Kevin,
I was concerned about splitting too, and suggested as a way of getting
through the work a little quicker. Pairs will also work as long as we choose
the right ones. Agree we need to separate the major from minor, so
anything that can be done there in April will be good.
I suspect the comments from the nominated reviewers will all have
to answered in a formal way - as a dry run for the FOD and SOD.
On the figures we need to compare notes on these in a few weeks
and assign particular people to them. We both worked with Dave
on the set of trends. They may not be perfect, but they are better
than some of the others. I think we will need to do more of this.
Giving responsibility for a handful to some of the LAs is a
possibility. We'll need to give clear instructions though and expect
loads of iterations. I can deal with 3.2 with David and the HC if we
can agree on what and how we want them.  Most of the other
sections require much more thought. I'll work on this.
I agree 100% with you on the TC section. This will get scrutinized
by many more now. I'll report back on the CCSP review. Apart
from Lindzen the panel seem pretty good. So, I'll gauge what the
key issues appear to be in the panel's minds. Agree that we
shouldn't treat it's conclusions as gospel (otherwise why are we
bothering), but treat it as a very very major review article.
Must go home now. Have a good trip back to NZ.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:39 04/02/2005, you wrote:
Phil I tried to attach the ppt with all the figues: but it is too big for your server??
Kevin
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Zero order draft of Chapter 3, AR4, IPCC
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 09:36:00 -0700
From: Kevin Trenberth [1]
To: Phil Jones [2]
References: [3]
[4]
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@ucar.edu
Phil Jones
[6]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
--
****************
Kevin E.
Trenberth
e-mail:
[7]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section,
NCAR
[8]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. 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    [9]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                              e-mail: [10]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR                  [11]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
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                              e-mail: [12]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR                  [13]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. 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@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. mailto:trenbert@cgd.ucar.edu
2. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
3. mailto:42024852.7060406@cgd.ucar.edu
4. mailto:6.1.2.0.0.20050204144545.03dd6830@pop.uea.ac.uk
5. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
6. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
7. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
8.
9. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
10. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
11.
12. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
13.


X-Sender: mem6u@multiproxy.evsc.virginia.edu
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.1.1
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 16:04:57 -0500
To: Phil Jones
, rbradley@geo.umass.edu,
tom crowley
, tom crowley
,
mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu, rbradley@geo.umass.edu,
Keith Briffa
, Caspar Ammann
From: "Michael E. Mann"
Subject: Fwd: Re: FW: "hockey stock" methodology misleading
X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-UEA-MailScanner-SpamScore: s
sorry, forgot to attach the paper...
mike
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:54:15 -0500
To: Phil Jones
, rbradley@geo.umass.edu, Tom Crowley, Tom Crowley,
mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu, rbradley@geo.umass.edu, Keith Briffa
From: "Michael E. Mann"
Subject: Fwd: Re: FW: "hockey stock" methodology misleading
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:52:53 -0500
To: Andy Revkin
From: "Michael E. Mann"
Subject: Re: FW: "hockey stock" methodology misleading
Hi Andy,
The McIntyre and McKitrick paper is pure scientific fraud. I think you'll find this
reinforced by just about any legitimate scientist in our field you discuss this with.
Please see the RealClimate response:
[1]
and also:
[2]
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
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[9]
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[10]
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[11]
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[12]
References
1.
2.
3.
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.
8. ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/mann/JonesMannROG04.pdf
9.
10.
11.
12.


sorry. text revised yet again. no more changes until I receive comments from everyone.
thanks...
mike
At 12:03 PM 2/11/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Keith and Tim are here next week, but very busy with a proposal to the EU.
So you may have to hassle them a bit, or hang on for a week or two.
Nature dragged in the IPCC angle which annoyed me. I tried to explain to
him how IPCC works. IPCC won't be discussing this in Beijing in May - except
as part of Chapter 6. Hans von Storch will likely regret some of the words he's said.
FYI, just as NCAR have put up a web site to give the whole story re Chris Landseas's
'resignation' from a CA in the atmos. obs. chapter (to help Kevin Trenberth out), KNMI
are doing the same re Rob van Dorland and that Dutch magazine. The chief scientist
at KNMI has got involved as Rob didn't say the things attributed to him. I'll find
out more on this in Pune as a guy from KNMI will be there.
Several other CAs on our chapter pulled out, or just didn't do anything. Their
stories
never got run.
Dick's report was good and my bit in Nature cam across well.
Say hi to all there and wish Steve well.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:19 11/02/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Phil--thanks, that's great. Really happy to hear that everyone is on board with this.
I'm at a symposium honoring Steve Schneider out at stanford right now. Lots of folks
here--as I talk this over w/ them, and see Dick Kerr's coverage of this, etc. I realize
its not so bad--I was afraid this would be spun as bolstering the contrarians, but it
hasn't. In large part due to quotes from you and others pointing out that the study
actually reinforces the key conclusions, etc., and the fact Dick Kerr showed Keith and
Tim's plot showing the scattering of multiple reconstructions, etc. which takes the
focus off "Mann" a bit...
Nonetheless, I *am* convinced their methodology is suspect, as the analysis I sent
shows. So I  will really appreciate input from Keith, Tim, and you to make sure the
language and wording are appropriate and fair...
I will revise as I get input from various people, with an aim to having this
submission-ready in about 10 days (so you can have one final look after you return, and
before you have to head out again).
looking forward to getting people's comments, feedback, etc.
thanks again,
mike
At 08:05 AM 2/11/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike et al,
I've talked to Keith and Tim here and it seems best if we all come in with you on
this response. What you have done is basically fine. We can discuss specific wording
later.
My problem is that I'm off tomorrow to Pune till Feb 20 and email may be
sporadic or non-existent. So can you discuss revised drafts with Keith and Tim,
but keep me on - lower down as I'm away.  I'm here on Feb 21 then off to Chicago
to review the vertical temperature report for the NRC/NAS Feb 22-25.
Keep me on the emails in case email works well in Pune.
Cheers
Phil
At 23:35 10/02/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear Caspar, Gene, Scott,  Phil,
I am attaching a response I've drafted to the Moberg et al paper (attached for those of
you who haven't seen it).  The message is pretty clear and simple--their method
overemphasizes the low-frequency variability. To demonstrate this, I've made use of
stuff from Mann and Jones, and from the Mann/Rutherford/Wahl/Ammann J. Climate letter on
Pseudoproxies. So I would welcome any of you to be co-authors on this--just let me now
if you're interested. I've been in touch w/ Keith (he and Tim are potentially working on
their own independent response--waiting to hear further).
This is a very rough draft, so comments much appreciated.
Looking forward to hearing back,
Mike
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[1]
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@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[2]
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@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[3]
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\MobergComment2.doc"
References
1.
2.
3.


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]
mike
At 10:58 AM 2/14/2005, Tom Wigley wrote:
Mike,
I'm sorry we had no time to talk at Stanford.
Here is the answer to the LIA bounce back idea ...
For 20th century warming to be a bounce back, the
heat must come from somewhere. The only source
consistent with the bounce back idea is the ocean.
The Levitus data show that heat has been going INTO
the ocean, not coming out of it.
This is really obvious, but I have never seem it stated
anywhere.
----------
Re WSJ. They say ...
"Statistician Francis Zwiers of Environment Canada, a government agency,
says he now agrees that Dr. Mann's statistical method "preferentially
produces hockey sticks when there are none in the data."
Dr. Mann, while agreeing that his mathematical method tends to find
hockey-stick shapes, says this doesn't mean its results in this case are
wrong. Indeed, Dr. Mann says he can create the same shape from the
climate data using completely different math techniques."
-----------------
It is a bit worrying that Francis agrees with M&M -- but it seems that
you do too.
My questions are:
(1) Do other reconstructions (not including Lonnie Thompson's of course)
suffer from this standardization problem?
(2) You have stated that simply averaging the data together gives the
same result. Has this elementary method been published?
(2a) I note that the PC1 amplitude time series invariably correlates highly
with the (non-areally-weighted) 'area average'. So this brings up the issue
of whether you use some area weighting in your PCA -- as we
invariably do when doing PCA of gridded data?
(3) From what I can see without reading their full GRL paper,
M&M think that the RE statistic has an odd sampling distribution.
It is easy to show this by Monte Carlo simulation -- have you done
this (i.e., in the abstract, as a statistical exercise, not for the specific
case of MBH98, etc.)?
Tom.
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[2]
References
1.
2.


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@wsj.com. If you want, CC: me and my editor,
[2]Elyse.tanouye@wsj.com.   Or even an editorial on the broader topic of where the
science is at.  I can give you the name for who to send an editorial to if you want it.
It is probably worth pointing out that no amount of debate can change the facts buried
in those tree rings, etc..
Yes, I will continue to write about climate. The next topic is impacts. What do you
think is the best story there? Id like to write about current impacts rather than only
projected ones as these will be more tangible for the reader. Also, since the Arctic has
been well covered Id be interested in impacts at lower latitudes.
Antonio
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[3]
References
1. mailto:Karen.Pensiero@wsj.com
2. mailto:Elyse.tanouye@wsj.com
3.


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,
Øyvind
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. Øyvind Paasche
Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research/
Department of Earth Science
University of Bergen
Allé gt. 55
N-5007, Bergen
Norway
Phone direct: +47 55583297
Cell phone: +47 93048919
E-mail: oyvind.paasche@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
[1]
References
1.


Mike,
FYI only - here is a reply from Francis. He's still onside,
just stuck learning French.
Cheers
Phil
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 07:14:34 -0800
To: Phil Jones
From: Francis Zwiers
Subject: Re: Canadians and the Millennium
Cc: "francis.zwiers@ec.gc.ca"
X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Hi Phil,
At 02:29 21/02/2005, you wrote:
Francis,
Been away for the last week and off again tomorrow for the rest of this week.
I was surprised to see comments from you in WSJ saying that McIntyre and
McKittrick were likely right and the Mann reconstruction is wrong. I hope it is
a case of misreporting !
Well, this isn't what I said, and its also not what is reported in the WJS article.  The
article quotes me as saying that the technique preferentially produces hockey sticks
(actually, I *think* I said that it preferentially produces PC1s with hockey stick
shapes, but that's a distinction that may have escaped the reporter - or I may have
miss-spoken).  In any case, this does not mean that the general form of the
reconstruction (illustrating the unusual nature of the 20th century) is wrong - and I
went to pains in the interview to also make that point.
The nearest composite reconstruction to MM in the 15th century is
MBH98. All the others have the 15th century cooler than MBH98.  There is no
way MM are right in the 15th century.  Also Moberg et al (2005) has too
much long-term variability.
Sorry for the short email, I have loads of others to go through before
the end of today.  We can discuss in more detail at Duke !
Unfortunately, I won't be at Duke because I'm still stuck in a  particular type of
Canadian purgatory called french training.
Cheers, Francis
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
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]
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@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.


Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here !  Maybe we can use
this to our advantage to get the series updated !
Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere
rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don't realise that Moberg et al used the
Jones and Moberg updated series !
Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed
that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn't bother
with that. Also ignored Francis' comment about all the other series looking similar
to MBH.
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
X-Sender: f023@pop.uea.ac.uk
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.0.6
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:40:05 +0000
To: p.jones@uea.ac.uk
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"
X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean
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]
,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]#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]
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]
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]
===========
(5) BRING THE PROXIES UP TO DATE!
Climate Audit, 20 February 2005
[6]#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]
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]
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.
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[9]
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@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.
2. #hockeystick
3.
4.
5.
6. #more-89
7.
8.
9.


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:\eudora\attach\masson54.vcf"


Thanks Keith,
I've made these changes and a few very minor changes just to improve the grammar in places,
etc. Also, I'm embarassed to say that Scott's name was accidentally left out of the author
list, so I've included that back in.
There was one bit about the high-pass filtering and low-pass filtering which you changed,
based on  I think some minor confusion about what I meant. I've fixed that.
I'm assuming that Tim will be ok w/ the attached, final version, so I'm going to go ahead
and submit to Nature now. We'll have ample opportunity for revision at a later stage.
Lets cross our fingers.
Thanks again everyone,
Mike
At 11:01 AM 2/24/2005, Keith Briffa wrote:
Sorry Mike - still dashing - but attached shows some slight wording changes - only early
and late - missed Track changes so just compare - sorry to mess up - otherwise go with
this for now and lets see reaction
Keith
t 00:40 22/02/2005, you wrote:
Dear Phil et al,
All of the suggested changes have been made, and some others additional changes have
been made for clarification, including descriptions of updated versions of the figures
(Scott: can you get to me pdf versions of figures 1 and 3 that have the correct
"degrees" symbol on the y axis? Also--we need an updated url for the pseudoproxy data at
fox.rwu.edu as noted! thanks in advance for getting back to me ASAP on these)
Changes indicated in yellow highlighting.
Will try to prepare a final draft for submission once I've heard back from Keith, Tim,
and anyone else who has any remaining comments. I've also attached a draft cover letter
to go to Nature along w/ the submission.
Thanks,
Mike
At 09:14 AM 2/21/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Here's a few modifications to the text. Keith and Tim are pretty happy with it
as well, but the'll reply as soon as they have some time.
Off again tomorrow to Chicago. Back in next week.
Happy for you to submit this as soon as you have their and other comments.
Cheers
Phil
At 22:44 12/02/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote:
sorry. text revised yet again. no more changes until I receive comments from everyone.
thanks...
mike
At 12:03 PM 2/11/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Keith and Tim are here next week, but very busy with a proposal to the EU.
So you may have to hassle them a bit, or hang on for a week or two.
Nature dragged in the IPCC angle which annoyed me. I tried to explain to
him how IPCC works. IPCC won't be discussing this in Beijing in May - except
as part of Chapter 6. Hans von Storch will likely regret some of the words he's said.
FYI, just as NCAR have put up a web site to give the whole story re Chris Landseas's
'resignation' from a CA in the atmos. obs. chapter (to help Kevin Trenberth out), KNMI
are doing the same re Rob van Dorland and that Dutch magazine. The chief scientist
at KNMI has got involved as Rob didn't say the things attributed to him. I'll find
out more on this in Pune as a guy from KNMI will be there.
Several other CAs on our chapter pulled out, or just didn't do anything. Their
stories
never got run.
Dick's report was good and my bit in Nature cam across well.
Say hi to all there and wish Steve well.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:19 11/02/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Phil--thanks, that's great. Really happy to hear that everyone is on board with this.
I'm at a symposium honoring Steve Schneider out at stanford right now. Lots of folks
here--as I talk this over w/ them, and see Dick Kerr's coverage of this, etc. I realize
its not so bad--I was afraid this would be spun as bolstering the contrarians, but it
hasn't. In large part due to quotes from you and others pointing out that the study
actually reinforces the key conclusions, etc., and the fact Dick Kerr showed Keith and
Tim's plot showing the scattering of multiple reconstructions, etc. which takes the
focus off "Mann" a bit...
Nonetheless, I *am* convinced their methodology is suspect, as the analysis I sent
shows. So I  will really appreciate input from Keith, Tim, and you to make sure the
language and wording are appropriate and fair...
I will revise as I get input from various people, with an aim to having this
submission-ready in about 10 days (so you can have one final look after you return, and
before you have to head out again).
looking forward to getting people's comments, feedback, etc.
thanks again,
mike
At 08:05 AM 2/11/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike et al,
I've talked to Keith and Tim here and it seems best if we all come in with you on
this response. What you have done is basically fine. We can discuss specific wording
later.
My problem is that I'm off tomorrow to Pune till Feb 20 and email may be
sporadic or non-existent. So can you discuss revised drafts with Keith and Tim,
but keep me on - lower down as I'm away.  I'm here on Feb 21 then off to Chicago
to review the vertical temperature report for the NRC/NAS Feb 22-25.
Keep me on the emails in case email works well in Pune.
Cheers
Phil
At 23:35 10/02/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear Caspar, Gene, Scott,  Phil,
I am attaching a response I've drafted to the Moberg et al paper (attached for those of
you who haven't seen it).  The message is pretty clear and simple--their method
overemphasizes the low-frequency variability. To demonstrate this, I've made use of
stuff from Mann and Jones, and from the Mann/Rutherford/Wahl/Ammann J. Climate letter on
Pseudoproxies. So I would welcome any of you to be co-authors on this--just let me now
if you're interested. I've been in touch w/ Keith (he and Tim are potentially working on
their own independent response--waiting to hear further).
This is a very rough draft, so comments much appreciated.
Looking forward to hearing back,
Mike
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[1]
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@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[2]
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@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[3]
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@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[4]
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[5]
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[6]
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\MobergComment-final.doc"
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.


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.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        Re: Directions in D&A
Date:   Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:51:56 -0500
From:   Chris Miller
Reply-To:       christopher.d.miller@noaa.gov
Organization:   NOAA
To:     Gabi Hegerl
References:
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
Duke University, Durham NC 27708
Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833
email: hegerl@duke.edu, [1]
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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: hegerl@duke.edu, [2]
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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: hegerl@duke.edu, [3]
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@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.
2.
3.