The below are part of a series of alleged emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, released on 20 November 2009.
Original Filename: 1105661016.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: jto@u.arizona.edu,David Rind <drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: near final 6.3.2.1
Date: Thu Jan 13 19:03:xxx xxxx xxxx
Guys
here is the latest draft of 6.3.2.1 (only waiting on slight edits on ocean bit from Eystein
and ENDNOTE reffs to be sorted. Have agreed with Peck and Eystein to do a Medieval Warm Box
tomorrow and insert a sentence or two on lack of info for SH .Figures of course need work -
particularly sorting out how to represent uncertainty around all reconstructions in Fig 1
and represent totality ion Fig 2d. Also some forcing data still missing - may have to wait
til after ZOD (will also need to put in other borehole curve(s) but data not to hand).
Having virus troubles with by email (and our system randomly blocking some files) - sorry
so don't know whether David has seen this at all (re his comments on Figures - which are
now embedded as GIFs and attached separately as 2 files in case go wrong again.
As I type just got Stefan's message and comments and Goose paper- will look at tonight and
incorporate tomorrow.
David - I know it is received wisdom that volcanos only force climate for 1 to 2 years -
but in our SOAP transient models this is not the case where several large eruptions occur
(co- incidentally often in sunspot minima periods - see the actual magnitude of radiative
forcing in Figure 2 (and these effects are directly transmitted as continually propagating
coolings in ocean in HADCM3 and ECHO-G for up to decades i believe. Anyway - I am happy
with your conclusions and agree that these are not "negative". I would rather just pick a
cool period and not label it as MM (or late MM ) as this is a solar
definition as such should be defined according to solar proxy data (and hence choice of
shorter period seems unsupported). If you just say a date range without the label , I think
it avoids the issue.
Sorry for garbled writing but rushing - I like your bit (in case this did not come across)
thanks all for now
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/
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1105661725.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: comments on Briffa, last millennium
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:15:25 +0100
Cc: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Dear Keith,
you've done a great job on the touchy subject of the last millennium,
which is central to our whole chapter.
My comments to that are threefold:
(1) If you could shorten the text somewhat, it could become more powerful
(2) Some small edits & comments are in the attached doc
(3) I propose some improvements to the figures as follows.
- Fig 1a the land temps seem to go off plot, temperature scale needs to
be extended
- we need a break between panels a and the rest, since it's a different
time scale on the x axis
- Fig 1c also has one curve going off the top
- Panels 1b-d might run the time axis up to 2010 or so, else the
important rise at the end is hidden in the tick-marks and less obvious
than it should be
- the legends need to say what the baseline period (zero line of y-axis)
is (hard to find this in the axis label)
- this baseline should be the same for all curves, i.e. 1xxx xxxx xxxx. Fig
2d says 1xxx xxxx xxxxit's not ideal to have a different one, as compared
to Fig 1. Also, is it true? Surely the Storch curve is not shown
relative to this baseline, it's way above it. Aligning it like this
could lead to the dangerous misunderstanding that Storch suggests a much
warmer medieval time compared to everyone else, which of course is not
the case.
I hope this helps.
Cheers, Stefan
--
Stefan Rahmstorf
www.ozean-klima.de
www.realclimate.org
</x-flowed>
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachBriffa_ed_sr .doc"
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachgoosse_et_al_2005.pdf"
Original Filename: 1105663624.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Subject: Box 6.1: The Medieval Warm Period
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:47:04 +0100
Cc: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Valerie Masson-Delmotte <Valerie.Masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, joos <joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Hi friends,
good idea for a box. Just want to make sure you're aware of the attached
paper by Goosse et al., which may be helpful in illustrating what we all
know, but what here is shown in a citeable way: local climate variations
are dominated by internal variability (redistribution of heat), only
very large scale averages can be expected to reflect the global forcings
(GHG, solar) over the past millennium.
Stefan
--
Stefan Rahmstorf
www.ozean-klima.de
www.realclimate.org
</x-flowed>
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachgoosse_et_al_20051.pdf"
Original Filename: 1105667593.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: David Rind <drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: 6.5.8 revisions
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:53:13 +0100
Cc: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, FortunatJoos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi folks,
on the topic of climate sensitivity. I just lost a long mail on it due to a software crash,
so sorry if I'm brief now.
I think it makes no sense for the purpose of the IPCC to discuss a climate sensitivity to
orbital forcing - if such a thing can be defined at all. The first-order idea of orbital
forcing is that in annual global mean it is almost zero - and in any case the large effect
orbital forcing has on climate has very little to do with its global mean value. Hence,
we'll confuse people by discussing it in this way, and even citing numbers for it. For the
purpose of IPCC, I think climate sensitvity should refer to climate sensitivity wrt.
greenhouse gases.
Also, it is questionable to discuss climate sensitivity for uncoupled models, especially
for glacial times - Ganopolski et al. (Nature 1998) have shown that glacial climate looks
very different with mixed layer ocean vs. coupled. I think for a 2007 IPCC report we
shouldn't be discussing old uncoupled runs when coupled model results are available. (And
it is a little odd that the above paper, the first coupled model simulation of glacial
climate, cited over 150 times so far, is ignored here in the discussion of the last glacial
maximum - if you do a search on the Google Scholar engine for the key words "Last Glacial
Maximum", you'll find it's the second-most cited paper on this topic after the Petit et al.
Vostok data paper.)
I still think it makes no sense to say that climate sensitivity depends on the sign of the
forcing. Talking about greenhouse gases: whether you will do an experiment going from 280
ppm to 300 ppm, or the other way round from 300 ppm to 280 ppm, should give you the same
climate sensitivity. Perhaps you mean that going from 280 to 300 will give a different
result compared to going from 280 to 260, but then you're really comparing different mean
climates. I think this "directionality" of climate sensitivity is not a good concept.
Relating forcing to response, the sensitivity from the models is then on the order of
0.6
Original Filename: 1105670738.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: the new "warm period myths" box
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:45:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Valerie Masson-Delmotte <Valerie.Masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Hi Keith and Tim - since you're off the 6.2.2 hook until Eystein
hangs you back up on it, you have more time to focus on that new Box.
In reading Valerie's Holocene section, I get the sense that I'm not
the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of
supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature. The sceptics
and uninformed love to cite these periods as natural analogs for
current warming too - pure rubbish.
So, pls DO try hard to follow up on my advice provided in previous
email. No need to go into details on any but the MWP, but good to
mention the others in the same dismissive effort. "Holocene Thermal
Maximum" is another one that should only be used with care, and with
the explicit knowledge that it was a time-transgressive event totally
unlike the recent global warming.
Thanks for doing this on - if you have a cool figure idea, include it.
Best, peck
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1105723247.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: David Rind <drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: 6.5.8 revisions
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:20:47 +0100
Cc: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, FortunatJoos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi David,
thanks for the detailed response. I'll try to be brief.
On the orbital forcing you write:
The point here is that climate can be forced by other factors than simply a global,
annual average radiation change, which is the metric now being used.
I think we all agree on this point. My concern is only about how to present it in the
section. I think that giving a climate sensitivity wrt. global mean orbital forcing is
confusing to the uninitiated, e.g. your statement in the section:
This high climate sensitivity (2
Original Filename: 1105730627.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: David Rind <drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: 6.5.8 on climate sensitivity and last millennium
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:23:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: David Rind <drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, FortunatJoos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Here are my responses to the comments concerning 6.5.8d. With respect to Stefan's main
concern: I too am sensitive to the possible mis-use of words that appear in a cavalier
manner in the text. I think the way to avoid that is to be as precise as possible about
what is being said. I also feel that hand-waving should be minimized - just because there
are uncertainties, does not mean IPCC will throw up its hands. Thus the attempt to quantify
these numbers are precisely as they will be done in other IPCC chapters. Again, the
responses are in red, and the text alterations (or in this case, some entire text) are in
blue.
I'm not working on this topic myself so I'm by no means an expert. But I am still quite
concerned with the wording in 6.5.8 on the last millennium.
First, to avoid misunderstandings, I would like to suggest again to describe forcings
and climate changes going forward in time, rather than going backwards in time. Even
colleagues here that I discuss it with misunderstand the present version with backwards
reasoning - it leads to phrases like "deforestation warming" (used by David in his last
mail), although deforestation caused cooling - backwards in time you can see this as a
warming, but should you call it "afforestation warming" if you look back in time? I
suggest to use the physical, forwards, time arrow in the discussion.
In all the other sections of 6.5.8 we discuss the temperature change and the radiative
forcing relative to the present - when it was colder than the present, the temperatures
were indicated to be colder, and the radiative forcing more negative. To alter that for
this section alone would cause added confusion. I have therefore in each case tried to make
it perfectly clear what is being said. In particular, I agree that in the case of
deforestation the terminology does become confusing so the text has been changed to be more
communicative; it now reads,
Warming of 0.35
Original Filename: 1105978592.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
To: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, oyvind.paasche@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Keith's box
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:16:xxx xxxx xxxx
<x-flowed>
Hi all - attached is Keith's MWP box w/ my edits. It reads just great
- much like a big hammer. Nice job.
Please insert after Eystein has had his say. thx, Peck
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
</x-flowed>
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachMWP-KRBjto.doc"
Original Filename: 1106322460.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Your concerns with 2004GL021750 McIntyre
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:47:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Michael E. Mann wrote:
> Hi Malcolm,
>
> This assumes that the editor/s in question would act in good faith.
> I'm not convinced of this.
>
> I don't believe a response in GRL is warranted in any case. The MM
> claims in question are debunked in other papers that are in press and
> in review elsewhere. I'm not sure that GRL can be seen as an honest
> broker in these debates anymore, and it is probably best to do an end
> run around GRL now where possible. They have published far too many
> deeply flawed contrarian papers in the past year or so. There is no
> possible excuse for them publishing all 3 Douglass papers and the Soon
> et al paper. These were all pure crap.
>
> There appears to be a more fundamental problem w/ GRL now,
> unfortunately...
>
> Mike
>
> At 08:47 PM 1/20/2005, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
>
>> Mike - I found this sentence in the reply from the GRL
>> Editor-in-Chief to be
>> interesting:
>> "As this manuscript was not written as a Comment, but rather as
>> a full-up scientific manuscript, you would not in general be asked to
>> look it over."
>> Does it not then follow that if you were to challenge their "work" in
>> a "full-
>> up scientific manuscript", but not as a "Comment" it, too, should be
>> reviewed
>> without reference to MM?
>> Maybe the editor-in-chief should be asked if this is the case, or simply
>> challenged by a submission?
>> Cheers, Malcolm
>> Quoting "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks Tom,
>> >
>> >
>> > Yeah, basically this is just a heads up to people that something
>> might be
>> > up here. What a shame that would be. It's one thing to lose "Climate
>> > Research". We can't afford to lose GRL. I think it would be
>> > useful if people begin to record their experiences w/ both Saiers and
>> > potentially Mackwell (I don't know him--he would seem to be
>> complicit w/
>> > what is going on here).
>> >
>> >
>> > If there is a clear body of evidence that something is amiss, it
>> could be
>> > taken through the proper channels. I don't that the entire AGU
>> hierarchy
>> > has yet been compromised!
>> >
>> >
>> > The GRL article simply parrots the rejected Nature comment--little
>> > substantial difference that I can see at all.
>> >
>> >
>> > Will keep you all posted of any relevant developments,
>> >
>> >
>> > mike
>> >
>> >
>> > At 04:30 PM 1/20/2005, Tom Wigley wrote:
>> >
>> > Mike,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > This is truly awful. GRL has gone downhill rapidly in recent years.
>> > I
>> >
>> > think the decline began before Saiers. I have had some unhelpful
>> >
>> > dealings with him recently with regard to a paper Sarah and I have
>> >
>> > on glaciers -- it was well received by the referees, and so is in
>> > the
>> >
>> > publication pipeline. However, I got the impression that Saiers was
>> >
>> > trying to keep it from being published.
>> >
>> >
>> > Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that
>> > Saiers
>> >
>> > is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find
>> > documentary
>> >
>> > evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get
>> >
>> > him ousted. Even this would be difficult.
