Alleged CRU Emails - 25 of Below Enter Keywords To

Alleged CRU Emails - 25 of below
Enter keywords to search
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.
t
Original Filename: 1031923640.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier

Emails | Later Emails
E
From: Tom Wigley To: Mike Hulme Subject: Re: Hadley Centre request for MAGICC
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 09:27:20 -0600 Cc: Gareth Jones , s.raper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Ben Santer
w
G
Gareth,
It seems to me, from reading your email, that you do not realize that this is
precisely what MAGICC/SCENGEN already does -- i.e., it uses the scaling method
that Ben Santer and I 'invented' in the late 1980s to get time dependent patterns
of future climate change. I am attaching a description of the method as we employ
i
it.
The current CDROM version uses only a SAR version of the UD-EBM. Of course, there
is a TAR version that Sarah used for the TAR, developed by me and Sarah -- but
mainly Sarah. This has not yet been put into MAGICC/SCENGEN, although I am in the
process of doing so (along with making a number of other changes to the software).
We do not normally give the code for TAR/MAGICC to others unless it is as part of
a collaborative project. As Mike Hulme noted, what we can do for/with you will
have to be a joint decision with me and Sarah.
h
The issue of how well scaling works compared with a full AOGCM is both important
and of considerable interest to me (and Ben Santer). It is something we have
looked at in the past, cursorily, and which we were planning to investigate more
fully with the suite of PCM runs that we have here. There are some tricky issues
that need to be addressed.
t
So, perhaps we should pool our intellectual, modelling and data resources?
S
Anyhow, check out the attached and get back to me with your views.
A
The 'new and improved version' of MAGICC/SCENGEN should be available in beta-test

form in about a month. It will have around 30 models in its data base, and it does
a lot of new things that I can tell you about later.
T
Tom.
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mike Hulme wrote: > > Gareth, > > Thank you for endowing me with the grand title
of co-ordinator of magic!! > > Such a position does not really exist here. The
model developers are Sarah > Raper and Tom Wigley, to whom I am copying this
reply, and it is the two of > them that really need to grant your request. > > My
role is more specifically in relation to the availability and > distribution of
the public domain version of MAGICC/SCENGEN Version 2.4 on > CD-ROM and the
accompanying manual. However, your request is really for > the TAR version of
MAGICC and even the source code and that request I > cannot grant. > > I would
hope that either/or Sarah and Tom will reply to you directly. > > Best wishes, > >
Mike > > At 11:54 13/09/02 +0100, you wrote: > >Dear Dr Hulme, > > I believe that
you are the MAGICC co-ordinator in the Climatic > > Research > >Unit. I hope you
can assist me with the following request. > > > > I would like to obtain a version
of the Magicc model that would allow > >the input of climate forcings (rather than
emission scenerios). > > > >I am in the detection and attribution group within the
Hadley Centre, Met > >Office. I am working with Dr Peter Stott and Dr John
Mitchell on a project > >that > >requires an EBM. > > > >What we want to use the
EBM for is to simulate global mean temperatures for > >different forcings which we
can then multiply with equilibrium temperature > >spatial patterns for the same
forcings to create surrogate transient time > >varying climate patterns. If the
surrogate patterns compare favourably > >with our > >HadCM3 simulations, we will
then want to investigate how the detection and > >attribution of climate change
(for the detection schemes we use) will be > >affected by uncertainties in the
forcings we use. We would like to use > >Magicc > >as it has been tuned already to
the HadCM3 anthropogenic emissions scenerios, > >and as a model used extensively
in the recent IPCC TAR would be most > >appropriate > >for our work. > > > >Would
it be possible to obtain a copy of MAGICC or can you tell me how I > >could > >go
about obtaining the model? > > > >Thanks in advance > >Gareth > > > >-- > >Dr
Gareth S. Jones Climate Research Scientist > >Met Office, Hadley Centre for
Climate Prediction and Research, > >London Road, Bracknell, RG12 2SY, UK
http://www.metoffice.com > >Tel/Fax: +44(0)1344 85 6903/4898
email:gareth.s.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxxContent-Type: x-msword; name="MAG-SG.doc"
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="MAG-SG.doc"
C
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachMAG-SG1.doc" Content-Type: x-msword;

name="SGFlowchart.doc" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="SGFlowchart.doc"
n
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachSGFlowchart1.doc"

A

E
From: Martin Welp To: gberz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ccarraro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,

baldur.eliasson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, juergen.engelhard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
bhare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, klaus.hasselmann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hourcade@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, SSinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, carlo.jaeger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
martin.welp@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: ECF: Monthly telephone conference (7 October)
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 19:00:02 +0200 Cc: tloster@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
anders.h.nordstrom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, e.l.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
O
Ottmar.Edenhofer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear member of the extended board

D
The next ECF telephone conference takes place on Monday, 7 October 2002 at 17-18
CET (Central European Time). The participants are:
C
Gerhard Berz 089-3891 5290 Carlo Carraro +39-335-6170 775 Baldur Eliasson +41-58-
586-8031 J?rgen Engelhard 0221-480 1460 Bill Hare 0331-288 2412 Klaus Hasselmann
04121-508 849 Jean-Charles Hourcade +33-1-43 94 73 63 Mike Hulme +44-1603-593162
Stephan Singer +32-2-74 38817 Carlo Jaeger 0331-288 2601 Martin Welp 0331-288 2619
Please check that your number is correct. If you want to be called at another
number please inform me by the end of this week. In case there are technical
problems at the beginning or during the conference please call the Deutsche
Telekom at +49-(0)69-90922723.
T
The agenda is as follows (it may be modified at the beginning of the meeting):
T
1 Minutes of the previous telephone conference (5 Min.) 2 Working groups (10 Min.)
3 Meetings & Events (15 Min.) - Report of the meeting with IEA (International
Energy Agency) - Report of the meeting with Vivendi Environnement Institute - ECF
general assembly (13 November) - ECF conference in Berlin (14-15 November) -
Workshop of the Technology Group in Oldenburg (12-13 December) 4 Next steps (15
Min.) 5 Varia (15 Min.)
Best regards, Martin Welp
-- NOTE NEW FAX NUMBER
Dr. Martin Welp Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) Dept. Global
Change and Social Systems P.O. Box 601203, 14412 Potsdam, Germany Tel. +49 331 288
2619 Fax +49 331 288 2640 E-mail: martin.welp@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Internet:
http://www.pik-potsdam.de http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~welp/index.html
http://www.European-Climate-Forum.net/

From: Keith Briffa To: Mike Salmon Subject: Fwd: Re: Polar Urals data Date: Fri
Oct 11 09:08:25 2002
I am forwarding this to stimulate you (no it's not one of those emails!) to
hassle me to check and update the tree-ring and my stuff on the web. Cheers
Keith
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:22:37 -0400
From: Leonid Polyak
Subject: Re: Polar Urals data
X-Sender: lpolyak@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: Keith Briffa
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32)
Got it! Note that there appears to be an error in the explanation for the
data file: Polar Ural data are f2, not f1 (as far as I can judge).
Thank you,
Leonid
>
>Leonid
>see [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/qsr1999/
>The data (and other possibly interesting data are available there) .
>Best wishes
>Keith
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa[3]/
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/qsr1999/
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

From: Phil Jones To: Tom Wigley Subject: Re: T data Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002
15:50:07 +0000 Cc: Ben Santer ,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Tom,
Talked to Tim re the SD field. Can you read the following (J. Climate 10, 2548-
2568)
before you come so you know how Tim infilled the SD field ? HadCM2 data was used.
This would seem to bias any model validation to this model. Also it would seem odd
t
to
validate any model in a region where there is no data - in a region that had to be
i
infilled.
I can see that global fields make things simpler, but they will need to
constructed in
c
the best possible way. In 1997 we thought the best way was to use a model, but our
a
aim
then was different from yours.

t
C
Cheers
P
Phil
At 06:04 28/10/02 -0700, Tom Wigley wrote: >Phil, > >Thanx. I need to see if CMIP
has the height fields for models --- >Ben???? > >Tom. >
>_______________________________ > >Phil Jones wrote: > > > > Tom, > > Here's the
file that you should have got back in September. It is > > 1981-2000 where this >
> could be calculated and 1961-90 elsewhere. The other fields (already > > sent)
enable you to > > know where the 1961-90 field has been used. > > All you need to
overcome the problem of this being surface > > temperatures is to get a > > 5 by 5
degree average height field. I have emailed Mark New to see if he > > has a 1 by 1
degree > > height field, which could then be averaged. Mark must have had this at
> > some stage - he > > has a 10 minute height field for the world, which I'm sure
he has > > degraded to 1 degree. I > > have a land/sea mask at 1 by 1 degree, so
am hoping Mark has the heights. > > With this > > all you will need is the model
height fields. > > As for the SD's it would be possible to produce this for a
period > > like 1981-2000 or 1961-90 > > but both would have gaps - probably
exactly the same as in the > > climatology. The options > > to consider here are:
> > > > 1. Period 1981-2000 or 1961-90? > > 2. How many years in each needed to
get an SD? > > 3. How to infill the gaps? > > > > Tim Osborn must have infilled
the gaps for the errors paper in 1997 as we > > needed a complete > > field of
variances. He did this by blending some model data > > (HadCM2/ECHAM3 probably) >
> with the real observations. Most areas get infilled easily - big problem > > is
the Southern Oceans > > and the Antarctic (also central Arctic). I will talk to
Tim. > > > > We can discuss this more when you come. > > > > Cheers > > Phil > > >
> PS I should have some results from Anders by the time you come. He is > >
comparing means/ > > SDs and extremes etc of HadRM3 with real world data from 200
sites across > > Europe. Only > > temperature variables in the first part. Clearly
shows that for > > islands/coasts comparisons > > must be with land points in the
model. We've had to 'move' some stations > > to be on model > > land to get better
comparisons. Islands that are not in the model have > > poor comparisons. > > It
is possible to see country outlines in some comparisons with either > > max or min
> > temperatures. Corrections for elevation are needed to get over large > >
elevational differences > > between stations and the model, but the Alps are still
visible. Lapse > > rates work best only > > in some seasons - not very good in
summer. Max temps produce consistent > > difference maps > > (model-obs) over
Europe, but mins are more erratic/random. Min error is > > overall small but > >
with a large variability while max has a larger error but low > > variability. Due
to mins being more > > affected by local environment. > > > > At 09:13 27/10/02
-0700, Tom Wigley wrote: > > >Phil, > > > > > >Re my last email .... > > > > > >I
have looked at the data you sent. It would be very nice to have a > > >gapless
1981-2000 T climatology to match the Xie/Arkin precip > > >climatology. However,
this means somehow filling in the gaps in the > > >61-90 minus 81-00 differences,
a nontrivial task. So my choice in the > > >absence of this is either a gappy 81-
00, or a full 61-90. I have chosen > > >the latter -- perhaps we can discuss how
to produce a gapless 81-00 > > >climatology when I am at CRU? > > > > > >A problem
with the 61-90 is that it is surface, and that observed > > >surface is not equal
to model surface. I'm sure you have thought about > > >this (in the model
validation context) already, so this is another item > > >to discuss. > > > > >
>For precip, I also have the inter-annual S.D. climatology, so I can > > >validate
both the mean climate and the variability. Very interesting. It > > >would be nice
to be able to do this with temperature (especially since > > >the mean climate for
temperature in the models is pretty darn good -- > > >but how good is
variability?) Is there an S.D. climatology for > > >temperature that you can send
me? > > > > > >Cheers, Tom. > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > > Climatic Research Unit
Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0)
1603 507784 > > University of East Anglia > > Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> > NR4 7TJ > > UK > > >
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >
Name: newabsref8100.out > > newabsref8100.out Type: Plain Text (text/plain) > >
Encoding: base64
Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of
Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich
Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx NR4 7TJ UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Phil Jones To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Fwd: Re: paleo data Date:
Fri, 01 Nov 2002 15:28:05 +0000
X-Sender: hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 09:56:45 -0500
To: Phil Jones
From: Gabi Hegerl
Subject: Re: paleo data
No worries, I can wait till next week!
It would be great to hear from you next week particularly if you
feel I have overlooked something, I am planning to submit a little
GRL paper on the detection results based on paleodata soon, and so a warning
if I am doing something wrong would be great.
Its not surprising that the detection results are stable, since other than
volcanic
forcing is mainly driven by the low-f component anyway.
But it looks to me like the volcanic response is not smaller or even a bit larger
in the
annual JGR data (except for one real real big peak in
the 1998 data).
Greetings, have a good weekend and good luck for Keith's back
Gabi
Gabi,
I have printed the files, but I do not know the answer. Keith is off today with a
bad back -
seeing a chiropractor. I need to talk to him before we can reply. I will be away
Mon/Tues
next week, so we will not be able to reply until later next week.
Cheers
Phil
At 11:27 31/10/02 -0500, Gabi Hegerl wrote:
Dear Keith and Phil,
I checked and found that we did indeed use the JGR 2001 data (by reloading them
from your JGR data file). I also got the
1998 data from the volcano paper, and did some checking. My detection results
appear quite unimpressed by if I filter the 2001 data to focus on lower
frequencies or not (the estimated amplitudes of solar, volcanic and ghg signals
are virtually identical, volcanism gets a bit tougher to detect if you remove
the high-frequency component).
Then I redid the Epoch analysis comparing the

response of your data old and new to volcanism, and find somewhat bigger volcanic
signals on average (using 50 eruptions between 1400 and 1940) in the

s
JGR paper record. I high-passed both datasets and get somewhat more variability
J
in the JGR record, not the 1998 record.

i
I am wondering is there something I am overlooking?
I append a figure of the high-passed (var > ca 10 yrs removed) records,
and the volcanic response in both datasets (averaging years 1-20 after the
e
eruption,
and removing the best-estimate solar and ghg signal before the analysis).
a
The analysis omits years with another volcanic eruption within the 20 yrs.
T
I also append one version of the figure where the upper 95%ile of the ghg signal
(
(which
appears underestimated in Briffa 98 data) is removed rather than the

a
best estimate, in that case, the volcanic signals in both data appear nearly
b
i
identical.
Greetings, and please let me know if I am doing something wrong with your data!
G
Also, what is the best reference to a discussion on the difference between both
A
d
datasets?
Thanks in advance
T
G
Gabi
Dear Tom
D
after a little detective work we have deduced that the data sent to you constitute
a
version of Northern Hemisphere Land temperatures (april- sept) produced by PCA

v
regression using regional average density chronologies (ie the JGR paper you
refereed I
r
believe). It is true that high frequency component is not in my opinion optimal in
describing the relative magnitude of extreme inter-annual extremes. This is to do

w
with
the unpredictable weighting ascribed to certain areas (tree-density series) in the

averaging of the original raw data ( this is boring and I won't go into it unless
y
you
really want me to). Te relative differences in year-to-year values are likely

b
better
represented in the N.Hemisphere series produced by averaging regional series

p
produced
using a different approach in which the initial data are high-pass filtered and
t
then
merged in a more straight forward way. This is more equivalent to the series on
v
volcanic
signals described in our Nature paper, though the low-frequency component in this
s
series
is definitely not represented. There is another series , that one could consider a
g
good
compromise . That is a composite of the Age-Banding approach (JGR) low-frequency

c
variance added to the earlier (Nature) high-frequency component. We did this for
F
Figure
6 in the JGR paper , but did not provide the data on our web site I now realize.
H
However
this composite series is VERY highly correlated with the "better" high frequency
data -
d
see the correlations (Table 1 and related text in

s
[
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/jgr2001/Briffa2001.pdf
There are many possible ways of producing a "Northern Hemisphere" average ,

i
involving
different prior regionalisation and secondary weighting (in space and through
time) of
t
the constituent series) . Non can be considered "correct". If you would like us to
d
dig
out the composite series or discuss specific aspects of the logic or uncertainties
associated with the different large averages let me know. Perhaps it would be
better to
b
discuss this on the phone? As for longer series , we can provide the 2000 year
d
N.Eurasian data (a composite of ring width chronologies in N.Sweden, The Yamal

N
peninsula, and Taimyr ) . I will soon be able to provide a 4000-year version ,

that is
t
now being worked on.

or a similar Northern tree-ring chronology incorporating more data eg see
o
[
[2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/qsr1999/
We do not have the bristlecone data - but they are available I presume from the
W
International Tree-Ring Data bank , part of the NGDC holdings?

I
At 02:29 PM 10/1/02 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:

A
T
Tom,
Been away and going again tomorrow. Had a chat with Keith and Tim and one of them
will send a reply and data later this week.

w
C
Cheers
P
Phil
At 11:28 26/09/02 -0400, Tom Crowley wrote:

A
Hi Phil,
H
thanks for all your help on the bams paper

t
DOE is being exceedingly slow in processing the paperwork for our new round - I
w
will
keep you posted.

k
I am also wondering whether we can get some data from you:
Gabi is comparing our 2d ebm run with the briffa et al 2001 jgr time series in
order to
o
compare the model prediction of - I think you mentioned at one point something to
t
the
effect that, although this series is good for estimating low resolution
t
temperature
variability, it may dampen high frequency variability. if my memory is correct in

t
this
case, would you please send gabi the record you consider best for comparing with
t
the
model predicted interannual response to volcanic eruptions?

m
on another matter we are extending our runs back in time - I have now compiled a
r
record
of global volcanism back to 4000 BP for both hemispheres - extended back to 8000
BP for
B
30-90N. we are therefore trying to compile paleo records older than AD 1000 to at
l
least
get some reconstruction we can compare with.

g
I seem to recall that Keith or you may have published some longer reconstructionn
b
but
cannot recall where it is? if so, would you be so kind as to send it to me? also I
a
am
trying to find a long record from the eastern California for the bristlecone pine
- for
some reason I am having difficulty finding one. if you have a long record - even
g
going
back beyond 2000 BP, it would be very much appreciated.

b
thanks for any help you can give us on this and best wishes, Tom
t
-
--
Thomas J. Crowley
T
Nicholas Professor of Earth Systems Science

N
Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences

D
Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences

N
Box 90227
B
103 Old Chem Building

1
Duke University
D
Durham, NC 27708
D
t
tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
9
919-681-8228
919-684-5833 fax
9
Prof. Phil Jones

P
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090

C
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784

S

U
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
N
NR4 7TJ
N
U
UK
-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
--

P

C

U

N
Phone: +44-1603-593909
P
Fax: +44-1603-507784
F
[
[3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
-
--
~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gabriele Hegerl - NOTE CHANGE IN ADDRESS FORMAT

G
Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences,

D
Nicholas School for the Environment,

N
Box 90227
B
Duke University, Durham NC 27708

D
Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833

P
email: hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [4]http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html

e
Prof. Phil Jones

P

C

S

U
N
NR4 7TJ
N
U
UK
-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
--
~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gabriele Hegerl - NOTE CHANGE IN ADDRESS FORMAT

G
Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences,

D
Nicholas School for the Environment,

N
Box 90227
B

D
Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833

P

e
Prof. Phil Jones

P

C

S

U

N
NR4 7TJ
N
U
UK
-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
R
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/jgr2001/Briffa2001.pdf
1
2
3
4. http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html
4
5

E
From: Keith Briffa To: Leonid Polyak Subject: Re: Polar Urals data Date: Wed Nov 6
08:58:06 2002
0
The delay again is simply because I was away for 2 days. Attached are the data you
w
want.
First number is number of years of record, followed by

F
(in first column) year A.D. and (in second column) the numbers you want . Ignore
o
other
columns. Cheers
c
K
Keith
At 02:58 PM 11/5/02 -0500, you wrote:

A
K
Keith,
To keep you informed about the use of your Salekhard data, I attach the MS
T
which I'm submitting to The Holocene. I've referred to your papers of 1995
w
and 2000. If you'd like me to add more acknowledgement of your data, let me
a
know and I'll gladly do that.

k
S
Sincerely,
L
Leonid
Leonid Polyak
L
-
--------------
Byrd Polar Research Center

B
Ohio State University

O
1090 Carmack Rd., Columbus, OH 43210

1
614-292-2602, fax 614-292-4697

6
[
[1]http://polarmet.mps.ohio-state.edu/GeologyGroup/polyak.htm
>
>Leonid
>see [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/qsr1999/
>
>The data (and other possibly interesting data are available there) .
>
>Best wishes
>
>
>Keith
-
--

P

C

U

N
Phone: +44-1603-593909
P
Fax: +44-1603-507784
F
[
R
References
1. http://polarmet.mps.ohio-state.edu/GeologyGroup/polyak.htm
1
2
3
4

E
From: "Ronald M. Lanner" To: ITRDBFOR@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: The Great Controversy

Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 21:36:16 -00 Reply-to: grissino@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
D
Dear Forumites -- Since I am neither a dendrochronologist nor a tree physiologist,

I have a
different take on this little brushfire we have going. Ideally, tree phys people
should be
s
producing information (among other things) that dendrochronologists find useful.

And
dendrochronologists should use the information within its limits and with enough
d
understanding to get it right. I don't think either of those things is occurring

with as
w
much frequency as we would all like. I can understand Rod's annoyance at the
massaging of
m
numerical data that dendrochronologists do. I am basically a non-mathematical

b
biologist
mystified by such stuff, and I prefer handling measurements to deriving indices,

o
or
whatever. When I run up against such derived data, I generally turn skeptical,
because I
b
cannot verify the results from my own experience or intuition. On the other hand,
when I
w
read papers by cambial physiologists like Rod I also get annoyed. That's because
my biology
m
wants to integrate upwards, and all I get from cambial labs is biochemistry. So
I'm in the
I
middle, where it gets lonely. I try not to get mad at anybody, though I do wish I
d
didn't
find myself alone on the margins.

f
I find it frustrating that some dendrochronologists stubbornly see tree ring
characteristics as being affected by climate. They are not. They are affected by
c
cambial
activity. Cambial activity is affected by internalities of tree behavior, mainly

h
hormonal
and nutrient fluxes in the crown. Those things are largely influenced by climatic
f
factors.
So there is quite a bit of slack between the climatic factor and the ring
c
characteristic.
Is this just negligible static? I doubt it. I see this as an oversight by

I
dendrochronologists that weakens their credibility a tad among those knowledgable

a
about
tree growth. I also have a quarrel with the dogma of dendrochology that the
cambium changes
c
as the tree becomes senescent. I know of no data that trees senesce -- that is,
that they
undergo changes due solely to aging. This started as forestry dogma, and was
accepted by
a
tree-ringers, who then corrected for it. I'm practically the only one who has
t
systematically looked for evidence of senescence (with a Ph.D. student), and we

could not
c
find any in young to ancient bristlecones. But tree physiologists do not generally
look at
l
such issues because they have become progressively more reductionist. Nor do they
try to
t
produce a theory of tree growth based, as it must be, on evolutionary theory. Such
a theory
would be simple and general, and it would allow tree-ringers to approach rings
with more
w
sympathy and understanding. That might not get you further, but it would improve
y
your
character, I'm certain. And it would put all that assorted mishmash of tree phys
data that
d
have accumulated since 19th century Germany into a context at last, and maybe
liberate the
l
minds of all those tense physiologists out there with their ever-increasing
inventories of
i
electronic sensors and analyzers. The world would be a better place with more
people having
p
fun in the woods. ---Ronald M. Lanner

f
--- [1]pinetree30@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
-
--- EarthLink: It's your Internet.

-
R
References
1. mailto:pinetree30@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
1

E
From: John Ogden To: ITRDBFOR@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re: Fwd: History and trees
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:15:25 +1300 Reply-to: grissino@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
D
Dear Professor Savidge, Hal Fritts's comments were, as always, to the point and
gracious. I have much less patience with your ignorance and arrogance. The
sampling and statistical procedures involved in the production of a cross-dated
chronology are of course quite different to those used in a randomised experiment,
but they are none-the-less logical, rigorous, science. We have been through all
those arguments so many times - you are wasting everyone's time. John Ogden.
t
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:16:20 -0700 "Harold C. Fritts" wrote:

O
> Dear Ron, > I respectfully disagree with you. We have reached out to you many
times > and find little but judgmental response. I have worked with this group >
for many years now and they are just as exact scientists as you. They > are
interested in what the tree tells us about the earth and its history > and not as
interested and experienced as you in how the tree works. I > agree with you to the
extent that we must understand how the tree works > but I fear you have "created
the reality that dendrochronologists are > stupid and beneath your greatness" and
that it will not ever change. > > People like you in the past such as Waldo Glock
and Sampson at Berkley, > CA made similar statements. When I was a young man, I
set out trying to > examine their criticism objectively with both physiological >
investigations and statistical analysis. I found that these criticisms > could be
met with data from solid physiological tests and even though > those practicing
the science at that time were astronomers, not > physiologists. There are talented
and insightful people in other > sciences outside of plant physiology. > > I am
sorry for all of our sakes. as the future holds many possibilities > with many
experts contributing to the future of science. If you could > only get outside the
judgmental ideas that you hold about us, I think > you might be very surprised and
pleased. > > Yes, I think many in this group oversimplify the response of the
tree, > but in the same way you oversimplify the practice of dendrochronology. >
We all have much to learn from each other, but calling each other names > doesn't
further anyone's science. > > I believe science is embarking on a course of
greater cooperation among > different disciplines. This implies respect and
cooperation in both > directions. We welcome your interest in dendrochronology but
are > saddened that you have so little respect for our integrity and honesty. > It
would be more appreciated if we could together work for a better > future, not
just quarrel, call each other names and delve on what is > wrong with the past. >
> Sincerely, Regretfully and Lovingly, > Hal Fritts > > P.S. > One other comment
to my fellow scientists. I agree with Frank that I > have made only a start at
understanding the basis for tree ring > formation. It will take much more work in
physiology and modeling. In > current discussions and debates on the importance of
physiology and > process modeling in dendrochronology, understanding plant
processes > often takes secondary impotence in the eyes of many >
dendrochronologists. I think this will change because I believe in the > integrity
of my colleagues, but I sometimes wonder how long this will > take. I had at one
time hoped that I might see it happen. We can > answer such criticism, but not
until we investigate further how the tree > responds to its environment and how
the tree lays down layers of cells > we call the tree ring. Physiologists outside
dendrochronology have > little inclination to do it for us as this message
reveals. We can and > must do it ourselves by including, welcoming and funding
physiological > investigation in tree-ring research. > HCF > > > Rod Savidge
wrote: > > > > To the Editor, New York Times > > > Indeed, its activities > >
include subjective interpretations of what does and what does not > > constitute
an annual ring, statistical manipulation of data to fulfill > > subjective
expectations, and discarding of perfectly good data sets when > > they contradict
other data sets that have already been accepted. Such > > massaging of data cannot
by any stretch of the imagination be considered > > science; it merely
demonstrates a total lack of rigor attending so-called > > dendrochronology
"research". > > > > I would add that it is the exceptionally rare
dendrochronologist who has > > ever shown any inclination to understand the
fundamental biology of wood > > formation, either as regulated intrinsically or
influenced by extrinsic > > factors. The science of tree physiology will readily
admit that our > > understanding of how trees make wood remains at quite a
rudimentary state > > (despite several centuries of research). On the other hand,
there are many > > hundreds, if not thousands, of publications by
dendrochronologists > > implicitly claiming that they do understand the biology of
wood formation, > > as they have used their data to imagine when past regimes of
water, > > temperature, pollutants, CO2, soil nutrients, and so forth existed.
Note > > that all of the counts and measurements on tree rings in the world cannot
> > substantiate anything unequivocally; they are merely observations. It > >
would be a major step forward if dendrochronology could embrace the > > scientific
method. > > > > sincerely, > > RA Savidge, PhD > > Professor, Tree
Physiology/Biochemistry > > Forestry & Environmental Management > > University of
New Brunswick > > Fredericton, NB E3B 6C2 > > > > >X-Sieve: cmu-sieve 2.0 > > >X-
Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 > > >Importance: Normal > > >Date: Tue,
12 Nov 2002 23:24:03 -0500 > > >Reply-To: grissino@xxxxxxxxx.xxx > > >Sender:
ITRDB Dendrochronology Forum > > >From: "David M. Lawrence" > > >Subject: History
and trees > > >Comments: To: scitimes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx > > >To:
ITRDBFOR@xxxxxxxxx.xxx > > > > > >I was rather horrified by the inaccurate
statements about tree-ring > > >dating that you allowed to slip into print in the
interview with Thomas > > >Pakenham today. Tree-ring science is an exact science
-- none of the > > >data obtained from tree rings would be useful if the dates
were > > >inaccurate. Dendrochronologists don't say much these days about how old
> > >trees are because they are interested in more important questions -- > >
>such as "What can the tree rings tell us about our planet's past?" > > > > > >You
at The New York Times should know something about tree rings. A > > >check on
Lexis-Nexis shows that since 1980 you have run more than 100 > > >stories in which
the words "tree rings" appear in full text. Some of > > >the stories are
irrelevant. But most are not, such as the July 13, > > >2002, story in which you
misspell the name of Neil Pederson at > > >Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, or
the March 26, 2002, story about a > > >medieval climate warming detected in tree-
ring data. I do not remember > > >tree-ring dating being labeled an "inexact"
science in stories like > > >that. > > > > > >Did Walter Sullivan, who wrote a
story about tree rings and drought on > > >September 2, 1980, ever question the
"exact" nature of tree-ring dating? > > >He didn't seem to question it on June 7,
1994, when he wrote a story > > >about ash from Santorini and said that the ash
cloud may have "persisted > > >long enough to stunt the growth of oak trees in
Irish bogs and of > > >bristlecone pines in the White Mountains of California,
producing > > >tightly packed tree rings." You really do have to know when those
rings > > >were laid down before you can associate them with a specific volcanic >
> >eruption. > > > > > >I tell you what. I am a member of the National Association
of Science > > >Writers as well as a working dendrochronologist and occasionally
paid-up > > >member of the Tree-Ring Society. If you feel the need for a refresher
> > >course on tree-ring dating, I'll be more than happy to try to introduce > >
>you to knowledgeable practioners in you neighborhood, such as Neil > > >Pederson
(not Peterson) at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. (It's > > >actually a local
phone call for youse guys.) > > > > > >Sincerely, > > > > > >Dave Lawrence > > > >
> >------------------------------------------------------ > > > David M. Lawrence
| Home: (804) 559-9786 > > > 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 > > >
Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: dave@xxxxxxxxx.xxx > > > USA | http:
http://fuzzo.com > > >------------------------------------------------------ > > >
> > >"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo > > > > > >"No trespassing > >
> 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan > > -- > Harold C. Fritts, Professor
Emeritus, Lab. of Tree-Ring Research > University of Arizona/ Owner of DendroPower
> 5703 N. Lady Lane, Tucson, AZ 85704-3905 > Ph Voice: (520) 887 7291 >
http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/~hal
---------------------- John Ogden j.ogden@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

From: Ben Santer To: Tim Osborn Subject: Re: CRU strategic review Date: Tue, 19
Nov 2002 10:19:25 -0800
Dear Tim,
I'm really sorry I've been so slow in responding to your request for input to the
CRU strategic review. Life has been rather hectic over the past few months. I hope
to send you my response to your questionnaire by no later than the end of this
month. Would that still be o.k?
Cheers,
Ben ===========================================================================
Tim Osborn wrote: > > Dear Ben, > > I've not had time to speak with Phil recently,
so I don't know how things > are with you at the moment, work-wise and home-wise.
But I hope all is > well. The (rather formal, sorry) message below is a follow-up
to a > letter/questionnaire that I sent in the summer. It would certainly be good
> to obtain your input, so if you have time...! > > Cheers > > Tim > >
-------------------------------- > Dear Dr. Santer > > I wrote to you in the
summer in my role as leader of the Climatic Research > Unit's (CRU) strategic
review team, as part of an exercise to obtain > external input to our review
process. This exercise was reasonably > successful, with a 45% response rate.
Despite this response rate, there > are still some gaps in the "categories" that
we hoped to obtain input > from. We have analysed the responses, together with our
own internal > assessments, and are now looking to fill in some of the remaining
gaps. > > I am contacting you again in the hope that you might be able to assist
us > in our review process, via the attached questionnaire. As stated in my >
original letter, we are aware that this process is primarily for our > benefit,
rather than yours, so we greatly appreciate any time that you > could spend in
assisting our review. > > Some respondents said that they would prefer to have
received an electronic > version of the questionnaire, and so I have decided to
attach a Microsoft > Word document containing the questionnaire that I sent to you
in the summer. > > If you have any questions about the review process, or would
prefer to > provide your opinions over the telephone, then please phone me on
01603 > 592089. We will be grateful for whatever level of input you feel able to >
provide. > > Best regards > > Tim > > [Dr. Tim Osborn, Chair of Strategic Review
Team] > >
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >
Name: questions for Santer.doc > questions for Santer.doc Type: Microsoft Word
Document (application/msword) > Encoding: base64 > > Part 1.3Type: Plain Text
(text/plain)
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCMDI HAS MOVED TO A NEW BUILDING. NOTE CHANGE OF MAIL CODE!
Benjamin D. Santer Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103 Livermore, CA
94550, U.S.A. Tel: (925) 422-7638 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "L.B. Klyashtorin" To: "Keith Briffa" Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: Reconstruction
etc. Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 00:01:30 +0300
Dear Keith,
Do not be embarassed. This situation is very humorous and I am very
glad to smile. It happens.
Thank you very much for your time series.
I would like to analyse specta characteristics of summer temperatures ( your
series) and winter temperature series using Dansgaard's time series for
the same period ( since 550s). It seems to me the temperature data of Arctic basin
is
the
most pronounced indices illustrating of long term climate oscillations.
Best wishes
Leonid
----- Original Message -----
From: [1]Keith Briffa
To: [2]L.B. Klyashtorin
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: Reconstruction etc.
I am very embarrassed as I have just realized I sent the data (a couple of weeks
ago at
least !) to the wrong person (someone called Leonid Polyak ) by mistake. He wanted
polar Urals data. I now attach the file with the Nature temperature
reconstruction.
First number is the number of values , then subsequent lines contain the date in
the
first column (years AD) and the anomalies in the second (as described in the
paper).
Sorry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Keith
At 10:45 PM 11/18/02 +0300, you wrote:
Dear Keith,
I apologise for persistens but I really need in the time series I requested from
you
and I will very grateful to you for these materials which you so kind promised
send to
me .
I hope receive it from you yet, although I have not reply from you to my two last
messages.
Yours sincerely
Leonid Klyashtorin
From: [3]L.B. Klyashtorin
To: [4]Keith Briffa
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Reconstruction etc.
Dear Keith,
I apologize for disturbing you but I did not received the data you promised to
send
me yet.
I would be very grateful to you for these time series.
Using your kind permission (from October 22) to remind you if these date do not
arrive
I hope to receive it from you....
Sorry for inconveniences and thank you in advance
Leonid
From: [5]Keith Briffa
To: [6]L.B. Klyashtorin

Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Reconstruction etc.
Leonid
Sorry not to respond
I will search out the tree-ring series (ring width and density ) and the numbers
for the
reconstruction and send them as soon as I can get to it. Remind me in a couple of
days
if they do not arrive. Cheers
Keith
At 02:17 PM 10/22/02 +0400, you wrote:
Dear Dr Briffa,
Unfortunately I did not receive reply on my first message sent to your address
by October 8.
I apologize for disturbing you again but I will be very grateful to you
for sending me the address of web site where I can find the data of tree ring
reconstruction of the summer temperature.
I also very interested in receiving data published in one of your et al. old
paper:
"A 1400 year tree ring record of summer temperature in Fennoscandia,1990,

Nature.vol
346, 2 August 1990."
The time series of Pinus silvestris published at Fig 2 a is very interesting for
my
work on the dynamics
climate-linked fisheries of Northern Hemisphere.
I would be very grateful to you for your reply.

Best regards
Leonid Klyashtorin
From: [7]L.B. Klyashtorin
To: [8]Briffa Keith R.
Subject: Fw: Reconstruction etc.
I am Leonid Klyashtorin from Federal Institute for Fisheries and
Oceanography (VNIRO),Moscow,Russia.
The last 6 monthes I was National Research Council Senior
Associate and worked as Visiting Scientist in the
Pacific Fisheries Environmental Laboratory (PFEL),
NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Monterey , CA on the item "Climate and Fisheries".
My paper "Climate change and long -term fluctuations of commercial
catches:the possibility of forecasting" published recently as a separate
broshure, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No 410,
pp 86, 2001, and is rather popular among fisheries specialists.
It gives insight of world major fisheries dynamics and contains
forecast to the next 10-20 years. ( the Abstract is attached, PDF file of
all paper also is available)
I have read of your and T. Osborn very interesting and so useful paper
"Blowing Hot asnd Cold.." in Science, v.295.,2002.
Your results clearly shows that main conception

of IPCC experts about unicity of Global Warming events in
20-century is erroneous and now the additional data appear on the natural
long term cyclic climate change at least for the last 2000 years .
My work on the "Climate - Fisheries" connected with questions of Climate
Change and ,naturely, touches of Global Warming Problem.
Me and my colleague from Institute of Physics of the Earth of Russian
Academie of Science recently submitted our paper "On the coherence
between dynamics of the world fuel consumption and global temperature
anomaly". in the International Journal " Natrural Hazards" .
The paper is now under reviewing. (The Abstract is attached.)
Now me and a few my collegues from US are in process of writiing
book dedicated of Climate- Fisheries problem and we would like use
the data on the tree -rings anlysis showing cyclic character of
long-term climate changes.
I will be very grateful to you for receiving
from you ( if possible) the time series of annual reconstructed
temperature anomaly from Figure (Esper02) and address of website,
where these data are available.
Thank you in
advance
Best regards
Leonid Klyashtorin
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
References
1. mailto:k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:klyashtorin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

From: Clare Goodess To:

j.palutikof@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,d.viner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: UK Research Office - FP6 Proposal Writing for
Researchers Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 18:34:49 +0000 Cc: j.darch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear all
I went to this meeting in London yesterday - which was useful. Julie will
photocopy my
notes/the overheads for you some time this week (if she doesnt have time, I'll do
it when I
get back next week). In the meantime, here are my main impressions/thoughts from
the
meeting. (Incidentally, Alex Haxeltine was due to go from UEA, but didnt turn up.
Not sure
who the other UEA people were! There was no list of participants.) Maybe we should
get
together (next week some time?) once you've had chance to look at some of this.
The Commission (EC) seems to be favouring smaller projects, e.g., typically 10

million
Euro. Though it is up to proposers to define the necessary 'critical mass'.
UKRO seem quite wary of Networks of Excellence (NoE), e.g., warning of potential
conflicts
of interest with institutions. As with projects, smaller size seems to be in

favour. An
UKRO analysis suggests an NoE of 150-400 researchers would maximise the amount of
money
received per researcher.
Research activities can now be funded in NoE (the EC has changed its mind on this
in the
last month), but only if focused on integration.
The EC wont be proposing indicators of integration for NoE - the proposals should
explain
how this will be 'measured'.
Consortium quality seems to be an important concern for the EC, i.e., having the
right
people for the job and ensuring everyone has a clear role. In our rush to get a
'critical
mass', I'm concerned that the GENIE consortium may appear too much as 'all our
friends'.
One possible strategy which UKRO seemed to think quite good for people, would be
to put in
a proposal from 6-8 key partners, indicating for which activities additional
partners will
be brought in at appropriate points. The EC will be providing formal procedures

for these
'internal project' calls.
It is unlikely that the new online proposal preparation tool will be ready for the
first
call, but electronic submission (on CD) should be possible. Any paper submissions
will be
scanned.
Evaluation will be by electronic means initially, with possibility of proposers

(and
evaluators?) being invited to hearings in Brussels prior to panel meetings.
No signatures are required for the proposals (though a password/username will be

required
by co-ordinators to access the online system). Some institutions/consortia are

apparently
drawing up pre-consortia agreements or letters of intent/memorandum of

understanding.
The guide for proposers is currently only in very rough draft.

There will be a second 'EOI' type exercise at the end of 2003/early 2004. This
could lead
to changes in the indicative themes for 2004.
UKRO is not keen on UK institutions using consultants for project management - we

should be
building our own capacity.
Proposals should be written for the informed lay person. It is best if they are
not
obviously written by one person - better to show joint effort/co-ordination at an

early
stage.
Redundancy costs (i.e., costs of implementing the new fixed-term regulations) can
be
included for research staff.
The EC aims to audit all FP6 projects (because there will be fewer of them).
Recognition of the ERA and policy links will be important for the EC. (The ERA
includes
references to developing long-term careers for research staff and increasing the
involvement of women - so maybe we should be thinking of some activities to

address these
issues.)
IPR will be an important issue in FP6 - need to get expert advice (e.g., what
happens if
consortium changes over course of project).
Consortium agreements will be compulsory.
The proposal forms (for IPs anyway) are relatively simple, e.g., only need to cost
four
different types of activity.
Clare
Dr Clare Goodess

Norwich
NR4 7TJ
UK
Tel: +44 -1603 592875
Fax: +44 -1603 507784
Web: [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
Editor "Climate Research" ([2]http://www.int-res.com/journals/cr/)
Southern Africa crisis appeal: [3]http://dec.londonweb.net/appeal/
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
2. http://www.int-res.com/journals/cr/
3. http://dec.londonweb.net/appeal/

From: Eystein Jansen To: Laurent Labeyrie , Keith Alverson , Keith Briffa , Rick
Battarbee , didier.paillard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Dominique Raynaud , jean jouzel ,
Chappellaz Jerome , Gerald Ganssen , Jean Marc Barnola , Ralph Schneider Subject:
FP6 - NoE Dynamics of Climate Changes (DOCC) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 10:17:31 +0100
Cc: martin.miles@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, b.balino@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear friends,
I assume many of you have followed the development of the work programme for FP6,
which have been quite dramatic at times for our field. The end result is not
particularly good, and the whole area of Global Change has been cut by comparuison
with FP5. I talked with Anver Ghazi last week, and what I know stems from this and
from the Nov. 18 version of the work programme. The will be no opening for climate
dynamics in the first call (Dec. 17). The second call due in June /July with a
deadline in October 2003 will include some paleoclimate openings: - STREPS for
novel paleoreconstructions methods (i.e. a few of the normal projects of previous
FPs) - but remember: 75% of funding goes to New Instruments: Integrated Projects
and NoEs). - Hot spots in the climate system, including the thermohaline
circulation and the Arctic.
Brussels will not issue anything now about the thrird call, but according to Ghazi
they plan to invite for either an NoE or an IP in climate dynamics with emphasis
on past climate change at that point. Call will be in 2004. But things can change
with this call. Thus we have quite some time to discuss if we shall go forward
with DOCC or go for IP. The overall size of the IPs have been substantially
reduced, so if we try an IP or an NoE either will need to be more focussed in
terms of science and in terms of partnership than our Expression of interest.
Ceers,
Eystein -- ______________________________________________________________ Eystein

Jansen Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and Dep. of
Geology, Univ. of Bergen All?gaten 55 N-5007 Bergen NORWAY e-mail:
eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 Fax: +47-
55-584330 ----------------------- The Bjerknes Training site offers 3-12 months
fellowships to PhD students More info at: www.bjerknes.uib.no/mcts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Andy McLeod" To: "Mike Hulme" , Subject: Climate Change Funding in Scotland
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 15:09:24 -0000
Dear John and Mike
It was over two years ago that we first briefly discussed the opportunity to
develop climate change research funding in Scotland using a grant to HEI's from
the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council (SHEFC). My Centre, CECS, has been
successful with such grants in the past. Last year there were no such grants but
the opportunity has now arisen again. The funding is quite large (0.5 - 1.5
million over up to 4 years). With support from the three main agencies in Scotland
I am keen to develop such a research proposal and will be entering the internal
competition (within the University) shortly.
I am keen to develop a strong link/cooperation with the Tyndall Centre and I would
like to explore ways in which this might be achieved. Last week I believe that you
were busy with your Advisory Board. I would be very keen to talk with you on the
phone about this as soon as possible. Please let me know if there is a suitable
time when I might phone or feel free to contact me.
Best wishes
Andy
E-mail from:
Dr Andy McLeod Director Centre for the study of Environmental Change and
Sustainability (CECS) The University of Edinburgh John Muir Building The Kings
Buildings Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JK Scotland
Tel: 0131 650 5434 (direct) Tel: 0131 650 4866 (office) Fax: 0131 650 7214 E-mail:
andy.mcleod@xxxxxxxxx.xxx http://www.cecs.ed.ac.uk/

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Tim Osborn , Scott Rutherford Subject: Re: RegEM
manuscript Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 09:13:24 -0500 Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,Phil
Jones , Ray Bradley ,mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Thanks very much Tim,
Your comments are extremely helpful.
I'm open to eliminating the comparison w/ Esper et al --but lets see if there is a
consensus of the group as to what to do here. We're anxiously awaiting comments

from the
others...
thanks again,
mike
p.s. Scott can be reached at either U.Va or U.RI email equally well (I believe the
former
is forwarded to the latter)..
At 12:16 PM 1/6/2003 +0000, Tim Osborn wrote:
Dear Scott and Mike,
Over the Christmas break I (finally!) had time to read the RegEM manuscript in
detail.
Phil had already read and annotated a copy - so I've added my annotations to that
and
will mail it to you today. Mike asked for comments to go to Scott, so please tell
me
which address I should use (Rhode Island or Virginia?).
I spoke to Keith and he has partly read it too, and will provide separate comments
soon.
Overall, I think the paper is a very nice piece of work and I'm pleased to be
involved
with it. The results regarding robustness with respect to proxy data, method,
region
and season are definitely good to publish.
Among the many comments annotated on the manuscript, a few are repeated here so
that all
authors may respond if they wish:

(1) Given the overwhelming number of values in the Tables, I suggest halving them
by
dropping all the CE values (keeping just RE values). As the paper points out,
getting
the verification period mean right is rewarded by RE but not by CE. Since we are
interested in changes in the mean, I don't think that's a problem. CE is fine in
addition, but dropping it would provide benefits of reducing manuscript size - and
especially the size of the tables.
(2) The "mixed-hybrid" approach sounds dubious to me - more

justification/explanation of
why it is needed (and hence why it captures more variance than the simpler
splitting
into high- and low-frequency components method).
(3) It is not clear to me that the paragraph and figure on the comparison with
Esper et
al. are either correct or necessary. They also are problematic because it would
appear
that we (Briffa & Osborn) were contradicting our earlier paper when in fact we
aren't.
The paper is already long and to remove these parts would therefore be helpful
anyway.
The comparison with Esper et al. is important - but much better dealt with in a
separate
paper where it could be developed in more detail and with more room to explain the
approach and its implications.
(4) I still hope to write up some more detailed comparisons of the reconstructions
using
just the MXD data but different methods and will let Mike/Scott know my plans on
this
soon.
Happy new year to you all.
Tim
Dr Timothy J Osborn | phone: +44 1603 592089
Senior Research Associate | fax: +44 1603 507784

Climatic Research Unit | e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
School of Environmental Sciences | web-site:
University of East Anglia __________| [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
Norwich NR4 7TJ | sunclock:
UK | [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
_______________________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[3]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
3. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

From: Mike Hulme To: Timothy Carter ,t.mitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re: Pattern
scaling document for the TGCIA Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 21:05:49 +0000
Tim,
As promised some comments on the paper.
General: It is very good, just what is needed and puts the last 4 years of debate
into the right context.
General: why consistently 'climate changes' rather than the more usual 'climate
change'?
Abstract, line 10: why only quote as high as 0.99 and not the lowest correlation
(which actually is more to the point - it is still very good after the 2020s, even
for precip).
Abstract, lines 12-13: as worded this does not quite follow, although I see from
later that the ellipses used are at 95% confidence. Just because they fall outside
natural variability does not *in itself* prove they are stat. sig.
p.2, lines 17-19 (and also several places on p.4): impacts are mentioned, but
nothing said about adaptation. It is really adaptation actions/decisions that are
crucial, impacts are only one way to get there. Alter the focus.
p.2, line -10: add 'necessarily' between 'not' and 'be'. AOGCMs may actually do
not so bad a job on occasions about climate change (relative changes for example),
so don't completely dismiss this one.
p.5, section 2: general point: there is no list or table or statement about

exactly what these 17 experiments are. The models are listed, but not the
experiments. e.g. which SRES scenarios did which modelling group and how many
ensembles? For the lay person this is not obvious.
p.7, top line: you should perhaps make the point that simple bias indices such as
these may partly be explained by elevation offsets (model height vs. real height).
It is to my mind a mitigating factor than can work in a model's favour (not
always). It should be mentioned, because the biases may not be due to just dumb
models, but due to simple resolution issues that can be adjusted easily. A similar
point perhaps applies in the next para. about ocean/land boundaries. OK, you could
say this just shows how bad models are, but it perhaps gives people a poorer view
of the model physics and credibility than is truly needed. Another point to
mention in this para about precip. is the obvious point about decadal natural
variability. It's a tall order to expect the models to get the 1961-90 monthly
mean precip. exactly right, owing to internal variability. Indeed, give such
variability can be plus/minus 10-20% or more it would be astonishing if they
matched. Be generous to models I say.
p.9, middle - interesting point about ECHAM4 and NCAR masks!!
p.15, para 2: didn't you have A1FI available from Hadley? Surely it could have
been used to test this? Last sentence in this para: why 'evidently conform'?
p.16, last line: interesting point here: if you claim the pattern-scaling didn't
work for the 2020s because of nat var (S/N ratios) then why actually should we go
with the raw model results anyway - certainly if it is the signal we are
interested in (and not the noise), it suggests the raw 2020s models results are
misleading us! This is a rather circular argument I realise but the bottom line
point again comes back to S/N ratios and the role of nat decadal variabiliy, esp.
for precip. Are we going to recommend adaptations to noise or to signals - and
why?
p.17, middle para: what about mentioning climate sensitivity here? I know its out
of vogue now, but PCM and NIES differences are explained by overall model
sensitivity aren't they.
p.17, para 4: this point about where agreement occurs between models is important.
Some people - I heard Wigley do it recently - write models off at regional scales
re. precip changes because they all disagree. They do for some regions, but not
all and where we think we have physical grounds to accept agreement as legit.
(e.g. UK; cf. UKCIP02 scenario metholody) then we should be confident to say so.
p.17, line -7: why use 'forecasting' here? Could confuse some people. The old
argument about terms I guess. And again top line on p.18 is dangerous - we can
"predict" nat. variability in a stochastic sense using ensembles. Change the
wording.
p.18, line 9: not only are they difficult to forsee, they are simply unforseeable
to a significant extent because it is we who determine them; I prefer to make the
distinction between different types of prediction problem more explicit.
p.18, lines 19-20: I don't like the use of 'truth' and 'precise' here. It implies
a strong natural science view prediction and the competence of science
(modellers!) which I think should be softened.
p.18, para 4: the inter-model differences bit being as large as the inter-scenario
differences. Again at least mention the role of nat var here - some of these
inter-model differences *must* be due to nat var, not simply models not able to
agree with each other.
p.19, para 1: I think the stabilisation case should be mentioned here. What about
pattern-scaling stab scenarios? As I hear it from DEFRA and Hadley here in UK this
was a big issue at the TGCIA meeting. Make a comment at least; I think in
principle p-scaling is probably OK (within some limits) even here. I think you
should make reference to some of Tim Mitchell's work here (and/or elsewhere) since
he has looked at some of these things too. His thesis or his CC paper perhaps.
And finally, w/o sounding as self-serving as Tom Wigley, it would be nice if you
could reference (perhaps in section 3.3) the Hulme/Brown (1998) paper in CR which
was the first time I published scatter plots in this form for GCMs results - and
possible the first time this form of presentation had been used anywhere (but I
stand corrected of course; maybe I simply picked it up from someone else).
So there it is: a great piece of work and a good write up. I don't know Kimmo but
pass on my congratulations to him. I'll look out for it on the web site.
Best wishes,
Mike
At 13:42 13/01/03 +0200, Timothy Carter wrote: >Dear Mike and Tim, > >I know that
you are not now involved in the TGCIA, but there is still some >old baggage from
the days of Mike's tenure that you may have some interest >to comment on
concerning regional pattern-scaling work. > >I attach a paper that we have
prepared and distributed at the latest TGCIA >meeting for comment (last week). If
you have any comments, I would be very >appreciative. I need comments if possible
by the end of this week. > >The 96 pages of scatter plots are currently enormous
files, and I can't >possibly attach these for you to see. I am working on a way to
get these >substantially reduced in size. I have attached one example so you can
see >what to expect. > >Any feedback would be much appreciated. We intend to post
this document, >or something like it, on the DDC. > >Tim - have you published any
of your Ph.D. results yet? > >Best regards and Happy New Year, > >Tim > > >
>*********************************************************************** >Timothy
Carter >Research Professor >Research Programme for Global Change >Finnish
Environment Institute (SYKE) >Box 140, Mechelininkatu 13a, FIN-00251 Helsinki,
FINLAND >Tel: +358-9-40300-315; GSM +358-40-740-5403; Fax: +358-9-40300-390
>Email: tim.carter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >Web:
http://www.ymparisto.fi/eng/research/projects/finsken/welcome.html
>***********************************************************************

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Ulrich Cubasch Subject: Re: multiproxy Date: Tue, 28
Jan 2003 12:33:35 -0500 Cc: Tim Osborne , Keith Briffa , Irina Fast , Scott
Rutherford , mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Ulrich,
That's fine--you can go ahead and use it. But I have to issue a number of caveats
first.
This is a version we gave Tim Osborne when he was visiting here, and since Tim
hasn't used
it, and we haven't compared results from that code w/ our published results, I
can't vouch
for it--it may or may not be the exact same version we ultimately used, and it may
or may
not run properly on platforms other than the one I was using (Sun running ultrix).
Scott
Rutherford (whom I've cc'd on this email) has worked with the code more
frequently.
The code is not very user friendly unfortunately. For example, the determination
of the
optimal subset of PCs to retain is based on application of the criterion described
in our
paper, which involves running the code many times w/ different choices. So the
"iterative"
process has to be performed by brute force.
The method, as outlined, is quite straightforward and others have implemented it
themselves. SO you might prefer to code it yourself. That would be my suggestion.

But you
are, of course, free to use our code.
That having been said, we have essentially abandoned that method now in favor of a
somewhat more sophisticated version of the approach, which makes use of the RegEM
method
for imputing missing values of a field described by Schneider (J. Climate, 2000).
Some initial results are described here:
Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Climate Reconstruction Using 'Pseudoproxies',

Geophysical
Research Letters, 29 (10), 1501, doi: 10.1029/2001GL014554
[1]ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/Pseudoproxy02.[2]pdf
and in a paper in press in Journal of Climate.
Rutherford, S., Mann, M.E., Delworth, T.L., Stouffer, R., The Performance of
Covariance-Based Methods of Climate Field Reconstruction Under Stationary and

Nonstationary
Forcing, J. Climate, in press, 2003.
(I don't have the preprint--Scott Rutherford can provide you with one however).
In our view, this is a preferable approach on a number of levels, though the

results
obtained are generally quite similar.
I will be in Nice, and looking forward to seeing you there,
Mike
At 04:59 PM 1/28/03 +0100, Ulrich Cubasch wrote:
Dear Michael,
as you might know we (Briffa, Wanner, v. Storch, Tett ...) have an
European project called SOAP,
which aims at combining multy proxi and model data.
more under [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/projects/soap
In the workpackage I am coordinating we would like to use your
multi-proxy program for some
temperature reconstructions. The collegues in Norwich have got your
program already, but I would like
to implement it here in Berlin. I therefore would like to ask you if you
can grant me the permission to use it.
I will probably copy it then from Keith and Tim directly.
I will keep you informed about the results we obtain with it.
regards
Ulrich Cubasch
P. S.
Are you coming to Nice?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
[4]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.[5]shtml
References
1. ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/Pseudoproxy02.pdf
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/projects/soap

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: f14@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re: program code Date: Wed,
05 Feb 2003 13:19:29 -0500 Cc: Scott Rutherford , Zhang , mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tim
Osborne , Keith Briffa , Irina Fast , mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Irina,
The code we used in Mann/Bradley/Hughes 1998 was not changed or "improved", but
there may
be different versions of the code floating around, and in a previous email to Uli
Cubasch,
I indicated that I was not sure the version you have (from Tim Osborn), is
identifical to
the version we used in our original paper (it would require some work on my part
to insure
it gives precisely the same results, and I don't have the time to do that). I
suspect,
however, that the code is the same as the one we used in our paper and any
differences, if
they exist, should be minor (as long as the code compiles and runs correctly on
the
platform you have--the possible platform-dependence of fortran is a potential

cause for
concern here).
Numerous people have coded up our method independently, including Ed Zorita, w/

whom I
believe your group has a close collaboration, and my graduate student Zhang has
successfully coded this up independently in Matlab (its a short script, which

didn't take
Zhang long to write anyway). I'm copying this message to Zhang, so that he can
provide you
with his matlab version of the code if you are interested. Because Zhang's version
is in
Matlab, it should run correctly, independently of the particular platform (an

advantage
over the fortran code) [As an aside, on a pedagogical note, I would still
encourage you to
code this up yourself].
As I indicated in a previous email to Uli, the selection of the optimal subset of

EOFS to
retain is not automated in the code, and you need to do that yourself...The
methodology we
used is described in detail in our publications.
We have tested this method against the approach our group now uses for climate
field
reconstruction (Schneider RegEM approach), and find that the results are similar,
but the
cross-validation statistics improve slightly w/ the RegEM approach, which we now

favor and
use in place of the old, Mann et al approach.
Details of this latter approach are described in these two manuscripts (as well as
the
original paper by Schneider referenced within):
Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Climate Reconstruction Using 'Pseudoproxies',

Geophysical
Research Letters, 29 (10), 1501, doi: 10.1029/2001GL014554, 2002.
available at:
[1]ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/Pseudoproxy02.[2]pdf
Rutherford, S., Mann, M.E., Delworth, T.L., Stouffer, R., Climate Field
Reconstruction
Under Stationary and Nonstationary Forcing, Journal of Climate, 16, 462-479, 2003.
available at:
[3]ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/Rutherfordetal-Jclim03.pdf
The RegEM code is available over the web, and Scott Rutherford can provide you
with the ftp
side if you are interested. It, too, is available only in matlab.
I hope you find this information of help.

Best of luck w/ your research,
mike mann
At 06:10 PM 2/5/03 +0100, Irina Fast wrote:
Dear Michael,
I believe that you have not heard about me as yet. My name is Irina Fast.
Since the January 2003 I am a PhD student at the Free University in Berlin in
the framework of the EU-Project SOAP. My supervisor is Ulrich Cubasch.
At the SOAP's start-up meeting it was proposed to use your multiproxy
calibration method (published in 1998) for the joint analysis of model
simulations and proxydata.
Because your method was essential improved since 1998 I would like to know if
you kann provide us with your program code.
We could try to code your approach ourselves, but we do not know if this kind
of analysis will success in our case. In the case of failure we will have to
search for other analyses methodes. And the timespan for the data
processing is rather short. Naturally you will not miss our gratitude and
acknowledgement.
I apologise for my mistakes in this letter.
Best regards
Irina Fast
--
*************************************
Irina Fast
Freie Universit?t Berlin
Institut f?r Meteorologie
Carl-Heinrich-Becker-Weg 6-10
D-12165 Berlin
Germany
e-mail: f14@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
phone: +49 (0)30 838 711 22
fax: +49 (0)30 838 711 60
*************************************
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
References
3. ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/Rutherfordetal-Jclim03.pdf

From: Mike Hulme To: "Kabat, dr. P." , "Schellnhuber (E-mail)" Subject: Re: Letter
of Support Date: Wed Feb 12 15:45:03 2003 Cc: "Alex Haxeltine (E-mail)"
Pavel
I will certainly make sure a letter reaches you for Friday. And Good Luck!
Mike
At 14:07 12/02/03 +0100, Kabat, dr. P. wrote:
Dear Mike, John, Alex:
referring to out tel. conversation yesterday with Alex, hereby our request
for a letter of support/recommendation on behalf of Tyndall for our
national Global Change Initiative programme proposal called
"Climate changes the spatial planning", ("Climate for Spatial Planning
Spatial Planning for Climate); unofficially known to you I guess as as
"Netherlands Tyndall-like initiative...)
After we have successfully passed the first round of the selection last
year with the Dutch Government, we are know in final stages of submitting
the final proposal/business plan (deadline 17/2/03 - next Monday).
The proposed programme has a total budget of 100 million Euro, of which 49
million is requested from the Government, rest contribution of public and
private institutions. As a part of this programme we are aiming to set up
Netherlands Centre of Excellence (partly virtual) institute, modelled after
Tyndall. Leading parties in this effort are all well known to you:
Wageningen (kabat)
VU Amsterdam (vellinga)
RIVM (metz)
KNMI (Komen)
ICIS (Rotmans)
ECN (Bruggink)
plus another almost 50 parties.
Could you pls send us a short letter of support, in which you indicate the
importance of this initiative for advancing this type global change science,
European dimension, UK - NL collaboration, etc, etc?
We need to receive this by Friday, so send also by fax pls (apologies for
the rush). Letter is to be addressed as follows:

Prof. Dr Pavel Kabat
Science Director
Netherlands National Research Initiative "Climate changes the spatial
planning", (ICES KIS 3)
Postal address: PO Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen
Visiting address: Lawickse Allee 11, IAC building, room 156
Voice +31 317 474314/74713 (office), +31 653489378 (mobile), +31 264463567
(home);
Fax: +31 317495590
I attach 3 documents as background of our proposal
Many thanks for your kind help!
Pavel, Pier en colleagues
<> <> <

131.xls>>

From: "Alex Haxeltine" To: "Armin Haas" , "Alexander Wokaun" , "Anco Lankreijer" ,
"Andrew Jordan" , "Antoni Rosell" , "Antonio Navarra" , Asbj?rn Torvanger , ,
Benito M?ller , "Bert Metz" , , "Brian O'Neill" , "Carlo Carraro" , "Carlo Jaeger"
, "Catherine Boemare" , "Christian Azar" , "Christian Flachsland" , "Christos
Giannakopoulos" , "Claudia Kemfert" , "Daniel Droste" , "Eberhard Jochem" ,
"Eberhard Jochem" , "Elas Hunfeld" , "Felicity Thomas" , "Ferenc Toth" , "Francis
Johnson" , "Frank Thomalla" , "Fred Langeweg" , "Gary Yohe" , , "Gernot Klepper" ,
"HALLEGATTE Stephane" , "Harald Bradke" , "Heike Zimmermann-Timm" , "Helga Kromp-
Kolb" , "Henning Jappe" , "Henning Niemeyer" , "Henry Neufeldt" , "Herve Le Treut"
, "Jaap C. Jansen" , "Jan Rotmans" , "Jean Palutikof" , "Jean-Charles Hourcade" ,
"Jeroen van der Sluijs" , "Joan David Tabara" , "John Schellnhuber" , "John
Turnpenny" , "Jon Hovi" , Jonathan K?hler , , J?rgen Kurths , J?rgen Kurths ,
"Katrin Gerlinger" , Klaus B?swald , "Klaus Hasselmann" , "Kornelis Block" , "Leen
Hordijk" , "Lennart Olsson" , "Liudmila Romaniuk" , "Marco Berg" , "Marcus
Lindner" , "Marina Fischer-Kowalski" , "Marjan Minnesma" , "Mark Rounsevell" ,
"Martin Claussen" , "Martin Kaltschmitt" , "Martin Parry" , "martin.welp" , "Mike
Hulme" , "Monika Ritt" , "MVV C&E Berlin Tom Mansfield" , "MVV C&E Hanan Abdul-
Rida" , "Nakicenovic" , "Neil Adger" , Niklas H?hne , "Ola Johannessen" , "Ottmar
Edenhofer" , "Pal Prestrud" , P?l Prestrud , "Pavel Kabat" , "Philippe Ambrosi" ,
"Pier Vellinga" , "Pier Vellinga" , "Pim Martens" , "Reinhard G. Budich" , "Renaud
Crassous" , "Richard Klein" , "Rik Leemans" , "Roger Kasperson" , "Rupert Klein" ,
"S.E. van der Leeuw" , "S.E. van der Leeuw" , "Saleemul Huq" , "Sebastian Gallehr"
, "Simone Ullrich" , , "Stephane Hallegatte" , "Sybille van den Hove" , "Tim
O'Riordan" , "Tobias Kampet" , "Tom Downing" , "Tom Kram" , "Tony Patt" , "V.K.
Dochenko" , "Wim Turkenburg" , "Wolfgang Cramer" , "Wolfgang Lucht" Subject: Re:
AMS proposal Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:36:46 -0000
Dear Colleagues,
In the email from Armin Haas (signed by Carlo and Klaus) on 5th March, we were
informed
that a strategy committee and a research committee had been formed; with the
latter being
primarily responsible for the preparation of the proposal.
WE NOW HAVE ONLY 20 WORKING DAYS LEFT UNTIL THE PROPOSAL HAS TO BE SUBMITTED!!!
And while I am aware and involved in a number of parallel activities addressing

the writing
of text for specific work domains and work packages, I have not received any
formal
communication about what role is expected of me as a member of the research

committee (that
has primary responsibility for the preparation of the proposal).
Needless to say I find this extremely worrying, and suggest that we URGENTLY need
clarification about 1) exactly what the research committee should do; 2) how it
should do
it; 3) what responsibility for making decisions this committee will have/how it
should
liaise with the strategy committee.
It seems clear that in order to finalize an overall project structure we will need
to meet
face-to-face for at least 36 hours, and that this needs to happen with the utmost
urgency.
I have made a provisional booking of a facility very near Stanstead airport in the
UK for
next Monday and Tuesday (17th and 18th March), and offer this as a possible time
and place
to meet; but am of course open to other suggestions. I would imagine that in

addition to
the research committee assigned so far, we would need to co-opt the writers of
several of
the work packages and the work domains leaders for the purpose of this meeting.
With warm regards and the utmost sense of urgency,
Alex Haxeltine
Dr Alexander Haxeltine
International Science Co-ordinator
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
School of Environmental Sciences
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
Tel: +44 1603 593902
Fax: +44 1603 593901
Website: [1]http://www.tyndall.ac.uk
References
1. http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Phil Jones ,rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,

mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject:
Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:14:49 -0500 Cc:
k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,jto@u.arizona.edu,drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
keith.alverson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,jto@u.arizona.edu,
mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Thanks Phil,
(Tom: Congrats again!)
The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer review process
anywhere. That leaves only one possibility--that the peer-review process at

Climate
Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn't
just De
Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my own

department...
The skeptics appear to have staged a 'coup' at "Climate Research" (it was a
mediocre
journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite 'purpose').
Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors:
[1]http://www.int-res.com/journals/cr/crEditors.html
In fact, Mike McCracken first pointed out this article to me, and he and I have
discussed
this a bit. I've cc'd Mike in on this as well, and I've included Peck too. I told
Mike that
I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They've already achieved what
they
wanted--the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that

now, but
the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper, which will be
ignored by the
community on the whole...
It is pretty clear that thee skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in
the
presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton, Goodess,

...). My
guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he's an odd individual,
and I'm
not sure he isn't himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and without Von Storch
on their
side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision.
There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon & Baliunas
paper, that
couldn't get published in a reputable journal.
This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the
"peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a

journal!
So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate

Research" as a
legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in

the climate
research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We
would also
need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who
currently
sit on the editorial board...
What do others think?
mike
At 08:49 AM 3/11/2003 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:
Dear All,
Apologies for sending this again. I was expecting a stack of emails this morning
in
response, but I inadvertently left Mike off (mistake in pasting) and picked up
Tom's
old
address. Tom is busy though with another offspring !
I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling - worst word I can
think of today
without the mood pepper appearing on the email ! I'll have time to read more at
the
weekend
as I'm coming to the US for the DoE CCPP meeting at Charleston. Added Ed, Peck and
Keith A.
onto this list as well. I would like to have time to rise to the bait, but I have
so
much else on at
the moment. As a few of us will be at the EGS/AGU meet in Nice, we should consider
what
to do there.
The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper determine the answer they
get. They
have no idea what multiproxy averaging does. By their logic, I could argue 1998
wasn't
the
warmest year globally, because it wasn't the warmest everywhere. With their LIA
being
1300-
1900 and their MWP 800-1300, there appears (at my quick first reading) no
discussion of
synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental record, the
early and
late
20th century warming periods are only significant locally at between 10-20% of
grid
boxes.
Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do something - even if this is
just
to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think the skeptics
will
use
this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of years if it
goes
unchallenged.
I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it
until they
rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the editorial board,
but
papers
get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.
Cheers
Phil
Dear all,
Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore probably, so don't let it
spoil your
day. I've not looked at it yet. It results from this journal having a number of
editors. The
responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers
through by
Michaels and Gray in the past. I've had words with Hans von Storch about this, but
got
nowhere.
Another thing to discuss in Nice !
Cheers
Phil
X-Sender: f055@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:32:14 +0000
To: p.jones@uea
From: Tim Osborn
Subject: Soon & Baliunas

Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
References
1. http://www.int-res.com/journals/cr/crEditors.html

From: Phil Jones To:

rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Michael
E. Mann" ,tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas Date: Tue, 11 Mar
2003 08:49:22 +0000 Cc:
k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,jto@u.arizona.edu,drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
keith.alverson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear All,
Apologies for sending this again. I was expecting a stack of emails this morning
in
response, but I inadvertently left Mike off (mistake in pasting) and picked up
Tom's old
address. Tom is busy though with another offspring !
I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling - worst word I can
think of today
without the mood pepper appearing on the email ! I'll have time to read more at
the weekend
as I'm coming to the US for the DoE CCPP meeting at Charleston. Added Ed, Peck and
Keith A.
onto this list as well. I would like to have time to rise to the bait, but I have
so much else on at
the moment. As a few of us will be at the EGS/AGU meet in Nice, we should consider
what
to do there.
The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper determine the answer they
get. They
have no idea what multiproxy averaging does. By their logic, I could argue 1998
wasn't the
warmest year globally, because it wasn't the warmest everywhere. With their LIA
being 1300- 1900 and their MWP 800-1300, there appears (at my quick first reading)
no discussion of
synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental record, the
early and late
20th century warming periods are only significant locally at between 10-20% of
grid boxes.
Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do something - even if this is

just
to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think the skeptics
will use
this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of years if it
goes
unchallenged.
I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it
until they
rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the editorial board,
but papers
get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.
Cheers
Phil
Dear all,
Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore probably, so don't let it
spoil your
day. I've not looked at it yet. It results from this journal having a number of
editors. The
responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers
through by
Michaels and Gray in the past. I've had words with Hans von Storch about this, but
got nowhere.
Another thing to discuss in Nice !
Cheers
Phil
>X-Sender: f055@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1

>Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:32:14 +0000 >To: p.jones@uea >From: Tim Osborn
>Subject: Soon & Baliunas > > > > >Dr Timothy J Osborn | phone: +44 1603 592089
>Senior Research Associate | fax: +44 1603 507784 >Climatic Research Unit | e-
mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >School of Environmental Sciences | web-site:
>University of East Anglia __________| http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >Norwich
NR4 7TJ | sunclock: >UK | http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachSoon & Baliunas 20031.pdf"

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Phil Jones , Malcolm Hughes , Tom Crowley Subject: Re:
Fwd: Soon & Baliunas Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 08:12:56 -0500 Cc:
rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear All,
I like Phil's suggestion. I think such a piece would do a lot of good for the
field. When
something as full of half-truths/mis-truths as the S&B piece is put forth, it

would be
very useful to have a peer-reviewed review like this, which we all have endorsed
through
co-authorship, to point to in response. This way, when we get the inevitable "so
what do
you have to say about this" from our colleagues, we already have a self-contained,
thorough
rejoinder to point to. I'm sure we won't all agree on every detail, but there is
enough
commonality in our views on the big issues to make this worthwhile.
Perhaps Phil can go ahead and contact the editorial board at "Reviews of
Geophysics" and
see if they're interested. If so, Phil and I (and anyone else interested) could
take the
lead with this, and then we can entrain everyone else in as we proceed with a
draft, etc.
mike
p.s. Keith: I hope you're feeling well, and that your recovery proceeds quickly!
Dear All,
I agree with all the points being made and the multi-authored article would be a
good idea,
but how do we go about not letting it get buried somewhere. Can we not address the
misconceptions by finally coming up with definitive dates for the LIA and MWP and
redefining what we think the terms really mean? With all of us and more on the
paper,
it should
carry a lot of weight. In a way we will be setting the agenda for what should be
being
done
over the next few years.
We do want a reputable journal but is The Holocene the right vehicle. It is
probably the
best of its class of journals out there. Mike and I were asked to write an article
for
the EGS
journal of Surveys of Geophysics. You've not heard of this - few have, so we

declined.
However,
it got me thinking that we could try for Reviews of Geophysics. Need to contact
the
editorial
board to see if this might be possible. Just a thought, but it certainly has a
high
profile.
What we want to write is NOT the scholarly review a la Jean Grove (bless her soul)
that
just reviews but doesn't come to anything firm. We want a critical review that
enables
agendas to be set. Ray's recent multi-authored piece goes a lot of the way so we
need
to build on this.
Cheers
Phil
At 12:55 11/03/03 -0500, Michael E. Mann wrote:

HI Malcolm,
Thanks for the feedback--I largely concur. I do, though, think there is a
particular
problem with "Climate Research". This is where my colleague Pat Michaels now
publishes
exclusively, and his two closest colleagues are on the editorial board and review
editor
board. So I promise you, we'll see more of this there, and I personally think
there *is*
a bigger problem with the "messenger" in this case...
But the Soon and Baliunas paper is its own, separate issue too. I too like Tom's
latter
idea, of a more hefty multi-authored piece in an appropriate journal

(Paleoceanography?
Holocene?) that seeks to correct a number of misconceptions out there, perhaps

using
Baliunas and Soon as a case study ('poster child'?), but taking on a slightly
greater
territory too.
Question is, who would take the lead role. I *know* we're all very busy,
mike
At 10:28 AM 3/11/03 -0700, Malcolm Hughes wrote:
I'm with Tom on this. In a way it comes back to a rant of mine
to which some of you have already been victim. The general
point is that there are two arms of climatology:
neoclimatology - what you do based on instrumental records
and direct, systematic observations in networks - all set in a
very Late Holocene/Anthropocene time with hourly to decadal
interests.
paleoclimatology - stuff from rocks, etc., where major changes
in the Earth system, including its climate, associated with

major changes in boundary conditions, may be detected by
examination of one or a handful of paleo records.
Between these two is what we do - "mesoclimatology" -
dealing with many of the same phenomena as neoclimatology,
using documentary and natural archives to look at phenomena
on interannual to millennial time scales. Given relatively small
changes in boundary conditions (until the last couple of
centuries), mesoclimatology has to work in a way that is very
similar to neoclimatology. Most notably, it depends on heavily
replicated networks of precisely dated records capable of
being either calibrated, or whose relationship to climate may
be modeled accuarately and precisely.
Because this distinction is not recognized by many (e.g.
Sonnechkin, Broecker, Karlen) we see an accumulation of
misguided attempts at describing the climate of recent
millennia. It would be better to head this off in general, rather
than draw attention to a bad paper. After all, as Tom rightly
says, we could all nominate really bad papers that have been
published in journals of outstanding reputation (although there
could well be differences between our lists).
End of rant, Cheers, Malcolm
> Hi guys,
>
> junk gets published in lots of places. I think that what could be
> done is a short reply to the authors in Climate Research OR a SLIGHTLY
> longer note in a reputable journal entitled something like "Continuing
> Misconceptions About interpretation of past climate change." I kind
> of like the more pointed character of the latter and submitting it as
> a short note with a group authorship carries a heft that a reply to a
> paper, in no matter what journal, does not.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> > Dear All,
> > Apologies for sending this again. I was expecting a stack of
> >emails this morning in
> > response, but I inadvertently left Mike off (mistake in pasting)
> >and picked up Tom's old
> > address. Tom is busy though with another offspring !
> > I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling -
> >worst word I can think of today
> > without the mood pepper appearing on the email ! I'll have time to
> >read more at the weekend
> > as I'm coming to the US for the DoE CCPP meeting at Charleston.
> >Added Ed, Peck and Keith A.
> > onto this list as well. I would like to have time to rise to the
> >bait, but I have so much else on at
> > the moment. As a few of us will be at the EGS/AGU meet in Nice, we
> >should consider what
> > to do there.
> > The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper
> >determine the answer they get. They
> > have no idea what multiproxy averaging does. By their logic, I
> >could argue 1998 wasn't the
> > warmest year globally, because it wasn't the warmest everywhere.
> >With their LIA being 1300-

> >1900 and their MWP 800-1300, there appears (at my quick first
> >reading) no discussion of
> > synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental
> >record, the early and late
> > 20th century warming periods are only significant locally at
> >between 10-20% of grid boxes.
> > Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do
> >something - even if this is just
> > to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think
> >the skeptics will use
> > this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of
> >
> >years if it goes
> > unchallenged.
> >
> > I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having
> >nothing more to do with it until they
> > rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the
> >editorial board, but papers
> > get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Phil
> >
> > Dear all,
> > Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore
> >probably, so don't let it spoil your
> > day. I've not looked at it yet. It results from this journal
> >having a number of editors. The

> > responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let
> >
> >a few papers through by
> > Michaels and Gray in the past. I've had words with Hans von Storch
> >
> >about this, but got nowhere.
> > Another thing to discuss in Nice !
> >
> > Cheers
> > Phil
> >
> >>X-Sender: f055@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> >>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
> >>Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:32:14 +0000
> >>To: p.jones@uea
> >>From: Tim Osborn
> >>Subject: Soon & Baliunas
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Dr Timothy J Osborn | phone: +44 1603 592089
> >>Senior Research Associate | fax: +44 1603 507784
> >>Climatic Research Unit | e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> >>School of Environmental Sciences | web-site: University of East
> >>Anglia __________| [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ Norwich NR4
> >>7TJ | sunclock: UK |
> >>[2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
> >
> >Prof. Phil Jones

> >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> >University of East Anglia
> >Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> >NR4 7TJ
> >UK
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >-------
> >
> >
> >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Soon & Baliunas 2003.pdf (PDF
> >/CARO) (00016021)
>
>
> --
> Thomas J. Crowley
> Nicholas Professor of Earth Systems Science
> Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences
> Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences
> Box 90227
> 103 Old Chem Building Duke University
> Durham, NC 27708
>
> tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> 919-681-8228
> 919-684-5833 fax
Malcolm Hughes
Professor of Dendrochronology
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research

University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
520-621-6470
fax 520-621-8229
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
References

From: Tom Crowley To: Phil Jones Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas Date: Wed, 12
Mar 2003 09:15:48 -0500 Cc: "Michael E. Mann" , Malcolm Hughes , Tom Crowley ,
rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phil et al,
I suggest either BAMS or Eos - the latter would probably be better because it is
shorter,
quicker, has a wide distribution, and all the points that need to be made have
been made
before.
rather than dwelling on Soon and Baliunas I think the message should be pointedly
made
against all of the standard claptrap being dredged up.

I suggest two figures- one on time series and another showing the spatial array of
temperatures at one point in the Middle Ages. I produced a few of those for the
Ambio
paper but already have one ready for the Greenland settlement period 965-995
showing the
regional nature of the warmth in that figure. we could add a few new sites to it,
but if
people think otherwise we could of course go in some other direction.
rather than getting into the delicate question of which paleo reconstruction to
use I
suggest that we show a time series that is an eof of the different reconstructions
- one
that emphasizes the commonality of the message.
Tom
Dear All,
good idea,
paper,
it should
being
done

probably the
p
f
for
the EGS
t

d
declined.
H
However,
t
the
e
editorial
h
high
p
profile.
t
that
e
enables
n
need
to build on this.
t
C
Cheers
P
Phil

A
HI Malcolm,
H
p
particular
p
publishes
e
editor
there *is*
t

latter

(Paleoceanography?

using
greater
territory too.
mike
interests.

> Hi guys,
>
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> > Dear All,
> > to do there.

> >
> >years if it goes
> > unchallenged.
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> > Phil
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> > Phil
> >
> >>Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:32:14 +0000
> >>To: p.jones@uea
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Anglia __________| http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ Norwich NR4
> >>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
> >
> >Prof. Phil Jones

> >NR4 7TJ
> >UK
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >-------
> >
> >
> >/CARO) (00016021)
>
>
> --
> Thomas J. Crowley
> Box 90227
> Durham, NC 27708
>
> 919-681-8228
> 919-684-5833 fax
Malcolm Hughes
Tucson, AZ 85721
520-621-6470
fax 520-621-8229
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Thomas J. Crowley
Box 90227
103 Old Chem Building Duke University
Durham, NC 27708
9
919-681-8228
919-684-5833 fax
9

E
From: Scott Rutherford To: "Michael E. Mann" Subject: Re: Soon & Baliunas Date:
Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:53:07 -0500 Cc: Tom Crowley , Phil Jones , Malcolm Hughes ,
rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
r
Dear All,
D
First, I'd be willing to handle the data and the plotting/mapping. Second,
regarding Mike's suggestions, if we use different reference periods for the
reconstructions and the models we need to be extremely careful about the
differences. Not having seen what this will look like, I suggest that we start
with the same instrumental reference period for both (1856-1960). If you are
willing to send me your series please send the raw (i.e. unfiltered) series. That
way I can treat them all the same. We can then decide how we want to display the
r
results.
Finally, Tom's suggestion of Eos struck me as a great way to get a short, pointed
story out to the most people (though I have no feel for the international
distribution). My sense (being relatively new to this field compared to everyone
else) is that within the neo- and mesoclimate research community there is a
(relatively small?) group of people who don't or won't "get it" and there is
nothing we can do about them aside from continuing to publish quality work in
quality journals (or calling in a Mafia hit). Those (e.g. us) who are engrossed in
the issues and are aware of all the literature should be able to distinguish
between well done and poor work. Should then the intent of this proposed
contribution be to education those who are not directly involved in MWP/LIA issues
including those both on the perifery of the issue as well as those outside? If so,
then the issue that Phil raised about not letting it get buried is significant and
I think Eos is a great way to get people to see it.
C
Cheers,
S
Scott
On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 10:32 AM, Michael E. Mann wrote:

O
p.s. The idea of both a representative time-slice spatial plot emphasizing the
spatial variability of e.g. the MWP or LIA, and an EOF analysis of all the records
is a great idea. I'd like to suggest a small modification of the latter:
i
I would suggest we show 2 curves, representing the 1st PC of two different groups,
one of empirical reconstructions, the other of model simulations, rather than just
one in the time plot.
o
Group #1 could include:

G
1) Crowley & Lowery

1
2) Mann et al 1999
3) Bradley and Jones 1995
3
4) Jones et al, 1998

4
5) Briffa et al 200X? [Keith/Tim to provide their preferred MXD reconstruction]

5
6) Esper et al [yes, no?--one series that differs from the others won't make much
of a difference]
o
I would suggest we scale the resulting PC to the CRU 1856-1960 annual Northern
Hemisphere mean instrumental record, which should overlap w/ all of the series,
and which pre-dates the MXD decline issue...
a
Group #2 would include various model simulations using different forcings, and
with slightly different sensitivities. This could include 6 or so simulation
r
results:
1) 3 series from Crowley (2000) [based on different solar/volcanic

r
reconstructions],
2) 2 series from Gerber et al (Bern modeling group result) [based on different

assumed sensitivities]
a
1) Bauer et al series (Claussen group EMIC result) [includes 19th/20th century

land use changes as a forcing].
l
I would suggest that the model's 20th century mean is aligned with the 20th
century instrumental N.Hem mean for comparison (since this is when we know the
forcings best).
f
I'd like to nominate Scott R. as the collector of the time series and the
performer of the EOF analyses, scaling, and plotting, since Scott already has many
of the series and many of the appropriate analysis and plotting tools set up to do
t
this.
We could each send our preferred versions of our respective time series to Scott
as an ascii attachment, etc.
a
thoughts, comments?
t
t
thanks,
m
mike
At 10:08 AM 3/12/2003 -0500, Michael E. Mann wrote:

A
Thanks Tom,
T
Either would be good, but Eos is an especially good idea. Both Ellen M-T and Keith
Alverson are on the editorial board there, so I think there would be some
receptiveness to such a submission.t
r
I see this as complementary to other pieces that we have written or are currently
writing (e.g. a review that Ray, Malcolm, and Henry Diaz are doing for Science on
the MWP) and this should proceed entirely independently of that.
If there is group interest? in taking this tack, I'd be happy to contact
Ellen/Keith about the potential interest in Eos, or I'd be happy to let Tom or
Phil to take the lead too...
P
C
Comments?
m
mike
At 09:15 AM 3/12/2003 -0500, Tom Crowley wrote:

A
Phil et al,
P
shorter, quicker, has a wide distribution, and all the points that need to be made
have been made before.
h
made against all of the standard claptrap being dredged up.
m
temperatures at one point in the Middle Ages.? I produced a few of those for the
Ambio paper but already have one ready for the Greenland settlement period 965-995
showing the regional nature of the warmth in that figure.? we could add a few new
sites to it, but if people think otherwise we could of course go in some other
d
direction.
use I suggest that we show a time series that is an eof of the different
reconstructions - one that emphasizes the commonality of the message.
r
T
Tom
Dear All,
???? I agree with all the points being made and the multi-authored article would
be a good idea,
b
?but how do we go about not letting it get buried somewhere. Can we not address
t
the
?misconceptions by finally coming up with definitive dates for the LIA and MWP and
?redefining what we think the terms really mean? With all of us and more on the
paper, it should
p
?carry a lot of weight. In a way we will be setting the agenda for what should be
being done
b
?over the next few years.

?
???? We do want a reputable journal but is The Holocene the right vehicle. It is
probably the
p
?best of its class of journals out there.? Mike and I were asked to write an
article for the EGS
a
?journal of Surveys of Geophysics. You've not heard of this - few have, so we

declined. However,
d
?it got me thinking that we could try for Reviews of Geophysics. Need to contact
the editorial
t
?board to see if this might be possible. Just a thought, but it certainly has a
high profile.
h
???? What we want to write is NOT the scholarly review a la Jean Grove (bless her
soul) that
s
?just reviews but doesn't come to anything firm. We want a critical review that
e
enables
?agendas to be set. Ray's recent multi-authored piece goes a lot of the way so we
n
need
?to build on this.

?
?
?Cheers
?
?Phil

A
HI Malcolm,
H
particular problem with "Climate Research".? This is where my colleague Pat
Michaels now publishes exclusively, and his two closest colleagues are on the
editorial board and review editor board. So I promise you, we'll see more of this
there, and I personally think there *is* a bigger problem with the "messenger" in
this case...
t
latter idea, of a? more hefty multi-authored piece in an appropriate journal
(Paleoceanography? Holocene?) that seeks to correct a number of misconceptions out
there, perhaps using Baliunas and Soon as a case study ('poster child'?), but
taking on a slightly greater territory too.
t
Q
m
mike
?At 10:28 AM 3/11/03 -0700, Malcolm Hughes wrote:

?

I

t

p
?neoclimatology - what you do based on instrumental records

?

a

v
i
interests.

p

i

m

e

B

d

u

o

c

c

s

r

b

b

B
S

m

m

t
s

p

c

E
> Hi guys,
>
> junk gets published in lots of places.? I think that what could be
> Misconceptions About interpretation of past climate change."? I kind
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> >? Dear All,
> >??????? Apologies for sending this again. I was expecting a stack of
> >? response, but I inadvertently left Mike off (mistake in pasting)
> >? address. Tom is busy though with another offspring !
> >????? I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling -
> >? without the mood pepper appearing on the email ! I'll have time to
> >? as I'm coming to the US for the DoE CCPP meeting at Charleston.
> >? onto this list as well.?? I would like to have time to rise to the
> >? the moment. As a few of us will be at the EGS/AGU meet in Nice, we
> >? to do there.
> >????? The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper
> >? have no idea what multiproxy averaging does. By their logic, I
> >? warmest year globally, because it wasn't the warmest everywhere.
> >? synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental
> >? 20th century warming periods are only significant locally at
> >?????? Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do
> >? to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think
> >? this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of
> >
> >years if it goes

> >? unchallenged.
> >
> >??????? I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having
> >? rid themselves of this troublesome editor.? A CRU person is on the
> >? get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.
> >
> >? Cheers
> >? Phil
> >
> >? Dear all,
> >?????? Tim Osborn has just come across this.? Best to ignore
> >? day. I've not looked at it yet.? It results from this journal
> >? responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ.? He has let
> >
> >? Michaels and Gray in the past.? I've had words with Hans von Storch
> >
> >????? Another thing to discuss in Nice !
> >
> >? Cheers
> >? Phil
> >

> >>Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:32:14 +0000
> >>To: p.jones@uea
> >>From: Tim Osborn <
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Dr Timothy J Osborn???????????????? | phone:??? +44 1603 592089
> >>Senior Research Associate?????????? | fax:????? +44 1603 507784
> >>Climatic Research Unit????????????? | e-mail:?? t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> >>School of Environmental Sciences??? | web-site: University of East
> >>Anglia __________|?? 1999,1999,FFFFhttp://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ Norwich?

N
NR4
> >>7TJ???????? | sunclock: UK?????????????????????? |
> >>1999,1999,FFFFhttp://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
> >
> >Prof. Phil Jones
> >Climatic Research Unit??????? Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> >School of Environmental Sciences??? Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> >Norwich????????????????????????? Email??? p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> >NR4 7TJ
> >UK
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >-------
> >
> >
> >/CARO) (00016021)
>
>
> --
> Thomas J. Crowley
> Box 90227
> 103? Old Chem Building Duke University
> Durham, NC? 27708
>
> 919-681-8228
> 919-684-5833? fax
Malcolm Hughes
M
P

L
U
Tucson, AZ 85721
T
5
520-621-6470
fax 520-621-8229
f
_
_______________________________________________________________________
???????????????????? Professor Michael E. Mann

?
????????? Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall

?
????????????????????? University of Virginia

?
???????????????????? Charlottesville, VA 22903

?
_
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx?? Phone: (434) 924-7770?? FAX: (434) 982-2137

e
>
?????? 1999,1999,FFFFhttp://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Prof. Phil Jones
P
Climatic Research Unit??????? Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090

C
School of Environmental Sciences??? Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784

S

U
Norwich????????????????????????? Email??? p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

N
NR4 7TJ
N
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------??????
?
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
-
--
Thomas J. Crowley
T

N

D

N
Box 90227
B
103? Old Chem Building Duke University

1
Durham, NC? 27708

D
t
9
919-681-8228
919-684-5833? fax
9
Courier New______________________________________________________________
C
??????????????????? Professor Michael E. Mann

?
?????????? Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall

?

?

_
_______________________________________________________________________

e
???????? 1999,1999,FFFFhttp://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
?
Courier New______________________________________________________________
C
??????????????????? Professor Michael E. Mann

?
?????????? Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall

?

?

?
_
_______________________________________________________________________

e
???????? 1999,1999,FFFFhttp://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
?
_
______________________________________________
Scott Rutherford
S
University of Virginia University of Rhode Island

U
Environmental Sciences Graduate School of Oceanography

E
Clark Hall South Ferry Road

C
Charlottesville, VA 22903 Narragansett, RI 02882

C
srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
s
phone: (434) 924-4669 (401) 874-6599

p
fax: (434) 982-2137 (401) 874-6811

f

E
From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Scott Rutherford Subject: Re: Soon & Baliunas Date:
Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:07:43 -0500 Cc: Tom Crowley ,Phil Jones , Malcolm Hughes
,rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
k
k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Thanks Scott,
I concur. We may want to try a few different alignment/scaling choices in the end,
a
and
then just vote on which we like the best,

t
Anxious to here others' thoughts on all of this,

A
m
mike
At 10:53 AM 3/12/2003 -0500, Scott Rutherford wrote:

A
Dear All,
D
First, I'd be willing to handle the data and the plotting/mapping. Second,
r
regarding
Mike's suggestions, if we use different reference periods for the reconstructions

a
and
the models we need to be extremely careful about the differences. Not having seen
w
what
this will look like, I suggest that we start with the same instrumental reference
p
period
for both (1856-1960). If you are willing to send me your series please send the
r
raw
(i.e. unfiltered) series. That way I can treat them all the same. We can then
decide how
d
we want to display the results.

w
Finally, Tom's suggestion of Eos struck me as a great way to get a short, pointed
s
story
out to the most people (though I have no feel for the international distribution).
M
My
sense (being relatively new to this field compared to everyone else) is that
within the
w
neo- and mesoclimate research community there is a (relatively small?) group of

p
people
who don't or won't "get it" and there is nothing we can do about them aside from
w
continuing to publish quality work in quality journals (or calling in a Mafia

h
hit).
Those (e.g. us) who are engrossed in the issues and are aware of all the
l
literature
should be able to distinguish between well done and poor work. Should then the
intent
of this proposed contribution be to education those who are not directly involved
i
in
MWP/LIA issues including those both on the perifery of the issue as well as those
outside? If so, then the issue that Phil raised about not letting it get buried is
significant and I think Eos is a great way to get people to see it.
s
C
Cheers,
S
Scott
On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 10:32 AM, Michael E. Mann wrote:

O
s
spatial
variability of e.g. the MWP or LIA, and an EOF analysis of all the records is a
g
great
idea. I'd like to suggest a small modification of the latter:

i
o
one
of empirical reconstructions, the other of model simulations, rather than just one
i
in
the time plot.

t

G
1) Crowley & Lowery

1
2) Mann et al 1999
2

3

4

5
of a
o
d
difference]
a
and
which pre-dates the MXD decline issue...

w
w
with
slightly different sensitivities. This could include 6 or so simulation results:

s

r
reconstructions],

a
assumed
s
sensitivities]

land use
l
changes as a forcing].
c
c
century
instrumental N.Hem mean for comparison (since this is when we know the forcings
b
best).
performer of
p
the EOF analyses, scaling, and plotting, since Scott already has many of the
series and
s
many of the appropriate analysis and plotting tools set up to do this.

m
as an
a
ascii attachment, etc.

a
thoughts, comments?
t
t
thanks,
m
mike

A
Thanks Tom,
T
r
receptiveness
to such a submission.t
t
the
MWP) and this should proceed entirely independently of that.
M
If there is group interest in taking this tack, I'd be happy to contact

E
Ellen/Keith
about the potential interest in Eos, or I'd be happy to let Tom or Phil to take
the lead
t
t
too...
C
Comments?
m
mike

A
Phil et al,
P
h
have
been made before.

b
m
made

a
A
Ambio
showing the
s
b
but
if people think otherwise we could of course go in some other direction.

i
use I
u
- one

t
T
Tom
Dear All,
D
good idea,
g
p
paper,
it should
i
b
being
d
done

o

W
probably the
p
f
for
the EGS
t

d
declined.
H
However,
t
the
e
editorial
h
high
p
profile.
t
that
e
enables
n
need
to build on this.
t
C
Cheers
P
Phil

A
HI Malcolm,
H
p
particular
p
publishes
e
editor
there *is*
t
l
latter

(
(Paleoceanography?

u
using
g
greater
territory too.
t
Q
m
mike

A

I

t

p
n

a

v
i
interests.

p

i

m

e

B

d

u

o

c

c

s

r

b

b

B

S

m

m

t
s

p

c

E
> Hi guys,
>
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> > Dear All,
> > to do there.

> >
> >years if it goes
> > unchallenged.
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> > Phil

> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> > Phil
> >
> >>Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:32:14 +0000
> >>To: p.jones@uea
> >>
> >>
> >>

> >
> >Prof. Phil Jones
> >NR4 7TJ
> >UK
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >-------
> >
> >
> >/CARO) (00016021)
>
>
> --
> Thomas J. Crowley
> Box 90227
> Durham, NC 27708
>
> 919-681-8228
> 919-684-5833 fax
Malcolm Hughes
M
P

L
U
Tucson, AZ 85721
T
5
520-621-6470
fax 520-621-8229
f
_
_______________________________________________________________________

P

D
U
C
_
_______________________________________________________________________

e
[
Prof. Phil Jones

P

C

S

U

N
NR4 7TJ
N
U
UK
-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
--
Thomas J. Crowley
T
N

D

N
Box 90227
B

1
Durham, NC 27708
D
t
9
919-681-8228
919-684-5833 fax
9
_
______________________________________________________________

P

D
U
C
_
_______________________________________________________________________

e
[
_
______________________________________________________________

P

D
U
C
_
_______________________________________________________________________

e
[
_
______________________________________________
Scott Rutherford
S
University of Virginia University of Rhode Island

U
Environmental Sciences Graduate School of Oceanography
E
Clark Hall South Ferry Road

C
Charlottesville, VA 22903 Narragansett, RI 02882

C
srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
s
phone: (434) 924-4669 (401) 874-6599

p
fax: (434) 982-2137 (401) 874-6811

f
_
______________________________________________________________

P

D
U
C
_
_______________________________________________________________________

e
[
R
References
1
2
3
4
5
6

t

E
From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Tim Osborn ,Tom Crowley , Phil Jones Subject: Re: Fwd:
Soon & Baliunas Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:12:02 -0500 Cc:
rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
k
k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Tim,
D
Thanks for your rapid replies and your help. This is all very useful.
T
Well, lets see what this gives...

W
There are some notable differences just between our relative comparisons of the
d
different
series which must have something to do with the relative scaling and aligning of
t
the
series. The position of Crowley and Lowery, in particular, is quite inconsistent

b
between
our respective comparisons. When we scale the various series to the full N. Hem
o
instrumental annual mean CRU record 1856-1980, we get a a very different relative
o
ordering
of the different series, as shown in the attached figure from my Science

perspective piece
p
from last year

f
This should not, however, influence the EOF decomposition if all series are zero-
mean and
m
standardized prior to the EOF analysis, but the scaling and alignment of the
result, in the
r
end, will be sensitive to all of these various issues.

e
So, in short, lets see what we get, and then discuss any similarities/differences
w/ your
w
result, then make a decision as to what to show in the Eos piece. I'm sure we can
come up
c
w/ something we're all happy with...

w
Please do send us your & Keith's preferred version of the MXD reconstruction--
we'll collect
w
the others from the individual sources (most we already have, I think)...,
t
m
mike

At 16:29 12/03/03, Michael E. Mann wrote:
A
but there are many variables here [not the least of which is the choice of scaling
t
the
series to an extratropical summer mean, which as we have argued before, we don't

t
think
is appropriate for a full N. Hem mean because of changes in meridional temperature
gradient over time, and the choice of calibration period--I wonder if 1856-1960 or
1856-1980 gives a more stable result).

1
True, but as I indicated I have tried alternatives. The attached is what I get
w
with
annual mean temperature as the target series - still taken only from land >20N
t
though
[but I have extracted that domain from your spatial reconstructions to produce the
t
time
series that I used for "Mann et al." - which should make it reasonably appropriate
b
back
to 1400 at least]. I have also tried different calibration periods (including not
calibrating against instrumental data at all!). All give qualitatively similar

r
results
- see attached .pdf and compare with the first one I sent.
The point is, that (I believe) the approach will introduce a *new* result and
while that
w
is interesting it wouldn't be appropriate for a short EOS piece - and having found
t
this
out, I was trying to save you the effort.

o
But, on reflection, it would be good if you went ahead and did this anyway,
because the
b
results might well be useful to publish in another paper, even if they weren't
d
deemed
suitable for the EOS piece.

s
I could provide the 7 series that I have used, but would prefer that you got them
from
the original sources to ensure that you have the most up-to-date/correct versions.
C
Cheers
T
Tim

D

S

C

S

U

N
U
_
______________________________________________________________

P

D
U
C
_
_______________________________________________________________________

e
[
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachmannpersp2002.gif"

A
R
References
1
2
3

E
From: Tim Osborn To: "Michael E. Mann" ,Tom Crowley , Phil Jones Subject: Re: Fwd:
Soon & Baliunas Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:16:16 +0000 Cc: Malcolm Hughes
,rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
m
mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
This is an excellent idea, Mike, IN PRINCIPLE at least. In practise, however, it

raises some interesting results (as I have found when attempting this myself) that
may be difficult to avoid getting bogged down with discussing.
m
The attached .pdf figure shows an example of what I have produced (NB. please
don't circulate this further, as it is from work that is currently being finished
off - however, I'm happy to use it here to illustrate my point).
o
I took 7 reconstructions and re-calibrated them over a common period and against
an observed target series (in this case, land-only, Apr-Sep, >20N - BUT I GET
SIMILAR RESULTS WITH OTHER CHOICES, and this re-calibration stage is not
critical). You will have seen figures similar to this in stuff Keith and I have
published. See the coloured lines in the attached figure.
p
In this example I then simply took an unweighted average of the calibrated series,
but the weighted average obtained via an EOF approach can give similar results.
The average is shown by the thin black line (I've ignored the potential problems
of series covering different periods). This was all done with raw, unsmoothed
data, even though 30-yr smoothed curves are plotted in the figure.
d
The thick black line is what I get when I re-calibrate the average record against
my target observed series. THIS IS THE IMPORTANT BIT. The *re-calibrated* mean of
the reconstructions is nowhere near the mean of the reconstructions. It has
enhanced variability, because averaging the reconstructions results in a redder
time series (there is less common variance between the reconstructions at the
higher frequencies compared with the lower frequencies, so the former averages out
to leave a smoother curve) and the re-calibration is then more of a case of
fitting a trend (over my calibration period 1881-1960) to the observed trend. This
results in enhanced variability, but also enhanced uncertainty (not shown here)
due to fewer effective degrees of freedom during calibration.
d
Obviously there are questions about observed target series, which series to
include/exclude etc., but the same issue will arise regardless: the analysis will
not likely lie near to the middle of the cloud of published series and explaining
the reasons behind this etc. will obscure the message of a short EOS piece.
t
It is, of course, interesting - not least for the comparison with borehole-based
estimates - but that is for a separate paper, I think.
e
My suggestion would be to stick with one of these options: (i) a single example
reconstruction; (ii) a plot of a cloud of reconstructions; (iii) a plot of the
"envelope" containing the cloud of reconstructions (perhaps also the envelope
would encompass their uncertainty estimates), but without showing the individual
reconstruction best guesses.
r
How many votes for each?

H
C
Cheers
T
Tim
At 15:32 12/03/03, Michael E. Mann wrote: >p.s. The idea of both a representative
time-slice spatial plot emphasizing >the spatial variability of e.g. the MWP or
LIA, and an EOF analysis of all >the records is a great idea. I'd like to suggest
a small modification of >the latter: > >I would suggest we show 2 curves,
representing the 1st PC of two different >groups, one of empirical
reconstructions, the other of model simulations, >rather than just one in the time
plot. > >Group #1 could include: > >1) Crowley & Lowery >2) Mann et al 1999 >3)
Bradley and Jones 1995 >4) Jones et al, 1998 >5) Briffa et al 200X? [Keith/Tim to
provide their preferred MXD >reconstruction] >6) Esper et al [yes, no?--one series
that differs from the others won't >make much of a difference] > >I would suggest
we scale the resulting PC to the CRU 1856-1960 annual >Northern Hemisphere mean
instrumental record, which should overlap w/ all >of the series, and which pre-
dates the MXD decline issue... > >Group #2 would include various model simulations
using different forcings, >and with slightly different sensitivities. This could
include 6 or so >simulation results: > >1) 3 series from Crowley (2000) [based on
different solar/volcanic >reconstructions], >2) 2 series from Gerber et al (Bern
modeling group result) [based on >different assumed sensitivities] >1) Bauer et al
series (Claussen group EMIC result) [includes 19th/20th >century land use changes
as a forcing]. > >I would suggest that the model's 20th century mean is aligned
with the >20th century instrumental N.Hem mean for comparison (since this is when
we >know the forcings best). > > >I'd like to nominate Scott R. as the collector
of the time series and the >performer of the EOF analyses, scaling, and plotting,
since Scott already >has many of the series and many of the appropriate analysis
and plotting >tools set up to do this. > >We could each send our preferred
versions of our respective time series to >Scott as an ascii attachment, etc. >
>thoughts, comments? > >thanks, > >mike > >At 10:08 AM 3/12/2003 -0500, Michael E.
Mann wrote: >>Thanks Tom, >> >>Either would be good, but Eos is an especially good
idea. Both Ellen M-T >>and Keith Alverson are on the editorial board there, so I
think there >>would be some receptiveness to such a submission.t >> >>I see this
as complementary to other pieces that we have written or are >>currently writing
(e.g. a review that Ray, Malcolm, and Henry Diaz are >>doing for Science on the
MWP) and this should proceed entirely >>independently of that. >> >>If there is
group interest in taking this tack, I'd be happy to contact >>Ellen/Keith about
the potential interest in Eos, or I'd be happy to let >>Tom or Phil to take the
lead too... >> >>Comments? >> >>mike >> >>At 09:15 AM 3/12/2003 -0500, Tom Crowley
wrote: >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Phil et al, >>> >>>I suggest either
BAMS or Eos - the latter would probably be better >>>because it is shorter,
quicker, has a wide distribution, and all the >>>points that need to be made have
been made before. >>> >>>rather than dwelling on Soon and Baliunas I think the
message should be >>>pointedly made against all of the standard claptrap being
dredged up. >>> >>>I suggest two figures- one on time series and another showing
the >>>spatial array of temperatures at one point in the Middle Ages. I
>>>produced a few of those for the Ambio paper but already have one ready >>>for
the Greenland settlement period 965-995 showing the regional nature >>>of the
warmth in that figure. we could add a few new sites to it, but >>>if people think
otherwise we could of course go in some other direction. >>> >>>rather than
getting into the delicate question of which paleo >>>reconstruction to use I
suggest that we show a time series that is an >>>eof of the different
reconstructions - one that emphasizes the >>>commonality of the message. >>>
>>>Tom >>> >>> >>>>Dear All, >>>> I agree with all the points being made and the
multi-authored >>>> article would be a good idea, >>>> but how do we go about not
letting it get buried somewhere. Can we >>>> not address the >>>> misconceptions
by finally coming up with definitive dates for the LIA >>>> and MWP and >>>>
redefining what we think the terms really mean? With all of us and >>>> more on
the paper, it should >>>> carry a lot of weight. In a way we will be setting the
agenda for >>>> what should be being done >>>> over the next few years. >>>> We do
want a reputable journal but is The Holocene the right >>>> vehicle. It is
probably the >>>> best of its class of journals out there. Mike and I were asked
to >>>> write an article for the EGS >>>> journal of Surveys of Geophysics. You've
not heard of this - few >>>> have, so we declined. However, >>>> it got me
thinking that we could try for Reviews of Geophysics. Need >>>> to contact the
editorial >>>> board to see if this might be possible. Just a thought, but it >>>>
certainly has a high profile. >>>> What we want to write is NOT the scholarly
review a la Jean Grove >>>> (bless her soul) that >>>> just reviews but doesn't
come to anything firm. We want a critical >>>> review that enables >>>> agendas to
be set. Ray's recent multi-authored piece goes a lot of >>>> the way so we need
>>>> to build on this. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Phil >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>At 12:55
11/03/03 -0500, Michael E. Mann wrote: >>>>>HI Malcolm, >>>>> >>>>>Thanks for the
feedback--I largely concur. I do, though, think there >>>>>is a particular problem
with "Climate Research". This is where my >>>>>colleague Pat Michaels now
publishes exclusively, and his two closest >>>>>colleagues are on the editorial
board and review editor board. So I >>>>>promise you, we'll see more of this
there, and I personally think >>>>>there *is* a bigger problem with the
"messenger" in this case... >>>>> >>>>>But the Soon and Baliunas paper is its own,
separate issue too. I too >>>>>like Tom's latter idea, of a more hefty multi-
authored piece in an >>>>>appropriate journal (Paleoceanography? Holocene?) that
seeks to >>>>>correct a number of misconceptions out there, perhaps using Baliunas
>>>>>and Soon as a case study ('poster child'?), but taking on a slightly
>>>>>greater territory too. >>>>> >>>>>Question is, who would take the lead role.
I *know* we're all very busy, >>>>> >>>>>mike >>>>> >>>>> At 10:28 AM 3/11/03
-0700, Malcolm Hughes wrote: >>>>>>I'm with Tom on this. In a way it comes back to
a rant of mine >>>>>>to which some of you have already been victim. The general
>>>>>>point is that there are two arms of climatology: >>>>>> neoclimatology -
what you do based on instrumental records >>>>>>and direct, systematic
observations in networks - all set in a >>>>>>very Late Holocene/Anthropocene time
with hourly to decadal >>>>>>interests. >>>>>>paleoclimatology - stuff from rocks,
etc., where major changes >>>>>>in the Earth system, including its climate,
associated with >>>>>>major changes in boundary conditions, may be detected by
>>>>>>examination of one or a handful of paleo records. >>>>>>Between these two is
what we do - "mesoclimatology" - >>>>>>dealing with many of the same phenomena as
neoclimatology, >>>>>>using documentary and natural archives to look at phenomena
>>>>>>on interannual to millennial time scales. Given relatively small
>>>>>>changes in boundary conditions (until the last couple of >>>>>>centuries),
mesoclimatology has to work in a way that is very >>>>>>similar to neoclimatology.
Most notably, it depends on heavily >>>>>>replicated networks of precisely dated
records capable of >>>>>>being either calibrated, or whose relationship to climate
may >>>>>>be modeled accuarately and precisely. >>>>>>Because this distinction is
not recognized by many (e.g. >>>>>>Sonnechkin, Broecker, Karlen) we see an
accumulation of >>>>>>misguided attempts at describing the climate of recent
>>>>>>millennia. It would be better to head this off in general, rather >>>>>>than
draw attention to a bad paper. After all, as Tom rightly >>>>>>says, we could all
nominate really bad papers that have been >>>>>>published in journals of
outstanding reputation (although there >>>>>>could well be differences between our
lists). >>>>>>End of rant, Cheers, Malcolm >>>>>> > Hi guys, >>>>>> > >>>>>> >
junk gets published in lots of places. I think that what could be >>>>>> > done is
a short reply to the authors in Climate Research OR a SLIGHTLY >>>>>> > longer
note in a reputable journal entitled something like "Continuing >>>>>> >
Misconceptions About interpretation of past climate change." I kind >>>>>> > of
like the more pointed character of the latter and submitting it as >>>>>> > a
short note with a group authorship carries a heft that a reply to a >>>>>> >
paper, in no matter what journal, does not. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Tom >>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > Dear All, >>>>>> > > Apologies for sending this again. I was
expecting a stack of >>>>>> > >emails this morning in >>>>>> > > response, but I
inadvertently left Mike off (mistake in pasting) >>>>>> > >and picked up Tom's old
>>>>>> > > address. Tom is busy though with another offspring ! >>>>>> > > I
looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling - >>>>>> > >worst word
I can think of today >>>>>> > > without the mood pepper appearing on the email !
I'll have time to >>>>>> > >read more at the weekend >>>>>> > > as I'm coming to
the US for the DoE CCPP meeting at Charleston. >>>>>> > >Added Ed, Peck and Keith
A. >>>>>> > > onto this list as well. I would like to have time to rise to the
>>>>>> > >bait, but I have so much else on at >>>>>> > > the moment. As a few of
us will be at the EGS/AGU meet in Nice, we >>>>>> > >should consider what >>>>>> >
> to do there. >>>>>> > > The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper
>>>>>> > >determine the answer they get. They >>>>>> > > have no idea what
multiproxy
averaging does. By their logic, I >>>>>> > >could argue 1998 wasn't the >>>>>> >
> warmest year globally, because it wasn't the warmest everywhere. >>>>>> > >With
their LIA being 1300- >>>>>> > >1900 and their MWP 800-1300, there appears (at my
quick first >>>>>> > >reading) no discussion of >>>>>> > > synchroneity of the
cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental >>>>>> > >record, the early and late
>>>>>> > > 20th century warming periods are only significant locally at >>>>>> >
>between 10-20% of grid boxes. >>>>>> > > Writing this I am becoming more
convinced we should do >>>>>> > >something - even if this is just >>>>>> > > to
state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think >>>>>> > >the
skeptics will use >>>>>> > > this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo
back a number of >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >years if it goes >>>>>> > > unchallenged.
>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having
>>>>>> > >nothing more to do with it until they >>>>>> > > rid themselves of this
troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the >>>>>> > >editorial board, but papers
>>>>>> > > get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch. >>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > Cheers >>>>>> > > Phil >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > Dear all, >>>>>> > > Tim
Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore >>>>>> > >probably, so don't let
it spoil your >>>>>> > > day. I've not looked at it yet. It results from this
journal >>>>>> > >having a number of editors. The >>>>>> > > responsible one for
this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >a few papers
through by >>>>>> > > Michaels and Gray in the past. I've had words with Hans von
Storch >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >about this, but got nowhere. >>>>>> > > Another thing
to discuss in Nice ! >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > Cheers >>>>>> > > Phil >>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >>X-Sender: f055@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >>>>>> > >>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows
Eudora Version 5.1 >>>>>> > >>Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:32:14 +0000 >>>>>> > >>To:
p.jones@uea >>>>>> > >>From: Tim Osborn >>>>>> > >>Subject: Soon & Baliunas >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >>Dr Timothy J Osborn | phone: +44 1603
592089 >>>>>> > >>Senior Research Associate | fax: +44 1603 507784 >>>>>> >
>>Climatic Research Unit | e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >>>>>> > >>School of
Environmental Sciences | web-site: University of East >>>>>> > >>Anglia
__________| http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ Norwich NR4 >>>>>> > >>7TJ | sunclock:
UK | >>>>>> > >>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm >>>>>> > > >>>>>> >
>Prof. Phil Jones >>>>>> > >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
>>>>>> > >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>>>>> >
>University of East Anglia >>>>>> > >Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >>>>>> >
>NR4 7TJ >>>>>> > >UK >>>>>> >
>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >
>------- >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Soon &
Baliunas 2003.pdf (PDF >>>>>> > >/CARO) (00016021) >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > --
>>>>>> > Thomas J. Crowley >>>>>> > Nicholas Professor of Earth Systems Science
>>>>>> > Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences >>>>>> > Nicholas School of the
Environment and Earth Sciences >>>>>> > Box 90227 >>>>>> > 103 Old Chem Building
Duke University >>>>>> > Durham, NC 27708 >>>>>> > >>>>>> > tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>>>> > 919-681-8228 >>>>>> > 919-684-5833 fax >>>>>> >>>>>>Malcolm Hughes
>>>>>>Professor of Dendrochronology >>>>>>Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
>>>>>>University of Arizona >>>>>>Tucson, AZ 85721 >>>>>>520-621-6470 >>>>>>fax
520-621-8229 >>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________________________________ >>>>>
Professor Michael E. Mann >>>>> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
>>>>> University of Virginia >>>>> Charlottesville, VA 22903
>>>>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>>>>e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137 >>>>>
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml >>>> >>>>Prof. Phil Jones
>>>>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>>>School of
Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>>>University of East Anglia
>>>>Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >>>>NR4 7TJ >>>>UK
>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>> >>>Thomas J. Crowley >>>Nicholas Professor of
Earth Systems Science >>>Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences >>>Nicholas School of
the Environment and Earth Sciences >>>Box 90227 >>>103 Old Chem Building Duke
University >>>Durham, NC 27708 >>> >>>tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >>>919-681-8228
>>>919-684-5833 fax >>
>>______________________________________________________________ >> Professor
Michael E. Mann >> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall >> University
of Virginia >> Charlottesville, VA 22903
>>_______________________________________________________________________ >>e-
mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137 >>
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: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137 >
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachsynth1.pdf" Dr Timothy J Osborn | phone: +44

1603 592089 Senior Research Associate | fax: +44 1603 507784 Climatic Research
Unit | e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx School of Environmental Sciences | web-site:
University of East Anglia __________| http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ Norwich NR4
7TJ | sunclock: UK | http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm

From: Bert Metz To: Armin Haas Subject: Re: AMS project Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003
15:41:15 +0100 Cc: Alex Haxeltine , Philippe Ambrosi , Antonella Battaglini ,
Antoni Rosell , Asbj?rn Torvanger , Andrew Jordan ,
"baldur.eliasson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" , Benito M?ller , Bert Metz ,
"bhare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" , Catherine Boemare , "Reinhard G. Budich" , Carlo Jaeger ,
Carlo Carraro , Christos Giannakopoulos , Christian Flachsland , Renaud Crassous ,
"V.K. Dochenko" , Daniel Droste , Eberhard Jochem , Elas Hunfeld , Elaine Jones ,
Francis Johnson , Frank Thomalla , Fred Langeweg , Christian Azar , Felicity
Thomas , Sebastian Gallehr , "gberz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" , Gernot Klepper , Gary Yohe ,
Armin Haas , Stephane Hallegatte , Harald Bradke , Heike Zimmermann-Timm , Leen
Hordijk , Jean-Charles Hourcade , MVV C&E Hanan Abdul-Rida , Henning Jappe , John
Schellnhuber , Henning Niemeyer , Joan David Tabara , Jeroen Aerts , Eberhard
Jochem , Jon Hovi , Juergen Kurths , " juergen.engelhard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" , "Jaap C.
Jansen" , Jonathan K?hler , Jean Palutikof , Jeroen van der Sluijs , Jan Rotmans ,
John Turnpenny , Martin Kaltschmitt , Karen O'Brien , Katrin Gerlinger , Claudia
Kemfert , Klaus B?swald , Klaus Hasselmann , Helga Kromp-Kolb , Kornelis Block ,
Anco Lankreijer , Lennart Olsson , Herve Le Treut , Manfred Stock , MVV C&E Berlin
Tom Mansfield , Marco Berg , Marcus Lindner , Marina Fischer-Kowalski , Marjan
Minnesma , Martin Claussen , Martin Parry , " martin.welp" , Monika Ritt , Mike
Hulme , Nakicenovic , Antonio Navarra , Henry Neufeldt , Neil Adger , Niklas H?hne
, Ola Johannessen , Brian O'Neill , ottmar edenhofer , P?l Prestrud , Pier
Vellinga , Pavel Kabat , Pim Martens , "richard.klein" , Rik Leemans , Roger
Kasperson , Liudmila Romaniuk , Mark Rounsevell , Rupert Klein , Saleemul Huq ,
"SSinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" , HALLEGATTE Stephane , Simone Ullrich , Sybille van den
Hove , Tom Downing , Tom Kram , Tony Patt , Ferenc Toth , Tobias Kampet , Tim
O'Riordan , "S.E. van der Leeuw" , "S.E. van der Leeuw" , Pier Vellinga ,
Alexander Wokaun , Wolfgang Cramer , Wolfgang Lucht , Wim Turkenburg
Daer Armin, I would like to confirm that RIVM is strongly committed to make a
substantial contribution to the AMS proposal, as was clear from our active
involvement in the discussions so far (except the Paris meeting where we
unfortunately could not send a representative). We have been in touch with several
other partners in developing ideas for the workpackage, but in view of the high
pressure under which the proposal is being put together, communication is not
always easy. I therefore include a list of elements we would like to contribute to
the respective parts of the proposal:.
WP1. Scenarios: involved with proposal Brian O'Neill (contact: Detlef van Vuuren).
Important issues: delineation with scenarios in other workpackages - no response
so far.
WP 3.1. Possible contribution, depends on connection with WP1
3.3. Primarily through cooperation with Un.Utrecht - proposal sent to Wokaun but
no response. Possible to add global context with IMAGE/TIMER and add non-energy
emssion reductions not covered in original proposal by Wokaun
3. 4. and 3.5: as for 3.3
WP 4.1. Suggested role for multi-gas stabilization profiles, burden sharing

regimes and EU action with IMAGE-FAIR combination (building on work we have done
with other partners for the European Commission). Current proposal by Haxeltine,
Leemans and Adger has 100% focus on impacts and adaptation and should be
broadened. We are ready to contribute
4.2. Now contains the regimes that should go under 4.1
4.6. Involved actively: see proposal Olsson&Metz that went to John Schellnhuber
WP 5.4. Strong interest, but no response from coordinator (C. Jaeger) and WP
coordinator Hasselmann refers back to CJ (!). We will put together proposal with
Tyndall towards development of CIAS model.
Best regards,
Bert Metz

From: Earth Government Subject: Press release from Earth Government and April
Newsletter Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:05:07 -0800
Press release from Earth Government and April Newsletter

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
This Press release from Earth Government is found at
[1]http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov/HNewsPR05.htm
Formation of Earth Government for the good of all
March 27th, 2003
To all Peoples of the Earth,
Earth has long been waiting for a truly global governing body based on universal
values,
human rights, global concepts and democracy. Earth Government might as well be
created now,
there is no longer any reason to wait. We are the Earth Community, and we will
form the
Earth Government. Earth management is a priority and is a duty by every

responsible person.
A democratically elected Earth Government will now be formed, and we want you to
reflect on
future effects of such an event on the history of humanity. Certainly one will
expect
extraordinary changes: a reorganizing of human activities all over the planet;
participation by all societies on the planet in solving local and global problems;
new
alliances forming; north meeting with south (eradication of poverty will be the
price to
pay to get votes from the south) in order to gather more votes within the newly
created
Earth Government to satisfy power struggles between European, Asian and Western
countries;
adoption of democratic principles, human and Earth rights, global concepts, and
universal
values by every human being; expansion of consciousness; gathering and
coordinating of
forces to resolve social and political problems in a peaceful way (no more
conflicts or
wars); gathering and coordinating of forces (technologies, scientific research,

exploration
work, human resources, etc.) to resolve global problems such as global climate,
environment, availability of resources, poverty, employment, etc. Thousands more

changes!
Let your heart and mind reflect on 'the good' of a democratically elected Earth
Government.
Everyone is part of Earth Community by birth and therefore everyone has a right to
vote.
Everyone should be given a chance to vote. Decisions will be made democratically.
Earth Government is proposing that:
a) different nations may require different political systems at different times
b) a democratic system is not a "must have it" to be a responsible member nation

of the
Earth Government
c) all democracies are to be upgraded, or improved upon, to be a responsible

member nation
of the Earth Government. The Scale of Human and Earth Rights and the Charter of
the Earth
Government are the newly added requirements to all democratic systems of the
world.
In today's Earth Government it is important for our survival to cooperate globally

on
several aspects such as peace, security, pollution in the air, water and land,
drug trade,
shelving the war industry, keeping the world healthy, enforcing global justice for
all,
eradicating poverty worldwide, replacing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

by the
Scale of Human and Earth Rights, and entrenching the Charter of Earth Government
as a way
of life for the good of all.
Earth needs urgently a world system of governance. The United Nations fail to
satisfy the
needs of the people of the 21st Century. It has never improved upon the old ways
and
thinking of the middle of the 20th Century. Its voting system no longer satisfy
the 6.157
billion people on Earth. The challenges are different and require a world
organization up
for dealing with the needs of all these people.
During the past several years, the Earth Government has been pleading the United
Nations
leaders to make changes in the UN organizational structure and ways of doing

things. There
has been an urgent need for fundamental changes in the United Nations
organization. The
decision of the United States Government to invade the Middle East nations and
Afghanistan
has shown to be a result of this incapacity for changes on the part of the United
Nations.
A lack of leadership at the United Nations is a major threat to the security of

the world.
The world wants a true democratic world organization. The UN is not!
The most fundamental requirement of a world organization is a democratic system of

voting.
Democracy must be a priority. The right that the greatest number of people has by
virtue of
its number (50% plus one) is a human right. It should be respected. The actual UN
system of
voting is undemocratic, unfair and noone likes it. It does not work! Earth
Government has
proposed a voting system based on democracy.
Of the 190 Member States of the United Nations, it takes only one of the five
permanent
members to overthrow any decision or proposal during a meeting. This means 1/189
or 0.5% of
the membership is more powerful than the remaining 99.5%. If that is not a
dictature, what
is it? It does not say much about democracy at the UN. More like a dictature of
the five
permanent members. In the Preamble of the Charter of the United Nations, it says
"WE THE
PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS " but in fact it should say "WE THE FIVE PERMANENT
MEMBERS".
The voting system for Earth Government is very simple and practical. One
representative per
million people. If all countries in the world had decided now to participate with
this
process we would have today 6,114 elected representatives to form Earth

Government. They
would form the Legislative body of Earth Government. They could actually all stay
home to
govern or from some place in their communities. Today communications are more than
good
enough to allow voting and discussing issues, etc. through the Internet and video
conferencing. That would cut cost of governing down to a minimum, at least

administrative
costs. The Executive body would also govern in this way to cut cost down to a
minimum.
Ministers can administer their Ministries from where they live if they wish to.
There will
be a place for the Headquarters. We will show that it costs very little to
administer Earth
Government, and that we can achieve immense results. There is no limit to the good
the
Earth Government can achieve in the world. Think! What can do a unified 6.114
billion
people determined to make things work to keep Earth healthy?
For the first time in human history, and the first time this millennium, humanity
has
proposed a benchmark:
* formation of Earth Government
* formation of global ministries in all important aspects of our lives
* the Scale of Human and Earth Rights as a replacement to the Universal

Declaration of
Human Rights
* an evolved Democracy based on the Scale of Human and Earth Rights and the
Charter of
the Earth Government
* a central organization for Earth management, the restoration of the planet and
Earth
governance: the Global Community Assessment Centre (GCAC)
* the Earth Court of Justice to deal with all aspects of the Governance and
Mangement of
the Earth
* a new impetus given to the way of doing business and trade
* more new, diversified (geographical, economical, political, social, business,
religious) symbiotical relationships between nations, communities, businesses, for

the
good and well-being of all
* the event and formation of the human family and the Soul of Humanity
* proposal to reform the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the World
Bank,
the IMF, NAFTA, FTAA, and to centralize them under Earth Government, and these
organizations will be asked to pay a global tax to be administered by Earth

Government
* the Peace Movement of the Earth Government and shelving of the war industry from
humanity
* a global regulatory framework for capitals and corporations that emphasizes

global
corporate ethics, corporate social responsibility, protection of human and Earth

rights,
the environment, community and family aspects, safe working conditions, fair wages
and
sustainable consumption aspects
* the ruling by the Earth Court of Justice of the abolishment of the debt of the
poor or
developing nations as it is really a form of global tax to be paid annually by the

rich
or industrialized nations to the developing nations
* establishing freshwater and clean air as primordial human rights
The political system of an individual country does not have to be a democracy.

Political
rights of a country belong to that country alone. Democracy is not to be enforced

by anyone
and to anyone or to any community. Every community can and should choose the
political
system of their choice with the understanding of the importance of such a right on
the
Scale of Human and Earth Rights. On the other hand, representatives to Earth
Government
must be elected democratically in every part of the world. An individual country

may have
any political system at home but the government of that country will have to
ensure (and
allow verification by Earth Government) that representatives to Earth Government

have been
elected democratically. This way, every person in the world can claim the birth
right of
electing a democratic government to manage Earth: the rights to vote and elect
representatives to form the Earth Government.

In order to elect representatives to Earth Government it is proposed the
following:
A. Each individual government in the world will administer the election of
representatives to Earth Government with an NGO and/or members of Earth Government

be
allowed to verify all aspects of the process to the satisfaction of all parties
involved.
B. Representatives be elected every five years to form a new Earth Government.
C. It is proposed here that there will be one elected representative per 1,000,000
people. A population of 100 million people will elect 100 representatives. This
process
will create a feeling of belonging and participating to the affairs of the Earth
Community and Earth Government.
D. A typical community of a million people does not have to be bounded by a

geographical
or political border. It can be a million people living in many different locations

all
over the world. The Global Community is thus more fluid and dynamic. We need to
let go
the archaic ways of seeing a community as the street where I live and contained by
a
border. Many conflicts and wars will be avoided by seeing ourselves as people with
a
heart, a mind and a Soul, and as part of a community with the same.
E. Earth population is now 6.114 billion people. If all representatives had been
elected
this year there would be 6,114 representatives to form Earth Government. They
would be
the Legislative elected body of Earth Government. They would participate in some
ways in
choosing the Executive and Judiciary bodies of Earth Government.
Humanity has now a Vision of the Earth in the years to come and a sense of
direction.
May the DIVINE WILL come into our lives and show us the way.
May our higher purpose in life bring us closer to the Soul of Humanity and God.
Germain Dufour, President
Earth Community Organization (ECO) and Earth Government
__________________________________________________________________________________
_________
The Newsletter can be found at the following location:
April 2003 Newsletter
[2]http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov/NewsA.htm
There are no costs in reading our Newsletters
([3]http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov/EarthGovernment.htm).
The Table of Contents of the Newsletter is shown here.
Table of Contents
1.0 President's Message
2.0 Letter to the Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chretien, concerning Peace in the
Middle East
3.0 Letter to the American and British Peoples concerning the invasion of the
Middle
East
4.0 Letter to all Canadians concerning the total and global embargo on all US
products,
all goods and services
5.0 Letter to the Moslem and the Arab Peoples
6.0 Letter to Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji of China, and to the Chinese People
7.0 Letter to the United Nations
8.0 Articles
A) How women matter in decreasing world population
B) The energy we need
C) Mining the impacts
D) Symbiotical relationship of religion and global life-support systems
E) Celebration of Life Day
F) The hidden agenda: China
G) Earth Government now a priority
H) The splitting of America into separate independent states living at peace for
the
good of all
I) The war industry: the modern evil at work in the Middle East
J) Earth security
K) Earth governance
L) The Earth Court of Justice holds the people of the U.S.A. and Britain as
criminals
M) Foundation for the new world order, Earth Government
Improved Democracy, Nonviolence, and Peace
Respect and Care for the Global Community of Life
Ecological Integrity
Social and Economic Justice
A new symbiotical relationship between that of spirituality and the
protection of the global life-support systems
Scale of Human and Earth Right
Earth Court of Justice
Charter of Earth Government

May the DIVINE WILL come into our lives and show us the way.
May our higher purpose in life bring us closer to the Soul of Humanity and God.
Germain Dufour, President
[4]Earth Community Organization (ECO) and [5]Earth Government
Website of the Earth Community Organization and of Earth Government
[6]http://www.telusplanet.net/public/gdufour/
[7]http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov
Email addresses
[8]gdufour@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
[9]gdufour@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
[10]earthgov@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
References
1. http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov/HNewsPR05.htm
2. http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov/NewsA.htm
3. http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov/EarthGovernment.htm
4. http://www.telusplanet.net/public/gdufour/
5. http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov
6. http://www.telusplanet.net/public/gdufour/
7. http://members.shaw.ca/earthgov
8. mailto:gdufour@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
9. mailto:gdufour@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
10. mailto:earthgov@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

From: "Eystein Jansen" To: "Keith Briffa" Subject: Re: Re: Holclim follow up Date:
Mon 7 Apr 2003 16:04
Dear Keith. I had a chat with Dominique Reynaud on this matter today here in Nice.
His impression is the same, but added that he thinks Brussels would insist on a
NoE rather than an IP. If we wish to have an IP it needs lobbying it seems. He
told about the meeting in Brussels inJune. I am not invited as far as I can tell.
Dominique mentioned that Nick Shackleton would be there and I will talk with him.
The key thing would be to sort out what the most exciting science our community
can offer when we integrate the communities. In terms of meetings it seems to
depend alittle of what comes out of the June meeting in Brusseks. Cheers Eystein
>---- Original Message --- >From: Keith Briffa >To: Eystein Jansen >Subject: Re:
Holclim follow up > > >Eystein >your point is exactly correct , that only one
project (and I believe it=20 >should be an IP) will be allowed and with the
shrinking general scale of=20 >these things, it likely needs to be very clearly
focused (on integrating=20 >evidence and providing some state-of-the-art product
on climate history and= >=20 >its causes) . I am not in Nice (have to go to 2
other meetings in May) . I= >=20 >am still leaning towards your institute co-
ordinating this . I have not=20 >discussed anything with the rest of the HOLIVAR
committee. >We do need some sort of meeting but only small - there is no chance of
a 25= >=20 >million Euro project and many people are likely to be disappointed . I
have= >=20 >to be in Brussels for a meeting with Brelen in June . What are you
thinking= >=20 >about , re. a meeting? >Keith >At 10:01 PM 4/3/03 +0200, you
wrote: >>Dear Keith, >> I was just wondering whether you were coming the the EGS
meeting in Nice= >=20 >> next week, in order for us to exchange some ideas about
how to proceed=20 >> for FP6. Recent rumors says that the palaeoclimate variablity
item is in= >=20 >> the books for the third call, and that the call will be issued
by the=20 >> turn of the year, thus we should start discussing how to proceed. So
far= >=20 >> my DOCC initiative is dormant, and I am more inclined to develop or
take= >=20 >> part in developing an IP if the call for proposals allow for one.
But the= >=20 >> size of these IPs seems to be diminishing, hence a careful
focussing=20 >> needs to be undertaken in order for there to be resources for the
science= >=20 >> teams. I would be happy to discuss idea with you on this in Nice
or=20 >> sometime else if you=B4re not there. >> >>Cheers, >>Eystein >> >> >>
>>Eystein Jansen >>prof/director >>Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research
>>All=E9gaten 55, N5007 Bergen, Norway >>tel: +4755583491/secr:+4755589803/fax:
+4755584330 >>eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, www.bjerknes.uib.no > >-- >Professor
Keith Briffa, >Climatic Research Unit >University of East Anglia >Norwich, NR4
7TJ, U.K. > >Phone: +44-1603-593909 >Fax: +44-1603-507784 >
>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ > >

From: Tom Wigley To: Tom Wigley , Phil Jones , Mike Hulme , Keith Briffa , James
Hansen , Danny Harvey , Ben Santer , Kevin Trenberth , Robert wilby , "Michael E.
Mann" , Tom Karl , Steve Schneider , Tom Crowley , jto , "simon.shackley" ,
"tim.carter" , "p.martens" , "peter.whetton" , "c.goodess" , "a.minns" , Wolfgang
Cramer , "j.salinger" , "simon.torok" , Mark Eakin , Scott Rutherford , Neville
Nicholls , Ray Bradley , Mike MacCracken , Barrie Pittock , Ellen Mosley-
Thompson , "pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" , "Greg.Ayers" Subject: My turn Date: Wed, 23
Apr 2003 23:53:38 -0600
Dear friends,
[Apologies to those I have missed who have been part of this email exchange --
although they may be glad to have been missed]
I think Barrie Pittock has the right idea -- although there are some unique things
about this situation. Barrie says ....
(1) There are lots of bad papers out there (2) The best response is probably to
write a 'rebuttal'
to which I add ....
(3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in the 4AR.
____________________
Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years ago by Legates and Davis
in GRL (vol. 24, pp. 2319-1222, 1997) that was nothing more than a direct and
pointed criticism of some work by Santer and me -- yet neither of us was asked to
review the paper. We complained, and GRL admitted it was poor judgment on the part
of the editor. Eventually (> 2 years later) we wrote a response (GRL 27, 2973-
2976, 2000). However, our response was more that just a rebuttal, it was an
attempt to clarify some issues on detection. In doing things this way we tried to
make it clear that the original Legates/Davis paper was an example of bad science
(more bluntly, either sophomoric ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation).
Any rebuttal must point out very clearly the flaws in the original paper. If some
new science (or explanations) can be added -- as we did in the above example --
then this is an advantage.
_____________________________
There is some personal judgment involved in deciding whether to rebut. Correcting

bad science is the first concern. Responding to unfair personal criticisms is
next. Third is the possible misrepresentation of the results by persons with
ideological or political agendas. On the basis of these I think the Baliunas paper
should be rebutted by persons with appropriate expertise. Names like Mann,
Crowley, Briffa, Bradley, Jones, Hughes come to mind. Are these people willing to
spend time on this?
_______________________________
There are two other examples that I know of where I will probably be involved in
writing a response.
The first is a paper by Douglass and Clader in GRL (vol. 29, no. 16,
10.1029/2002GL015345, 2002). I refereed a virtually identical paper for J.
Climate, recommending rejection. All the other referees recommended rejection too.
The paper is truly appalling -- but somehow it must have been poorly reviewed by
GRL and slipped through the net. I have no reason to believe that this was
anything more than chance. Nevertheless, my judgment is that the science is so bad
that a response is necessary.
The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in Climate Research (vol. 23,
pp. 1?9, 2002). Danny Harvey and I refereed this and said it should be rejected.
We questioned the editor (deFreitas again!) and he responded saying .....
The MS was reviewed initially by five referees. ... The other three referees, all
reputable atmospheric scientists, agreed it should be published subject to minor
revision. Even then I used a sixth person to help me decide. I took his advice and
that of the three other referees and sent the MS back for revision. It was later
accepted for publication. The refereeing process was more rigorous than usual.
On the surface this looks to be above board -- although, as referees who advised
rejection it is clear that Danny and I should have been kept in the loop and seen
how our criticisms were responded to.
It is possible that Danny and I might write a response to this paper -- deFreitas
has offered us this possibility.
______________________________
This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that deFreitas
deliberately chose other referees who are members of the skeptics camp. I also
suspect that he has done this on other occasions. How to deal with this is
unclear, since there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific
credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that 'anti-
greenhouse' science can get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling,
Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, and so on).
The peer review process is being abused, but proving this would be difficult.
The best response is, I strongly believe, to rebut the bad science that does get
through.
_______________________________
Jim Salinger raises the more personal issue of deFreitas. He is clearly giving
good science a bad name, but I do not think a barrage of ad hominem attacks or
letters is the best way to counter this.
If Jim wishes to write a letter with multiple authors, I may be willing to sign
it, but I would not write such a letter myself.
In this case, deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply disappear. I
saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat Michaels' PhD is at the same
level).
______________________________
Best wishes to all, Tom.

From: Tom Wigley To: Timothy Carter Subject: Re: Java climate model Date: Thu, 24
Apr 2003 09:17:29 -0600 Cc: Mike Hulme , Phil Jones
Tim,
I know about what Matthews has done. He did so without contacting Sarah or me. He
uses a statistical emulation method that can never account for the full range of
uncertainties. I would not trust it outside the calibration zone -- so I doubt
that it can work well for (e.g.) stabilization cases. As far as I know it has not
been peer reviewed. Furthermore, unless he has illegally got hold of the TAR
version of the model, what he has done can only be an emulation of the SAR
version.
Personally, I regard this as junk science (i.e., not science at all).
Matthews is doing the community a considerable disservice.
Tom.
PS Re CR, I do not know the best way to handle the specifics of the editoring.
Hans von Storch is partly to blame -- he encourages the publication of crap
science 'in order to stimulate debate'. One approach is to go direct to the
publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a
medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use
the word 'perceived' here, since whether it is true or not is not what the
publishers care about -- it is how the journal is seen by the community that
counts.
I think we could get a large group of highly credentialed scientists to sign such
a letter -- 50+ people.
Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones. Mike's idea to
get editorial board members to resign will probably not work -- must get rid of
von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates,
Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not
happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too.
_______________________________
_______________________________
Timothy Carter wrote: > > Dear Tom, > > Since you were online yesterday
contributing to the "Climate Research" > discussion, I figured that you might be
in town to give your views on the > Java Climate Model which, I understand, is
based in large part on MAGICC: > > http://chooseclimate.org/jcm/ > > and seems to
be getting considerable exposure amongst the policy community > now that Ben
Matthews (was he a student of yours at UEA?) has made this > available online. > >
I wondered if this has been subjected to "peer review" by the people whose >
models it is based on or anyone else, since I have Ministry people here in >
Finland asking me if this type of tool is something they should think of > using
during the negotiating process! > > It's certainly a smart piece of software,
though it seems to have > irritating bugs, like returning to the default state
when any little thing > is adjusted. What is critically important, though, is that
it can do what > it is advertising. If it can't, then the careful work done
offline by > people such as yourself, could be undermined. > > Any thoughts? > >
Best regards from a sunny though cool Helsinki. > > Tim > > P.S. On the CR issue,
I agree that a rebuttal seems to be the only method > of addressing the problem (I
communicated this to Mike yesterday morning), > and I wonder if a review of the
refereeing policy is in order. The only way > I can think of would be for all
papers to go through two Editors rather > than one, the former to have overall
responsibility, the latter to provide > a second opinion on a paper and reviewers'
comments prior to publication. A > General Editor would be needed to adjudicate in
the event of disagreement. > Of course, this could then slow down the review
process enormously. > However, without an editorial board to vote someone off, how
can suspect > Editors be removed except by the Publisher (in this case, Inter-
Research).
From: "Michael E. Mann" To: mark.eakin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re: My turn Date:

Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:39:14 -0400 Cc: Tom Wigley , Phil Jones , Mike Hulme , Keith
Briffa , James Hansen , Danny Harvey , Ben Santer , Kevin Trenberth , Robert wilby
, Tom Karl , Steve Schneider , Tom Crowley , jto , "simon.shackley" , "tim.carter"
, "p.martens" , "peter.whetton" , "c.goodess" , "a.minns" , Wolfgang Cramer ,
"j.salinger" , "simon.torok" , Scott Rutherford , Neville Nicholls , Ray Bradley ,
Mike MacCracken , Barrie Pittock , Ellen Mosley-Thompson ,
"pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" , "Greg.Ayers" , wuebbles@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
christopher.d.miller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
HI Mark,
Thanks for your comments, and sorry to any of you who don't wish to receive these
correspondances...
Indeed, I have provided David Halpern with a written set of comments on the
offending paper(s) for internal use, so that he was armed w/ specifics as he
confronts the issue within OSTP. He may have gotten additional comments from other
individuals as well--I'm not sure. I believe that the matter is in good hands with
Dave, but we have to wait and see what happens. In any case, I'd be happy to
provide my comments to anyone who is interested.
I think that a response to "Climate Research" is not a good idea. Phil and I
discussed this, and agreed that it would be largely unread, and would tend to
legitimize a paper which many of us don't view as having passed peer review in a
legitimate manner. On the other hand, the in prep. review articles by Jones and
Mann (Rev. Geophys.), and Bradley/Hughes/Diaz (Science) should go along way
towards clarification of the issues (and, at least tangentially, refutation of the
worst of the claims of Baliunas and co). Both should be good resources for the FAR
as well...
cheers,
mike
p.s. note the corrections to some of the emails in the original distribution list.
At 09:27 AM 4/24/03 -0600, Mark Eakin wrote: >At this point the question is what
to do about the Soon and Baliunas >paper. Would Bradley, Mann, Hughes et al. be
willing to develop and >appropriate rebuttal? If so, the question at hand is where
it would be >best to direct such a response. Some options are: > >1) A rebuttal in
Climate Research >2) A rebuttal article in a journal of higher reputation >3) A
letter to OSTP > >The first is a good approach, as it keeps the argument to the
level of the >current publication. The second would be appropriate if the Soon and
>Baliunas paper were gaining attention at a more general level, but it is >not.
Therefore, a rebuttal someplace like Science or Nature would >probably do the
opposite of what is desired here by raising the attention >to the paper. The best
way to take care of getting better science out in a >widely read journal is the
piece that Bradley et al. are preparing for >Nature. This leaves the idea of a
rebuttal in Climate Research as the >best published approach. > >A letter to OSTP
is probably in order here. Since the White House has >shown interest in this
paper, OSTP really does need to receive a measured, >critical discussion of flaws
in Soon and Baliunas' methods. I agree with >Tom that a noted group from the
detection and attribution effort such as >Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley, Jones
and Hughes should spearhead such a >letter. Many others of us could sign on in
support. >This would provide Dave Halpern with the ammunition he needs to provide
>the White House with the needed documentation that hopefully will dismiss >this
paper for the slipshod work that it is. Such a letter could be >developed in
parallel with a rebuttal article. > >I have not received all of the earlier e-
mails, so my apologies if I am >rehashing parts of the discussion that might have
taken place elsewhere. > >Cheers, >Mark > > > >Michael E. Mann wrote: > >>Dear Tom
et al, >> >>Thanks for comments--I see we've built up an impressive distribution
list >>here! >> >>This seemed like an appropriate point for me to chime in here.
By in >>large, I agree w/ Tom's comments (and those of Barrie's as well). A
>>number of us have written reviews and overviews of this topic during the >>past
couple years. There has been a lot of significant scientific process >>in this
area (both with regard to empirical "climate reconstruction" and >>in the area of
model/data comparison), including, in fact, detection >>studies along the lines of
what Barrie Pittock asked about in a previous >>email (see. e.g. Tom Crowley's
Science article from 2000). Phil Jones and >>I are in the process of writing a
review article for /Reviews of >>Geophysics/ which will, among other things,
dispel the most severe of the >>myths that some of these folks are perpetuating
regarding past climate >>change in past centuries. My understanding is that Ray
Bradley, Malcolm >>Hughes, and Henry Diaz are working, independently, on a
solicited piece >>for /Science/ on the "Medieval Warm Period". >>Many have simply
dismissed the Baliunas et al pieces because, from a >>scientific point of view,
they are awful--that is certainly true. For >>example, Neville has pointed out in
a previous email, that the standard >>they applied for finding "a Medieval Warm
Period" was that a particular >>proxy record exhibit a 50 year interval during the
period AD 800-1300 >>that was anomalously *warm*, *wet*, or *dry* relative to the
"20th >>century" (many of the proxy records don't really even resolve the late
>>20th century!) could be used to define an "MWP" anywhere one might like >>to
find one. This was the basis for their press release arguing for a >>"MWP" that
was "warmer than the 20th century" (a non-sequitur even from >>their awful paper!)
and for their bashing of IPCC and scientists who >>contributed to IPCC (which, I
understand, has been particularly viscious >>and ad hominem inside closed rooms in
Washington DC where their words >>don't make it into the public record). This
might all seem laughable, it >>weren't the case that they've gotten the (Bush)
White House Office of >>Science & Technology taking it as a serious matter
(fortunately, Dave >>Halpern is in charge of this project, and he is likely to
handle this >>appropriately, but without some external pressure). >> >>So while
our careful efforts to debunk the myths perpetuated by these >>folks may be useful
in the FAR, they will be of limited use in fighting >>the disinformation campaign
that is already underway in Washington DC. >>Here, I tend to concur at least in
sprit w/ Jim Salinger, that other >>approaches may be necessary. I would emphasize
that there are indeed, as >>Tom notes, some unique aspects of this latest assault
by the skeptics >>which are cause for special concern. This latest assault uses a
>>compromised peer-review process as a vehicle for launching a scientific
>>disinformation campaign (often viscious and ad hominem) under the guise >>of
apparently legitimately reviewed science, allowing them to make use of >>the
"Harvard" moniker in the process. Fortunately, the mainstream media >>never
touched the story (mostly it has appeared in papers owned by >>Murdoch and his
crowd, and dubious fringe on-line outlets). Much like a >>server which has been
compromised as a launching point for computer >>viruses, I fear that "Climate
Research" has become a hopelessly >>compromised vehicle in the skeptics' (can we
find a better word?) >>disinformation campaign, and some of the discussion that
I've seen (e.g. >>a potential threat of mass resignation among the legitimate
members of >>the CR editorial board) seems, in my opinion, to have some potential
merit. >> >>This should be justified not on the basis of the publication of
science >>we may not like of course, but based on the evidence (e.g. as provided
by >>Tom and Danny Harvey and I'm sure there is much more) that a legitimate
>>peer-review process has not been followed by at least one particular >>editor.
Incidentally, the problems alluded to at GRL are of a different >>nature--there
are simply too many papers, and too few editors w/ >>appropriate disciplinary
expertise, to get many of the papers submitted >>there properly reviewed. Its
simply hit or miss with respect to whom the >>chosen editor is. While it was easy
to make sure that the worst papers, >>perhaps including certain ones Tom refers
to, didn't see the light of the >>day at /J. Climate/, it was inevitable that such
papers might slip >>through the cracks at e.g. GRL--there is probably little that
can be done >>here, other than making sure that some qualified and responsible
climate >>scientists step up to the plate and take on editorial positions at GRL.
>> >>best regards, >> >>Mike >> >>At 11:53 PM 4/23/2003 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:
>> >>>Dear friends, >>> >>>[Apologies to those I have missed who have been part of
this email >>>exchange -- although they may be glad to have been missed] >>> >>>I
think Barrie Pittock has the right idea -- although there are some >>>unique
things about this situation. Barrie says .... >>> >>>(1) There are lots of bad
papers out there >>>(2) The best response is probably to write a 'rebuttal' >>>
>>>to which I add .... >>> >>>(3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in
the 4AR. >>> >>>____________________ >>> >>>Let me give you an example. There was
a paper a few years ago by Legates >>>and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, pp. 2319-1222,
1997) that was nothing more >>>than a direct >>>and pointed criticism of some work
by Santer and me -- yet neither of us >>>was asked to review the paper. We
complained, and GRL admitted it was >>>poor judgment on the part of the editor.
Eventually (> 2 years later) >>>we wrote a response (GRL 27, 2973-2976, 2000).
However, our response was >>>more that just a rebuttal, it was an attempt to
clarify some issues on >>>detection. In doing things this way we tried to make it
clear that the >>>original Legates/Davis paper was an example of bad science (more
>>>bluntly, either sophomoric ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation). >>>
>>>Any rebuttal must point out very clearly the flaws in the original >>>paper. If
some new science (or explanations) can be added -- as we did >>>in the above
example -- then this is an advantage. >>> >>>_____________________________ >>>
>>>There is some personal judgment involved in deciding whether to rebut.
>>>Correcting bad science is the first concern. Responding to unfair >>>personal
criticisms is next. Third is the possible misrepresentation of >>>the results by
persons with ideological or political agendas. On the >>>basis of these I think
the Baliunas paper should be rebutted by persons >>>with appropriate expertise.
Names like Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley, >>>Jones, Hughes come to mind. Are
these people willing to spend time on >>>this? >>>
>>>_______________________________ >>> >>>There are two other examples that I know
of where I will probably be >>>involved in writing a response. >>> >>>The first is
a paper by Douglass and Clader in GRL (vol. 29, no. 16, >>>10.1029/2002GL015345,
2002). I refereed a virtually identical paper for >>>J. Climate, recommending
rejection. All the other referees recommended >>>rejection too. The paper is truly
appalling -- but somehow it must have >>>been poorly reviewed by GRL and slipped
through the net. I have no >>>reason to believe that this was anything more than
chance. Nevertheless, >>>my judgment is that the science is so bad that a response
is necessary. >>> >>>The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in
Climate Research >>>(vol. 23, pp. 19, 2002). Danny Harvey and I refereed this and
said it >>>should be rejected. We questioned the editor (deFreitas again!) and he
>>>responded saying ..... >>> >>>The MS was reviewed initially by five
referees. ... The other three >>>referees, all reputable atmospheric scientists,
agreed
it should be >>>published subject to minor revision. Even then I used a sixth
person >>>to help me decide. I took his advice and that of the three other
>>>referees and sent the MS back for revision. It was later accepted for
>>>publication. The refereeing process was more rigorous than usual. >>> >>>On the
surface this looks to be above board -- although, as referees who >>>advised
rejection it is clear that Danny and I should have been kept in >>>the loop and
seen how our criticisms were responded to. >>> >>>It is possible that Danny and I
might write a response to this paper -- >>>deFreitas has offered us this
possibility. >>> >>>______________________________ >>> >>>This second case gets to
the crux of the matter. I suspect that >>>deFreitas deliberately chose other
referees who are members of the >>>skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done
this on other occasions. >>>How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a
number of >>>individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used
by >>>an unscrupulous editor to ensure that 'anti-greenhouse' science can get
>>>through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas, >>>Soon,
and so on). >>> >>>The peer review process is being abused, but proving this would
be >>>difficult. >>> >>>The best response is, I strongly believe, to rebut the bad
science that >>>does get through. >>> >>>_______________________________ >>>
>>>Jim Salinger raises the more personal issue of deFreitas. He is clearly
>>>giving good science a bad name, but I do not think a barrage of ad >>>hominem
attacks or letters is the best way to counter this. >>> >>>If Jim wishes to write
a letter with multiple authors, I may be willing >>>to sign it, but I would not
write such a letter myself. >>> >>>In this case, deFreitas is such a poor
scientist that he may simply >>>disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it
was awful (Pat Michaels' >>>PhD is at the same level). >>>
>>>______________________________ >>> >>>Best wishes to all, >>>Tom. >>
>>______________________________________________________________ >> Professor
Michael E. Mann >> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall >> University
of Virginia >> Charlottesville, VA 22903
>>_______________________________________________________________________ >>e-
mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137 >>
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml > > >-- >C. Mark Eakin,
Ph.D. >Chief of NOAA Paleoclimatology Program and >Director of the World Data
Center for Paleoclimatology > >NOAA/National Climatic Data Center >325 Broadway
E/CC23 >Boulder, CO 80305-3328 >Voice: 303-497-6172 Fax: 303-497-6513 >Internet:
mark.eakin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html > >
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________ e-mail:
mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137

From: j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx To: Tom Wigley , Phil Jones , Mike Hulme , Keith
Briffa , James Hansen , Danny Harvey , Ben Santer , Kevin Trenberth , Robert wilby
, "Michael E. Mann" , Tom Karl , Steve Schneider , Tom Crowley , jto ,
"simon.shackley" , "tim.carter" , "p.martens" , "peter.whetton" , "c.goodess" ,
"a.minns" , Wolfgang Cramer , "j.salinger" , "simon.torok" , Mark Eakin , Scott
Rutherford , Neville Nicholls , Ray Bradley , Mike MacCracken , Barrie Pittock ,
Ellen Mosley-Thompson , "pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" , "Greg.Ayers" , Tom Wigley
Subject: And again from the south! Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 20:28:20 +1200
Dear friends and colleagues
D
This will be the last from me for the moment and I believe we are all arriving at
a consensus voiced by Tom, Barrie, Neville et al., from excellent discussions.
Firstly both Danny and Tom have complained to de Freitas about his editorial
decision, which does not uphold the principles of good science. Tom has shared the
response. I would be curious to find out who the other four cited are - but a
rebuttal would be excellent.
r
Ignoring bad science eventually reinforces the apparent 'truth' of that bad
science in the public mind, if it is not corrected. As importantly, the 'bad
science' published by CR is used by the sceptics' lobbies to 'prove' that there is
no need for concern over climate change. Since the IPCC makes it quite clear that
there are substantial grounds for concern about climate change, is it not
partially the responsibility of climate science to make sure only satisfactorily
peer-reviewed science appears in scientific publications? - and to refute any
inadequately reviewed and wrong articles that do make their way through the peer
review process?
r
I can understand the weariness which the ongoing sceptics' onslaught would induce
in anyone, scientist or not. But that's no excuse for ignoring bad science. It
won't go away, and the more we ignore it the more traction it will gain in the
minds of the general public, and the UNFCCC negotiators. If science doesn't uphold
the purity of science, who will?
t
We Australasians (including Tom as an ex pat) have suggested some courses of

action. Over to you now in the north to assess the success of your initiatives,
the various discussions and suggestions and arrive on a path ahead. I am happy to
be part of it.
b
Warm wishes to all

W
J
Jim
On 23 Apr 2003, at 23:53, Tom Wigley wrote:

O
> Dear friends, > > [Apologies to those I have missed who have been part of this
email > exchange -- although they may be glad to have been missed] > > I think
Barrie Pittock has the right idea -- although there are some > unique things about
this situation. Barrie says .... > > (1) There are lots of bad papers out there >
(2) The best response is probably to write a 'rebuttal' > > to which I add .... >
> (3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in the 4AR. > >
____________________ > > Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years
ago by > Legates and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, pp. 2319-1222, 1997) that was >
nothing more than a direct and pointed criticism of some work by > Santer and me
-- yet neither of us was asked to review the paper. We > complained, and GRL
admitted it was poor judgment on the part of the > editor. Eventually (> 2 years
later) we wrote a response (GRL 27, > 2973-2976, 2000). However, our response was
more that just a rebuttal, > it was an attempt to clarify some issues on
detection. In doing things > this way we tried to make it clear that the original
Legates/Davis > paper was an example of bad science (more bluntly, either
sophomoric > ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation). > > Any rebuttal must
point out very clearly the flaws in the original > paper. If some new science (or
explanations) can be added -- as we did > in the above example -- then this is an
advantage. > > _____________________________ > > There is some personal judgment
involved in deciding whether to rebut. > Correcting bad science is the first
concern. Responding to unfair > personal criticisms is next. Third is the possible
misrepresentation > of the results by persons with ideological or political
agendas. On > the basis of these I think the Baliunas paper should be rebutted by
> persons with appropriate expertise. Names like Mann, Crowley, Briffa, > Bradley,
Jones, Hughes come to mind. Are these people willing to spend > time on this? > >
_______________________________ > > There are two other examples that I know of
where I will probably be > involved in writing a response. > > The first is a
paper by Douglass and Clader in GRL (vol. 29, no. 16, > 10.1029/2002GL015345,
2002). I refereed a virtually identical paper > for J. Climate, recommending
rejection. All the other referees > recommended rejection too. The paper is truly
appalling -- but somehow > it must have been poorly reviewed by GRL and slipped
through the net. > I have no reason to believe that this was anything more than
chance. > Nevertheless, my judgment is that the science is so bad that a >
response is necessary. > > The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in
Climate > Research (vol. 23, pp. 1?9, 2002). Danny Harvey and I refereed this >
and said it should be rejected. We questioned the editor (deFreitas > again!) and
he responded saying ..... > > The MS was reviewed initially by five referees. ...
The other three > referees, all reputable atmospheric scientists, agreed it should
be > published subject to minor revision. Even then I used a sixth person > to
help me decide. I took his advice and that of the three other > referees and sent
the MS back for revision. It was later accepted for > publication. The refereeing
process was more rigorous than usual. > > On the surface this looks to be above
board -- although, as referees > who advised rejection it is clear that Danny and
I should have been > kept in the loop and seen how our criticisms were responded
to. > > It is possible that Danny and I might write a response to this paper > --
deFreitas has offered us this possibility. > > ______________________________ > >
This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that > deFreitas
deliberately chose other referees who are members of the > skeptics camp. I also
suspect that he has done this on other > occasions. How to deal with this is
unclear, since there are a number > of individuals with bona fide scientific
credentials who could be used > by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that 'anti-
greenhouse' science can > get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling,
Lindzen, > Baliunas, Soon, and so on). > > The peer review process is being
abused, but proving this would be > difficult. > > The best response is, I
strongly believe, to rebut the bad science > that does get through. > >
_______________________________ > > Jim Salinger raises the more personal issue of
deFreitas. He is > clearly giving good science a bad name, but I do not think a
barrage > of ad hominem attacks or letters is the best way to counter this. > > If
Jim wishes to write a letter with multiple authors, I may be > willing to sign it,
but I would not write such a letter myself. > > In this case, deFreitas is such a
poor scientist that he may simply > disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and
it was awful (Pat > Michaels' PhD is at the same level). > >
______________________________ > > Best wishes to all, > Tom. >
********************************************************* Dr Jim Salinger, CRSNZ

NIWA P O Box 109 695 Newmarket, Auckland New Zealand Tel + 64 9 375 2053 Fax + 64
9 375 2051 e-mail: j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
**********************************************************

From: Keith Briffa To: Edward Cook Subject: Re: Review- confidential Date: Tue Apr
29 13:55:38 2003
Thanks Ed
Can I just say that I am not in the MBH camp - if that be characterized by an
unshakable
"belief" one way or the other , regarding the absolute magnitude of the global
MWP. I
certainly believe the " medieval" period was warmer than the 18th century - the
equivalence
of the warmth in the post 1900 period, and the post 1980s ,compared to the circa
Medieval
times is very much still an area for much better resolution. I think that the
geographic /
seasonal biases and dating/response time issues still cloud the picture of when
and how
warm the Medieval period was . On present evidence , even with such uncertainties
I would
still come out favouring the "likely unprecedented recent warmth" opinion - but
our
motivation is to further explore the degree of certainty in this belief - based on

the
realistic interpretation of available data. Point re Jan well taken and I will
inform him
At 07:59 AM 4/29/03 -0400, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
I will start out by sending you the chronologies that I sent Bradley, i.e. all but
Mongolia. If you can talk Gordon out of the latter, you'll be the first from
outside
this lab. The chronologies are in tabbed column format and Tucson index format.
The
latter have sample size included. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or even
Bradley
after I warned him about small sample size problems) to realize that some of the
chronologies are down to only 1 series in their earliest parts. Perhaps I should
have
truncated them before using them, but I just took what Jan gave me and worked with
the
chronologies as best I could. My suspicion is that most of the pre-1200 divergence

is
due to low replication and a reduced number of available chronologies. I should

also say
that the column data have had their means normalized to approximately 1.0, which
is not
the case for the chronologies straight out of ARSTAN. That is because the site-
level
RCS-detrended data were simply averaged to produce these chronologies, without

concern
for their long-term means. Hence the "RAW" tag at the end of each line of indices.
Bradley still regards the MWP as "mysterious" and "very incoherent" (his latest
pronouncement to me) based on the available data. Of course he and other members
of the
MBH camp have a fundamental dislike for the very concept of the MWP, so I tend to
view
their evaluations as starting out from a somewhat biased perspective, i.e. the cup
is
not only "half-empty"; it is demonstrably "broken". I come more from the "cup
half-full"
camp when it comes to the MWP, maybe yes, maybe no, but it is too early to say
what it
is. Being a natural skeptic, I guess you might lean more towards the MBH camp,
which is
fine as long as one is honest and open about evaluating the evidence (I have my
doubts
about the MBH camp). We can always politely(?) disagree given the same admittedly
equivocal evidence.
I should say that Jan should at least be made aware of this reanalysis of his
data.
Admittedly, all of the Schweingruber data are in the public domain I believe, so
that
should not be an issue with those data. I just don't want to get into an open
critique
of the Esper data because it would just add fuel to the MBH attack squad. They
tend to
work in their own somewhat agenda-filled ways. We should also work on this stuff
on our
own, but I do not think that we have an agenda per se, other than trying to
objectively
understand what is going on.
Cheers,
Ed
Ed
thanks for this - and it is intriguing , not least because of the degree of
coherence in
these series between 1200 and 1900 - more than can be accounted for by either
replication of data between the series (of which there is still some) or artifact
of the
standardisation method (with the use of RCS curves which are possibly
inappropriate for
all the data to which each is applied) . Having then got some not insubstantial
confidence in the likelihood of a real temperature signal in this period - the

question
of why the extreme divergence in the series pre-1200 and post 1900? A real
geographic
difference in the forcing , replication and standardisation problems? - both are

likely.
We would like the raw cores for each site: the RCS indices upon which you base the
chronologies ; the site chronologies (which I think you sent to Ray?). At first we
will
simply plot the site chronologies , correlate each with local climate and come
back to
you again. We will also plot each "set" of indices and compare site RCS curves and
reconsider the validity of the classification into linear and non-linear growth
patterns. I know you have done all this but we need to get a feel for these data
and do
some comparisons with my early produce ring-width RCS chronologies for ceratin
sites and
compare the TRW series with the same site MXD chronologies - all a bit suck and
see at
first. I am talking with Tim later today about the review idea and I will
email/phone
before 16.00 my time today.
Thanks
Keith
At 10:01 AM 4/28/03 -0400, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
Here is the new Esper plot with three different forms of regionalization: linear
vs.
nonlinear (as in the original paper), north vs. south as defined in the legend,
and east
vs. west (i.e. eastern hemisphere vs. western hemisphere). All of the series have
been
smoothed with a 50-yr spline after first averaging the annual values. The number
of
cores/chronologies are given in the legend in parentheses. Not surprisingly, the

north
and south chronologies deviate most in the post-1950 period. Before 1950 and back
to
about 1200 the series are remarkably similar (to me anyway). Prior to 1200 there
is more
chaos, perhaps because the number of chronologies have declined along with the
within-chronology replication. However, there is still some evidence for spatially
coherent above-average growth. I showed this plot at the Duke meeting. Karl Taylor
actually told me that he thought it looked fairly convincing, i.e. that the
low-frequency structure in the Esper series was not an artefact of the RCS method.
Cheers,
Ed

Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
--
==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Doherty Senior Scholar and
Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Palisades, New York 10964 USA
Email: drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phone: 845-365-8618
Fax: 845-365-8152
==================================
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
References

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Keith Briffa Subject: Re: belated thanks for review
and questions Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 18:46:41 -0400
HI Keith,
No problem, I know how hectic the past couple months have been for you, so no
apologizes
necessary whatsoever!
Call me old fashioned, but I still tend to prefer the "blind" reviewer convention,
so I'd
prefer to remain anonymous unless you think that revealing my identity would be
help in any
particular way.
I agree w/ your take on this--a journal like GRL is probably more appropriate, or
even
"Climatic Change" because a number of similar papers have been published there in
the past
(by folks like Nychka, Bloomfield, and others). I'm not sure if Steve Schneider is
sick and
tired of those papers though...
Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can be of any additional help w/ this.
Looking forward to seeing you one of these days,
mike
At 02:36 PM 5/2/2003 +0100, you wrote:
Mike
in hassling another reviewer , I realised that I did not thank you properly for
the
review you did of the manuscript by Gil-Alana (fractionally integrated techniques

used
to show increased persistence in global temperature record in 20th century). So
this is
by way of thanks and to ask whether you wish me to reveal your name to the
reviewer
(considering you make some very helpful suggestions for further analysis)? I would
otherwise assume no. As it happens I can not get a response from the other
reviewer -
but rather than prolong the wait for the submitter , I am tempted (on the basis of
my
reading also) to just send your comments and reject the manuscript as it is - I
suppose
they could resubmit a major rework following your suggestions - but I tend to the
opinion that it would be better suited to another journal anyway - GRL comes to
mind.
What do you think
Cheers
Keith
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
References

From: Keith Briffa To: Edward Cook Subject: Re: Review- confidential Date: Mon May
12 17:26:29 2003
Ed
just back from really sunny Austria and very pleasant south of France. Have talked
at
length with Jan and he says it is fine to send the raw and detrended cores series
(segmented for each site if possible). Do you also have a convenient Table with
the Lats
and Longs you used to plot the sites map? This would mean I don't have to look
them all up.
I will phone to report on our discussions and ask several things that arose from
these.
Just have to do essential other stuff first - so probably tuesday afternoon (my
time) Do
you have that review yet?
love and kisses
Keith
At 07:59 AM 4/29/03 -0400, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
I will start out by sending you the chronologies that I sent Bradley, i.e. all but
Mongolia. If you can talk Gordon out of the latter, you'll be the first from
outside
this lab. The chronologies are in tabbed column format and Tucson index format.
The
latter have sample size included. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or even
Bradley
after I warned him about small sample size problems) to realize that some of the
chronologies are down to only 1 series in their earliest parts. Perhaps I should
have
truncated them before using them, but I just took what Jan gave me and worked with
the
chronologies as best I could. My suspicion is that most of the pre-1200 divergence

is
due to low replication and a reduced number of available chronologies. I should

also say
that the column data have had their means normalized to approximately 1.0, which
is not
the case for the chronologies straight out of ARSTAN. That is because the site-
level
RCS-detrended data were simply averaged to produce these chronologies, without

concern
for their long-term means. Hence the "RAW" tag at the end of each line of indices.
Bradley still regards the MWP as "mysterious" and "very incoherent" (his latest
pronouncement to me) based on the available data. Of course he and other members
of the
MBH camp have a fundamental dislike for the very concept of the MWP, so I tend to
view
their evaluations as starting out from a somewhat biased perspective, i.e. the cup
is
not only "half-empty"; it is demonstrably "broken". I come more from the "cup
half-full"
camp when it comes to the MWP, maybe yes, maybe no, but it is too early to say
what it
is. Being a natural skeptic, I guess you might lean more towards the MBH camp,
which is
fine as long as one is honest and open about evaluating the evidence (I have my
doubts
about the MBH camp). We can always politely(?) disagree given the same admittedly
equivocal evidence.
I should say that Jan should at least be made aware of this reanalysis of his
data.
Admittedly, all of the Schweingruber data are in the public domain I believe, so
that
should not be an issue with those data. I just don't want to get into an open
critique
of the Esper data because it would just add fuel to the MBH attack squad. They
tend to
work in their own somewhat agenda-filled ways. We should also work on this stuff
on our
own, but I do not think that we have an agenda per se, other than trying to
objectively
understand what is going on.
Cheers,
Ed
Ed
thanks for this - and it is intriguing , not least because of the degree of
coherence in
these series between 1200 and 1900 - more than can be accounted for by either
replication of data between the series (of which there is still some) or artifact
of the
standardisation method (with the use of RCS curves which are possibly
inappropriate for
all the data to which each is applied) . Having then got some not insubstantial
confidence in the likelihood of a real temperature signal in this period - the

question
of why the extreme divergence in the series pre-1200 and post 1900? A real
geographic
difference in the forcing , replication and standardisation problems? - both are

likely.
We would like the raw cores for each site: the RCS indices upon which you base the
chronologies ; the site chronologies (which I think you sent to Ray?). At first we
will
simply plot the site chronologies , correlate each with local climate and come
back to
you again. We will also plot each "set" of indices and compare site RCS curves and
reconsider the validity of the classification into linear and non-linear growth
patterns. I know you have done all this but we need to get a feel for these data
and do
some comparisons with my early produce ring-width RCS chronologies for ceratin
sites and
compare the TRW series with the same site MXD chronologies - all a bit suck and
see at
first. I am talking with Tim later today about the review idea and I will
email/phone
before 16.00 my time today.
Thanks
Keith
At 10:01 AM 4/28/03 -0400, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
Here is the new Esper plot with three different forms of regionalization: linear
vs.
nonlinear (as in the original paper), north vs. south as defined in the legend,
and east
vs. west (i.e. eastern hemisphere vs. western hemisphere). All of the series have
been
smoothed with a 50-yr spline after first averaging the annual values. The number
of
cores/chronologies are given in the legend in parentheses. Not surprisingly, the

north
and south chronologies deviate most in the post-1950 period. Before 1950 and back
to
about 1200 the series are remarkably similar (to me anyway). Prior to 1200 there
is more
chaos, perhaps because the number of chronologies have declined along with the
within-chronology replication. However, there is still some evidence for spatially
coherent above-average growth. I showed this plot at the Duke meeting. Karl Taylor
actually told me that he thought it looked fairly convincing, i.e. that the
low-frequency structure in the Esper series was not an artefact of the RCS method.
Cheers,
Ed
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
--
==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Phone: 845-365-8618
Fax: 845-365-8152
==================================
--

Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
References

From: Keith Briffa To: "Michael E. Mann" Subject: Re: Fwd: Clivar Conference 2004
Date: Tue May 20 14:57:55 2003
Mike
Lennart has managed to confuse me with his latest message. At one point he
mentioned that
you and I would do a joint overview paper . Now he suggests we choose 5-10 co-
authors but
also refers to "other people in our section" who he has apparently already
informed , need
"to consult with you (ie us) as required" (my emphasis).
As for my opinion of the theme or content of our section , I suggest it be

"quantifying
Natural and Anthropogenic influences on the course of Global climate during recent
millennia" or some such . This allows for the review , redefinition of Global
climate
history (Southern as well as Northern , and moisture as well as Temperature).

Importantly ,
it also incorporates the issue of forcing history(ies) and work quantifying the
influence
of these histories - using simple empirical techniques or using them in

conjunction with
models of different complexity to attribute causes of this change.
I am happy to go with the "usual suspects" in the overview paper , but would be
happy if we
considered others who are also running controlled model/data comparisons (examples
are Von
Storch , Simon Tett , Caspar Ammann). We need first to clarify whether we will
present one
large , multi-author presentation/paper or whether it is just me and you and the

others
divided into other papers/presentations/posters. Should we copy this message to

Lennart or
contact him directly with specific questions?
Keith
At 09:49 PM 5/18/03 -0400, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
I hope all is well.
Apparently, we're supposed to choose 5-10 additional "co-authors"? I guess the

obvious
ones would be Phil, Tim, Ray, Malcolm, perhaps Ed Cook, Scott Rutherford,...any
other
suggestions?
As I understand it, the co-authors would be invited to attend and present in the
poster
session; I assume they are listed separately from you and I who will jointly
present the
oral overview. As for the theme, I'm assuming "climate changes of the past
couple/few
millennia" or something like that. As we have 45 minutes total between the two of
us, I
would suggest we each take about 20 minutes, and then we'll have 5 minutes left
for
questions.
Any suggestions, thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
thanks,
mike
X-Sender: m214001@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 22:53:58 +0200
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: "Prof. Dr. Lennart Bengtsson"
Subject: Clivar Conference 2004
Cc: bengtsson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kornelia.mueller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
--
Dear Dr. Mann,
Dear Dr. Briffa,
The preparation of the Clivar conference is progressing well and all invited
speakers
have now agreed (See attached draft program). As I have informed you previously
Journal
of Climate will have a special issue devoted to the Conference and I expect you
would be
willing to prepare a paper to be ready at the time of the conference. I have made
arrangements with the chief editor to make a flexible interpretation of the

content of
the papers so to agree with the objective of the conference and the draft program.
We would now like you to come up with a suitable theme for your presentation at
the
conference as well a list of names which you have selected as co-authors. As we
anticipate a broad and forward-looking contribution I believe some 5-10 people

seems
appropriate. It was our intention that the first person listed should be the lead
author
but you can arrange this otherwise if you prefer to do so. I have informed the
other
speakers in your section to consult with you as required.
For the conference I expect a rather wide audience in addition to a broad

scientific
community including representatives from different agencies such as the
meteorological
services, as well as media representatives. For the media we intend to provide a

special
set of information. In view of the societal importance of the CLIVAR program and
the
considerable progress in extended range forecasts and climate change assessment

and
prediction I believe there will be an excellent opportunity to bring the

scientific
progress and associated applications of CLIVAR to the participants of the

conference.
It would be very helpful if you could to let me know the status of your
arrangements not
later than June 15. If you see any particular difficulties please let me know as
soon as
possible.
As you can see from the attached program each part of the conference will have
poster
sessions. The poster sessions will be an important part of the conference and I
anticipate that some of your co-authors will prepare such posters. We also plan to
have
the poster contents on a CD ROM prior to the conference.
The practical planning of the conference as a whole is proceeding well. The

arrangements
in Baltimore are quite excellent with the nearby Baltimore inner harbor as a
particular
attractive focal point. There are all reasons that the conference will be a
success both
scientifically and socially. See further the Clivar Conference website:
[1]http://www.clivar2004.org.
We are presently exploring the possibilities for financial support of selected
participants. However, any support you may manage to obtain from national funds
would be
most helpful.
With my very best regards

Lennart Bengtsson
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
References
1. http://www.clivar2004.org/

From: Keith Briffa To: "Michael E. Mann" , Tom Wigley , Phil Jones ,
rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re: Soon et al. paper Date: Tue May 20 16:07:41
2003 Cc: Jerry Meehl , Caspar Ammann , mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Mike and Tom and others
My silence to do with the specific issue of the Soon and Baliunas conveys general
strong
agreement with all the general remarks (and restatement of many in various forms )
by Tom
Crowley, Mike Mann, Neville Nichols and now Tom Wigley regarding the scientific
value of
the paper and its obvious methodological flaws.
I have to say that I tended towards the "who cares" camp , in as much as those who
are
concerned about the science should see through it anyway . I also admit to
thinking that
some of you seem a little paranoid (especially in the implication that Climate
Research is
a pro sceptic journal) but I am changing my mind regarding the way the "meaning"
of the BS
paper is being presented to the wider public - in response to some very poor
recent
reporting in the British press and several requests from the US that indicate that
those of
you who work there can not simply rely on the weight of good science eventually
showing
through as regards the public perception . As Tom W. states , there are

uncertainties and
"difficulties" with our current knowledge of Hemispheric temperature histories and

valid
criticisms or shortcomings in much of our work. This is the nature of the beast -
and I
have been loathe to become embroiled in polarised debates that force too
simplistic a
presentation of the state of the art or "consensus view". Having read Tom W's and
Mike's
latest statements I now agree about the need to make some public comment on BS .
(I too
have given my personal view of the work to David Appell who I assume is writing a
balanced
view of this paper for Scientific American). I see little need to get involved in
a over
detailed critic of all the points in the paper , because I am not sure what
audience would
benefit from it, but the points made by those I listed above could usefully be
fashioned
into a simple letter to Climate Research, signed by those who wish. This would
then go on
record as a simple statement of refutation of the method employed and

corresponding
limitation of the work for informing the "global warming " debate . This could be
quickly
citable when talking to the media.
The one additional point I would make that seems to have been overlooked in the
discussions
up to now , is the invalidity of assuming that the existence of a global Medieval

Warm
period , even if shown to be as warm as the current climate , somehow negates the
possibility of enhanced greenhouse warming. The business of constructing a

reliable climate
history is only one part of establishing the relative roles of natural and
anthropogenic
forcings, now and in the future. Without reference to the roles of natural
forcings in
recent and past times , comparisons with other periods are of very limited value
anyway.
So I agree with Tom and Mike that something needs to go "on record" . The various
papers
apparently in production, regardless of their individual emphasis or approaches,

will find
their way in to the literature and the next IPCC can sift and present their
message(s) as
it wishes., but in the meantime , why not a simple statement of the shortcomings
of the BS
paper as they have been listed in these messages and why not in Climate Research?
Keith
At 05:04 PM 5/16/03 -0400, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Tom,
Thanks for your response, which I will maintain as confidential within the small
group
of the original recipients (other than Ray whom I've included in as well), given
the
sensitivity of some of the comments made.
Whether or not their comments are ad hominem or potentially libelous is probably
immaterial here (some people who have read them think they might be--in certain
places,
alterior motives are implied on the part of individually named scientists in the
discussion of scientific methodologies).
However, the real issue, as you point out, is whether or not their arguments and
criticisms are valid. I would argue that very few of them are--I have prepared
(and have
attached) a draft of replies to some of the specifics in their two papers--this is
rough, and I'm working on preparing a refined version of this for use by those who
are
trying to combat the disinformation that the Baliunas and co. supporters are
working at
spreading within the beltway, with the full support of industry, and perhaps the
administration. By necessity this is brief and focus on the most salient points--a
point-by-point rebuttal would take a very long time.
In the meantime, Phil and I, and Ray/Malcolm/Henry D are independently working on

review
pieces (ours for R.O.G., Ray et al's for Science) that will also correct in more
detail
some of the most egregious untruths put forward by the Baliunas/Soon pieces (what
one
colleague of mine aptly chooses to abbreviate as "BS").
The most fundamental criticism, of course, is that the hypothesis, methods, and
assumptions are absolutely nonsensical by construction--as you already pointed

out. One
could demonstrate that with an example, but then again, why do so when it is self
evident that defining an anomaly of either wetter or dryer (what does that leave
out?)
relative to the 20th century (a comparison which is itself also ill-defined by the
authors, since they don't use a uniform 20th century reference period for defining
their
qualitative anomalies, and discuss proxy records with variable resolution and
temporal
sampling of the 20th century) was "warmer than the 20th century" is nonsense at
the
most fundamental level. It defies the most elementary logic, and thus is difficult
to
reply to other than noting that it is nonsense by its very nature.
Would we be compelled to provide a counterexample to disprove the authors if they

had
asserted that "1=2"? What they have done isn't that much different...
So its one thing to throw out a bunch of criticisms, very few of which are valid.
But to
then turn around and present a fundamentally ill-posed, supposed "analysis" which
doesn't even attempt to provide a quantitative "alternative" to past studies, to

claim
to have disproven those past studies, and to supposedly support the non-sequitor
conclusion that the "MWP was warmer than the 20th century" is irresponsible,
deceptive,
dishonest, and a violation of the very essence of the scientific approach in my

view.
One or two people can't fight that alone, certainly not with the "artillary"
(funding
and political organization) that has been lined up on the other side. In my view,
it is
the responsibility of our entire community to fight this intentional

disinformation
campaign, which represents an affront to everything we do and believe in. I'm

doing
everything I can to do so, but I can't do it alone--and if I'm left to, we'll lose
this
battle,
mike
At 02:18 PM 5/16/2003 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:
Dear folks,
I have just read the Soon et al. paper in E&E. Here are some comments, and a
request.
Mike said in an email that he thought the paper contained possibly
'legally actionable' ad hominem attacks on him and others. I do not
agree that there are ad hominem attacks. There are numerous criticisms, usually
justified (although not all the justifications are valid). I did not notice any
intemperate language.
While many of the criticisms are invalid, and some are irrelevant, there are a
number
that seem to me to be quite valid. Probably, most of these can be rebutted, and
perhaps
some of these are already covered in the literature. In my view, however, there a
small
number of points that are valid criticisms.
[Off the record, the most telling criticisms apply to Tom Crowley's work -- which
I do
not hold in very high regard.]
The real issue that the press (to a limited extent) and the politicians (to a
greater
extent) have taken up is the conclusions of the paper's original research.
First, Soon et al. come down clearly in favor of the existence of a MWE and a LIA.
I
think many of us would agree that there was a global-scale cool period that can be
identified with a LIA. The MWE is more equivocal. There are real problems in
identifying
both of these 'events' with certainty due to (1) data coverage, (2) uncertainty in
transfer functions, and (3) the noise of internally generated variability on the
century time scale. [My paper on the latter point is continually ignored by the
paleo
community, but it is still valid.]
So, we would probably say: there was a LIA; but the case for *or against* a MWE is
not
proven. There is no strong diagreement with Soon et al. here.
The main disagreements are with the methods used by Soon et al. to draw their
LIA/MWE
conclusion, and their conclusion re the anomalousness/uniqueness of the 20th

century (a
conclusion that is based on the same methods).
So what is their method? I need to read the paper again carefully to check on
this, but
it seems that they say the MWE [LIA] was warm [cold] if at a particular site there
is a
50+ year period that was warm, wet, dry [cold, dry, wet] somewhere in the interval
800-1300 [1300-1900], where warm/cold, wet, dry are defined relative to the 20th
century.
The problems with this are .....
(1) Natural internally generated variability alone virtually guarantees that these
criteria will be met at every site.
(2) As Nev Nicholls pointed out, almost any period would be identified as a MWE or
LIA
by these criteria -- and, as a corollary, their MWE period could equally well have
been
identified as a LIA (or vice versa)
(3) If the identified warm blips in their MWE were are different times for
different
locations (as they are) then there would be no global-mean signal.
(4) The reason for including precip 'data' at all (let alone both wet and dry
periods in
both the MWE and LIA) is never stated -- and cannot be justified. [I suspect that
if
they found a wet period in the MWE, for example, they would search for a dry
period in
the LIA -- allowing both in both the MWE and LIA seems too stupid to be true.]
(5) For the uniqueness of the 20th century, item (1) also applies.
So, their methods are silly. They seem also to have ignored the fact that what we
are
searching is a signal in global-mean temperature.
The issue now is what to do about this. I do not think it is enough to bury
criticisms
of this work in other papers. The people who have noticed the Soon et al paper, or
have
had it pointed out to them, will never see or become aware of such
rebuttals/responses.
Furthermore, I do not think that a direct response will give the work credibility.
It is
already 'credible' since it is in the peer reviewed literature (and E&E, by the
way, is
peer reviewed). A response that says this paper is a load of crap for the
following
reasons is *not* going to give the original work credibility -- just the opposite.
How then does one comprehensively and concisely demolish this work? There are two
issues
here. The first is the point by point response to their criticisms of the
literature. To
do this would be tedious, but straightforward. There will be at least some

residual
criticisms that must be accepted as valid, and this must be admitted. Cross-
referencing
to other review papers would be legitimate here.
The second is to demolish the method. I have done this qualitatively (following
Nev
mainly) above, but this is not enough. What is needed is a counter example that
uses the
method of reductio ad absurdem. This would be clear and would be appropriate since
it
avoids us having to point out in words that their methods are absurd. I have some
ideas
how to do this, but I will let you think about it more before going further.
You will see from this email that I am urging you to produce a response. I am
happy to
join you in this, and perhaps a few others could add their weight too. I am
copying this
to Jerry since he has to give some congressional testimony next week and questions
about
the Soon et al work are definitely going to be raised. I am also copying this to
Caspar,
since the last millenium runs that he is doing with paleo-CSM are relevant.
Best wishes,
Tom.
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
References

From: Keith Briffa To: craig.wallace@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Fwd: Re: reminder

Date: Thu May 22 09:34:54 2003
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 13:38:24 -0400
To: Keith Briffa
From: Edward Cook
Subject: Re: reminder
Hi Keith,
Busy, busy, busy as usual. Here are the lats and lons.
LAT LON SITE COORDINATES IN DECIMAL DEGREES
52.220 -117.23 ATHABASCA
36.000 -118.33 BOREAL
68.160 -133.20 CAMPHILL
57.000 18.500 GOTLAND
63.500 13.500 JAEMTLAND
66.680 82.300 MANGAZEJA
48.280 98.920 MONGOLIA
66.830 65.670 POLAR URALS
57.500 -76.000 QUEBEC
72.000 102.00 TAYMIR
47.000 11.000 TIROL
68.220 19.720 TORNETRASK
37.000 -118.42 UPPER WRIGHT
67.450 142.62 ZHASCHIVIERSK
I will get the data to you next week. I have to off to Rob Wilson's thesis defense
now.
Cheers,
Ed
.. about the review and the data ( or at least accurate lats and longs while
waiting)
cheers
Keith
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
--
==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Phone: 845-365-8618
Fax: 845-365-8152
==================================
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
References

From: Mike Hulme To: simon.shackley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mgrc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re:

thresholds and CO2 leakage Date: Thu May 22 11:18:31 2003 Cc: tlent@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
tim.cockerill@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, shol@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kevin.anderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Simon,
Some comments to your questions below ......
At 13:46 20/05/2003 +0100, Simon J Shackley wrote:
dear Melvin, Tim, Mike, Tim, Sam and Kevin
For our analysis of acceptable leakage rates of carbon dioxide from
geological storage sites, we can use the data provided in Lenton &
Cannell CC paper I think. In particular, we could use your finding
that to limit warming to under 0.2oC per decade, rate of increase of
fossil fuel emissions has to be limited to under 0.03 GtC/yr/yr.
This would seem sufficient to avoid the peak warming which occurs
in about 2250 under the IS92a emissions scenario (figure 1(c)). Is
the 0.2oc / decade threshold widely accepted in the science
community however?
This threshold (0.2/decade; 2degC absolute by 2100) is the most commonly cited in
science-policy circles. The EU have formally adopted it as a preferred target.

It's
origin however is less than obvious and it's adequacy difficult to establish. And
of
course it also depends whether this is carried out to 2200 - the impacts of 4degC
by 2200
is not the equivalent of impacts of 2degC by 2100.
My personal view is that there is much circular argument here. The first GCM
experiments
in the 1980s were 2xCO2 equilibrium, i.e., 550ppmv (cf. 275ppmv pre-industrial).
Thus much
early work used these scenarios. 550ppmv is also a commonly cited target for no
other
reason than this. A 60% reduction in CO2 is broadly commensurate with 550ppm
stabilisation
(admittedly, the range is wide coz of C cycle uncertainty; but 60% is mid-range).
And
(again mid-range) 550ppm leads to about a 2degC global warming, which by 2100 is
0.2degC/decade. Independent arguments for 0.2deg/decade exist for sure - e.g. rate
of
ecosystem migration - but as we all know (and have pointed out in our paper on
external and
internal definitions of dangerous climate change), no single metric is adequate.
My feeling is that the 2degC (0.2deg/decade) mantra is as much related to the

early
mind-set of 2xCO2 GCM experiments as it is rooted in any more substantive

reasoning. One
might also point out of course that the world has been warming at about
0.15degC/decade now
for three decades (since the 1970s) - has this been acceptable/dangerous?
Should we also be looking at a 0.1oC /
decade threshold as well?
I would regard this threshold as a very conservative (or radical - depending on

how you
look at it) one
Since we are only looking at the UK we will need to translate the
0.03 GtC figure into allowable rate of increase (presumably
decrease) of European emissions and then pro-rata to the UK.
IPCC SRES Emissions scenarios would provide some basis for
doing these calculations and i'll have a look at the data they
provide. Alternatively / in addition, we could use the Contraction
and Convergence model of the GCI to calculate 'acceptable' rates
of change (decreasing) of UK emissions into the next millenium.
In Lenton & Cannell, the authors argue that: 'Early consideration
should be given to leaving a fraction of fossil carbon unused, and/or
to carbon capture and storage'. One implication of the work on
leakage from geological storage sites is that the suggestion to use
CCS to lessen eventual warming might not hold on longer
timescales, depending on the rate of leakage. So does any one
have any idea on what fraction of fossil carbon should be left in the
ground so as to provide a cap on the eventual warming on long time
scales (3000 years say)? Is there an 'accepted' threshold for
eventual warming which is 'safe' and to which society can adapt?
If so, what does this threshold tell us about how much carbon has
to be left in the ground? A simpler way forward for us might again
be to use Contraction & Convergence to provide us with an
acceptable absolute level of emissions from the UK on long

millenial timescales and to work backwards from that figure to
calculate acceptable leakage rates for the UK.
Thanks for any help you can provide
Simon

From: Mike Hulme To: "Pritchard, Norah" Subject: Re: IPCC WG2 AR4 draft outlines -
WGII outline & Chapters 2 and 13 Date: Mon Jun 2 13:49:07 2003
Dear Osvaldo and Martin,
It is very difficult to make considered input into this process at such short
notice. I
received the emails Wednesday afternoon, just before being away from the office
for 48
hours. I also am not fully aware of the process into which this is fitting and it
is the
first time I have seen the WGII outline. I do however make some comments on the
following:
The WGII outline
Chapter 2 on data etc.
Chapter 13 on critical damage etc.
WGII outline
-----------------
Key Questions: there is, in analytical terms, very little difference between the
2nd and
4th key question you pose. The impacts under unmitigated CC (Q2) are not in any
fundamental way different from the impacts under mitigated CC (Q4). 2degC warming,
for
example, will give broadly the same impacts whether this occurs because of strong
CC policy
intervention or whether it occurs because of low carbon development paths. What

matters
more for impacts is the rate of CC and what matters more for how important those
impacts
are is the development path pursued. I think this distinction between mitigated
and
unmitigated CC is tenuous and unhelpful. This has a bearing on the later

discussions about
stabilisation (where "stabilisation" is usually assumed to be, indeed often

synonymous
with, the result of mitigative action; actually (quasi-) stabilisation, at

different
levels, can occur in a world with relatively little direct CC mitigation policy).
The progression through the sections follows a rather linear and reductionist
model -
observed impacts, future impacts, adaptation,regions. I would have liked to have

seen an
early opening chapter on the nature of the dynamic relationship between climate
and society
(before we even start talking about climate change), this being able to bring out
notions
of vulnerability and adaptation - both fundamental to put on the table before we

start
thinking about future climate change and how important it is. This could also
point out
that "critical" damage is already being caused by climate and climate variability.
Under your structure, the observed impacts section (II) should surely parallel the
later
future impacts section (III) in terms of sectors/themes. There are only 4 themes
in
section II, yet 6 (different) themes in section III. Why for example is nothing
said about
observed impacts on urban infrastructure or on coasts? The asymmetry between these

section
sub-themes is itself perhaps revealing.
It seems odd that adaptation is to be addressed in all the thematic chapters in

Section III
*as well as* in a separate later chapter on adaptation. This situation is ripe for
overlap
and redundancy. Our understanding of adaptation in any case should be brought in

right at
the beginning (see above).
The avoiding critical damage chapter suffers from the same problem identified
above - what
matters is whether and how such exceedance rates can be identified, not whether
they result
from either a mitigated or an unmitigated scenario - this academic distinction

cannot be
sustained in the real world.
The regional section is in danger of repeating the mistake in the TAR, again
leading to
dispersion of effort and redundancy. My suggestion would be *not* to assess all

new
regional knowledge (again; very turgid), but instead to produce a much more
streamlined
section focusing on a few regional/local case studies that illustrate sharply many
of the
(integrating) themes introduced earlier - vulnerability, adaptation, criticality,

impacts.
Deliberately seek to be selective and not comprehensive.
I also do not see how the WGII chapters will be co-ordinated with the 5 cross-
cutting
papers identified here - again, there seems much scope for duplicitous effort and
redundancy or even contradiction. And since the cross-cutting papers are really
the
interesting and useful ones, this suggests to me that the old traditional WG
structure of
IPCC is now deeply flawed (as I have said more than once before in public).
Chapter 2 - Assumptions, etc.
---------------------------------------------
First question to raise is what is WGI doing in this regard? I cannot comment
sensibly
without knowing how WGI will tackle questions of scenarios and future projections.
In section 2.3, 4th bullet: how relevant really are these "Stabilisation scenarios
(mitigation)"? At the very least IPCC must clear up this issue about whether
stabilisation
is a short-hand for mitigation (as implied here). This is potentially misleading,
since
stabilisation can occur in many different worlds, by no means all of them worlds
with
strong CC mitigation policies. Continuation of this thinking means reality is

being forced
to accommodate the arbitrary thinking of the UNFCCC rather than UNFCCC being
forced to take
account of reality.
Also in this bullet is "Impacts of extreme climate events". Why are impacts being
looked
at here? Surely this is totally misplaced. What is important are scenarios - of

whatever
origin and methodology - that embed within them changes in the character of
"extreme"
weather and how we describe such changes. We should not separate this out as a
separate
issue surely.
Section 2.4 (the second appearance) confuses me. Much of this material appears
earlier in
2.3, thus characterisations of future conditions is what 2.3 is about and also the
projected changes in key drivers is what the scenarios part of 2.3 is all about.
Do you
mean to differentiate between methodology (2.3) and outcomes (2.4b)? And as always
you
will run into the problem of summarising what scenarios actually *are* assumed in
this
report - is there to be an IPCC 4AR standard scenario(s) that all should use? I
suspect
not. Resolving this problem gets to the heart of the structural problem with IPCC.
Different people will use different assumptions.
Chapter 13 - Critical Damage ...
------------------------------------------------
This outline was almost unintelligible to me! For example having read the opening
aims and
scope statement several times, I an still not clear about the approach this
chapter is
taking. Sections 13.2 and 13.3 are also extremely unclear as is section 13.4.
I think someone needs to do some clearer thinking about this chapter before
sending it out
for people to comment on. I have my own views on this, but at such short notice
and
without knowing the agreed IPCC process I'm not going to write the chapter outline
for you.
Inter alia, the chapter should address the following:
- different paradigms for defining "critical"; will vary by sector, culture, etc.
- distinction between external (pronounced) definitions of critical and internal
(experienced/perceived) definitions
- relationship between adaptive capacity and "critical" rates of change
- dependence of critical thresholds on sector and spatial scale
- reversibility (or not) of critical damage
... and if the use of "critical" is a euphemism for "dangerous" then it is not
very subtle
- people will see through this. What is the difference between critical and
dangerous?
Professor Mike Hulme
Tyndall Centre
At 14:32 28/05/2003 +0100, you wrote:
Dear Mike
We are now developing chapter outlines for the Fourth Assessment Report of
the IPCC and we write to ask if you will help us in this task. Enclosed is a
one-page outline of the proposed chapter on Assumptions, Data and Scenarios,
which we would like you to adjust and expand (but not to more than one and a
half pages in all, please). The overall list of proposed topics to be
covered in the assessment is also attached.
We would like to make the next revision to the outline in a few days so
could you please return your outline to Norah Pritchard <<

ipccwg2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >> at the WGII Techical Support Unit at the UK Met
Office's Hadley Centre not later than 2nd June?
The process of designing the Fourth Assessment and selecting authors is
different from previously. This time the authors will not be nominated by
governments and then selected until *after* the outline has been approved by
IPCC Plenary this November. The outlines are there fore being widely
commented on between now and mid-September, when they will be finalised. We
consider your input at this time to be most important.
We appreciate that you are busy, but urge that you give a few minutes to
this crucial task.
In another message we will be writing for your suggestions regarding other
experts to consult in the fields of Assumptions, Data and Scenarios.
We look forward to hearing from you
With thanks and kind regards,
Osvaldo Canziani and Mart in Parry
Co-Chairs, IPCC Working Group II (Vulnerability, Impacts and Adaptation)
Dr Martin Parry,
Co-Chair Working Group II (Impacts and Adaptation),
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Hadley Centre,
UK Met Office,
London Road,
Bracknell RG12 2SY, UK.
Tel direct: +44 1986 781437
Tel switchboard: +44 1344 856888
direct e-mail: parryml@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
e-mail for WGII Technical Support Unit: ipccwg2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<> <>
From: Scott Rutherford To: Malcolm Hughes , Raymond Bradley , Tim Osborn , Keith
Briffa , Phil Jones Subject: revised NH comparison manuscript Date: Tue, 3 Jun
2003 14:51:09 -0400 Cc: Mike Mann
Attached to this e-mail is a revision of the northern hemisphere comparison

manuscript. First some general comments. I tried as best as possible to
incorporate everyone's suggestions. Typically this meant adding/deleting or
clarifying text. There were cases where we disagreed with the suggested changes
and tried to clarify in the text why.
In this next round of changes I encourage everyone to make specific suggestions in

terms of wording and references (e.g. Rutherford et al. GRL 1967 instead of "see
my GRL paper"). I also encourage everyone to make suggestions directly in the file
in coloured text or by using Microsquish Word's "Track Changes" function (this
will save me deciphering cryptic penmanship; although I confess, my writing is
worse than anyone's). If you would prefer to use the editing functions in Adobe
Acrobat let me know and I will send a PDF file. If you still feel strongly that I
have not adequately addressed an issue please say so. I will incorporate the
suggestions from this upcoming round into a manuscript to be submitted. After
review, everyone will get a crack at it again.
I will not detail every change made (if anyone wants the file with the changes
tracked I can send it). Here are the major changes:
1) removal of mixed-hybrid approach and revised discussions/figures 2) removal of

CE scores from the verification tables 3) downscaling of the Esper comparison to a
single figure panel and one paragraph. 4) revised discussion of spatial maps and
revised figure (figure 8). 5) seasonal comparisons have been revised
Several suggestions have been made for where to submit. These are listed on page 1
of the manuscript. Please indicate your preference ASAP and I will tally the
votes.
I would like to submit by late July, so if you could please get me comments by say
July 15 that would be great. I will send out a reminder in early July. If I don't
hear from you by July 15 I will assume that you are comfortable with the
manuscript.
Please let me know if you have difficulty with the file or would prefer a
different format.
Regards,
Scott
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachnhcomparison_v7_1.doc"
______________________________________________ Scott Rutherford
Marine Research Scientist Graduate School of Oceanography University of Rhode

Island e-mail: srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx phone: (401) 874-6599 fax: (401) 874-6811
snail mail: South Ferry Road Narragansett, RI 02882

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Phil Jones , rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tom Wigley , Tom
Crowley , Keith Briffa , trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Michael Oppenheimer , Jonathan
Overpeck Subject: Re: Prospective Eos piece? Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:17:57 -0400
Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Scott Rutherford
Thanks Phil, and Thanks Tom W and Keith for your willingness to help/sign on. This
certainly gives us a "quorum" pending even a few possible additional signatories

I'm
waiting to hear back from.
In response to the queries, I will work on a draft today w/ references and two
suggested
figures, and will try to send on by this evening (east coast USA). Tom W indicated
that he
wouldn't be able look at a draft until Thursday anyway, so why doesn't everyone
just take
a day then to digest what I've provided and then get back to me with
comments/changes
(using word "track changes" if you like).
I'd like to tentatively propose to pass this along to Phil as the "official
keeper" of the
draft to finalize and submit IF it isn't in satisfactory shape by the time I have
to leave
(July 11--If I hadn't mentioned, I'm getting married, and then honeymoon, prior to
IUGG in
Sapporo--gone for about 1 month total). Phil, does that sound ok to you?
Re Figures, what I had in mind were the following two figures:
1) A plot of various of the most reliable (in terms of strength of temperature

signal and
reliability of millennial-scale variability) regional proxy temperature

reconstructions
around the Northern Hemisphere that are available over the past 1-2 thousand years
to
convey the important point that warm and cold periods where highly regionally
variable.
Phil and Ray are probably in the best position to prepare this (?). Phil and I
have
recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category,
and many
of which are available nearly 2K back--I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of
2K,
rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard
to the
memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we
don't yet
have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back [Phil and I have
one in
review--not sure it is kosher to show that yet though--I've put in an inquiry to

Judy
Jacobs at AGU about this]. If we wanted to be fancy, we could do this the way
certain plots
were presented in one of the past IPCC reports (was it 1990?) in which a spatial
map was
provided in the center (this would show the locations of the proxies), with "rays"
radiating out to the top, sides, and bottom attached to rectanges showing the
different
timeseries. Its a bit of work, but would be a great way to convey both the spatial
and
temporal information at the same time.
2) A version of the now-familiar "spaghetti plot" showing the various

reconstructions as
well as model simulations for the NH over the past 1 (or maybe 2K). To give you an
idea of
what I have in mind, I'm attaching a Science piece I wrote last year that contains
the same
sort of plot.
However, what I'd like to do different here is:
In addition to the "multiproxy" reconstructions, I'd like to Add Keith's maximum

latewood
density-based series, since it is entirely independent of the multiproxy series,

but
conveys the same basic message. I would also like to try to extend the scope of
the plot
back to nearly 2K. This would be either w/ the Mann and Jones extension (in review
in GRL)
or, if that is deemed not kosher, the Briffa et al Eurasian tree-ring composite
that
extends back about 2K, and, based on Phil and my results, appears alone to give a
reasonably accurate picture of the full hemispheric trend.
Thoughts, comments on any of this?
thanks all for the help,
mike
Mike,
This is definitely worth doing and I hope you have the time before the 11th, or
can
pass
it on to one of us at that time. As you know I'm away for a couple of days but
back
Friday.
So count me in. I've forwarded you all the email comments I've sent to
reporters/fellow
scientists, so you're fully aware of my views, which are essentially the same as
all of
the list
and many others in paleo. EOS would get to most fellow scientists. As I said to
you the
other
day, it is amazing how far and wide the SB pieces have managed to percolate. When
it
comes
out I would hope that AGU/EOS 'publicity machine' will shout the message from
rooftops
everywhere. As many of us need to be available when it comes out.

There is still no firm news on what Climate Research will do, although they will
likely
have two editors for potentially controversial papers, and the editors will
consult
when papers
get different reviews. All standard practice I'd have thought. At present the
editors
get no
guidance whatsoever. It would seem that if they don't know what standard practice
is
then
they shouldn't be doing the job !
Cheers
Phil
Dear Colleagues,
Eos has invited me (and prospective co-authors) to write a 'forum' piece (see
below).
This was at Ellen Mosely-Thompson's suggestion, upon my sending her a copy of the
attached memo that Michael Oppenheimer and I jointly wrote. Michael and I wrote
this to
assist colleagues who had been requesting more background information to help
counter
the spurious claims (with which I believe you're all now familiar) of the latest
Baliunas & Soon pieces.
The idea I have in mind would be to use what Michael and I have drafted as an
initial
starting point for a slightly expanded piece, that would address the same basic
issues
and, as indicated below, could include some references and figures. As indicated
in
Judy Jacobs' letter below, the piece would be rewritten in such a way as to be
less
explicitly (though perhaps not less implicitly) directed at the Baliunas/Soon
claims,
criticisms, and attacks.
Phil, Ray, and Peck have already indicated tentative interest in being co-authors.
I'm
sending this to the rest of you (Tom C, Keith, Tom W, Kevin) in the hopes of
broadening
the list of co-authors. I strongly believe that a piece of this sort co-authored
by 9
or so prominent members of the climate research community (with background and/or
interest in paleoclimate) will go a long way ih helping to counter these attacks,

which
are being used, in turn, to launch attacks against IPCC.
AGU has offered to expedite the process considerably, which is necessary because
I'll be
travelling for about a month beginning June 11th. So I'm going to work hard to get
something together ASAP. I'd would therefore greatly appreciate a quick response
from
each of you as to whether or not you would potentially be willing to be involved

as a
co-author. If you're unable or unwilling given other current commitments, I'll
understand.
Thanks in advance for getting back to me on this,
mike
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 20:19:08 -0400
From: Ellen Mosley-Thompson
Subject: Re: position paper by Mann,
Bradley et al that is a refutation to Soon et al
X-Sender: ethompso@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: Judy Jacobs , "Michael E. Mann"
Judy and Mike -

This sounds outstanding.
Am I right in assuming that Fred reviews and approves the Forum pieces?
If so, can you hint about expediting this. Timing is very critical here.
Judy, thanks for taking the bull by the horns and getting the ball rolling.
Best regards,
Ellen
At 07:33 PM 06/03/2003 -0400, Judy Jacobs wrote:
Dear Dr. Mann,
Thanks for the prompt reply.
Based on what you have said, it sounds to me as if Mann, Bradley, et al. will not
be in
violation of AGU's prohibition on duplicate publication.
The attachment to your e-mail definitely has the look and feel of something that
would
be published in Eos under the "FORUM" column header. FORUM pieces are usually
comments
on articles of any description that have been published in previous issues of Eos;
or
they can be articles on purely scientific or science policy-related issues around

which
there is some controversy or difference of opinion; or articles on current public

issues
that are of interest to the geosciences; or on issues--science or broader policy
ones---0n which there is an official AGU Position Statement. In this last

category, I
offer, for example, the teaching of creationism in public schools, either

alongside
evolution, or to the exclusion of evolution.
AGU has an official Position Statement, "Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases,"
which
states, among other things, that there is a high probability that man-made gases
primarily from the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to a gradual rise in

mean
globab temperatures. In this context, your proto-article---in the form of the
attachment
you sent me-- would seem right on target for a Forum piece. However, since the
Soon et
al. article wasn't actually published in Eos, anything that you and Dr. Bradley
craft
will have to minimize reference to the specific article or articles, and

concentrate on
"the science" that is set forth in these papers. Presumably this problem could be
solved by simply referencing these papers.
A Forum piece can be as long as 1500 words, or approximately 6 double-spaced

pages. A
maximum of two figures is permitted. A maximum of 10 references is encouraged, but

if
the number doesn't exceed 10 too outrageously, I don't make a fuss, and neither
will
Ellen.
Authors are now asked to submit their manuscripts and figures electronically via
AGU's
Internet-based Geophysical Electronic Manuscript System (GEMS), which makes it

possible
for the entire submission-review process to be conducted online.
If you have never used GEMS before, you can register for a login and password, and
get
initial instructions, by going to
[1]http://eos-submit.agu.org/
If you would like to have a set of step-by-step instructions for first-time GEMS
users,
please ask me.
Ellen indicated that she/you would like to get something published sooner rather
than
later. The Eos staff can certainly expedite the editorial process for anything you
and
your colleagues submit.
Don't hesitate to contact me with any further questions.
Best regards,
Judy Jacobs
Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear Judy,
Thanks very much for getting back to me on this. Ellen had mentioned this
possibility,
and I have been looking forward to hearing back about this.
Michael Oppenheimer and I drafted an informal memo that we passed along to

colleagues
who needed some more background information so that they could comment on the Soon
et al
papers in response to various inquiries they were receiving from the press, etc.
I've
attached a copy of this memo.
It has not been our intention for this memo to appear in print, and it has not
been
submitted anywhere for publication. On the other hand, when Ellen mentioned the
possibility of publishing something *like* this in e.g. the "Eos" forum, that
seemed
like an excellent idea to me, and several of my colleagues that I have discussed
the
possibility with.
What we had in mind was to produce a revised version of the basic memo that I've
attached, modifying it where necessary, and perhaps expanding it a bit, seeking

broader
co-authorship by about 9 or so other leading climate scientists. So far, Phil

Jones of
the University of East Anglia, Ray Bradley of the University of Massachusetts, and
Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona, have all indicated their interest
in
co-authoring such a piece. We suspect that a few other individuals would be

interested
in being co-authors as well. I didn't want to pursue this further, however, until
I
knew whether or not an Eos piece was a possibility.

So pending further word from you, I would indeed be interested in preparing a
multi-authored "position" paper for Eos in collaboration with these co-authors,

based
loosely on the memo that Ihave attached.
I look forward to further word from you on this.
best regards,
mike mann
At 04:59 PM 6/3/2003 -0400, you wrote:
Dear Dr. Mann,
I am the managing editor for Eos, the weekly newspaper of the American
Geophysical Union.
Late last week, the Eos editor for atmospheric sciences, Ellen
Mosley-Thompson, asked me if Eos would publish what she called "a
position paper" by you, Phillip Bradley, et al that would, in effect,
be a refutation to a paper by Soon et al. that was published in a
British journal, Energy & Environment a few weeks ago. This Energy &
Environment article was subsequently picked up by the Discovery
Channel and other print and electronic media that reach the general
public.
Before I can answer this question, I need to ask if you and your
colleagues intend for this position paper to be published
simultaneously in outlets other than Eos. If this is the case, I'm
afraid it being published in Eos is a moot point, because of AGU's no
duplicate publication policy: if the material has been published
elsewhere first, AGU will not publish it.
I look forward to your response.
Best regrds,
Judy Jacobs
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachMannPersp20021.pdf"
References
1. http://eos-submit.agu.org/

From: Keith Briffa To: Edward Cook Subject: Re: Review- confidential REALLY URGENT
Date: Wed Jun 4 13:42:54 2003
I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review - Confidentially I now need
a hard
and if required extensive case for rejecting - to support Dave Stahle's and really
as soon
as you can. Please
Keith
At 08:00 AM 5/28/03 -0400, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
Okay, here is a zipped archive containing Jan's ring-width measurement series. The
directory names are:

random
all
slope
flat
"All" contains files with "all" series; "slope" has those series Jan reckoned had
curvilinear growth trends; "flat" has those series with linear growth trends;
"random"
are those series that Jan chose not to use. Note that I had to pull out the
Mongolia
data set. I would love to give you it, but Gordon would go nuts if he found out. I
don't
know any way around this problem.
The file names are:
01ath Athabasca
02bor Boreal
03cam Camphill
04que Quebec
05upp Upper Wright
06got Gotland
07jae Jaemtland
08lau Lauenen (site not used in paper)
09tir Tirol
10tor Tornestrask
11man Mangazeja
13pol Polar Urals
14tay Taymir
15zha Zhaschiviersk
I can't put my hands on the derived RCS indices for these sites just now, but I
can find
them if you want them. This at least gives you the basic data and how it was
partitioned
by Jan. I did not participate in this stage of the analysis, so any questions
about it
should be directed to Jan.
Cheers,
Ed
--
==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Phone: 845-365-8618
Fax: 845-365-8152
==================================
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
References
From: Keith Briffa To: Edward Cook Subject: Re: Review- confidential REALLY URGENT
Date: Wed Jun 4 16:02:09 2003
Hi Big Boy
You just caught me as I was about to slope off after a brutal day - we spent all
day
yesterday interviewing for a job we have and then someone accepted it - and now
Janice
tells us we don't have the money to pay at therate the job was advertised for!
This attack
sounds like the last straw- from what you say it is a waste of time my looking at
it but
send a copy anyway. The file you have is an old version of a reconstruction output
for one
Tornetrask reconstruction - if it was labelled something like 990 it is the

original Nature
one , but 997 (i Think//1) would make it the Climate Dynamics one . Trouble is I
will have
to go back and find out which . Please ring if I haven't my tomorrow to remind me
- and
concentrate on the review for now. I will also talk about an extended nearby data
set
(temp) that might allow a longer more rigorous validation . Kirsten has just done
Math GCSE
and Amy her driving test so I have to go and picjk them up. I will looke at the
file and be
ready with an answer by midday my time. the best and a beer til then
Keith
At 09:50 AM 6/4/03 -0400, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
Okay, today. Promise! Now something to ask from you. Actually somewhat important
too. I
got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and
Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that
claims
that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse

regression)
is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your Tornetrask recon as the main
whipping boy. I have a file that you gave me in 1993 that comes from your 1992
paper.
Below is part of that file. Is this the right one? Also, is it possible to
resurrect the
column headings? I would like to play with it in an effort to refute their claims.
If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly
paper to
review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it.

It
won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct

theoretically,
but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies,
without showing that their improved inverse regression method is actually better
in a
practical sense. So they do lots of monte carlo stuff that shows the superiority
of
their method and the deficiencies of our way of doing things, but NEVER actually
show
how their method would change the Tornetrask reconstruction from what you
produced.
Your assistance here is greatly appreciated. Otherwise, I will let Tornetrask sink
into
the melting permafrost of northern Sweden (just kidding of course).
Cheers,
Ed
TORNETRASK RECONSTRUCTION
500 1.24 -9.99 0.00 0.16 0.81 0.31
501 0.38 -9.99 0.00 0.25 0.81 0.39
502 0.51 -9.99 0.00 0.08 0.81 0.25

503 0.14 -9.99 0.00 0.19 0.81 0.34
504 -1.32 -9.99 0.00 0.19 0.81 0.34
505 -0.65 -9.99 0.00 0.08 0.81 0.25
506 -0.19 -9.99 0.00 0.07 0.81 0.24
507 0.55 -9.99 0.00 0.19 0.81 0.33
508 0.54 -9.99 0.00 0.16 0.81 0.31
509 0.93 -9.99 0.00 0.11 0.81 0.27
510 0.02 -9.99 0.00 0.14 0.81 0.29
511 -1.62 -9.99 0.00 0.20 0.81 0.35
512 -0.01 -9.99 0.00 0.13 0.81 0.28
513 1.00 -9.99 0.00 0.11 0.81 0.27
514 0.10 -9.99 0.00 0.14 0.81 0.29
515 -0.96 -9.99 0.00 0.11 0.81 0.26
516 -0.08 -9.99 0.00 0.12 0.81 0.27
517 0.35 -9.99 0.00 0.09 0.85 0.25
518 0.30 -9.99 0.00 0.10 0.85 0.26
519 0.55 -9.99 0.00 0.10 0.85 0.26
520 -0.19 -9.99 0.00 0.10 0.85 0.26
521 -0.84 -9.99 0.00 0.23 0.85 0.38
522 -0.83 -9.99 0.00 0.23 0.85 0.37
523 0.05 -9.99 0.00 0.07 0.85 0.24
524 -0.27 -9.99 0.00 0.08 0.85 0.25
525 0.14 -9.99 0.00 0.07 0.85 0.24
526 0.01 -9.99 0.00 0.10 0.85 0.25
527 -0.31 -9.99 0.00 0.13 0.85 0.28
528 0.46 -9.99 0.00 0.09 0.85 0.25
529 0.01 -9.99 0.00 0.09 0.85 0.25
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1848 0.10 -9.99 0.00 0.09 1.00 0.24
1849 -0.39 -9.99 0.00 0.14 1.00 0.28
1850 0.55 -9.99 0.00 0.16 1.00 0.29
1851 0.04 -9.99 0.00 0.13 1.00 0.27 1.92 0.96 -1.98 -1.24
-1.41 -0.35
1852 0.68 -9.99 0.00 0.12 1.00 0.26 -2.82 0.59 1.66 1.95
2.12 0.70
1853 0.67 -9.99 0.00 0.14 1.00 0.28 -2.23 0.24 2.27 1.64
-0.33 0.32
1854 1.13 -9.99 0.00 0.14 1.00 0.27 0.21 1.57 0.89 2.47
2.11 1.45
1855 0.05 -9.99 0.00 0.15 1.00 0.29 -0.74 -0.80 0.24 4.19
-0.16 0.55
1856 -1.41 -9.99 0.00 0.19 1.00 0.33 -0.48 -1.24 -1.37 -0.34
-2.55 -1.20
1857 -0.30 -9.99 0.00 0.19 1.00 0.32 -1.13 -0.78 -1.39 -0.23
2.44 -0.22
1858 0.81 -9.99 0.00 0.15 1.00 0.28 -0.63 0.48 1.37 2.74
2.72 1.34
1859 -0.60 -9.99 0.00 0.10 1.00 0.25 -1.28 0.73 1.04 0.10
0.16 0.15
1860 0.49 -9.99 0.00 0.10 1.00 0.24 -0.41 -1.37 0.62 0.42
0.17 -0.11
1861 0.73 -9.99 0.00 0.10 1.00 0.24 -1.19 -2.59 1.54 2.27
0.33 0.07
1862 -0.15 -9.99 0.00 0.06 1.00 0.22 -0.06 0.50 -1.16 -2.08
-1.95 -0.95
1863 0.03 -9.99 0.00 0.08 1.00 0.23 1.00 -0.79 0.18 -1.72
-0.60 -0.39
1864 -0.50 -9.99 0.00 0.11 1.00 0.25 -0.49 -3.34 0.26 0.74
-2.40 -1.05
1865 -0.32 -9.99 0.00 0.07 1.00 0.22 0.10 0.14 -2.96 1.61
-1.31 -0.48
1866 -0.37 -9.99 0.00 0.10 1.00 0.24 0.29 -1.99 0.67 -1.17
0.67 -0.31
1867 -1.03 -9.99 0.00 0.12 1.00 0.26 -2.83 -5.37 -2.59 -0.62
-0.31 -2.34
1868 -0.28 -9.99 0.00 0.16 1.00 0.29 -0.02 1.04 -0.36 1.72
2.78 1.03
1869 -0.84 -9.99 0.00 0.10 1.00 0.25 1.21 -1.14 -1.40 0.53
-0.63 -0.29
1870 -0.25 -9.99 0.00 0.12 1.00 0.26 1.33 -0.70 -0.27 1.12
-0.36 0.22
1871 -0.59 -9.99 0.00 0.10 1.00 0.24 -2.34 -2.32 -2.34 1.12
-0.09 -1.19
1872 0.44 -9.99 0.00 0.10 1.00 0.25 0.80 0.57 1.16 1.32
-0.34 0.70
1873 0.52 -9.99 0.00 0.14 1.00 0.28 -1.97 -2.50 0.82 1.38
0.12 -0.43
1874 -0.54 -9.99 0.00 0.11 1.00 0.25 0.25 -2.24 -1.15 0.15
-1.06 -0.81
1875 0.36 -9.99 0.00 0.09 1.00 0.24 -1.96 0.36 0.00 0.87
-0.33 -0.21
1876 0.46 -0.15 0.61 0.12 1.00 0.25 -0.70 -3.06 1.93 0.74
0.34 -0.15
1877 -0.98 -1.74 0.76 0.14 1.00 0.28 -3.31 -2.70 -1.18 0.26
-1.76 -1.74
1878 -0.04 -0.19 0.15 0.08 1.00 0.23 1.02 -0.30 0.16 -1.71
-0.12 -0.19
1879 0.20 -0.41 0.62 0.10 1.00 0.25 -1.24 -0.19 -1.09 -0.64
1.09 -0.41
1880 -1.05 0.14 -1.19 0.17 1.00 0.31 0.17 -0.53 -0.70 -0.20
1.94 0.14
1881 -1.34 -1.88 0.54 0.17 1.00 0.30 -3.66 -2.02 -1.35 -1.07
-1.32 -1.88
1882 0.30 0.37 -0.08 0.16 1.00 0.30 -0.32 0.21 -0.36 0.56
1.78 0.37
1883 1.13 0.24 0.89 0.13 1.00 0.26 0.49 -0.08 0.99 0.52
-0.70 0.24
1884 0.00 -0.80 0.80 0.14 1.00 0.27 -0.80 -1.99 -1.15 0.32
-0.39 -0.80
1885 -1.26 -1.25 -0.01 0.14 1.00 0.28 -0.29 -2.26 -2.34 0.42
-1.76 -1.25
1886 -0.24 0.10 -0.34 0.15 1.00 0.28 0.69 -0.55 -0.01 0.13
0.24 0.10
1887 -0.83 -0.40 -0.43 0.14 1.00 0.27 -0.10 0.23 -1.01 -0.12
-1.02 -0.40
1888 -0.79 -1.69 0.90 0.12 1.00 0.26 -2.95 -1.85 -1.37 -1.05
-1.25 -1.69
1889 0.28 0.71 -0.43 0.08 1.00 0.23 -0.46 2.98 2.28 -0.40
-0.84 0.71
1890 0.47 0.22 0.25 0.08 1.00 0.23 1.06 2.04 -0.58 -1.18
-0.26 0.22
1891 -0.55 -0.49 -0.06 0.16 1.00 0.30 -0.43 -0.38 -1.74 1.24
-1.12 -0.49
1892 -1.58 -1.46 -0.12 0.16 1.00 0.29 -0.95 -1.55 -2.20 -1.24
-1.36 -1.46
1893 -0.61 -0.60 -0.01 0.10 1.00 0.24 -0.46 -1.17 -0.48 -0.07
-0.80 -0.60
1894 0.53 0.79 -0.26 0.09 1.00 0.24 2.61 0.07 0.50 1.18
-0.40 0.79
1895 0.68 0.38 0.30 0.09 1.00 0.24 -0.15 2.19 0.78 -0.66
-0.24 0.38
1896 0.06 0.47 -0.41 0.11 1.00 0.25 -0.04 -0.30 1.40 2.02
-0.73 0.47
1897 0.71 1.01 -0.30 0.13 1.00 0.27 0.90 2.20 -0.20 1.10
1.05 1.01
1898 0.10 -0.61 0.71 0.12 1.00 0.25 -1.06 -0.20 -0.16 -1.03
-0.60 -0.61
1899 -1.36 -0.84 -0.53 0.17 1.00 0.31 -0.98 -1.95 -1.85 2.38
-1.79 -0.84
1900 -0.38 -0.89 0.51 0.18 1.00 0.31 -1.31 -2.02 -0.02 -1.11
-0.01 -0.89
1901 0.85 1.32 -0.47 0.17 1.00 0.30 0.76 0.56 1.05 3.24
1.00 1.32
1902 -1.59 -2.44 0.85 0.19 1.00 0.33 -2.71 -2.33 -2.44 -2.52
-2.22 -2.44
1903 -1.27 -0.42 -0.85 0.20 1.00 0.33 0.36 0.14 -0.37 -1.02
-1.22 -0.42
1904 -1.52 -1.11 -0.42 0.15 1.00 0.29 0.77 -1.61 -1.73 -1.64
-1.32 -1.11
1905 -0.45 -0.06 -0.39 0.08 1.00 0.23 -1.29 0.69 1.41 0.05
-1.16 -0.06
1906 -0.44 0.55 -0.98 0.08 1.00 0.23 1.44 1.74 0.34 0.69
-1.47 0.55
1907 -0.40 -1.10 0.69 0.07 1.00 0.23 0.24 -2.05 -0.31 -0.70
-2.67 -1.10
1908 -0.15 -0.55 0.41 0.11 1.00 0.25 0.36 -1.22 -1.31 -0.22
-0.38 -0.55
1909 -0.77 -1.71 0.94 0.09 1.00 0.24 -2.54 -3.21 -1.26 -0.51
-1.03 -1.71
1910 -0.16 0.00 -0.16 0.09 1.00 0.24 1.18 0.91 -0.19 -0.60
-1.32 0.00
1911 -0.38 0.02 -0.40 0.09 1.00 0.24 -0.37 1.25 -1.34 -0.55
1.12 0.02
1912 0.06 -0.23 0.29 0.06 1.00 0.22 -1.32 -0.99 0.16 0.79
0.20 -0.23
1913 0.08 0.29 -0.21 0.07 1.00 0.22 1.68 0.02 -1.15 0.99
-0.07 0.29
1914 0.09 0.84 -0.75 0.07 1.00 0.22 1.51 -0.37 0.47 3.50
-0.93 0.84
1915 0.11 -0.91 1.01 0.06 1.00 0.22 -0.20 -1.59 -2.40 0.61
-0.95 -0.91
1916 -0.35 -0.51 0.16 0.13 1.00 0.26 0.46 -1.26 -1.37 1.65
-2.04 -0.51
1917 0.18 -0.02 0.20 0.11 1.00 0.25 -1.95 -1.60 1.89 -0.78
2.35 -0.02
1918 0.71 -0.39 1.10 0.10 1.00 0.24 1.11 -0.49 -1.73 0.68
-1.52 -0.39
1919 -0.09 0.12 -0.21 0.07 1.00 0.22 -0.88 1.29 0.09 1.87
-1.79 0.12
1920 0.33 0.85 -0.52 0.07 1.00 0.22 2.05 2.16 -0.36 0.93
-0.51 0.85
1921 0.29 0.75 -0.46 0.10 1.00 0.24 3.97 2.43 -0.68 -1.35
-0.62 0.75
1922 0.66 -0.23 0.89 0.12 1.00 0.26 -0.60 0.22 0.00 0.12
-0.88 -0.23
1923 -0.66 -1.84 1.19 0.12 1.00 0.26 -1.53 -1.74 -3.76 0.02
-2.20 -1.84
1924 0.49 -0.46 0.95 0.08 1.00 0.23 -1.60 -0.68 -1.93 0.64
1.25 -0.46
1925 0.30 1.10 -0.80 0.12 1.00 0.26 1.66 0.70 -0.63 3.49
0.30 1.10
1926 0.47 0.06 0.41 0.10 1.00 0.24 -0.06 -0.51 0.02 0.75
0.12 0.06
1927 0.23 0.10 0.14 0.11 1.00 0.25 -0.58 -2.17 -1.54 3.18
1.60 0.10
1928 -0.82 -1.21 0.39 0.11 1.00 0.25 0.42 -0.20 -3.05 -2.14
-1.09 -1.21
1929 0.00 -1.25 1.26 0.15 1.00 0.28 -3.24 0.57 -1.51 -1.02
-1.06 -1.25
1930 1.00 1.42 -0.42 0.16 1.00 0.29 1.78 1.81 0.59 1.58
1.34 1.42
1931 -0.67 -0.21 -0.46 0.08 1.00 0.23 -0.29 1.18 -2.95 1.21
-0.20 -0.21
1932 -0.32 0.27 -0.59 0.08 1.00 0.23 0.54 0.03 -1.68 1.74
0.74 0.27
1933 0.65 0.36 0.29 0.12 1.00 0.26 -0.33 -0.86 1.64 1.77
-0.43 0.36
1934 0.56 0.98 -0.42 0.12 1.00 0.26 0.37 1.88 -0.48 1.88
1.27 0.98
1935 -0.56 -0.37 -0.20 0.09 1.00 0.24 0.30 -1.94 0.11 -0.05
-0.25 -0.37
1936 -0.09 1.48 -1.57 0.19 1.00 0.33 0.03 1.84 2.96 1.86
0.71 1.48
1937 1.77 2.39 -0.62 0.19 1.00 0.32 2.82 2.55 1.32 2.26
3.01 2.39
1938 0.58 0.91 -0.33 0.09 1.00 0.24 0.59 -0.07 -0.60 2.49
2.14 0.91
1939 0.31 0.71 -0.40 0.08 1.00 0.23 -0.22 -0.15 0.04 0.99
2.88 0.71
1940 0.20 0.42 -0.22 0.15 1.00 0.28 -0.95 2.26 0.72 0.67
-0.60 0.42
1941 -0.03 -0.20 0.17 0.14 1.00 0.28 -2.00 -1.34 -1.20 3.70
-0.17 -0.20
1942 0.11 -0.50 0.61 0.08 1.00 0.23 0.14 -1.04 -1.47 -0.32
0.20 -0.50
1943 0.36 0.69 -0.33 0.07 1.00 0.22 1.55 0.88 0.99 0.69
-0.64 0.69
1944 0.12 -0.50 0.62 0.10 1.00 0.24 -1.67 -1.25 -1.58 1.18
0.83 -0.50
1945 0.57 0.71 -0.14 0.10 1.00 0.25 1.21 -0.53 -0.86 1.81
1.91 0.71
1946 0.48 0.64 -0.16 0.09 1.00 0.24 1.17 0.28 -0.18 1.62
0.31 0.64
1947 0.69 1.20 -0.51 0.10 1.00 0.24 0.18 1.48 1.69 1.43
1.20 1.20
1948 0.00 0.67 -0.67 0.08 1.00 0.23 2.10 1.66 0.03 0.74
-1.18 0.67
1949 -0.21 0.11 -0.32 0.14 1.00 0.27 1.26 1.76 -1.34 -0.14
-1.01 0.11
1950 0.83 0.73 0.09 0.10 1.00 0.24 2.24 0.91 -0.14 -0.52
1.18 0.73
1951 -0.13 -0.34 0.21 0.07 1.00 0.22 0.78 -1.83 -1.25 -1.23
1.84 -0.34
1952 -0.13 -0.38 0.25 0.12 1.00 0.26 1.78 -0.91 -1.17 -0.26
-1.34 -0.38
1953 0.95 1.11 -0.16 0.11 1.00 0.25 1.80 0.21 3.01 0.37
0.16 1.11
1954 0.12 0.32 -0.20 0.10 1.00 0.24 -0.60 2.11 -0.57 0.70
-0.05 0.32
1955 0.02 -0.76 0.77 0.09 1.00 0.24 -2.65 -2.42 -2.22 1.42
2.09 -0.76
1956 -0.26 -0.94 0.68 0.07 1.00 0.22 -2.32 0.39 0.12 -0.73
-2.15 -0.94
1957 -0.15 -0.31 0.16 0.07 1.00 0.22 -0.09 -0.53 -2.06 1.32
-0.19 -0.31
1958 -0.08 -0.90 0.82 0.09 1.00 0.24 -1.29 -1.07 -1.05 -0.77
-0.31 -0.90
1959 0.83 0.98 -0.16 0.15 1.00 0.28 1.03 0.66 0.44 1.32
1.47 0.98
1960 1.13 1.02 0.11 0.13 1.00 0.27 0.63 1.88 0.92 1.39
0.29 1.02
1961 0.05 0.17 -0.11 0.10 1.00 0.25 -0.12 0.10 1.47 0.19
-0.81 0.17
1962 -0.45 -1.01 0.56 0.09 1.00 0.24 1.27 -0.52 -2.15 -1.65
-2.00 -1.01
1963 0.11 0.79 -0.68 0.18 1.00 0.31 0.43 3.15 -0.33 -0.07
0.77 0.79
1964 -0.21 -0.09 -0.13 0.15 1.00 0.28 0.64 1.02 -0.78 -0.42
-0.90 -0.09
1965 -0.82 -0.82 0.00 0.10 1.00 0.24 0.62 -1.64 -0.03 -1.74
-1.30 -0.82
1966 0.07 -0.13 0.20 0.06 1.00 0.22 -2.47 0.26 1.97 0.46
-0.87 -0.13
1967 -0.22 0.21 -0.44 0.08 1.00 0.23 0.69 0.29 -0.80 0.13
0.75 0.21
1968 -0.57 0.10 -0.67 0.13 1.00 0.27 1.18 -1.20 1.37 -1.07
0.22 0.10
1969 0.55 0.54 0.01 0.08 1.00 0.23 0.21 -0.61 0.90 0.37
1.82 0.54
1970 0.37 0.40 -0.04 0.10 1.00 0.24 -1.25 0.51 2.27 0.05
0.44 0.40
1971 -0.31 -0.12 -0.19 0.07 1.00 0.22 -0.71 0.81 -0.64 0.03
-0.07 -0.12
1972 0.25 1.18 -0.94 0.08 1.00 0.23 0.18 0.44 1.62 3.00
0.68 1.18
1973 0.30 0.85 -0.55 0.10 0.99 0.25 -0.02 0.76 1.31 2.85
-0.66 0.85
1974 0.07 0.12 -0.05 0.11 0.99 0.25 0.86 -0.41 0.62 -0.30
-0.18 0.12
1975 -0.49 0.51 -1.00 0.08 0.99 0.23 0.45 1.72 -1.09 0.62
0.84 0.51
1976 0.08 -9.99 0.00 0.07 0.99 0.22 -0.28 1.72 -1.36 -0.23
0.05 -0.02
1977 -0.33 -9.99 0.00 0.08 0.99 0.23 -1.05 -0.01 -0.50 -0.90
-0.65 -0.62
1978 -0.30 -9.99 0.00 0.07 0.96 0.23 -0.98 0.92 0.14 -0.48
-1.07 -0.29
1979 0.06 -9.99 0.00 0.12 0.95 0.26 -0.73 0.75 1.02 -0.83
0.07 0.06
1980 0.93 -9.99 0.00 0.13 0.95 0.26 1.42 -0.37 1.23 1.02
-0.36 0.59
I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review - Confidentially I now need
a hard
and if required extensive case for rejecting - to support Dave Stahle's and really
as
soon as you can. Please
Keith
At 08:00 AM 5/28/03 -0400, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
Okay, here is a zipped archive containing Jan's ring-width measurement series. The
directory names are:
random
all
slope
flat
"All" contains files with "all" series; "slope" has those series Jan reckoned had
curvilinear growth trends; "flat" has those series with linear growth trends;
"random"
are those series that Jan chose not to use. Note that I had to pull out the
Mongolia
data set. I would love to give you it, but Gordon would go nuts if he found out. I
don't
know any way around this problem.
The file names are:
01ath Athabasca
02bor Boreal
03cam Camphill
04que Quebec
05upp Upper Wright
06got Gotland
07jae Jaemtland
08lau Lauenen (site not used in paper)
09tir Tirol
10tor Tornestrask
11man Mangazeja
13pol Polar Urals
14tay Taymir
15zha Zhaschiviersk
I can't put my hands on the derived RCS indices for these sites just now, but I
can find
them if you want them. This at least gives you the basic data and how it was
partitioned
by Jan. I did not participate in this stage of the analysis, so any questions
about it
should be directed to Jan.
Cheers,
Ed
--
==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Phone: 845-365-8618
Fax: 845-365-8152
==================================
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
--
==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Phone: 845-365-8618
Fax: 845-365-8152
==================================
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
References

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa , Tom Crowley ,

Phil Jones , Michael Oppenheimer , Jonathan Overpeck , Kevin Trenberth , Tom
Wigley Subject: Fwd: Re: Prospective Eos piece? Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 16:12:06
-0400 Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Scott Rutherford
Dear All,
I've attached a draft (attached word document), incorporating many of the

suggestions,
wording, etc. I've already recieved from various of you. Some specific
comments/inquiries/requests for help indicated in yellow highlighting. Waiting to

hear
back from Peck and Tom C (guys: if you're out there, can you give a holler, to let
me know
your disposition? thanks). Otherwise everyone else has indicated they're on board.
I've been in touch w/ Judy Jacobs at AGU to clarify the ground rules. Apparently
we *can*
refer, where necessary, to press releases, parenthetically in the piece. I think

this is
important in our case because there is a subtle, but important, distinction

between what
the papers actual purport to show, and what the authors (and their promoters) have
*claimed* they show (e.g. in the Harvard-Smithsonian press release). We need to

draw out
this distinction-I sent Judy my paragraph on that, and she said it looks fine--so
apparently its kosher.

I've avoided any reference to unpublished work however (e.g. Mann and Jones),
because this
opens up a can of worms. We can nicely make use of work that Keith has already
done to
provide a suggestion of the longer-term (past 2K) changes, for greater context...
Re, references--we necessarily have to go well over the normal 10 or so, because
part of
the strength of our piece is the wealth of recent studies supporting our basic
conclusions.
Judy said that's ok too--especially since our text is short (by about 100 words)
relative
to the official (1200 word) limit. So we should try to keep it that way..ie, we
need to
play a zero-sum game, as much as possible, with any suggested revisions.
Re figures, Scott Rutherford has generously offered to help prepare a draft of

figure 1
which I'll send on to everyone once its available.
I've also described, in the figure caption, my concept of Figure 2--clearly it

would be
helpful if Phil and Ray could collaborate on the preparation of this one (guys?).
Looking forward to comments, and suggested revisions. I'll just accumulate these
from
everyone in whatever form you prefer to provide them (emailed comments, word file
w/ track
changes or highlighting of changes used, etc) and try to prepare a revised draft
once I've
heard back from everyone.
Thanks again to everyone for their willingness to help with this and to be
involved with
this,
mike
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:17:57 -0400
To: Phil Jones , rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tom Wigley
, Tom Crowley , Keith Briffa ,

trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Michael Oppenheimer , Jonathan Overpeck
From: "Michael E. Mann"
Subject: Re: Prospective Eos piece?
Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Scott Rutherford
Thanks Phil, and Thanks Tom W and Keith for your willingness to help/sign on. This
certainly gives us a "quorum" pending even a few possible additional signatories

I'm
waiting to hear back from.
In response to the queries, I will work on a draft today w/ references and two
suggested figures, and will try to send on by this evening (east coast USA). Tom W
indicated that he wouldn't be able look at a draft until Thursday anyway, so why
doesn't
everyone just take a day then to digest what I've provided and then get back to me
with
comments/changes (using word "track changes" if you like).
I'd like to tentatively propose to pass this along to Phil as the "official
keeper" of
the draft to finalize and submit IF it isn't in satisfactory shape by the time I
have to
leave (July 11--If I hadn't mentioned, I'm getting married, and then honeymoon,
prior to
IUGG in Sapporo--gone for about 1 month total). Phil, does that sound ok to you?
Re Figures, what I had in mind were the following two figures:
1) A plot of various of the most reliable (in terms of strength of temperature

signal
and reliability of millennial-scale variability) regional proxy temperature
reconstructions around the Northern Hemisphere that are available over the past 1-
2
thousand years to convey the important point that warm and cold periods where
highly
regionally variable. Phil and Ray are probably in the best position to prepare
this (?).
Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit
this
category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back--I think that trying to
adopt a
timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that
Peck made
w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative
"MWP",
even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far
back
[Phil and I have one in review--not sure it is kosher to show that yet though--
I've put
in an inquiry to Judy Jacobs at AGU about this]. If we wanted to be fancy, we

could do
this the way certain plots were presented in one of the past IPCC reports (was it
1990?)
in which a spatial map was provided in the center (this would show the locations
of the
proxies), with "rays" radiating out to the top, sides, and bottom attached to
rectanges
showing the different timeseries. Its a bit of work, but would be a great way to
convey
both the spatial and temporal information at the same time.
2) A version of the now-familiar "spaghetti plot" showing the various

reconstructions as
well as model simulations for the NH over the past 1 (or maybe 2K). To give you an
idea
of what I have in mind, I'm attaching a Science piece I wrote last year that
contains
the same sort of plot.
However, what I'd like to do different here is:
In addition to the "multiproxy" reconstructions, I'd like to Add Keith's maximum
latewood density-based series, since it is entirely independent of the multiproxy
series, but conveys the same basic message. I would also like to try to extend the
scope
of the plot back to nearly 2K. This would be either w/ the Mann and Jones
extension (in
review in GRL) or, if that is deemed not kosher, the Briffa et al Eurasian tree-
ring
composite that extends back about 2K, and, based on Phil and my results, appears
alone
to give a reasonably accurate picture of the full hemispheric trend.
Thoughts, comments on any of this?
thanks all for the help,
mike
Mike,
This is definitely worth doing and I hope you have the time before the 11th, or
can
pass
it on to one of us at that time. As you know I'm away for a couple of days but
back
Friday.
So count me in. I've forwarded you all the email comments I've sent to
reporters/fellow
scientists, so you're fully aware of my views, which are essentially the same as
all of
the list
and many others in paleo. EOS would get to most fellow scientists. As I said to
you the
other
day, it is amazing how far and wide the SB pieces have managed to percolate. When
it
comes
out I would hope that AGU/EOS 'publicity machine' will shout the message from
rooftops
everywhere. As many of us need to be available when it comes out.
There is still no firm news on what Climate Research will do, although they will
likely
have two editors for potentially controversial papers, and the editors will
consult
when papers
get different reviews. All standard practice I'd have thought. At present the
editors
get no
guidance whatsoever. It would seem that if they don't know what standard practice
is
then
they shouldn't be doing the job !
Cheers
Phil
Dear Colleagues,
Eos has invited me (and prospective co-authors) to write a 'forum' piece (see
below).
This was at Ellen Mosely-Thompson's suggestion, upon my sending her a copy of the
attached memo that Michael Oppenheimer and I jointly wrote. Michael and I wrote
this to
assist colleagues who had been requesting more background information to help
counter
the spurious claims (with which I believe you're all now familiar) of the latest
Baliunas & Soon pieces.
The idea I have in mind would be to use what Michael and I have drafted as an
initial
starting point for a slightly expanded piece, that would address the same basic
issues
and, as indicated below, could include some references and figures. As indicated
in
Judy Jacobs' letter below, the piece would be rewritten in such a way as to be
less
explicitly (though perhaps not less implicitly) directed at the Baliunas/Soon

claims,
criticisms, and attacks.
Phil, Ray, and Peck have already indicated tentative interest in being co-authors.
I'm
sending this to the rest of you (Tom C, Keith, Tom W, Kevin) in the hopes of
broadening
the list of co-authors. I strongly believe that a piece of this sort co-authored
by 9
or so prominent members of the climate research community (with background and/or
interest in paleoclimate) will go a long way ih helping to counter these attacks,

which
are being used, in turn, to launch attacks against IPCC.
AGU has offered to expedite the process considerably, which is necessary because
I'll be
travelling for about a month beginning June 11th. So I'm going to work hard to get
something together ASAP. I'd would therefore greatly appreciate a quick response
from
each of you as to whether or not you would potentially be willing to be involved

as a
co-author. If you're unable or unwilling given other current commitments, I'll
understand.
Thanks in advance for getting back to me on this,
mike
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 20:19:08 -0400
From: Ellen Mosley-Thompson
Subject: Re: position paper by Mann,
Bradley et al that is a refutation to Soon et al
To: Judy Jacobs , "Michael E. Mann"
Judy and Mike -
This sounds outstanding.
Am I right in assuming that Fred reviews and approves the Forum pieces?
If so, can you hint about expediting this. Timing is very critical here.
Judy, thanks for taking the bull by the horns and getting the ball rolling.
Best regards,
Ellen
At 07:33 PM 06/03/2003 -0400, Judy Jacobs wrote:
Dear Dr. Mann,
Thanks for the prompt reply.
Based on what you have said, it sounds to me as if Mann, Bradley, et al. will not
be in
violation of AGU's prohibition on duplicate publication.
The attachment to your e-mail definitely has the look and feel of something that
would
be published in Eos under the "FORUM" column header. FORUM pieces are usually
comments
on articles of any description that have been published in previous issues of Eos;
or
they can be articles on purely scientific or science policy-related issues around

which
there is some controversy or difference of opinion; or articles on current public

issues
that are of interest to the geosciences; or on issues--science or broader policy
ones---0n which there is an official AGU Position Statement. In this last

category, I
offer, for example, the teaching of creationism in public schools, either

alongside
evolution, or to the exclusion of evolution.
AGU has an official Position Statement, "Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases,"
which
states, among other things, that there is a high probability that man-made gases
primarily from the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to a gradual rise in

mean
globab temperatures. In this context, your proto-article---in the form of the

attachment
you sent me-- would seem right on target for a Forum piece. However, since the
Soon et
al. article wasn't actually published in Eos, anything that you and Dr. Bradley
craft
will have to minimize reference to the specific article or articles, and

concentrate on
"the science" that is set forth in these papers. Presumably this problem could be
solved by simply referencing these papers.
A Forum piece can be as long as 1500 words, or approximately 6 double-spaced

pages. A
maximum of two figures is permitted. A maximum of 10 references is encouraged, but

if
the number doesn't exceed 10 too outrageously, I don't make a fuss, and neither
will
Ellen.
Authors are now asked to submit their manuscripts and figures electronically via
AGU's
Internet-based Geophysical Electronic Manuscript System (GEMS), which makes it

possible
for the entire submission-review process to be conducted online.
If you have never used GEMS before, you can register for a login and password, and
get
initial instructions, by going to
[1]http://eos-submit.agu.org/
If you would like to have a set of step-by-step instructions for first-time GEMS
users,
please ask me.
Ellen indicated that she/you would like to get something published sooner rather
than
later. The Eos staff can certainly expedite the editorial process for anything you
and
your colleagues submit.
Don't hesitate to contact me with any further questions.
Best regards,
Judy Jacobs

Dear Judy,
Thanks very much for getting back to me on this. Ellen had mentioned this
possibility,
and I have been looking forward to hearing back about this.
Michael Oppenheimer and I drafted an informal memo that we passed along to

colleagues
who needed some more background information so that they could comment on the Soon
et al
papers in response to various inquiries they were receiving from the press, etc.
I've
attached a copy of this memo.
It has not been our intention for this memo to appear in print, and it has not
been
submitted anywhere for publication. On the other hand, when Ellen mentioned the
possibility of publishing something *like* this in e.g. the "Eos" forum, that
seemed
like an excellent idea to me, and several of my colleagues that I have discussed
the
possibility with.
What we had in mind was to produce a revised version of the basic memo that I've
attached, modifying it where necessary, and perhaps expanding it a bit, seeking

broader
co-authorship by about 9 or so other leading climate scientists. So far, Phil

Jones of
the University of East Anglia, Ray Bradley of the University of Massachusetts, and
Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona, have all indicated their interest
in
co-authoring such a piece. We suspect that a few other individuals would be

interested
in being co-authors as well. I didn't want to pursue this further, however, until
I
knew whether or not an Eos piece was a possibility.
So pending further word from you, I would indeed be interested in preparing a
multi-authored "position" paper for Eos in collaboration with these co-authors,

based
loosely on the memo that Ihave attached.

I look forward to further word from you on this.
best regards,
mike mann
At 04:59 PM 6/3/2003 -0400, you wrote:
Dear Dr. Mann,
I am the managing editor for Eos, the weekly newspaper of the American
Geophysical Union.
Late last week, the Eos editor for atmospheric sciences, Ellen
Mosley-Thompson, asked me if Eos would publish what she called "a
position paper" by you, Phillip Bradley, et al that would, in effect,
be a refutation to a paper by Soon et al. that was published in a
British journal, Energy & Environment a few weeks ago. This Energy &
Environment article was subsequently picked up by the Discovery
Channel and other print and electronic media that reach the general
public.
Before I can answer this question, I need to ask if you and your
colleagues intend for this position paper to be published
simultaneously in outlets other than Eos. If this is the case, I'm
afraid it being published in Eos is a moot point, because of AGU's no
duplicate publication policy: if the material has been published
elsewhere first, AGU will not publish it.
I look forward to your response.
Best regrds,
Judy Jacobs
______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachEosForum.doc"
References
1. http://eos-submit.agu.org/

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Kevin Trenberth Subject: Re: Revised Version! Date:
Sat, 07 Jun 2003 12:40:12 -0400 Cc: "Raymond S. Bradley" , Keith Briffa , Tom
Crowley , Caspar Ammann , Phil Jones , Michael Oppenheimer , Kevin Trenberth , Tom
Wigley , jto@u.arizona.edu, Scott Rutherford , mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Thanks Kevin,
Those are helpful--Tom C. has returned from travels and will be providing comments
shortly.
Will incorporate those and any others I receive into a revised version, which I
hope to
send out (w/ Figure 1 included) tonight or tomorrow,
mike
p.s. Tom W is taking the lead on preparing a companion, more targeted commentary,
to be
submitted to "Climate Research". Any one else interested should contact Tom...
At 05:16 PM 6/6/2003 -0600, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Good job. I am attaching marked up copy with few suggestions.
Kevin
Dear all,
Here is my best attempt to incorporate everyone's suggestions, views, etc. One

major
change you'll notice is that the final item (the one on co2 increase and recent
warming)
was eliminated, because it seemed to open a can of warms, and also distract from
the
central message. Note that, with the number of references we have, we are
currently just
about at the word limit for the piece. We shouldn't go over 1400 words, which puts
some
tight constraint on any additions, etc.
I hope to forward a draft of Figure 1 later on this afternoon. I'm assuming that
Phil
can take care of Figure 2 (Phil?--Scott has graciously indicated his willingness
to help
if necessary), but its pretty clear what this figure will show, so I don't thinks
its
that essential that we have that figure done to try to finalize the draft.
I'll attempt one final(?) revision of the text based on any remaining comments you
may
have--please try, if possible, to keep the suggested changes minimal at this

point. I'll
assume that anyone we haven't yet heard back from in the author list over the next
day
or so is unable to be a co-author, and will respectfully drop them from the author
list
any related future emailings.
Thanks all for your help. Its rare to have every single co-author make substantial
contributions to improving the draft, and that was clearly the case here...
mike
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: [1]mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
-- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth
e-mail: [3]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
[4]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/ P. O. Box 3000,
(303) 497 1318 Boulder, CO 80307
(303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 3080 Center Green Drive, Boulder, CO 80301
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
References
1. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx%A0
3. mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Phil Jones , Scott Rutherford Subject: Re: Figure 1
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:18:17 -0400 Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Sounds great on all counts.
Kevin's comments are all good ones,
mike
Scott,
Seems OK. we will send both figures and the text for one last look through today.
Trying now to incorporate Kevin's comments.
Cheers
Phil
At 10:48 10/06/03 -0400, Scott Rutherford wrote:
Phil and others,
Here is a revised figure. What do you think?
Scott
On Tuesday, June 10, 2003, at 07:21 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Scott (and Mike if he's still there),
The three of us have been through the text, Fig 1 and decided
what to put in Fig 2.
Tim is doing Fig 2 (9 long series - we'll send when we have it). I'm
modifying the text
slightly - adding in refs that are missing (mostly with Fig 2) and
generally tidying up.
Keith is working on the final sentence of the penultimate para. We
all agree with this,
but it could be misinterpreted - so trying to avoid this.
WRT Fig 1.
There are quite a few changes we think would improve things and
make it more consistent,
all to the labelling.
1. Add et al to Bauer and Gerber (twice).
2. Years only in for Mann et al., so this is the only one where refs
would be ambiguous.
3. So, Briffa et al 2000 becomes Briffa and Osborn 1999
4. Briffa et al, 2001 becomes Briffa et al .
5 Remove Long instrumental - the orange line from the plot and key.
It isn't explained in the
caption, nor in the text.
6. As the grey line may not be seen under the grey shading, we think
that all lines should
be as thin as the grey one. Some are thicker than others - can all be
the same thinness.
7. Back to key, change Optimal borehole (Mann et al, 2003) to Mann et

al. 2003 (Optimal
borehole) for consistency with the others.
8 . Most important is the SCALING. Needs to be clear which are scaled
(to annual) and which
aren't. Text in caption is ambiguous. So can you tell us which is
scaled (to annual) and
which aren't. If they are scaled then key should say - scaled
1856-1980 as with Jones et al .
Does this apply to Briffa and Osborn and to Briffa et al (the grey
and orange lines).
9. Whilst on scaling are all scaled or regressed? Scaling we think
of as giving the same
mean and variance. Regression does this also but which has been used.
10. Finally, Figure would look good with a thin black line along the
zero line from 0 to 2000.
Call me or Tim if anything you don't follow. Try Mike as well. I
sent him an email earlier
today and he'd already put his reply message up for the next 4-5
weeks.
Cheers
Phil
At 12:25 09/06/03 -0400, Scott Rutherford wrote:
Mike and Phil,
Attached is figure 1. The format is Adobe Illustrator with an
embedded PDF. You can view it in Acrobat. Let me know if you have
questions.
Regards,
Scott
______________________________________________
Scott Rutherford
Marine Research Scientist
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island
e-mail: srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
phone: (401) 874-6599
fax: (401) 874-6811
snail mail:
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
______________________________________________
Scott Rutherford
phone: (401) 874-6599
fax: (401) 874-6811

snail mail:
South Ferry Road
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
References

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Scott Rutherford Subject: Re: EOS text Date: Tue, 10
Jun 2003 14:26:07 -0400 Cc: phil Jones , Keith Briffa , t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
HI Scott,
I concur w/ your assessment--keeping the figure the way it is now is preferable in

my
opinion...
mike
At 02:23 PM 6/10/2003 -0400, Scott Rutherford wrote:
Dear All,
I agree that figure 1 is very busy, but I'm not sure that is a bad thing in this
case
because we aren't trying to highlight differences between reconstructions/models

or
single out one or two from the rest. I think the current figure illustrates the
range of
reconstructions, the range of models and how well they agree (similar to one of
our
original ideas of a "cloud of reconstructions").
If we put the models into a separate panel we will need a curve common to both
panels
that people can use as a reference. If we go with the two panel figure I suggest
that
the second panel include the models, the Mann et al. 1999 reconstruction with
uncertainties and the instrumental record.
I'll leave it to the group to decide.
-Scott
On Tuesday, June 10, 2003, at 01:16 PM, Michael E. Mann wrote:
I don't really like the idea of changing the figure dramatically at this point.
If we have to, I suggest the following options:
1) Take out one of the model simulation results--e.g. Gerber et al w/ the lower
sensitivity
2) If we want to adopt Kevin's two panel strategy, then show the model results
along w/
the gray-shaded uncertainty region from the top (reconstructions) panel. And show
the
instrumental record in both panels.
Anyway, up to you guys...
mike
At 10:59 AM 6/10/2003 -0600, you wrote:
Phil
Thanks for the great work.
Some reactions.
1) Fig. 1 is very busy and perhaps unduly crowded. My reaction is to take the
model
results out and put them in a separate panel. The separate panel would fit along
side
the key. But better below the main figure.
Can we change "gridded and arealy weighted" to "gridded, area-weighted..".)
What is "optimal borehole",? Should "optimal" be in quotes?
2) Fig. 2: Can we please add a country to each name for those that don't have
them?
Increased spacing between them would be nice.
Thanks
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:
Dear All,
Keith, Tim and I have been at this for part of the day. Scott has also
redrawn Fig 1.
Attached is the latest draft, which includes Kevin's from about 1 hour ago, but
not
Ray's
latest email.
Fig 1 from Scott is OK to us here. Fig 2 is a draft. Tim needs to space the
series
out a little. To use all these we've needed to add a load of references. Getting
these
and
making the captions OK has taken most time and the drawing of Fig 2.
Hopefully we can all agree to this in the next day or so, then I'll submit on
say
Thursday UK morning time, so you've all got all day today and tomorrow.
We've been through the text carefully and all happy with it.
Apologies - no time to make Fig 2 pdf. Hope all can see postscript. We still need
to work
on the captions and tidy the refs a little more.
We'll be back at 8.30 tomorrow UK time. Peck - you've got 2 days to say yes/no !
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [1]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)

______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________
Scott Rutherford
phone: (401) 874-6599
fax: (401) 874-6811
snail mail:
South Ferry Road
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
References


From: Keith Briffa To: "Michael E. Mann" Subject: Re: possible rewording of
section of letter? Date: Tue Jun 10 15:23:53 2003
thanks and all now ok
Keith
At 10:30 AM 6/10/03 -0400, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
no problem...Responses below. let me know what you think...
thanks,
mike
At 03:01 PM 6/10/2003 +0100, Keith Briffa wrote:
thanks for that Mike - sorry but just a few more questions
the reference to "agree remarkably well with the proxy-based reconstructions

(Figure 1)
" [later part of paragraph ] . Unfortunately , the Bauer et al curve clearly does
not -
at least from AD 1100 to 1400!
Again some qualifyer is needed - perhaps "for the most part , agree well " ?
Yes, "remarkably" is an overstatement given that, as you say, Bauer et al does

stray
some bit.
How about simply:
"Agree with the proxy-based reconstructions within estimated uncertainties (Figure

1)".
and later [middle of the 6th paragraph],
"relative hemispheric warmth during the 10th to 12th centuries" is ambiguous and
we
prefer "relative hemispheric warmth during much of the the 10th,11th and 12th
centuries"
yep, better...
but also , where we say [just below] "the specific periods of cold and warm
apparent for
Europe differ significantly from those for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole." ,
to
what evidence of European anomalies are we referring?
ahh--I left that open-ended, for Phil and you guys to deal with as you see best. I
was
anticipating that Figure 2 would include an appropriate proxy series or two for
Europe
(CET, Fennoscandia?) that would make this point. But why don't you guys revise the
wording, as necessary, based on Figure 2?
______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
References

From: Kevin Trenberth To: Phil Jones Subject: Re: EOS text Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003
09:55:59 -0600 Cc: Tom Wigley , "Michael E. Mann" , "Raymond S. Bradley" , Keith
Briffa , Caspar Ammann , Michael Oppenheimer , Tom Crowley , Scott Rutherford ,
t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu
Hi all On isotopes, see the paper by Werner et al (briefly discussed in our

Science perspectives) showing that isotopes don't sample the deep winter well as
there is inadequate precip then in Greenland during the past. I had to send this
as I have been getting 2 of everything and I so I adjusted the cc list. Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:
> > Tom, > The W. Greenland series is based on a stack of 6 isotope series - > see
chapter by > Fisher et al in book from 1996 by Jones, Bradley and Jouzel. >
Correlation of this series > with Greenland Annual temps is 0.58 on annual
timescale over 1901-80. > It is one of the > better ones of the series in Fig 2.
Others are better with different > seasons, but this one > is good for annual. The
averaging of the 6 sites improves it a lot. > > Cheers > Phil > > > > At 08:51
13/06/03 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote: > >> Phil, >> >> If W Greenland is based on
isotopes, I note that the correlation >> between these and temperature is very
low. Do we really want to >> perpetuate the myth that ice core isotopes are a good
proxy for >> temperature? >> >> Tom. >> ___________________________ >> >> Phil
Jones wrote: >> >>> >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>> >>> Keith, Tim and I have been at this
for part of the day. >>> Scott has also redrawn Fig 1. >>> Attached is the latest
draft, which includes Kevin's from about 1 >>> hour ago, but not Ray's >>> latest
email. >>> Fig 1 from Scott is OK to us here. Fig 2 is a draft. Tim >>> needs to
space the series >>> out a little. To use all these we've needed to add a load of
>>> references. Getting these and >>> making the captions OK has taken most time
and the drawing of Fig 2. >>> Hopefully we can all agree to this in the next day
or so, >>> then I'll submit on say >>> Thursday UK morning time, so you've all got
all day today and >>> tomorrow. >>> We've been through the text carefully and all
happy with it. >>> Apologies - no time to make Fig 2 pdf. Hope all can see
postscript. >>> We still need to work >>> on the captions and tidy the refs a
little more. >>> We'll be back at 8.30 tomorrow UK time. Peck - you've got 2 >>>
days to say yes/no ! >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> Prof. Phil Jones >>> Climatic
Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>> School of Environmental Sciences
Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>> University of East Anglia >>> Norwich Email
p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >>> NR4 7TJ >>> UK >>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>
>> >> > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East
Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx > NR4 7TJ > UK >
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >
-- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Climate

Analysis Section, NCAR www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/ P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Phil Jones Subject: Re: VERY VERY IMPORTANT Date: Fri,
20 Jun 2003 14:19:20 -0400 Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi Phil et al,
Re, Malcolm co-authorship--big oversight on my part. Can you ask Ellen if we can
add his
name (i.e., just say it was 'accidentally left off'), where it belongs
alphabetically in
the list.
I've talked to Malcolm on the phone. The PC #1 *is* the right one--but Malcolm has
raised
the valid point that we need to cover our behinds on what was done here, lest we
be
vulnerable to the snipings of the Idsos and co (i.e., that non-climatic influences
on
recent growth were nominally dealt w/, as in MBH99).
Malcolm is supposed to be sending some text to Phil.
So, can we incorporate his small bit of text, and add his name, and then resubmit
to AGU
ASAP?
Thanks all for all the help here. Now, I better get back to my newlywed wife!
mike
Mike,
Malcolm has just called Keith. He's been with Ray. Apart from probably being a
little
miffed off he's not on the article, he says that the W. US series in Figure 2 is
wrong.
He says
it looks the first PC (which I said it was), but that this isn't the corrected one
(for
CO2 growth
effects). Can you check whether it is the right one? Malcolm says that Idso (who
was
on
E&E) will say that the increase in that series is not climatic but due to
fertilization. This
would not look good obviously. Idso was on a paper with Don Graybill re
fertilisation
effects
on bristlecones.
If you need to send a revised series for this top series in Fig 2 then send it to
Tim.
Tim has done this plot so can make the alterations if another series is needed. If
you
think
that the series is OK then we'll leave it. If you do change it will affect Fig 2
of
the GRL also
but probably not to any noticeable effect - at least at the size the plot will be.
Tim will send round the copyright forms to all and reprint forms. Tell Tim if you
want any.
Seems like the pdf will do.
Cheers
Phil
PS Tell Lorraine I'm not always emailing you - but Malcolm thought the above was
important.
I assumed you would have sent the corrected one you used in GRL in 1999.
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
References

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Ellen Mosley-Thompson , Phil Jones Subject: Re:
2003ES000354 Decision Letter Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 03:33:46 -0400 Cc:
k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi Ellen,
I'm still travelling, and have only intermittent email access. I'm pretty sure
Phil is
travelling now too, so I'm hoping Keith or Tim can help out here.
I think we actually discussed two small changes from the final version Phil sent
you. This
involved adding Malcolm Hughes as a co-author (his name was accidentally left off
the
list), and changing the wording of one sentence slightly. I believe that Tim and
Keith have
these changes, and hopefully they can submit this via GEMS? If not, will have to
wait until
Phil or I have a solid internet connection to do this (that will likely be at IUGG
in
Sapporo in about 2 weeks).
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Phil--if you're reading email, any way
you can
help out here?

thanks all,
mike
At 04:36 PM 6/23/2003 -0400, Ellen Mosley-Thompson wrote:
Phil,
I just learned from AGU that you did not submit the revised version back to AGU
via the
GEMS system. Can you or Mike do this as soon as possible? I would like to get this
paper moving through AGU. Fred Spilhaus still has to approve it - he approves all
Forum
pieces - so this adds a layer that will cost us time.
Thanks
Ellen
P.S. I have copied everyone who might be able to handle this in your and Mike's
absence. Thanks
At 05:13 PM 06/20/2003 +0100, you wrote:
Dear Ellen,
I'm off on Sunday, but I've managed to get the revisions done. The revised pdf is
attached. This contains a reduced size manuscript by about 10 lines and we've
reduced
the
references to the absolute minimum. This is still 30. If we go any lower we have
to
change the
figures. As we are commenting on a paper we need to specifically reference all the
series we
use.
Thanks for going through so quickly.
If further changes are required I won't be here so can you email either Keith
Briffa
or Tim Osborn (k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx) .
I will ask Keith and Tim to get the copyright forms rolling.
Cheers
Phil
At 13:50 18/06/03 -0400, eos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
Dear Dr. Mann: (copy to Phil Jones)
I am pleased to accept "On Past Temperatures and Anomalous late-20th Century

Warmth" for
publication in Eos with the provision that in your final submission you modify to
the
first paragraph slightly so that it is fully consistent with the text of the AGU
statement on climate change and greenhouse gases:
[1]http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
Note that first sentence of your paper indicates that the AGU statement includes
the
inference that there is a high probability .... I cannot find the words high
probability in the AGU statement (unlike IPCC that does state "high
probability."). It
is critical that the introductory paragraph is carefully constructed so as not to
diminish any of the points you make in the Forum piece. I suggest a modification
of
your first paragraph - please feel free to further modify this.
Evidence from .... Gases," that there is a compelling basis for concern over
future
climate changes, including increases in global mean surface temperatures, due to
increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, primarily from fossil fuel burning.
If this is too long, you might wish to break it into two sentences. This says the
same
thing as your original intro sentence but is fully consistent with the text of the
AGU
statement.
Also in the first paragraph would you agree to this change?

... such anomalous warm cannot be fully explained natural factors ...... (Added
the
word "fully" to indicate that some but not all of the anomalous warming can be
explained
by natural factors.)
Another suggestion is to remove the second reference to the AGU policy (second
paragraph). What about ... these claims in light of the fact that they have ......
The content of the Forum piece is just fine, but I did find a few minor problems
that
you need to fix in the final submission.
1) 3rd paragraph line 8 - reference to Jones et al. (1998) - this date occurs in
several
places in the paper and should be Jones et al. 1999; e.g., point (2) line 3
2) page 2 - the second (2) point
last 3 lines: remove double period after U.S.; also that sentence reads awkwardly
- try
a comma after the word 'cancelling'.
3) the second paragraph of point 2 (2); last three lines: this is awkward; the
word
"apparent" is out of place; I think this should this read ..... apparent coldness
and
warmth differ .....
4) point 3) last line of first paragraph - change ... insight to .... (Remove in
from
into)
5) references - the Jones et al. 1999 reference is formatted differently than the
rest
(put date at end).
Finally - everywhere throughout the text et al should be corrected to et al (The

period
is consistently absent)
Before publication, your article will be edited to reflect the Eos newspaper
style,
including a possible change in the headline. We will send the edited version to
you for
review and final approval before the article is published.
Please note that before we can proceed with production work on your submission, a
copyright transfer agreement and reprint order form must be completed and returned
to
AGU. These forms may be printed* from the AGU web site:
[2]http://www.agu.org/pubs/journal_forms/EosCopyright.pdf
[3]http://www.agu.org/pubs/journal_forms/EosReprint_orders.pdf.
For information on the production process, please contact Shermonta Grant, Eos
Production Coordinator, at +202.777.7533 or sgrant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx.
In the absence of information from you to the contrary, I am assuming that all
authors
listed on the manuscript concur with publication in its final accepted form and
that
neither this manuscript nor any of its essential components have been published
previously or submitted to another journal. The AGU Guidelines for Publication
emphasize that: "It is unethical for an author to publish manuscripts describing
essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication."
Thank you for your contribution to Eos.
Sincerely,
Ellen Mosley-Thompson
Editor, Eos
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*If you need Adobe Acrobat Reader, it is freely available at:
[4]http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Phil Jones

NR4 7TJ
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
References
1. http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
2. http://www.agu.org/pubs/journal_forms/EosCopyright.pdf
3. http://www.agu.org/pubs/journal_forms/EosReprint_orders.pdf
4. http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Tim Osborn , Tom Wigley Subject: Re: bradley comment
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:01:50 -0400 Cc: Keith Briffa , Phil Jones , "Raymond S.
Bradley" , mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Tim,
I suggest we let Eos size the figures, etc. Then, in the end, we can simply
substitute a
version of Figure 2 w/ the correlations added at the proof stage. Anything else
will slow
down the publication of the manuscript unnecessarily, in my opinion.

Phil and I have already discussed--we agree that the low weight given to the
record in the
Mann and Jones composite treats the record appropriately...
mike
Hi Tom,
In Phil's absence I was just now looked at his PC because I needed some
files/emails for
a separate matter, and I noticed that you had emailed Phil/Ray/Mike concurring
with
Ray's concerns. Until I saw that, I hadn't realised that anyone else had commented
on
Yang et al.
Keith and I discussed exactly this issue this morning, and though Keith also had
concerns about the record (I haven't read their paper, so can't comment) we
decided to
leave things as they were because: (i) Mike suggested adding correlations to the
figure
at the proof stage rather than now; (ii) I wasn't sure how to word a caveat about
Yang
et al. without making it seem odd that we were including a doubtful record and odd
that
we hadn't added caveats about some of the other records.
The current status is that the version I circulated has been submitted back to EOS
(because of the reasons given above), and Ellen Mosley-Thompson has approved it.
It
needs to be reviewed internally at AGU by either Fred Spilhaus or an Associate

Editor.
It will then be edited to reflect the Eos newspaper style.
I've cc'd this to Mike and Phil to see what they want to do. I/we can put a hold
on the
processing of the current submission and then submit a new version with revised
figure
and caption. Alternatively we could wait and see what it's like after EOS have
edited
it, and then make any final modifications at that stage.
Over to you/Mike/Phil.
Cheers
Tim
At 14:00 24/06/2003, you wrote:
Tim,
I think it is *extremely* important to cover Ray's point about Yang et al. and
Mike
Mann's response about weighting. This requires a small addition to the Figure
caption.
Tom.
Dr Timothy J Osborn
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
phone: +44 1603 592089
fax: +44 1603 507784
web: [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

References

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Keith Briffa , Phil Jones , "Raymond S. Bradley"
Subject: Re: ice cores/China series (FYI) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:06:25 -0400
Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Thanks Keith,
I just read your email after reading the others. We actually eliminate records
with
negative correlations (this is mentioned breifly in the GRL article,), and we

investigated
a variety of weighting schemes to assure the basic robustness of the composite--

but I
certainly endorse your broader point here. Many of these records have some
significant
uncertainties or possible sources of bias, and this isn't the place to get into
that. The
uncertainties get at this, at some level, and other places (e.g. the Reviews of
Geophysics
paper Phil and I are drafting) will provide an opportunity to discuss these kinds
of issues
in more detail--we will certainly be seeking advice (either officially or

unofficially)
from each of you once we have finalized the draft of that...
Now back to my honeymoon...
mike

To keep you informed , here is a reply to Tom Wigley re his request to "deal with
Ray's
Comments" re the China series in EOS piece
Tom
Tim has just told me of your message expressing concern about the China series ,
and
your statement of the necessity to "deal with Ray's comment" and add in the "small
adjustment to the Figure Caption". .
We (I and Tim) decided to get this off as soon as possible to Ellen (AGU) , as we
had
been asked to do (and as requested by Ellen). Hence it went off earlier today (and
before your message arrived). Mike was aware of Ray's comment and was happy to
leave any
amendment to the text "until the proof stage" .
In my opinion it is not practical (or desirable) to try to "qualify " any one
record in
this limited format. It was a majority decision to leave the Mann and Jones 2000-
year
series in the Figure 1 (as it was to remove the Briffa and Osborn tree-ring based
one) ,
and the details of the logic used to derive the Mann and Jones series is to be
found in
the (cited) text of their paper. Signing on to this letter , in my mind. implies
agreement with the text and not individual endorsement of all curves by each
author. I
too have expressed my concern to Phil (and Ray) over the logic that you leave all
series
you want in but just weight them according to some (sometimes low) correlation (in
this
case based on decadal values). I also believe some of the series that make up the
Chinese record are dubious or obscure , but the same is true of other records Mann
and
Jones have used (e.g. how do you handle a series in New Zealand that has a -0.25
correlation?) . Further serious problems are still (see my and Tim's Science
comment on
the Mann 1999 paper) lurking with the correction applied to the Western US tree-
ring PC
amplitude series used (and shown in Figure 2). There are problems (and limitations
)
with ALL series used. At this stage , singling out individual records for added
(and
unavoidably cursory added description) is not practical. We were told to cut the
text
and References significantly - and further cuts are implied by Ellen's messages to
us.
If you wish to open this up to general discussion , it may be best to wait 'til
the
proof stage and then we can all consider the balance of emphasis - but we had also
better guard against too "selective" a choice of data to present? If you want to
get a
somewhat wider discussion of this point going in the meantime , feel free to
forward
this to whoever you wish along with your disagreement , while we wait on the
response
from AGU.
Best wishes
Keith
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
References

From: "Mick Kelly" To: Nguyen Huu Ninh (cered@xxxxxxxxx.xxx) Subject: NOAA funding
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:17:15 +0000
----boundary-LibPST-iamunique-1131694944_-_- Content-Type: text/plain;

charset="utf-8"
Ninh NOAA want to give us more money for the El Nino work with IGCN. How much do
we have left from the last budget? I reckon most has been spent but we need to
show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn't make and also the
fees/equipment/computer money we haven't spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious.
Politically this money may have to go through Simon's institute but there overhead
rate is high so maybe not! Best wishes Mick
____________________________________________ Mick Kelly Climatic Research Unit

School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United
Kingdom Tel: 44-1603-592091 Fax: 44-1603-507784 Email: m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Web:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/ ____________________________________________
----boundary-LibPST-iamunique-1131694944_-_- Content-Type: application/rtf

Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="rtf-
body.rtf"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==
----boundary-LibPST-iamunique-1131694944_-_---

From: Mike Hulme To: "Asher Minns" Subject: Re: From Prof. Pachauri Date: Thu Jun
26 15:04:29 2003
Asher,
Spoke with Sinclair-Wilson from Earthscan yesterday about this and we agreed one
or two
things. We should take next steps on this after the Assembly business has died
down.
Mike
At 07:51 19/06/2003 +0100, you wrote:
Mike, this message below id fresh-in from RK Pachauri. He seems keen, and we
have been given a direct contact at TERI. He has made a few interesting
suggestions on content, though nothing on funding as of yet.
Asher
------------------------------
Mr Asher Minns
Communication Manager
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
[1]www.tyndall.ac.uk
Mob: 07880 547 843

Tel: +44 0 1603 593906
From: "R K Pachauri"
To:
Cc: "Ulka Kelkar"
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 7:34 AM
Subject: Dear Prof. Hulme
Dear Prof. Hulme,
Thank you for your letter proposing that the Tyndall Centre and TERI jointly
produce a series of yearbooks on climate change. May I congratulate you on
this excellent idea! I am convinced that a market exists for precisely such
a publication, and am delighted that you thought of TERI as a partner in
this venture.
I am putting down some initial thoughts on the proposed publication and the
suggested contents that you had sent.
While there is a lot of information and related data available on climate
change, it is scattered. On the one hand we have the IPCC assessment on the
state of knowledge about climate change, and on the other the WMO's annual
bulletins. Similarly, the UNFCCC compiles GHG inventory information from
periodically submitted National Communications, while the IEA presents
annual fuel combustion emission statistics. In such a scenario, the metier
of our Yearbook would be to synthesise the current knowledge on climate
change. As mentioned in your note, it would present this information in a
clear and visually appealing manner. Moreover, it would go into climate
change issues in more detail than say, the annual World Resources brought
out by WRI.
The Foreword - and perhaps an Emerging Issues section at the end of the
book - could comment on scientific and political issues, which are otherwise
not discussed in either the IPCC Reports or in the types of publications

mentioned above.
In the draft table of contents, there are two sections that are slightly
different in character from the others. In the chapter on national policies,
we may choose between alternative structures:
1 By Annex I country
2 By type of policy/instrument (e.g. CDM, international trading regimes,
taxation, etc)
The proposed chapter on Social Change and Adaptation is important to
complete the set of topics/issues covered in the Yearbook, but is probably
the most complex in terms of scope/structure. One option that we could
discuss is to cover adaptation policies not in chapter 7, but in chapter 9,
and to highlight studies of community and local government level
implementation.
With such a scope, the media would also be an important part of the audience
for this yearbook
I do appreciate that producing this Yearbook would involve significant
commitment in terms of time and effort if all relevant literature is to be
reviewed. However, by teaming up authors from our two organisations, I am
confident that we will provide an impartial yet balanced North-South
perspective to the Yearbook. For specialised subjects, like the chapter on
business, we may even think of invited chapters, by say the WBCSD.
You may also be interested to know that TERI also brings out a yearbook
focusing on India, called the TERI Energy Directory, Database, and Yearbook
(TEDDY). This publication has a readership of 15000-20000, reaching out to
government, corporates, individual researchers, and libraries in India and
overseas.
These are just some initial thoughts, and my colleagues can be in touch with
your team to develop this outline further. Ms Ulka Kelkar
(ulkak@xxxxxxxxx.xxx) will coordinate this effort on behalf of TERI.

We look forward to working with you on this Yearbook.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
R.K. Pachauri
References
1. http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/

From: Jenny Duckmanton To: Mick Kelly Subject: Re: Tiempo final invoice Date: Mon,
30 Jun 2003 11:22:28 +0100 Cc: "Duckmanton, Jenny" , "Kuylenstierna, Johan"
----boundary-LibPST-iamunique-117349456_-_- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-

ascii"
Ciao Mick
Just back from Tuscany and still ploughing through accumulated emails. Where the
UEA invoice is concerned, I just opened an invoice from UEA for SEK 71,074.09 and
would be most obliged if you could let me know if this is the correct amount, so I
can get it paid?
Please give my regards to Sarah and let her know that Tuscany is still as
beautiful as ever, but a bit more expensive than before but still cheaper than the
UK. We also went to spend a few days in Umbria where some friends of ours had
rented a lovely villa with magnificent views, gardens, pool, etc.
Best regards Jenny
Mick Kelly wrote:
> Jenny > UEA should send the final invoice on the old contract within a day or
two. I > am trying to see it before it goes to check it is for the right amount.
In > case I fail and it's not the right amount, please let me know asap! > Thanks
> Mick > > ____________________________________________ > > Mick Kelly Climatic
Research Unit > School of Environmental Sciences > University of East Anglia >
Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom > Tel: 44-1603-592091 Fax: 44-1603-507784 > Email:
m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx > Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/ >
____________________________________________
-- ________________________________________________
Jenny Duckmanton SEI-Y Coordinator Stockholm Environment Institute-York University

of York York YO10 5YW, UK Tel: +44 (0)1904 432897 Fax: +44 (0)1904 432898 Email:
jmd4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Website: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/sei/
________________________________________________
----boundary-LibPST-iamunique-117349456_-_- Content-Type: application/rtf Content-

Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="rtf-body.rtf"
cmRccGxhaW5cZGVmdGFiMzYwIFxmMFxmczIwIENpYW8gTWlja1xwYXINClxwYXINCkp1c3QgYmFj
ayBmcm9tIFR1c2NhbnkgYW5kIHN0aWxsIHBsb3VnaGluZyB0aHJvdWdoIGFjY3VtdWxhdGVkIGVt
YWlscy4gIFdoZXJlXHBhcg0KdGhlIFVFQSBpbnZvaWNlIGlzIGNvbmNlcm5lZCwgSSBqdXN0IG9w
ZW5lZCBhbiBpbnZvaWNlIGZyb20gVUVBICBmb3IgU0VLXHBhcg0KNzEsMDc0LjA5IGFuZCB3b3Vs
ZCBiZSBtb3N0IG9ibGlnZWQgaWYgeW91IGNvdWxkIGxldCBtZSBrbm93IGlmIHRoaXMgaXMgdGhl
XHBhcg0KY29ycmVjdCBhbW91bnQsIHNvIEkgY2FuIGdldCBpdCBwYWlkP1xwYXINClxwYXINClBs
ZWFzZSBnaXZlIG15IHJlZ2FyZHMgdG8gU2FyYWggYW5kIGxldCBoZXIga25vdyB0aGF0IFR1c2Nh
bnkgaXMgc3RpbGwgYXNccGFyDQpiZWF1dGlmdWwgYXMgZXZlciwgYnV0IGEgYml0IG1vcmUgZXhw
ZW5zaXZlIHRoYW4gYmVmb3JlIGJ1dCBzdGlsbCBjaGVhcGVyIHRoYW5ccGFyDQp0aGUgVUsuICBX
ZSBhbHNvIHdlbnQgdG8gc3BlbmQgYSBmZXcgZGF5cyBpbiBVbWJyaWEgd2hlcmUgc29tZSBmcmll
bmRzIG9mIG91cnNccGFyDQpoYWQgcmVudGVkIGEgbG92ZWx5IHZpbGxhIHdpdGggbWFnbmlmaWNl
bnQgdmlld3MsIGdhcmRlbnMsIHBvb2wsIGV0Yy5ccGFyDQpccGFyDQpCZXN0IHJlZ2FyZHNccGFy
DQpKZW5ueVxwYXINClxwYXINCk1pY2sgS2VsbHkgd3JvdGU6XHBhcg0KXHBhcg0KPiBKZW5ueVxw
YXINCj4gVUVBIHNob3VsZCBzZW5kIHRoZSBmaW5hbCBpbnZvaWNlIG9uIHRoZSBvbGQgY29udHJh
Y3Qgd2l0aGluIGEgZGF5IG9yIHR3by4gSVxwYXINCj4gYW0gdHJ5aW5nIHRvIHNlZSBpdCBiZWZv
cmUgaXQgZ29lcyB0byBjaGVjayBpdCBpcyBmb3IgdGhlIHJpZ2h0IGFtb3VudC4gSW5ccGFyDQo+
IGNhc2UgSSBmYWlsIGFuZCBpdCdzIG5vdCB0aGUgcmlnaHQgYW1vdW50LCBwbGVhc2UgbGV0IG1l
IGtub3cgYXNhcCFccGFyDQo+IFRoYW5rc1xwYXINCj4gTWlja1xwYXINCj5ccGFyDQo+IF9fX19f
X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXHBhcg0KPlxwYXINCj4gTWlj
ayBLZWxseSAgICAgICAgICAgIENsaW1hdGljIFJlc2VhcmNoIFVuaXRccGFyDQo+IFNjaG9vbCBv
ZiBFbnZpcm9ubWVudGFsIFNjaWVuY2VzXHBhcg0KPiBVbml2ZXJzaXR5IG9mIEVhc3QgQW5nbGlh
XHBhcg0KPiBOb3J3aWNoIE5SNCA3VEogICAgICAgICAgICAgICBVbml0ZWQgS2luZ2RvbVxwYXIN
Cj4gVGVsOiA0NC0xNjAzLTU5MjA5MSAgICAgIEZheDogNDQtMTYwMy01MDc3ODRccGFyDQo+IEVt
YWlsOiBtLmtlbGx5QHVlYS5hYy51a1xwYXINCj4gV2ViOiBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNydS51ZWEuYWMu
dWsvdGllbXBvL1xwYXINCj4gX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f
X19fX19ccGFyDQpccGFyDQotLVxwYXINCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f
X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX1xwYXINClxwYXINCkplbm55IER1Y2ttYW50b25ccGFyDQpTRUktWSBD
b29yZGluYXRvclxwYXINClN0b2NraG9sbSBFbnZpcm9ubWVudCBJbnN0aXR1dGUtWW9ya1xwYXIN
ClVuaXZlcnNpdHkgb2YgWW9ya1xwYXINCllvcmsgWU8xMCA1WVcsIFVLXHBhcg0KVGVsOiAgKzQ0
ICgwKTE5MDQgNDMyODk3XHBhcg0KRmF4OiAgKzQ0ICgwKTE5MDQgNDMyODk4XHBhcg0KRW1haWw6
ICBqbWQ0QHlvcmsuYWMudWtccGFyDQpXZWJzaXRlOiBodHRwOi8vd3d3LnlvcmsuYWMudWsvaW5z
dC9zZWkvXHBhcg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f
X19fXHBhcg0KXHBhcg0KfQ==

From: "Kuylenstierna, J.C." To: Mick Kelly Subject: New tiempo cpsts Date: Mon, 30
Jun 2003 18:25:29 +0100

charset="ISO-8859-1"
Hi Mick,
Sara has sugested that with the timetable given, that we ought to plan on the
extension until end February 2004. I have then started to change the budget to add
some more time. As we have already used the funds for one (June) issue of the
three planned, I thought we would just add some days as follows:
Mick 5 Sarah 10 Mike Salmon 2.5 Gerry 4 Johan 4 Jenny 2
This would increase the total funds to 1,315,813 from 1,178,000, an increase of
137813 SEK (about ?10,000). The publication cost for March 2003 would be in the
new proposal, but all the work will have been done in Jan/Feb.
Does that sound OK?
JOhan -- Johan Kuylenstierna Director SEI-Y University of York Tel.: +44 1904
432892 (direct)
+44 1904 432897 (general) Fax.: +44 1904 432898 Email.: jck1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
----boundary-LibPST-iamunique-2062861447_-_- Content-Type: application/rtf

Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="rtf-
body.rtf"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From: "Mick Kelly" To: 'dean.env@xxxxxxxxx.xxx' Subject: Museum of Climate Change

Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:17:11 +0000

charset="utf-8"
Trevor A quick update: 1. I'm arranging a meeting between our team and the Museums
Service (including I hope the director) late July to discuss next stage. I'll
consult Chris Flack about possible dates. They are ready to push ahead with the
next stage. 2. N County Council now appear well and truly behind the project and
want to bring development responsibility into their Economic Development Unit.
Good news in terms of political will, but some concern about loss of control and
transformation into a tourism project. Think we need to resolve how best this
initiative might relate to the linking CRED initiative, as discussed, and reach
understanding with Museums Service sooner rather than later? Unless it's
premature? Finally, Melissa Burgan, ex MSc student, now with NCC transport
division is very impressed with way CRED has been taken seriously by county
council politicos. I assume her assessment is accurate! Mick
____________________________________________ Mick Kelly Climatic Research Unit

School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United
Kingdom Tel: 44-1603-592091 Fax: 44-1603-507784 Email: m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Web:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/ ____________________________________________
----boundary-LibPST-iamunique-352781353_-_- Content-Type: application/rtf Content-

Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="rtf-body.rtf"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From: Eystein Jansen To: Keith Briffa Subject: Re: FP6-news? Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003
21:29:43 +0200
Dear Keith, thanks for the update. I think I am reading much the same message as
you do. I also agree that we need focus, and not too many groups involved. In
terms of where the focus should be I agree that DOCC is too wide, and my feeling
now is to dissolve it and reorganise under another heading with fewer groups,
perhaps as an IP if Brussels allows. I do not have any preconceived notions as to
where the co-ordinations hould lie. I agree with you that integration with
biogeochemistry is not straight forward with Holocene climate variability except
for the vegetation feedback which may be important. I also know of one other
palaeo-based initiative, ICON, dealing with the thermohaline circulation,
coordinated by Rainer Zahn. We are involved. This will be submitted for the call
just launched under the hot spots in the climate system heading, but may be
brought over to the next call if unsuccessful (probably). We are involved there
with a number of modelling centres and many of the palaeoceanography labs.
I guess we should discuss a bit further after summer has passed what to do. I am
very keen on the science of Holclim and hope to be able to develop this initiative
with you and others. Last thing - any idea of when the conference Brussels wants
is going to happen?. I am away for two weeks on the Greek islands, but then I am
back again.
Cheers, Eystein
>Eystein >I seem to keep getting distracted this week so I have not phoned >again.
I can say the basics here though. I went to the meeting that >was also attended by
Berger, Raynaud, Shackleton , Starkel and >Zorita >(in place of Von Storch). The
rationale for the meeting was nothing >more than The EC (Hans Brelen) felt that
they ought to be organising >a palaeoclimate conference, but there was some
hinting that this >might signal the new call (in Sept 04) but not imply any
weighting >in the appraisal of proposals. It seems definite that there will be
>money for a single (new instrument) project only , as we supposed . >Some at the
meeting spoke about a range of time scales and possible >subject foci for the
conference (and by implication also for the >call) but I still feel strongly , on
the evidence of other projects >that I have heard are to be funded , that the need
is for a sharper >focus than was involved in our DOCC concept , and that the
HOLIVAR >approach is the optimum way forward. The problem will be scale of
>initiative (15-20 million seems a maximum likely request , with >perhaps 12-15 a
likely maximum award). The unified data / modelling >route, as outlined in the
HOLCLIM NoI seems the most likely >candidate still. Obviously there remain
difficulties even with this >, such as geographic focus , use of the integrated
data for defining >future climate probabilities and links with socio-economic
(impacts) >community. This is also likely to clash with the direct interests of
>some major palaeoclimate scientists who focus on longer time scales >and stronger
climate and response signals. It is easier to think of >climate forcings and the
interaction of bio-geochemical cycles at >glacial /interglacial time scales , but
I am not convinced that this >type of work would be a practical inclusion in this
call. This is >still my opinion , but an admittedly (unashamedly) biased one.
>Keith > > >At 07:34 PM 6/19/03 +0200, you wrote: >>Dear Keith, >>I wonder if
there are any news around the meeting with Brelen on >>FP6 that can be used. Lots
of rumors around and not much specific >>knowledge, so if you have an update I?d
appreciate it. >>Cheers, >>Eystein >> >>P? mandag, 7. april 2003, kl. 10:46, skrev
Keith Briffa: >> >>>Eystein >>>your point is exactly correct , that only one
project (and I >>>believe it should be an IP) will be allowed and with the
shrinking >>>general scale of these things, it likely needs to be very clearly
>>>focused (on integrating evidence and providing some >>>state-of-the-art product
on climate history and its causes) . I am >>>not in Nice (have to go to 2 other
meetings in May) . I am still >>>leaning towards your institute co-ordinating this
. I have not >>>discussed anything with the rest of the HOLIVAR committee. >>>We
do need some sort of meeting but only small - there is no >>>chance of a 25
million Euro project and many people are likely to >>>be disappointed . I have to
be in Brussels for a meeting with >>>Brelen in June . What are you thinking
about , re. a meeting? >>>Keith >>>At 10:01 PM 4/3/03 +0200, you wrote: >>>>Dear
Keith, >>>> I was just wondering whether you were coming the the EGS meeting
>>>>in Nice next week, in order for us to exchange some ideas about >>>>how to
proceed for FP6. Recent rumors says that the palaeoclimate >>>>variablity item is
in the books for the third call, and that the >>>>call will be issued by the turn
of the year, thus we should start >>>>discussing how to proceed. So far my DOCC
initiative is dormant, >>>>and I am more inclined to develop or take part in
developing an >>>>IP if the call for proposals allow for one. But the size of
these >>>>IPs seems to be diminishing, hence a careful focussing needs to >>>>be
undertaken in order for there to be resources for the science >>>>teams. I would
be happy to discuss idea with you on this in Nice >>>>or sometime else if you?re
not there. >>>> >>>>Cheers, >>>>Eystein >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Eystein Jansen
>>>>prof/director >>>>Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research >>>>All?gaten 55, N5007
Bergen, Norway >>>>tel: +4755583491/secr:+4755589803/fax:+4755584330
>>>>eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, www.bjerknes.uib.no >>> >>>-- >>>Professor Keith
Briffa, >>>Climatic Research Unit >>>University of East Anglia >>>Norwich, NR4
7TJ, U.K. >>> >>>Phone: +44-1603-593909 >>>Fax: +44-1603-507784 >>>
>>>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ >>> >>Eystein Jansen
>>prof/director >>Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research >>All?gaten 55, N5007
Bergen, Norway >>tel: +4755583491/secr:+4755589803/fax:+4755584330
>>eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, www.bjerknes.uib.no > >-- >Professor Keith Briffa,
>Climatic Research Unit >University of East Anglia >Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. >
>Phone: +44-1603-593909 >Fax: +44-1603-507784 >
>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
-- ______________________________________________________________ Eystein Jansen

Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and Dep. of Geology, Univ.
of Bergen All?gaten 55 N-5007 Bergen NORWAY e-mail: eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 Fax: +47-55-584330
----------------------- The Bjerknes Training site offers 3-12 months fellowships
to PhD students More info at: www.bjerknes.uib.no/mcts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Keith Alverson To: Rick Battarbee , Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa Subject:
Re: fp6 Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 09:57:05 +0200
Dear Rick, Keith and Eystein,
It is certainly good news that FP6 will have a climate change and paleo related
call. My personal feeling is that whatever paleo proposal(s) eventually do go in
that it would be a good thing to specifically include the PAGES office in Bern as
a participant in the network. This would, I believe, help the network by providing
an international context and the many PAGES resources for outreach within Europe,
and inclusion of non-europeans. On the other side of the coin, PAGES is currently
seeking to broaden our support base beyond USA and Switzerland and participation
in an EU framework proposal would be an ideal way to do this, given the strong
representation of European scientists within the PAGES community. If, however, you
have reason to believe that explicit inclusion of the PAGES office in the list of
partner organizations would reduce the chance of success of such a proposal, then
of course don't do it. Basically, I would much appreciate being kept in the loop
with your plans and am happy to participate, and offer the help of PAGES, in any
way I that you deem useful.
Keith
on 07/04/2003 08:08 PM, Rick Battarbee at r.battarbee@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
> Dear all, > > We have just come to the end of a very rewarding and successful
HOLIVAR > training course here with a very good bunch of young scientists from
across > Europe all involved in some aspect of high resolution Holocene change and
> embracing climate modelling, and climate reconstruction both from marine > and
continental records. We shall be putting details on the HOLIVAR > website soon. (I
should also say that Andy Lotter's workshop in April on > age modelling was also
very successful, and details are now on the web) > > I will produce a more
detailed report on HOLIVAR activities and plans for > the future shortly, and
there should be plenty to discuss at our next > Steering Committee meeting on
October 3rd (please check your diaries - > Innsbruck October 3rd). > > The main
reason for writing, however, is to alert you to the probability of > a call for
proposals on climate change by the EU in FP6 for 2004, and the > need for us to
begin thinking again about an integrated project based on > HOLIVAR. If you
remember Keith Briffa submitted on behalf of the HOLIVAR > community an Expression
of Interest called HOLCLIM that found much favour > at the time with the EU.
Although I have not spoken at length with Keith > about this I'm sure he is keen
to see a project based on HOLCLIM taken > forwards. > > Whilst we can not be sure
of the detailed wording of the call I think it is > nevertheless not too soon to
begin designing the project It would be very > useful to have your thoughts on how
to proceed so that we can prepare a > document for discussion on October 3rd. One
issue is the potential overlap > with DOCC. Eystein, what is your view on this?
I'm sure there will be > only one "palaeo" project funded and therefore if we
simply followed the > original intentions, HOLCLIM and DOCC would be in
competition. And putting > the two together would be difficult, HOLCLIM is an IP,
and DOCC a NoE and > the research community potentially involved would be huge,
especially in > relation to the budget which may be no more than 10 million euros.
> > Please let me have your views, and then I will get together with Keith and >
come up with some kind of proposed way forwards for the meeting in October. > >
Best wishes to all, > > Rick > Professor R.W. Battarbee > Environmental Change
Research Centre > University College London > 26 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AP, UK.
> Tel. +44 (0)20 7679 7582, Fax +44 (0)20 7679 7565 >
http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/ecrc/ >
-- Keith Alverson Executive Director PAGES International Project Office B?renplatz

2, 3011 Bern, Switzerland http://www.pages-igbp.org email: alverson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Tel (office): +41 31 312 31 33 Tel (direct): +41 31 312 31 54 Tel (cell): +41 79
705 65 36 Fax: +41 31 312 31 68

From: Ben Santer To: Phil Jones , rls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: More on Climate
Research..... Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:40:57 -0700 Cc: Tom Wigley , "Michael E.
Mann" , Mike Hulme
Dear Phil,
In June 2003, Climate Research published a paper by David Douglass et al. The "et
al." includes John Christy and Pat Michaels. Douglass et al. attempt to debunk the
paper that Tom and I published in JGR in 2001 ("Accounting for the effects of
volcanoes and ENSO in comparisons of modeled and observed temperature trends"; JGR
106, 28033-28059). The Douglass et al. paper claims (and purports to show) that
collinearity between ENSO, volcanic, and solar predictor variables is not a
serious problem in studies attempting to estimate the effects of these factors on
MSU tropospheric temperatures. Their work has serious scientific flaws - it
confuses forcing and response, and ignores strong temporal autcorrelation in the
individual predictor variables, incorrectly assuming independence of individual
monthly means in the MSU 2LT data. In the Douglass et al. view of the world,
uncertainties in predictor variables, observations, etc. are non-existent. The
error bars on their estimated ENSO, volcano, and solar regression coefficients are
miniscule.
Over a year ago, Tom and I reviewed (for JGR) a paper by Douglass et al. that was
virtually identical to the version that has now appeared in Climate Research. We
rejected it. Prior to this, both Tom and I had engaged in a long and frustrating
dialogue with Douglass, in which we attempted to explain to him that there are
large uncertainties in the deconvolution of ENSO, volcano, and solar signals in
short MSU records. Douglass chose to ignore all of the comments we made in this
exchange, as he later ignored all of the comments we made in our reviews of his
rejected JGR paper.
Although the Douglass et al. Climate Research paper is largely a criticism of our
previously-published JGR paper, neither Tom nor I were asked to review the paper
for Climate Research. Nor were any other coauthors of the Santer et al. JGR paper
asked to review the Douglass et al. manuscript. I'm assuming that Douglass
specifically requested that neither Tom nor I should be allowed to act as reviwers
of his Climate Research paper. It would be interesting to see his cover letter to
the journal.
In the editorial that you forwarded, Dr. Kinne writes the following:
"If someone wishes to criticise a published paper s/he must present facts and
arguments and give criticised parties a chance to defend their position." The
irony here is that in our own experience, the "criticised parties" (i.e., Tom and
I) were NOT allowed to defend their positions.
Based on Kinne's editorial, I see little hope for more enlightened editorial
decision making at Climate Research. Tom, Richard Smith and I will eventually
publish a rebuttal to the Douglass et al. paper. We'll publish this rebuttal in
JGR - not in Climate Research.
With best regards,
Ben
==================================================================================
====
Phil Jones wrote: > > Dear All, > Finally back in the UK after Asheville and IUGG.
Attached is an > editorial from the > latest issue of climate research. I can only
seem to save it this way. > Seems like we are > now the bad guys. > > Cheers >
Phil > > At 07:51 04/07/03 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote: > >Mike (Mann), > >I agree
that Kinne seems like he could be a deFreitas clone. However, what > >would be our
legal position if we were to openly and extensively tell > >people to avoid the
journal? > >Tom. > >__________________________________ > > > >Michael E. Mann
wrote: > >>Thanks Mike > >>It seems to me that this "Kinne" character's words are
disingenuous, and > >>he probably supports what De Freitas is trying to do. It
seems clear we > >>have to go above him. > >>I think that the community should, as
Mike H has previously suggested in > >>this eventuality, terminate its involvement
with this journal at all > >>levels--reviewing, editing, and submitting, and leave
it to wither way > >>into oblivion and disrepute, > >>Thanks, > >>mike > >>At
01:00 PM 7/3/2003 +0100, Mike Hulme wrote: > >> > >>>Phil, Tom, Mike, > >>> >
>>>So, this would seem to be the end of the matter as far as Climate > >>>Research
is concerned. > >>> > >>>Mike > >>> > >>>>To > >>>>CLIMATE RESEARCH > >>>>Editors
and Review Editors > >>>> > >>>>Dear colleagues, > >>>> > >>>>In my 20.06. email
to you I stated, among other things, that I would > >>>>ask CR editor Chris de
Freitas to present to me copies of the > >>>>reviewers' evaluations for the 2 Soon
et al. papers. > >>>> > >>>>I have received and studied the material requested. >
>>>> > >>>>Conclusions: > >>>> > >>>>1) The reviewers consulted (4 for each ms) by
the editor presented > >>>>detailed, critical and helpful evaluations > >>>> >
>>>>2) The editor properly analyzed the evaluations and requested >
>>>>appropriate revisions. > >>>> > >>>>3) The authors revised their manuscripts
accordingly. > >>>> > >>>>Summary: > >>>> > >>>>Chris de Freitas has done a good
and correct job as editor. > >>>> > >>>>Best wishes, > >>>>Otto Kinne >
>>>>Director, Inter-Research > >>>>-- >
>>>>------------------------------------------------- > >>>>Inter-Research,
Science Publisher > >>>>Ecology Institute > >>>>Nordbuente 23, > >>>>D-21385
Oldendorf/Luhe, > >>>>Germany > >>>>Tel: (+49) (4132) 7127 Email: ir@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> >>>>Fax: (+49) (4132) 8883 http://www.int-res.com > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Inter-
Research - Publisher of Scientific Journals and Book Series: > >>>> > >>>>- Marine
Ecology Progress Series (MEPS) > >>>>- Aquatic Microbial Ecology (AME) > >>>>-
Diseases of Aquatic Organisms (DA0) > >>>>- Climate Research (CR) > >>>>- Ethics
in Science and Environmental Politics (ESEP) > >>>>- Excellence in Ecology > >>>>-
Top Books > >>>>- EEIU Brochures > >>>> > >>>>YOU ARE INVITED TO VISIT OUR WEB
SITES: www.int-res.com > >>>> and www.eeiu.org > >>>> >
>>>>------------------------------------------------- > >>> >
>>______________________________________________________________ > >> Professor
Michael E. Mann > >> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall > >>
University of Virginia > >> Charlottesville, VA 22903 >
>>_______________________________________________________________________ > >>e-
mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137 > >>
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml > > > > Prof. Phil Jones >
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental
Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email
p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx > NR4 7TJ > UK >
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >
Name: CR.txt > CR.txt Type: Plain Text (text/plain) > Encoding: quoted-printable
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103 Livermore, CA
94550, U.S.A. Tel: (925) 422-7638 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Osborn To: Tom Crowley Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: Climate Research
Date: Fri Jul 11 13:33:49 2003
Hi Tom,
I'm not sure what format to try if ASCII doesn't work for you. I've attached the
same ones
again, in case it was just some random reason that corrupted the files. If this
doesn't
work, then please suggest a format I should try.
The name I have is Yamal not Yarnal. Yamal is coastwards (northward) of the "Polar
Urals"
and is at a lower elevation than the Polar Urals record. The latitude/longitude I
have for
it is:
67.5 N, 70 E
Hope that helps
Tim
At 21:40 07/07/2003, you wrote:
Hi Tim, thanks for sending the data - unfortunately I cannot open it, can you send
it in
some other format? tom
ps what is the location of the Yarnal site?
Hi Tom
Sorry for not replying sooner - its been a hectic week (or two)!
The new Mann and Jones 2000-year series I don't actually have. It appears in
Figure 1
of our EOS piece, of course, but Scott Rutherford generated that figure. I
generated
Figure 2 for EOS and that has the Yamal, Tornetrask, western US and western
Greenland
O18 stack in it. So I have these data and they are attached in the following
files.
western US and western Greenland are in file "mann12prox.dat". I didn't have time
to
extract just these two series from the full file, so the file contains 11 others
series
too. Please do *not* use the others because I'm not sure whether I am free to
distribute them or not - I just haven't time to extract the 2 you want. I'm sure I
can
trust you not to use anything that I shouldn't have sent! The top of the file
lists the
13 series and the start/end years. These are in the same order as the 13 columns
of data
that then follow (the first column is simply year AD). So you should be able to
find
"westgrpfisher.dat" and "wustrees.dat".
The other files are "tornad.rcs" and "yamal.rcs" which are RCS-standardised tree-
ring
width series. I would really strongly suggest that you contact Keith Briffa about
exactly what these series are and what the primary reference to them should be.
The
reason is that there are multiple version of Tornetrask and Yamal series and the
differences are certainly not insignificant!
I'm not sure what the "units" of any of these series are, so I would suggest you
normalise them in some way or do your own calibration.
Hope that helps
Cheers
Tim
At 16:28 30/06/2003, you wrote:
Tim, would it be possible to obtain the time series listed below, plus the west
Greenland composite? (see below).
tom
X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 08:10:57 +0100
To: Tom Crowley
From: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Climate Research
Cc: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter, Duke University ([1]http://amavis.org/)
Tom,
I'm off tomorrow to NCDC and then onto IUGG, so away 3 weeks in all. I've asked
Tim,
who's cc'd on this reply to send you what he can.
You also said sometime ago, you would send your new long series and your latest NH
average. Can you do this sometime? Mike and I are making progress on RoG. When we
get back we will be working on the figures. I realise you may want to add
something
once
Tim sends you the series, so if I (and Mike) can get something by July 10 that
would be
great.
We will be sending whole or part drafts of the RoG piece around - we have most of
the text,
but we need the figures for people to look at as well. So you might get a draft in
September.
Have a good few weeks.
Cheers
Phil
At 12:33 19/06/03 -0400, you wrote:

Phil,
would it be possible to obtain the Yamal, Tornetrask, and w. U.S. series you
illustrate
in the eos article? I too am putting together a slightly different long composite
and
would like to include these records.
would it also be possible to obtain the 2000 year northern hemisphere series? is
that
30-90N summer? whatever, we have extended our forcing time series back to before 1
AD
and would like to compare with some longer data.
thanks and regards, Tom
Dear All,
Keith and I have discussed the email below. I don't want to start a discussion of
it and I
don't want you sending it around to anyone else, but it serves as a warning as to
where
the debate might go should the EOS piece come out.
I think it might help Tom (W) if you are still going to write a direct response to
CR. Some of
de Freitas' views are interesting/novel/off the wall to say the least. I am glad
that
he doesn't
consider himself a paleoclimatologist - the statement about the LIA having the
lowest
temperatures since the LGM. The paleo people he's talked to didn't seem to mention
the
YD,
8.2K or the 4.2/3K events - only the Holocene Optimum. There are also some snipes
at
CRU and our funding, but we're ignoring these here. Also Mike comes in for some
stick,
so stay
cool Mike - you're a married man now !
So let's keep this amongst ourselves .
I have learned one thing. This is that the reviewer who said they were too busy
was
Ray.
I have been saying this to loads of papers recently (something Tom(w) can vouch
for).
It is
clear from the differences between CR and the ERE piece that the other 4 reviewers
did
not say much, so a negative review was likely to be partly ignored, and the
article
would still
have come out. I say this as this might come out if things get nasty.
De Freitas will not say to Hans von Storch or to Clare Goodess who the 4 reviewers
were. I
believe his paleoclimatologist is likely to be Anthony Fowler, who does dendro at
Auckland.
Cheers
Phil
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 09:29:22 +0100
To: c.goodess@uea,phil Jones
From: Mike Hulme
Subject: Fwd: Re: Climate Research
Clare, Phil,
Since Clare and CRU are named in it, you may be interested in Chris de Freitas'
reply to
the publisher re. my letter to Otto Kinne. I am not responding to this, but await
a
reply from Kinne himself.
Mike
From: "Chris de Freitas"
To: Inter-Research Science Publisher
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:45:56 +1200
Subject: Re: Climate Research
Reply-to: c.defreitas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
CC: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Otto (and copied to Mike Hulme)
I have spent a considerable amount of my time on this matter and had
my integrity attacked in the process. I want to emphasize that the
people leading this attack are hardly impartial observers. Mike
himself refers to "politics" and political incitement involved. Both
Hulme and Goodess are from the Climate Research Unit of UEA that is
not particularly well known for impartial views on the climate change
debate. The CRU has a large stake in climate change research funding
as I understand it pays the salaries of most of its staff. I
understand too the journalist David Appell was leaked information to
fuel a public attack. I do not know the source
Mike Hulme refers to the number of papers I have processed for CR
that "have been authored by scientists who are well known for their
opposition to the notion that humans are significantly altering
global climate." How many can he say he has processed? I suspect the
answer is nil. Does this mean he is biased towards scientists "who
are well known for their support for the notion that humans are
significantly altering global climate?

Mike Hulme quite clearly has an axe or two to grind, and, it seems, a
political agenda. But attacks on me of this sort challenge my
professional integrity, not only as a CR editor, but also as an
academic and scientist. Mike Hulme should know that I have never
accepted any research money for climate change research, none from
any "side" or lobby or interest group or government or industry. So I
have no pipers to pay.
This matter has gone too far. The critics show a lack of moral
imagination. And the Cramer affair is dragged up over an over again.
People quickly forget that Cramer (like Hulme and Goodess now) was
attacking Larry Kalkstein and me for approving manuscripts, in
Hulme's words, "authored by scientists who are well known for their
opposition to the notion that humans are significantly altering
global climate."
I would like to remind those who continually drag up the Cramer
affair that Cramer himself was not unequivocal in his condemnation of
Balling et al's manuscript (the one Cramer refereed and now says I
should have not had published - and what started all this off). In
fact, he did not even recommend that it be rejected. He stated in his
review: "My review of the manuscript is mainly with the conclusions
of the work. For technical assessment, I do not myself have
sufficient experience with time series analysis of the kind presented
by the authors." He goes on to recommend: "revise and resubmit for
additional review". This is exactly what I did; but I did not send it
back to him after resubmission for the very reason that he himself
confessed to ignorance about the analytical method used.
Am I to trundle all this out over and over again because of criticism
from a lobbyist scientists who are, paraphrasing Hulme, "well known
for their support for the notion that humans are significantly
altering global climate".
The criticisms of Soon and Baliunas (2003) CR article raised by Mike
Hume in his 16 June 2003 email to you was not raised by the any of
the four referees I used (but is curiously similar to points raided
by David Appell!). Keep in mind that referees used were selected in
consultation with a paleoclimatologist. Five referees were selected
based on the guidance I received. All are reputable
paleoclimatologists, respected for their expertise in reconstruction
of past climates. None (none at all) were from what Hans and Clare
have referred to as "the other side" or what Hulme refers to as
people well known for their opposition to the notion that humans are
significantly altering global climate." One of the five referees
turned down the request to review explaining he was busy and would
not have the time. The remaining four referees sent their detailed
comments to me. None suggested the manuscript should be rejected. S&B
were asked to respond to referees comments and make extensive
alterations accordingly. This was done.
I am no paleoclimatolgist, far from it, but have collected opinions
from other paleoclimatologists on the S&B paper. I summarise them
here. What I take from the S&B paper is an attempt to assess climate
data lost from sight in the Mann proxies. For example, the raising on
lowering of glacier equilibrium lines was the origin of the Little
Ice Age as a concept and still seems to be a highly important proxy,
even if a little difficult to precisely quantify.
Using a much larger number of "proxy" indicators than Mann did, S&B
inquired whether there was a globally detectable 50-year period of
unusual cold in the LIA and a similarly warm era in the MWP. Further,
they asked if these indicators, in general, would indicate that any
similar period in the 20th century was warmer than any other era.
S&B did not purport to do independent interpretation of climate time
series, either through 50-year filters or otherwise. They merely
adopt the conclusions of the cited authors and make a scorecard. It
seems pretty evident to me that temperatures in the LIA were the
lowest since the LGM. There are lots of peer-reviewed paleo-articles
which assert the existence of LIA.
Frankly, I have difficulty understanding this particular quibble.
Some sort of averaging is necessary to establish the 'slower' trends,
and that sort of averaging is used by every single study - they
average to bring out the item of their interest. A million year
average would do little to enlighten, as would detailed daily
readings. The period must be chosen to eliminate as much of the
'noise' as possible without degrading the longer-term signals
significantly.
As I read the S&B paper, it was a relatively arbitrary choice - and
why shouldn't it be? It was only chosen to suppress spurious signals
and expose the slower drift that is inherent in nature. Anyone that
has seen curves of the last 2 million years must recognize that an
averaging of some sort has taken place. It is not often, however,
that the quibble is about the choice of numbers of years, or the
exact methodology - those are chosen simply to expose 'supposedly'
useful data which is otherwise hidden from view.
Let me ask Mike this question. Can he give an example of any dataset
where the S&B characterization of the source author is incorrect? (I
am not vouching for them , merely asking.)
S&B say that they rely on the original characterizations, not that
they are making their own; I don't see a problem a priori on relying
on characterizations of others or, in the present circumstances, of
presenting a literature review. While S&B is a literature review, so

is this section of IPCC TAR, except that the S&B review is more
thorough.
The Mann et al multi-proxy reconstruction of past temperatures has
many problems and these have been well documented by S&B and others.
My reading of the IPCC TAR leads me to the conclusion that Mann et al
has been used as the basis for a number of assertions: 1. Over the
past millennium (at least for the NH) the temperature has not varied
significantly (except for the European/North Atlantic sector) and
hence the climate system has little internal variability. This
statement is supported by an analysis of model behaviour, which also
shows little internal variability in climate models. 2. Recent global
warming, as inferred from instrument records, is large and unusual in
the context of the Mann et al temperature reconstruction from multi-
proxies. 3. Because of the previous limited variability and the
recent warming that cannot be explained by known natural forcing
(volcanic activity and solar insolation changes) human activity is
the likely cause of the recent global change.
In this context, IPCC mounts a powerful case. But the case rests on
two main foundations; the past climate has shown little variability
and the climate models reflect the internal variability of the
climate system. If either or both are shown to be weak or fallacious
then the IPCC case is weakened or fails.
S&B have examined the premise that the globally integrated
temperature has hardly varied over the past millennium prior to the
instrumental record. I agree it is not rocket science that they have
performed. They have looked at the evidence provided by researchers
to see if the trend of the temperature record of the European/North
Atlantic sector (which is not disputed by IPCC) is reflected in
individual records from other parts of the globe (Their three

questions). How objective is their assessment? From a purely
statistical viewpoint the work can be criticised. But if you took a
purely statistical approach you probably would not have sufficient
data to reach an unambiguous conclusion, or you could try statistical
fiddles to combine the data and end up with erroneous results under
the guise of statistical significance. S&B have looked at the data
and reached the conclusion that probably the temperature record from
other parts of the globe follows the same pattern as that of the
European/North Atlantic sector. Of the individual proxy records that
I have seen I would agree that this is the case. I certainly have not
found significant regions of the NH that were cold during the
medieval period and warm during the Little Ice Age period that are
necessary offsets of the European/North Atlantic sector necessary to
reach a hemispherically flat pattern as derived by Mann et al.
S&B have put forward sufficient evidence to challenge the Mann et al
analysis outcome and seriously weaken the IPCC assertions based on
Mann et al. Paleo reconstruction of temperatures and the global
pattern over the past millennium and longer remains a fertile field
for research. It suggests that the climate system is such that a
major temporal variation as is universally recognised for the
European/North Atlantic region would be reflected globally and S&B
have given support to this view.
It is my belief that the S&B work is a sincere endeavour to find out
whether MWP and LIA were worldwide phenomena. The historical evidence
beyond tree ring widths is convincing in my opinion. The concept of
"Little Ice Age" is certainly used practically by all Holocene paleo-
climatologists, who work on oblivious to Mann's "disproof" of its
existence.
Paleoclimatologists tell me that, for debating purposes, they are

more inclined to draw attention to the Holocene Optimum (about 6000
BP) as an undisputed example of climate about 1-2 deg C warmer than
at present, and to ponder the entry and exit from the Younger Dryas
as an example of abrupt climate change, than to get too excited about
the Medieval Warm Period, which seems a very attenuated version.
However, the Little Ice Age seems valid enough as a paleoclimatic
concept. North American geologists repeatedly assert that the 19th
century was the coldest century in North America since the LGM. To
that extent, showing temperature increase since then is not unlike a
mutual fund salesmen showing expected rate of return from a market
bottom - not precisely false, but rather in the realm of sleight-of-
hand.
Regards
Chris
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Thomas J. Crowley
Box 90227
Durham, NC 27708
919-681-8228
919-684-5833 fax
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Thomas J. Crowley
Box 90227
Durham, NC 27708
919-681-8228
919-684-5833 fax
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="mann12prox.dat"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="mann12prox.dat"
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:mann12prox.dat (????/----) (0001B5B5)

Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="yamal.rcs"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="yamal.rcs"
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:yamal.rcs (????/----) (0001B5B6)
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="tornad.rcs"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="tornad.rcs"
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:tornad.rcs (????/----) (0001B5B7)
Dr Timothy J Osborn
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
phone: +44 1603 592089
fax: +44 1603 507784
--
Thomas J. Crowley
Box 90227
Durham, NC 27708
919-681-8228
919-684-5833 fax
References
1. http://amavis.org/

From: Edward Cook To: Keith Briffa Subject: Re: Fwd: revised NH comparison
manuscript Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:32:57 -0400
Hi Keith,
Thanks for the paper and help in toning down Mike's efforts to put a stake in the
Esper heart. I quickly read the paragraph you mention. Undoubtedly part of what is
said is true, but it doesn't explain it all of the differences between the
original MBH reconstruction and any of the other NH recons. Now that Mike has
moved on to a totally new NH recon, I suppose all of this is a mute point.
However, your Blowing Hot and Cold piece clearly showed that the MBH estimates
were undoubtedly deficient in low-frequency variability compared to ANY other
recon. Enough said. I need to enjoy myself.
Cheers,
Ed
>Ed >Thought you should see this (in confidence) . Have succeeded in >getting
reasonable citation to your work and much toning down of >criticism of Esper et al
in first draft ( see last paragraph before >Section C) . Cheers >Keith > >P.S. Do
not ask me why Ray, Malcolm and Phil are on this cause I >don't know - work cam
out of stuff Tim did with Scott when visiting >there last year. > >>Date: Tue, 3
Jun 2003 14:51:09 -0400 >>Subject: revised NH comparison manuscript >>Cc: Mike
Mann >>To: Malcolm Hughes , >> Raymond Bradley , Tim Osborn , >> Keith Briffa ,
Phil Jones >>From: Scott Rutherford >>X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) >> >> >>
>>Attached to this e-mail is a revision of the northern hemisphere >>comparison
manuscript. First some general comments. I tried as best >>as possible to
incorporate everyone's suggestions. Typically this >>meant adding/deleting or
clarifying text. There were cases where we >>disagreed with the suggested changes
and tried to clarify in the >>text why. >> >>In this next round of changes I
encourage everyone to make specific >>suggestions in terms of wording and
references (e.g. Rutherford et >>al. GRL 1967 instead of "see my GRL paper"). I
also encourage >>everyone to make suggestions directly in the file in coloured
text >>or by using Microsquish Word's "Track Changes" function (this will >>save
me deciphering cryptic penmanship; although I confess, my >>writing is worse than
anyone's). If you would prefer to use the >>editing functions in Adobe Acrobat let
me know and I will send a >>PDF file. If you still feel strongly that I have not
adequately >>addressed an issue please say so. >>I will incorporate the
suggestions from this upcoming round into a >>manuscript to be submitted. After
review, everyone will get a crack >>at it again. >> >>I will not detail every
change made (if anyone wants the file with >>the changes tracked I can send it).
Here are the major changes: >> >>1) removal of mixed-hybrid approach and revised
discussions/figures >>2) removal of CE scores from the verification tables >>3)
downscaling of the Esper comparison to a single figure panel and >>one paragraph.
>>4) revised discussion of spatial maps and revised figure (figure 8). >>5)
seasonal comparisons have been revised >> >>Several suggestions have been made for
where to submit. These are >>listed on page 1 of the manuscript. Please indicate
your preference >>ASAP and I will tally the votes. >> >>I would like to submit by
late July, so if you could please get me >>comments by say July 15 that would be
great. I will send out a >>reminder in early July. If I don't hear from you by
July 15 I will >>assume that you are comfortable with the manuscript. >> >>Please
let me know if you have difficulty with the file or would >>prefer a different
format. >> >>Regards, >> >>Scott >> >> >> >> >>
>>______________________________________________ >> Scott Rutherford >> >>Marine
Research Scientist >>Graduate School of Oceanography >>University of Rhode Island
>>e-mail: srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >>phone: (401) 874-6599 >>fax: (401) 874-6811
>>snail mail: >>South Ferry Road >>Narragansett, RI 02882 > >-- >Professor Keith
Briffa, >Climatic Research Unit >University of East Anglia >Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
> >Phone: +44-1603-593909 >Fax: +44-1603-507784 >
>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ > >Attachment converted: Macintosh
HD:nhcomparison_v7_1.doc (WDBN/MSWD) >(0008AC53)
-- ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar

and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New
York 10964 USA Email: drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152
==================================

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Caspar M Ammann , Raymond Bradley , Keith Briffa , Tom
Crowley , Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones , mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu,
omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tim Osborn , Kevin Trenberth , Tom Wigley Subject: letter
to Senate Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 14:32:45 -0400
Dear fellow Eos co-authors,
Given the continued assault on the science of climate change by some on Capitol
Hill,
Michael and I thought it would be worthwhile to send this letter to various

members of the
U.S. Senate, accompanied by a copy of our Eos article.
Can we ask you to consider signing on with Michael and me (providing your
preferred title
and affiliation). We would like to get this out ASAP.
Thanks in advance,
Michael M and Michael O
______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachEOS.senate letter-final.doc"
References

From: Jonathan Overpeck To: "Michael E. Mann" Subject: letter to Senate Date: Tue,
22 Jul 2003 16:49:31 -0700 Cc: Caspar M Ammann , Raymond Bradley , Keith Briffa ,
Tom Crowley , Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones , mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu,
omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tim Osborn , Kevin Trenberth , Tom Wigley
Hi all - I'm not too comfortable with this, and would rather not sign - at least
not
without some real time to think it through and debate the issue. It is
unprecedented and
political, and that worries me.
My vote would be that we don't do this without a careful discussion first.
I think it would be more appropriate for the AGU or some other scientific org to
do this -
e.g., in reaffirmation of the AGU statement (or whatever it's called) on global
climate
change.
Think about the next step - someone sends another letter to the Senators, then we
respond,
then...
I'm not sure we want to go down this path. It would be much better for the AGU etc
to do
it.
What are the precedents and outcomes of similar actions? I can imagine a special-
interest
org or group doing this like all sorts of other political actions, but is it
something for
scientists to do as individuals?
Just seems strange, and for that reason I'd advise against doing anything with out
real
thought, and certainly a strong majority of co-authors in support.
Cheers, Peck
Dear fellow Eos co-authors,
Given the continued assault on the science of climate change by some on Capitol
Hill,
Michael and I thought it would be worthwhile to send this letter to various

members of
the U.S. Senate, accompanied by a copy of our Eos article.
Can we ask you to consider signing on with Michael and me (providing your
preferred
title and affiliation). We would like to get this out ASAP.
Thanks in advance,
Michael M and Michael O
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:EOS.senate letter-final.doc (WDBN/MSWD)

(00055FCF)
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Faculty_Pages/Overpeck.J.html
http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/

From: Tom Wigley To: Michael Oppenheimer Subject: Re: letter to Senate Date: Wed,
23 Jul 2003 20:13:12 -0600 Cc: Jonathan Overpeck , "Michael E. Mann" , Caspar M
Ammann , Raymond Bradley , Keith Briffa , Tom Crowley , Malcolm Hughes , Phil
Jones , Tim Osborn , Kevin Trenberth , Ben Santer , Steve Schneider
Folks,
Here are some thoughts about the Soon issue, partly arising from talking to Ben.
What is worrying is the way this BS paper has been hyped by various groups. The
publicity has meant that the work has entered the conciousness of people in
Congress, and is given prominence in some publications emanating from that sector.
The work appears to have the imprimateur of Harvard, which gives it added
credibility.
So, what can we as a community do about this? My concerns are two-fold, and I
think these echo all of our concerns. The first is the fact that the papers are
simply bad science and the conclusions are incorrect. The second is that the work
is being used quite openly for political purposes.
As scientists, even though we are aware of the second issue, we need to

concentrate on exposing the scientific flaws. We also need to do this in as
authoritative a way as possible. I do not think it is enough to speak as
individuals or even as a group of recognized experts. Even as a group, we will not
be seen as having the 'power' of the Harvard stamp of approval.
What I think is necessary is to have the expressed support of both AGU and AMS. It
would also be useful to have Harvard disassociate themselves from the work. Most
importantly, however, we need the NAS to come into the picture. With these 4
institutions, together with us (and others) as experts, pointing out clearly that
the work is scientific rubbish, we can certainly win this battle.
I suggest that we try to get NAS to set up a committee to (best option) assess the
science in the two BS papers, or (less good, but still potentially very useful)
assess the general issue of the paleo record for global- or hemispheric-scale
temperature changes over the past 1000 years. The second option seems more likely
to be acceptable to NAS. This is arguably an issue of similar importance to the
issue of climate sensitivity uncertainties which NAS reviewed earlier this year
(report still in preparation).
I am not sure how to fold AGU and AMS into this -- ideas are welcome. Similarly,
perhaps some of you know some influential Harvard types better than I do and can
make some suggestions here.
The only way to counter this crap is to use the biggest guns we can muster. The
Administration and Congress still seem to respect the NAS (even above IPCC) as a
final authority, so I think we should actively pursue this path.
Best wishes, Tom.
Michael Oppenheimer wrote: > Dear All: > > Since several of you are uncomfortable,
it makes good sense to step back and > think about a more considered approach. My
view is that scientists are fully > justified in taking the initiative to explain
their own work and its relevance in > the policy arena. If they don't, others with
less scruples will be heard > instead. But each of us needs to decide his or her
own comfort zone. > > In this case, the AGU press release provides suitable
context, so it may be that > neither a separate letter nor another AGU statement
would add much at this time. > But this episode is unlikely to be the last case
where clarity from individuals > or groups of scientists will be important. > >
Michael > > > > Tom Wigley wrote: > > >>Folks, >> >>I am inclined to agree with
Peck. Perhaps a little more thought and time >>could lead to something with much
more impact? >> >>Tom. >>_____________________________ >> >>Jonathan Overpeck
wrote: >> >>>Hi all - I'm not too comfortable with this, and would rather not sign
- >>>at least not without some real time to think it through and debate the
>>>issue. It is unprecedented and political, and that worries me. >>> >>>My vote
would be that we don't do this without a careful discussion first. >>> >>>I think
it would be more appropriate for the AGU or some other >>>scientific org to do
this - e.g., in reaffirmation of the AGU statement >>>(or whatever it's called) on
global climate change. >>> >>>Think about the next step - someone sends another
letter to the >>>Senators, then we respond, then... >>> >>>I'm not sure we want to
go down this path. It would be much better for >>>the AGU etc to do it. >>>
>>>What are the precedents and outcomes of similar actions? I can imagine a
>>>special-interest org or group doing this like all sorts of other >>>political
actions, but is it something for scientists to do as individuals? >>> >>>Just
seems strange, and for that reason I'd advise against doing >>>anything with out
real thought, and certainly a strong majority of >>>co-authors in support. >>>
>>>Cheers, Peck >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Dear fellow Eos co-authors, >>>> >>>>Given the
continued assault on the science of climate change by some >>>>on Capitol Hill,
Michael and I thought it would be worthwhile to send >>>>this letter to various
members of the U.S. Senate, accompanied by a >>>>copy of our Eos article. >>>>
>>>>Can we ask you to consider signing on with Michael and me (providing >>>>your
preferred title and affiliation). We would like to get this out ASAP. >>>>
>>>>Thanks in advance, >>>> >>>>Michael M and Michael O >>>
>>>>______________________________________________________________ >>>> Professor
Michael E. Mann >>>> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall >>>>
University of Virginia >>>> Charlottesville, VA 22903
>>>>_______________________________________________________________________ >>>>e-
mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137 >>>>
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml >>> >>>>Attachment
converted: Macintosh HD:EOS.senate letter-final.doc >>>>(WDBN/MSWD) (00055FCF) >>>
>>> >>> >>>-- >>> >>>Jonathan T. Overpeck >>>Director, Institute for the Study of
Planet Earth >>>Professor, Department of Geosciences >>> >>>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: +1 520 622-9065
>>>fax: +1 520 792-8795
>>>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Faculty_Pages/Overpeck.J.html
>>>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >>

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Tim Osborn Subject: Re: reconstruction errors Date:
Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:18:24 -0400
Tim,
Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available
networks
back to:
AD 1000
AD 1400
AD 1600
I can't find the one for the network back to 1820! But basically, you'll see that
the
residuals are pretty red for the first 2 cases, and then not significantly red for
the 3rd
case--its even a bit better for the AD 1700 and 1820 cases, but I can't seem to
dig them
up. In any case, the incremental changes are modest after 1600--its pretty clear
that key
predictors drop out before AD 1600, hence the redness of the residuals, and the
notably
larger uncertainties farther back...
You only want to look at the first column (year) and second column (residual) of
the files.
I can't even remember what the other columns are!
Let me know if that helps. Thanks,
mike
p.s. I know I probably don't need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely
clarify on
this, I'm providing these for your own personal use, since you're a trusted
colleague. So
please don't pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the
sort of
"dirty laundry" one doesn't want to fall into the hands of those who might
potentially try
to distort things...
At 02:58 PM 7/31/2003 +0100, you wrote:
Thanks for the explanation, Mike. Now I see it, it looks familiar - so perhaps
you've
explained it to me previously (if you have, then sorry for asking twice!).
I now understand how you compute them in theory. I have two further questions
though
(sorry):
(1) how do you compute them in practise? Do you actually integrate the spectrum of
the
residuals?
(2) how would I estimate an uncertainty for a particular band of time scales (e.g.
decadal to secular, f=0.0 to 0.1)? If integrating the spectrum of the residuals, I
wonder whether integrating from f=0 to f=0.02 and then f=0.02 to (e.g.) f=0.1
(note this
last limit has changed) would give me the right error for time scales of 10 years
and
longer (i.e. for a 10-yr low pass filter)? The way I had planned to do this was to
assume the residuals could be modelled as a first order autoregressive process,

with
lag-1 autocorrelation r1=0.0 after 1600 (essentially white) and r1=??? before
1600. Do
you know what the lag-1 autocorrelation of the residuals is for the network that
goes
back to 1000 AD?
The stuff back 2000 years will be interesting, though the GCM runs we're starting
to
look at go back only 500 (Hadley Centre) or 1000 (German groups), so MBH99 seems
fine
for now.
Cheers
Tim
At 14:28 31/07/2003, you wrote:
Tim,
The one-sigma *total* uncertainty is determined from adding the low f and high f
components of uncertainty in quadrature. The low f and high f uncertainties aren't
uncertainties for a particular (e.g. 30 year or 40-year) running mean,they are

band
integrated estimates of uncertainties (high-frequency band from f=0 to f=0.02,
low-frequency band from f=0.02 to f=0.5 cycle/year) taking into account the
spectrum of
the residual variance (the broadband or "white noise" mean of which is the nominal
variance of the calibration residuals)
Alternatively, one could calculate uncertainties for a particular timescale

average
using the standard deviation of the calibration residuals, and applying a square-
root-N'
argument (where N' is the effective degrees of freedom in the calibration

residuals). I
believed I did this at one point, and got similar results.
Let me know if this needs further clarification. Thanks,
mike
p.s. you might want to try to using Mann and Jones N. Hem if you're going back
further
than AD 1000? Crowley has some EBM results now back to 0 AD, and is in the process
of
comparing w/ that. SHould be interesting...
At 02:04 PM 7/31/2003 +0100, you wrote:
Hi Mike,
we've recently been making plans with Simon Tett at the Hadley Centre for
comparing
model simulations with various climate reconstructions, including the MBH98 and
MBH99
Northern Hemisphere temperatures. I was stressing the importance of including
uncertainty estimates in the comparison and that the error estimates should depend
on
the timescale (e.g. smoothing filter or running mean) that had been applied.
I then looked at the file that I have been using for the uncertainties associated
with
MBH99 (see attachment), which I must have got from you some time ago. Column 1 is
year,
2 is the "raw" standard error, 3 is 2*SE.
But what are columns 4 and 5? I've been plotting column 4, labelled "1 sig (lowf)"
when
plotted your smoothed reconstruction, assuming that this is the error appropriate
to
low-pass filtered data. I'd also assumed that the last column "1 sig (highf)" was
appropriate to high-pass filtered data. I also noticed that the sum of the squared
high
and low errors equalled the square of the raw error, which is nice.
But I've realised that I don't understand how you estimate these errors, nor what
time
scale the lowf and highf cutoff uses (maybe 40-year smoothed as in the IPCC
plots?).
From MBH99 it sounds like post-1600 you assume uncorrelated gaussian calibration
residuals. In which case you would expect the errors for a 40-year mean to be
reduced
by sqrt(40). This doesn't seem to match the values in the attached file. Pre-1600
you
take into account that the residuals are autocorrelated (red noise rather than
white),
so presumably the reduction is less than sqrt(40), but some factor (how do you
compute
this?).
The reason for my questions is that I would like to (1) check whether I've been
doing
the right thing in using column 4 of the attached file with your smoothed
reconstruction, and (2) I'd like to estimate the errors for a range of time
scales, so I
can compare decadal means, 30-year means, 50-year means etc.
Thanks in advance for any help you can give me here.
Tim
Dr Timothy J Osborn
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
phone: +44 1603 592089
fax: +44 1603 507784

______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Dr Timothy J Osborn
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
phone: +44 1603 592089
fax: +44 1603 507784
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

Attachment Converted: "c:documents and settingstim osbornmy
documentseudoraattachnh-ad1000-resid.dat" Attachment Converted: "c:documents and
settingstim osbornmy documentseudoraattachnh-ad1400-resid.dat" Attachment

Converted:
"c:documents and settingstim osbornmy documentseudoraattachnh-ad1600-resid.dat"
References

From: Tim Osborn To: "Michael E. Mann" Subject: reconstruction errors Date: Thu
Jul 31 14:04:23 2003
Hi Mike,
we've recently been making plans with Simon Tett at the Hadley Centre for
comparing model simulations with various climate reconstructions, including the
MBH98 and MBH99 Northern Hemisphere temperatures. I was stressing the importance
of including uncertainty estimates in the comparison and that the error estimates
should depend on the timescale (e.g. smoothing filter or running mean) that had
been applied.
I then looked at the file that I have been using for the uncertainties associated
with MBH99 (see attachment), which I must have got from you some time ago. Column
1 is year, 2 is the "raw" standard error, 3 is 2*SE.
But what are columns 4 and 5? I've been plotting column 4, labelled "1 sig (lowf)"
when plotted your smoothed reconstruction, assuming that this is the error
appropriate to low-pass filtered data. I'd also assumed that the last column "1
sig (highf)" was appropriate to high-pass filtered data. I also noticed that the
sum of the squared high and low errors equalled the square of the raw error, which
is nice.
But I've realised that I don't understand how you estimate these errors, nor what
time scale the lowf and highf cutoff uses (maybe 40-year smoothed as in the IPCC
plots?). From MBH99 it sounds like post-1600 you assume uncorrelated gaussian
calibration residuals. In which case you would expect the errors for a 40-year
mean to be reduced by sqrt(40). This doesn't seem to match the values in the
attached file. Pre-1600 you take into account that the residuals are
autocorrelated (red noise rather than white), so presumably the reduction is less
than sqrt(40), but some factor (how do you compute this?).
The reason for my questions is that I would like to (1) check whether I've been
doing the right thing in using column 4 of the attached file with your smoothed
reconstruction, and (2) I'd like to estimate the errors for a range of time
scales, so I can compare decadal means, 30-year means, 50-year means etc.
Thanks in advance for any help you can give me here.
Tim

From: Tim Osborn To: "Michael E. Mann" Subject: Re: reconstruction errors Date:
Fri Aug 1 14:24:35 2003
Thanks very much for helping me out with this Mike. Rest assured that the data
won't be
passed on to anyone else. I'll let you know if I use them to compute uncertainties
at
different time scales.
Cheers
Tim
At 16:18 31/07/2003, you wrote:
Tim,
Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available
networks
back to:
AD 1000
AD 1400
AD 1600
I can't find the one for the network back to 1820! But basically, you'll see that
the
residuals are pretty red for the first 2 cases, and then not significantly red for
the
3rd case--its even a bit better for the AD 1700 and 1820 cases, but I can't seem
to dig
them up. In any case, the incremental changes are modest after 1600--its pretty
clear
that key predictors drop out before AD 1600, hence the redness of the residuals,
and the
notably larger uncertainties farther back...
You only want to look at the first column (year) and second column (residual) of
the
files. I can't even remember what the other columns are!
Let me know if that helps. Thanks,
mike
p.s. I know I probably don't need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely
clarify
on this, I'm providing these for your own personal use, since you're a trusted
colleague. So please don't pass this along to others without checking w/ me first.
This
is the sort of "dirty laundry" one doesn't want to fall into the hands of those
who
might potentially try to distort things...

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: "Jim Salinger" , Phil Jones ,

Barrie.Pittock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Neville Nicholls" Subject:
RE: Recent climate sceptic research and the journal Climate Research Date: Mon, 04
Aug 2003 09:05:47 -0400 Cc: n.nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Peter.Whetton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
Roger.Francey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, David.Etheridge@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
Ian.Smith@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Simon.Torok@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Willem.Bouma@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Greg.Ayers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Rick.Bailey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
Graeme.Pearman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
Dear Jim,
Thanks for your continued interest and help w/ all this. It's nice to know that
our friends
down under are doing their best to fight the misinformation. It is true that the
skeptics
twist the truth clockwise rather than counterclockwise in the Southern Hemisphere?
There was indeed a lot of activity last week. Hans Von Storch's resignation as
chief editor
of CR, which I think took a lot of guts, couldn't have come at a better time. It
was on the
night before before the notorious "James Inhofe", Chair of the Senate "Environment
and
Public Works Committee" attempted to provide a public stage for Willie Soon and
David
Legates to peddle their garbage (the Soon & Baliunas junk of course, but also the
usual
myths about the satellite record, 1940s-1970s cooling, "co2 is good for us" and
"but water
vapor is the primary greenhouse gas!").
Fortunately, these two are clowns, neither remotely as sharp as Lindzen or as

slick as
Michaels, and it wasn't too difficult to deal with them. Suffice it to say, the
event did
*not* go the way Inhofe and the republicans had hoped. The democrats,
conveniently, had
received word of Hans' resignation, but the republicans and Soon/Legates had not.
So when,
quite fittingly, Jim Jeffords (you may remember--he's the U.S. senator who was in
the news
a couple years ago for tilting the balance of power back to the democrats when he
left the
republican party in protest) hit them with this news at the hearing, they were
caught
completely off guard. The "Wall Street Journal" article you cited was icing on the
cake.
Inhofe, who rails against the liberal media, will have a difficult time doing so
against
the WSJ!
Also of interest to you (attached) might be the op-ed that Ray Bradley, Phil, and
I have
written and submitted to the "Seattle News Tribune" in response to an op-ed by
Baliunas
(also attached) that some industry group has been sending around to various papers
over the
last week. Only two (Providence Journal and Seattle NT) have thusfar bitten...
There is a rumour that Harvard may have had enough w/ their name being dragged
through the
mud by the activities of Baliunas and Soon, and that "something is up". Baliunas
and Soon,
as alluded to in the WSJ article, are now no longer talking to the media. Will
keep you
posted on that...
mike
At 03:58 PM 8/4/2003 +1200, Jim Salinger wrote:
Dear Mike et al
I also share Neville's thanks to you all for the reasoned and evaluated responses
over
the last few months. They have been good, and separated out 'academic standards'
from 'academic freedom', which we have to be careful not to abuse.
I also note the following, come through over the weekend from the Wall Street
Journal
(below) and would also compliment those of you who, with Hans Von Storch resigned
your editorships when information that should be published was clearly supressed.
If you have further information that you feel free to share on last week's events
then
we
in New Zealand would appreciate hearing it, as we have been extremely concerned
about academic standards in the reviewing of articles from New Zealand sources.
Again thanks to all on your stands.
Best regards
Jim
>>>> July 31, 2003

>>>> DEBATING GLOBAL WARMING
>>>>
>>>> Global Warming Skeptics
>>>> Are Facing Storm Clouds
>>>>
>>>> By ANTONIO REGALADO
>>>> Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
>>>>
>>>> A big flap at a little scientific journal is raising questions about
>>>> a study that has been embraced by conservative politicians for its
>>>> rejection of widely held global-warming theories.
>>>>
>>>> The study, by two astronomers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
>>>> Astrophysics, says the 20th century wasn't unusually warm compared
>>>> with earlier periods and contradicts evidence indicating man-made
>>>> "greenhouse" gases are causing temperatures to rise.
>>>>
>>>> Since being published last January in Climate Research, the paper has
>>>> been widely promoted by Washington think tanks and cited by the White
>>>> House in revisions made to a recent Environmental Protection Agency
>>>> report. At the same time, it has drawn stinging rebukes from other
>>>> climate scientists.
>>>>
>>>> This week, three editors of Climate Research resigned in protest over
>>>> the journal's handling of the review process that approved the study;
>>>> among them is Hans von Storch, the journal's recently appointed
>>>> editor in chief. "It was flawed and it shouldn't have been
>>>> published," he said.
>>>>
>>>> Dr. von Storch's resignation was publicly disclosed Tuesday by Sen.
>>>> James Jeffords (I., Vt.), a critic of the administration's
>>>> environmental policies, during a hearing of the Senate Environment
>>>> and Public Works Committee called by its chairman, Sen. James Inhofe
>>>> (R., Okla.).
>>>>
>>>> The debate over global warming centers on the extent to which gases
>>>> released from the burning of fossil fuels -- mainly carbon dioxide --
>>>> are trapping the sun's heat in the Earth's atmosphere, creating a
>>>> greenhouse effect. The political fight has intensified as the Senate
>>>> votes on a major energy bill. Sens. John McCain (R., Ariz.) and
>>>> Joseph Lieberman (D., Conn.) planned to introduce an amendment this
>>>> week that would cap carbon-dioxide emissions at 2000 levels starting
>>>> in 2010 for select industries. The Bush administration is opposed to
>>>> imposing caps, and the measure isn't expected to become law.
>>>>
>>>> The Harvard study has become part of skeptics' arguments. Mr. Inhofe,
>>>> who is leading the opposition to the emissions measures, cited the
>>>> research in a speech on the Senate floor Monday in which he said,
>>>> "the claim that global warming is caused by man-made emissions is
>>>> simply untrue and not based on sound science."
>>>>
>>>> The paper was authored by astronomers Willie Soon and Sallie
>>>> Baliunas, and looked at studies of tree rings and other indicators of
>>>> past climate. Their basic conclusion: The 20th century wasn't the
>>>> warmest century of the past 1,000 years. They concluded temperatures
>>>> may have been higher during the "Medieval Warm Period," the time
>>>> during which the Norse settled Greenland.
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Soon couldn't be reached and Dr. Baliunas declined comment. In
>>>> his testimony before Mr. Inhofe's committee, Dr. Soon reiterated the
>>>> findings of his study, which was partly funded by the American
>>>> Petroleum Institute.
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Soon's findings contradict widely cited research by another
>>>> scientist, Michael E. Mann of the University of Virginia. Dr. Mann's
>>>> reconstruction of global temperatures shows a distinct pattern shaped
>> >> like a hockey stick: Temperatures stayed level for centuries, with a
>>>> sudden upturn during recent decades.
>>>>
>>>> A reference to Dr. Soon's paper previously found its way into
>>>> revisions suggested by the White House to an EPA report on
>>>> environmental quality. According to an internal EPA memorandum
>>>> disclosed in June, agency scientists were concerned the version
>>>> containing the White House edits "no longer accurately represents
>>>> scientific consensus on climate change." Dr. Mann's data showing the
>>>> hockey-stick temperature curve was deleted. In its place,
>>>> administration officials added a reference to Dr. Soon's paper, which
>>>> the EPA memo called "a limited analysis that supports the
>>>> administration's favored message."
>>>>
>>>> The EPA says the memo appears to be an internal e-mail between
>>>> staffers but isn't an "official" document. A spokesman at the White
>>>> House's Council on Environmental Quality says the addition of the
>>>> citation to Dr. Soon's paper to the draft report was suggested during
>>>> an interagency review process overseen by the White House.
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Mann and 13 colleagues published a critique of Dr. Soon's paper
>>>> in Eos, a publication of the American Geophysical Union, this month.
>>>> They said the Harvard team's methods were flawed and their results
>>>> "inconsistent with the preponderance of scientific evidence."
>>>>
>>>> Then, last week Dr. von Storch was contacted by Sen. Jeffords's
>>>> staff, which was looking into the paper in preparation for Tuesday's
>>>> hearing, where Dr. Soon and Dr. Mann were scheduled to appear. After
>>>> hearing from Sen. Jeffords, Dr. von Storch says he decided to speed
>>>> an editorial into print criticizing publication of the paper.
>>>>
>>>> But publisher Otto Kinne blocked the move, saying that while he
>>>> favored publication of the editorial, Dr. von Storch's proposals were
>>>> still opposed by some of the other editors. "I asked Hans not to rush
>>>> the editorial," Mr. Kinne said in an e-mail.
>>>>
>>>> That is when Dr. von Storch resigned, followed by two other editors.
>>>>
>>>> --John J. Fialka contributed to this article.
On 30 Jul 2003 at 8:26, Neville Nicholls wrote:
> Dear Mike et al:
>
> Despite my reluctance to get involved in preparing a public response
> to the SB03 papers, and my feeling that we would be better off
> ignoring it, I have to record my appreciation of the job you have done
> in preparing the EOS 8 July commentary. I thought it was an excellent,
> scientific, calm evaluation of SB03. Fortuitously, it arrived the same
> day I had to prepare a brief about SB03 for my political masters. It
> was very helpful to have your commentary to include in this brief.
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Neville Nicholls
> Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre
> PO Box 1289K, Melbourne, AUSTRALIA, 3001
> Street address: 13th floor, 150 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne, AUSTRALIA,
> 3000 Phone: +61 3 9669 4407; Fax: +61 3 9669 4660
>
********************************************
Dr Jim Salinger, CRSNZ Tel: + 64 9 375 2053
NIWA Fax: + 64 9 375 2051
P O Box 109 695, (269 Khyber Pass Road) e-mail: j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Newmarket, Auckland,
New Zealand
**********************************************************************************
******
***
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachSeattleNewsTribune-oped-final.doc" Attachment
Converted: "c:eudoraattachBaliunasProvidenceJournal25Jul03.pdf"
References

From: Tim Osborn To: Simon Tett ,Keith Briffa , Philip Brohan Subject: Re:
Uncertainty in model-paleo uncertainty Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 14:30:35 +0100
Simon & Philip,
here's some thoughts on uncertainty...
At 10:42 04/08/2003, Simon Tett wrote: >1) Calibration uncertainty -- there is

some uncertainty in the >relationship between proxy and temperature. >2) Residual
noise -- the proxyies do not capture large-scale temperature >variability
perfectly. >3) Internal-climate variability in "real" life -- there is some
chaotic >variability in the real climate system >4) Internal-climate variability
in the model -- ditto! > >3) & 4) I suggest we estimate from HadCM3 -- model var
agrees well with >paleo var so can't be too far wrong!
Yes, I'm happy that we use (3) and (4) from the model. If you use a short baseline
to take the anomalies from, then the internal variability comes in twice in each
case, both in comparing the baseline mean and the anomaly. We can minimise this by
using a long baseline.
>1) & 2) are, to some extent related, as calibration is estimate by >regression --

thus minimising residual var (2). Nicest thing to do would >be to estimate
residual from indep. data but I don't think there is enough.....
The uncertainties that we've published with our regional and quasi-hemispheric
reconstructions attempt to take both (1) and (2) in account already. Thus I use
the standard errors on the two regression coefficients (for the linear regression
of the sub-continental regions) and the standard errors on all multiple regression
coefficients (for the quasi-Northern Hemisphere series). And then I incorporate
the variance of the calibration residuals too (i.e., item (2)), modelled as first-
order autoregressive terms. The appendix of the Briffa part 1 paper (page 755-757
is the appendix) in the Holocene special issue paper gives an explanation of this.
Others quite often ignore (1) and just use the residuals to quantify
reconstruction error, but (1) can be important especially for big anomalies
(because the regression slope error is multiplied by the predicted anomaly). (1)
can be difficult to quantify, of course, using some multi-variate techniques like
Mann and Luterbacher use.
The regression standard errors (1) are of course computed from the calibration
period. Our published errors also use the residual variance (2) computed from this
calibration period. It is possible to compute (2) from independent data, but as
you say we are limited by data. AND I think that the residual variance from
independent data would also incorporate some or all of error (1) (because that
would contribute to differences between reconstruction and observation). I think
it is better to keep the two terms separate and explicitly compute both,
especially as their relative magnitudes can depend upon time scale (i.e., time
averaging the data).
Am I right in thinking that the error in the *observed* record would, if taken
into account, result in *reduced* reconstruction errors, because the residual
variance (2) would not all be assumed to be reconstruction error - some would be
observation error? But I suppose that the regression coefficient errors (1) would
get larger to compensate? Anyway, we don't currently consider observed errors.
Cheers
Tim
Dr Timothy J Osborn Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences,

University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx phone: +44 1603 592089 fax: +44 1603 507784 web:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm

From: "Stephan Singer" To: ,, , , , , , , , , , , Subject: economic costs of

european heat wave Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 15:06:03 +0200 Cc: ,, "Sible Schone" ,
"Catarina Cardoso" , , "Oliver Rapf" , , "Katherine Silverthorne" , "Lara Hansen"
dear all, i think we all have seen [if not commented on] the devastating heat wave
presently in europe - gives us a feeling on truly global warming. WWF has assured
some money - a few thousand EUROS what is not much to be honest but at least a
start - to ask an economist with climate policy understanding to assess in a short
but fleshy paper [max 10 pages] the economic costs of these weather extremes in
europe. This can be put in context with the mitigation costs of ambitious climate
policies which are often quoted as a barrier to clean technologies unfortunately.
I think, we as an NGO working on climate policy need such a document pretty soon
for the public and for informed decision makers in order to get a) a debate
started and b) in order to get into the media the context between climate
extremes/desasters/costs and finally the link between weather extremes and energy
- just the solutions parts what still is not communicated at all. In short, can
you advise us on a competent author who is readily available [can be one of you,
of course], to bring together the conventionally accessible costs of reduced
transport loads on rivers, in railway networks, forest fires, disruption of water
supply and irrigation, closure of hydro power and even nuclear in some locations,
health costs, agricultural failures [if accessible] etc etcetc...resulting from
the heat wave? Of course, i could not sent this e-mail to all competent
sceintists, so fell free to share please and come back to me - at best ASAP
many regards stephan singer
Stephan Singer Head of European Climate and Energy Policy Unit WWF, the
conservation organization E-mail: ssinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
************************************************* www.panda.org/epo - Stay up-to-
date with WWF's policy work in the capital of Europe www.passport.panda.org - take
action on global conservation issues - have you got your Passport yet?
************************************************* WWF European Policy Office 36
avenue de Tervuren Box 12 1040 Brussels, Belgium Tel: +32-2-743-8817 Fax: +32-2-
743-8819


From: Tom Wigley To: Andr? Berger Subject: Re: FW: Shaviv & Veizer in GSA Today
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:00:33 -0600 Cc: Mike MacCracken , Martin Hoffert , Karl
Taylor , Ken Caldiera , Curt Covey , Stefan Rahmstorf , "Michael E. Mann" ,
Raymond Bradley , Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones , Kevin Trenberth , Tom Crowley ,
Scott Rutherford , Caspar Ammann , Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn , Michael Oppenheimer
, Steve Schneider , Gabi Hegerl , Ellen Mosley-Thompson , Eric Steig ,
jmahlman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wuebbles@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu,
stocker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Urs Neu , J?rg Beer
Andre,
I have been closely involved in the CR fiasco. I have had papers that I refereed
(and soundly rejected), under De Freitas's editorship, appear later in the journal
-- without me seeing any response from the authors. As I have said before to
others, his strategy is first to use mainly referees that are in the anti-
greenhouse community, and second, if a paper is rejected, to ignore that review
and seek another more 'sympathic' reviewer. In the second case he can then (with
enough reviews) claim that the honest review was an outlier.
I agree that an ethics committee is needed and I would be happy to serve on such a
committee. It would have to have endorsement by international societies, like Roy.
Soc., US Nat. Acad., Acad. Europ., plus RMS, AMS, AGU, etc.
Jim Titus mentioned to me that in the legal profession here people are disbarred
for behavior like that of De Freitas (and even John Christy -- although this is a
more subtle case). We cannot do that of course, but we can alert the community of
honest scientists to such behavior and formally discredit these people.
The Danish Acad. did something like this recently, but were not entirely
successful.
In the meantime, I urge people to dissociate themselves from Climate Research. The
residual 'editorial' (a word I use almost tongue in cheek) board is looking like a
rogues' gallery of skeptics. Those remaining who are credible scientists should
resign.
Tom. +++++++++++++++++
Andr? Berger wrote: > Dear Stefan, > Dear Mike, > Dear Collegues, > > I admire the
courage of Stefan and of all other colleagues who are > willing to answer these
highly controversed papers (garbage as Marty > said). I am personally tired of
analysing these papers, having quit > doing this for the Ministry and European
Commission some 5 years ago. > > Nevertheless, I am also sad when I see these
papers, mostly because they > succeeded to be published. So not only we have to
teach their authors > the Science of climate but also the reviewers and/or the >
editors/publishers who have accepted them. This is a huge effort. I, > personally,
would like to see an International Committee of Ethics (or > something like this)
in Geo-Sciences be created as it is the case for > Medical Sciences and
Biotechnology. > > I have been told that AMS has such a Committee who is a kind of
super > peer-review telling what is wrong in some declarations, papers, books
> .... Is anybody willing to participate in an attempt to create such a >
Committee within AGU-EGU-IUGG ... ? > > In the meantime, I am please to send you
here attached an email by R.L. > Park on Soon, Baliunas, Seitz and others. > >
Best Wishes and Regards, > > Andr? BERGER > >
------------------------------------------------------------- > > WHAT'S NEW
Robert L. Park Friday, 8 Aug 03 Washington, DC > 2. POLITICAL CLIMATE: WHAT'S
RIGHT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? > One of the purported abuses cited in the minority
staff report > involved the insertion into an EPA report of a reference to a >
paper by Soon and Baliunas that denies globl warming (WN 1 Aug > 03). To
appreciate its significance, we need to go back to March > of 1998. We all got a
petition card in the mail urging the > government to reject the Kyoto accord(WN 13
Mar 98). The cover > letter was signed by "Frederick Seitz, Past President,
National > Academy of Sciences." Enclosed was what seemed to be a reprint > of a
journal article, in the style and font of Proceedings of the > NAS. But it had not
been published in PNAS, or anywhere else. The > reprint was a fake. Two of the
four authors of this non-article > were Soon and Baliunas. The other authors, both
named Robinson, > were from the tiny Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in >
Cave Junction, OR. The article claimed that the environmental > effects of
increased CO2 are all beneficial. There was also a > copy of Wall Street Journal
op-ed by the Robinsons (father and > son) that described increased levels of CO2
in the atmosphere as > "a wonderful and unexpected gift of the industrial
revolution." > There was no indication of who had paid for the mailing. It was > a
dark episode in the annals of scientific discourse. > > > > > > > > At 10:59
4/08/2003 -0400, Mike MacCracken wrote: > >> You all might want to get in on
response to this paper. >> >> Mike >> >> ---------- >> From: Stefan Rahmstorf >>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 16:02:36 +0200 >> To: "Michael E. Mann" >> Cc: Raymond
Bradley , Malcolm Hughes >> , Phil Jones , Kevin >> Trenberth >> , Tom Crowley ,
Tom Wigley >> , Scott Rutherford , Caspar >> Ammann >> , Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn
>> , Michael Oppenheimer , Steve >> Schneider , Gabi Hegerl , Mike >> MacCracken
>> , Ellen Mosley-Thompson , Eric >> Steig , jmahlman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, >>
wuebbles@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu, stocker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Urs >> Neu , J?
rg Beer >> Subject: Shaviv & Veizer in GSA Today >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> the
Soon&Baliunas paper has given political lobbyists a field day in >> their attempts
to confuse the public and decision-makers about the state >> of global warming
science. It is quite interesting how a lobby >> organisation like the Marshall
Institute manages to get a paper like >> that into the peer-reviewed literature
with the help of a sympathetic >> editor, against reviewer concerns, and then
capitalise on that right >> away in Senate hearings and the media. There clearly
is a wider and >> well-funded strategy behind such activities, which has something
to do >> with why the US has backed out of the Kyoto protocol. These same US >>
organisations are also active here in Europe trying to influence policy, >> albeit
so far with less success. >> >> In the face of such sophisticated lobbying we
scientists should not be >> too naive. Although simply doing good science remains
our main job, I >> think at some points we need to intervene in the public debate
and try >> to clarify what is science and what is just political lobbying. In >>
particular, I feel that it is important to not let bad, politically >> motivated
science stand unchallenged in the peer-reviewed literature - >> it is too easy to
just shrug and ignore an obviously bad paper. Hence I >> greatly appreciate that
Mike and his co-authors responded in Eos to the >> errors in the Soon&Baliunas
paper. >> >> I feel another recent paper may require a similar scientific
response, >> the one by Shaviv&Veizer (attached). It derives a supposed upper
limit >> for the CO2-effect on climate (i.e., 0.5 C warming for CO2 doubling), >>
based on paleoclimatic data on the multi-million-year time scale. This >> paper
got big media coverage here in Germany and I guess it is set to >> become a
climate skeptics classic: the spin is that GCMs show a large >> CO2 sensitivity,
but climate history proves it is really very small. >> Talking to various
colleagues, everyone seems to agree that most of this >> paper is wrong, starting
from the data themselves down to the >> methodology of extracting the CO2 effect.
>> >> I think it would be a good idea to get a group of people together to >>
respond to this paper (in GSA today). My expertise is good for part of >> this and
I'd be willing to contribute. My questions to you are: >> 1. Does anyone know of
any other plans to respond to this paper? >> 2. Would anyone like to be part of
writing a response? >> 3. Do you know people who may have the right expertise?
Then please >> forward them this mail. >> >> Best regards, Stefan >> >> -- >>
Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf >> Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) >>
For contact details, reprints, movies & general infos see: >> http://www.pik-
potsdam.de/~stefan >> >> >
************************************************************************* > Prof.
A. BERGER > Universit? catholique de Louvain > Institut d'Astronomie et de G?
ophysique G. Lema?tre > 2 Chemin du Cyclotron > B-1348 LOUVAIN-LA-NEUVE > BELGIUM
> Tel. +32-10-47 33 03 > Fax +32-10-47 47 22 > E_mail: berger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >
http://www.astr.ucl.ac.be >
************************************************************************* >

From: Phil Jones To: "Michael E. Mann" ,Tom Wigley , Tom Crowley Subject: Re: POLL
ON SOON-BALIUNAS Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:48:05 +0100 Cc: Keith Briffa , Michael
Oppenheimer , Raymond Bradley , Malcolm Hughes , Jonathan Overpeck , Kevin
Trenberth ,Ben Santer , Steve Schneider ,Caspar Ammann ,
hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Tom,
I once met Soon at a meeting organised by the ESA in Tenerife. I think he gave a
talk
but only think, so it wasn't memorable in any way. As you say they don't come to
the
regular meetings like EGU/S, AGU, AMS etc. I only went to Tenerife as the
organisers paid
for me to go.
Citation ratings vary (there are several different scales/indicators as well) a

lot
from year to year for most journals. I've never figured out how the counting is
done wrt
the highly cited lists that Tom. W., Kevin and I are on. Do only first authorships
count
for
example? Even with a common name like mine people still get it wrong and mistakes
persist.
Surprisingly Jim Hansen doesn't make the above list

([1]http://www.highlycited.com), but
then
he normally drops his E.
There are few more journals (QSR, Climate Change, IJC, AAR to give a few) where
paleo papers also appear.
Cheers
Phil
I checked this out prior to my senate hearing. Their science citations in the
climate
literature are poor, as one would hope and expect.
Interestingly, they both drop their second initials when publishing in the climate
literature so that their names don't turn in up in ISI if you do a search on their
publications in the astronomy literature (which use the full initials)--

apparently,
they don't want their astronomy colleagues to be aware that they're moonlighting
as
supposed climatologists...
Their numbers are better in the astronomy literature, though Soon's numbers even
here
are mediocre.
Baliunas had some well-cited publications more than a decade ago. This is her work
on
the use of sun-like stars as a model for solar variability, etc., which is well
referenced in the astrophysics community. However, most of these appear to be her

Ph.D.
work, and appear to have been published w/ her Ph.D adviser.
Not much evidence however that she has made any useful, independent contribution
since
then. There are some additional papers she's published on time series analysis of
solar
signals--looks like the kind of stuff you might expect to see from a graduate
student
first-year research project....
In my opinion, its would be a mistake to evaluate these on their citations numbers

in
astronomy. We should focus on their numbers in the climate literature, which are
the
only ones relevant when discussing the issue of how their work on climate is
received by
their fellow scientists,
mike
At 08:15 AM 8/13/2003 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:
Might be interesting to see how frequently Soon and Baliunas, individually, are
cited
(as astronomers). Are they any good in their own fields?
Perhaps we could start referring to them as astrologers (excusable as ... 'oops,

just a
typo')
Tom.
++++++++++++++++
Tom Crowley wrote:
Hi there,
we need some data on Soon and Baliunas. one of my concerns is that they only
publish in
low impact journals and completely bypass the normal give and take of
presentations at
open scientific meetings (for example, I think I have probably heard 100
presentations
overall from the people on this mailing list).
it is therefore very important to inquire for the sake or our exchanges with
reporters/legislators etc as to how often any of you may have heard Soon or
Baliunas
give a talk in an open meeting, where they could defend their analyses.
please respond to me as to whether you have heard either of them present something
on
their paleo-analyses (I think I heard Baliunas speak once on her solar-type star
work,
but that doesn't count).
I will let you know the results of the poll so that we may all be on the same
grounds
with respect to the data and reporting such information to press

inquiries/legislators
etc.
further fyi I list below the journal impact for six

geophysical/climate/paleoclimate
journals:
Paleoceanography 3.821
J. Climate 3.250
J. Geophysical Res. (Climate) 2.245
Geophysical Research Letters 2.150
The Holocene 1.852
Climate Research 1.016
Science and Nature are much higher (26-30) but there citation numbers are I
believe
inflated with respect to our field because their citation ranking also includes
many
very widely cited biology publications.
hope to hear from you soon, Tom
______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://www.highlycited.com/

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Tom Wigley Subject: Re: [Fwd: VS: [Climate Sceptics]
Mann & Jones on 1800 yrs proxies] Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 04:04:54 -0400 Cc: Phil
Jones , Gavin Schmidt , Michael Oppenheimer , Mike MacCracken , Tom Crowley ,
cfk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Ellen Mosley-Thompson ,
rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa , Kevin Trenberth ,
Tim Osborn , Gabi Hegerl , Stefan Rahmstorf , jto@u.arizona.edu, Eric Steig ,
mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Thanks Tom,
I agree--the issue is not completely settled, and thanks for the reference (any
possibility
you can send me a reprint?). The point here of course is that we are talking a
potential
effect, w/ as you say, at best a weak signal--hardly the dominating overprint that
is
argued by the Idso brothers! (by the way, weren't they a circus act at one
point??),
mike
Mike,
Thanks for your clarifications.
With regard to the CO2 fertilization effect on tree ring width, I wrote a paper a
number
of years ago pointing out that there were signal-to-noise problems in identifying
and
quantifying such factors.
Wigley, T.M.L., Jones, P.D. and Briffa, K.R., 1987: Detecting the effects of
acidic
deposition and CO2-fertilization on tree growth. (In) Methods of Dendrochronology.
Vol. 1, Proceedings of the Task Force Meeting on Methodology of Dendrochronology:
Krak?w, Poland, 26 June 1986, (eds. L. Kairiukstis, Z. Bednarz and E. Feliksik),
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Agricultural Academy of

Krak?w,
Polish Academy of Science, WOSI Wsp?lna Sprawa 38/37 no. 20, 239253.
1988.
While I am confident that you are correct, and that this is not a crucial factor,
I
think one should be careful about denying its existence. There are, furthermore,
additional obfuscating factors that make the effects of CO2 fertilization on ring
widths
hard to identify.
Perhaps more important is the fact that many tree ring based reconstructions use
density
data, and the jury is still out on whether more CO2 increases or decreases
density.
Tom.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Colleagues,
Several you have inquired about the below claims by the notorious "Idso brothers"
which
relates to the paper by Mann and Jones that appeared in GRL a couple weeks ago.
Of course, its the usual disinformation we've come to expect from these folks, but
a few
details on why:
1) The supposed "Co2 fertilization" argument is a ruse. The only evidence that
such an
effect might actually play some role in tree-growth trends has been found in high
elevation sites in western North America (consult Malcolm Hughes for more
details). As
in Mann et al '99 (GRL), any such effect, to the extent it might exist, has been
removed
from the relevant series used in the latest (Mann and Jones) paper through the
removal
of anomalous differences between low-elevation and high-elevation western North

American
temperature trends during the post 1800 period, prior to use of the data in
climate
reconstruction.
2) We haven't in the past extended the proxy reconstruction beyond 1980 because
many of
the proxy data drop out. However, the repeated claim by the contrarians that post-
1980
proxy data don't show the warming evident in the instrumental record has finally
prompted me to go ahead and perform an additional analysis in which the
proxy-reconstruction is extended forward as recently as at all possible (to 1995,

for
which 3 out of 8 of the NH records are available, and 1 of the 5 SH records are
available). The SH and GLB reconstructions are thus obviously tenuous at best, but
they
do address, to the extent at all possible, the issue as to whether or not the
proxy
reconstructions show the post-1980 warming--and they do.
See the attached plot which compares the NH (blue), SH (green), and GLB (red)
series
through 1995. The late 20th century is the nominal maximum for all 3 series
*without any
consideration of the information in the instrumental mean series*. This thus

refutes
the 2nd criticism cited by the Idso brothers.
One note about the 40 year smoothing. As in the trends in the instrumental series
shown
by Mann and Jones, a boundary constraint on the 40-year smooth has been used that
minimizes the 2nd derivative at the boundary--this trends to preserve the trend
near the
end of the series and has been argued as the optimal constraint in the present of
nonstationary behavior near the end of a time series (Park, 1992; Ghil et al,
2002). I
favor the use of this constraint in the smoothing of records that exhibit a
significant
trend as one approaches the end of the available data. This might be worth talking
about
in the next IPCC when the subject of adopting uniform standards for smoothing
data, etc.
are discussed...
In retrospect, Phil and I should have included this analysis in the GRL article,
but its
always hard to know what specifics the contrarians are going to target in their
attacks.
This analysis however, will be included in a review paper by Jones and Mann on
"climate
in past millennia" that is presently being finalized for "Reviews of Geophysics".
I hope that helps clarify any questions any of you might have had. Please feel
free to
pass this information along to anyone who might benefit from it.
Now, back to fighting the "Shaviv and Veizer" propaganda along w/ Ben Santer and
David
Parker out in Italy...
mike
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: VS: [Climate Sceptics] Mann & Jones on 1800 yrs proxies
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:52:40 +0300
From: Timo H?meranta
To:
CC: "Charles F. "Chick" Keller" , "Kirill Ya.
Kondratyev" , "Michael C. MacCracken"
, "S. Fred Singer" , "Sallie
Baliunas" , "Carl Wunsch" ,
"David R. Legates" , "George Kukla"
, "James E. Hansen" ,
"Tom Wigley" , "Willie Soon"
Dear all,
GRL finally published the study
Mann, Michael E. and Phil D. Jones, 2003. Global surface temperatures
over the past two millennia, Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 30, No.
15, 1820, 10.1029/2003GL017814, August 14, 2003
Abstract
[1] We present reconstructions of Northern and Southern Hemisphere
mean surface temperature over the past two millennia based on
high-resolution ?proxy? temperature data which retain millennial-scale
variability. These reconstructions indicate that late 20th century
warmth is unprecedented for at least roughly the past two millennia for
the Northern Hemisphere. Conclusions for the Southern Hemisphere and

global mean temperature are limited by the sparseness of available proxy
data in the Southern Hemisphere at present.
We already noticed the study in
Mann, Michael, Caspar Ammann, Kevin Trenberth, Raymond Bradley, Keith
Briffa, Philip Jones, Tim Osborn, Tom Crowley, Malcolm Hughes, Michael
Oppenheimer, Jonathan Overpeck, Scott Rutherford, and Tom Wigley, 2003.
On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late-20th Century Warmth. Eos, Vol.
84, No. 27, page 256, July 8, 2003
There we found that " .... an extension back through the past 2000
years based on eight long reconstructions [Mann and Jones,2003]."
CO2 Science Magazine today presents the study as follows:
Was Late 20th Century Warming Really Unprecedented Over the Past Two
Millennia?
Mann, M.E. and Jones, P.D. 2003. Global surface temperatures over the
past two millennia. Geophysical Research Letters 30: 10.1029/2003GL017814.
What was done
Using 23 individual proxy records from 8 distinct regions in the
Northern Hemisphere and 5 proxy records from the Southern Hemisphere,
the authors constructed Northern and Southern Hemispheric and global
mean temperature histories over the period AD 200 to as close as they
could get to the present employing a 40-year lowpass filter of the data.
What was learned
Mann and Jones say their temperature reconstructions indicate that "late
20th century warmth is unprecedented for at least roughly the past two
millennia for the Northern Hemisphere." They also say their data and
analysis "suggest a similar, but less definitive conclusion, for the
global mean."
Although we and many others have many bones to pick with many aspects of
Mann and Jones' analysis, we will here focus on just a couple of points
and temporarily grant them the benefit of the doubt in those other areas.
First of all, granting them almost everything they have done, it can
readily be seen from their own graph of their own results that the end
point of their reconstructed global mean temperature history is not the
warmest period of the prior 1800 years. In fact, their treatment of the
data depicts three earlier warmer periods: one just prior to AD 700, one
just after AD 700 and one just prior to AD 1000 (see figure below).
Reconstructed global temperature anomaly (based on 1961-1990
instrumental reference period) adapted from Mann and Jones (2003).
The globe only becomes warmer in the 20th century when its measured
temperatures are substituted for its reconstructed temperatures. This
approach is clearly unacceptable; it is like comparing apples and
oranges. If one has only reconstructed temperatures from the distant
past, one can only validly compare them with reconstructed temperatures
from the recent past.
Another important point that is ignored by Mann and Jones is that the
last century witnessed a dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2
concentration, which everyone knows is an effective aerial fertilizer.
It also witnessed a dramatic increase in atmospheric nitrogen
deposition, which further enhances plant growth. Consequently, as
tree-ring data comprise the bulk of the proxy temperature information
employed by Mann and Jones, their reconstructed global mean temperature
history must possess a non-temperature-induced pseudo-warming signal
driven by CO2- and nitrogen-induced increases in growth that make 20th
century warming appear significantly greater than it really is. Hence,
there could well be still other periods of the past 1800 years (in
addition to the three we have already noted) when the global mean
temperature was also warmer than it was at the end of their
reconstructed record in the 20th century.

What it means
Mann and Jones have clearly failed to demonstrate the key point they
desired to make in their paper. Their data, however, speak for
themselves in clearly demonstrating that late 20th century warmth was
not unprecedented over the past two millennia.
????
We have already discussed about this study in July under title ?Empire
Strikes back on Soon et al.? ?
All the best
Timo H?meranta
Moderator, Climatesceptics
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
References

From: Tim Osborn To: "Michael E. Mann" Subject: reconstruction uncertainties Date:
Fri Aug 29 16:33:55 2003 Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Attachments: Mann
uncertainty.doc
Hi Mike,
after a few bits of holiday here and there, I've now had time to complete my
(initial) approach to estimating reconstruction errors on your NH temperature
reconstruction. This is all based on the calibration residuals that you kindly
sent me a few weeks ago.
My rationale for doing this was that I wanted uncertainty/error estimates that
were dependent on the time scale being considered (e.g. a decadal mean, an annual
mean, a 30-year mean, etc.). I didn't think you had published timescale-dependent
errors, hence my attempt.
A second reason is that I wanted to be able to model (i.e., stochastically

generate) time series of the errors, with appropriate timescale characteristics.
Again, I didn't think that I could get this from your published results.
The attached document summarises the progress I've made. There are a few questions
I have, and I'm concerned that the reduction in uncertainty with increasing time
scale is too great. Perhaps one should be ultra conservative and have no reduction
with time scale? Yet surely there ought to be some cancelling of partly
uncorrelated errors? The document is not meant to form part of any paper on this
(I hope to use the errors in a paper, but the point of the paper is on trend
detection, not estimating errors), it just seemed appropriate to write it up like
this to inform you of what I've done so far.
Any comments or criticisms will be very useful.
Cheers
Tim

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Tim Osborn Subject: Re: reconstruction uncertainties
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 14:30:48 -0400 Cc: Scott Rutherford , mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi Tim
Thanks for sending this. Unfortunately, I don't really have the time look into any
of this
in detail, but let me offer the following additional explanation which will
hopefully
clarify the nature of any differences between our results. I fear that I may not
have been
clear enough in my previous explanation.
The reason that our uncertainty estimates reduce little fwith increasing timescale
for the
earlier networks is that the effective degrees of freedom are diminished sharply
by the
redness of the calibration residuals for networks prior to AD 1600 and earlier.
But unlike
you, wee do not model the residuals as an AR process--this may the source of some
of the
differences.
Back to AD 1600 (and later networks), the calibration residuals pass for "white
noise" ,
and the estimates follow simply from the residual uncalibrated variance, and the
reduction
of variance upon averaging follows standard sqrt(N) statistics.
Prior to that, the networks failed the test. So we decomposed the calibration
residuals
into a "low-frequency" band (all timescales longer than 40 years which are not
distinguishable from secular timescales, since I had a roughly 80 years series and
was
evaluating the spectrum using a multiple-taper estimate with a spectral bandwidth

of +/-2
Rayleigh frequencies). We then estimated the enhancement of unresolved variance in

the
low-frequency band relative to the nominal white noise level. The enhancement was
about a
factor of 5-6 or so for the earlier networks, as I recall. To get the component of
uncertainty for the low-frequency band alone (timescales longer than 40 years), I
simply
took that enhancement factor x the nominal unresolved calibration variance x the
bandwidth
of the "low-frequency" band (0.025 cycle/year). This yields a reduction in

variance that is
far less than the nominal "sqrt N" reduction applied to the individual annual
uncertainties. Of course, one could calculate the equivalent N' (effective

temporal
degrees of freedom) that this implies in a model of the residuals as AR(1) red
noise, but
we didn't take this approach. We modeled it as a simple step-increase spectrum (w/

the
boundary at f=0.025 cycle/yr). Modeling the residuals as red noise would, my guess
is,
generally yield the same result, but it might have the effect of dampening the
estimated
enhancement of unresolved variance at the longest timescales. In any case, it

should yield
similar, but it would be very surprising if identical(!), results, consistent w/

your
observations.
My guess for the difference in the AD 1600 network is that, based on the spectrum
test, we
did not reject the white noise null hypothesis for the residuals. So there was no
variance
enhancement factor for that, or subsequent, networks. It would appear that your
method
argues for significant serial correlation in that case. Not sure why we come to
different
conclusions in this case (perhaps using different criteria for testing for the
significance
of redness in the spectrum/serial correlation), but that's probably the reason...
I hope that clarifies this. Please keep me in the loop on this. I've copied to
Scott, who
may have some additional insights here, since we've been dealing w/ these issues
now in the
RegEM estimates (Scott:did we ever reject the white noise null hypothesis in the
residuals
for any of our proxy-based NH reconstrucitions in the paper submited to J.
Climate? I don't
recall).
Thanks,
mike
At 04:33 PM 8/29/2003 +0100, you wrote:
Hi Mike,
after a few bits of holiday here and there, I've now had time to complete my
(initial)
approach to estimating reconstruction errors on your NH temperature

reconstruction.
This is all based on the calibration residuals that you kindly sent me a few weeks
ago.
My rationale for doing this was that I wanted uncertainty/error estimates that
were
dependent on the time scale being considered (e.g. a decadal mean, an annual mean,
a
30-year mean, etc.). I didn't think you had published timescale-dependent errors,
hence
my attempt.
A second reason is that I wanted to be able to model (i.e., stochastically

generate)
time series of the errors, with appropriate timescale characteristics. Again, I

didn't
think that I could get this from your published results.
The attached document summarises the progress I've made. There are a few questions
I
have, and I'm concerned that the reduction in uncertainty with increasing time
scale is
too great. Perhaps one should be ultra conservative and have no reduction with
time
scale? Yet surely there ought to be some cancelling of partly uncorrelated errors?
The
document is not meant to form part of any paper on this (I hope to use the errors
in a
paper, but the point of the paper is on trend detection, not estimating errors),
it just
seemed appropriate to write it up like this to inform you of what I've done so
far.
Any comments or criticisms will be very useful.
Cheers
Tim
Dr Timothy J Osborn
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
phone: +44 1603 592089
fax: +44 1603 507784
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

documentseudoraattachMann
uncertainty.doc"
References

From: Edward Cook To: Keith Briffa Subject: An idea to pass by you Date: Wed, 3
Sep 2003 08:32:11 -0400
Hi Keith,
After the meeting in Norway, where I presented the Esper stuff as described in the
extended abstract I sent you, and hearing Bradley's follow-up talk on how
everybody but him has fucked up in reconstructing past NH temperatures over the
past 1000 years (this is a bit of an overstatement on my part I must admit, but
his air of papal infallibility is really quite nauseating at times), I have come
up with an idea that I want you to be involved in. Consider the tentative title:
"Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Over The Past Millennium: Where Are The Greatest
Uncertainties?"
Authors: Cook, Briffa, Esper, Osborn, D'Arrigo, Bradley(?), Jones (??), Mann
(infinite?) - I am afraid the Mike and Phil are too personally invested in things
now (i.e. the 2003 GRL paper that is probably the worst paper Phil has ever been
involved in - Bradley hates it as well), but I am willing to offer to include them
if they can contribute without just defending their past work - this is the key to
having anyone involved. Be honest. Lay it all out on the table and don't start by
assuming that ANY reconstruction is better than any other.
Here are my ideas for the paper in a nutshell (please bear with me):
1) Describe the past work (Mann, Briffa, Jones, Crowley, Esper, yada, yada, yada)
and their data over-laps.
2) Use the Briffa&Osborn "Blowing Hot And Cold" annually-resolved recons (plus
Crowley?) (boreholes not included) for comparison because they are all scaled
identically to the same NH extra-tropics temperatures and the Mann version only
includes that part of the NH (we could include Mann's full NH recon as well, but
he would probably go ballistic, and also the new Mann&Jones mess?)
3) Characterize the similarities between series using unrotated (maybe rotated as

well) EOF analysis (correlation for pure similarity, covariance for differences in
amplitude as well) and filtering on the reconstructions - unfiltered, 20yr high-
pass, 100-20 bandpass, 100 lowpass - to find out where the reconstructions are
most similar and different - use 1st-EOF loadings as a guide, the comparisons of
the power spectra could also be done I suppose
4) Do these EOF analyses on different time periods to see where they differ most,
e.g., running 100-year EOF windows on the unfiltered data, running 300-year for
20-lp data (something like that anyway), and plot the 1st-EOF loadings as a
function of time
5) Discuss where the biggest differences lie between reconstructions (this will
almost certainly occur most in the 100 lowpass data), taking into account data
overlaps
6) Point out implications concerning the next IPCC assessment and EBM forcing
experiments that are basically designed to fit the lower frequencies - if the
greatest uncertainties are in the >100 year band, then that is where the greatest
uncertainties will be in the forcing experiments
7) Publish, retire, and don't leave a forwarding address
Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I almost think I
know to be the case, the results of this study will show that we can probably say
a fair bit about <100 year extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as
far as we believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know fuck-all about what the
>100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty
that we know fuck-all).
Of course, none of what I have proposed has addressed the issue of seasonality of
response. So what I am suggesting is strictly an empirical comparison of published
1000 year NH reconstructions because many of the same tree-ring proxies get used
in both seasonal and annual recons anyway. So all I care about is how the recons
differ and where they differ most in frequency and time without any direct
consideration of their TRUE association with observed temperatures.
I think this is exactly the kind of study that needs to be done before the next
IPCC assessment. But to give it credibility, it has to have a reasonably broad
spectrum of authors to avoid looking like a biased attack paper, i.e. like Soon
and Balliunas.
If you don't want to do it, just say so and I will drop the whole idea like a hot
potato. I honestly don't want to do it without your participation. If you want to
be the lead on it, I am fine with that too.
Cheers,
Ed -- ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar

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

From: Tim Osborn To: Keith Briffa , Edward Cook Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Soon &
Baliunas Date: Wed Sep 3 15:54:41 2003
Hi Ed,
first all, yes I agree that we need a paper that takes a more objective look at
where we
are now and how we can take things forward in terms of NH temperature
reconstructions (and
possibly global, SH, spatial etc.).
As Keith said, we (mainly I so far) have been planning our version of this
(hopefully)
"objective assessment", and by chance I was sketching out a vague outline of its
possible
content. We've been keeping this fairly close to our chests for now, so please
keep our
plans/ideas to yourself for the moment. There is partial overlap between our ideas
and
yours, so it might be good to do this jointly. Anyway, my current ideas are a

number of
forum articles, the first comparing existing reconstructions but without going
into more
depth, and the other three looking at the way forward (i.e. what should we attempt
to do to
improve them):
Forum piece (1): Comparison of existing reconstructions
This has most overlaps with your ideas, though I hadn't thought of it being so
comprehensive. I was thinking more of:
(a) comparing original series.
(b) comparing them after our recalibration to common target data, including
discussion of
why some things don't change much (e.g. relative positioning of reconstructions),
though
amplitudes can change - and of course the comparison of Mann et al. with and
without
oceans/tropics.
(c) maybe a bit on comparison with boreholes, though maybe not.
(d) uncertainty estimates and how these may decrease with time scale and hence not
all
reconstructions lie in the Mann et al. uncertainty ranges.
Forum piece (2): Selection of predictand and predictor data
(a) What to try to reconstruct and why it matters - e.g. will we get the wrong
spectral
shape if we reconstruct ocean SST from land-based proxies. Plus some on

seasonality,
though Jones, Osborn and Briffa cover part of that issue (are you aware of that
paper, in
press with JGR?).
(b) What proxies should be used - e.g. does throwing in "poor" proxies cause a
problem with
simple averaging, weighted averaging and multivariate regression approaches. Plus

does
using precipitation proxies to reconstruct temperature result in the wrong

spectral shape?
Forum piece (3): Reconstruction methods
Something here on different methods (simple averaging, multivariate regression

type
approaches) and different implementation choices (e.g. calibration against

trends/filtered
data). Not entirely sure about this, but it would not be new work, just would
critically
appraise the methods used to date and what their theoretical/potential

problems/advantages
might be.
Forum piece (4): Estimating uncertainty
Again, not entirely sure yet, but this must emphasise the absolute requirement to
estimate
AND USE uncertainty when comparing reconstructions against observations or

simulations
etc. Then something about how to do it, contrasting using calibration residuals,
verification residuals, parameter uncertainty, with the type of approach that

you've taken
(bootstrap uncertainty, or measures of the EPS) to look at the common signal, with
additional uncertainty of how the common signal differs from the predictand.
So that's it!! Perhaps rather ambitious, so maybe a reduction to certain key

points might
be required. I was deliberately avoiding any review of tree-ring contributions and
low-frequency per se, thinking that you and Keith would be taking the lead on that
kind of
review.
One final think to mention, is that the emails copied below and the attached file
might be
of interest to you as an example of something that *might* go in a comparison

paper of
existing reconstructions. It's shows how the recalibrated average of existing
reconstructions differs from the average of existing calibrated reconstructions.

You'll
see from Mike Mann's initial request below that he was thinking of it as a
contribution to
the EOS rebuttal of Soon and Baliunas, but I've not heard much from him since.
Also Tom
Crowley was very interests in this composite of the reconstructions, and I started
to
converse with him about it but never finished estimating the uncertainty range on
the
composite series and kind of stopped emailing him. But I guess either of them
might
reproduce this idea sometime, if it suits them.
A visit to talk face to face about all these things would be good. Keith and I
have been
talking about how to fit a visit in.
Cheers
Tim
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:16:16 +0000
To: "Michael E. Mann" , Tom Crowley , Phil Jones
From: Tim Osborn
Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
Cc: Malcolm Hughes , rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,

mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
This is an excellent idea, Mike, IN PRINCIPLE at least. In practise, however, it

raises
some interesting results (as I have found when attempting this myself) that may be
difficult to avoid getting bogged down with discussing.
The attached .pdf figure shows an example of what I have produced (NB. please
don't
circulate this further, as it is from work that is currently being finished off -
however, I'm happy to use it here to illustrate my point).
I took 7 reconstructions and re-calibrated them over a common period and against
an
observed target series (in this case, land-only, Apr-Sep, >20N - BUT I GET SIMILAR
RESULTS WITH OTHER CHOICES, and this re-calibration stage is not critical). You
will
have seen figures similar to this in stuff Keith and I have published. See the
coloured
lines in the attached figure.
In this example I then simply took an unweighted average of the calibrated series,
but
the weighted average obtained via an EOF approach can give similar results. The
average
is shown by the thin black line (I've ignored the potential problems of series
covering
different periods). This was all done with raw, unsmoothed data, even though 30-yr
smoothed curves are plotted in the figure.
The thick black line is what I get when I re-calibrate the average record against
my
target observed series. THIS IS THE IMPORTANT BIT. The *re-calibrated* mean of the
reconstructions is nowhere near the mean of the reconstructions. It has enhanced
variability, because averaging the reconstructions results in a redder time series
(there is less common variance between the reconstructions at the higher

frequencies
compared with the lower frequencies, so the former averages out to leave a
smoother
curve) and the re-calibration is then more of a case of fitting a trend (over my
calibration period 1881-1960) to the observed trend. This results in enhanced
variability, but also enhanced uncertainty (not shown here) due to fewer effective
degrees of freedom during calibration.

Obviously there are questions about observed target series, which series to
include/exclude etc., but the same issue will arise regardless: the analysis will
not
likely lie near to the middle of the cloud of published series and explaining the
reasons behind this etc. will obscure the message of a short EOS piece.
It is, of course, interesting - not least for the comparison with borehole-based
estimates - but that is for a separate paper, I think.
My suggestion would be to stick with one of these options:
(i) a single example reconstruction;
(ii) a plot of a cloud of reconstructions;
(iii) a plot of the "envelope" containing the cloud of reconstructions (perhaps

also the
envelope would encompass their uncertainty estimates), but without showing the
individual reconstruction best guesses.
How many votes for each?
Cheers
Tim
spatial
variability of e.g. the MWP or LIA, and an EOF analysis of all the records is a
great
idea. I'd like to suggest a small modification of the latter:
one
of empirical reconstructions, the other of model simulations, rather than just one
in
the time plot.
1) Crowley & Lowery
2) Mann et al 1999
of a
difference]
and
which pre-dates the MXD decline issue...
with
slightly different sensitivities. This could include 6 or so simulation results:

reconstructions],

assumed
sensitivities]

land use
changes as a forcing].
century
instrumental N.Hem mean for comparison (since this is when we know the forcings
best).
performer of
the EOF analyses, scaling, and plotting, since Scott already has many of the
series and
many of the appropriate analysis and plotting tools set up to do this.
as an
ascii attachment, etc.
thoughts, comments?
thanks,
mike
Thanks Tom,
receptiveness
to such a submission.t
the
MWP) and this should proceed entirely independently of that.
If there is group interest in taking this tack, I'd be happy to contact

Ellen/Keith
about the potential interest in Eos, or I'd be happy to let Tom or Phil to take
the lead
too...
Comments?
mike
Phil et al,
have
been made before.
made
Ambio
showing the
but
if people think otherwise we could of course go in some other direction.
use I
- one
Tom
Dear All,
good idea,
paper,
it should
being
done
probably the
for
the EGS

declined.
However,
the
editorial
high
profile.
that
enables
need
to build on this.
Cheers
Phil
HI Malcolm,
particular
publishes
editor
there *is*
latter

(Paleoceanography?

using
greater
territory too.
mike
interests.

> Hi guys,
>
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> > Dear All,
> > to do there.

> >
> >years if it goes
> > unchallenged.
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> > Phil
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> > Phil

> >
> >>Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:32:14 +0000
> >>To: p.jones@uea
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Prof. Phil Jones
> >NR4 7TJ
> >UK
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >-------
> >
> >
> >/CARO) (00016021)
>
>
> --
> Thomas J. Crowley
> Box 90227
> Durham, NC 27708
>
> 919-681-8228
> 919-684-5833 fax
Malcolm Hughes
Tucson, AZ 85721
520-621-6470
fax 520-621-8229
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Thomas J. Crowley
Box 90227
Durham, NC 27708
919-681-8228
919-684-5833 fax
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
References

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Phil Jones Subject: Re: Something for the weekend !
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 13:34:53 -0400 Cc: Keith Briffa , mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
sorry phil, one more relevant item. I've cc'd in Keith on this, since you had
mentioned
that you had discussed the issue w/ him.
This is from Dave Meko's (quite nice!) statistics lecture notes:

[1]http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/~dmeko/notes_8.pdf
See page 2, section 8.1.
He provides two (in reality, as I mentioned before, there are really 3!) basic
boundary
constraints on a smooth (ie, in "filtering"). The first method he refers to is

what I
called the "minimum norm" constraint (assuming the long-term mean beyond the
boundary).
The second, which he calls "reflecting the data across the endpoints", is the
constraint I
have been employing which, again, is mathematically equivalent to insuring a point

of
inflection at the boundary. This is the preferable constraint for non-stationary

mean
processes, and we are, I assert, on very solid ground (preferable ground in fact)
in
employing this boundary constraint for series with trends...
mike
Mike,
Attached some more plots.
1. Figure 7 - Forcing. Guess this is it. Could cut the y scale to -6 and say in
caption that
1258 or 1259 is the only event to go beyond this, then give value in caption.
Scale
will then widen out. OK to do ? Caspar's solar now there.
2. Fig 2a - first go at coverage. This is % coverage over 1856-2002 from

HadCRUT2v.
3. Fig 4 again. Moved legends and reduced scale. Talked to Keith and we both think
that
the linear trend padding will get criticised. Did you use this in GRL and or Fig 5
for
RoG
with Scott. If so we need to explain it.
On this plot all the series are in different units, so normalised over 1751-1950
(or
equiv for
decades) then smoothed. Again here I can reduce scale further and Law Dome can go
out of the plot. Thoughts ? Think all should be same scale.
Have got GKSS model runs for Fig 8. Were you happy Hans' conditions. If so I'll
send
onto
Scott.
Next week I only have Fig 2b to do. This will be annual plot of NH, Europe and
CET,
smoothed in some way.
For the SOI I and Tim reckon that it won't work showing this at interannual
timescale with
3 plots. It will then not be like the NAO plot.
Thoughts on colours as well.
Have a good weekend. Logging off once this has gone.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
References
1. http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/~dmeko/notes_8.pdf

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Phil Jones Subject: Re: Something for the weekend !
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 13:51:08 -0400 Cc: Keith Briffa
sorry, meant "is just the minimum slope" constraint, in first sentence...
apologies for the multiple emails,
mike
Actually,
I think Dave's suggestion "reflecting the data across the endpoints" is really
just the
"minimum norm" constraint, which insures zero slope near the boundary. In other
words,
he's probably only talking about reflecting about the time axis. I assert that a
preferable alternative, when there is a trend in the series extending through the
boundary is to reflect both about the time axis and the amplitude axis (where the
reflection is with respect to the y value of the final data point). This insures a
point
of inflection to the smooth at the boundary, and is essentially what the method
I'm
employing does (I simply reflect the trend but not the variability about the
trend--they
are almost the same)...
mike
sorry phil, one more relevant item. I've cc'd in Keith on this, since you had
mentioned
that you had discussed the issue w/ him.
This is from Dave Meko's (quite nice!) statistics lecture notes:
[1]http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/~dmeko/notes_8.pdf
See page 2, section 8.1.
He provides two (in reality, as I mentioned before, there are really 3!) basic
boundary
constraints on a smooth (ie, in "filtering"). The first method he refers to is

what I
called the "minimum norm" constraint (assuming the long-term mean beyond the
boundary). The second, which he calls "reflecting the data across the endpoints",
is
the constraint I have been employing which, again, is mathematically equivalent to
insuring a point of inflection at the boundary. This is the preferable constraint

for
non-stationary mean processes, and we are, I assert, on very solid ground

(preferable
ground in fact) in employing this boundary constraint for series with trends...
mike
Mike,
Attached some more plots.
1. Figure 7 - Forcing. Guess this is it. Could cut the y scale to -6 and say in
caption that
1258 or 1259 is the only event to go beyond this, then give value in caption.
Scale
will then widen out. OK to do ? Caspar's solar now there.
2. Fig 2a - first go at coverage. This is % coverage over 1856-2002 from

HadCRUT2v.
3. Fig 4 again. Moved legends and reduced scale. Talked to Keith and we both think
that
the linear trend padding will get criticised. Did you use this in GRL and or Fig 5
for
RoG
with Scott. If so we need to explain it.
On this plot all the series are in different units, so normalised over 1751-1950
(or
equiv for
decades) then smoothed. Again here I can reduce scale further and Law Dome can go
out of the plot. Thoughts ? Think all should be same scale.
Have got GKSS model runs for Fig 8. Were you happy Hans' conditions. If so I'll
send
onto
Scott.
Next week I only have Fig 2b to do. This will be annual plot of NH, Europe and
CET,
smoothed in some way.
For the SOI I and Tim reckon that it won't work showing this at interannual
timescale with
3 plots. It will then not be like the NAO plot.
Thoughts on colours as well.
Have a good weekend. Logging off once this has gone.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
References
1. http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/~dmeko/notes_8.pdf

From: Phil Jones To:

t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,simon.tett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, david.parker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: rural/urban paper Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 16:19:49 +0100
Dear All,
Link below is to a paper just out in the US. Could be some press coverage - as it
says
there is no difference between urban and rural stations for temperature over the
US !
Interesting to see if the skeptics pick up on this. They are probably still going
through the
Vinnikov/Grody paper in Science showing MSU2 warming more than the surface, so
they have a lot to look at.
I reviewed Peterson's one with Chris and couldn't see anything wrong with the main
message.
Cheers
Phil
>Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 10:23:46 -0400 >From: "Thomas C Peterson" >Organization:
NOAA/NESDIS/NCDC >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) >X-Accept-
Language: en >To: Phil Jones >Subject: rural/urban paper > >Hi, Phil. > >I was
going to send you a copy of my rural/urban paper, but I didn't get >a .pdf before
it was published. As it is 6 megs, I'll just give you the >link instead: >
>http://ams.allenpress.com/pdfserv/i1520-0442-016-18-2941.pdf > >Regards, > > Tom
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Irina Fast To: Tim Osborn , Keith Briffa Subject: COLD season T
reconstruction Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:24:57 +0200 Reply-to: f14@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi Tim, hi Keith,
attached you can find my reconstruction of the cold season temperature anomalies.
I have retained the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th EOFs for the whole time span (1500-
1976). It seems to be a rather strange choice, but if I retain the 1st and/or 2nd
EOFs the reconstructed T anomalies for Northern Europe are too large in comparison
to observed anomalies. You will see that calibration/verification skills are
miserable. But it puts my mind to rest, if you say, that this is an expected
result.
Last week you wrote : >Please let us (me and Keith) know if you are happy with
your implementation >of the Mann et al. method. I remember that you had some
strange results >when you applied it to the model simulations - did you solve
those >problems? We might be able to help or provide advice if you still have
>problems with the method. The problems I mentioned at the meeting in France arose
if I applied my implementation of the method to the INSTRUMENTAL data and I tried
to explain this effect through the gaps in the data. In the meantime I was able to
eliminate to some degree this problem through the use of other fortran compiler
and numeric library. I will prepare an slide with assesment of the performance of
the current method implementation for "perfect proxy data" (i.e. instrumental data
as proxy data).
And now some words to agenda 1) Antje Weisheimer will say initial greeting words
and make all organisational announcments. 2) As you know, Ulrich take part in the
analysis of the simulations performed with ECHO-G by GKSS group. I am not sure,
but maybe he will also present his ideas for further (in framework of SO&P
reasonable) simulations, that can be conducted by FUB.
For the presentations both OHP and data projector are available.
Best redards
Irina -- ________________________________________________________ Irina Fast Freie

Universit?t Berlin Institut f?r Meteorologie Carl-Heinrich-Becker-Weg 6-10 D-12165
Berlin Germany
phone: +49 (0)30 838 712 21 fax: +49 (0)30 838 711 60 e-mail: f14@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

documentseudoraattachrectemp_October-March1.dat"

documentseudoraattachrectemp_regave_October-March1.dat"

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: "Robert Matthews" Subject: Re: Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003
16:11:02 -0400 Cc: Phil Jones , Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn ,
ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, d.viner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Mr. Matthews,
Unfortunately Phil Jones is travelling and will probably be unable to offer a

separate
reply. Since your comments involve work that is his as well, I have therefore
taken the
liberty of copying your inquiry and this reply to several of his British
colleagues.
The comparisons made in our paper are well explained therein, and your statements
belie
the clearly-stated qualifications in our conclusions with regard to separate

analyses of
the Northern Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere, and globe.
An objective reading of our manuscript would readily reveal that the comments you
refer to
are scurrilous. These comments have not been made by scientists in the peer-
reviewed
literature, but rather, on a website that, according to published accounts, is run

by
individuals sponsored by ExxonMobile corportation, hardly an objective source of
information.
Owing to pressures on my time, I will not be able to respond to any further
inquiries from
you. Given your extremely poor past record of reporting on climate change issues,
however,
I will leave you with some final words. Professional journalists I am used to
dealing with
do not rely upon un-peer-reviewed claims off internet sites for their sources of
information. They rely instead on peer-reviewed scientific research, and

mainstream, rather
than fringe, scientific opinion.
Sincerely,
Michael E. Mann
At 08:30 PM 10/2/2003 +0100, Robert Matthews wrote:
Dear Professor Mann
I'm putting together a piece on global warming, and I'll be making reference to
your
paper in Geophysical Research Letters
with Prof Jones on "Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia".
When the paper came out, some critics argued that the paper actually showed that
there
have been three periods in the last 2000 years which were warmer than today (one
just
prior to AD 700, one just after, and one just prior to AD 1000). They also claimed
that
the paper could only conclude that current temperatures were warmer if one
compared the
proxy data with other data sets. (For an example of these arguments, see:
[1]http://www.co2science.org/journal/2003/v6n34c4.htm)
I'd be very interested to include your rebuttals to these arguments in the piece
I'm
doing. I must admit to being confused by why proxy data should be compared to
instrumental data for the last part of the data-set. Shouldn't the comparison be a
consistent one throughout ?
With many thanks for your patience with this
Robert Matthews
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Matthews
Science Correspondent, The Sunday Telegraph
C/o: 47 Victoria Road, Oxford, OX2 7QF
Email: [2]r.matthews@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Homepage: [3]www.ncrg.aston.ac.uk/People/
Tel: (+44)(0)1865 514 004 / Mob: 0790-651 9126
----------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
References
1. http://www.co2science.org/journal/2003/v6n34c4.htm
2. mailto:r.matthews@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. http://www.ncrg.aston.ac.uk/People/
From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Phil Jones , Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn ,
ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, d.viner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re: Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 17:03:15 -0400
For those of you who haven't seen it, this is Robert Matthews last article on the
topic.
Hence the fairly brusque tone taken...
mike Middle Ages were warmer than today, say scientists
By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent (Filed: 06/04/2003)
Claims that man-made pollution is causing "unprecedented" global warming have been
seriously undermined by new research which shows that the Earth was warmer during
the Middle Ages.
From the outset of the global warming debate in the late 1980s, environmentalists
have said that temperatures are rising higher and faster than ever before, leading
some scientists to conclude that greenhouse gases from cars and power stations are
causing these "record-breaking" global temperatures.
Last year, scientists working for the UK Climate Impacts Programme said that
global temperatures were "the hottest since records began" and added: "We are
pretty sure that climate change due to human activity is here and it's
accelerating."
This announcement followed research published in 1998, when scientists at the

Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia declared that the 1990s
had been hotter than any other period for 1,000 years.
Such claims have now been sharply contradicted by the most comprehensive study yet
of global temperature over the past 1,000 years. A review of more than 240
scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest
over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in
stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.
The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings
of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores and
historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures prevailing at
sites around the world.
The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the
ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than
today.
They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during which
the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up again -
but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.
The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as it
implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when the
Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's
temperature rise.
According to the researchers, the evidence confirms suspicions that today's

"unprecedented" temperatures are simply the result of examining temperature change
over too short a period of time.
The study, about to be published in the journal Energy and Environment, has been
welcomed by sceptics of global warming, who say it puts the claims of
environmentalists in proper context. Until now, suggestions that the Middle Ages
were as warm as the 21st century had been largely anecdotal and were often
challenged by believers in man-made global warming.
Dr Philip Stott, the professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University of

London, told The Telegraph: "What has been forgotten in all the discussion about
global warming is a proper sense of history."
According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions about
the effect of higher global temperatures. "During the Medieval Warm Period, the
world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a wonderful period
of plenty for everyone."
In contrast, said Prof Stott, severe famines and economic collapse followed the
onset of the Little Ice Age around 1300. He said: "When the temperature started to
drop, harvests failed and England's vine industry died. It makes one wonder why
there is so much fear of warmth."
The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the official
voice of global warming research, has conceded the possibility that today's
"record-breaking" temperatures may be at least partly caused by the Earth
recovering from a relatively cold period in recent history. While the evidence for
entirely natural changes in the Earth's temperature continues to grow, its causes
still remain mysterious.
Dr Simon Brown, the climate extremes research manager at the Meteorological Office
at Bracknell, said that the present consensus among scientists on the IPCC was
that the Medieval Warm Period could not be used to judge the significance of
existing warming.
Dr Brown said: "The conclusion that 20th century warming is not unusual relies on
the assertion that the Medieval Warm Period was a global phenomenon. This is not
the conclusion of IPCC."
He added that there were also doubts about the reliability of temperature proxies
such as tree rings: "They are not able to capture the recent warming of the last
50 years," he said.
? Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2003. Terms & Conditions of reading.

Commercial information. Privacy Policy.
Dear Mr. Matthews,

separate
taken the
colleagues.
belie

analyses of
refer
to are scurrilous. These comments have not been made by scientists in the peer-
reviewed

by
information.

inquiries
from you. Given your extremely poor past record of reporting on climate change
issues,
however, I will leave you with some final words. Professional journalists I am
used to
dealing with do not rely upon un-peer-reviewed claims off internet sites for their
sources of information. They rely instead on peer-reviewed scientific research,

and
mainstream, rather than fringe, scientific opinion.
Sincerely,
Michael E. Mann
Dear Professor Mann

your
there
just
that
compared the
I'm
Robert Matthews
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Matthews
Science Correspondent, The Sunday Telegraph
C/o: 47 Victoria Road, Oxford, OX2 7QF
Email: [2]r.matthews@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Homepage: [3]www.ncrg.aston.ac.uk/People/
Tel: (+44)(0)1865 514 004 / Mob: 0790-651 9126
----------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
References
2. mailto:r.matthews@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. http://www.ncrg.aston.ac.uk/People/

From: Tim Osborn To: "Michael E. Mann" , "Robert Matthews" Subject: Re: Mann and
Jones, climate of the last two millennia Date: Fri Oct 3 09:56:06 2003 Cc: Phil
Jones , Keith Briffa , ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
d.viner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Mr. Matthews,
I have not read the criticism on the website you refer to, but will add to Mike
Mann's
response in a small, but hopefully helpful, way.
Comparison of the Mann and Jones proxy-based reconstruction with instrumental

temperature
data *is* a valid comparison to make, provided that the reconstruction is

*calibrated* to
represent the instrumental record and provided that the *uncertainties* in the
calibration
are taken into account when making the comparison.
That is, after all, the purpose of calibration - to allow two different data sets
to be
compared!
As is clear from their article, Mann and Jones do undertake a careful calibration
and only
make comparisons after the calibration, and their comparison figure includes their
estimated uncertainty range. Thus the conclusions they draw (regarding whether
recent
warming is unprecedented) are valid and are supported by their analysis.
This does not mean that future work, perhaps using new proxy records or different
methods
for calibration or for estimating calibration uncertainties, will not change those
conclusions. But it remains true that their conclusions are supported by their
analysis.
As an example of a poor comparison, see the piece by Fred Pearce on page 5 of 12

July 2003
issue of New Scientist. This is a short news article about the Mann and Jones
paper, and
it unfortunately shows a comparison figure without the associated calibration
uncertainties. That is not a good comparison. I mention this in case you were
thinking of
including a diagram in your article, perhaps showing the Mann and Jones results.
If you
do, then it will only be valid for comparing the recent instrumental temperatures
with the
proxy-based reconstruction of earlier temperatures if the reconstruction

uncertainties are
included. Try to avoid the mistake that Fred Pearce made.
Regards
Tim
Dear Mr. Matthews,

separate
taken the
colleagues.
belie

analyses of
refer
reviewed

by
information.

inquiries
issues,
used to

and
Sincerely,
Michael E. Mann
Dear Professor Mann
your
there
just
that
compared the
I'm

Robert Matthews
References

From: Tim Osborn To: "Michael E. Mann" Subject: Re: Mann and Jones, climate of the
last two millennia Date: Fri Oct 3 14:43:44 2003
Hi Mike,
I agree completely with your analysis. I don't get so many requests as you, but
even so
get enough to mean that I ignore most - I just pick a few at random to respond to.
As Phil
is away, I picked this. He's already come back with a second request, which I
answered,
but that's all he'll get from me. I'll
At 13:56 03/10/2003, you wrote:
Tim,
Many kind thanks for going out of your way to respond to this. Colleagues have
increasingly been warning me against "taking the bait" too often (which this seems
another attempt at), and so I resisted giving the detailed response that you have
nicely
provided (as well as I could have myself, I might add). They dried to bog Ben
Santer
down with distractions, they've been trying to do the same to me, and its supposed
to be
a warning to the rest of us. So the trick is to find the middle ground between
responding to most egregious and potentially damaging accusations, and not

swinging at
every ball they throw your way. Its thus very helpful if friends and colleagues
can take
up a bit of the slack now and then, as you have so graciously done...
This guy has written such trash before on the subject, that I assume he's out to
do a
hatchet job and there is little that we can do to change that. But your response
was
very helpful. It will be interesting to see what comes of this,
thanks once again,
mike
p.s. I never saw the graph in Fred Pearce's piece, since the online version didn't
show
it. But it does sound problematic from what you describe.
At 9:56 AM 10/3/2003 +0100, Tim Osborn wrote:
Dear Mr. Matthews,
I have not read the criticism on the website you refer to, but will add to Mike
Mann's
response in a small, but hopefully helpful, way.
Comparison of the Mann and Jones proxy-based reconstruction with instrumental
temperature data *is* a valid comparison to make, provided that the reconstruction
is
*calibrated* to represent the instrumental record and provided that the

*uncertainties*
in the calibration are taken into account when making the comparison.
That is, after all, the purpose of calibration - to allow two different data sets
to be
compared!
As is clear from their article, Mann and Jones do undertake a careful calibration
and
only make comparisons after the calibration, and their comparison figure includes
their
estimated uncertainty range. Thus the conclusions they draw (regarding whether
recent
warming is unprecedented) are valid and are supported by their analysis.

This does not mean that future work, perhaps using new proxy records or different
methods for calibration or for estimating calibration uncertainties, will not

change
those conclusions. But it remains true that their conclusions are supported by
their
analysis.
As an example of a poor comparison, see the piece by Fred Pearce on page 5 of 12

July
2003 issue of New Scientist. This is a short news article about the Mann and Jones
paper, and it unfortunately shows a comparison figure without the associated

calibration
uncertainties. That is not a good comparison. I mention this in case you were
thinking
of including a diagram in your article, perhaps showing the Mann and Jones
results. If
you do, then it will only be valid for comparing the recent instrumental
temperatures
with the proxy-based reconstruction of earlier temperatures if the reconstruction
uncertainties are included. Try to avoid the mistake that Fred Pearce made.
Regards
Tim
Dear Mr. Matthews,

separate
taken the
colleagues.
belie

analyses of

refer
reviewed

by
information.

inquiries
issues,
used to

and
Sincerely,
Michael E. Mann
Dear Professor Mann
your
there
just
that
compared the
http://www.co2science.org/journal/20
03/v6n34c4.htm)
I'm
Robert Matthews
Dr Timothy J Osborn
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
phone: +44 1603 592089
fax: +44 1603 507784
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
References

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Tom Wigley Subject: Re: Fwd: EOS: Soon et al reply
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:15:37 -0400 Cc: Caspar Ammann , rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
Keith Briffa , tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu, Scott
Rutherford , Kevin Trenberth , Tom Wigley , mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Thanks Tom,
In fact, I'm almost done with a brief (<750 word) response that addresses all of
these
issues, and I'll be looking forward to comments on this. Hope to send it out later
today,
mike
Folks,
I agree with Kevin that any response should be brief.
On the second page of their comment, SBL quote some of the caveat statements in
their
earlier papers. The irony is that they do not heed their own caveats. If taken
literally, all these proxy data problems would mean that one can draw no
conclusions
about the existence or otherwise of the MWE or LIA as global phenomena. This is
what we
say (I hope -- at least I have said this in the paper cited below) -- but our
over-bold
skeptics say that these anomalous intervals *did* exist. You can't have it both
ways --
and basically what BS are doing is a confidence trick.
What is still needed here is an analysis of the BS method to show that it could be
used
to prove anything they wanted.
I am still concerned about 'our' dependence on treerings. Are our results really
dependent on one region pre 1400 as SNL state? Is the problem of nonclimate
obfuscating
factors in the 20th century enough to screw up calibrations on moderate to long
timescales? If not, we need to state and document this clearly. Does this problem
apply
to both widths and densities? Are the borehole data largely garbage? I recall a
paper of
Mike's on this issue that I refereed last year -- and there was something in GRL
(I
think) very recently pointing out some serious potential problems.
Finally, did we really say what SBL claim we did in their p. 1 point (2)? Surely
the
primary motive for all of this paleo work is that it DOES have a bearing on
human-induced climate effects?
Tom.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
Thanks Kevin,
I agree w/ your take on this. We need to come up with a short, but powerful
rebuttal.
According to Judy Jacobs, we're only allowed 750 words, so we will need to be even
more
sparing and precise in our words that in the original Eos piece. By the way, we
have 3
weeks to submit (i.e., our response is due October 27).
We need to focus on the key new claims, while simply dismissing, by reference to
earlier
writings, the recycled ones. The Kalnay et al paper seems to be the new darling of
the
contrarians, and you're precise wording on this will be very helpful. Phil, Tim
and
others should be able to put to rest, in one or two sentences, the myths about
urban
heat bias on the CRU record. A few words from Malcolm and Keith on the biological
tree
growth effects would help too. The comments on the various paleo figures are
confusing
and inconsistent, but from what I can tell, just plain wrong. I'll draft some
words on
that.
I'll just continue to assimilate info and suggestions from everyone over the next
week
or so, and then try to put this in the form a rough draft rebuttal to send out.
Thanks for your quick reply. Looking forward to hearing back from others,
mike
At 09:16 AM 10/6/2003 -0600, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi Mike et al
Firstly, you should know that comments by myself and the group at NCDC (Vose et
al) on
the Kalnay and Cai Nature paper were accepted (after a rebuttal and review
process), and
then fine tuned. But it is a slow process and Kalnay and Cai have yet to finalize
their
rebuttal. I am attaching FYI the "final" version of my comment. NCDC deals with
the
problems with the records.
My reaction to the reply is as follows:
The first page deals with comments on proxy records and their problems. I think we
should agree that there are issues with proxy records, they are not the same as
instrumental records (which have their own problems), but they are all we have.
However, some are better than others (e.g. borehole) and annual or better
resolution is
highly desirable in particular to make sure that anomalies are synchronous. The
records
are not really the issue here, it is there use (and abuse).
There are several charges about only US or Northern Europe that can be quickly
dealt
with. However the main points are on p 2.
We know from the observational record that global or hemispheric means are
typically
small residuals of large anomalies of opposite signs so that large warm spots
occur
simultaneously with large cold regions (witness last winter).
This fact means that we need high temporal resolution (annual or better) AND an
ability
to compute hemispheric averages based on a network. The Soon and Baliunas approach
fails dismally on both of these critical points.
BS point out that Fig 2 of Mann and Jones show some temperatures as high as those
in the
20th C. (They are wrong, do they mean Fig 2 of
M03?) You can counter that by looking at China where this is far from true.
I would be inclined to respond with a fairly short minimalist but powerful

rebuttal,
focussing mostly on the shortcomings of BS and not defending the M03 and other
records.
It should point out (again) that their methodolgy is fundamentally flawed and
their
conclusions are demonstrably wrong. For this, the shorter the better.
Regards
Kevin
Dear Colleagues,
Sorry to have to bother you all with this-- I know how busy our schedules are, and
this
comes at an unfortunately busy time for many of us I would guss. But I think we
*do*
have to respond, and I'm hoping that the response can be, again, something we all
sign
our names to.
I've asked Ellen for further guidance on the length limits of our response, and
the due
date for our response. The criticisms are remarkably weak, and easy to reply to in
my
view. S&B have thus unwittingly, in my view, provided us with a further

opportunity to
expose the most egregious of the myths perpetuated by the contrarians (S&B have
managed
to cram them all in there) in the format of a response to their comment.
THeir comment includes a statement about how the article is all based on Mann et
al
[1999] which is pretty silly given what is stated in the article, and what is
shown in
Figure 1. It would be appropriate to begin our response by pointing out this

obvious
straw man.
Then there is some nonsense about the satellite record and urban heat islands that
Phil,
Kevin, and Tom W might in particular want to speak to. And Malcolm and Keith might
like
to speak to the comments on the supposed problems due to non-biological tree

growth
effects (which even if they were correctly described, which they aren't, have
little
relevance to several of the reconstructions shown, and all of the model simulation
results shown). There is one paragraph about Mann and Jones [2003] which is right
from
the Idsos' "Co2 science" website, and Phil and I and Tim Osborn and others have
already
spoken too. I will draft a short comment on that.
I'd like to solicit individual comments, sentences or paragraphs, etc. from each
of you
on the various points raised, and begin to assimilate this into a "response". I'll
let
you know as soon as I learn from Ellen how much space we have to work with.
Sorry for the annoyance. I look forward to any contributions you can each provide
towards a collective response.
Thanks,
mike
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 08:23:03 -0400
To: Caspar Ammann <[1]mailto:ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<[2]mailto:rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa
<[3]mailto:k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley, "Malcolm Hughes"
<[4]mailto:mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<[5]mailto:omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn
<[6]mailto:t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck
<[7]mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu>, Scott Rutherford
<[8]mailto:srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kevin Trenberth
<[9]mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley
<[10]mailto:wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: "Michael E. Mann" <[11]mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: EOS: Soon et al reply
Comments?
Mike
Delivered-To: mem6u@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <[12]mailto:mem6u@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 12:33:04 -0400
From: Ellen Mosley-Thompson <[13]mailto:thompson.4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: EOS: Soon et al reply
<[14]mailto:ethompso@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <[15]mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Cc: lzirkel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <[16]mailto:lzirkel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
jjacobs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<[17]mailto:jjacobs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22
Dear Dr. Mann (and co-authors of the Forum piece that appeared in EOS),
Dr. Willie Soon and his co-authors have submitted a reply to your Forum piece that
I
have accepted. Let me outline below the official AGU procedure for replies so that
you
know the options available. I have sent these same instructions to Dr. Soon.
As you wrote the original piece you now have the opportunity to see their comment
(attached) on your Forum piece. You may decide whether or not to send a reply. If
you
choose not to reply - their reply will be published alone.
Should you decide to reply then your response will be published along with their
comment
on your paper. One little twist is that if you submit a reply, they are allowed to
see
the reply, but they can't comment on it. They have two options: they can let both
their and your comments go forward and be published together or (after viewing
your
reply) they also have the option of withdrawing their comment. In the latter case,
then
neither their comment or your reply to the comment will be published. Yes this is
a
little contorted, but these are the instructions that I received from Judy Jacobs
at
AGU.
I have attached the pdf of their comment. Please let me know within the next week
whether you and your colleagues plan to prepare a reply. If so, then you would
have
several weeks to do this.
I have copied Lee Zirkel and Judy Jacobs of AGU as this paper is out of the
ordinary and
I want to be sure that I am handling all this correctly.

I look forward to hearing from you regarding your decision on a reply.
Best regards,
Ellen Mosley-Thompson
EOS, Editor
cc: Judy Jacobs and Lee Zirkel
attachment
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <[18]mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx > Phone: (434) 924-7770

FAX:
(434) 982-2137
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx <[20]mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx > Phone: (434) 924-7770

FAX:
(434) 982-2137
-- ****************
<[22]mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<[24]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/>
P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
References
1. mailto:ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu
8. mailto:srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
10. mailto:wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
11. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
12. mailto:mem6u@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
13. mailto:thompson.4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
14. mailto:ethompso@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
16. mailto:lzirkel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
17. mailto:jjacobs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Tom Crowley Subject: Re: draft Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003
14:16:31 -0400 Cc: Caspar Ammann , rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa ,
tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu, Scott Rutherford , Kevin Trenberth ,
Tom Wigley , mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
HI Tom,
My understanding of the papers from the borehole community ever since the 1997 GRL
article
by Huang et al is that they no longer believe that the data has proper sensitivity
to
variations prior to about AD 1500--in fact, I don't believe anyone in that

community now
feels they can meaningfully go farther back that that. Huang contributed the
section on
boreholes in chapter 2 for IPCC (2001), and wrote the very words to that effect...
Now, the possible influences on boreholes might lead to inferred trends in GST
that are
different from those in SAT is a different one. A number of independent recently

published
papers by (Beltrami et al; Stiglitz et al; Mann and Schmidt) and others have
demonstrated
that there should be expectations for significant differences between past SAT
(what we
care about) and GST variations (what boreholes in the best case scenario see) due
to
snowcover influences, etc. We don't have time to discuss that in this very short
piece, so
I tried, as briefly as possible, to cover our bases on this issue, in a way that
doesn't
really stir up the pot w/ the borehole folks...
I'm interested in any further thoughts on the above,
mike
At 12:38 PM 10/9/03 -0400, Tom Crowley wrote:
Hi, I don't understand why we cannot cite the borehole data for the MWP - that in
a
sense is the only legitimate data set that shows a ~1 C cooling from the MWP to
the LIA
- forget the deforestation problem for the moment, that is later in time -
if the borehole data for the MWP are legitimate then there is still a case for
concluding that the MWP was significantly warmer than the LIA
tom
Thanks Phil,
a few brief responses and inquiries below...
cheers,
mike
Mike,
Away Oct 11-16, so here are a few comments. A few times the tone could be a little
less
antagonistic. We don't want to inflame things any further. So remove the word
laundry.
fair enough. You *should* have seen the first draft I wrote. This is quite toned
down
now...
1. With the boreholes do we want to get one of the borehole group to sign up, eg
Henry
Pollack?
Would add a lot of weight to the last 500 year argument.
this has merit. unfortunately though I think it might open up a hornets nest of
the
author list is not identical to the original list of authors on the Eos article.
Other
thoughts on this...
2. On the UHI, there was a paper in a very recent issue of J. Climate by Tom
Peterson,
arguing
for the USA that this is non-existent. Issue with UHI is one of large versus local
scale. One
station doesn't influence large-scale averages. All studies which look at the UHI
comprehensively
find very little effect (an order of magnitude smaller than the warming). Also the
warming
in the 20th century is very similar between the NH and SH and between the land and
ocean
components.
let me see if I can fit one or two sentences in on this and keep the article under
the
length.
Also, if we can't estimate temperature histories accurately, then SB can't say it
was
warmer in their MWP period. They believe the 20th century instrumental data when
they
want to.
yes, one of a large number of amazing contradictions in their reasoning...
3. Keith is away till next week. I doubt we will have the space to do the 'tree
issues'
justice.
Best just to say that there are an (equal) number of non tree-based proxy series??
I do think we need to address their spurious description of the putative

biological
effects. Any way that you can get in touch w/ Keith for a response, perhaps just
to
this one point? Also, Malcolm might want to comment on the current wording?
4. Ray, Malcolm and Henry Diaz have a Science Perspectives piece coming out in the
next
couple of weeks on the MWP/E. This is also relevant.
good!
5. Don't think we will get away with the last paragraph. Whether we want it is an
issue
??
Shouldn't we be sticking to the science.
ok, I wasn't sure myself--yet it is a powerful rebuke, and reminds people that the
objection to the validity of their work goes beyond just our article--and that's
important. Does someone want to try to rephrase this paragraph, maybe reducing it
to a
couple sentences?
Cheers
Phil
Dear co-authors,
Attached is a draft response, incorporating suggestions Kevin, Tom W, and Michael.

I've
aimed to be as brief as possible, but hard to go much lower than 750 words and
still
address all the key issues. 750 words, by the way, is our allotted limit.
Looking forward to any comments. Feel free to send an edited version if you
prefer, and
I'll try to assimilate all of the suggested edits and suggestions into a single
revised
draft. If you can get comments to me within the next couple days, that would be
very
helpful as we're working on a late October deadline for the final version.
Thanks for your continued help,
mike
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
--
Thomas J. Crowley
Box 90227
Durham, NC 27708
919-681-8228
919-684-5833 fax
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
References

From: Edward Cook To: Jan Esper Subject: Re: data again Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003
07:28:43 -0400 Cc: Keith Briffa
Jan,
Did you finally get the raw ring-width data from Malcolm? Does Keith know about
this? He asked Malcolm for the data as well, but did not receive a reply as far as
I know.
Ed
>Dear Malcom > >thank you for the series of mails and attachements! I just came
back >into office (and I am already close to leave for another fieldtrip >next
week), and had no time yet to look in all the files you sent >me. As soon as I get
an overview of what you sent, I will keep you >informed. > >About the Central
Asian data, I am just putting another draft >together also describing some of the
new data Kerstin Treydte (who >is now in our team) sampled. Kerstin herself
started working on a >bigger analysis including her new ring width and stable
isotope data >(she processed 1000-yr. records of carbon and oxygen stable
>isotopes). This will be the major paper of her PhD, and once this >paper is
accepted, we are intending to release data to the ITRDB. >Will keep you posted. >
>Thank you again and take care >Jan > > > > > >>Dear Jan - did you get the e-mail
I sent on September 22? It may have caused >>problems, because there were 10
attachemnts. In fact, I include >>some that were >>missed with this message. In
addition, you should be able to get >>the *.rwl files >>for the 27 western
chronologies usedin Mann, Bradley, Hughes 1998 at the >>following web location:
>>http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/~fenbiao/For_Jan_27rwl/ >>Please let me know if you
experience any problems with this. >>I also omitted some of the attachments from
the earlier message. THey should >>be attached to this one. Good luck! Malcolm >>
>>------- Forwarded message follows ------- >>From: Malcolm Hughes >>To:
esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >>Subject: data >>Copies to: fenbiao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >>Date
sent: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 17:30:24 -0700 >> >>Dear Jan - I have recently started to
clear up all outstanding >>business related to the next analysis by Mike Mann, Ray
Bradley, et >>al., and found, to my horror, that I had not replied to your e-mail
of >>last April 8 (copy at end of this message). In response to our >>request for
access to the data on which your 2000 and 2002 papers were >>based, you indicated
that you would need to check with a colleague at >>WSL. Have you been able to do
this, and if so, what is the result? >>Obviously we are keen to include all
important data already in the >>peer reviewed literature, such as yours, in our
analyses. You also >>requested "the raw measurements of (y)our sequoia data and
the western >>conifer data used in the Mann et al 1998, 1999 papers". 1) data used
>>in Mann et al 1998 - these are all listed in the Nature on-line >>supplementary
materials (attached), and were all from the ITRDB, so >>they may be downloaded
from there. The same list is also attached. We >>think we can find theraw data
(the *.rwl files) and send them to you >>if you would like - please let me know.
2) The western conifer data >>used in MBH 99 are a subset of these, as indicated
in another set of >>attached MS-Excel files. These are a little bit repetitive,
but >>contain the following particularly useful information for these 27 >>longer
chronologies: vchron11000 contains, inter alia, the ITRDB ID, >>species code,
first year, last year, collector's name >> >>vchron41000 contains the ITRDB ID,
then the first and last >>years with 5, 10, etc samples >> >>vchron81000 contains
the ID, etc and then in the following >>cols: V mn sensitivity W chronology
autocorrelation, AE >>number of series, AG mean correlation of series with
>>chronology AH mean series autocorrelation, AI series mean >>length, series
median segment length. >>Please remember that this set ranges from lower forest
>>border to upper forest border, so that various mixtures from >>all precip to
precip plus temp locally apply. >> >>As I recently told Keith Briffa, you should
be aware that it >>would be completely unjustified to assume that the first
>>measured ring was anywhere near the pith in many of these >>sites, especially as
you go back in time, where the >>chronologies are based on remnants that have
weathered on >>the inside and the outside. For this, and related, reasons, it
>>would also be completely unjustified to assume any >>constant, or small,
distance in years of the first measured >>rings from pith. That is, I can see no
way of making a >>remotely reliable estimate of cambial age in the vast >>majority
of these samples. I am sitting on the >>bones of a manuscript in which I had
someone spend >>several months checking many hundreds of bristlecone and >>similar
cross-sections and cores in our store. They found >>only a few dozen - less than
10%, where either pith was >>present, or the innermost ring could reasonably be
described >>as 'near pith'. If you have seen these stripbark montane 5- >>needle
pines, and ever tried to core them, you will >>understand why. A further problem
arises from the >>observation that radial increment may increase rather
>>dramatically in the period after most of the bark dies back, >>but of course we
don't know when that was. Andy Bunn at >>Montana State University has, I think, a
manuscript in >>preparation of review on this. I have a manuscript in
>>preparation where we restandardized many of these series >>in the following way
- >>identify the long, flat part of the sample ringwidth curve >>(i.e. remove the
'grand period of growth', if present) and >>then fit a straight line of no or
negative slope. >>3) I attach *rwl and chronology files from three sequoia sites
(those >>referred to by Hughes and Brown, 1992 Drought frequency in central
>>California since 101 B.C. recorded in giant sequoia tree rings. >>Climate
Dynamics, 6, 161-167 ) Please note the reasons given for the >>rather strong
standardization used (explained in text) and for the >>splitting of the Mountain
Home samples at AD 1297 (this explains my >>sending you 4 of each kind of file,
even though there were only three >>sites in this case). We do not have pith dates
for these samples, but >>it is important to note the following caution - most of
the radials >>and cross- sections were from stumps, where we found that very slow
>>growth near the pith was often an indicator of great age. This of >>course tells
us that trees destined to be very old were often >>suppressed for many years in
their early life (but not all of them). >>The tricky part comes from the
observation that, although we could see >>slow growth on the top of the stump near
the pith, the wood was often >>in too poor a state of presevation there to date
and measure. >>Therefore, do not assume that the first ring measured was anywhere
>>near pith - it could easily be off by centuries. There is a *.crn and >>*.rwl
for each of the four chronologies. Gfo is Giant Forest, CSX is >>Camp Six, and MH
is Mountain Home, split into MH1 and MH 2 as >>indicated above. I'd be interested
to know how you get on with this. >>Cheers, Malcolm . . >> ----- Forwarded message
from Jan Esper ----- >>> Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 16:15:35 +0200 >>> From: Jan Esper
>>> Reply-To: Jan Esper >>> Subject: Re: from Malcolm Hughes >>> To:
fenbiao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >>> >>> Dear Fenbiao and Malcom >>> >>> Since I got funding
from the Swiss Science Foundation to do some >>> similar research, I really like
the idea to share our tree ring >>> data. However, I have to discuss this again
with Kerstin Treydte who >>> now started to work at the WSL and is running a re-
analysis >>> (including new samplings) for western central Asia. >>> >>> In
principle, would it be possible to receive the raw measurements >>> of your
Sequoia data and the western conifer data used in the Mann >>> et al. 1998, 1999
papers? >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >>> Take care >>> Jan >>> >>> CC >>> K
Treydte >>> D Frank >>> >>> >Dear Jan, >>> >You may be familiar with our earlier
attempts at very large scale >>> multi-proxy >>> >reconstruction of certain
aspects of climate, (for example, Mann, >>> >Bradley >>> and >>> >Hughes, 1998,
Nature, 392, 779-787). This work was possible because >>> >many colleagues made
their data available. We are now assembling an >>> >updated and extended dataset
for new work along similar lines. We >>> >hope to take advantage of data that were
not available five years >>> >ago, and to use improved methods in our analyses.
>>> > >>> >Would you be willing to permit us to use the >>>
>(chronologies/reconstruction?) reported in your paper (s) listed >> > >below? >>>
> >>> >Esper J. (2000). Long-term tree-ring variations in Juniperus at the >>>
>upper timber-line in karakorum (Pakistan). Holocene 10 (2), >>> >253-260. >>> >
>>> >Esper J., Schweingruber F.H., Winiger M. (2002). 1300 years of >>> >climatic
history for western central Asia inferred from tree-rings. >>> >Holocene 12 (3),
>>> 267-277. >>> > >>> >We are particularly interested in (1) the ring-width
series of >>> >Juniperus excelsa M. Bieb and Juniperus turkestanica Kom. From 6
>>> >different sites in >>> the >>> >Hunza-karakorrum; >>> >(2) 20 individual
sites ranging from the lower to upper local >>> >timber-lines >>> in >>> >the
Northwest karakorum of Pakistan and the Southern Tien Shan of >>> Kirghizia. >>> >
>>> >If at all possible, we would prefer to receive tree-ring data as >>> >both
raw >>> data >>> >(individual unmodified measurement series for all samples used)
and >>> >your >>> final >>> >chronologies used in the publication. >>> > >>> >If
you are willing to share your data for the purposes of our >>> >analyses, but >>>
do >>> >not >>> >wish them to be passed on to anyone else by us, please tell us,
and >>> >we will mark the data accordingly in our database. If data have >>> >been
marked as not being publicly available, we will pass on any >>> >requests for them
to you. >>> > >>> >Please reply to Dr. Fenbiao Ni?s email address (this one). Many
>>> >thanks. >>> > >>> >Sincerely, >>> >Malcolm K. Hughes >>> >(team: Michael E.
Mann, Ray Bradley, Malcolm Hughes, Scott >>> >Rutherford, >>> Fenbiao >>> >Ni) >>>
> >>> >Malcolm Hughes >>> >Professor of Dendrochronology >>> >Laboratory of Tree-
Ring Research >>> >University
of Arizona >>> >Tucson, AZ 85721 >>> >520-621-6470 >>> >fax 520-621-8229 >>> >>>
>>> -- >>> Dr. Jan Esper >>> Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL >>>
Zuercherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf >>> Switzerland >>> Phone: +41-1-739 2510
>>> Fax: +41-1-739 2215 >>> Email: esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >>> >>> ----- End forwarded
message ----- >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >>----- End forwarded message ----- >> >> >>
>> >> >>Attachments: >> D:ProjectsBradley and MannNewest June 9
1997westernforjan.xls >> D:ProjectsBradley and MannNature figuresnaturesupmat.doc
>> D:ProjectsSEQUOIAfor espercsx.rwl D:ProjectsSEQUOIAfor >> espercsxars.crn
D:ProjectsSEQUOIAfor espergfo.rwl >> D:ProjectsSEQUOIAfor espergfoars.crn
D:ProjectsSEQUOIAfor >> espermhf1.rwl D:ProjectsSEQUOIAfor espermhf2.rwl >>
D:ProjectsSEQUOIAfor esperMHF2ARS.CRN D:ProjectsSEQUOIAfor >> esperMHF1ARS.CRN
>>------- End of forwarded message -------Malcolm >>Hughes >>Professor of
Dendrochronology >>Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research >>University of Arizona
>>Tucson, AZ 85721 >>520-621-6470 >>fax 520-621-8229 > > >-- >Dr. Jan Esper >Swiss
Federal Research Institute WSL >Zuercherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf >Switzerland
>Phone: +41-1-739 2510 >Fax: +41-1-739 2215 >Email: esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

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

From: Tim Osborn To: "Michael E. Mann" Subject: Re: draft Date: Mon Oct 13
15:23:20 2003 Cc: Caspar Ammann , rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa ,
jto@u.arizona.edu, Scott Rutherford , Tom Wigley , p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Kevin
Trenberth
Dear All,
I like all of Kevin's changes. Please work with his version as a template for any
additional suggested changes. I'll incorporate the additional comments received

from
Phil and Tom W and others afterwards...
thanks,
mike
Dear Mike and co-authors,
I've now had a chance to go through the drafts and comments etc. Working from
Kevin's
version, here are some suggestions to consider:
(1) Are you sure that what we saw is the final version of S03, after any EOS
editing,
etc.? Wouldn't want any of the S03 quotes used here to get changed if they had to
edit to
reduce the length of their piece!
(2) Suggested re-ordering of the end of point (1): 'it holds in some cases for
tree-ring
density measurements at higher latitudes, but rarely for annual ring widths.'
(3) Suggested re-wording near start of point (2): '"clearly shows temperatures in
the MWP
that are as high as those in the 20th century" is misleading because it is true
for only
the early 20th century. The hemispheric warmth of the late 20th century is
anomalous in a
long-term context.' (with underlining of either 'late' or 'is' for emphasis). Of

course,
this suggestion needs to be checked carefully (e.g., is it only the 'early' 20th
century
that is exceeded by some earlier temperatures?). But it is an important change

because it
is not actually 'false' or 'untrue' if some part of the 20th century was exceeded
earlier -
they don't specify which part, so their statement is (probably deliberately) vague
rather
than wrong. The above suggestion simply points this out.
(4) Related to this comment, is the question of whether the actual reconstruction
(not
instrumental observations) in the late 20th century exceeds all reconstructed

values
(central estimates) prior to the 20th century. My copy of Mann and Jones (2003)
has poor
quality figures, so this is hard for me to tell. It appears that it might be true,
but
only right at the end - i.e. the 1980 value of the filtered series. If it is
really only
at the end, and a 40-year smoothing filter is used, then I would be concerned
about this
statement appearing in the response if it depends upon applying the filter right
up to the
end of the record. Doing so requires some assumption about values past the end of
the
series. This in itself is problematic, but especially so if the assumption were

that the
trend was extrapolated to produce values for input to the filter. Of course, if
the
straight 40-year mean from 1941-1980 of the reconstruction exceeds all other 40-
year means
of the reconstruction, then I'd be happy with the statement.
(5) I don't like point (3) on the boreholes. It relies on the "optimal" borehole
series of
Mann et al. (2003), a result that I have some concerns about and which is being
used here
to imply less uncertainty than really exists over this issue. In the EOS paper we
included
this and the "non-optimal" gridded borehole series, so we were leaving open some
uncertainty. I'm not saying that I prefer/believe the Huang et al. series either,
since I
agree that extracting the temperature signal from the borehole data is very
difficult. I
just don't like to imply it has been solved when it hasn't.
(6) Can we provide a supporting reference for the statement in point (4) about
land use
changes leading to an overall cooling?
(7) I like the final paragraph as it is, possibly dropping the last "We feel it is
time to
move on" line.
Cheers
Tim

From: Keith Briffa To: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Fwd: minor explosion Date:
Mon Oct 13 15:57:13 2003
X-Sender: esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:21:03 +0200
To: Keith Briffa
From: Jan Esper
Subject: minor explosion
Cc: Wilson Rob
Hi Keith
thank you for the message and the comments to the Siberia draft. We are intending
to
finalize a draft when Rob is coming over and we go on a sampling trip to the
Bavarian
Forest and E-Germany. We will then also discuss of data-overlap issue again and
might
include some extra figure with our record re-calculated (without Tornetraesk and
Polar
Ural).
However, I (Jan) an not sure that we should have another figure with only the Mann
and
the (reduced) Esper series. Second, it seems that Mann used the density records
from
these two sites only (not ring width). Lets see.
We would really like to send you the final draft, and ask you to become the fourth
author? We ask this not only because of the "minor explosion" that might happen,
but
also because some of the arguments in the draft were made earlier by you anyway.
What do
you think?
Take care
Jan and Dave
CC
R Wilson
Jan
with respect to the overlap problem we could agree to differ for now -I think the
problem is much more in the earlier period anyway but I suggest you go ahead and
submit
it anyway. There are some minor wording points but nothing that affects the
meaning. You
know that in my opinion the recent similarity in the records is driven by

instrumental
data inclusion (or calibration against instrumental data) and that Mann's earlier
data
are strongly biased towards summer and northern land signals. I think you will
start a
minor explosion - but that is what science needs .
I looked at your tree-line data and thought them very interesting. In my opinion
the way
you directed the interpretation was what drew your criticisms . For a climate
journal
you should have been pointing out the complicated regional responses (to the
temperature
record) rather than trying to state a simple overall response. The data are
clearly
important and you should have no trouble publishing them if you rethink the
approach to
the description (no work needed). I think Boreas or Arctic and Alpine Res. are
better
targets though. I enjoyed the discussions also and it is frustrating not to be

able to
get up to speed with your other projects. I will get back to you when I have
looked more
at the idea of the big review paper.
the very best to you and all
Keith
At 09:55 AM 10/8/03 +0200, Jan Esper wrote:
Hi Keith
with respect to our EOS draft, I am still thinking about the data overlap argument
you
made.
1. I still believe that the overlap is not that significant, and that the
significance
is changing dramatically with time (less in more recent centuries).
2. With respect to the aim of the paper, we do NOT intend to explain the
similarity
between the records. We rather address that the recons differ in the lower
frequency
domains AND are much more similar in the higher frequency domains. I believe that
this
is crucial. (One could also say that we only address the dissimilarity, and the
arguments related to that.)
I appreciated the discussions we had very, very much (especially the one in the
night
before the official meeting).
Take care
Jan
CC
D Frank
R Wilson
--
Dr. Jan Esper
Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL
Zuercherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf
Switzerland
Phone: +41-1-739 2510
Fax: +41-1-739 2215
Email: esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
--
Dr. Jan Esper
Switzerland
Phone: +41-1-739 2510
Fax: +41-1-739 2215
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
References

From: Keith Briffa To: Kevin Trenberth , "Michael E. Mann" Subject: Re: draft
Date: Mon Oct 13 16:36:52 2003 Cc: Caspar Ammann , rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu, Scott Rutherford , Tom Wigley ,
p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Mike and all
Hi , just back from a trip and only now catching up with important emails. Given
the restricted time and space available to furnish a response to SB comments ,
I offer the following mix of comment and specific wording changes:
I agree that the S+B response is designed to deflect criticism by confusing the
issues
rather than answering our points.
In fact they fail to address any of the 3 specific
issues we raised Namely , 1. the need for critical evaluation of proxy inputs , 2.
the
need for a consistent assimilation of widespread (dated and well resolved )

records,
3. the essential requirement for objective/quantitative calibration (scaling) of

the input
records to allow for assessment of the uncertainties when making
comparisons of different reconstructions and when comparing early with recent
temperatures.
Their own , ill-conceived and largely subjective approach did not take
account of the uncertainties and problems in the use of palaeodata that they chose
to
highlight in their opening remarks.
I would be in favour of stating something to this effect at the outset of our

response.
Also , as regards the tree-ring bit , I fully concur with the sense of your text
as
regards Section 1, but suggest the following wording (to replace ",rarely for
annual
ring widths, and almost entirely at higher latitudes.")
"but in certain high-latitude regions only. Where this is the case , these
relatively
recent
(ie post 1950) data are not used in calibrating temperature reconstructions. In
many other
(even high-latitude) areas density or ring-width records display no bias."
In the spirit of healthy debate - I agree with Tim's remarks , warning against
presenting a
too
sanguine impression that the borehole debate is closed ( though I do think it is

closing!).
I also believe , as you already know, that the use of a recent padding algorithm
to extend
smoothed data to the present time, is inappropriate if it assumes the continuation

of a
recent
trend. This is likely to confuse , rather than inform, the wider public about the
current
climate state .
Finally , I repeat my earlier remarks (made before EOS piece published) that we
are missing
an opportunity to say that a warm Medieval period per se is not a refutation of
anthropogenic
warming , {as its absence is no proof}, if we do not understand the role of

specific
forcings (natural
and anthropogenic) that influenced medieval and current climates.
Cheers
Keith
At 12:48 PM 10/9/03 -0600, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi all
Here are my suggested changes: toned down in several places. Tracking turned on
Kevin
Dear co-authors,
Attached is a draft response, incorporating suggestions Kevin, Tom W, and Michael.

I've
aimed to be as brief as possible, but hard to go much lower than 750 words and
still
address all the key issues. 750 words, by the way, is our allotted limit.
Looking forward to any comments. Feel free to send an edited version if you
prefer, and
I'll try to assimilate all of the suggested edits and suggestions into a single
revised
draft. If you can get comments to me within the next couple days, that would be
very
helpful as we're working on a late October deadline for the final version.
Thanks for your continued help,
mike
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
-- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [3]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Climate

Analysis Section, NCAR [4]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/ P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
References
1. mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx%A0

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Caspar Ammann Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: draft Date: Tue,
14 Oct 2003 12:35:34 -0400 Cc: Tim Osborn , Malcolm Hughes , Keith Briffa ,
rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
jto@u.arizona.edu, Scott Rutherford , Tom Wigley , p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Kevin
Trenberth
thanks Caspar,
I agree--its important to emphasize this point, and I'm glad you recognized that
we were
underplaying it...
mike
At 10:25 AM 10/14/2003 -0600, Caspar Ammann wrote:
Mike,
looks good to me. It is one of these points where they can persuade journalists
that
they are 'correct' and it actually got into newspapers and finally to the senate
floor
this way. The more we are able to explain why the first half of the 20th century
warmed
up naturally, the more confidence we get on the detection of the anthropogenic

signal
afterwards.
Caspar

Dear All,
In response to Caspar's suggestion, which I agree with, I propose rephrasing item

"2"
as follows:
2) The statement by S03 that the Mann and Jones [2003] reconstruction "clearly
shows
temperatures in the MWP that are as high as those in the 20th century" is
misleading if
not false. M03 emphasize that it is the late, and not the early or mid 20th
century
warmth, that is outside the range of past variability. Mann and Jones emphasize
conclusions for the Northern Hemisphere, noting that those for the Southern
Hemisphere
(and globe) are indeterminate due to a paucity of southern hemisphere data.

Consistent
with M03, they conclude that, late 20th century Northern Hemisphere mean
temperatures
are anomalous in a long-term (nearly two millennium) context.
Any comments?
Thanks,
mike
Delivered-To: [1]mem6u@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:18:37 -0600
From: Caspar Ammann [2]
Organization: NCAR
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: "Michael E. Mann" [3]
Subject: Re: draft
Hi Mike,
it now looks good to me indeed including the new last paragraph following Tom's
wording.
The only point I would highlight a little more is in point 2): Maybe it could be
stated
that the early part of the 20th century is within the natural range whereas the
late
20th century, the main point of the AGU position statement and also in M03, is
clearly
outside. Please also add a second 'n' in my name...
Cheers, and thanks for your momentum on this,
Caspar
Dear All,
I agree with each of Tom W's suggestions. Adopting them, by the way, brings us
down to
738 words.
So pending any revised language from Keith/Malcolm in response to Michael O's

comment on
paragraph 2, I'm putting out a last call for comments, sign-ons, etc...
Thanks,
mike
At 08:00 AM 10/14/2003 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:
Some minor points ....
para. 2 -- should it be 'an' ensuing rather than 'the' ensuing?
para. 2 -- I still think 'each' (line 3) is unnecessary
para. 4 -- no comma after '(and globe)'
re boreholes, does the point about comparing late 20th century with a 'much longer
period' 1000 years ago help us? Given that the 1000 years ago data is highly
lowpass
filtered, if one *did* have a series with a temporal resolution that allowed a
legitimate comparison, then the likelihood of a warmer interval 1000 years ago
must be
higher.
In any event, the time scale issue will not be meaningful to most readers. The key
point
is the data reliability/uncertainty. I would just say something like ...
".... taken into account. For times more than 500 years ago, uncertainties in the
borehole reconstructions preclude any useful quantitative comparison."
Finally, I would like the last para. retained, but I suggest shorter wording
as ...
".... as indicating that SB03 misinterpreted and misrepresented the

paleoclimatological
literature. The controversy ....".
My problem here is twofold. First, they really say nothing directly about
'mainstream
scientific opinion' (except that they clearly disagree with it). At issue is not
the
mainstream opinion, but their interpretation of the literature and their illogical
conclusions. Second, they may have misrepresented the results of their work, but
we do
not address this issue so it comes here as a non sequitur. In fact, just what such
'misrepresentation' consists of, and why it might be judged as 'misrepresentation'

is a
subtle issue. Hence my revision -- which retains the word 'misrepresentation', but
in a
different context.
Tom.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
Thanks Tim and Malcolm,
The latest round of suggestions were extremely helpful. I've accepted them w/ a
few
minor tweaks (attached). We're at 765 words--I think AGU will let us get away w/
that...
So, comments from others?
Thanks,
mike
SO3 argue that borehole data provide a conflicting view of past temperature
histories.
To the contrary, the borehole estimates for recent centuries shown in M03 may be
consistent with other estimates, provided consideration is given to statistical
uncertainties, spatial sampling and possible influences on the ground surface

[e.g.,
snow cover changes--Beltrami and Kellman, 2003]. It is not meaningful to compare

the
late 20th century with a much longer period 1000 years ago [Bradley et al., 2003],
especially given the acknowledged limitations [Pollack et al., 1998] of borehole

data.
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
-- Caspar M. Ammann National Center for Atmospheric Research Climate and Global
Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology Advanced Study Program 1850 Table Mesa Drive
Boulder, CO 80307-3000 email: [8]ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx tel: 303-497-1705 fax: 303-
497-1348
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
-- Caspar M. Ammann National Center for Atmospheric Research Climate and Global
Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology Advanced Study Program 1850 Table Mesa Drive
Boulder, CO 80307-3000 email: [11]ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx tel: 303-497-1705 fax: 303-
497-1348
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
References
1. mailto:mem6u@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Tom Wigley , Kevin Trenberth , Keith Briffa , Phil
Jones , ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu,
mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Fwd: Re: smoothing Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:27:24
-0400
Sorry--one more error. The MSE values for "minimum norm" and "minimum roughness"
are
switched in the figure legend. Obviously the former is a better fit...
mike
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:08:49 -0400
To: Tom Wigley , Kevin Trenberth , Keith Briffa
, Phil Jones , ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
tkarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: smoothing
Bcc: Scott Rutherford
correction '1)' should read:

'1) minimum norm: sets padded values equal to mean of available data beyond the
available data (often the default constraint in smoothing routines)'
sorry for the confusion,
mike
Dear All,
To those I thought might be interested, I've provided an example for discussion of
smoothing conventions. Its based on a simple matlab script which I've written (and
attached) that uses any one of 3 possible boundary constraints [minimum norm,
minimum
slope, and minimum roughness] on the 'late' end of a time series (it uses the
default
'minimum norm' constraint on the 'early' end of the series). Warming: you needs
some
matlab toolboxes for this to run...
The routines uses a simple butterworth lowpass filter, and applies the 3 lowest
order
constraints in the following way:
1) minimum norm: sets mean equal to zero beyond the available data (often the
default
constraint in smoothing routines)
2) minimum slope: reflects the data in x (but not y) after the last available data
point. This tends to impose a local minimum or maximum at the edge of the data.
3) minimum roughness: reflects the data in both x and y (the latter w.r.t. to the
y
value of the last available data point) after the last available data point. This
tends
to impose a point of inflection at the edge of the data---this is most likely to
preserve a trend late in the series and is mathematically similar, though not
identical,
to the more ad hoc approach of padding the series with a continuation of the trend
over
the past 1/2 filter width.
The routine returns the mean square error of the smooth with respect to the raw
data. It
is reasonable to argue that the minimum mse solution is the preferable one. In the
particular example I have chosen (attached), a 40 year lowpass filtering of the

CRU NH
annual mean series 1856-2003, the preference is indicated for the "minimum
roughness"
solution as indicated in the plot (though the minimum slope solution is a close
2nd)...
By the way, you may notice that the smooth is effected beyond a single filter
width of
the boundary. That's because of spectral leakage, which is unavoidable (though

minimized
by e.g. multiple-taper methods).
I'm hoping this provides some food for thought/discussion, esp. for purposes of
IPCC...
mike
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
References

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Malcolm Hughes , Tim Osborn , Keith Briffa , Kevin
Trenberth , Caspar Ammann , rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu, Scott Rutherford ,
p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tom Wigley Subject: Fwd: Correspondence
on Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas views on climate Date: Thu, 16 Oct
2003 16:43:41 -0400
Dear All,
Thought you would be interested in this exchange, which John Holdren of Harvard
has been
kind enough to pass along...
mike
Delivered-To: mem6u@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
X-Sender: jholdren@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:53:08 -0400
To: "Michael Mann" , "Tom Wigley"
From: "John P. Holdren"
Subject: Correspondence on Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas
views on climate
Michael and Tom --
I'm forwarding for your entertainment an exchange that followed from my being
quoted in
the Harvard Crimson to the effect that you and your colleagues are right and my
"Harvard" colleagues Soon and Baliunas are wrong about what the evidence shows
concerning surface temperatures over the past millennium. The cover note to
faculty
and postdocs in a regular Wednesday breakfast discussion group on environmental

science
and public policy in Harvard's Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences is more
or
less self-explanatory.
Best regards,
John
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:02:24 -0400
To: schrag@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, oconnell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, holland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
pearson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, eli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ingalls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
mlm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, avan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, moyer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
poussart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jshaman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, sivan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
bec@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, saleska@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: For the EPS Wednesday breakfast group: Correspondence on Harvard Crimson
coverage of Soon / Baliunas views on climate
Cc: jeremy_bloxham@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, william_clark@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
patricia_mclaughlin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
Bcc:
Colleagues--
I append here an e-mail correspondence I have engaged in over the past few days
trying
to educate a Soon/Baliunas supporter who originally wrote to me asking how I could

think
that Soon and Baliunas are wrong and Mann et al. are right (a view attributed to
me,
correctly, in the Harvard Crimson). This individual apparently runs a web site on
which
he had been touting the Soon/Baliunas position.
While it is sometimes a mistake to get into these exchanges (because one's

interlocutor
turns out to be ineducable and/or just looking for a quote to reproduce out of
context
in an attempt to embarrass you), there was something about this guy's formulations
that
made me think, at each round, that it might be worth responding. In the end, a
couple
of colleagues with whom I have shared this exchange already have suggested that
its
content would be of interest to others, and so I am sending it to our

"environmental
science and policy breakfast" list for your entertainment and, possibly, future
breakfast discussion.
The items in the correspondence are arranged below in chronological order, so that
it
can be read straight through, top to bottom.
Best,
John
At 09:43 PM 9/12/2003 -0400, you wrote:

Dr. Holdren:
In a recent Crimson story on the work of Soon and Baliunas, who have written for
my
website [1]www.techcentralstation.com, you are quoted as saying:
My impression is that the critics are right. It s unfortunate that so much

attention is
paid to a flawed analysis, but that s what happens when something happens to
support the
political climate in Washington.
Do you feel the same way about the work of Mann et. al.? If not why not?
Best,
Nick
Nick Schulz
Editor
TCS
1-800-619-5258
From: John P. Holdren [[2]mailto:john_holdren@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 11:06 AM
To: Nick Schulz
Subject: Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas controversy
Dear Nick Schultz --
I am sorry for the long delay in this response to your note of September 12. I
have
been swamped with other commitments.
As you no doubt have anticipated, I do not put Mann et al. in the same category
with
Soon and Baliunas.
If you seriously want to know "Why not?", here are three ways one might arrive at
what I
regard as the right conclusion:
(1) For those with the background and patience to penetrate the scientific
arguments,
the conclusion that Mann et al. are right and Soon and Baliunas are wrong follows
from
reading carefully the relevant Soon / Baliunas paper and the Mann et al. response
to it:
W. Soon and S. Baliunas, "Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past
1000
years", Climate Research, vol. 23, pp 89ff, 2003.
M. Mann, C. Amman, R. Bradley, K. Briffa, P. Jones, T. Osborn, T. Crowley, M.

Hughes, M.
Oppenheimer, J. Overpeck, S. Rutherford, K. Trenberth, and T. Wigley, "On past
temperatures and anomalous late-20th century warmth", EOS, vol 84, no. 27, pp
256ff, 8
July 2003.
This is the approach I took. Soon and Baliunas are demolished in this comparison.
(2) Those lacking the background and/or patience to penetrate the two papers, and
seriously wanting to know who is more likely to be right, have the option of
asking
somebody who does possess these characteristics -- preferably somebody outside the
handful of ideologically committed and/or oil-industry-linked professional
climate-change skeptics -- to evaluate the controversy for them. Better yet, one
could
poll a number of such people. They can easily be found by checking the web pages
of
earth sciences, atmospheric sciences, and environmental sciences departments at

any
number of major universities.
(3) The least satisfactory approach, for those not qualified for (1) and lacking
the
time or initiative for (2), would be to learn what one can about the
qualifications
(including publications records) and reputations, in the field in question, of the
authors on the two sides. Doing this would reveal that Soon and Baliunas are,
essentially, amateurs in the interpretation of historical and paleoclimatological
records of climate change, while the Mann et al. authors include several of the
most
published and most distinguished people in the world in this field. Such an
investigation would also reveal that Dr. Baliunas' reputation in this field
suffered
considerable damage a few years back, when she put her name on an incompetent
critique
of mainstream climate science that was never published anywhere respectable but
was
circulated by the tens of thousands, in a format mimicking that of a reprint from

the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in pursuit of signatures on a

petition
claiming that the mainstream findings were wrong.
Of course, the third approach is the least satisfactory because it can be

dangerous to
assume that the more distinguished people are always right. Occasionally, it turns
out
that the opposite is true. That is one of several good reasons that it pays to try
to
penetrate the arguments, if one can, or to poll others who have tried to do so.
But in
cases where one is not able or willing to do either of these things -- and where
one is
able to discover that the imbalance of experience and reputation on the two sides
of the
issue is as lopsided as here -- one ought at least to recognize that the odds
strongly
favor the proposition that the more experienced and reputable people are right. If
one
were a policy maker, to bet the public welfare on the long odds of the opposite
being
true would be foolhardy.
Sincerely,
John Holdren
PS: I have provided this response to your query as a personal communication, not
as
fodder for selective excerpting on your web site or elsewhere. If you do decide
that
you would like to propagate my views on this matter more widely, I ask that you
convey
my response in its entirety.
At 11:16 AM 10/13/2003 -0400, you wrote:
I have the patience but, by your definition certainly, not the background, so I
suppose
it s not surprising I came to a different conclusion. I guess my problem concerns

what
lawyers call the burden of proof. The burden weighs heavily much more heavily,
given
the claims on Mann et.al. than it does on Soon/Baliunas. Would you agree?
Falsifiability for the claims of Mann et. al. requires but a few examples, does it
not? Soon/Baliunas make claims that have no such burden. Isn t that correct?
Best,
Nick
From: John P. Holdren [[3]mailto:john_holdren@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
To: Nick Schulz
Subject: RE: Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas controversy
Nick--
Yes, I can see how it might seem that, in principle, those who are arguing for a
strong
and sweeping proposition (such as that "the current period is the warmest in the
last
1000 years") must meet a heavy burden of proof, and that, because even one
convincing
counter-example shoots the proposition down, the burden that must be borne by the
critics is somehow lighter. But, in practice, burden of proof is an evolving thing

--
it evolves as the amount of evidence relevant to a particular proposition grows.

To choose an extreme example, consider the first and second laws of
thermodynamics.
Both of these are "empirical" laws. Our confidence in them is based entirely on
observation; neither one can be "proven" from more fundamental laws. Both are very
sweeping. The first law says that energy is conserved in all physical processes.
The
second law says that entropy increases in all physical processes. So, is the
burden of
proof heavier on somebody who asserts that these laws are correct, or on somebody
who
claims to have found an exception to one or both of them? Clearly, in this case,
the
burden is heavier on somebody who asserts an exception. This is in part because

the
two laws have survived every such challenge in the past. No exception to either
has
ever been documented. Every alleged exception has turned out to be traceable to a
mistake of some kind. This burden on those claiming to have found an exception is
so
strong that the US Patent Office takes the position, which has been upheld in
court,
that any patent application for an invention that violates either law can be
rejected
summarily, without any further analysis of the details.
Of course, I am not asserting that the claim we are now in the warmest period in a
millennium is in the same league with the laws of thermodynamics. I used the
latter
only to illustrate the key point that where the burden is heaviest depends on the
state
of prior evidence and analysis on the point in question -- not simply on whether a
proposition is sweeping or narrow.
In the case actually at hand, Mann et al. are careful in the nature of their
claim.
They write along the lines of "A number of reconstructions of large-scale

temperature
changes support the conclusion" that the current period is the warmest in the last
millennium. And they write that the claims of Baliunas et al. are "inconsistent
with
the preponderance of scientific evidence". They are not saying that no shred of
evidence to the contrary has ever been produced, but rather that analysis of the
available evidence as a whole tends to support their conclusion.
This is often the case in science. That is, there are often "outlier" data points
or
apparent contradictions that are not yet adequately explained, but still are not
given
much weight by most of the scientists working on a particular issue if a strong
preponderance of evidence points the other way. This is because the scientists
judge it
to be more probable that the outlier data point or apparent contradiction will
ultimately turn out to be explainable as a mistake, or otherwise explainable in a

way
that is consistent with the preponderance of evidence, than that it will turn out
that
the preponderance of evidence is wrong or is being misinterpreted. Indeed,

apparent
contradictions with a preponderance of evidence are FAR more often due to

measurement
error or analysis error than to real contradiction with what the preponderance
indicates.
A key point, then, is that somebody with a PhD claiming to have identified a
counterexample does not establish that those offering a general proposition have
failed
in their burden of proof. The counterexample itself must pass muster as both valid
in
itself and sufficient, in the generality of its implications, to invalidate the
proposition.
In the case at hand, it is not even a matter of an "outlier" point or other

seeming
contradiction that has not yet been explained. Mann et al. have explained in
detail why
the supposed contrary evidence offered by Baliunas et al. does NOT constitute a
counterexample. To those with some knowledge and experience in studies of this
kind,
the refutation by Mann et al is completely convincing.
Sincerely,
John Holdren
At 08:08 AM 10/15/2003 -0400, you wrote:
Dr. Holdren:
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I genuinely appreciate you taking the time.
You are quite right about the laws of thermodynamics. And you are quite right that
Mann
et al is not in the same league as those laws and that s not to take anything from
their
basic research.
You write to those with knowledge and experience in studies of this kind, the
refutation
by Mann et all is completely convincing. Since I do not have what you would
consider
the requisite knowledge or experience, I can t speak to that. I ve read the Mann
papers
and the Baliunas Soon paper and the Mann rebuttal and find Mann s claims based on
his
research extravagant and beyond what he can legitimately claim to know. That said,
I m
willing to believe it is because I don t have the tools necessary to understand.
But if you will indulge a lay person with some knowledge of the matter, perhaps
you
could clear up a thing or two.
Part of the confusion over Mann et al it seems to me has to do not with the
research
itself but with the extravagance of the claims they make based on their research.
And yet you write: Mann et al. are careful in the nature of their claim. They
write
along the lines of A number of reconstructions of large-scale temperature changes

support the conclusion that the current period is the warmest in the last
millennium.
And they write that the claims of Baliunas et al. are inconsistent with the
preponderance of scientific evidence .
That makes it seem as if Mann s not claiming anything particularly extraordinary

based
on his research.
But Mann claimed in the NYTimes in 1998 that in their Nature study from that year
Our
conclusion was that the warming of the past few decades appears to be closely tied
to
emission of greenhouse gases by humans and not any of the natural factors." Does
that
seem to be careful in the nature of a claim? Respected scientists like Tom Quigley
responded at the time by saying "I think there's a limit to how far you can ever
go." As
for using proxy data to detect a man-made greenhouse effect, he said, "I don't
think
we're ever going to get to the point where we're going to be totally convincing."
These
are two scientists who would agree on the preponderance of evidence and yet they
make
different claims about what that preponderance means. There are lots of respected
climatologists who would say Mann has insufficient scientific basis to make that
claim.
Would you agree? The Soon Baliunas research is relevant to that element of the
debate
what the preponderance of evidence enables us to claim within reason. To that end,
I
don t think claims of Soon Baliunas are inconsistent with the preponderance of
scientific evidence.
I ll close by saying I m willing to admit that, as someone lacking a PhD, I could

be
punching above my weight. But I will ask you a different but related question How
much
hope is there for reaching reasonable public policy decisions that affect the
lives of
millions if the science upon which those decisions must be made is said to be by
definition beyond the reach of those people?
All best,
Nick
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:46:23 -0400
To: "Nick Schulz"
Subject: RE: Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas controversy
Nick--
You ask good questions. I believe the thoughtfulness of your questions and the
progress
I believe we are making in this interchange contain the seeds of the answer to
your
final question, which, if I may paraphrase just a bit, is whether there's any hope
of
reaching reasonable public-policy decisions when the details of the science

germane to
those decisions are impenetrable to most citizens.
This is a hard problem. Certainly the difficulty is not restricted to climate

science
and policy, but applies also to nuclear-weapon science and policy, nuclear-energy
science and policy, genetic science and policy, and much more. But I don't think
the
difficulties are insurmountable. That's why I'm in the business I'm in, which is
teaching about and working on the intersection of science and technology with
policy.
Most citizens cannot penetrate the details of what is known about the how the
climate
works (and, of course, what is known even by the most knowledgeable climate
scientists
about this is not everything one would like to know, and is subject to
modification by
new data, new insights, new forms of analysis). Neither would most citizens be
able to
understand how a hydrogen bomb works (even if the details were not secret), or
what
factors will determine the leak rates of radioactive nuclides from radioactive-
waste
repositories, or what stem-cell research does and promises to be able to do.
But, as Amory Lovins once said in addressing the question of whether the public
deserved
and could play a meaningful role in debates about nuclear-weapon policy, even
though
most citizens would never understand the details of how nuclear weapons work or
are
made, "You don't have to be a chicken to know what to do with an egg." In other
words,
for many (but not all) policy purposes, the details that are impenetrable do not
matter.
There CAN be aspects of the details that do matter for public policy, of course.
In
those cases, it is the function and the responsibility of scientists who work
across the
science-and-policy boundary to communicate the policy implications of these

details in
ways that citizens and policy makers can understand. And I believe it is the
function
and responsibility of citizens and policy makers to develop, with the help of
scientists
and technologists, a sufficient appreciation of how to reach judgments about
plausibility and credibility of communications about the science and technology

relevant
to policy choices so that the citizens and policy makers are NOT disenfranchised
in
policy decisions where science and technology are germane.
How this is best to be done is a more complicated subject than I am prepared to

try to
explicate fully here. (Alas, I have already spent more time on this interchange
than I
could really afford from other current commitments.) Suffice it to say, for now,
that
improving the situation involves increasing at least somewhat, over time, the
scientific
literacy of our citizens, including especially in relation to how science works,

how to
distinguish an extravagant from a reasonable claim, how to think about

probabilities of
who is wrong and who is right in a given scientific dispute (including the
question of
burden of proof as you and I have been discussing it here), how consulting and
polling
experts can illuminate issues even for those who don't understand everything that
the
experts say, and why bodies like the National Academy of Sciences and the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change deserve more credibility on the question

of
where mainstream scientific opinion lies than the National Petroleum Council, the
Sierra
Club, or the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.
Regarding extravagant claims, you continue to argue that Mann et al. have been
guilty of
this, but the formulation of theirs that you offer as evidence is not evidence of
this
at all. You quote them from the NYT in 1998, referring to a study Mann and co-
authors
published in that year, as saying
"Our conclusion was that the warming of the past few decades appears to be closely
tied to emission of greenhouse gases by humans and not any of the natural
factors."
and you ask "Does that seem to be careful in the nature of a claim?" My answer is:
Yes, absolutely, their formulation is careful and appropriate. Please note that
they
did NOT say "Global warming is closely tied to emission of greenhouse gases by
humans
and not any of the natural factors." They said that THEIR CONCLUSION (from a
particular, specified study, published in NATURE) was that the warming of THE PAST
FEW
DECADES (that is, a particular, specified part of the historical record) APPEARS
(from
the evidence adduced in the specified study) to be closely tied... This is a

carefully
specified, multiply bounded statement, which accurately reflects what they looked
at and
what they found. And it is appropriately contingent --"APPEARS to be closely tied"

--
allowing for the possibility that further analysis or new data could later lead to
a
different perspective on what appears to be true.
With respect, it does not require a PhD in science to notice the appropriate
boundedness
and contingency in the Mann et al. formulation. It only requires an open mind, a
careful reading, and a degree of understanding of the character of scientific

claims and
the wording appropriate to convey them that is accessible to any thoughtful

citizen.
That is why I'm an optimist.
You go on to quote the respected scientist "Tom Quigley" as holding a contrary

view to
that expressed by Mann. But please note that: (1) I don't know of any Tom Quigley
working in this field, so I suspect you mean to refer to the prominent

climatologist Tom
Wigley; (2) the statements you attribute to "Quiqley" do not directly contradict
the
careful statement of Mann (that is, it is entirely consistent for Mann to say that
his
study found that recent warming appears to be tied to human emissions and for
Wigley to
say that that there are limits to how far one can go with this sort of analysis,
without
either one being wrong); and (3) Tom Wigley is one of the CO-AUTHORS of the
resounding
Mann et al. refutation of Soon and Baliunas (see attached PDF file).
I hope you have found my responses to be of some value. I now must get on with
other
things.
Best,
John Holdren
JOHN P. HOLDREN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy
& Director, Program in Science, Technology, & Public Policy,
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs,
John F. Kennedy School of Government
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy,
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
mail: BCSIA, JFK School, 79 JFK St, Cambridge, MA 02138
phone: 617 495-1464 / fax 617 495-8963
email: john_holdren@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
assistant: Patricia_McLaughlin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, 617 495-1498
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN P. HOLDREN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy
& Director, Program in Science, Technology, & Public Policy,
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs,

John F. Kennedy School of Government
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy,
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
mail: BCSIA, JFK School, 79 JFK St, Cambridge, MA 02138
phone: 617 495-1464 / fax 617 495-8963
email: john_holdren@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
assistant: Patricia_McLaughlin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, 617 495-1498
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
References
1. http://www.techcentralstation.com/
2. mailto:john_holdren@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:john_holdren@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

From: Tim Osborn To: evelyn.smith@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Christopher D Miller" Subject:

Fwd: confidential assessment of GC04-203 Date: Fri Oct 24 10:20:33 2003
Dear Evelyn and Chris,
re. proposal review GC04-203, Meko et al. "A synthesis of 19th century climate
data for the
United States from paleo, archival and instrumental sources".
I have read the "Reviewer conflict of interest and confidentiality..." document

and can
state that I have no conflict of interest and will abide by the confidentiality
provisions
etc.
I reviewed a very similar proposal by this group 1 year ago, and enclose my review
of that
proposal below. The new proposal has taken into account my two main concerns from
last
time, which were:
(i) that creation only of a blended data set that contained a time varying mixture
of proxy
and instrumental data would limit the usefulness because its quality would be time
varying,
perhaps in an unquantified way, and independent study of errors between proxy and
observed
data would be prevented; and
(ii) that the proposed work was not very innovative in terms of the applications
for which
the new information would be used.
Both of these points have been addressed adequately and so I now rate it
"Excellent (5)"
for scientific/technical merit, and "High (5)" for importance/relevance and

applicability.
One issue that I would like to raise, however, is that the need for quantifying
uncertainty/error in the reconstructions/database is not given much coverage in

the
proposal. It is mentioned, but not focused on. For many applications (testing
models,
comparison with other reconstructions, detection of unusual climate

trends/events),
explicitly quantified error estimates are essential. These often change magnitude
through
time, and thus should be estimated in such a way as to allow this. They may also
change
with time scale (often being lower for, e.g., a decadal mean than for a single
year's
value), and again the error estimation method should capture this. I do not think
that
this issue detracts from the quality of the proposal. Instead I am mentioning it
in the
hope that this comment can be passed on to the proposers, in the event that the
project is
funded, so that they can be prompted into placing the appropriate emphasis on
quantifying
uncertainty.
Apologies for being late yet again, and best regards,
Tim
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:14:31 +0000
Subject: confidential assessment of GC03-512
From: Tim Osborn
To:
CC: ,
Dear Irma and Chris,
Re. proposal review GC03-512, PI: David Meko "A 19th century data catalog"
First of all, I confirm that there is no conflict of interest etc.
Now to my review...
(1) Scientific Merit
Rating: Good
Comments:
I completely agree with the rationale behind improving data sets of 19th
century climate (see my comments below on "Relevance to climate change
programme"), and the proposers have identified the most relevant data
sources available for the US. The objectives and workplan are generally
reasonable, but I have rated it "good" rather than "very good" or
"excellent" because it does not seem as scientifically innovative or
challenging as it might. Some particular concerns are highlighted below.
I am very wary about the proposed approach of integrating the data sources
together to produce a single climate product. Obviously the data sources
have to be used in combination, for calibration of proxy data or for
assessment of possibly dubious early instrumental data, *but* combining them
all into a single product only will be very restrictive for future use,
assessment, improvements. Much better would be to produce intrumental-only
series for whatever length is available, and tree-ring only series for the
full length (i.e., into the late 19th and 20th centuries, despite the
availability of instrumental data for these periods). Blending them into a
single analysis is of some, but limited, use and comparisons of different
periods and with (e.g.) model simulations can only ever be done by taking
into account error bars that vary dramatically in time and are only
estimates of the "true" errors - and the error estimates may be
underestimates if based only on residuals or covariances during the 20th
century.
No mention is made of using the 19th century data to consider key issues
such as difference between tree-ring and ground borehole temperatures (they
differ more in the 19th century, in terms of trend, than in other
centuries), possibly taking into account land-use change. No mention is
made of using the 19th century data to assess multi-century temperature
reconstructions and why they differ. These are issues of great importance.
No mention is investigating seasonal dependence of temperature changes,
which are greater in existing temperature products during the 19th century
than in the 20th century and which has important implications for the
calibration of proxy (including tree-ring) data against summer or annual
data and the need to more clearly define the true seasonal response of proxy
data.
Despite these concerns, the proposed work is certainly worthy of funding and
the extra items of interest that I mention above could be achieved using the
data generated here, in some future project.
(2) Relevance to climate change programme
Rating: High
Comments:
The 19th century is certainly of particular importance, not just for the
reasons outlined in the proposal but also because this century shows some of
the biggest disagreements in warming trend between various quasi-hemispheric
temperature reconstructions and between proxy and instrumental data and
between different seasons of instrumental data. Additional data sources are
definitely required, and additional digitisation, homogenisation and
intercomparison of data sets is necessary. For these reasons, work such as
that proposed here is essential for helping to refine answers to questions
such as how unusual is late twentieth century climate and detection of
climate change signals against the noise of natural climate variability.
Best regards
Tim


From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Ray Bradley , "Malcolm Hughes" , Mike MacCracken ,
Steve Schneider , tom crowley , Tom Wigley , Jonathan Overpeck ,
asocci@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Michael Oppenheimer , Keith Briffa , Phil Jones , Tim Osborn
, Tim_Profeta@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Ben Santer , Gabi Hegerl , Ellen Mosley-Thompson ,
"Lonnie G. Thompson" , Kevin Trenberth Subject: CONFIDENTIAL Fwd: Date: Sun, 26
Oct 2003 13:47:44 -0500 Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear All,
This has been passed along to me by someone whose identity will remain in
confidence.
Who knows what trickery has been pulled or selective use of data made. Its clear
that
"Energy and Environment" is being run by the baddies--only a shill for industry
would have
republished the original Soon and Baliunas paper as submitted to "Climate

Research" without
even editing it. Now apparently they're at it again...
My suggested response is:
1) to dismiss this as stunt, appearing in a so-called "journal" which is already

known to
have defied standard practices of peer-review. It is clear, for example, that

nobody we
know has been asked to "review" this so-called paper
2) to point out the claim is nonsense since the same basic result has been
obtained by
numerous other researchers, using different data, elementary compositing

techniques, etc.
Who knows what sleight of hand the authors of this thing have pulled. Of course,
the usual
suspects are going to try to peddle this crap. The important thing is to deny that
this has
any intellectual credibility whatsoever and, if contacted by any media, to dismiss

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

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: stocker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
knutti@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: some info you'll want to have... Date: Wed, 29 Oct
2003 13:05:07 -0500 Cc: Gabi Hegerl , tom crowley , mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
"raymond s.bradley" , Keith Briffa , Jonathan Overpeck , Stefan Rahmstorf , Steve
Schneider , peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Gavin Schmidt , mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Thomas, Fortunat, Reto:
You might have wanted to check w/ us first, but thanks anyway for responding to
this. We've
uncovered the error in what they did. They didn't use the proxy data available on
our
public ftp site, which I had pointed them too--instead they used a spreadsheet
file that my
associate Scott Rutherford had prepared. In this file, most of the early series
were
overprinted at later years. This resulted in the reconstruction becoming

increasingly
spurious as one goes further back in time--the estimates prior to 1700 or so were
rendered
meaningless. There were also some other methodological errors that will be
detailed
shortly, but this was the big one.
So they will probably have to retract the paper. You can find out more about this
here, on
journalist David Appell's "blog":
[1]http://www.davidappell.com/
We also have an op-ed piece going out this afternoon, further detailing the
problems. Will
send that as soon as its available. I've attached a few other relevant documents,
and I'm
forwarding another email I sent out to colleagues yesterday, just after I had
discovered
the main problem in what they've done...
mike
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachJournalists.re.EandEfin-revised.doc"
References
1. http://www.davidappell.com/

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: "raymond s.bradley" , mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Phil

Jones" , Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn , mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Scott Rutherford Subject:
Can you believe it??? Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 09:02:53 -0500
Guys, can you take a look at this.
I think that everything I say here is true! But we've got to be sure.
There are more technical things they did wrong that I want to add, but this is the
critical
bit--what do you think. Comments? Thanks...
mike
________________________________________
The recent paper by McIntyre and McKitrick (Energy and Environment, 14, 751-771)
claims to
be an "audit" of the analysis of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) or "MBH98". An

audit
involves a careful examination, using the same data and following the exact
procedures used
in the report or study being audited. McIntyre and McKitrick ("MM") have done no
such
thing, having used neither the data nor the procedures of MBH98. Their analysis is
notable
only in how deeply they have misrepresented the data, methods, and results of
MBH98.
Journals that receive critical comments on a previously published papers always

provide the
authors who are being criticized an opportunity to review the study prior to
publication,
and offer them the chance to respond. This is standard operating procedure in any
legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journal. Mann and colleagues were never given
this
opportunity, nor were any other leading paleoclimate scientists that we're
familiar with.
It is unfortunate that the profound errors, and false and misleading statements,
and
entirely spurious results provided in the McIntyre and McKitrick article were ever
allowed
to see the light of day by those would have been able to detect them. . We suspect
the
extremely checkered history of "Energy and Environment" has some role to play in
this. The
authors should retract their article immediately, and issue a public apology to
the climate
research community for the injustice they have done in publishing and promoting
this deeply
deceptive and flawed analysis.
Not only were critical errors made in their analysis that render it thoroughly
invalid, but
there appear to have been several strikingly subjective decisions made to remove
key
indicators of the original MBH98 network prior to AD 1600, with a dramatic impact
on the
resulting reconstruction. It is precisely the over which the numerous indicators

were
removed (pre 1600 period) during which MM reconstruct anomalous warmth that is in
sharp
opposition to the cold conditions observed in MBH98 and nearly all other
independent
published estimates that we know of.
While the authors dutifully cite the small inconsistency between the number of
proxy
indicators reported by, and found in the public data archive, of Mann et al back
in time
(there indeed appear to have been some minor typos in the MBH98 paper), it is odd
that they
do not cite the number of indicators in their putative version of the Mann et al
network
based on the independent collection of data, back time. The reader is literally
left to do
a huge amount of detective work, based on the tables in their pages 20-23, to
determine
just what data have been eliminated from the original Mann et al network. It seems
odd,
indeed, that their "substitutions" of other versions (or in some case, only
apparent, and
not actual, versions) of proxy data series for those in the original Mann et al
(1998)
network has the selective effect of deleting key proxy indicators that contribute
dramatic
cooling during the 16th century, when the MM reconstruction shows an anomalous
warming
departure from the Mann et al (1998) and all other published Northern Hemisphere
temperature reconstructions.
Here are some blatant examples:
1) The authors (see their Figure 4) substitute a younger version of one of the
Jacoby et al
Northern Treeline series for the older version used by MBH98. This substitution
has effect
of removing a predictor of 15th century cooling [Incidentally, MM make much of the

tendency
for some tree ring series, such as this one, to show an apparent cooling over the
past
couple decades. Scientists with expertise in dendroclimatology know that this

behavior
represents a decrease in the sensitivity to temperature in recent decades that

likely is
related to conditions other than temperature which are limiting tree growth]
2) The authors eliminate, without any justification, the entire dataset of 70

Western North
American (WNA) tree-ring series available between 1400 and 1600 (this dataset is
represented, by MBH98, in terms of a smaller number of representative Principal

Component
time series). The leading pattern of variance in this data set exhibits conditions
from
1400-1800 that are dramatically colder than the mid and late 20th century, and a
very
prominent cooling in the 15th century in particular. The authors eliminated this
entire
dataset because they claimed that the underlying data was not available in the
public
domain.
In point of fact, not only were the individual WNA data all available on the
public ftp
site provided by Mann and colleagues:
[1]ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/, but they were

also
available, despite the claims to the contrary by MM, on NOAA's website as well:
[2]ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/treering/chronologies/northamerica/usa
The deletion of this critical (see Mann et al, 1999) dataset appears to one of the
more
important censorings performed by MM that allows them to achieve their spurious

result of
apparent 15th-16th century warmth.
We have not, as yet, finished determining just how many important indicators were
subtly
censored from the MBH98 dataset by the various subjective substitutions described
on pages
20-23. However, given the relatively small number of indicators available between
1400-1500
in the MBH98 network (22-24) and their elimination of some of the more critical
ones, it
would appear that this subjective censoring of data, alone, explains the spurious,
misleading, and deceptive result achieved by the authors.
Incidentally, MBH98 go to great depths to perform careful cross-validation

experiments as a
function of increasing sparseness of the candidate predictors back in time, to

demonstrate
statistically significant reconstructive skill even for their earlier (1400-1450)
reconstruction interval. MM describe no cross-validation experiments. We wonder

what the
verification resolved variance is for their reconstruction based on their 1400-

1450
available network, during the independent latter 19th century period?
There are numerous other serious problems that would render the MM analysis
completely
invalid, even in the absence of the serious issue raised above, and these are
detailed
below
.
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
References
1. ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/
2. ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/treering/chronologies/northamerica/usa

From: "raymond s. bradley" To: Tim Osborn , p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,

k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: One way out.... Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:55:18
-0500 Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Tim, Phil, Keef: I suggest a way out of this mess. Because of the complexity of
the arguments involved, to an uniformed observer it all might be viewed as just
scientific nit-picking by "for" and "against" global warming proponents. However,
if an "independent group" such as you guys at CRU could make a statement as to
whether the M&M effort is truly an "audit", and if they did it right, I think that
would go a long way to defusing the issue. It's clear from the figure that Reno
Knuti sent yesterday that something pretty whacky happened in their analysis prior
to ~AD1600, and this led Mike to figure out the problem. See:
file:///c:/eudora/attach/nh_temp_rec.jpg
If you are willing, a quick and forceful statement from The Distinguished CRU Boys
would help quash further arguments, although here, at least, it is already quite
out of control.....yesterday in the US Senate the debate opened on the McCain-
Lieberman bill to control CO2 emissions from power plants. Sen Inhofe stood up &
showed the M & M figure and stated that Mann et al--& the IPCC assessment --was
now disproven and so there was no reason to control CO2 emissions.....I wonder how
many times a "scientific" paper gets reported on in the Senate 3 days after it is
published.... Ray
From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Keith Briffa , "raymond s. bradley" , Tim Osborn ,
p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re: One way out.... Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 14:26:55
-0500 Cc: mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi Keith,
sorry--yes, I think the Nature idea would be great. Definitely give it a try!
thanks,
mike
Things obviously moving over there - this result looks good.Just thought I'd send
this
first bit (up to dotted line) of edited version , to illustrate possible toning
down?
Have to go now and feed daughter . Will wait til see your joint version first
thing
tomorrow - rest assured, that am entirely with you on this and still appalled by
the MM
stuff - but keeping your distance and calm stance is still urged.
all the best to all
any objections if I talk to Nature tomorrow?
Keith
Guys,
So the verification RE for the "censored" NH mean reconstruction? -6.64
The verification RE for the original MBH98 NH mean reconstruction: 0.42
I think the case is really strong now!
What if were to eliminate the discussion of all the other technical details (and
just
say they exist), and state more nicely that these series were effectively censored
by
their substitutions, and that by removing those series which they censored, I get
a
similar result, with a dismal RE.
And most people would keep the RE of 0.42 over the RE of -6, right? So this would
make
that point. I think we also need to say something about the process, etc. (the
intro was
based on something that Malcolm/Ray had originally crafted).
Thoughts, comments? Thanks,
mike
I'm thinking of a note saying basically this, and attaching this figure.
Could everybody sign on to something like this?
Thanks for all your help,
mike
Ray et al
I agree with this idea in principle . Whatever scientific differences and

fascination
with the nuances of techniques we may /may not share, this whole process
represents the
most despicable example of slander and down right deliberate perversion of the
scientific process , and bias (unverified) work being used to influence public
perception and due political process. It is , however, essential that you (we) do
not
get caught up in the frenzy that these people are trying to generate, and that
will more
than likely lead to error on our part or some premature remarks that we might
regret. I
do think the statement re Mike's results needs making , but only after it can be
based
on repeated work and in full collaboration of us all. I am happy to push Tim to

take the
lead and collaborate in this - and I feel we could get sanction very quickly from
the
DEFRA if needed. BUT this must be done calmly , and in the meantime a restrained
statement but out saying we have full confidence in Mike's objectivity and
independence
- which we can not say of the sceptics. In fact I am moved tomorrow to contact
Nature
and urge them to do an editorial on this . The political machinations in

Washington
should NOT dictate the agenda or scheduling of the work - but some cool statement
can be
made saying we believe the "prats have really fucked up someway" - and that the
premature publication of their paper is reprehensible . Much of the detail in

Mikes
response though is not sensible (sorry Mike) and is rising to their bate.
Keith
At 11:55 AM 10/30/03 -0500, raymond s. bradley wrote:
Tim, Phil, Keef:
I suggest a way out of this mess. Because of the complexity of the arguments
involved,
to an uniformed observer it all might be viewed as just scientific nit-picking by

"for"
and "against" global warming proponents. However, if an "independent group" such

as you
guys at CRU could make a statement as to whether the M&M effort is truly an
"audit", and
if they did it right, I think that would go a long way to defusing the issue.
It's clear from the figure that Reno Knuti sent yesterday that something pretty
whacky
happened in their analysis prior to ~AD1600, and this led Mike to figure out the
problem. See:
[1]file:///c:/eudora/attach/nh_temp_rec.jpg
If you are willing, a quick and forceful statement from The Distinguished CRU Boys
would
help quash further arguments, although here, at least, it is already quite out of
control.....yesterday in the US Senate the debate opened on the McCain-Lieberman

bill to
control CO2 emissions from power plants. Sen Inhofe stood up & showed the M & M
figure
and stated that Mann et al--& the IPCC assessment --was now disproven and so there
was
no reason to control CO2 emissions.....I wonder how many times a "scientific"

paper gets
reported on in the Senate 3 days after it is published....
Ray
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
References
1. file://c:eudoraattachnh_temp_rec.jpg/

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: f055 , "p.jones" , "raymond s. bradley" , f055 , Keith
Briffa , Tim Osborn Subject: RE: CLIMLIST Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 05:37:03 -0500
Cc: mhughes
Thanks very much Tim,

I was hoping that the revisions would ally concerns people had.
I'll look forward to your comments on this latest draft. I agree w/ Malcolm on the
need to
be careful w/ the wording in the first paragraph. The first paragraph is a bit of
relic of
a much earlier draft, and maybe we need to rethink it a bit. Takinig the high road
is
probably very important here. If *others* want to say that their actions represent
scientific fraud, intellectual dishonesty, etc. (as I think we all suspect they
do), lets
let *them* make these charges for us!
Lets let our supporters in higher places use our scientific response to push the
broader
case against MM. So I look forward to peoples attempts to revise the first par.
particular.
I took the liberty of forwarding the previous draft to a handfull of our closet
colleagues,
just so they would have a sense of approximately what we'll be releasing later
today--i.e.,
a heads up as to
how MM achieved their result...
look forward to us finalizing something a bit later--I still think we need to get
this out
ASAP...
mike
SAt 03:01 AM 10/31/2003 +0000, f055 wrote:
Dear all,
I've just finished preparing a detailed response offline, only to log on to
send it to you all and find new versions from Mike plus more comments
and information. Well, I don't have time to change my message now, so
will paste it below this message. But bear in mind that the new draft may
well have allayed many of my concerns - in particular, a quick glance

shows the figure to be much more convincing than the one Mike circulated
earlier, indeed it seems to be utterly convincing! I'll reply again on
Friday
morning once I've had time to read the new draft. In the meantime, here is
my message as promised.
************************************************************
Dear MBH (cc to CRU),
The number of emails has been rather overwhelming on this issue and
I'm struggling to catch up with them! But I will attempt to catch up with a
few things here...
(1) The single worst thing about the whole M&M saga is not that they did
their study, not that they did things wrong (deliberately or by accident), but
that neither they nor the journal took the necessary step of investigating
whether the difference between their results and yours could be explained
simply by some error or set of errors in their use of the data or in their
implementation of your method. If it turns out, as looks likely from Mike's
investigation of this, that their results are erroneous, then they and the
journal will have wasted countless person-hours of time and caused
much damage in the climate policy arena.
(2) Given that this is the single worst thing about the saga, we must not go
and do exactly the same in rushing out a response to their paper. If some
claims in the response turned out to be wrong, based on assumptions
about what M&M did or assumptions about how M&M's assumptions
affect the results, then it would end up with a number of iterations of claim
and counter claim. Ultimately the issue might be settled, but by then the
waters could be so muddied that it didn't matter.
(3) Not only do I advise against an overly rushed response, but I'm also
wondering whether it really ought to be only from MBH, for three reasons.
(i) It is your paper/results that are being attacked.

(ii) It is difficult to endorse everything that Mike has put in the draft
response because I don't know 100% of the details of MBH and the MBH
data. Sure, I can endorse some things, but others I wouldn't know. Sure,
I accept Mike's explanation because he's looked at this stuff for 4 days
and I believe he'll have got it right - but that's different to an independent
check. That must come from Ray or Malcolm if possible.
(iii) If it does come to any independent assessment of who's right and
who's wrong, then it would be difficult for us to be involved if we had
already signed up to what some might claim to be a knee-jerk reaction to
the M&M paper. If that happened, then you would want us to be free to get
involved to make sure the process was fair and informed.
This sounds like a cop out, but - like I say - I'm not sure about point (3) so
feel free to try to convince me otherwise if you wish. Anyway Keith or Phil
may be happy to sign up to a (quick or slow) response, despite my
reservations above.
I really advise a very careful reading of M&M and their supplementary
website to ensure that everything in the response is clearly correct -
precisely to avoid point (2). I've only just started to do this, but already
have some questions about the response that Mike has drafted.
(a) Mike, you say that many of the trees were eliminated in the data they
used. Have you concluded this because they entered "NA" for "Not
available" in their appendix table? If so, then are you sure that "NA"
means they did not use any data, rather than simply that they didn't
replace your data with an alternative (and hence in fact continued to use
what Scott had supplied to them)? Or perhaps "NA" means they couldn't
find the PC time series published (of course!), but in fact could find the
raw tree-ring chronologies and did their own PCA of those? How would
they know which raw chronologies to use? Or did you come to your
conclusion by downloading their "corrected and updated" data matrix and

comparing it with yours - I've not had time to do that, but even if I had and
found some differences, I wouldn't know which was right seeing as I've
not done any PCA of western US trees myself? My guess would be that
they downloaded raw tree-ring chronologies (possibly the same ones you
used) but then applied PCA only to the period when they all had full data -
hence the lack of PCs in the early period (which you got round by doing
PCA on the subset that had earlier data). But this is only a guess, and
this is the type of thing that should be checked with them - surely they
would respond if asked? - to avoid my point (2) above. And if my guess
were right, then your wording of "eliminated this entire data set" would
come in for criticism, even though in practise it might as well have been.
(b) The mention of ftp sites and excel files is contradicted by their email
record on their website, which shows no mention of excel files (they say
an ASCII file was sent) and also no record that they knew the ftp address.
This doesn't matter really, since the reason for them using a corrupted
data file is not relevant - the relevant thing is that it was corrupt and had
you been involved in reviewing the paper then it could have been found
prior to publication. But they will use the email record if the ftp sites and
excel files are mentioned.
(c) Not sure if you talk about peer-review in the latest version, but note
that
they acknowledge input from reviewers and Fred Singer's email says he
refereed it - so any statement implying it wasn't reviewed will be met with
an easy response from them.
(d) Your quick-look reconstruction excluding many of the tree-ring data,
and the verification RE you obtain, is interesting - but again, don't rush
into
using these in any response. The time series of PC1 you sent is certainly
different from your standard one - but on the other hand I'd hardly say you
"get a similar result" to them, the time series look very different (see their
fig 6d). So the dismal RE applies only to your calculation, not to their
reconstruction. It may turn out that their verification RE is also very
negative, but again we cannot assume this in case we're wrong and they
easily counter the criticism.
(e) Claims of their motives for selective censoring or changing of data, or
for the study as a whole, may well be true but are hard to prove. They
would claim that their's is an honest attempt at reproducing a key
scientific result. If they made errors in what they did, then maybe they're
just completely out of their depth on this, rather than making deliberate
errors for the purposes of achieving preferred results.
(f) The recent tree-ring decline they refer to seems related to
tree-ring-width not density. Regardless of width of density, this issue
cannot simply be dismissed as a solved problem. Since they don't make
much of an issue out of it, best just to ignore it.
(g) [I'm rambling now into an un-ordered list of things, so I'll stop soon!]
The various other problems relating to temperature data sets, detrended
standard deviations, PCs of tree-ring subsets etc. sound likely errors -
though I've got no way of providing the independent check that you asked
for. But it is again a bit of a leap of faith to say that these *explain* the
different results that they get. Certainly they throw doubt on the validity
of
their results, but without actually doing the same as them it's not possible
to say if they would have replicated your results if they hadn't made these
errors. After all, could the infilling of missing values have made much
difference to the results obtained, something that they made a good deal
of fuss about?
(h) To say they "used neither the data nor the procedures of MBH98" will
also be an easy target for them, since they did use the data that was sent
to them and seemed to have used approximately the method too (with
some errors that you've identified). This reproduced your results to some
extent (certainly not perfectly, but see Fig 6b and 6c). Then they went
further to redo it with the "corrected and updated" data - but only after
first
doing approximately what they claimed they did (i.e. the audit).
These comments relate to random versions of the draft response, so
apologies if they don't all seem relevant to the current draft. I don't have
these in front of me, here at home, so I'm doing this from memory of what
I've read over the past few days. But nevertheless, the point is that a quick
response would ultimately require making a number of assumptions
about what they did and assumptions about whether this explains the
differences or not - assumptions that might be later shot down (in part
only, at most, but still sufficient to muddy the debate for most outsiders).
A quick response ought to be limited to something like:
---------------------------------------------
The recent paper by McIntyre and McKitrick (2003; hereafter MM03) claims
to be an "audit" of the analysis of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998;
hereafter MBH98). MM03 are unable to reproduce the Northern
Hemisphere temperature reconstruction of MBH98 when attempting to
use the same proxy data and methods as MBH98, though they obtain
something similar with clearly anomalous recent warming (their Figure
6c). They then make many modifications to the proxy data set and repeat
their analysis, and obtain a rather different result to MBH98.
Unfortunately neither M&M nor the journal in which it was published took
the necessary step of investigating whether the difference between their
results and MBH98 could be explained simply by some error or set of
errors in their use of the data or in their implementation of the MBH98

method. This should have been an essential step to take in a case such
as this where the difference in results is so large and important. Simple
errors must first be ruled out prior to publication. Even if the authors had
not undertaken this by presenting their results to the authors of MBH98,
the journal should certainly have included them as referees of the
manuscript.
A preliminary investigation into the proxy data and implementation of the
method has already identified a number of likely errors, which may turn
out to be the cause of the different results. Rather than repeating M&M's
failure to follow good scientific practise, we are witholding further
comments until we can - by collaboration with M&M if possible - be certain
of exactly what changes to data and method were made by M&M, whether
these changes can really explain the differences in the results, and
eventually which (if any) of these changes can be justified as equally valid
(given the various uncertainties that exist) and which are simply errors that
invalidate their results.
-----------------------------------------
Hope you find this all helpful, and despite my seemingly critical approach,
take them in the spirit with which they are aimed - which is to obtain a
strong and hard hitting rebuttal of bad science, but a rebuttal that cannot
be buried by any minor innaccuracies or difficult-to-prove claims.
Best regards
Tim
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
References

From: Tim Osborn To: "Phil Jones" ,"Keith Briffa" Subject: Fwd: Re: McIntyre-
McKitrick and Mann-Bradley-Hughes Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:12:53 +0000
>From: "Sonja.B-C" >Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:58:06 +0000 >To: Steve McIntyre
>Subject: Re: McIntyre-McKitrick and Mann-Bradley-Hughes >Cc:
L.A.Love@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tim Osborn , > Ross McKitrick >Priority: NORMAL >X-Mailer:
Execmail for Win32 5.1.1 Build (10) > >Dear Steve >Please send your material for
comment direct to Tim, Osborne.I >would like to publish the whole debate early
next year, but >'respectful' comments in the meantime can only help and the CRU
people >seem genuinely interested and have integrity. I have never heard of >such
bad behaviour here as appears to have been the case between >Sallie and Soon and
the rest..the US adversarial system and too many >egos?? >As you know ,the contact
is Tim Osborn and I take >the liberty to forward this to him now. You seem to
suggest that this >is welcome and are making make direct comments on his remarks
to me >concerning your paper. > >We shall get the printed proof, as a single
electronic file today, and >shall look through it early next week. I am sure you
do not want to see >your paper again? I think that adding anymore now (the
exchanges >between you and Mann/Bradley and perhaps now Tim as well) is premature
>and we shall wait until the next issue. Mann is said to be writing >something,
but he has not yet contacted me, though I just hang up on >that journalist Appell
who keeps on ringing. I told him that I will >deal only directly with Mann. What
cheek, after threatening me with >litigation...Just keep me in the loop. Thanks. >
>Sonja >PS .By the way The Economist has taken up a previous paper from E&E
>(Castles and Henderson, the social science critique of teh emission >scenarios),
and teh Australian and UK Treasuries have become involved. >I have not seen it
yet. As you know, I have always argued that the real >'driver' of teh IPCC
deception, if that is the right word, has been on >teh social /technology forcing
side, with focus of WG III. > >In London I heard two days ago that the WTO might
make ratification of >Kyoto conditional for something Russia wants. The source was
speaker >from the Deutsche Bank, a Justin Mundy, former advisor to the EU
>Commission on EU-Russia coordination and once senior advisor to the >European
Centre for Nature Conservation, he also worked for the World >Bank.) >Sonja > >On
Fri, 7 Nov 2003 09:50:33 -0500 >Steve McIntyre wrote: > > > Dear Sonja, > > > > >
> The interesting thing about their preliminary response, however, is > that it >
> > > indicates that the difference in results might be fully explained by a > > >
> simple error in not using many of the early tree-ring data. If > this is > > > >
confirmed by their fuller response, then, even though there may be > some > > > >
problems with the proxy data used by Mann et al., it implies that > these > > > >
problems do not actually make a lot of difference to the results - > the main > >
> > difference comes from omitting the early tree-ring data. A paper that > > > >
identifies some problems with the proxy data used by Mann et al. would > > > >
still be interesting, but if these problems made very little > difference to > > >
> the results obtained, then it would be of rather minor importance. > > > > > >
(1) IMHO the data issues rise above "some problems". When you're > doing a
prospectus, audit or engineering-level feasibility study, there > is a concerted
effort to eliminate every error. I have never seen such > sloppy data as MBH98.
Perhaps from my business experience, I am used to > a more demanding approach to
data integrity than the above comment > suggests about academic studies. Even the
MBH response criticizes us for > failing to use obsolete data. How silly is that.
Bradley has also said > that an "audit" should use original data and should not
verify against > source data and says that I should know better. I think that my >
experience with audits and engineering studies is more substantial than >
Bradley's and this is an extraordinarily silly thing for him to > say. After the
fact, one of the key mis-steps in the Bre-X fraud was > the engineering report in
which ore reserves were calculated using false > data supplied to the consulting
engineers by Bre-X, without any > verification being carried out by the engineers.
> > > (2) There was not a "simple error" of simply not using many of the > early
tree-ring data. The early tree-ring data in question are principal > components of
North American tree ring sites and of Stahle/SWM (also > North American) tree ring
sites . MBH98 states that they used > conventional principal components methods
for temperature. They do not > explicitly say that they used conventional
principal components methods > for tree ring regions, but, in the absence of
disclosure otherwise, this > is certainly the most reasonable interpretation of
the public disclosure > (leaving aside Mann's refusal to provide clarification in
response to our > inquiries on methods.) A "conventional" principal component
calculation > requires that there be no missing data. Accordingly this indicator
became > unavailable in the earlier years using conventional principal component >
calculations - it was not "left out". MBH now disclose for the very > first time
that they used a "stepwise principal components approach", > although this is
nowhere disclosed in MBH98 or in the SI thereto. They > have still not disclosed
the rosters of principal components involved. If > this method is material to
their results, as they now state, then it was > a material omission in their prior
disclosure. It seems like a very > strange rebuttal for MBH to say: you're at
fault because we made a > material non-disclosure on methodology in our papers. If
I were in MBH's > shoes, I would be embarrassed at this non-disclosure and
mitigating the > situation by making full disclosure now. . When you do a
prospectus, you > have to sign an affidavit that there are no material omissions.
I have > approached disclosure questions on the basis that prospectus-level >
disclosure is the minimum level of public disclosure in this matter, > assuming
that this level of disclosure would be exceeded. > > > > (3) I've redone
calculations with a re-calculated US PC1 in and get > results similar to those in
E&E, rather than the MBH response. This is > not a guarantee that I have fully
replicated still undisclosed MBH > methodology. However, MBH disclosure of their
methodology is very > inadequate and without full disclosure by MBH of their
methods, it is > possible to be somewhat at cross-purposes. This defective
disclosure is > entirely their responsibility. It should be remedied immediately
through > FTP disclosure of their computer programs and full description of their
> methodology. > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > >>It is quite obvious that if the
opinion of these three people > from the > > > > >>UK University of East Anglia
concerning publication of teh M&M paper > > > > >>had been sought and taken, there
would not have been no publication. > > > > > > > > Then I suggest you read our
commentary again, which does not state > this at all. > > > > > > Part 2 has been
drafted and I would be delighted to obtain comments on > it from UEA/CRU. Indeed,
I think that it would be very constructive, > since Part 2 is significantly more
hard-edged than Part 1. Because we > have stated that we would post up a reply to
the MBH response, we would > have to disclose something on our websites, but I'd
be prepared to deal > with this. Intuitively, full, true and plain disclosure
would be to state > that we have prepared a reply and submitted it to UEA/CRU for
> comments. I think that the many data errors will be self-evident to > UEA/CRU;
we have organized our materials to show this, as will be the > material non-
disclosures on methodology by MBH. However, if they are > prepared to comment,
this would have to be agreed on very quickly as we > are very close to finalizing
our repy. > > > > Regards, > > Steve > >---------------------- >Dr.Sonja Boehmer-
Christiansen >Reader,Department of Geography, >Editor, Energy & Environment
>(Multi-science,www.multi-science.co.uk) >Faculty of Science >University of Hull
>Hull HU6 7RX, UK >Tel: (0)1482 465349/6341/5385 >Fax: (0)1482 466340 >Sonja.B-
C@xxxxxxxxx.xxx


From: Tim Osborn To: "Keith Briffa" ,"Phil Jones" Subject: Fwd: MBH98 Date: Wed,
12 Nov 2003 11:01:22 +0000
Keith and Phil,
you will have seen Stephen McIntyre's request to us. We need to talk about it,
though my initial feeling is that we should turn it down (with carefully
worded/explained reason) as another interrim stage and prefer to make our input at
the peer-review stage.
In the meantime, here is an email (copied below) to Mike Mann from McIntyre,
requesting data and programs (and making other criticisms). I do wish Mike had not
rushed around sending out preliminary and incorrect early responses - the waters
are really muddied now. He would have done better to have taken things slowly and
worked out a final response before publicising this stuff. Excel files, other
files being created early or now deleted is really confusing things!
Anyway, because McIntyre has now asked Mann directly for his data and programs,
his request that *we* send McIntyre's request to Mann has been dropped (I would
have said "no" anyway).
So it's just the second bit, that we review part 2 of this response, that needs to
be answered.
Cheers
Tim
>From: "Steve McIntyre" >To: "Michael E. Mann" >Cc: "Tim Osborn" , > "Ross
McKitrick" >Subject: MBH98 >Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 23:39:46 -0500 > >November 11,
2003 > > > >Professor Michael E. Mann > >School of Earth Sciences > >University of
Virginia > > > > > > > >Dear Professor Mann, > > > >We apologize for not sending
you a copy of our recent paper ("MM") in >Energy and Environment for comment, as
we understood from your email of >September 25, 2003 that time constraints
prevented you from considering >our material. We notice that you seem to have
subsequently changed your >mind and hope that you will both be able to clarify
some points for us and >to rectify the public record on other points. > > > >1)
You have claimed that we used the wrong data and the wrong >computational
methodology. We would like to reconcile our results to >actual data and
methodology used in MBH98. We would therefore appreciate >copies of the computer
programs you actually used to read in data (the 159 >data series referred to in
your recent comments) and construct the >temperature index shown in Nature (1998)
("MBH98"), either through email >or, preferably through public FTP or web posting.
> > > >2) In some recent comments, you are reported as stating that we requested
>an Excel file and that you instead directed us to an FTP site for the >MBH98
data. You are also reported as saying that despite having pointed us >to the FTP
site, you and your colleague took trouble to prepare an Excel >spreadsheet, but
inadvertently introduced some collation errors at that >time. In fact, as you no
doubt recall, we did not request an Excel >spreadsheet, but specifically asked for
an FTP location, which you were >unable or unwilling to provide. Nor was an Excel
spreadsheet ever supplied >to us; instead we were given a text file, pcproxy.txt.
Nor was this file >created in April 2003. After we learned on October 29, 2003
that the >pertinent data was reported to be located on your FTP site
>ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub >(and that we were being faulted for not
getting it from there), we >examined this site and found it contains the exact
same file (pcproxy.txt) >as the one we received, bearing a date of creation of
August 8, 2002. On >October 29, 2003, your FTP site also contained the file
pcproxy.mat, a >Matlab file, the header to which read: "MATLAB 5.0 MAT-file,
Platform: >SOL2, Created on: Thu Aug 8 10:18:19 2002." Both files contain
identical >data to the file pcproxy.txt emailed to one of us (McIntyre) in April
>2003, including all collation errors, fills and other problems identified >in MM.
It is therefore clear that the file pcproxy.txt as sent to us was >not prepared in
April 2003 in response to our requests, nor was it >prepared as an Excel
spreadsheet, but in fact it was prepared many months >earlier with Matlab. It is
also clear that, had we gone to your FTP site >earlier, we would simply have found
the same data collation as we received >from Scott Rutherford. Would you please
forthwith issue a statement >withdrawing and correcting your earlier comments. > >
> >3) In reported comments, you also claimed that we overlooked the collation
>errors in pcproxy.txt and "slid" the incorrect data into our calculations, >a
statement which is untrue and made without a reasonable basis. In MM, we
>described numerous errors including, but not limited to, the collation >errors,
indicating quite obviously that we noticed the data problems. We >then describe
how we "firewalled" our data from the errors contained in >the data you provided
us, by re-collating tree ring proxy data from >original sources and carrying out
fresh principal component calculations. >We request that you forthwith withdraw
the claim that we deliberately used >data we knew to be in error. > > > >4) On
November 8, 2003, when we re-visited your FTP site, we noticed the >following
changes since October 29, 2003: (1) the file pcproxy.mat had >been deleted from
your FTP site; (2) the file pcproxy.txt no longer was >displayed under the /sdr
directory, where it had previously been located, >although it could still be
retrieved through an exact call if one >previously knew the exact file name; (3)
without any notice, a new file >named "mbhfilled.mat" prepared on November 4, 2003
had been inserted into >the directory. Obviously, the files pcproxy.mat and
pcproxy.txt are >pertinent to the comments referred to above and we view the
deletion of >pcproxy.mat from the archival record under the current circumstances
as >unjustifiable. Would you please restore these files to your FTP site,
>together with an annotated text file documenting the dates of their >deletion and
restoration. > > > >5) We note that the new file mbhfilled.mat is an array of
dimension >381x2016. Could you state whether this file has any connection to
MBH98, >and, if so, please explain the purpose of this file, why it has been
>posted now and why it was not previously available at the FTP site. > > > >6) Can
you advise us whether the directory MBH98 has been a subdirectory >within the
folder "pub" since July 30, 2002 or whether it was transferred >from another
(possibly private) directory at a date after July 30, 2002? >If the latter, could
you advise on the date of such transfer. > > > > > >We have prepared a 3-part
response to your reply to MM. The first, which >we have released publicly, goes
over some of the matters raised in points >#2-#5 above. The second is undergoing
review. It deals with additional >issues of data quality and disclosure, resulting
from inspection of your >FTP site since October 29, 2003. The third part will
consider the points >made in your response, both in terms of data and methodology,
and will >attempt a careful reconciliation of our calculation methods, hence the
>necessity of our request in point #1. Thank you for your attention. > > > > >
>Yours truly, > > > >Stephen McIntyre Ross McKitrick > > > > >cc: Timothy Osborn


From: RichardSCourtney@xxxxxxxxx.xxx To: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,

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

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

writes:
I would just like
to add that those of us working on climate change detection and attribution
are careful to mask model simulations in the same way that the observations
have been sampled, so these well-known dependencies of nominal trends on the
trend-estimation technique have no bearing on formal detection and
attribution results as quoted, for example, in the IPCC TAR.
I rejected this saying:
At 09:31 21/11/2003, RichardSCourtney@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
>It cannot be known that the 'masking' does not generate additional
>spurious trends. Anyway, why assume the errors in the data sets are
>geographical and not?. The masking is a 'fix' applied to the model
>simulations to adjust them to fit the surface data known to contain

>spurious trends. This is simple GIGO.
Now, Tim Osborn says of my comment;
In a message dated 21/11/03 10:04:56 GMT Standard Time, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

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

do not
alter the fact that the masked data and the unmasked data contain demonstrated
false
trends. And the masking may introduce other spurious trends. So, the conducted
attribution study is pointless because it is GIGO. Ad hominem insults don't change

that.
And nor does the use of peer review to block my publication of the facts of these
matters.
Richard

From: "Janice Darch" To: , Subject: Towards a Sustainable Energy Economy deadline
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 10:35:14 -0000
Dear All, Is any one involved in proposals for this initiative?
Please let me know. Janice
First call for research proposals A call for expressions of interest for
participation in Consortia, Research Groups, Networks, Collaborative Proposals and
Capacity Building Closing date: 5pm, Monday 19 January 2004
Intending applicants should note that all those receiving funding from this
programme will be expected to collaborate with the UK Energy Research Centre
following its establishment on 1st April 2004.
Introduction The Towards a Sustainable Energy Economy programme (TSEC) is aimed at

enabling the UK to access a secure, safe, diverse and reliable energy supply at
competitive prices, while meeting the challenge of global warming. The Engineering
and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC), Economic and Social Research
Council (ESRC) and Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) jointly have
funding of ?28 million for the programme, which is co-ordinated by NERC on behalf
of the three Research Councils, with participation from the Biotechnology and
Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and Council for the Central
Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC). The Councils are advised on the use
of the programme's funds by the TSEC Scientific Advisory Committee.
TSEC is an interdisciplinary research programme that will adopt whole systems

integrated approaches. The Research Councils' working definition of 'a whole
systems approach' is: "A whole systems integrated methodology demanding a truly
interdisciplinary approach that facilitates the joint working of engineering,
technological, natural, environmental, social and economic scientists to tackle
fundamental issues (such as sustainable energy)." A whole systems approach should
ensure that new work carried out complements current and planned activities of the
individual Research Councils in the area concerned and will take into account
known understanding for the issues addressed.
The TSEC programme will provide a focus for, but will not be the only source of,
energy research in the UK. As such, the TSEC programme will aim to make an impact
on UK energy research by promoting this whole systems approach. Proposers wishing
to carry out research under TSEC should familiarise themselves with the role of
TSEC in the energy research landscape, as described in Annex 1.
What research will TSEC support? Up to ?12 million of the programme's funding will
be used to establish the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) by 1st April 2004, for
which the Councils have already invited full proposals. The Centre's two major
activities will be its own research programme and the co-ordination of a National
Energy Research Network.
The remainder of the TSEC programme's funds (at least ?16 million) will be used to
support research that will operate independently of, but complementary to, the
research done by UKERC. Calls for proposals will be broadly under the following
themes:
carbon management
.
nuclear power
renewable energy
managing new uncertainties.
In keeping with the whole systems approach of the programme, applications are
invited from all disciplines that have a research interest in any of the themes
(eg the environmental, social, economic and technological aspects of nuclear
power).
What areas are covered in this call? This first call covers all aspects of the
TSEC programme but the Research Councils wish to focus initially on two of the
themes: nuclear power and managing new uncertainties. It is anticipated that a
further call focused in particular on the other two themes - carbon management and
renewable energy - will be issued in mid-2004.
The present call invites expressions of interest for participation in:
Consortia under the theme Nuclear Power - Keeping the nuclear option open
Research Groups under the theme Managing new uncertainties - The socio-economic
challenges and implications of moving towards a sustainable energy economy
Expressions of interest for Networks and Collaborative proposals will also be

considered, under either of the themes Carbon management and Renewable energy.
.
Expressions of Interest for preparation for projects (Capacity Building) will also
be considered under any of the areas except Nuclear power.
The key features of Consortia, Research Groups, Networks, Collaborative Proposals

and Capacity Building are described in the Application Process.
Consortium bids: Nuclear power - Keeping the Nuclear Option Open The research
challenges in fission R&D span areas as diverse as maintaining and extending the
life of existing generation plant; management of the current and future fission
waste legacy; technology for future fission power generation; and research that
can contribute to an open and informed debate on the current and future role for
nuclear power in the UK's energy supply industry. The scope of this theme has been
broken down into three main topics:
maintaining current generation capacity
fission within a sustainable energy economy
future fission power.
The sponsors intend to commission one or more large, integrated, multidisciplinary

projects that can address the research challenges, with the scope of projects
potentially cutting across the three topics.
Further details on the scope of the theme and consortia requirements can be found
in Annex 2.
Research Group bids: Managing new uncertainties - The Socio-Economic Challenges

and Implications of Moving Towards a Sustainable Energy Economy The aim of this
theme is to facilitate research on the cross-cutting socio-economic challenges and
implications of moving towards a sustainable energy economy and their interactions
with broader technological, engineering, and environmental issues. It offers
opportunities for productive, interdisciplinary research within and beyond the
socio-economic field, with the potential to contribute to the development of
whole-systems approaches to energy issues. Many of the potential research issues
have resonance in a number of other areas of public policy and are not specific to
energy. In line with the aims of the programme, this theme is not constrained by
traditional disciplinary or Research Council boundaries, whilst focusing on the
socio-economic research agenda. Although a number of the proposed topics and
questions focus on UK and European issues, many are generic and could be applied
to both OECD and developing country contexts.
Possible topics identified under this theme include:

.
Processes of long-run change in socio-technical systems
Vulnerability, resilience and adaptiveness
Services, systems of provision and consumption practices
Policies in natural monopolies and liberalised markets
Public attitudes and processes of governance
Energy in the global context
Integrated appraisal of energy systems.
This framework should be regarded as illustrative, not definitive. Researchers are

encouraged to define and justify alternative topics and questions which would
contribute towards the TSEC programme's overall objectives.
More detail on this theme can be found in Annex 3.
Expressions of Interest under the themes Carbon management and Renewable energy
will be considered in this call. However, the following brief indication of the
scope of these two themes is given for initial guidance only; a detailed scope
will be provided in the next call, expected to be mid 2004.
Carbon management Conventional energy research is often vertically divided, so

that research looks at the use of individual fuels, or energy use in particular
industrial, commercial or domestic sectors. There needs to be more "cross-
boundary" and "whole systems" research, looking at how different technologies and
social/environmental factors might be optimised to deliver the overall objectives.
The following are two examples of the type of issues which should be addressed.
Fuel switching and renewables Displacing coal and petroleum with natural gas
and/or biogas, or biofuels, or renewables are alternative ways of reducing carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions. These options require a full whole lifecycle approach to
carbon management, integrating environmental, engineering, resource, economic and
social dimensions. Issues such as length and type of supply chains, emissions
associated with agriculture, fuel processing, infrastructure and construction need
to be fully understood to limit the risk that emissions are increased or displaced
to another part of the energy/resource chain.
Carbon dioxide capture and storage The continued use of fossil fuels will demand
effective carbon management, particularly through reduction of the associated CO2
emissions. The greatest long-term potential for reduced CO2 emissions to the
atmosphere from fossil fuels is likely to be through capturing CO2 from large
industrial point sources before it enters the atmosphere, and then sequestering it
back into the bio/geosphere by geological means. The research challenges include:
the mechanisms of large-scale carbon capture at source, CO2 storage, transport and
distribution, and geological sequestration, monitoring and verification
technologies as well as modelling the long term fate of CO2 injected into a
variety of geological scenarios. Understanding is also needed of the potential
risk posed by CO2 leakage into terrestrial and marine settings, and of the
economic risks, costs and benefits, public acceptability and regulatory issues
associated with moving towards large-scale CO2 capture.
Renewable energy The objectives for TSEC in this area will centre on work that
supports the development of renewable and sustainable energy systems of relevance
to the UK economy. Specifically, it will: encourage the introduction of renewable
and sustainable energy systems into the UK economy; encourage consideration of
renewable energy in the context of social/economic/environmental issues and carbon
management; and provide data for the development of policy. TSEC will fund
research that is complementary to that supported through other Research Council
activities, such as the ongoing Sustainable Power Generation and Supply Programme
(SUPERGEN). Again, the following is purely an example of the type of research
which could be funded.
Carbon cycle audits Audits of full lifecycle carbon (or carbon equivalents of
other greenhouse gases emitted in the lifecycle) need to be undertaken, and the
energy balances of different renewable energy generating technologies need to be
considered and understood, if true impacts on carbon reduction are to be achieved.
For example, if energy crops are to be encouraged, then consequences on land use
change, aquifer recharge, and rainfall run off need to be fully understood. It
would also be important to ensure that the crops are 'low-input' in terms of
energy usage and that the energy balance is therefore positive. Environmental
impacts of growing energy crops would have to be compared with the alternative
land use (food crops, set-aside, etc)), and consideration given to their potential
economic and social impacts.
Risks, barriers and incentives in renewables innovation Innovation will be

essential in the renewables industry if the sector is to play a central role in
future energy supply. Research is required to understand and quantify the risks
inherent in the development of new technology and the barriers preventing its
exploitation to inform both the priorities of future renewable energy R&D and the
development of future market instruments and incentives that can encourage the
effective management of risk and enable the exploitation of the outputs of R&D. In
the longer term, new disruptive technology may significantly affect the operation
of the energy market, and research is required to investigate how incentives and
market instruments can adapt to changing market conditions while still providing a
long term framework within which companies can make capital investments requiring
a return on capital over long (20-30 year) timescales. (In addition to research on
such issues relating specifically to renewables there are opportunities for
broader cross-cutting research on these issues under the Managing New
Uncertainties Theme).
The Application Process The schemes and theme areas under which EoIs will be
accepted in this call are highlighted in colour in the table below.
Nuclear power Managing new uncertainties Carbon management Renewable energy
Consortia
Research groups
Networks
Collaborative proposals
Capacity building
Characteristics of the schemes
Consortium A Consortium will comprise a number of academic groups, normally from

different disciplines and institutions, working in partnership with appropriate
stakeholders and users to design and deliver a collaborative programme of world-
class research. It is expected that the consortium will deliver higher quality
research outputs than groups working in isolation. This call for expressions of
interest is open to all potential partners of a research consortium, irrespective
of their existing links to academic research in the field. Consortia may be funded
at a value of up to ?5m. Expressions of interest can be submitted by individuals,
existing groups, and existing or new collaborations. However, where expressions of
interest are made by a group or collaboration, the Research Councils reserve the
right to take forward those expressions in total or in part during the Consortium-
building process, potentially excluding elements of proposed collaborations.
Research Groups A Research Group will be a national focal point for research where
researchers can collaborate on long-term inter-disciplinary projects. It will
facilitate the building of strong relationships with research users, international
collaboration and the development of the careers of new and outstanding
researchers.
Funded initially for five years, Research Groups will be expected to provide the
training for postgraduate students and other new researchers where appropriate,
and to improve opportunities for securing co-funding or sponsorship from sources
outside the Science Vote. Applications for Research Group funding will normally be
expected to be in the range of ?200k - ?600k per annum although applications
outside this range can be considered.
Networks A major task of UKERC will be to co-ordinate a National Energy Research

Network that will draw in all significant research activities. However, once the
components of this network are known, the TSEC programme will wish to support new
research 'nodes' that complement them. Such complementary activities would
normally be UK-based networks that link research groups and industrial
organisations, across disciplines, to develop new or enhanced collaborations.
Collaborative Proposals These will be intended to support focussed, co-ordinated,
collaborative research into specific issues and will be expected to enhance
opportunities for inter-disciplinary collaboration. A minimum of three eligible
institutions are required for a proposal under this scheme, each of which will be
separately awarded funds. The consortium will retain ownership and management of
the science programme, and a lead institution will be expected to act as co-
ordinator.
Collaboration awards will provide funding for up to five years with costs ranging,
as required by the research, from modest sums up to approximately ?2M. Proposals
may include tied research studentships.
Proposers are free to submit expressions of interest for one or more themes.
Capacity building For projects that require considerable preparation, applicants

may submit an Expression of Interest for capacity building, to a maximum of ?50k,
for:
support for a researcher to work in a different science department for a period of

up to 12 months (eg for a natural scientist to work in a social science
department);
support for an overseas researcher to work in a UK institution, or for a UK

researcher to work in an overseas institution, for up to 12 months focusing on
interdisciplinary research issues;
support for a series of four or more interdisciplinary events (involving social

and natural scientists) over a 12 month period;
scoping studies, focusing on any of the TSEC themes. Applicants must demonstrate
the interdisciplinary nature of the proposed research. Awards may be up to 12
months in duration
Eligibility Standard Research Council eligibility criteria will apply to this

call; those normally eligible to participate in any Research Council programme can
apply. Research Council funding can only be awarded to UK universities, Research
Council institutes, Government Research Establishments and not-for-profit research
organisations. Organisations and industry which are themselves ineligible for
receipt of Research Council funding may participate, using their own cash or in-
kind support.
Applications from members of the public or individuals outside academia will not
be accepted.
Academic expressions of interest may be submitted by leaders of individual

research groups within one or more universities. While existing groups of
researchers are able to apply as a team, it should be recognised that the Research
Councils may recommend the building of new partnerships involving only a minority
of members from existing collaborations. Where there is scope to do so, it is
recommended that individuals submit their own expression of interest on behalf of
their group.
The Selection Process An initial sift of EoIs will be conducted by expert panels
established by the Programme Scientific Advisory Committee or by the SAC.
Applications will be judged on their quality, innovation, originality and
compliance with the objectives of the programme.
Quality - The proposal should indicate clear potential to support innovative and
high quality research of international standing and include information on the
capacity and track record of the applicants in delivering such high quality
research. This should not rely on publication lists, but present evidence of
recognised first-class research, innovation and collaboration.
Innovation - The proposal should present novel approaches to current research

challenges and persuasive approaches to roadmap solutions. This should be in the
context of the research theme defined in the technical appendix.
Originality - The proposal should demonstrate innovative approaches to problem

solving with evidence of ability, creativity and vision and added value to current
research in the field. The application should be focused toward addressing
research challenges of the theme.
Objectives - The applicant should communicate an enthusiasm for collaboration and

ability to contribute to a programme of research that delivers the objectives of
the TSEC programme. They should demonstrate awareness of the drivers affecting the
research agenda and the potential to contribute to the development of whole-
systems approaches to energy issues.
Applicants for consortia will be informed of the outcome of their bids in January
2004 and if successful will be invited to a workshop in March 2004 to facilitate
the formation of consortia partnerships. Attendance at the workshops will be
mandatory for consortium members, including users and industrial collaborators.
Following the workshops, consortium partners will be invited to submit EPSRC grant
applications, which will be subject to rigorous peer review.
Applicants for Research Groups will be informed of the outcome of their bids by
mid-March 2004 and if successful invited to submit full proposals by mid-June.
Assessment of full proposals will entail applicants being interviewed by the
assessment panel in September/October 2004.
All other applicants will be informed of the outcome of their bids in February
2004 and successful applicants invited to submit full proposals as appropriate.
How to Apply
Expressions of Interest Expressions of Interest must be submitted using the

Research Councils' joint application form (available in Word or PDF versions)and
(with the exception of proposals for Research Groups on Managing the New
Uncertainties - see below) be accompanied by no more than four sides of A4 text
(minimum font 12 pt), including diagrams, figures and charts etc. in support of
the application. This should include any relevant information that will assist
assessment of the project that is not covered in the sections of the application
form. It should include
Details of the track record of the applicant or business and the particular
qualities they would bring to the proposal.
Identification of the broad challenge which the applicant would seek to address or
to which they would be able to contribute
Definition of the perceived key research challenges within the theme.
Indication of potential deliverables.
Information on the collaborating organisation in terms of cash or in-kind support

and proposed benefits from collaboration.
Expressions of interest for Research Groups under the 'Managing the New
Uncertainties' theme must be submitted using the Research Councils joint
application form. However instead of the four sides outlined above the form should
be accompanied by the following information:
A research proposal of no more than 3,000 words outlining the main proposed
elements of the proposed Group's research programme and how this would contribute
towards the achievement of the objectives of the Towards a Sustainable Energy
Economy Programme
Plus the following appendices:
- no more than 1 side of A4 (minimum font 12 pt) providing details of references

cited in the research proposal
- no more than 1 side of A4 (minimum font 12 pt) giving details of the proposed
strategies for involving non-academic users at all stages and outlining the
potential for collaboration and/or co-funding
- no more than two sides of A4 (minimum font 12 pt) outlining the proposed
management structure of the Research Group, including time commitments of the
proposed Director(s) and abbreviated cvs for all named applicants.
- no more than one side of A4 (minimum font 12 pt) outlining the Group's strategy
for contributing to the development of inter-disciplinary research capacity in the
field.
In section E of the form, under Scheme applicants should state Consortium, Centre
Group, Network, Collaborative proposal, or Capacity building, as appropriate; and
under Call should insert 'TSEC call 1': followed by the appropriate theme name:
Nuclear; Managing new uncertainties; Carbon Management, or Renewable energy.
As the majority of institutions have not yet registered with the Research Councils
for electronic submission, in this call electronic submissions cannot be accepted.
An original plus ONE copy are required in hard copy. Faxed copies are not
acceptable.
All applications should be submitted to reach the NERC at the address below no
later than 5pm on 19th January 2004. Personal callers may deliver applications
during normal office hours only (9am - 5pm Monday - Friday). The Research Councils
will reject late or incomplete submissions and those that do not comply with the
application criteria set out above.
Receipt of applications will be acknowledged after the closing date. It will
assist administration of the call if applicants do not telephone to enquire if
their proposal has been received.
Applications and administrative queries should be addressed in the first instance

to: Dr Chris Baker (e-mail preferred) Programme Co-ordinator Science and
Innovation Programmes NERC, Polaris House, North Star Avenue SWINDON, Wiltshire
SN2 1EU. Telephone 01793 411758.
Queries regarding the technical aspects of the Nuclear Power theme should be
addressed to: Dr Peter Hedges, EPSRC, telephone 01793 444176. Queries regarding
the application criteria or eligibility for the Nuclear Power theme should be
addressed to the Associate Programme Manager Mr Robert Heathman, Room GFN, EPSRC,
telephone 01793 444131.
Queries regarding the application criteria or eligibility for the Managing New
Uncertainties theme should be addressed to Mr Paul Rouse, Senior Science and
Development Manager, Research Training and Development Directorate (RTD), ESRC, at
the above address, telephone 01793 413030, or Mr Oliver Moss, Science and
Development Manager, RTD, ESRC, telephone 01793 413064.
All other queries should
____________________________ Dr. J.P. Darch Research Administrator School of

Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ U.K.
Tel : 44 (0)1603 592994 Fax : 44 (0)1603 593035
Attachment Converted: up151.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,00000000

From: Jan Esper To: Briffa Keith , Cook Ed Subject: EOS revision Date: Mon, 12 Jan
2004 10:26:27 +0100
Hi Ed and Keith
for your information, I attached the revision of the EOS article. In this version
we added some lines about the data-overlap between the MBH and ECS records.
I also attached a figure showing a comparison between MBH and EsperFULL (using all
data) and EsperSUB (without Tornetraesk and the Polar Urals).
Take care Jan -- Dr. Jan Esper Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL
Zuercherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf Switzerland Phone: +41-1-739 2510 Fax: +41-
1-739 2215 Email: esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattach!Low_and_High_rev.pdf"
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachFigure1.eps.pdf"
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachResponse_Figure.eps.pdf"

From: Phil Jones To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: CLIMATIC CHANGE needs your advice
- YOUR EYES ONLY !!!!! Date: Fri Jan 16 13:25:59 2004
Mike,
This is for YOURS EYES ONLY. Delete after reading - please ! I'm trying to redress
the
balance. One reply from Pfister said you should make all available !! Pot calling
the
kettle
black - Christian doesn't make his methods available. I replied to the wrong
Christian
message
so you don't get to see what he said. Probably best. Told Steve separately and to
get
more
advice from a few others as well as Kluwer and legal.
PLEASE DELETE - just for you, not even Ray and Malcolm
Cheers
Phil
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:37:29 +0000
To: Christian Azar , christian.pfister@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: AW: CLIMATIC CHANGE needs your advice
Cc: "'David G. VICTOR'" , 'Katarina Kivel' ,
N.W.Arnell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, frtca@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, d.camuffo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,

scohen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
pmfearn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jfoley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pgleick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
harvey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ahs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,

rwk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
rik.leemans@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, diana.liverman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mccarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,

lindam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
rmoss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ogilvie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, barrie.pittock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
pollard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, nj.rosenberg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, h.j.schellnhuber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
F.I.Woodward@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gyohe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, leonid@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Steve et al,
I've been away this week until today. Although the responses so far all make valid
points, I
will add my thoughts. I should say I have been more involved in all the exchanges
between
Mike and MM so I'm probably biased in Mike's favour. I will try and be impartial,
though, but
I did write a paper with Mike (which came out in GRL in Aug 2003) and we currently
have
a long paper tentatively accepted by Reviews of Geophysics. With the latter all 4
reviewers
think the paper is fine, but the sections referring to MM and papers by Soon and
Baliunas
are not and our language is strong. We need to work on this.
Back to the question in hand:
1. The papers that MM refer came out in Nature in 1998 and to a lesser extent in
GRL
in
1999. These reviewers did not request the data (all the proxy series) and the
code. So,
acceding to the request for this to do the review is setting a VERY dangerous
precedent.
Mike has made all the data series and this is all anyone should need. Making model
code available is something else.
2. The code is basically irrelevant in this whole issue. In the GRL paper (in 2003
Mann
and Jones), we simply average all the series we use together. The result is pretty
much
the same as MBH in 1998, Nature and MBH in 1999 in GRL.
3. As many of you know I calculate gridded and global/hemispheric temperature time
series
each month. Groups at NCDC and NASA/GISS do this as well. We don't exchange codes
- we do occasionally though for the data. The code here is trivial as it is in the
paleo work.
MBH get spatial patterns but the bottom line (the 1000 year series of global
temps) is
almost the same if you simply average. The patterns give more, though, when it
comes to
trying to understand what has caused the changes - eg by comparison with models.
MM
are only interested in the NH/Global 1000-year time series - in fact only in the
MBH
work
from 1400.
4. What has always intrigued me in this whole debate, is why the skeptics (for
want of
a better term) always pick on Mike. There are several other series that I've
produced,
Keith Briffa has and Tom Crowley. Jan Esper's work has produced a slightly
different
series
but we don't get bombarded by MM. Mike's paper wasn't the first. It was in Nature
and
is well-used by IPCC. I suspect the skeptics wish to concentrate their effort onto
one
person as they did with Ben Santer after the second IPCC report.
5. Mike may respond too strongly to MM, but don't we all decide not to work with
or
co-operate with people we do not get on with or do not like their views. Mike will
say
that MM are disingenuous, but I'm not sure how many of you realise how vicious the
attack on him has been. I will give you an example.
When MM came out, we had several press calls (I don't normally get press calls
about
my papers unless I really work at it - I very rarely do). This was about a paper
in
E&E, which when we eventually got it several days later was appalling. I found out
later that the authors were in contact with the reviewers up to a week before the
article
appeared. So there is peer review and peer review !! Here the peer review was done
by
like-minded colleagues. Anyway, I'm straying from the point. Tim Osborn, Keith
Briffa
and I felt we should put something on our web site about the paper and directs
people
to Mike's site and also to E&E and the MM's site. MM have hounded us about this
for
the last four months. In the MM article, they have a diagram which says 'corrected
version' when comparing with MBH. We have seen people refer to this paper (MM)
as an alternative reconstruction - yet when we said this is our paragraph MM claim

they
are not putting forward a new reconstruction but criticizing MBH 1998 !! We have
decided to remove the sentence on our web page just to stop these emails. But if a
corrected version isn't a new or alternative reconstruction I don't know what is.
So, in conclusion, I would side with Mike in this regard. In trying to be
scrupulously
fair, Steve, you've opened up a whole can of worms. If you do decide to put the
Mann
response into CC then I suspect you will need an editorial. MM will want to
respond
also.
I know you've had open and frank exchanges in CC before, but your email clearly
shows
that you think this is in a different league. MM and E&E didn't give Mann the
chance
to
respond when they put their paper in, but this is a too simplistic. It needs to be
pointed
out in an editorial though - I'm not offering by the way.
I could go on and on ....
Cheers
Phil
At 10:36 15/01/2004 +0100, Christian Azar wrote:
Dear all,
I agree with most of what has been said so far. Reproducibility is the key word.
If the
Mann el al material (to be) posted on the website is sufficient to ensure
reproducibility, then there is no compelling need to force them to hand it out. If

not,
then the source code is warranted. Also, even if there is no compelling need to
make the
source code public, doing it anyway would clearly be beneficial for the entire
debate.
Yours,
Christian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Azar
Professor
Department of physical resource theory
Chalmers University of Technology
G?teborg University
412 96 G?teborg
Sweden
ph: ++46 31 772 31 32
[1]www.frt.fy.chalmers.se
[2]www.miljo.chalmers.se/cei
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://www.frt.fy.chalmers.se/
2. http://www.miljo.chalmers.se/cei

From: Edward Cook To: "Art Johnson" Subject: RE: Seminar Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004
07:55:24 -0500 Cc: druid@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, druidrd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi Art,
Sorry for the lack of response to your emails. Been over the top as usual on
things. I go off to Tasmania and New Zealand on Jan 20 and return on Feb 15.
Bhutan was a bit strange this time. I was sick most of the time, but we did get
some useful stuff done nonetheless.
>Hi Ed, > >I hope your trip to Bhutan went well. We did OK in Chile but
encountered >some glitches. I am emailing about a three things to see if you are
>interested: > >1) What does Gordon know about the big white spruce in the
Mackenzie R. >basin of the northern NWT? I am going to be in Alberta this summer
and it is >one plane ride and a few hundred $ from those big spruce. If I can get
the >cores, are you interested in collaborating on their measurement and
>analysis? If I can track down the person that told us that some of the trees
>were 600 y old, we might be able to find some of them. There are many spruce
>pilings in town that were probably cut in the 50's-70's and some of those >might
have been pretty old trees given their size. What is the availability >of climate
data? Inuvik probably has records back into the 50's when they >rebuilt the town.
Dick Jagels is interested in those trees too, as we are >led to believe that they
need 24 hr photoperiods when they are seedlings. >Could this be a race of trees
that respond to differences in growing-season >sunlight?
I am cc'ing this email to Gordon and Rosanne. I think that they would be
interested in what you describe. They also know what climate data are available. I
recall that Aklavik has a older record that was discontinued a few years back. It
may be possible to merge Aklavik with Inuvik temperature records to cover most of
the 20th century.
> >2) The Forest Service has an RFP out for projects in the "northern forest" >I
think this is defined as mostly Vermont and New Hampshire since it is a >Senate-
funded program sponsored by senators from those states. The "threat" >(their term)
of global warming to forest health is one of the themes that >Chris Eagar is in
charge of. We have been working with Vermont northern >hardwood data collected by
Post and Curtis in the 1950's and redone by us in >the early 90's. There is a very
nice multiple regression model that shows >clearly that temperature
(altitude/latitude) and soil moisture are very good >predictors of site index
(height at 75 yrs. e.g. productivity potential). >Nutrients do not explain any
additional variance. This model would suggest >that warming would improve
productivity, not decrease it. I am wondering if >a dendroclimatological analysis
of maple, beech and ash and yellow birch >would show a response of growth to
summer temperatures? I think we have all >the cores from our 1990 study, and it
would be an easy matter to get more. I >stll owe the Forest Service a couple of
papers from the 90-91 work which >they funded, but I am actually working on them
now, and could have them done >by the March 30 deadline for the full proposal, if
not for the Feb. 13 >preproposal deadline. I'm sure I could talk to Chris to see
if our ideas are >viable, and if we would be penalized for not publishing the
Vermont stuff in >a timely manner.
This sounds interesting. Are you measuring up all of the tree cores? I wouldn't
have the resources to do that without some technician support, but I could
participate in some dendroclimatic analyses of the data with you.
> >3) We are running cellulose O reasonably well at this time, and are still
>interested in seeing if cellulose O is useful in determining whether the
>temperature signal in mideval wood is similar to that of the past century, >and
if there is an isotopic signature in the Little Ice Age wood that >indicates it
was cold. What do you think about the availability of wood >samples from dated
rings from those periods? Is any of the Esper wood >available? When we talked
after your seminar, it seemed to me that the >Scandanavian wood collection might
be useful.
I did ask Keith Briffa about this stuff. He is tied in closely with much of the
work that has been done in Fennoscandia and even over to the Polar Urals. He also
said that there has been some isotopic work done on wood, but he wasn't sure about
results. I suggest that you contact Keith directly (k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx) and
maybe he can direct you to sources of wood for your proposed study. It is
interesting, if a bit chancy in my estimation.
Cheers,
Ed
> > >What do you think? > >Art > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Edward
Cook [mailto:drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx] >Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 2:28 PM
>To: Art Johnson >Subject: RE: Seminar > > >Hi Art, > >I will be driving down to
your digs on Friday, Oct 17 to give the >seminar I promised. When is it scheduled
so I know how early I >definitely have to leave. I need directions to get there as
well, as >I have never been to Penn before. Also, it would be useful to have a
>place to stay Friday night, I suppose. My wife is off to CT to >celebrate a 50th
birthday with a friend that weekend, so there is no >point in zipping back in any
case. > >Cheers, > >Ed >-- >================================== >Dr. Edward R. Cook
>Doherty Senior Scholar and >Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory >Lamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory >Palisades, New York 10964 USA >Email: drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >Phone:
845-365-8618 >Fax: 845-365-8152 >==================================

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

From: Keith Briffa To: "Malcolm Hughes" , "Malcolm Hughes" , Tim Osborn ,"Michael
E. Mann" Subject: Re: J. Climate paper - in confidence Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004
09:45:44 +0000 Cc: Scott Rutherford
Malcolm seems to have done a good job sorting out these constituent sets , and I
don't have anything to add other than agreeing that as a general principal , where
possible, original chronologies should be used in preference to reconstructed
temperature series ( the latter having been already optimized using simple or
multiple regression to fit the target temperature series ). This applies not only
to our western US reconstructions (which it should be stressed are based on very
flexible curve fitting in the standardisation - and inevitably can show little
variance on time scales longer than a decade or so) but also to the Tornetrask and
Polar Urals reconstructions (each of which was based on ring width and density
data , but standardised to try to preserve centennial variability - though the
density series had by far the largest regression coefficients). There is though a
question regarding the PCs of the Siberian network (presumably provided by
Eugene?) . The correlation between density and ring width can get high in central
and eastern parts of the network , so even though these are different variables ,
it might not be strictly true to think of them as truly independent
(statistically) of the density chronologies we use from the Schweingruber network
( there may also be a standardisation issue here , as the density chronologies
were standardised with Hugershoff functions for our initial network work (as
reported in the Holocene Special Issue) whereas your PC amplitudes may be based on
"Corridor Standardisation" - which likely preserves less low frequency? ) . These
remarks are simply for clarification and discussion , and I too will wait on your
response draft , though I would throw in the pot the fact that omitting the time
dependent stuff would simplify the message at his stage. cheers Keith
At 01:42 PM 1/19/04 -0700, Malcolm Hughes wrote: >Mike - there are the following
density data in that set: >1) 20 Schweingruber/Frttss series from the ITRDB (those
that >met the criteria described in the Mann et al 2000 EI paper) >2) Northern
Fennoscandia reconstruction (from Keith) >3) Northern Urals reconstruction (from
Keith) >4) 1 density series for China (Hughes data) and one from India >(also
Hughes data) - neither included in Keith's data set, I think. >5) To my great
surprise I find that you used the Briffa gridded >temperature reconstruction from
W. N. America (mis-attributed >to Fritts and Shao) - of course I should have
picked up on this 6 >years ago when reading the proofs of the Nature sup mat. It
was >my understanding that we had decided not to use these >reconstructions, as
the data on which they were based were in the >ITRDB, and had been subject to that
screening process. So >depending on whether you used the long or the shorter
versions >of these, there will have been a considerable number of density >series
included , some of them twice. It means that there is >considerably more overlap
between the two data sets, in North >America, than I have been telling people. I
stand corrected. >Cheers, Malcolm >. >.Malcolm Hughes >Professor of
Dendrochronology >Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research >University of Arizona >Tucson,
AZ 85721 >520-621-6470 >fax 520-621-8229
-- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia

Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

From: "Malcolm Hughes" To: Keith Briffa , "Malcolm Hughes" , Tim Osborn , "Michael
E. Mann" Subject: Re: J. Climate paper - in confidence Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004
10:27:09 -0700 Cc: Scott Rutherford , mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Mike - you are right that we should probably leave the network uncahnged for this
mss. In fact, however, as Keith indicated, the Vaganov data probably retained a
fair amount of low frequency because of the use of the corridor method (i.e. were
not "heavily standardized"). CHeers, Malcolm On 20 Jan 2004 at 7:58, Michael E.
Mann wrote:
> Thanks Keith, > > I agree w/ this--I think the Vaganov chronologies were pretty
heavily > standardized, and the other issues you raise are important. In the >
future, we would (and will) be a bit more circumspect about the use of > some of
these data. > > In the present case, however, I think we are forced to use the
exact > same network. > > Re, the omission of some results. I think we can
probably keep them. > Simply by cleaning up the text, removing redundancy, etc.
I've > shortened and tightened the manuscript considerably, and I think I've >
improved the logical flow a bit in the process. So my feeling is that > we will
not have to split this up, but I'll leave this to all of you > to decide after you
see the revised draft from Scott and me... > > Thanks, > > mike > > At 09:45 AM
1/20/2004 +0000, Keith Briffa wrote: > Malcolm seems to have done a good job
sorting out these > constituent sets , and I don't have anything to add other than
> agreeing that as a general principal , where possible, original > chronologies
should be used in preference to reconstructed > temperature series ( the latter
having been already optimized > using simple or multiple regression to fit the
target temperature > series ). This applies not only to our western US
reconstructions > (which it should be stressed are based on very flexible curve >
fitting in the standardisation - and inevitably can show little > variance on time
scales longer than a decade or so) but also to > the Tornetrask and Polar Urals
reconstructions (each of which was > based on ring width and density data , but
standardised to try to > preserve centennial variability - though the density
series had by > far the largest regression coefficients). There is though a >
question regarding the PCs of the Siberian network (presumably > provided by
Eugene?) . The correlation between density and ring > width can get high in
central and eastern parts of the network , > so even though these are different
variables , it might not be > strictly true to think of them as truly independent
> (statistically) of the density chronologies we use from the > Schweingruber
network ( there may also be a standardisation issue > here , as the density
chronologies were standardised with > Hugershoff functions for our initial network
work (as reported in > the Holocene Special Issue) whereas your PC amplitudes may
be > based on "Corridor Standardisation" - which likely preserves less > low
frequency? ) . These remarks are simply for clarification and > discussion , and I
too will wait on your response draft , though I > would throw in the pot the fact
that omitting the time dependent > stuff would simplify the message at his stage.
cheers Keith > > At 01:42 PM 1/19/04 -0700, Malcolm Hughes wrote: > Mike - there
are the following density data in that set: > 1) 20 Schweingruber/Frttss series
from the ITRDB (those that > met the criteria described in the Mann et al 2000 EI
paper) > 2) Northern Fennoscandia reconstruction (from Keith) > 3) Northern Urals
reconstruction (from Keith) > 4) 1 density series for China (Hughes data) and one
from India > (also Hughes data) - neither included in Keith's data set, I > think.
5) To my great surprise I find that you used the Briffa > gridded temperature
reconstruction from W. N. America > (mis-attributed to Fritts and Shao) - of
course I should have > picked up on this 6 years ago when reading the proofs of
the > Nature sup mat. It was my understanding that we had decided not to > use
these reconstructions, as the data on which they were based > were in the ITRDB,
and had been subject to that screening process. > So depending on whether you used
the long or the shorter versions > of these, there will have been a considerable
number of density > series included , some of them twice. It means that there is >
considerably more overlap between the two data sets, in North > America, than I
have been telling people. I stand corrected. > Cheers, Malcolm . .Malcolm Hughes
Professor of Dendrochronology > Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research University of
Arizona Tucson, AZ > 85721 520-621-6470 fax 520-621-8229 > > -- > Professor Keith
Briffa, > Climatic Research Unit > University of East Anglia > Norwich, NR4 7TJ,
U.K. > > Phone: +44-1603-593909 > Fax: +44-1603-507784 > >
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: (434) 924-7770FAX: (434) 982-2137 >
Malcolm Hughes Professor of Dendrochronology Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research

University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 520-621-6470 fax 520-621-8229

From: Keith Briffa To: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Fwd: EOS revision Date: Wed
Jan 28 08:51:12 2004
X-Sender: esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:26:27 +0100
To: Briffa Keith ,
Cook Ed
From: Jan Esper
Subject: EOS revision
Hi Ed and Keith
for your information, I attached the revision of the EOS article. In this version
we
added some lines about the data-overlap between the MBH and ECS records.
I also attached a figure showing a comparison between MBH and EsperFULL (using all
data)
and EsperSUB (without Tornetraesk and the Polar Urals).
Take care
Jan
--
Dr. Jan Esper
Switzerland
Phone: +41-1-739 2510
Fax: +41-1-739 2215
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
References

From: Iain Brown To: a.watkinson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Inter-reg proposal update

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:25:44 +0000 Cc: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
s.jude@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Andrew,
Here is an update on the Inter-reg proposal, based upon the recent Oxford
workshop.
Organisations involved: EA, EN, Oxford ECI, Oxford Brooks (Planning), Alterra
(Netherlands), Hampshire CC, Kent CC, Conservatoire de Littoral, Clare CC,
Maynooth U., Tyndall
Funding: Aiming for a 3 year project of 3-4 million Euros. Inter-reg 3B most
closely fits project objectives but still unknown whether sufficient funds remain
for this. Inter-reg 3C represents an alternative, but requires more high-level
policy. Inter-reg deadline is April 29th. Other alternatives are LIFE and
Framework VI.
Key issue: Are Tyndall to be included as a Partner or a Contractor? Partners have

more influence on project development but would require 50% matched funding
(however this can be met through including other contributing R&D projects).
Contractors do not need matched funding but may have to officially tender for sub-
contract.
Proposed Work Packages: 1 Policy Review of spatial planning mechanisms for

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

habitats
Next steps - develop WPs, workplans and costing of proposal by 27th Feb.
Next meeting 4th/5th March, Oxford.
regards,
Iain

From: Phil Jones To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Fwd: John L. Daly dead Date: Thu
Jan 29 14:17:01 2004
From: Timo H?meranta
To:
Subject: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:04:28 +0200
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
Importance: Normal
Mike,
In an odd way this is cheering news ! One other thing about the CC paper - just
found
another email - is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics

journals
to give all the data and codes !! According to legal advice IPR overrides this.
Cheers
Phil
"It is with deep sadness that the Daly Family have to announce the sudden death of
John
Daly.Condolences may be sent to John's email account (daly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx)
"
Reported with great sadness
Timo H?meranta
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Timo H?meranta, LL.M.
Moderator, Climatesceptics
Martinlaaksontie 42 B 9
01620 Vantaa
Finland, Member State of the European Union
Moderator: timohame@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Private: timo.hameranta@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Home page: [1]http://personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/climate.htm
Moderator of the discussion group "Sceptical Climate Science"
[2]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics
"To dwell only on horror scenarios of the future
shows only a lack of imagination". (Kari Enqvist)

"If the facts change, I'll change my opinion.
What do you do, Sir" (John Maynard Keynes)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/climate.htm
2. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics

From: Keith Briffa To: Rashit Hantemirov Subject: Re[2]: Stephen McIntyre Date:
Mon Feb 2 14:37:36 2004
Rashit
that sounds great - at least I am happy you are working on the sub fossil material
still. I
have done some work comparing the Swedish and Finnish long series after standard
RCS
detrending and there is good similarity at the century timescale for some
considerable
periods - but significant differences over some others , even allowing for
uncertainty in
the series These are only 300 km separated so this is an interesting indication of
changes
in continentality perhaps. I am also interested in extending the high-frequency

density
series before 1400 AD , to show earlier volcanoes , even though the spatial
coverage is
poor. It would be interesting to see your extreme year series - do you have a
preprint of
your paper? I would really like to get support to continue a wider collaboration ,
including other northern long series to produce wide scale integrated series .
What is the
latest state of your tree-line reconstruction , for periods earlier than you
showed in the
Holocene paper? I am still hoping such support may come again from Europe.
very best wishes
Keith
At 07:28 PM 2/2/04 +0500, you wrote:
Dear Keith,
it is very nice to hear from you.
We live and work in the old way. Stepan has been updated his woody
vegetation descriptions in the Polar Urals to reconstruct dynamics of
forest structure near upper timberline for the last century.
Because of some reasons (sometimes without any reasons) the work on
constructing Yamal chronology is going not very well. Duration of
chronology is now 7315 years (7314 BC - AD 2000). The last valuable
field work has been realized in 2000, when we have collected 370
subfossil samples. Half of them have been dated. Now I successfully
collect money for field work (for helicopter rent). I hope this field
season will be fruitful. Meantime we have analyzed frost- and
light-ring frequency in Yamal tree rings for the last 2100 years to
reconstruct extreme events. The later half of this reconstruction, I

hope, will be published this year in Palaeo3. Now I contracted
(together with Stepan) to write by June something like textbook on
tree-ring dating for archeologists (in Russian). Then I'm going to
return to work on Yamal chronology. It would be pleasure to keep on
our joint work.
Best regards
Rashit Hantemirov
Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
8 Marta St., 202
Ekaterinburg, 620144
Russia
Tel: +7(3432)51-40-92
Fax: +7(3432)51-41-61
E-mail: rashit@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Monday, February 2, 2004, 1:57:37 PM, you wrote:
KB> Dear Rashit
KB> thanks for this - these people ask many questions as they try constantly to
KB> attack the global warming proponents . I answer sometimes , but it usually
KB> means they come back with many more questions. All part of science I suppose.
KB> How are you , and Stepan? I have a student working on trying to refine the
KB> RCS approach , to allow less trees and reduce bias that comes from using
KB> only recent data . Hope to get him to test new methods on your and
KB> Vaganov's data if that is OK with you . I wish to work towards a new
KB> EuroSiberian series for several millennia at least. Are you still adding
KB> new data? How are you all?
KB> Keith
--

Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
References

From: Rashit Hantemirov To: Keith Briffa Subject: Re[2]: Stephen McIntyre Date:
Mon, 2 Feb 2004 19:28:31 +0500 Reply-to: Rashit Hantemirov
Dear Keith, it is very nice to hear from you.
We live and work in the old way. Stepan has been updated his woody vegetation
descriptions in the Polar Urals to reconstruct dynamics of forest structure near
upper timberline for the last century.
Because of some reasons (sometimes without any reasons) the work on constructing
Yamal chronology is going not very well. Duration of chronology is now 7315 years
(7314 BC - AD 2000). The last valuable field work has been realized in 2000, when
we have collected 370 subfossil samples. Half of them have been dated. Now I
successfully collect money for field work (for helicopter rent). I hope this field
season will be fruitful. Meantime we have analyzed frost- and light-ring frequency
in Yamal tree rings for the last 2100 years to reconstruct extreme events. The
later half of this reconstruction, I hope, will be published this year in Palaeo3.
Now I contracted (together with Stepan) to write by June something like textbook
on tree-ring dating for archeologists (in Russian). Then I'm going to return to
work on Yamal chronology. It would be pleasure to keep on our joint work.
Best regards
Rashit Hantemirov
Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology 8 Marta St., 202 Ekaterinburg, 620144 Russia
Tel: +7(3432)51-40-92 Fax: +7(3432)51-41-61 E-mail: rashit@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
KB> Dear Rashit

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

From: Keith Briffa To: Rashit Hantemirov Subject: Re[3]: Stephen McIntyre Date:
Tue Feb 3 14:30:38 2004
Rashit
thanks for these - I think you are making magnificent progress , and I wish you
the very
best . I would like to see the information you mention if you do not mind . It
would be
useful to compare with the long density data.
cheers again
Keith
At 07:20 PM 2/3/04 +0500, you wrote:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1251
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by alanllein.uran.ru id
i13EL9co081373
Dear Keith,
attached manuscript concerning frost and light rings has been
submitted to Paleo3 special issue (PAGES conference in Moscow in
2002). I'm still waiting for final decision.
Meantime we prepare next version of extremes reconstruction (on the
base of Yamal data only) for the last 2100 years using frost, light,
missing and very narrow rings. Unfortunately, I could not find time to
prepare even draft version of this paper. I can send to you the
picture and list of the "extreme" years for this period, if you are
interested. Now analysis is going on, little by little. Most probably,
we will prepare for publication data for longer reconstruction (up to
4000 years).
As to tree-line reconstruction, we have almost no progress. To get
more reliable reconstruction we need more samples from sites
northwards of 68?N. In 2002 we have sampled subfossil wood in this
area. However, without success (only 30 samples, only 5 of them I was
able to date). Now we have in all 30 dated samples from the area to
the north of 68?. Attached .pcx files show reconstructions that have
been published before in the local publications. Only one correction
we can do after 2002 field season, namely that big shift of tree line
took place after 2420 BC. Hope I will succeed finally in dating of
rest of samples to improve reconstruction.
Best regards
Rashit Hantemirov
8 Marta St., 202
Ekaterinburg, 620144
Russia
Tel: +7(3432)51-40-92
Fax: +7(3432)51-41-61
E-mail: rashit@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
KB> Rashit
KB> that sounds great - at least I am happy you are working on the sub fossil
KB> material still. I have done some work comparing the Swedish and Finnish
KB> long series after standard RCS detrending and there is good similarity at
KB> the century timescale for some considerable periods - but significant
KB> differences over some others , even allowing for uncertainty in the
KB> series These are only 300 km separated so this is an interesting
KB> indication of changes in continentality perhaps. I am also interested in
KB> extending the high-frequency density series before 1400 AD , to show
KB> earlier volcanoes , even though the spatial coverage is poor. It would be
KB> interesting to see your extreme year series - do you have a preprint of
KB> your paper? I would really like to get support to continue a wider
KB> collaboration , including other northern long series to produce wide scale
KB> integrated series . What is the latest state of your tree-line
KB> reconstruction , for periods earlier than you showed in the Holocene paper?
KB> I am still hoping such support may come again from Europe.
KB> very best wishes
KB> Keith
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
References
From: Rashit Hantemirov To: Keith Briffa Subject: Re[4]: Stephen McIntyre Date:
Wed, 4 Feb 2004 16:53:49 +0500 Reply-to: Rashit Hantemirov
Dear Keith, attached file contains results of analysis of anomalous rings in Yamal
material for 100BC - 2000 AD.
I forgot to inform you about one more thing. We have organized data bank of
Russian tree-ring chronologies. Unfortunately (for you), in Russian.
http://ipae.uran.ru/dendrochronology/ (and then click on the icon in the bottom
(in center) of page). This databank is made for archeologists and people that need
to date woody constructions and etc. The aim is to give them information about
where and what kind of chronologies there are in Russia. For some locations
chronology is available or links to other databanks, for others - information
only. Site is still filling up. If you are interested to see you can ask Vladimir
Shishov to translate. By the way, you can remind him about my request to place
chronologies of their lab in this bank.
Best regards
Rashit Hantemirov
Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology 8 Marta St., 202 Ekaterinburg, 620144 Russia
Tel: +7(3432)51-40-92 Fax: +7(3432)51-41-61 E-mail: rashit@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Tuesday, February 3, 2004, 7:30:38 PM, you wrote:
KB> Rashit KB> thanks for these - I think you are making magnificent progress ,
and I wish KB> you the very best . I would like to see the information you mention
if you KB> do not mind . It would be useful to compare with the long density data.
KB> cheers again KB> Keith Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachExtreme2100.pdf"

From: Phil Jones To: "Peter H. Gleick" , Mearns Linda O Subject: Re: MBH
Submission (fwd) Date: Fri Feb 6 10:58:17 2004 Cc: Stephen H Schneider ,
N.W.Arnell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, frtca@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, d.camuffo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
scohen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pmfearn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jfoley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
harvey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ahssec@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
rwk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rik.leemans@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, diana.liverman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
mccarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, lindam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rmoss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
ogilvie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pfister@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, barrie.pittock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
pollard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, nj.rosenberg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, h.j.schellnhuber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
dgvictor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, F.I.Woodward@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gyohe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
yurganov@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear All,
So now it seems that we're separating 'providing the code' from 'running the
code'. I
can't
see the purpose of one without the other. Even if Mike complies I suspect there
will need
to be several sessions of interaction, which neither side will be very keen on. As
I said
before
I know the code will involve lots of combinations (for different periods with
different
proxies).
Also I would expect, knowing the nature of the PC-type regression approach, that
there
will
be library routines. If the code is sent, there needs to be conditions. We don't

want
McIntyre
(MM) to come out and say he can't get it to work after a few days.
So, it is far some simple. I'm still against the code being given out. Mike has
made
the
data available. That is all they should need. The method is detailed in the
original
paper -
in the online (methods) and also in several other papers Mike has written.
As an aside, Mike is now using a different method from MBH98. Also, as an aside,
whilst we've been deliberating, MM have submitted another comment on MBH98 to

another
journal. In this they say they have a program that replicates MBH98 (although it
isn't
very convincing that they have it exactly right, as they never show a like for
like
comparison) , but
most of the comment goes on about the results being different due to different
combinations of
proxies. The latter isn't surprising.
It might appear they want the code to check whether their version works properly.
If
this
is the case, then there are issues of IPR. So, if they get the code, how do we
stop them
using it for anything other than this review.
Cheers
Phil
At 11:40 04/02/2004 -0800, Peter H. Gleick wrote:
Yes, excellent point. This should be what we do. Further, we can point out that
we've
bent over backward here and provided more than typically necessary in order to
satisfy
persistent but inappropriate demands.
Peter
At 08:46 PM 2/4/04 +0100, Mearns Linda O wrote:
Peter et al.,
Thanks for reminding me about the new email list.
My point about the code is still that 'providing the code' can be
interpreted alot of ways. I have thought about this, and imagined if in
one of my larger and more complex projects, I was asked to provide all
code. I could do that just by sending the pieces with a summary file
explaining what each piece was used for. It still theoretically allows
someone to see how coding was done. And I do think that is a far sight
easier than providing stuff that can be run, etc. I am suggesting that
one could do the minimum. Then the point is, one isn't faced with garish
headlines about 'refusal to provide code'. I think it is harder to come
up with a garish headline about 'refusal to provide completely documented

code with appropriate readme files and handholding for running it'.
Linda
Dr. Peter H. Gleick
Director, 2003 MacArthur Fellow
Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security
654 13th Street
Oakland, California 94612
510 251-1600 phone
510 251-2203 fax
[1]www.worldwater.org (World Water site)
[2]www.pacinst.org (Pacific Institute site)
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://www.worldwater.org/
2. http://www.pacinst.org/

From: Phil Jones To: "Tas van Ommen" Subject: Re: FW: Law Dome O18 Date: Mon Feb 9
09:23:43 2004 Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Tas,
Thanks for the email. Steve McIntyre hasn't contacted me directly about Law Dome
(yet), nor about any of
the series used in the 1998 Holocene paper or the 2003 GRL one with Mike. I
suspect (hope)
that he won't. I
had some emails with him a few years ago when he wanted to get all the station
temperature
data we use here
in CRU. At that time, I hid behind the fact that some of the data had been
received from
individuals and not
directly from Met Services through the Global Telecommunications Service (GTS) or
through
GCOS.
I've cc'd Mike on this, just for info. Emails have also been sent to some other
paleo
people asking for
datasets used in 1998 or 2003. Keith Briffa here got one, for example. Here, they
have
also been in contact with
some of Keith's Russian contacts. All seem to relate to trying to get series we've
used.
In the Russian case,
issues relate to the Russian (Rashit Hantemirov) having a paper out with the same
series
Keith used (for the
Yamal Peninsula). Series are different for two reasons. One Keith used the RCS
standardization method
and secondly Rashit has added some series since Keith got the data a couple of
years ago.
I'll just sit tight here and do nothing. Mike will likely do the same, but we'll
expect another publication in

the nearish future.
As for the series for LD you sent us, we used it in the paper for Reviews of
Geophysics. This paper has
had 4 good reviews and we've just sent back a revised version. This will likely
get
reviewed by 1 or 2 of
the same reviewers of the editor, but I think it will come out this year some
time. When
it does, we
will put all the series onto a web site. Hope this is OK with you. It will
unlikely be
before our summer
months.
Cheers
Phil
At 17:56 09/02/2004 +1100, you wrote:
Dear Phil,
What you will find below is (in reverse chronological order) an email interchange
between Steve McIntyre and myself. He has been asking for LD data for a while
(since
your GRL paper came out) and to my chagrin, I have put him off once already, for
reasons
I spell out below. For your information, I am close to submitting the full LD
isotope
record, which I hope to present at SCAR Bremen, along with some interesting
spectral
analyses and comparison to EPICA Dome C.
Anyway, I am aware of McIntyre's controversial history and am trying to handle

things in
a non-inflammatory way. He seems not to be troubling me over my own delay, but has
asked for data that was used in your Holocene paper of 1998. For this, I have
referred
him to you. I expect he wants to replicate your synthesis, and so he should use
the
identical data set, and I give you permission to pass on whatever it was I gave
you for
that work - with the caveat that it is representative of where the LD proxy record
was
in 1997, not 2004. I leave it to you to decide how to deal with this - you may
prefer
to ignore the issue, and I would understand.
Let me know if there is anything I can do to assist.
Cheers,
Tas
___________________________________________________________________
Dr Tas van Ommen, Principal Research Scientist | Postal Address:
Australian Antarctic Division and | ACE CRC
Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems CRC | Private Bag 80
Tel: +61 (03) 6226 2981 Fax: +61 (03) 6226 2902 | Hobart
[1]www.antcrc.utas.edu.au/~tas | Tasmania 7001
[2]tas.van.ommen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx | Australia
___________________________________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Tas van Ommen [[3]mailto:tas.van.ommen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Monday, 9 February 2004 17:46
To: 'Steve McIntyre'
Subject: RE: Law Dome O18

Dear Stephen,
I suggest you ask Phil Jones for a copy of that older data set. Jones et al cite
Morgan
and van Ommen 1997, although that data set was heavily smoothed (gaussian of
rms=13
years from memory), so the one they show is not a direct version of Morgan and van
Ommen
1997. I think that I provided them with a high resolution version, and from their
notation, it seems that they are using a November-April subset, but you would have
to
ask Phil - especially if what you seek is to replicate their analyses. Apart from
anything else, our set has been continually in a state of development, which is
why I
have not wanted to widely circulate it until now. Over this period we have had
made new
measurements (which improved our layer counted dating and filled the gap that you
see in
Jones et al.), retreived more cores using better technology and derived a robust
gas-tied flow-model that dates the core to 90ky. Now that the new development has
ceased, we will soon be releasing the full data set, as I have indicated to you.
This is
the set I would want to see in wider use, and it is worth noting that it is
essentially
the same as the portion used by Mann and Jones in their GRL paper in 2003.
All the best,
Tas
___________________________________________________________________
Dr Tas van Ommen, Principal Research Scientist | Postal Address:
Australian Antarctic Division and | ACE CRC
Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems CRC | Private Bag 80

Tel: +61 (03) 6226 2981 Fax: +61 (03) 6226 2902 | Hobart
[4]www.antcrc.utas.edu.au/~tas | Tasmania 7001
[5]tas.van.ommen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx | Australia
___________________________________________________________________
From: Steve McIntyre [[6]mailto:stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Monday, 9 February 2004 09:46
To: Tas van Ommen
Subject: Re: Law Dome O18
There is a Law Dome O18 data set which was used in Jones et al (Holocene 1998) and
printed as a graphic. Is this one available? Regards, Steve McIntyre
From: [7]Tas van Ommen
To: [8]'Steve McIntyre'
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 11:15 PM
Subject: RE: Law Dome O18
Dear Stephen,
The 18O data used in Mann and Jones 2003 was provided as an advance copy in 2003,
and you are welcome to have access to it and it will certainly be placed in public
archives.
The data in question is part of the full 90 ky isotope record from Law Dome, for
which a peer-reviewed dating scale has only recently been published (actually it
is
in press see van Ommen et al, in press Annals of Glaciology 39 at
[9]http://www.antcrc.utas.edu.au/~tas/home/openaccess.html#vanommen04LD1). Now
this
job is done, I am finalizing a paper that will allow me to release the isotope
record more widely.
It is this next paper that controls the timeframe for release to you and archives.
While I should await peer review for a release to the archives, I am happy to pass
on a copy of the data set to you on an advance basis as soon as the paper is
submitted I expect in a couple of months. You will appreciate that at this time of
the year, we in the south are in our vacation season, not to mention dealing with
our Antarctic Summer field program, so I thank you for your patience. Do check
back
with me in a while if you dont hear more.
Regards,
Tas
From: Steve McIntyre [[10]mailto:stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Sunday, 8 February 2004 6:29 AM
To: Tas Van Ommen
Subject: Law Dome O18
Dear Dr van Ommen,
some time ago I inquired as to the availability of the O18 data set which was used
in Mann and Jones 2003. Is this the same data as was used in Jones et al 1998
(Holocene) . Do you plan to archive this data? Otherwise, I would appreciate an
email copy of the data.

Thanks for your consideration.
Stephen McIntyre
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://www.antcrc.utas.edu.au/~tas
2. mailto:tas.van.ommen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. http://www.antcrc.utas.edu.au/~tas
6. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
9. http://www.antcrc.utas.edu.au/~tas/home/openaccess.html#vanommen04LD1

From: Phil Jones To: "Michael E. Mann" Subject: Re: Fw: Law Dome O18 Date: Mon Feb
9 15:50:09 2004
Mike,
These were two simple ones to provide. Also Tas told him I had one of them. I
guess
these
are the ones that aren't available on web sites.
Anyway, it is done now. If he starts asking for them in dribs and drabs, I'll
baulk at
that.
Ben waded in with very positive comments re the CC issue. Steve's going to find it
very
hard to ask you to send the code. Those that say on the CC board that you should
send the
code, have little idea what is involved. Most are on the social science side.
Cheers
Phil
At 10:19 09/02/2004 -0500, you wrote:
HI Phil,
Personally, I wouldn't send him anything. I have no idea what he's up to, but you
can be
sure it falls into the "no good" category.
There are a few series from our '03 paper that he won't have--these include the
latest
Jacoby and D'Arrigo, which I digitized from their publication (they haven't made
it
publicly available) and the extended western North American series, which they
wouldn't
be able to reproduce without following exactly the procedure described in our '99
GRL
paper to remove the estimated non-climatic component.
I would not give them *anything*. I would not respond or even acknowledge receipt
of
their emails. There is no reason to give them any data, in my opinion, and I think
we do
so at our own peril!

talk to you later,
mike
Mike,
FYI. Sent him the two series - the as received versions. Wonder what he's up to?
Why these two series ? Used a lot more in the 1998 paper. Didn't want the Alerce
series.
Must already have the Tassy series from Ed. I know Ed has a more recent series
than we
used in 1998. Got this for the 2003 work.
Cheers
Phil
From: "Steve McIntyre"
To: "Phil Jones"
Subject: Fw: Law Dome O18
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 08:05:23 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH LOGIN at
fep04-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com from [65.49.25.138] using ID
at Mon, 9 Feb 2004 08:02:13 -0500
Dear Phil,
Tas van Ommen has refered me to you for the version of his dataset that you used
in
Jones et al Holocene 1998 and I would appreicate a copy. I would also appreciate a
copy
of the Lenca series used in this study. Regards, Steve McIntyre
Prof. Phil Jones

NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References

From: Phil Jones To: Ben Santer Subject: Pete Mayes Date: Thu Feb 19 09:28:22 2004
Ben,
Every now and then - generally around an England game (probably now as we've just
drawn with Portugal) or lamenting the fall of Liverpool, I get emails and
sometimes phone
calls from Pete Mayes !! Pete wants to get back into climate change and do some
comparisons between real world data and some models. It is a pity he wasn't this
keen,
when he first went to the US !
Anyway I suggested he contact you. He has but he's not got a reply. I guess you're
busy
and/or don't know how to reply. I'm sure he doesn't know what he really wants. I
gave him
some references etc to look over and your name/email - so SORRY !!!!
I guess I'll see you just after Easter. Will you be here for the HC meeting as
well
as IDAG?
It will be good to see Tom in Oxford - he should liven up the IDAG discussions.
Hope all is well with you and Nick !
Cheers
Phil
PS I see Steve has replied to MM re the MBH review. This nearly got out of hand -
it still
could. Appalling paper in GRL in the Feb04 issue - Mike Mann's written a response.
Clearly another case of the GRL editor's having no idea of the science. Who in
their right
mind would accept that for publication. Nowhere on the CRU site does it say that
HadCRUT2v
is the IPCC data. According to the HC the IPCC data is the OA version HadCRUT - no
v, no
2.
The data is on the HC web site. There is a link to it from the CRU site. When
getting data
from the CRU site we ask people to refer to some of the papers and to use the
dataset
names. Soon et al didn't do either. Paper attached as I have it.
Just had a paper accepted by Reviews of Geophysics with Mike Mann on the climate
of
the last 2k years. Expecting flak for this, but it had 4 very positive reviews.
For some inane reason I put my name forward to do the chapter on atmospheric obs.
for
AR4. Hope I don't get picked.
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Phil Jones To: "Michael E. Mann" Subject: Crap Papers Date: Thu Feb 26
15:59:12 2004
Mike,
Just agreed to review a paper for GRL - it is absolute rubbish. It is having a go
at
the
CRU temperature data - not the latest vesion, but the one you used in MBH98 !! We
added
lots of data in for the region this person says has Urban Warming ! So easy review
to do.
Sent Ben the Soon et al. paper and he wonders who reviews these sorts of things.
Says
GRL hasn't a clue with editors or reviewers. By chance they seem to have got the
right
person with the one just received.
Can I ask you something in CONFIDENCE - don't email around, especially not to
Keith and Tim here. Have you reviewed any papers recently for Science that say
that
MBH98 and MJ03 have underestimated variability in the millennial record - from
models
or from some low-freq proxy data. Just a yes or no will do. Tim is reviewing them
- I
want
to make sure he takes my comments on board, but he wants to be squeaky clean with
discussing them with others. So forget this email when you reply.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Phil Jones To: Ben Santer Subject: Re: [Fwd: More PCM-ERA40 comparisons]
Date: Tue Mar 2 09:06:41 2004
Ben,
Thanks for the plots and keeping me up to date. The ERA-40/CRU comparisons
are quite interesting. I'm hopeful Adrian will write up a summary for publication
in
addition
to an ECMWF report.
This sort of thing is important wrt IPCC and also papers such as Kalnay and Cai.
I'm also working with Russ Vose and others at NCDC to get a comparison of CRU/GHCN
and NASA datasets in GRL. NCDC have used their first difference technique with CRU
data. Differences are very, very small due to data and the technique doesn't
matter much
either. All seems to boil down to how the global average is defined. Calculated as
one
domain as NCDC (and until recently the HC as well) want to do it, it is biased to
the NH.
If you do it the CRU way (G=0.5(NH+SH)) then it looks much more like an OA version
of HadCRUT2v that the HC have just produced. Been saying this for years as has
Tom,
so no surprises. Finally got the HC to realise it, now just need to convince NCDC.
NCDC will also have a new 5 by 5 deg gridded dataset of Tx and Tn soon, right up
to
the present. Need to compare this with ERA-40.
Cheers
Phil
At 18:46 01/03/2004 -0800, you wrote:

Dear Phil,
Here are the PCM/ERA-40 2m temperature comparisons that I mentioned in my email
to Adrian....
Cheers,
Ben
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel: (925) 422-7638
FAX: (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-Path:
Received: from smtp-3.llnl.gov ([128.115.41.83] verified)
by popcorn.llnl.gov (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.6)
with ESMTP id 34392268 for santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:00:27 -0800
Received: from pierce.llnl.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp-3.llnl.gov (8.12.3p2-20030917/8.12.3/LLNL evision: 1.13 $) with ESMTP id
i1R20OE6003673
for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:00:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-3.llnl.gov (smtp-3.llnl.gov [128.115.41.83])
by pierce.llnl.gov (8.12.3p2-20030917/8.12.3/LLNL evision: 1.5 $) with ESMTP id
i1R20NkO028603
for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:00:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from popcorn.llnl.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp-3.llnl.gov (8.12.3p2-20030917/8.12.3/LLNL evision: 1.13 $) with ESMTP id
i1R208Af003594;
Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:00:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [128.115.57.176] (account santer1 HELO llnl.gov)
by popcorn.llnl.gov (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.6)
with ESMTP id 34392176; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:00:08 -0800
Sender: bsanter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <403EA554.20D01DFD@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:03:00 -0800
From: Ben Santer
Organization: LLNL
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.18-14 i686)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adrian.Simmons@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wmw@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, meehl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,

wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: More PCM-ERA40 comparisons
References: <403B1219.4060905@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="------------7A520C5A8CA7CE01BA097390"
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Dear Adrian,
Thanks very much for sending me your comparison of surface air temperature
changes in CRU and ERA-40. I've been looking at a related issue - the
correspondence between 2m temperature changes in ERA-40 and PCM.
Here's the background to this work. Increasingly, there is some interest in the
problem of identifying anthropogenic climate change at regional scales. I have

to give a brief talk on this subject tomorrow. In preparing for this talk, I
decided that it would be useful to show how signal and noise change as a
function of spatial scale. I looked at the behavior of 2m temperature in the
four individual realizations of the PCM "ALL forcings" experiment (the same
experiment that we analysed in our joint Nature paper). For each realization, I
computed spatial averages over the globe, the Northern Hemisphere, and the
western United States (30-50N, 126W-114W). These spatial averages were then
expressed as anomalies relative to climatological monthly means over 1979-1999.
The orange shading in the three panels of the figure entitled "tas_tseries3.ps"
is a measure of the between-realization variability in PCM. The envelope is
simply the range (during any given month) between the maximum and minimum values
of the four realizations. This range was then low-pass filtered. The solid red
is the low-pass filtered ensemble mean.
To facilitate comparison with PCM data, I've defined 2m temperature anomalies in
ERA-40 in the same way (i.e., relative to climatological monthly means over
1979-1999), and have used the same low-pass filter. One can then ask whether the
2m temperature changes in ERA-40 are consistent with those in PCM - in other
words, are they encompassed by PCM's envelope of possible climate responses to
combined anthropogenic and natural forcing?
They are. Surprisingly, this consistency occurs not only at the global-mean
level, but also for the NH and western U.S. For the global-mean and the NH, the
ERA-40 2m temperature changes are outside PCM's envelope of 2m temperature
changes during the first 5-10 years of the reanalysis. After the late 1960s,
however, the ERA-40 2m temperature changes are entirely consistent with those in
PCM. Over the western U.S., 2m temperature changes in PCM and ERA-40 are
consistent throughout the reanalysis period.
Such qualitative consistency, while interesting, is no substitute for formal,
pattern-based fingerprint detection studies at global, hemispheric, and regional
scales. For example, an overestimate of the regional-scale variability of 2m

temperature by PCM could explain why PCM's 2m temperature changes over the
western U.S. fully encompass the ERA-40 result (see panel C). On the other hand,
there is some real similarity in the low-frequency component of the 2m
temperature changes in ERA-40 and PCM (look at the similar responses to Agung,
Chichon, and Pinatubo in panel B!)
The bottom line is that PCM's 2m temperature changes are reasonably consistent
with those in ERA-40, even at sub-global spatial scales. This suggests that
formal regional-scale detection work might be useful. If you are interested,
perhaps we could collaborate on such work. A collaboration would also involve
the PCM group at NCAR (to whom I'm copying this email).
The second figure that I've appended shows the global-mean changes in synthetic
MSU channel 2 temperatures in PCM and ERA-40. The message is pretty much the
same as for 2m temperatures: PCM's "envelope" of possible changes in
tropospheric temperatures largely encompasses the ERA-40 results, except during
a few large El Nino and La Nina events. Once again, there is surprising
similarity in the low-frequency component of the model and reanalysis T2
changes.
It would be fun to take these simple comparisons a little further!
With best regards,
Ben
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Tel: (925) 422-7638

FAX: (925) 422-7675
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Kevin Trenberth To: tom crowley Subject: Re: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON
CLIMATE CHANGE AND HUMAN ATTRIBUTIONS Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:22:56 -0700 Cc:
Chick Keller , Richard Somerville , Tom Wigley , "Howard Hanson, LDRD" , "James E.
Hansen" , Michael Schlesinger , Phil Jones , Thomas R Karl , Mike MacCracken , Ben
Santer , thompson.4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn
I agree with Tom: I sent you (without copying others) a whole host of material..
Kevin
tom crowley wrote:
> For goodness sakes, I don't know where to start - let me just make one > point
with respect to solar - solar projects onto the GHG signal in > the 20th c. so
solar cannot be distinguished during that time. if one > were to independently
correlate solar and GHG with temp. since 1750, > solar would "explain" about 75%
of the variance, GHG about 70% - a > spectacular 140% of the variance explained! >
> the only way to evaluate solar is to look at intervals when GHG was > not
changing and solar was - the preanthropogenic interval - perhaps > the most
comprehensive evaluation of the solar effect is in the > attached paper, where it
is quite clear that solar effect is either > negligible or just barely
significant, ie., 5-10% of the decadally > scaled variance. > > with respect to
the MWP all you have to do is plot the data up and > compile them - the numbers
don't work out as being warmer than the > present - at best approaching or
slightly exceeding mid-20th c. the > reason is that is was warm at different
times. Soon and Baliunas of > course never showed this - but if you actually look
at the damn data > and plot up, the same answer as I stated above keeps showing
up, over > and over. > > with respect to UAH, there are now two other
reconstructions that show > otherwise. > > enough, this is like trying to convert
someone with one religion to > another. > > tom > > Chick Keller wrote: > >>
Richard and Friends, >> >> thanks for the point of view. I'll put some of this
into my >> presentation. >> >> However, it won't wash when facing critics head-on.
>> >> Their latest arguments are more subtle. Their main point is that >> their
counter information hangs together into a logically coherent >> picture. >> >>
Models: no real finger print that distinguishes AGHG forcings from >> others!
Models using AGHG forcings predict warming is function of >> latitude yet the
Arctic is hardly warming (north of ~^65?N), and high >> latitude Antarctic
(excepting for the peninsula) is actually cooling >> slightly. >> >> Models: As
you say need AGHG forcings to simulate last 30 years of >> observed warming. But,
they counter, UAH satellite reductions show >> no such warming so don't need AGHG
forcing (or at least don't need >> effects of positive feedbacks and just
increases in AGHGs don't cause >> so much warming). >> >> Solar forcing--not able
to generate last 30 years of observed >> warming. Same counter as last one--"See,
they say, no increased >> solar in last 25 years is consistent with no warming!!
>> >> Also, since no warming since 1945, MWP most likely to have been as >> warm
as now and thus sun can indeed explain (with proper lags) >> observed warming thus
far. >> >> Their model--climate varies depending on solar activity. all >>
observations are consistent with this. >> >> Models predict that any surface
warming will be seen in the >> troposphere. Since UAH satellite reduction shows no
such warming--1. >> models are wrong and/or no warming at surface just lousy
observations. >> 2. If no warming at surface in last 30 years AGHG forcing
predictions >> by models is incorrect probably due to poor cloud/water vapor >>
modeling--no positive feedbacks to speak of. >> >> Sooooo, you can say all you
want that all the prestigious societies >> and folks say it's AGHGs, but they've
been bamboozled by a few of >> elitist scientists. As long as satellites show no
recent warming, >> the entire AGHG hypothesis collapses, not because multi-atomic
>> molecules don't cause the atmosphere to be more opaque, but because >> there
are no positive feedbacks which the models need to get the >> "right" answer. >>
>> So, what I need is strong evidence that the surface record is indeed >> correct
(UHI effect is small, and marine boundary layer approximation >> is correct). >>
>> Now, Richard, toss in large effects of land use changes and of black >> soot
forcing changing earth's albedo, and you now have additional >> forcings which may
be causing warming but can't be countered by >> reducing AGHGs. >> >> Soooo, it
still ain't all that easy to convince an audience that the >> Singer's of this
world aren't on to at least part of the problem. >> >> AND keep in mind that
increased CO2 is good for us--more agriculture, >> etc. >> >> Nope it just ain't
that easy. So any information--graphics, etc on >> these issues will be greatly
appreciated. >> >> Regards to all, >> chick >> >> >> Hi Chick and friends, >> >>
Good to hear from you, Chick. I'm busy, like all of us, and >> responding to
Singer is not my cup of tea, so I'm glad you and others >> are willing. I hate to
be in the same room with him, frankly. He's >> a third-rate scientist and is
ethically challenged, to say the least. >> >> From others on your email list, I am
sure you will receive tons of >> useful information. However, I think your entire
basic strategy for >> confronting Singer might not be optimal. Sometimes the most
pressing >> issues in the research community, or the most interesting questions >>
scientifically, are not necessarily the best ways to carry on the >> public
conversation. I am thinking in particular of your statement: >> >> "Perhaps the
most important is that satellites don't show much >> warming since 1979 and
disagree substantially with the surface >> record, which must then be incorrect.
Were we able to resolve this >> conundrum, I think most of the other objections to
human generated >> climate change would lose their credibility." >> >> For what
it's worth, here's my take on your approach. I >> respectfully disagree with you
that hammering away on reconciling the >> MSU data with radiosonde and surface
data is the right way to go in >> dealing with the Fred Singers of the world. Even
though much of the >> differences may now be apparently explained, it's still a
terribly >> messy job. The satellite system wasn't designed to measure >>
tropospheric temperatures, the calibration and orbital decay and >> retrieval
algorithm and all the other technical issues are ugly, and >> nobody knows how
much the lower stratospheric cooling ought to have >> infected the upper
troposphere, among other points one might make. >> >> No matter what one does on
trying to make the MSU data tell us a >> clean story, there are remaining serious
uncertainties. That's >> basically what the NAS/NRC study chaired by Mike Wallace
concluded, >> and it's still true, in my view. Plus the data record is so short.
>> In addition, as you say, you are retired, and research on these >> things is
not what you have first-person experience with, so when you >> try to study up on
the latest published results, you're at a >> disadvantage compared with the
Singers of the world, whose full-time >> job is to cherry-pick the literature for
evidence to support their >> preconceived positions. >> >> One of the tactics of
the skeptics is to create the impression among >> nonscientists, especially
journalists, that the entire science of >> climate change rests on the flimsy
foundation of one or two lines of >> evidence, so that casting doubt on that
foundation ought to bring >> down the entire structure. For temperature, that
approach is clearly >> behind the attacks on the "hockey stick" curve over the
last 1,000 >> years or the satellite vs. in situ differences over the last 25 >>
years. Refuting the errors of the papers by Soon and Baliunas or by >> McIntyre
and Mckitrick doesn't faze these people. They just shift >> their ground and
produce another erroneous attack. Their goal is not >> to advance the science, but
to perpetuate the appearance of >> controversy and doubt. >> >> I don't think the
skeptics should be allowed to choose the >> battlefield, and I certainly don't
think the issue of whether >> anthropogenic influences are a serious concern
should be settled by >> looking at any single data set. I do think the IPCC TAR
was right to >> stress that you simply can't plausibly make GCMs replicate the >>
instrumental record without including GHGs (and aerosols). I also >> think the
recent AGU and AMS public statements, which you will >> doubtless find on their
web sites, are right on target. Many of us >> were pleasantly surprised that our
leading scientific societies have >> recently adopted such strong statements as to
the reality and >> seriousness of anthropogenic climate change. There really is a
>> scientific consensus, and it cannot be refuted or disproved by >> attacking any
single data set. >> >> I also think people need to come to understand that the
scientific >> uncertainties work both ways. We don't understand cloud feedbacks.
>> We don't understand air-sea interactions. We don't understand >> aerosol
indirect effects. The list is long. Singer will say that >> uncertainties like
these mean models lack veracity and can safely be >> ignored. What seems highly
unlikely to me is that each of these >> uncertainties is going to make the climate
system more robust against >> change. It is just as likely a priori that a poorly
understood bit >> of physics might be a positive as a negative feedback.
Meanwhile, >> the climate system overall is in fact behaving in a manner
consistent >> with the GCM predictions. I have often wondered how our medical >>
colleagues manage to escape the trap of having their entire science >> dismissed
because there are uncured diseases and other remaining >> uncertainties. Maybe we
can learn from the physicians. >> >> People on airplanes, when they find out what
I do for a living, >> usually ask me if I "believe in" global warming. It's not
religion, >> of course. What I actually tend to believe in, if they really wanted
>> to try to understand, is quantum mechanics. CO2 and CH4 and all >> those other
interesting trace gases have more than two atoms, and >> that fact simply has
inescapable consequences. You just can't keep >> adding those GHG molecules
indefinitely without making the
atmosphere >> significantly more opaque in the IR. The "debates" in the reputable
>> research community are all quantitative. If skeptics don't worry >> about
doubling, they ought to be pressed to tell us why they are >> unconcerned about
tripling or quadrupling or worse. That's where the >> planet is headed. The fact
that remote sensing and model building >> are hard work, and that much remains to
be done, shouldn't be allowed >> to obscure the basic obvious facts. >> >> Bonne
chance et bon courage, >> >> Richard > >
-- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Climate
Analysis Section, NCAR www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/ P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)

From: Phil Jones To: Jorge S?nchez Sesma Subject: Re: Global Temperature Date: Mon
Mar 15 16:01:14 2004
Dear Jorge,
Happy for you to use me in an additional attempt tp get some Mexican support
to come to CRU next year. What exactly do you need? Send me an example of
what you want? Life is very busy here at the moment as I'll be away for several
meetings over the next 6 weeks and I must prepare some material for most of them.
GKSS is just one model and it is a model, so there is no need for it to be

correct.
I am also aware that Ed Cook is revising the ECS curve in a paper he's submitting
to Quaternary Science Reviews.
Remember that if ECS (and GKSS) are correct then the climate is more sensitive
to external forcing (the factors that cause past changes/variability). If the

climate is
more sensitive then the likely changes in the future will be greater. The curves
that
we've produced here (and also Mike Mann's) suggest a climate sensitivity of about
2.5 deg C for a CO2 doubling. Getting volcanic forcing right in the past (along
with
solar)
are crucial in any study.
Cheers
Phil
At 12:22 12/03/2004 -0600, you wrote:
Dear Dr. Jones:
I am very happy because I went to a Workshop in Kona Hawaii (with support
of NASA-CRCES after to gain a contest with a review paper about global
temperature reconstructions, it was a different version of the paper that
you have read). There I met with Dr. Michael Mann. Mann was very kind with
me, however when he did know my work he changed his attitude. I met there
also Dr. Hans von Starch who presented a global temperature reconstructions
with a AOCGCM with natural and anthropogenic forcings. His results agree
more or less with ECS, and my results. i am in contact with the GKSS group
in order to compare and share information.
However, the key point of my studies, as you have pointed out, is to
justify that the background Ice Acidity (without volcanic activity) from
polar caps could be considered as a proxy. I have contacted Dr. Hammer and
Dr. Crowley to have information and advice.
In order continue this kind of studies I would like to propose you again
(as we have tried last year) to ask support the the AMC (Mexican Academy of
Sciences) to support a visit to CRU-UEA next year to continue my work, with
your help and advice, about global temperature for the Holocene. I will
need only an official invitation for my visit. It would be in March 2005
for 3 or 4 weeks.
Also, I am asking support to travel to Japan this year (this fall), however
I would like to stop in England a week, in order to visit CRU-UEA and to
continue our collaboration.
I would like to know your oppinion,
cheers,
Jorge
Jorge S?nchez-Sesma
Instituto Mexicano de Tecnolog?a del Agua
Subcoordinaci?n de Hidrometeorolog?a
Paseo Cuauhnahuac No. 8532, Col. Progreso
Jiutepec, Morelos
62550, M?xico
telefono: 52+(777)329-3600 x 879
fax 52+(777)3293683
email: jsanchez@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
pagina: [1]http://nimbus.imta.mx
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://nimbus.imta.mx/

From: Phil Jones To: Ben Santer Subject: Re: [Fwd: More PCM-ERA40 comparisons]
Date: Thu Mar 25 18:24:06 2004
Ben,
Thanks I picked it up last Friday. See you after Easter.
Cheers
Phil
At 09:22 25/03/2004 -0800, you wrote:
Dear Phil,
Our exchange with Roger Pielke finally appeared in Science (copy appended). I'm
glad I've gotten this particular albatross off my neck. Timo et al. have already
been circulating this stuff to all and sundry.....
See you in a few weeks' time,
Cheers,
Ben
Phil Jones wrote:
>
> Ben,
> Right decision ! She sent me an email to review a paper two weeks ago.
> Said I didn't
> have time until May. I'll continue to say that now.
> See you just after Easter. Have a good short break, as you'll have to
> miss part of it
> to come to London and IDAG.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
> At 19:06 22/03/2004 -0800, you wrote:
> >Dear Phil,
> >
> >I just don't have much luck with the Heikes of this world. Heike L.
> >rejected our
> >Nature paper on the analysis of changes in tropopause height and

> >equivalent MSU
> >temperatures in ERA-40. She took six weeks to make this decision, and didn't
> >even send the paper out for review! Very disappointing. I doubt whether
> >I'll be
> >submitting any papers to Nature in the next few years. We're now revising the
> >erstwhile Nature paper for submission to Journal of Climate, and I hope to
> >have
> >it sent off before I leave for the U.K. on April 11th.
> >
> >I look forward to seeing you at the SRG meeting. Hope everything is well with
> >you, Ruth, Hannah, and Matthew.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >
> >Ben
>
>=================================================================================
====
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benjamin D. Santer
Tel: (925) 422-7638
FAX: (925) 422-7675
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Phil Jones To: "Michael E. Mann" Subject: Re: have you seen this? Date: Wed
Mar 31 09:09:04 2004
Mike,
Yes, but not had a chance to read it yet. Too much else going on. Ed has a paper
reworking Esper et al. as you'll know. If you're going to Tucson, I suggest you
talk to
Keith about it then - don't email him as he's too busy preparing to go and marking
essays.
Jan is in one of our EU projects. Seems that Keith thinks Jan is reinventing a lot
of
Keith's
work, renamed the RCS method and much more. Jan doesn't always take in what is in
the literature even though he purports to read it. He's now looking at
homogenization
techniques for temperature to check the Siberian temperature data. We keep telling
him the
decline is also in N. Europe, N. America (where we use all the recently

homogenized
Canadian data). The decline may be slightly larger in Siberia, but it is elsewhere
as
well.
Also Siberia is one of the worst places to look at homogeneity, as the stations
aren't
that
close together (as they are in Fennoscandia and most of Canada) and also the
temperature
varies an awful lot from year to year.
Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has
it
wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If

either
appears
I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Cheers
Phil
Cheers
Phil
At 11:20 30/03/2004 -0500, you wrote:
Phil,
Have you seen this piece of crap by Esper?
The JGR paper, which Scott is supposed to be finalizing, demonstrates quite

convincingly
that the greater amplitude of Esper et al is due to spatial and seasonal sampling,
mike
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References

From: Phil Jones To: Scott Rutherford Subject: RoG Data Date: Fri May 7 16:34:52
2004 Cc: "Michael E. Mann"
Scott and Mike,

It's been a long week catching up from 3 weeks away. Getting another email from
McIntyre asking me for paleo data series I don't have (I'm not going to reply, by
the way
even though he calls me Phil and other emails he sends me are to Dr Crowley and
Dr.
Briffa who've also not replied) reminded me that I agreed with Mike to put
together as
many of the series from the RoG paper onto a page on the CRU web site.
So, with this in mind, can you send me the data for the various plots. I checked
the
paper and Fig 1 doesn't need anything, so this leave Figs 3 (on the boreholes), 5
(with
the various NH/SH/Global series) and 8 (with all the various model runs).
Figure 3 should be trivial as borehole data are only every 50 years. For the other
2 plots
I'm after the annual values of each series and the smoothed ones that get plotted.
Hope
this
won't take too long to do. I'm going to send emails to a few people to check we
can make
the
data available (mainly the modellers, but also Tas van Ommen).
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Phil Jones To: "Tas van Ommen" , Caspar Ammann , Subject: RoG paper Date:
Fri May 7 16:43:21 2004
Dear Tas and Caspar,
Attached is the proof version of the RoG paper with Mike Mann. This is about
99.99%
the final one. Mike and I sent back a few small changes to AGU a month or so ago.
Keep
this to yourself for a while yet - I would expect the paper out sometime in the
July/August
period.
Many of us in the paleo field get requests from skeptics (mainly a guy called
Steve McIntyre in Canada) asking us for series. Mike and I are not sending
anything,
partly because we don't have some of the series he wants, also partly as we've got
the
data
through contacts like you, but mostly because he'll distort and misuse them.
Despite this, Mike and I would like to make as many of the series we've used in
the
RoG
plots available from the CRU web page. Can we do this with the series we've got
from
you? You don't have to do anything, except to reply yes or no !
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones

NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: f037 To: Aiguo Dai Subject: denial or delusion? ... Aiguo's response Date:
Sat, 8 May 2004 07:59:14 +0100 Cc: , , , ,
Dear Aiguo,
You've done a great job in putting this together so quickly and clearly. I have a
couple of additional comments to make on it, but can't do so until Tuesday. You
(we?) might also like to think of the reply being multi-authored, including Phil,
Pete, Kevin, Joe and myself.
I must say that when I first read this paper a couple of weeks ago I wrote it off
as so bad (so, so bad) that it didn't even deserve a response. To pretend that the
Sahel drought didn't happen (i.e., a pure artifact of wrongful use of rainfall
data) is the most astounding assertion, almost on a par with holocaust denial. Try
putting that proposition to the millions of inhabitants of the Sahel in the 1970s,
1980s and 1990s, many of whom died as a direct consequence and whose livelihoods
were devastated. Adrian Chappell may never have visited the region, but I know
Clive Agnew has (many times) - and he should know better. I did my PhD research in
the region in the early 1980s and I know exactly what the rainfall conditions were
like and how much oridinary people suffered as a consequence. My PhD was on
rainfall variability and local water supplies in Sudan and I visited and talked to
many villagers in the region.
Anyway, Phil first suggested that a corrective reply was needed and I can see the
value of doing so, especially with IPCC AR4 approaching. It just seems to me such
a shame that such poor science is being done by some people - in this case I don't
think there is a deeper motive on the part of Chappell and Agnew than pure
delusion and incompetence - and, worse, that a journal like IJC will publish it.
Thanks again for your efforts,
Mike
>===== Original Message From Aiguo Dai ===== >Dear All, > >Soon after I sent out
my last email, I quickly realized that there is >another fundamental error in
their rainfall model eq.(1): the regional >station numbers na and nb should be
replaced with regional areas. This >can be seen clearly in the following example:
suppose region a has only >one station whose long-term mean rainfall happens to be
the same as >region a's mean, and region b has 100 stations. Then their model
would >give the completely wrong estimate of rainfall for region (a+b), while >the
area-weighted version would still work. This is an obvious error, but >it
apparently could be easily overlooked. Their model seems to be >originated from
their incorrect perception that regional rainfall has >been traditionally derived
using the simple arithmetic mean of all station >data. After reading the leader
author's response to Joe's comments, I >could not believe that they still think
previous analyses are simpler than >theirs! > >I also forgot to point out in my
earlier draft the fact that even if their >modelled time series were a reasonable
proxy of Sahel rainfall, their >results would still have had little implications
to previous analyses of >Sahel rainfall. This is because their analysis maximized
the effects of >changing station networks by the design of their model and by
choosing >the boundary of the two sub-Sahel region at 6deg.W, whereas in most
previous >analyses these effects were minimized by area-weighted averaging (Jones
and >Hulme, 1996). > >Sorry for the overlook of these issues in my earlier email.
> >Regards, > >--Aiguo Dai > > > > > >> Dear All, >> >> I was asked by Kevin to
work out a rebuttal to Chappell and Agnew >> (2004). After reading >> it a couple
of times, I found the main reason why they came to their >> results: they devised
a >> Sahel rainfall model (eq. 1) with a necessary condition that the >> constants
a and b >> represent the mean rainfall for the west and east part of the Sahel. >>
However, later in their >> paper, they estimated a and b by a non-linear least-
squares fitting to >> observed rainfall >> data, and their a (=973mm) and b
(=142mm) are nowhere near the actural >> mean rainfall >> for these sub-Sahel
regions (~645.5 mm and 471.2mm). In essense, their >> rainfall model >> and thus
their modelled rainfall time series are no longer relevant to >> Sahel rainfall!
>> >> I have seen many bad papers, but this one is the worst of all, not only >>
because they >> misled the reader with their model (intentionally or
unintentionally), >> but also because they >> made all kinds of unfounded pure
speculations about the implications of >> their results. >> >> I did some quick
analyses using data extracted from the update GHVN2 and >> wrote a >> comment
paper, which is attached as Word file. Any comments will be >> appreciated. >> >>
Regards, >> >> Aiguo >> >> Phil Jones wrote: >> >>> >>> Dear All, >>> Several
emails today. Kevin's encouraging Aiguo Dai to write a >>> response as well, >>>
so it might be worth some co-ordination. 2 responses might be better >>> than one,
though, so I'll >>> leave it up to you. >>> They have dug themselves into a bigger
hole in their response to >>> Joe. Joe's assessment >>> of their reasoning is
exactly right. Also you can't write a paper >>> saying an analysis is flawed and
>>> then say we don't dispute the local evidence for drought ! This is >>> naive
in the extreme and >>> dumb. I've heard this excuse several times in the past with
other >>> contentious papers. >>> The one problem there might be in a response is
getting a quick >>> turnaround with IJC. >>> With the response a strongly worded
letter should go to the editor >>> (Glenn McGregor) >>> requesting a fast-track
review. The journal does this. As Kevin says >>> any response short >>> be short
and to the point. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> At 18:17 06/05/2004 -0400,
Joseph M. Prospero wrote: >>> >>>> From: "A.Chappell" >>>> To: "Joseph M.
Prospero" >>>> Cc: "Clive Agnew" >>>> Subject: Re: Sahel drought "artifact" >>>>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 12:13:48 +0100 >>>> >>>> Dear Professor Prospero, >>>> >>>>
Thank you for your email. I read your paper with interest. It does >>>> indeed
show a strong correlation with conventional estimates of mean >>>> annual
rainfall. However, the paper implicitly assumes that the >>>> mean annual rainfall
represents the variation in rainfall for the >>>> entire region. Our paper shows
that those statistics are flawed >>>> because of the changing station networks and
that those regional >>>> statistics do not show a 'drought' in the Sahel. Our
paper does not >>>> dispute the local scale evidence for drought. >>>> >>>> It is
too simplistic to average mean monthly rainfall for such a >>>> large heterogenous
region and believe that the rainfall trend is >>>> precise. What might be
interesting is to correlate your results >>>> against the mean annual rainfall
corrected for the changing station >>>> networks. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>>
Adrian >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: Joseph M.
Prospero To: >>>> a.chappell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >>>> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004
10:33 PM >>>> Subject: Sahel drought "artifact" >>>> >>> Prof. Phil Jones >>>
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>> School of Environmental
Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>> University of East Anglia >>> Norwich Email
p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >>> NR4 7TJ >>> UK >>> >>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>
>>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Aiguo Dai email: adai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >> Climate & Global
Dynamics Division phone: 303-497-1357 >> National Center for Atmospheric Research
FAX : 303-497-1333 >> P.O. Box 3000, 1850 Table Mesa Drive >> Boulder, CO 80307 >>
homepage: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/ >> >>

From: Tom Wigley To: Sarah Raper , Sarah Raper Subject: volc paper Date: Sat, 15
May 2004 08:56:00 -0600 Cc: Ben Santer , Caspar Ammann Attachment: volc.doc
Dear Sarah,
Ben and I have had some long discussions about this paper, and I have made quite a
few changes as a consequence. Most of these are minor -- but I realized that my
statement that the peak cooling depended logarithmically on the sensitivity was
potentially confusing. For this to be the case one has to have a relationship like
Tmax = A + B ln(S)
which implies odd results for very low sensitivity. Instead, I have fitted a
relationship of the form
Tmax = A [S**n]
which gives Tmax = 0 when S = 0.
I have fitted a similar relationship to the decay time results, and I have done
the same for the LG98 results. All this information has been added to the
manuscript. It helps in understanding the differences between us and LG98.
I had hoped to send this off earlier this week, i.e., before I go to Buenos Aires
(tomorrow), but I never received the copyright form from you. Then I remembered
that you were at that IPCC meeting in Ireland. So I have asked Liz Rothney to send
the ms off next week as soon as she gets the copyright form from you. So please
fax this back (303 497 1333) as soon as possible.
Best wishes, Tom.

From: Keith Briffa To: v.shishov@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Fwd: Re: Russian daily
data Date: Tue Jun 8 15:20:06 2004
From: Dale Patrick Kaiser

Reply-To: kaiserdp@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: Keith Briffa
Subject: Re: Russian daily data
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 10:31:02 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3
Cc: d9k@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Dear Keith,
I wish I could say that updating the Russian data is on the front burner for
us right now, but I'm afraid it's not. I'm having to plan some proposals and
have been pulled off part of my normal CDIAC work for about 6 months to work
on a special project. And in our small group, I'm the only climate guy (and
the one that has done the Russian work thus far). Thus, the first suggestion
I have is to discuss the data with NCDC; perhaps the best person to start
with would be Pasha Groisman. Years ago, when I did the Russian work, the
data were actually transferred from Russia to NCDC and then on to us, so I
wouldn't be surprised if NCDC was holding updated data or at least could get
ahold of data relatively easily. Perhaps you've already corresponded
directly w/Slava Razuvaev or one of his colleagues at RIHMI-WDC? I'm afraid
it's been quite a while since I've spoken w/Slava.
Wait, maybe there is another way.... I've just remembered about NCDC's Global
Daily Climate Network:
[1]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/gdcn/gdcn.html
I have not learned much about these holdings, but if you check it out perhaps
they've incorporated more recent data daily into this database for the FSU.
I sure hope so.
I'm sorry that I cannot be of more help at this time. With any luck CDIAC can
turn its attention to updates of these data in 2005.

Regards,
Dale
On Friday 04 June 2004 7:18 am, you wrote:
> Dear Dale
> sorry to contact you out of the blue , but Phil Jones suggested I check
> with you about the status of daily temperature (and possibly precipitation)
> data for Russia that I believe you and colleagues might be planning to
> update. I work with tree-ring data in Northern Russia and we are
> particularly interested in looking at growing season and snow lie changes
> in recent years that may be influencing the growth rates of trees and the
> position of the tree line . We are especially interested in data for the
> Yamal Peninsula ,Taimyr and Indigirka (though we would also like to explore
> snow lie changes over the whole of northern Siberia eventually). Is there
> any chance of getting updated data for these initial regions in the near
> term , and perhaps the wider area eventually? We would be really grateful
> for any help in this regard.
> Very best wishes and thanks for your help
> Keith
>
> --
> Professor Keith Briffa,
> Climatic Research Unit
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>
> Phone: +44-1603-593909
> Fax: +44-1603-507784
>
> [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
--
Dale P. Kaiser
Carbon Dioxide Information
Analysis Center
Environmental Sci. Division
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
(865) 241-4849
(865) 574-2232 (fax)
kaiserdp@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
[3]http://cdiac.ornl.gov
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
References
1. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/gdcn/gdcn.html
3. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/

From: Tom Wigley To: Sarah Raper , Sarah Raper Subject: [Fwd: IPCC announcement of
opportunity] Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:00:14 -0600 Cc: Ben Santer
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------060109000609030501070308
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------

070901080902050505090308"
--------------070901080902050505090308 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii;
format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sarah, I realize that you have got a

copy of
this. What I am concerned about is the use of MAGICC in AR4. It is likely that the
only way
that MAGICC can be legitimately used is for it to be (again!) calibrated against

the
various AOGCMs being run for AR4. The AOGCM data that will be available this time
will
allow us to do this more comprehensively than your TAR analysis. I think this is
something
we should do together this time. I will talk to Jerry Meehl about this tomorrow or
next
week, and also discuss how best to do this statistically with Doug Nychka -- with
a view to
submitting a joint proposal. I would also like to involve Ben, since he is adept
at getting
appropriate data from PCMDI/CMIP data files, and he can add insights that we may
otherwise
miss. So the proposal would involve you, me, Doug and Ben. Tom. ==================
--------
Original Message -------- Subject: IPCC announcement of opportunity Date: Thu, 10

Jun 2004
16:22:15 -0700 From: Curtis Covey To: George Boer , Ed Schneider , Wei-Chyung Wang
, Tim
Barnett , Scott Power , Jouni Raisanen , Yanli Jia , David Webb , Pierre
Friedlingstein ,
Sarah Raper , Jonathan Gregory , Marc Pontaud , Greg Flato , Tom Wigley , Phil
Duffy , Dave
Ritson , Valentina Pavan , Ken Caldeira , letreut , Ken Sperber , Brian Soden ,
Fred Singer
, David Karoly , DUFRESNE Jean-Louis , Andrei Sokolov , Olivier de Viron , kattsov

, Ping
Liu , Tom Knutson , Youichi Tanimoto , Kwang-Yul Kim , "Siobhan O'Farrell" ,

Kristin
Kuntz-Duriseti , Steve Marcus , "Francisco E. Werner" , Mingfang Ting , Cecilia

Bitz ,
"Cathrine.Myrmehl" , "Gregory M. Ostermeier" , Dave Stephenson , "Ola.Johannessen"

,
Svetlana Kuzmina , Alpert Pinhas , Hirsch Tali , Evgeny Volodin , Dan Vimont , Ken
Kunkel ,
Huei-Ping Huang , Zeng-Zhen Hu , "I.-S. Kang" , "Vikram M. Mehta" , Bob

Iacovazzi ,
hengliu@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Daithi Stone , Ray Bradley , Robert Kaufmann ,
d.stainforth1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, raghu@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Rob Colman ,

jhurrell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Chris
Huntingford , Peter Webster , shj@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ysun@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Irina

Gorodetskaya
CC: Ron Stouffer , Mojib Latif , Jerry Meehl , Bryant McAvaney , Peter Gleckler
Dear
colleague, Attached (in PDF) is an announcement of opportunity to participate in

analyses
of global coupled model output for the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. This is an open announcement, so please feel free to

forward it to
anyone who may be interested. Sincerely, The WGCM Climate Simulation Panel Gerald
Meehl,
Chair IPCC_analysis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx --------------070901080902050505090308 Content-

Type:
text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sarah,
I realize that you have got a copy of this.
What I am concerned about is the use of MAGICC in AR4. It is likely that
the only way that MAGICC can be legitimately used is for it to be (again!)
calibrated against the various AOGCMs being run for AR4. The AOGCM
data that will be available this time will allow us to do this more
comprehensively
than your TAR analysis. I think this is something we should do together this time.
I will talk to Jerry Meehl about this tomorrow or next week, and also discuss
how best to do this statistically with Doug Nychka -- with a view to submitting
a joint proposal. I would also like to involve Ben, since he is adept at getting
appropriate data from PCMDI/CMIP data files, and he can add insights that
we may otherwise miss. So the proposal would involve you, me, Doug and Ben.
Tom.
==================
Subject: IPCC announcement of opportunity
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:22:15 -0700
From: Curtis Covey [1]
To: George Boer [2], Ed Schneider [3],
Wei-Chyung Wang [4], Tim Barnett [5],
Scott Power [6], Jouni Raisanen [7], Yanli Jia
[8], David Webb [9], Pierre
Friedlingstein [10], Sarah Raper [11],
Jonathan Gregory [12], Marc Pontaud
[13], Greg Flato [14], Tom Wigley
[15], Phil Duffy [16], Dave Ritson
[17], Valentina Pavan [18], Ken Caldeira
[19], letreut [20], Ken Sperber
[21], Brian Soden [22], Fred Singer [23],
David Karoly [24], DUFRESNE Jean-Louis [25],
Andrei Sokolov [26], Olivier de Viron [27], kattsov
[28], Ping Liu [29], Tom Knutson
[30], Youichi Tanimoto [31], Kwang-Yul Kim
[32], "Siobhan O'Farrell" [33],
Kristin Kuntz-Duriseti [34], Steve Marcus

[35], "Francisco E. Werner" [36], Mingfang Ting
[37], Cecilia Bitz [38], "Cathrine.Myrmehl"
[39], "Gregory M. Ostermeier" [40],
Dave Stephenson [41], "Ola.Johannessen"
[42], Svetlana Kuzmina [43],
Alpert Pinhas [44], Hirsch Tali [45],
Evgeny Volodin [46], Dan Vimont [47], Ken
Kunkel [48], Huei-Ping Huang [49], Zeng-Zhen Hu
[50], "I.-S. Kang" [51], "Vikram M. Mehta"
[52], Bob Iacovazzi [53], [54]hengliu@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
Daithi Stone [55], Ray Bradley [56], Robert
Kaufmann [57], [58]d.stainforth1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
[59]raghu@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Rob Colman [60], [61]jhurrell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Chris
Huntingford [62], Peter Webster [63],
[64]shj@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [65]ysun@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Irina Gorodetskaya
[66]
CC: Ron Stouffer [67], Mojib Latif [68],
Jerry Meehl [69], Bryant McAvaney [70], Peter
Gleckler [71]
Dear colleague,
Attached (in PDF) is an announcement of opportunity to participate in analyses of

global coupled model output for the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This is an open announcement, so please
feel free to forward it to anyone who may be interested.
Sincerely,
The WGCM Climate Simulation Panel Gerald Meehl, Chair

[72]IPCC_analysis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
--------------070901080902050505090308-- --------------060109000609030501070308
Content-Type: application/pdf; name="IPCC.announcement.pdf" Content-Transfer-

Encoding:
base64 Content-Disposition: inline; filename="IPCC.announcement.pdf"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 JSVFT0YN
--------------060109000609030501070308--
References
1. mailto:covey1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:george.boer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:schneide@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:wang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:tbarnett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:s.power@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. mailto:jouni.raisanen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. mailto:Yanli.Jia@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
9. mailto:David.J.Webb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
10. mailto:pierre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
11. mailto:s.raper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
12. mailto:jonathan.gregory@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
13. mailto:marc.pontaud@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
14. mailto:gflato@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
16. mailto:pduffy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
17. mailto:ritson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
18. mailto:pavan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
19. mailto:kenc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
20. mailto:letreut@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
21. mailto:sperber1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
22. mailto:bjs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
23. mailto:singer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
24. mailto:dkaroly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
25. mailto:dufresne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
26. mailto:sokolov@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
27. mailto:o.deviron@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
28. mailto:kattsov@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
29. mailto:pliu@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
30. mailto:tk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
31. mailto:tanimoto@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
32. mailto:kwang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
33. mailto:Siobhan.O'Farrell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
34. mailto:kkd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
35. mailto:slmarcus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
36. mailto:cisco@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
37. mailto:ting@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
38. mailto:bitz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
39. mailto:Cathrine.Myrmehl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
40. mailto:greg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
41. mailto:daves@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
42. mailto:Ola.Johannessen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
43. mailto:Svetlana.Kuzmina@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
44. mailto:pinhas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
45. mailto:tali@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
46. mailto:volodin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
47. mailto:dvimont@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
48. mailto:k-kunkel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
49. mailto:huei@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
50. mailto:hu@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
51. mailto:kang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
52. mailto:vikram@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
53. mailto:raijr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
54. mailto:hengliu@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
55. mailto:stoned@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
56. mailto:rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
57. mailto:kaufmann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
58. mailto:d.stainforth1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
59. mailto:raghu@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
60. mailto:r.colman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
61. mailto:jhurrell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
62. mailto:chg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
63. mailto:pjw@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
64. mailto:shj@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
65. mailto:ysun@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
66. mailto:irina@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
67. mailto:Ronald.Stouffer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
68. mailto:mlatif@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
69. mailto:meehl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
70. mailto:B.McAvaney@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
71. mailto:gleckler1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
72. mailto:IPCC_analysis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

From: "Janice Darch" To: , Subject: Global change and ecosystems Date: Thu, 17 Jun
2004 16:39:42 +0100
2. Call for proposals - Thematic call in the area of 'Global change and
ecosystems'.
OJ C159 (16.06.2004) p.3 Deadline for submissions: 26.10.2004
Activity: Priority thematic area 'Sustainable Development, Global Change and

Ecosystems'; Sub-priority 'Global Change and Ecosystems'.
Call identifier: FP6-2004-Global-3
Total indicative budget: EUR 205 million
Areas called and Instruments:
- Area 6.3.I: Impact and mechanisms of greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric
pollutants on climate, ozone depletion and carbon sinks ( IP, STREP, CA) - Area
6.3.II: Water cycle, including soil related aspects ( IP, STREP, CA) - Area
6.3.III: Biodiversity and ecosystems ( IP, STREP, CA, NoE) - Area 6.3.IV:
Mechanisms of desertification and natural disasters ( IP, STREP, CA) - Area 6.3.V:
Strategies for sustainable land management, including coastal zones, agricultural
land and forests ( IP, STREP, CA) - Area 6.3.VI: Operational forecasting and
modelling including global climatic change observation systems ( IP ) - Area
6.3.VII: Complementary research (IP, CA) - Area 6.3.VIII: Cross-cutting issue:
Sustainable Development concepts and tools (STREP, CA) - Area 6.3.IX: Specific
Support Actions ( SSA )
FURTHER INFORMATION: European Commission The FP6 Information Desk Directorate

General RTD B-1049 Brussels www.cordis.lu/ ____________________________ Dr. J.P.
Darch Research Administrator School of Environmental Sciences University of East
Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ U.K.
Tel : 44 (0)1603 592994 Fax : 44 (0)1603 593035

From: Phil Jones To: David Viner Subject: Re: Proposal for a new Tyndall-led
European research initiative Date: Fri Jun 18 16:14:57 2004 Cc: Clare Goodess
I'll leave it up to you then.
Phil
At 16:04 18/06/2004 +0100, David Viner wrote:
Phil
Err! yes i think this would be good to get involved.
On 18 Jun 2004, at 15:40, Phil Jones wrote:

Dave and Clare,
I am presuming we (CRU) don't want to get involved with this.
Cheers
Phil
From: "Alex Haxeltine"
To: "Terry Barker (DAE)" ,
"Andrew Jordan" ,
"Bob Nicholls" <'rjn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx'>,
"emily boyd" ,
"Emma Tompkins" ,
"Franziska Matthies" ,
"jonathan Kohler" ,
"Kate Brown" ,
"Neil Adger" ,
"Nick Brooks" ,
"Phil Jones" ,
"rachel warren" ,
"simon shackley" ,
"Steve Sorrell" ,
"suraje Dessai"
Subject: Proposal for a new Tyndall-led European research initiative
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:16:20 +0100
Organization: University of East Anglia
Importance: Normal
Dear Colleague,
The Tyndall Centre is intending to lead a bid for a large EU research
project (ca 12-15 million Euros in the initial bid) on climate change
adaptation and mitigation strategies in Europe. The call was announced
this week with outline bids (ca. 20 pages) due by October (3rd call of
the sixth framework programme, FP6).
Please find attached a copy of an invitation that has been sent out to a
key set of European partners. This provides a little further information
on the proposed scope and content of the project. We will be holding a
planning meeting with European partners from the evening of Monday 19th
July to end of Tuesday 20th July 2004.
You are receiving this email because we thought that you might have some
interest in participating in this project. We would therefore like to
hold an internal planning meeting of all interested Tyndall-linked
researchers on the 19th July (starting at lunchtime; ca 3-4 hours long).
Please let us know by 25th June, if you would like to take part in this
internal planning meeting; and also whether you would like to make a
short presentation at the meeting, about how your work with the Tyndall
Centre might contribute. If you cannot attend on the 19th but are
nevertheless interested in contributing to the proposal, please also let
us know.
Warm regards,
Mike Hulme
John Schellnhuber
Alex Haxeltine
Prof. Phil Jones

NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
planning meeting on 19-20 July.rtf>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dr David Viner
Norwich NR4 7TJ
Tel: +44 1603 592089
Fax: +44 1603 507784
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/link (With Information Forum)
[2]http://www.e-clat.org Tourism and Climate Change (With Information Forum)
[3]http://ipcc-ddc.cru.uea.ac.uk
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/link
2. http://www.e-clat.org/
3. http://ipcc-ddc.cru.uea.ac.uk/

From: Tom Wigley To: Sarah Raper , Sarah Raper , Doug Nychka , Ben Santer Subject:
AR4 proposal Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 08:17:37 -0600

format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Sarah, Doug and Ben,
Could you please check out the attached proposal. It is short, but actually more
than is necessary according to what Jerry Meehl has told me.
I will be back in Boulder on Wednesday and would like to give it to Jerry then.
Thanks, Tom.
--------------050700050108000400050801 Content-Type: application/msword;

name="AR4Proposal.doc" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition:
inline; filename="AR4Proposal.doc"
0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAKwAAAAAA
AAAAEAAALQAAAAEAAAD+////AAAAACoAAAD///////////////////////////////////// /////////
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////
//////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////// ///////////////////////////////////spcEACyAJBAAA8BK/AAAAAAAAEAAAAAAABAAA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 //8TAAAA
FAAAABUAAAAWAAAAFwAAABgAAAAZAAAA/v///xsAAAAcAAAAHQAAAB4AAAAfAAAA
IAAAACEAAAD+////IwAAACQAAAAlAAAAJgAAACcAAAAoAAAAKQAAAP7////9////LAAAAP7/ ///
+/////v////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////
/////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////
//////////////////////// /////////////1IAbwBvAHQAIABFAG4AdAByAHkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWAAUB//////////8DAAAABgkCAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAMB87/2ZV8QBLgAAAIAAAAAAAAAAMQBUAGEAYgBsAGUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA4AAgD///////////// //8AAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASAAAAABAAAAAAAABXAG8A
cgBkAEQAbwBjAHUAbQBlAG4AdAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAGgACAQUAAAD//////////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAmIgAAAAAAAAUAUwB1AG0AbQBhAHIAeQBJAG4AZgBvAHIAbQBhAHQAaQBvAG4A
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAoAAIBAgAAAAQAAAD/////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGgAAAAAQAAAAAAAABQBEAG8AYwB1AG0AZQBuAHQA
UwB1AG0AbQBhAHIAeQBJAG4AZgBvAHIAbQBhAHQAaQBvAG4AAAAAAAAAAAAAADgAAgH///// /////////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 /////////
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////
//////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////////////////////////wEA/v8DCgAA/////wYJAgAAAAAA
wAAAAAAAAEYYAAAATWljcm9zb2Z0IFdvcmQgRG9jdW1lbnQACgAAAE1TV29yZERvYwAQAAAA
V29yZC5Eb2N1bWVudC44APQ5snEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA
--------------050700050108000400050801--

From: Tom Wigley To: Jerry Meehl , Sarah Raper , Sarah Raper , Ben Santer , Doug
Nychka Subject: AR4: missing attachment Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:51:11 -0600

format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--------------020608070205090505010406 Content-Type: application/msword;

name="AR4Proposal.doc" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition:
inline; filename="AR4Proposal.doc"
0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAJwAAAAAA
AAAAEAAAKQAAAAEAAAD+////AAAAACYAAAD///////////////////////////////////// /////////
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////
//////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////// ///////////////////////////////////spcEACyAJBAAA8BK/AAAAAAAAEAAAAAAABAAA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 /////////
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////
//////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////// //////////////////9SAG8AbwB0ACAARQBuAHQAcgB5AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFgAFAf//////////AwAAAAYJAgAAAAAAwAAAAAAA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 /////////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 /////////
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////
//////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//////////////////////////////////////////////////8BAP7/AwoAAP////8GCQIA
AAAAAMAAAAAAAABGGAAAAE1pY3Jvc29mdCBXb3JkIERvY3VtZW50AAoAAABNU1dvcmREb2MA
EAAAAFdvcmQuRG9jdW1lbnQuOAD0ObJxAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAA== --------------020608070205090505010406--
From: Tom Wigley To: Sarah Raper , Ben Santer , Doug Nychka Subject: [Fwd: AR4
analyses] Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 10:07:36 -0600

--------------020800020009020904000309
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------

020101090700030501080805"
format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -------- Original Message --------

Subject:
AR4 analyses Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 09:23:32 -0600 From: Jerry Meehl To: Curtis
Covey ,
wigley Thanks Tom. We have registered you, and will keep you posted. You are
correct that
the forcing data you require may not be available from all models. Hopefully there
will be
a few who will have what you need. Jerry and Curt -------- Original Message
--------
Subject: AR4: missing attachment Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:51:11 -0600 From: Tom
Wigley
Organization: NCAR/CGD To: Jerry Meehl , Sarah Raper , Sarah Raper , Ben Santer ,
Doug
Nychka --------------020101090700030501080805 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-

ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: AR4 analyses
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 09:23:32 -0600
From: Jerry Meehl [1]
To: Curtis Covey [2], wigley [3]
Thanks Tom. We have registered you, and will keep you posted. You are correct that
the
forcing data you require may not be available from all models. Hopefully there
will be a
few who will have what you need.
Jerry and Curt
Subject: AR4: missing attachment
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:51:11 -0600
From: Tom Wigley [4] Organization: NCAR/CGD
To: Jerry Meehl [5], Sarah Raper [6], Sarah
Raper [7], Ben Santer [8], Doug Nychka
[9]
--------------020101090700030501080805-- --------------020800020009020904000309
Content-Type: application/msword; name="AR4Proposal.doc" Content-Transfer-

Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="AR4Proposal.doc"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--------------020800020009020904000309--
References
2. mailto:covey1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:sraper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. mailto:s.raper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. mailto:santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
9. mailto:nychka@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

From: Phil Jones To: "Michael E. Mann" Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Date: Thu Jul
8 16:30:16 2004
Mike,
Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY - don't pass on. Relevant paras are the
last
2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing

Eugenia
for years. He knows the're wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him
to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !
I didn't say any of this, so be careful how you use it - if at all. Keep quiet
also
that you have the pdf.
The attachment is a very good paper - I've been pushing Adrian over the last weeks
to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and
also
for ERA-40. The basic message is clear - you have to put enough surface and sonde
obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand
out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and
ice.
The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is
also
losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as
I see
it.
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will
keep
them
out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil
Mike,
For your interest, there is an ECMWF ERA-40 Report coming out soon, which
shows that Kalnay and Cai are wrong. It isn't that strongly worded as the first
author
is a personal friend of Eugenia. The result is rather hidden in the middle of the
report.
It isn't peer review, but a slimmed down version will go to a journal. KC are
wrong
because
the difference between NCEP and real surface temps (CRU) over eastern N. America
doesn't
happen with ERA-40. ERA-40 assimilates surface temps (which NCEP didn't) and doing
this makes the agreement with CRU better. Also ERA-40's trends in the lower
atmosphere
are all physically consistent where NCEP's are not - over eastern US.
I can send if you want, but it won't be out as a report for a couple of months.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones

NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Phil Jones To: t.m.melvin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Polar Urals Date: Wed Jul
21 15:06:31 2004
Tom,
Can you send me via email the two sets of results you showed this morning of
the dating for the trw and mxd series from the Polar Urals? Just the two separate
ones - forget Yamal.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Phil Jones To: dwlarson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re: Date: Fri Jul 23 15:29:11
2004
Doug,
Maybe Steve sent you the two emails I've resent. Ignore my ramblings at the end of
one,
but I was getting a little fed up. The Legates email is at the end, in case you're
interested.
The pdf is worth a read. Odd that he writes a press release, then starts working
on a
paper.
We've very occasionally written a press release, but only after the paper has come
out.
I tried to explain the 'missing' rings. They aren't missing, but due to the
samples not
being right for density measurements. All Schweingruber's chronologies are

constructed
this way - traditional ring width measurements aren't made. Some of the Russian
groups
he's worked with have added extra ring width cores and sometime get longer series,
but
all the data Keith and I work with is from Fritz, so if density is missing, then
RW is
also.
Fritz did almost all the coring - 99% of the sites. We only help coring on a
couple of
occasions.
This comes from alignment tracking as you say, but Fritz also says it is partly
due to
the need to extract the lignin and to avoid resin. When we cored together, he was
always
saying we weren't doing it properly getting twisted cores. I'm not a proper dendro
person,
as I only got into this because of Keith - it may not be lignin, but something has
to be
extracted with solvents.
The Polar Urals site was collected by Fritz and Stepan Shiyatov. There are living
trees
back to the 1500s and then stumps at a slightly higher elevation. Stepan has been
back
more recently and regeneration is occurring at higher levels, but it is taking

time. Tree
lines
take a while to respond to the recent warmth in some regions. Once the trees are
established
and not killed by frosts/snow in winter they survive even if it gets cooler. I
discussed
this
in a review paper in RoG attached. The section on the issue is brief.
All the cores were collected over a couple of days. Fritz made a mistake with the
labelling
for one core and that explains the 400 years of missing values. Someone at WDCP
must have combined the cores with the same ids. Dendro people are always looking
for the
oldest trees and we kept the earliest series in. Steve seems to have a thing about
these
and the 10th and 11th centuries, but they are correctly dated. Fritz uses loads of
plots
and pointer years and doesn't make mistakes normally. There is a very distinct
year at
AD 1032. Fritz is also cross dating with LWW and EWW and other features and not
just
on RW. I say not just, he normally does with density. At the coring stage Fritz
had no
idea
of the ages of the stumps (well just the number of years). There may have been
samples
off the front that couldn't be dated at all, for all I know. I suspect though they
are
roughly
the same calendar age, as the site has distinct dates for the start of trees,
which
represent
regeneration periods. Maybe you can try and explain the tree-line argument to
Steve.
When he had to omit parts of cores, he was always able to know where the two parts
sat
in the sequence. We need to keep them together to do things like RCS.
Anyway, I have to go home - it's been very wet lately and the grass has grown. The
lawn must be mowed when the sun shines.
Keep pushing that he should write up what he does (and Ross) in proper journals.
E&E
and Climate Research are not read by many now. I only look at them when I get
alerted and I remain exasperated.
Cheers
Phil
Legates email
Phil Jones has made a valid point in that some of the articles cited
in my critique do not 'directly' address problems with Mann and Jones (MJ)
but rather, address problems with earlier works by Mann, Bradley, and
Hughes (MBH) and other colleagues. Fair enough - I have changed the
critique to reflect that fact. The revised version has been posted since
July 19 at:
[1]http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba478/ba478.pdf
However, I still contend that most of my original arguments - namely, the
problems with the shaft, blade, and sheath - apply equally to Mann and
Jones as well as the other Mann et al. manifestations of the 'hockey
stick'.
MJ incorporate data from a number of the same sources as those used
by MBH; for example, Mann's unpublished PC1 from the western North
American tree-ring data, Cook's Tasmanian tree rings, Thompson's Quelccaya

and Dunde ice core oxygen isotope records (the latter embedded in Yang's
Chinese composite), and Fisher's stacked Greenland ice core oxygen isotope
record. Calibration and verification of MJ includes the flawed MBH curve.
Thus, any errors in MBH effectively undermine the calibration-verification
results of MJ, leaving this study unsupported and any problems with the
underlying common proxies identified in critiques of MBH will also result
in identical problems in MJ.
My criticism regarding the blade is that 0.6 deg C warming for the
last century is noted by the IPCC whereas MJ (and other M et al
representations) have up to 0.95 deg C warming in their observed record.
See MJ's figure 2 where for the global and NH reconstruction, their
estimates for 2000 exceed +0.4 and +0.5 (nearly +0.6), respectively.
MJ's NH curve is included in the attached graph. Thus, I stand by my
criticism of MJ on this point, which is more egregious in MJ than other M
et al representations.
>From Jones: "The trend over the 20th century in the Figure and in the
instrumental data. IPCC quotes 0.6 deg C over the 1901-2000 period. Fact
- but Legates is eyeballing the curve to get 0.95 deg C. A figure isn't
given in Mann and Jones (2003). Take it from me the trend is about the
same as the instrumental record."
Funny, but there IS a figure in MJ - see their Figure 2. As for me
'eyeballing' an apparently non-existent curve, I attach a figure from Soon
et al. (2004) that contains a portion of MJ's Figure 2 to allow others to
decide for themselves whether MJ suggest a twentieth century warming of
0.6 deg C or 0.95 deg C. Moreover, maybe someone can explain why every
time Mann and his colleagues draft another curve, the temperature in 2000
gets warmer and warmer after the fact...
My criticisms regarding the sheath (largely from a paper on which I
am working) stem from the characterization of the uncertainty by MJ that

arises solely from the 'fit' statistics to the 1600-1855 period using
cross-validation with, not observations, but composites of three
previously compiled reconstructions, including that developed by MBH - the
focus of known flaws and errors in the shaft. Note that some of the same
data are used in both MBH and MJ, which doesn't allow for a truly
independent cross-validation. My rather obvious point was not that fit
statistics should not be included (as Jones asserts) but that MJ included
no errors in either input realization (observations or proxy data) or
other obvious sources of error. The claim by MBH and MJ is that only the
model lack-of-fit contributes to uncertainty is inherently flawed.
Considerable errors exist in the representation of both fields -
annual temperatures from both observations and proxy records - and must be
incorporated. Clearly, there is a spatial bias associated with
observations that are biased away from the oceans, high latitudes, and
high altitudes. The spatial problem is far more pronounced when only a
handful of proxies are used to represent the global temperatures at
earlier time periods. Both MBH and MJ are equally guilty in this regard.
David R. Legates
Several people have asked me for the full references to the works I have
cited. They are:
Chapman, D.S., M.G. Bartlett, and R.N. Harris (2004): Comment on 'Ground
vs. surface air temperature trends: Implications for borehole surface
temperature reconstructions' by M.E. Mann and G. Schmidt. Geophysical
Research Letters, 31, L07205, doi:10.1029/2003GL019054.
Esper, J, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002): Low-frequency signals
in long tree-ring chronologies for reconstructing past temperature
variability, Science, 295, 2250-2253.
Esper, J, D.C. Frank, and R.J.S. Wilson (2004): Climate reconstructions:
Low-frequency ambition and high-frequency ratification. EOS, Transactions

of the American Geophysical Union, Vol. 85 (12):113,120.
IPCC TAR (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Third Assessment
Report) (2001): Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Houghton,
J.T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D.J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P. J., Dai, X.,
Maskell, K., Johnson, C.A. (Eds.), Cambridge University Press.
Mann, M.E., R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1998): Global-Scale
Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries,
Nature, 392, 779-787. [see also the correction in Nature - Mann, Bradley,
and Hughes, 2004]
Mann, M.E., R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999): Northern Hemisphere
Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and
Limitations. Geophysical Research Letters, 26, 759-762.
Mann, M.E., and P.D. Jones (2003): Global surface temperature over the
past two millennia, Geophysical Research Letters, 30(15), 1820, doi:
10.1029/2003GL017814.
Mann, M.E., and G. Schmidt (2003): Ground vs. surface air temperature
trends: Implications for borehole surface temperature reconstructions.
Geophysical Research Letters, 30(12), 1607, doi:10.1029/2003GL017170.
McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick (2003): Corrections to the Mann et al
(1998) Proxy Data Based and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature
Series. Energy and Environment, 14, 751-771.
Pollack, H.N., and J.E. Smerdon (2004): Borehole climate reconstructions:
Spatial structure and hemispheric averages. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 109, D11106, doi:10.1029/2003JD004163.
Rutherford, S., and M.E. Mann (2004): Correction to 'Optimal surface
temperature reconstructions using terrestrial borehole data'. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 109, D11107, doi:10.1029/2003JD004290.
Soon, W.-H., S.L. Baliunas, C. Idso, S. Idso, and D.R. Legates (2003):
Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years:

A Reappraisal. Energy and Environment, 14:233-296.
Soon, W.-H., D.R. Legates, and S.L. Baliunas (2004): Estimation and
Representation of Long-Term (>40 year) trends of
Northern-Hemisphere-gridded Surface Temperature: A Note of Caution.
Geophysical Research Letters, 31(3).
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba478/ba478.pdf

From: Phil Jones To: "Janice Lough" Subject: Re: liked the paper Date: Fri Aug 6
09:26:49 2004
Janice,
Most of the data series in most of the plots have just appeared on the CRU web
site.
Go to data then to paleoclimate. Did this to stop getting hassled by the skeptics
for the
data series. Mike Mann refuses to talk to these people and I can understand why.
They are
just trying to find if we've done anything wrong. I sent one of them loads of
series
and he barely said a thankyou. It seems they are now going for Tom Crowley, Lonnie
Thompson and Gordon Jacoby as most of their series are not on web sites.
Below is a link to an awful piece by Legates. He told me he is a writing a paper,

but
wrote the press release first ! The pdf is worth getting for a couple of
sentences, when
he
said that MJ restricted their use of paleo series to those that had correlations
with
instrumental data ! It is a classic. 'Our uncertainty estimates are based solely

on how
well
the proxy records match the observed data' !
The Legates piece must have been sent to loads of environment correspondents
across
the world and a number of op-ed pieces appeared. Some were awful. Most have had
responses from Ray Bradley, Caspar Amman and others.
Hope all is well with you and all the best to all. Glad you enjoyed the paper.
Cheers
Phil
PS Do you want to get involved in IPCC this time? I'm the CLA of the atmospheric
obs.
chapter with Kevin Trenberth and we'll be looking for Contributing Authors to help
the
Lead Authors we have. Paleo is in a different section this time led by Peck and
Eystein
Janssen. Keith is a lead author as well.
Phil Jones has made a valid point in that some of the articles cited
in my critique do not 'directly' address problems with Mann and Jones (MJ)
but rather, address problems with earlier works by Mann, Bradley, and
Hughes (MBH) and other colleagues. Fair enough - I have changed the
critique to reflect that fact. The revised version has been posted since
July 19 at:
[1]http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba478/ba478.pdf
However, I still contend that most of my original arguments - namely, the
problems with the shaft, blade, and sheath - apply equally to Mann and
Jones as well as the other Mann et al. manifestations of the 'hockey
stick'.
MJ incorporate data from a number of the same sources as those used
by MBH; for example, Mann's unpublished PC1 from the western North
American tree-ring data, Cook's Tasmanian tree rings, Thompson's Quelccaya
and Dunde ice core oxygen isotope records (the latter embedded in Yang's
Chinese composite), and Fisher's stacked Greenland ice core oxygen isotope
record. Calibration and verification of MJ includes the flawed MBH curve.
Thus, any errors in MBH effectively undermine the calibration-verification
results of MJ, leaving this study unsupported and any problems with the
underlying common proxies identified in critiques of MBH will also result
in identical problems in MJ.
My criticism regarding the blade is that 0.6 deg C warming for the
last century is noted by the IPCC whereas MJ (and other M et al
representations) have up to 0.95 deg C warming in their observed record.
See MJ's figure 2 where for the global and NH reconstruction, their
estimates for 2000 exceed +0.4 and +0.5 (nearly +0.6), respectively.
MJ's NH curve is included in the attached graph. Thus, I stand by my
criticism of MJ on this point, which is more egregious in MJ than other M
et al representations.
>From Jones: "The trend over the 20th century in the Figure and in the
instrumental data. IPCC quotes 0.6 deg C over the 1901-2000 period. Fact
- but Legates is eyeballing the curve to get 0.95 deg C. A figure isn't
given in Mann and Jones (2003). Take it from me the trend is about the
same as the instrumental record."
Funny, but there IS a figure in MJ - see their Figure 2. As for me

'eyeballing' an apparently non-existent curve, I attach a figure from Soon
et al. (2004) that contains a portion of MJ's Figure 2 to allow others to
decide for themselves whether MJ suggest a twentieth century warming of
0.6 deg C or 0.95 deg C. Moreover, maybe someone can explain why every
time Mann and his colleagues draft another curve, the temperature in 2000
gets warmer and warmer after the fact...
My criticisms regarding the sheath (largely from a paper on which I
am working) stem from the characterization of the uncertainty by MJ that
arises solely from the 'fit' statistics to the 1600-1855 period using
cross-validation with, not observations, but composites of three
previously compiled reconstructions, including that developed by MBH - the
focus of known flaws and errors in the shaft. Note that some of the same
data are used in both MBH and MJ, which doesn't allow for a truly
independent cross-validation. My rather obvious point was not that fit
statistics should not be included (as Jones asserts) but that MJ included
no errors in either input realization (observations or proxy data) or
other obvious sources of error. The claim by MBH and MJ is that only the
model lack-of-fit contributes to uncertainty is inherently flawed.
Considerable errors exist in the representation of both fields -
annual temperatures from both observations and proxy records - and must be
incorporated. Clearly, there is a spatial bias associated with
observations that are biased away from the oceans, high latitudes, and
high altitudes. The spatial problem is far more pronounced when only a
handful of proxies are used to represent the global temperatures at
earlier time periods. Both MBH and MJ are equally guilty in this regard.
David R. Legates
At 15:55 06/08/2004 +1000, you wrote:
Dear Phil
Just finished reading your paper with Mike M in Rev of Geophysics which I
very much enjoyed - will let you know when it hits the Mission Beach
Chronicle!
Hope all is well
best wishes
Janice
Janice M. Lough
Principal Research Scientist
Australian Institute of Marine Science
PMB 3, Townsville MC
Queensland 4810
Australia
email: j.lough@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Tel: (07) 47 534248
Fax: (07) 47 725852
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained within this transmission is for the use of
the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or
legally privileged material and/or material the subject of copyright
and/or personal information and/or sensitive information that is
subject to the Privacy Act 1988. Any review, re-transmission,
disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in
reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited.
If you have received this email in error please notify the AIMS
Privacy Officer on (07) 4753 4444 and delete all copies of this
transmission together with any attachments.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba478/ba478.pdf

From: Phil Jones To: Gabi Hegerl , "Michael E. Mann" Subject: Re: Mann and Jones
(2003) Date: Tue Aug 10 15:47:04 2004 Cc: Tom Crowley
Gabi,
No second attempt - don't know what the first was? We'll be doing a new
instrumental
data
set (surprisingly called HadCRUT3), but that's it at the moment.
Attached is a good review of corals - just out.
Cheers
Phil
At 10:36 10/08/2004 -0400, Gabi Hegerl wrote:
Hi Mike and Phil,
Thanks! Yes, factor 1.29 will get me closer to my best guess scaling (factor 1.6
to
same-size signals).
The scaling is a tough issue, and I think there are lots of possibilities to do it
depending on what one wants
to do. For comparing underlying forced signals, I think tls is best. To get a
conservative size paleo reconstruction
(like what part of instrumental do we reconstruct with paleo), the traditional

scaling
is best.
I'll write up what Myles and I have been thinking and send it.
Phil, if there is a second attempt at that with the Hadley Centre, let me know, I
don't
like racing anybody!
Gabi
Dear Phil and Gabi,
I've attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote
for
doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are
likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near
future, so
best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they
want
to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes,
but
don't pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.
In the process of trying to clean it up, I realized I had something a bit odd, not
necessarily wrong, but it makes a small difference. It seems that I used the
'long' NH
instrumental series back to 1753 that we calculated in the following paper:
* Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., Keimig, F.T.,
[1]Optimal
Surface Temperature Reconstructions using Terrestrial Borehole Data, Journal of

Geophysical Research, 108 (D7), 4203, doi: 10.1029/2002JD002532, 2003.
(based on the sparse available long instrumental records) to set the scale for the
decadal standard deviation of the proxy composite. Not sure why I used this,
rather than
using the CRU NH record back to 1856 for this purpose. It looks like I had two
similarly
named series floating around in the code, and used perhaps the less preferable one
for
setting the scale.
Turns it, this has the net effect of decreasing the amplitude of the NH
reconstruction
by a factor of 0.11/0.14 = 1.29.
This may explain part of what perplexed Gabi when she was comparing w/ the
instrumental
series. I've attached the version of the reconstruction where the NH is scaled by
the
CRU NH record instead, as well as the Matlab code which you're welcome to try to
use
yourself and play around with. Basically, this increases the amplitude of the
reconstruction everywhere by the factor 1.29. Perhaps this is more in line w/ what
Gabi
was estimating (Gabi?)
Anyway, doesn't make a major difference, but you might want to take this into
account in
any further use of the Mann and Jones series...
Phil: is this worth a followup note to GRL, w/ a link to the Matlab code?
Mike
p.s. Gabi: when do you and Tom plan to publish your NH reconstruction that now
goes back
about 1500 years or so? It would be nice to have more independent reconstructions
published in the near future! Maybe I missed this? Thanks...
______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
% COMPOSITENH" % % (c) 2003, M.E. Mann % % THIS ROUTINE PERFORMS A RECONSTRUCTION

OF NORTHERN HEMISPHERE % MEAN ANNUAL TEMPERATURE BASED ON A WEIGHTED COMPOSITE OF
LONG-TERM TEMPERATURE % PROXY RECORDS SCALED AGAINST THE INSTRUMENTAL HEMISPHERIC
MEAN TEMPERATURE % SERIES, AS USED IN THE FOLLOWING TWO PUBLICATIONS: % % % Jones,
P.D., Mann, M.E., Climate Over Past Millennia, Reviews of Geophysics, % 42,
RG2002, doi:10.1029/2003RG000143, 2004 % % Mann, M.E., Jones, P.D., Global Surface
Temperatures over the Past two Millennia, % Geophysical Research Letters, % 30
(15), 1820, doi: 10.1029/2003GL017814, 2003 % % % 1. READ IN INSTRUMENTAL RECORD %
% Read in CRU instrumental NH mean temeperature record (1856-2003) load nh.dat;
yearinstr=nh(:,1); % calculate both warm-season and annual means
warmseason=(nh(:,5)+nh(:,6)+nh(:,7)+nh(:,8)+nh(:,9)+nh(:,10))/6;
annualmean=nh(:,14); % use annual mean record in this analysis nhmean=annualmean;
% % 2. READ IN PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED PROXY-RECONSTRUCTIONS OF NH ANNUAL MEAN %
RECONSTRUCTIONS AND FORM APPROPRIATELY SCALED COMPOSITE % % Read in Mann et al
(1998), Crowley and Lowery (2000), and Jones et al (1998) % NH temperature
reconstructions load nhem-millennium.dat; load crowleylowery.dat; load
joneshemisrecons.dat; nhmbh=nhem_millennium(1:981,2);
nhjones=joneshemisrecons(1:981,2); nhcl=crowleylowery(1:981,2);
yearmillen=nhem_millennium(1:981,1); % since some reconstructions are only
decadally resolved, smooth each on % decadal timescales through use of a lowpass
filter with cutoff at % f=0.1 cycle/year. Based on use of the filtering routine
described in: % % Mann, M.E., On Smoothing Potentially Non-Stationary Climate Time
Series, % Geophysical Research Letters, 31, L07214, doi: 10.1029/2004GL019569,
2004. % % using 'minimum norm' constraint at both boundaries for all time series
nhsmooth=lowpass(nhmean,0.10,0,0); nhmbhsmooth=lowpass(nhmbh,0.10,0,0);
nhjonessmooth=lowpass(nhjones,0.10,0,0); nhclsmooth=lowpass(nhcl,0.10,0,0); % Mann
et al (1998) already calibrated in terms of hemispheric annual mean temperature,
but % reference mean has to be adjusted to equal that of the instrumental series %
over the 1856-1980 overlap period (which uses a 1961-1990 reference period)
admbh=mean(nhsmooth(1:125))-mean(nhmbhsmooth(857:981)); newmbh=nhmbhsmooth+admbh;
% need to adjust and scale Jones et al (1998) and Crowley and Lowery (2000) %
reconstructions to match mean and trend of smoothed instrumental series % over
1856-1980 t1=1856; t2=1980; x=(t1:t2)'; nhlong=nhmean(1:125);
smoothlong=lowpass(nhlong,0.10,0,0); amean0=mean(smoothlong); y=smoothlong;
[yc,t,trend0,detrend0,xm,ym] = lintrend(x, y); % y=nhclsmooth(t1-999:t2-999);
[yc,t,trendcl,detrendcl,xm,ym] = lintrend(x, y); % y=nhjonessmooth(t1-999:t2-999);
[yc,t,trendjones,detrendjones,xm,ym] = lintrend(x, y); %
multjones=norm(trend0)/norm(trendjones); adjustedjones=nhjonessmooth*multjones;
offsetjones=amean0-mean(adjustedjones(t1-999:t2-999));
newjones=adjustedjones+offsetjones; newjones=newjones'; %
multcl=norm(trend0)/norm(trendcl); adjustedcl=nhclsmooth*multcl; offsetcl=amean0-
mean(adjustedcl(t1-999:t2-999)); newcl=adjustedcl+offsetcl; newcl=newcl'; %
nhlongcompose=0.3333*(newmbh+newjones'+newcl')'; % % 3. READ IN AND PROCESS PROXY
TEMPERATURE RECORDS % M=8; load 'china-series1.dat' load 'itrdb-long-fixed.dat'
load 'westgreen-o18.dat' load 'torny.dat' load 'chesapeake.dat' load 'mongolia-
darrigo.dat' load 'dahl-jensen-gripbh1yrinterp.txt' load 'dahl-jensen-
dye3bh1yrinterp.txt' % read in years x1=china_series1(:,1);
x2=itrdb_long_fixed(:,1); x3=westgreen_o18(:,1); x4=torny(:,1);
x5=chesapeake(:,1); x6=mongolia_darrigo(:,1); x7=dahl_jensen_gripbh1yrinterp(:,1);
x8=dahl_jensen_dye3bh1yrinterp(:,1); % read in proxy values y1=china_series1(:,2);
y2=itrdb_long_fixed(:,2); y3=westgreen_o18(:,2); y4=torny(:,2);
y5=chesapeake(:,2); y6=mongolia_darrigo(:,2); y7=dahl_jensen_gripbh1yrinterp(:,2);
y8=dahl_jensen_dye3bh1yrinterp(:,2); % Store decadal correlation of each proxy
record with local available % overlapping CRU gridpoint surface temperature record
(see Mann and Jones, 2003) corr(1)=0.22; corr(2)=0.52; corr(3)=0.75; corr(4)=0.32;
corr(5)=0.31; corr(6)=0.40; corr(7)=0.53; corr(8)=0.52; % Estimate Area
represented by each proxy record based on latitude of % record and estimated
number of temperature gridpoints represented by record pi=3.14159;
factor=pi/180.0; lat(1)=32.5; dof(1)=4; lat(2)=37.5; dof(2)=2; lat(3)=77;
dof(3)=0.667; lat(4)=68; dof(4)=3.5; lat(5)=37.0; dof(5)=1.0; lat(6)=47; dof(6)=1;
lat(7)=73; dof(7)=0.667; lat(8)=65; dof(8)=0.667; for j=1:M
area(j)=dof(j)*cos(lat(j)*factor); end % determine min and max available years

over all proxy records % minarray=[min(x1) min(x2) min(x3) min(x4) min(x5) min(x6)
min(x7) min(x8)]; maxarray=[max(x1) max(x2) max(x3) max(x4) max(x5) max(x6)
max(x7) max(x8)]; tbegin=max(minarray); tend1=min(maxarray); tend=max(maxarray); %
initialize proxy data matrix notnumber = -9999; for j=1:M for i=1:minarray(j)-1
time(i)=i;
mat(i,j)=notnumber; end for i=minarray(j):tend
time(i)=i; end for i=minarray(j):maxarray(j)
if (j==1) mat(i,j)=y1(i-minarray(j)+1);
end
end
end
end
end
end
end
end end % added in Jones and Mann (2004), extend series ending between % 1980
calibration period end and 2001 boundary by persistence of % last available value
through 2001 for i=maxarray(j)+1:tend
if (j==1) mat(i,j)=y1(maxarray(j)-minarray(j)+1);
end
end
end
end
end
end
end
end end end time=time'; data=[time mat]; % decadally lowpass of proxy series at
f=0.1 cycle/year as described earlier for j=1:M
unfiltered=mat(minarray(j):tend,j);
filt=lowpass(unfiltered,0.1,0,0);
for i=1:minarray(j)-1
filtered(i,j)=mat(i,j);
end
for i=minarray(j):tend
filtered(i,j)=filt(i-minarray(j)+1);
end end % standardize data % first remove mean from each series for j=1:M
icount=0;
amean(j)=0;
for i=1:tend
if (filtered(i,j)>notnumber)
icount=icount+1;
amean(j)=amean(j)+filtered(i,j);
end
end
amean(j)=amean(j)/icount; end % now divide through by standard deviation for j=1:M
icount=0;
asum=0;
for i=1:tend
if (filtered(i,j)>notnumber)
asum=asum+(filtered(i,j)-amean(j))^2;
icount=icount+1;
end
end
sd(j)=sqrt(asum/icount);
for i=1:tend
standardized(i,j)=filtered(i,j);
if (mat(i,j)>notnumber)
standardized(i,j)=(filtered(i,j)-amean(j))/sd(j);
end
end end % % 4. Calculate NH mean temperature reconstruction through weighted (and

% unweighted) composites of the decadally-smoothed proxy indicators % % impose
weighting scheme for NH mean composite for j=1:M % weighting method 1: weight each
proxy series by approximate area % weighting method 2: weight each proxy series by
correlation between % predictor and local gridpoint series over available overlap
period % during calibration interval % weighting method 3: weight each proxy
series by correlation between % predictor and NH mean series over calibration
interval: % weightlong(j)=lincor(nhlong,standardized(1856:1980,j)); % weighting
method 4: combine 1 and 3 % weighting method 5: combine 1 amd 2 (this is the
'standard' weighting % scheme chosen by Mann and Jones (2003) % use standard
weighting scheme
weight(j)=corr(j)*area(j); end % perform reconstructions based on: % (1) the 6

proxy temperature records available over interval AD 200-1980 % (2) all 8 proxy
temperature records available over interval AD 553-1980 istart0=200; istart1=200;
istart2=553; nseries1=0; nseries2=0; weightsum1=0; weightsum2=0; for j=1:M
if (istart1>=minarray(j))
nseries1=nseries1+1;
weightsum1=weightsum1+weight(j);
end
nseries2=nseries2+1;
weightsum2=weightsum2+weight(j);
end end % calculate composites through 1995 (too few series available after that
date) % As discussed above, persistence is used to extend any series ending %
between 1980 and 1995 as described by Jones and Mann (2004). tend=1995; for
i=istart1:tend
unweighted1(i)=0;
unweighted2(i)=0;
weighted1(i)=0;
weighted2(i)=0;
for j=1:M
unweighted1(i)=unweighted1(i)+standardized(i,j);
weighted1(i)=weighted1(i)+weight(j)*standardized(i,j);
end
unweighted2(i)=unweighted2(i)+standardized(i,j);
weighted2(i)=weighted2(i)+weight(j)*standardized(i,j);
end
end end unweighted1=unweighted1/nseries1; unweighted2=unweighted2/nseries2;

weighted1=weighted1/weightsum1; weighted2=weighted2/weightsum2;
unweighted1(1:istart1-1)=0; unweighted2(1:istart2-1)=0; weighted1(1:istart1-1)=0;
weighted2(1:istart2-1)=0; % scale composite to have same variance as decadally-
smoothed instrumental % NH series
% Mann and Jones (2003) and Jones and Mann (2004) used for this purpose % the
extended (1753-1980) NH series used in: % Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Bradley,
R.S., Hughes, M.K., Keimig, F.T., % Optimal Surface Temperature Reconstructions
using Terrestrial Borehole Data, % Journal of Geophysical Research, 108 (D7),
4203, doi: 10.1029/2002JD002532, 2003. % That series has a decadal standard
deviation sd=0.1123 % If instead, the 1856-2003 CRU instrumental NH mean record is
used, with % a decadal standard deviation of sd=0.1446, the amplitude of the
reconstruction % increases by a factor 1.29 (this scaling yields slightly lower
verification % scores) load nhem-long.dat nhemlong=nhem_long(:,2);
longsmooth=lowpass(nhemlong,0.10,0,0); sd0=std(longsmooth); % use weighted (rather
than unweighted) composite in this case series1=weighted1; % center composites on
1856-1980 calibration period y=series1(t1:t2)'; amean1=mean(series1(t1:t2));
compseries1=series1(t1:t2)-amean1; mult1=sd0/std(compseries1); % scale composite
to standard deviation of instrumental series and re-center % to have same (1961-
1990) zero reference period as CRU NH instrumental % temperature record
adjusted1=series1*mult1; offset1=amean0-mean(adjusted1(t1:t2));
compose1=adjusted1+offset1; compose1=compose1'; series2=weighted2;
y=series2(t1:t2)'; amean2=mean(series2(t1:t2)); compseries2=series2(t1:t2)-amean2;
mult2=sd0/std(compseries2); adjusted2=series2*mult2; offset2=amean0-
mean(adjusted2(t1:t2)); compose2=adjusted2+offset2; compose2=compose2'; % % 5.
UNCERTAINTY ESTIMATION, AND STATISTICAL VERIFICATION % % estimate uncertainty in
reconstruction % nominal (white noise) unresolved calibration period variance
calibvar=lincor(smoothlong,compose1(t1:t2))^2; uncalib=1-calibvar;
sdunc=sd0*sqrt(uncalib); % note: this is the *nominal* white noise uncertainty in
the reconstruction % a spectral analysis of the calibration residuals [as
discussed briefly in % Mann and Jones, 2003] indicates that a peak at the
multidecadal timescale % that exceeds the white noise average residual variance by
a factor of % approximately 6. A conservative estimate of the standard error in
the % reconstruction thus inflates the nominal white noise estimate "sdunc" by a %
factor of sqrt(6) sdlow = sdunc*sqrt(6) % calculate long-term verification
statistics for reconstruction % use composite of Mann et al (1998)/Crowley and
Lowery (2000)/Jones et al (1998) % and AD 1600-1855 interval
overlapcomp=nhlongcompose(1:981); % work with longer reconstruction (back to AD
200) overlaprecon=compose1(1000:1980)'; %overlaprecon=compose2(1000:1980)';
%calculate verification R^2 series11=overlaprecon(601:856);
series22=overlapcomp(601:856); verifrsq=lincor(series11,series22)^2 % calculate
verification RE var1=0.0; var2=0.0; var3=0.0; var4=0.0; var5=0.0; am0=0.0; %
insure convention of zero mean over calibration interval for i=857:981
am0=am0+overlapcomp(i); end am0=am0/125; for i=601:856
var1=var1+(overlapcomp(i)-am0)^2;
var2=var2+(overlapcomp(i)-overlaprecon(i))^2; end verifRE=1-var2/var1
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and

Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, Box 90227
Duke University, Durham NC 27708 Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833 email:
[4]hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, [5]http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html
Prof. Phil Jones

NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/borehole-jgr03.pdf
4. mailto:hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

From: Phil Jones To: "Michael E. Mann" Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: IJOC040512 review
Date: Fri Aug 13 13:38:32 2004
Mike,
I'd rather you didn't. I think it should be sufficient to forward the para from
Andrew
Conrie's
email that says the paper has been rejected by all 3 reviewers. You can say that
the
paper was an extended and updated version of that which appeared in CR.
Obviously, under no circumstances should any of this get back to Pielke.
Cheers
Phil
At 08:11 13/08/2004 -0400, you wrote:

Thanks a bunch Phil,
Along lines as my other email, would it be (?) for me to forward this to the chair
of
our commitee confidentially, and for his internal purposes only, to help bolster
the
case against MM??
let me know...
thanks,
mike
At 03:43 AM 8/13/2004, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
The paper ! Now to find my review. I did suggest to Andrew to find 3 reviewers.
Phil
From: "Andrew Comrie"
To: "'f028'"
Subject: RE: IJOC040512 review
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 01:29:44 -0700
Importance: Normal
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at email.arizona.edu
X-UEA-MailScanner-SpamScore: ssss
<<...>>
Dear Phil,
IJOC040512 "A Socioeconomic Fingerprint on the Spatial Distribution of Surface Air
Temperature Trends"
Authors: RR McKitrick & PJ Michaels

Target review date: July 5, 2004
Following from our email, many thanks for agreeing to review the paper above that
has
been submitted to the International Journal of Climatology for consideration. I

have
attached the manuscript, and the information for reviewers is provided below.
Please let
me know that you receieved the file.
In the interests of expediting the review process, I encourage you to email your
review
as soon as is convenient. I would like to hear from you by the target date above,
or as
soon after as possible.
Referee's names are kept anonymous. When composing your review, please keep your
"Comments to the Author" separate from your confidential comments to the editor.
With
your comments to me, please be sure to provide one of these summary

recommendations:
1. Accept without further revision.
2. Accept subject to minor revisions (changes to the text only, or simple follow-
on
analyses).
3. Accept subject to major revisions (major text changes, recalculations or new
analyses).
4. Reject.
In the case of minor revisions, the revised manuscript will be checked only by the
editor. For major revisions, the revised manuscript may be sent to you again for a
second review. It will also be useful if you will grade the contribution overall
on the
following scale:
A. Very good (a continuing and useful advance in an area of importance).
B. Good (satisfactory and of sufficient importance to merit publication).
C. Adequate (of marginal interest).
D. Poor (not significant enough to merit publication).

E. Very poor (trivial, or incorrect, or of no interest, or not new, etc.).
For your review, please also comment if any of the following points are not
satisfactory
or suitable: topic appropriate for the journal, correctness of the title,

reduction in
paper length, quality and quantity of illustrations, units, use of English, and
key
words.
Your contribution to the review process is essential and greatly valued.
Sincerely,
Andrew Comrie
Dr. Andrew C. Comrie
Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies
Dept. of Geography and Regional Development
409 Harvill Building
Tucson, AZ 85721-0076, USA
Tel: (+1) (520) 621 1585
Fax: (+1) (520) 621 2889
E-mail: comrie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Web: [1]http://geog.arizona.edu/~comrie/
Regional Editor for the Americas, International Journal of Climatology
[2]http://www.interscience.wiley.com/ijoc
From: f028 [[3]mailto:f028@xxxxxxxxx.xxx] On Behalf Of f028
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 1:04 AM
To: Andrew Comrie
Subject: RE: IJOC040512 review
Andrew,
I can do this. I am in France this week but back in the UK all June.
So send and it will be waiting my return.
Phil
>===== Original Message From "Andrew Comrie"
=====
>Dear Prof. Jones,
>
>IJOC040512 "A Socioeconomic Fingerprint on the Spatial Distribution of
>Surface Air Temperature Trends"
>Authors: RR McKitrick & PJ Michaels
>Target review date: July 5, 2004
>
>I know you are very busy, but do you have the time to review the above
>manuscript for the International Journal of Climatology? If yes, can
>you complete the review within about five to six weeks, say by the
>target review date listed above? I will send the manuscript
>electronically.
>
>If no, can you recommend someone who you think might be a good choice to
>review this paper?
>
>Thanks for considering my request.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Andrew Comrie
>
>Dr. Andrew C. Comrie
>Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies
>Dept. of Geography and Regional Development

>University of Arizona
>409 Harvill Building
>Tucson, AZ 85721-0076, USA
>Tel: (+1) (520) 621 1585
>Fax: (+1) (520) 621 2889
>E-mail: comrie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>Web: [4]http://geog.arizona.edu/~comrie/
>Regional Editor for the Americas, International Journal of Climatology
>[5]http://www.interscience.wiley.com/ijoc
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Prof. Phil Jones

NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://geog.arizona.edu/~comrie/
2. http://www.interscience.wiley.com/ijoc
3. mailto:f028@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. http://geog.arizona.edu/~comrie/
5. http://www.interscience.wiley.com/ijoc

From: Keith Briffa To:

John.Birks@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,dirk.verschuren@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,Lauren
t.Labeyrie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,juerg.beer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,A.Lotter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t.osborn@
xxxxxxxxx.xxx,hufischer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
,dan.charman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,karin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: IMPRINT Date: Fri Aug 13
17:37:10 2004 Cc: wanner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
Basil.Davis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,sigfus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,guiot@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,Ian.Snowball@xx
xxxxxxx.xxx,antti.ojala@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,atle.nesje@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,atte.korhola@xxxxxx
xxx.xxx,Keith.Barber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,Sandy.Tudhope@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
,eavaganov@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Eystein Jansen , Rick Battarbee , Tim Osborn , , Jan
Esper , brazdil@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, benito@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Colleagues,
This note is to solicit your possible collaboration in an application to the

European
Commission under Framework 6, possibly as one of the partners in IMPRINT. This is

an
integrated palaeoclimate/climate modelling project concerned primarily with the
Holocene,
but also incorporating specific studies on other interglacial warm periods. AT

THIS STAGE
THIS IS A PROVISIONAL ENQUIRY RATHER THAN A DEFINITE REQUEST FOR YOUR INVOLVEMENT.
The project has been some time (years) in gestation and has evolved from other
proposals.
An unfinished draft is appended to this message for your information - but we

would ask
that you respect its confidentiality , whether or not you are interested in
working with
us. Eystein Jansen has agreed to coordinate IMPRINT. We are now refining the
initial
submission. I, and Valerie Masson, are nominally fronting WorkPackage 1: concerned

with
assembling, reinterpreting, amalgamating and analysing the climate data; a

combination of
instrumental, documentary and other indirect, proxy climate information. This

Workpackage
will also organise the aggregation of best possible climate forcing proxy
evidence, as
means of exploring links with the empirical climate data, but also as input to the
significant effort in climate modelling to be undertaken in other workpackages.
WorkPackage 1 has been divided into a number of sub themes or Tasks and these,
along with
the content of all Workpackages, is described in the attached document. Note that
this is
very much work in progress at this stage and your comments and input to all parts
will be
welcome. We will refine the wider list of collaborating institutes at a later

stage.
At this stage we envisage a total budget application of about 17 million Euro with
a
nominal share of 5 million for WorkPackage 1. While this is a large sum, I am sure
you
will appreciate that when distributed among many partners and stretched over five
years it
imposes a severe limitation on the total number of partners that can be feasibly
included.
Therefore we have had to conceive of different degrees, or levels, of involvement

of the
very many colleagues and institutions that are required to make this project a
success.
Thus, we envisage a distinction between a number of full partners, though again

with
varying resource allocation depending on specific inputs and requirements (still

to be
determined), and a larger number of collaborators. Specific funding will be

allocated to
facilitate the involvement of these many other groups, who we see taking part in
workshops,
in return for full access to joint data and modelling results. This is the only
way that
we see of overcoming the envisaged restriction imposed by the EC on total partner

numbers.
We have chosen partners who we hope will be able to furnish expertise in specific
research
areas and, hopefully, facilitate data assembly and exchange between members of the
wider
communities.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THOSE PEOPLE LISTED IN THE "TO" LINE OF ADDRESSES ARE THOSE
TENTATIVELY
EARMARKED TO BE TASK LEADERS WITHIN WORKPACKAGE 1. THOSE LISTED UNDER THE "CC"
HEADING ARE
EARMARKED TO be PARTNERS - ORGANISING WORK AND DATA EXCHANGE WITHIN THEIR

COMMUNITY. We
have a suggested list of many others who we would hope to involve - but not at
full
partner level. Your input to the compleinon of this list will be asked for later.
We would
ask that , for now, you do not circulate this provisional proposal .
We realise that many other partners could have been fully justifiably included,
but the
need for pragmatism must eventually limit their formal roles. We hope that this
reality
will be accepted by those colleagues not included as primary partners and they
will still
be willing to collaborate to achieve the wider aims of IMPRINT.
The specific partner roles, as suggested to date, are described in the Workpackage
1
section of the appended IMPRINT document. Would you now please indicate whether or
not you
are willing to join this effort, and please feel free to comment on any aspect: of
Workpackage 1 to myself and Valerie; or of the project as a whole to Eystein.
With very best wishes,
Keith
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784


From: Phil Jones To: "Susan Solomon" , , IPCC-WG1 , martin.manning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,

Susan.Solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Wg1-ar4-clas] WGI AR4 LA1
Programme] Date: Sun Aug 15 10:56:37 2004 Cc: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Susan,
Thanks for the comments.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:51 13/08/2004 -0600, Susan Solomon wrote:
Dear Phil, dear Kevin,
Thanks for your message. It's very good to hear that you are getting together and
will
have time to talk about this. I will make a few points and suggestions below for
your
consideration.
Safe travels,
Susan
Martin, Susan et al,
Kevin and I will be at a GCOS meeting Mon-Weds next week in Geneva, so
will have some
time to discuss our chapter. I've sent Kevin some thoughts about
boundaries between
chapters. If you can provide your views on a few issues, then it will
help us in our
discussions.
1. We have extended outlines, which clarify some issues, but how rigid
are they? I say this
wrt the overviews/visions you expect on the Monday pm of the Trieste meeting.
The extended outlines show you what the thought process was at Marrakech and
Potsdam
that led to the present outlines. It's your report, and you may wish to do things
differently. Where that may involve other chapters, such work would need to be
coordinated/decided jointly but most things are not like that.
2. In Chapter 3, we have a section 3.9 on synthesis/consistency amongst
obs. Does this
involve obs such as glacier retreat and changes in sea ice, snow cover
from chapters
4-6? Chapters 4-6 don't have similar sections.
We had some discussions on that in Potsdam in particular if I recall. Dividing up

the
observations into three chapters solves some problems and raises others, and this
is one
of them. My own thinking has been that issues such as the consistency of glacier
retreat with observations may be better handled in the ice chapter, which
presumably
will be going into a bit more depth on processes affecting glaciers from the ice
physics
point of view, providing a bit deeper basis for the assessment. The consistency of
observations between the three observations chapters could then be dealt with in
the
technical summary, drawing on the findings from all three. But it is probably
going to
be helpful if we have a discussion on this among the three chapters and come to a
common
view.
3. Chapter 1 has a section on new data and data rescue. I guess we
should be involved
in that, but also Ch 9 on attribution as it has to be worthwhile. Also
the new data and

rescued data could be useful for model validation. I expect Ch 3 to
heavily use Reanalysis-
based results.
Yes, we expected there would need to be discussion on that. It may involve a

subset of
people who should be urged to get together as needed.
4. Chapter 3 has SST and all the circulation indices, so here we need to
liaise with Ch 5 and 6
and eventually with 9.
Yes, agreed, and Kevin and others tried to work that into the outline in Potsdam.
5. I agree with Kevin though on whether formal meetings of the whole of
the chapters are
needed. Might this be better done with the CLAs and you?
There will be a lot to do in Trieste and we want to make efficient use of people's
time
- it is probably true that not all the people need to be involved when the points
you've
made so far are discussed. The morning 1-hour sessions with all CLAs are also
intended
to be a forum where some of these kinds of issues (the broader ones) could be
handled.
6. Considering all the above, I reckon we need to meet with Ch 4 and 6
(on glacier retreat,
snow, sea ice and temperature), Chapters 6 and 9 on what they expect
from us and
similarly with Chapter 5 (although I feel this is clear in the extended
outline). Finally,
Chapters 1, 3 and 6 (and maybe 9) need to discuss data rescue and new
techniques.
That sounds right to me. I would add your number 7 below into that mix as well.
It's really up to you to decide how you want to handle it. But prompted by your
message, the one from Kevin below, and some others, I think it will be helpful for
us to
compile a list of all such issues raised - so I am asking the TSU to do that,
combining
with another set that we received in the comments from governments (they actually
raised
a number of such comments, quite rightly).
7. The Appendices in Chapters 3-5 need some sort of co-ordination.
Bests,
Susan
At 11:31 11/08/2004 -0600, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Martin, Susan et al:
In thinking more about Chapter 3, I believe we will have issues on who and what is
covered on
1) ENSO related stuff Chapter 3 vs Chapter 5
2) Consistency of retreat of glaciers, snow and ice vs temperatures Chapter 3 vs

chapter
4.
There are probably others, but these may require some negotiation unless it is
already
settled in your mind? Whether a formal meeting between chapters is needed or

whether
the CLAs can meet and agree is not yet clear to me.
Kevin
IPCC-WG1 wrote:
Dear WGI CLAs and Bureau Members,
Please find attached a draft programme for the upcoming WGI AR4 First Lead Authors
Meeting, 26-29 September 2004, Trieste, Italy. Please note the section regarding
"cross-chapter breakout sessions". We have suggested four breakouts of this type,

but
would appreciate any suggestions from you regarding other cross-chapter breakouts
that
you feel may be needed. We kindly ask that you provide the WGI TSU
<[1]mailto:ipcc-wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> any feedback you may have by
Friday, 20 August 2004.
Best regards,
WGI TSU
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IPCC WGI TSU
NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory
325 Broadway DSRC R/AL8
Boulder, CO 80305, USA
Phone: +1 303 497 7072
Fax: +1 303 497 5686/5628
Email: <[2]mailto:ipcc-wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>ipcc-wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
_______________________________________________
Wg1-ar4-clas mailing list
<[3]mailto:Wg1-ar4-clas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>Wg1-ar4-clas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
[4]http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail:
<[5]mailto:trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR

<[6]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/>[7]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IPCC WG1 Technical Support Unit
NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory
325 Broadway DSRC R/AL8
Phone: +1 303 497 7072
Fax: +1 303 497 5628/5686
Email: ipcc-wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
******************************************
Please note my new email address for your records:
Susan.Solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
*******************************************
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. mailto:ipcc-wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:ipcc-wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:Wg1-ar4-clas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-clas

From: Keith Briffa To: t.m.melvin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Fwd: Yamal treeline

figures Date: Mon Aug 23 16:48:58 2004
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 18:08:04 +0500

From: Rashit Hantemirov
X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.00 Build 1311) Registered to Andy Malyshev
Reply-To: Rashit Hantemirov
Organization: IPAE
Priority: Normal
X-Confirm-Reading-To: Rashit Hantemirov
To: Keith Briffa
Subject: Yamal treeline figures
Dear Keith,
Stepan Shiyatov tell me that you need some figures concerning
Yamal chronology and tree line dynamics to show somewhere in
France.
Attached are archived files contained some figures.
File MAP - the map of region of research. Red dots - subfossil
wood sites, green marks - recent northern border of larch along
river valleys.
File FIGURES - in Excel format, contains several figures.
Sheet "Values-10" - data on northernmost position of trees and
number of trees dated for corresponding year (decadal step)
Sheet "Treeline" - dynamics of treeline in Yamal during last 7000
years reconstructed using about 1000 subfossil wood remains.
Recent treeline position is about 67?34.
One year ago we supposed (C-14 data, Hantemirov, Shiyatov
1999) that significant drop of treeline (the transition from
"middle" to "late" Holocene) was about 1700-1600 AD. According
new data it was earlier (about 2550 BC). May be it is because
of lack of data from region northward of 68?N (only 25
datings)?
Sheet "Treeline and Nu" - treeline dynamics and number of dated

trees. May be number of trees reflects the long scale climate
fluctuations as well.
Sheet "2600-all" - for last 4600 years: treeline dynamics,
number of trees, 11 most cold summers for last 7000 years
(according our version of reconstruction), most expressed
frosts in July (reconstructed using junipers from Polar Urals,
see file PATHOL, frost in 1626 BC - based on subfossil larch -
you can put away it), summer temperatures reconstruction
smoothed with 20- and 100-year filters (our version of
reconstruction).
Sheet "Values-2" - values for preceding figures, in 2-years
step.
Sheet "Yam-Ur-fig" - comparing of treeline data for Yamal and
Polar Urals upper treeline dynamics (data by S.G.Shiyatov)
Sheet "Yamal-Ural" - values for preceding figure, in 2-years
step.
Sheet "Treeline-std" - treeline dynamics and 50-year standard
deviations of summer temperatures (our version of
reconstruction). This figure shows surprising high negative
correlation. However may be both of them just reflect long
scale climate fluctuations?
Sheet "Std" - 50-year standard deviations of summer
temperatures (our version of reconstruction) .
File PATHOL - in Excel format, contains data and figure on
pathological structures in tree rings of Siberian juniper
(Juniperus sibirica Burgsd.). According our data (Hantemirov et
al., 2000) the presence of frost rings provides evidence for
frosts that occurred in late June or first days of July (frost
rings in earlywood) and in the first half of July (frost rings in

late wood). Long term and pronounced temperature drop in the
middle of very warm period in the second half of July is the
factor responsible for wood density fluctuations (false rings).
Please let me know when you receive this. Some time large
messages get lost.
P.S. We (Eugene Vaganov, Stepan Shiyatov, Leonid Agafonov and I)
will be in Birmensdorf from 23 till 29 October. Are you going to
Switzerland after your meeting? We would be happy to see you
there.
Best regards,
Rashit M. Hantemirov
Lab. of Dendrochronology
8 Marta St., 202
Ekaterinburg, 620144, Russia
e-mail: rashit@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Fax: +7 (3432) 29 41 61; phone: +7 (3432) 29 40 92
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
References

From: Martin Munro To: ITRDBFOR@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Calibration loose ends (was
Re: [ITRDBFOR] crossdating) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 11:46:03 -0700 Reply-to:
grissino@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
This an attempt to tie up the loose ends from an earlier part of the discussion,
the idea that calibration of the radiocarbon timescale be considered invalid,
pending a better understanding of crossdating. Some of the previous posts seem to
imply that measurements of the C-14 half-life depend on the calibration; in fact
it can be determined by present-day laboratory measurements without reference to
any old material, simply by observing the decay rate in a known quantity of the
isotope. Physicists seem happy that beta decay isn't affected by mundane external
influences, so the half life should be constant. If the amount of C-14 in a sample
depends only on its age and the (constant) half life, a calibration curve from a
collection of samples of known true age would be a diagonal straight line; but
this would imply that each sample started with the same concentration of C-14.
There are many effects that could change this concentration through time:
variations in cosmic ray sources, changing solar activity, changes in the upper
atmosphere, atmospheric circulation, uptake and release of carbon from large sinks
and sources... etc. Given enough correctly dated samples, you can recover the sum
of these variations from the form of the calibration curve. In practice, the most
important variation appear to be on multi-millennial scales, with smaller
fluctuations (wiggles) on century/multi-decadal scales superimposed on this.
Wood from crossdated tree rings provided the known-age reference material used in
the calibration curves, and there were two main phases of work, the first of which
roughed out the general form of the curve and hinted at the short-period
structure, the second of which reconstructed the century-scale variations in
detail using higher precision measurements. Contamination of old samples with C-14
of more recent origin is a widely recognized problem, addressed by physical and
chemical pre-treatment protocols for the material. A couple of complicating
effects that are of more interest from a tree- physiological point of view.
Isotopic fractionation occurs along the entire chain of processes between carbon
in the environment and its incorporation in the specific components of the wood
that end up in the calibration samples. A ring forming in a particular year might
continue to accumulate C-14 in subsequent years. But people who work with C-14 are
well aware of various corrections for isotopic fractionation, and the migration of
carbon across ring boundaries has been the subject of several empirical
investigations, notably using the stepwise change in C-14 concentrations following
atmospheric nuclear tests in the 1950s and 60s as a tracer. The more recent phase
of calibration work was substantially complete around 15 years ago, and was
covered in an extensive series of journal articles and symposia.
Let's suppose we have been provided with a demonstration that crossdating is

invalid: what would be the consequences for C-14 calibration? One of the most
alarming would be that we would have to come up with a convincing explanation of
how independent tree ring chronologies could be in error in precisely the same
way---the known-age reference samples are not just from bristlecone pines, and
crossdating within the network of oak chronologies is completely independent of
the bristlecones. Both are completely self-supporting chains of inferences
anchored in living trees and extending back into sub-fossil wood. There are
published comparisons of paired calibration curves, with the absolute dates and C-
14 concentrations based on oaks in one case, and on bristlecones in the other. My
understanding of tree physiology is rudimentary at best, but surely when two such
vastly different wood anatomies are involved there must be differences in the
physiological constraints on wood formation. If potentially unidentified missing
rings are supposed to be the most serious problem with the bristlecone
chronologies, the oak chronologies should not be affected in any case, since they
almost never include missing rings in this sense (although that's not to say they
have no anatomical ambiguities that can confound crossdating). The crossdating
error could not be merely a shared systematic bias; not only does the long term
trend in the calibration curves derived from the two chronologies share a common
non-linear trend, but the short-term fluctuations in C-14 concentration (wiggles)
match between the two curves. There are small differences between calibrations
derived from different geographical regions, but these have themselves formed the
basis for further research and geophysical modeling.
The strengths of the two sets of chronologies are complimentary. Oaks may have
almost no missing rings (sensu stricto) and provide larger volumes of wood for C-
14 analysis, but the individual samples are only a few hundred years long, showing
significant variations in growth with increasing pith age, and (particularly in
the case of the sub-fossil wood) there will be uncertainties about the environment
in which the tree was growing. Bristlecone pines give a much better chance of
finding wood that has grown over periods of many centuries with no marked age-
related trends, and there's a compelling continuity between the living trees and
the remnant wood lying on the ground nearby.
An account of wood formation from a physiological perspective would undoubtedly be

a beautiful thing in its own right, even if it had little to contribute to
dendrochronology. Moreover one of my pet peeves is seeing people manipulate data
as mere collections of numbers divorced from any underlying model---and in the
case of dendrochronolgy the model has to be biological. But I'd number myself
amongst those who can't see why our use of crossdating must await a reasonably
complete physiological model of wood formation. By analogy, if the doctors in some
traditional society are using a human physiology based on the balance or imbalance
of the four humours, but they have a treatment for a particular disease that
results in an 80% survival rate, as opposed to a %40 survival rate if it goes
untreated, you're obviously better off slurping down their bitter potion first and
working out the explanation in current Western physiological terms afterwards (if
that's the only treatment option).
So even if at present our understanding of crossdating is largely limited to

statistical phenomenology, that may be good enough to live with until something
better comes along. That's not to imply that we should be credulous, and
automatically accept current practices simply because great authorities have taken
the same route: astronomers were at one time expected to work as astrological
consultants, casting horoscopes for rulers and interpreting signs in the sky in
terms of current political affairs. There's no necessary reason to follow
Douglass' crossdating methods any more than we should follow Kepler's example of
casting horoscopes---unless they work. Although the seeming effectiveness of
crossdating could in principle be invalid, it has been applied so widely that we
would need presented with a very strong critique before abandoning it.
I'm not really qualified to discuss crossdating and C-14 calibration from a point
of view of someone active in current research, but was fortunate to be sitting on
the sidelines of the oak calibration work in the 80s, and just the other day Tom
Harlan dropped by with the oldest known absolutely dated bristlecone sample, so
will offer this as a kind of correction by proxy until any of the people who've
done the real work care to comment ---Martin.
From: Phil Jones To: Tom Wigley Subject: Re: question Date: Mon Sep 6 11:10:47
2004 Cc: Professor David Taplin , Ben Santer
Tom,
Ben should have seen the ERA-40 Report # 18. You can forward the JGR paper.
WRT 1, it is difficult to say as it depends who's produced the values. For

HadCRUT2v, I
think I've convinced the HC that the globe is (NH+SH)/2. If Peter Thorne did the
calculations
then this will be the case.
There is another issue. Sometimes the trends over Jan79-Dec03 are calculated from
the
300 months rather than the 25 years. Christy does this, I think.
NCDC's Globe is probably the one domain. I've been doing some work with Russ Vose
at
NCDC, which he's still to write up. Most of the differences were due to how the
globe
was calculated. It is more informative to also include NH and SH as well as globe

in such
tables. I'll forward a plot Tom Peterson produced a week or two ago.
ERA-40 (2 )comparisons are discussed in the ERA-40 report # 18 and the JGR
submitted
paper.
This also has comparisons by continent, which again are more informative. There is
a plot
in that work from the full globe vs the CRU coverage. I wouldn't believe their
tropics.
Also
Antarctica is way off as well - at least where the surface data are located, so I
wouldn't
have much faith in their values for the unmonitored parts.

On (3) I did some comparisons ages ago with Jim Angell's surface data from sondes.
Jim's
data was just noisier and I suspect LKS would be also. I've not done anything like
this
for
ages. The closest would be the ERA-40 comparisons, which is much more extensive
than
the LKS network.
I might have a chance to do an LKS comparison if Dian sends me the co-ordinates.
Comparisons over 1958-2003 will be much more realistic, but the ERA-40/NCEP
degrade
prior to the 1960s. LKS would be better here. All sonde data look odd in the late
1950s to
the early 1960s. The jump around 1976/77 has always intrigued me. It is bigger in
some
regions than others - I think it gets more credence because it is large over
western North
America. Kevin had a paper on this in BAMS in the late 1980s.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:57 04/09/2004, Tom Wigley wrote:
Phil,
On Sept. 13-17 I will be at a meeting at the Met Office to do with
a report we are writing on trends in vert temp profiles as part of the
US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). It involves all the
usual suspects. Seven chapters, the last of which is equivalent to
a summary for policy-makers -- for which I am the lead author.
Various people are updating data sets and doing calculations of
trends, etc. Some of the surface numbers I found to be a bit
disturbing -- so I am asking for your opinion. These are trends
per decade for Jan. 1979 thru Dec. 2003 ......

SOURCE GLOBE 30S-30N
HadCRUT2v 0.169 0.127
NCDC 0.151 0.146
ERA40 0.113 0.032
LKS 0.074 0.056
(1) CRU and NCDC are consistent within the noise, but I have one
question -- how do both calculate GLOBE?
(2) ERA40 is marginally OK (relative to CRU) in GLOBE, but
the tropics is alarmingly different. (The diff here accounts for the
GLOBE difference.) Why is this? Which is better? Is this discussed
in your paper with Adrian?
(3) LKS is the surface data from the corrected LKS radiosonde data
set. The difference here must be partly due to coverage issues. But
I recall that years ago we saw a difference between surface sonde and
CRU data. Have you done a like with like comparison (i.e., selecting
the LKS sonde sites and extracting the corresp CRU (and NCDC, and
ERA40 -- and (if possible) NCEP) data? This seems to be a pretty
basic sanity check on the sonde data -- so, if you have not done this
already, could you do it for me please?
I think there is a nice little GRL paper here. For the CCSP we are also
giving trends, etc. over 1958-2003. So the real need is for a full time
series comparison over this period -- i.e., not just trends. In other
words, what I would like you to produce is the monthly time series
for the various data sets for the LKS coverage. If you don't know
the LKS site locations, I can get these for you.
Re going back to 1958, the sonde trop data have a well known (but
not well explained) problem over roughly 1958 to 1964/5. I am curious
as to whether this shows up in the LKS surface record. I am also
curious about the apparent 1976 jump -- some people have made a
lot of noise about this, but I don't see it as a major item in the global
surface data. So the Q here is, is is apparent in the restricted coverage
of the sonde data?
I hope you can help. I am leaving here on Sept 7 to spend a few days
with a friend of mine in Plymouth -- you could contact me thru him (I
am copying this to him so you can see his email).
Thanx,
Tom.
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Phil Jones To: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Sahel IJC paper Date: Mon Sep 6
14:36:38 2004 Cc: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Tom,
You've probably seen this response to a truly awful paper in IJC. Aiguo did a
really
good
job. Apparently, these two jerks have submitted a response to the comment. Wonder
what
they will say ? Adrian Chappell still thinks his analysis is correct !
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Phil Jones To: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re: question Date: Thu Sep 9
13:52:25 2004 Cc: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Tom,
Program and the input LKS file. Program is adapted from one I had. Ended up a
little
convoluted. Should work with any of the 4 CRU temp data files (CRUTEM2(v),
HadCRUT2(v)).
For the Russian, grid point, changing 4 59 to 4 57 will give a box with data in
from
1929.
3rd file is my unix run file - for files to channels.
Cheers
Phil
At 12:20 09/09/2004, D M R Taplin wrote:
Phil,
Thanx. Looks very interesting. I will look more when I get back to Boulder. It
would
help if you sent the program (just to Boulder). Also what are the numbers listed
at the
end of the LKS file?
Will you be reading email while away?
Tom.
====================
Professor David Taplin DSc
Coliemore House
Down Thomas Plymouth PL90BQ UK
From: Phil Jones
To: Tom Wigley
CC: Professor David Taplin , Ben Santer
Subject: Re: question
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 13:44:44 +0100
Tom,
Here are some files to look at and think about. John Lanzante has sent me the
locations of
the 87 stations in the LKS dataset. I associated these with CRU 5 deg grid boxes
and
calculated NH (based on 54 sites), SH (32) and Global (as one domain), so to get
the
globe
the CRU way you need to average the NH and SH series (all to 3 deg places). The
second
line in all the results files is the count of stations. I can do this as % area if
you
want.
The CRU data I used is the file hadcrut2v, so this includes SST anoms over the
ocean.
I can repeat this with the land only file. Used the variance corrected version.
There are 4 files
1. The LKS stations. This is what John sent with the lat/long identifiers for the
grid
boxes on
the front.
2-4 NH, SH and Globe as one domain results.
The first file has a fix in it. This is to pick up the 5 deg square (85-90S, 5W-0)
that has
the South Pole data. This square is where I've always put this data.
For the NH there were 54 sites and for the SH 32. Site 9 (WMO ID 21504) is always
missing,
even with hadcrut2v. The site is located on an island in the Laptev Sea. There
isn't a
surface
site anywhere near it. I could move the location and pick up the nearest CRU box,
but
it will
be over 5 deg of lat and 10 deg of long away. It's somewhat unusual for sonde
sites not
to have
a surface site near them. I guess it just doesn't report its surface data.
I'm here until Sept 15 then away for much of the time until end of October. I
could
send you
the program, which should run with crutem2v or the non-variance adjusted versions,
which you
could pick up from the CRU web site.
Cheers
Phil
Phil,
On Sept. 13-17 I will be at a meeting at the Met Office to do with
a report we are writing on trends in vert temp profiles as part of the
US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). It involves all the
usual suspects. Seven chapters, the last of which is equivalent to
a summary for policy-makers -- for which I am the lead author.
Various people are updating data sets and doing calculations of
trends, etc. Some of the surface numbers I found to be a bit
disturbing -- so I am asking for your opinion. These are trends
per decade for Jan. 1979 thru Dec. 2003 ......
SOURCE GLOBE 30S-30N
HadCRUT2v 0.169 0.127
NCDC 0.151 0.146
ERA40 0.113 0.032
LKS 0.074 0.056
(1) CRU and NCDC are consistent within the noise, but I have one
question -- how do both calculate GLOBE?
(2) ERA40 is marginally OK (relative to CRU) in GLOBE, but
the tropics is alarmingly different. (The diff here accounts for the
GLOBE difference.) Why is this? Which is better? Is this discussed
in your paper with Adrian?
(3) LKS is the surface data from the corrected LKS radiosonde data
set. The difference here must be partly due to coverage issues. But
I recall that years ago we saw a difference between surface sonde and
CRU data. Have you done a like with like comparison (i.e., selecting
the LKS sonde sites and extracting the corresp CRU (and NCDC, and
ERA40 -- and (if possible) NCEP) data? This seems to be a pretty
basic sanity check on the sonde data -- so, if you have not done this
already, could you do it for me please?
I think there is a nice little GRL paper here. For the CCSP we are also
giving trends, etc. over 1958-2003. So the real need is for a full time
series comparison over this period -- i.e., not just trends. In other
words, what I would like you to produce is the monthly time series
for the various data sets for the LKS coverage. If you don't know
the LKS site locations, I can get these for you.
Re going back to 1958, the sonde trop data have a well known (but
not well explained) problem over roughly 1958 to 1964/5. I am curious
as to whether this shows up in the LKS surface record. I am also
curious about the apparent 1976 jump -- some people have made a
lot of noise about this, but I don't see it as a major item in the global
surface data. So the Q here is, is is apparent in the restricted coverage
of the sonde data?
I hope you can help. I am leaving here on Sept 7 to spend a few days
with a friend of mine in Plymouth -- you could contact me thru him (I
am copying this to him so you can see his email).
Thanx,
Tom.
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<< lksdata.out >>
<< lksnh7003v.dat >>
<< lkssh7003v.dat >>
<< lksgl7003v.dat >>

Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Andy Revkin To: Tim Osborn Subject: Re: mann's thoughts Date: Tue, 28 Sep
2004 10:44:44 -0400
that is a useful way to look at it.
again, takeaway msg is that mann method can only work if past variability same as
variability during period used to calibrate your method.
so it could be correct, but could be very wrong as well. by the way, von storch
doesn't concur with osborn/briffa on the idea that higher past variability would
mean there'd likley be high future variability as well (bigger response to ghg
forcing). he simply says it's time to toss hockeystick and start again, doesn't
take it further than that.
is that right?
At 09:40 AM 9/28/2004, you wrote: >Dear Andy, > >our schematic figure is attached.
> >Tim > > > >Dr Timothy J Osborn >Climatic Research Unit >School of Environmental
Sciences, University of East Anglia >Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK > >e-mail:
t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >phone: +44 1603 592089 >fax: +44 1603 507784 >web:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >sunclock:
Andrew C. Revkin, Environment Reporter, The New York Times 229 West 43d St. NY, NY
10036 Tel: 212-556-7326, Fax: 509-357-0965 (via www.efax.com, received as email)

From: Stefan Rahmstorf To: Eystein Jansen Subject: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Ch6-Climate

Sensitivity Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 11:49:05 +0200 Reply-to: stefan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: wg1-ar4-ch06@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi co-authors,
here are some thoughts on what to say on climate sensitivity in our chapter - this
is an
attempt to focus on the main, simple messages for policy makers. (I think we
should try
retaining those important messages and not lose sight of them amidst all the
details,
complexity and caveats.)
The main policy-relevant question could be phrased as follows: Does the past
climate
history tell us how sensitive the climate system is to CO2?
I submit that the answers to this we get from different time periods are the
following.
Deep Time:
Reconstructions are too uncertain (and boundary conditions too different, e.g.
continents
in different places, different ocean circulation) to draw quantitative conclusions

about
sensitivity to CO2, but there is clear evidence that times of high CO2 in Earth
history
tend to be ice free (Royer et al. 2004). A second piece of evidence is the Late
Paleocene
Thermal Maximum, which shows that the climate has responded by warming to a large
carbon
release into the atmosphere. Just how large this carbon release was is not known,
since
several origins of the carbon are possible, which have different isotope signature
and
would thus imply different amounts. But the temperature response was large (6K),
and if
anything this response would point to a high sensitivity.
Glacial-Interglacial Changes:
We have by now sufficiently good quantitative reconstructions of CO2 and other

forcings as
well as temperatures in order to derive useful quantitative estimates of climate
sensitivity. LGM was the most recent time in history in which CO2 concentration
differed
greatly from pre-industrial values, by as much as it does now. It is the closest

test case
for response to CO2 changes that we have.
There are two basic methods to derive climate sensitivity:
(i) Based on data analysis - e.g. Lorius et al. 1991 (concluding sensitivity is 3-
4 K).
This method has the caveat that this sensitivity applies to colder climate, which
may
differ somewhat from that which applies in present climate as the strength of
feedbacks is
expected to depend on the mean climate (e.g., stronger snow-albedo feedback in

colder
conditions).
(ii) Based on combining data and models - e.g. Schneider von Deimling et al. 2004.
Does not
have the above caveat, but depends on models.
Lag of CO2 behind temperature does not imply a lack of CO2 effect on climate,
since the lag
is small (centuries, not millennia).
Holocene, last millennium
??
Overall conclusions
Qualitatively, climate history is at least consistent with the accepted CO2

sensitivity.
There is no evidence for much lower or much higher CO2 sensitivity (note that CO2
is not
the only forcing). The more recent climate history (as far back as ice core data
go) does
allow quantitative inferences. The results of these estimates all lie within the
IPCC range
and provide strong support for this. Paleodata may even allow to reduce this
range, since
at least one study argues that values above 4K are very likely inconsistent with
the
reconstructed LGM climate: for high CO2 sensitivity, tropical cooling in the
glacial should
have been larger.
Cheers,
Stefan
_______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list
Wg1-ar4-ch06@xxxxxxxxx.xxx http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06

From: Tom Wigley To: Tim Osborn Subject: Re: past 1000 yr Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004
11:58:16 -0600
SEE CAPS
Tim Osborn wrote:
> Hi Tom - I'd be happy to contribute if I have something worth > contributing!
I'm a bit rushed today and away tomorrow, but can > respond to further emails
later in the week. > > At 14:31 03/10/2004, Tom Wigley wrote: > >> Caspar Ammann
and I plan to publish some MAGICC >> results for the past 100 years. > > > Presume
you mean 1000 years, hence relevance of ECHO-H/von Storch.
OOPS! YES.
> > >> Part of the reason is the new >> solar forcing, as in my Science note with
Peter Foukal. > > > Yes I saw that. With a brief scan I didn't realise that you
were > presenting a new forcing history, just discussing reasons why > long-term
changes may be lower than previously estimated. But > presumably you can use such
reasoning to develop a new forcing history > - or, better, a range or even a PDF
of such histories. And then > extend it using 14-C or 10-Be, or a combination?
WE SAY *NO* LOW FREQ FORCING. C-14/Be-10 ARE PROXIES FOR MAGNETIC FIELD CHANGES.
THERE IS NO ADEQUATE THEORY RELATING THESE TO LUMINOSITY CHANGES -- IN FACT THEORY
SUGGESTS THEY ARE *NOT* RELATED. SO WE ARE SUGGESTING A DIFFERENT FORCING HISTORY,
WITH IMPLICATIONS AS IN THE FIGURE. NO SOLAR-INDUCED LIA, IN ACCORD WITH THE PROXY
CLIMATE RECONSTRUXIONS. FURTHER, THERE IS SOME RECENT WORK SUGGESTING THAT PART OF
THE C-14/Be-10 CHANGESW ARE DUE TOCHZNGES IN THE *EARTH'S* MAGNETIC FIELD.
> > >> So we >> address both forcing and senstivity uncertainties. In >> addition,
the drift due to incorrect initialization is an issue. > > > Surely not so in
MAGICC? But yes, it is in GCMs and particularly so > in ECHO-G.
OF COURSE WHAT I MEAN IS TO USE MAGICC TO QUANTIFY THE INITIALIZATION 'DRIFT'.
> > >> I have not yet read the Storch paper or your comment -- but >> did you
mention this problem? > > > We said that ECHO-G had a redder spectrum than other
model simulations > (there was no room to say that it showed greater fluctuations,
but we > cited the Jones/Mann paper which has an intercomparison figure in > it).
We didn't talk about the reasons for this (drift early on, > strong solar forcing
throughout and no tropospheric aerosols to > mitigate recent warming) because we'd
already said that the simulation > didn't necessarily represent real climate
history. > > >> Also, can you remind me just what was done with the ECHO >> run? >
> > Main problem in terms of introducing "drift" (or "adjustment") was > that they
used a control run with present day CO2 as initial > conditions. Although they
allowed a 70-year spin-up (prior to AD > 1000) to adjust back to pre-industrial
CO2, this doesn't look long > enough and the adjustment probably goes on for the
first 400 years of > the run - i.e. there is gradually disappearing cooling trend
over this > period. All based on MAGICC runs, but still fairly convincing >
(including non-zero heat flux out of the ocean in ECHO-G itself).
SEE THE STOUFFER PAPER IN CLIM DYN 23, 327 (2004).
> > >> If you have something to add on this, you can join as a co-author. > > >
I'm not quite sure what you plan, nor the input you need, but > hopefully I can
help.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE IS YOUR BEST ESTIMATE OF THE MAGNITUDE OF THE SPURIOUS
INITIALIZATION EFFECT IN TERMS OF FORCING.
> > > Cheers > > Tim > > > Dr Timothy J Osborn > Climatic Research Unit > School
of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia > Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK > > e-
mail: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx > phone: +44 1603 592089 > fax: +44 1603 507784 >
web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ > sunclock:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > > >

From: Phil Jones To: Ben Santer Subject: Re: More vertical profile plots Date: Thu
Oct 7 10:28:36 2004
Ben,
Thanks for the plots. I gather from Karl that you'll be in Seattle and not at the
HC
review.
I'll be in Seattle also and am missing the HC review, so we can catch up on

things.
Last week was the first LA meeting of AR4. You have likely been contacted by
Kevin and also maybe by Brian Soden about writing something on tropopause heights.
It would perhaps be useful to send them these figures and maybe also to David
Parker.
For our chapter Kevin is co-ordinating the U/A and circulation sections. I'm doing
the surface T/P and extremes and the final summary. I've been too busy to think
about
anything
yet ! We have a mix of abilities in the LAs, but Brian, David P, Dave Easterling
and
Albert
Klein Tank of KNMI are solid. The Iranian, Argentinian, Romanian, Kenyan don't
seem up to
too much, but this is life in the IPCC - remember Ebby !
The fact that HadCRUT2v is close to PCM may be fortuitous, but good nonetheless.
If
you
subsample PCM with CRU coverage, you say the PCM trend will reduce. The paper and
report
with Adrian shows that if you look at the full ERA-40 surface T data, then the
reverse
happens.
Not a large increase though. Most comes from the SH, so there are issues of what
ERA-40
is doing over the Southern Oceans, Antarctica and Australia are key. I'll be
talking about
this
work in Seattle.
I don't have any IDAG work to give you - not done a lot. Plan to look at the 1740
event
in Europe, when time permits. If you want any of my ppt for your IDAG talk, you
can look
through in Seattle.
Good to catch up in a weeks time. Hope you and Nick are well. Away next week in
Delhi
at a GCOS workshop.
Cheers
Phil
At 01:50 07/10/2004, you wrote:

Dear Jerry, Ram, and Jim,
Here are the profiles of zonally-averaged atmospheric temperature change that
you requested. As I mentioned in yesterday's email, I've prepared a couple of
different versions of these plots. First, there are two different analysis
periods: January 1979 through to December 1999, and January 1958 through to
December 1999. Second, temperature changes are expressed in two different ways:
in terms of linear trends per decade, and in terms of the total linear changes
over the two analysis period. So there are four different vertical profile
plots:
-rw-r--r-- 1 bsanter climate 194436 Oct 6 16:27 ccsp_vp_lt_1979-1999.ps
-rw-r--r-- 1 bsanter climate 142312 Oct 6 16:27 ccsp_vp_lt_1958-1999.ps
-rw-r--r-- 1 bsanter climate 201997 Oct 6 16:43 ccsp_vp_tlc_1958-1999.ps
-rw-r--r-- 1 bsanter climate 198109 Oct 6 17:04 ccsp_vp_tlc_1979-1999.ps
All the relevant information is encoded in the file name: "lt" denotes linear
trend, and "tlc" denotes total linear change. Personally, I have a preference
for the total linear change plots. If you compare panel f (the PCM ALL forcing
case) of the "tlc" plots for 1979-1999 and 1958-1999, the much larger total
changes over the longer analysis period are visually obvious. This is not the
case if changes are expressed in degrees C/decade.
I note that (as requested by Roger Pielke in Exeter), the plots are
appropriately area weighted.
All profiles of zonally-averaged atmospheric temperature change are ensemble
means. Each ensemble mean was calculated from four individual realizations.
There is no subtraction of control run drift, which probably is not a
significant factor at this point in the perturbation experiments.
I've also updated the two plots that I sent you yesterday, which show
global-mean and tropical-mean profiles of atmospheric temperature change. These
plots now include observed near-surface temperature trends, estimated from

HadCRUT2 and HadCRUTv (the latter is the variance corrected version of
HadCRUT2). PCM ALL and HadCRUT near-surface temperature changes are in good
agreement, both for global- and tropical averages. I'm pretty sure that in the
global-mean case, subsampling PCM ALL results with HadCRUT coverage would yield
a slightly warmer PCM ALL 2m temperature trend (in view of the muted warming of
2m temperatures at high southern latitudes in ALL; these areas are not well
sampled in HadCRUT).
It would be nice to show these plots of global- and tropical-average changes in
Chapter 5. I think they make some useful points.
Hope all of this is helpful,
With best regards,
Ben
(P.S.: I'd like to acknowledge the assistance of Charles Doutriaux and Mike
Wehner in producing these plots. Considerable data processing was involved in
generating these six figures).
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Tel: (925) 422-2486
FAX: (925) 422-7675
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Phil Jones

NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Eystein Jansen To: Keith Briffa , wg1-ar4-ch06@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re:

[Wg1-ar4-ch06] IPCC last 2000 years data Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:27:35 +0200
Hi Keith, I can take a stab at the THC bit (not strong evidence so far for
linkages to multidecadal/century scale changes, but cannot be ruled out) the
marine evidence from the North Atlantic (14C chronological control), and some
aspects of tropical/high latitude linkages. Eystein
At 17:00 +0100 11-10-04, Keith Briffa wrote: >Friends and authors ( especially
Ricardo, Olga, >Fortunat, David, Ramesh, Zhang, Dan, Eystein and >Valerie) >Now
back from travels (until Wednesday when off to Austria for a few days) >I thought
it best to suggest a break down for >the writing of the data section for the last
>2000 years of the IPCC palaeoclimate chapter. >Please see the outline produced at
the meeting. >We have 4 IPCC pages . I will write a short >intro linking to the
instrumental data with >links to Chapters 3-5. I will coach this in a >general
introduction to this section that >addresses the points listed in the initial
notes >( namely how we use the various high , and few >low, resolution data to
construct regional and >large-scale temperature variability , and where >possible,
gain insight into hydrologic >variability. I will say we use models to get
>insight into methodology and to explore regional >coverage and seasonality issues
and we use >control and forced model runs to look at >sensitivity and detection
issues , but also use >date to test model variability and sensitivity . >I can
first go at the NH (SH) Spaghetti diagram >discussion and hopefully you will pick
up the >regional aspects of the temperature and >precipitation (moisture)
variability . >Rather than me say - I would like you to come >back with the major
areas you will cover , but >these may best be done in terms of >climatologically
meaningful regions - ie >relating to the ENSO, NAM, PDO , AAO, monsoon >areas -
then we could fill in the remaining >regions if significant non overlap in areas
is >apparent (Eurasia, non-monsoon china etc) . We >do not want a list of every
paper ever written , >but a selection of (the better) work that you >feel has
regional relevance (and some length >presumably). THe other alternative is just to
>divide up the world to our own regions and then >discuss the climate indices
separately. This >would likely be easier to do . Let me know what >you think.
Either way , we also should have a >specific discussion of forcings at high
>resolution , and Fortunat, Valerie could cover >solar and volcanic , perhaps
Eystein discussing >what evidence there is for THC change . The >knotty issue of
THC versus NAO and the link to >model theories/models could go here - or >perhaps
later in the section 6.4.3.2 ? Davis >what say you about this? The same is true of
>ENSO links to terrestrial precipitation patterns >and temperature? >I don't like
the idea of dealing wit quasi >periodicities separately , but rather wit the
>regional discussions eg North American drought. >The question of LIA , MWP will
come up in the >large scale average discussion but you can also >address it in the
regional discussions , but in >a critical and quantitative way. I would like to
>see the evidence for extremmes/abrupt change >from the regional syntheses and
then see if we >have enough to define and discuss the issue >separately. Olga
could you pick up on the >glacial variations (perhaps with links to models >also?)
> >So come back to me asap to let me know >impressions and regional/variable focus
you all >wish to pick up. Ricardo will obviously do North >South linkages as per
the PEP1 transect , but >what about along PEP2 and 3/ WE may have to pick >this up
in the light of the regional data. Can >you also let me know if/who you might be
asking >to help with writing . Peck , I would still >rather have Mike Mann in , so
what is the story >here - can I ask him? Suggestions for summary >Figures still
welcome - I would like to have a >High lat , mid lat , low lat transect type
>figure for temperature , possibly along each PEP >transect - with longest
instrumental data . A >forcing diagram is also a must - but could >combine
Holocene and "blow up " last 2000 years. > >Best wishes >Keith > >-- >Professor
Keith Briffa, >Climatic Research Unit >University of East Anglia >Norwich, NR4
7TJ, U.K. > >Phone: +44-1603-593909 >Fax: +44-1603-507784 >
>_______________________________________________ >Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list >Wg1-
ar4-ch06@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06
-- ______________________________________________________________ Eystein Jansen

Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and Dep. of Earth Science,
Univ. of Bergen All?gaten 55 N-5007 Bergen NORWAY e-mail:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Phil Jones To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re: comment Von Storch? Date: Thu
Oct 14 16:29:31 2004
Mike,
FYI.
I met this guy in Utrecht last week at Albert Klein Tank's PhD ceremony. It
appears from
many media reports that people really believe that their run is an ALTERNATE to
yours -
based
on no proxy data. Even Hans has sent an email around to this effect, but he
obviously
isn't
making it as clear as I've just done to this Dutch journalist. I think he might be
being
clear with
fellow scientists and economical with the truth with journalists, i.e. not
directing them
down the
correct path when he sees them going down the wrong one.
I should see Ray next week in Seattle at a DoE meeting.
Cheers
Phil
Dear Karel,
I have only got back from a meeting this morning. I see you have also had a long
reply
from
Mike Mann about the von Storch paper.
Basically the von Storch et al paper is a discussion of the methodology used in

the
Mann,
Bradley Hughes papers from 1998, 1999. It doesn't contain any new nor any observed
proxy
data. It is entirely a model study. Therefore, it cannot produce a record for the
last
millennium,
it cannot claim that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, nor that the
Little
Ice
Age may have been colder than MBH says.
It is really alarming that many media people (including yourself) have been taken
in.
What the
von Storch et al paper is about is a climate model run - just one simulation. All
it uses
is
an estimate of past variations in solar forcing and volcanic eruptions and more
recently
anthropogenic changes in greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols.
As I said the paper in a methodological critique of MBH, nothing more than that.
It IS
NOT
an alternative to MBH. It also not based on ANY paleoclimatic data. If you believe
it, you
are putting everything on the model being correct and that their best guess at the
past
history
of forcing as being correct.
Regards
Phil
At 15:28 13/10/2004, you wrote:
Dear professor Jones,
(We met ten days ago in Utrecht, when Albert Klein Tank got his PhD).
I am a science journalist of the Dutch daily newspaper NRC Handelsblad in

Rotterdam
([1]www.nrc.nl).
I try to write an article about climate (surface temperature) reconstruction as

far back
as the year 1000 - the well know Mann, Bradley, Hughes (1998 and 1999) research.
The reason is, of course, the publication of the article of Von Storch, Zorita,
c.s. in
Science-online (30 september). Von Storch claims that the statistical approach of
Mann
c.s. produced a serious underestimation of the low frequency (long term)

oscillations
in global temperature. The conclusion could be that the Medieval Warm Period was
in fact
warmer than today. And the recent warming is - after all - not so special.
Can you in a few words - and for a general public - give a comment on the paper?
Does it
make sense? It seems pretty convincing to me.
Can you help me?
Waiting for your reply,
sincerely yours,
Karel Knip
NRC Handelsblad
Rotterdam
e-mail knip@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
phone 31-10-4067327
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://www.nrc.nl/

From: Keith Briffa To: John.Birks@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,

dirk.verschuren@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,Laurent.Labeyrie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
juerg.beer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,A.Lotter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
hufischer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,dan.charman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
karin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,wanner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
sigfus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,guiot@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
Ian.Snowball@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,antti.ojala@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, atte.korhola@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
Sandy.Tudhope@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,eavaganov@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Eystein Jansen , Rick
Battarbee , Tim Osborn ,Jan Esper , brazdil@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,benito@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
hutterli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, carin.andersson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
Richard.Telford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, basil.davis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ddj@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
bard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, heikki.seppa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Stephen.Juggins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
colin.prentice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cbrunsdo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jerome@xxxxxxxxx.xxx ,
oyvind.lie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx , joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx , juerg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx , Elsa Cortijo
, j.holmes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, harrye@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jgoqam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
mschulz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: IMPRINT Budget (Work package 1) Date: Wed Oct 20
13:49:34 2004
Dear Partners in Workpackage 1 of IMPRINT,
today is the deadline by which Eystein requested input as regards the
reworked (and necessarily much shortened), proposal document. We have also been
making some
effort to consolidate the indicative budgets that most of you have sent to us.
We now need to transfer these figures to Eystein , even though a few partners have
not
supplied numbers to us , though they may have sent them to Eystein directly.
It is clear that we are now close to 30 partners in Workpackage 1 alone, and have
indicative budget requests totaling well over the nominal 5 million Euro
originally
allocated. In fact , the likely total with all partner requests included is likely
to be
nearer to 10 million!
We have been given a (very unofficial) hint from Brussels that an "appropriate"
total
project request of about 17 million for IMPRINT might be sensible , with a final
figure ,
if the project ever gets accepted, of 15 million being possibly awarded (subject
of course
to referees' comments and subsequent reorganisation of priorities).
The simple message is that Eystein will now have to make an executive decision as
to the
total amount requested .
If we ever get that far, reorganised budgets will have to be decided on the basis
of very
specific
work plans that will need to formalised for a second submission - especially as
they relate
to the justification for field work and new data analyses. We also need to budget
for the
involvement of non-partners , possibly using a mixture of workshop and minor

funding awards
to facilitate data collection etc.
It has been made clear that new practical work campaigns would not be sanctioned
across all
Tasks
in Workpackage 1 . Rather, the bulk of work would involve re-dating/interpretation

of
mostly existing data and reconstructions of forcings and climate . Specific cases
will have
to be made to justify sampling and processing of new data.
Thanks to all of you for your help and thanks to Eystein for taking on the
enormous task of
organising this proposal .
Keith and Tim
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
References
From: "Rob Wilson" To: Subject: data - Quaternary Science Reviews 19 (2000) 87-105
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:53:21 +0100 Reply-to: "Rob Wilson"
Hi Keith,
When would be a good time tomorrow (or next week) to phone you about the data you
have
available at your website from your QSR 2000 paper.
I am particularly interesting in using the long chronologies from the Polar Urals
(Yamal)
and Tornetrask.
This is for Gordon's and Rosanne's NH temp recon update, so I thought I should
have a chat
with you before using the data.
all the best
Rob

From: Phil Jones To: Tom Wigley Subject: Re: MBH Date: Fri Oct 22 15:13:20 2004
Cc: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Tom,
Just got the Science attachments for the von Storch et al. paper for Tim and
Keith, so
I thought you might like to see them. I've just sent a reply to von Storch as he
claims
his model is a better representation of reality than MBH. How a model that is only
given
past forcing histories can be better than some proxy data is beyond me, but Hans
seems
to believe this. The ERA-40 report and JGR paper are relevant here. ERA-40 is not
of
climate quality. There are differences and trends with CRU data before the late
1970s
and again around the mid-1960s that should include other variables that are
calculated.
It is so bad in the Antarctic that ERA-40 rejects most of the surface obs (because
they
get little weight) and they don't begin to get accepted until the late 1970s.
Conclusion
is that
you can't consider ERA-40 for climate purposes. Maybe the next generation, with a
considerable
efforts in getting all the missing back data in and changes to weights given to
surface
data might
mean the 3rd generation is better.
I shouldn't rabbit on about this as I have to go home to drive with Ruth to

Gatwick
for
our week in Florence. A lot of people criticise MBH and other papers Mike has been
involved in, but how many people read them fully - or just read bits like the
attached.
The attached is a complete distortion of the facts. M&M are completely wrong in
virtually
everything they say or do. I have sent them countless data series that were used
in the
Jones/Mann Reviews of Geophysics papers. I got scant thanks from them for doing
this -
only an email saying I had some of the data series wrong, associated with the
wrong
year/decade.
I wasted a few hours checking what I'd done and got no thanks for pointing their
mistake
out
to them.
If you think M&M are correct and believable then go to this web site
[1]http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/
It will take a while to get around these web pages and you've got to be a bit of
nerd and
know
the jargon, but it lists all the mistakes McKittrick has made in various papers. I
bet
there isn't
a link to this on his web site. The final attachment is a comment on a truly awful
paper
by
McKittirck and Michaels. I can't find the original, but it's reference is in this.
The
paper didn't
consider spatial autocorrelation at all. Fortunately a longer version of the paper

did get
rejected by IJC - it seems a few papers are rejected !
Point I'm trying to make is you cannot trust anything that M&M write. MBH is as
good a
way of putting all the data together as others. We get similar results in the work
in the
Holocene in 1998 (Jones et al) and so does Tom Crowley in a paper in 1999. Keith's
reconstruction is strikingly similar in his paper from JGR in 2001. Mike's may
have
slightly less variability on decadal scales than the others (especially cf Esper
et al),
but
he is using a lot more data than the others. I reckon they are all biased a little
to the
summer
and none are truly annual - I say all this in the Reviews of Geophysics paper !
Bottom line - their is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as
the
last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than
1 deg C
on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no
science, but
years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility.
Must got to Florence now. Back in Nov 1.
Cheers
Phil
At 20:46 21/10/2004, you wrote:
Phil,
I have just read the M&M stuff critcizing MBH. A lot of it seems valid to me.
At the very least MBH is a very sloppy piece of work -- an opinion I have held
for some time.
Presumably what you have done with Keith is better? -- or is it?
I get asked about this a lot. Can you give me a brief heads up? Mike is too
deep into this to be helpful.
Tom.
Prof. Phil Jones

NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/

From: Phil Jones To: Adrian.Simmons@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject:

Fwd: Re: K&C (fwd) Date: Mon Nov 22 09:29:09 2004 Cc: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Adrian and Ben,
Roger Pielke did send this to me over the weekend, so he's being honest
in one respect. I still think he's reading far too much into NCEP1. The bottom
panel
of their Fig1 shows both CRU and GHCN (-ERA40) having no difference over the
period
from the late 1960s. If the obs assimilated before 1967 (even in the US) were
improved,
the apparent drop before might disappear.
Cheers
Phil
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:35:58 -0700 (MST)
From: Roger Pielke
To: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
cc: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: K&C (fwd)

Phil-
FYI; thank you for sharing your paper. I have circulated the attached to
our CCSP Committee with the permission of Eugenia and Ming, and want to
also share with you.
The conclusion from my own work with the NCEP reanalysis is that it is
appropriate for trend assessments if integrated metrics are used
(thickness for example), and for regions where the regional trend signal
is quite large. We have published on both of this issues. One value-added
of reanalyses is that since the winds are monitored independently of the
temperatures, they provide information on the horizontal layer averaged
temperatures in the mid- and high-latitudes, which helps adjust, to some
extent, biases in the temperatures.
Also, as we have shown with regional data (e.g. Florida) and others have
shown elsewhere (e.g. Andy Pitman for Australia) there is a clear land use
change signal on surface temperature. This provides independent evidence
that the Kalnay and Cai results should be expected.
Roger
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Roger A. Pielke, Sr., Professor and State Climatologist
1371 Campus Delivery, Department Atmospheric Science,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1371,
Phone: 970-491-8293/Fax: 970-491-3314, Email: pielke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITES AT: [1]http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/
and [2]http://climate.atmos.colostate.edu
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:04:42 -0700 (MST)
From: Roger Pielke
To: _NESDIS NCDC CCSP Temp Trends Lead Authors

, chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Eugenia Kalnay , Ming Cai
Subject: Re: K&C (fwd)
Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:05:15 -0700
Resent-From: CCSPTempTrendAuthors.NCDC@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi All
I requested to Ming Cai and Eugenia Kalnay that they respond to the
comments regarding their work. The response is forwarded to you in this
e-mail.
This debate, of course, should really take place in the literature. There
has been, however, in my view an unfortunate change over time where
reviewers who disagree with already published work recommend rejection of
subsequent work rather than letting the community view and assess the
different perspectives on a science issue. Our report has to make sure it
is inclusive, in order to avoid this pitfall.
An unbiased discussion of the K&C results, and ways to resolve the
disagreement through hypothesis testing, should be included in the
appropriate chapters.
Roger
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
---------- Forwarded message ----------

Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 12:16:27 -0500
From: cai
To: Roger Pielke
Cc: Ming Cai , Y. K. Lim ,
Eugenia Kalnay
Subject: Re: K&C
Dear Roger,
Attached is the preliminary summary report on our recent work on the
estimate of land-use-change climate impact using the reanalysis. Very
fortunately, we had secured a one-year funding from NSF starting last
August. Despite a short time period, we have already produced sufficient
results to confirm the robustness of our original work using different
datasets that have the state-of-art quality.
Here I just want to add one more comment about Simmons et al. paper.
Basically, they claimed that the difference between the ERA40 and CRU is
very small and therefore, our method is not applicable if the reanalysis
is as good as the ERA40. There are two things that are incorrect in their
claims. First of all, if the reanalysis were made to be exactly the same
as the observations, by definition, there would be no difference between
reanalysis and the surface observations. Since the ERA40 was obtained by
directly assimilating the CRU surface observations whereas the NNR didn't
use any surface temp. observation, it is natural to expect that the
difference between the surface observation and ERA40 is small. Second,
Simmons et al. manually reduces the difference between the ERA40 and CRU
by setting the mean difference between the ERA40 and CRU from 1987 to 2001
be ZERO. As a result, the difference "LOOKs" very small in recent years.
However, the difference from 1961 to 1985 has to be larger (otherwise,
they would make an error in their plot). In other words, by doing so, the
gap between the ERA40 and CRU appears decreasing in time rather increasing
in time as shown in KC and in the new figure 1 in the attached file (which
is the same as Simmons et al. paper except we reset the 1960-70 to be zero
in order to see how the POSITIVE gap increases in time). If we closely
examine their figures, we will see by applying their treatment, the gap
between CRU and reanalysis is a NEGATIVE one (e.g., CRU is below ERA40
from 1960 to 1980) and such a NEGATIVE gap decrease in time is equivalent
to that the POSITIVE gap increases in time as found in KC from the NNR
data (e.g., the CRU becomes more above the ERA40). So Simmons et al's
results actually CONFIRM our findings rather discredit our finding. We
actually reproduced Simmons et al calculations and confirm that their
results are correct (see the second attached figure, which is identical to
Fig.1 in our preliminary report except the NEGATIVE gap is used and 1-year
running mean was applied as in Simmons et al). But their interpretations
are incorrect.
I appreciate if you could also forward the email to the CCSP authors.
Let me know if you want to me to reply to Tom and CCSP co-authors
directly.
Regards.
Ming
The report:
The replica of one of the key figures in Simmons et al.
On Nov 18, 2004, at 4:53 PM, Roger Pielke wrote:
Tom-
Since we have not seen the paper, we cannot make any judgements on the
robustness of that paper in showing that the Kalnay and Cai work is
"flawed". I expect to have a summary by Eugenia and Ming tomorrow,
however, which will address the published concerns on their work, and
will
forward to the Committee. Please forward us a copy of the Simmons et al
paper.
I also would like a response to my MWR Florida paper where we
specifically show the dominant role of documented land use change in
peninsular Florida in the 20th century on July-August surface air
temperature change. Or Andy Pitman's work who shows a major effect on
temperature trends in south-western Australia due to land use change.
This work, and others like it, support the conclusions of Kalnay and
Cai
on a major role of land surface processes on surface temperature
trends.
How do you reconcile those independent conclusions with the paper you
list above?
Roger
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++
Phone: 970-491-8293/Fax: 970-491-3314, Email:
pielke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Tom Wigley wrote:
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:28:16 -0700
From: Tom Wigley
To: CCSP Authors
Subject: K&C
Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:28:17 -0700
Resent-From: CCSPTempTrendAuthors.NCDC@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Folks,
Roger makes the point that there is no comprehensive assessment of
this
paper.
There is ... It is in a paper that has, I believe, been accepted by
JGR
atmospheres.
A.J. Simmons, P.D.Jones, et al. "Comparison of trends and
low-frequency
variability in CRU,
ERA-40 and NCEP/NCAR".
I think the conclusion is that the K&C paper *is* flawed.
Tom.
Ming Cai
Associate Professor
Department of Meteorology
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32036
Email: cai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phone: (850)-645-1551, FAX: (850)-644-9642
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/
2. http://climate.atmos.colostate.edu/

From: Keith Briffa To: v.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: first go Date: Tue Nov 23
16:01:56 2004 Cc: v.shishov@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Viv
attached is the text you sent with some suggestions and comments (track changes
must be
on).
I am also sending a small piece of text that could be expanded if needed (this to
be
inserted where you describe the treering input) - but at this stage I think you
need to
have a look at comments and consider the specifics of the lake and tree sampling
(the
latter if any).
I thought it best to send these comments rather that plough on doing stuff you
don't want.
I think the "hook" needs to be the important opportunity to assess recent changes
in lake
and tree productivity and see if any evidence for response to climate , as well as
searching for unprecedented evidence of climate change. I realise this is

predominantly a
lake project with a link to trees and models , but the links must be more than
token . I
can provide more background as to where we are with tree-ring work in Euro-Siberia
if
needed . I think the model stuff also needs specific justification . Is Simon
going to
contribute here?
Don't get hung up on the "decline or changing sensitivity issue" in trees . This
is NOT a
great problem in Scandinavia, Ural/Yamal and is anyway a divergence in trend and

quite
subtle and evident in wood density mostly. We are also of the opinion that it
could be
partly a statistical processing artifact - we are exploring this now.
If you plough through my comments and suggestions and then return the text with
specific
requests of what you wish to do I will then try to oblige thursday
cheers
Keith
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
References
From: Keith Briffa To: Martin Todd Subject: Re: NERC application Date: Tue Nov 30
16:34:00 2004
Martin
in response to Nadia's message and our talk - consider the following as regards
title and
objectives
Title
The precedence of Ecological Responses to 20th Century Climate changes in Arctic

Lakes and
Trees
Suggested Objectives
We will quantify how the changes in 20th century Arctic climate (including mean
and
variability) are reflected in recent and past lake sediment records. We will
determine the
response of lake ecosystem parameters and the relationships with specific climatic
controls.
We will define the character of variability in different natural archives

contained in
dated sediments reaching back over 2000 years. We will generate well-calibrated ,
high-resolution (decadal to centennial time scales) estimates of past summer

climate
variability over this time in western Arctic Siberia.
We will compare the lake sediment data with evidence of tree-growth and associated
summer
climate changes , based on selected updating of an extensive, existing network of
chronologies, including long sub-fossil series extending back more than 4000 years
in Yamal
and Taimyr. These data (with perfect inter-annual dating accuracy) will be
reprocessed to
provide summer temperatures specifically representative of annual, decadal and

centennial
timescales.
We will determine (for the first time) the extent to which the independent proxy-
based
summer climate histories concur or disagree and explore the extent to which they
demonstrate the precedence of recent (20th century ) climate trends in a multi-

millennial
context. By comparing this evidence with the output of state-of-the-art GCM

experiments ,
simulating climate changes in the Arctic over the last 500 to 1000 years, we will
explore
the degree to which recent changes in Arctic lakes (and tree-growth rates) are
attributable
to anthropogenic as opposed to natural climate changes.
At 13:55 30/11/2004, you wrote:
Hi keith,
The submission deadline for the NERC grant with Viv Jones is imminent.
She's getting in a bit of a panic. I wonder whether you have some text
already prepared to describe the details of the ECHO-G experiments. I
could get the information but will have to dig in the lierature. I was
hpoing you would have a summary paragraph from the SO&P
documantaton similar to the one we have written about the HADCM3 exp
Thnaks
Martin
****************************
Martin Todd University Lecturer Department of Geography
UCL (University College London)
26 Bedford Way
London WC1 8HR
email m.todd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
********************************
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
References

From: Phil Jones To: Tom Wigley Subject: Re: New version of Chapter 4 Date: Thu
Dec 2 10:01:40 2004 Cc: "Folland, Chris" , Thomas R Karl , Ben Santer
Dear Toms, Chris and Ben,
If large-scale is important (as said by Tom W), I can't see how microclimatic
issues that Roger goes on about can be that important. Maybe when you all
meet at the delightful Chicago Airport Hilton, you can remind him of spatial
degrees of freedom.
Is the NOAA Tsurf used the new Smith and Reynolds (2005) spatially infilled
surface dataset? If this is the case maybe Ben could do a plot of NOAA minus
HadCRUT2v?
I have a plot that David Parker produced of Smith and Reynolds (2005) over land
and Jones and Moberg (2003) land (as smoothed global averages) from 1880.
Prior to about 1960 the SR dataset is always about 0.15 warmer than JM. This looks
likely due to infilling with 61-90 averages (i.e zeroes) over the Antarctic and
some
continental interiors of S. America, Africa, western China and Australia (where

there
are no obs pre early 1950s, 1956 for the Antarctic). SR should be OK for 1979-99
and be very similar to HadCRUT2v.
Cheers
Phil
At 23:31 01/12/2004, Roger Pielke wrote:
Tom-
One issue to sort out with respect to "VTT" remains whether there are
unrecognized biases in the surface data. This issue is very much relevant
if, as seems the case from Phil Jones's e-mail, the "raw data" that has
been used has such large overlap among the different surface analyses.
If this is the case, there are not three independent assessments of
surface temperature trends. Moreover, unlike the MSU data, there are
inhomogeneities associated with the diverse locations of each surface
monitoring site (which have microclimate changes over time).
This issue is also very much a tropical issue as this is where large
land use/land cover change has occurred in the satellite era (photographs
rather than written documentation would really help in this assessment,
as we have proposed).
Roger
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Tom Wigley wrote:
> Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 16:15:01 -0700
> From: Tom Wigley
> To: "Folland, Chris"
> Cc: Thomas R Karl ,
> Roger Pielke ,
> Phil Jones , carl mears ,
> CCSPTempTrendAuthors.NCDC@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> Subject: Re: New version of Chapter 4
>
> Chris et al.,
>
> I do not see this as high priority. We are supposed to be looking at
> *VTT*. Uncerts/diffs in individual data sets are relevant, of course, but
> what is currently missing is a map (maps) of sfc vs trop trend diffs.
> We are meant to be addressing a problem that we have made
> clear at the global and tropix scale -- but just *where* are the problem
> areas? (I think Carl showed us such a map previously -- we need this,
> or similar, or more, in the report since it really is the crux of the
> problem.)
>
> Ideally we need sfc minus MSU LoTrop (A), sfc minus MidTrop
> (UAH (B) and RSS(C)) to at least look at, and decide which is/are best to
> show. I imagine this will have some bearing on Roger Pielke's concerns
> re LULC. If the biggest differences are over the oceans (and from memory
> this is the case, worst in the SH), then sorting this out would arguably
> be more important than sorting out LULC effects. It would be hard to
> argue (albeit not impossible) that teleconnections from LULC in (e.g.)
> North America, or even the Amazon Basin, are responsible for trend diffs
> over the South Pacific
>
> In Ch. 1 there is a correlation map -- this is pretty useless in my
> view, altho
> it would be interesting to compare the correl map with an equiv trend
> diff map.
>
> Ch. 3 has maps of the trends at sfc, mid trop, lo strat -- so we are close
> to trend diff map. But even those who might be brilliant enough to produce
> the trend diff map in their heads will be thwarted, becoz the mid trop map
> in Ch. 3 uses the average of UAH and RSS. Good grief! This really is
> carrying political correctness too far. Please, please John L et al.,
> replace
> the mid trop panel in 3.6.2.3 by separate panels for RSS and UAH.
>
> The next in my list of related wishes is a map of the RSS minus UAH trend
> diffs (D). Eyeballing A, B, C and D together could be interesting.
>
> I would put these things right at the top of my wish list for Chicago.
>
> Tom.
> ========================
>
> Folland, Chris wrote:
>
> >Tom
> >
> >Can you get Russ Vose to look at the issues of data overlap and local
> >and regional similarity. My original suggestion was to compare trends
> >over 1958-2003 and 1979-2003 at each grid point in the two data sets and
> >also over larger (regional) areas. This would go to the heart of any
> >differences in the context of this report, is easy to do, and can be
> >plotted on a pair of maps with a third "difference in trend" map for
> >each period. Where differences are large, a more detailed look at the
> >data can be done. It might even show up errors! Even the first analysis
> >on its own should give enough information to sharpen up well the current
> >speculative text and can be done perhaps in parallel with NRC review.
> >
> >Chris
> >
> >Professor Chris Folland
> >
> >Head of Climate Variability Research
> >
> >Global climate data sets are available from [3]http://www.hadobs.org
> >
> >Met Office, Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United
> >Kingdom
> >Email: chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> >Tel: +44 (0)1392 886646
> >Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050
> > (International) +44 (0)113 336 1072)<[4]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk> >
> >Also: Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of
> >East Anglia
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Thomas R Karl [[5]mailto:Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> >Sent: 01 December 2004 18:23
> >To: Roger Pielke
> >Cc: Phil Jones; Folland Chris; carl mears;
> >CCSPTempTrendAuthors.NCDC@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> >Subject: Re: New version of Chapter 4
> >
> >
> >Phil,
> >
> >I think we need to be careful -- the method of combining the data can
> >matter very much. It is just that despite our different methodologies
> >the results are similar on large scales. I know we could use other
> >methods and the differences are more significant, e.g, first
> >differences, homogenization of ships, etc.
> >
> >Tom
> >
> >Roger Pielke wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Hi Phil
> >>
> >>Thanks for the quick feedback. This helps a lot!
> >>
> >>With Best Regards

> >>
> >>Roger
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
3. http://www.hadobs.org/
4. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/
5. mailto:Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: Phil Jones To: dkaroly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Kevin Trenberth Subject: Re:

Communication with AR4 WGI Chapter 3 Date: Wed Dec 8 11:42:31 2004 Cc: Susan
Solomon , Martin Manning , Jean Palutikof , Cynthia Rosenzweig
Resending. Apologies! I changed Jean's email incorrectly. This one is now correct.
Phil
David,
I will send you this once we post the ZOD on the WG1 web site in mid-Jan05. Our
diagrams
are in a state of flux. Most of the temperature and precipitation trend maps are
being
done
in Asheville and I should be getting them later this week or early next. We will
be
showing maps
for the whole 20th century, but others will focus on the period since 1979. You
might like
to
consider avoiding duplication by using these - eventually they will be 1979-2005

(poss
2006).
Trends of indices in extremes will likely be similar, but with +/- signs on maps.
Nothing
has
been decided yet, though, and I expect a significant part of our time at LA2 will
be taken
up
by discussing/improving diagrams in our ZOD.
You can help us by sending comments to WG1 on the relevant parts - which are
likely
to be almost all.
Cheers
Phil
Cheers
Phil
At 16:47 07/12/2004, David Karoly wrote:
Hi,
As you may be aware, I am an LA for chapter 1 "Assessment of observed changes and
responses in natural and managed systems" in the AR4 WGII and I have been
identified as
one of the points-of-contact for interactions between WGI and WGII. The chapter in
which
I am involved will depend heavily on inputs from a number of chapters in the WGI
report.
Hence, I contacting the CLAs of the relevant chapters, including chapters 2, 3, 4,

5, 6,
7, and 9, by email to discuss ways to ensure effective communication between our
chapters and to avoid undue overlap between respective chapters in WGI and our
chapter
in WGII.
Your chapter on "Observations: Surface and atmospheric climate change" is a key

chapter
in WGI and it is important that what we say in our chapter in WGII follows from
and
agrees with your chapter. I would be very happy to discuss ways to ensure
effective
communication between our two chapters.
Specific aspects from your chapter of relevance to our chapter include observed
changes
in regional temperature and precipitation, both means and extremes. We plan to use
a
figure in our chapter showing a global map of observed temperature trends over the
last
30 years (?) overlaid with locations of significant observed changes in natural

and
managed systems. We want to make sure that this is based on the same dataset(s)
that you
will be using to show the observed temperature trends.
In practice, almost everything in your chapter will be relevant to our chapter. I

would
be grateful if you could send me a copy of your ZOD after it is completed, so that
I can
make sure that our chapter is consistent with yours. I am happy to send you a copy
of
our ZOD, if you would like to read it.
I will not be coming to the WGI LA meetings until LA3, when I will be involved as
a
review editor. It will be important that we have already established effective
communication before then.
I look forward to working with you over the next two years to ensure that the IPCC
AR4
is the best possible assessment.
Best wishes, David
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr David Karoly
Williams Chair and Professor of Meteorology
School of Meteorology
University of Oklahoma phone: +1-405-325-6446
100 E. Boyd St., fax: +1-405-325-7689
Norman, OK 73019 email: dkaroly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
USA [1]http://weather.ou.edu/~dkaroly/Personal.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prof. Phil Jones

NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://weather.ou.edu/~dkaroly/Personal.htm

From: Gavin Schmidt To: mprather@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, robert.berner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,

p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rjs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
dshindell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rmiller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxxbey,
td@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, aclement@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, james.white@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
hfd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wuebbles@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, thompson.3@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
thompson.4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, juerg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
jto@u.arizona.edu, tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, schrag@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jlean@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
weaver@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, djt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, robock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, schlesin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
dkaroly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
berger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, david@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
davet@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mcane@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, meehl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
myles.allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, natasha@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
m.manning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, nmantua@u.washington.edu, Jeffrey.Park@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
jseveringhaus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, bengtsson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jcole@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
juliebg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rich@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
dcayan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
goosse@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, atimmermann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ajb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
penner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jmahlman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
rbierbau@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: RealClimate.org Date: 10 Dec 2004 08:56:42 -0500
Cc: Mike Mann , Eric Steig , ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
aclement@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rasmus.benestad@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Colleagues,
No doubt some of you share our frustration with the current state of media
reporting on the climate change issue. Far too often we see agenda-driven
"commentary" on the Internet and in the opinion columns of newspapers crowding out
careful analysis. Many of us work hard on educating the public and journalists
through lectures, interviews and letters to the editor, but this is often a
thankless task.
In order to be a little bit more pro-active, a group of us (see below) have

recently got together to build a new 'climate blog' website: RealClimate.org which
will be launched over the next few days at:
http://www.realclimate.org
The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where we can
mount a rapid response to supposedly 'bombshell' papers that are doing the rounds
and give more context to climate related stories or events.
Some examples that we have already posted relate to combatting dis-information

regarding certain proxy reconstructions and supposed 'refutations' of the science
used in Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. We have also posted more educational
pieces relating to the interpretation of the ice core GHG records or the reason
why the stratosphere is cooling. We are keeping the content strictly scientific,
though at an accessible level.
The blog format allows us to update postings frequently and clearly as new studies
come along as well as maintaining a library of useful information (tutorials,
FAQs, a glossary etc.) and past discussions. The site will be moderated to
maintain a high signal-to-noise ratio.
We hope that you will find this a useful resource for your own outreach efforts.
For those more inclined to join the fray, we extend an open invitation to
participate, for instance, as an occasional guest contributor of commentaries in
your specific domain, as a more regular contributor of more general pieces, or
simply as a critical reader. Every time you explain a basic point of your science
to a journalist covering a breaking story, think about sharing your explanation
with wider community. RealClimate will hopefully make that easier. You can contact
us personally or at contrib@xxxxxxxxx.xxx for more information.
This is a strictly volunteer/spare time/personal capacity project and obviously

nothing we say there reflects any kind of 'official' position. We welcome any
comments, criticisms or suggestions you may have, even if it is just to tell us to
stop wasting our time! (hopefully not though).
Thanks,
Gavin Schmidt
on behalf of the RealClimate.org team: - Gavin Schmidt - Mike Mann - Eric Steig -
William Connolley - Stefan Rahmstorf - Ray Bradley - Amy Clement - Rasmus Benestad
- William Connolley - Caspar Ammann

From: Phil Jones To: Kevin Trenberth Subject: Some weekend thoughts Date: Mon Dec
13 09:29:24 2004
Kevin,
Read everything over the weekend, and here are a few comments. Glad I did this
yesterday, as not thinking too well at the moment as daughter-in-law in labour for
the
last 4 hours. No news yet - just waiting !
Haven't made any alterations yet. Here are my thoughts.
3.1 I'll make a few cosmetic changes - mainly to refer to the Appendices a couple
of times
re significance.
Box 3.3 Reads better, will replace with this one when merge is done.
3.4 3.4.1.5 needs some work. Doesn't seem to read or flow that well.
3.4.2.1 Maybe need to expand on homogeneity tests.
3.4.2.2 4th para seems a little at odds with previous one?
3.4.2.3, 3.4.2.4 OK
3.4.3 Clouds. Needs some more work to develop a clearer message. You're aware
of this.
3.4.4 Radiation. Similar comments to the cloud section. I have some specific
notes for both. Despite this, probably OK for the ZOD. Maybe all we need to
do is to highlight this to the reviewers.
3.5 Section seems overlong. I know you've reduced it a lot ! Contains a number
of sentences where English could be improved.
3.5.1. OK
3.5.2 Significance levels for Fig 3.5.1 need some discussion. We'll need to work
some on this Figure.
3.5.3 and 3.5.4 OK for the ZOD with a few better sentences.
3.5.5 and 3.5.6 Both sections seem overlong. Again know you've reduced this
a lot, but if we need reductions here is a good place.
3.5.7 OK
Box 3.5 OK
3.6 Generally good.
3.6.1 OK
3.6.2 Probably remove the impact para - leave for the moment, though.
3.6.3 OK
3.6.4 I can improve this a little. It isn't all Scandinavian glaciers that are
advancing, just those in SW Norway. Those in the north of Sweden are
retreating.
3.6.5 OK
3.6.6/ 3.6.7 Basically OK. May need more re ACW and SAM link if we can say
anything.
3.7 This is probably too long, so would be another area for some reduction.
Agree on your suggestions for deletions as repetitive.
3.7.1.1-3.7.1.3 OK though all a little long.
3.7.1.4 This is the one where there is some repetition. Not much on monsoon.
A lot here is already in 3.8 on extremes and the Dai et al (2004) paper is now
referred to in 3.3, here and in 3.8. Suggest it should just be in 3.3 and again
in 3.9 (it isn't there yet).
Your figures seem in better shape than those in my section. We will likely need
to work on the one Dennis is doing. Will need some colour. You're aware of
which need more work from your comments. We can leave these in for
reviewer and LA thoughts.
Dave has sent me a first go at the figures. Made loads of suggestions.
Dave was aware colour choices poor and will be doing more on them today.
Is Chris Landsea the only person you've removed from the CA list so
far? It seems so.
I should have time tomorrow onwards to do merging and send out the
3 files to all our LAs. Are you happy with me merging in your refs list?
I'll keep the discard ones at end in a separate list. Still hopeful of
doing all this by close of play here on Thursday. All day in London
on Friday and CRU party today week from 11am onwards. Going for
Dec 16 means I will only be able to get some of the Figures in 3.2
and 3.3 properly into the text.
Will send Dave's next Figure versions if they are much better. No point
with current one.
Still no news !
Cheers
Phil
At 21:16 10/12/2004, you wrote:
Phil
Attached are the three sections. Please use these for any suggested edits. Of the
text, 3.7 is losest and needs careful comparison with 3.3 to check for
inconsistencies.
There is model stuff in there that is not quite right or incomplete: I removed
some.
There is reduncdant ENSO-related stuff. A lot of the monsoon variability is linked

to
ENSO and we could say that succinctly but it would decimate what the CAs and
Panmao have
done. I think we will need to do this in Beijing, but I left it for now. Note the
refs
has a list of discards at the end.
Suggest we keep this, perhaps in a different file, and if stuff gets deleted with
references, then the refs get moved there.
Some of the figures are not quite in order in 3.6 and their is the extra figure
that
Dennis generated, not currently referred to. Key question is whether to follow up
on
this and how to make the multiple figs in 3.6 more compatible. I know you have
suggestions on long time series and I urge you to keep in mind the purpose here:
to show
the past variability and place recent trends in that context. A lot could be done
on
indices and assoc plots, and patterns. I think we have license to do some of this
as
long as the figs are in literature. But we may not be able to reproduce the
results???
I have hedged a lot on clouds and radiation, and maybe clarification will come?
See if
you think it is OK for now.
Note these 3 versions are dated 1210: 10 Dec. They replace entirely the 1204
versions
which you can discard.
Kevin
--
****************
P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Keith Briffa Subject: Re: need to chat - important
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:55:45 -0500
Hi Keith,
I have to head out around 11:30 AM (40 minutes from now). You can try reaching me
at my
cell phone after that (434-227-6969)...
Thanks,
Mike
At 08:03 AM 12/13/2004, Michael E. Mann wrote:
HI Keith,
I'll be working at home this morning. You can call me at: 434-977-7688
Mike
At 07:25 AM 12/13/2004, Keith Briffa wrote:
Mike
could you confirm a telephone number to call you on in 3 hours say
thanks
Keith
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
References

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Keith Briffa Subject: email #1: some background info
first... Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:47:16 -0500
HI Keith,
Thanks again for your phone call, and the (informal) opportunity to help out where
I can.
I'm perfectly happy in that role (as an informal contributor and a formal
reviewer, for
example), if you and Peck, for example, are both comfortable with that.
First, "RealClimate" should be helpful. It deals w/ the skeptic claims, etc. but
using the
legitimate
peer-reviewed research as a basis for the discussion.
The "hockey stick" overview should be helpful:
[1]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=7
as well as itemized esponses to the various contrarian propaganda/myths:
and the specific discrediting of the claims of McIntyre and McKitrick, based both
on our
response to their rejected Nature comment:
and the discussion of the analysis in the Rutherford et al (2004) paper in press
in Journal
of Climate, that independently discredits them:
In the following emails, I'll attach some other materials (submitted papers) that
deal w/
the McIntyre and Mckitrick matter, and the von Storch matter,
Please let me know if there is anything we discussed that I forget to provide you.
Will
also draft an email to the small group (you, me, Scott, Caspar, Gene) about the
prospective
additional RegEM/Mann et al method model analyses,
cheers,
Mike
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
References
1. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=7

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Keith Briffa Subject: email #2: paper in review in J.
Climate (as a letter), discrediting McIntyre and McKitrick Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004
11:47:26 -0500
Keith,
This paper is in review, and can be referred to (just clear w/ Caspar or Gene
first) for
IPCC draft purposes. They basically show that the McIntyre and McKitrick paper is
total
crap, and they provide an online version of the Mann et al method (and the proxy
data), so
individuals can confirm for themselves...
Mike
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachWahl_MBH_Recreation_JClimLett_Nov22.pdf"
References


From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Keith Briffa Subject: email #3: Stendel et al paper
(submitted) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:53:16 -0500
Keith,
Attached is the Stendel et al paper (submitted to "Climate Dynamics" last month)

and a
corrected version of their Figure 3 (using the correct Mann and Jones NH series).
The importance of this paper is that they use the same model as von Storch (higher
resolution in fact), and get a temperature history that looks much like the
reconstructions/other models. Also, they appear to get the negative NAO pattern in
the
Maunder Minimum, which von Storch et al do not...
Again, this should be referenceable in the zero order draft, but would be good to
contact
Martin Stendel first about this...
Mike
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachstendel_et_al_ClimDyn.pdf" Attachment

Converted:
"c:eudoraattachnh-extend.pdf"
References

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Keith Briffa Subject: email #4: comment (in press in
Science) on von Storch et al paper Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:56:41 -0500
Keith,
I think the attached comment (in press in "Science") is pretty self-explanatory.

It raises
the main objections to the von Storch et al paper (some of which you and Tim
already had
raised, really)...
Mike
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachVonStorchReply04-submitrevised.pdf"
References

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Keith Briffa Subject: email #5: paper in review in J.
Climate letters using NCAR forced simulation and RegEM Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004
11:56:56 -0500
HI Keith,
here (w/ the supplementary info also attached) is the paper summarizing the
results I
showed in Victoria of the RegEM analysis of pseudoproxies in the forced CSM

simulation.
This is in review as a "letter" in Journal of Climate, and can be referred to as
"submitted" in the zero-order draft.
As we discussed, parallel experiments are being done using the MBH98 method, but
regardless
of those results, this suggests, at least, that the RegEM-based NH reconstructions

(e.g. in
the Rutherford et al paper you're co-author on) are unlikely to be impacted by the
bias
discussed by von Storch et al...
Mike
______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachpseudoproxy-jclimlett1.pdf" Attachment

Converted:
"c:eudoraattachsupplementary1.pdf"
References

From: Jonathan Overpeck To: "Ricardo Villalba" Subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] Fw:
Section on Modes of Variability Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:37:03 -0700 Cc:
k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, peltier@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Eystein Jansen
Hi Ricardo - good to hear from you. Thanks too for the interesting figure. I have
some
comments on this section (6.5.4) and also for the others' you're helping to lead.
Regarding 6.5.4 - I hope Dick and Keith will have jump in to help you lead, and I
can too.
I think the hardest, yet most important part, is to boil the section down to 0.5
pages. In
looking over your good outline, sent back on Oct. 17 (my delay is due to fatherdom
just
after this time), you cover ALOT. The trick may be to decide on the main message
and use
that to guid what's included and what is left out. For the IPCC, we need to know
what is
relevant and useful for assessing recent and future climate change. Moreover, we
have to
have solid data - not inconclusive information. My take:
ENSO - coral records sensitive to ENSO (e.g., Urban et al. and Cobb et al -
attached)
suggest ENSO has changed in response to past forcing change (Cobb et al - updated
interp by
mann et al - see recent email attachment) and recent climate change (Urban et al).
Ditto
for Indian Ocean - not sure if can connect to dipole - I could ask Julie Cole? NAO
- lots
of papers and what's the consensus? I'm not sure, but I think it is that we can't
say for
sure what has happend to the NAO - or AO for sure (Keith might no more - recent Ed
Cook
paper might be the key? - I'm not an expert here). Same thing for PDO (not an
expert, but
aren't their recons that don't agree - see cole et al for one- attached). In both
these
cases, the recons don't always agree. Or do they say the NAO variability has
stayed pretty
constant?
Tropical Atlantic - Black et al 1999 (attached to prev email) also says 12year
mode (no
consensus if diapole is the correct name for what Chang first described - see ref
in Black
attached) has been constant for 800 years.
Annual modes - does paleo have anything definitive to say yet? I'm a coauthor on a
soon to
be submitted AO recon paper, but I'm not sure reviewers will go for it - nor does
it match
D'Arrigo's recent AO recon paper (can't find).
So, the trick is for you to lead us (Dick, Keith, me - maybe Julie - ENSO expert)
to
produce 0.5 pages of HIGHLY focused and relevant stuff. Can you take another crack
at your
outline and then tell us what you need? Thanks!
Regarding 6.5.9 - can you help Dan, Ramesh and others to make quick headway on
this one -
it's totally missing. Thanks!
Regarding 6.3.2.1 - Keith will need help, no doubt - particularly with a good S.
Hemisphere
perspective (he can override me on this, but since I'm contacting you...) thanks!
What do
we have for the southern hem? Southern S. America, New Zealand, Tasmania, ice
core?
Regarding 6.3.2.2 - what's your opinion of where this section stands?
Thanks - hope you are enjoying summer - although Tucson never gets that cold!
Best, Peck
From: [1]Ricardo Villalba
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 2:55 PM
Subject: Fw: Section on Modes of Variability

Dear IPCC colleagues
Please, find attached a preliminary draft of the proposed figure for the section:
Modes
of variability. The caption follows. Best regards,
Modes of variability
Figure caption. Coherent modes of climate variability across the Pacific Ocean
during
the past four centuries. The upper part of this figure compare temperature-
sensitive
tree-ring records (red triangles) from high-latitude, Western North and South
America
with a geochemical coral record (yellow triangle) from Raratonga, tropical South
Pacific. The series shown from top to bottom are: Spring/Summer Gulf of Alaska
temperature reconstruction (1600-1994; Wiles et al., 1998), Sr/Ca coral record

from
Rarotonga (1726-1996; Linsley et al. 2004) and annual Northern Patagonia

temperature
reconstruction (1641-1989; Villalba et al., 2003). Correlation coefficients

between
records are indicated. To facilitate the comparison, the Sr/Ca coral record is
shown
reversed.
Interdecadal to centennial variability in each time series was isolated by using
singular spectrum analysis (SSA; lower part of the figure). For each record, all
SSA
reconstructed components with mean frequencies longer than 20 years where summed.
Correlation coefficients between these long-term modes of variability are also

shown.
Thin and thick arrows indicate coincidences in oscillations between the Raratonga
and
one or two high-latitude records, respectively.

Linsley, B., G. Wellington, D. Schrag, L. Ren, M. Salinger and A. Tudhope, 2004:
Geochemical evidence from corals for changes in the amplitude and spatial pattern
of
South Pacific interdecadal climate variability over the last 300 years. Climate
Dynamics, 22, 1-11.
Villalba, R., Lara, A., Boninsegna, J.A., Masiokas, M., Delgado, S., Aravena,
J.C.,
Roig, F.A., Schmelter, A., Wolodarsky, A., Ripalta, A. 2003. Large-scale

temperature
changes across the southern Andes: 20th-century variations in the context of the
past
400 years. Climatic Change, 59: 177-232.
Wiles, G. C., D'Arrigo, R.D. and Jacoby, G.C., 1998. Gulf of Alaska atmosphere-
ocean
variability over recent centuries inferred from coastal tree-ring records.

Climatic
Change, 38, 289-306.
Ricardo
Ricardo Villalba
Departamento de Dendrocronologa
e Historia Ambiental
IANIGLA - CRICYT
C.C. 330, (5500) Mendoza, Argentina
Tel: +54 (261) 4287029 ext. 48
Fax: +54 (261) 4285940

e-mail: [2]ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
PAGES SSC: [3]http://www.pages.unibe.ch/
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:modes of variation.jpg (JPEG/prvw) (000C0BD1)
_______________________________________________
Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list
Wg1-ar4-ch06@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06
--
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachCobb2003Nature.pdf" Attachment Converted:
"c:eudoraattachCooketal2002GRL.pdf" Attachment Converted:
"c:eudoraattachUrbanetal00.nature.pdf" Attachment Converted:

"c:eudoraattachColeetal2002GRL.pdf"
References
1. mailto:ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. http://www.pages.unibe.ch/

From: Phil Jones To: Kevin Trenberth , Kevin Trenberth , Peter Ambenje , Roxana
Bojariu , David Easterling , David Parker , Fatemeh Rahimzadeh , Jim Renwick ,
Matilde Rusticucci , Brian Soden , Panmao Zhai , Albert Klein Tank Subject: Re:
[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: "Model Mean Climate" for AR4]] Date: Mon Dec 20 17:55:56 2004
Cc: richard.wood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Kevin,
I will be around tomorrow (so Dec 21) until Dec 23 inclusive. Then again from Jan
3.
I will be checking email during the break from Dec 28 onwards.
Are you in control of the glossary additions and modifications?
As to change of base period - this seems like a decision for the whole of WGI. To
redo
the global temperature average, I can just move the series up/down, but this isn't
the correct way to do it. I should talk out a new base period from all the
individual
stations and recalculate anomalies for the oceans. For the oceans this isn't a
problem, but the land it is a serious problem. Many stations have good (i.e. near
complete base periods for 1961-90) but I'll lose hundreds, maybe over a thousand,
stations if I went to 1981-2000.
For both surface temperature and precipitation we don't have spatially complete
datasets
(like models) so it will be quite difficult.
For the circulation indices (like SOI and NAO) based on station pairs there is a
variance term (SD). Some of the character of the series will change. We could
easily adjust all these series by simple offsetting but it isn't doing it
properly.
I'm in the throws of a project with the HC checking all the 61-90 normals we have
for series that are incomplete, to ensure we don't have any biases. This has taken
quite a time and I don't want to waste the effort.
The arguments of Albert and Dave make a lot of sense - continuity with the TAR
etc.
These sort of things can be explained, but then the FOD will not be compatible
with
all the papers we are referring to. This will lead to lots of confusion. I would
like to
stick with 1961-90. I don't want to change this until 1981-2010 is complete, for 3
reasons : 1) We need 30 years and 81-10 will get all the MSU in nicely, and 2)
I will be near retirement !! 3) is one of perception. As climatologists we are
often changing base periods and have done for years. I remember getting a number
of comments when I changed from 1951-80 to 1961-90. If we go to a more recent one
the anomalies will seem less warm - I know this makes no sense scientifically, but
it gives the skeptics something to go on about ! If we do the simple way, they

will say
we aren't doing it properly.
Best idea might be to show some maps of 1981-2000 minus 1961-90 to show spatially
where it makes a difference for temp and precip. Showing it is quite small and
likely
within the intermodel differences for years which are only nominally 1981-2000.
This
might
keep both sides happy.
We also probably need to consider WGII. Also the paleo chapter will find 1981-2000
impossible. 1961-90 is difficult for them but not insurmountable.
Cheers
Phil
PS Fatima has received all the emails - her email only came to me. Not heard from
some of our LAs.
At 15:44 20/12/2004, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi all
I have received comments on this from Albert, David, Dave, and Jim. Some below.
As I commented to Jim, the choice of a base period affects the zero line. In some
of
our plots, namely the ones that have series of bars from the zero line to the
anomaly
value, thereby infilling between the anomaly and the zero, the zero base value is
greatly emphasized. This is in contrast to a simple time series with points

joined,
especially if the zero line is not also drawn. In the latter case, it is simple to
move
the axis up or down to fit with the new base period. But it makes a bigger
difference
to the bar plots. Now maybe that is a comment on the use and utility of bar plots,
because the relative values do not change.
The choice also affects any anomaly plots for any subperiod. But this is where the
comparison with models is most likely to occur. In this case there is a spatial
pattern
to the offset, namely the difference between means for 1961-90 and 1981-2000. We
could
also derive that difference for certain fields and provide it to modelers to
enable
comparisons with our plots. For trends over certain subperiod, this makes no
difference.
It seems that whatever we do, we will need an extra appendix explaining some of
this and
perhaps even giving plots of these differences.
In the meantime, let me suggest to those of you making computations, that you
consider
doing it both ways, rather than having to go back and do it over later.
Regards
Kevin
I agree with Albert, this would make comparisons with the TAR figures difficult.
Dave
Klein Tank, Albert wrote:
Hi Kevin,
My immediate response is that the choice for another base period will probably not
affect our assessment of results, but it will change all figures w.r.t the TAR.
This
will be difficult to communicate and will take much more space to explain.
Albert.
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: "Model Mean Climate" for AR4]
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 13:06:44 +0000
From: Parker, David (Met Office) [1]
To: Kevin Trenberth [2]
References: [3]<41C34CDA.3060304@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> Kevin
It is obviously possible to use 1980-2000 though it would require some data-

processing work. The main objection is that anomalies (of temperature) would
appear to be reduced relative to previous publications and readers/policymakers
could become confused. A minor objection is that 1980-2000 is a bit short.
Satellite data are of course in its favour. In due course, 1981-2010 will be
ideal!
Regards
David
On Fri, 2004-12-17 at 21:17, Kevin Trenberth wrote: > All > Please note the
discussion below. Note the proposed base period of > 1980-2000. Can we get your
reactions? If it is decided to use this, > what difficulties would it create?
Other comments? > Kevin > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: > Re:
"Model Mean Climate" for AR4 > Date: > Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:14:58 -0700 > From: >
Kevin Trenberth > [4] > To: > Wood, Richard > [5] > CC: > > References: > [6] > >
Richard > > The current base period being used in Chapter 3 is anomalies >
determined with respect to the 1961-1990 base period. In > observations there is a
strong emphsis on using 30 year periods and > the more recent one, 1971-2000 is
not yet available. We would need to > discuss whether to try to switch to that. It
certainly won't be in > any ZOD. Otherwise, though, we are placing a lot of
emphasis on > trends from 1979 on. The grounds for this are 1) The 1976-77 shift >
seems to be about when anthropogenic climate change took off: prior to > then we
are under the realm of natural variability (basically a TAR > result); and 2) 1979
is when a whole bunch of satellite data and > other analyses (like global
reanalyses) become much more reliable and > global. So 1979 is the closest proxy
to 1976/77. > > If 1981-2000 is to be used, it will, of course, include some
climate > perceptible climate change that may influence peceptions of > anomalies.
But I agree there is a lot to be said for consistency. > Moreover, it is
manageable for observational data bases. Because of > the satellite effects on obs
it is important to start on or after 1979 > and stop while we still have obs. So
for round numbers 1981-2000 makes > most sense. I think that was the conclusion we
came to in Trieste, > but it is not reflected in any material I have seen yet in
our > chapter. > > Phil is not available till after New Year, I believe. > >
Regards > Kevin > > Wood, Richard wrote: > > Dear Jerry and other CLAs, > > > >
Jerry: would you be willing to do this please, once some text is agreed? > > All:
any comments on the proposed text? (esp from observational chapters > > re meaning
periods). An early response would be appreciated as if we > > send this to PIs it
needs to be done as soon as possible. > > > > > > We've just had a meeting of
Chapter 8 LAs in San Francisco. One issue > > that came up was what period of what
run to use for the analysis of the > > 'mean climate' in the AR4 models, for
Chapter 8. Clearly we hope there > > will be a number of diagnostic projects
looking at the models over the > > next few months, and the more uniformly that
analysis can be done the > > better. > > > > To cut a long story short, we felt
that given the choice it would be > > most appropriate to define models' 'mean
climate' by looking at the > > 1981-2000 mean from the all forcings 20th Century
runs (or the ensemble > > mean if there is an ensemble). That would be consistent
with the base > > period Chapter 10 is using for the projections. We recognise
that there > > could be all sorts of reasons why that is not appropriate in
particular > > cases, both scientific and practical (e.g. the observational
dataset > > covers another period, or a longer time mean is needed because of > >
particular modes of variability, or there is a problem with model drift > > or
trends). So we wouldn't want to be prescriptive, but all other things > > being
equal we would suggest that as the analysis period. If there are > > no show-
stoppers for this, we were thinking it would be good to send out > > a brief email
to the PIs of the diagnostic projects to request that they > > bear this in mind
in their analysis. Jerry, there were a few other > > topics that might be raised
in such an email and Karl Taylor will > > contacting you about those. > > > > To
be definite, I suggest below some straw-man text that could be sent > > out. > > >
> Thanks and best wishes, > > Richard > > > > "Defining model 'mean climate': > >
In defining the 'mean climate state' of a model for comparison against > >
observations there are number of choices that could be made, e.g. use > > model
'control runs' (which may have either preindustrial or present day > > trace
gases), or use the '20th Century all forcings' runs (many of which > > are
available as ensembles started from varying initial conditions). For > > the 20th
Century integrations there is also a choice of meaning period. > > It is
recognised that the optimal choice for a given problem may depend > > on a number
of factors including the period over which obervations are > > available, and the
need for a non-drifting or non-trending model > > solution. We also recognise that
some projects have already begun their > > analysis based on a particular choice.
We therefore do not wish to > > prescribe a solution to this problem and leave it
to the judgement of > > individual projects. However, in cases where there is a
choice, we wish > > to encourage as much uniformity in the analysis as possible,
and > > therefore propose that other things being equal, model mean climate is > >
defined based on the 1981-2000 period of the 'all forcings 20th > > Centrury' runs
(or the ensemble mean where appropriate)." > > > > > > -------------- > > Richard
Wood > > Met Office Fellow and Manager Ocean Model Evaluation > > Met Office
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research > > FitzRoy Road, Exeter EX1
3PB, UK > > Phone +44 (0)1392 886641 Fax +44 (0)1392 885681 > > Email
[7]richard.wood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx [8]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > >

Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. mailto:david.parker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:41C34CDA.3060304@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:richard.wood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:FCE86FAA6B302A42AF7F9C6255745E3703C5F4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. mailto:richard.wood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/

From: Phil Jones To: Kevin Trenberth Subject: A quick question Date: Tue Dec 21
11:39:09 2004
Kevin,
No idea how Chris Folland got this. Presumably David Parker forwarded it !
Anyway, it doesn't matter. The questions are:
When will you be sending me your signed-off draft?
Will this be the complete doc file of text?
Will you be modifying any of the figures?
On the latter just want to know if I'm keeping track of figs as well as Refs. I've
got
the two you sent last night.
I'll be off from 5pm on Dec 23. I'll begin reading the draft from Dec 29. Will
likely
be in at least once on Dec 29-31, but will be checking email from Dec 29.
Cheers
Phil
All
As someone who dealt with these matters in the past, a decision about the climate
normals period was regarded as so important that all of WG1 debated it and agreed
the
outcome. So that should be the route again, I believe, if a change is wanted. From
a
personal perspective, I tend to agree with Phil that this time we should stick (in
general) to 1961-90 normals, and that IPCC 2013 should perhaps change to 1981-
2010.
Having said that, we may produce 1981-2000 normals in the next year for SST if we
can
solve adequately remaining problems (for climate change monitoring) with satellite
SSTs.
A key goal is monitoring changes in the Southern Ocean. Solutions are likely to
include
use of some corrected (to bulk SST data) ATSR data. This depends on work elsewhere
in
the Met Office. However, some less well corrected AVHRR data is needed as well to
extend
normals adequately back to 1981 in much of the Southern Ocean.This may give a new
perspectives on the southern ocean SST changes; are likely to be significantly

different
in the southern half of the southern ocean from the global average. This is
suggested by
the lack of reduction of Antarctic sea ice, in contrast to the Arctic, which still
persists. Such work may or may not get into IPCC FAR but if it did, it could be a
special case. But it would need careful handling for conversion to advice to
policy
makers.
Chris
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Keith Briffa Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] IPCC
last 2000 years data Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 14:04:44 -0500
Hey Keith,
I hope your visit w/ your family went well...
I went ahead and tried to make some constructive comments on what you sent
(figured it
would be nice to get this out of the way before the holidays come round)..
Let me say I think it's shaping up very nicely--looks like it should be a

significant
improvement on the '01 report. You've handled the various controversies and points
of
dispute delicately and adeptly, while still driving home in the end the key point
(that the
evidence appears to point to anomalous late 20th century behavior).
I made a dozen or so minor comments--please make use of them as you see fit.
Lets reconvene on this after the holidays. Thanks again for including me in and
giving me
an opportunity to comment.
I hope the rest of your holidays go well,
mike
At 01:31 PM 12/22/2004, you wrote:
Mike
don't know what the status of the whole chapter is - but I thought I would send
this
very first and rough
draft to you anyway - I have to wait and see the whole thing and hear from Peck
before
doing more.
Just heard my dad is now pretty much bedridden and officially declared blind
(diabetes
etc) and have to fit in a visit to him and mum (who I have not seen for ages) and
spend
at least a few days with the kids so there is no way I can work more on this till
later
- as I said - really appreciate your input , have a great Christmas and for f..ks
sake
keep the right priorities to the fore as the years progress
cheers
Keith
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 18:23:02 +0000
To: Jonathan Overpeck
From: Keith Briffa
Subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] IPCC last 2000 years data
Cc: Eystein Jansen
Bcc: t.m.melvin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,Tim Osborn
Peck and Eystein
I have to break off now for the christmas period
This is unavoidable. I am sending what I have now
even though I am not at all happy with it.
It is obviously only part way there. Getting the data
to produce Figures and work out how to design them
is going to be time very consuming
and I will rely entirely on Tim here to do them
- and the regional input
stuff if wanted will need input from a number of people
that I have not been able to contact (see later)
The borehole discussion (contributed to by Henry Pollack) will need
batting around and Henry (and Mike , who contributed
a section on regional forced changes) will need to be kept
on board. There will be loads to say on the simulated
temperature histories and Tim will help here also
- but much is unpublished or
even unanalysed (hence Simon and Eduardo will need
to contribute eventually). The glacier bit at the end is what

Olga sent and I have not had time to work through it.
You two need to give some direction as to how
much you wish to have explicitly looking at the mass of
NAO?AO reconstructions , ditto ENSO or PDO and all the
simulations of these - but at this stage not sure where in overall
plan all this going. Do we really want a discussion on MWP
and LIA per se ? The regional descriptions , including Southern Hemisphere
could be infinite length and I suppose we should only discuss longest or
pre assimilated information - but will need specific input here from colleagues
if we are to do these regional (including precipitation ) sections .
I know Julie and Ed , and presumably Eystein , will be the best people to ask.
I am attaching the current text and placeholder ideas for Figures .
Not feasible to work more on these until know wider priorities re space.
Have had bad experience with ENDNOTE - and Tom Melvin here will forward
the biblio file later.
I wanted to do more , but that is all I can manage til after Xmas
Here is wishing you (and your loved ones) all the best
Keith
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
--

Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachIPCCFAR_6-3-2-1_ mem23-12-04.doc"
References

From: Phil Jones To: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Fwd:

Re: Fw: Rutherford et al. [2004] Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 11:22:31 +0000
FYI.
Just look at the attachment. Don't refer to it or send it on to anybody
yet. I guess you could refer to it in the IPCC Chapter - you will have to
some day !
Cheers
Phil
X-Sender: mem6u@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 09:22:02 -0500
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: Fw: Rutherford et al. [2004]
X-UEA-MailScanner-SpamScore: s
Phil,
I would immediately delete anything you receive from this fraud.
You've probably seen now the paper by Wahl and Ammann which independently exposes
McIntyre and McKitrick for what it is--pure crap. Of course, we've already done
this on
"RealClimate", but Wahl and Ammann is peer-reviewed and independent of us. I've
attached
it in case you haven't seen (please don't pass it along to others yet). It should
be in
press shortly. Meanwhile, I would NOT RESPOND to this guy. As you know, only bad
things
can come of that. The last thing this guy cares about is honest debate--he is
funded by
the same people as Singer, Michaels, etc...
Other than this distraction, I hope you're enjoying the holidays too...
talk to you soon,
mike
At 09:02 AM 12/30/2004, you wrote:
Mike,
FYI. Just in for an hour or so today as still off until Jan 4.
Not replied to this - too much else with IPCC etc. Not read this
in detail - just printed it off.
Have a good New Year's Eve.
Cheers
Phil
From: "Steve McIntyre"
To: "Phil Jones"
Subject: Fw: Rutherford et al. [2004]
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:08:18 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
Dear Phil,
I have noticed the following statements in Rutherford et al [2004], in which you

are a
co-author. As compared with some of your co-authors, I get the impression that,
while
you feel very strongly about your views, you are also concerned with getting to
the
bottom of matters and are less concerned with scoring meaningless debating points.
In
this spirit, I draw your attention to some incorrect statements in Rutherford et

al.
[2004] concerning our material. There is really a quite serious problem with the
PC
methods in MBH98 and the comments made in Rutherford et al [2004] are really quite
misleading. For the reasons set out below, I request that these comments be
removed from
the manuscript.
Regards, Steve McIntyre

From: [1]Steve McIntyre
To: [2]David Randall
Cc: [3]Scott Rutherford ; [4]Paul Kushner ; [5]Cindy Carrick ; [6]Ross McKitrick
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 1:48 PM
Subject: Rutherford et al. [2004]
Dear Dr. Randall,
Recently, at the website [7]www.realclimate.org, Michael Mann publicized a

submission by
Rutherford et al. to Journal of Climate, entitled Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere
Surface Temperature Reconstructions: Sensitivity to Method, Predictor Network,

Target
Season, and Target Domain. This paper contains some untrue statements and
mischaracterizations regarding criticisms we (McIntyre and McKitrick) made of Mann

et
al. (1998) [MBH98] in a 2003 paper and subsequent exchanges under the auspices of
Nature. We are writing to request that these untrue statements be removed from the
paper
before any further processing of the document by Journal of Climate takes place.
First, Rutherford et al. states that McIntyre and McKitrick [2003] used an
incorrect
version of the Mann et al. (1998) proxy indicator dataset. The history of this
matter is
summarized below (all relevant emails and other documentation are available at
[8]http://www.climate2003.com/file.issues.htm .
In April 2003, we requested from Mann the FTP location of the dataset used in
MBH98.
Mann advised me that he was unable to recall the location of this dataset and
referred
the request to Rutherford. Rutherford eventually directed us to a file

(pcproxy.txt)
located at a URL at Manns FTP site. In using this data file, we noticed numerous
problems with it, not least with the principal component series. We sought
specific
confirmation from Mann that this dataset was the one used in MBH98; Mann said that
he
was too busy to respond to this or any other inquiry. Because of the many problems
in
this data set, we undertook a complete new re-collation of the data, using the
list of
data sources in the SI to MBH98 and using original archived versions wherever
possible.
After publication of McIntyre and McKitrick [2003], Mann said that dataset at his
FTP
site to which we had been referred was an incorrect version of the data and that
this
version had been prepared especially for me; through a blog, he provided a new URL
which
he now claimed to contain the correct data set. The file creation date of the
incorrect
version was in 2002, long prior to my first request for data, clearly disproving
his
assertion that it was prepared in response to my request. Mann and/or Rutherford

then
deleted this incorrect version with its date evidence from his FTP site.
It is false and misleading for Rutherford et al. to now allege that we used the
wrong
dataset. We used the dataset they directed us to at their FTP site. More
importantly,
for our analysis, to avoid the problems with the principal component series, we
re-collated the tree ring data identified in MBH98 from ITRDB archives, calculated
fresh
principal component series; in addition, we re-collated other proxy data from

archived
versions wherever possible. Thus, our own calculations were not affected by the
errors
in the supplied file as we did NOT use the incorrect version in our calculations.
To
suggest otherwise, as is done in Rutherford et al [2004], is highly misleading. To

date,
no source code or other evidence has been provided to fully demonstrate that the
incorrect version (now deleted) did not infect some of Manns and Rutherfords other
work.
In this respect, we note that the now deleted file pcproxy.txt occurs in a legend
in a
graphic at Rutherfords website, indicating possible use elsewhere by Rutherford of

the
incorrect version.
Accordingly, we request that the above claim be removed from the manuscript.
Secondly, Rutherford et al. [2004] argues that the difference between MBH98
results and
MM03 results occurs because of our misunderstanding of a stepwise procedure in

MBH98 for
the calculation of principal component series for tree ring networks. Again, this
claim
is misleading on its face. While our 2003 paper did not implement the (then
undisclosed)
stepwise procedure, as soon as this matter was raised in subsequent correspondence

in
November 2003, we implemented it and we continued to observe the discrepancies in
principal component series and final results. The current manuscript ignores a
refereed
exchange at Nature in which we specifically clarified (in response to a reviewers
question) that we had obtained such results while using the exact stepwise
procedure
described in MBH98. Mann is aware of this refereed exchange.
The reason for the difference between our results and MBH98 results is primarily
due to
the fact that the tree ring principal component series in MBH98 cannot be
replicated
using a conventional principal components method. The MBH98 principal component

series
can only be replicated by standardizing on a short segment a procedure nowhere

mentioned
in MBH98 and only recently acknowledged in the SI to the Corrigendum of Mann et

al.
[Nature 2004] in response to our concerns on the subject expressed to Nature. In
effect, MBH98 did not use a conventional centered PC calculation, but used an
uncentered
PC calculation on de-centered data. The impact of this method is the subject of

ongoing
controversy, which is well-known to the authors, but the existence of the method
in
MBH98 is no longer in doubt. In discussions of PC calculations in 2004 exchanged

with
the authors through Nature, we implemented the stepwise procedures of MBH98

referred to
in the present manuscript and demonstrated that important differences remain even
with
stepwise procedures, as long as the uncentered and decentered methods of MBH98 are
used. The differences in PC series resulting from using centered and uncentered
series
has been fully agreed to by all parties in the Nature exchange, although the
parties
continue to disagree on the ultimate effect on final NH temperature calculations.
Accordingly, the discussion in Rutherford et al. [2004] is very incomplete and
misleading in this respect. While we recognize that Mann et al. have argued that
they
can salvage MBH98-type results using alternative methodologies (e.g. increasing

the
number of PC series used in the 1400-1450 period), these salvage efforts are
themselves
a matter of controversy and do not validate the claims being put forward in the
Rutherford et al. paper.

Accordingly we ask that this claim also be deleted from the manuscript.
Regards,
Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Prof. Phil Jones

NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
documentseudoraattachWahl_MBH_Recreation_JClimLett_Nov22.pdf"
References
2. mailto:randall@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:j.climate@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:cindy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:rmckitri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. http://www.realclimate.org/
8. http://www.climate2003.com/file.issues.htm

From: Jonathan Overpeck To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Fwd: Re: [Wg1-ar4-

ch06] IPCC last 2000 years data Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 21:52:47 -0700 Cc: Eystein
Jansen , cddhr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi Keith - Happy new year. Hopefully, you had a good holiday. I've had a chance to
read
your section and hopefully you've had a chance to read what I sent just before the
holidays. The purpose of this email is to help get a focus on the finish line
(just a few
days away) and to get a dialog going that will hopefully help you finish section
6.3.2.1.
If you'd like to talk on the phone, just let me know.

Please see my email from right before xmas holidays for original comments. Plus,
here are
the new ones from both me and David Rind:
0) as leader of this KEY section, we need you to take the lead integrating
everything you
think should be integrated, editing and boiling it down to just ca 4 pages of

final text
(e.g., 8 pages of typed text plus figs). This means cutting some material (e.g.,
forcings
and simulations) and perhaps moving glacier record (MUCH boiled down) to a box.
See below.
00) note that we can also perhaps move some of the details to the appendix
(although we
won't write this until after the current ZOD crunch, save an outline of what you
might want
in there).
1) I like your figure ideas, with the comments:
1a) I don't think you need figure 1d - the SH recons are sketchy since not much
data, and
it might be better to just discuss in a sentence or three. Any space saved is good
too. Not
sure about your proposed 1e - have to see it, I guess.
1b) Figure 2 looks interesting. I'm trying to get the latest Arctic recon from
Konrad
Hughen - it is quite robust and a significant multi-proxy update. Should be

published in
time, though not sure thing since he's still hot on including his (our) AO recon
which is
more sketchy
1c) I think we can save space and improve organization if we DO NOT include Fig 3.
However,
this is open for debate - see David's comments below.
2) I agree with David's comments in general - so see them below. The prickly issue
is where
to put the forcings and simulated changes. I am close to having the prose from the
radiation chapter, including the latest Lean and Co's view on solar - this will
make many
of the existing simulations involving inferred past solar forcing suspect (I will
send in a
day or so I hope). This means that we might be best saving space and downplaying
this work
some. I'm not sure, but wanted to debate it with you. Also, Chap 9 will have
simulations in
spades, so we can save space by letting them do it. Also, as David points out, we
can focus
on it elsewhere in our chapter more concisely - leaving you to focus on the VERY
important
obs record of temp and other changes. Can you tell, I'm still not 100% sure? I'll
send
another email to you and others about this in a bit.
3) Your section is too long and needs to be condensed. Thus, you need to think
through
what's most important and what's less so. For example, we need to figure out how
to
condense the glacier record of change. David thinks it should be a separate

section that
cuts across time scales (i.e., Holocene and last 2000 years). Perhaps we should
try to make
it into a box - 3 to 5 short paragraphs and a figure or two. Either way we have to
really
wack it. What do you think - you and I should be on the same page with Eystein
before
discussing w/ Olga perhaps. Or you can discuss with her - you're the lead on this
section.
4) you're doing an impressive job! Lots to keep track of.
Next, here is what David has offered. Take it all with a grain of salt, but I have
read it
and he has many good points. On the structural or any other points, I'm happy to
discuss on
the phone, or you can just debate with him and me on email.
******* From David Rind 1/4/05 ****************

6.3 Understanding Past Climate System Change (forcing and response)
6.3.1 Introduction (0.5 pages)
6.3.2 The Current Interglacial
6.3.2.1 Last 2000 years (4 pages)
Figure 1 should be of the last 2000 years, with appropriate caveats, not just
since 1860
(which will undoubtedly be in other chapters).
pp. 8-18: The biggest problem with what appears here is in the handling of the
greater
variability found in some reconstructions, and the whole discussion of the 'hockey
stick'.
The tone is defensive, and worse, it both minimizes and avoids the problems. We
should
clearly say (e.g., page 12 middle paragraph) that there are substantial
uncertainties that
remain concerning the degree of variability - warming prior to 12K BP, and cooling
during
the LIA, due primarily to the use of paleo-indicators of uncertain applicability,

and the
lack of global (especially tropical) data. Attempting to avoid such statements

will just
cause more problems.
In addition, some of the comments are probably wrong - the warm-season bias (p.12)
should
if anything produce less variability, since warm seasons (at least in GCMs)
feature smaller
climate changes than cold seasons. The discussion of uncertainties in tree ring
reconstructions should be direct, not referred to other references - it's

important for
this document. How the long-term growth is factored in/out should be mentioned as
a prime
problem. The lack of tropical data - a few corals prior to 1700 - has got to be
discussed.
The primary criticism of McIntyre and McKitrick, which has gotten a lot of play on
the
Internet, is that Mann et al. transformed each tree ring prior to calculating PCs
by
subtracting the 1902-1980 mean, rather than using the length of the full time
series (e.g.,
1400-1980), as is generally done. M&M claim that when they used that procedure
with a red
noise spectrum, it always resulted in a 'hockey stick'. Is this true? If so, it

constitutes
a devastating criticism of the approach; if not, it should be refuted. While IPCC

cannot be
expected to respond to every criticism a priori, this one has gotten such
publicity it
would be foolhardy to avoid it.
In addition, there are other valid criticisms to the PC approach. Assuming that
the PC
structure stays the same was acknowledged in the Mann et al paper as somewhat
risky, given
the possibility of altered climate forcing (e.g., solar). Attempting to

reconstruct
tropical temperatures using high latitude PCs assumes that the PCs are influenced
only by
global scale processes. In a paper we now have in review in JGR, and in other
papers
already published, it is shown that high latitude climate changes can directly
affect the
local expression of the modes of variability (NAO in particular). So attempting to

fill in
data at other locations from PCs that could have local influences may not work
well; at the
least, it has large uncertainties associated with it.
The section from p.18-20 - simulations of temperature change over the last
millennium ,
including regional expressions - should not be in this section. It is covered in

the
modeling section (several different times), and will undoubtedly be in other

chapters as
well. And the first paragraph on p. 19 is not right - only by using different
forcings have
models been able to get similar responses (which does not constitute good
agreement). The
discussion in the first paragraph of p. 20 is not right - the dynamic response is

almost
entirely in winter, which would not have affected the 'warm season bias'
paleoreconstructions used to prove it. It also conflicts with ocean data (Gerard
Bond,
personal communication). Anyway, it's part of the section that should be dropped.
pp. 20-28: The glacial variations should be summarized in a coherentglobal

picture.
Variations as a function of time should be noted - not just lumped together

between 1400
and 1850 - for example, it should be noted where glaciers advanced during the 17th
century
and retreated during the 19th century, for that is important in understanding
possible
causes for the Little Ice Age (as well as the validity of the 'hockey stick'). The
discussion on the bottom of p.25-27 as to the causes of the variations is

inappropriate
and should be dropped - note if solar forcing is suspect, every paragraph that
relates
observed changes to solar forcing will be equally suspect (e.g., see also p. 44,
first
paragraph).
Bottom of p. 27: Greene et al. (GRL, 26, 1909-1912, 1999) did an analysis of 52
glaciated
areas from 30-60N and found that the highest correlation between their ELA
variations in
the last 40 years was with summer season freezing height and winter season precip.
The warm
season freezing height was by far more important. Therefore, the relationship of
glacier
variations to NAO changes (which are important only in winter), as discussed in

this
paragraph, while perhaps valid for a period of time in southern Norway, is not
generally
applicable.
p. 34-36 on forcings: note that this is redundant to what is discussed in several
later
sections (e.g., 6.5.2); and other chapters), and that is true of forcing in
general for the
whole of section 6.2. I would strongly suggest dropping forcing from section
6.3.2.1, at
least, and perhaps giving it its own number, or referring to othersubsections for
it. It
has a different flavor from the responses, and the section is already very big.
Forcing
does need to be discussed in the paleoclimate chapter, for reasons of climate

sensitivity
and explaining observations, but that is what Chapter 6.5 is about.
(In summary - 6.3.2.1 already is taking on one controversy - paleotemperatures,

which is
needs to do better, It should not have to deal with the forcing problems as well,
and
especially not in an off-handed way.)
Specific comments: p. 36: 6 ppm corresponds to a temperature response of 0.3 to

0.6?K using
the IPCC sensitivity range.
p. 36, last paragraph: one could equally well conclude that the reconstructions
are showing
temperature changes that are too small. This is the essence of the problem with
the last
2000 years: if the reconstructions are right, either there was no solar forcing,
or climate
sensitivity is very low. If the real world had more variability, either there was
solar
forcing, or climate sensitivity is high (as is internal variability). I've tried

to say
this in the climate sensitivity sub-chapter.
pp. 37-41: obviously a lot of overlap, but it shouldn't be hard to combine these.
p. 39, first paragraph: but can the models fully explain what is thought to have
happened?
Quantification is important here, because many of the same climate/veg models are
being
used to assess future changes in vegetation.
p. 42 - first full paragraph: what are the implications of the methane drop
without a CO2
drop?
p. 43, middle paragraph: obviously should mention solar-orbital forcing in this

paragraph.
p. 44, first paragraph: again, assuming a solar forcing
p. 45, first paragraph: overlap with pp. 20-28.
Second paragraph: overlap with p.39, last full paragraph
p. 52 - repeat of p. 43.
******* END From David Rind 1/4/05 ****************
Thanks! Cheers, peck
--
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachBriffaComments.doc"

From: Jonathan Overpeck To: Keith Briffa Subject: Fwd: Re: the Arctic paper and
IPCC Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 11:15:53 -0700 Cc: Eystein Jansen
Hi Keith - great (!) to hear from you - hope you had a good holiday. Your reward
(ha) is the attached paper and comment below from Konrad. He can supply data if
needed for a synthetic figure, but we can add this later once the Science paper he
mentions (w/ us a co-authors among millions, I assume) gets vetted more. Your
call.
I'm still not convinced about the AO recon, and am worried about the late 20th
century "coolness" in the proxy recon that's not in the instrumental, but it's a
nice piece of work in any case.
Now, for all the issues you raise on other stuff in your email, I'll address to
you and that crowd.
thanks, Peck
>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 10:53:56 -0500 >From: Konrad
Hughen >Organization: WHOI >X-Accept-Language: en-us, en >To: Jonathan Overpeck
>Subject: Re: the Arctic paper and IPCC >X-Virus-Status: No >X-Virus-Scanned: by
amavisd-new at email.arizona.edu > >Hey Peck, > >Here's a pdf of a draft of
Peter's methods paper. The figures will >be what goes into the Science paper. I've
sent the whole thing to >help explain the figs, but let me know if you guys have
questions. >Also, I have a movie of reconstructed Arctic temp through time. Too
>big to attach but I'll try and get it to you somehow. Pretty cool. >We're
planning to include the movie and supplemental figs >("robustness" tests, etc.)
into the new website Matt's working on. > >Good to talk yesterday. I'll get a CV
to you today. > >-Konrad >
-- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth

Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth 715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor University of
Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 fax: +1 520 792-8795
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachArcticOct16.pdf"

From: Jonathan Overpeck To: Keith Briffa Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] IPCC
last 2000 years data Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:24:47 -0700 Cc: Eystein Jansen ,
cddhr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Fortunat Joos , joos , "Ricardo Villalba"
Hi Keith and Co - I think David likes a good debates, so the main thing is to
consider his comments and respond appropriately. Although the first priority has
to be on the ZOD text and display items, maybe you can go back over his comments
AFTER the looming deadline and further discuss things with David and others. For
now, just work away.
The biggest issue is how to handle forcing and simulations - i.e., where to put
different pieces in the chapter. Eystein and I will help the team work through
this. More soon, but for now just proceed as you have been proceeding. There is
real merit to the concept that your section is about how climate varied over the
last 2ka, and what caused these variations. The flip side is that we need to get a
clear vision of how this differs from what goes into the other sections. Eystein
and I will work more on this asap.
Your plan re: glaciers is good. That's a tough one, but it has to be boiled WAY
down. Moreover, my gut is to focus on the extent to which these complicated
natural archives (e.g., complicated by ppt change) support or do not support the
other proxy evidence/conclusions. This is why I was thinking we might think about
a box, and to include the Lonnie perspective in it - e.g., glaciers are now
melting everywhere (almost - we know why they are not in those places) in a manner
unprecedented in the last xxxx years. Make sense? See what Olga says, and if
needbe, I can help focus that stuff more.
Thanks! Peck
>Hi Peck (et al) >I am considering comments (including David's) re last 2000 years
- >some are valid = some are not . Will try to chop out bits but we >need this
consensus re the forcing and responses bit - I am for >keeping the forcings in as
much as they relate to the specific model >runs done - and results for last 1000
years as I suspect that they >will not be covered in the same way elsewhere .
David makes couple >good points - but extent to which forcings different (or
>implementation) perhaps need addressing here. The basic agreement I >mean is that
the recent warming is generally unprecedented in these >simulations. >It will take
time and input from the tropical ice core /coral people >to do the regional stuff
well . I think the glaciological stuff is a >real problem - other than just
showing recent glacial states (also >covered elsewhere) - of course difficult to
interpret any past >records without modelling responses (as in borehole data), but
this >requires considerable space . My executive decision would be to ask >Olga to
try to write a couple of papragraphs on limits of >interpretation for inferring
precisely timed global temperature >changes? What do others think? I only heaved
Olga's stuff in at >last moment rather than not include it - but of course it
needs >considerable shortening. The discussion of tree-ring stuff is >problematic
because it requires papers to be published eg direct >criticism of Esper et al. We
surely do not want to waste space HERE >going into this esoteric topic? All points
on seasonality , I agree >with , but the explicit stuff on M+M re hockey stick -
where is >this? ie the bit about normalisation base affecting redness in
>reconstructions - sounds nonsense to me ? > >I have to consider the comments in
detail but am happy for hard >direction re space and focus. If concensus is no
forcings and model >results here fine with me - Peck and Eystein to rule >Keith >

From: Phil Jones To: "Parker, David (Met Office)" , Neil Plummer Subject: RE: Fwd:
Monthly CLIMATbulletins Date: Thu Jan 6 08:54:58 2005 Cc: "Thomas C Peterson"
Neil,
Just to reiterate David's points, I'm hoping that IPCC will stick with 1961-90.
The issue of confusing users/media with new anomalies from a
different base period is the key one in my mind. Arguments about
the 1990s being better observed than the 1960s don't hold too much
water with me.
There is some discussion of going to 1981-2000 to help the modelling
chapters. If we do this it will be a bit of a bodge as it will be hard to do
things properly for the surface temp and precip as we'd lose loads of
stations with long records that would then have incomplete normals.
If we do we will likely achieve it by rezeroing series and maps in
an ad hoc way.
There won't be any move by IPCC to go for 1971-2000, as it won't
help with satellite series or the models. 1981-2000 helps with MSU
series and the much better Reanalyses and also globally-complete
SST.
20 years (1981-2000) isn't 30 years, but the rationale for 30 years
isn't that compelling. The original argument was for 35 years around
1900 because Bruckner found 35 cycles in some west Russian
lakes (hence periods like 1881-1915). This went to 30 as it
easier to compute.
Personally I don't want to change the base period till after I retire !
Cheers
Phil
At 09:22 05/01/2005, Parker, David (Met Office) wrote:
Neil
There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC
AR4 to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change
of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than
before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global
warming will be muted. Also we may wish to wait till there are 30 years
of satellite data, i.e until we can compute 1981-2010 normals, which
will then be globally complete for some parameters like sea surface
temperature.
Regards
David
On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 21:58, Neil Plummer wrote:
> Hi Hama, Tom
> (and David, Blair)
> Re: the issue of using the 1971-2000 normals in CLIMAT rather than
> 1961-1990 normals.
>
> Happy New Year!
> I have copied the relevant text from CCl XIII below, which provides
> reasons for staying with the 1961-90 standard.
> My initial recommendation is the same as Tom's, i.e. stay with the
> standard for now.
>
> I think there are two main factors to consider here - capability and
> demand. While there are clearly advantages with widespread use of
> normals derived using the later period there must be the capacity to
> do so.
>
> Perhaps in the lead-up to CCl-XIV, OPAG 2 can find out the extent of
> the support for the change among users of CLIMAT and OPAG 1 can find
> out more about capabilities. (Note, however, that this is not strictly
> on issue for OPAG 1 according to the ToRs for the ICT and any of the
> ETs. Happy to assist though).
>
> We may use the climate working groups in the Regional Associations to
> assist with surveying members capabilities and could do the same
> regarding the demand question though I think Tom's CCl/CLIVAR ET is
> best placed to give that guidance.
>
> *** David, Blair - Interested in your thoughts on this matter.
>
> Cheers
> Neil
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From CCl XIII ...
>
> 6.1.2 The Commission noted with satisfaction that
>
> the 19611990 Standard Normals were now complete
>
> and expressed its appreciation to NCDC for assembling
>
> the data as well as to those Members who had contributed
>
> data. It further noted that the 19611990
>
> Standard Normals would remain in use for global purposes
>
> until the next Standard Normals for the period
>
> 19912020 were completed.
>
> 6.1.3 The Commission noted that, in addition to the
>
> 1961 to 1990 WMO Standard Normals, many countries
>
> had produced climatic normals using the 1971 to 2000
>
> period. The Commission also noted the discussion held
>
> among Members on whether the standard 30-year normals
>
> should be accompanied by normals calculated over
>
> a more current period or a shorter period to reflect
>
> recent climate variability. The Commission noted the
>
> usefulness of periods other than the contiguous 30-year
>
> period for certain analyses below the global scale.
>
> However it decided to maintain the Climatological
>
> Standard Normals process, as it provided a common reference

>
> period for climate research and monitoring
>
> worldwide.
>
>
>
>
> Neil Plummer
>
> Senior Climatologist
>
> National Climate Centre
>
> Bureau of Meteorology
>
> 700 Collins Street, Melbourne, VIC 3001, Australia
>
> Tel +61 3 9669 4714; Fax: +61 3 9669 4725; Mobile 0419 117865
>
> Email n.plummer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> From: Thomas C Peterson [[1]mailto:Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, 4 January 2005 1:11 AM
> To: H Kontongomde

> Cc: Hans Teunissen; Neil Plummer
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Monthly CLIMATbulletins
>
>
> Thanks for responding, Hama. I agree with you on both
> points. I wonder how many countries produced 71-2000
> Normals? I'll cc Neil Plummer on this as the ET on Observing
> Requirements and Standards for Climate is under his
> leadership.
> Regards,
> Tom
>
> H Kontongomde wrote:
> > Dear Tom and Hans,
> >
> > Happy New Year! I apologize for responding so late. I was on annual
> > leave since 13 December. The question of which "Normal" between
> > 1961-1990 and 1971-2000 is now frequently asked by many WMO Members.
> > Depending on the practical use of the normal, one of the two Normal can
> > be preffered to the other. However, the policy for CLIMAT messages is
> > to use the 1961-1990 Normals and until CCl change the standard, I would
> > also recommend that our colleagues of Turkey continue to use these 61-90
> > normals. This allows spatial comparisons for the entire globe, because,
> > not all countries have their 1971-2000 averages ready for use.
> >
> > However, I think it is time that the CCl Expert Team on Observing
> > Requirements and Standards for Climate clarifies the problem in
> > explaining why the 61-90 Normals should continue to be the standard or
> > why it is time to change.

> >
> > I will respond to our colleagues of Turkey.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Hama Kontongomde
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > Hans Teunissen 1/3/2005 12:16:00 PM >>>
> > > > >
> > Thanks for those suggestions, Tom. I'm not sure if your two questions
> > below were meant to be different (is a word 'change' missing from the
> > first?), but I think I get the gist from the answers. Re the CLIMAT code
> > official standards, I don't think Dick (or GCOS) is really the right
> > person to go to. That would be Hama, or, it seems, OSY (Sasha Karpov)
> > since they arranged the publication of TD-1188. Is that right, Hama? And
> > are you OK to use Tom's suggestion in the reply to Turkey?
> >
> > Hans.
> >
> >
> > > > > "Thomas C Peterson" 17.12.04 19:58:42
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > Dear Hans & Hama,
> >
> > As you may remember, I was just in Turkey in October interacting with
> > many people in their climate group. They have a pretty good team.
> >
> > The question as I understand it is not the reliability of their data
> > that are transmitted (e.g., for December 2004) but for the section of
> > the CLIMAT code which shows anomalies to a base period or what quintile
> > the precipitation falls in. Turkey indicates that they think their
> > 1971-2000 Normals are more reliable than their 1961-1990 Normals. I
> > would agree with them that they are probably correct in that. I believe
> > the same could be said about the US Normals.
> >
> > However, as I recall, not all countries redo their Normals every 10
> > years. Many only redo them every 30 years, which, I believe is the WMO
> > Standard. So for this WMO coded transmission (CLIMAT) I expect that
> > they specify the 1961-1990 Normals.
> >
> > 1. Would it make a difference in climate monitoring? Yes for those
> > users who make use of the anomaly values it could make a big difference.
> > More important, probably, than reliability is that the climate changes
> > over a decade and taking 1961-1970 out and substituting in 1991-2000 to
> > the base period calculation may make a big difference in some cases.
> >
> > 2. Would it make a difference in climate monitoring? Probably not as
> > most climate monitoring groups don't use the reported anomalies each
> > month but rather take the observations and use them with Normals they
> > already have in a different file.
> >
> > In sum, if my memory was correct on the coding, I would recommend that
> > they continue to use the official standard even if they have something
> > better out there because it has the potential for making a significant
> > difference and it is important that all groups follow the official
> > standard.
> >
> > Does this sound reasonable? I'm not an expert in the CLIMAT code, so
> > you might want to check with Dick about official standards for CLIMAT
> > before you answer.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > Hans Teunissen wrote:
> > Hama: This one looks like it's definitely a concern for CCl/WCD. From
> > theGCOS side, it seems just an issue of what's to be in the GSN archive
> > -1971 to 2000 (reliable) or 1961 to 1990 (possibly unreliable). My
> > votewould be for the former, but I don't know what CCl policy would be.
> > Tom,do you agree re the GSN archive? (I see 6 stations for Turkey are
> > inthere now, some with very long records; not sure what implication
> > ofthis proposal really would be for those...are you?) Or would you
> > preferto try to salvage some of the older data there (at NCDC)? Could
> > you letus know? I then suggest that Hama respond for the WMO/CCl
> > 'system'. Doesthat sound OK? I'll be away from tomorrow until 3 January.
> > Best wishes for the Holidays and the New Year, Hans.
> > =================================================================Dr.
> > Hans W. Teunissen
> > Tel:+41.22.730.8086Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) Fax:
> > +41.22.730.8052c/o World Meteorological Organization
> > E-mail:HTeunissen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx7 bis, Ave. de la PaixCP 2300, CH-1211
> > Geneva
> >
2Switzerland=================================================================
> >
> >
> > Subject:
> > Fwd: Monthly CLIMATbulletinsFrom:
> > "Alexander Karpov" Date:
> > Fri, 17 Dec 2004 11:52:43 +0100To:
> > "Hans Teunissen"
> > Dear Hans,As per attached query, I am kindly relying on your expertise
> > how to best navigate the solisitor.Best regards,Sasha *zden Dokuyucu
> > 17/12/04 08:58:21 >>> Dear
> > colleagues,First of all I want to say that, I find out your e-mail
> > addresses from the Web site of WMO. Please excuse me if this question
> > doesn't concern you. But if you know who concern this matter, could you
> > forward him/her this mail to get answer. I will be very gladif you pay
> > attention me.Thanks. We are a group of people who has been working in
> > the division of Climate Section,which is the sub departmentof
> > Agricultural Meteorology in Turkish State Meteorological Service. This
> > department is responsible for collecting all climatedata from the
> > observing stations, recording and transmitting them via the
> > telecommunication system to the data collectingcentre and archiving them
> > properly. This division is also responsible for transmitting monthly
> > CLIMAT bulletins to the WMO's relevant service. On behalf of Turkey, we
> > consider the climate data, which iclude the period of between 1971 and
> > 2000 years, are more trustworty because of the development in
> > technological, telecommuniational and training fields. Our experiences
> > are supporting this situation. We want to ask you, does it any effect on
> > global monitoring system, if we use the period of years 1971-2000
> > instead of 1961-1990in transmitting monthly CLIMAT REPORTS.We would be

> > very pleasure if you could get us more information.Yours Sincerely.
> > Ozden DOKUYUCUEngineerAgricultural Meteorology and Climatology Analysis
> > DepartmentTurkish State Meteorological ServiceP.O. Box: 401 Ankara,
> > TurkeyTelephone :+90-312-3022446Fax
> > :+90-312-3612371e-mail : odokuyucu@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> > -- Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D.Climate Analysis BranchNational Climatic
> > Data Center151 Patton AvenueAsheville, NC 28801Voice:
> > +1-828-271-4287Fax: +1-828-271-4328
> >
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. mailto:Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

From: Keith Briffa To: solomina@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: [Wg1-ar4-
ch06] IPCC last 2000 years data Date: Thu Jan 6 10:11:10 2005 Cc:
jto@u.arizona.edu,Eystein Jansen
Olga
am sending this to get you in this loop re the discussion for slimming down the
2000 year
section Basically , IN THIS BIT - the decision is to reduce the glacier evidence
to a very
much smaller piece , coached in the sense of how the glacier evidence is
problematic for
interpreting precise and quantitative indications of the extent of regional or

Hemispheric
Warmth (and even cold) - issues of translating tongue position or volume into
specific
temperature and precipitation forcing . Hence , I am having to remove the stuff

you sent
and am asking if you could consider trying to write a brief section dealing with
the issues
I raise ? I also attach some initial comments by David Rind (on the full first
draft of the
chapter sent round by Eystein) for consideration Sorry about this - but presumable
(as you
suggested earlier) some of this can go in the 10K bit. You can shout at me (and
the others)
later!
cheers
Keith
X-Sender: jto@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:24:47 -0700
To: Keith Briffa
From: Jonathan Overpeck
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] IPCC last 2000 years data
Cc: Eystein Jansen , cddhr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
Fortunat Joos , joos ,
"Ricardo Villalba"
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at email.arizona.edu

Hi Keith and Co - I think David likes a good debates, so the main thing is to
consider
his comments and respond appropriately. Although the first priority has to be on
the ZOD
text and display items, maybe you can go back over his comments AFTER the looming
deadline and further discuss things with David and others. For now, just work
away.
The biggest issue is how to handle forcing and simulations - i.e., where to put
different pieces in the chapter. Eystein and I will help the team work through
this.
More soon, but for now just proceed as you have been proceeding. There is real
merit to
the concept that your section is about how climate varied over the last 2ka, and
what
caused these variations. The flip side is that we need to get a clear vision of
how this
differs from what goes into the other sections. Eystein and I will work more on
this
asap.
Your plan re: glaciers is good. That's a tough one, but it has to be boiled WAY
down.
Moreover, my gut is to focus on the extent to which these complicated natural

archives
(e.g., complicated by ppt change) support or do not support the other proxy
evidence/conclusions. This is why I was thinking we might think about a box, and
to
include the Lonnie perspective in it - e.g., glaciers are now melting everywhere
(almost
- we know why they are not in those places) in a manner unprecedented in the last
xxxx
years. Make sense? See what Olga says, and if needbe, I can help focus that stuff
more.
Thanks! Peck
Hi Peck (et al)
I am considering comments (including David's) re last 2000 years - some are valid
=
some are not . Will try to chop out bits but we need this consensus re the forcing
and
responses bit - I am for keeping the forcings in as much as they relate to the
specific
model runs done - and results for last 1000 years as I suspect that they will not
be
covered in the same way elsewhere . David makes couple good points - but extent to
which
forcings different (or implementation) perhaps need addressing here. The basic
agreement
I mean is that the recent warming is generally unprecedented in these simulations.
It will take time and input from the tropical ice core /coral people to do the
regional
stuff well . I think the glaciological stuff is a real problem - other than just
showing
recent glacial states (also covered elsewhere) - of course difficult to interpret

any
past records without modelling responses (as in borehole data), but this requires
considerable space . My executive decision would be to ask Olga to try to write a

couple
of papragraphs on limits of interpretation for inferring precisely timed global
temperature changes? What do others think? I only heaved Olga's stuff in at last
moment
rather than not include it - but of course it needs considerable shortening. The
discussion of tree-ring stuff is problematic because it requires papers to be

published
eg direct criticism of Esper et al. We surely do not want to waste space HERE
going into
this esoteric topic? All points on seasonality , I agree with , but the explicit
stuff
on M+M re hockey stick - where is this? ie the bit about normalisation base
affecting
redness in reconstructions - sounds nonsense to me ?
I have to consider the comments in detail but am happy for hard direction re space
and
focus. If concensus is no forcings and model results here fine with me - Peck and
Eystein to rule
Keith
--
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795
[1]http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
[2]http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
References
1. http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
2. http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/

From: Phil Jones To: Susan.Solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Susan Solomon , Kevin Trenberth

Subject: Re: After the FOD Date: Thu Jan 6 15:13:31 2005 Cc:
martin.manning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Susan,
Thanks for the quick reply. Kevin might have thoughts, but I'll give it some
thought
over the next few months. It isn't crucial till well after our second meeting.
Kevin can relay our thoughts on references next week, and we can come up
with specific suggestions here if these need to be discussed with WG2 and WG3
before all the second lead author meetings. I know we can reduce our number of
references with more work, but I suspect we will be requested at the time of the
FOD and SOD (and maybe the ZOD) to consider many others. A lot of NMSs,
University Depts. and Research Institutes measure success as seeing their work
cited by IPCC ! I reviewed KNMI this time last year and they did exactly this.
This shouldn't be a measure, but we will likely be under pressure to cite many
more papers for this reason.
Cheers
Phil
At 13:58 06/01/2005, Susan Solomon wrote:
Phil,
Happy new year to you too. It's good to hear that your chapter is progressing
well. I'll see Kevin next week at the AMS meeting and perhaps we can discuss
its high points, along with the more basic issue of references, etc.
You've raised a number of concerns that are always an issue not only for IPCC
but also for other assessments and even for our own individual key papers at
times. But you have made no suggestions as to how to deal with them.
Could you please let me know if you have any suggestions to put forward?
Thanks,
Susan
>> Susan,
> Happy New Year !
> I'm working hard on the Chapter that Kevin has put sterling efforts on over
> the Christmas break. It'll be with you by Jan 14, hopefully earlier.
>
> I've been talking to Keith Briffa here and there is a lot of email
>traffic
> from the skeptics about the last 1K years. Also Senator Inhofe's speech
> from Jan 4 is doing the rounds.
>
> I know you've probably thought all this through, but there will be
> a number of key issues in AR4. Likely candidates that I'm aware of
> are the MSU issue (where we seem to be making some progress)
> and the last 1K years (where we might be but as this is about paleo
> it does take time).
>
> Well the issue is, once the FOD goes out to all -in say Sept/Oct 05 -
> what will stop the drafts getting onto web sites, in the media etc - and
> the whole thing blowing up then instead of being properly aired in 2007.
> I know we won't have an SPM, but those that want will say - they are
> only referring to papers that endorse their views and they are not
> referring to scientists with contrary ones. AR4 will get a bad press
> only half way through it's development.

>
> I know you will have phrases like 'draft only' and 'not for distribution'
> but can we really police this.
>
> Once the ZOD is in, Kevin and me will be sending you some ideas
> about referencing - formats, abbreviations, smaller fonts etc. We currently
> have about 3 times what we allowed for (7 pages of 70).
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>
>Prof. Phil Jones
>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
>School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
>University of East Anglia
>Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>NR4 7TJ
>UK
>----------------------------------------------------------------
------------
>
>
Prof. Phil Jones

NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "olgasolomina" To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: IPCC glaciers Date: Sun,

9 Jan 2005 10:02:19 +0300 (MSK) Reply-to: olgasolomina@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Cc:
jto@u.arizona.edu, eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Valerie.Masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
ricardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi Keith,
May I have your part of the text (2ka) to have a look, please. As far as I
understand we decided to have glacier fluctuations separately in a frame. In this
case, shall we keep glacier variations in the Holocene or we will extract it to
place in this frame? I will contact Georg Kaser (ch 04)to see what they already
have to comment on glacier/climate links. They must have treated this problem
already. Besides it is more natural to concider it using the instrumental data. In
this case we will deal with the paleo problem only, i.e. the dating of moraines,
the errased traces of old advances, the use of lacustrine deposits to reconstruct
the glacier erosion (size), the reconstruction of former ELAs, the sizes of
retreated glacier etc. Shall we discuss the accumulation reconstructed from the
ice cores or it will be just the problem of glacier front variations? Another
possibility is to have a common frame with the ch 04: How glaciers reflect climate
and what they say about the climate in the Holocene (last 2ka).
I need the answers before I begin.
Please notice the change of my e-mail address. I will check both addresses a
while, but have to move to a new one olgasolomina@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Regards, olga

From: Jonathan Overpeck To: Eystein Jansen Subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06] comments to
6.3.2.1 (mainly for Keith) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:40:27 -0700 Cc: Keith
Briffa , cddhr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, joos
I agree; Keith should have the room, and section 6.5.8 should be compatible - has
Fortunat followed the discussion between David/Stefan. Can you guys (David,
Stefan, Keith, and Fortunat) ensure this?
Thanks, Peck
>Hi, >interesting discussion on an important topic. If space is the >limiting
factor we may have to evaluate whether to cut back on less >central issues
elswhere in the chapter. We will to a large extent be >judged on how we tackle the
hockey stick, sensitivity, unprecedented >20th century warming isuues in view of
palaeo, and if a slight >expansion is what it takes to do this properly, then I am
>sympathetic to that (without having heard Peck on the issue). >Cheers, >Eystein >
> > >At 16:32 +0000 10-01-05, Keith Briffa wrote: >>thanks David >>have to say
that it is very difficult to say much in the minimal >>space - and we really need
a page to discuss the problems in the >>reconstruction and and interpretation of
the various forcings in >>different models - I am just going to put this down in
an over >>abbreviated way and ask for specific corrections for you and Stefan >>et
al. The detail perhaps depends on what the final Figure looks >>like and Tim is
trying to put it together but lots of weird and >>interesting stuff / questions
arise as we do - especially relating >>to past estimates of solar irradiance used
by different people. At >>15:29 10/01/2005, David Rind wrote: >>>(I tried to send
this earlier and it got hung up; apologies if it >>>eventually gets through and
you get a second version.) >>> >>>Well, yes and no. If the mismatch between
suggested forcing, model >>>sensitivity, and suggested response for the LIA
suggests the >>>forcing is overestimated (in particular the solar forcing), then
>>>it makes an earlier warm period less likely, with little >>>implication for
future warming. If it suggests climate sensitivity >>>is really much lower, then
it says nothing about the earlier warm >>>period (could still have been driven by
solar forcing), but >>>suggests future warming is overestimated. If however it
implies >>>the reconstructions are underestimating past climate changes, then
>>>it suggests the earlier warm period may well have been warmer than >>>indicated
(driven by variability, if nothing else) while >>>suggesting future climate
changes will be large. >>> >>>This is the essence of the problem. >>> >>>David >>>
>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>At 9:28 AM +0000 1/10/05, Keith Briffa wrote: >>>>THanks Stefan
>>>>At 21:13 07/01/2005, Stefan Rahmstorf wrote: >>>>>Keith, >>>>> >>>>>some
comments added in the text for the past millennium, plus I >>>>>wrote some extra
sentences on the implications of the dispute >>>>>(repeated below). >>>>>Hope it
is useful, >>>>>Stefan >>>>> >>>>>>Note that the major differences between the
proxy >>>>>>reconstructions and between the model simulations for the past
>>>>>>millennium occur for the cool periods in the 17th-19th >>>>>>Centuries; none
of these reconstructions or models suggests >>>>>>that there was a warmer period
than the late 20th Century in >>>>>>the record. >>>>>> >>>>>>A larger amplitude of
preindustrial natural climate variability >>>>>>does not imply a smaller
anthropogenic contribution to 20th >>>>>>Century warming (which is estimated from
20th Century data, see >>>>>>Chapter XXX on attribution), nor does it imply a
smaller >>>>>>sensitivity of climate to CO2, or a lesser projected warming
>>>>>>for the future. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>Stefan Rahmstorf >>>>>www.ozean-
klima.de >>>>>www.realclimate.org
>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing
list >>>>>Wg1-ar4-ch06@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>>>http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 >>>> >>>>--
>>>>Professor Keith Briffa, >>>>Climatic Research Unit >>>>University of East
Anglia >>>>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. >>>> >>>>Phone: +44-1603-593909 >>>>Fax: +44-
1603-507784 >>>> >>>>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list
>>>>Wg1-ar4-ch06@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >>>>http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-
ar4-ch06 >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Wg1-ar4-ch06
mailing list >>>Wg1-ar4-ch06@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-ch06 >> >>-- >>Professor
Keith Briffa, >>Climatic Research Unit >>University of East Anglia >>Norwich, NR4
7TJ, U.K. >> >>Phone: +44-1603-593909 >>Fax: +44-1603-507784 >>
>>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
>>_______________________________________________ >>Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list
>>Wg1-ar4-ch06@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >>http://www.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-
ch06 > > >-- >______________________________________________________________
>Eystein Jansen >Professor/Director >Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
>Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen >All?gaten 55 >N-5007 Bergen >NORWAY >e-
mail: eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: +47-55-583491 - >Home: +47-55-910661
>Fax: +47-55-584330 >----------------------- >The Bjerknes Training site offers 3-
12 months fellowships to PhD students >More info at: www.bjerknes.uib.no/mcts
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >


From: Jonathan Overpeck To: Valerie.Masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re: Glaciers Ch

6 Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:20:06 -0700 Cc: Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen ,
trond.dokken@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Ricardo Villalba"
V - well said. Eystein and I will be working on your Holo section - more tomorrow.
thx, Peck
>2 comments > >- the various NH T reconstr use polar records : to my knowledge
only >use of melt index that itself does not calibrate properly in Mann's
>reconstruction. I sent you Keith winter d18O from Vinther 2003 which >provides a
reconstruction of NAO changes (I think this is the more >detailed calibration
study for Greenland isotopes). >On a decadal time scale calibration studies for
Antarctica (Vostok >and Law Dome, inland vs coastal sites) using available instr
records >(50 years) show correct decadal scale temperature signals. Even at
>places with subannual resolution like Law Dome I think that you >cannot use the
isotopes on a yearly basis but only decadal scale. > >- tropical glaciers : works
conducted here on Andean ice cores >together with modelling of isotopes in a GCM
all showed a consistent >decadal variability on the 20th century, most of which
interpreted >to be related to precip change (see for instance Hoffmann et al,
>Science, "Taking the pulse of the tropical water cycle", Science, >2003). For
more ancient past periods it is thought that part of the >signal is due to T (and
vertical lapse rate change), part to >precip.I would not like to cosign any text
claiming for a T >reconstruction based on Andean ice cores. > > >Keith Briffa
wrote: > >>I agree with suggestion - there is the problem of the isotopic
>>analyses from tropical (and to some extent polar) ice cores still . >>I am not
happy simply to show these in a Figure relating to the >>large-scale temperature
changes - because we are not sure of the >>extent to which they can be interpreted
as such . The various NH >>reconstructions use some polar isotope records but
looking at plots >>of the tropical records throws up some strange behavior over
the >>last 2000 years . I am not happy to write about these as Valerie >>and Olga
are better qualified and because I would like to see more >>formal calibration
against even short temperature records . I have >>therefore , not as yet
explicitly said anything about these >>tropical records. I will sendthe latest
text and latest draft >>FIgure 1 later today >> >>At 10:03 09/01/2005,
Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote: >> >>>Dear Olga, >>>My suggestion would be, and I
believe this is echoed by Peck, is >>>that the box >>>we produce comes in the
overall Holocene sub-chapter, thus to avoid >>>repetition. The figure should
mainly give syntheses of the glacier extent >>>variations through the Holocene, if
possible, or a fraction of it >>>if data only >>>exists e.g. for the last few
millennia, for those regions where there is a >>>reliable data set. Then with text
explaining what we think drove these >>>variations. I think it should be a box in
Ch6, and could also include the >>>recent trends I have just talked with Atle and
he is able to contribute >>>curves for Scandinavia and the Alps into a figure
before the end of the week >>>(in a couple of days). He feels putting something
together for North America >>>and perhaps New Zealand is feasible, but he cannot
do this before the ZOD >>>deadline. Perhaps you might be able? If we get something
for the >>>tropics from >>>Lonnie and Ellen and what you have, I will be able to
put this together in a >>>figure for the box via assistance here. We can in such a
figure leave space >>>open for curves we anticipate including for the First Draft.
>>>It might be a good idea to in this figure also include the recent,
>>>instrumental evidence for the same regions, akin to what will be in Ch4, and
>>>of course, in the next iteration come back to possible joint Ch4 >>>and 6
figure. >>> >>>How does this sound? >>> >>>Cheers, >>>Eystein >> >> >>--
>>Professor Keith Briffa, >>Climatic Research Unit >>University of East Anglia
>>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. >> >>Phone: +44-1603-593909 >>Fax: +44-1603-507784 >>
>>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ > > > > >Attachment converted:
Macintosh HD:masson 5.vcf (TEXT/ttxt) (000C2383)


From: Eystein Jansen To: Valerie.Masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Subject: Re: Urgent - pls respond FAST Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:57:13 +0100 Cc:
Jonathan Overpeck , Jean-Claude Duplessy , raynaud@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
cddhr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dolago@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa ,
Fortunat Joos
Valerie, Thanks for putting together the chaper so well. I think it is quite
comprehensive now. I have made a few changes in the enclosed document and also
added a comment( pops up if you mark the yellow field). I tend to like the
questions, and think it highlights the relevance elements of the chapter. The
missing references I have suggested, we can take care of in the final editorial
process from our side. As for figures one figure showing the evidence for Holocene
warrmt and the abrupt character of the 5-4ka cooling, perhaps with a low latitude
data set that shows another evolution would be good to have, as you indicate, but
we cannot bombard the chapter with wiggly lines, so the most characteristic
exampes would be best. If you need high lat.ocean data I can provide, or perhaps
NorthGrip O-18 is best? Cheers, Eystein
Cheers, Eystein
At 11:13 +0100 11-01-05, Valerie Masson-Delmotte wrote: >Valerie Masson-Delmotte
wrote: > >>I tried the question style for the Holocene >>section... Any feedback
would be appreciated >>together with missing references (Fortunat). >>Valerie. >>
>>Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >> >>>Hi all leads and seconds of our Chap 6.5
>>>Synthesis sections. Fortunat came up with a >>>interesting way to highlight
what's important >>>and why in his section 6.5.3, and Eystein and >>>I would like
feedback from you - particularly >>>the leads - on whether this approach would
>>>work for each of your subsections. >>> >>>He used a question and answer style.
If people >>>do not like this then the question at the >>>beginning of the
paragraphs can of course be >>>easily dropped and replaced by a statement. >>>BUT,
what do you say about using this >>>convention throughout 6.5??? Note that some
>>>sections might have much more text per unit >>>question. >>> >>>Please respond
asap. Thanks, Peck and Eystein >> >> >> > > > >Attachment converted: Sauvignon
blanc:Holocene-VMD3.doc (WDBN/MSWD) (004575F7) >Attachment converted: Sauvignon
blanc:masson 8.vcf (TEXT/ttxt) (004575F8)
-- ______________________________________________________________ Eystein Jansen

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachHolocene-VMD3_ej_com.doc"

From: Jonathan Overpeck To: derzhang@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06]

URGENT - Deadline approaching Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:21:10 -0700 Cc: Eystein
Jansen , r.ramesh@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dolago@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Jean-Claude Duplessy ,
Keith Briffa
Hi Prof. Zhang: thanks for your email and good to hear about your book. I will
send the
reference file to the LAs for them to incorporate as appropriate. You will also be
editing
the ZOD when it's complete, or of specific sections before then if you ask the
appropriate
leader of a section of interest (see previous listserv email with this list in
case you
don't remember from Italy).
Regarding 6.5.9, I will cc this to Dan and Ramesh so you can coordinate with them
directly. This is the process we have adopted for all subsections so we don't
waste time
with the CLA's having to relay messages. Go direct...
I will also CC to Jean-Claude and Keith, so they make sure they have checked your
input.
Many thanks, Peck
?@Dear Peck:
...
As regards Section 6.5.9 I shall do my utmost to help Den and Ramesh. But the
assistance is to come only after I have read through their draft . Only in that
way can
I form an ideal "it must be relevant to policy makers" . I have been accustomed to
write about scientific facts. Now I am confronted with a new problem how to serve
the
purpose of another style. Otherwise my suggestions would be of no use.
I had sent paragraphs to Jean-Claunde for Section 6.2.2 and to Keith Briffa for
section 6.3.2.1. last Nav..
With best wishes,
--

Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795

From: Keith Briffa To: Eystein Jansen Subject: Re: where I am !!!! ! Date: Wed Jan
12 14:01:35 2005
Eystein
in theory - it is supposed to be finished. I would just remove the two sections I

suggested
(or certainly move the regional simulation stuff into Ricardo's section. How does
end note
cope with references that are not published?
Keith
At 13:26 12/01/2005, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
I am in transit back to Bergen where there is a strong storm at present, but just
a
query to ask what you think a a realistic time fframe for your part. I will be
reding
through it on the way. If you have problems getting the references in, this is
something we can help with, if you just write i text author name, year and paper,
then
we download from the ISI base and enter into End Note here, just to help you
prioritising the text and figures.
Thanks for all your efforts. This is a critical part of the Chapter and the most
complex
and it seems to progress well, despite the strains.
Cheers,
Eystein
Basically , I need to send this to you to because there comes a point when I am
just not
able to read it objectively.
I would really like you both - and David and Stefan (I am ccing to them only) to
look
at it . Obviously it has grown too much, but the information in here is in my

opinion
all important.
I suggest removing the regional simulations stuff from the end (as David said
earlier!)
but feel this should be somewhere - also (sorry Eystein) perhaps the ocean section
should go? I have dropped the proposed Figure 2 _ after wasting a lot of time on
it -
there are too many problems with getting and understanding data - and then making
any
sensible conclusion on the basis of it. We really must have the two Figures left
though
- or some variants (these need borehole curves including and some way of
indicating
envelope of uncertainty around all reconstructions - perhaps as gray shading of
different darkness depending on how may confidence limits overlap).
I would really appreciate a dispassionate look by all of you at the conclusions

drawn
after the the desciption of both Figures - in the light of the discussion we had
about
interpreting these Figures. I am really happy if you and David and Stefan (and
Fortunat?) consider what is worth and not worth trying to say re the implications
of
these Figures, beyond the TAR. I can not tell if what I am saying is balanced (I
know
Esper reconstruction is very hairy and ECHO-G run has much too great long-term
variability - but no evidence PUBLISHED to support this - yet at least). Is what I

say
about the implications of the reconstructions banal?
I have been battling with teaching today and fucked up course scheduling by the
administration that has outraged some students. Tomorrow I must take daughter back
for
new term in Cambridge - and now must work on proposal for Russian who leaves
Thursday
and needs to submit before then.
Do have a look and trim , cross reference as needed. The nightmare with these
references
continues also and I will have to get someone to help out here - incidentally our
secretary has gone absent for a month . I will be back in hopefully by tomorrow
afternoon . The conclusions (bullets?) should be very brief - but can not see them
yet -
suggestions welcome
I can try to do something for the methods but would rather you just told me
exactly what
is needed. I will then work on this Thursday and likely happy to accept what you
say re
this text. I know I have not contributed to the discussing on other sections -
very
frustrating - but must wait til after ZOD . Sorry
Keith
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
Attachment converted: Sauvignon blanc:IPCCFAR11-01-05 .doc (WDBN/MSWD) (00459793)
--
______________________________________________________________
Eystein Jansen
Professor/Director
Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen
All?gaten 55
N-5007 Bergen
NORWAY
e-mail: eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661
Fax: +47-55-584330
-----------------------
The Bjerknes Training site offers 3-12 months fellowships to PhD students
More info at: [2]www.bjerknes.uib.no/mcts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
References
2. http://www.bjerknes.uib.no/mcts

From: Jonathan Overpeck To: Bette Otto-Bleisner , Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn ,
Eystein Jansen , peltier@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
cddhr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Urgent - FINAL review/edits of 6.5.8 Sensitivity
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:55:36 -0700 Cc: raynaud@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Jean-Claude
Duplessy
Hi all on the list above... Some of you have received this already straight from
David, but
some other key people have not. Eystein and I would appreciate it very much if you
would
please read/comment/and edit the attached section 6.5.8 (Sensitivity) NO LATER

THAN
THURSDAY NOON, Eastern time (6PM GMT).
Please send responses to all on the address list ABOVE, plus Peck.
Thanks, Peck
X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
X-Sender: drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:29:53 -0500
To: joos
From: David Rind
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: 6.5.8 Sensitivity
Cc: David Rind ,
Jonathan Overpeck ,
Dominique Raynaud ,
Eystein Jansen ,
trond.dokken@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, peltier@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
Jean-Claude Duplessy ,
rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cddhr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at email.arizona.edu
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.272 required=7 tests=BAYES_00, HTML_20_30,
HTML_MESSAGE, MIME_SUSPECT_NAME
X-Spam-Level:
Dear Fortunat (and others),
Here is the revised section 6.5.8. I've put in most of your changes (and also most
of
those suggested by Stefan, particularly with regards to clarifying the sign of the
radiative forcing). Most importantly, I've removed the table - I agree it seems to
imply
a solidity that is really not there. The one thing I have not done is condense it
greatly (of course!). The real reason for going into such detail, rather than just
saying, "well, the forcing and response are uncertain, so we can't conclude
anything",
is I think it's important to show that paleoclimate scientists have gone to some
effort
to try to deduce climate sensitivity from the paleorecord, the parameter that is
probably of most interest to IPCC. In that respect the details are important, as
are the
magnitudes of uncertainty represented in the different studies. Obviously, at any

point
in the proceedings the section can be shortened, but I thought it useful to start
with
this level of quantification, and show paleoclimate has this similarity with the
rest of
IPCC in addition to more qualitative concepts.

I've responded to your individual comments below.
At 6:15 PM +0100 1/11/05, joos wrote:
Dear David,
Here my comments on the updated climate sensitivity section. Please
apologize if I formualate my comments straight away, but I need to leave
very soon. Many of my comments might have to do with presentation.
Your main conclusions in paragraph f are fine.
My view is that it would be ideal to address the issue from a
probabilistic view point. this is of course not always possible.
1) Maunder Minimum section:
Several studies using Monte Carlo approaches show that almost any
climate sensitivity is posssible when taking into account uncertainties
in radiative forcing input data as well as observational records over
the 20 century as constraints. See the Paris report for more
information.
The uncertainty does not only arise from indirect aerosol effect, but
also form the whole range of forcing agents that all have an uncertainty
attached. E.g. Reto Knutti did some evaluation of his results where he
assumed that the aerosol forcing is exactly know (No error) -> even then
climate sensititivity remains unconstraint. Clearly, uncertainty is
growing when going further back in time than the last century as done
here. Then, the numbers provided in the table are useless, as you now
state in the last sentence of the revised text.
2) Other sections:
I think similar concerns also hold for the other sections. For example,
the LGM global cooling is very uncertain. I have just heard yesterday a
talk by Ralph Schneider who showed how different SST reconstructions
(Alkenone, Cd/Ca, MAT, radiolare etc) disagree. global SST cooling might
be anywhere between 0 and 4 K or so. Of course, CLIMAP and the recent
GLAMAP update provide a reasonable estimate. However, the point is that
uncertainies are huge.
The table is a very focused and stand alone thing for the reader. It
gives the impression that climate sensitivity for different period can
be well evaluated. However, this is not the case.
3) My conclusion:
- The table should be dropped. I have quite a strong feeling here, as it
seems to me that the number in the table are very hard to defend and
should not be made prominent.
The table and reference to it has been dropped.
- The whole section should be condensed considerably. Your main
conclusions in paragraph f are fine.
Well, removing the table will shorten this section!
Further comments:
1) section d) 1. para: solar forcing reduction estimate range up to
0.65% for MM e.g. Reid, 97 and Bard et al.
Correction made, and reference added (and I also corrected the numbers as Stefan
suggested, although the upper number is actually larger given the Reid estimate).
2) section d, last para equilibrium
The statement that transient effects are not important is very hard to
defend:
2a) The warming and forcing up to today is considered. Certainly, we are
now far from equilibrium ( a lag of 30 years or so).
2b) the volcanic forcing is very pulse like and I do not see how the
equilibrium concept holds here. It can only be evaluated in a transient
way.
3c) The MM is probably not in equilibrium climate, as solar forcing has
likely varied over the MM as indicated by radiocarbon, althoug sunspots
were not present
I've removed the word "transient" but I have justified the equilibrium aspect of
the
sentence with a reference (we investigated that issue by running from 1500 through
the
Maunder Minimum, and seeing what the prior changes in solar forcing did to the
Maunder
Minimum cooling - the effect, as noted in the reference, was small in our model).
3) section b) end of 1. para: How should such a 'general climate
sensitivity' be defined?
For now I've simply suggested what should also be factored in; I don't know that
it's
our place to come up with a new definition per se, although if IPCC is interested,
we
could try!
4), section c) Somewhat a mix of model and observations. end of 2 para:
It is not clear which forcing was operating in these different models
(at least it is not stated in the text) and hence one can not directly
imply a climate sensitivity in the way done here. For this the forcing
that went into the model simulations must be known.
I looked at each of the references and saw what forcing they actually used - they
were
all very similar except for one which used current orbital parameters (not really
important). This comment is now included.
Hope this is useful and looking foreward to further debate the issue.
Thanks for the comments!
David
ps - Jonathan, the attached Endnote library includes the references we discussed
yesterday, as well as all the ones relevant for this section.
--
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
--

Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachnewest_6.5_2.8.doc" Attachment Converted:
"c:eudoraattachIPPC_2007_1_Rind_Copy"

From: Jonathan Overpeck To: Keith Briffa , t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: methods

- section 6.2.2 Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:57:53 -0700 Cc: Eystein Jansen , joos ,
Valerie Masson-Delmotte
Hi all: Keith and Tim asked for specific requests in terms of what you could do
for section 6.2.2. I'm hoping Valerie and Fortunat have already made enough
progress that they can ask, but here's my take:
1. you have lots of methodology material in your 6.3.2.1, and this is good. It
would be good to refer to this from the earlier, more general 6.2.2
2. the goal of 6.2.2 is to give the reader more confidence in paleo and to get
them to read on with confidence that what they read will be of use
3. I suspect that the format V and F will be working around will be one that can
first highlight chronological issues (that we can date some proxies very well, and
that's what we focus on in this chapter primarily). It would be good to have the
usual comforting comments about tree rings and other annual proxies.
4. The, it would be good to have the basics on how proxies reflect climate, and
how we know we understand the relationship. That it is useful even if the proxy is
responding to things other than climate. Seasonality, etc. Include brief overview
of calibration, verification. you know the drill.
5. keep it short and not too detailed. Use lots of references - including to the
most recent stuff.
6. I'm sure we'll end up modifying/improving later after we figure out what to do
with the appendix
7. Need to work fast, very fast, but hopefully V and F have made real progress
already.
Thanks!! Peck -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet
Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric
Sciences

From: Jonathan Overpeck To: Keith Briffa , t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject:

Comments on 6.3.2.1 Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:58:01 -0700 Cc:
rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Eystein Jansen , joos
Keith, Tim (and friends- please read below and provide your comments THURS too) -
just finished reading your draft and my primary reaction is one of great relief
and admiration. You've done an excellent job. I'm sure things will look different
in the end, but for the ZOD, this lays things out just fine.
That said, here are comments. More are in the attached draft w/ track changes
1. still need to see the figs - ok to state what still has to be done (as you
have) 2. regarding the ocean section, I think some of it should stay in - both as
a placeholder for other relevant stuff, and because it is important. See attached.
It would be good if EYSTEIN would look at my comments for this section and provide
the needed minor help - we need the punchline/bullet - how does the 20th century
compare with the previous part of the record (you say it shows the warming, but
then don't go the next step. 3. THIS IS THE ONLY COMMENT THAT WILL TAKE MORE THAN
A FEW MINUTES - can we get THE word on the MWP in before hydro? Heck, I'd even
support a small (smaller than the other ones) box. There is lots of debate about
the MWP,. and we need to weigh in. Was it global, hemispheric, regional only
(e.g., Europe and N. Atlantic - can then refer back to it in ocean section)? Was
it one synchronous warm event or a bunch of shorter regionally asynchronous
events? Warmer than 20th? Late 20th? (think you answered this, but need to nail
it!). Cite the cast of papers you've already discussed, plus Bradley et al Science
03. 4. what you say is balanced, and it's ok to note in the text where you
anticipate serious improvement w/ more published paper support - e.g., Esper
(you're doing a paper on this, no?) and ECHO-G. 5. have to have boreholes on Figs
too - that would be more important now than uncertainty estimates around all
recons - the latter is harder, but in any case, say what you intend to add after
ZOD. 6. see text - minor edits 7. I can make draft bullets from what you sent
Guys - it was worth the wait. Hope you can take advantage of the relatively minor
edits required and help some with other sections as asked for. -- Jonathan T.
Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth Professor, Department
of Geosciences Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
From: Jonathan Overpeck To: Keith Briffa Subject: Re: Peck your comments... Date:
Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:53:07 -0700 Cc: Eystein Jansen
Hi Keith -
1) ok on the refs - send tomorrow 2) glad you're keen for the box - it can't be
too long - maybe shot for ca. 400 words? After the ZOD is done, I'm sure we can
tune to the correct balance of info. A fig is ok if it's compelling. The box will
either be 6.1 or 6.2 depending on whether you refer to it in your section before
or after the glacier box. I'm guessing it'll be 6.1 and come first, but it's your
call. Think of a title for the box - something like "Box 6.1: The Medieval Warm
Period" or maybe something more catchy. Can't be too glib. 3) glad you have some
borehole in there. Of course, you'll be at the front of the line for dealing with
the grief we get no matter what choice we make. So the key is to go with what can
be best justified. Your section has this nice balance already.
Thanks for getting Tim (and you as time permits) to work on those other sections -
VERY important too. But, your section is the most important.
thx, Peck
>...are really welcome. Am now incorporating them , plus doing some >editorial
bits - though will wait on Eystein to send replacement >ocean bit . Having to get
one of my people to do the references but >not likely these will arrive til
tomorrow. The main point to discuss >is your comment on the MWP . I like the idea
of a box. This IS >sufficiently important to warrant it - in the context that most
>people say "it was warm/warmer than now then so disproves anthro >effect - we
should address this explicitly. I will have a go - but >need to know how many
words and Figure(s) allowed. We can simply >just refer to this box in a couple of
places in existing text. Sorry >about Figures - now got some (2 ) borehole lines
in (but may need >more - reluctant to use Huang and Pollack original though
because >obviously much too cold on basis of simple regional averaging >biases.
Will send latest version (without box on MWP) tonight my >time. >Keith > >--
>Professor Keith Briffa, >Climatic Research Unit >University of East Anglia
>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > >Phone: +44-1603-593909 >Fax: +44-1603-507784 >


From: David Rind To: Stefan Rahmstorf Subject: Re: 6.5.8 revisions Date: Thu, 13
Jan 2005 17:00:26 -0500 Cc: David Rind , Tim Osborn , Jonathan Overpeck , Keith
Briffa , Eystein Jansen , FortunatJoos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Here are my responses to Stefan's comments. While I could have made each of these
points in
the document itself, it is already sufficiently long that Jonathan had me cut it
before
most of you guys saw it.
At 8:53 PM +0100 1/13/05, Stefan Rahmstorf wrote:
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.
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. The orbital forcing
induced
changes are wonderful examples of this, hence the paleoclimate chapter is a

perfect place
to discuss it. Variations in seasonal and latitudinal forcing clearly have had a
major
impact on climate, including forcing of ice ages, yet the annual average radiative
change
is small. The importance of this with respect to IPCC is that other climate
forcings can
also affect the seasonal and latitudinal distribution of radiation - aerosols,

land surface
changes, and even solar radiation (considering cloud cover distributions) - hence
they too
may have a disproportionate influence compared to their annual global average

magnitude.
What is said in this subsection is simply that this one metric clearly fails with
respect
to the major variations in paleoclimate, and as a general rule, there should be

room for an
expanded concept (which may then have utility for current and future climate
forcing as
well).
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.)

In fact, most if not all of climate sensitivity measurements have been done for
what Stefan
calls "uncoupled models", atmospheric models coupled to mixed layer ocean models.
The
results from all prior IPCC reports give sensitivities from precisely these types
of models
- for the basic reason that almost no one has ever run a coupled model for 2CO2 to
equilibrium. The other disadvantage of coupled models in this regard is that their
control
run, if simulated long enough, often does not reproduce the current climate in
important
respects - one is then getting a climate sensitivity with respect to something far
removed
from the current climate, so what good is it? The fact that models coupled to a
dynamic
ocean and those coupled to mixed layer oceans may get different responses - and
one can see
from the numbers that the responses are actually fairly similar in general - can
be related
to the ocean dynamics changes; as the text notes, that is considered a feedback in
this
subsection, and therefore an appropriate part of the climate sensitivity

calculation.
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.
It's not the forcing per se that's the issue here, it's the feedbacks that
potentially can
alter the climate sensitivity to the sign of the forcing.
It has been suggested in the past that climate sensitivity is larger to cooling
perturbations then to warming ones, and we ourselves have found that result in
some earlier
model runs. The standard reason given is that with a cooling climate perturbation,
sea ice
can expand further equatorward, to cover a broader area, and intersect more solar
radiation
- therefore providing a more positive feedback to the cooling. In a warming

climate, the
sea ice retreats and intersects less radiation - but the sunlight-weighted area is
smaller
in the regions it is retreating to, so its positive feedback to the warming is not
as
large.
However - water vapor works the opposite way. Given the exponential dependence of
water
vapor on temperature, in a warming climate the added temperature would allow for a
greater
water vapor change (increase) than would occur with a cooling climate of the same
magnitude. Hence the water vapor feedback should be greater in a warming climate.
So the answer is - nobody knows. Jim Hansen did a survey of people at GISS
recently to see
what the general opinion was for a paper he's working on (and sending around).
Since
paleoclimates have suffered both positive and negative forcings (in the examples
given in
this section), and since we don't know the answer to this question, we can't
really say
whether the sign of the forcing is important or not. So I've left it as an open
question,
with the possibility that it might matter.
Relating forcing to response, the sensitivity from the models is then on the order
of
0.6?C/ Wm-2 (or higher, depending on the model used); the sensitivity from the
observations, if taken at face value, would be considerably less.
I still don't understand how you get this conclusion. This would mean: if you take
models with those estimated forcings and run them, they should show a big mismatch
with
the proxy data. As far as I can tell from the diagram by Mike Mann attached,
combining
models and data, only the Von Storch simulation (not shown on this one) does show
such a
mismatch. (And that uses 1.5 times the Lean solar forcing.)
If you look at the various model simulations done for this time period, the only
way the
models can reproduce the "observed" cooling relative to the present is by using
only a
subset of the forcings. When you use all the forcings, you get a much higher
number. You
can do the math yourself: with a "best-guess" radiative forcing change of 2.4Wm**-
2, models
with a sensitivity of 0.6C/Wm**-2 will get a temperature change of some 1.5C,

which over
the course of 300 years shows up in GCMs. For example: Cubasch et al (1997), using
just
solar forcing in the ECHAM 3 model came up with cooling of 0.5C; if you add a
reasonable
response to the approximately 1.5-2 W/m**2 forcing from trace gases plus aerosols,
you get
an additional 1C cooling (given the sensitivity stated above). Counteracting that

could be
land surface changes - but counteracting that are undoubtedly the reduced pre-
industrial
tropospheric ozone, plus any additional volcanic cooling (a la Crowley). So

assuming those
sort of cancel, we have a 1.5C cooling for the MM time period from solar plus
anthropogenic, similar to what we get in the GISS model (as noted in our 2004
paper). That
can be compared with the Mann et al reconstruction - and you can see from your
figure that
for the 1700 time period relative to the 1990s, the cooling is about 0.5C.
Similarly,
Fischer-Bruns et al. (2002) with the ECHAM 4 model, using solar forcing of -0.1%
for the
MM, and volcanic forcing greater than today (like Crowley) got a cooling of 1.2C.
The
Zorita et al study also got a large magnitude cooling when using all the forcings.
BTW,
neither ECHAM 3 nor ECHAM 4 has a large climate sensitivity - it is of the order
of
0.6C/Wm-2, as referred to in the comment above. Note that none of these models are
shown in
your accompanying figure, and all are GCM studies.
How did the Crowley and Bauer studies that are shown in the figure (using EB or
EMIC
models) get the smaller cooling magnitudes indicated there? Only by using a subset
of the
forcings - Crowley basically threw out the solar changes (and had a lower
sensitivity
model), Bauer et al. used a large aerosol effect and still needed a large
deforestation
warming to bring her results in line with the Mann et al. reconstruction (in fact,
it was
done specifically for that reason). None of these runs used the tropospheric ozone
reduction that we have evidence did occur. My impression is that these studies
took the
observations as given and were asking the question of what forcings would be
needed to
reproduce them. That is an interesting question, but it obviously does not
validate the
observations.
The specific comment you refer to above relates to the discussion in the previous
paragraphs, which detail the radiative forcings and all the different model
responses. It
is a fair representation of the current status, however unsettling that is. But in
the
current incarnation of this subsection, we do not use it to imply a low climate

sensitivity
- we simply say that given the uncertainties in forcing and response, we cannot
use this
time period to better understand climate sensitivity. And I think that's accurate.
David
--
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


From: Keith Briffa To: jto@u.arizona.edu,David Rind , joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,Eystein

Jansen Subject: near final 6.3.2.1 Date: Thu Jan 13 19:03:36 2005
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
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
References

From: Stefan Rahmstorf To: Keith Briffa Subject: comments on Briffa, last
millennium Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:15:25 +0100 Cc: Jonathan Overpeck , Eystein
Jansen
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. 1961-1990. Fig 2d says 1901-1960 - it'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
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachBriffa_ed_sr .doc"
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachgoosse_et_al_2005.pdf"

From: Stefan Rahmstorf To: Jonathan Overpeck Subject: Box 6.1: The Medieval Warm
Period Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:47:04 +0100 Cc: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith
Briffa , Eystein Jansen , drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Valerie Masson-Delmotte , joos
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
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachgoosse_et_al_20051.pdf"

From: Stefan Rahmstorf To: David Rind Subject: Re: 6.5.8 revisions Date: Thu, 13
Jan 2005 20:53:13 +0100 Cc: Tim Osborn , Jonathan Overpeck , Keith Briffa ,
Eystein Jansen , 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?C/ Wm^-2 (or higher, depending on the model used); the sensitivity from the
observations, if taken at face value, would be considerably less.
I still don't understand how you get this conclusion. This would mean: if you take
models
with those estimated forcings and run them, they should show a big mismatch with
the proxy
data. As far as I can tell from the diagram by Mike Mann attached, combining
models and
data, only the Von Storch simulation (not shown on this one) does show such a
mismatch.
(And that uses 1.5 times the Lean solar forcing.)
Stefan -- Stefan Rahmstorf [1]www.ozean-klima.de [2]www.realclimate.org
documentseudoraattachmillennium.jpg"
References
1. http://www.ozean-klima.de/

From: Jonathan Overpeck To: Keith Briffa , t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: the new
"warm period myths" box Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:45:38 -0700 Cc: Eystein Jansen ,
Valerie Masson-Delmotte
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
Sciences

From: Stefan Rahmstorf To: David Rind Subject: Re: 6.5.8 revisions Date: Fri, 14
Jan 2005 12:20:47 +0100 Cc: Tim Osborn , Jonathan Overpeck , Keith Briffa ,
Eystein Jansen , 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?C/ Wm^-2) is occurring in an atmospheric model
(ECHAM-1) whose sensitivity to doubled CO[2] is about 0.6?C/Wm^-2.

I really think we should not give a number like 2?C/ Wm^-2 as "climate
sensitivity" to
global-mean orbital forcing and contrast it to that to doubled CO2. It gives out
the
message to people that climate sensitivity is all over the place and ill defined.
That's
not the case. Climate sensitivity is a well-defined concept for a globally uniform
forcing
like CO2 forcing, but nobody expects any clear relation between the global mean
part of
orbital forcing and the climate response.
On uncoupled models:
I agree that for 2xCO2 runs, you will get very similar climate sensitivity with
uncoupled
and coupled models, because there is no large change in ocean heat transport
between
equilibrium 1x and 2x CO2 states (as confirmed by doing this in coupled models).
The mixed
layer boundary condition used in the uncoupled models simply assumes a fixed,
prescribed
ocean heat transport, which turns out to be a valid approximation in this case.
My concern was and is specific to the discussion for LGM climate, where this is
not a valid
approximation, as we know both from proxy data and from model results that ocean
circulation and heat transport was very likely quite different in the LGM compared
to
today. In our Nature 98 LGM simulation, we get 50% difference in the response of
the
Northern Hemisphere mean temperature, between the uncoupled "mixed layer"

experiment and
the one that includes the ocean model. 50% is a first-order difference, and hence
I think
that all the evidence we have today, points to the "constant heat transport"
approximation
breaking down when applied to the LGM. The IPCC report should not draw conclusions
about
climate sensitivity from LGM experiments that have made this approximation, as I
think
those would be hard to defend. I must say I'm starting to get a little concerned
about the
chapter discussing 1980s papers for no other apparent reason then them being
authored by
Rind, while leaving out important more recent, widely recognised advances in the
field.
I attach the Schneider et al. paper I announced earlier, submitted to Science

today and
arguable the most comprehense study on deriving climate sensitivity from LGM data
constraints that has been done so far.
On the directionality of the cimate sensitivity:
of course I understand the reasons, the ice feedback and water vapor feedback
etc., I've
written about those myself in the past - again this is only a difference in how
best to
present the same, undisputed facts. You make the argument that when going to a
colder
climate, sensitivity is different from when going to a warmer climate. That is

undisputed.
But that in my view has nothing to do with the "direction" of the experiment, but
with the
fact that sensitivity in a colder climate is different from sensitivity in a

warmer
climate. I explained with the ppm example because I thought that's simple. A
"directionality" would be, if going from 280 to 300 ppm would give a different
equilibrium
response compared to going from 300 to 280. But that's not what you're talking
about. Your
talking about going from 280 to 260 (say), as compared to going from 280 to 300.
That of
course gives different results, because the difference 280-260 applies to a colder
climate
than the difference 300-280 (no matter in which "direction" you derive this).
Stefan -- Stefan Rahmstorf [1]www.ozean-klima.de [2]www.realclimate.org

Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachschneider_jan05.pdf"
References
1. http://www.ozean-klima.de/

From: David Rind To: Stefan Rahmstorf Subject: Re: 6.5.8 on climate sensitivity
and last millennium Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:23:47 -0500 Cc: David Rind , Tim
Osborn , Jonathan Overpeck , Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen ,
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?C due to the existence of vegetation and forests that have since
been cut
down was found by (Bauer et al., 2003) ...
The section states:
If one takes mid-range estimates of solar and anthropogenic forcings, and assumes
that
volcanic, tropospheric ozone and land albedo changes cancel out, the resulting
radiative
forcing change is ~-2.4 Wm-2.

I don't think we should give a "mid-range" of the forcing like this; the
assumption that
ozone, land albedo and volcanic changes cancel is hard to justify in any case. For
the
forcing we need to give a range in my opinion, not one number. If we give a range,
it
will become clear that the forcing is too uncertain for drawing conclusions on
climate
sensitivity from this time period.
The problem with giving a maximum range for this time period is the same as giving
one for
the 20th century - the inclusion of the potential indirect effects of aerosols
means you
can wipe out all climate forcing entirely. It becomes a 'reductio aud absurdum'.
The issue
in particular for the Late Maunder Minimum time period, and the specific reason
for
including it, is that it potentially says something about SOLAR forcing.
In writing this section, we are not simply doing a core dump of everything people
have
done, we are supposed to use our brains to assess the likely situation. Having
already
provided the range of uncertainty,we can give a 'best estimate' for the various
forcings
that we can use in a meaningful way if we are careful - and which show the
importance of
the uncertainty in the solar forcing. I do agree that what existed in the text
especially
for the third paragraph needed improvement. Therefore, after several talks with
people
here, I've altered (especially) the first and third paragraphs accordingly. Rather
than
just stating the conclusion that climate sensitivity can't be well defined, the
paragraphs
now show quantitatively that is the case. The specificity, I believe, gives people
a real
feeling for the uncertainties, and in the way it is done here, especially the
uncertainty
in the solar forcing and actual climate response. (This rewrite obviates the need
for a
direct response to several of Stefan's other comments.)
(d)Last 1000 years
We concentrate here on the Late Maunder Minimum time period in which sunspots were
generally missing (approximately 1675-1715), but outside of the estimated solar

irradiance
change, the discussion is applicable for the pre-industrial climate in general.

The primary
forcings relative to today are (1) a decrease in various greenhouse gases, with a
forcing
of approximately -2.4?0.25 Wm-2 (not including tropospheric ozone changes); (2)

reduced
tropospheric sulfate aerosols, whose direct effect is estimated by IPCC (2001) as

+0.4?0.3
Wm-2 with an indirect effect ranging from +0.5 to +2 Wm-2 (3) a solar forcing
reduction
estimated as ranging from -0.12 to -1.56 Wm-2 (0.05% to 0.65%) ((Hoyt and
Schatten,
1993);(Lean, 2000);(Foukal and Milano, 2001); (Reid, 1997)); and (4) volcanic
aerosol
forcing either similar to today ((Robertson, 2001)), lower than today ((Robock and
Free,
1996)), or higher ((Crowley, 2000)). Large uncertainties therefore exist for all
of the
forcings except the trace gas values (again excluding tropospheric ozone). The
cooling
effects are offset to small degree by land albedo changes, estimated to contribute
+0.4
Wm-2 ((Hansen et al., 1998)). Reduced tropospheric ozone has been estimated to
cause an
additional forcing of -0.3 to -0.8Wm-2 (Mickley et al., 2001), while increased

stratospheric ozone produced a positive forcing of -0.09 to -0.25 Wm-2 (IPCC,
2001). If one
takes the most widely used or mid-range estimates of solar (-0.5 Wm-2 from (Lean,
2000))
and anthropogenic forcings (-2.4Wm-2 from reduced trace gases, other than
tropospheric
ozone; +0.5 Wm-2 from reduced sulfate aerosols), land albedo changes (0.4 Wm-2),
decreased
tropospheric ozone (-0.35 Wm-2 (IPCC, 2001)) and increased stratospheric ozone
(+0.15 Wm-2
(IPCC, 2001)), the net radiative forcing for this time is estimated as -2.2 Wm-2.
[For this
exercise we ignore the effects of volcanoes, the indirect effects of sulfate

aerosols, and
the effects of carbon and organic aerosols.]. Including these additional

components (except
for volcanic aerosols for which even the sign of the change is not well know),
Hansen
(personal communication) calculates a value close to -2 Wm-2.
How cold was this time period? Different reconstructions (Fig. X1) provide
different
estimates of cooling, ranging from -0.45?C ((Mann et al., 1999), annual value for
the
Northern Hemisphere), to about -0.7?C ((Esper et al., 2002)for 20-90?N in the

growing
season, and (Briffa and Osborne, 2002)(from borehole temperature records). Model
studies
(Fig. X2) for this time period have generally employed significant solar
reductions (-0.2%
to -0.4%), which by themselves have resulted in cooling of about -0.5?C ((Cubasch

et al.,
1997);(Bauer et al., 2003);(Rind et al., 2004)). Utilizing a forcing of -1.5 to -2

Wm-2
from the combined influence of preindustrial trace gases and aerosols results in
additional
cooling of about -1 to -1.5?C ((Fischer-Bruns et al., 2002);(Rind et al., 2004);

(Zorita et
al., 2004)). If volcanic aerosols were actually more extensive during this time
period,
then additional cooling would arise from this factor as well (on the order of
-0.4?C found
by (Hegerl et al., 2003)using the (Crowley, 2000)reconstruction). Warming of 0.35?

C due to
the existence of vegetation and forests that have since been cut down was found by
(Bauer
et al., 2003), on the same order but of opposite sign to the tropospheric ozone
forcing
(Mickley et al., 2004). Adding these effects from model simulations together
produces a
total cooling on the order of -1 to -1.5?C or greater, significantly larger than

any of
the paleo-estimates. For the ~50 year time period associated with the Maunder
Minimum,
without large forcing trends, the model results are essentially in radiative
balance, and
while the influence of past solar variations could still be in acting, in at least
one
study they were shown to be unimportant (Rind et al., 2004).
The climate sensitivity from the GCMs used for these studies in on the order of
0.6?C/ Wm-2
(or higher, depending on the model used). To calculate the sensitivity from the
observations, we first use the estimated forcing of -2.2 Wm-2 and recognize that
~0.85 Wm-2
of this is unresolved (Hansen, personal communication) due to the rapid trace gas
changes
of the last few decades. Therefore, only 1.35 Wm-2 of the radiative forcing should
have
been expressed in the system. Were this to have resulted in a temperature change
of about
-0.5?C (as in the Mann et al reconstruction), it would imply a climate sensitivity

of 0.37
Wm-2, i.e. at the low end of the IPCC range for doubled CO2 response. Using the
higher
estimated cooling of -0.7?C results in a climate sensitivity of 0.52 Wm-2.

Alternatively,
if the uncertain solar forcing change was at the estimated minimal value (-0.12
Wm-2), then
the radiative forcing change would be reduced accordingly, and climate sensitivity
for the
two reconstructions increases to 0.5 Wm-2 and 0.7 Wm-2 (near 3?C for doubled CO2)
respectively, for the different temperature reconstructions. This exercise can be

carried
on ad infinitum; considering the actual uncertainty in many of the forcings, and

in the
actual temperature response of the climate system, we conclude that we cannot

properly
constrain climate sensitivity for this time period (and to some extent the results
are
similar for other preindustrial time periods compared to the present).
As an aside: if one uses the minimal estimate of solar forcing in the example
presented,
one gets a range of temperature response to 2xCO2 of 2-3?C, not too much different
from
that concluded in the paper Stefan just sent around (which was 2.5 to 3C).
Then you state the Mann et al. data are 0.5 ?C below the 1990s in the Maunder
Minimum. I
can see they are 0.4 ?C below the reference level (I believe this is 1961-1990).
The
mean of the 1990s is 0.3 ?C above this level (I calculated this from the Jones
data) -
so I find that the Mann data are in fact 0.7 ?C below the 1990s in the MM. The
difference between model expectation for 2.4 W/m2 and the actual found in the Mann
data
is almost gone then. Add to that the possibility that the Mann data may somewhat
understimate the variability, and I do not see any significant discrepancy between
models and data, which we should mention and which we could defend as real - even
for
"best guess" sensitivity and forcing, let alone considering the uncertainty in
those.
The easiest way to see this is to note that the Mann et al reconstruction has the
late
1600s slightly warmer than the late 1800s. It is widely acknowledged that the late
1800s
were 0.6C colder than today (taking into account the heat island effect) (and the
radiative
forcings, a la IPCC 2001, are all with respect to the 1990s.) That puts the late
1600s at
less than 0.6C colder, close to the value indicated in the text.
David
--
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From: Jonathan Overpeck To: Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa ,

oyvind.paasche@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Keith's box Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:16:32
-0700
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
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachMWP-KRBjto.doc"

From: Malcolm Hughes To: "Michael E. Mann" Subject: Re: Fwd: Your concerns with
2004GL021750 McIntyre Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:47:40 -0700 Cc: Tom Wigley ,
rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, phil Jones ,
keith Briffa , Gavin Schmidt
> 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" : >> >> > >> > >> >
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 14:42:12 -0600 >> > >> > X-MS-Has-Attach: >> > >> > X-
MS-TNEF-Correlator: >> > >> > Thread-Topic: Your concerns with 2004GL021750
McIntyre >> > >> > Thread-Index: AcT/MITTfwM54m4OS32mJvW4BluE+A== >> > >> > From:
"Mackwell, Stephen" >> > >> > >> > To: >> > >> > >> > Cc: , >> > >> > >> > 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: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137 >>
> >> > >> > 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: (434) 924-7770 >> > FAX: (434) 982-2137 >> > >>
> >> > 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: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137 >
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

From: Phil Jones To: Tom Wigley Subject: Re: FOIA Date: Fri Jan 21 15:20:06 2005
Cc: Ben Santer
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
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 23-25 and
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 01953 605643. 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
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "PJ Valdes, Geographical Sciences" To: Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen
Subject: Re: EU Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:21:02 -0000 Cc:
oyvind.paasche@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
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 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 >> 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 +0000 20-01-05, 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 (0) 117 3317 222 >>>>> School of Geographical Sciences Fax: +44
(0) 117 928 7878 >>>>> 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: +44-1603-593909 >>>> Fax: +44-1603-
507784 >>>> >>>> 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?gaten 55 >>> N-5007 Bergen >>> NORWAY >>>
e-mail: eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: >>> +47-55-
910661 Fax: +47-55-584330 >>> ----------------------- >>> The Bjerknes Training
site offers 3-12 months fellowships to PhD >>> students More info at:
www.bjerknes.uib.no/mcts >>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> -- ---
>>> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>
Prof. Paul Valdes Tel: +44 (0) 117 3317 222 >> School of Geographical Sciences
Fax: +44 (0) 117 928 7878 >> 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: +44-1603-593909 > Fax: +44-1603-507784 > >
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ > >
--------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Paul Valdes
Tel: +44 (0) 117 3317 222 School of Geographical Sciences Fax: +44 (0) 117 928
7878 University of Bristol Email: P.J.Valdes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx University Road Http:
www.bridge.bris.ac.uk Bristol BS8 1SS
---------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Stephen Juggins" To: "Eystein Jansen" , Subject: Imprint vs. Millennium
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:53:52 -0000 Cc: , "Erick Larson"
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)191 222 8799 Newcastle upon Tyne Fax: +44 (0)191 222 5421 NE1 7RU, UK
Mobile: +44 07740054905 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)118 378 5614 Fax +44 (0)118 378 5615 > Mobex: +44-
(0)1392 886886 > 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 330 440 > 28359 Bremen > Phone +
+49 421 218-7765, Fax ++49 421 218-9570 > IP Phone ++49 421 57 282 970 > e-mail
mdiepenbroek@xxxxxxxxx.xxx > > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > > Von:
Tett, Simon [mailto:simon.tett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx] > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 27. Januar
2005 15:20 > > An: Eystein Jansen; imprint-ssc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx > > Cc:
oyvind.paasche@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Erick Larson > > Betreff: RE: [Fwd: URGENT] > > > >
> > Hi Eystein, > > 1) Institutions (assuming they are sufficiently > controlling)
> > should not be involved in two proposals. It feels unethical > to me -- a > >
lot of time and effort goes into putting the proposal together. > Someone > >
doing this is trying to benefit without being sufficiently > committed. > > > > 2)
You are right -- we are including this as a condition of > being part > > of the
Imprint partnership. Institutions could choose to > drop out of > > Imprint or
Millennium. Note we do need to be somewhat > pragmatic. There > > are institutions
that we really need. > > > > 3) It is only bullying if we have a greater degree of
power than > > Millennium and use that power to punish. For example it would be >
> bullying if I said I would never work with anyone involved in > > Millennium. As
nobody is saying such a thing I think it > would be crazy > > to say we are
bullying... > > > > 4) I talked to my director. He supports my position but notes
some > > nuances. For example if the two projects were competing for > the same >
> call but had some very different foci. His example was hot > spots. You > >
could have one proposal about East Europe and another about > the Med. > > Their
would not be such a direct clash there. > > > > to summarise. I think our position
should be "you can only > be in one > > competing project. Please choose which
one.". > > > > Eystein it might be worth you taking to Danny -- if only to smooth
> > things over. One possible outcome of the two proposals > going in is a > >
forced merge. If that happens we need to have reasonable > relationships. > > > >
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)118 378 5614 Fax
+44 (0)118 378 5615 > > Mobex: +44-(0)1392 886886 > > 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: Eystein Jansen [mailto:eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx] > > Sent: 27 January
2005 12:18 > > To: imprint-ssc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx > > Cc: oyvind.paasche@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
Erick Larson > > Subject: [Fwd: URGENT] > > > > > > FYI, see below what happened
after Valerie said > > that LSCE was not going to participate > > inMillennium. >
> My opinion is as follows: > > We should do as planned. > > We will ask people to
choose which project to be > > part of. My opinion is that it is not ethical to >
> participate in two competing proposals for the > > same topic. This creates
concerns about > > confidentiality and concerns that proprietary > > information
might be transferred between > > projects. > > Most people would see that this is
not a good > > position to be in and see that it creates > > conflicts of
interest. > > We cannot force anybody to withdraw, but we have > > the right to
decide who is part of our project > > and the responsible person at each
institution > > have the right to choose whether the institution > > joins a bid
or not. > > This is not bullying, and we have come across > > this problem because
we have found out about this > > in our own partner institutions, which of course
> > needs to know which projects they are part of. > > I don�t think we should
force this, it is not > > worth it, but we should make our point clear, and > >
try to convince those concerns that it is best to > > choose. > > > > Any comments
are appreciated. > > > > Eystein > > > > > > >Envelope-to: Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >
> >Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:52:04 +0100 > > >From: Valerie Masson-Delmotte > >
>Reply-To: Valerie.Masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx > > >Organization: LSCE > > >X-Accept-
Language: en-us, en > > >To: Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx > > >Subject: [Fwd: URGENT] > >
>X-Miltered: at dsm-mail with ID 41F8D587.000 by > > >Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-
chkmail.ensmp.fr)! > > >X-checked-clean: by exiscan on alf > > >X-Scanner:
275dbee6d499691adc2db0ba5dbafa18 > > http://tjinfo.uib.no/virus.html > > >X-UiB-
SpamFlag: NO UIB: 1.1 hits, 11.0 required > > >X-UiB-SpamReport: spamassassin
found; > > > 0.1 -- hvorfor herfra? > > > 0.2 -- HTML included in message > > >
0.9 -- Message is 40% to 50% HTML > > > > > >Dear Eystein, > > > > > >You may have
thought that I was more diplomatic > > >than I really am. Sorry about this trouble
and > > >wishing that it would create no more trouble. > > >Valerie. > > > > > > >
> >Return-Path: > > >Received: from nenuphar.saclay.cea.fr (nenuphar.saclay.cea.fr
> > [132.166.192.7]) > > > by dsm-mail.saclay.cea.fr > > >(8.12.11/jtpda-5.4) with
ESMTP id j0RBlUBU030794 > > > for ; Thu, 27 Jan > 2005 12:47:30 > > +0100 > >
>Received: from araneus.saclay.cea.fr (araneus.saclay.cea.fr > >
[132.166.192.110]) > > > by nenuphar.saclay.cea.fr > > >(8.12.10/8.12.10/CEAnet-
internes.4.0) with ESMTP > > >id j0RBlV99004140 > > > for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2005
12:47:31 > +0100 > > (MET) > > >Received: from sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (unverified)
by > > araneus.saclay.cea.fr > > > (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.17) with ESMTP
> > >id > > >; > > > Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:47:30 +0100 > > >Received: from
mhs.swan.ac.uk (mhs.swan.ac.uk [137.44.1.33]) > > > by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr > >
>(8.12.10/8.12.10/CEAnet-Internet.4.0) with ESMTP > > >id j0RBlSab008971; > > >
Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:47:30 +0100 (MET) > > >Received: from [137.44.41.18]
(helo=ccs-mail1.singleton.swan.ac.uk) > > > by mhs.swan.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim
4.43) > > > id 1Cu87R-0003P8-PD; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:47:25 +0000 > > >Received: by
ccs-mail1.singleton.swan.ac.uk with > > >Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) > > >
id ; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:46:50 -0000 > > >Message-ID: > >
><840186FCFC231A4980595D19685DDE4A0129CB6D@xxxxxxxxx.xxx.u > > k> > > >From:
"McCarroll D." > > >To: William Austin , > > > Anders Rindby > > > , > > >
"Andreas J. Kirchhefer" > > > , > > > Andreas Luecke , > > > Barbara Wohlfarth , >
> > Brazdil Rudolf > > > , > > > Brigitta Ammann , > > > Christian Bigler , > > >
Christian Kamenik > > > , > > > "Davies Siwan." > > > , > > > Emilia Gutierrez , >
> > "Froyd C." , > > > "Gagen M.H." > > > , > > > Gerd Helle , > > > Gudrun Larsen
, > > > gunhild rosqvis > > > , > > > Hakan Grudd , > > > Hogne Jungner , > > >
"J.D.Scourse " > > > , Jan Esper , > > > Jan Heinemeier > > > , > > > Jean-Louis
EDOUARD , > > > John Waterhouse , > > > Jon Eiriksson > > > , > > > Karen Luise
Knudsen , > > > Kerstin Treydte , Laia > > , > > > "Leng, Melanie J " , > > >
"Loader N.J." > > > , > > > "Lotter, prof. dr. A.F." > > > , > > > Margit
Schwikowski , > > > Markus Leuenberger , > > > Martin Grosjean > > > , > > >
"McCarroll D." , > > > Michael Friedrich , > > > Michel Stievenard > > > , > > >
moira mcmanus > > > , > > > "Niklaus E. Zimmermann " > > > , > > > OCTAVI PLANELLS
CARVAJAL , > > > Paul Dennis , > > > Risto Jalkanen > > > , > > > Rob Wilson , > >
> "Robertson I." , > > > Saurer Matthias > > > , > > > sheila hicks , > > >
"stefan.Wastegard" , > > > Tatjana Bottger > > > , > > > Tom Levanic , Tom Levanic
> > , > > > Tomasz Goslar , Ulf Buentgen > > , > > > Valerie Daux , > > > Valerie
Masson-Delmotte > > >Subject: URGENT > > >Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:46:42 -0000 >
> >MIME-Version: 1.0 > > >X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) > >
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > > > boundary="----
_=_NextPart_001_01C50465.A49F468B" > > >X-SA-Exim-Mail-From:
D.McCarroll@xxxxxxxxx.xxx > > >X-Miltered: at dsm-mail with ID 41F8D4D2.001 by > >
>Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! > > >X-Spam-Checker-Version:
SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on > > dsm-mail.cea.fr > > >X-Spam-Level: ** > >
>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.8 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_44,HTML_60_70, > > >
HTML_MESSAGE,NIGERIAN_SUBJECT1 autolearn=no
version=2.64 > > > > > >27th January > > > > > >Dear Millennium partners > > > >
> >I have been informed by one of our partners that > > >the other IP proposal
(IMPRINT) has decided that > institutions should > > >not be in both applications
(IMPRINT and MILLENNIUM) and that they > > >want Millennium partners to choose
either one or the > > >other. I am advised that they may issue a > > >dictate to
this effect very soon. > > > > > >It is my view that they have absolutely no right
> > >to do this. The Millennium application is > > >confidential, and they have no
right to ask > > >anyone if they are part of the proposal or not. > > >They
certainly have no right to dictate that an > > >institution can only be part of
one proposal. > > > > > >I suggest that if any of you are contacted by > >
>IMPRINT and asked about Millennium you either > > >ignore the message or politely
tell them that EU > > >proposals are confidential. They should not be > > >allowed
to bully anyone in this way or to > > >undermine our project. > > > > >
>Personally I think that there is absolutely no > > >problem with institutions or
even individuals > > >being in both projects. The aim of an Integrated > >
>Project is to bring together the best > > >scientists, so it is not a surprise
that the > > >best scientists appear in more than one > > >application. If they
are forced to choose then > > >it inevitably means that some of the best groups >
> >will not get funded. That is not in the > > >interests of the EU or of science.
> > > > > >I will contact the leaders of IMPRINT today and > > >try to encourage
them to re-think this strategy. > > > It is not necessary to make the community >
> >divide in this way. If they go ahead I will > > >immediately contact the
Commission and make a > > >formal complaint. > > > > > >Apart from this small
problem everything is > > >going very well and we are on target to produce > > >a
very strong proposal which is realistically > > >funded. I think that is why we
are having this > > >problem with IMPRINT! > > > > > > > > >If you want to speak
to me you can ring me here or at home > > > > > > > > >+44 1792 295845 > > >Home:
+44 1792 207556 > > > > > >With very best wishes > > > > > >Danny > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -- ______________________________________________________________ >
> Eystein Jansen > > Professor/Director > > Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research
and > > Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen > > All�gaten 55 > > N-5007 Bergen
> > NORWAY > > e-mail: eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx > > Phone: +47-55-583491 -
Home: +47-55-910661 > > Fax: +47-55-584330 > > ----------------------- > > The
Bjerknes Training site offers 3-12 months fellowships to PhD > > students More
info at: www.bjerknes.uib.no/mcts > > >
-------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > ----
> > >

From: Keith Briffa To: dirk.verschuren@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re: Dirk Date: Fri
Jan 28 16:15:49 2005 Cc: Stephen.Juggins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,Valerie Masson-Delmotte
,eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Sandy Tudhope ,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 441953 851013
mobile 0776 9732 685
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)191 222 8799
Newcastle upon Tyne Fax: +44 (0)191 222 5421
NE1 7RU, UK Mobile: +44 07740054905
[1]http://www.campus.ncl.ac.uk/staff/Stephen.Juggins/
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
References
1. http://www.campus.ncl.ac.uk/staff/Stephen.Juggins/

From: Eystein Jansen To: imprint-ssc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: RE: Date: Mon, 31 Jan
2005 12:17:44 +0100 Cc: mschulz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, stocker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi, just for clarification as we continue on the St.2 proposal (you?ll get the
mailing tomrrow with documents, scheduling etc. as planned). The merger of ICON
into Imprint was discussed several times in the preparatory phase of Imprint
(before name was decided) in meetings we had in London early last year. However a
number of the present WP leaders did not take part in these early deliberations,
hence this is the reason for the lack of a collective memory of the background.
Reasons for including it: 1. Good science,on a topic of high relevance (abrupt
climate change) focussed and with emphasis on aspects dealing with preedictability
of such changes rather than mapping out their distribution and impact (as has been
done before). 3. Important to avoid competing proposals within urope to avoid the
paleo-community being marginalised.
Cheers, Eystein
At 09:18 +0000 31-01-05, Tett, Simon wrote: >Hi Rainer, > Until our recent meeting
in London I was >not aware of the history and do not recall any >discussion about
blending ICON into the project. >I expect that is a decision Eystein made.
>However, I am very glad that the work is part of >the IP. I think it will allow
much better >science to be done. > >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)118 378
5614 Fax +44 (0)118 378 5615 >Mobex: +44-(0)1392 886886 >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:
rainer.zahn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx [mailto:rainer.zahn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx] >Sent: 31 January
2005 08:45 >To: imprint-ssc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; >eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
>oyvind.paasche@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Erick.Larson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >Cc:
mschulz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; stocker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >Subject: > > >Simon, > >I couldn't
agree more on the issue of having the science focussed in >Imprint. I am surprised
though that the background behind having WP3 and >Task 4.6 in Imprint does not
appear to be common knowledge within Imprint. >Thought the merger has been
discussed and agreed upon by the consortium. > >We will move forward with our WP
and see that we get the Holocene part in >WP3/4.6 strengthened so as to make fit
with the timescales of the rest of >the planned work. > >As a note on the side,
you may have noted in the comments of the independent >assessor that Eystein
contracted in for advice that he mentions WP3 >specifically for its clarity and
relevance. While I tend to agree I am also >aware that he probably is not the
specialist to assess the issue of >relevance and significance. Yet, in the WP3
description we are asking a set >of clear-cut questions, which to me doesn't seem
the case for other WPs that >leave an unforturnate impression of confusion. Beyond
the needed scientific >focus mentioned on several occasions in London and your
email, clarity is an >issue that does not seem to be equally distributed
throughout the proposal. >So as much as I do sympathise with the discussion about
the sense or >non-sense of have WP3 in Imprint, I am convinced to my heart that we
need to >improve profoundly on the quality of our WP descriptions if Imprint is to
>stand a chance of being considered for funding. > >Cheers, Rainer > > Rainer
Zahn, Professor de Recerca > Instituci? Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avan?ats,
ICREA >i Universitat Aut?noma de Barcelona > Institut de Ciencia i Tecnologia
Ambientals > Edifici Cn - Campus UAB > E-08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola), Spain > >
Phone: +34 - 93 581 4219 > Fax: +34 - 93 581 3331 > email:
rainer.zahn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rainer.zahn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
-- ______________________________________________________________ Eystein Jansen

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

From: Phil Jones To: "Michael E. Mann" Subject: Re: For your eyes only Date: Thu
Feb 3 13:11:46 2005
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 6-10 and 12-20 and 22-25 (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
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
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Prof. Phil Jones

NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References

From: Phil Jones To: Kevin Trenberth Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Zero order draft of
Chapter 3, AR4, IPCC] Date: Fri Feb 4 17:23:32 2005
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
Subject: Re: Zero order draft of Chapter 3, AR4, IPCC
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 09:36:00 -0700
From: Kevin Trenberth [1]
To: Phil Jones [2]
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 trends) - 6 sections each
of 40-70 pages !!
Away from today Feb 6-10 in Madrid (EU project meeting) , 12-20 in Pune
(extremes workshop - the last one in the current round, for South Asia) and
22-25 at 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,
(303) 497 1318 Boulder, CO 80307
(303) 497 1333 (fax)
Prof. Phil Jones
Norwich Email [9]p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)

Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)

Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
2. mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
3. mailto:42024852.7060406@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:6.1.2.0.0.20050204144545.03dd6830@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

From: Keith Briffa To: chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Fwd: Re: FW: "hockey
stock" methodology misleading Date: Tue Feb 8 16:44:17 2005
X-Sender: mem6u@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 16:04:57 -0500
To: Phil Jones , rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
tom crowley , tom crowley ,
mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
Keith Briffa , Caspar Ammann
Subject: Fwd: Re: FW: "hockey stock" methodology misleading
X-UEA-MailScanner-SpamScore: s
sorry, forgot to attach the paper...
mike
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:54:15 -0500
To: Phil Jones , rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tom Crowley, Tom Crowley,
mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa
Subject: Fwd: Re: FW: "hockey stock" methodology misleading
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:52:53 -0500
To: Andy Revkin
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:

and also:
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 434-227-6969 over 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
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
References
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

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Phil Jones , Caspar Ammann , "Eugene R" , Scott
Rutherford Subject: Re: Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:44:06 -0500 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
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
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
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
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachMobergComment2.doc"
References

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Tom Wigley Subject: Re: WSJ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005
11:37:07 -0500 Cc: Phil Jones , Keith Briffa
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.
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
References
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Gavin Schmidt , Stephen H Schneider , Tom Wigley , Ben
Santer , 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
17:56:01 -0500
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 17:43:10 -0500
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: WSJ article
Thread-Index: AcUUaIg6ON4Ck5ANQ2OfoGmU0QNsvAAAEqMA
From: "Regalado, Antonio"
To: "Michael E. Mann"
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
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
References
1. mailto:Karen.Pensiero@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
2. mailto:Elyse.tanouye@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: Keith Briffa To: ?yvind Paasche Subject: Re: B8 - REMINDER Date: Mon Feb 21
14:27:10 2005 Cc: Valerie.Masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
we need to sort out budget - I have received no response from Eystein re

rethinking - can
not judge other WPs but suspect too much going into modelling /simple modelling .
We would
rather inflate request now and rethink (with wider evidence) later. We need
another million
from other WPs .
Keith
At 14:04 21/02/2005, you wrote:
Dear All,
I still miss the B8 section from
WP1 (Keith)
WP4 (Simon)
WP6 (Eduardo)
WP7 (Johann)
WP8 (Viv)
As you know very well time is running short. Please send me the missing B8 no
later than
Wedensday (23 February). If you cannot meet this already overdue deadline please
let me
know.
For details, see below.
Cheers,
?yvind
B.8 Detailed implementation plan - first 18 months

MAX 40 PAGES
This section describes in detail the work planned to achieve the objectives of the
proposed project up to its first 18 months in operation. The recommended length,
excluding the forms specified below, is up to 15 pages. An introduction should

explain
the structure of this 18-month detailed implementation plan and how the plan will
lead
the participants to achieve the objectives aimed for by that time. It should also
identify significant risks and contingency plans for these. The plan must be
broken down
into work packages (WPs) which should follow the logical phases of the project
during
this period, and include management of the project and assessment of progress and
results to this point. Essential elements of the plan are:
a) Detailed implementation plan introduction - explaining the structure of this
plan and the overall methodology used to achieve the objectives of the first 18
months.
Include a version of the form A3 which is used in Part A of the proposal, but
covering
just the first 18 months
b) Work planning, showing the timing of the different WPs and their tasks (Gantt
chart or similar)
WP and Task leaders: Provide input (Max 4 pages per WP) with detail of plans
including
milestones and key deliverables
c) Graphical presentation of the components, showing their interdependencies (Pert
diagram or similar)
d) Detailed work description broken down into work packages: Work package list
(use work package list form below);
Deliverables list (use Deliverables list form below);
Description of each work package (use work package description form below, one per
work
package):
Note: The number and structure of work packages used must be appropriate to the
complexity of the work and the overall value of the proposed project. Each work
package
should be a major subdivision of the proposed project and should also have a
verifiable
end-point (normally a deliverable or an important milestone in the overall

project).
The planning should be sufficiently detailed to justify the proposed effort and
allow
progress monitoring by the Commission - the day-to-day management of the project

by the
consortium may require a more detailed plan. --
Dr. ?yvind Paasche
Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research/
Department of Earth Science
University of Bergen
All? gt. 55
N-5007, Bergen
Norway
Phone direct: +47 55583297
Cell phone: +47 93048919
E-mail: oyvind.paasche@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
References

From: Phil Jones To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Fwd: Re: Canadians and the
Millennium Date: Mon Feb 21 15:35:44 2005
Mike,
FYI only - here is a reply from Francis. He's still onside,
just stuck learning French.
Cheers
Phil
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 07:14:34 -0800
To: Phil Jones
From: Francis Zwiers
Subject: Re: Canadians and the Millennium
Cc: "francis.zwiers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx"
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

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)363-8229
Fax: (250)363-8247
Web: [1]http://www.cccma.bc.ec.gc.ca
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://www.cccma.bc.ec.gc.ca/
From: Phil Jones To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON
CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: "raymond s. bradley" , "Malcolm Hughes"
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 !
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:40:05 +0000
To: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: Keith Briffa
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 15:02:37 -0000
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"
To: "cambridge-conference"
CCNet 22/2005 - 21 February 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
(8) HOW TO HANDLE ASTEROID 2004 MN4
Jens Kieffer-Olsen
(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."
? Lord Taverne is chair of Sense About Science and author of The March of
Unreason, to
be published next month
Copyright 2005, The Guardian
========== LETTERS =========
(7) RE: MORE TROUBLE FOR CLIMATE MODELS
Helen Krueger
Dear Dr. Peiser,
I just want to let you know how much I am enjoying being included in your list so
that I
can benefit from your astute handling of alarmist information personally and with
my
students.
Thank you so much!
Regards,
Helen A. Krueger
Educational Consultant
Phone: 203-426-8043
FAX: 203-426-3541
===========
(8) HOW TO HANDLE ASTEROID 2004 MN4
Jens Kieffer-Olsen
Dear Benny Peiser,
In CCNet 18/2005 - 11 February 2005 you brought an
interesting article on the possible breakup of
NEA 2004 MN4 in the year 2029:
> But there's another reason for concern. According to Dan

> Durda, another SWRI astronomer, 2004 MN4 is likely to be
> a "rubble-pile" asteroid, consisting of material only
> loosely held together by gravity. Because the asteroid
> will pass us at just 2.5 times Earth's diameter, tidal
> forces could tear it apart. The result would be a trail
> of rocks drifting slowly apart with the passage of time.
> One or more of these might hit Earth in the more distant
> future, creating a spectacular fireball as it burns up
> in the atmosphere.
> --Bill Cooke, Astronomy Magazine, 10 February 2005
First of all, a 300m asteroid could break into 100 pieces
each larger than the Tunguska impactor. Secondly, the years
for which a TS rating of 1 already exist for the object
are NOT in the distant future, but 6, 7, and 8 years later.
That reminds us that neither the Torino nor the Palermo
scale takes into account the possibility of such a MIRV'ed
approach. Furthermore, the Palermo scale is designed to
take into account the lead time. Even if 2004 MN4 were not
to break up, the lead time to virtual impact in 2029 would
be down to one sixth of the time to-day. In other words,
if the post-2029 orbit is not being resolved before then,
we may as well up the PS rating accordingly. If my math is
correct, we should add 0.78 to its Palermo Scale rating,
ie. log10(6), for a total of -0.65.
Yours sincerely
Jens Kieffer-Olsen, M.Sc.(Elec.Eng.)
Slagelse, Denmark
==========
(9) AND FINALLY: EUROPE FURTHER FALLING BEHIND IN TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH
EU Observer, 10 February 2005
[8]http://www.euobserver.com/?aid=18382&print=1
By Lucia Kubosova
BRUSSELS / EUOBSERVER - Europeans are still failing to show world leadership in
technology and research, a new report shows.
The paper, published on Thursday (10 February) has evaluated the EU research and
development programmes and their impact on Europe's knowledge-base and potential

for
innovation.
While it argues that EU funds for the programmes make a "major contribution", it
suggests that more resources, industry participation and simplified administration

are
needed for them to have a greater effect in future.
"We have somehow lost momentum", said Erkki Ormala, chair of the panel issuing the
report.
"The EU is falling behind. And we are now under pressue not only compared to our
traditional rivals like the US or Japan, but also China, India or Brazil. We are
facing
a much tougher competition in talent and knowledge than we are used to".
Research Commissioner Janez Potocnik considers the paper's results as a reason for
doubling the funds in his portfolio within the next budgetary period of 2007-2013.
"We don't want to achieve our economic growth by lowering the social or
environmental
standards. So to compete globally, we need to focus on knowledge", Mr Potocnik

said to
journalists, adding that the EU programmes should "make a bridge between practical
innovation and research".
The report has listed several possible solutions for tackling outlined setbacks.
It argues that the EU must attract and reward the best talent, mobilise resources
for
innovation and boost cooperation between governments, businesses and universities

in
research.
It supports the idea of setting up a European Research Council to promote
excellence and
encourages more industry involvement, mainly on the part of small and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs).
However, SME representatives complain that their ideas about EU research and
innovation
funding are not taken into consideration.
"It's not about how big the budget is for SMEs and their involvement in such
projects.
It is rather about the allocation of the funds. Most of them are granted for huge
long-term projects which cost millions of euro and they can hardly attract smaller
companies", according to Ullrich Schroeder, from UEAPME, the main umbrella

organisation.
He argues that while several reports have already pointed out that SMEs must be
more
involved if the "Lisbon agenda" goal of 3 percent of GDP to be invested in

research and
development in the EU by 2010 is to be achieved, in reality they are not as well
supported as huge transnational companies.
"It is not that the EU member states invest much less in universities than the US,
but
the greatest difference is that European SMEs are only investing 8% of the US
amount,
and it is simply not enough".
Mr Schroeder also said that while "there is a lot of rhetoric from politicians,
that the
SMEs should get involved, innovate and compete, when they come up with good
projects,
they are not sufficiently supported".
"The European Commission is more concerned about big companies and hightech areas,
while
innovation is needed also in more down-to earth sectors", Mr Schroeder told the
EUobserver.
? EUobserver.com 2005
------
CCNet is a scholarly electronic network. To subscribe/unsubscribe, please
contact the editor Benny Peiser . Information circulated
on this network is for scholarly and educational use only. The attached
information may not be copied or reproduced for any other purposes without prior
permission of the copyright holders. DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and
viewpoints expressed in the articles and texts and in other CCNet contributions
do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the editor.
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB110869271828758608-
IdjeoNmlah4n5yta4GHaqyIm4,00.html
2. http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view349.html#hockeystick
3.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000355open_se
ason_on_hocke.html
4. http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.21974/pub_detail.asp
5. http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.21974/pub_detail.asp
6. http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=89#more-89
7. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1417224,00.html
8. http://www.euobserver.com/?aid=18382&print=1

From: Valerie Masson-Delmotte To: Hugues Goosse Subject: Re: B parts Date: Tue, 22
Feb 2005 10:53:29 +0100 Reply-to: Valerie.Masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Cc: Eystein
Jansen , imprint-ssc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, erick.larson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Beatriz Balino ,
loutre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa
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.
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachmasson54.vcf"

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Keith Briffa Subject: Re: Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005
12:45:10 -0500 Cc: Phil Jones , Tim Osborn , Caspar Ammann , "Wahl, Eugene R" ,
Scott Rutherford
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
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
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
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
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
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
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachMobergComment-final.doc"
References


From: Phil Jones To: Gabi Hegerl , Tom Crowley , Gabi Hegerl , myles , Tim Barnett
, Nathan Gillett , "Stott, Peter" , David Karoly , Reiner Schnur , Karl Taylor ,
francis Subject: Future Directions Date: Tue Mar 1 08:40:42 2005
Dear All,
I've knocked Chris off this reply. There is a meeting of the CCDD program next
week
in Asheville. I guess Chris wants something for this. I'm on the panel, so if you
want to
add to
what Gabi and Tom have put together then let me know and I'll feed that in
additionally to
what is already there.
From being at the review last week of the vertical temperature trends panel, the
issue of
reducing forcing uncertainties is important. A number of people think that

agreement in
the
20th century is all doing to model tuning due to uncertain forcing with sulphates.
How to
counter this is one area. One of my own pet areas is trying to reduce
uncertainties in the
paleo record for the last millennium, but again this is one of convincing people
that we
really
know what has happened. So much is being made of the paleo records, but are they
that
important to detection when most of the work is going on with the 20th century
records. Is
the
pre-20th century really that important when it comes to D&A?
Cheers
Phil
At 20:45 28/02/2005, Gabi Hegerl wrote:
Hi IDAG people,
Chris Miller needs some input on where detection is going and what should be
funded,
appended is a list Tom and I sent him as rapid response, but it sounds like they
are
still
in the process of thinking about
this, so please reply (soon) if you have additions/comments (Chris, only thought
of
sending
this now, I hope results will be still helpful)
Gabi
1) extending detection to other fields, esp. U.S. possible variables are

circulation,
anything hydrological (drought, average rainfall), climate extremes, storms,
all this is getting more feasible as observational data get better, reanalyses get
more
reliable (although trend sstill questionable), and models get better and have
higher
resolution
2) compiling "showable" scorecard of what has been detected in the system already
3) abrupt changes - Tom thinks the relevance has been overstated of past changes
in the
thermohaline circulation (because of proximity of massive amounts of

ice/freshwater).
However, I think it would still be useful to
find a fingerprint of predictors for thermohaline shutdown (from waterhosing
experiments), and establish
how early warning signs can be detected.
Another aprupt change that could be dealt with are events such as the mega drought
cycles in the western U.S., which our preliminary work indicates does not
correspond
with multidecal peaks in warmth for zonal average temperatures.
4) using paleoclimate data for understanding regional responses to known forcings,

such
as pulse of volcanism in early 19th century. tests of a model's predictability on
regional scales. this however would require ensemble runs and a fair amount of
legwork,
so probably would be best as a proposal than as an IDAG project.
5) more surface temperature detection as already donw, to keep analyzing 20th

century
from models as model
diagnostic and evaluating how to get most model performance information out of
this
diagnostic. For this,
updates of forcing estimates, particularly reduced sulfate aerosol uncertainties

would
be useful.
Subject: Re: Directions in D&A
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:51:56 -0500
From: Chris Miller

Reply-To: christopher.d.miller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Organization: NOAA
To: Gabi Hegerl
References: <4216317A.7020700@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> <421A4F67.1040201@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Gabi, I'm looking for some quick thoughts, which probably means just you and Tom.
Obviously, the rest of IDAG would have ideas but it would take some time to poll
them (I
could see it as an agenda item at the IDAG meeting). If you had a couple highlight
items
by Thursday morning, that would be helpful as I have an internal meeting where

this will
be discussed.
Thanks again, Chris
Gabi Hegerl wrote:
Chris, by when do you need this? From the whole IDAG or just, eg from me
and Tom?
Gabi
Chris Miller wrote:
Tom, Gabi, As you are probably aware, one of the recurring challenges for federal
program managers is to indicate to upper management what the science priorities in

the
future should be. NOAA is more future-looking than it has been in the past and we
are
now being called upon more frequently to respond to this question. A simplistic
answer
would be "more of the same" since we are doing such good work now. This could be
part of
the answer, but not the whole answer. NOAA is interested in new science thrusts,
new
observational programs or analyses, new institutional arrangements, etc. (the "new

is
better syndrome"). I would appreciate it if you could take a few minutes to think
about
this issue and send me a few bullets on where you think the community should be
going on
D&A, for both continuing and new investments (from the perspective of the work
that IDAG
has been involved in to date).
Thanks for your help and look forward to the next IDAG mtg.
Chris
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School for the
Environment and Earth Sciences,
Box 90227
Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Box 90227
Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Box 90227
Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References

From: "olgasolomina" To: jto@u.arizona.edu, eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,

Valerie.Masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Glacier box -
comments and suggestions Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 18:14:37 +0300 (MSK) Reply-to:
olgasolomina@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Valerie, Keith, Eystein and Peck,
Here are my comments on the glaciers box and suggestions for some improvements. I
apologize that I am commenting the text that I was supposed to write myself, but
we all know the reason ? it was done in a rush and I had very limited access to
the literature in the fall. I spent two weeks in Lamont (just came back) and had
opportunity to read more. I want to say that I very much appreciate the help and
contribution from all people who saved the situation to get the draft for the ZOD,
and I hope that we can sharpen it further now.
In general my main concerns are the following:
1. We are focusing on the continuous records, which is one of the main achievement
of the last years, indeed. But the real continuous records come from Scandinavia
only ? even the Alps are mostly based on moraine datings (wood etc.). The records
from FJL and Brooks Range are not continuous, they are just the same as in any
other place in the World, presented as continuous curves. So, two potential
strategies can be suggested ? to forget the rest of the World and keep the picture
Scandinavia and Alps only or add more discontinuos records drawn as curves. I
would go for the second solution for obvious reason to keep the global
prospective. I attach more curves that I got from publications + I asked Tom
Lowell and Wibjorn Karlen to make something of this kind for NZealand and Africa.
I suggest to focus in detail (with dates etc.)on the Scandinavian records (as we
did in our text), but briefly discuss the general picture of Holocene glacier
variations referring to the updated picture. I need your opinion before changing
the graphics (see comments and suggestions in ?Box comments SO? file)
2. During a good half of the Holocene the glaciers were SMALLER than now. I attach
here the figure with the same axes as at the Valerie? picture (warmest/wettest
periods), and the detailed comments on it. To be ?scientifically correct? we
probably can shade these periods for the regions that we are presenting at our
figure (see a separate file ?smaller than now? ). What is unusual about the modern
retreat is the RATE, though we do not know much about the rate of the former
retreat (again because of the lack of continuous records).
3. I changed the introduction. I believe that it is really important to keep the

general prospective and mention the exceptions, namely glacier advances (at a
Holocene global scale) reflect mostly temperature, therefore a kind of global
synchroniety can be visible, though occasionally precipitation may trigger certain
advances ? maritime and tropical regions are likely to experience it more often
than the rest of the World) . Two papers justifying this point of view appeared
recently (Oerlemans, 2005, Mayewski et al., 2004) and deserve attention. I
included the refs in the updated text. I am ready to discuss further this part,
but I believe that we need changes here!
I am aware that this will require rather big changes in the text and figure, but I
hope we are still at the stage when we can change, can we?
I will come soon with comments on the whole text and suggestions for the links to
Ch4 (cryosphere), but I am really concern about those glaciers in the box, you
know?
Regards, olga
Thanks! Peck > >>Hello, >> >>Thanks a lot for the remaind. I (eventually!) got
access to the >>literature (in Columbia University where I am now) and will come
>>soon with comments and improvement of the etxt - at list concerning >>the
glaciers in the Holocene and last two millennia. >> >>Regards, >>olga >> >> >>>Hi
all - We have heard from a good number of you, but also have not >>>heard from
some of you. Please note the deadline for the first round >>>of post-ZOD feedback
was yesterday, and more is due next week. If you >>>have not sent your material,
or contacted us yet, please do so as >>>soon as possible. A small delay is ok, but
we need to hear from you >>>in any case - please respond if you have not already
done so. >>> >>>Thanks, Peck and Eystein >>> >>>>Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:15:25
-0700 >>>>To: wg1-ar4-ch06@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,betteotto-b >>>>From: Jonathan Overpeck
>>>>Subject: The next round of work is upon us - IMPORTANT >>>>Cc: >>>>Bcc: >>>>X-
Attachments: :Macintosh HD:370627:Glossary WgI TARChap6.doc: >>>> >>>>Greetings
Chap 6 Lead Authors: >>>> >>>>By now, the rush up to the ZOD is hopefully but a
fond memory, and >>>>you're ready to get back into the thick of IPCC chapter work.
Both >>>>Chapter 6 and the other chapters are now on the WG 1 website for all
>>>>of you to enjoy and critique. See your email from the WG1 TSU for
>>>>information on how to get ZOD chapters. >>>> >>>>As you read our chapter, you
will no doubt be thinking - "it's >>>>really too bad we did so much at the last
minute, and that the ZOD >>>>is so rough." The science is in there, and you all
did a great job, >>>>but in the future, we won't have the luxury of sending an
incomplete >>>>draft to the TSU. The purpose of this email is to set a deliberate
>>>>pace to ensure that our FOD is as perfect and polished as possible.
>>>>Anything short of this will look bad to our colleagues, and will >>>>cost us
more work in the official post-FOD IPCC review process. >>>>PLEASE MEET ALL
DEADLINES below. >>>> >>>>Please read all of this communication and NOTE the
deadlines - we >>>>are asking that you all respond quickly on a couple issues.
>>>> >>>>****1) Due as soon as you read this email - we would like to >>>>consider
a pre-May LA meeting involving all, or a sub-set of LAs, >>>>and would like to
know when you are available to meet for 2 days >>>>(plus travel to/from US East
Coast). The purpose would be to get >>>>much further ahead with the FOD and to be
able make the most of the >>>>Beijing LA2 meeting in May. Remember how frustrating
the Trieste >>>>meeting was due to the lack of time. Please let us know if you are
>>>>available to meet April 12,13 (Tues/Wed) and April 19,20 (Tues/Wed). >>>>We
will pick the dates that work best. Funding would be handled in >>>>the usual IPCC
manner. >>>> >>>> >>>>****2) Due February 24, 2005 - each person should read ALL
of the >>>>Chapter 6 ZOD. As you do this, please compiling a list of all the
>>>>issues/tasks you think need to be dealt with and completed before >>>>the FOD.
For example: >>>> >>>>o what important issues or disagreements remain unresolved
and what >>>>needs to be done to resolve them? >>>>o what work is needed to make
the text better? >>>>o what key (relevant) science is missing? >>>>o what key
references are missing or need to be updated? >>>>o are there key display items
that need to be deleted or added? >>>>o what work is needed to make final draft
display items? >>>> >>>>Each LA should provide the above information to PECK and
EYSTEIN on >>>>a section-by-section basis by February 24. Please let us know NOW
if >>>>you can't meet this deadline. >>>> >>>> >>>>****3) Due March 3, 2005 - (we
have to meet a key IPCC deadline) >>>>-Now that we have our ZOD, we have been
requested to provide input >>>>for the official IPCC AR4 Glossary. Please see the
attached glossary >>>>document, and follow the instructions included at the top of
that >>>>file. THIS IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS OUR OTHER WORK. Each LA should
>>>>provide this information TO PECK AND EYSTEIN by March 3. Please let >> >>us
know NOW if you can't meet this deadline. >>>> >>>> >>>>****4) Due March 10, 2005
- in Trieste, we assigned Chapter Liaisons >>>>for each of the other WG1 chapters.
This liaison list is attached >>>>below. Please note that some of you are liaisons
for more than one >>>>other chapter. For each chapter for which you are liaison
(and more >>>>if you are so inspired), please compile: >>>> >>>>o a list of
substantive scientific suggestions for the LAs of that >>>>chapter, particularly
as they relate to Chapter 6 - don't get bogged >>>>down in general editing. >>>>o
a list of issues that our Chapter 6 team must work on to ensure >>>>compatibility
with other chapters; in each case, describe the issue >>>>and how you think it
should best be resolved. Ideally, we can do >>>>much of this before Beijing. >>>>
>>>>Each LA should provide the above information to PECK and EYSTEIN by >>>>March
10. Please let us know NOW if you can't meet this deadline. >>>>
>>>>******************************** >>>>Lastly, we have some good news. As you
all know, Bette Otto-Bleisner >>>>did a great last-minute job in helping with
section 6.4.2 >>>>(Equilibrium model evaluations), and has made it possible for us
to >>>>tap into PMIP2 in a much needed manner. We clearly need her >>>>continued
major contribution, and thus asked the IPCC WG1 Bureau to >>>>appoint her to our
LA team. Susan Solomon supported this request and >>>>we recently received a
positive response. So, welcome to the team, >>>>Bette! >>>> >>>>PLEASE work hard
to meet deadlines - I think we all know what >>>>happens when deadlines are not
met, and we cannot afford to miss >>>>deadlines any longer. >>>> >>>>Thanks, Peck
and Eystein >>>> >>>> >>>>Chapter Six - Paleoclimate >>>>Cross-Chapter Liaisons
>>>> >>>>Frequency Asked Questions Stefan >>>> >>>>Chapter 1. Historical Dominique
(served on SAR) >>>> >>>>Chapter 2. Radiation Dominique (trace gas, aerosol) >>>>
David (solar, volcanic, aerosol) >>>> >>>>Chapter 3. Atmo Obs Keith >>>> Ramesh
>>>> >>>>Chapter 4. Cyro Obs Dick (ice sheets >>>> Olga (mountain ice) >>>>
>>>>Chapter 5. Ocean Obs. Jean-Claude >>>> Eystein >>>> >>>>Chapter 7. Biogeochem
Fortunat (biogeochem) >>>> Ricardo (veg dynamics) >>>> >>>>Chapter 8. Model Eval
Bette >>>> Dick >>>> Stefan >>>> David >>>> >>>>Chapter 9. Attribution David >>>>
Valerie >>>> Keith >>>> >>>>Chapter 10. Projections David >>>> Stefan >>>>
>>>>Chapter 11. Regional Dan >>>> Ramesh >>>> Zhang >>>> Overpeck >>>> >>>>-- >>>>
>>>>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: +1 520 622-9065 >>>>fax: +1 520 792-8795
>>>>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>>>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >>> >>> >>>--
>>>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: +1 520 622-9065 >>>fax: +1 520 792-8795
>>>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >> >>-- >>Dr.Olga
Solomina >>Corresponding Member of Russian Academy of Sciences >>Institute of
Geography RAS >>Staromonetny-29 >>Moscow, Russia >>tel: 007-095-125-90-11, 007-
095-939-01-21 >>fax: 007-095-959-00-33 >>e-mail: olgasolomina@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>PAGES Web:www.pages-igbp.org > > >-- >Jonathan T. Overpeck >Director, Institute
for the Study of Planet Earth >Professor, Department of Geosciences >Professor,
Department of Atmospheric Sciences > >Mail and Fedex Address: > >Institute for the
Study of Planet Earth >715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor >University of Arizona >Tucson,
AZ 85721 >direct tel: +1 520 622-9065 >fax: +1 520 792-8795
>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
-- Dr.Olga Solomina Corresponding Member of Russian Academy of Sciences Institute

of Geography RAS Staromonetny-29 Moscow, Russia tel: 007-095-125-90-11, 007-095-
939-01-21 fax: 007-095-959-00-33 e-mail: olgasolomina@xxxxxxxxx.xxx PAGES
Web:www.pages-igbp.org
-- ??????.?????: ????? ????????? ????? ???????????!

http://mail.yandex.ru/monitoring/
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachBox commentsSO.doc"
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachipcc smaller than now.doc"

From: Susan Solomon To: Jonathan Overpeck , Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen Subject:
Re: Fwd: last millennium Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:50:06 -0700
Dear Peck, Thanks for your message. I'll look forward to hearing what you and your
colleagues think. Susan
At 9:26 AM -0700 3/15/05, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >Hi Susan - thanks for sending
these along with some interesting >ideas. I'll cc this email to Keith Briffa,
along with Eystein, to >see if the three of us could chat about the issues.
Personally, I >think the idea of showing the instrumental data near the paleo
sites >is excellent - but we have to see what Keith thinks since it would >be his
(and CA Tim Osborn's) job to do this. But, it makes lots of >sense. I also like
having the composite (average) lines (paleo and >instrumental) for the simple
reason that they connects back to all >the other reconstructions, and thus make
the point that these other >recons are not so "misleading" after all. > >Funny
coincidence - Julie and I have been working on the coral trend >story, and just
yesterday decided to do what you are suggesting in >terms of instrumental data.
I'm learning that the coral data are >trickier than I thought, but this is a good
way of figuring out what >we really can or cannot say with these time series. >
>More soon, thanks again, Peck > >>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >>X-Sender:
ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >>Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:40:35 -0700 >>To: Jonathan
Overpeck >>From: Susan Solomon >>Subject: last millennium >>Cc: Martin Manning
>>X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at email.arizona.edu >>X-Spam-Status: No,
hits=0.001 required=7 tests=BAYES_50 >>X-Spam-Level: >> >>Hi Jonathan, >>Here's
some cool plots that Tom Crowley whipped up, as per our >>phone discussion. He
indicated that it was OK to send to you. >> >>It seems to me that showing these
records explicitly will address a >>lot of the issues in the temperature records
for the last >>millennium. One might or might not choose to try to construct the
>>composites (see slide 2 versus 3 in the attached). To be totally >>consistent,
it would be nice to show individual records for the >>twentieth century near the
sites of the tree ring/cores as well, >>rather than just the mean over that
period. If one did that, the >>resulting diagram would avoid any averaging (is it
really needed to >>make the point?). A remaining issue would be the calibration of
the >>paleo proxies and how that affects the spread (or lack thereof, in >>the
overlap period). >> >>What do you think? >>Susan >> >> >>--
>>****************************************** >>Please note my new email address
for your records: >> >>Susan.Solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>******************************************* >> > > >-- >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: +1 520 622-9065 >fax: +1 520
792-8795 >http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ > >Attachment
converted: Discovery:crowley.mwp.mar.14.ppt (SLD8/PPT3) (000F0F48)
-- ****************************************** Please note my new email address for

your records:
Susan.Solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx *******************************************

From: Phil Jones To: "Michael E. Mann" , ray Subject: Re: BBC E-mail: New row on
climate 'hockey stick' Date: Thu Mar 17 13:54:17 2005
Mike,
On Horizon, I'm supposed to be called in a few minutes by someone. Not sure who
yet. This program is generally good. They did something on global dimming a few
months
ago and now want to do something on the truth about global warming, IPCC and
skeptics.
That's all I know so far. Person's name is Paul Olding. Should be calling
at 2pm, so 5 minutes time.
Cheers
Phil
HI Phil,
I agree-like all of these sources (e.g. boreholes, tree-rings, etc.) each one has
its
own potential weaknessses--in this case, I think cold-season precip could be

playing a
greater role w/ the mid-latitude glaciers than Oerlemans cares to admit. Not clear
that
should give a systematic bias towards underestimating temperature variations

though,
which is the argument you'd need to make if you're a boreholer.
The important thing is that it is entirely independent of everything else that has
come
before, and looks remarkably like the Bradley and Jones/Mann et al/Jones et
al/Crowley &
Lowery/Mann & Jones type reconstructions. Somehow the word hasn't really gotten
out on
this.
I've got a call in from a different BBC reporter today, Ben Dempsey, who seems
much
better. He's doing something for "Horizon" on climate change.
Do you know anything about this?
Thanks,
mike
Mike,
Reporter was Paul Rincon ("Paul Rincon-NEWSi" ).
No-one seems to have picked up on Oerleman's paper yet. You did send me that
earlier, so I should have told him about that.
Sarah Raper here has some doubts about Oerleman's work, but it does
reproduce the curve very well. Need to be objective though in interpreting it.
Cheers
Phil
Hi Phil,
Yes, BBC has been disappointing in the way they've dealt with this--almost seems
to be a
contrarian element there.
Do you remember the name of the reporter you spoke to?
Thanks,
Mike
p.s. Interesting that they also don't seem to be aware of the Oerleman's paper,
which
reproduces the "Hockey Stick" using completely independent data and method
(glacial mass
balance). I've attached in case you haven't seen...
Ray,
I tried to convince the reporter here there wasn't a story, but he went with it
anyway.
At least he put in a quote from me that there are loads of other series that show
similar-ish series to MBH and MJ. Had to mention the Moberg et al series to
achieve
this.
The reporter said he'd not seen Moberg et al., and it wasn't flagged up by Nature
to them at the appropriate time. Odd ! Then why are you running with this GRL
paper
as there are 10s issued each week. Well, it turns out, not surprisingly, that MM
have
issued numerous press releases themselves - using their networks.
Waterhouse is at Anglian Polytechnic Uni (APU) - it's in Cambridge and Chelmsford.
Keith said what does John Waterhouse know about paleo - my thoughts also !
We've worked with John several years ago on an isotopes in trees project, that
didn't
produce much. APU is OK when it comes to counselling studies. Ruth works for them
teaching at Yarmouth !
His quote is typical of many I get to here. Pity the reporter didn't mention this
to me.
My response would have been what is the point of doing any more paleo work, if we
are constrained by the answer we are allowed to get. If we don't have the MWP and
LIA
then we are wrong. We have orders of magnitude more data than when these came into
vogue in the 1960s, but we still are expected to find them.
Cheers
Phil
Cheers
Phil
At 17:20 16/03/2005, you wrote:
ray saw this story on BBC News Online and thought you
should see it.
** Message **
Anglia Polytechnic?!!!!
** New row on climate 'hockey stick' **
New controversy has erupted over one of the most provocative symbols of the global
warming debate: the so-called "hockey stick" graph.

< [1]http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4349133.stm >
** BBC Daily E-mail **
Choose the news and sport headlines you want - when you want them, all
in one daily e-mail
< [2]http://www.bbc.co.uk/dailyemail/ >
** Disclaimer **
The BBC is not responsible for the content of this
e-mail, and anything said in this e-mail does not necessarily reflect
the BBC's views.
If you don't wish to receive such mails in the future, please e-mail
webmasters@xxxxxxxxx.xxx making sure you include the following text: I do
not want to receive "E-mail a friend" mailings.
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4349133.stm
2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dailyemail/

From: Phil Jones To: Ben Santer Subject: Re: Stuff.... Date: Mon Mar 21 10:08:32
2005
Ben,
I will be at Duke. Get to the airport about 6.30pm on the 29th. Looking forward to
seeing you there.
I should have signed off on the CCSP report by Easter. We have to get everything
done by March 28. We had a conf. call last Friday.
I can see the argument about an assessment and 'new information'. It is a similar
thing in IPCC. Glad to hear you're going to submit it for a paper, because I think
it
is important. It will unlikely change some peoples views, though.
Just had a long call with Chris Folland. He says that the next CCSP vtt meeting is
going to be scheduled for Chicago for the week we should be doing the HC review !
Hope you're still going to come to Exeter. You should have less to do than all the
other chapters !
See you on the 29th late or more likely for breakfast on the 30th.
Cheers
Phil
At 23:16 18/03/2005, you wrote:
Dear Phil,
Sorry about the delay in replying to your email. I picked up a chest infection
while I
was at the IPCC meeting in Hawaii, and it proved to be very persistent. I think a
weekend's rest will do me good.
It was great to see you in Chicago, even though the meeting itself was quite
difficult
to sit through. As may have been apparent, Roger and I really rub each other the
wrong
way. Working with him on this CCSP Report has been a very unpleasant experience.
I am taking your advice, and trying to write up the "amplification factor" stuff
that I
showed in Chicago. I presented this in Hawaii, and it sparked a lot of discussion.

Just
between you and me, Susan Solomon argued quite forcefully that this new
information
should NOT go into the CCSP Report, and that we should not be performing science
in
support of an assessment. She was concerned that the CCSP Report might be subject
to
unjustified criticism if key conclusions of the Report relied on unpublished work.

I
have considerable sympathy with this view. It does seem important to get this work
submitted to a peer-reviewed publication as soon as possible, and then worry later

about
whether the material should or should not appear in CCSP.
Are you going to the Duke IDAG meeting? If so, I look forward to seeing you there.
Best regards to you and Ruth,
Ben
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer

Tel: (925) 422-2486
FAX: (925) 422-7675
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Phil Jones To: "Brohan, Philip" Subject: Re: HADCRUT various Date: Mon Apr 4
09:50:24 2005 Cc: Peter Thorne
Philip,
I'm not unhappy at all. If I am it is more about HadCRUT2 and 3.
I read through the report to DEFRA and will be sending some comments later
today. I also commented on what Harry has written as a report for you. I've
left those comments with him as he's away this week and I'm off April 6-15.
It is a bit odd with HadCRUT2 that the problem has surfaced now and my
old mask hasn't made any difference.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:33 01/04/2005, Brohan, Philip wrote:

Phil.
I've just had a chat with Peter Thorne about HadCRUT2 and 3, and I get the
impression that you are concerned, so we thought I should clarify what is going
on.
In particular I want to assure you that we are not trying to change the system
without your approval.
To make things quite clear, we have two HadCRUT systems here:
1) Peter is running HadCRUT2. This is our operational system which produces
the new data every month that we send to you and everyone. This is a fixed
system, it does exactly what you agreed with Peter a couple of years ago. We
don't plan to change it at all.
We did, unfortunately, make a mistake while running the system; we think a
land-mask file was changed. This is what Peter's recent messages have been about.
We're still not quite sure how this happened, but whatever fix we apply will be
to restore the system to the original, agreed state.
2) I am coordinating HadCRUT3. This currently encompasses Harry's work on the

data,
Simon's work on blending, John Kennedy's work on variance correction, and my work
on
errors and gridding. Some combination of this work will become the new dataset.
I have a clear picture of what I think should form the new dataset. However, we
won't produce HadCRUT3 unless you (and all the other contributors) agree. If I
can't persuade you of the value of a change, it won't happen. In particular, I
see the land station data as entirely under your control, both now and in the
future.
If I (or Peter) misread the vibes and you were not worrying about any of this,
please don't start. There are not serious problems with either system.
Have fun,
Philip.
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jonathan Overpeck To: Keith Briffa , t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re:

last millennium - responding to Susan Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 23:08:47 -0700 Cc: ?
yvind Paasche , Eystein Jansen
Hi Keith and Tim - sorry for the delay in responding. I think the issues you raise
are worth discussing, but we can do that in Beijing, and hopefully with Susan. She
is keen on the idea, and my gut says it's a good idea to include such "crowley"
plots somewhere - at least in the appendix, for example. But, let's talk in
person.
In the meantime, we really need your comments on the ZOD - including what you feel
has to be done with your section, but also with the others. We have comments from
most others, and are expecting the external review comments soon, so please send
yours ASAP so they can be included in this important stage.
Thanks! Best, peck
>Jonathan > >I am slowly getting teaching duties behind me and certainly turning
>my attention back to IPCC. I have spoken wit Phil re the >observations chapter
and we have discussed the need to show pre 20th >instrumental data in our chapter
in a manner that is relevant to the >comparison with more recent instrumental (ie
N.Hemisphere or global >mean) records , and the possibility of showing ensembles
of regional >temperature records , and composites in a way that possibly bares on
>the discussions with Susan. We are still considering this question , >but
certainly there needs to be some "frozen grid" curves as flagged >in the ZOD. >I
am not sure of the context of the discussion you are having with >Susan , or the
logic for what Tom Crowley is trying to do with the >ensemble curves of various
palaeo-series. > >I flagged clearly at the outset that I would like to do some
>regional comparisons of various data/reconstructions . This required >more time
and input than was achievable for the ZOD. I still think >this is desirable
though. Similarly , there is far too little in the >current version about moisture
variability in the last 2000 years >and too little on the S.Hemisphere in general.
It was always clear >that there would be much more discussion on the scaling issue
and >specific reference to work that will explore the effect of regional,
>seasonal and methodological differences in aggregation and scaling >(including
timescale dependent effects). The problem is that the >work on much of this is not
yet done or published. It should be >immediately apparent that our greatest
enemy , acting against a >thorough exposition of these issues , is the lack of
sufficient >allotted space. > >Now , returning to the Crowley Figures , I do not
see how not >showing an integrated and "appropriately" scaled record helps to
>clarify the picture on the precedence of recent warming in any clear >way. On the
contrary , it merely confuses the issue by omitting to >tackle the knotty problem
of expressing an underlying mean >large-scale signal , that emerges from the
regional noise only >through aggregation of demonstrably appropriate palaeo-
records . >This aggregation should allow quantification (with appropriate
>uncertainty) of the extent of warming and provide clearly defined >target for
comparison with model simulations. > >If it thought appropriate , yes we can show
individual records , but >just normalising them over a common base ignores the
different >sensitivities and regional distribution issues . I am not convinced
>this selective presentation clarifies anything. I would be happy >for this
discussion to opened to the rest of the author team. > >best wishes > >Keith > >
At 16:28 15/03/2005, you wrote: >>Hi Keith - I can't remember when you said you'd
be able to get back >>into the IPCC fray, but I hope it is soon. Please let me and
>>Eystein know what you think regarding the email I just cc'd to you. >>We should
respond to Susan asap. Hope things are going well. >>Thanks, 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: +1
520 622-9065 >>fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
>>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ > >-- >Professor Keith Briffa, >Climatic Research
Unit >University of East Anglia >Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > >Phone: +44-1603-593909
>Fax: +44-1603-507784 > >http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/


From: Phil Jones To: "Parker, David (Met Office)" , Kevin Trenberth Subject: Re:
Chapter 3.4.1 Date: Tue Apr 19 16:12:38 2005 Cc: David Parker , Brian Soden ,
Susan Solomon , Martin Manning , "'David R. Easterling'"
Kevin,
I plan to look through your 3.4.1 draft tomorrow or later this week. At the same
time I also plan to have a go at section 3.2. David has sent me some new figures
and there are two new papers to add in. I am having difficulty finding some
quality
time at the moment, but hope this will come later this week.
I did read all the CCSP report. The review group are having a conf call tomorrow
on this, but they have chosen your afternoon, so I can't take part. There were 6
reviewers of the review and one other almost wrote as much as you. Most were
positive on the review saying that the report authors have a lot to do,
particularly for
Chapters 1 and 6. How all this pans out is impossible to tell. The next meeting of
the
authors is being scheduled for the week after Beijing.
I agree some of their figures are useful, but I too doubt whether we will have
much useful for the FOD we have to write. We will likely be doing them in parallel
-
which is hardly ideal.
I wouldn't send our 3.4.1 to Tom at this time - at least wait till Brian, David
and I
have been through yours. Also I wouldn't want Tom passing it on to the CCSP VTT
authors. I think they will have a lot of hard thinking when they get the NRC
review, to
worry too much about what we're doing. We do need to have our chapter and their
report meshing at some time, but this might have to wait till the SOD (by which
time
their report might be finished).
Cheers
Phil
At 17:35 18/04/2005, Parker, David (Met Office) wrote:
Kevin
Thanks. You have saved me some work because on my journey back from
Geneva I also studied the comments on 3.4.1 (on paper) and was
considering making an electronic revised section. I came to the
conclusion that 3.4.1 should say that there are 2 schools of thought
about Fu et al and other aspects of the temperatures-aloft issue: the
jury is still out. That would be a assessment (as opposed to a review)

of the current state of the science. Fu may not be correct as he seems
to imply upper tropospheric warming rates well outside the error-bars
implied by the radiosondes (though I am aware of their problems too). I
have not yet read your attachment but will consider it in the next few
days.
I looked at the surface temperature comments too and feel it may be best
to wait until in Beijing, as most comments are about what diagrams to
choose. I could try to re-order the urban warming section as reviewers
suggest, but we may still wish to contact Tsutsumi (who didn't reply to
my email a couple of months ago) to write something.
Regards
David
On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 17:13, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> Hi Phil and David, and Brian
>
> I believe you three are probably closest to the satellite temperature
> record issue and so I am sending this to you. I have thoroughly gone
> over all the comments we received and I have prepared a revised 3.4.1
> which is attached. This is the cleaned up version. The actual
> version has tracking turned on but the changes are so extensive that
> they are very hard to follow. As you know, I have read the entire
> CCSP report and commented extensively on it. I know Phil was on the
> review team and David was there as a lead author. However David and
> Phil may not be as familiar with the whole report.
>
> Obviously this remains a controversial topic. Many of the comments we
> received were diametrically opposed to one another. The rhetoric was
> disappointing (especially from Peter Thorne). In fact Peter's
> comments are mostly not useful and reveal very strong biases against
> Fu and reanalyses. Previously, you'll recall that David provided most
> of the text and I edited it and updated it with the Fu material in a
> somewhat ad hoc fashion that got almost everyone mad. Probably a good
> thing to do in retrospect, as this next version will look so much
> better. Note that I have done nothing with the appendices at this
> point, so that needs to be addressed. I have taken out all the
> tables??
>
> You will see even in the current text that I have 2 sections I would
> like to delete.
>
> While individual comparisons of radiosonde station data with
> collocated satellite data (Christy and Norris, 2004) suggest that the
> median trends of radiosonde temperatures in the troposphere are
> generally very close to UAH trends and a little less than RSS trends,
> trends at individual radiosonde sites vary and root mean square
> differences of UAH satellite data with radiosondes are substantial
> (Hurrell et al., 2000). Moreover, as noted in 3.4.1.1, comparisons
> with radiosonde data are compromised by the multiple problems with the
> latter, and there are diurnal cycle influences on them over land. In
> the stratosphere, radiosonde trends are more negative than both MSU
> retrievals, especially RSS. [DELETE THIS?]
>
> The problem here is the rhetoric of Christy et al. In his
> contribution Christy justifies the UAH record by saying that "median
> trends agree with those of sondes". But he actually sent to us his
> Fig. 2 showing the lack of agreement in general. It is only the
> median that agrees, the agreement with sondes individually is not good
> and this is just for trends. [Hence the median depends on the
> selection of stations]. It is even worse if rms differences are
> examined (as in Hurrell et al 2000). The only reason to include this
> is to rebut Christy's claim. For most other readers it has no
> business being there. Your suggestions appreciated. Maybe this
> should go in the appendix?
>
> You will see that I have stolen 2 figures from the CCSP report. I
> made up the 3rd figure from data provided from the CCSP report plus
> extra material (only the global is in the current draft). It would
> also be nice to include a spatial map of trends at the surface and for
> the troposphere (T2 corrected as from Fu) but no such figure exists
> anywhere, yet. We can get trends from RSS and UAH for T2. It would
> be good to have access to the originals so we can modify them and
> clean up the terminology. {On that score, I don't think the CCSP
> terminology is tenable given the new retrievals of Fu et al (2005) and
> ours, using T2, T3, and T4 is much easier).
>
> At present the CCSP report is not very useful to us. Some figures are
> useful. It may become so, but I actually have my doubts, given the
> vested interests of the authors.
>
> I am tempted to send this to Tom Karl in his role as editor of our
> chapter, and of course he is head of the CCSP effort, but I would NOT
> want him to use it for CCSP (except that it might highlight the
> differences in assessments). What do you think? Via Tom we might get
> better access to the figures and updates? Also I'l l cc David
> Easterling.
> This would be the main basis for FOD.
>
> Ideally also it is desirable to get the figures updated thru 2004, but
> can we?
>
> Please read this version and let me know what you think? (Please be
> kind, I have put in a LOT of work on this)
>
> Best regards
> Kevin
>
> --
> ****************
> Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [1]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
> P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318
> Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)
>
> Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303
--
David E Parker
A2_W052 Met Office FitzRoy Road EXETER EX1 3PB UK
email: david.parker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Tel: +44-1392-886649 Fax: +44-1392-885681
Global climate data sets are available from [2]http://hadobs.org
Prof. Phil Jones

NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
2. http://hadobs.org/

From: Phil Jones To: Peter Lemke , Kevin Trenberth Subject: Re: WG1 LA2 meeting -
Overlap cluster A Date: Wed Apr 20 10:49:38 2005 Cc: Martin Manning , Susan
Solomon , ipcc-wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear All,
In addition to Kevin's comments and from a quickish look through parts of Chapters
4, 6 and 9, here are a few suggestions.
First for best use of time, I would suggest that Cluster B gets broken into two
parts.
Basically separating off the overlap with the paleo and instrumental record
including
borehole temperatures and glacier length changes from the sea ice/SST,
snow/temperature.
OHC/SST, salinity/precip and SLR etc. The latter can be dealt with by Chs 5, 3 and
4.
The former is really for 6, 3 and 4.
Issues for 3 and 6 are the interface of the instrumental and paleo records,
particularly
how the early 19th century is dealt with. This period of instrumental records is
believed
by many in the paleo community not to exist, but in Europe and a few other regions
it
exists back in good order to the late 18th century. The 19th century is, I
believe, the
key
to resolving much of the discussion about the millennium. Much more should be made
of
this period when comparisons with long forced GCM runs are analyzed. Europe may be
a
small continent, but the 200-250 year 'perfect proxy' records (which have all
seasons!)
need
to be studied more. As any conclusions relate to Ch 6, the main text should be

there, with
perhaps a box on the early instrumental period in Ch 3.
Somewhat related to the above, Ch 4 has a section on the recent Oerlemans (2005)
work
- attached for reference. Mike Mann sent me a figure (see jpg) comparing this with
most
other
reconstructions of parts of the millennium. It seems that this piece of work

should be
with
all the others in Ch 6 and not Ch 4. When producing plots like this getting the
right
base level
is crucial - not just for Oerlemans' series, but also for the boreholes. Also, the
degree
of
smoothing and the y-scale used can easily determine the takeaway message.
Chapter 9 has an interest in both these issues.
Finally, there is one other issue. Do we want to consider having a web site
(distributed?) where
the data for some selected time series can be downloaded from - not just the
smoothed/plotted
series, but on the original timescale as well. This possibly comes back also to a
consistent way
of smoothing time series.

Cheers
Phil
At 08:11 20/04/2005, Peter Lemke wrote:
Dear Martin,
I am also willing to co-chair the cluster B. (As always) Kevin has done a very
good job
in listing the most important issues.
Therefore, I have nothing to add at the moment. I will think about this on the
weekend.
Best regards,
Peter
Kevin Trenberth schrieb:
Hi Martin
Yes I will do this.
Firstly on cluster A:
I/we have an issue which is: what about changes in radiative forcing from water
vapor
(or feedback if you prefer), it is of order 1 W m-2.
So this relates to water vapor changes in chapter 3.
Cluster B: Consistency in observed climate change: atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere.

This
may also extend to paleo, chapter 6.
Issues:
*Consistency of:*
* sea ice with SST
* snow cover with snowfall and temperature
* glacier melting and permafrost changes vs temperatures
* borehole temperatures, glacier changes and paleo record
* overlap between paleo record and instrumental record

* salinity vs precipitation
* ocean heat content with SST and surface fluxes
* sea level rise as an integrator: ocean expansion, melting of
land ice, increased water storage on land, and changes in TOA
radiation (presumably led by Chapter 5.)
Issues consist of use of consistent temperature and precipitation records (don't

use
NCEP surface temperatures as in Ch 4 CQ).
Points of contention:
1) consistency
2) overlap and redundancy
3) where to place integrated assessment?
* sea level: Chapter 5
* snow, ice, temperature chapter 3 section 3.9
* paleo record vs instrumental chapter 6
* overall view including sea level chapter 3, in 3.9
* T increase (land, SST, subsurface ocean), snow retreat, sea ice
retreat, thinning, freezing season shorter, glacier melt, sea
level rise.
* Precip changes, drought, salinity, ocean currents, P-E, snowfall.
Please see the draft of 3.9.
So in terms of the agenda, the main points are:
1) Ensuring consistency among variables across chapters
2) Agreement on which chapter and what person will handle what, and in particular,
that
3.9 will have a look ahead aspect to the chapters that follow.
The above points could all be briefly on the table with the focus on cross-chapter
issues.
Desirable to circulate draft section 3.9 (1 page).
Peter may wish to add or change this?

Regards
Kevin
Martin Manning wrote:
Dear Kevin and Peter
Please find attached our current program for the second Lead Author meeting on May
10 -
12. We will shortly be sending out some more details on the plans for the meeting
and
in particular would like to clarify what needs to be done in the Overlap Cluster
meetings shown in the program on Wednesday 11th.
This is to ask if you would be prepared to jointly co-chair the session on Overlap
Cluster B dealing with "Consistency in covering observed climate change" and which
will
involve discussion among chapters 3, 4, 5, 9 and 11. The attached program lists,
on the
last page, overlap / consistency areas that have been mentioned in the ZOD.
We would really be most grateful for your assistance in this, and if you agree, we
would
like to ask that you each to specify what in your view would be the 2 or 3 most
important issues to resolve during the overlap cluster session. We will then use
your
input to draw up a specific agenda and circulate agendas for all overlap clusters
to all
CLAs prior to the meeting. We hope in this way that we can reach a shared
understanding
of the most important overlap and consistency issues and the corresponding key
decisions
that will have to be made in Beijing.
I would be grateful if you could let me know whether you are able to help us with
this
by Wednesday 20th.
Regards
Martin
--
*Recommended Email address: mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
*** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address
Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit
NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory Phone: +1 303 497 4479
325 Broadway, DSRC R/AL8 Fax: +1 303 497 5628
-- ****************
P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)
--
****************************************************
Prof. Dr. Peter Lemke
Alfred-Wegener-Institute
for Polar and Marine Research
Postfach 120161
27515 Bremerhaven
GERMANY
e-mail: plemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phone: ++49 (0)471 - 4831 - 1751/1750
FAX: ++49 (0)471 - 4831 - 1797
[2]http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de
****************************************************
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
2. http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de/

From: Jonathan Overpeck To: Kevin Trenberth Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: WG1 LA2 meeting
- Overlap cluster A] Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:28:30 -0700 Cc: Keith Briffa ,
Eystein Jansen , olgasolomina@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Kevin - ah yes, good fun. Talked w/ Susan about some of this, and we're hoping
that Keith
Briffa might be able to participate in "Cluster B" while the rest of our chap 6
team
discusses things that bore Keith. I'll forward this to relevant chap 6 folks. Thx,
Peck
Jon
FYI wrt Beijing and overlap issues with chapter 6. You may find some exchanges of
interest as well.
Kevin
Subject: Re: WG1 LA2 meeting - Overlap cluster A

Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:12:41 +0100
From: Phil Jones
To: Kevin Trenberth
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20050418185815.0303d0d0@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<42654140.2080509@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> <42660091.9060600@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<6.1.2.0.0.20050420101527.01d3f508@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> <42667322.4070101@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Kevin,
Right on ! Assumes precip doesn't change - i.e. it's constant. Difficult to do
much more for some regions, but could do a lot better for the Alps. Ch 4 has
swallowed
this hook, line and sinker and it is really a Ch 6 issue. Ch 6 wasn't even aware
of it.
Can't decide who on Ch 4 knew about it as Oerlemans isn't there and the Swiss
Glacier
people didn't know about the paper 2 weeks ago when I saw them.
I like the curve as does Mike Mann, but its not for any scientific reason.
Any jury is still out on whether this is right, but I'm glad someone has tried the
approach. It is a quantification of what people have assumed, but there likely

isn't
enough detail in the paper to show how it was done.
I've not seen this paper in a proper issue of Science yet. As such I've not been
able to get the supporting material.
This paper is totally independent of all other paleo work. It is much better
science
than Mobeg et al. in Nature in February. Susan has been sending a few emails to
Ch 6 about how to display the various millennium series - some of which she's not
thought through.
Just be glad we haven't got paleo in out chapter !
Cheers
Phil
At 16:20 20/04/2005, you wrote:

Hi Phil
I had not read Oerleman's paper, I have now. Some things don't make sense to me:
chanes
in precip not included and the time series (esp N America) Also magnitude of
implied
early 20Th C warming. What is your take?
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:
Dear All,
parts.
including
snow/temperature.
4.
particularly
believed
it
believe, the
key
of
a
seasons!)
need

there,
with
work
most
other

should be
with
right
base level
degree of
smoothed/plotted
consistent way

Cheers
Phil
Dear Martin,
good job
weekend.
Best regards,
Peter
Hi Martin
Yes I will do this.
vapor

This
Issues:
*Consistency of:*
* sea ice with SST


use
1) consistency
level rise.
that
issues.

Regards
Kevin
10 -
and
will
on the
would
your
to all
understanding
decisions
this
by Wednesday 20th.
Regards
Martin
--
*Recommended Email address: mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
-- ****************
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)
--
****************************************************
Postfach 120161
27515 Bremerhaven
GERMANY
e-mail: plemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phone: ++49 (0)471 - 4831 - 1751/1750

FAX: ++49 (0)471 - 4831 - 1797
http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de
****************************************************
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1fde5ff.jpg
--
****************
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Prof. Phil Jones

NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
****************
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Jon
FYI wrt Beijing and overlap issues with chapter 6. You may find some exchanges of
interest as well.
Kevin
Subject: Re: WG1 LA2 meeting - Overlap cluster A Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:12:41
+0100
From: Phil Jones [1] To: Kevin Trenberth [2]
References: [3]<5.2.0.9.2.20050418185815.0303d0d0@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[4]<42654140.2080509@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> [5]<42660091.9060600@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[6]<6.1.2.0.0.20050420101527.01d3f508@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[7]<42667322.4070101@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Kevin,
Right on ! Assumes precip doesn't change - i.e. it's constant. Difficult to do
much more for some regions, but could do a lot better for the Alps. Ch 4 has
swallowed
this hook, line and sinker and it is really a Ch 6 issue. Ch 6 wasn't even aware
of it.
Can't decide who on Ch 4 knew about it as Oerlemans isn't there and the Swiss
Glacier
people didn't know about the paper 2 weeks ago when I saw them.
I like the curve as does Mike Mann, but its not for any scientific reason.
Any jury is still out on whether this is right, but I'm glad someone has tried the
approach. It is a quantification of what people have assumed, but there likely

isn't
enough detail in the paper to show how it was done.
I've not seen this paper in a proper issue of Science yet. As such I've not been
able to get the supporting material.
This paper is totally independent of all other paleo work. It is much better
science
than Mobeg et al. in Nature in February. Susan has been sending a few emails to
Ch 6 about how to display the various millennium series - some of which she's not
thought through.
Just be glad we haven't got paleo in out chapter !
Cheers
Phil
At 16:20 20/04/2005, you wrote:
Hi Phil
I had not read Oerleman's paper, I have now. Some things don't make sense to me:
chanes
in precip not included and the time series (esp N America) Also magnitude of
implied
early 20Th C warming. What is your take?
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:

Dear All,
parts.
including
snow/temperature.
4.
particularly
believed
it
believe, the
key
of
a
seasons!)
need

there,
with

work
most
other

should be
with
right
base level
degree of
smoothed/plotted
consistent way
Cheers
Phil
Dear Martin,
good job
weekend.
Best regards,
Peter
Hi Martin
Yes I will do this.
vapor

This
Issues:
*Consistency of:*
* sea ice with SST

use

1) consistency
level rise.
that
issues.
Regards
Kevin
10 -
and
will
on the
would
your
to all
understanding
decisions
this
by Wednesday 20th.
Regards
Martin
--
*Recommended Email address: [8]mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

-- ****************
Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [9]trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)
--
****************************************************
Postfach 120161
27515 Bremerhaven
GERMANY
e-mail: [11]plemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phone: ++49 (0)471 - 4831 - 1751/1750
FAX: ++49 (0)471 - 4831 - 1797
[12]http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de
****************************************************
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Untitled 2
--
****************
P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
****************
P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)
--
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795
Embedded Content: Untitled 2.jpg: 00000001,648cb53d,00000000,00000000
References
3. mailto:5.2.0.9.2.20050418185815.0303d0d0@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:6.1.2.0.0.20050420101527.01d3f508@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. mailto:mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
11. mailto:plemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
12. http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de/

From: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx To: "Martin Manning" Subject: Re: WG1 LA2 meeting -
Overlap cluster A Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:46:31 -0600 (MDT) Cc: "Phil Jones" ,
"Peter Lemke" , "Susan Solomon" , ipcc-wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Martin I think you are right: the paleo instrumental issue is likely to involve
mainly Briffa from Chap 6 and Phil from our chapter, so they might well spin off
at some point. Are there others Phil? Kevin
> Dear Kevin and Phil > > As you say Chapter 6 was not implicated in the cluster B
overlap issues > based on the author notes we received with the ZOD. You may want
to cover > the point raised by Phil and in particular where the long instrumental
> records fit, but as this seems to involve only a small number of LAs you > could
consider dealing with that more efficiently in a small group > separately from the
cluster meeting. So the choice is up to you. > > If it would be helpful, the TSU
could start to compile a list of small > group meetings requested by CLAs and look
for some way of setting up a > practical timetable for lunch time meetings. But we
would need advice on > the specific individuals who should be involved in each
case and all I am > offering is a "dating service" that would distribute a
suggested list of > times and names that we could possibly update in real time
during the > meeting in Beijing. > > Regards > Martin > > At 09:07 AM 4/20/2005,
Kevin Trenberth wrote: >>Hi Martin >>I agree with what Phil says, but I note that
cluster B does not actually >>have chapter 6 as part of it. So the question is
whether chapter 6 will >>be involved?. If so then we may well want to split into 2
parts. Last >>night I had a quick look at Chap 9 and I am concerned about
redundancy >> and >>overlap and conflicts: they are doing some similar things with
>>observations but maybe different obs, and coming to different conclusions >>e.g.
wrt things like dimming. >>Kevin >> >>Phil Jones wrote: >>> >>> Dear All, >>> In
addition to Kevin's comments and from a quickish look through >>> parts of
Chapters >>> 4, 6 and 9, here are a few suggestions. >>> >>> First for best use of
time, I would suggest that Cluster B gets >>> broken into two parts. >>> Basically
separating off the overlap with the paleo and instrumental >>> record including
>>> borehole temperatures and glacier length changes from the sea ice/SST, >>>
snow/temperature. >>> OHC/SST, salinity/precip and SLR etc. The latter can be
dealt with by >>> Chs 5, 3 and 4. >>> The former is really for 6, 3 and 4. >>> >>>
Issues for 3 and 6 are the interface of the instrumental and paleo >>> records,
particularly >>> how the early 19th century is dealt with. This period of
instrumental >>> records is believed >>> by many in the paleo community not to
exist, but in Europe and a few >>> other regions it >>> exists back in good order
to the late 18th century. The 19th century >>> is, I believe, the key >>> to
resolving much of the discussion about the millennium. Much more >>> should be
made of >>> this period when comparisons with long forced GCM runs are analyzed.
>>> Europe may be a >>> small continent, but the 200-250 year 'perfect proxy'
records (which >>> have all seasons!) need >>> to be studied more. As any
conclusions relate to Ch 6, the main text >>> should be there, with >>> perhaps a
box on the early instrumental period in Ch 3. >>> >>> Somewhat related to the
above, Ch 4 has a section on the recent >>> Oerlemans (2005) work >>> - attached
for reference. Mike Mann sent me a figure (see jpg) >>> comparing this with most
other >>> reconstructions of parts of the millennium. It seems that this piece >>>
of >>> work should be with >>> all the others in Ch 6 and not Ch 4. When producing
plots like this >>> getting the right base level >>> is crucial - not just for
Oerlemans' series, but also for the >>> boreholes. Also, the degree of >>>
smoothing and the y-scale used can easily determine the takeaway >>> message. >>>
>>> Chapter 9 has an interest in both these issues. >>> >>> Finally, there is one
other issue. Do we want to consider having a >>> web site (distributed?) where >>>
the data for some selected time series can be downloaded from - not >>> just the
smoothed/plotted >>> series, but on the original timescale as well. This possibly
comes >>> back >>> also to a consistent way >>> of smoothing time series. >>> >>>
Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> >>>At 08:11 20/04/2005, Peter Lemke wrote: >>>>Dear
Martin, >>>>I am also willing to co-chair the cluster B. (As always) Kevin has
done >>>>a very good job in listing the most important issues. >>>>Therefore, I
have nothing to add at the moment. I will think about this >>>>on the weekend.
>>>>Best regards, >>>>Peter >>>> >>>>Kevin Trenberth schrieb: >>>> >>>>>Hi Martin
>>>>> >>>>>Yes I will do this. >>>>> >>>>>Firstly on cluster A: >>>>>I/we have an
issue which is: what about changes in radiative forcing >>>>>from water vapor (or
feedback if you prefer), it is of order 1 W m-2. >>>>>So this relates to water
vapor changes in chapter 3. >>>>> >>>>>Cluster B: Consistency in observed climate
change: atmosphere, ocean, >>>>>cryosphere. This may also extend to paleo, chapter
6. >>>>>Issues: >>>>>*Consistency of:* >>>>> >>>>> * sea ice with SST >>>>> * snow
cover with snowfall and temperature >>>>> * glacier melting and permafrost changes
vs temperatures >>>>> * borehole temperatures, glacier changes and paleo record
>>>>> * overlap between paleo record and instrumental record >>>>> * salinity vs
precipitation >>>>> * ocean heat content with SST and surface fluxes >>>>> * sea
level rise as an integrator: ocean expansion, melting of >>>>> land ice, increased
water storage on land, and changes in TOA >>>>> radiation (presumably led by
Chapter 5.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Issues consist of use of consistent temperature and
precipitation >>>>>records (don't use NCEP surface temperatures as in Ch 4 CQ).
>>>>> >>>>>Points of contention: >>>>>1) consistency >>>>>2) overlap and
redundancy >>>>>3) where to place integrated assessment? >>>>> >>>>> * sea level:
Chapter 5 >>>>> * snow, ice, temperature chapter 3 section 3.9 >>>>> * paleo
record vs instrumental chapter 6 >>>>> * overall view including sea level chapter
3, in 3.9 >>>>> * T increase (land, SST, subsurface ocean), snow retreat, sea ice
>>>>> retreat, thinning, freezing season shorter, glacier melt, sea >>>>> level
rise. >>>>> * Precip changes, drought, salinity, ocean currents, P-E, >>>>>
snowfall. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Please see the draft of 3.9. >>>>> >>>>>So in terms of
the agenda, the main points are: >>>>>1) Ensuring consistency among variables
across chapters >>>>>2) Agreement on which chapter and what person will handle
what, and in >>>>>particular, that 3.9 will have a look ahead aspect to the
chapters >>>>> that >>>>>follow. >>>>>The above points could all be briefly on the
table with the focus on >>>>>cross-chapter issues. >>>>>Desirable to circulate
draft section 3.9 (1 page). >>>>> >>>>>Peter may wish to add or change this?
>>>>>Regards >>>>>Kevin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Martin Manning wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>>Dear Kevin and Peter >>>>>> >>>>>>Please find attached our current
program for the second Lead Author >>>>>>meeting on May 10 - 12. We will shortly
be sending out some more >>>>>>details on the plans for the meeting and in
particular would like to >>>>>>clarify what needs to be done in the Overlap
Cluster meetings shown >>>>>> in >>>>>>the program on Wednesday 11th. >>>>>>
>>>>>>This is to ask if you would be prepared to jointly co-chair the
>>>>>>session on Overlap Cluster B dealing with "Consistency in covering
>>>>>>observed climate change" and which will involve discussion among
>>>>>>chapters 3, 4, 5, 9 and 11. The attached program lists, on the last
>>>>>>page, overlap / consistency areas that have been mentioned in the >>>>>>
ZOD. >>>>>> >>>>>>We would really be most grateful for your assistance in this,
and if >>>>>>you agree, we would like to ask that you each to specify what in your
>>>>>>view would be the 2 or 3 most important issues to resolve during the
>>>>>>overlap cluster session. We will then use your input to draw up a
>>>>>>specific agenda and circulate agendas for all overlap clusters to all
>>>>>>CLAs prior to the meeting. We hope in this way that we can reach a
>>>>>>shared understanding of the most important overlap and consistency
>>>>>>issues and the corresponding key decisions that will have to be made
>>>>>>in Beijing. >>>>>> >>>>>>I would be grateful if you could let me know
whether you are able to >>>>>>help us with this by Wednesday 20th. >>>>>>Regards
>>>>>>Martin >>>>>> >>>>>>-- >>>>>>*Recommended Email address:
>>>>>>mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >>>>>>*** Please note that problems may occur with my
@noaa.gov address >>>>>>Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit
>>>>>>NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory Phone: +1 303 497 >>>>>> 4479 >>>>>>325 Broadway,
DSRC R/AL8 Fax: +1 303 497 5628 >>>>>>Boulder, CO 80305, USA >>>>> >>>>>--
**************** >>>>>Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: >>>>>trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>>>>>Climate Analysis Section, >>>>>NCAR >>>>> www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/ >>>>>P. O.
Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 >>>>>Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) >>>>>
>>>>>Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303 >>>> >>>>--
>>>>**************************************************** >>>>Prof. Dr. Peter Lemke
>>>>Alfred-Wegener-Institute >>>>for Polar and Marine Research >>>>Postfach 120161
>>>>27515 Bremerhaven >>>>GERMANY >>>> >>>>e-mail: plemke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >>>>Phone:
++49 (0)471 - 4831 - 1751/1750 >>>>FAX: ++49 (0)471 - 4831 - 1797
>>>>http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de
>>>>**************************************************** >>> >>>Prof. Phil Jones
>>>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>>School of Environmental
Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>>University of East Anglia >>>Norwich Email
>>>p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >>>NR4 7TJ >>>UK
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >>> >>> >>>d85f1d.jpg >> >> >>-- >>**************** >>Kevin E. Trenberth e-
mail: >>trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >>Climate Analysis Section, >>NCAR
www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/ >>P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 >>Boulder, CO 80307 (303)
497 1333 (fax) >> >>Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303 >> >
> -- > Recommended
Email address: mmanning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx > ** Please note that problems may occur
with my @noaa.gov address > Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit
> NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory Phone: +1 303 497 4479 > 325 Broadway, DSRC R/AL8 Fax:
+1 303 497 5628 > Boulder, CO 80305, USA

From: Phil Jones To: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, "Martin Manning" Subject: Re: WG1 LA2
meeting - Overlap cluster A Date: Thu Apr 21 08:57:05 2005 Cc: "Peter Lemke" ,
"Susan Solomon" , ipcc-wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Martin,
You are right, it should just be the two of us and as Keith is just across the
corridor
we can have the meeting beforehand or on the way together. If you add this though
to
your list of possible meetings you might find that some others are interested.
This
meeting of 3 and 6 can occur at the same time as 3 and 4, so during Cluster B.
There
does need to be some discussion between 4 and 6 though to decide where Oerlemans
work is best located within AR4.
There is also the issue of Ch 9 as Kevin mentioned. As with Ch 4 using an NCEP
temperature series for the Arctic, there might be issues with some other chapters
using observed datasets which Ch 3 might think inappropriate or saying things

about
them that differ from what we do. Hopefully all these sorts of issues which get
flagged
when the overviews of the whole of AR4 get discussed (and also at LA3 and LA4).
Cheers
Phil
At 02:46 21/04/2005, trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
Martin I think you are right: the paleo instrumental issue is likely to
involve mainly Briffa from Chap 6 and Phil from our chapter, so they might
well spin off at some point. Are there others Phil?
Kevin
> Dear Kevin and Phil
>
> As you say Chapter 6 was not implicated in the cluster B overlap issues
> based on the author notes we received with the ZOD. You may want to cover
> the point raised by Phil and in particular where the long instrumental
> records fit, but as this seems to involve only a small number of LAs you
> could consider dealing with that more efficiently in a small group
> separately from the cluster meeting. So the choice is up to you.

>
> If it would be helpful, the TSU could start to compile a list of small
> group meetings requested by CLAs and look for some way of setting up a
> practical timetable for lunch time meetings. But we would need advice on
> the specific individuals who should be involved in each case and all I am
> offering is a "dating service" that would distribute a suggested list of
> times and names that we could possibly update in real time during the
> meeting in Beijing.
>
> Regards
> Martin
>
> At 09:07 AM 4/20/2005, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
>>Hi Martin
>>I agree with what Phil says, but I note that cluster B does not actually
>>have chapter 6 as part of it. So the question is whether chapter 6 will
>>be involved?. If so then we may well want to split into 2 parts. Last
>>night I had a quick look at Chap 9 and I am concerned about redundancy
>> and
>>overlap and conflicts: they are doing some similar things with
>>observations but maybe different obs, and coming to different conclusions
>>e.g. wrt things like dimming.
>>Kevin
>>
Prof. Phil Jones

NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Eystein Jansen To: Keith Briffa Subject: Fwd: Input for Chapter 6 in AR4
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:04:30 +0200
>Hi Keith,
got this paper from Jens Hesselbjerg. Interesting with respect to the von Storch
story. Eystein
>A few comments in English: >We have used a different version of the MPI >coupled
modeling system from that described by >von Storch et al. to simulate the last 500
>years. The model we have used has a different >ocean component (OPYC in stead of
HOPE) and a >higher resolution in the atmosphere (T42 in >stead of T31 - by many
considered to be a >substantial improvement in terms of representing >synoptic
behavior). Moreover, we have used >different reconstructions of the external
>forcing. All these differnces leads to somewhat >differnt behaviours compared to
von Storch, and >yet the model does seem to depict many of the >observed major
climatic events. Details are >given in the paper. > >venlig hilsen >Jens
Hesselbjerg Christensen > > >
-- ______________________________________________________________ Eystein Jansen

55-584330
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachstendel_et_al_ClimDyn_final.pdf"

From: Jonathan Overpeck To: Keith Briffa Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: WG1 LA2 meeting -
Overlap cluster A Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 20:37:06 -0700 Cc: Eystein Jansen , Phil
Jones
Hi Keith and Phil - Thanks. I read this to say that the issue of pre-1860
instrumental data is figured out ok? Plan outlined below sounds good if ok with
you both.
Best, Peck
>Peck >FYI >Phil and have have talked about the need t adress (even if briefly)
>the pre 1860 climate data - and both feel that the overlap with the >paleo
records (see our 1st Figure) in the 2000 year section , is one >place to address
this - though more needs to be done about the >regional bias in these data > >>X-
Sender: f028@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.2.0
>>Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:57:05 +0100 >>To: trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,"Martin
Manning" >>From: Phil Jones >>Subject: Re: WG1 LA2 meeting - Overlap cluster A
>>Cc: "Peter Lemke" , >> "Susan Solomon" ,ipcc-wg1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, >>
k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >> >> >> Martin, >> You are right, it should just be the
two of us and as Keith is >>just across the corridor >> we can have the meeting
beforehand or on the way together. If you >>add this though to >> your list of
possible meetings you might find that some others are >>interested. This >>
meeting of 3 and 6 can occur at the same time as 3 and 4, so >>during Cluster B.
There >> does need to be some discussion between 4 and 6 though to decide >>where
Oerlemans >> work is best located within AR4. >> There is also the issue of Ch 9
as Kevin mentioned. As with Ch >>4 using an NCEP >> temperature series for the
Arctic, there might be issues with some >>other chapters >> using observed
datasets which Ch 3 might think inappropriate or >>saying things about >> them
that differ from what we do. Hopefully all these sorts of >>issues which get
flagged >> when the overviews of the whole of AR4 get discussed (and also at >>LA3
and LA4). >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> >>At 02:46 21/04/2005, trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
wrote: >>>Martin I think you are right: the paleo instrumental issue is likely to
>>>involve mainly Briffa from Chap 6 and Phil from our chapter, so they might
>>>well spin off at some point. Are there others Phil? >>>Kevin >>> >>> >>>> Dear
Kevin and Phil >>>> >>>> As you say Chapter 6 was not implicated in the cluster B
overlap issues >>>> based on the author notes we received with the ZOD. You may
want to cover >>>> the point raised by Phil and in particular where the long
instrumental >>>> records fit, but as this seems to involve only a small number of
LAs you >>>> could consider dealing with that more efficiently in a small group
>>>> separately from the cluster meeting. So the choice is up to you. >>>> >>>> If
it would be helpful, the TSU could start to compile a list of small >>>> group
meetings requested by CLAs and look for some way of setting up a >>>> practical
timetable for lunch time meetings. But we would need advice on >>>> the specific
individuals who should be involved in each case and all I am >>>> offering is a
"dating service" that would distribute a suggested list of >>>> times and names
that we could possibly update in real time during the >>>> meeting in Beijing.
>>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> At 09:07 AM 4/20/2005, Kevin Trenberth
wrote: >>>>>Hi Martin >>>>>I agree with what Phil says, but I note that cluster B
does not actually >>>>>have chapter 6 as part of it. So the question is whether
chapter 6 will >>>>>be involved?. If so then we may well want to split into 2
parts. Last >>>>>night I had a quick look at Chap 9 and I am concerned about
redundancy >>>>> and >>>>>overlap and conflicts: they are doing some similar
things with >>>>>observations but maybe different obs, and coming to different
conclusions >>>>>e.g. wrt things like dimming. >>>>>Kevin >>>>> >> >>Prof. Phil
Jones >>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>School of
Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>University of East Anglia
>>Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >>NR4 7TJ >>UK
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >
>-- >Professor Keith Briffa, >Climatic Research Unit >University of East Anglia

From: Phil Jones To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Fwd: CCNet: DEBUNKING THE
"DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE" SCARE Date: Wed Apr 27 09:06:53 2005
Mike,
Presumably you've seen all this - the forwarded email from Tim. I got this email
from
McIntyre a few days ago. As far as I'm concerned he has the data - sent ages ago.
I'll
tell him this, but that's all - no code. If I can find it, it is likely to be
hundreds of
lines of
uncommented fortran ! I recall the program did a lot more that just average the
series.
I know why he can't replicate the results early on - it is because there was a
variance
correction for fewer series.
See you in Bern.
Cheers
Phil
Dear Phil,
In keeping with the spirit of your suggestions to look at some of the other
multiproxy
publications, I've been looking at Jones et al [1998]. The methodology here is

obviously
more straightforward than MBH98. However, while I have been able to substantially
emulate
your calculations, I have been unable to do so exactly. The differences are larger
in the
early periods.
Since I have been unable to replicate the results exactly based on available
materials, I
would appreciate a copy of the actual data set used in Jones et al [1998] as well
as the
code used in these calculations.
There is an interesting article on replication by Anderson et al., some

distinguished
economists, here [1]http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2005/2005-014.pdf discussing

the
issue of replication in applied economics and referring favorably to our attempts

in
respect to MBH98.
Regards, Steve McIntyre
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 13:28:53 +0100
To: Phil Jones ,"Keith Briffa"
From: Tim Osborn
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: DEBUNKING THE "DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE" SCARE
Keith and Phil,
you both feature in the latest issue of CCNet:
(4) GLOBAL WARMING AND DATA
Steve Verdon, Outside the Beltway, 25 April 2005
[2]http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/10200
A new paper ([3]http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2005/2005-014.pdf) from the St.

Luis
Federal Reserve Bank has an interesting paer on how important it is to archive not
only
the data but the code for empirical papers. While the article looks mainly at
economic
research there is also a lesson to be drawn from this paper about the current
state of
research for global warming/climate change. One of the hallmarks of scientific

research
is that the results can be replicable. Without this, the results shouldn't be
considered
valid let alone used for making policy.
Ideally, investigators should be willing to share their data and programs so as to
encourage other investigators to replicate and/or expand on their results.3 Such
behavior allows science to move forward in a Kuhn-style linear fashion, with each
generation seeing further from the shoulders of the previous generation.4 At a

minimum,
the results of an endeavor-if it is to be labeled "scientific"-should be

replicable,
i.e., another researcher using the same methods should be able to reach the same
result.
In the case of applied economics using econometric software, this means that
another
researcher using the same data and the same computer software should achieve the
same
results.
However, this is precisely the problem that Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick
have run
into since looking into the methodology used by Mann, Hughes and Bradely (1998)
(MBH98),
the paper that came up with the famous "hockey stick" for temperature
reconstructions.
For example, this post here shows that McIntyre was prevented from accessing
Mann's FTP
site. This is supposedly a public site where interested researchers can download
not
only the source code, but also the data. This kind of behavior by Mann et. al. is
simply
unscientific and also rather suspicious. Why lock out a researcher who is trying
to
verify your results...do you have something to hide professors Mann, Bradley and
Huges?
Not only has this been a problem has this been a problem for McIntyre with regards
to
MBH98, but other studies as well. This post at Climate Audit shows that this
problem is
actually quite serious.
Crowley and Lowery (2000)
After nearly a year and over 25 emails, Crowley said in mid-October that he has
misplaced the original data and could only find transformed and smoothed versions.
This
makes proper data checking impossible, but I'm planning to do what I can with what
he
sent. Do I need to comment on my attitude to the original data being "misplaced"?
Briffa et al. (2001)
There is no listing of sites in the article or SI (despite JGR policies requiring
citations be limited to publicly archived data). Briffa has refused to respond to

any
requests for data. None of these guys have the least interest in some one going
through
their data and seem to hoping that the demands wither away. I don't see how any
policy
reliance can be made on this paper with no available data.
Esper et al. (2002)
This paper is usually thought to show much more variation than the hockey stick.
Esper
has listed the sites used, but most of them are not archived. Esper has not
responded to
any requests for data. '
Jones and Mann (2003); Mann and Jones (2004)
Phil Jones sent me data for these studies in July 2004, but did not have the
weights
used in the calculations, which Mann had. Jones thought that the weights did not
matter,
but I have found differently. I've tried a few times to get the weights, but so
far have
been unsuccessful. My surmise is that the weighting in these papers is based on

correlations to local temperature, as opposed to MBH98-MBH99 where the weightings
are
based on correlations to the temperature PC1 (but this is just speculation right
now.)
The papers do not describe the methods in sufficient detail to permit replication.
Jacoby and d'Arrigo (northern treeline)
I've got something quite interesting in progress here. If you look at the original
1989
paper, you will see that Jacoby "cherry-picked" the 10 "most temperature-
sensitive"
sites from 36 studied. I've done simulations to emulate cherry-picking from

persistent
red noise and consistently get hockey stick shaped series, with the Jacoby
northern
treeline reconstruction being indistinguishable from simulated hockey sticks. The

other
26 sites have not been archived. I've written to Climatic Change to get them to
intervene in getting the data. Jacoby has refused to provide the data. He says
that his
research is "mission-oriented" and, as an ex-marine, he is only interested in a

"few
good" series.
Jacoby has also carried out updated studies on the Gasp? series, so essential to
MBH98.
I've seen a chronology using the new data, which looks completely different from
the old
data (which is a hockey stick). I've asked for the new data, but Jacoby-d'Arrigo
have
refused it saying that the old data is "better" for showing temperature increases.
Need
I comment? I've repeatedly asked for the exact location of the Gasp? site for
nearly 9
months now (I was going to privately fund a re-sampling program, but Jacoby, Cook
and
others have refused to disclose the location.) Need I comment?
Jones et al (1998)
Phil Jones stands alone among paleoclimate authors, as a diligent correspondent. I

have
data and methods from Jones et al 1998. I have a couple of concerns here, which
I'm
working on. I remain concerned about the basis of series selection - there is an
obvious
risk of "cherrypicking" data and I'm very unclear what steps, if any, were taken
to
avoid this. The results for the middle ages don't look robust to me. I have
particular
concerns with Briffa's Polar Urals series, which takes the 11th century results
down
(Briffa arguing that 1032 was the coldest year of the millennium). It looks to me
like
the 11th century data for this series does not meet quality control criteria and
Briffa
was over-reaching. Without this series, Jones et al. 1998 is high in the 11th
century.
Note that none of this actually "disproves" the global warming hypothesis.
However, it
does raise very, very serious questions in my opinion. We are talking about
enacting
policies to curb global warming that could cost not billions, but trillions of
dollars.
Shouldn't we at least be allowed to see the source code, the data and ask for
replication at a minimum? I think the answer is simple: YES!!
Dr Timothy J Osborn
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
phone: +44 1603 592089
fax: +44 1603 507784
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2005/2005-014.pdf
2. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/10200
3. http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2005/2005-014.pdf

From: Phil Jones To: Ben Santer Subject: HC Date: Fri Apr 29 10:30:20 2005
Ben,
Tom was here yesterday. He said you were going to the CCSP meeting for a day
in Chicago, then flying on to the UK for the HC meeting May 18-19 (and 17th
evening).
Do you still want to come on up to Norwich afterwards?
Glad to hear from Tom you've been writing up your CCSP chapter and extending
it significantly. He gave me a brief summary. I signed off yesterday on the CCSP
report. You should be getting it through Tom Karl later today, or by Monday. As I
did
Ch 5, if you want to check anything with me feel free to. I wasn't able to stop
some
comments being put in by Lindzen, but Tom has a paper as does Myles which are
enough to ignore his and the Douglass papers.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Phil Jones To: Kevin Trenberth Subject: Re: ppt for LA2 Date: Thu May 5
08:08:55 2005
Apologies
Phil
Kevin,
Finally gotten around to putting thoughts down. Mostly on the challenges slides
at the start. Maybe you would have said these things.
1. As well as suggesting the model chapters rank models (I don't think they will
go with this - even though it is what we should be doing, and there are a whole
raft
of issues as to how to do it) should we also be dismissing observational papers

that are clearly wrong (or a distortion of the facts and emphasizing the wrong
issues).
In some parts of our chapter, we omit the poor papers. Just stressing that we are
doing an assessment and not a review. An assessment is our expert view of the
science
at the present.
For space limitations we must omit many papers, but we must do this objectively.
In the
NRC review I made the point that most of the papers reviewed were the author's
own. It is
difficult and we must not fall into that trap. All this again comes back to
assessment/review.
With 3.4.1 we mustn't get caught up in having to agree with the CCSP VTT report.
We're
either doing OUR assessment or we might as well give up.
Gone on for long enough on that one.
2. I think we both believe we should be saying somewhere what we should be

measuring
(how accurately, where and with what). If we don't say this somewhere, AR5 will be
in a
worse state. Susan is against this, but I think on this point she's wrong. IPCC
has a lot
of clout - much more than GCOS and/or WMO. It should be saying something about
what
we should be doing.
3. Minor point, just land warming more than ocean, not much more.
4. I guess you've expanded on linear trends enough
5. The CCSP diagrams are good, but I'm not keen on running means. I guess though
they
wouldn't be too different with a better smoother.
6. I guess you'll raise map projections. Could add in the new one Dave has done
for precip
to show the 30E edge.
The additional slides. Most of these are from a talk I have to give in Bern next
month.
They relate
mostly to issues with Ch 6. Maybe you can add a couple of them.They relate to the
issues
of:
- making full use of the instrumental records to compare with proxy records
- changes in seasonality
- was the few hundred years before 1850 always colder than the post 1920 period.
The first 2 are the longest European records. The period I'm interested in is the
rise
up
from the late 17th century to the 1730s and then the year 1740. No volcanoes for
20-30
year period may be a factor, solar also, but nothing explains 1740. It is not just
in CET.
1730s at CET and De Bilt is the warmest decade until the 1990s. Producing these
sorts
of things in proxy data is a key.
3rd slide is just some of these longer records filtered. They don't agree that
well, so
why should proxy series agree. We have more to learn from the early instrumental
period.
4th is just a simple example of instrumental/proxy overlap. Highlights seasonality
differences.
and 5th just shows how unusual the central European summer was in 2003 - if we
wanted a figure for the box.
The interface with Ch 6 and the early instrumental period is crucial. 60% of the
comments
on Ch 6 were on the 3-4 pages on the last millennium ! Ours weren't that distorted
to
one
of our sections.
Issues at UEA and CRU haven't helped me get to 3.2 yet. I hope to by the end of
the
day.
Cheers
Phil
At 15:26 03/05/2005, you wrote:
Phil
Did you look at and have comments/suggestion on the ppt for the last day in
Beijing?
Kevin
--
****************
P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
From: Phil Jones To: Aiguo Dai , Kevin Trenberth Subject: Re: more on section 3.7
and Marengo Date: Thu May 5 08:45:53 2005 Cc: Jim Renwick , Panmao Zhai , Matilde
Rusticucci , "'David R. Easterling'"
Kevin et al,
The diagram looks too good to me. CRU's data are reasonable over Brazil for
some of the period, but poor in others, particularly recently. So we would have
difficulty in updating this because of station numbers and quality. We could try
using the GPCC dataset. They have huge numbers of stations for Brazil, but only
for specific regions and periods, so likely problems there also.
We have a couple of papers in submission to J. Hydrology on flows in the
subcatchments of the Parana river, which are well reproduced by rainfall,
evaporation and a catchment model. Agree with your concerns about the Amazon
flows not agreeing with the rainfall. Do the NAR and SAR regions fully encompass
the enormous catchment though.
Cheers
Phil
At 17:36 03/05/2005, Aiguo Dai wrote:
One can use the Chen et al. and CRU to produce similar type of plots to validate
Marengo's result.
He did use the CRU rainfall data set, but not for this particular plot.
Aiguo
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi all
As you know we got some manuscripts from Jose Marengo to be considered in our
chapter,
and he is a LA on another chapter and will be in Beijing. He has offerred to be
CA.
My question concerns how good his data are? I asked Aiguo Dai to comment:
====
One of the interesting results from Marengo's work is that he found the Northern
and
Southern Amazonia have opposite phase of decadal rainfall variations (see attached
Fig.
from Marengo 2004, Ther. Appl. Climatol.): In the northern Amazonia, rainfall is
above
normal during ~1945-1975 and below normal during ~1976-1998; and it is opposite in
the
southern Amazonia. He suggested warmer SST in central and eastern Pacific

contributed to
the dry conditions in the northern Amazonia during 1976-1998.
As noted in Betts et al. (2005, JHM, in press), Marengo's basin integrated

rainfall
index does not correlate well with Amazon river flow during the recent decades
(worse
than Chen et al.). This large multidecadal signal seems, however, robust.
=====
Certainly the attached figure is striking. Are we sure it is not due to changes in
the
way observations are made? Do other datasets replicate this? The lack of relation
with
river flow is a substantial concern. Matilde, can you provide informed commentary?
If
the figure is good then maybe we should include it?
Kevin
--
Aiguo Dai, Scientist Email: adai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Climate & Global Dynamics Division Phone: 303-497-1357
National Center for Atmospheric Research Fax : 303-497-1333
P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307, USA [1]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/

Street Address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305, USA
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/

From: "Polychronis Tzedakis" To: "Rainer Zahn" , "Thomas Stocker" , "Atte Korhola"
Subject: RE: commission performance alpha 5 Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 16:25:11 +0100
Cc: , , , , , , , , , ,
Dear all, First of all a big hand for Eystein and all those who put in so much
time into this task. Very disheartening to hear the outcome.
I have muych sympathy with what Rainer Zahn has said, especially on the Brussels
front and the client relationships that are cultivated with EU officials.
I think that in addition to a letter to the EU, I would suggest that perhaps an
editorial in NAture or something similar, outlining the growing degree of
scepticism amongst scientists regarding the transparency of the EU funding process
might be in order.
Chronis Tzedakis
-----Original Message----- From: Rainer Zahn [mailto:rainer.zahn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]

Sent: Wed 5/11/2005 2:47 PM To: Thomas Stocker; Atte Korhola Cc:
Eystein.Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Imprint-partner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
beatriz.balino@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; atle.nesje@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; oyvind.lie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
john.birks@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Carin.Andersson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
trond.dokken@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; ulysses.ninnemann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
Astrid.Bardgard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; richard.telford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: commission
performance alpha 5
dear Eystein, dear Imprint consortium,
I am sure I will not make many friends with what follows below. Firstly, it surely
is sad and disheartening to see our proposal going down. and there are many issues
involved some of which have been named in the recent emails. But then there are
those issues left that have not been named but which I consider relevant if we are
to make progress on the EU FWP front. Some of these issues may and will touch a
personal nerve here and there, but let's face some of the unpleasant realities
much rather than sitting back and keeping going with business as usual, a business
that soon may go out of existence.
First, I am not convinced that Imprint was the best we could have done. On my side
I was surprised to no small extent during our London meeting to see that those
from the modeling community and other groups present obviously had no idea why our
palaeo-component (a derivative of the planned ICON IP) was part of Imprint, and
they were not overly favourable to listen and expand their views. So in a sense,
even within our own consortium there was, perhaps still is a lack of insight and
understanding as to what a palaeo-component is about and will have to offer. In
the end I am now left with the impression that ICON would have stood a good chance
to survive on its own.
Second, as a member of the Imprint consortium I still find it difficult today to

sort through this proposal and its various components, tasks, topics, milestones,
deliverables etc. Which only tells me how ever so more difficult it must have been
for outsiders i.e., reviewers to sift through the bits and pieces and comprehend
what this is about. But I also feel that this has to do with the concept of IPs at
large as it is not an easy task to compose an IP consortium of the dimension and
wide range of expertise envisioned by the commission. The outcome of the whole
process in my view confirms the notion that the concept of IPs has fundamentally
(and to a large degree predictably) failed. This concept reflects a substantial
lack of insight on the side of those who were, presumably still are involved in
designing research policies in the commission about what science is about and how
it works. Those parties should not be where they are, and they certainly should
not be involved in setting up FWP7
This is what I have to say about our proposal.
As for the Commission's performance it is not my impression they are living up to

their own standards that they have set up for the quality of proposals requested.
In particular the proposal evaluation process is ridiculous and lacks any degree
of substance. For instance, the reviews that I did receive in response to my RTN
proposal (submitted last year) are mediocre at best, meaningless and useless in
detail, beyond anything I would consider expert insight, simply a waste of time
and tax payers' money. They are an insult to anybody who did contribute to and put
work and effort into that proposal. As for the Impront proposal we now are faced
with the prospect that the only IP proposal, Millennium, that is competing with
Imprint from the outset was received more favourably than our own proposal. With
this I could live were it not for the fact that in Millennium everything is named
as a strategy and work plan that we were being advised to not do. This speaks a
language of its own and to me reflects a fundamental lack of enthusiasm,
professionalism and competence with those who give advice and organize the
evaluation process. Obviously, the vision set out by our programme manager(s)
never made it to the reviewers who seemed to follow quite different guidelines, if
any.
Lastly, from what I can see around me, particularly in the Mediterranean club, it
appears more important and beneficial to spend time in Brussels wiping door
handles and leaving a professorial - directorial impression rather than composing
upbeat cutting edge science proposals. It is ever so disheartening that within the
FWP our success seems to depend more on who we know than the quality we present.
Last time when programme managerial posts in the commission were reshuffled the
primary concern around here was that "we now lose our contacts". This is wrong, a
disgrace to our community.
I have had a few conversations with colleagues who were partners in EU proposals,
both successful ones and ones that were rejected. From these conversations I sense
a growing degree of tiredness about EU science policy and more so, about the
chaotic way proposals are being solicited and then turned down on grounds that so
very obviously have nothing to do with the science presented. There is also the
notion that within the commission climate and paleo-work has fallen from grace,
for reasons not known to many. Which brings me back to the point that perhaps we
do not have the right programme managers in place to fend our cause.
I am prepared to write a firm letter to the commission, or to contribute to such

letter, about the issues impinging on the poor performance of the commision. I
rather do that before turning entirely into a full-grown Eurosceptic.
Rainer
Rainer Zahn, Professor de Recerca
Instituci? Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avan?ats, ICREA
i Universitat Aut?noma de Barcelona
Institut de Ciencia i Tecnologia Ambientals
Edifici Cn - Campus UAB
E-08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola), Spain
Phone: +34 - 93 581 4219
Fax: +34 - 93 581 3331
email: rainer.zahn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rainer.zahn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
http://www.icrea.es/pag.asp?id=Rainer.Zahn

From: Denis-Didier.Rousseau@xxxxxxxxx.xxx To: , Subject: [Fwd: RE: commission

performance alpha 5] Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 04:48:04 +0200 (MEST)
Dear all IMPRINT colleagues, Being away from Europe, this was a very bad news that
I got this morning listening about the rejection of IMPRINT. Eystein did a great
job by being able to gather the European paleo community under a common umbrella
and he desereves a lot of our consideration. Concerning now the review process, I
have been involved several times in Brussels and I have been able to see the
evolution of the evaluating panel session after session.
I am not please with this evaluation and I already addressed my comments to Andre
Berger. It is not normal that entering the room where you are supposed to meet the
other "panelists" you would not know those who are supposed to be representative
of your community, this is my first comment.
Second, the way the referees are selected is somehow strange and involve a
political issue which is very sensitive as I'm sure you will understand that a
country fair representation is not enough in our field which better involves
expertise.
Third and last, having set a consortium of the leading Europe institutions and
scientists, how can you expect appropriate expertise? I have been approached to
join the evaluating panel but refused as being an IMPRINT member to respect some
ethic. If, what I wish, we all didi that way, they one can sincerely expect the
worst as I already experienced in a recent past.
Forth, complaining to the commission is a waste of time as these administrative

people, even if this is you right, will always provide you with arguments to
justify the decision. I complain once to the director of the programme who just
retun me that the referees of my proposal were relevant, what I know was not the
case unfortunately. However I totally support the initiative to question the
commission on the way the evaluations are performed, but also how the referees are
selected.
Fifth, you all are waiting for the reviews. I agree with Rainer that the comments
that are provided are useless and in somehow offending the PIs. This is mostly due
to the review process and this again must be changed. Furthermore what we receive
is the consensus report which passed in the European officers hands to be cleaned
of any agressive sentences or words, and must remain politically correct. So
effectively these reports are useless. It would be interesting to get also the
individual reports on which the consensus one has been established and would
better show the real work of every referee, and we would be very surprised
sometimes.
Finaly to follow Thomas, Rainer and Eric, I would suggest to continue what has
been launched with IMPRINT which is to my sense unique in gathering all the
European paleo community under the same umbrella. May be the proposal was too
broad, but this was following the commission's aim. The "Millenium" proposal
benefited of several consecutive EU supports which apparently helped a lot. Their
lobbying seem to have ben very efficient, not only in Brussels but in the journals
and meetings. The Utrecht initiative was a good one which must stop today. We have
the opportunity to gather regularly at least once during the EGU that we all are
attending, why not using such opportunity to reinforce the initiative during such
meeting?
All the very best to all of you
cheers
denis
-------- Urspr�ngliche Nachricht -------- Betreff: RE: commission performance
alpha 5 Von: "Polychronis Tzedakis" Datum: Mit, 11.05.2005, 17:25 An: "Rainer
Zahn" ,
"Thomas Stocker" ,
"Atte Korhola"
Dear all, First of all a big hand for Eystein and all those who put in so much
time into this task. Very disheartening to hear the outcome.
I have muych sympathy with what Rainer Zahn has said, especially on the Brussels
front and the client relationships that are cultivated with EU officials.
I think that in addition to a letter to the EU, I would suggest that perhaps an
editorial in NAture or something similar, outlining the growing degree of
scepticism amongst scientists regarding the transparency of the EU funding process
might be in order.
Chronis Tzedakis
-----Original Message----- From: Rainer Zahn [mailto:rainer.zahn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]

Sent: Wed 5/11/2005 2:47 PM To: Thomas Stocker; Atte Korhola Cc:
Eystein.Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Imprint-partner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
beatriz.balino@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; atle.nesje@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; oyvind.lie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
john.birks@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Carin.Andersson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
trond.dokken@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; ulysses.ninnemann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
Astrid.Bardgard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; richard.telford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: commission
performance alpha 5
dear Eystein, dear Imprint consortium,
I am sure I will not make many friends with what follows below. Firstly, it surely
is sad and disheartening to see our proposal going down. and there are many issues
involved some of which have been named in the recent emails. But then there are
those issues left that have not been named but which I consider relevant if we are
to make progress on the EU FWP front. Some of these issues may and will touch a
personal nerve here and there, but let's face some of the unpleasant realities
much rather than sitting back and keeping going with business as usual, a business
that soon may go out of existence.
First, I am not convinced that Imprint was the best we could have done. On my side
I was surprised to no small extent during our London meeting to see that those
from the modeling community and other groups present obviously had no idea why our
palaeo-component (a derivative of the planned ICON IP) was part of Imprint, and
they were not overly favourable to listen and expand their views. So in a sense,
even within our own consortium there was, perhaps still is a lack of insight and
understanding as to what a palaeo-component is about and will have to offer. In
the end I am now left with the impression that ICON would have stood a good chance
to survive on its own.
Second, as a member of the Imprint consortium I still find it difficult today to

sort through this proposal and its various components, tasks, topics, milestones,
deliverables etc. Which only tells me how ever so more difficult it must have been
for outsiders i.e., reviewers to sift through the bits and pieces and comprehend
what this is about. But I also feel that this has to do with the concept of IPs at
large as it is not an easy task to compose an IP consortium of the dimension and
wide range of expertise envisioned by the commission. The outcome of the whole
process in my view confirms the notion that the concept of IPs has fundamentally
(and to a large degree predictably) failed. This concept reflects a substantial
lack of insight on the side of those who were, presumably still are involved in
designing research policies in the commission about what science is about and how
it works. Those parties should not be where they are, and they certainly should
not be involved in setting up FWP7
This is what I have to say about our proposal.
As for the Commission's performance it is not my impression they are living up to

their own standards that they have set up for the quality of proposals requested.
In particular the proposal evaluation process is ridiculous and lacks any degree
of substance. For instance, the reviews that I did receive in response to my RTN
proposal (submitted last year) are mediocre at best, meaningless and useless in
detail, beyond anything I would consider expert insight, simply a waste of time
and tax payers' money. They are an insult to anybody who did contribute to and put
work and effort into that proposal. As for the Impront proposal we now are faced
with the prospect that the only IP proposal, Millennium, that is competing with
Imprint from the outset was received more favourably than our own proposal. With
this I could live were it not for the fact that in Millennium everything is named
as a strategy and work plan that we were being advised to not do. This speaks a
language of its own and to me reflects a fundamental lack of enthusiasm,
professionalism and competence with those who give advice and organize the
evaluation process. Obviously, the vision set out by our programme manager(s)
never made it to the reviewers who seemed to follow quite different guidelines, if
any.
Lastly, from what I can see around me, particularly in the Mediterranean club, it
appears more important and beneficial to spend time in Brussels wiping door
handles and leaving a professorial - directorial impression rather than composing
upbeat cutting edge science proposals. It is ever so disheartening that within the
FWP our success seems to depend more on who we know than the quality we present.
Last time when programme managerial posts in the commission were reshuffled the
primary concern around here was that "we now lose our contacts". This is wrong, a
disgrace to our community.
I have had a few conversations with colleagues who were partners in EU proposals,
both successful ones and ones that were rejected. From these conversations I sense
a growing degree of tiredness about EU science policy and more so, about the
chaotic way proposals are being solicited and then turned down on grounds that so
very obviously have nothing to do with the science presented. There is also the
notion that within the commission climate and paleo-work has fallen from grace,
for reasons not known to many. Which brings me back to the point that perhaps we
do not have the right programme managers in place to fend our cause.
I am prepared to write a firm letter to the commission, or to contribute to such

letter, about the issues impinging on the poor performance of the commision. I
rather do that before turning entirely into a full-grown Eurosceptic.
Rainer
Rainer Zahn, Professor de Recerca
Instituci? Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avan?ats, ICREA
i Universitat Aut?noma de Barcelona
Institut de Ciencia i Tecnologia Ambientals
Edifici Cn - Campus UAB
E-08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola), Spain
Phone: +34 - 93 581 4219
Fax: +34 - 93 581 3331
email: rainer.zahn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rainer.zahn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
http://www.icrea.es/pag.asp?id=Rainer.Zahn

From: Phil Jones To: Katarina Kivel Subject: Re: Stephen Schneider's request for
review of Wahl-Ammann paper on MBH Robustness for Climatic Change Date: Fri May 13
16:47:39 2005
Katerina,
I will be able to review this, despite just coming back from IPCC.
Cheers
Phil
At 20:04 12/05/2005, you wrote:
Dear Phil,
Attached is a letter from Steve Schneider requesting review of the above

referenced
paper, which is also sent as an attachment (ms and four figures).
Please acknowledge receipt and let us know if you need a hard copy.
Regards,
Katarina
Katarina Kivel
Assistant Editor, CLIMATIC CHANGE
Department of Biological Sciences
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305-5020
TEL 650-725-6508
FAX 650-725-4387
EMAIL kivel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Keith Briffa To: Eystein Jansen Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: URGENT : IMPRINT en
RTN ?] Date: Tue May 17 17:03:25 2005
Eystein
We have now heard from Hans Brelen that Millennium will definitely be funded .
This means
that the very worst case scenario has been realised - because it means that the EU
are not
likely to call for any palaeoclimate in the next funding round.
I have to say that though there is normally an unfortunate element of randomness

in the
refereeing of EU proposals , that to a large extent is unfortunate but inevitable,
I
believe strongly that the system has let us down very badly in this case. It is
clear that
we, the IMPRINT community were misled ; first by Ib Troen's direction (given
publicly in
Utrecht) that we should produce a proposal which was of the scale to unify the
whole
Palaeoclimate community , with a specific role to bring data and modelling foci to
bear on
the issue of climate predictability; that we should be careful to not to over-

emphasise the
collection of new data but rather work mostly to consolidate and jointly interpret
existing
data , and that we should formulate a scheme were these fed directly into a
hierarchy of
modelling that would address model viability and issues of probability of future
climate
and its causes.
Secondly, We were misled by the accepting , on the basis of the published call,
that the EU
required IP proposals of ambitious scope , large enough to move the science of

European
palaeoclimate forward as a whole and with relevance to globally important issues,

with
aims clearly beyond the scope of "slightly bigger STREPS" . On reading the cursory
referees' responses to our proposal , I am also moved to express my own opinion

that they
are an insult to the community of researchers that constitute IMPRINT , and an

indictment
of the failure of the referees to address their assessment to the generally

publicized aims
of the IP concept. To describe the whole proposal as "too complicated", and to

state that
there is " no value" in the first four workpackages , and most of all to rate the
quality
of the consortium as 4 out of 5 , all require explicit justification well beyond

the few
lines with which we are presented.
While I have no ill will at all regarding the competing proposal Millennium , I
feel that
the extended IMPRINT community can justifiably ask very serious questions
regarding the
apparent lack of equitable assessment of the two proposals in the light of the
published
call requirements - the efforts of the IMPRINT consortium over recent months at
least
deserve answers as to how , for the sake of 0.5 of a mark , that proposal will be
funded
when it clearly did not address the scope of the original call - in terms of
community
integration, emphasis on wider data consolidation, scope of model hierarchy, and

specific
addressing of the data/model integration towards the issue of climate
sensitivity/predictability.
Expressing these concerns should not be considered "sour grapes " . They are not
and I
congratulate the MILLENNIUM team on having succeeded . Rather these comments are
justified
because the review process has not taken account of the scope of the IP concept,
and the
need to invoke a research plan with the necessary breadth and expertise (and
proven
managerial ability - as can be gauged by the assessment of the CARBO OCEAN

coordination
plan) , and because the success of the much more limited MILLENNIUM project has
already
been cited by European officials as justification for the lack of any need to fund
palaeoclimate research in the next call - effectively cutting off the wider
paleoclimate
community from EU research support for the next few years.
I believe we are justified in questioning the operation of the IP concept , beyond

the EU
administration, which has , in my opinion has done a serious dis-service to our

community
and palaeoclimate in general.
At 08:26 16/05/2005, Val?rie Masson-Delmotte wrote:
Dear Eystein and Keith,
I hope that you had a good trip back from Beijing. On our side it was a bit hectic
(3
hours delay in Amsterdam, arrival at midnight in Paris and lost of Pascale's

luggage
without ability to find where it was lost!).
I have just received this suggestion from a CEA EC representative that there is a
RTN
Marie Curie call for september 8th which has a lot of funding - 220 Meuros. You
can
apply for up to 6 M euros for a series of PhD thesis and postdocs around a real
research
network (up to 3-4 contracts per participant).
I think that it is an excellent idea... if you and your people, Eystein, would be
ready
to put some more energy in the proposal.
It would require to re think about the scientific perimeter and the key partners
maybe.
Sincerely
Valerie.
Return-Path:
Received: from muguet.saclay.cea.fr (muguet.saclay.cea.fr [132.166.192.6])
by dsm-mail.saclay.cea.fr (8.12.11/jtpda-5.4) with ESMTP id j4G6I6mU023329
for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 08:18:06 +0200
Received: from cincidele.saclay.cea.fr (cincidele.saclay.cea.fr [132.166.192.111])
by muguet.saclay.cea.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10/CEAnet-internes.4.0) with ESMTP id
j4G6I7Tt016417
for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 08:18:07 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from agrione.extra.cea.fr (unverified) by cincidele.saclay.cea.fr

(Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.17) with ESMTP id
for ;
Mon, 16 May 2005 08:18:07 +0200
Received: from cirse.extra.cea.fr (cirse.extra.cea.fr [132.166.172.102])
by agrione.extra.cea.fr (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j4G6FXcJ010248;
Mon, 16 May 2005 08:15:33 +0200
(envelope-from jouzel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx)
Received: from shiva.jussieu.fr (shiva.jussieu.fr [134.157.0.129])
by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10/CEAnet-Internet.4.0) with ESMTP id
j4G6I5AN028850;
Mon, 16 May 2005 08:18:05 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from [134.157.81.169] (169.ext.jussieu.fr [134.157.81.169])
by shiva.jussieu.fr (8.12.11/jtpda-5.4) with ESMTP id j4G6I069096644
; Mon, 16 May 2005 08:18:03 +0200 (CEST)
X-Ids: 165
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: jzipsl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx (Unverified)
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To:
References:
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 07:57:43 -0700
To: CAMINADE Jean Pierre
From: Jean Jouzel
Subject: Re: URGENT : IMPRINT en RTN ?
Cc: masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="============_-1095865763==_ma============"
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.7.2

(shiva.jussieu.fr [134.157.0.165]); Mon, 16 May 2005 08:18:05 +0200 (CEST)
X-Antivirus: scanned by sophie at shiva.jussieu.fr
X-Miltered: at dsm-mail with ID 42883B1E.000 by Joe's j-chkmail
([1]http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)!
X-Miltered: at shiva.jussieu.fr with ID 42883B18.001 by Joe's j-chkmail
X-CEA-Source: externe
X-CEA-DebugSpam: 13%
X-CEA-Spam-Report: The following antispam rules were triggered by this message:
Rule Score Description
DATE_IN_FUTURE_06_12 1.300 Date: is 6 to 12 hours after Received: date
X-CEA-Spam-Hits: DATE_IN_FUTURE_06_12 1.3, __CT 0, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY 0,
__CTYPE_MULTIPART 0, __CTYPE_MULTIPART_ALT 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_VERSION 0,
__SANE_MSGID 0
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on dsm-mail.cea.fr
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,DATE_IN_FUTURE_06_12
autolearn=no version=2.64
Cher Jean - Pierre,
Excuse-moi de r?agir un peu tardivement (je reviens de Chine).
Mais surtout merci pour ce courrier et l'aide propos?e ; je pense vraiment que
cela vaudrait le coup de le relancer sous la forme RTN et que l'obtention de post-
docs
correspond bien ? l'id?e d'imprint (exploitation des donn?es, mod?lisation).
Pour faire avancer les choses je mets copie ? Val?rie Masson - Delmotte une des
chevilles ouvri?res d'IMPRINT au LSCE. Je sugg?re ? val?rie de te contacter

directement.
Bien amicalement Jean
Bonjour Jean,
J'ai appris ce matin au GTN environnement qu'IMPRINT n'avait pas ?t? accept?.
Avez-vous pens? ? le relancer sous la forme d'un (ou de plusieurs) RTN-Marie Curie
(Research Training Network) pour l'appel du 8 septembre qui est richement dot?
(220
MEuros ! du jamais vu !); le montant demand? peut aller jusqu'? 6 MEuros, pas tr?s
loin
d'IMPRINT.
Il s'agit de proposer une s?rie de post-docs et de th?ses articul?s autour d'un
v?ritable projet de recherche; environ 3 ? 4 CDD pour chaque participant.
La DSM a une exp?rience dans ce domaine (Greencycles rien qu'au LSCE); on peut
t'aider ?
te monter un projet taill? sur mesures.
Aujourd'hui je ne vois que cette solution car manifestement la ligne "mod?lisation
climat" ne repassera pas au 4?me appel et je ne vois rien d'autre d'aussi bien
"dot?"
dans le paysage du FP6 (qui est sur sa fin).
Cordialement
JPC
<[3]http://promos.hotbar.com/promos/promodll.dll?
RunPromo&El=&SG=&RAND=25607&partner=hot
bar>
Jean Jouzel
Directeur de l'Institut Pierre Simon Laplace
- Universit? de Versailles Saint-Quentin
B?timent d'Alembert, 5 Boulevard d'Alembert, 78280 Guyancourt
t?l : 33 (0) 1 39 25 58 16, fax : 33 (0) 1 39 25 58 22
Portable phone : 33 (0) 684759682
- Universit? Pierre et Marie Curie,
Tour 45-46, 3?me ?tage, 303, 4 Place Jussieu, 75252 Paris Cedex 05
Bureau 303, e-mail : jzipsl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx 01 44 27 49 92
***********
Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement,
UMR CEA-CNRS 1572
CE Saclay, Orme des Merisiers, 91191 Gif sur Yvette, FRANCE
t?l : 33 (0) 1 69 08 77 13, fax : 33 (0) 1 69 08 77 16
e-mail : jouzel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
References
1. http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr/
3. http://promos.hotbar.com/promos/promodll.dll?
RunPromo&El=&SG=&RAND=25607&partner=hotbar

From: Keith Briffa To: Eystein Jansen Subject: IMPRINT Date: Tue May 17 17:24:34
2005 Cc: Ib Troen
Eystein
We have now heard that Millennium will definitely be funded . This means that the
very
worst case scenario has been realised - because it means that the EU are not
likely to call
for any palaeoclimate in the next funding round.
I have to say that, though there is normally an element of randomness in the

refereeing of
EU proposals , that to a large extent is unfortunate but inevitable, I believe

strongly
that the system has let us down very badly in this case.
It is clear that we, the IMPRINT community were misled ; first by Ib Troen's
direction
(given publicly in Utrecht) that we should produce a proposal which was of the
scale to
unify the whole Palaeoclimate community , with a specific role to bring data and
modelling
foci to bear on the issue of climate predictability; that we should be careful to

not to
over-emphasise the collection of new data but rather work mostly to consolidate
and jointly
interpret existing data , and that we should formulate a scheme where these are
fed
directly into a hierarchy of modelling experiments that would address causes of

climate
change, model viability and issues of probability of future climate and its
causes.
Secondly, We were misled by the accepting , on the basis of the published call,
that the EU
required IP proposals of ambitious scope , large enough to move the science of

European
palaeoclimate forward as a whole and with relevance to globally important issues,

with
aims clearly beyond the scope of "slightly bigger STREPS" . On reading the cursory
referees' responses to our proposal , I am also moved to express my own opinion
that they
are an insult to the community of researchers that constitute IMPRINT , and an

indictment
of the failure of the referees to address their assessment to the generally

publicised aims
of the IP concept.
To describe the whole proposal as "too complicated", and to state that there is "
no value"
in the first four workpackages , and most of all , to rate the quality of the
consortium as
4 out of 5 , all require explicit justification well beyond the few lines with
which we
are presented.
While I have no ill will at all regarding the competing proposal Millennium , I
feel that
the extended IMPRINT community can justifiably ask very serious questions
regarding the
apparent lack of equitable assessment of the two proposals in the light of the
published
call requirements - the efforts of the IMPRINT consortium over recent months at
least
deserve answers as to how , for the sake of 0.5 of a mark , that proposal will be
funded
when it clearly did not address the scope of the original call - in terms of
community
integration, emphasis on wider data consolidation, scope of model hierarchy, and

specific
addressing of the data/model integration towards the issue of climate
sensitivity/predictability.
Expressing these concerns should not be considered "sour grapes " . They are not
and I
congratulate the MILLENNIUM team on having succeeded . They will do valuable

research.
Rather these comments are justified because the review process has not taken
account of the
scope of the IP concept, and the need to invoke a research plan with the necessary
breadth
and expertise (and proven managerial ability - as can be gauged by the assessment
of the
CARBO OCEAN coordination plan) , and because the success of the much more limited
MILLENNIUM project has already been cited by European officials as justification

for the
lack of any need to fund palaeoclimate research in the next call - effectively
cutting off
the wider palaeoclimate community from EU research support for the next few years.
I believe we are justified in questioning the operation of the IP concept , and

questioning
it in fora beyond the circle of EU administration, which has , in my opinion has

done a
serious dis-service to our community and palaeoclimate in general. At the very

least , the
"goalposts" regarding IP proposals seem to have been moved and the time of many
researchers
has been wasted.
Please feel free to forward this message to the rest of our group .
At 08:26 16/05/2005, Val?rie Masson-Delmotte wrote:
Dear Eystein and Keith,
I hope that you had a good trip back from Beijing. On our side it was a bit hectic
(3
hours delay in Amsterdam, arrival at midnight in Paris and lost of Pascale's

luggage
without ability to find where it was lost!).
I have just received this suggestion from a CEA EC representative that there is a
RTN
Marie Curie call for september 8th which has a lot of funding - 220 Meuros. You
can
apply for up to 6 M euros for a series of PhD thesis and postdocs around a real
research
network (up to 3-4 contracts per participant).
I think that it is an excellent idea... if you and your people, Eystein, would be
ready
to put some more energy in the proposal.
It would require to re think about the scientific perimeter and the key partners
maybe.
Sincerely
Valerie.
Return-Path:
Received: from muguet.saclay.cea.fr (muguet.saclay.cea.fr [132.166.192.6])
by dsm-mail.saclay.cea.fr (8.12.11/jtpda-5.4) with ESMTP id j4G6I6mU023329
for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 08:18:06 +0200
Received: from cincidele.saclay.cea.fr (cincidele.saclay.cea.fr [132.166.192.111])
by muguet.saclay.cea.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10/CEAnet-internes.4.0) with ESMTP id
j4G6I7Tt016417
for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 08:18:07 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from agrione.extra.cea.fr (unverified) by cincidele.saclay.cea.fr
(Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.17) with ESMTP id
for ;
Mon, 16 May 2005 08:18:07 +0200
Received: from cirse.extra.cea.fr (cirse.extra.cea.fr [132.166.172.102])
by agrione.extra.cea.fr (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j4G6FXcJ010248;
Mon, 16 May 2005 08:15:33 +0200
(envelope-from jouzel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx)
Received: from shiva.jussieu.fr (shiva.jussieu.fr [134.157.0.129])
by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10/CEAnet-Internet.4.0) with ESMTP id
j4G6I5AN028850;
Mon, 16 May 2005 08:18:05 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from [134.157.81.169] (169.ext.jussieu.fr [134.157.81.169])
by shiva.jussieu.fr (8.12.11/jtpda-5.4) with ESMTP id j4G6I069096644
; Mon, 16 May 2005 08:18:03 +0200 (CEST)
X-Ids: 165
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: jzipsl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx (Unverified)
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To:
References:
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 07:57:43 -0700
To: CAMINADE Jean Pierre
From: Jean Jouzel
Subject: Re: URGENT : IMPRINT en RTN ?
Cc: masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="============_-1095865763==_ma============"
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.7.2
(shiva.jussieu.fr [134.157.0.165]); Mon, 16 May 2005 08:18:05 +0200 (CEST)
X-Antivirus: scanned by sophie at shiva.jussieu.fr
X-Miltered: at dsm-mail with ID 42883B1E.000 by Joe's j-chkmail
X-Miltered: at shiva.jussieu.fr with ID 42883B18.001 by Joe's j-chkmail
X-CEA-Source: externe
X-CEA-DebugSpam: 13%
X-CEA-Spam-Report: The following antispam rules were triggered by this message:
Rule Score Description
DATE_IN_FUTURE_06_12 1.300 Date: is 6 to 12 hours after Received: date
X-CEA-Spam-Hits: DATE_IN_FUTURE_06_12 1.3, __CT 0, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY 0,
__CTYPE_MULTIPART 0, __CTYPE_MULTIPART_ALT 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_VERSION 0,
__SANE_MSGID 0
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on dsm-mail.cea.fr

X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,DATE_IN_FUTURE_06_12
autolearn=no version=2.64
Cher Jean - Pierre,
Excuse-moi de r?agir un peu tardivement (je reviens de Chine).
Mais surtout merci pour ce courrier et l'aide propos?e ; je pense vraiment que
cela vaudrait le coup de le relancer sous la forme RTN et que l'obtention de post-
docs
correspond bien ? l'id?e d'imprint (exploitation des donn?es, mod?lisation).
Pour faire avancer les choses je mets copie ? Val?rie Masson - Delmotte une des
chevilles ouvri?res d'IMPRINT au LSCE. Je sugg?re ? val?rie de te contacter

directement.
Bien amicalement Jean
Bonjour Jean,
J'ai appris ce matin au GTN environnement qu'IMPRINT n'avait pas ?t? accept?.
Avez-vous pens? ? le relancer sous la forme d'un (ou de plusieurs) RTN-Marie Curie
(Research Training Network) pour l'appel du 8 septembre qui est richement dot?
(220
MEuros ! du jamais vu !); le montant demand? peut aller jusqu'? 6 MEuros, pas tr?s
loin
d'IMPRINT.
Il s'agit de proposer une s?rie de post-docs et de th?ses articul?s autour d'un
v?ritable projet de recherche; environ 3 ? 4 CDD pour chaque participant.
La DSM a une exp?rience dans ce domaine (Greencycles rien qu'au LSCE); on peut
t'aider ?
te monter un projet taill? sur mesures.
Aujourd'hui je ne vois que cette solution car manifestement la ligne "mod?lisation
climat" ne repassera pas au 4?me appel et je ne vois rien d'autre d'aussi bien
"dot?"
dans le paysage du FP6 (qui est sur sa fin).
Cordialement
JPC
<[3]http://promos.hotbar.com/promos/promodll.dll?
RunPromo&El=&SG=&RAND=25607&partner=hot
bar>
Jean Jouzel
Directeur de l'Institut Pierre Simon Laplace
- Universit? de Versailles Saint-Quentin
B?timent d'Alembert, 5 Boulevard d'Alembert, 78280 Guyancourt
t?l : 33 (0) 1 39 25 58 16, fax : 33 (0) 1 39 25 58 22
Portable phone : 33 (0) 684759682
- Universit? Pierre et Marie Curie,
Tour 45-46, 3?me ?tage, 303, 4 Place Jussieu, 75252 Paris Cedex 05
Bureau 303, e-mail : jzipsl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx 01 44 27 49 92
***********
Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement,
UMR CEA-CNRS 1572
CE Saclay, Orme des Merisiers, 91191 Gif sur Yvette, FRANCE
t?l : 33 (0) 1 69 08 77 13, fax : 33 (0) 1 69 08 77 16
e-mail : jouzel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
--

Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
References
3. http://promos.hotbar.com/promos/promodll.dll?
RunPromo&El=&SG=&RAND=25607&partner=hotbar

From: Keith Briffa To: Eystein.Jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: wishing to talk Date:

Wed May 18 10:31:11 2005
so can you give me a number where I can reach you - after your meeting . I am in
and out
trying to do various things , but wish to discuss "next steps" . Did you get my
email last
evening?
Keith
--

Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
References

From: Eystein Jansen To: Keith Briffa Subject: Fwd: imprint Date: Wed, 18 May 2005
14:16:38 +0200
Hi Keith, for your information, I have enclosed the letter received on the outcome
of phase 1, and the guidance for Stage 2. We will dig up more. I also talked with
Christoph Heinze who said this definately has the flair of someone in the review
panel having an agenda of revenge, and that this could be an element of a formal
complaint.
More later, Eystein
-- ______________________________________________________________ Eystein Jansen

55-584330
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachIMPRINT_QI_letter 1.pdf"
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachIMPRINT_ESR 1.pdf"


From: Phil Jones To: "Michael E. Mann" Subject: Empire Strikes Back - return of
proper science ! Date: Fri May 20 13:45:26 2005
Mike,
Just reviewed Caspar's paper with Wahl for Climatic Change. Looks pretty good.
Almost reproduced your series and shows where MM have gone wrong. Should keep
them quiet for a while. Also they release all the data and the R software. Presume
you know all about this. Should make Keith's life in Ch 6 easy !
Also, confidentially for a few weeks, Christy and Spencer have admitted
at the Chicago CCSP meeting that their 2LT record is wrong !! They used the wrong
sign for the diurnal correction ! Series now warms - not quite as much as the
surface
but within error bands. Between you and me, we'll be going with RSS in Ch 3
and there will be no discrepancy with the surface and the models. Should make Ch 3
a doddle now ! Keep quiet about this until Bern at least. Can tell you more then.
RSS (Carl Mears and Frank Wentz) found the mistake !
The skeptic pillars are tumbling !
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Eystein Jansen To: imprint-ssc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Urgent-next step Date:

Fri, 20 May 2005 23:30:47 +0200 Cc: stocker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Andr? Berger
Dear friends of the Imprint - SSC,
After seeing the evaluation summary of our proposal, and not least the same for
Millennium, it is clear to me that we have been very badly treated, first by the
public advice from the Commission in Utrecht who advised the community to create a
proposal which we did, but which is orthogonal to what they now have decided to
negotiate, later by the random way we were reviewed and the many inconsistencies
in the evaluation. Compared to this the Millennium review was full of subjective
phrases and a number of negative aspects were glossed over. The review is an
insult, and it appears likely that elements in the panel bear some grudges against
our community. In order to get the 0.5 point difference between Imprint and
Millennium they had to give a number of very imbalanced statements. They also had
to raise the management score of Millennium to 4 by the xtended panel despite
critisisms by the reviewers that the management was not well laid out.
I feel that the review was very biased and the result is that they will probably
fund a project with only limited relevance to the call, and miss a major
opportunity of integrating European paleoclimate research and climate modelling
and create a new major step forward.
We have been advised to send a formal letter of complaint to the Commission,

asking for a renewed evaluation, not because we think there is a good chance that
it will lead to much, but we think it is important that they know that they have
upset a community consisting of top level European scientists, This may help us in
the longer term.
The advice I have got is to send this to Pierre Valette, co-signed by the key
partners, both their PIs and head of administration, with copies to our individual
national members of the Global Change Panel of the EU. So far there is no formal
decision on which proposal to fund, this may happen in September after
negotiations with the selected proposals. There is a seldom precedence in Europe
that such an intervention has been successful, but very rarely.
In phrasing such a letter we have to be very careful and make sure our message is
clear and fair, but I think it needs to be done.
I would therefore ask you to respond immediately to this mail as to whether you
think we should go this route or not. We will then in a few days send out a draft
for comments, if you agree that we shall send in a complaint. We have to move fast
here, so I hope you will be quick.
Concerning the other proposals on what to do, there are many good ideas, and I
think we should have a meeting in the autumn to discuss the strategy of securing
paleo in the 7th Framwork program. The text is out for review now, and we all need
to suggest changes through our national representatives. I will distribute a list
of who this is for the various countries over the week-end. I am also working on
formulating text to help launch our ideas in teh European Parliament via Atte?s
wife. Best wishes,
Eystein

From: Jonathan Overpeck To: Keith Briffa Subject: IPCC - your section Date: Mon,
23 May 2005 22:46:11 -0700 Cc: Eystein Jansen
Hi Keith - thanks again for the help in Beijing. We hope you found a fabulous clay
pot or at least some good views of China.
We know it's going to be extra hard on you to get everything done on time, but
we're hoping you can more-or-less stick to the schedule we just sent around. Your
section is going to be the big one, and we need to make sure we have as much
review and polishing as possible. If we don't we (especially you) will pay heavily
at FOD review time. Lots of work now saves even more work later. Or so the real
veterans tell us.
Lastly, we wanted you to know that we can probably win another page or two (total,
including figs and refs) if you end up needing it. Susan didn't promise this, but
she gave us the feeling that we could get it if we ask - but probably only for
your section, and maybe an extra page for general refs (although we're not going
to mention this to the others, since we're not sure we can get it). Note that some
of the methodological parts of your sections should go into supplemental material
- this has to be written just as carefully, but it gives you another space buffer.
All this means you can do a good job on figures, rather than the bare minimum.
We're hoping you guys can generate something compelling enough for the TS and SPM
- something that will replace the hockey-stick with something even more
compelling.
Anyhow, thanks in advance for what is most likely not going to be your number 1
summer to remember. That said, what we produce should provide real satisfaction.
Best, Peck and Eystein -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study
of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of
Atmospheric Sciences

From: Phil Jones To: Kevin Trenberth Subject: Re: Ch 3 Date: Thu May 26 11:15:11
2005
Kevin,
I'll broach it with the UK people. Need to consider timing in November, once we
get the comments or maybe after the ChCh meeting. Been to Boulder in Jan and Feb
before so know what to expect ! Early Feb would seem best. Not thought about
going to the AMS so won't.
A few problems with Figures today. Hopefully they will get resolved in the not too
distant future. Dave E has at least sent one email.
Seeing our granddaughter on Saturday, but should have some good time for
the Chapter on Sunday and Monday (at home).
Cheers
Phil
At 17:11 25/05/2005, you wrote:
Hi Phil
I am attaching the updated Fig 3.4.? I have also in .ps that can be converted if
need
be.
Dennis has also plotted the Fu data and I'll send a version a bit later. But need
to
have consistent colors.
I am encouraged that the text is getting a lot better. The FOD is approaching
close to
what will be final, we should find. After that point the figs should only be
updates
and minor changes, and the text is modified to respond to comments, that we will
have to
address more systematically next time. The SOD does become close to final: still
subject to all the reviews and late breaking material.
Key thing is for you and me to make sure we converge, and don't do a wholesale
replacement of a section without careful checking.
I have decided not to attend AMS AGM next year in January so that I can work on
the
SOD. I would be glad to invite you to come for a visit for a week and I suspect we
can
also come up with some funds to help: at the price of a seminar. e.g. we could
split it
by you doing airfare and we do local accommodation or vice versa? This summer Tom
Stocker is here and working with Jerry on chap 10. I think it could be worthwhile,
main
question is best timing. Perhaps late Jan or early Feb? That time of year can be
cold
here: usually not that much snow or if it does snow it does not last long in
Boulder:
great skiing nearby if you are interested in that. Mean T in Jan is about 0C but
highs
not uncommon about 10C, and have been over 20C with chinook. Cold at night. So
good
idea.
Cheers
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:
Kevin,
Things seem to be coming in. Will work on 3.5-3.7 tomorrow. 3.2 and the Appendices
now back with David. The Appendices read pretty good - lots of useful background
material. It will be shame to lose it to a web site. Once David gets these back
these
should be almost good enough to go out to all on July 15 (or whenever we said).
A thought kept recurring - there must be a better way to do this ! Although the
FOD
reviews will be different from the ZOD (and many more), I'm prepared to come to
Boulder
for a week
in early 2006 if needed. I think I can get the money from the UK to do this.
Question
is
will be it be worthwhile. Better if we were both locked away somewhere other than
one
of our institutions, but then we wouldn't have the infrastructure, support (email,
printers
etc).
Anyway, give it some thought. You'll know more than I do about some much the FOD
and SOD change. Q is whether a week or a fortnight is sufficient. If we knew that

a
few of the
key people in the chapter were at their desks, the text should show a marked
improvement.
Assuming here the majority of the Figures set by then - just a few need updating.
Cheers
Phil
At 17:03 24/05/2005, you wrote:
Hi Phil
Thanks for update: monday is a holiday here: Memorial Day, seems weird that Brian
is
working?
My approach to the revisions at this stage is not to take the material sent and
wholesale replace it, but cautiously compare and insert if it makes sense. i.e.
you and
I need to act as editors with a fairly strong hand. I suspect 3.7 may have some
useful
material but it could degrade the section by further adding material that is not
especially relevant. I'll bet it does not shorten it, which is desired still.
I am clearly not on same page as Brian wrt clouds and radiation, and I am
interested in
his take on it all, given the new material and changes. I am not a fan of Norris'
stuff. We have updated Fig 3.4.1 on water vapor thru 2004: the ocean trend drops
to
1.2%/decade. So you can help a lot by putting your take on the 3.4 stuff: it may
also
require some careful wording to accommodate different views if we can't see eye to
eye.
For instance, on the dimming, the recent Pinker paper uses ISCCP and I simply
don't
believe the trends from ISCCP at all. Saying Wielicki and ISCCP agree actually
damns
them both. Or similarly saying Norris and ISCCP agree causes problems (this
relates to
upper cloud, which Norris gets from total minus lower, but those two sets of data
are
not homogeneous: there is not a lower cloud ob for every total; using means, esp
zonal
means without differencing each ob potentially causes major problems).
Dennis is starting on the 3.6 figs today plus the Sahel one.
Cheers
Kevin
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References

From: Phil Jones To: "David Easterling" Subject: Re: Fig. 3.7.1 Date: Thu May 26
15:12:40 2005 Cc: david.parker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pmzhai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Kevin
Trenberth
Dave,
Thanks for the update on the maps. Can you calculate a CRU time series from
what you have? Exactly which dataset do you have? Is it CRU TS 2.0? If this is it
then OK. This is the infilled one, so variance may be a little low in early years.
Hopefully your calculations will agree with Aiguo. I don't have anyone here to do
this
at the moment. There seem a lot of deadlines at the moment here, which is making
it hard for me to find quality time for Ch3. Luckily there is a holiday weekend
coming
up and I hope to use that to get 3.5-3.7 looked over. 3.2 is now done and agreed
with David. I'll tweak anything when I get your spatial maps. I came in with good
intentions today, but have been answering emails and seeing students.
As for smoothing, we didn't agree. For temperature we are going with the HC
'approximate' 20-year binomial. I'll attach a figure David's produced to let you
see that.
I reckon if you did a 13-year binomial you'll get something like it. Remember to
send
David all the series for trend estimation when you have them.
I am assuming Bin Wang did 3.7.1. Can you clarify with Dave exactly what 3.7.1
is? Give him the method to calculate it. Also clarify the two Chen's.
I see that David has emailed his reading of the
English. I was about to wright something like this. It is definitely the

difference
between
two period averages and not extremes years in the periods. The caption obviously
needs
a lot of work - I'll have a go at that when I get to it.
If the 3 of us are having difficulties, what hope have we for the readers. If you
can't
get
anything remotely like it I would suggest we drop it - but try David's English
translation
first !
Cheers
Phil
At 14:11 26/05/2005, David Easterling wrote:
Phil,
We will have the maps redone next week and I have started reworking the text for
3.3
Do you have a CRU global pcp time series for 1901-2003 you can send or should
we calculate? I have the numbers for the figure Aiguo Dai sent.
Also, we never decided on a standard smoothing routine. My preference is for
a 13 or 9 point binomial with reflected ends, but we need to decide.
Last, it is still not clear who did figure 3.7.1, was it Bin Wang? The two Chen
papers are by different authors, the 2004 EA monsoon paper is by T-C Chen of
Iowa State U., and the 2002 paper and data set creator is Ming Chen at NOAA/CPC.
I have requested the PREC/L data set from CPC. But I am not even sure exactly what
3.7.1 is, the title says change in mean annual range between the two periods,
which I
interpret to mean the difference between the highest and lowest years for the post
1976
period
minus the difference between the highest and lowest from the pre-1976 period
giving a
measure
of change in year to year consistency of monsoons. Also, there is a reference in

the
text that
Chen et al. (2004) compiled PREC/L, but that is not the case, it should be Chen et
al.
(2002)
as creator, but with an update to 2003.
Dave
Phil Jones wrote:
Dave,
I still don't understand why Bin Wang is involved in this ! Have you contacted
Chen? Maybe it was Bin Wang. Have you looked into trying to reproduce it?
Panmao has sent me a revised 3.7.3 using HadSLP2. I'm going to contact
Rob Allan about this one as he's been involved in developing HadSLP2.
Will you be in a position to send revised Figures soon? Any date also
when you'll be working on the text of 3.3?
Cheers
Phil
At 19:44 25/05/2005, David Easterling wrote:
Phil,
I am trying to track down the source of Fig. 3.7.1 the epoch difference in
monsoon rainfall map. It has a reference of Chen et al. 2004, which is
the J. Climate paper on the east Asian monsoon, but this figure is not in the
paper.
Someone must
of plotted it using their data, but not sure who. Do you know?
Dave
--
David R. Easterling, Ph.D.
Chief, Scientific Services Division
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801 USA
V: 828-271-4675
F: 828-271-4328
David.Easterling@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
David R. Easterling, Ph.D.
Chief, Scientific Services Division
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801 USA
V: 828-271-4675
F: 828-271-4328
David.Easterling@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Prof. Phil Jones

NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Georg Kaser To: Olga Solomina Subject: Re: glacier bullet, glossary,
structure Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 20:19:37 +0200 (MEST) Cc: Ricardo Villalba , Keith
Briffa , Val?rie Masson-Delmotte , Oyvind.Paasche@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Jonathan Overpeck
, Eystein Jansen
Dear Olga,
I deeple apologize for haveing not read your e-mail earlier. I was so overburden
with other obligations when coming back from Beijing that I gave myself the
deadline of June 1 to start with IPCC work. As usual, circumstances have forced me
to postpone this "dedaline" to next Monday. For this, I had not realised that
Chapter 6 has its first deadline tomorrow. I have now gone through the "Glaiers
during the LIA" and "Glaciers during the MWP" paragraphs as well as through the
"glacier bullet" you send today.
I think the LIA paragraph fits well into the Chapter 4 as a supplement to the
"Observations" we concentrate on. The MWP is a bit out of focus (Observations!).
As I mentioned earlier, I would be glad if chapter 6 could give glaciers
approprate space as being the only climate proxies which are exclus?ively governed
by physical processes and are, thus, much safer to interpret than any other
proxies. The fact that they give filtered information as a mean over longer time
periods enables them to represent climate. Over the last years, glaciologists have
started to investigate the impact of climate seasonality on glaciers and have also
started to separate thermal and hygric variables driving glaciers. All this
deserves much attention also beyond the "Observations" to be coverd in Chapter 4.
A comment on the bullet: this is fine. The only point I would change is the one
mentioning Africa. For Lewis Glacier, Mount Kenya, advances have been
reconstructed from moraines aoroud 1900 and (measured) thickening took place in
the 1970s. Rwenzori glaciers have advanced in the late 1960s and early 1970s. A
compilation of this is attached as well as a figure and a table from an ongoing
compilation of the post-LIA retreat of tropical glaciers I am working on. Please
keep them confidential. Note from this figure also the exception Kilimanjaro
glaciers play. They have to be seen separately from anything else we observe in
the tropics mainly because of the absolute lack of movement on the Plateau (there
are also other reasons which would go beyond a readable e-mail). So, to make the
long story short: (i) Afrikan glaciers are no exception to the global picture and
(ii) Kilimanjaro glaciers are an exception in Africa, in the Tropics, and on the
global picture. Thus, Kili glaciers should not be used as an example neither for
Africa nor for the tropics. Although I am highly interested in Kilimanjaro myself
running a reserach project there, I strongly suggest to not overestimate its
glaciers. Accoding to a request from Suasan Solomon I will address that briefly in
Chapter 4.5. By the way, Kili glaciers only cover 2.6 km2 out of 2,500 km2 in the
tropics (see table in attachement).
Hope this is of help and if you have any further question feel free to contact me.
Best wishes, Georg
Georg Kaser ------------------------------------------------- Institut fuer

Geographie Innrain 52 A-6020 INNSBRUCK Tel: ++43 512 507 5407 Fax: ++43 512 507
2895 http://meteo9.uibk.ac.at/IceClim/CRYO/cryo_a.html
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Olga Solomina wrote:
> Dear colleagues, > > Please find attached my suggestions for the "Glacier
bullet" (chapter 6). It > accumulates (and replaces) all "glacier cases" mentioned
in different places > in our preliminary draft. > > I find that our first
subdivision of the chapter to 2ka, 10ka etc. was more > natural rather than 6ka
etc. - now we have a mixture of two systems. > > My suggestions for the glossary
are: > > The Holocene (including Early, Mid, Late with approximate dates) > Little
Ice Age > Neoglacial > > I also attach two paragraphs that I wrote for the Ch4 for
the recent glacier > variations, though it is still unclear where it should be. I
think both the > glacier recession from the LIA maximum positions and glacier
advances > occurred during the MWP should be mentioned somewhere. > > Cheers, >
olga >
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachKASER-1999GPCh.PDF"
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachTropGlac.doc"

From: Keith Briffa To: Eystein Jansen Subject: Re: Fwd: updated MWP figure Date:
Wed Jun 15 16:13:36 2005
Eystein
tried phoning on your mobile - no luck - Don't like this Figure , but still having
trouble
working on ours. Have cut large bits out of my text and suggestions for cutting
other bits
, but will be a little late sending these bits. Can you ring to discuss (and
IMPRINT)
tomorrow ?
Keith
At 06:28 15/06/2005, you wrote:

Hi Keith,
enclosed for your consideration.
Eystein
Envelope-to: eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:13:28 -0400
From: Tom Crowley
To: J Overpeck ,
"Jansen, Eystein " ,
Tim Osborn
Subject: updated MWP figure
X-checked-clean: by exiscan on alf
X-UiB-SpamFlag: NO UIB: 0 hits, 8.0 required
X-UiB-SpamReport: spamassassin found;
Hello,
I have been fiddling with the best way to illustrate the stable nature of the
medieval
warm period - the attached plot has eight sites that go from 946-1960 in decadal
std.
dev. units - although small in number there is a good geographic spread -- four
are from
the w. hemisphere, four from the east. I also plot the raw composite of the eight
sites
and scale it to the 30-90N decadal temp. record.
this record illustrates how the individual sites are related to the composite and
also
why the composite has no dramatically warm MWP -- there is no dramatically warm
clustering of the individual sites.
use or lose as you wish, tom

--
______________________________________________________________
Eystein Jansen
Professor/Director
Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
Dep. of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen
All?gaten 55
N-5007 Bergen
NORWAY
e-mail: eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661
Fax: +47-55-584330
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
References

From: Phil Jones To: "Michael E. Mann" Subject: An idea Date: Thu Jun 16 15:11:01
2005
Mike,
I will reply to Yasmine and say no tomorrow. Don't want to do it too soon.
Keith and I and Tim have been having loads of discussions about Ch 6 for IPCC.
Keith has to submit his latest draft tomorrow for better for worse.
What I'm thinking is that sometime when the three of us here have some spare time
- which may be some ways off, we'd like to do some experiments with different
proxy combinations. Would you be happy sending us all the proxies you have
(or Scott - the rookie) is putting together? If so can you arrange it. There is no
rush. We won't pass any on or put on web sites etc.
If we ever did get some time then we could do something - it will be slowly, not
for
this IPCC and unlikely to get written up or started until well into 2006.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Phil Jones To: Anders Moberg Subject: Re: Reminder Date: Thu Jun 23 09:52:58
2005 Cc: Isabelle Gouirand
Anders,
Sending again. Your server rejected this because of the extensions
so changed them. Hoep you get them.
Phil
Anders,
Thanks for the files. I was aware that the EGU was starting a new paleo journal.
I don't think there have been any issues yet.
I thought Keith had put those two series on our web site, but I can't find them
either. However, I found them ages and put them with some of the other long
tree-ring series. So here they are with others.
The ones you want should be in columns 1 and 2. The file starts in 1628BC, so
it takes a while to get to them. They start in AD 500. I vaguely recall chopping
off the
402-499 and 441-499 years because of sample size. Keith has more trw series now,
so they could be improved. Keith should have a reconstruction from the Grudd et
al. (2002)
paper in The Holocene, but they must be on his machine.
I hope the papers for the two Fennoscandian series tell you what the base period
is. Given the publication dates I would suspect it is 1951-80.
There are newer series for Jasper and Tasmania and I wouldn't bother doing
anything
with the two South American series.
Have a good summer break. Ruth and I have sat out every night this week so far.
We watched birds the last two days denuding the cherry tree of cherries.
Cheers
Phil
At 07:52 23/06/2005, you wrote:
Phil,
Here are the data we used in our Nature paper, minus Indigirka and Lauritzen. All
series
are interpolated to annual resolution. Brief info in file headers. The details are
found
in the online supplementary info on nature.com
Lauritzen's email:
"S. E. Lauritzen"
The Finnish diatom series and all eastern tree ring series have been sent through
personal contacts. The rest comes from the web, apart from GRIP which comes from
you.
Could you, in return, send me the data file for the Fennoscandian summer
temperature
reconstruction from either Briffa et al (Nature 1990) or Briffa et al (Clim Dyn

1992) -
or both? I could not find any of these series on the CRU website.
I realize that Isabelle Gouirand will have to discuss these two papers. Starting
from
there and try to point out something new as regards the work done by Isabelle. By
the
way, do you know anything about this journal:
[1]http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/cp/cp.html ? I did not know it existed, before I

was
told about it yesterday.
Tomorrow starts my summer holidays, which last over the coming four weeks
Cheers,
Anders
At 10:07 2005-06-17 +0100, you wrote:
Anders,
When I got back the bus was still here and the driver had disappeared.
Hope the train came and you got to Stansted OK.
No rush for the paleo data - just when you have a few minutes.
Hopefully these colour plots are OK. I think I was going to pay something
so forward any bills or tell Michelle to send to me.
Cheers
Phil
At 14:29 16/06/2005, you wrote:
Dear Michelle,
Thanks for your message. I expect your letter to arrive early next week, and I
should be
able to answer quickly.
Best regards,
Anders
MTheakst@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
Dear Anders
We have just posted you colour proofs of your paper - when you receive
these, please contact me to confirm whether we can proceed to publication.
We will be publishing your paper as part of Volume 25, Issue 9.
Best Wishes
Michelle
######################################################################
The information contained in this e-mail and any subsequent correspondence is

private
and confidential and intended solely for the named recipient(s). If you are not a
named
recipient, you must not copy, distribute, or disseminate the information, open any
attachment, or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received the e-mail
in
error, please notify the sender and delete
the e-mail.
Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual sender,
unless otherwise stated. Although this e-mail has been scanned for viruses you
should
rely on your own virus check, as the sender accepts no liability for any damage
arising
out of any bug or virus infection.
######################################################################
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/cp/cp.html

From: Jonathan Overpeck To: Keith Briffa Subject: Re: First draft of FOD Date:
Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:52:25 -0600 Cc: Eystein Jansen , t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
"Ricardo Villalba"
Hi gang - I still have to weigh in on the great figs/text that Keith and Tim have
created, but here's some feedback in the meantime.
I agree that a mean recon isn't the thing to do. Let me think more before I weigh
in more on the fig. Working to get other LAs to get their stuff in.
As for the Southern Hem temperature change fig (and caption and a little text), I
agree that you (Ricardo in the lead) should do it as you've proposed. We need a
clear S. Hem statement, and although it should stress that the data are too few to
create a reliable S Hem recon, we should show the data that are available. Thus,
PLEASE proceed Ricardo on this tack. Also, can we include the borehole recon
series from S. Africa and Australia (e.g., Pollack and Huang, 98)? I'm sure Henry
Pollack would provide fast - cc Huang too, since he might be even faster. Keith
and Tim, does that make sense?
Please note that I think we can find room for the above, regardless, if it is
compelling enough.
As for ENSO, we will need to address for sure - based mainly on the more direct
coral data rather than teleconnected (e.g., tree-ring) relationships. The latter
don't seem to be definitive enough at this time - as I think we discussed in
China. The same holds true for NAO/AO/PDO etc., and I think that we (Keith and
Tim) will need to have this in their section - in a appropriately short manner.
I'll provide more feedback on this soon, so don't sweat it for now.
Main thing is to go ahead on the S Hem temp fig/caption/short text., independent

of ENSO etc discussions.
Thanks, Peck
>Eystein and Peck >very quick initial response - as have not seen >Tim today. The
Figure legends with very detailed >explanations is at the end of the text I sent
>you already. The forcings ARE the ones that went >into the models , appropriately
colour coded for >direct comparison - it was partly the difficulty >of getting all
of these prescribed or diagnosed >forcings sorted out for each model that took Tim
>so long.The uncertainty levels are a compromise >that chose came up with - see
description in >caption , but we are considering other things . >Will get back to
re the colours. Producing a >mean reconstruction is not in my opinion a >sensible
thing to do so we will have to talk >about this. The question of space is crucial
>regarding the Figure and reworking needed on >Regional stuff Ricardo and I need
to know how >the space is panning out , and you opinions on >the reative
importance of a SH regional Figure >versus an ENSO Figure.- and what about Monsoon
>Peck? By the way, please clarify the space re >the Medieval Warm Period Box. Does
this have to >come down , thought it was short enough? >Keith > > At 09:03
24/06/2005, Eystein Jansen wrote: >>Hi Keith and Tim, >>Lots of thanks for your
hard work. >>I have gone through the FOD draft and the >>figures. Will send
comments on text later today. >>Here some comments on the figures. >>I did not see
the figure captions so it is not >>entirely transparent to me what went into the
>>figures, hopefully all is material that is or >>will be published before the end
of 2005. But >>anyhow, I think these figures are very good and >>in my view give
the different reconstructions, >>the combined uncertainty as well as
>>reconstructions and simulations brought >>together. I assume you have the Moberg
et al >>reconstruction included, but not the Oerlemans, >>which will be treated in
Ch. 4 (needs a x-ref). >>Concerning the way of displaying the >>uncertainties, it
is not transparent to me how >>the white and grey areas are produced. Would it
>>be viable to make a single curve of the mean of >>the reconstructions to
accompany the >>simulations? The white area underlying the >>simulations seem a
bit weak, in the sence that >>a superficial reader might wonder if it >>displays
something without content, perhaps a >>different shade or colour would be better.
>>Conserning the simulations, it needs to be >>clarified that the simulations did
not >>necessarily use the forcings displayed above, >>hence it may be misleading
to place the >>forcings and simulations into the same figure. >>Concerning the
forcings, I am a bit surprised >>that the amplitude of these are so close to
>>each other. Although I haven?t followed the >>litterature here in detail, my
impression was >>that there is quite high discrepancies between >>the various
solar reconstructions, but I may be >>wrong. >> >>Ricardo asks about whether Peck
and I have >>Ok-ed his suggested figure. To me it seems a >>good candidate for an
ENSO illustration, with >>some polishing to make it less technical, but >>since
Peck is more up to speed on this and >>working on the issue, I would leave it to
him >>to weigh in on this matter. >> >>Some first impressions for your
consideration. >> >>Cheers, >>Eystein >> >> >> >> >> >>--
>>______________________________________________________________ >>Eystein Jansen
>>Professor/Director >>Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and >>Dep. of Earth
Science, Univ. of Bergen >>All?gaten 55 >>N-5007 Bergen >>NORWAY >>e-mail:
eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >>Phone: +47-55-583491 - Home: +47-55-910661 >>Fax:
+47-55-584330 > >-- >Professor Keith Briffa, >Climatic Research Unit >University
of East Anglia >Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > >Phone: +44-1603-593909 >Fax: +44-1603-
507784 > >http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/


From: Jonathan Overpeck To: Keith Briffa , t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: First

draft of FOD - figures Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 15:42:40 -0600 Cc: Eystein Jansen
Hi Keith and Tim - Eystein is going to chat with you tomorrow, and my goal is to
get as much as I can to you guys today and tomorrow.
First, off the figures are great (!) - that was tough job, and I'm very impressed.
Of course, I can already start to sense what the debates will be, but we can
address that in the text. Here are some comments with respect to the figures -
some are relevant to the text...
1) they really are great
2) is the instrumental series on the first fig (top and bottom) the same as
featured in chapter 3? Need to say that.
3) rather than clogging up the caption with all the notes on each curve, how about
a table for each of the two figures. Then you can include some more info on each
recon - e.g., number of sites, types of proxies??) I'm thinking mainly that the
captions are not pretty, but you may be able to include more summary info on each
curve also
4) should we make all the series in their original and modified for the figure
form available on a www site so that reviewers can play with the data and make
sure they get their two cents in before this thing is all said and published? The
WDC-A is ready to help w/ posting of data and figs (see below).
5) I like the expanding time axis, but I'd be prepared to have a second one with a
linear axis. In fact, I'd put it up on the www page at the same time with the
data. The more we do to help others understand, the better?
6) Also, it would be good to see both the data and the figure w/o the Gaussian-
weighted filtering. What do doe these look like, can we make them available as
suggested above. At the least, I'd like to see the fig w/o the filtering, even
though I know it will be a mess. How about a series of time series plots (same x
and y axes as the big fig 1) - in each you show both the filtered and unfiltered
series. I know this is a pain for Tim, but we really have to make sure we're not
missing anything in the data. And also - that we anticipate what others will do,
ask us to do, or squawk about.
7) On the forcing fig (fig 2) - why don't we see all the different experiment
curves (e.g., dotted red) in the forcing plots a, b and c? Need to say why in the
caption - and if they have the same forcing, so you can't see it on the plot, need
to say it. This could be much easier in a table that indicates "same as X").
8) On fig 2 - does the recalulated envelop of reconstructed temps also include

instrumental temps? Think so, but you should say it in the caption. Why doesn't
the envelop go up to present? Can it? Might look better, and be more consistent w/
fig 1. If the envelop can't go to present, then maybe include the instrumental
curve as in Fig 1.
9) reminders for the text (I'll think about these as I read a second time for
editing) -
9a) need to explain why the recons don't continue going up w/ instrumental data at
the end (post 1990?) - might what to mention something in caption, if you can
shift all the other stuff to a table.
9b) there will be lots of discussion (during and post AR4 drafting) about what
recon series (Fig 1) should or should not be believed. Thus, I think it is
critical for us to same more about each recon - that is to INCLUDE what you wrote
in blue, and perhaps to enhance. Need to really convince the reader that while not
one recon is alone the truth (and hence Fig 1), they all have important strengths
and weaknesses. But, the former outweigh the latter, so we've included them.
9c) I'm sure you saw the recent (to be infamous) Wall Stree Journal editorial -
they showed what I think was a IPCC FAR curve - with the good old MWP and LIA etc
(Lamb view? - I don't have the FAR w/ me). The way to handle the hocky stick might
best be to put it in an historical perspective along with the older IPCC views.
First, show your great figs, discuss them and what went into them, and then -
after showing the state-of-the-art, discuss how much our understanding and view
have changed. In this, simply compare each of the historical views (FAR, SAR, TAR)
to the current view, and while doing so, play down the controversy (s) -
especially the hockey stick. The smart folks will realize that that the fluff in
the news is just that, but those with a real stake in that debate will hopefully
get the point that it doesn't matter...
10) lastly (almost), I'm sorry to ask again, but I still want to know what is
wrong with Tom Crowley's latest plot with all the recons shown together back
through the Med W Period? I need to send you my edits on the MWP box, but it seem
to me that Tom's fig could go in that box - to help make the point that - sorry,
guys - the MWP wasn't much compared to the recent GLOBAL warming...
11) lastly (promise) - don't foget that Eystein and I think we can get a page or
two extra for your section in the end. This means you can do all the above, and I
can help (next) with the modes and extremes sections, and we can get it all in.
Great job!
Thanks, Peck -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet
Sciences

From: Jonathan Overpeck To: Keith Briffa , t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Eystein Jansen

Subject: the Med Warm Period Box - Peck comments/edits Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005
22:14:09 -0600
Gentlemen - attached is the ZOD Med Warm Period Box with my edits/comments. I
don't see anything sent since then, so hope I'm not editing the wrong thing. In
any case, the Box was pretty nice as is, so I only made a few changes. Obviously,
some updating w/ new studies is needed. The big issues are two:
1) the recent Wall Street Journal editiorial that is creating all the crap in the
US actually showed a time series from the IPCC FAR - if you don't have it, or
Eystein can't send, I can scan it in (my Republican Dad sends me these things,
although he's an increasingly rare breed of moderate Republican). My thought is
that it might we worth adding a couple lines documenting how the view of the MWP
changed with each assessment and new knowledge. In doing so, it could be made very
clear that there is a reason that scientists don't show those old plots anymore.
We need to move the debate beyond the FAR, SAR and TAR on this issue!
2) it would be cool to have another figure that made the point about no single
synchronous period warmer than late 20th century. This is where I get soft with
respect to Tom's plot. If it is published to the extent we need it, and if the
composite or large-area average recon is the same as you are showing in your great
new Fig 1, then it seems that it would be reasonable to show Tom's fig as part of
the Box - just to show the same thing in a different way, and to hammer in one
more nail. That said, I'm not sure if my two conditions above are met (I emailed
Tom, no response yet - you might have insight), and I believe you just don't like
Tom's fig for some - probably good - reason. But, I wanted us to think extra hard
about whether there is SOME fig that might work?
That's it for tonight. Will finish editing your main text next work session
tomorrow I hope.
Best, Peck -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study of Planet
Sciences
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachMWP_box_textjto.doc"

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Keith Briffa Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: NEED HELP! Date:
Tue, 28 Jun 2005 07:21:55 -0400
Hi Keith,
Thanks--yes, we seem to back in the days of McCarthyism in the States.

Fortunately, we have
some good people who will represent us legally pro bono, and in the best case
scenario,
this backfires on these thugs...
The response of the wording is likely to change dramatically after consulation w/

lawyers,
etc. but any feedback on the substance would nonetheless be very helpful...
thanks for both your help and your support,
mike
At 05:48 AM 6/28/2005, you wrote:
Mike
just in and seeing this for time - will digest - but do not like look or
implications of
this at all
Keith
At 17:00 25/06/2005, you wrote:
Tim/Keith/Phil,
Please see attached letter from the U.S. House republicans. As Tom has mentioned
below,
it would be very helpful if I can get feedback from you all as I proceed w/
drafting a
formal response.
Thanks in advance for any help,
mike
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 09:36:49 -0600
From: Tom Wigley
Organization: NCAR/CGD
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
Netscape/7.1 (ax)
To: Michael Oppenheimer
Cc: "Michael E. Mann" , shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dlashof@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Caspar Ammann
Subject: Re: NEED HELP!
X-UVA-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at fork9.mail.virginia.edu
Mike,
There are broader implications of this, so it is important to respond well. It is
a pity you have to be the guinea pig after what you have gone through already,
but you have many supporters.
I would not advise a legal route. I think you need to consider this as just
another
set of referees' comments and respond simply, clearly and directly. On the science
side the key point is that the M&M criticisms are unfounded.
Although this may be difficult, remember that this is not really a criticism of
you
personally, but one aspect of a criticism of the foundations of global warming

science by people both inside and outside of Congress who have ulterior motives.
There may, in fact, be an opportunity here. As you know, we suspect that there
has been an abuse of the scientific review process at the journal editor level.
The method is to choose reviewers who are sympathetic to the anti-greenhouse
view. Recent papers in GRL (including the M&M paper) have clearly not been
reviewed by appropriate people. We have a strong suspicion that this is the case,
but, of course, no proof because we do not know *who* the reviewers of these
papers have been. Perhaps now is the time to make this a direct accusation and
request (or demand) that this information be made available. In order to properly
defend the good science it is essential that the reasons for bad science appearing
in the literature be investigated.
The lever here is that the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the
House Committee on Energy and Commerce is suggesting that your papers are
bad science and asking (their point 8e) for the identity of people who reviewed
your work. In response, it is completely fair and justifiable to point out that it
is the papers that criticize your and related work that are bad science, and that,
through the Subcommittee you can request the identities of the reviewers of all
of these critical papers -- starting with M&M.
When you respond, there are a number of items that require a direct response
from you alone. There are also a number of scientific points where you could
give a multi-authored response. There are many people who have expertise in
this area and familiarity with the scientific issues who I am sure would be
willing
to join you (I would be happy to do so).
At this stage, however, I would keep the group small. A few others could be added
to the original email list nevertheless. I took the liberty of copying your plea
and
the Subcommittee's letter to Caspar Ammann, primarily because I think he can
help with the scientific aspects better than most people. After all, he has been
able to follow your method and reproduce your results, he has shown the flaws
in M&M's work, he has investigated the bristlecone pine issue, and he has made
all his software available on the web.
The others who could be added at this early stage are Ray Bradley and Malcolm
Hughes, your 'co-conspirators' -- and perhaps Phil Jones, Keith Briffa and Tim
Osborn. I do not know how 'powerful' these alien opinions may be in the present
parochial context, but I note that the instigators of all this are Canadians and
that
the science has no national boundaries. Phil, Keith and Tim are useful because
they
have demonstrated the flaws in the von Storch work -- which is, I assume, the
Science paper that the Subcommittee's letter referes to.
A word of warning. I would be careful about using other, independent paleo
reconstruction work as supporting the MBH reconstructions. I am attaching my
version of a comparison of the bulk of these other reconstructions. Although
these all show the hockey stick shape, the differences between them prior to
1850 make me very nervous. If I were on the greenhouse deniers' side, I
would be inclined to focus on the wide range of paleo results and the differences
between them as an argument for dismissing them all.
I attach also a run with MAGICC using central-estimate climate model parameters
(DT2x = 2.6 degC, etc. -- see the TAR), and forcings used by Caspar in the
runs with paleo-CSM. I have another Figure somewhere that compares MAGICC
with paleo-CSM. The agreement is nearly perfect (given that CSM has internally
generated noise while MAGICC is pure signal). The support for the hockey stick
is not just the paleo reconstructions, but also the model results. If one takes
the
best estimates of past forcing off the shelf, then the model results show the
hockey
stick shape. No tuning or fudging here; this is a totally independent analysis,

and
critics of the paleo data, if they disbelieve these data, have to explain why
models
get the same result.

Of course, von Storch's model results do not show such good century timescale
agreement, but this is because he uses silly forcing and has failed to account for
the fact that his model was not in equilibrium at the start of the run (the
subject
of Tim Osborn et al.'s submitted paper).
This is a pain in the but, but it will all work out well in the end (unintentional
pun
--
sorry). Good science will prevail.
Best wishes,
Tom.
-----------------------------------------------
Michael Oppenheimer wrote:
Michael:
This is outrageous. I'll contact some people who may be able to help right away.
----------
From: Michael E. Mann [<[1]mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>[2]mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 4:27 PM
To: <[3]mailto:shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
<[4]mailto:omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
<[5]mailto:dlashof@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>dlashof@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
<[6]mailto:jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
<[7]mailto:mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
<[8]mailto:santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
<[9]mailto:wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: NEED HELP!
Importance: High
dear all,
this was predicted--they're of course trying to make things impossible for me. I
need
immediate help regarding recourse for free legal advice, etc.
mike
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: <[10]mailto:mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (434) 924-7770

FAX:
(434) 982-2137
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
--
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
References
3. mailto:shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
4. mailto:omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx%3Eomichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
5. mailto:dlashof@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
6. mailto:jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx%3Ejhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
7. mailto:mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
8. mailto:santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx%3Esanter1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

From: Jonathan Overpeck To: Keith Briffa Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: updated MWP figure
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:11:05 -0600 Cc: Eystein Jansen
Hi Keith - might be worth talking on the phone - you, me and Eystein - after you
get back. You could be right, but it is a powerful way to look at the issue. The
question is whether the normalization could be preventing a warmer than late-20th
century signal from
c appearing?
Should we instead update the Bradley Science graphic? That's not as effective in
my opinion.
m
So, let's talk next week?

S
Going to a tree day meeting or a three day meeting - it has to be tough looking at
tree data all day.
t
have fun, thx, peck

h
>Jonathan and Eystein >I am leaving very early for a tree day meeting in Swansea ,
and will >be away til Monday. Presently buried in EC Reporting and other stuff >-
but the reason I dislike the MWP Figure is that the simple >normalization of
series as done , (regardless of regional selection >of specific proxies) gives a
largely random amplitude to the various >records , depending on their spectral
character, and of course, >equal weight to all regardless of the strength of their
link with >local or NH temperatures). I will think about this - you are the
>ultimate arbiter anyway . >sorry to be so abruptly communicative >Keith > >At
16:10 28/06/2005, you wrote: >>Hi Tom -- thanks for the extra effort. I'm pushing
others on the >>author team to think hard about such a figure (space may end up
>>being the hardest part), and I should have something to discuss w/ >>you soon.
Thanks for being willing to shift priorities if needed. >> >>FYI - I just got
reviews back from an EOS piece that took over a >>1.5 months to get. And of
course, they want some edits. Not the >>speedy venue we once knew a loved,
although I bet if you really >>keep it short and sweet it might go faster. >>
>>Best, more soon, peck >> >>>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >>>Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005
10:13:49 -0400 >>>From: Tom Crowley >>>X-Accept-Language: en-us, en >>>To:
Jonathan Overpeck >>>Cc: Eystein Jansen >>>Subject: Re: updated MWP figure >>>
>>>Hi Jonathan, >>> >>>let me answer the last question first - there are actually
not >>>many records that go back that far and I have used, I think, every >>>one
except Quelcaya, which being from the southern tropics makes >>>for a lonely but
potential future inclusion (which makes no >>>difference on the conclusion). >>>
>>>several of the sites include multiple time series - e.g., western >>>U.S. time
series, w. Siberia time series, e. Asia, and w. >>>Greenland. I did not want to
overweight any site though because >>>of the need for a geographic balance -- note
that there are four >>>sites each in the w. hemisphere and e. hemisphere, and that
the >>>distribution of sites in each hemisphere represents a good scatter. >>>
>>>for almost all of these sites the references are easily imaginable >>>based on
the location of the site, but they can be provided if you >>>are interested in
including the figure. >>> >>>can you think of any long sites I have not included?
right now I >>>cannot..... >>> >>>in the overlap interval of 1500-1850 our
composite has highly >>>significant correlations with the Mann, Jones, and Briffa
>>>reconstructions that contain much more data -- thereby suggesting >>>that use
of only long time series provides a "reasonable" estimate >>>of the last 1100
years. >>> >>>I have not submitted this for publication but if you are
>>>interested in including this in ipcc I can knock off a tutorial >>>note to eos
on short notice..... >>> >>>I am attaching the figure in several different
alternate formats - >>>cannot easily do the two you suggest from my mac, but again
I can >>>get that done with more work if you are interested - let me know >>>where
to go next - note that I originally sent this along fyi, >>>only to be used if you
thought the figure was worthwhile -- if not >>>I will just reorder the priority of
writing it up as a note, >>>tom >>> >>>Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>> >>>>Hi Tom -
thanks for sending this plot. I'm a bit late in >>>>responding since we were
moving to (and still into) our >>>>sabbatical digs in SW CO. >>>> >>>>Would you be
willing to provide more on this plot in order for me >>>>to understand it better?
I personally like the plot quite a bit, >>>>but between the space restrictions and
other's assessment, >>>>whether we use it or not will take some real thinking.
>>>> >>>>For example, it would help to have >>>> >>>>1) a higher resolution
version - eps or ai? >>>>2) a caption or text that would spell out which records
are >>>>included, and their origins (references) >>>>3) a bibliography for those
refs. >>>>4) perhaps, you have a paper with this included? If so, can you >>>>send
a prerprint? >>>>5) some discussion of why you used the series (sites) you did,
>>>>and not others - more specifically, what's wrong with others? >>>> >>>>If you
don't mind helping here, I'll promise to get it in the mix >>>>for serious
discussion. Of course, it's already in the mix since >>>>Eystein forwarded to
Keith, and you Tim, but I want to weigh in >>>>as informed as possible. Trying to
keep track of a lot, so your >>>>help is much appreciated. >>>> >>>>Thanks! Peck
>>>> >>>>>Hello, >>>>> >>>>>I have been fiddling with the best way to illustrate
the stable >>>>>nature of the medieval warm period - the attached plot has eight
>>>>>sites that go from 946-1960 in decadal std. dev. units - >>>>>although small
in number there is a good geographic spread -- >>>>>four are from the w.
hemisphere, four from the east. I also >>>>>plot the raw composite of the eight
sites and scale it to the >>>>>30-90N decadal temp. record. >>>>> >>>>>this record
illustrates how the individual sites are related to >>>>>the composite and also
why the composite has no dramatically >>>>>warm MWP -- there is no dramatically
warm clustering of the >>>>>individual sites. >>>>> >>>>>use or lose as you wish,
tom >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>-- >>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: +1 520 622-9065 >>fax: +1
520 792-8795 >>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >> >> >>
> >-- >Professor Keith Briffa, >Climatic Research Unit >University of East Anglia


From: Eystein Jansen To: wg1-ar4-ch06@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-ch06]

abrupt and Important thoughts on References Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:13:56 +0200
Hi all,
Two things:
1. Concerning the 1470k pacing of DO-events. There are revisions underway in the
layer-counting of the Greenland Ice Cores. A meeting in Copenhagen in August co-
ordinated by Sigfus Johnsen will discuss the issue at length, but there may not be
many papers out from the meeting that are citeable for IPCC. There is already the
Shackleton paper which indicate that Greenland Ice Cores in MIS3 have an age model
that are off by some millennia, and the preliminary data on the new age models
indicate substantial revisions as far as I hear from talks given at various
meetings. My thinking is that we neither can ignore the fact that current data
indicate a 1470 pacing for some time interval of the ice cores if one apply the
existing age scales. I think it would be foolish not not refer to it, I think the
possibility that the system has the ability to enter into specific cycles is
intriguing, and is a result that is well known and IPCC should not pretend we
haven?t heard about it. But we should make it less blunt than in the current
version of the Abrupt Change subchapter, perhaps stating that the result is highly
dependant on age models and we need time to absorb new research in order to verify
the result.
t
2. Having the fortune of not being that close to the darker sides of US politics,
I have the feeling that Peck?s comment concerning referencing perhaps is a bit too
"paranoic". I think the advice is well taken not to overcite our own research, and
make sure not to overlook other important contributions, but we should do our best
to cite what we think are key results. In any case we will have the FOD review and
have the opportunity to have all our good colleagues keeping us honest on this
i
issue.
Cheers, Eystein
C
>Hi all - thanks Fortunat and Stefan for more >debate on the 1470. Sounds like the
final >decision is up to Eystein, but I can guess the >way he's thinking. > >With
regard to refs - remember that our goal is >to cut the number of references
significantly. >Since this is an assessment and not a review, we >can delete all
but the most recent and >comprehensive references. I don't like cutting >out the
original refs any more than you, but we >just don't have room, and its more
important to >have text than exhaustive references. Our >colleagues will hopefully
understand, and if >they don't then they need to do an ego check. >It's more
important that we make an impact with >policy makers rather than with citation
indices. > >Does this make sense? > >In any case, please help make sure we trim
the >total references DOWN in number by a significant >number. This is not
happening the to degree it >should. > >Also, please not that in the US, the US
Congress >is questioning whether it is ethical for IPCC >authors to be using the
IPCC to champion their >own work/opinions. Obviously, this is wrong and >scary,
but if our goal is to get policy makers >(liberal and conservative alike) to take
our >chapter seriously, it will only hurt our effort >if we cite too many of our
own papers >(perception is often reality). PLEASE do not >cite anything that is
not absolutely needed, and >please do not cite your papers unless they are
>absolutely needed. Common sense, but it isn't >happening. Please be more critical
with your >citations so we save needed space, and also so >we don't get perceived
as self serving or worse. > >Again, we can debate this if anyone thinks I've gone
off the deep end. > >Thanks, peck >PS - this is not to say anything critical of
the >refs Fortunat is suggesting - we must cite the >most relevant papers, and we
must be as up to >date as possible. > >>Peck and all, >> >>Fully agree. This
'1470' yr periodicity is highly controversial and I >>was never convinced. >>We
can use the space for better things that are relevant in the context >>of the
anthropogenic GHG perturbation. >> >>I miss the recent and relevant literature.
Examples are Pahnke and Zahn, >>Science, 2005 and Stocker and Johnsen,
Paleoceanography 18, 2003, and >>Knutti et al., Nature, 2004 >>Hemitt et al., Rev
Geophysics, 2004 might be a good reference for >>Heinrich events. >> >> >>
>>Regards, >> >>Fortunat >> >> >>Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >>> >>> Hi guys - I'm
not aware of the age model changes that Eystein is >>> talking about (however, I'm
not in the Euro meeting circles, and >>> trust he's right), but I know of several
studies (e.g., U/Th dated >>> (well dated) spelothem studies (plus C14 Cariaco)
that indicate that >>> the GISP/GRIP age models are off by quite a bit pre 40kish.
The other >>> studies agree, so it makes sense to me that the ice core gangs are
>>> revising their age models. Regardless of the probabilities (note that >>> one
finds evidence in quasi-periodic variance most all paleo >>> records), this
significant age model change means that the "1470 >>> beat" has to be off/wrong or
something else other than we've been led >>> to believe. For the sake of playing
it safe, we should play this beat >>> way down until there is new evidence that is
more convincing that it >>> is for real. We can mention it, but we make it clear
that the >>> evidence for it is not all that strong - at best. >>> >>> I'll cc
this to Fortunat and Valerie too - we don't want to rush to >>> conclusions w/o
good discussion. >>> >>> Thanks, Peck >>> >>> >Hi Eystein, >>> > >>> >concerning
your comment on the 1470-year beat: I'm aware that in the >>> >new time scale, it
is less regular (at least I heard this, have not >>> >tested myself yet). >>> >
>>> >If you have two time scales, one showing a regularity and one not, >>> >then
there are two possibilities. >>> >(1) The regular one is correct, in the other one
the regularity got >>> >wiped out by random dating errors. >>> >(2) The one
without regularity is correct, in the other one a >>> >regularity arose by chance
due to random dating errors. >> > > >>> >The likelyhood of the regularity found
with the original GISP2 time >>> >scale occuring by chance is minute - I've done
some more >>> >calculations, they are not complete yet but the likelyhood is in
the >> > >permil range. I think hypothesis (2) can be exluded at least at 99% >>>
>confidence level. >>> > >>> >Stefan >>> > >>> >-- >>> >To reach me directly
please use: rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >>> >(My former addresses @pik-potsdam.de are
read by my assistant Brigitta.) >>> > >>> >Stefan Rahmstorf >>> >www.ozean-
klima.de >>> >www.realclimate.org >>> >>> -- >>> 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: +1
520 622-9065 >>> fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>> http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>>
http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >> >>-- >>Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics
Institute, University of Bern >>Sidlerstr. 5, CH-3012 Bern >>Phone: ++41(0)31 631
44 61 Fax: ++41(0)31 631 87 42 >>e-mail: joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx; Internet:
>>http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/ > > >-- >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: +1 520 622-9065 >fax: +1 520 792-8795
>http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
-- ______________________________________________________________ Eystein Jansen

55-584330
_______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-ch06 mailing list Wg1-ar4-

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

From: Val?rie Masson-Delmotte To: Keith Briffa , Jonathan Overpeck , Eystein
Jansen Subject: Re: IPCC ch9 for information and check. Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005
23:57:15 +0200 Reply-to: Valerie.Masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-MIME-Autoconverted:

from 8bit to quoted-printable by cirse.extra.cea.fr id j5SLvFxj010843
Dear Keith,
I have read your text - despite of the heat wave here (40?C in my office in the
afternoon...). I am a bit puzzled by the regional aspects. I think that you should
make more clear in the beginning that there is very little new information / work
conducted on the S Hemisphere / tropics and that most efforts have been focussed
on the N Hemisphere, because you mention almost nothing for the S Hemisphere. Is
ENSO considered as a regional mode of variability? I thought that it had almost
global relevance at least in terms of impacts.
Val?rie.
Keith Briffa a ?crit :
> Pascale > I am sending what I sent Peck and Eystein > The regional stuff at the
end is from Ricardo Villalba and will need > to be shortened /rewritten after
advice from CLAs. Please note this is > only provisional and I have had no
feedback from other LA and CLAs and > the text needs to be vetted/chopped or
whatever. Please note also that > the blue text will likely disappear - no space.
The Figure legends are > at the back of the text file. I will send Figures as a
separate message > cheers > Keith > At 15:52 23/06/2005, Pascale Braconnot wrote:
> >> Dear all, >> >> Here is what I send today to gaby and francis as a
contribution for >> the first draft for chapt 9.3 >> >> We know we have overlap
between the two chapters (9 and 6). We need >> to make sure that the point of view
is different (or slightly). >> in particular, chapter 6 days much more about the
data (I nearly >> supress all ref to data in 9), and may be also on model
evaluation >> (which i do not mention as such). >> >> It could be nice you send me
your parts in chapter 6 when ready. I >> will have only a small time to adapt the
chapt 9 contribution and >> make changes in July. >> >> How things will work in
chapter9 in the coming month. >> >> CLA recieved all the contributions, they work
together next week >> (i still need to interact with gbi for the last millenium
part and >> the update of the figure on detection: attribution, but gabi didn't >>
had time to do it at the moment). >> >> Then Gabi and Francis will return comments
to us (as well as internal >> comments withing LA of the chapter) and last changes
will be provided >> for the end of July. >> >> On my side I am out of contact
(mail etc) starting 22 July. >> I need thus to finish every thing for July 20. >>
>> I hope the draft 1 writing is going on well on your side >> >> Cheers >> >>
Pascale >> >> >> > > -- > Professor Keith Briffa, > Climatic Research Unit >
University of East Anglia > Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > > Phone: +44-1603-593909 >
Fax: +44-1603-507784 > > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachmasson119.vcf"

From: Jonathan Overpeck To: Caspar Ammann Subject: Re: What's up with your paper
with Eugene? Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:46:59 -0600 Cc: Eystein Jansen , Stephen
Schneider , "Wahl, Eugene R" , Keith Briffa
Hi Caspar and Gene - Thanks. I look forward to hearing how things go - if the
paper is in press by the first week of August, we'll cite it in the Chapter 6 of
the FOD, but otherwise I guess it'll have to wait - that's ok too.
But... keep us posted (and send revised preprint when possible). Thanks! Peck
>Hi Peck, > >you might have heard.. the thing is flying in everybody's face right
>now... Mike-Ray-Malcolm, IPCC and NSF got these lovely letters from >the House of
Representatives... > >Now, I know of - and already have in hand - comments by two
reviews >of the WA paper, both strongly positive. Steve is probably waiting >on
the Canadians to finish theirs. There were two requests for >additional
information over the course of the review so far, I hope >no other one is required
that delays the process. I cc Steve, he >might give you the best perspective on
the progress. Gene is going >to be at NCAR in early July and we will finish with
revisions ASAP. > >I hope this helps for now. I'm currently in Rome at a meeting
on >Sun-Climate links, >Caspar > > >Jonathan Overpeck wrote: > >>Hi Caspar - we're
working on the IPCC chapter and wonder if you >>could pls update us w/ the status
of Wahl and Ammann? Most >>important - will it be in press by the end of the
month? >> >>Thanks! Peck > > >-- >Caspar M. Ammann >National Center for
Atmospheric Research >Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology
>1850 Table Mesa Drive >Boulder, CO 80307-3000 >email: ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx tel:
303-497-1705 fax: 303-497-1348


From: Jonathan Overpeck To: "Wahl, Eugene R" Subject: RE: Wahl-Ammann paper Date:
Mon, 4 Jul 2005 21:53:23 -0600 Cc: Eystein Jansen , Keith Briffa
Hi Gene - good to hear from you. What you list below seems like it must be pretty
good to me. Of course, we'd like to include all we can in the FOD, hence the
interest in knowing if it's in press or not before the end of the month.
Just keep us updated, and if you feel comfortable sharing the ms. that'd be great,
but only if you feel ok about sharing it. The key people are me, Eystein Jansen
and Keith Briffa - we won't share it with others.
Thanks for keeping us up to date. Best, peck
>Hello Jonathan: > >Thanks for this info. Could you clue me in--I had heard
through the >grapevine (ultimate source, Jerry Meehl) that the actual in-press
>deadline for IPCC citations in the AR would be Jan 1 of 2006. On >the IPCC
website I see mid-December for the Christchurch meeting. > >I assume this the same
situation for Chapter 6, and thus the early >August deadline is for the FOD. Is
this getting it correct? > >Let me know if viewing the submitted text would be of
use to you, >and I'll ship at once. > > >Hope you are well. > >Peace, Gene >Dr.
Eugene R. Wahl >Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies >Alfred University >
>607-871-2604 >1 Saxon Drive >Alfred, NY 14802 > >________________________________
> >From: Jonathan Overpeck [mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu] >Sent: Fri 7/1/2005 2:46 PM
>To: Caspar Ammann >Cc: Eystein Jansen; Stephen Schneider; Wahl, Eugene R; Keith
Briffa >Subject: Re: What's up with your paper with Eugene? > > > >Hi Caspar and
Gene - Thanks. I look forward to hearing how things go >- if the paper is in press
by the first week of August, we'll cite it >in the Chapter 6 of the FOD, but
otherwise I guess it'll have to wait >- that's ok too. > >But... keep us posted
(and send revised preprint when possible). Thanks! Peck > >>Hi Peck, >> >>you
might have heard.. the thing is flying in everybody's face right >>now... Mike-
Ray-Malcolm, IPCC and NSF got these lovely letters from >>the House of
Representatives... >> >>Now, I know of - and already have in hand - comments by
two reviews >>of the WA paper, both strongly positive. Steve is probably waiting
>>on the Canadians to finish theirs. There were two requests for >>additional
information over the course of the review so far, I hope >>no other one is
required that delays the process. I cc Steve, he >>might give you the best
perspective on the progress. Gene is going >>to be at NCAR in early July and we
will finish with revisions ASAP. >> >>I hope this helps for now. I'm currently in
Rome at a meeting on >>Sun-Climate links, >>Caspar >> >> >>Jonathan Overpeck
wrote: >> >>>Hi Caspar - we're working on the IPCC chapter and wonder if you
>>>could pls update us w/ the status of Wahl and Ammann? Most >>>important - will
it be in press by the end of the month? >>> >>>Thanks! Peck >> >> >>-- >>Caspar M.
Ammann >>National Center for Atmospheric Research >>Climate and Global Dynamics
Division - Paleoclimatology >>1850 Table Mesa Drive >>Boulder, CO 80307-3000
>>email: ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx tel: 303-497-1705 fax: 303-497-1348 > > >--
>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:
+1 520 622-9065 >fax: +1 520 792-8795 >http://www.geo.arizona.edu/
>http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/


From: Phil Jones To: John Christy Subject: This and that Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55
2005
John,
There has been some email traffic in the last few days to a week - quite
a bit really, only a small part about MSU. The main part has been one of
your House subcommittees wanting Mike Mann and others and IPCC
to respond on how they produced their reconstructions and how IPCC
produced their report.
In case you want to look at this see later in the email !
Also this load of rubbish !
This is from an Australian at BMRC (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the
attached
article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no
uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only
7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant.
The Australian also alerted me to this blogging ! I think this is the term !
Luckily
I don't live in Australia.
[1]http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/06/first-look-at-scs-msu-vn52.html
Unlike the UK, the public in Australia is very very na?ve about climate change,
mostly
because of our governments Kyoto stance, and because there is a proliferation of

people
with no climate knowledge at all that are prepared to do the gov bidding. Hence
the
general populace is at best confused, and at worst, antagonistic about climate

change -
for instance, at a recent rural meeting on drought, attended by politicians and

around
2000 farmers, a Qld collegue - Dr Roger Stone - spoke about drought from a
climatologist
point of view, and suggested that climate change may be playing a role in
Australias
continuing drought+water problem. He was booed and heckled (and unfortunately some
politicians applauded when this happened) - that's what we're dealing with due to
columists such as the one I sent to you.
Now to your email. I have seen the latest Mears and Wentz paper (to Science), but
am not reviewing it, thank goodness. I am reviewing a couple of papers on

extremes,
so that I can refer to them in the chapter for AR4. Somewhat circular, but I kept
to
my usual standards.
The Hadley Centre are working on the day/night issue with sondes, but there are
a lot of problems as there are very few sites in the tropics with both and where
both
can be distinguished. My own view if that the sondes are overdoing the cooling
wrt MSU4 in the lower stratosphere, and some of this likely (IPCC definition)
affects
the upper troposphere as well. Sondes are a mess and the fact you get agreement
with some of them is miraculous. Have you looked at individual sondes, rather than
averages - particularly tropical ones? LKS is good, but the RATPAC update less so.
As for being on the latest VG analysis, Kostya wanted it to use the surface data.
I thought the model comparisons were a useful aside, so agreed. Ben sent me a
paper he's
submitted with lots of model comparisons that I also thought a useful addition to
the subject.
As for resolving all this (as opposed to the dogfight) I'm hoping that CCSP will
come up with something - a compromise. I might be naive in this respect. I hope
you are still emailing and talking to Carl and Frank. How is CCSP going? Are you
still
on schedule for end of August for your open review?

What will be interesting is to see how IPCC pans out, as we've been told we can't
use
any article that hasn't been submitted by May 31. This date isn't binding, but
Aug 12 is a little more as this is when we must submit our next draft - the one
everybody will be able to get access to and comment upon. The science isn't
going to stop from now until AR4 comes out in early 2007, so we are going to
have to add in relevant new and important papers. I hope it is up to us to decide
what is important and new. So, unless you get something to me soon, it won't
be in this version. It shouldn't matter though, as it will be ridiculous to keep
later drafts without it. We will be open to criticism though with what we do add
in subsequent drafts. Someone is going to check the final version and the
Aug 12 draft. This is partly why I've sent you the rest of this email. IPCC,
me and whoever will get accused of being political, whatever we do. As you
know, I'm not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change
happen,
so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This
isn't being political, it is being selfish.
Cheers
Phil
IPCC stuff ---- just for interest !!!
IPCC ASKED TO COME CLEAN OVER CONTROVERSIAL HOCKEY STICK STUDIES
The Committee on Energy and Commerce, 23 June 2005
[2]http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Letters/062305_Pachauri.pdf
Joe Barton, Chairman
U.S. House of Representatives
June 23, 2005

To: Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri
Chairman
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
C/O IPCC Secretariat
World Meteorological Organization
7 bis Avenue de La Paix
C.P. 2300
Ch- 1211 Geneva 2 Switzerland
Dear Chairman Pachauri:
Questions have been raised, according to a February 14, 2005 article in The Wall
Street
Journal, about the significance of methodological flaws and data errors in studies
by Dr.
Michael Mann and co-authors of the historical record of temperatures and climate
change. We
understand that these studies of temperature proxies (tree rings, ice cores,
corals, etc.)
formed the basis for a new finding in the 2001 United Nation's Intergovernmental
Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR). This finding - that the
increase in
20th century northern hemisphere temperatures is "likely to have been the largest
of any
century during the past 1,000 years" and that the "1990s was the warmest decade
and 1998
the warmest year" - has since been referenced widely and has become a prominent
feature of
the public debate surrounding climate change policy.
However, in recent peer-reviewed articles in Science, Geophysical Research

Letters, Energy
& Environment, among others, researchers question the results of this work. As
these
researchers find, based on the available information, the conclusions concerning
temperature
histories - and hence whether warming in the 20th century is actually

unprecedented -
cannot be
supported by the Mann et. al. studies. In addition, we understand from the
February 14
Journal
and these other reports that researchers have failed to replicate the findings of
these
studies, in part because of problems with the underlying data and the calculations
used to
reach the conclusions. Questions have also been raised concerning the sharing and
dissemination of the data and methods used to perform the studies. For example,
according
to the January 2005
Energy & Environment, the information necessary to replicate the analyses in the
studies
has not been made fully available to researchers upon request.
The concerns surrounding these studies reflect upon the quality and transparency
of
federally
funded research and of the IPCC review process - two matters of particular
interest to the
Committee. For example, one concern relates to whether IPCC review has been
sufficiently
robust
and independent. We understand that Dr. Michael Mann, the lead author of the
studies in
question, was also a lead author of the IPCC chapter that assessed and reported
this very
same work, and that two co-authors of the studies were also contributing authors
to the
same chapter. Given the prominence these studies were accorded in the IPCC TAR, we
seek to
learn more about the facts and circumstances that led to acceptance and prominent
use of
this work in the IPCC TAR and to understand what this controversy indicates about
the data
quality of key IPCC studies.
In light of the Committee's jurisdiction over energy policy and certain

environmental
issues
in the U.S. House of Representatives, the Committee must have full and accurate
information
when considering matters relating to climate change policy. We open this review
because the
dispute surrounding these studies bears directly on important questions about the
federally
funded work upon which climate studies rely and the quality and transparency of
analyses
used
to support the IPCC assessment process. With the IPCC currently working to produce
a fourth
assessment report, addressing questions of quality and transparency in the

underlying
analyses
supporting that assessment, both scientific and economic, are of utmost importance
if
Congress
is eventually going to make policy decisions drawing from this work.
To assist us as we begin this review, and pursuant to Rules X and XI of the U.S.
House of
Representatives, please provide the following information requested below on or

before July
11,
2005:
1. Explain the IPCC process for preparing and writing its assessment reports,
including,
but
not limited to: (a) how referenced studies are reviewed and assessed by the
relevant
Working Group; (b) the steps taken by lead authors, reviewers, and others to
ensure the
data underlying the studies forming the basis for key findings - particularly
proxy and
temperature data - are accurate and up to date; and (c) the IPCC requirements
governing
the quality of data used in reports.
2. What specifically did IPCC do to check the quality of the Mann et. al. studies
and
underlying data, cited in the TAR? Did IPCC seek to ensure the studies could be
replicated?
3. What is your position with regard to: (a) the recent challenges to the quality
of the
Mann
et. al. data, (b) related questions surrounding the sharing of methods and
research for
others to test the validity of these studies, and (c) what this controversy
indicates about
the data quality of key IPCC studies?
4. What did IPCC do to ensure the quality of data for other prominent historical
temperature
or proxy studies cited in the IPCC, including the Folland et. al. and Jones et.
al. studies
that were sources for the graphic accompanying the Mann et. al. graphic in the
Summary
for Policy Makers? Are the data and methodologies for such works complete and
available for other researchers to test and replicate?
5. Explain (a) the facts and circumstances by which Dr. Michael Mann served as a
lead
author of the very chapter that prominently featured his work and (b) by which his
work
became a finding and graphical feature of the TAR Summary for Policymakers.
6. Explain (a) how IPCC ensures objectivity and independence among section
contributors
and reviewers, (b) how they are chosen, and (c) how the chapters, summaries, and
the full
report are approved and what any such approval signifies about the quality and
acceptance of particular research therein.

7. Identify the people who wrote and reviewed the historical temperature-record
portions of
the TAR, particularly Section 2.3, "Is the Recent Warming Unusual?" and explain
all
their roles in the preparation of the TAR, including, but not limited to, the
specific
roles
in the writing and review process.
8. Given the questions about Mann et. al. data, has the Working Group I or the
IPCC made
any changes to specific procedures or policies, including policies for checking

the quality
of data, for the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report? If so, explain in detail
any such
changes, and why they were made.
9. Does the IPCC or Working Group I have policies or procedures regarding the
disclosure
and dissemination of scientific data referenced in the reports? If so, explain in

detail
any
such policies and what happens when they are violated.
Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please contact Peter
Spencer of
the Majority Committee staff at (202) 226-2424.
Sincerely,
Joe Barton Chairman Chairman
Ed Whitfield
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
cc: The Honorable John Dingell, Ranking Member
The Honorable Bart Stupak, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
EDITOR'S NOTE: The House of Representatives has also written to National Science
Foundation
Director Arden Bement, Dr. Michael Mann, Dr. Malcolm K. Hughes, and Dr. Raymond S.
Bradley,
requesting information regarding their global warming studies; see "Letters

Requesting
Information Regarding Global Warming Studies" at
[3]http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Letters/06232005_1570.htm
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/06/first-look-at-scs-msu-vn52.html
2. http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Letters/062305_Pachauri.pdf
3. http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Letters/06232005_1570.htm

From: Phil Jones To: "Neville Nicholls" Subject: RE: Misc Date: Wed Jul 6 15:07:45
2005
Neville,
Mike's response could do with a little work, but as you say he's got the tone
almost dead on. I hope I don't get a call from congress ! I'm hoping that no-one
there realizes I have a US DoE grant and have had this (with Tom W.) for the last
25
years.
I'll send on one other email received for interest.
Cheers
Phil
At 14:21 06/07/2005, you wrote:
Thanks Phil.
I had seen the estimates of 0.12C for UAH 5.2, but wasnt sure if the version
producing
these trends had all the months corrected, and that John was happy with the
corrections
(I had heard that his initial estimate was that the change made a major difference
to
the trends, but that later calulations didnt support this). I think I have a
pretty good
idea now of the trends in the various data sets.
I have seen the Mears/Wentz paper, but will watch out for John's paper (I know I
could
have asked John about all of this, but I suspect he feels a bit over-burdened and
harrassed at the moment, and I didnt want to add to the pressure on him, so thanks
for
passing this stuff on to me).
I thought Mike Mann's draft response was pretty good - I had expected something
more
vigorous, but I think he has got the "tone" pretty right. Do you expect to get a
call
from Congress?
Neville Nicholls
Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre
9th Floor, 700 Collins Street
Docklands,Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
PO Box 1289K, Melbourne, AUSTRALIA 3001
Phone: +61 (0)3 9669 4407
Fax: +61 (0)3 9669 4660

From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Wed 7/6/2005 5:57 PM
To: Neville Nicholls
Subject: Fwd: Misc
Neville,
Here's an email from John, with the trend from his latest version
in. Also
has trends for RATPAC and HadAT2. If you can stress in your talks that it is
more likely the sondes are wrong - at least as a group. Some may be OK
individually. The tropical ones are the key, but it is these that least
is know
about except for a few regions. The sondes clearly show too much cooling in
the stratosphere (when compared to MSU4), and I reckon this must
also affect their upper troposphere trends as well. So, John may be putting
too much faith in them wrt agreement with UAH.
Happy for you to use the figure, if you don't pass on to anyone else.
Watch
out for Science though and the Mears/Wentz paper if it ever comes out.
Also, do point out that looking at surface trends from 1998 isn't very
clever.
Cheers
Phil
>Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 07:59:51 -0500
>From: John Christy
>User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.4)
>Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1
>X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
>To: Phil Jones

>Subject: Misc
>X-NSSTC-MailScanner: Found to be clean
>X-NSSTC-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted),
> SpamAssassin (score=-5.8, required 5, BAYES_01 -5.40,
> RCVD_IN_ORBS 0.11, SIGNATURE_LONG_SPARSE -0.49,
> USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_UA 0.00)
>X-MailScanner-From: john.christy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>X-Spam-Score: 0.0
>X-Spam-Level: /
>X-Spam-Flag: NO
>
>Hi Phil:
>
>I've been getting round-about versions of rumors concerning our newly
>adjusted version 5.2 LT dataset. I believe I had indicated earlier to you
>that the correction was within our published margin of error. In any case
>here are the numbers that describe various aspects of v5.2
>1979-2004
>
>Global Trend +0.115 UAH, +0.125 RATPAC and +0.137 HadAT (note, when
>subsampled for the same latitudes in which sonde observations are
>available, UAH and HadAT are almost exactly the same.)
>
>Update of site by site comparison of UAH LT 5.2 and SH radiosondes from
>Christy and Norris 2004:
>
>All 87 SH stations, no adjustments Raobs + 0.028 UAH +0.040
>74 best sites with adjustments Raobs +0.030 UAH +0.054
>
>These SH changes from the original publication were very minor because
>most stations were outside the tropics where the diurnal error had
>essentially no impact.
>
>A paper by Sherwood claims that Day minus Night is a legitimate way to go
>about looking at sonde problems. The real problem though is that Day
>minus Night is only an indicator of a sonde change, it does not determine
>the change itself. Most notorious is the Philipps Mark III to Vaisala
>RS-80 where the night warmed by about 0.3 C and the day by a little bit
>less, which means the Day minus Night reveals a negative shift when in
>fact both ob times have a significant positive shift (these sondes form a
>signifciant part of the LKS dataset). Similar results occur for US VIZ
>mini-art 2 to Micro-art software in 1990.
>
>I have many other sone comparisons, and all are more consistent with the
>UAH trends more than RSS and certainly VG. Indeed, I was curious to see
>that your name was on VG's latest paper. I wish I had time to fill you in
>on why the addition of the non-linear terms is a red herring (both UAH and
>RSS have performed the calculations with and without the non-linear terms
>with no impact on the trends) and why the latitudinal difference for
>calculating the coefficients leads one astray. I'm a little nervous now
>that you may have a "dog in this fight" as we say in Alabama while writing
>up the IPCC. I expect my sonde comparisons to be included in the IPCC and
>I will have further results demonstrating the problems with the Day minus
>Night technique within a few months.
>
>I've lots to do now. Thanks for listening.
>
>John C.
>
>--
>************************************************************
>John R. Christy
>Director, Earth System Science Center voice: 256-961-7763
>Professor, Atmospheric Science fax: 256-961-7751
>Alabama State Climatologist
>University of Alabama in Huntsville
>[2]http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy.html
>
>Mail: ESSC-Cramer Hall/University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville
>AL 35899
>Express: Cramer Hall/ESSC, 320 Sparkman Dr., Huntsville AL 35805
>
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
2. http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy.html

From: Phil Jones To: Kevin Trenberth Subject: One small thing Date: Mon Jul 11
13:36:14 2005
Kevin,
In the caption to Fig 3.6.2, can you change 1882-2004 to 1866-2004 and
add a reference to Konnen (with umlaut over the o) et al. (1998). Reference
is in the list. Dennis must have picked up the MSLP file from our web site,
that has the early pre-1882 data in. These are fine as from 1869 they are Darwin,
with the few missing months (and 1866-68) infilled by regression with Jakarta.
This regression is very good (r>0.8). Much better than the infilling of Tahiti,
which
is said in the text to be less reliable before 1935, which I agree with.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bette Otto-Bliesner To: hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Re: Senstivity, LGM

and otherwise Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:34:00 -0600 (MDT) Cc: Jonathan Overpeck ,
Eystein Jansen , cddhr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Keith Briffa , francis.zwiers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi Gabi,
Here is the section from the FOD draft that includes the new PMIP-2 results. The
radiative forcings have been modified based on new calculations. Note the PMIP-2
LGM model results included in the FOD do not include vegetation or atmospheric
aerosol changes so for these results the radiative forcing estimate is 5.7 +/- 1.3
W/m2.
Bette
______________________________________________ Bette L. Otto-Bliesner Climate

Change Research National Center for Atmospheric Research 1850 Table Mesa Drive /
P.O. Box 3000 Boulder, Colorado 80307 Phone: 303-497-1723 Fax: 303-497-1348 Email:
ottobli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx ______________________________________________
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
> > > Hi chapter 6, > > I am getting a bit nervous about the sensitivity stuff,
since > chapter 10 wants our version from us (blush nowhere near there) > for
their summary of all things sensitivity - so I am in the middle > of the
pipeline.... > ALl I'd need is the text from the ZOD, if you want to update
anything > or make me aware of refs, thats fine, but not as urgent. > Did the ZOD
have the ice age sensitivity? > > thank you and sorry... > > Gabi > >
-------------------------------------------------------------------- > Gabriele
Hegerl > Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment >
Duke University, Durham NC 27708 > phone 919-684-6167, fax 919-684-5833 > email:
hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx http://www.eos.duke.edu/Faculty/hegerl.html >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachWhat do ice ages tell us_071105.doc"

From: Jonathan Overpeck To: cddhr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Bette

Otto-Bleisner , Keith Briffa , joos , olgasolomina@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Eystein Jansen ,
jto@u.arizona.edu Subject: IMPORTANT - The next steps for chapter 6 enroute to THE
FOD Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 21:48:56 -0600
Hi all - in the last few emails, we have suggested that you serve as "head" lead
authors for the various sections of our chapter. One main purpose of this email is
to make sure you are comfortable with the responsibility and have time for it. The
other main goal is to explain what is expected of each of you.
First, here's a list of who's heading what sections. We picked you guys since you
have proven to be intellectual leaders on the team, but also because you have
track records of getting the job done on time. The one person we worry about is
Olga, since she is leaving soon for the field, but nonetheless, we'd like all her
input on Box 6.3 before she leaves. We will take over after then.
Exec Summary and Section 6.1 - PECK and EYSTEIN Section 6.2 - DAVID Section 6.3 -
STEFAN Section 6.4 - BETTE Section 6.5 - KEITH Section 6.6 - FORTUNAT Box 6.1 -
DAVID Box 6.2 - FORTUNAT Box 6.3 - OLGA Box 6.4 - KEITH
Second, what is needed? Here is a list that has come to mind. We'd like you all to
comment on this list (use the email list used for this email), so that we all
agree about what we're doing in the next couple weeks.
1) Your primary job is to make sure your section (text, tables, figs and refs) is
as perfect as possible. Each of us has to be careful about how we schedule things
so that we have the job DONE by July 24.
2) Each of you should solicit feedback and edits from the ENTIRE LA team, plus
relevant CAs. This is obviously to get the best ideas possible, but also to ensure
that all on the LA team have had input. Please create a check list and make sure
that you have some sort of feedback (at least an "OK") from each LA. We suggest
you start asap, and don't expect LAs to just respond to the emails we just sent -
many of the LAs just don't respond in a timely fashion (thankfully, you guys are
not on that list!).
2.5) Monitor all chapter listserv traffic for your input, as some LAs prefer to
communicate only in that way.
3) Please explicitly ask for feedback on the text, tables, figs and refs.
4) With respect to text, try hard to get it down to size (see below), and to
ensure that it is FOCUSED on only that science which is policy relevant. ALL TEXT
should support an Exec Summary Bullet. If it doesn't the text should be removed,
or a bullet created for discussion with our team. Also, although it is ultimately
our job to try to make the chapter flow as one document, please do what you can to
make your section's text flow with the other sections. Look to make sure all
information is compatible across sections, and that the same type of
language/style is used (to the extent you can.
4.4) We hope that you will start your process by reading THE ENTIRE CHAPTER
carefully, and sending your comments for each section to the "head" LA for that
section. This will get things moving fast, and help with the compatibility issues
mentioned in #4 above.
5) With respect to the figures (and table), make sure each one is as compelling as
possible. To save space (see below) you might decide a figure has to go. You might
decide a new figure has to be included (only if there is space!). Work to get the
figure redrafted where needed to be perfect - a sign of ultimate success will be
that our figs get into the TS/SPM docs. Peck will be on that team, and will push
hard, but figures MUST BE POLICY RELEVANT AND COMPELLING.
6) With respect to refs, please make sure that only the most relevant ones are
cited, and that all of the citations are complete and entered into your copy of
the master chapter endnote file. Although we expect to cite our own work where it
makes sense, please be double sure that we're not going overboard in this regard -
it won't look good to the outside world (e.g., skeptics) if we appear self-serving
at all.
7) If you run into any debates that can't be easily solved (i.e. with all LAs
happy), please consult with us. It is our job to make the ultimate calls, since
someone has to do it. Again, it is our goal to make sure that no one is left with
a bad feeling about our product. On the other hand, we have to make sure we stick
to only the best science.
8) We'll be asking to make sure we have all the CAs listed. Let us know if you
need to consult with any new ones. AGain, we must do what it takes to get the
science and message as perfect as possible. CA consultation at this point is
encouraged where it will help. For example, we need to get out the Pre-Q box to
some Pre-Q experts - we are discussing w/ David.
9) At any point you need input, ask. We are happy to talk on the phone, and can
call you or a group if you want a conference call. We are doing this already, and
it can save lots of time. Or email. Both of us will be mostly around save a day or
two.
10) Size and need to cut some sections. Because of recent changes in the TSU, we
haven't been able to get the latest word, but we suspect that our comments in the
FOD draft just sent are true - some sections have a real space issue (factor in
figures), others less so. We'll provide more on this soon, and we expect that if
you follow the above guidelines, you'll be getting things into more focus, and
hopefully less space - especially section 6.3. When thinking about Figs, Tables
and Refs, also be thinking "How can I save space?"
11) Feel free to bring in other LAs to help you coordinate. For example, for
section 6.3, Bette and Dominique (to be back soon) can be a big help, Stefan.
Keith is working with Tim and Ricardo, but also some others to do the job he has
left. Etc.
12) We will start sending more info next week, and will help reach consensus on
what we're doing, and by when if needed. Let us know what we've missed, and what
might be wrong or unclear.
Ok, that's more than enough.
Thanks again for helping us lead the next big push!
Best, Peck and Eystein -- Jonathan T. Overpeck Director, Institute for the Study
of Planet Earth Professor, Department of Geosciences Professor, Department of
Atmospheric Sciences

From: Phil Jones To: Tom Wigley Subject: Re: paleoT Date: Fri Jul 15 11:06:31 2005
Tom,
This Briffa series is just a three site average (trees from Tornetrask, Polar
Urals
and
Taimyr) - all in northern Eurasia. It is therefore for a limited region and is

likely
just the summer, whereas some of the others have regressed on annual T for
the NH (or north of 20N).
Of these 3, the first two are in most of the other series (Esper, Crowley, Jones,
Mann)
and also for HF in Moberg. Not sure whether Taimyr is in any of the others.
Esper uses a different standardization approach, but should have most of the
same trees, but only TRW. The others use our reconstructions which have MXD
is as well.
Have you tried these correlations after extracting the LF trends (say residuals
from a 30 or 50 yr filter)? Would expect some of them to be much, much lower.
Keith's reconstruction that would be much better is the one that goes back to
only about 1400. Do you have this? Go here

[1]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html
then click on paleo data, then on obtaining and look for Keith's - it says 600
years in
the title. You can get the data.
Cheers
Phil
At 21:57 14/07/2005, you wrote:
Phil,
I eventually refiltered all the paleo data and have compared these
with likewise filtered MAGICC output. Very interesting results.
Can you comment, off the record, on Keith's paleo series.

Here are correlations of individual series against the 7 series average.
(Different series lengths, but essentially same results over common lengths.)
SERIES 1000-1610 1610-1995 1000-1995
Briffa -.272 .262 .207
Esper .583 .917 .687
Crowley .879 .946 .902
Jones .773 .917 .861
Mann .760 .856 .822
M&J-NH .929 .965 .936
Moberg .904 .856 .871
Correlations with the climate model are not the same -- but Briffa is
again the clear outlier.
Why?
Tom.
Prof. Phil Jones
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html

From: Eystein Jansen To: Jonathan Overpeck Subject: Re: Your spaghetti figure
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 07:39:13 +0200 Cc: Keith Briffa , t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi,
if what Tom writes is correct, then I would think it is not necessary to have a
separate paper. But we need to be sure so as not to break any of the regulations
since this will be one of the most scrutinized sections of the whole 4AR. I guess
it is now up to how Keith and Tim takes the MWP box further and what ends up in
the figure.
Cheers, Eystein
At 21:35 -0600 17-07-05, Jonathan Overpeck wrote: >Hi Tom - thx for the quick
response. It sounds >like you don't need to do the extra pub. Keith >and Eystein,
do you agree? Tom can help make >sure everything is ok, and should probably be a
>Contributing Author for the effort. Is that >appropriate, all? Tom has already
given us lots >of useful review comments, and I suspect (am I >right, Tom) that
would be willing to review some >more, in addition to helping make sure Keith and
>Tim get the figure we're thinking about right? >Of course, if we run into a
methodological or >space problem, the fig might still not make it, >but Keith,
Eystein and I talked and have agreed >that it would be good to hammer home that
>available data do not support the concept of a >single (or multiple) globally
synchronous (e.g., >to the degree that the late 20th century is) >warm events
during anyone's definition of >Medieval times. We also agreed that this fig >would
focus on that issue only, and not Medieval >warmth vs 20th century. This amplitude
issue is >dealt with in the main "temps of the last 2K" >figs that Tim and Keith
produced. But, given all >the misunderstanding and misrepresenting that is >going
on wrt to the Medieval Warm Period, we >concluded that it's worth the extra space
to >address the issue in more than one way - hence >the decision to try to do
something along the >lines of your figure. > >It's in Keith and Tim's hands for
the next step - they're working away. > >Thanks again to all, best, peck > >Thx,
peck > >>Quoting Jonathan Overpeck : >> >> >>Jonathan, can do, but I am wondering
if we need to - seven of the curves have >>been processed in the way we describe
in the >>Hegerl et al paper to nature that >>gabi sent you - s.d.s even listed in
>>supplementary file. the only exception is >>the Alberta record, which Lockhart
(sp?) >>extended recently to about 900 - that >>is published too - so each of the
records has >>gone through some peer-processing >>- so should the figure itself,
based on those data, still require an extra >>reference? if so I will still do it,
but I >>wonder if it is needed. please get >>back to me soon on this, tom >> >>>
Hi Tom - Looks like we (Keith) is going to try to come up w/ a new >>> version of
your figure for our MWP Box. We're banking on Susan giving >>> us the extra space
for this and a couple other things, but I >>> recommend you do that quick EOS
paper you mentioned. Still ok? >>> >>> Many thanks. >>> >>> 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: +1 520 622-9065 >>> fax: +1 520 792-8795 >>>
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >>> http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ >>> > > >-- >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: +1 520 622-9065
>fax: +1 520 792-8795 >http://www.geo.arizona.edu/ >http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
-- ______________________________________________________________ Eystein Jansen

55-584330

Alleged CRU Emails - 25 of Below Enter Keywords To

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Alleged CRU Emails - 25 of Below Enter Keywords To

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Alleged CRU Emails - 25 of below

Enter keywords to search

Original Filename: 1031923640.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier

The 'new and improved version' of MAGICC/SCENGEN should be available in beta-test

Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachMAG-SG1.doc" Content-Type: x-msword;

Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachSGFlowchart1.doc"

Original Filename: 1033599602.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier

From: Martin Welp To: gberz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ccarraro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,

Dear member of the extended board

Best regards, Martin Welp

-- NOTE NEW FAX NUMBER

Original Filename: 1034341705.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 11:22:37 -0400

From: Leonid Polyak

Subject: Re: Polar Urals data

To: Keith Briffa

X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32)

Professor Keith Briffa,

Climatic Research Unit

University of East Anglia

Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.

Original Filename: 1035838207.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier

then was different from yours.

Original Filename: 1036182485.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Earlier

Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 09:56:45 -0500

To: Phil Jones

From: Gabi Hegerl

Subject: Re: paleo data

No worries, I can wait till next week!

It would be great to hear from you next week particularly if you

feel I have overlooked something, I am planning to submit a little

forcing is mainly driven by the low-f component anyway.

the 1998 data).

At 11:27 31/10/02 -0500, Gabi Hegerl wrote:

Dear Keith and Phil,

from your JGR data file). I also got the

appear quite unimpressed by if I filter the 2001 data to focus on lower

the high-frequency component).

Then I redid the Epoch analysis comparing the

signals on average (using 50 eruptions between 1400 and 1940) in the

in the JGR record, not the 1998 record.

I am wondering is there something I am overlooking?

I append a figure of the high-passed (var > ca 10 yrs removed) records,

appears underestimated in Briffa 98 data) is removed rather than the

version of Northern Hemisphere Land temperatures (april- sept) produced by PCA

believe). It is true that high frequency component is not in my opinion optimal in

describing the relative magnitude of extreme inter-annual extremes. This is to do

the unpredictable weighting ascribed to certain areas (tree-density series) in the

really want me to). Te relative differences in year-to-year values are likely

represented in the N.Hemisphere series produced by averaging regional series

compromise . That is a composite of the Age-Banding approach (JGR) low-frequency

see the correlations (Table 1 and related text in

There are many possible ways of producing a "Northern Hemisphere" average ,

N.Eurasian data (a composite of ring width chronologies in N.Sweden, The Yamal

peninsula, and Taimyr ) . I will soon be able to provide a 4000-year version ,

now being worked on.

International Tree-Ring Data bank , part of the NGDC holdings?

At 02:29 PM 10/1/02 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:

will send a reply and data later this week.

At 11:28 26/09/02 -0400, Tom Crowley wrote:

thanks for all your help on the bams paper

keep you posted.

I am also wondering whether we can get some data from you: