Alleged CRU Emails - 25 results below

Original Filename: 1067194064.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Ray Bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Malcolm Hughes" <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, tom crowley <tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, asocci@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim_Profeta@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gabi Hegerl <hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson.4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Lonnie G. Thompson" <thompson.3@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: CONFIDENTIAL Fwd:
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 13:47:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear All,
This has been passed along to me by someone whose identity will remain in confidence.
Who knows what trickery has been pulled or selective use of data made. Its clear that
"Energy and Environment" is being run by the baddies--only a shill for industry would have
republished the original Soon and Baliunas paper as submitted to "Climate Research" without
even editing it. Now apparently they're at it again...
My suggested response is:
1) to dismiss this as stunt, appearing in a so-called "journal" which is already known to
have defied standard practices of peer-review. It is clear, for example, that nobody we
know has been asked to "review" this so-called paper
2) to point out the claim is nonsense since the same basic result has been obtained by
numerous other researchers, using different data, elementary compositing techniques, etc.
Who knows what sleight of hand the authors of this thing have pulled. Of course, the usual
suspects are going to try to peddle this crap. The important thing is to deny that this has
any intellectual credibility whatsoever and, if contacted by any media, to dismiss this for
the stunt that it is..
Thanks for your help,
mike

two people have a forthcoming 'Energy & Environment' paper that's being unveiled tomoro
(monday) that -- in the words of one Cato / Marshall/ CEI type -- "will claim that Mann
arbitrarily ignored paleo data within his own record and substituted other data for
missing values that dramatically affected his results.
When his exact analysis is rerun with all the data and with no data
substitutions, two very large warming spikes will appear that are greater than the 20th
century.
Personally, I'd offer that this was known by most people who understand Mann's
methodology: it can be quite sensitive to the input data in the early centuries.
Anyway, there's going to be a lot of noise on this one, and knowing Mann's very thin
skin I am afraid he will react strongly, unless he has learned (as I hope he has) from
the past...."

______________________________________________________________
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: 1067450707.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: stocker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, knutti@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: some info you'll want to have...
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:05:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Gabi Hegerl <hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, tom crowley <tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "raymond s.bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Gavin Schmidt <gavin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear Thomas, Fortunat, Reto:
You might have wanted to check w/ us first, but thanks anyway for responding to this. We've
uncovered the error in what they did. They didn't use the proxy data available on our
public ftp site, which I had pointed them too--instead they used a spreadsheet file that my
associate Scott Rutherford had prepared. In this file, most of the early series were
overprinted at later years. This resulted in the reconstruction becoming increasingly
spurious as one goes further back in time--the estimates prior to 1700 or so were rendered
meaningless. There were also some other methodological errors that will be detailed
shortly, but this was the big one.
So they will probably have to retract the paper. You can find out more about this here, on
journalist David Appell's "blog":
[1]http://www.davidappell.com/
We also have an op-ed piece going out this afternoon, further detailing the problems. Will
send that as soon as its available. I've attached a few other relevant documents, and I'm
forwarding another email I sent out to colleagues yesterday, just after I had discovered
the main problem in what they've done...
mike

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some blatant examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.
.
.

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

References

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

Original Filename: 1067532918.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: "raymond s. bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: One way out....
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:55:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
Tim, Phil, Keef:
I suggest a way out of this mess. Because of the complexity of the
arguments involved, to an uniformed observer it all might be viewed as just
scientific nit-picking by "for" and "against" global warming
proponents. However, if an "independent group" such as you guys at CRU
could make a statement as to whether the M&M effort is truly an "audit",
and if they did it right, I think that would go a long way to defusing the
issue.
It's clear from the figure that Reno Knuti sent yesterday that something
pretty whacky happened in their analysis prior to ~AD1600, and this led
Mike to figure out the problem. See:
file:///c:/eudora/attach/nh_temp_rec.jpg

If you are willing, a quick and forceful statement from The Distinguished
CRU Boys would help quash further arguments, although here, at least, it is
already quite out of control.....yesterday in the US Senate the debate
opened on the McCain-Lieberman bill to control CO2 emissions from power
plants. Sen Inhofe stood up & showed the M & M figure and stated that Mann
et al--& the IPCC assessment --was now disproven and so there was no reason
to control CO2 emissions.....I wonder how many times a "scientific" paper
gets reported on in the Senate 3 days after it is published....
Ray

</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1067542015.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>, "raymond s. bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: One way out....
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 14:26:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Hi Keith,
sorry--yes, I think the Nature idea would be great. Definitely give it a try!
thanks,
mike
At 06:53 PM 10/30/2003 +0000, Keith Briffa wrote:

Things obviously moving over there - this result looks good.Just thought I'd send this
first bit (up to dotted line) of edited version , to illustrate possible toning down?
Have to go now and feed daughter . Will wait til see your joint version first thing
tomorrow - rest assured, that am entirely with you on this and still appalled by the MM
stuff - but keeping your distance and calm stance is still urged.
all the best to all
any objections if I talk to Nature tomorrow?
Keith
At 01:31 PM 10/30/xxx xxxx xxxx, Michael E. Mann wrote:

Guys,
So the verification RE for the "censored" NH mean reconstruction? -6.64
The verification RE for the original MBH98 NH mean reconstruction: 0.42
I think the case is really strong now!
What if were to eliminate the discussion of all the other technical details (and just
say they exist), and state more nicely that these series were effectively censored by
their substitutions, and that by removing those series which they censored, I get a
similar result, with a dismal RE.
And most people would keep the RE of 0.42 over the RE of -6, right? So this would make
that point. I think we also need to say something about the process, etc. (the intro was
based on something that Malcolm/Ray had originally crafted).
Thoughts, comments? Thanks,
mike
I'm thinking of a note saying basically this, and attaching this figure.
Could everybody sign on to something like this?
Thanks for all your help,
mike
At 05:11 PM 10/30/2003 +0000, Keith Briffa wrote:

Ray et al
I agree with this idea in principle . Whatever scientific differences and fascination
with the nuances of techniques we may /may not share, this whole process represents the
most despicable example of slander and down right deliberate perversion of the
scientific process , and bias (unverified) work being used to influence public
perception and due political process. It is , however, essential that you (we) do not
get caught up in the frenzy that these people are trying to generate, and that will more
than likely lead to error on our part or some premature remarks that we might regret. I
do think the statement re Mike's results needs making , but only after it can be based
on repeated work and in full collaboration of us all. I am happy to push Tim to take the
lead and collaborate in this - and I feel we could get sanction very quickly from the
DEFRA if needed. BUT this must be done calmly , and in the meantime a restrained
statement but out saying we have full confidence in Mike's objectivity and independence
- which we can not say of the sceptics. In fact I am moved tomorrow to contact Nature
and urge them to do an editorial on this . The political machinations in Washington
should NOT dictate the agenda or scheduling of the work - but some cool statement can be
made saying we believe the "prats have really fucked up someway" - and that the
premature publication of their paper is reprehensible . Much of the detail in Mikes
response though is not sensible (sorry Mike) and is rising to their bate.
Keith
At 11:55 AM 10/30/xxx xxxx xxxx, raymond s. bradley wrote:

Tim, Phil, Keef:
I suggest a way out of this mess. Because of the complexity of the arguments involved,
to an uniformed observer it all might be viewed as just scientific nit-picking by "for"
and "against" global warming proponents. However, if an "independent group" such as you
guys at CRU could make a statement as to whether the M&M effort is truly an "audit", and
if they did it right, I think that would go a long way to defusing the issue.
It's clear from the figure that Reno Knuti sent yesterday that something pretty whacky
happened in their analysis prior to ~AD1600, and this led Mike to figure out the
problem. See:
[1]file:///c:/eudora/attach/nh_temp_rec.jpg
If you are willing, a quick and forceful statement from The Distinguished CRU Boys would
help quash further arguments, although here, at least, it is already quite out of
control.....yesterday in the US Senate the debate opened on the McCain-Lieberman bill to
control CO2 emissions from power plants. Sen Inhofe stood up & showed the M & M figure
and stated that Mann et al--& the IPCC assessment --was now disproven and so there was
no reason to control CO2 emissions.....I wonder how many times a "scientific" paper gets
reported on in the Senate 3 days after it is published....
Ray

--
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/

______________________________________________________________
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

--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[4]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
[5]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

References

1. file://c:eudoraattachnh_temp_rec.jpg/
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
3. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
4. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
5. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Original Filename: 1068239573.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

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

<x-flowed>

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

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

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

</x-flowed>

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

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

<x-flowed>
Keith and Phil,

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

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

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

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

Cheers

Tim


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

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

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

</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1069630979.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: RichardSCourtney@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.allen1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Russell.Vose@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Workshop: Reconciling Vertical Temperature Trends
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:42:59 EST
Cc: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, timo.hameranta@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ceforest@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, sokolov@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, phstone@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ekalnay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, richard.w.reynolds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, christy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, roy.spencer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, benjie.norris@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kostya@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Norman.Grody@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, sfbtett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, penner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dian.seidel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pielke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, climatesceptics@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, aarking1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, bjorn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cfk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, c.defreitas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cidso@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dwojick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, douglass@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dkaroly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mercurio@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, fredev@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, seitz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Heinz.Hug@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hughel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jahlbeck@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jfriday@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jeb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, daly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kondratyev@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, klyashtorin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, SCRIPTEC@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, marsleroux@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, visbeck@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, schlesin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, n.polunin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pjm8x@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, per.ericson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p_dietze@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rabryson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, lindzen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, singer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, baliunas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wibjorn.karlen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wsoon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, vinmary.gray@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, berger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, andre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, avogelmann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tonyb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ottobli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cwunsch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, schoenwiese@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ds533@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, david.easterling@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, legates@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wuebbles@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, thompson.4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gcb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Hans.von.Storch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, igor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jfbmitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, josefino.c.comiso@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jlean@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kenc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, klaus-p-heiss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kump@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, thompson.3@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jacobson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, claussen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.manning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, marty.hoffert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mike.bergin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mauel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, glantz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rodolfo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, olavi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ocanz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, air@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pdoran@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tpatters@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rmyneni@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rasmus.benestad@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, anthes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, robert.sausen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wofsy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, smenon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tbarnett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ulrich.berner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cubasch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Uli.Neff@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, vramanathan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, vr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, broecker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear All:
The excuses seem to be becoming desperate. Unjustified assertion that I fail to understand
"Myles' comments and/or work on trying the detect/attribute climate change" does not stop
the attribution study being an error. The problem is that I do understand what is being
done, and I am willing to say why it is GIGO.
Tim Allen said;
In a message dated 19/11/03 08:47:16 GMT Standard Time, m.allen1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx writes:

I would just like
to add that those of us working on climate change detection and attribution
are careful to mask model simulations in the same way that the observations
have been sampled, so these well-known dependencies of nominal trends on the
trend-estimation technique have no bearing on formal detection and
attribution results as quoted, for example, in the IPCC TAR.

I rejected this saying:
At 09:31 21/11/2003, RichardSCourtney@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
>It cannot be known that the 'masking' does not generate additional
>spurious trends. Anyway, why assume the errors in the data sets are
>geographical and not?. The masking is a 'fix' applied to the model
>simulations to adjust them to fit the surface data known to contain
>spurious trends. This is simple GIGO.
Now, Tim Osborn says of my comment;
In a message dated 21/11/03 10:04:56 GMT Standard Time, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx writes:

Richard's statement makes it clear, to me at least, that he misunderstands
Myles' comments and/or work on trying the detect/attribute climate change.
As far as I understand it, the masking is applied to the model to remove
those locations/times when there are no observations. This is quite
different to removing those locations which do not match, in some way, with
the observations - that would clearly be the wrong thing to do. To mask
those that have no observations, however, is clearly the right thing to do
- what is the point of attempting to detect a simulated signal of climate
change over some part of (e.g.) the Southern Ocean if there are no
observations there in which to detect the expected signal? That would
clearly be pointless.

Yes it would. And I fully understand Myles' comments. Indeed, my comments clearly and
unarguably relate to Myles comments. But, as my response states, Myles' comments do not
alter the fact that the masked data and the unmasked data contain demonstrated false
trends. And the masking may introduce other spurious trends. So, the conducted
attribution study is pointless because it is GIGO. Ad hominem insults don't change that.
And nor does the use of peer review to block my publication of the facts of these matters.
Richard

Original Filename: 1073489714.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: "Janice Darch" <J.Darch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <env.faculty@uea>, <env.researchstaff@uea>
Subject: Towards a Sustainable Energy Economy deadline
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 10:35:xxx xxxx xxxx

Dear All,
Is any one involved in proposals for this initiative?

Please let me know.
Janice

First call for research proposals
A call for expressions of interest for participation in Consortia, Research
Groups, Networks, Collaborative Proposals and Capacity Building
Closing date: 5pm, Monday 19 January 2004

Intending applicants should note that all those receiving funding from this
programme will be expected to collaborate with the UK Energy Research Centre
following its establishment on 1st April 2004.

Introduction
The Towards a Sustainable Energy Economy programme (TSEC) is aimed at
enabling the UK to access a secure, safe, diverse and reliable energy supply
at competitive prices, while meeting the challenge of global warming. The
Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC), Economic and
Social Research Council (ESRC) and Natural Environment Research Council
(NERC) jointly have funding of

Original Filename: 1073921187.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Jan Esper <esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Briffa Keith <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Cook Ed <drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: EOS revision
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:26:27 +0100

<x-flowed>
Hi Ed and Keith

for your information, I attached the revision of the EOS article. In
this version we added some lines about the data-overlap between the
MBH and ECS records.

I also attached a figure showing a comparison between MBH and
EsperFULL (using all data) and EsperSUB (without Tornetraesk and the
Polar Urals).

Take care
Jan
--
Dr. Jan Esper
Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL
Zuercherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf
Switzerland
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Email: esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
</x-flowed>

Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattach!Low_and_High_rev.pdf"

Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachFigure1.eps.pdf"

Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachResponse_Figure.eps.pdf"

Original Filename: 1074277559.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: CLIMATIC CHANGE needs your advice - YOUR EYES ONLY !!!!!
Date: Fri Jan 16 13:25:xxx xxxx xxxx

Mike,
This is for YOURS EYES ONLY. Delete after reading - please ! I'm trying to redress the
balance. One reply from Pfister said you should make all available !! Pot calling the
kettle
black - Christian doesn't make his methods available. I replied to the wrong Christian
message
so you don't get to see what he said. Probably best. Told Steve separately and to get
more
advice from a few others as well as Kluwer and legal.
PLEASE DELETE - just for you, not even Ray and Malcolm

Cheers
Phil

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:37:29 +0000
To: Christian Azar <christian.azar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, christian.pfister@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: AW: CLIMATIC CHANGE needs your advice
Cc: "'David G. VICTOR'" <dgvictor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, 'Katarina Kivel' <kivel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
N.W.Arnell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, frtca@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, d.camuffo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, scohen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
pmfearn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jfoley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pgleick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
harvey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ahs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rwk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
rik.leemans@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, diana.liverman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mccarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, lindam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
rmoss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ogilvie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, barrie.pittock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
pollard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, nj.rosenberg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, h.j.schellnhuber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
F.I.Woodward@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gyohe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, leonid@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Steve et al,
I've been away this week until today. Although the responses so far all make valid
points, I
will add my thoughts. I should say I have been more involved in all the exchanges
between
Mike and MM so I'm probably biased in Mike's favour. I will try and be impartial,
though, but
I did write a paper with Mike (which came out in GRL in Aug 2003) and we currently have
a long paper tentatively accepted by Reviews of Geophysics. With the latter all 4
reviewers
think the paper is fine, but the sections referring to MM and papers by Soon and
Baliunas
are not and our language is strong. We need to work on this.
Back to the question in hand:
1. The papers that MM refer came out in Nature in 1998 and to a lesser extent in GRL
in
1999. These reviewers did not request the data (all the proxy series) and the code. So,
acceding to the request for this to do the review is setting a VERY dangerous
precedent.
Mike has made all the data series and this is all anyone should need. Making model
code available is something else.
2. The code is basically irrelevant in this whole issue. In the GRL paper (in 2003 Mann
and Jones), we simply average all the series we use together. The result is pretty much
the same as MBH in 1998, Nature and MBH in 1999 in GRL.
3. As many of you know I calculate gridded and global/hemispheric temperature time
series
each month. Groups at NCDC and NASA/GISS do this as well. We don't exchange codes
- we do occasionally though for the data. The code here is trivial as it is in the
paleo work.
MBH get spatial patterns but the bottom line (the 1000 year series of global temps) is
almost the same if you simply average. The patterns give more, though, when it comes to
trying to understand what has caused the changes - eg by comparison with models. MM
are only interested in the NH/Global 1000-year time series - in fact only in the MBH
work
from 1400.
4. What has always intrigued me in this whole debate, is why the skeptics (for want of
a better term) always pick on Mike. There are several other series that I've produced,
Keith Briffa has and Tom Crowley. Jan Esper's work has produced a slightly different
series
but we don't get bombarded by MM. Mike's paper wasn't the first. It was in Nature and
is well-used by IPCC. I suspect the skeptics wish to concentrate their effort onto one
person as they did with Ben Santer after the second IPCC report.
5. Mike may respond too strongly to MM, but don't we all decide not to work with or
co-operate with people we do not get on with or do not like their views. Mike will say
that MM are disingenuous, but I'm not sure how many of you realise how vicious the
attack on him has been. I will give you an example.
When MM came out, we had several press calls (I don't normally get press calls about
my papers unless I really work at it - I very rarely do). This was about a paper in
E&E, which when we eventually got it several days later was appalling. I found out
later that the authors were in contact with the reviewers up to a week before the
article
appeared. So there is peer review and peer review !! Here the peer review was done by
like-minded colleagues. Anyway, I'm straying from the point. Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa
and I felt we should put something on our web site about the paper and directs people
to Mike's site and also to E&E and the MM's site. MM have hounded us about this for
the last four months. In the MM article, they have a diagram which says 'corrected
version' when comparing with MBH. We have seen people refer to this paper (MM)
as an alternative reconstruction - yet when we said this is our paragraph MM claim they
are not putting forward a new reconstruction but criticizing MBH 1998 !! We have
decided to remove the sentence on our web page just to stop these emails. But if a
corrected version isn't a new or alternative reconstruction I don't know what is.
So, in conclusion, I would side with Mike in this regard. In trying to be
scrupulously
fair, Steve, you've opened up a whole can of worms. If you do decide to put the Mann
response into CC then I suspect you will need an editorial. MM will want to respond
also.
I know you've had open and frank exchanges in CC before, but your email clearly shows
that you think this is in a different league. MM and E&E didn't give Mann the chance
to
respond when they put their paper in, but this is a too simplistic. It needs to be
pointed
out in an editorial though - I'm not offering by the way.
I could go on and on ....
Cheers
Phil
At 10:36 15/01/2004 +0100, Christian Azar wrote:

Dear all,
I agree with most of what has been said so far. Reproducibility is the key word. If the
Mann el al material (to be) posted on the website is sufficient to ensure
reproducibility, then there is no compelling need to force them to hand it out. If not,
then the source code is warranted. Also, even if there is no compelling need to make the
source code public, doing it anyway would clearly be beneficial for the entire debate.
Yours,
Christian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Azar
Professor
Department of physical resource theory
Chalmers University of Technology
G

Original Filename: 1074344124.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Edward Cook <drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Art Johnson" <ahj@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: Seminar
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 07:55:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: druid@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, druidrd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-flowed>
Hi Art,

Sorry for the lack of response to your emails. Been over the top as
usual on things. I go off to Tasmania and New Zealand on Jan 20 and
return on Feb 15. Bhutan was a bit strange this time. I was sick most
of the time, but we did get some useful stuff done nonetheless.

>Hi Ed,
>
>I hope your trip to Bhutan went well. We did OK in Chile but encountered
>some glitches. I am emailing about a three things to see if you are
>interested:
>
>1) What does Gordon know about the big white spruce in the Mackenzie R.
>basin of the northern NWT? I am going to be in Alberta this summer and it is
>one plane ride and a few hundred $ from those big spruce. If I can get the
>cores, are you interested in collaborating on their measurement and
>analysis? If I can track down the person that told us that some of the trees
>were 600 y old, we might be able to find some of them. There are many spruce
>pilings in town that were probably cut in the 50's-70's and some of those
>might have been pretty old trees given their size. What is the availability
>of climate data? Inuvik probably has records back into the 50's when they
>rebuilt the town. Dick Jagels is interested in those trees too, as we are
>led to believe that they need 24 hr photoperiods when they are seedlings.
>Could this be a race of trees that respond to differences in growing-season
>sunlight?

I am cc'ing this email to Gordon and Rosanne. I think that they would
be interested in what you describe. They also know what climate data
are available. I recall that Aklavik has a older record that was
discontinued a few years back. It may be possible to merge Aklavik
with Inuvik temperature records to cover most of the 20th century.

>
>2) The Forest Service has an RFP out for projects in the "northern forest"
>I think this is defined as mostly Vermont and New Hampshire since it is a
>Senate-funded program sponsored by senators from those states. The "threat"
>(their term) of global warming to forest health is one of the themes that
>Chris Eagar is in charge of. We have been working with Vermont northern
>hardwood data collected by Post and Curtis in the 1950's and redone by us in
>the early 90's. There is a very nice multiple regression model that shows
>clearly that temperature (altitude/latitude) and soil moisture are very good
>predictors of site index (height at 75 yrs. e.g. productivity potential).
>Nutrients do not explain any additional variance. This model would suggest
>that warming would improve productivity, not decrease it. I am wondering if
>a dendroclimatological analysis of maple, beech and ash and yellow birch
>would show a response of growth to summer temperatures? I think we have all
>the cores from our 1990 study, and it would be an easy matter to get more. I
>stll owe the Forest Service a couple of papers from the xxx xxxx xxxxwork which
>they funded, but I am actually working on them now, and could have them done
>by the March 30 deadline for the full proposal, if not for the Feb. 13
>preproposal deadline. I'm sure I could talk to Chris to see if our ideas are
>viable, and if we would be penalized for not publishing the Vermont stuff in
>a timely manner.

This sounds interesting. Are you measuring up all of the tree cores?
I wouldn't have the resources to do that without some technician
support, but I could participate in some dendroclimatic analyses of
the data with you.

>
>3) We are running cellulose O reasonably well at this time, and are still
>interested in seeing if cellulose O is useful in determining whether the
>temperature signal in mideval wood is similar to that of the past century,
>and if there is an isotopic signature in the Little Ice Age wood that
>indicates it was cold. What do you think about the availability of wood
>samples from dated rings from those periods? Is any of the Esper wood
>available? When we talked after your seminar, it seemed to me that the
>Scandanavian wood collection might be useful.

I did ask Keith Briffa about this stuff. He is tied in closely with
much of the work that has been done in Fennoscandia and even over to
the Polar Urals. He also said that there has been some isotopic work
done on wood, but he wasn't sure about results. I suggest that you
contact Keith directly (k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx) and maybe he can direct
you to sources of wood for your proposed study. It is interesting, if
a bit chancy in my estimation.

Cheers,

Ed

>
>
>What do you think?
>
>Art
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Edward Cook [mailto:drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
>Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 2:28 PM
>To: Art Johnson
>Subject: RE: Seminar
>
>
>Hi Art,
>
>I will be driving down to your digs on Friday, Oct 17 to give the
>seminar I promised. When is it scheduled so I know how early I
>definitely have to leave. I need directions to get there as well, as
>I have never been to Penn before. Also, it would be useful to have a
>place to stay Friday night, I suppose. My wife is off to CT to
>celebrate a 50th birthday with a friend that weekend, so there is no
>point in zipping back in any case.
>
>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
>==================================


--
==================================
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
==================================
</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1074609944.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Malcolm Hughes" <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Malcolm Hughes" <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,"Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: J. Climate paper - in confidence
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:45:44 +0000
Cc: Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Malcolm seems to have done a good job sorting out these constituent sets ,
and I don't have anything to add other than agreeing that as a general
principal , where possible, original chronologies should be used in
preference to reconstructed temperature series ( the latter having been
already optimized using simple or multiple regression to fit the target
temperature series ). This applies not only to our western US
reconstructions (which it should be stressed are based on very flexible
curve fitting in the standardisation - and inevitably can show little
variance on time scales longer than a decade or so) but also to the
Tornetrask and Polar Urals reconstructions (each of which was based on ring
width and density data , but standardised to try to preserve centennial
variability - though the density series had by far the largest regression
coefficients). There is though a question regarding the PCs of the Siberian
network (presumably provided by Eugene?) . The correlation between density
and ring width can get high in central and eastern parts of the network ,
so even though these are different variables , it might not be strictly
true to think of them as truly independent (statistically) of the density
chronologies we use from the Schweingruber network ( there may also be a
standardisation issue here , as the density chronologies were standardised
with Hugershoff functions for our initial network work (as reported in the
Holocene Special Issue) whereas your PC amplitudes may be based on
"Corridor Standardisation" - which likely preserves less low frequency? ) .
These remarks are simply for clarification and discussion , and I too will
wait on your response draft , though I would throw in the pot the fact that
omitting the time dependent stuff would simplify the message at his stage.
cheers
Keith

At 01:42 PM 1/19/xxx xxxx xxxx, Malcolm Hughes wrote:
>Mike - there are the following density data in that set:
>xxx xxxx xxxxSchweingruber/Frttss series from the ITRDB (those that
>met the criteria described in the Mann et al 2000 EI paper)
>2) Northern Fennoscandia reconstruction (from Keith)
>3) Northern Urals reconstruction (from Keith)
>4) 1 density series for China (Hughes data) and one from India
>(also Hughes data) - neither included in Keith's data set, I think.
>5) To my great surprise I find that you used the Briffa gridded
>temperature reconstruction from W. N. America (mis-attributed
>to Fritts and Shao) - of course I should have picked up on this 6
>years ago when reading the proofs of the Nature sup mat. It was
>my understanding that we had decided not to use these
>reconstructions, as the data on which they were based were in the
>ITRDB, and had been subject to that screening process. So
>depending on whether you used the long or the shorter versions
>of these, there will have been a considerable number of density
>series included , some of them twice. It means that there is
>considerably more overlap between the two data sets, in North
>America, than I have been telling people. I stand corrected.
>Cheers, Malcolm
>.
>.Malcolm Hughes
>Professor of Dendrochronology
>Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
>University of Arizona
>Tucson, AZ 85721
>xxx xxxx xxxx
>fax xxx xxxx xxxx

--
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/

</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1074612429.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: "Malcolm Hughes" <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Malcolm Hughes" <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: J. Climate paper - in confidence
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:27:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Mike - you are right that we should probably leave the network
uncahnged for this mss. In fact, however, as Keith indicated, the
Vaganov data probably retained a fair amount of low frequency
because of the use of the corridor method (i.e. were not "heavily
standardized"). CHeers, Malcolm
On 20 Jan 2004 at 7:58, Michael E. Mann wrote:

> Thanks Keith,
>
> I agree w/ this--I think the Vaganov chronologies were pretty heavily
> standardized, and the other issues you raise are important. In the
> future, we would (and will) be a bit more circumspect about the use of
> some of these data.
>
> In the present case, however, I think we are forced to use the exact
> same network.
>
> Re, the omission of some results. I think we can probably keep them.
> Simply by cleaning up the text, removing redundancy, etc. I've
> shortened and tightened the manuscript considerably, and I think I've
> improved the logical flow a bit in the process. So my feeling is that
> we will not have to split this up, but I'll leave this to all of you
> to decide after you see the revised draft from Scott and me...
>
> Thanks,
>
> mike
>
> At 09:45 AM 1/20/2004 +0000, Keith Briffa wrote:
> Malcolm seems to have done a good job sorting out these
> constituent sets , and I don't have anything to add other than
> agreeing that as a general principal , where possible, original
> chronologies should be used in preference to reconstructed
> temperature series ( the latter having been already optimized
> using simple or multiple regression to fit the target temperature
> series ). This applies not only to our western US reconstructions
> (which it should be stressed are based on very flexible curve
> fitting in the standardisation - and inevitably can show little
> variance on time scales longer than a decade or so) but also to
> the Tornetrask and Polar Urals reconstructions (each of which was
> based on ring width and density data , but standardised to try to
> preserve centennial variability - though the density series had by
> far the largest regression coefficients). There is though a
> question regarding the PCs of the Siberian network (presumably
> provided by Eugene?) . The correlation between density and ring
> width can get high in central and eastern parts of the network ,
> so even though these are different variables , it might not be
> strictly true to think of them as truly independent
> (statistically) of the density chronologies we use from the
> Schweingruber network ( there may also be a standardisation issue
> here , as the density chronologies were standardised with
> Hugershoff functions for our initial network work (as reported in
> the Holocene Special Issue) whereas your PC amplitudes may be
> based on "Corridor Standardisation" - which likely preserves less
> low frequency? ) . These remarks are simply for clarification and
> discussion , and I too will wait on your response draft , though I
> would throw in the pot the fact that omitting the time dependent
> stuff would simplify the message at his stage. cheers Keith
>
> At 01:42 PM 1/19/xxx xxxx xxxx, Malcolm Hughes wrote:
> Mike - there are the following density data in that set:
> xxx xxxx xxxxSchweingruber/Frttss series from the ITRDB (those that
> met the criteria described in the Mann et al 2000 EI paper)
> 2) Northern Fennoscandia reconstruction (from Keith)
> 3) Northern Urals reconstruction (from Keith)
> 4) 1 density series for China (Hughes data) and one from India
> (also Hughes data) - neither included in Keith's data set, I
> think. 5) To my great surprise I find that you used the Briffa
> gridded temperature reconstruction from W. N. America
> (mis-attributed to Fritts and Shao) - of course I should have
> picked up on this 6 years ago when reading the proofs of the
> Nature sup mat. It was my understanding that we had decided not to
> use these reconstructions, as the data on which they were based
> were in the ITRDB, and had been subject to that screening process.
> So depending on whether you used the long or the shorter versions
> of these, there will have been a considerable number of density
> series included , some of them twice. It means that there is
> considerably more overlap between the two data sets, in North
> America, than I have been telling people. I stand corrected.
> Cheers, Malcolm . .Malcolm Hughes Professor of Dendrochronology
> Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research University of Arizona Tucson, AZ
> 85xxx xxxx xxxxfax 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
>
> 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
> http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

Malcolm Hughes
Professor of Dendrochronology
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
xxx xxxx xxxx
fax xxx xxxx xxxx

Original Filename: 1075297872.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: EOS revision
Date: Wed Jan 28 08:51:xxx xxxx xxxx

X-Sender: esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:26:27 +0100
To: Briffa Keith <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Cook Ed <drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: Jan Esper <esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: EOS revision
Hi Ed and Keith
for your information, I attached the revision of the EOS article. In this version we
added some lines about the data-overlap between the MBH and ECS records.
I also attached a figure showing a comparison between MBH and EsperFULL (using all data)
and EsperSUB (without Tornetraesk and the Polar Urals).
Take care
Jan
--
Dr. Jan Esper
Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL
Zuercherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf
Switzerland
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Email: esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

--
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: 1075393544.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Iain Brown <Iain.Brown@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: a.watkinson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Inter-reg proposal update
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:25:44 +0000
Cc: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, s.jude@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Andrew,

Here is an update on the Inter-reg proposal, based upon the recent Oxford
workshop.

Organisations involved:
EA, EN, Oxford ECI, Oxford Brooks (Planning), Alterra (Netherlands), Hampshire
CC, Kent CC, Conservatoire de Littoral, Clare CC, Maynooth U., Tyndall

Funding:
Aiming for a 3 year project of 3-4 million Euros. Inter-reg 3B most closely
fits project objectives but still unknown whether sufficient funds remain for
this. Inter-reg 3C represents an alternative, but requires more high-level
policy. Inter-reg deadline is April 29th. Other alternatives are LIFE and
Framework VI.

Key issue:
Are Tyndall to be included as a Partner or a Contractor? Partners have more
influence on project development but would require 50% matched funding
(however this can be met through including other contributing R&D projects).
Contractors do not need matched funding but may have to officially tender for
sub-contract.

Proposed Work Packages:
1 Policy Review of spatial planning mechanisms for biodiversity (European,
national, regional, local). How will this cope with climate change? Oxford
Brooks & Oxford ECI to lead on developing this WP.
2 Broad-scale Review of impacts of climate change on biodiversity in NW
Europe. To identify main drivers, issues and vulnerabilities on a network
basis. Lead: Alterra, Oxford ECI, Tyndall
3 Coastal case studies - Hamble (England), Shannon (Ireland), Baie de Vaie
(France). Objectives to evaluate local management issues with regard to
simulation of future coastal evolution. Lead: EA, Hampshire CC
4 Terrestrial case studies - 2 regions: SE England, Limburg. Lead Alterra, ECI
5 Policy Development & Guidance - based on review of research outputs. Lead EN
6 Dissemination

Cross-cutting issues - stakeholder engagement, assessment/management of key
habitats

Next steps - develop WPs, workplans and costing of proposal by 27th Feb.

Next meeting 4th/5th March, Oxford.

regards,

Iain

Original Filename: 1075403821.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu Jan 29 14:17:xxx xxxx xxxx

From: Timo H

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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


Best regards

Rashit Hantemirov

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


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

KB> Dear Rashit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards

Rashit Hantemirov

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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


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

Dear Phil,

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

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

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

Cheers,
Tas


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

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

All the best,

Tas

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Tas

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

Dear Dr van Ommen,

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

Thanks for your consideration.
Stephen McIntyre

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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


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

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

References

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