>> >
>> >
>> > How different is the GRL paper from the Nature paper? Did the
>> >
>> > authors counter any of the criticisms? My experience with Douglass
>> >
>> > is that the identical (bar format changes) paper to one previously
>> >
>> > rejected was submitted to GRL.
>> >
>> >
>> > Tom.
>> >
>> > ===============
>> >
>> >
>> > Michael E. Mann wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear All,
>> >
>> >
>> > Just a heads up. Apparently, the contrarians now have an
>> > "in" with GRL. This guy Saiers has a prior connection w/ the
>> > University of Virginia Dept. of Environmental Sciences that causes me
>> > some unease.
>> >
>> >
>> > I think we now know how the various Douglass et al papers w/
>> Michaels and
>> > Singer, the Soon et al paper, and now this one have gotten published in
>> > GRL,
>> >
>> >
>> > Mike
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Subject: Your concerns with
>> > 2004GL021750 McIntyre
>> >
>> > Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:42:xxx xxxx xxxx
>> >
>> > X-MS-Has-Attach:
>> >
>> > X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
>> >
>> > Thread-Topic: Your concerns with 2004GL021750 McIntyre
>> >
>> > Thread-Index: AcT/MITTfwM54m4OS32mJvW4BluE+A==
>> >
>> > From: "Mackwell, Stephen"
>> > <mackwell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> >
>> > To:
>> > <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> >
>> > Cc: <cjr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
>> > <james.saiers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> >
>> > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jan 2005 20:42:12.0740 (UTC)
>> > FILETIME=[84F55440:01C4FF30]
>> >
>> > X-UVA-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at fork7.mail.virginia.edu
>> >
>> > X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by
>> multiproxy.evsc.Virginia.EDU
>> > id j0KKgLO11138
>> >
>> >
>> > Dear Prof. Mann
>> >
>> > In your recent email to Chris Reason, you laid out your concerns that I
>> > presume were the reason for your phone call to me last week. I have
>> > reviewed the manuscript by McIntyre, as well as the reviews. The editor
>> > in this case was Prof. James Saiers. He did note initially that the
>> > manuscript did challenge published work, and so felt the need for an
>> > extensive and thorough review. For that reason, he requested
>> reviews from
>> > 3 knowledgable scientists. All three reviews recommended
>> > publication.
>> >
>> > While I do agree that this manuscript does challenge (somewhat
>> > aggresively) some of your past work, I do not feel that it takes a
>> > particularly harsh tone. On the other hand, I can understand your
>> > reaction. As this manuscript was not written as a Comment, but
>> rather as
>> > a full-up scientific manuscript, you would not in general be asked to
>> > look it over. And I am satisfied by the credentials of the reviewers.
>> > Thus, I do not feel that we have sufficient reason to interfere in the
>> > timely publication of this work.
>> >
>> > However, you are perfectly in your rights to write a Comment, in which
>> > you challenge the authors' arguments and assertions. Should you
>> elect to
>> > do this, your Comment would be provided to them and they would be
>> offered
>> > the chance to write a Reply. Both Comment and Reply would then be
>> > reviewed and published together (if they survived the review process).
>> > Comments are limited to the equivalent of 2 journal pages.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> > Steve Mackwell
>> >
>> > Editor in Chief, GRL
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ______________________________________________________________
>> >
>> >
>> > Professor Michael E. Mann
>> >
>> > Department
>> > of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
>> >
>> >
>> > University of Virginia
>> >
>> >
>> > Charlottesville, VA 22903
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________________________________
>> >
>> > e-mail:
>> > mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> > Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
>> >
>> >
>> > http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
>> >
>> > ______________________________________________________________
>> >
>> >
>> > Professor Michael E. Mann
>> >
>> > Department
>> > of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
>> >
>> >
>> > University of Virginia
>> >
>> >
>> > Charlottesville, VA 22903
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________________________________
>> >
>> > e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
>> > FAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
>> >
>> >
>> > http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Professor Michael E. Mann
> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, VA 22903
> _______________________________________________________________________
> e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
> http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
>
Hi Mike - of course we shouldn't make that assumption. If the issues are
being dealt with elsewhere in the peer-reviewed literature soon (in time
for IPCC to be aware of them) then there would be no reason for a
riposte in GRL. Even so, it might be worth putting the hypothetical case
to the Editor-in-Chief to test his response. Cheers, Malcolm
</x-flowed>
Original Filename: 1106338806.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: FOIA
Date: Fri Jan 21 15:20:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Tom,
I'll look at what you've said over the weekend re CCSP.
I don't know the other panel members. I've not heard any
more about it since agreeing a week ago.
As for FOIA Sarah isn't technically employed by UEA and she
will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University.
I wouldn't worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get
used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well.
Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people,
so I will be hiding behind them. I'll be passing any
requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to
deal with them.
Cheers
Phil
At 14:35 21/01/2005, Tom Wigley wrote:
Phil,
Thanks for the quick reply.
The leaflet appeared so general, but it was prepared by UEA so
they may have simplified things. From their wording, computer code
would be covered by the FOIA. My concern was if Sarah is/was still
employed by UEA. I guess she could claim that she had only written
one tenth of the code and release every tenth line.
Sorry I won't see you, but I will not come up to Norwich until
Monday.
Let me fill you in a bit (confidentially). You probably know the panel
members. We were concerned that the chair would be a strong person.
It is Jerry Mahlman -- about the best possible choice. Richard Smith
is the statistician -- also excellent. Dave Randall, too -- very good.
As token skeptic there is Dick Lindzen -- but at least he is a smart
guy and he does listen. He may raise his paper with Gianitsis that
purports to show low climate sensitivity from volcanoes. I will
attach our paper that proves otherwise, in press in JGR.
Preparing the report has been a good and bad experience. I think
I had the worst task with the Exec. Summ. -- it tied up most of
my time for the past 3 months. The good has been the positive
interactions between most of the people -- a really excellent bunch.
I have been very impressed by Carl Mears and John Lanzante.
At meetings, John Christy has been quite good -- and there were
good and positive interactions between John and Roy and the RSS
gang that helped clarify a lot. Outside the meeting, in the email world,
he has been more of a pain. He has made a lot of useful suggestions
for the ExSumm -- but he keeps accusing the AOGCMers of
faking their models (not quite as bluntly as this). In the emails there
are some very useful exchanges from Jerry Meehl, Ramaswamy and
Ben detailing the AOGCM development process. We will be
writing a BAMS article on this in the summer -- much of what happens
in model development is unknown to the rest of the community. The
'faking' idea prompted me to write a tongue in cheek note -- also
attached. As far as I know, John will not raise this particular issue
in his dissentin views.
To accommodate dissenting views, the report will have a "dissenters'
appendix", with responses. You will get this at some stage -- the
deadline for dissenters to produce is Jan 31, and we will not finish
our rebuttals until mid Feb. The dissenters are John C, and (far worse)
Roger Pielke Sr. All of the rest of us disagree with these persons'
dissenting views. Roger has been extremely difficult -- but the details
are too complex to put in an email. On the other hand he has made
a number of useful contributions to the ExSumm and other chapters.
Suffice to say that he has some strange ideas (often to do with the
effects of landuse change) that are interesting but still, in my view,
speculative -- but testable.
We have yet to see the dissents -- and it would not be ethical for
me to say any more than I have already.
Best wishes,
Tom.
Phil Jones wrote:
Tom,
I hope the VTT panel doesn't prove a meeting too many
at this time. It is currently scheduled for Feb xxx xxxx xxxxand
I only get back from an 8 day workshop in Pune on
Feb 20.
The IPCC Chapter with Kevin is now with WGI in
Boulder. We did put you down as one of our
potential reviewers. Don't know whether you'll
have time or whether WGI will select you -
regional balance etc.
Next week I'll be in Reading and Exeter, so
won'be be in CRU. Have to be at an RMS Awards
meeting then something on Reanalysis, then I
have to collect some data from the archives
in Exeter for a small project we have. It is
easier for me to get this than explain to
someone how to do it. So I'll miss you -
not back till Thursday night.
On the FOI Act there is a little leaflet we
have all been sent. It doesn't really clarify
what we might have to do re programs or
data. Like all things in Britain we will only
find out when the first person or organization
asks. I wouldn't tell anybody about the FOI
Act in Britain. I don't think UEA really knows
what's involved.
As you're no longer an employee I would
use this argument if anything comes along.
I think it is supposed to mainly apply to
issues of personal information - references for
jobs etc.
Sorry I'll miss you next week. If you're in
on Sunday perhaps you could come round to
our new house in Wicklewood. Phone number
is still the same as 01xxx xxxx xxxx. Keith and
Sarah know where it is even if they did get lost the
first time they came.
Cheers
Phil
At 02:59 21/01/2005, you wrote:
Phil,
Tom Karl told me you will be on the VTT review panel. This is
very good news.
Unfortunately I will not be at the meeting on the 23rd -- I will
be in midair half way across the Pacific to spend a couple of
weeks in Adelaide.
I got a brochure on the FOI Act from UEA. Does this mean
that, if someone asks for a computer program we have to give
it out?? Can you check this for me (and Sarah).
I will be at CRU next Mon, Tue, Wed in case Sarah did not
tell you.
Thanks,
Tom.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Filename: 1106346062.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "PJ Valdes, Geographical Sciences" <P.J.Valdes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: EU
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:21:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: oyvind.paasche@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
Keith,
It is purely a matter of resources, and since Simon will be doing the
millenial stuff with the Hadley model within IMPRINT, and I think that
probably my resources will be best focussed in some of the other work
packages. But it is possible and I will try to do it if the opportunity
arises.
Cheers
Paul
--On 21 January 2005 17:12 +0000 Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> Great Paul
> but I still do not see , if we do get funded, why you can not do some
> runs (in keeping with the wider hemisphere isotope records) that fit with
> your wishes within IMPRINT.
>
> At 15:16 21/01/2005, PJ Valdes, Geographical Sciences wrote:
>> Keith and Eystein,
>>
>> Thanks for your comments. Without modelling MILLENNIUM is a very much
>> weaker project. I admit that I am attracted to doing something with them
>> because I have wanted to get more involved in the last 1000 years, and
>> it would be a good opportunity to run our new isotope enabled version
>> of the Hadley model.
>>
>> However, IMPRINT is a much stronger project overall and and I also
>> prefer the broader range of timescales offered by IMPRINT (although
>> whether we have ended up being too broad is another issue). Given this
>> and the other things discussed, I will decline the offer from Danny
>> Carroll
>>
>> Best Wishes
>> Paul
>>
>> --On 20 January 2005 22:24 +0100 Eystein Jansen
>> <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Keith and Paul,
>>>
>>> I think Millennium might be a problem, but if the project does not
>>> employ a hierarchy of models and have a comprehensive modelling
>>> component it is hard to see how it fits the work program of the call.
>>> We disussed this kind of situation in one of our first meetings and
>>> agreed that we on an institutional basis should not be involved in
>>> competing projects, and I think we need to re-emphasise this agreement
>>> in our London meeting. I also gave Valerie the same opinion as some of
>>> the people in her lab had been asked to join the McCarroll proposal
>>> This said, it is clear that we have work to do with Imprint, we need to
>>> scrutinize budgets and the size of the partnership, look at how we best
>>> focus the science and give enough funds to the critical aspects. I do
>>> hope that the Imprint partners remain loyal to the project and that we
>>> keep it as intended: the best paleoscientists in Europe joined
>>> together. Best regards,
>>> Eystein
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 13:31 +0xxx xxxx xxxx, Keith Briffa wrote:
>>>> Paul
>>>> there is no doubt that Danny's project presents
>>>> something of a problem for us. As far as I
>>>> understand ,yes, it and IMPRINT are the only two
>>>> contenders. I know (confidentially) that they
>>>> have been criticised for not having any
>>>> modelling . Danny approached Hans von Storch
>>>> (and presumably others) , but Hans decided not
>>>> to go with them . At the outset of our
>>>> deliberations regarding IMPRINT , we did discuss
>>>> the possibility that we would impose an
>>>> exclusivity clause on participants - asking them
>>>> to agree not to subscribe to any other project
>>>> (I think Rick Battarbee had been involved in
>>>> another project that did this) . Hence at least
>>>> several of us , in the early (HOLCLIM) stage
>>>> agreed to this - but it was never reinstituted
>>>> after the project expanded to its present size.
>>>> Personally , I worry that we are too large and
>>>> possibly could be seen as not focused enough -
>>>> but this is then hard to square with the recent
>>>> referees' comments suggesting our geographic
>>>> scope was too narrow! On paper , I believe the
>>>> whole formulation and partnership of IMPRINT is
>>>> superior to MILLENNIUM , but that did not stop
>>>> me being interested when Danny asked me, some
>>>> time ago , if I would also them. Like you , I do
>>>> not wish to cut off possible fingers in possible
>>>> pies - but I felt that I could not be formally
>>>> included in both .
>>>> The problem is that one has no idea which way
>>>> the anonymous referees will view the judging
>>>> criteria. Surely , in terms of scientific scope
>>>> , our project is superior (though how well it
>>>> ever works and how well we integrate in practise
>>>> is any ones bet ).
>>>> The bottom line as I see it is that as only one
>>>> project can be funded , MILLENNIUM should still
>>>> be seen as competition - with you as part of it
>>>> , it would be much stronger competition.
>>>> As for the funding - I know things are
>>>> ill-defined at best at present. I do not think
>>>> anything should be seen as rigid - though we
>>>> certainly have too large a group .
>>>>
>>>> Don't know if this helps
>>>> Keith
>>>>
>>>> At 12:47 20/01/2005, you wrote:
>>>>> Keith,
>>>>>
>>>>> I've just tried to phone you but you were not in your office.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been contacted by Danny Carroll and
>>>>> invited to join his EU project MILLENNIUM. I
>>>>> gather that this project has also passed the
>>>>> first hurdle and, according to Danny, there are
>>>>> only two such projects so I assume that
>>>>> MILLENNIUM is directly competing against
>>>>> IMPRINT.
>>>>>
>>>>> The modelling he wants me to do is different to
>>>>> anything I will be doing for IMPRINT so there
>>>>> is no scientific reason why I shouldn't say yes
>>>>> to him, and of course it would also allow me to
>>>>> keep a foot in both camps! However there are
>>>>> clear political/strategic issues to consider
>>>>> and I rate IMPRINT higher on my agenda, even
>>>>> though (judging from the IMPRINT indictative
>>>>> money which was very low for Bristol despite
>>>>> having Colin, Sandy and myself involved) it
>>>>> seems likely that the IMPRINT resources will be
>>>>> very limited.
>>>>>
>>>>> Before I respond to him, I wanted to know if
>>>>> you (or anyone else at UEA) are involved in
>>>>> MILLENNIUM. From what I can see, it is very
>>>>> close to your interests. If you are not, was
>>>>> this because you wanted to focus entirely on
>>>>> IMPRINT.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't misinterpret this email. As I said, I do
>>>>> see IMPRINT higher than MILLENNIUM. However, I
>>>>> would just like more info before deciding how
>>>>> best to respond to Danny.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Prof. Paul Valdes Tel: +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>> School of Geographical Sciences Fax: +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
>>>>> University of Bristol Email: P.J.Valdes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>>> University Road Http: www.bridge.bris.ac.uk
>>>>> Bristol BS8 1SS
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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/
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> Eystein Jansen
>>> Professor/Director
>>> Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
>>> Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen
>>> All
Original Filename: 1106934832.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Stephen Juggins" <Stephen.Juggins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Eystein Jansen" <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <imprint-ssc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Imprint vs. Millennium
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:53:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: <oyvind.paasche@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Erick Larson" <Erick.Larson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Hi Eystein
I received these comments below from our research office. This outlines the Newcastle approach.
In one case at least it is clear that the idea that groups would not join another consortium as agreed by the ssc had not been passed on to partners outside those discussions. To apply this retrospectively could be seen as unfair - this is obviously how Millennium interpret it. One option that would avoid a split and limit any wider damage or bad feeling would be to get partners to sign a confidentiality agreement now. This would restrict or stop the flow of information between consortia, which, after all, is the main cause for concern.
Cheers, Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Tuck [mailto:Alan.Tuck@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: 28 January 2005 11:40
To: Tony Stevenson
Subject: RE: Question on ethics
Sharp practice certainly. Not necessarily unethical I would have
thought.
In a number of cases we have been asked by coordinators to sign up to an
exclusitivity agreement whereby we will not take part in other consortia
who are applying under the same call.
However, we have resisted this saying that we cannot restrict the
activities of other academics on the campus, although we have been
prepared to sign up to such an agreement that would limit the activities
of the particular PI and his/her immediate research group. That way, all
of those involved are fully aware of the commitment and its
implications. Of course, if they are not happy about this we would not
sign up but that in turn would probably mean exclusion from the
consortium.
Additionally, and this applies to any collaboration during the
preparatory stage, we would recommend that a confidentiality agreement
were put in place; this at least would limit the onward transmission of
information that could help another grouping.
In this instance I guess that we are where we are.
As it was not established at the outset that a party could only be
involved with one group it may be difficult to move to that position
now, not so much because of issues with the other Coordinator but more
importantly because it could jeopardise ongoing relationships with
fellow collaborators who would be made to choose sides. There again, as
these are the probably the very parties who have operated as split
personalities there is the question of working with them again.
In any event, it may still be sensible to try to implement a
confidentiality agreement so that access to information is restricted
and not used to help the other consortium's cause.
Of course, there is the other option of possibly joining forces. The
result could be an even stronger application.
Alan
Steve Juggins
School of Geography, Politics & Sociology
University of Newcastle Tel: +44 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx
Newcastle upon Tyne Fax: +44 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx
NE1 7RU, UK Mobile: xxx xxxx xxxx
http://www.campus.ncl.ac.uk/staff/Stephen.Juggins/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tett, Simon [mailto:simon.tett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> Sent: 28 January 2005 09:23
> To: Michael Diepenbroek; simon.tett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Eystein
> Jansen; imprint-ssc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> Cc: oyvind.paasche@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Erick Larson
> Subject: RE: [Fwd: URGENT]
>
> One issue to stress in the proposal is that we are trying to
> build a new community. One that units parts of the broad
> paleo community with (part of) the climate modelling community.
> Simon
>
> Dr Simon Tett Managing Scientist, Data development and applications.
> Met Office Hadley Centre (Reading Unit)
> Meteorology Building, University of Reading Reading RG6 6BB
> Tel: +44 (0)xxx xxxx xxxxFax +44 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx
> Mobex: +44-(0)1xxx xxxx xxxx
> E-mail: simon.tett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
> Global climate data sets are available from http://www.hadobs.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Diepenbroek [mailto:mdiepenbroek@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> Sent: 27 January 2005 17:21
> To: simon.tett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; 'Eystein Jansen';
> imprint-ssc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> Cc: oyvind.paasche@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; 'Erick Larson'
> Subject: AW: [Fwd: URGENT]
>
>
> Simon, a forced merge could definitely happen if the
> commission feels that it is worth to have a paleo IP. The
> other outcome could be that they get the impression that the
> community is devived and thus this IP might fail to have the
> wanted impact. The result could be that there is no IP in the
> end. Michael
>
> Dr. Michael Diepenbroek
> WDC-MARE / PANGAEA - www.pangaea.de
> _____________________________________________
> MARUM - Institute for Marine Environmental Sciences
> University Bremen
> POP xxx xxxx xxxx
> 28359 Bremen
> Phone +xxx xxxx xxxx, Fax +xxx xxxx xxxx
> IP Phone +xxx xxxx xxxx
> e-mail mdiepenbroek@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>
>
>
> > -----Urspr
Original Filename: 1106946949.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: dirk.verschuren@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Dirk
Date: Fri Jan 28 16:15:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Stephen.Juggins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,Valerie Masson-Delmotte <masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Sandy Tudhope <sandy.tudhope@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,dan.charman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Dirk
good news re your not dropping out . We are happy to have you and if you can do what you
can in the time available this would be good. Valerie and I will send a general message
Monday am to all WP1 folk to say what is needed now, but we thought it best to to get
back to you straight away re specific points raised in Steve's message.
First, I hope you will be responsible with Dan (and help from Sandy Tudhope) for
co-ordinating Task 1.4 of WP1 following the concept as we saw it in the preliminary
proposal. Of course you would focus on North African (and north and south of this area)
work - on the collection, comparison, integration, interpretation of the high and lower
resolution records that relate to hydrology. I see Dan as taking the strain regarding the
more Northern areas - with obvious attention to wetlands and Sandy helping with dynamic
links (and ENSO?). Of course there are other records and there will be a need to restrict
"new" collection/laboratory analyses to very specific , justified (and accepted by SC)
situations , but the high resolution core(s) you told me of would be relevant. I suggest
you think in terms of a person to work on this AND data compilation - perhaps a (cheap)
postdoc for 3 years , and money for internal WP1 meetings - say 250KEuro ?
FOR NOW - we need you to liaise with Dan and Sandy to produce what you can for the Task
1.4(see attached old version of proposal to start from) . We will need a "state of the Art"
Scientific objectives and approach details . Your whole Task 1.4 section can only be 1 page
A4 single spaced max.
AFTER LONG DISCUSSION IN LONDON- it was decided that this task would NOW NOT INCLUDE the
paleoflood work - and Eystein will be communicating with Bennitto to (regretfully ) to
inform him that we have had to remove his contribution (please do not contact him until
Eystein has done this). We will not put a specific focus on floods (though of course some
work can be done using existing European flood data), because of Rudolf Brazdil , and we
hope , he will accept to be part of WP1 but put some of his requested funds into WP6 .
Hence you 3 can concentrate more on the concept of large scale hydologic variability
,monsoon changes , north south linkages etc. The problem with ENSO persists. I know you
Sandy want to focus entirely on this, but we could compromise perhaps and you do part this
and part Europe? It was decided that we will (somewhere) include data/model comparison
with US droughts , but this does not require effort on out part other than minor data
compilation of existing records [Eystein, we therefore need to ensure Cook is one of the
associated americans]. We will put together an appendix of preliminary records to be used
in each task - just to show impressive new potential integration (but not a priority for
now).
You do not need to sign any forms officially at this stage - just get approval presumably
from your department internally . If we ever get there, forms will be handled at contract
negotiation.
So get in touch with each other (resend ideas , do not assume your previous emails went to
each other), get exchanging ideas and draft what you can .
ON monday , the specific letter to all people will come round , with requested timeline ,
task, deliverables re budget and precise format of Science writing that we need to assemble
the proposal. Then Valerie and I will have to look at the whole thing in the context of our
total 3.7 M budget.
IT WILL ALL SEEM WORTH IT IN 2006
All the very best Keith and Valerie
Keith's home number is 441xxx xxxx xxxx
mobile 0xxx xxxx xxxx
At 12:37 28/01/2005, Stephen Juggins wrote:
Hi Keith, copy to Eystein, Oyvind
Just had a long chat with Dirk. It's OK, he's not in Millenium!
The reason he was pulling out is over committment this year. Anyway, I
managed to persuade him to change his mind - the project won't start
until Jan 2006 at the very earliest, so any input won't be needed until
next year. He was also unsure what to ask for - I suggested he should
cost in a post-doc for 3 years and 2 meetings per year, plus some "data
workshops". Keith - can you give him some guidance on costing these so
they are in line with what others are asking for. I told him that you
would look at the overall budges for WP1 and adjust if necessary to meet
the target.
His only short term problem is revising any text for the proposal - he
leaves for Kenya next Thursday. I realised that Eystein has only sent
the documents to the ssc people so Keith, can you forward these to Dirk
and let him know exactly what you need from him for the text and
budgets.
Finally, Dirk was worried that he wouldn't be able to get any paperwork
& signatures from his Uni but as I understood from the meeting yesterday
this was not needed. Is this right? If there are any forms to fill in
we had better get these to him asap.
Cheers, Steve
Steve Juggins
School of Geography, Politics & Sociology
University of Newcastle Tel: +44 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx
Newcastle upon Tyne Fax: +44 (0)xxx xxxx xxxx
NE1 7RU, UK Mobile: xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.campus.ncl.ac.uk/staff/Stephen.Juggins/
--
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/
References
1. http://www.campus.ncl.ac.uk/staff/Stephen.Juggins/
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1107191864.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: imprint-ssc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: RE:
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:17:44 +0100
Cc: mschulz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, stocker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
Hi, just for clarification as we continue on the
St.2 proposal (you
Original Filename: 1107454306.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: For your eyes only
Date: Thu Feb 3 13:11:xxx xxxx xxxx
Mike,
It would be good to produce future series with and without the long
instrumental series and maybe the documentary ones as well. The long
measurements can then be used to validate the low-freq aspects at least
back to 1750, maybe earlier with the documentary. There are some key
warm decades (1730s, some in the 16th century) which the Moberg
reconstruction completely misses and gives the impression that all
years are cold between 1500 and 1750.
Away Feb xxx xxxx xxxxand xxx xxxx xxxxand xxx xxxx xxxx(last in Chicago - on the panel to
consider the vertical temp work of CCSP).
Cheers
Phil
Cheers
Phil
At 15:26 02/02/2005, you wrote:
Thanks Phil,
Yes, we've learned out lesson about FTP. We're going to be very careful in the future
what gets put there. Scott really screwed up big time when he established that directory
so that Tim could access the data.
Yeah, there is a freedom of information act in the U.S., and the contrarians are going
to try to use it for all its worth. But there are also intellectual property rights
issues, so it isn't clear how these sorts of things will play out ultimately in the U.S.
I saw the paleo draft (actually I saw an early version, and sent Keith some minor
comments). It looks very good at present--will be interesting to see how they deal w/
the contrarian criticisms--there will be many. I'm hoping they'll stand firm (I believe
they will--I think the chapter has the right sort of personalities for that)...
Will keep you updated on stuff...
talk to you later,
mike
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better
this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is
trawling
them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear
there
is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than
send
to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within
20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
We also
have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried
email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He
has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant
here,
but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere
to it !
Are you planning a complete reworking of your paleo series? Like to be involved if
you are.
Had a quick look at Ch 6 on paleo of AR4. The MWP side bar references Briffa, Bradley,
Mann, Jones, Crowley, Hughes, Diaz - oh and Lamb ! Looks OK, but I can't see it
getting past all the stages in its present form. MM and SB get dismissed. All the
right
emphasis is there, but the wording on occasions will be crucial. I expect this to be
the
main contentious issue in AR4. I expect (hope) that the MSU one will fade away. It
seems
the more the CCSP (the thing Tom Karl is organizing) looks into Christy and Spencer's
series, the more problems/issues they are finding. I might be on the NRC review panel,
so will keep you informed.
Rob van Dorland is an LA on the Radiative Forcing chapter, so he's a paleo expert
by GRL statndards.
Cheers
Phil
At 13:41 02/02/2005, you wrote:
Phil--thought I should let you know that its official now that I'll be moving to Penn
State next Fall.
I'll be in the Meteorology Dept. & Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, and plan
to head up a center for "Earth System History" within the institute. Will keep you
updated,
Mike
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1107555812.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Zero order draft of Chapter 3, AR4, IPCC]
Date: Fri Feb 4 17:23:xxx xxxx xxxx
Kevin,
I was concerned about splitting too, and suggested as a way of getting
through the work a little quicker. Pairs will also work as long as we choose
the right ones. Agree we need to separate the major from minor, so
anything that can be done there in April will be good.
I suspect the comments from the nominated reviewers will all have
to answered in a formal way - as a dry run for the FOD and SOD.
On the figures we need to compare notes on these in a few weeks
and assign particular people to them. We both worked with Dave
on the set of trends. They may not be perfect, but they are better
than some of the others. I think we will need to do more of this.
Giving responsibility for a handful to some of the LAs is a
possibility. We'll need to give clear instructions though and expect
loads of iterations. I can deal with 3.2 with David and the HC if we
can agree on what and how we want them. Most of the other
sections require much more thought. I'll work on this.
I agree 100% with you on the TC section. This will get scrutinized
by many more now. I'll report back on the CCSP review. Apart
from Lindzen the panel seem pretty good. So, I'll gauge what the
key issues appear to be in the panel's minds. Agree that we
shouldn't treat it's conclusions as gospel (otherwise why are we
bothering), but treat it as a very very major review article.
Must go home now. Have a good trip back to NZ.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:39 04/02/2005, you wrote:
Phil I tried to attach the ppt with all the figues: but it is too big for your server??
Kevin
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Zero order draft of Chapter 3, AR4, IPCC
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 09:36:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: Kevin Trenberth [1]<trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones [2]<p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
References: [3]<42024852.7060406@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[4]<6.1.2.0.0.20050204144545.03dd6830@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Hi Phil
Not sure how to handle all this. Recall how it was done for GCOS: I don't think that
worked. The official version requires each comment to have name etc on it so it can be
carved up. The CAs won't do that, so I think we have to treat each CA separately, or at
best broken up by section. I can try to get my admin to work on it if we have clear
guidelines.
I am also concerned about splitting: There are a lot of things that can be done by LAs
working in pairs. In previous IPCCs we broke up into sections. Two people worked on
each section in parallel. Lots of things can be done that way. But there are some
major things that we have to build a consensus on of all of us. I now have a particular
interest in making sure the hurricanes are done well. I also am concerend about the
UA-MSU etc and clearly you and I should both be engaged there. So sorting out the
fairly minor from major points will be a key task.
I am not taken by our set of figures. If I look at them and try to create a story e.g.
by ppt, I think they are lacking. I am attaching the ones I have assembled.
I am away next week in Hawaii at the Chapman conference (AGU). Then I am briefly back
and then I am gone and out of touch in New Zealand on personal time 20 Feb to 3 March.
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:
Kevin,
At least two of the CAs have already begun reading the ZOD. I hope your clear
message
is followed by all the CAs. Glad you sent the pdf and not the doc version. Tracked
changes
would be a nightmare.
With all these comments, I presume we'll both assemble all the CA comments. WGI
will get comments from our nominated (and their) referee's. I presume WGI will somehow
collate these, so for example, all comments on section 3.7 or 3.7.1 will be together.
Is
there a way we can collate all the CA comments similarly? I guess we can decide
this later when some more have come in. I reckon we'll have to split the group in
Beijing
if we are to get through all the comments in the 3.5 days, so separating them would
prove useful. Would an email to WGI be useful to see if they can do it for us? Just a
thought !
As you saw, I've reminded our LAs with responsibility for linking with other
chapters
look at that chapter as well.
No chance so far to look at the CCSP (vertical temp trendsxxx xxxx xxxxsections each
of xxx xxxx xxxxpages !!
Away from today Feb xxx xxxx xxxxin Madrid (EU project meeting) , xxx xxxx xxxxin Pune
(extremes workshop - the last one in the current round, for South Asia) and
xxx xxxx xxxxat O'Hare Hilton for the CCSP report.
Only here 11th and 21st. Should have email contact in Madrid and Chicago,
but Pune may be hit and miss. Still, not much need for too much contact at this
time.
I'll give the diagrams and other issues some thought whilst away. Albert will be
in Pune.
Have a good few weeks and I hope the Landsea issue has subsided.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:50 03/02/2005, you wrote:
Dear CA
The zero order draft of Chapter 3 of the WG1 IPCC AR4 report is now available. Your
contribution has helped us put together this draft, and we thank you very much.
However, it is NOT yet the first draft; we recognize that it is incomplete in some
places (for instance where some CAs did not come through, or through oversight), and we
have not even reviewed it fully ourselves, given the tight timetable. So we are seeking
constructive comments and your assistance on developing the first draft. What is most
helpful is for you to suggest new text and references, and explicit changes. Not "such
and such" is bad or needs fixing. We can not promise to use the new text because there
are 60 CAs who may well suggest different things. We also have to limit page numbers,
so we especially welcome suggestions for shortening. If you care to rewrite a section
more succinctly, then we will gladly consider it. The figures are all preliminary and
will be thoroughly examined in Beijing in May, so suggestions of improved or more recent
figures are welcomed. We also welcome copies of any papers submitted or referred to.
I am sending this out in two parts. This part has the text attached as a pdf. It
is order 1 MB. The second part includes the figures, many in color, and it is 3.7 MB.
We need you comments by 1 April 2005 at the latest. If you prefer to focus only on the
section in which your contribution appeared, then that is fine, but you are welcome to
comment on other parts as well. If you can not comment or prefer not to for some reason
or another, a message to that effect would also be welcomed so we can track responses.
Please send your comments, preferably in word, with your name on each page, and
clear identification of section, page and line number or figure number. You may like to
make a comment, followed by explicit suggestion for addition or change. Please do
justify and argue why the change is needed. Please send comments to Kevin Trenberth
and Phil Jones, who will assemble them.
Many thanks for your help
Kevin Trenberth
[5]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phil Jones
[6]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
--
****************
Kevin E.
Trenberth
e-mail:
[7]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section,
NCAR
[8]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box
3000,
(3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO
80307
(3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303
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 [9]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [10]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [11]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [12]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [13]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (3xxx xxxx xxxx
Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx (3xxx xxxx xxxx(fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303
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. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:42024852.7060406@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:6.1.2.0.0.20050204144545.03dd6830@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
9. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
10. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
11. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
12. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
13. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
Original Filename: 1107899057.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: Re: FW: "hockey stock" methodology misleading
Date: Tue Feb 8 16:44:xxx xxxx xxxx
X-Sender: mem6u@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.1.1
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 16:04:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
tom crowley <tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, tom crowley <tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: Re: FW: "hockey stock" methodology misleading
X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-UEA-MailScanner-SpamScore: s
sorry, forgot to attach the paper...
mike
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:54:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tom Crowley, Tom Crowley,
mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: Re: FW: "hockey stock" methodology misleading
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:52:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: Andy Revkin <anrevk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: FW: "hockey stock" methodology misleading
Hi Andy,
The McIntyre and McKitrick paper is pure scientific fraud. I think you'll find this
reinforced by just about any legitimate scientist in our field you discuss this with.
Please see the RealClimate response:
[1]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=111
and also:
[2]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=114
The Moberg et al paper is at least real science. But there are some real problems with
it (you'll want to followup w/ people like Phil Jones for a 2nd opinion).
While the paper actually reinforces the main conclusion of previous studies (it also
finds the late 20th century to be the warmest period of the past two millennia), it
challenges various reconstructions
using tree-ring information (which includes us, but several others such as Jones et al,
Crowley, etc). I'm pretty sure, by the way, that a very similar version of the paper was
rejected previously by Science. A number of us are therefore very surprised that Nature
is publishing it, given a number of serious problems:
Their method for combining frequencies is problematic and untested:
A. they only use a handful of records, so there is a potentially large sampling bias.
B. worse, they use different records for high-frequencies and low-frequencies, so the
bias isn't even the same--the reconstruction is apples and oranges.
C. The wavelet method is problematic. We have found in our own work that you cannot
simply combine the content in different at like frequencies, because different proxies
have different signal vs. noise characteristics at different frequencies--for some
records, there century-scale variability is likely to be pure noise. They end up
therfore weighting noise as much as signal. For some of the records used, there are real
age model problems. The timescale isn't known to better than +/- a couple hundred years
in several cases. So when they average these records together, the century-scale
variability is likely to be nonsense.
D. They didn't do statistical verification. This is absolutely essential for such
reconstructions (see e.g. the recent Cook et al and Luterbacher et al papers in
Science). They should have validated their reconstruction against long-instrumental
records, as we and many others have. Without having done so, there is no reason to
believe the reconstruction has any reliability. This is a major problem w/ the paper. It
is complicated by the fact that they don't produce a pattern, but just a hemispheric
mean--that makes it difficult to do a long-term verification. But they don't attempt any
sort of verification at all! There are some decades known to be warm from the available
instrumental records (1730s, some in the 16th century) which the Moberg reconstruction
completely misses--the reconstruction gives the impression that all years are cold
between 1500 and 1750. The reconstruction would almost certainly fail cross-validation
against long instrumental records. If so, it is an unreliable estimate of past changes.
We're surprised the Nature Reviewers didn't catch this.
E. They also didn't validate their method against a model (where I believe it would
likely fail). We have done so w/ our own "hybrid frequency-domain" method that combines
information separately at low and high-frequencies, but taking into account the problem
mentioned above. This is described in:
Rutherford, S., Mann, M.E., Osborn, T.J., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Hughes, M.K.,
Jones, P.D., [3]Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Reconstructions:
Sensitivity to Methodology, Predictor Network, Target Season and Target Domain, Journal
of Climate, in press (2005).
In work that is provisionally accepted in "Journal of Climate" (draft attached), we show
that our method gives the correct history using noisy "pseudoproxy" records derived from
a climate model simulation with large past changes in radiative forcing. Moberg et al
have not tested their method in such a manner.
F. They argue selectively for favorable comparison w/ other work:
(1) Esper et al: when authors rescaled the reconstruction using the full instrumental
record (Cook et al, 2004), they found it to be far more similar to Mann et al, Crowley
and Lowery, Jones et al, and the roughly dozen or so other empirical and model estimates
consistent w/ it. Several studies, moreover [see e.g.: Shindell, D.T., Schmidt, G.A.,
Mann, M.E., Faluvegi, G., [4]Dynamic winter climate response to large tropical volcanic
eruptions since 1600, Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, D05104, doi:
10.1029/2003JD004151, 2004.] show that extratropical, land-only summer temperatures,
which Esper et al emphasises, are likely to biased towards greater variability--so its
an apples and oranges comparison anyway.
(2) von Storch et al: There are some well known problems here: (a) their forcing is way
too large (Foukal at al in Science a couple months back indicates maybe 5 times too
large), DKMI uses same model, more conventional forcings, and get half the amplitude and
another paper submitted recently by the Belgium modeling group suggests that some severe
spin-up/initialization problems give the large century-scale swings in the model--these
are not reproducible.
(3) Boreholes: They argue that Boreholes are "physical measurements" but many papers in
the published literature have detailed the various biases in using continental ground
surface temperature to estimate past surface air temperature changes--changing snow
cover gives rise to a potentially huge bias (see e.g. : Mann, M.E., Schmidt, G.A.,
[5]Ground vs. Surface Air Temperature Trends: Implications for Borehole Surface
Temperature Reconstructions,Geophysical Research Letters, 30 (12), 1607, doi:
10.1029/2003GL017170, 2003).
Methods that try to correct for this give smaller amplitude changes from borehole
temperatures:
Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., Keimig, F.T., [6]Optimal
Surface Temperature Reconstructions using Terrestrial Borehole Data, Journal of
Geophysical Research, 108 (D7), 4203, doi: 10.1029/2002JD002532, 2003]
[[7]Correction(Rutherford and Mann, 2004)]
Most reconstructions and model estimates still *sandwich" the Mann et al reconstruction.
See e.g. figure 5 in: Jones, P.D., Mann, M.E., [8]Climate Over Past Millennia, Reviews
of Geophysics, 42, RG2002, doi: 10.1029/2003RG000143, 2004.
Ironically, MM say our 15th century is too cold, while Moberg et al say its too warm.
Hmmm....
To recap, I hope you don't mention MM at all. It really doesn't deserve any additional
publicity. Moberg et al is more deserving of discussion, but, as outlined above, there
are some real problems w/ it. I have reason to believe that Nature's own commentary by
Schiermeier will actually be somewhat critical of it.
I'm travelling and largely unavailable until monday. If you need to talk, you can
possibly reach me at xxx xxxx xxxxover the weekend.
I hope this is of some help. Literally got to run now...
mike
At 02:14 PM 2/4/2005, Andy Revkin wrote:
Hi all,
There is a fascinating paper coming in Nature next week (Moberg of Stockholm Univ., et
al) that uses mix of sediment and tree ring data to get a new view of last 2,000 years.
Very warped hockeystick shaft (centuries-scale variability very large) but still
pronounced 'unusual' 1990's blade.
i'd like your reaction/thoughts for story i'll write for next thursday's Times.
also, is there anything about the GRL paper forthcoming from Mc & Mc that warrants a
response?
I can send you the Nature paper as pdf if you agree not to redistribute it (you know the
embargo rules).
that ok?
thanks for getting in touch!
andy
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[9]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[10]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[11]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[12]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
References
1. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=111
2. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=114
3. http://www.realclimate.org/RuthetalJClim2004.pdf
4. ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/Shindelletal-jgr04.pdf
5. ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/gissgst03.pdf
6. ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/borehole-jgr03.pdf
7. http://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/shared/articles/JGRBoreholeCorrection04.pdf
8. ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/JonesMannROG04.pdf
9. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
10. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
11. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
12. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Original Filename: 1108248246.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Eugene R" <wahle@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re:
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:44:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
sorry. text revised yet again. no more changes until I receive comments from everyone.
thanks...
mike
At 12:03 PM 2/11/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Keith and Tim are here next week, but very busy with a proposal to the EU.
So you may have to hassle them a bit, or hang on for a week or two.
Nature dragged in the IPCC angle which annoyed me. I tried to explain to
him how IPCC works. IPCC won't be discussing this in Beijing in May - except
as part of Chapter 6. Hans von Storch will likely regret some of the words he's said.
FYI, just as NCAR have put up a web site to give the whole story re Chris Landseas's
'resignation' from a CA in the atmos. obs. chapter (to help Kevin Trenberth out), KNMI
are doing the same re Rob van Dorland and that Dutch magazine. The chief scientist
at KNMI has got involved as Rob didn't say the things attributed to him. I'll find
out more on this in Pune as a guy from KNMI will be there.
Several other CAs on our chapter pulled out, or just didn't do anything. Their
stories
never got run.
Dick's report was good and my bit in Nature cam across well.
Say hi to all there and wish Steve well.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:19 11/02/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Phil--thanks, that's great. Really happy to hear that everyone is on board with this.
I'm at a symposium honoring Steve Schneider out at stanford right now. Lots of folks
here--as I talk this over w/ them, and see Dick Kerr's coverage of this, etc. I realize
its not so bad--I was afraid this would be spun as bolstering the contrarians, but it
hasn't. In large part due to quotes from you and others pointing out that the study
actually reinforces the key conclusions, etc., and the fact Dick Kerr showed Keith and
Tim's plot showing the scattering of multiple reconstructions, etc. which takes the
focus off "Mann" a bit...
Nonetheless, I *am* convinced their methodology is suspect, as the analysis I sent
shows. So I will really appreciate input from Keith, Tim, and you to make sure the
language and wording are appropriate and fair...
I will revise as I get input from various people, with an aim to having this
submission-ready in about 10 days (so you can have one final look after you return, and
before you have to head out again).
looking forward to getting people's comments, feedback, etc.
thanks again,
mike
At 08:05 AM 2/11/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike et al,
I've talked to Keith and Tim here and it seems best if we all come in with you on
this response. What you have done is basically fine. We can discuss specific wording
later.
My problem is that I'm off tomorrow to Pune till Feb 20 and email may be
sporadic or non-existent. So can you discuss revised drafts with Keith and Tim,
but keep me on - lower down as I'm away. I'm here on Feb 21 then off to Chicago
to review the vertical temperature report for the NRC/NAS Feb 22-25.
Keep me on the emails in case email works well in Pune.
Cheers
Phil
At 23:35 10/02/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear Caspar, Gene, Scott, Phil,
I am attaching a response I've drafted to the Moberg et al paper (attached for those of
you who haven't seen it). The message is pretty clear and simple--their method
overemphasizes the low-frequency variability. To demonstrate this, I've made use of
stuff from Mann and Jones, and from the Mann/Rutherford/Wahl/Ammann J. Climate letter on
Pseudoproxies. So I would welcome any of you to be co-authors on this--just let me now
if you're interested. I've been in touch w/ Keith (he and Tim are potentially working on
their own independent response--waiting to hear further).
This is a very rough draft, so comments much appreciated.
Looking forward to hearing back,
Mike
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
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
[2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[3]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachMobergComment2.doc"
References
1. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
2. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
3. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1108399027.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: WSJ
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:37:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
A good comparison of all of the reconstruction constructive by William Connelly, which
makes it clear that the take-home point is robust, is available here:
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
mike
At 10:58 AM 2/14/2005, Tom Wigley wrote:
Mike,
I'm sorry we had no time to talk at Stanford.
Here is the answer to the LIA bounce back idea ...
For 20th century warming to be a bounce back, the
heat must come from somewhere. The only source
consistent with the bounce back idea is the ocean.
The Levitus data show that heat has been going INTO
the ocean, not coming out of it.
This is really obvious, but I have never seem it stated
anywhere.
----------
Re WSJ. They say ...
"Statistician Francis Zwiers of Environment Canada, a government agency,
says he now agrees that Dr. Mann's statistical method "preferentially
produces hockey sticks when there are none in the data."
Dr. Mann, while agreeing that his mathematical method tends to find
hockey-stick shapes, says this doesn't mean its results in this case are
wrong. Indeed, Dr. Mann says he can create the same shape from the
climate data using completely different math techniques."
-----------------
It is a bit worrying that Francis agrees with M&M -- but it seems that
you do too.
My questions are:
(1) Do other reconstructions (not including Lonnie Thompson's of course)
suffer from this standardization problem?
(2) You have stated that simply averaging the data together gives the
same result. Has this elementary method been published?
(2a) I note that the PC1 amplitude time series invariably correlates highly
with the (non-areally-weighted) 'area average'. So this brings up the issue
of whether you use some area weighting in your PCA -- as we
invariably do when doing PCA of gridded data?
(3) From what I can see without reading their full GRL paper,
M&M think that the RE statistic has an odd sampling distribution.
It is easy to show this by Monte Carlo simulation -- have you done
this (i.e., in the abstract, as a statistical exercise, not for the specific
case of MBH98, etc.)?
Tom.
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
References
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
2. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1108594561.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jmahlman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: RE: WSJ article
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:56:xxx xxxx xxxx
Interesting that Antonio R. doesn't (or at least claims not to) recognize a lack of balance
in the article.
Please treat this email as confidential. I don't believe that sending a letter to the
editor myself would be the best avenue. But perhaps someone else is interested in pursuing
this?
Mike
Subject: RE: WSJ article
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:43:xxx xxxx xxxx
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: WSJ article
Thread-Index: AcUUaIg6ON4Ck5ANQ2OfoGmU0QNsvAAAEqMA
From: "Regalado, Antonio" <Antonio.Regalado@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Feb 2005 22:43:10.0610 (UTC) FILETIME=[E423A720:01C51478]
X-UVA-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at fork11.mail.virginia.edu
Hi Mike,
On the personal stuff, Id go with your first impressions, rather than the perceptions of
others. This isnt a one-sided story. Anyway, I certainly want to find out who is right
here and so I am open to writing more as the papers come out and the facts become
clearer, just as I have written in the past about the Soon and Balliunias business (p.
A3not bad) and about paleo-climate (p. 1 story in 2002 about Gary Comers funding,
feature story on Lonnie Thompsons melting glaciers), etc. Would it surprise you to
hear that anytime I write a story which seems to favor global warming I am also deluged
by accusations of bias and demands for corrections etc.?
Regarding Moberg, I think the issue you are raising is a question of emphasis and not a
matter for a correction. The specific sentences youre thinking of (Indeed, new research
from Stockholm University on historical temperatures suggests past fluctuations were
nearly twice as great as the hockey stick shows. That could mean the 20th-century jump
isn't quite so anomalous. ) seem to me be not only factual but precisely to the point of
what the mainstream of science is discussing vis a vis MBH, which was the topic of that
part of my story. For instance, in the Anderson/Woodhouse commentary that accompanied
Moberg in the same issue of Nature, they too stress the increased variability just as I
did and they make no mention of the late 1990s. And as per my email Monday, my article
does also say that other reconstructions also indicate that the 20^th Century was
unusually warm and that the punch line is the same.
Im sure youre fully sick of writing letters, but this may be right opportunity for a
letter to the editor from you or someone who you can second. The person to send a letter
to is [1]Karen.Pensiero@xxxxxxxxx.xxx. If you want, CC: me and my editor,
[2]Elyse.tanouye@xxxxxxxxx.xxx. Or even an editorial on the broader topic of where the
science is at. I can give you the name for who to send an editorial to if you want it.
It is probably worth pointing out that no amount of debate can change the facts buried
in those tree rings, etc..
Yes, I will continue to write about climate. The next topic is impacts. What do you
think is the best story there? Id like to write about current impacts rather than only
projected ones as these will be more tangible for the reader. Also, since the Arctic has
been well covered Id be interested in impacts at lower latitudes.
Antonio
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[3]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
References
1. mailto:Karen.Pensiero@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:Elyse.tanouye@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Original Filename: 1109014030.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To:
Original Filename: 1109018144.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: Re: Canadians and the Millennium
Date: Mon Feb 21 15:35:xxx xxxx xxxx
Mike,
FYI only - here is a reply from Francis. He's still onside,
just stuck learning French.
Cheers
Phil
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 07:14:xxx xxxx xxxx
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: Francis Zwiers <Francis.Zwiers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Canadians and the Millennium
Cc: "francis.zwiers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" <francis.zwiers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Hi Phil,
At 02:29 21/02/2005, you wrote:
Francis,
Been away for the last week and off again tomorrow for the rest of this week.
I was surprised to see comments from you in WSJ saying that McIntyre and
McKittrick were likely right and the Mann reconstruction is wrong. I hope it is
a case of misreporting !
Well, this isn't what I said, and its also not what is reported in the WJS article. The
article quotes me as saying that the technique preferentially produces hockey sticks
(actually, I *think* I said that it preferentially produces PC1s with hockey stick
shapes, but that's a distinction that may have escaped the reporter - or I may have
miss-spoken). In any case, this does not mean that the general form of the
reconstruction (illustrating the unusual nature of the 20th century) is wrong - and I
went to pains in the interview to also make that point.
The nearest composite reconstruction to MM in the 15th century is
MBH98. All the others have the 15th century cooler than MBH98. There is no
way MM are right in the 15th century. Also Moberg et al (2005) has too
much long-term variability.
Sorry for the short email, I have loads of others to go through before
the end of today. We can discuss in more detail at Duke !
Unfortunately, I won't be at Duke because I'm still stuck in a particular type of
Canadian purgatory called french training.
Cheers, Francis
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________
Francis Zwiers, Chief
Canadian Ctr for Climate Modelling and Analysis
Meteorological Service of Canada
c/o University of Victoria
PO Box 1700, STN CSC
Victoria, BC V8W 2Y2
Phone: (250)xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: (250)xxx xxxx xxxx
Web: [1]http://www.cccma.bc.ec.gc.ca
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://www.cccma.bc.ec.gc.ca/
Original Filename: 1109021312.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "raymond s. bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Malcolm Hughes" <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use
this to our advantage to get the series updated !
Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere
rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don't realise that Moberg et al used the
Jones and Moberg updated series !
Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed
that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn't bother
with that. Also ignored Francis' comment about all the other series looking similar
to MBH.
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
X-Sender: f023@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.0.6
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:40:05 +0000
To: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO
DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Subject: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:02:xxx xxxx xxxx
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: pressure grows on climate modellers to relase secret data
Thread-Index: AcUXiV64e/f3Ii8uQSa0X88pndSQgQAl2O1w
From: "Peiser, Benny" <B.J.Peiser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "cambridge-conference" <cambridge-conference@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean
CCNet 22/2xxx xxxx xxxxFebruary 2005
PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This should have produced a healthy scientific debate. Instead, Mr. Mann tried
to shut down debate by refusing to disclose the mathematical algorithm by which
he arrived at his conclusions. All the same, Mr. Mann was forced to publish a
retraction of some of his initial data, and doubts about his statistical methods
have since grown.
--The Wall Street Journal, 18 February 2005
But maybe we are in that much trouble. The WSJ highlights what Regaldo and McIntyre
says is Mann's resistance or outright refusal to provide to inquiring minds his
data, all details of his statistical analysis, and his code. So this is what I
say to Dr. Mann and others expressing deep concern over peer review: give up your
data, methods and code freely and with a smile on your face.
--Kevin Vranes, Science Policy, 18 February 2005
Mann's work doesn't meet that definition [of science], and those who use Mann's
curve in their arguments are not making a scientific argument. One of Pournelle's
Laws states "You can prove anything if you can make up your data." I will now add
another Pournelle's Law: "You can prove anything if you can keep your algorithms
secret."
--Jerry Pournelle, 18 February 2005
The time has come to question the IPCC's status as the near-monopoly source of
information and advice for its member governments. It is probably futile to propose
reform of the present IPCC process. Like most bureaucracies, it has too much momentum
and its institutional interests are too strong for anyone realistically to suppose
that it can assimilate more diverse points of view, even if more scientists and
economists were keen to join up. The rectitude and credibility of the IPCC could be
best improved not through reform, but through competition.
--Steven F. Hayward, The American Enterprise Institute, 15 February 2005
(1) HOCKEY STICK ON ICE
The Wall Street Journal, 18 February 2005
(2) SCIENCE AND OPEN ALGORITHMS: "YOU CAN PROVE ANYTHING WITH SECRET DATA AND
ALGORITHMS"
Jerry Pournell, 18 February 2005
(3) OPEN SEASON ON HOCKEY AND PEER REVIEW
Science Policy, 18 February 2005
(4) CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE: TIME FOR TEAM "B"?
The American Enterprise Institute, 15 February 2005
(5) BRING THE PROXIES UP TO DATE!
Climate Audit, 20 February 2005
(6) CARELESS SCIENCE COSTS LIVES
The Guardian, 18 February 2005
(7) RE: MORE TROUBLE FOR CLIMATE MODELS
Helen Krueger <hkrueger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
(8) HOW TO HANDLE ASTEROID 2004 MN4
Jens Kieffer-Olsen <dstdba@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
(9) AND FINALLY: EUROPE FURTHER FALLING BEHIND IN TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH
EU Observer, 10 February 2005
==================
(1) HOCKEY STICK ON ICE
The Wall Street Journal, 18 February 2005
[1]http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB110869271828758608-IdjeoNmlah4n5yta4GHaqyIm4
,00.html
On Wednesday National Hockey League Commissioner Gary Bettman canceled the season, and
we guess that's a loss. But this week also brought news of something else that's been
put on ice. We're talking about the "hockey stick."
Just so we're clear, this hockey stick isn't a sports implement; it's a scientific
graph. Back in the late 1990s, American geoscientist Michael Mann published a chart that
purported to show average surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere over the past
1,000 years. The chart showed relatively minor fluctuations in temperature over the
first 900 years, then a sharp and continuous rise over the past century, giving it a
hockey-stick shape.
Mr. Mann's chart was both a scientific and political sensation. It contradicted a body
of scientific work suggesting a warm period early in the second millennium, followed by
a "Little Ice Age" starting in the 14th century. It also provided some visually
arresting scientific support for the contention that fossil-fuel emissions were the
cause of higher temperatures. Little wonder, then, that Mr. Mann's hockey stick appears
five times in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's landmark 2001 report on
global warming, which paved the way to this week's global ratification -- sans the U.S.,
Australia and China -- of the Kyoto Protocol.
Yet there were doubts about Mr. Mann's methods and analysis from the start. In 1998,
Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
published a paper in the journal Climate Research, arguing that there really had been a
Medieval warm period. The result: Messrs. Soon and Baliunas were treated as heretics and
six editors at Climate Research were made to resign.
Still, questions persisted. In 2003, Stephen McIntyre, a Toronto minerals consultant and
amateur mathematician, and Ross McKitrick, an economist at Canada's University of
Guelph, jointly published a critique of the hockey stick analysis. Their conclusion: Mr.
Mann's work was riddled with "collation errors, unjustifiable truncations of
extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect
calculations of principal components, and other quality control defects." Once these
were corrected, the Medieval warm period showed up again in the data.
This should have produced a healthy scientific debate. Instead, as the Journal's Antonio
Regalado reported Monday, Mr. Mann tried to shut down debate by refusing to disclose the
mathematical algorithm by which he arrived at his conclusions. All the same, Mr. Mann
was forced to publish a retraction of some of his initial data, and doubts about his
statistical methods have since grown. Statistician Francis Zwiers of Environment Canada
(a government agency) notes that Mr. Mann's method "preferentially produces hockey
sticks when there are none in the data." Other reputable scientists such as Berkeley's
Richard Muller and Hans von Storch of Germany's GKSS Center essentially agree.
We realize this may all seem like so much academic nonsense. Yet if there really was a
Medieval warm period (we draw no conclusions), it would cast some doubt on the
contention that our SUVs and air conditioners, rather than natural causes, are to blame
for apparent global warming.
There is also the not-so-small matter of the politicization of science: If climate
scientists feel their careers might be put at risk by questioning some orthodoxy, the
inevitable result will be bad science. It says something that it took two non-climate
scientists to bring Mr. Mann's errors to light.
But the important point is this: The world is being lobbied to place a huge economic bet
-- as much as $150 billion a year -- on the notion that man-made global warming is real.
Businesses are gearing up, at considerable cost, to deal with a new regulatory
environment; complex carbon-trading schemes are in the making. Shouldn't everyone look
very carefully, and honestly, at the science before we jump off this particular cliff?
Copyright 2005, The Wall Street Journal
=============
(2) SCIENCE AND OPEN ALGORITHMS: "YOU CAN PROVE ANYTHING WITH SECRET DATA AND
ALGORITHMS"
Jerry Pournell, 18 February 2005
[2]http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view349.html#hockeystick
Science and Open Algorithms: You can prove anything with secret data and algorithms.
There is a long piece on the global "hockey stick" in today's Wall Street Journal that
explains something I didn't understand: Mann, who generated the "hockey stick" curve
purporting to show that the last century was unique in all recorded history with its
sharp climb in temperature, has released neither the algorithm that generated his curve
nor the data on which it was based.
I had refrained from commenting on the "hockey stick" because I couldn't understand how
it was derived. I've done statistical analysis and prediction from uncertainty much of
my life. My first job in aerospace was as part of the Human Factors and Reliability
Group at Boeing, where we were expected to deal with such matters as predicting
component failures, and deriving maintenance schedules (replace it before it fails, but
not so long before it fails that the costs including the cost of the maintenance crew
and the costs of taking the airplane out of service are prohibitive) and other such
matters. I used to live with Incomplete Gamma Functions and other complex integrals; and
I could not for the life of me understand how Mann derived his famous curve. Now I know:
he hasn't told anyone. He says that telling people how he generated it would be
tantamount to giving in to his critics.
More on this after my walk, but the one thing we may conclude for sure is that this is
not science. His curve has been distributed as part of the Canadian government's
literature on why Canada supports Kyoto, and is said to have been influential in causing
the "Kyoto Consensus" so it is certainly effective propaganda; but IT IS NOT SCIENCE.
Science deals with repeatability and openness. When I took Philosophy of Science from
Gustav Bergmann at the University of Iowa a very long time ago, our seminar came to a
one-sentence "practical definition" of science: Science is what you can put in a letter
to a colleague and he'll get the same results you did. Now I don't claim that as
original for it wasn't even me who came up with it in the seminar; but I do claim
Bergmann liked that formulation, and it certainly appealed to me, and I haven't seen a
better one-sentence practical definition of science. Mann's work doesn't meet that
definition, and those who use Mann's curve in their arguments are not making a
scientific argument.
One of Pournelle's Laws states "You can prove anything if you can make up your data." I
will now add another Pournelle's Law: "You can prove anything if you can keep your
algorithms secret."
=============
(3) OPEN SEASON ON HOCKEY AND PEER REVIEW
Science Policy, 18 February 2005
[3]http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000355open_seaso
n_on_hocke.html
By Kevin Vranes
The recent 2/14 WSJ article ("Global Warring..." by Antonio Regaldo) addresses the
debate that most readers of this site are well familiar with: the Mann et al. hockey
stick. The WSJ is still asking - and trying to answer - the basic questions: hockey
stick or no hockey stick? But the background premise of the article, stated explicitly
and implicitly throughout, is that it was the hockey stick that led to Kyoto and other
climate policy. Is it?
I think it's fair to say that to all of us in the field of climatology, the notion that
Kyoto is based on the Mann curve is utter nonsense. If a climatologist, or a policy
advisor charged with knowing the science well enough to make astute recommendations to
his/her boss, relied solely on the Mann curve to prove definitively the existence of
anthropogenic warming, then we're in deeper trouble than anybody realizes. (This is
essentially what Stephan Ramstorf writes in a 1/27 RealClimate post.) And although it's
easy to believe that national and international policy can hinge on single graphs, I
hope we give policy makers more credit than that.
But maybe we are in that much trouble. The WSJ highlights what Regaldo and McIntyre says
is Mann's resistance or outright refusal to provide to inquiring minds his data, all
details of his statistical analysis, and his code. The WSJ's anecdotal treatment of the
subject goes toward confirming what I've been hearing for years in climatology circles
about not just Mann, but others collecting original climate data.
As concerns Mann himself, this is especially curious in light of the recent RealClimate
posts (link and link) in which Mann and Gavin Schmidt warn us about peer review and the
limits therein. Their point is essentially that peer review is limited and can be much
less than thorough. One assumes that they are talking about their own work as well as
McIntyre's, although they never state this. Mann and Schmidt go to great lengths in
their post to single out Geophysical Research Letters. Their post then seems a bit
ironic, as GRL is the journal in which the original Mann curve was published (1999, vol
26., issue 6, p. 759), an article which is now receiving much attention as being flawed
and under-reviewed. (For that matter, why does Table 1 in Mann et al. (1999) list many
chronologies in the Southern Hemisphere while the rest of the paper promotes a Northern
Hemisphere reconstruction? Legit or not, it's a confusing aspect of the paper that
should never have made it past peer review.)
Of their take on peer review, I couldn't agree more. In my experience, peer review is
often cursory at best. So this is what I say to Dr. Mann and others expressing deep
concern over peer review: give up your data, methods and code freely and with a smile on
your face. That is real peer review. A 12 year-old hacker prodigy in her grandparents'
basement should have as much opportunity to check your work as a "semi-retired Toronto
minerals consultant." Those without three letters after their name can be every bit as
intellectually qualified, and will likely have the time for careful review that typical
academic reviewers find lacking.
Specious analysis of your work will be borne out by your colleagues, and will enter the
debate with every other original work. Your job is not to prevent your critics from
checking your work and potentially distorting it; your job is to continue to publish
insightful, detailed analyses of the data and let the community decide. You can be part
of the debate without seeming to hinder access to it.
===============
(4) CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE: TIME FOR TEAM "B"?
The American Enterprise Institute, 15 February 2005
[4]http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.21974/pub_detail.asp
By Steven F. Hayward
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is currently working on its fourth
assessment report. Despite the IPCC's noble intent to generate a scientific consensus, a
number of factors have compromised the research and drafting process, assuring that its
next assessment report will be just as controversial as previous reports in 1995 and
2001. Efforts to reform this large bureaucratic effort are unlikely to succeed. Perhaps
the time has come to consider competition as the means of checking the IPCC's monopoly
and generating more reliable climate science.
As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) moves toward the release of its
fourth assessment report (fourth AR) in 2007, the case of Chris Landsea offers in
microcosm an example of why the IPCC's findings are going to have credibility problems.
Last month Landsea, a climate change scientist with the U.S. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), resigned as a participant in the producing the
report. Landsea had been a chapter author and reviewer for the IPCC's second assessment
report in 1995 and the third in 2001, and he is a leading expert on hurricanes and
related extreme weather phenomena. He had signed on with the IPCC to update the state of
current knowledge on Atlantic hurricanes for the fourth report. In an open letter,
Landsea wrote that he could no longer in good conscience participate in a process that
is "being motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and is "scientifically unsound."[1]
Landsea's resignation was prompted by an all too familiar occurrence: The lead author of
the fourth AR's chapter on climate observations, Kevin Trenberth, participated in a
press conference that warned of increasing hurricane activity as a result of global
warming.[2] It is common to hear that man-made global warming represents the "consensus"
of science, yet the use of hurricanes and cyclones as a marker of global warming
represents a clear-cut case of the consensus being roundly ignored. Both the second and
third IPCC assessments concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the
hurricane record. Moreover, most climate models predict future warming will have only a
small effect--if any--on hurricane strength. "It is beyond me," Landsea wrote, "why my
colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane
activity has been due to global warming."[3] Landsea's critique goes beyond a fit of
pique at the abuse of his area of expertise. The IPCC, he believes, has become
thoroughly politicized, and is unresponsive to criticism. "When I have raised my
concerns to the IPCC leadership," Landsea wrote, "their response was simply to dismiss
my concerns."[4]
Landsea's frustration is not an isolated experience. MIT physicist Richard Lindzen,
another past IPCC author who is not participating in the fourth report, has written: "My
experiences over the past 16 years have led me to the discouraging conclusion that we
are dealing with the almost insoluble interaction of an iron triangle with an iron rice
bowl." (Lindzen's "iron triangle" consists of activists misusing science to get the
attention of the news media and politicians; the "iron rice bowl" is the parallel
phenomenon where scientists exploit the activists' alarm to increase research funding
and attention for the issue.[5]) And Dr. John Zillman, one of Australia's leading
climate scientists, is another ex-IPCC participant who believes the IPCC has become
"cast more in the model of supporting than informing policy development."[6]
And when the IPCC is not ignoring its responsible critics like Landsea and Lindzen, it
is demonizing them. Not long ago the IPCC's chairman, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, compared
eco-skeptic Bjorn Lomborg to Hitler. "What is the difference between Lomborg's view of
humanity and Hitler's?" Pachauri asked in a Danish newspaper. "If you were to accept
Lomborg's way of thinking, then maybe what Hitler did was the right thing."[7] Lomborg's
sin was merely to follow the consensus practice of economists in applying a discount to
present costs for future benefits, and comparing the range of outcomes with other world
problems alongside climate change. It is hard to judge what is worse: Pachauri's
appalling judgment in resorting to reductio ad Hitlerum, or his abysmal ignorance of
basic economics. In either case, it is hard to have much confidence in the policy advice
the IPCC might have. [...]
Time for "Team B"?
The time has come to question the IPCC's status as the near-monopoly source of
information and advice for its member governments. It is probably futile to propose
reform of the present IPCC process. Like most bureaucracies, it has too much momentum
and its institutional interests are too strong for anyone realistically to suppose that
it can assimilate more diverse points of view, even if more scientists and economists
were keen to join up. The rectitude and credibility of the IPCC could be best improved
not through reform, but through competition....
FULL PAPER at [5]http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.21974/pub_detail.asp
===========
(5) BRING THE PROXIES UP TO DATE!
Climate Audit, 20 February 2005
[6]http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=89#more-89
Steve McIntyre
I will make here a very simple suggestion: if IPCC or others want to use "multiproxy"
reconstructions of world temperature for policy purposes, stop using data ending in 1980
and bring the proxies up-to-date. Let's see how they perform in the warm 1990s - which
should be an ideal period to show the merit of the proxies. I do not believe that any
responsible policy-maker can base policy, even in part, on the continued use of obsolete
data ending in 1980, when the costs of bringing the data up-to-date is inconsequential
compared to Kyoto costs.
I would appreciate comments on this note as I think that I will pursue the matter with
policymakers.
For example, in Mann's famous hockey stick graph, as presented to policymakers and to
the public, the graph used Mann's reconstruction from proxies up to 1980 and
instrumental temperatures (here, as in other similar studies, using Jones' more lurid
CRU surface history rather than the more moderate increases shown by satellite
measurements). Usually (but not always), a different color is used for the instrumental
portion, but, from a promotional point of view, the juxtaposition of the two series
achieves the desired promotional effect. (In mining promotions, where there is
considerable community experience with promotional graphics and statistics, securities
commission prohibit the adding together of proven ore reserves and inferred ore reserves
- a policy which deserves a little reflection in the context of IPCC studies).
Last week, a brand new multiproxy study by European scientists [Moberg et al., 2005] was
published in Nature. On the very day of publication, I received an email from a
prominent scientist telling me that Mann's hockeystick was yesterday's news, that the
"community" had now "moved on" and so should I. That the "community" had had no
opportunity to verify Moberg's results, however meritorious they may finally appear,
seemed to matter not at all.
If you look at the proxy portion of the new Moberg graphic, you see nothing that would
be problematic for opponents of the hockey stick: it shows a striking Medieval Warm
Period (MWP), a cold Little Ice Age and 20th century warming not quite reaching MWP
levels by 1979, when the proxy portion of the study ends. (I'm in the process of
examining the individual proxies and the Moberg reconstruction is not without its own
imperfections.) In the presentation to the public - see the figure in the Nature article
itself, once again, there is the infamous splice between reconstruction by proxy (up to
1980) and the instrumental record thereafter (once again Jones' CRU record, rather than
the satellite record).
One of the first question that occurs to any civilian becoming familiar with these
studies (and it was one of my first questions) is: what happens to the proxies after
1980? Given the presumed warmth of the 1990s, and especially 1998 (the "warmest year in
the millennium"), you'd think that the proxy values would be off the chart. In effect,
the last 25 years have provided an ideal opportunity to validate the usefulness of
proxies and, especially the opportunity to test the confidence intervals of these
studies, put forward with such assurance by the multiproxy proponents. What happens to
the proxies used in MBH99 or Moberg et al [2005] or Crowley and Lowery [2000] in the
1990s and, especially, 1998?
This question about proxies after 1980 was posed by a civilian to Mann in December at
realclimate. Mann replied:
Most reconstructions only extend through about 1980 because the vast majority of
tree-ring, coral, and ice core records currently available in the public domain do not
extend into the most recent decades. While paleoclimatologists are attempting to update
many important proxy records to the present, this is a costly, and labor-intensive
activity, often requiring expensive field campaigns that involve traveling with heavy
equipment to difficult-to-reach locations (such as high-elevation or remote polar
sites). For historical reasons, many of the important records were obtained in the 1970s
and 1980s and have yet to be updated. [my bold]
Pause and think about this response. Think about the costs of Kyoto and then think again
about this answer. Think about the billions spent on climate research and then try to
explain to me why we need to rely on "important records" obtained in the 1970s. Far more
money has been spent on climate research in the last decade than in the 1970s. Why are
we still relying on obsolete proxy data?
As someone with actual experience in the mineral exploration business, which also
involves "expensive field campaigns that involve traveling with heavy equipment to
difficult-to-reach locations", I can assure readers that Mann's response cannot be
justified and is an embarrassment to the paleoclimate community. The more that I think
about it, the more outrageous is both the comment itself and the fact that no one seems
to have picked up on it.
It is even more outrageous when you look in detail at what is actually involved in
collecting the proxy data used in the medieval period in the key multiproxy studies. The
number of proxies used in MBH99 is from fewer than 40 sites (28 tree ring sites being
U.S. tree ring sites represented in 3 principal component series).
As to the time needed to update some of these tree ring sites, here is an excerpt from
Lamarche et al. [1984] on the collection of key tree ring cores from Sheep Mountain and
Campito Mountain, which are the most important indicators in the MBH reconstruction:
"D.A.G. [Graybill] and M.R.R. [Rose] collected tree ring samples at 3325 m on Mount
Jefferson, Toquima Range, Nevada and 11 August 1981. D.A.G. and M.R.R. collected samples
from 13 trees at Campito Mountain (3400 m) and from 15 trees at Sheep Mountain (3500 m)
on 31 October 1983."
Now to get to Campito Mountain and Sheep Mountain, they had to get to Bishop,
California, which is hardly "remote" even by Paris Hilton standards, and then proceed by
road to within a few hundred meters of the site, perhaps proceeding for some portion of
the journey on unpaved roads.
The picture below illustrates the taking of a tree ring core. While the equipment may
seem "heavy" to someone used only to desk work using computers, people in the mineral
exploration business would not regard this drill as being especially "heavy" and I
believe that people capable of operating such heavy equipment can be found, even in
out-of-the way places like Bishop, California. I apologize for the tone here, but it is
impossible for me not to be facetious.
There is only one relatively remote site in the entire MBH99 roster - the Quelccaya
glacier in Peru. Here, fortunately, the work is already done (although, needless to say,
it is not published.) This information was updated in 2003 by Lonnie Thompson and should
be adequate to update these series. With sufficient pressure from the U.S. National
Science Foundation, the data should be available expeditiously. (Given that Thompson has
not archived data from Dunde drilled in 1987, the need for pressure should not be
under-estimated.)
I realize that the rings need to be measured and that the field work is only a portion
of the effort involved. But updating 28 tree ring sites in the United States is not a
monumental enterprise nor would updating any of the other sites.
I've looked through lists of the proxies used in Jones et al. [1998], MBH99, Crowley and
Lowery [2000], Mann and Jones [2003], Moberg et al [2005] and see no obstacles to
bringing all these proxies up to date. The only sites that might take a little extra
time would be updating the Himalayan ice cores. Even here, it's possible that taking
very short cores or even pits would prove adequate for an update and this might prove
easier than one might be think. Be that as it may, any delays in updating the most
complicated location should not deter updating all the other locations.
As far as I'm concerned, this should be the first order of business for multiproxy
studies.
Whose responsibility is this? While the costs are trivial in the scheme of Kyoto, they
would still be a significant line item in the budget of a university department. I think
that the responsibility here lies with the U.S. National Science Foundation and its
equivalents in Canada and Europe. The responsibilities for collecting the proxy updates
could be divided up in a couple of emails and budgets established.
One other important aspect: right now the funding agencies fund academics to do the work
and are completely ineffective in ensuring prompt reporting. At best, academic practice
will tie up reporting of results until the publication of articles in an academic
journals, creating a delay right at the start. Even then, in cases like Thompson or
Jacoby, to whom I've referred elsewhere, the data may never be archived or only after
decades in the hands of the originator.
So here I would propose something more like what happens in a mineral exploration
program. When a company has drill results, it has to publish them through a press
release. It can't wait for academic reports or for its geologists to spin the results.
There's lots of time to spin afterwards. Good or bad - the results have to be made
public. The company has a little discretion so that it can release drill holes in
bunches and not every single drill hole, but the discretion can't build up too much
during an important program. Here I would insist that the proxy results be archived as
soon as they are produced - the academic reports and spin can come later. Since all
these sites have already been published, people are used to the proxies and the updates
will to a considerable extend speak for themselves.
What would I expect from such studies? Drill programs are usually a surprise and maybe
there's one here. My hunch is that the classic proxies will not show anywhere near as
"loud" a signal in the 1990s as is needed to make statements comparing the 1990s to the
Medieval Warm Period with any confidence at all. I've not surveyed proxies in the 1990s
(nor to my knowledge has anyone else), but I've started to look and many do not show the
expected "loud" signal e.g. some of the proxies posted up on this site such as Alaskan
tree rings, TTHH ring widths, and theories are starting to develop. But the discussions
so far do not explicit point out the effect of signal failure on the multiproxy
reconstruction project.
But this is only a hunch and the evidence could be otherwise. The point is this: there's
no need to speculate any further. It's time to bring the classic proxies up to date.
=============
(6) CARELESS SCIENCE COSTS LIVES
The Guardian, 18 February 2005
[7]http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1417224,00.html
Dick Taverne
In science, as in much of life, it is believed that you get what you pay for. According
to opinion polls, people do not trust scientists who work for industry because they only
care about profits, or government scientists because they suspect them of trying to
cover up the truth. Scientists who work for environmental NGOs are more highly regarded.
Because they are trying to save the planet, people are ready to believe that what they
say must be true. A House of Lords report, Science and Society, published in 2000,
agreed that motives matter. It argued that science and scientists are not value-free,
and therefore that scientists would command more trust "if they openly declare the
values that underpin their work".
It all sounds very plausible, but mostly it is wrong. Scientists with the best of
motives can produce bad science, just as scientists whose motives may be considered
suspect can produce good science. An obvious example of the first was Rachel Carson,
who, if not the patron saint, was at least the founding mother of modern
environmentalism. Her book The Silent Spring was an inspiring account of the damage
caused to our natural environment by the reckless spraying of pesticides, especially
DDT.
However, Carson also claimed that DDT caused cancer and liver damage, claims for which
there is no evidence but which led to an effective worldwide ban on the use of DDT that
is proving disastrous. Her motives were pure; the science was wrong. DDT is the most
effective agent ever invented for preventing insect-borne disease, which, according to
the US National Academy of Sciences and the WHO, prevented over 50 million human deaths
from malaria in about two decades. Although there is no evidence that DDT harms human
health, some NGOs still demand a worldwide ban for that reason. Careless science cost
lives.
Contrast the benefits that have resulted from the profit motive, a motive that is held
to be suspect by the public. Multinationals, chief villains in the demonology of
contemporary anti-capitalists, have developed antibiotics, vaccines that have eradicated
many diseases like smallpox and polio, genetically modified insulin for diabetics, and
plants such as GM insect-resistant cotton that have reduced the need for pesticides and
so increased the income and improved the health of millions of small cotton farmers. The
fact is that self-interest can benefit the public as effectively as philanthropy.
Motives are not irrelevant, and unselfish motives are rightly admired more than selfish
ones. There are numerous examples of misconduct by big companies, and we should examine
their claims critically and provide effective regulation to control abuses of power and
ensure the safety of their products. Equally, we should not uncritically accept the
claims of those who act from idealistic motives. NGOs inspired by the noble cause of
protecting our environment often become careless about evidence and exaggerate risks to
attract attention (and funds). Although every leading scientific academy has concluded
that GM crops are at least as safe as conventional foods, this does not stop Greenpeace
reiterating claims about the dangers of "Frankenfoods". Stephen Schneider, a
climatologist, publicly justified distortion of evidence: "Because we are not just
scientists but human beings as well ... we need to ... capture the public imagination
... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and
make little mention of any doubts we have."
But in the end motives are irrelevant to the validity of science. It does not matter if
a scientist wants to help mankind, get a new grant, win a Nobel prize or increase the
profits of her company. It does not matter whether a researcher works for Monsanto or
for Greenpeace. Results are no more to be trusted if the researcher declares his values
and confesses that he beats his wife, believes in God, or is an Arsenal supporter. What
matters is that the work has been peer-reviewed, that the findings are reproducible and
that they last. If they do, they are good science. If not, not. Science itself is
value-free. There are objective truths in science. We can now regard it as a fact that
the Earth goes rounds the sun and that Darwinism explains the evolution of species.
A look at the history of science makes it evident how irrelevant the values of
scientists are. Newton's passion for alchemy did not invalidate his discovery of the
laws of gravitation. To quote Professor Fox of Rutger's University: "How was it relevant
to Mendel's findings about peas that he was a white, European monk? They would have been
just as valid if Mendel had been a Spanish-speaking, lesbian atheist."
Original Filename: 1109087609.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Valerie Masson-Delmotte <Valerie.Masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Hugues Goosse <hgs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: B parts
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:53:29 +0100
Reply-to: Valerie.Masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, imprint-ssc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, erick.larson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Beatriz Balino <beatriz.balino@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, loutre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Dear Eystein,
Congratulations for a very convincing draft.
Please find attached the suggestions by Hubertus Fischer and myself for
the parts B1 to B3.
Valerie.
</x-flowed>
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachmasson54.vcf"
Original Filename: 1109267110.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re:
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 12:45:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Wahl, Eugene R" <wahle@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Thanks Keith,
I've made these changes and a few very minor changes just to improve the grammar in places,
etc. Also, I'm embarassed to say that Scott's name was accidentally left out of the author
list, so I've included that back in.
There was one bit about the high-pass filtering and low-pass filtering which you changed,
based on I think some minor confusion about what I meant. I've fixed that.
I'm assuming that Tim will be ok w/ the attached, final version, so I'm going to go ahead
and submit to Nature now. We'll have ample opportunity for revision at a later stage.
Lets cross our fingers.
Thanks again everyone,
Mike
At 11:01 AM 2/24/2005, Keith Briffa wrote:
Sorry Mike - still dashing - but attached shows some slight wording changes - only early
and late - missed Track changes so just compare - sorry to mess up - otherwise go with
this for now and lets see reaction
Keith
t 00:40 22/02/2005, you wrote:
Dear Phil et al,
All of the suggested changes have been made, and some others additional changes have
been made for clarification, including descriptions of updated versions of the figures
(Scott: can you get to me pdf versions of figures 1 and 3 that have the correct
"degrees" symbol on the y axis? Also--we need an updated url for the pseudoproxy data at
fox.rwu.edu as noted! thanks in advance for getting back to me ASAP on these)
Changes indicated in yellow highlighting.
Will try to prepare a final draft for submission once I've heard back from Keith, Tim,
and anyone else who has any remaining comments. I've also attached a draft cover letter
to go to Nature along w/ the submission.
Thanks,
Mike
At 09:14 AM 2/21/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Here's a few modifications to the text. Keith and Tim are pretty happy with it
as well, but the'll reply as soon as they have some time.
Off again tomorrow to Chicago. Back in next week.
Happy for you to submit this as soon as you have their and other comments.
Cheers
Phil
At 22:44 12/02/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote:
sorry. text revised yet again. no more changes until I receive comments from everyone.
thanks...
mike
At 12:03 PM 2/11/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Keith and Tim are here next week, but very busy with a proposal to the EU.
So you may have to hassle them a bit, or hang on for a week or two.
Nature dragged in the IPCC angle which annoyed me. I tried to explain to
him how IPCC works. IPCC won't be discussing this in Beijing in May - except
as part of Chapter 6. Hans von Storch will likely regret some of the words he's said.
FYI, just as NCAR have put up a web site to give the whole story re Chris Landseas's
'resignation' from a CA in the atmos. obs. chapter (to help Kevin Trenberth out), KNMI
are doing the same re Rob van Dorland and that Dutch magazine. The chief scientist
at KNMI has got involved as Rob didn't say the things attributed to him. I'll find
out more on this in Pune as a guy from KNMI will be there.
Several other CAs on our chapter pulled out, or just didn't do anything. Their
stories
never got run.
Dick's report was good and my bit in Nature cam across well.
Say hi to all there and wish Steve well.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:19 11/02/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Phil--thanks, that's great. Really happy to hear that everyone is on board with this.
I'm at a symposium honoring Steve Schneider out at stanford right now. Lots of folks
here--as I talk this over w/ them, and see Dick Kerr's coverage of this, etc. I realize
its not so bad--I was afraid this would be spun as bolstering the contrarians, but it
hasn't. In large part due to quotes from you and others pointing out that the study
actually reinforces the key conclusions, etc., and the fact Dick Kerr showed Keith and
Tim's plot showing the scattering of multiple reconstructions, etc. which takes the
focus off "Mann" a bit...
Nonetheless, I *am* convinced their methodology is suspect, as the analysis I sent
shows. So I will really appreciate input from Keith, Tim, and you to make sure the
language and wording are appropriate and fair...
I will revise as I get input from various people, with an aim to having this
submission-ready in about 10 days (so you can have one final look after you return, and
before you have to head out again).
looking forward to getting people's comments, feedback, etc.
thanks again,
mike
At 08:05 AM 2/11/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike et al,
I've talked to Keith and Tim here and it seems best if we all come in with you on
this response. What you have done is basically fine. We can discuss specific wording
later.
My problem is that I'm off tomorrow to Pune till Feb 20 and email may be
sporadic or non-existent. So can you discuss revised drafts with Keith and Tim,
but keep me on - lower down as I'm away. I'm here on Feb 21 then off to Chicago
to review the vertical temperature report for the NRC/NAS Feb 22-25.
Keep me on the emails in case email works well in Pune.
Cheers
Phil
At 23:35 10/02/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear Caspar, Gene, Scott, Phil,
I am attaching a response I've drafted to the Moberg et al paper (attached for those of
you who haven't seen it). The message is pretty clear and simple--their method
overemphasizes the low-frequency variability. To demonstrate this, I've made use of
stuff from Mann and Jones, and from the Mann/Rutherford/Wahl/Ammann J. Climate letter on
Pseudoproxies. So I would welcome any of you to be co-authors on this--just let me now
if you're interested. I've been in touch w/ Keith (he and Tim are potentially working on
their own independent response--waiting to hear further).
This is a very rough draft, so comments much appreciated.
Looking forward to hearing back,
Mike
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
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
[2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[3]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[4]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
[5]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
[6]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachMobergComment-final.doc"
References
1. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
2. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
3. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
4. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
5. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
6. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml