6. Recent rumors says that the palaeoclimate variablity item is in=
>=20
>> the books for the third call, and that the call will be issued by the=20
>> turn of the year, thus we should start discussing how to proceed. So far=
>=20
>> my DOCC initiative is dormant, and I am more inclined to develop or take=
>=20
>> part in developing an IP if the call for proposals allow for one. But the=
>=20
>> size of these IPs seems to be diminishing, hence a careful focussing=20
>> needs to be undertaken in order for there to be resources for the science=
>=20
>> teams. I would be happy to discuss idea with you on this in Nice or=20
>> sometime else if you=B4re not there.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Eystein
>>
>>
>>
>>Eystein Jansen
>>prof/director
>>Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research
>>All=E9gaten 55, N5007 Bergen, Norway
>>tel: +4755583491/secr:+4755589803/fax:+4755584330
>>eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, www.bjerknes.uib.no
>
>--
>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/
>
>
Original Filename: 1051156418.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Danny Harvey <harvey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert wilby <rob.wilby@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jto <jto@u.arizona.edu>, "simon.shackley" <simon.shackley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "tim.carter" <tim.carter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "p.martens" <p.martens@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "peter.whetton" <peter.whetton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "c.goodess" <c.goodess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "a.minns" <a.minns@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Wolfgang Cramer <Wolfgang.Cramer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "j.salinger" <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "simon.torok" <simon.torok@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mark Eakin <mark.eakin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Neville Nicholls <n.nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ray Bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Barrie Pittock <Barrie.Pittock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Greg.Ayers" <Greg.Ayers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: My turn
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 23:53:xxx xxxx xxxx
Dear friends,
[Apologies to those I have missed who have been part of this email
exchange -- although they may be glad to have been missed]
I think Barrie Pittock has the right idea -- although there are some
unique things about this situation. Barrie says ....
(1) There are lots of bad papers out there
(2) The best response is probably to write a 'rebuttal'
to which I add ....
(3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in the 4AR.
____________________
Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years ago by Legates
and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, pp. 2xxx xxxx xxxx, 1997) that was nothing more
than a direct
and pointed criticism of some work by Santer and me -- yet neither of us
was asked to review the paper. We complained, and GRL admitted it was
poor judgment on the part of the editor. Eventually (> 2 years later)
we wrote a response (GRL 27, 2xxx xxxx xxxx, 2000). However, our response was
more that just a rebuttal, it was an attempt to clarify some issues on
detection. In doing things this way we tried to make it clear that the
original Legates/Davis paper was an example of bad science (more
bluntly, either sophomoric ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation).
Any rebuttal must point out very clearly the flaws in the original
paper. If some new science (or explanations) can be added -- as we did
in the above example -- then this is an advantage.
_____________________________
There is some personal judgment involved in deciding whether to rebut.
Correcting bad science is the first concern. Responding to unfair
personal criticisms is next. Third is the possible misrepresentation of
the results by persons with ideological or political agendas. On the
basis of these I think the Baliunas paper should be rebutted by persons
with appropriate expertise. Names like Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley,
Jones, Hughes come to mind. Are these people willing to spend time on
this?
_______________________________
There are two other examples that I know of where I will probably be
involved in writing a response.
The first is a paper by Douglass and Clader in GRL (vol. 29, no. 16,
10.1029/2002GL015345, 2002). I refereed a virtually identical paper for
J. Climate, recommending rejection. All the other referees recommended
rejection too. The paper is truly appalling -- but somehow it must have
been poorly reviewed by GRL and slipped through the net. I have no
reason to believe that this was anything more than chance. Nevertheless,
my judgment is that the science is so bad that a response is necessary.
The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in Climate Research
(vol. 23, pp. 1
Original Filename: 1051190249.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Timothy Carter <tim.carter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Java climate model
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:17:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Tim,
I know about what Matthews has done. He did so without contacting Sarah
or me. He uses a statistical emulation method that can never account for
the full range of uncertainties. I would not trust it outside the
calibration zone -- so I doubt that it can work well for (e.g.)
stabilization cases. As far as I know it has not been peer reviewed.
Furthermore, unless he has illegally got hold of the TAR version of the
model, what he has done can only be an emulation of the SAR version.
Personally, I regard this as junk science (i.e., not science at all).
Matthews is doing the community a considerable disservice.
Tom.
PS Re CR, I do not know the best way to handle the specifics of the
editoring. Hans von Storch is partly to blame -- he encourages the
publication of crap science 'in order to stimulate debate'. One approach
is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their
journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation
under the guise of refereed work. I use the word 'perceived' here, since
whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about -- it is
how the journal is seen by the community that counts.
I think we could get a large group of highly credentialed scientists to
sign such a letter -- 50+ people.
Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones.
Mike's idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not
work -- must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually
fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer,
etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so
the above approach might remove that hurdle too.
_______________________________
_______________________________
Timothy Carter wrote:
>
> Dear Tom,
>
> Since you were online yesterday contributing to the "Climate Research"
> discussion, I figured that you might be in town to give your views on the
> Java Climate Model which, I understand, is based in large part on MAGICC:
>
> http://chooseclimate.org/jcm/
>
> and seems to be getting considerable exposure amongst the policy community
> now that Ben Matthews (was he a student of yours at UEA?) has made this
> available online.
>
> I wondered if this has been subjected to "peer review" by the people whose
> models it is based on or anyone else, since I have Ministry people here in
> Finland asking me if this type of tool is something they should think of
> using during the negotiating process!
>
> It's certainly a smart piece of software, though it seems to have
> irritating bugs, like returning to the default state when any little thing
> is adjusted. What is critically important, though, is that it can do what
> it is advertising. If it can't, then the careful work done offline by
> people such as yourself, could be undermined.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Best regards from a sunny though cool Helsinki.
>
> Tim
>
> P.S. On the CR issue, I agree that a rebuttal seems to be the only method
> of addressing the problem (I communicated this to Mike yesterday morning),
> and I wonder if a review of the refereeing policy is in order. The only way
> I can think of would be for all papers to go through two Editors rather
> than one, the former to have overall responsibility, the latter to provide
> a second opinion on a paper and reviewers' comments prior to publication. A
> General Editor would be needed to adjudicate in the event of disagreement.
> Of course, this could then slow down the review process enormously.
> However, without an editorial board to vote someone off, how can suspect
> Editors be removed except by the Publisher (in this case, Inter-Research).
Original Filename: 1051202354.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mark.eakin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: My turn
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:39:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Danny Harvey <harvey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert wilby <rob.wilby@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jto <jto@u.arizona.edu>, "simon.shackley" <simon.shackley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "tim.carter" <tim.carter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "p.martens" <p.martens@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "peter.whetton" <peter.whetton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "c.goodess" <c.goodess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "a.minns" <a.minns@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Wolfgang Cramer <Wolfgang.Cramer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "j.salinger" <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "simon.torok" <simon.torok@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Neville Nicholls <n.nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ray Bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Barrie Pittock <Barrie.Pittock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson.4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Greg.Ayers" <Greg.Ayers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, wuebbles@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, christopher.d.miller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
HI Mark,
Thanks for your comments, and sorry to any of you who don't wish to receive
these correspondances...
Indeed, I have provided David Halpern with a written set of comments on the
offending paper(s) for internal use, so that he was armed w/ specifics as
he confronts the issue within OSTP. He may have gotten additional comments
from other individuals as well--I'm not sure. I believe that the matter is
in good hands with Dave, but we have to wait and see what happens. In any
case, I'd be happy to provide my comments to anyone who is interested.
I think that a response to "Climate Research" is not a good idea. Phil and
I discussed this, and agreed that it would be largely unread, and would
tend to legitimize a paper which many of us don't view as having passed
peer review in a legitimate manner. On the other hand, the in prep. review
articles by Jones and Mann (Rev. Geophys.), and Bradley/Hughes/Diaz
(Science) should go along way towards clarification of the issues (and, at
least tangentially, refutation of the worst of the claims of Baliunas and
co). Both should be good resources for the FAR as well...
cheers,
mike
p.s. note the corrections to some of the emails in the original
distribution list.
At 09:27 AM 4/24/xxx xxxx xxxx, Mark Eakin wrote:
>At this point the question is what to do about the Soon and Baliunas
>paper. Would Bradley, Mann, Hughes et al. be willing to develop and
>appropriate rebuttal? If so, the question at hand is where it would be
>best to direct such a response. Some options are:
>
>1) A rebuttal in Climate Research
>2) A rebuttal article in a journal of higher reputation
>3) A letter to OSTP
>
>The first is a good approach, as it keeps the argument to the level of the
>current publication. The second would be appropriate if the Soon and
>Baliunas paper were gaining attention at a more general level, but it is
>not. Therefore, a rebuttal someplace like Science or Nature would
>probably do the opposite of what is desired here by raising the attention
>to the paper. The best way to take care of getting better science out in a
>widely read journal is the piece that Bradley et al. are preparing for
>Nature. This leaves the idea of a rebuttal in Climate Research as the
>best published approach.
>
>A letter to OSTP is probably in order here. Since the White House has
>shown interest in this paper, OSTP really does need to receive a measured,
>critical discussion of flaws in Soon and Baliunas' methods. I agree with
>Tom that a noted group from the detection and attribution effort such as
>Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley, Jones and Hughes should spearhead such a
>letter. Many others of us could sign on in support.
>This would provide Dave Halpern with the ammunition he needs to provide
>the White House with the needed documentation that hopefully will dismiss
>this paper for the slipshod work that it is. Such a letter could be
>developed in parallel with a rebuttal article.
>
>I have not received all of the earlier e-mails, so my apologies if I am
>rehashing parts of the discussion that might have taken place elsewhere.
>
>Cheers,
>Mark
>
>
>
>Michael E. Mann wrote:
>
>>Dear Tom et al,
>>
>>Thanks for comments--I see we've built up an impressive distribution list
>>here!
>>
>>This seemed like an appropriate point for me to chime in here. By in
>>large, I agree w/ Tom's comments (and those of Barrie's as well). A
>>number of us have written reviews and overviews of this topic during the
>>past couple years. There has been a lot of significant scientific process
>>in this area (both with regard to empirical "climate reconstruction" and
>>in the area of model/data comparison), including, in fact, detection
>>studies along the lines of what Barrie Pittock asked about in a previous
>>email (see. e.g. Tom Crowley's Science article from 2000). Phil Jones and
>>I are in the process of writing a review article for /Reviews of
>>Geophysics/ which will, among other things, dispel the most severe of the
>>myths that some of these folks are perpetuating regarding past climate
>>change in past centuries. My understanding is that Ray Bradley, Malcolm
>>Hughes, and Henry Diaz are working, independently, on a solicited piece
>>for /Science/ on the "Medieval Warm Period".
>>Many have simply dismissed the Baliunas et al pieces because, from a
>>scientific point of view, they are awful--that is certainly true. For
>>example, Neville has pointed out in a previous email, that the standard
>>they applied for finding "a Medieval Warm Period" was that a particular
>>proxy record exhibit a 50 year interval during the period AD xxx xxxx xxxx
>>that was anomalously *warm*, *wet*, or *dry* relative to the "20th
>>century" (many of the proxy records don't really even resolve the late
>>20th century!) could be used to define an "MWP" anywhere one might like
>>to find one. This was the basis for their press release arguing for a
>>"MWP" that was "warmer than the 20th century" (a non-sequitur even from
>>their awful paper!) and for their bashing of IPCC and scientists who
>>contributed to IPCC (which, I understand, has been particularly viscious
>>and ad hominem inside closed rooms in Washington DC where their words
>>don't make it into the public record). This might all seem laughable, it
>>weren't the case that they've gotten the (Bush) White House Office of
>>Science & Technology taking it as a serious matter (fortunately, Dave
>>Halpern is in charge of this project, and he is likely to handle this
>>appropriately, but without some external pressure).
>>
>>So while our careful efforts to debunk the myths perpetuated by these
>>folks may be useful in the FAR, they will be of limited use in fighting
>>the disinformation campaign that is already underway in Washington DC.
>>Here, I tend to concur at least in sprit w/ Jim Salinger, that other
>>approaches may be necessary. I would emphasize that there are indeed, as
>>Tom notes, some unique aspects of this latest assault by the skeptics
>>which are cause for special concern. This latest assault uses a
>>compromised peer-review process as a vehicle for launching a scientific
>>disinformation campaign (often viscious and ad hominem) under the guise
>>of apparently legitimately reviewed science, allowing them to make use of
>>the "Harvard" moniker in the process. Fortunately, the mainstream media
>>never touched the story (mostly it has appeared in papers owned by
>>Murdoch and his crowd, and dubious fringe on-line outlets). Much like a
>>server which has been compromised as a launching point for computer
>>viruses, I fear that "Climate Research" has become a hopelessly
>>compromised vehicle in the skeptics' (can we find a better word?)
>>disinformation campaign, and some of the discussion that I've seen (e.g.
>>a potential threat of mass resignation among the legitimate members of
>>the CR editorial board) seems, in my opinion, to have some potential merit.
>>
>>This should be justified not on the basis of the publication of science
>>we may not like of course, but based on the evidence (e.g. as provided by
>>Tom and Danny Harvey and I'm sure there is much more) that a legitimate
>>peer-review process has not been followed by at least one particular
>>editor. Incidentally, the problems alluded to at GRL are of a different
>>nature--there are simply too many papers, and too few editors w/
>>appropriate disciplinary expertise, to get many of the papers submitted
>>there properly reviewed. Its simply hit or miss with respect to whom the
>>chosen editor is. While it was easy to make sure that the worst papers,
>>perhaps including certain ones Tom refers to, didn't see the light of the
>>day at /J. Climate/, it was inevitable that such papers might slip
>>through the cracks at e.g. GRL--there is probably little that can be done
>>here, other than making sure that some qualified and responsible climate
>>scientists step up to the plate and take on editorial positions at GRL.
>>
>>best regards,
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>At 11:53 PM 4/23/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Tom Wigley wrote:
>>
>>>Dear friends,
>>>
>>>[Apologies to those I have missed who have been part of this email
>>>exchange -- although they may be glad to have been missed]
>>>
>>>I think Barrie Pittock has the right idea -- although there are some
>>>unique things about this situation. Barrie says ....
>>>
>>>(1) There are lots of bad papers out there
>>>(2) The best response is probably to write a 'rebuttal'
>>>
>>>to which I add ....
>>>
>>>(3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in the 4AR.
>>>
>>>____________________
>>>
>>>Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years ago by Legates
>>>and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, pp. 2xxx xxxx xxxx, 1997) that was nothing more
>>>than a direct
>>>and pointed criticism of some work by Santer and me -- yet neither of us
>>>was asked to review the paper. We complained, and GRL admitted it was
>>>poor judgment on the part of the editor. Eventually (> 2 years later)
>>>we wrote a response (GRL 27, 2xxx xxxx xxxx, 2000). However, our response was
>>>more that just a rebuttal, it was an attempt to clarify some issues on
>>>detection. In doing things this way we tried to make it clear that the
>>>original Legates/Davis paper was an example of bad science (more
>>>bluntly, either sophomoric ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation).
>>>
>>>Any rebuttal must point out very clearly the flaws in the original
>>>paper. If some new science (or explanations) can be added -- as we did
>>>in the above example -- then this is an advantage.
>>>
>>>_____________________________
>>>
>>>There is some personal judgment involved in deciding whether to rebut.
>>>Correcting bad science is the first concern. Responding to unfair
>>>personal criticisms is next. Third is the possible misrepresentation of
>>>the results by persons with ideological or political agendas. On the
>>>basis of these I think the Baliunas paper should be rebutted by persons
>>>with appropriate expertise. Names like Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley,
>>>Jones, Hughes come to mind. Are these people willing to spend time on
>>>this?
>>>
>>>_______________________________
>>>
>>>There are two other examples that I know of where I will probably be
>>>involved in writing a response.
>>>
>>>The first is a paper by Douglass and Clader in GRL (vol. 29, no. 16,
>>>10.1029/2002GL015345, 2002). I refereed a virtually identical paper for
>>>J. Climate, recommending rejection. All the other referees recommended
>>>rejection too. The paper is truly appalling -- but somehow it must have
>>>been poorly reviewed by GRL and slipped through the net. I have no
>>>reason to believe that this was anything more than chance. Nevertheless,
>>>my judgment is that the science is so bad that a response is necessary.
>>>
>>>The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in Climate Research
>>>(vol. 23, pp. 19, 2002). Danny Harvey and I refereed this and said it
>>>should be rejected. We questioned the editor (deFreitas again!) and he
>>>responded saying .....
>>>
>>>The MS was reviewed initially by five referees. ... The other three
>>>referees, all reputable atmospheric scientists, agreed it should be
>>>published subject to minor revision. Even then I used a sixth person
>>>to help me decide. I took his advice and that of the three other
>>>referees and sent the MS back for revision. It was later accepted for
>>>publication. The refereeing process was more rigorous than usual.
>>>
>>>On the surface this looks to be above board -- although, as referees who
>>>advised rejection it is clear that Danny and I should have been kept in
>>>the loop and seen how our criticisms were responded to.
>>>
>>>It is possible that Danny and I might write a response to this paper --
>>>deFreitas has offered us this possibility.
>>>
>>>______________________________
>>>
>>>This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that
>>>deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the
>>>skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions.
>>>How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of
>>>individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by
>>>an unscrupulous editor to ensure that 'anti-greenhouse' science can get
>>>through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas,
>>>Soon, and so on).
>>>
>>>The peer review process is being abused, but proving this would be
>>>difficult.
>>>
>>>The best response is, I strongly believe, to rebut the bad science that
>>>does get through.
>>>
>>>_______________________________
>>>
>>>Jim Salinger raises the more personal issue of deFreitas. He is clearly
>>>giving good science a bad name, but I do not think a barrage of ad
>>>hominem attacks or letters is the best way to counter this.
>>>
>>>If Jim wishes to write a letter with multiple authors, I may be willing
>>>to sign it, but I would not write such a letter myself.
>>>
>>>In this case, deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply
>>>disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat Michaels'
>>>PhD is at the same level).
>>>
>>>______________________________
>>>
>>>Best wishes to all,
>>>Tom.
>>
>>______________________________________________________________
>> Professor Michael E. Mann
>> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
>> University of Virginia
>> Charlottesville, VA 22903
>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
>> http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
>
>
>--
>C. Mark Eakin, Ph.D.
>Chief of NOAA Paleoclimatology Program and
>Director of the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
>
>NOAA/National Climatic Data Center
>325 Broadway E/CC23
>Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx
>Voice: xxx xxxx xxxx Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>Internet: mark.eakin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1051230500.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Danny Harvey <harvey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert wilby <rob.wilby@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jto <jto@u.arizona.edu>, "simon.shackley" <simon.shackley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "tim.carter" <tim.carter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "p.martens" <p.martens@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "peter.whetton" <peter.whetton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "c.goodess" <c.goodess@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "a.minns" <a.minns@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Wolfgang Cramer <Wolfgang.Cramer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "j.salinger" <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "simon.torok" <simon.torok@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mark Eakin <mark.eakin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Neville Nicholls <n.nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ray Bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Barrie Pittock <Barrie.Pittock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Greg.Ayers" <Greg.Ayers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: And again from the south!
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 20:28:20 +1200
Dear friends and colleagues
This will be the last from me for the moment and I believe we are all
arriving at a consensus voiced by Tom, Barrie, Neville et al., from
excellent discussions.
Firstly both Danny and Tom have complained to de Freitas about
his editorial decision, which does not uphold the principles of good
science. Tom has shared the response. I would be curious to find
out who the other four cited are - but a rebuttal would be excellent.
Ignoring bad science eventually reinforces the apparent 'truth' of
that bad science in the public mind, if it is not corrected. As
importantly, the 'bad science' published by CR is used by the
sceptics' lobbies to 'prove' that there is no need for concern over
climate change. Since the IPCC makes it quite clear that there are
substantial grounds for concern about climate change, is it not
partially the responsibility of climate science to make sure only
satisfactorily peer-reviewed science appears in scientific
publications? - and to refute any inadequately reviewed and wrong
articles that do make their way through the peer review process?
I can understand the weariness which the ongoing sceptics'
onslaught would induce in anyone, scientist or not. But that's no
excuse for ignoring bad science. It won't go away, and the more
we ignore it the more traction it will gain in the minds of the general
public, and the UNFCCC negotiators. If science doesn't uphold the
purity of science, who will?
We Australasians (including Tom as an ex pat) have suggested
some courses of action. Over to you now in the north to assess
the success of your initiatives, the various discussions and
suggestions and arrive on a path ahead. I am happy to be part of it.
Warm wishes to all
Jim
On 23 Apr 2003, at 23:53, Tom Wigley wrote:
> Dear friends,
>
> [Apologies to those I have missed who have been part of this email
> exchange -- although they may be glad to have been missed]
>
> I think Barrie Pittock has the right idea -- although there are some
> unique things about this situation. Barrie says ....
>
> (1) There are lots of bad papers out there
> (2) The best response is probably to write a 'rebuttal'
>
> to which I add ....
>
> (3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in the 4AR.
>
> ____________________
>
> Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years ago by
> Legates and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, pp. 2xxx xxxx xxxx, 1997) that was
> nothing more than a direct and pointed criticism of some work by
> Santer and me -- yet neither of us was asked to review the paper. We
> complained, and GRL admitted it was poor judgment on the part of the
> editor. Eventually (> 2 years later) we wrote a response (GRL 27,
> 2xxx xxxx xxxx, 2000). However, our response was more that just a rebuttal,
> it was an attempt to clarify some issues on detection. In doing things
> this way we tried to make it clear that the original Legates/Davis
> paper was an example of bad science (more bluntly, either sophomoric
> ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation).
>
> Any rebuttal must point out very clearly the flaws in the original
> paper. If some new science (or explanations) can be added -- as we did
> in the above example -- then this is an advantage.
>
> _____________________________
>
> There is some personal judgment involved in deciding whether to rebut.
> Correcting bad science is the first concern. Responding to unfair
> personal criticisms is next. Third is the possible misrepresentation
> of the results by persons with ideological or political agendas. On
> the basis of these I think the Baliunas paper should be rebutted by
> persons with appropriate expertise. Names like Mann, Crowley, Briffa,
> Bradley, Jones, Hughes come to mind. Are these people willing to spend
> time on this?
>
> _______________________________
>
> There are two other examples that I know of where I will probably be
> involved in writing a response.
>
> The first is a paper by Douglass and Clader in GRL (vol. 29, no. 16,
> 10.1029/2002GL015345, 2002). I refereed a virtually identical paper
> for J. Climate, recommending rejection. All the other referees
> recommended rejection too. The paper is truly appalling -- but somehow
> it must have been poorly reviewed by GRL and slipped through the net.
> I have no reason to believe that this was anything more than chance.
> Nevertheless, my judgment is that the science is so bad that a
> response is necessary.
>
> The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in Climate
> Research (vol. 23, pp. 1
Original Filename: 1051638938.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Edward Cook <drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Review- confidential
Date: Tue Apr 29 13:55:xxx xxxx xxxx
Thanks Ed
Can I just say that I am not in the MBH camp - if that be characterized by an unshakable
"belief" one way or the other , regarding the absolute magnitude of the global MWP. I
certainly believe the " medieval" period was warmer than the 18th century - the equivalence
of the warmth in the post 1900 period, and the post 1980s ,compared to the circa Medieval
times is very much still an area for much better resolution. I think that the geographic /
seasonal biases and dating/response time issues still cloud the picture of when and how
warm the Medieval period was . On present evidence , even with such uncertainties I would
still come out favouring the "likely unprecedented recent warmth" opinion - but our
motivation is to further explore the degree of certainty in this belief - based on the
realistic interpretation of available data. Point re Jan well taken and I will inform him
At 07:59 AM 4/29/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
I will start out by sending you the chronologies that I sent Bradley, i.e. all but
Mongolia. If you can talk Gordon out of the latter, you'll be the first from outside
this lab. The chronologies are in tabbed column format and Tucson index format. The
latter have sample size included. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or even Bradley
after I warned him about small sample size problems) to realize that some of the
chronologies are down to only 1 series in their earliest parts. Perhaps I should have
truncated them before using them, but I just took what Jan gave me and worked with the
chronologies as best I could. My suspicion is that most of the pre-1200 divergence is
due to low replication and a reduced number of available chronologies. I should also say
that the column data have had their means normalized to approximately 1.0, which is not
the case for the chronologies straight out of ARSTAN. That is because the site-level
RCS-detrended data were simply averaged to produce these chronologies, without concern
for their long-term means. Hence the "RAW" tag at the end of each line of indices.
Bradley still regards the MWP as "mysterious" and "very incoherent" (his latest
pronouncement to me) based on the available data. Of course he and other members of the
MBH camp have a fundamental dislike for the very concept of the MWP, so I tend to view
their evaluations as starting out from a somewhat biased perspective, i.e. the cup is
not only "half-empty"; it is demonstrably "broken". I come more from the "cup half-full"
camp when it comes to the MWP, maybe yes, maybe no, but it is too early to say what it
is. Being a natural skeptic, I guess you might lean more towards the MBH camp, which is
fine as long as one is honest and open about evaluating the evidence (I have my doubts
about the MBH camp). We can always politely(?) disagree given the same admittedly
equivocal evidence.
I should say that Jan should at least be made aware of this reanalysis of his data.
Admittedly, all of the Schweingruber data are in the public domain I believe, so that
should not be an issue with those data. I just don't want to get into an open critique
of the Esper data because it would just add fuel to the MBH attack squad. They tend to
work in their own somewhat agenda-filled ways. We should also work on this stuff on our
own, but I do not think that we have an agenda per se, other than trying to objectively
understand what is going on.
Cheers,
Ed
Ed
thanks for this - and it is intriguing , not least because of the degree of coherence in
these series between 1200 and 1900 - more than can be accounted for by either
replication of data between the series (of which there is still some) or artifact of the
standardisation method (with the use of RCS curves which are possibly inappropriate for
all the data to which each is applied) . Having then got some not insubstantial
confidence in the likelihood of a real temperature signal in this period - the question
of why the extreme divergence in the series pre-1200 and post 1900? A real geographic
difference in the forcing , replication and standardisation problems? - both are likely.
We would like the raw cores for each site: the RCS indices upon which you base the
chronologies ; the site chronologies (which I think you sent to Ray?). At first we will
simply plot the site chronologies , correlate each with local climate and come back to
you again. We will also plot each "set" of indices and compare site RCS curves and
reconsider the validity of the classification into linear and non-linear growth
patterns. I know you have done all this but we need to get a feel for these data and do
some comparisons with my early produce ring-width RCS chronologies for ceratin sites and
compare the TRW series with the same site MXD chronologies - all a bit suck and see at
first. I am talking with Tim later today about the review idea and I will email/phone
before 16.00 my time today.
Thanks
Keith
At 10:01 AM 4/28/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
Here is the new Esper plot with three different forms of regionalization: linear vs.
nonlinear (as in the original paper), north vs. south as defined in the legend, and east
vs. west (i.e. eastern hemisphere vs. western hemisphere). All of the series have been
smoothed with a 50-yr spline after first averaging the annual values. The number of
cores/chronologies are given in the legend in parentheses. Not surprisingly, the north
and south chronologies deviate most in the post-1950 period. Before 1950 and back to
about 1200 the series are remarkably similar (to me anyway). Prior to 1200 there is more
chaos, perhaps because the number of chronologies have declined along with the
within-chronology replication. However, there is still some evidence for spatially
coherent above-average growth. I showed this plot at the Duke meeting. Karl Taylor
actually told me that he thought it looked fairly convincing, i.e. that the
low-frequency structure in the Esper series was not an artefact of the RCS method.
Cheers,
Ed
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/
--
==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Doherty Senior Scholar and
Director, 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
[2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa[3]/
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1051915601.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: belated thanks for review and questions
Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 18:46:xxx xxxx xxxx
HI Keith,
No problem, I know how hectic the past couple months have been for you, so no apologizes
necessary whatsoever!
Call me old fashioned, but I still tend to prefer the "blind" reviewer convention, so I'd
prefer to remain anonymous unless you think that revealing my identity would be help in any
particular way.
I agree w/ your take on this--a journal like GRL is probably more appropriate, or even
"Climatic Change" because a number of similar papers have been published there in the past
(by folks like Nychka, Bloomfield, and others). I'm not sure if Steve Schneider is sick and
tired of those papers though...
Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can be of any additional help w/ this.
Looking forward to seeing you one of these days,
mike
At 02:36 PM 5/2/2003 +0100, you wrote:
Mike
in hassling another reviewer , I realised that I did not thank you properly for the
review you did of the manuscript by Gil-Alana (fractionally integrated techniques used
to show increased persistence in global temperature record in 20th century). So this is
by way of thanks and to ask whether you wish me to reveal your name to the reviewer
(considering you make some very helpful suggestions for further analysis)? I would
otherwise assume no. As it happens I can not get a response from the other reviewer -
but rather than prolong the wait for the submitter , I am tempted (on the basis of my
reading also) to just send your comments and reject the manuscript as it is - I suppose
they could resubmit a major rework following your suggestions - but I tend to the
opinion that it would be better suited to another journal anyway - GRL comes to mind.
What do you think
Cheers
Keith
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
2. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1052774789.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Edward Cook <drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Review- confidential
Date: Mon May 12 17:26:xxx xxxx xxxx
Ed
just back from really sunny Austria and very pleasant south of France. Have talked at
length with Jan and he says it is fine to send the raw and detrended cores series
(segmented for each site if possible). Do you also have a convenient Table with the Lats
and Longs you used to plot the sites map? This would mean I don't have to look them all up.
I will phone to report on our discussions and ask several things that arose from these.
Just have to do essential other stuff first - so probably tuesday afternoon (my time) Do
you have that review yet?
love and kisses
Keith
At 07:59 AM 4/29/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
I will start out by sending you the chronologies that I sent Bradley, i.e. all but
Mongolia. If you can talk Gordon out of the latter, you'll be the first from outside
this lab. The chronologies are in tabbed column format and Tucson index format. The
latter have sample size included. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or even Bradley
after I warned him about small sample size problems) to realize that some of the
chronologies are down to only 1 series in their earliest parts. Perhaps I should have
truncated them before using them, but I just took what Jan gave me and worked with the
chronologies as best I could. My suspicion is that most of the pre-1200 divergence is
due to low replication and a reduced number of available chronologies. I should also say
that the column data have had their means normalized to approximately 1.0, which is not
the case for the chronologies straight out of ARSTAN. That is because the site-level
RCS-detrended data were simply averaged to produce these chronologies, without concern
for their long-term means. Hence the "RAW" tag at the end of each line of indices.
Bradley still regards the MWP as "mysterious" and "very incoherent" (his latest
pronouncement to me) based on the available data. Of course he and other members of the
MBH camp have a fundamental dislike for the very concept of the MWP, so I tend to view
their evaluations as starting out from a somewhat biased perspective, i.e. the cup is
not only "half-empty"; it is demonstrably "broken". I come more from the "cup half-full"
camp when it comes to the MWP, maybe yes, maybe no, but it is too early to say what it
is. Being a natural skeptic, I guess you might lean more towards the MBH camp, which is
fine as long as one is honest and open about evaluating the evidence (I have my doubts
about the MBH camp). We can always politely(?) disagree given the same admittedly
equivocal evidence.
I should say that Jan should at least be made aware of this reanalysis of his data.
Admittedly, all of the Schweingruber data are in the public domain I believe, so that
should not be an issue with those data. I just don't want to get into an open critique
of the Esper data because it would just add fuel to the MBH attack squad. They tend to
work in their own somewhat agenda-filled ways. We should also work on this stuff on our
own, but I do not think that we have an agenda per se, other than trying to objectively
understand what is going on.
Cheers,
Ed
Ed
thanks for this - and it is intriguing , not least because of the degree of coherence in
these series between 1200 and 1900 - more than can be accounted for by either
replication of data between the series (of which there is still some) or artifact of the
standardisation method (with the use of RCS curves which are possibly inappropriate for
all the data to which each is applied) . Having then got some not insubstantial
confidence in the likelihood of a real temperature signal in this period - the question
of why the extreme divergence in the series pre-1200 and post 1900? A real geographic
difference in the forcing , replication and standardisation problems? - both are likely.
We would like the raw cores for each site: the RCS indices upon which you base the
chronologies ; the site chronologies (which I think you sent to Ray?). At first we will
simply plot the site chronologies , correlate each with local climate and come back to
you again. We will also plot each "set" of indices and compare site RCS curves and
reconsider the validity of the classification into linear and non-linear growth
patterns. I know you have done all this but we need to get a feel for these data and do
some comparisons with my early produce ring-width RCS chronologies for ceratin sites and
compare the TRW series with the same site MXD chronologies - all a bit suck and see at
first. I am talking with Tim later today about the review idea and I will email/phone
before 16.00 my time today.
Thanks
Keith
At 10:01 AM 4/28/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
Here is the new Esper plot with three different forms of regionalization: linear vs.
nonlinear (as in the original paper), north vs. south as defined in the legend, and east
vs. west (i.e. eastern hemisphere vs. western hemisphere). All of the series have been
smoothed with a 50-yr spline after first averaging the annual values. The number of
cores/chronologies are given in the legend in parentheses. Not surprisingly, the north
and south chronologies deviate most in the post-1950 period. Before 1950 and back to
about 1200 the series are remarkably similar (to me anyway). Prior to 1200 there is more
chaos, perhaps because the number of chronologies have declined along with the
within-chronology replication. However, there is still some evidence for spatially
coherent above-average growth. I showed this plot at the Duke meeting. Karl Taylor
actually told me that he thought it looked fairly convincing, i.e. that the
low-frequency structure in the Esper series was not an artefact of the RCS method.
Cheers,
Ed
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/
--
==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Doherty Senior Scholar and
Director, 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
[2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa[3]/
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1053457075.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Clivar Conference 2004
Date: Tue May 20 14:57:xxx xxxx xxxx
Mike
Lennart has managed to confuse me with his latest message. At one point he mentioned that
you and I would do a joint overview paper . Now he suggests we choose xxx xxxx xxxxco-authors but
also refers to "other people in our section" who he has apparently already informed , need
"to consult with you (ie us) as required" (my emphasis).
As for my opinion of the theme or content of our section , I suggest it be "quantifying
Natural and Anthropogenic influences on the course of Global climate during recent
millennia" or some such . This allows for the review , redefinition of Global climate
history (Southern as well as Northern , and moisture as well as Temperature). Importantly ,
it also incorporates the issue of forcing history(ies) and work quantifying the influence
of these histories - using simple empirical techniques or using them in conjunction with
models of different complexity to attribute causes of this change.
I am happy to go with the "usual suspects" in the overview paper , but would be happy if we
considered others who are also running controlled model/data comparisons (examples are Von
Storch , Simon Tett , Caspar Ammann). We need first to clarify whether we will present one
large , multi-author presentation/paper or whether it is just me and you and the others
divided into other papers/presentations/posters. Should we copy this message to Lennart or
contact him directly with specific questions?
Keith
At 09:49 PM 5/18/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
I hope all is well.
Apparently, we're supposed to choose xxx xxxx xxxxadditional "co-authors"? I guess the obvious
ones would be Phil, Tim, Ray, Malcolm, perhaps Ed Cook, Scott Rutherford,...any other
suggestions?
As I understand it, the co-authors would be invited to attend and present in the poster
session; I assume they are listed separately from you and I who will jointly present the
oral overview. As for the theme, I'm assuming "climate changes of the past couple/few
millennia" or something like that. As we have 45 minutes total between the two of us, I
would suggest we each take about 20 minutes, and then we'll have 5 minutes left for
questions.
Any suggestions, thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
thanks,
mike
X-Sender: m214001@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 22:53:58 +0200
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: "Prof. Dr. Lennart Bengtsson" <bengtsson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Clivar Conference 2004
Cc: bengtsson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kornelia.mueller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
--
Dear Dr. Mann,
Dear Dr. Briffa,
The preparation of the Clivar conference is progressing well and all invited speakers
have now agreed (See attached draft program). As I have informed you previously Journal
of Climate will have a special issue devoted to the Conference and I expect you would be
willing to prepare a paper to be ready at the time of the conference. I have made
arrangements with the chief editor to make a flexible interpretation of the content of
the papers so to agree with the objective of the conference and the draft program.
We would now like you to come up with a suitable theme for your presentation at the
conference as well a list of names which you have selected as co-authors. As we
anticipate a broad and forward-looking contribution I believe some xxx xxxx xxxxpeople seems
appropriate. It was our intention that the first person listed should be the lead author
but you can arrange this otherwise if you prefer to do so. I have informed the other
speakers in your section to consult with you as required.
For the conference I expect a rather wide audience in addition to a broad scientific
community including representatives from different agencies such as the meteorological
services, as well as media representatives. For the media we intend to provide a special
set of information. In view of the societal importance of the CLIVAR program and the
considerable progress in extended range forecasts and climate change assessment and
prediction I believe there will be an excellent opportunity to bring the scientific
progress and associated applications of CLIVAR to the participants of the conference.
It would be very helpful if you could to let me know the status of your arrangements not
later than June 15. If you see any particular difficulties please let me know as soon as
possible.
As you can see from the attached program each part of the conference will have poster
sessions. The poster sessions will be an important part of the conference and I
anticipate that some of your co-authors will prepare such posters. We also plan to have
the poster contents on a CD ROM prior to the conference.
The practical planning of the conference as a whole is proceeding well. The arrangements
in Baltimore are quite excellent with the nearby Baltimore inner harbor as a particular
attractive focal point. There are all reasons that the conference will be a success both
scientifically and socially. See further the Clivar Conference website:
[1]http://www.clivar2004.org.
We are presently exploring the possibilities for financial support of selected
participants. However, any support you may manage to obtain from national funds would be
most helpful.
With my very best regards
Lennart Bengtsson
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa[4]/
References
1. http://www.clivar2004.org/
2. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
4. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1053461261.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Soon et al. paper
Date: Tue May 20 16:07:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Jerry Meehl <meehl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Mike and Tom and others
My silence to do with the specific issue of the Soon and Baliunas conveys general strong
agreement with all the general remarks (and restatement of many in various forms ) by Tom
Crowley, Mike Mann, Neville Nichols and now Tom Wigley regarding the scientific value of
the paper and its obvious methodological flaws.
I have to say that I tended towards the "who cares" camp , in as much as those who are
concerned about the science should see through it anyway . I also admit to thinking that
some of you seem a little paranoid (especially in the implication that Climate Research is
a pro sceptic journal) but I am changing my mind regarding the way the "meaning" of the BS
paper is being presented to the wider public - in response to some very poor recent
reporting in the British press and several requests from the US that indicate that those of
you who work there can not simply rely on the weight of good science eventually showing
through as regards the public perception . As Tom W. states , there are uncertainties and
"difficulties" with our current knowledge of Hemispheric temperature histories and valid
criticisms or shortcomings in much of our work. This is the nature of the beast - and I
have been loathe to become embroiled in polarised debates that force too simplistic a
presentation of the state of the art or "consensus view". Having read Tom W's and Mike's
latest statements I now agree about the need to make some public comment on BS . (I too
have given my personal view of the work to David Appell who I assume is writing a balanced
view of this paper for Scientific American). I see little need to get involved in a over
detailed critic of all the points in the paper , because I am not sure what audience would
benefit from it, but the points made by those I listed above could usefully be fashioned
into a simple letter to Climate Research, signed by those who wish. This would then go on
record as a simple statement of refutation of the method employed and corresponding
limitation of the work for informing the "global warming " debate . This could be quickly
citable when talking to the media.
The one additional point I would make that seems to have been overlooked in the discussions
up to now , is the invalidity of assuming that the existence of a global Medieval Warm
period , even if shown to be as warm as the current climate , somehow negates the
possibility of enhanced greenhouse warming. The business of constructing a reliable climate
history is only one part of establishing the relative roles of natural and anthropogenic
forcings, now and in the future. Without reference to the roles of natural forcings in
recent and past times , comparisons with other periods are of very limited value anyway.
So I agree with Tom and Mike that something needs to go "on record" . The various papers
apparently in production, regardless of their individual emphasis or approaches, will find
their way in to the literature and the next IPCC can sift and present their message(s) as
it wishes., but in the meantime , why not a simple statement of the shortcomings of the BS
paper as they have been listed in these messages and why not in Climate Research?
Keith
At 05:04 PM 5/16/xxx xxxx xxxx, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Tom,
Thanks for your response, which I will maintain as confidential within the small group
of the original recipients (other than Ray whom I've included in as well), given the
sensitivity of some of the comments made.
Whether or not their comments are ad hominem or potentially libelous is probably
immaterial here (some people who have read them think they might be--in certain places,
alterior motives are implied on the part of individually named scientists in the
discussion of scientific methodologies).
However, the real issue, as you point out, is whether or not their arguments and
criticisms are valid. I would argue that very few of them are--I have prepared (and have
attached) a draft of replies to some of the specifics in their two papers--this is
rough, and I'm working on preparing a refined version of this for use by those who are
trying to combat the disinformation that the Baliunas and co. supporters are working at
spreading within the beltway, with the full support of industry, and perhaps the
administration. By necessity this is brief and focus on the most salient points--a
point-by-point rebuttal would take a very long time.
In the meantime, Phil and I, and Ray/Malcolm/Henry D are independently working on review
pieces (ours for R.O.G., Ray et al's for Science) that will also correct in more detail
some of the most egregious untruths put forward by the Baliunas/Soon pieces (what one
colleague of mine aptly chooses to abbreviate as "BS").
The most fundamental criticism, of course, is that the hypothesis, methods, and
assumptions are absolutely nonsensical by construction--as you already pointed out. One
could demonstrate that with an example, but then again, why do so when it is self
evident that defining an anomaly of either wetter or dryer (what does that leave out?)
relative to the 20th century (a comparison which is itself also ill-defined by the
authors, since they don't use a uniform 20th century reference period for defining their
qualitative anomalies, and discuss proxy records with variable resolution and temporal
sampling of the 20th century) was "warmer than the 20th century" is nonsense at the
most fundamental level. It defies the most elementary logic, and thus is difficult to
reply to other than noting that it is nonsense by its very nature.
Would we be compelled to provide a counterexample to disprove the authors if they had
asserted that "1=2"? What they have done isn't that much different...
So its one thing to throw out a bunch of criticisms, very few of which are valid. But to
then turn around and present a fundamentally ill-posed, supposed "analysis" which
doesn't even attempt to provide a quantitative "alternative" to past studies, to claim
to have disproven those past studies, and to supposedly support the non-sequitor
conclusion that the "MWP was warmer than the 20th century" is irresponsible, deceptive,
dishonest, and a violation of the very essence of the scientific approach in my view.
One or two people can't fight that alone, certainly not with the "artillary" (funding
and political organization) that has been lined up on the other side. In my view, it is
the responsibility of our entire community to fight this intentional disinformation
campaign, which represents an affront to everything we do and believe in. I'm doing
everything I can to do so, but I can't do it alone--and if I'm left to, we'll lose this
battle,
mike
At 02:18 PM 5/16/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Tom Wigley wrote:
Dear folks,
I have just read the Soon et al. paper in E&E. Here are some comments, and a request.
Mike said in an email that he thought the paper contained possibly
'legally actionable' ad hominem attacks on him and others. I do not
agree that there are ad hominem attacks. There are numerous criticisms, usually
justified (although not all the justifications are valid). I did not notice any
intemperate language.
While many of the criticisms are invalid, and some are irrelevant, there are a number
that seem to me to be quite valid. Probably, most of these can be rebutted, and perhaps
some of these are already covered in the literature. In my view, however, there a small
number of points that are valid criticisms.
[Off the record, the most telling criticisms apply to Tom Crowley's work -- which I do
not hold in very high regard.]
The real issue that the press (to a limited extent) and the politicians (to a greater
extent) have taken up is the conclusions of the paper's original research.
First, Soon et al. come down clearly in favor of the existence of a MWE and a LIA. I
think many of us would agree that there was a global-scale cool period that can be
identified with a LIA. The MWE is more equivocal. There are real problems in identifying
both of these 'events' with certainty due to (1) data coverage, (2) uncertainty in
transfer functions, and (3) the noise of internally generated variability on the
century time scale. [My paper on the latter point is continually ignored by the paleo
community, but it is still valid.]
So, we would probably say: there was a LIA; but the case for *or against* a MWE is not
proven. There is no strong diagreement with Soon et al. here.
The main disagreements are with the methods used by Soon et al. to draw their LIA/MWE
conclusion, and their conclusion re the anomalousness/uniqueness of the 20th century (a
conclusion that is based on the same methods).
So what is their method? I need to read the paper again carefully to check on this, but
it seems that they say the MWE [LIA] was warm [cold] if at a particular site there is a
50+ year period that was warm, wet, dry [cold, dry, wet] somewhere in the interval
xxx xxxx xxxx[1xxx xxxx xxxx], where warm/cold, wet, dry are defined relative to the 20th
century.
The problems with this are .....
(1) Natural internally generated variability alone virtually guarantees that these
criteria will be met at every site.
(2) As Nev Nicholls pointed out, almost any period would be identified as a MWE or LIA
by these criteria -- and, as a corollary, their MWE period could equally well have been
identified as a LIA (or vice versa)
(3) If the identified warm blips in their MWE were are different times for different
locations (as they are) then there would be no global-mean signal.
(4) The reason for including precip 'data' at all (let alone both wet and dry periods in
both the MWE and LIA) is never stated -- and cannot be justified. [I suspect that if
they found a wet period in the MWE, for example, they would search for a dry period in
the LIA -- allowing both in both the MWE and LIA seems too stupid to be true.]
(5) For the uniqueness of the 20th century, item (1) also applies.
So, their methods are silly. They seem also to have ignored the fact that what we are
searching is a signal in global-mean temperature.
The issue now is what to do about this. I do not think it is enough to bury criticisms
of this work in other papers. The people who have noticed the Soon et al paper, or have
had it pointed out to them, will never see or become aware of such rebuttals/responses.
Furthermore, I do not think that a direct response will give the work credibility. It is
already 'credible' since it is in the peer reviewed literature (and E&E, by the way, is
peer reviewed). A response that says this paper is a load of crap for the following
reasons is *not* going to give the original work credibility -- just the opposite.
How then does one comprehensively and concisely demolish this work? There are two issues
here. The first is the point by point response to their criticisms of the literature. To
do this would be tedious, but straightforward. There will be at least some residual
criticisms that must be accepted as valid, and this must be admitted. Cross-referencing
to other review papers would be legitimate here.
The second is to demolish the method. I have done this qualitatively (following Nev
mainly) above, but this is not enough. What is needed is a counter example that uses the
method of reductio ad absurdem. This would be clear and would be appropriate since it
avoids us having to point out in words that their methods are absurd. I have some ideas
how to do this, but I will let you think about it more before going further.
You will see from this email that I am urging you to produce a response. I am happy to
join you in this, and perhaps a few others could add their weight too. I am copying this
to Jerry since he has to give some congressional testimony next week and questions about
the Soon et al work are definitely going to be raised. I am also copying this to Caspar,
since the last millenium runs that he is doing with paleo-CSM are relevant.
Best wishes,
Tom.
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa[3]/
References
1. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1053610494.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: craig.wallace@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: Re: reminder
Date: Thu May 22 09:34:xxx xxxx xxxx
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 13:38:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: Edward Cook <drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: reminder
Hi Keith,
Busy, busy, busy as usual. Here are the lats and lons.
LAT LON SITE COORDINATES IN DECIMAL DEGREES
52.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxxATHABASCA
36.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxxBOREAL
68.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxxCAMPHILL
57.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxxGOTLAND
63.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxxJAEMTLAND
66.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxxMANGAZEJA
48.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxxMONGOLIA
66.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxxPOLAR URALS
57.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxxQUEBEC
72.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxxTAYMIR
47.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxxTIROL
68.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxxTORNETRASK
37.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxxUPPER WRIGHT
67.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxxZHASCHIVIERSK
I will get the data to you next week. I have to off to Rob Wilson's thesis defense now.
Cheers,
Ed
.. about the review and the data ( or at least accurate lats and longs while waiting)
cheers
Keith
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
--
==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Doherty Senior Scholar and
Director, 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
[2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa[3]/
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1053616711.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: simon.shackley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mgrc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: thresholds and CO2 leakage
Date: Thu May 22 11:18:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: tlent@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tim.cockerill@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, shol@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kevin.anderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Simon,
Some comments to your questions below ......
At 13:46 20/05/2003 +0100, Simon J Shackley wrote:
dear Melvin, Tim, Mike, Tim, Sam and Kevin
For our analysis of acceptable leakage rates of carbon dioxide from
geological storage sites, we can use the data provided in Lenton &
Cannell CC paper I think. In particular, we could use your finding
that to limit warming to under 0.2oC per decade, rate of increase of
fossil fuel emissions has to be limited to under 0.03 GtC/yr/yr.
This would seem sufficient to avoid the peak warming which occurs
in about 2250 under the IS92a emissions scenario (figure 1(c)). Is
the 0.2oc / decade threshold widely accepted in the science
community however?
This threshold (0.2/decade; 2degC absolute by 2100) is the most commonly cited in
science-policy circles. The EU have formally adopted it as a preferred target. It's
origin however is less than obvious and it's adequacy difficult to establish. And of
course it also depends whether this is carried out to 2200 - the impacts of 4degC by 2200
is not the equivalent of impacts of 2degC by 2100.
My personal view is that there is much circular argument here. The first GCM experiments
in the 1980s were 2xCO2 equilibrium, i.e., 550ppmv (cf. 275ppmv pre-industrial). Thus much
early work used these scenarios. 550ppmv is also a commonly cited target for no other
reason than this. A 60% reduction in CO2 is broadly commensurate with 550ppm stabilisation
(admittedly, the range is wide coz of C cycle uncertainty; but 60% is mid-range). And
(again mid-rangexxx xxxx xxxxppm leads to about a 2degC global warming, which by 2100 is
0.2degC/decade. Independent arguments for 0.2deg/decade exist for sure - e.g. rate of
ecosystem migration - but as we all know (and have pointed out in our paper on external and
internal definitions of dangerous climate change), no single metric is adequate.
My feeling is that the 2degC (0.2deg/decade) mantra is as much related to the early
mind-set of 2xCO2 GCM experiments as it is rooted in any more substantive reasoning. One
might also point out of course that the world has been warming at about 0.15degC/decade now
for three decades (since the 1970s) - has this been acceptable/dangerous?
Should we also be looking at a 0.1oC /
decade threshold as well?
I would regard this threshold as a very conservative (or radical - depending on how you
look at it) one
Since we are only looking at the UK we will need to translate the
0.03 GtC figure into allowable rate of increase (presumably
decrease) of European emissions and then pro-rata to the UK.
IPCC SRES Emissions scenarios would provide some basis for
doing these calculations and i'll have a look at the data they
provide. Alternatively / in addition, we could use the Contraction
and Convergence model of the GCI to calculate 'acceptable' rates
of change (decreasing) of UK emissions into the next millenium.
In Lenton & Cannell, the authors argue that: 'Early consideration
should be given to leaving a fraction of fossil carbon unused, and/or
to carbon capture and storage'. One implication of the work on
leakage from geological storage sites is that the suggestion to use
CCS to lessen eventual warming might not hold on longer
timescales, depending on the rate of leakage. So does any one
have any idea on what fraction of fossil carbon should be left in the
ground so as to provide a cap on the eventual warming on long time
scales (3000 years say)? Is there an 'accepted' threshold for
eventual warming which is 'safe' and to which society can adapt?
If so, what does this threshold tell us about how much carbon has
to be left in the ground? A simpler way forward for us might again
be to use Contraction & Convergence to provide us with an
acceptable absolute level of emissions from the UK on long
millenial timescales and to work backwards from that figure to
calculate acceptable leakage rates for the UK.
Thanks for any help you can provide
Simon
Original Filename: 1054576147.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Pritchard, Norah" <norah.pritchard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: IPCC WG2 AR4 draft outlines - WGII outline & Chapters 2 and 13
Date: Mon Jun 2 13:49:xxx xxxx xxxx
Dear Osvaldo and Martin,
It is very difficult to make considered input into this process at such short notice. I
received the emails Wednesday afternoon, just before being away from the office for 48
hours. I also am not fully aware of the process into which this is fitting and it is the
first time I have seen the WGII outline. I do however make some comments on the following:
The WGII outline
Chapter 2 on data etc.
Chapter 13 on critical damage etc.
WGII outline
-----------------
Key Questions: there is, in analytical terms, very little difference between the 2nd and
4th key question you pose. The impacts under unmitigated CC (Q2) are not in any
fundamental way different from the impacts under mitigated CC (Q4). 2degC warming, for
example, will give broadly the same impacts whether this occurs because of strong CC policy
intervention or whether it occurs because of low carbon development paths. What matters
more for impacts is the rate of CC and what matters more for how important those impacts
are is the development path pursued. I think this distinction between mitigated and
unmitigated CC is tenuous and unhelpful. This has a bearing on the later discussions about
stabilisation (where "stabilisation" is usually assumed to be, indeed often synonymous
with, the result of mitigative action; actually (quasi-) stabilisation, at different
levels, can occur in a world with relatively little direct CC mitigation policy).
The progression through the sections follows a rather linear and reductionist model -
observed impacts, future impacts, adaptation,regions. I would have liked to have seen an
early opening chapter on the nature of the dynamic relationship between climate and society
(before we even start talking about climate change), this being able to bring out notions
of vulnerability and adaptation - both fundamental to put on the table before we start
thinking about future climate change and how important it is. This could also point out
that "critical" damage is already being caused by climate and climate variability.
Under your structure, the observed impacts section (II) should surely parallel the later
future impacts section (III) in terms of sectors/themes. There are only 4 themes in
section II, yet 6 (different) themes in section III. Why for example is nothing said about
observed impacts on urban infrastructure or on coasts? The asymmetry between these section
sub-themes is itself perhaps revealing.
It seems odd that adaptation is to be addressed in all the thematic chapters in Section III
*as well as* in a separate later chapter on adaptation. This situation is ripe for overlap
and redundancy. Our understanding of adaptation in any case should be brought in right at
the beginning (see above).
The avoiding critical damage chapter suffers from the same problem identified above - what
matters is whether and how such exceedance rates can be identified, not whether they result
from either a mitigated or an unmitigated scenario - this academic distinction cannot be
sustained in the real world.
The regional section is in danger of repeating the mistake in the TAR, again leading to
dispersion of effort and redundancy. My suggestion would be *not* to assess all new
regional knowledge (again; very turgid), but instead to produce a much more streamlined
section focusing on a few regional/local case studies that illustrate sharply many of the
(integrating) themes introduced earlier - vulnerability, adaptation, criticality, impacts.
Deliberately seek to be selective and not comprehensive.
I also do not see how the WGII chapters will be co-ordinated with the 5 cross-cutting
papers identified here - again, there seems much scope for duplicitous effort and
redundancy or even contradiction. And since the cross-cutting papers are really the
interesting and useful ones, this suggests to me that the old traditional WG structure of
IPCC is now deeply flawed (as I have said more than once before in public).
Chapter 2 - Assumptions, etc.
---------------------------------------------
First question to raise is what is WGI doing in this regard? I cannot comment sensibly
without knowing how WGI will tackle questions of scenarios and future projections.
In section 2.3, 4th bullet: how relevant really are these "Stabilisation scenarios
(mitigation)"? At the very least IPCC must clear up this issue about whether stabilisation
is a short-hand for mitigation (as implied here). This is potentially misleading, since
stabilisation can occur in many different worlds, by no means all of them worlds with
strong CC mitigation policies. Continuation of this thinking means reality is being forced
to accommodate the arbitrary thinking of the UNFCCC rather than UNFCCC being forced to take
account of reality.
Also in this bullet is "Impacts of extreme climate events". Why are impacts being looked
at here? Surely this is totally misplaced. What is important are scenarios - of whatever
origin and methodology - that embed within them changes in the character of "extreme"
weather and how we describe such changes. We should not separate this out as a separate
issue surely.
Section 2.4 (the second appearance) confuses me. Much of this material appears earlier in
2.3, thus characterisations of future conditions is what 2.3 is about and also the
projected changes in key drivers is what the scenarios part of 2.3 is all about. Do you
mean to differentiate between methodology (2.3) and outcomes (2.4b)? And as always you
will run into the problem of summarising what scenarios actually *are* assumed in this
report - is there to be an IPCC 4AR standard scenario(s) that all should use? I suspect
not. Resolving this problem gets to the heart of the structural problem with IPCC.
Different people will use different assumptions.
Chapter 13 - Critical Damage ...
------------------------------------------------
This outline was almost unintelligible to me! For example having read the opening aims and
scope statement several times, I an still not clear about the approach this chapter is
taking. Sections 13.2 and 13.3 are also extremely unclear as is section 13.4.
I think someone needs to do some clearer thinking about this chapter before sending it out
for people to comment on. I have my own views on this, but at such short notice and
without knowing the agreed IPCC process I'm not going to write the chapter outline for you.
Inter alia, the chapter should address the following:
- different paradigms for defining "critical"; will vary by sector, culture, etc.
- distinction between external (pronounced) definitions of critical and internal
(experienced/perceived) definitions
- relationship between adaptive capacity and "critical" rates of change
- dependence of critical thresholds on sector and spatial scale
- reversibility (or not) of critical damage
... and if the use of "critical" is a euphemism for "dangerous" then it is not very subtle
- people will see through this. What is the difference between critical and dangerous?
Professor Mike Hulme
Tyndall Centre
At 14:32 28/05/2003 +0100, you wrote:
Dear Mike
We are now developing chapter outlines for the Fourth Assessment Report of
the IPCC and we write to ask if you will help us in this task. Enclosed is a
one-page outline of the proposed chapter on Assumptions, Data and Scenarios,
which we would like you to adjust and expand (but not to more than one and a
half pages in all, please). The overall list of proposed topics to be
covered in the assessment is also attached.
We would like to make the next revision to the outline in a few days so
could you please return your outline to Norah Pritchard <<
ipccwg2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >> at the WGII Techical Support Unit at the UK Met
Office's Hadley Centre not later than 2nd June?
The process of designing the Fourth Assessment and selecting authors is
different from previously. This time the authors will not be nominated by
governments and then selected until *after* the outline has been approved by
IPCC Plenary this November. The outlines are there fore being widely
commented on between now and mid-September, when they will be finalised. We
consider your input at this time to be most important.
We appreciate that you are busy, but urge that you give a few minutes to
this crucial task.
In another message we will be writing for your suggestions regarding other
experts to consult in the fields of Assumptions, Data and Scenarios.
We look forward to hearing from you
With thanks and kind regards,
Osvaldo Canziani and Mart in Parry
Co-Chairs, IPCC Working Group II (Vulnerability, Impacts and Adaptation)
Dr Martin Parry,
Co-Chair Working Group II (Impacts and Adaptation),
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Hadley Centre,
UK Met Office,
London Road,
Bracknell RG12 2SY, UK.
Tel direct: xxx xxxx xxxx
Tel switchboard: xxx xxxx xxxx
direct e-mail: parryml@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
e-mail for WGII Technical Support Unit: ipccwg2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<<AR4_outline27May_2scen_v1.doc>> <<AR4 WG2 summary final.doc>>
Original Filename: 1054666269.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Raymond Bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: revised NH comparison manuscript
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:51:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Mike Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Attached to this e-mail is a revision of the northern hemisphere
comparison manuscript. First some general comments. I tried as best as
possible to incorporate everyone's suggestions. Typically this meant
adding/deleting or clarifying text. There were cases where we disagreed
with the suggested changes and tried to clarify in the text why.
In this next round of changes I encourage everyone to make specific
suggestions in terms of wording and references (e.g. Rutherford et al.
GRL 1967 instead of "see my GRL paper"). I also encourage everyone to
make suggestions directly in the file in coloured text or by using
Microsquish Word's "Track Changes" function (this will save me
deciphering cryptic penmanship; although I confess, my writing is worse
than anyone's). If you would prefer to use the editing functions in
Adobe Acrobat let me know and I will send a PDF file. If you still feel
strongly that I have not adequately addressed an issue please say so.
I will incorporate the suggestions from this upcoming round into a
manuscript to be submitted. After review, everyone will get a crack at
it again.
I will not detail every change made (if anyone wants the file with the
changes tracked I can send it). Here are the major changes:
1) removal of mixed-hybrid approach and revised discussions/figures
2) removal of CE scores from the verification tables
3) downscaling of the Esper comparison to a single figure panel and one
paragraph.
4) revised discussion of spatial maps and revised figure (figure 8).
5) seasonal comparisons have been revised
Several suggestions have been made for where to submit. These are
listed on page 1 of the manuscript. Please indicate your preference
ASAP and I will tally the votes.
I would like to submit by late July, so if you could please get me
comments by say July 15 that would be great. I will send out a reminder
in early July. If I don't hear from you by July 15 I will assume that
you are comfortable with the manuscript.
Please let me know if you have difficulty with the file or would prefer
a different format.
Regards,
Scott
</x-flowed>
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachnhcomparison_v7_1.doc"
<x-flowed>
______________________________________________
Scott Rutherford
Marine Research Scientist
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island
e-mail: srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
snail mail:
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1054736277.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: Prospective Eos piece?
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:17:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Thanks Phil, and Thanks Tom W and Keith for your willingness to help/sign on. This
certainly gives us a "quorum" pending even a few possible additional signatories I'm
waiting to hear back from.
In response to the queries, I will work on a draft today w/ references and two suggested
figures, and will try to send on by this evening (east coast USA). Tom W indicated that he
wouldn't be able look at a draft until Thursday anyway, so why doesn't everyone just take
a day then to digest what I've provided and then get back to me with comments/changes
(using word "track changes" if you like).
I'd like to tentatively propose to pass this along to Phil as the "official keeper" of the
draft to finalize and submit IF it isn't in satisfactory shape by the time I have to leave
(July 11--If I hadn't mentioned, I'm getting married, and then honeymoon, prior to IUGG in
Sapporo--gone for about 1 month total). Phil, does that sound ok to you?
Re Figures, what I had in mind were the following two figures:
1) A plot of various of the most reliable (in terms of strength of temperature signal and
reliability of millennial-scale variability) regional proxy temperature reconstructions
around the Northern Hemisphere that are available over the past 1-2 thousand years to
convey the important point that warm and cold periods where highly regionally variable.
Phil and Ray are probably in the best position to prepare this (?). Phil and I have
recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many
of which are available nearly 2K back--I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K,
rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the
memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet
have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back [Phil and I have one in
review--not sure it is kosher to show that yet though--I've put in an inquiry to Judy
Jacobs at AGU about this]. If we wanted to be fancy, we could do this the way certain plots
were presented in one of the past IPCC reports (was it 1990?) in which a spatial map was
provided in the center (this would show the locations of the proxies), with "rays"
radiating out to the top, sides, and bottom attached to rectanges showing the different
timeseries. Its a bit of work, but would be a great way to convey both the spatial and
temporal information at the same time.
2) A version of the now-familiar "spaghetti plot" showing the various reconstructions as
well as model simulations for the NH over the past 1 (or maybe 2K). To give you an idea of
what I have in mind, I'm attaching a Science piece I wrote last year that contains the same
sort of plot.
However, what I'd like to do different here is:
In addition to the "multiproxy" reconstructions, I'd like to Add Keith's maximum latewood
density-based series, since it is entirely independent of the multiproxy series, but
conveys the same basic message. I would also like to try to extend the scope of the plot
back to nearly 2K. This would be either w/ the Mann and Jones extension (in review in GRL)
or, if that is deemed not kosher, the Briffa et al Eurasian tree-ring composite that
extends back about 2K, and, based on Phil and my results, appears alone to give a
reasonably accurate picture of the full hemispheric trend.
Thoughts, comments on any of this?
thanks all for the help,
mike
At 09:25 AM 6/4/2003 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
This is definitely worth doing and I hope you have the time before the 11th, or can
pass
it on to one of us at that time. As you know I'm away for a couple of days but back
Friday.
So count me in. I've forwarded you all the email comments I've sent to reporters/fellow
scientists, so you're fully aware of my views, which are essentially the same as all of
the list
and many others in paleo. EOS would get to most fellow scientists. As I said to you the
other
day, it is amazing how far and wide the SB pieces have managed to percolate. When it
comes
out I would hope that AGU/EOS 'publicity machine' will shout the message from rooftops
everywhere. As many of us need to be available when it comes out.
There is still no firm news on what Climate Research will do, although they will
likely
have two editors for potentially controversial papers, and the editors will consult
when papers
get different reviews. All standard practice I'd have thought. At present the editors
get no
guidance whatsoever. It would seem that if they don't know what standard practice is
then
they shouldn't be doing the job !
Cheers
Phil
At 22:34 03/06/xxx xxxx xxxx, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Eos has invited me (and prospective co-authors) to write a 'forum' piece (see below).
This was at Ellen Mosely-Thompson's suggestion, upon my sending her a copy of the
attached memo that Michael Oppenheimer and I jointly wrote. Michael and I wrote this to
assist colleagues who had been requesting more background information to help counter
the spurious claims (with which I believe you're all now familiar) of the latest
Baliunas & Soon pieces.
The idea I have in mind would be to use what Michael and I have drafted as an initial
starting point for a slightly expanded piece, that would address the same basic issues
and, as indicated below, could include some references and figures. As indicated in
Judy Jacobs' letter below, the piece would be rewritten in such a way as to be less
explicitly (though perhaps not less implicitly) directed at the Baliunas/Soon claims,
criticisms, and attacks.
Phil, Ray, and Peck have already indicated tentative interest in being co-authors. I'm
sending this to the rest of you (Tom C, Keith, Tom W, Kevin) in the hopes of broadening
the list of co-authors. I strongly believe that a piece of this sort co-authored by 9
or so prominent members of the climate research community (with background and/or
interest in paleoclimate) will go a long way ih helping to counter these attacks, which
are being used, in turn, to launch attacks against IPCC.
AGU has offered to expedite the process considerably, which is necessary because I'll be
travelling for about a month beginning June 11th. So I'm going to work hard to get
something together ASAP. I'd would therefore greatly appreciate a quick response from
each of you as to whether or not you would potentially be willing to be involved as a
co-author. If you're unable or unwilling given other current commitments, I'll
understand.
Thanks in advance for getting back to me on this,
mike
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 20:19:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson.4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: position paper by Mann,
Bradley et al that is a refutation to Soon et al
X-Sender: ethompso@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: Judy Jacobs <JJacobs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3
Judy and Mike -
This sounds outstanding.
Am I right in assuming that Fred reviews and approves the Forum pieces?
If so, can you hint about expediting this. Timing is very critical here.
Judy, thanks for taking the bull by the horns and getting the ball rolling.
Best regards,
Ellen
At 07:33 PM 06/03/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Judy Jacobs wrote:
Dear Dr. Mann,
Thanks for the prompt reply.
Based on what you have said, it sounds to me as if Mann, Bradley, et al. will not be in
violation of AGU's prohibition on duplicate publication.
The attachment to your e-mail definitely has the look and feel of something that would
be published in Eos under the "FORUM" column header. FORUM pieces are usually comments
on articles of any description that have been published in previous issues of Eos; or
they can be articles on purely scientific or science policy-related issues around which
there is some controversy or difference of opinion; or articles on current public issues
that are of interest to the geosciences; or on issues--science or broader policy
ones---0n which there is an official AGU Position Statement. In this last category, I
offer, for example, the teaching of creationism in public schools, either alongside
evolution, or to the exclusion of evolution.
AGU has an official Position Statement, "Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases," which
states, among other things, that there is a high probability that man-made gases
primarily from the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to a gradual rise in mean
globab temperatures. In this context, your proto-article---in the form of the attachment
you sent me-- would seem right on target for a Forum piece. However, since the Soon et
al. article wasn't actually published in Eos, anything that you and Dr. Bradley craft
will have to minimize reference to the specific article or articles, and concentrate on
"the science" that is set forth in these papers. Presumably this problem could be
solved by simply referencing these papers.
A Forum piece can be as long as 1500 words, or approximately 6 double-spaced pages. A
maximum of two figures is permitted. A maximum of 10 references is encouraged, but if
the number doesn't exceed 10 too outrageously, I don't make a fuss, and neither will
Ellen.
Authors are now asked to submit their manuscripts and figures electronically via AGU's
Internet-based Geophysical Electronic Manuscript System (GEMS), which makes it possible
for the entire submission-review process to be conducted online.
If you have never used GEMS before, you can register for a login and password, and get
initial instructions, by going to
[1]http://eos-submit.agu.org/
If you would like to have a set of step-by-step instructions for first-time GEMS users,
please ask me.
Ellen indicated that she/you would like to get something published sooner rather than
later. The Eos staff can certainly expedite the editorial process for anything you and
your colleagues submit.
Don't hesitate to contact me with any further questions.
Best regards,
Judy Jacobs
Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear Judy,
Thanks very much for getting back to me on this. Ellen had mentioned this possibility,
and I have been looking forward to hearing back about this.
Michael Oppenheimer and I drafted an informal memo that we passed along to colleagues
who needed some more background information so that they could comment on the Soon et al
papers in response to various inquiries they were receiving from the press, etc. I've
attached a copy of this memo.
It has not been our intention for this memo to appear in print, and it has not been
submitted anywhere for publication. On the other hand, when Ellen mentioned the
possibility of publishing something *like* this in e.g. the "Eos" forum, that seemed
like an excellent idea to me, and several of my colleagues that I have discussed the
possibility with.
What we had in mind was to produce a revised version of the basic memo that I've
attached, modifying it where necessary, and perhaps expanding it a bit, seeking broader
co-authorship by about 9 or so other leading climate scientists. So far, Phil Jones of
the University of East Anglia, Ray Bradley of the University of Massachusetts, and
Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona, have all indicated their interest in
co-authoring such a piece. We suspect that a few other individuals would be interested
in being co-authors as well. I didn't want to pursue this further, however, until I
knew whether or not an Eos piece was a possibility.
So pending further word from you, I would indeed be interested in preparing a
multi-authored "position" paper for Eos in collaboration with these co-authors, based
loosely on the memo that Ihave attached.
I look forward to further word from you on this.
best regards,
mike mann
At 04:59 PM 6/3/2xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
Dear Dr. Mann,
I am the managing editor for Eos, the weekly newspaper of the American
Geophysical Union.
Late last week, the Eos editor for atmospheric sciences, Ellen
Mosley-Thompson, asked me if Eos would publish what she called "a
position paper" by you, Phillip Bradley, et al that would, in effect,
be a refutation to a paper by Soon et al. that was published in a
British journal, Energy & Environment a few weeks ago. This Energy &
Environment article was subsequently picked up by the Discovery
Channel and other print and electronic media that reach the general
public.
Before I can answer this question, I need to ask if you and your
colleagues intend for this position paper to be published
simultaneously in outlets other than Eos. If this is the case, I'm
afraid it being published in Eos is a moot point, because of AGU's no
duplicate publication policy: if the material has been published
elsewhere first, AGU will not publish it.
I look forward to your response.
Best regrds,
Judy Jacobs
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[3]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[4]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachMannPersp20021.pdf"
References
1. http://eos-submit.agu.org/
2. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
3. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
4. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1054748574.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Edward Cook <drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Review- confidential REALLY URGENT
Date: Wed Jun 4 13:42:xxx xxxx xxxx
I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review - Confidentially I now need a hard
and if required extensive case for rejecting - to support Dave Stahle's and really as soon
as you can. Please
Keith
At 08:00 AM 5/28/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
Okay, here is a zipped archive containing Jan's ring-width measurement series. The
directory names are:
random
all
slope
flat
"All" contains files with "all" series; "slope" has those series Jan reckoned had
curvilinear growth trends; "flat" has those series with linear growth trends; "random"
are those series that Jan chose not to use. Note that I had to pull out the Mongolia
data set. I would love to give you it, but Gordon would go nuts if he found out. I don't
know any way around this problem.
The file names are:
01ath Athabasca
02bor Boreal
03cam Camphill
04que Quebec
05upp Upper Wright
06got Gotland
07jae Jaemtland
08lau Lauenen (site not used in paper)
09tir Tirol
10tor Tornestrask
11man Mangazeja
13pol Polar Urals
14tay Taymir
15zha Zhaschiviersk
I can't put my hands on the derived RCS indices for these sites just now, but I can find
them if you want them. This at least gives you the basic data and how it was partitioned
by Jan. I did not participate in this stage of the analysis, so any questions about it
should be directed to Jan.
Cheers,
Ed
--
==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Doherty Senior Scholar and
Director, 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: 1054756929.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Edward Cook <drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Review- confidential REALLY URGENT
Date: Wed Jun 4 16:02:xxx xxxx xxxx
Hi Big Boy
You just caught me as I was about to slope off after a brutal day - we spent all day
yesterday interviewing for a job we have and then someone accepted it - and now Janice
tells us we don't have the money to pay at therate the job was advertised for! This attack
sounds like the last straw- from what you say it is a waste of time my looking at it but
send a copy anyway. The file you have is an old version of a reconstruction output for one
Tornetrask reconstruction - if it was labelled something like 990 it is the original Nature
one , but 997 (i Think//1) would make it the Climate Dynamics one . Trouble is I will have
to go back and find out which . Please ring if I haven't my tomorrow to remind me - and
concentrate on the review for now. I will also talk about an extended nearby data set
(temp) that might allow a longer more rigorous validation . Kirsten has just done Math GCSE
and Amy her driving test so I have to go and picjk them up. I will looke at the file and be
ready with an answer by midday my time. the best and a beer til then
Keith
At 09:50 AM 6/4/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
Okay, today. Promise! Now something to ask from you. Actually somewhat important too. I
got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and
Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims
that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression)
is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your Tornetrask recon as the main
whipping boy. I have a file that you gave me in 1993 that comes from your 1992 paper.
Below is part of that file. Is this the right one? Also, is it possible to resurrect the
column headings? I would like to play with it in an effort to refute their claims.
If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to
review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It
won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically,
but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies,
without showing that their improved inverse regression method is actually better in a
practical sense. So they do lots of monte carlo stuff that shows the superiority of
their method and the deficiencies of our way of doing things, but NEVER actually show
how their method would change the Tornetrask reconstruction from what you produced.
Your assistance here is greatly appreciated. Otherwise, I will let Tornetrask sink into
the melting permafrost of northern Sweden (just kidding of course).
Cheers,
Ed
TORNETRASK RECONSTRUCTION
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.31
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.39
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.25
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.34
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.34
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.25
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.24
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.33
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.31
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.27
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.29
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.35
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.28
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.27
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.29
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.26
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.27
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.25
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.26
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.26
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.26
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.38
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.37
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.24
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.25
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.24
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.25
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.28
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.25
xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.25
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.24
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.28
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.29
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.24
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.35
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.95
2.xxx xxxx xxxx.70
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.64
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.32
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.47
2.xxx xxxx xxxx.45
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.19
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.55
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.34
-2.xxx xxxx xxxx.20
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.23
2.xxx xxxx xxxx.22
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.74
2.xxx xxxx xxxx.34
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.10
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.15
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.42
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.11
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.27
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.07
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.08
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.95
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.72
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.39
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.74
-2.xxx xxxx xxxx.05
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.61
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.48
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.17
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.31
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.62
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.34
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.72
2.xxx xxxx xxxx.03
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.53
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.29
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.12
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.22
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.12
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.19
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.32
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.70
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.38
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.43
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.15
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.81
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.87
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.21
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.74
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.15
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.26
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.74
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.71
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.19
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.64
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.41
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.20
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.14
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.07
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.88
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.56
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.37
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.52
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.24
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.32
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.80
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.42
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.25
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.13
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.10
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.12
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.40
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.05
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.69
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.40
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.71
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.18
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.22
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.24
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.49
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.24
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.46
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.07
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.60
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.18
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.79
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.66
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.38
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.02
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.47
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.10
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.01
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.03
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.61
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.38
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.84
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.11
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.89
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.24
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.32
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.52
-2.xxx xxxx xxxx.44
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.02
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.42
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.64
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.11
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.05
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.06
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.69
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.55
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.70
-2.xxx xxxx xxxx.10
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.22
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.55
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.51
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.71
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.60
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.00
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.55
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.02
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.79
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.23
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.99
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.29
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.50
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.84
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.61
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.91
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.65
-2.xxx xxxx xxxx.51
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.78
2.xxx xxxx xxxx.02
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.68
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.39
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.87
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.12
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.93
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.85
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.35
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.75
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.12
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.23
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.02
-2.xxx xxxx xxxx.84
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.64
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.46
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.49
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.10
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.75
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.06
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.18
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.10
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.14
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.21
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.02
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.25
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.58
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.42
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.21
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.21
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.74
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.27
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.77
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.36
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.88
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.98
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.05
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.37
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.86
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.48
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.26
3.xxx xxxx xxxx.39
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.49
2.xxx xxxx xxxx.91
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.99
2.xxx xxxx xxxx.71
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.67
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.42
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.70
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.20
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.32
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.50
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.69
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.69
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.18
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.50
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.81
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.71
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.62
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.64
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.43
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.20
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.74
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.67
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.14
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.11
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.52
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.73
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.23
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.34
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.26
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.38
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.37
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.11
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.70
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.32
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.42
2.xxx xxxx xxxx.76
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.73
-2.xxx xxxx xxxx.94
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.32
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.31
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.77
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.90
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.32
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.98
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.39
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.02
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.19
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.17
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.65
-2.xxx xxxx xxxx.01
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.07
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.79
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.42
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.09
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.74
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.82
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.46
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.13
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.13
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.21
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.07
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.10
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.37
1.xxx xxxx xxxx.54
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.05
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.40
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.03
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.12
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.00
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.18
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.85
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.85
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.30
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.12
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.62
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.51
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.23
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.02
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.90
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.62
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.48
-1.xxx xxxx xxxx.29
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.83
0.xxx xxxx xxxx.06
1xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.xxx xxxx xxxx.02
-0.xxx xxxx xxxx.59
I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review - Confidentially I now need a hard
and if required extensive case for rejecting - to support Dave Stahle's and really as
soon as you can. Please
Keith
At 08:00 AM 5/28/xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
Okay, here is a zipped archive containing Jan's ring-width measurement series. The
directory names are:
random
all
slope
flat
"All" contains files with "all" series; "slope" has those series Jan reckoned had
curvilinear growth trends; "flat" has those series with linear growth trends; "random"
are those series that Jan chose not to use. Note that I had to pull out the Mongolia
data set. I would love to give you it, but Gordon would go nuts if he found out. I don't
know any way around this problem.
The file names are:
01ath Athabasca
02bor Boreal
03cam Camphill
04que Quebec
05upp Upper Wright
06got Gotland
07jae Jaemtland
08lau Lauenen (site not used in paper)
09tir Tirol
10tor Tornestrask
11man Mangazeja
13pol Polar Urals
14tay Taymir
15zha Zhaschiviersk
I can't put my hands on the derived RCS indices for these sites just now, but I can find
them if you want them. This at least gives you the basic data and how it was partitioned
by Jan. I did not participate in this stage of the analysis, so any questions about it
should be directed to Jan.
Cheers,
Ed
--
==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Doherty Senior Scholar and
Director, 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/
--
==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Doherty Senior Scholar and
Director, 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
[2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa[3]/
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1054757526.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Prospective Eos piece?
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 16:12:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear All,
I've attached a draft (attached word document), incorporating many of the suggestions,
wording, etc. I've already recieved from various of you. Some specific
comments/inquiries/requests for help indicated in yellow highlighting. Waiting to hear
back from Peck and Tom C (guys: if you're out there, can you give a holler, to let me know
your disposition? thanks). Otherwise everyone else has indicated they're on board.
I've been in touch w/ Judy Jacobs at AGU to clarify the ground rules. Apparently we *can*
refer, where necessary, to press releases, parenthetically in the piece. I think this is
important in our case because there is a subtle, but important, distinction between what
the papers actual purport to show, and what the authors (and their promoters) have
*claimed* they show (e.g. in the Harvard-Smithsonian press release). We need to draw out
this distinction-I sent Judy my paragraph on that, and she said it looks fine--so
apparently its kosher.
I've avoided any reference to unpublished work however (e.g. Mann and Jones), because this
opens up a can of worms. We can nicely make use of work that Keith has already done to
provide a suggestion of the longer-term (past 2K) changes, for greater context...
Re, references--we necessarily have to go well over the normal 10 or so, because part of
the strength of our piece is the wealth of recent studies supporting our basic conclusions.
Judy said that's ok too--especially since our text is short (by about 100 words) relative
to the official (1200 word) limit. So we should try to keep it that way..ie, we need to
play a zero-sum game, as much as possible, with any suggested revisions.
Re figures, Scott Rutherford has generously offered to help prepare a draft of figure 1
which I'll send on to everyone once its available.
I've also described, in the figure caption, my concept of Figure 2--clearly it would be
helpful if Phil and Ray could collaborate on the preparation of this one (guys?).
Looking forward to comments, and suggested revisions. I'll just accumulate these from
everyone in whatever form you prefer to provide them (emailed comments, word file w/ track
changes or highlighting of changes used, etc) and try to prepare a revised draft once I've
heard back from everyone.
Thanks again to everyone for their willingness to help with this and to be involved with
this,
mike
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:17:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tom Wigley
<wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck
<jto@u.arizona.edu>
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Prospective Eos piece?
Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Thanks Phil, and Thanks Tom W and Keith for your willingness to help/sign on. This
certainly gives us a "quorum" pending even a few possible additional signatories I'm
waiting to hear back from.
In response to the queries, I will work on a draft today w/ references and two
suggested figures, and will try to send on by this evening (east coast USA). Tom W
indicated that he wouldn't be able look at a draft until Thursday anyway, so why doesn't
everyone just take a day then to digest what I've provided and then get back to me with
comments/changes (using word "track changes" if you like).
I'd like to tentatively propose to pass this along to Phil as the "official keeper" of
the draft to finalize and submit IF it isn't in satisfactory shape by the time I have to
leave (July 11--If I hadn't mentioned, I'm getting married, and then honeymoon, prior to
IUGG in Sapporo--gone for about 1 month total). Phil, does that sound ok to you?
Re Figures, what I had in mind were the following two figures:
1) A plot of various of the most reliable (in terms of strength of temperature signal
and reliability of millennial-scale variability) regional proxy temperature
reconstructions around the Northern Hemisphere that are available over the past 1-2
thousand years to convey the important point that warm and cold periods where highly
regionally variable. Phil and Ray are probably in the best position to prepare this (?).
Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this
category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back--I think that trying to adopt a
timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made
w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP",
even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back
[Phil and I have one in review--not sure it is kosher to show that yet though--I've put
in an inquiry to Judy Jacobs at AGU about this]. If we wanted to be fancy, we could do
this the way certain plots were presented in one of the past IPCC reports (was it 1990?)
in which a spatial map was provided in the center (this would show the locations of the
proxies), with "rays" radiating out to the top, sides, and bottom attached to rectanges
showing the different timeseries. Its a bit of work, but would be a great way to convey
both the spatial and temporal information at the same time.
2) A version of the now-familiar "spaghetti plot" showing the various reconstructions as
well as model simulations for the NH over the past 1 (or maybe 2K). To give you an idea
of what I have in mind, I'm attaching a Science piece I wrote last year that contains
the same sort of plot.
However, what I'd like to do different here is:
In addition to the "multiproxy" reconstructions, I'd like to Add Keith's maximum
latewood density-based series, since it is entirely independent of the multiproxy
series, but conveys the same basic message. I would also like to try to extend the scope
of the plot back to nearly 2K. This would be either w/ the Mann and Jones extension (in
review in GRL) or, if that is deemed not kosher, the Briffa et al Eurasian tree-ring
composite that extends back about 2K, and, based on Phil and my results, appears alone
to give a reasonably accurate picture of the full hemispheric trend.
Thoughts, comments on any of this?
thanks all for the help,
mike
At 09:25 AM 6/4/2003 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
This is definitely worth doing and I hope you have the time before the 11th, or can
pass
it on to one of us at that time. As you know I'm away for a couple of days but back
Friday.
So count me in. I've forwarded you all the email comments I've sent to reporters/fellow
scientists, so you're fully aware of my views, which are essentially the same as all of
the list
and many others in paleo. EOS would get to most fellow scientists. As I said to you the
other
day, it is amazing how far and wide the SB pieces have managed to percolate. When it
comes
out I would hope that AGU/EOS 'publicity machine' will shout the message from rooftops
everywhere. As many of us need to be available when it comes out.
There is still no firm news on what Climate Research will do, although they will
likely
have two editors for potentially controversial papers, and the editors will consult
when papers
get different reviews. All standard practice I'd have thought. At present the editors
get no
guidance whatsoever. It would seem that if they don't know what standard practice is
then
they shouldn't be doing the job !
Cheers
Phil
At 22:34 03/06/xxx xxxx xxxx, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Eos has invited me (and prospective co-authors) to write a 'forum' piece (see below).
This was at Ellen Mosely-Thompson's suggestion, upon my sending her a copy of the
attached memo that Michael Oppenheimer and I jointly wrote. Michael and I wrote this to
assist colleagues who had been requesting more background information to help counter
the spurious claims (with which I believe you're all now familiar) of the latest
Baliunas & Soon pieces.
The idea I have in mind would be to use what Michael and I have drafted as an initial
starting point for a slightly expanded piece, that would address the same basic issues
and, as indicated below, could include some references and figures. As indicated in
Judy Jacobs' letter below, the piece would be rewritten in such a way as to be less
explicitly (though perhaps not less implicitly) directed at the Baliunas/Soon claims,
criticisms, and attacks.
Phil, Ray, and Peck have already indicated tentative interest in being co-authors. I'm
sending this to the rest of you (Tom C, Keith, Tom W, Kevin) in the hopes of broadening
the list of co-authors. I strongly believe that a piece of this sort co-authored by 9
or so prominent members of the climate research community (with background and/or
interest in paleoclimate) will go a long way ih helping to counter these attacks, which
are being used, in turn, to launch attacks against IPCC.
AGU has offered to expedite the process considerably, which is necessary because I'll be
travelling for about a month beginning June 11th. So I'm going to work hard to get
something together ASAP. I'd would therefore greatly appreciate a quick response from
each of you as to whether or not you would potentially be willing to be involved as a
co-author. If you're unable or unwilling given other current commitments, I'll
understand.
Thanks in advance for getting back to me on this,
mike
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 20:19:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson.4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: position paper by Mann,
Bradley et al that is a refutation to Soon et al
X-Sender: ethompso@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: Judy Jacobs <JJacobs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3
Judy and Mike -
This sounds outstanding.
Am I right in assuming that Fred reviews and approves the Forum pieces?
If so, can you hint about expediting this. Timing is very critical here.
Judy, thanks for taking the bull by the horns and getting the ball rolling.
Best regards,
Ellen
At 07:33 PM 06/03/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Judy Jacobs wrote:
Dear Dr. Mann,
Thanks for the prompt reply.
Based on what you have said, it sounds to me as if Mann, Bradley, et al. will not be in
violation of AGU's prohibition on duplicate publication.
The attachment to your e-mail definitely has the look and feel of something that would
be published in Eos under the "FORUM" column header. FORUM pieces are usually comments
on articles of any description that have been published in previous issues of Eos; or
they can be articles on purely scientific or science policy-related issues around which
there is some controversy or difference of opinion; or articles on current public issues
that are of interest to the geosciences; or on issues--science or broader policy
ones---0n which there is an official AGU Position Statement. In this last category, I
offer, for example, the teaching of creationism in public schools, either alongside
evolution, or to the exclusion of evolution.
AGU has an official Position Statement, "Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases," which
states, among other things, that there is a high probability that man-made gases
primarily from the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to a gradual rise in mean
globab temperatures. In this context, your proto-article---in the form of the attachment
you sent me-- would seem right on target for a Forum piece. However, since the Soon et
al. article wasn't actually published in Eos, anything that you and Dr. Bradley craft
will have to minimize reference to the specific article or articles, and concentrate on
"the science" that is set forth in these papers. Presumably this problem could be
solved by simply referencing these papers.
A Forum piece can be as long as 1500 words, or approximately 6 double-spaced pages. A
maximum of two figures is permitted. A maximum of 10 references is encouraged, but if
the number doesn't exceed 10 too outrageously, I don't make a fuss, and neither will
Ellen.
Authors are now asked to submit their manuscripts and figures electronically via AGU's
Internet-based Geophysical Electronic Manuscript System (GEMS), which makes it possible
for the entire submission-review process to be conducted online.
If you have never used GEMS before, you can register for a login and password, and get
initial instructions, by going to
[1]http://eos-submit.agu.org/
If you would like to have a set of step-by-step instructions for first-time GEMS users,
please ask me.
Ellen indicated that she/you would like to get something published sooner rather than
later. The Eos staff can certainly expedite the editorial process for anything you and
your colleagues submit.
Don't hesitate to contact me with any further questions.
Best regards,
Judy Jacobs
Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear Judy,
Thanks very much for getting back to me on this. Ellen had mentioned this possibility,
and I have been looking forward to hearing back about this.
Michael Oppenheimer and I drafted an informal memo that we passed along to colleagues
who needed some more background information so that they could comment on the Soon et al
papers in response to various inquiries they were receiving from the press, etc. I've
attached a copy of this memo.
It has not been our intention for this memo to appear in print, and it has not been
submitted anywhere for publication. On the other hand, when Ellen mentioned the
possibility of publishing something *like* this in e.g. the "Eos" forum, that seemed
like an excellent idea to me, and several of my colleagues that I have discussed the
possibility with.
What we had in mind was to produce a revised version of the basic memo that I've
attached, modifying it where necessary, and perhaps expanding it a bit, seeking broader
co-authorship by about 9 or so other leading climate scientists. So far, Phil Jones of
the University of East Anglia, Ray Bradley of the University of Massachusetts, and
Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona, have all indicated their interest in
co-authoring such a piece. We suspect that a few other individuals would be interested
in being co-authors as well. I didn't want to pursue this further, however, until I
knew whether or not an Eos piece was a possibility.
So pending further word from you, I would indeed be interested in preparing a
multi-authored "position" paper for Eos in collaboration with these co-authors, based
loosely on the memo that Ihave attached.
I look forward to further word from you on this.
best regards,
mike mann
At 04:59 PM 6/3/2xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
Dear Dr. Mann,
I am the managing editor for Eos, the weekly newspaper of the American
Geophysical Union.
Late last week, the Eos editor for atmospheric sciences, Ellen
Mosley-Thompson, asked me if Eos would publish what she called "a
position paper" by you, Phillip Bradley, et al that would, in effect,
be a refutation to a paper by Soon et al. that was published in a
British journal, Energy & Environment a few weeks ago. This Energy &
Environment article was subsequently picked up by the Discovery
Channel and other print and electronic media that reach the general
public.
Before I can answer this question, I need to ask if you and your
colleagues intend for this position paper to be published
simultaneously in outlets other than Eos. If this is the case, I'm
afraid it being published in Eos is a moot point, because of AGU's no
duplicate publication policy: if the material has been published
elsewhere first, AGU will not publish it.
I look forward to your response.
Best regrds,
Judy Jacobs
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[3]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[4]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[5]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachEosForum.doc"
References
1. http://eos-submit.agu.org/
2. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
3. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
4. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
5. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1055004012.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Revised Version!
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 12:40:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Raymond S. Bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jto@u.arizona.edu, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Thanks Kevin,
Those are helpful--Tom C. has returned from travels and will be providing comments shortly.
Will incorporate those and any others I receive into a revised version, which I hope to
send out (w/ Figure 1 included) tonight or tomorrow,
mike
p.s. Tom W is taking the lead on preparing a companion, more targeted commentary, to be
submitted to "Climate Research". Any one else interested should contact Tom...
At 05:16 PM 6/6/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Good job. I am attaching marked up copy with few suggestions.
Kevin
Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear all,
Here is my best attempt to incorporate everyone's suggestions, views, etc. One major
change you'll notice is that the final item (the one on co2 increase and recent warming)
was eliminated, because it seemed to open a can of warms, and also distract from the
central message. Note that, with the number of references we have, we are currently just
about at the word limit for the piece. We shouldn't go over 1400 words, which puts some
tight constraint on any additions, etc.
I hope to forward a draft of Figure 1 later on this afternoon. I'm assuming that Phil
can take care of Figure 2 (Phil?--Scott has graciously indicated his willingness to help
if necessary), but its pretty clear what this figure will show, so I don't thinks its
that essential that we have that figure done to try to finalize the draft.
I'll attempt one final(?) revision of the text based on any remaining comments you may
have--please try, if possible, to keep the suggested changes minimal at this point. I'll
assume that anyone we haven't yet heard back from in the author list over the next day
or so is unable to be a co-author, and will respectfully drop them from the author list
any related future emailings.
Thanks all for your help. Its rare to have every single co-author make substantial
contributions to improving the draft, and that was clearly the case here...
mike
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: [1]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
--
****************
Kevin E.
Trenberth
e-mail:
[3]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section,
NCAR
[4]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box
3000,
(3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO
80307
(3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 3080 Center Green Drive, Boulder, CO 80301
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[5]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
References
1. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx%A0
2. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
3. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
5. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1055258297.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Figure 1
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:18:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Sounds great on all counts.
Kevin's comments are all good ones,
mike
At 04:09 PM 6/10/2003 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:
Scott,
Seems OK. we will send both figures and the text for one last look through today.
Trying now to incorporate Kevin's comments.
Cheers
Phil
At 10:48 10/06/xxx xxxx xxxx, Scott Rutherford wrote:
Phil and others,
Here is a revised figure. What do you think?
Scott
On Tuesday, June 10, 2003, at 07:21 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Scott (and Mike if he's still there),
The three of us have been through the text, Fig 1 and decided
what to put in Fig 2.
Tim is doing Fig 2 (9 long series - we'll send when we have it). I'm
modifying the text
slightly - adding in refs that are missing (mostly with Fig 2) and
generally tidying up.
Keith is working on the final sentence of the penultimate para. We
all agree with this,
but it could be misinterpreted - so trying to avoid this.
WRT Fig 1.
There are quite a few changes we think would improve things and
make it more consistent,
all to the labelling.
1. Add et al to Bauer and Gerber (twice).
2. Years only in for Mann et al., so this is the only one where refs
would be ambiguous.
3. So, Briffa et al 2000 becomes Briffa and Osborn 1999
4. Briffa et al, 2001 becomes Briffa et al .
5 Remove Long instrumental - the orange line from the plot and key.
It isn't explained in the
caption, nor in the text.
6. As the grey line may not be seen under the grey shading, we think
that all lines should
be as thin as the grey one. Some are thicker than others - can all be
the same thinness.
7. Back to key, change Optimal borehole (Mann et al, 2003) to Mann et
al. 2003 (Optimal
borehole) for consistency with the others.
8 . Most important is the SCALING. Needs to be clear which are scaled
(to annual) and which
aren't. Text in caption is ambiguous. So can you tell us which is
scaled (to annual) and
which aren't. If they are scaled then key should say - scaled
1xxx xxxx xxxxas with Jones et al .
Does this apply to Briffa and Osborn and to Briffa et al (the grey
and orange lines).
9. Whilst on scaling are all scaled or regressed? Scaling we think
of as giving the same
mean and variance. Regression does this also but which has been used.
10. Finally, Figure would look good with a thin black line along the
zero line from 0 to 2000.
Call me or Tim if anything you don't follow. Try Mike as well. I
sent him an email earlier
today and he'd already put his reply message up for the next 4-5
weeks.
Cheers
Phil
At 12:25 09/06/xxx xxxx xxxx, Scott Rutherford wrote:
Mike and Phil,
Attached is figure 1. The format is Adobe Illustrator with an
embedded PDF. You can view it in Acrobat. Let me know if you have
questions.
Regards,
Scott
______________________________________________
Scott Rutherford
Marine Research Scientist
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island
e-mail: srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
snail mail:
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
______________________________________________
Scott Rutherford
Marine Research Scientist
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island
e-mail: srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
snail mail:
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
References
1. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1055269567.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: EOS text
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 14:26:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
HI Scott,
I concur w/ your assessment--keeping the figure the way it is now is preferable in my
opinion...
mike
At 02:23 PM 6/10/2xxx xxxx xxxx, Scott Rutherford wrote:
Dear All,
I agree that figure 1 is very busy, but I'm not sure that is a bad thing in this case
because we aren't trying to highlight differences between reconstructions/models or
single out one or two from the rest. I think the current figure illustrates the range of
reconstructions, the range of models and how well they agree (similar to one of our
original ideas of a "cloud of reconstructions").
If we put the models into a separate panel we will need a curve common to both panels
that people can use as a reference. If we go with the two panel figure I suggest that
the second panel include the models, the Mann et al. 1999 reconstruction with
uncertainties and the instrumental record.
I'll leave it to the group to decide.
-Scott
On Tuesday, June 10, 2003, at 01:16 PM, Michael E. Mann wrote:
I don't really like the idea of changing the figure dramatically at this point.
If we have to, I suggest the following options:
1) Take out one of the model simulation results--e.g. Gerber et al w/ the lower
sensitivity
2) If we want to adopt Kevin's two panel strategy, then show the model results along w/
the gray-shaded uncertainty region from the top (reconstructions) panel. And show the
instrumental record in both panels.
Anyway, up to you guys...
mike
At 10:59 AM 6/10/2xxx xxxx xxxx, you wrote:
Phil
Thanks for the great work.
Some reactions.
1) Fig. 1 is very busy and perhaps unduly crowded. My reaction is to take the model
results out and put them in a separate panel. The separate panel would fit along side
the key. But better below the main figure.
Can we change "gridded and arealy weighted" to "gridded, area-weighted..".)
What is "optimal borehole",? Should "optimal" be in quotes?
2) Fig. 2: Can we please add a country to each name for those that don't have them?
Increased spacing between them would be nice.
Thanks
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:
Dear All,
Keith, Tim and I have been at this for part of the day. Scott has also
redrawn Fig 1.
Attached is the latest draft, which includes Kevin's from about 1 hour ago, but not
Ray's
latest email.
Fig 1 from Scott is OK to us here. Fig 2 is a draft. Tim needs to space the
series
out a little. To use all these we've needed to add a load of references. Getting these
and
making the captions OK has taken most time and the drawing of Fig 2.
Hopefully we can all agree to this in the next day or so, then I'll submit on
say
Thursday UK morning time, so you've all got all day today and tomorrow.
We've been through the text carefully and all happy with it.
Apologies - no time to make Fig 2 pdf. Hope all can see postscript. We still need
to work
on the captions and tidy the refs a little more.
We'll be back at 8.30 tomorrow UK time. Peck - you've got 2 days to say yes/no !
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [1]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 3080 Center Green Drive, Boulder, CO 80301
______________________________________________________________
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
______________________________________________
Scott Rutherford
Marine Research Scientist
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island
e-mail: srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
snail mail:
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882
</blockquote></x-html>
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[3]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
References
1. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
2. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
3. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml