Thanks very much Tim,
I was hoping that the revisions would ally concerns people had.
I'll look forward to your comments on this latest draft. I agree w/ Malcolm on the need to
be careful w/ the wording in the first paragraph. The first paragraph is a bit of relic of
a much earlier draft, and maybe we need to rethink it a bit. Takinig the high road is
probably very important here. If *others* want to say that their actions represent
scientific fraud, intellectual dishonesty, etc. (as I think we all suspect they do), lets
let *them* make these charges for us!
Lets let our supporters in higher places use our scientific response to push the broader
case against MM. So I look forward to peoples attempts to revise the first par. particular.
I took the liberty of forwarding the previous draft to a handfull of our closet colleagues,
just so they would have a sense of approximately what we'll be releasing later today--i.e.,
a heads up as to
how MM achieved their result...
look forward to us finalizing something a bit later--I still think we need to get this out
ASAP...
mike
SAt 03:01 AM 10/31/2003 +0000, f055 wrote:
Dear all,
I've just finished preparing a detailed response offline, only to log on to
send it to you all and find new versions from Mike plus more comments
and information.  Well, I don't have time to change my message now, so
will paste it below this message.  But bear in mind that the new draft may
well have allayed many of my concerns - in particular, a quick glance
shows the figure to be much more convincing than the one Mike circulated
earlier, indeed it seems to be utterly convincing!   I'll reply again on
Friday
morning once I've had time to read the new draft.  In the meantime, here is
my message as promised.
************************************************************
Dear MBH (cc to CRU),
The number of emails has been rather overwhelming on this issue and
I'm struggling to catch up with them!  But I will attempt to catch up with a
few things here...
(1) The single worst thing about the whole M&M saga is not that they did
their study, not that they did things wrong (deliberately or by accident), but
that neither they nor the journal took the necessary step of investigating
whether the difference between their results and yours could be explained
simply by some error or set of errors in their use of the data or in their
implementation of your method.  If it turns out, as looks likely from Mike's
investigation of this, that their results are erroneous, then they and the
journal will have wasted countless person-hours of time and caused
much damage in the climate policy arena.
(2) Given that this is the single worst thing about the saga, we must not go
and do exactly the same in rushing out a response to their paper.  If some
claims in the response turned out to be wrong, based on assumptions
about what M&M did or assumptions about how M&M's assumptions
affect the results, then it would end up with a number of iterations of claim
and counter claim.  Ultimately the issue might be settled, but by then the
waters could be so muddied that it didn't matter.
(3) Not only do I advise against an overly rushed response, but I'm also
wondering whether it really ought to be only from MBH, for three reasons.
(i) It is your paper/results that are being attacked.
(ii) It is difficult to endorse everything that Mike has put in the draft
response because I don't know 100% of the details of MBH and the MBH
data.  Sure, I can endorse some things, but others I wouldn't know.   Sure,
I accept Mike's explanation because he's looked at this stuff for 4 days
and I believe he'll have got it right - but that's different to an independent
check.  That must come from Ray or Malcolm if possible.
(iii) If it does come to any independent assessment of who's right and
who's wrong, then it would be difficult for us to be involved if we had
already signed up to what some might claim to be a knee-jerk reaction to
the M&M paper.  If that happened, then you would want us to be free to get
involved to make sure the process was fair and informed.
This sounds like a cop out, but - like I say - I'm not sure about point (3) so
feel free to try to convince me otherwise if you wish.  Anyway Keith or Phil
may be happy to sign up to a (quick or slow) response, despite my
reservations above.
I really advise a very careful reading of M&M and their supplementary
website to ensure that everything in the response is clearly correct -
precisely to avoid point (2).  I've only just started to do this, but already
have some questions about the response that Mike has drafted.
(a) Mike, you say that many of the trees were eliminated in the data they
used.  Have you concluded this because they entered "NA" for "Not
available" in their appendix table?  If so, then are you sure that "NA"
means they did not use any data, rather than simply that they didn't
replace your data with an alternative (and hence in fact continued to use
what Scott had supplied to them)?  Or perhaps "NA" means they couldn't
find the PC time series published (of course!), but in fact could find the
raw tree-ring chronologies and did their own PCA of those?  How would
they know which raw chronologies to use?  Or did you come to your
conclusion by downloading their "corrected and updated" data matrix and
comparing it with yours - I've not had time to do that, but even if I had and
I
found some differences, I wouldn't know which was right seeing as I've
not done any PCA of western US trees myself?  My guess would be that
they downloaded raw tree-ring chronologies (possibly the same ones you
used) but then applied PCA only to the period when they all had full data -
hence the lack of PCs in the early period (which you got round by doing
PCA on the subset that had earlier data).  But this is only a guess, and
this is the type of thing that should be checked with them - surely they
would respond if asked? - to avoid my point (2) above.  And if my guess
were right, then your wording of "eliminated this entire data set" would
come in for criticism, even though in practise it might as well have been.
(b) The mention of ftp sites and excel files is contradicted by their email
record on their website, which shows no mention of excel files (they say
an ASCII file was sent) and also no record that they knew the ftp address.
This doesn't matter really, since the reason for them using a corrupted
data file is not relevant - the relevant thing is that it was corrupt and had
you been involved in reviewing the paper then it could have been found
prior to publication.  But they will use the email record if the ftp sites and
excel files are mentioned.
(c) Not sure if you talk about peer-review in the latest version, but note
that
they acknowledge input from reviewers and Fred Singer's email says he
refereed it - so any statement implying it wasn't reviewed will be met with
an easy response from them.
(d) Your quick-look reconstruction excluding many of the tree-ring data,
and the verification RE you obtain, is interesting - but again, don't rush
into
using these in any response.  The time series of PC1 you sent is certainly
different from your standard one - but on the other hand I'd hardly say you
"get a similar result" to them, the time series look very different (see their
fig 6d).  So the dismal RE applies only to your calculation, not to their
reconstruction.  It may turn out that their verification RE is also very
negative, but again we cannot assume this in case we're wrong and they
easily counter the criticism.
(e) Claims of their motives for selective censoring or changing of data, or
for the study as a whole, may well be true but are hard to prove.  They
would claim that their's is an honest attempt at reproducing a key
scientific result.  If they made errors in what they did, then maybe they're
just completely out of their depth on this, rather than making deliberate
errors for the purposes of achieving preferred results.
(f) The recent tree-ring decline they refer to seems related to
tree-ring-width not density.  Regardless of width of density, this issue
cannot simply be dismissed as a solved problem.  Since they don't make
much of an issue out of it, best just to ignore it.
(g) [I'm rambling now into an un-ordered list of things, so I'll stop soon!]
The various other problems relating to temperature data sets, detrended
standard deviations, PCs of tree-ring subsets etc. sound likely errors -
though I've got no way of providing the independent check that you asked
for.  But it is again a bit of a leap of faith to say that these *explain* the
different results that they get.  Certainly they throw doubt on the validity
of
their results, but without actually doing the same as them it's not possible
to say if they would have replicated your results if they hadn't made these
errors.  After all, could the infilling of missing values have made much
difference to the results obtained, something that they made a good deal
of fuss about?
(h) To say they "used neither the data nor the procedures of MBH98" will
also be an easy target for them, since they did use the data that was sent
to them and seemed to have used approximately the method too (with
some errors that you've identified).  This reproduced your results to some
extent (certainly not perfectly, but see Fig 6b and 6c).  Then they went
further to redo it with the "corrected and updated" data - but only after
first
doing approximately what they claimed they did (i.e. the audit).
These comments relate to random versions of the draft response, so
apologies if they don't all seem relevant to the current draft.  I don't have
these in front of me, here at home, so I'm doing this from memory of what
I've read over the past few days.  But nevertheless, the point is that a quick
response would ultimately require making a number of assumptions
about what they did and assumptions about whether this explains the
differences or not - assumptions that might be later shot down (in part
only, at most, but still sufficient to muddy the debate for most outsiders).
A quick response ought to be limited to something like:
---------------------------------------------
The recent paper by McIntyre and McKitrick (2003; hereafter MM03) claims
to be an "audit" of the analysis of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998;
hereafter MBH98).  MM03 are unable to reproduce the Northern
Hemisphere temperature reconstruction of MBH98 when attempting to
use the same proxy data and methods as MBH98, though they obtain
something similar with clearly anomalous recent warming (their Figure
6c).  They then make many modifications to the proxy data set and repeat
their analysis, and obtain a rather different result to MBH98.
Unfortunately neither M&M nor the journal in which it was published took
the necessary step of investigating whether the difference between their
results and MBH98 could be explained simply by some error or set of
errors in their use of the data or in their implementation of the MBH98
method.  This should have been an essential step to take in a case such
as this where the difference in results is so large and important.  Simple
errors must first be ruled out prior to publication.  Even if the authors had
not undertaken this by presenting their results to the authors of MBH98,
the journal should certainly have included them as referees of the
manuscript.
A preliminary investigation into the proxy data and implementation of the
method has already identified a number of likely errors, which may turn
out to be the cause of the different results.  Rather than repeating M&M's
failure to follow good scientific practise, we are witholding further
comments until we can - by collaboration with M&M if possible - be certain
of exactly what changes to data and method were made by M&M, whether
these changes can really explain the differences in the results, and
eventually which (if any) of these changes can be justified as equally valid
(given the various uncertainties that exist) and which are simply errors that
invalidate their results.
-----------------------------------------
Hope you find this all helpful, and despite my seemingly critical approach,
take them in the spirit with which they are aimed - which is to obtain a
strong and hard hitting rebuttal of bad science, but a rebuttal that cannot
be buried by any minor innaccuracies or difficult-to-prove claims.
Best regards
Tim
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[1]
References
1.


>From: "Sonja.B-C"
>Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:58:06 +0000
>To: Steve McIntyre
>Subject: Re: McIntyre-McKitrick and Mann-Bradley-Hughes
>Cc: L.A.Love@hull.ac.uk, Tim Osborn
,
>         Ross McKitrick
>Priority: NORMAL
>X-Mailer: Execmail for Win32 5.1.1 Build (10)
>
>Dear Steve
>Please send your material for comment direct to Tim, Osborne.I
>would like to publish the whole debate early next year, but
>'respectful' comments in the meantime can only help and the CRU people
>seem genuinely interested and have integrity. I have never heard of
>such bad behaviour here as appears to have been the case between
>Sallie and Soon and the rest..the US adversarial system and too many
>egos??
>As you know ,the  contact is Tim Osborn
and I take
>the liberty to forward this to him now. You seem to suggest that this
>is welcome and are making make direct comments on his remarks to me
>concerning your paper.
>
>We shall get the printed proof, as a  single electronic file today, and
>shall look through it early next week. I am sure you do not want to see
>your paper again?  I think that adding anymore now (the exchanges
>between you and Mann/Bradley and perhaps now Tim as well)  is  premature
>and we shall wait until the next issue. Mann is said to be writing
>something, but he has not yet contacted me, though I just hang up on
>that journalist Appell who keeps on ringing. I told him that I will
>deal only directly with Mann. What cheek, after threatening me with
>litigation...Just keep me in the loop. Thanks.
>
>Sonja
>PS .By the way The Economist has  taken up a previous paper from E&E
>(Castles and Henderson, the social science critique of teh emission
>scenarios), and teh Australian and UK Treasuries have become involved.
>I have not seen it yet. As you know, I have always argued that the real
>'driver' of teh IPCC deception, if that is the right word,  has been on
>teh social /technology forcing side,  with focus of WG III.
>
>In London I heard two days ago that the WTO might make ratification of
>Kyoto conditional for something Russia wants. The source was speaker
>from the Deutsche Bank, a Justin Mundy, former advisor to the EU
>Commission on EU-Russia coordination and once senior advisor to the
>European Centre for Nature Conservation, he also worked for the World
>Bank.)
>Sonja
>
>On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 09:50:33 -0500
>Steve McIntyre
wrote:
>
> > Dear Sonja,
> >
> > > > The interesting thing about their preliminary response, however, is
> that it
> > > > indicates that the difference in results might be fully explained by a
> > > > simple error in not using many of the early tree-ring data.  If
> this is
> > > > confirmed by their fuller response, then, even though there may be
> some
> > > > problems with the proxy data used by Mann et al., it implies that
> these
> > > > problems do not actually make a lot of difference to the results -
> the main
> > > > difference comes from omitting the early tree-ring data.  A paper that
> > > > identifies some problems with the proxy data used by Mann et al. would
> > > > still be interesting, but if these problems made very little
> difference to
> > > > the results obtained, then it would be of rather minor importance.
> > >
> > > (1) IMHO the data issues rise above "some problems". When you're
> doing a prospectus, audit or engineering-level feasibility study, there
> is a concerted effort to eliminate every error.  I have never seen such
> sloppy data as MBH98.  Perhaps from my business experience, I am used to
> a more demanding approach to data integrity than the above comment
> suggests about academic studies. Even the MBH response criticizes us for
> failing to use obsolete data. How silly is that. Bradley has also said
> that an "audit" should use original data and should not verify against
> source data and says that I should know better. I think that my
> experience with audits and engineering studies is more substantial than
> Bradley's and this is an extraordinarily silly thing for him to
> say.   After the fact, one of the key mis-steps in the Bre-X fraud was
> the engineering report in which ore reserves were calculated using false
> data supplied to the consulting engineers by Bre-X, without any
> verification being carried out by the engineers.
> > > (2) There was not a "simple error" of simply not using many of the
> early tree-ring data. The early tree-ring data in question are principal
> components of North American tree ring sites and of Stahle/SWM (also
> North American) tree ring sites . MBH98 states that they used
> conventional principal components methods for temperature. They do not
> explicitly say that they used conventional principal components methods
> for tree ring regions, but, in the absence of disclosure otherwise, this
> is certainly the most reasonable interpretation of the public disclosure
> (leaving aside Mann's refusal to provide clarification in response to our
> inquiries on methods.) A "conventional" principal component calculation
> requires that there be no missing data. Accordingly this indicator became
> unavailable in the earlier years using conventional principal component
> calculations - it was not "left out".  MBH now disclose for the very
> first time that they used a "stepwise principal components approach",
> although this is nowhere disclosed in MBH98 or in the SI thereto. They
> have still not disclosed the rosters of principal components involved. If
> this method is material to their results, as they now state, then it was
> a material omission in their prior disclosure. It seems like a very
> strange rebuttal for MBH to say: you're at fault because we made a
> material non-disclosure on methodology in our papers. If I were in MBH's
> shoes, I would be embarrassed at this non-disclosure and mitigating the
> situation by making full disclosure now. . When you do a prospectus, you
> have to sign an affidavit that there are no material omissions.  I have
> approached disclosure questions on the basis that prospectus-level
> disclosure is the minimum level of public disclosure in this matter,
> assuming that this level of disclosure would be exceeded.
> >
> > (3)  I've redone calculations with a re-calculated US PC1 in and get
> results similar to those in E&E, rather than the MBH response.  This is
> not a guarantee that I have fully replicated still undisclosed MBH
> methodology.  However, MBH disclosure of their methodology is very
> inadequate and without full disclosure by MBH of their methods, it is
> possible to be somewhat at cross-purposes. This defective disclosure is
> entirely their responsibility. It should be remedied immediately through
> FTP disclosure of their computer programs and full description of their
> methodology.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >
> > > > >>It is quite obvious that if the opinion of these three people
> from the
> > > > >>UK University of East Anglia concerning publication of teh M&M paper
> > > > >>had been sought and taken, there would not have been no publication.
> > > >
> > > > Then I suggest you read our commentary again, which does not state
> this at all.
> >
> >
> > Part 2 has been drafted and I would be delighted to obtain comments on
> it from UEA/CRU. Indeed, I think that it would be very constructive,
> since Part 2 is significantly more hard-edged than Part 1. Because we
> have stated that we would post up a reply to the MBH response, we would
> have to disclose something on our websites, but I'd be prepared to deal
> with this. Intuitively, full, true and plain disclosure would be to state
> that we have prepared a reply and submitted it to UEA/CRU for
> comments.  I think that the many data errors will be self-evident to
> UEA/CRU; we have organized our materials to show this, as will be the
> material non-disclosures on methodology by MBH. However, if they are
> prepared to comment, this would have to be agreed on very quickly as we
> are very close to finalizing our repy.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Steve
>
>----------------------
>Dr.Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
>Reader,Department of Geography,
>Editor, Energy & Environment
>(Multi-science,www.multi-science.co.uk)
>Faculty of Science
>University of Hull
>Hull HU6 7RX, UK
>Tel: (0)1482 465349/6341/5385
>Fax: (0)1482 466340
>Sonja.B-C@hull.ac.uk
Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
phone:    +44 1603 592089
fax:      +44 1603 507784
web:      ~timo/
sunclock: ~timo/sunclock.htm


Keith and Phil,
you will have seen Stephen McIntyre's request to us.  We need to talk about
it, though my initial feeling is that we should turn it down (with
carefully worded/explained reason) as another interrim stage and prefer to
make our input at the peer-review stage.
In the meantime, here is an email (copied below) to Mike Mann from
McIntyre, requesting data and programs (and making other criticisms).  I do
wish Mike had not rushed around sending out preliminary and incorrect early
responses - the waters are really muddied now.  He would have done better
to have taken things slowly and worked out a final response before
publicising this stuff.  Excel files, other files being created early or
now deleted is really confusing things!
Anyway, because McIntyre has now asked Mann directly for his data and
programs, his request that *we* send McIntyre's request to Mann has been
dropped (I would have said "no" anyway).
So it's just the second bit, that we review part 2 of this response, that
needs to be answered.
Cheers
Tim
>From: "Steve McIntyre"
>To: "Michael E. Mann"
>Cc: "Tim Osborn"
,
>         "Ross McKitrick"
>Subject: MBH98
>Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 23:39:46 -0500
>
>November 11, 2003
>
>
>
>Professor Michael E. Mann
>
>School of Earth Sciences
>
>University of Virginia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Dear Professor Mann,
>
>
>
>We apologize for not sending you a copy of our recent paper ("MM") in
>Energy and Environment for comment, as we understood from your email of
>September 25, 2003 that time constraints prevented you from considering
>our material. We notice that you seem to have subsequently changed your
>mind and hope that you will both be able to clarify some points for us and
>to rectify the public record on other points.
>
>
>
>1) You have claimed that we used the wrong data and the wrong
>computational methodology. We would like to reconcile our results to
>actual data and methodology used in MBH98. We would therefore appreciate
>copies of the computer programs you actually used to read in data (the 159
>data series referred to in your recent comments) and construct the
>temperature index shown in Nature (1998) ("MBH98"), either through email
>or, preferably through public FTP or web posting.
>
>
>
>2) In some recent comments, you are reported as stating that we requested
>an Excel file and that you instead directed us to an FTP site for the
>MBH98 data. You are also reported as saying that despite having pointed us
>to the FTP site, you and your colleague took trouble to prepare an Excel
>spreadsheet, but inadvertently introduced some collation errors at that
>time. In fact, as you no doubt recall, we did not request an Excel
>spreadsheet, but specifically asked for an FTP location, which you were
>unable or unwilling to provide. Nor was an Excel spreadsheet ever supplied
>to us; instead we were given a text file, pcproxy.txt. Nor was this file
>created in April 2003. After we learned on October 29, 2003 that the
>pertinent data was reported to be located on your FTP site
>
ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub
>(and that we were being faulted for not getting it from there), we
>examined this site and found it contains the exact same file (pcproxy.txt)
>as the one we received, bearing a date of creation of August 8, 2002. On
>October 29, 2003, your FTP site also contained the file pcproxy.mat, a
>Matlab file, the header to which read: "MATLAB 5.0 MAT-file, Platform:
>SOL2, Created on: Thu Aug  8 10:18:19 2002." Both files contain identical
>data to the file pcproxy.txt emailed to one of us (McIntyre) in April
>2003, including all collation errors, fills and other problems identified
>in MM. It is therefore clear that the file pcproxy.txt as sent to us was
>not prepared in April 2003 in response to our requests, nor was it
>prepared as an Excel spreadsheet, but in fact it was prepared many months
>earlier with Matlab. It is also clear that, had we gone to your FTP site
>earlier, we would simply have found the same data collation as we received
>from Scott Rutherford. Would you please forthwith issue a statement
>withdrawing and correcting your earlier comments.
>
>
>
>3) In reported comments, you also claimed that we overlooked the collation
>errors in pcproxy.txt and "slid" the incorrect data into our calculations,
>a statement which is untrue and made without a reasonable basis. In MM, we
>described numerous errors including, but not limited to, the collation
>errors, indicating quite obviously that we noticed the data problems. We
>then describe how we "firewalled" our data from the errors contained in
>the data you provided us, by re-collating tree ring proxy data from
>original sources and carrying out fresh principal component calculations.
>We request that you forthwith withdraw the claim that we deliberately used
>data we knew to be in error.
>
>
>
>4) On November 8, 2003, when we re-visited your FTP site, we noticed the
>following changes since October 29, 2003: (1) the file pcproxy.mat had
>been deleted from your FTP site; (2) the file pcproxy.txt no longer was
>displayed under the /sdr directory, where it had previously been located,
>although it could still be retrieved through an exact call if one
>previously knew the exact file name; (3) without any notice, a new file
>named "mbhfilled.mat" prepared on November 4, 2003 had been inserted into
>the directory. Obviously, the files pcproxy.mat and pcproxy.txt are
>pertinent to the comments referred to above and we view the deletion of
>pcproxy.mat from the archival record under the current circumstances as
>unjustifiable. Would you please restore these files to your FTP site,
>together with an annotated text file documenting the dates of their
>deletion and restoration.
>
>
>
>5) We note that the new file mbhfilled.mat is an array of dimension
>381x2016. Could you state whether this file has any connection to MBH98,
>and, if so, please explain the purpose of this file, why it has been
>posted now and why it was not previously available at the FTP site.
>
>
>
>6) Can you advise us whether the directory MBH98 has been a subdirectory
>within the folder "pub" since July 30, 2002 or whether it was transferred
>from another (possibly private) directory at a date after July 30, 2002?
>If the latter, could you advise on the date of such transfer.
>
>
>
>
>
>We have prepared a 3-part response to your reply to MM. The first, which
>we have released publicly, goes over some of the matters raised in points
>#2-#5 above. The second is undergoing review. It deals with additional
>issues of data quality and disclosure, resulting from inspection of your
>FTP site since October 29, 2003.  The third part will consider the points
>made in your response, both in terms of data and methodology, and will
>attempt a careful reconciliation of our calculation methods, hence the
>necessity of our request in point #1. Thank you for your attention.
>
>
>
>
>
>Yours truly,
>
>
>
>Stephen McIntyre                        Ross McKitrick
>
>
>
>
>cc: Timothy Osborn
Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
phone:    +44 1603 592089
fax:      +44 1603 507784
web:      ~timo/
sunclock: ~timo/sunclock.htm


Dear All:
The excuses seem to be becoming desperate.  Unjustified assertion that I fail to understand
"Myles' comments and/or work on trying the detect/attribute climate change" does not stop
the attribution study being an error.  The problem is that I do understand what is being
done, and I am willing to say why it is GIGO.
Tim Allen said;
In a message dated 19/11/03 08:47:16 GMT Standard Time, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk writes:
I would just like
to add that those of us working on climate change detection and attribution
are careful to mask model simulations in the same way that the observations
have been sampled, so these well-known dependencies of nominal trends on the
trend-estimation technique have no bearing on formal detection and
attribution results as quoted, for example, in the IPCC TAR.
I rejected this saying:
At 09:31 21/11/2003, RichardSCourtney@aol.com wrote:
>It cannot be known that the 'masking' does not generate additional
>spurious trends.  Anyway, why assume the errors in the data sets are
>geographical and not?.  The masking is a 'fix' applied to the model
>simulations to adjust them to fit the surface data known to contain
>spurious trends.   This is simple GIGO.
Now, Tim Osborn says of my comment;
In a message dated 21/11/03 10:04:56 GMT Standard Time, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk writes:
Richard's statement makes it clear, to me at least, that he misunderstands
Myles' comments and/or work on trying the detect/attribute climate change.
As far as I understand it, the masking is applied to the model to remove
those locations/times when there are no observations.  This is quite
different to removing those locations which do not match, in some way, with
the observations - that would clearly be the wrong thing to do.  To mask
those that have no observations, however, is clearly the right thing to do
- what is the point of attempting to detect a simulated signal of climate
change over some part of (e.g.) the Southern Ocean if there are no
observations there in which to detect the expected signal?  That would
clearly be pointless.
Yes it would.  And I fully understand Myles' comments.  Indeed, my comments clearly and
unarguably relate to Myles comments.  But, as my response states, Myles' comments do not
alter the fact that the masked data and the unmasked data contain demonstrated false
trends.  And the masking may introduce other spurious trends.  So, the conducted
attribution study is pointless because it is GIGO.  Ad hominem insults don't change that.
And nor does the use of peer review to block my publication of the facts of these matters.
Richard


Dear All,
Is any one  involved in  proposals for this initiative?
Please let me know.
Janice
First call for research proposals
A call for expressions of interest for participation in Consortia, Research
Groups, Networks, Collaborative Proposals and Capacity Building
Closing date: 5pm, Monday 19 January 2004
Intending applicants should note that all those receiving funding from this
programme will be expected to collaborate with the UK Energy Research Centre
following its establishment on 1st April 2004.
Introduction
The Towards a Sustainable Energy Economy programme (TSEC) is aimed at
enabling the UK to access a secure, safe, diverse and reliable energy supply
at competitive prices, while meeting the challenge of global warming. The
Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC), Economic and
Social Research Council (ESRC) and Natural Environment Research Council
(NERC) jointly have funding of £28 million for the programme, which is
co-ordinated by NERC on behalf of the three Research Councils, with
participation from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research
Council (BBSRC) and Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research
Councils (CCLRC). The Councils are advised on the use of the programme's
funds by the TSEC Scientific Advisory Committee.
TSEC is an interdisciplinary research programme that will adopt whole
systems integrated approaches. The Research Councils' working definition of
'a whole systems approach' is: "A whole systems integrated methodology
demanding a truly interdisciplinary approach that facilitates the joint
working of engineering, technological, natural, environmental, social and
economic scientists to tackle fundamental issues (such as sustainable
energy)." A whole systems approach should ensure that new work carried out
complements current and planned activities of the individual Research
Councils in the area concerned and will take into account known
understanding for the issues addressed.
The TSEC programme will provide a focus for, but will not be the only source
of, energy research in the UK. As such, the TSEC programme will aim to make
an impact on UK energy research by promoting this whole systems approach.
Proposers wishing to carry out research under TSEC should familiarise
themselves with the role of TSEC in the energy research landscape, as
described in Annex 1.
What research will TSEC support?
Up to £12 million of the programme's funding will be used to establish the
UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) by 1st April 2004, for which the Councils
have already invited full proposals. The Centre's two major activities will
be its own research programme and the co-ordination of a National Energy
Research Network.
The remainder of the TSEC programme's funds (at least £16 million) will be
used to support research that will operate independently of, but
complementary to, the research done by UKERC. Calls for proposals will be
broadly under the following themes:
.
carbon management
.
nuclear power
.
renewable energy
.
managing new uncertainties.
In keeping with the whole systems approach of the programme, applications
are invited from all disciplines that have a research interest in any of the
themes (eg the environmental, social, economic and technological aspects of
nuclear power).
What areas are covered in this call?
This first call covers all aspects of the TSEC programme but the Research
Councils wish to focus initially on two of the themes: nuclear power and
managing new uncertainties. It is anticipated that a further call focused in
particular on the other two themes - carbon management and renewable
energy - will be issued in mid-2004.
The present call invites expressions of interest for participation in:
.
Consortia under the theme Nuclear Power - Keeping the nuclear option
open
.
Research Groups under the theme Managing new uncertainties - The
socio-economic challenges and implications of moving towards a sustainable
energy economy
.
Expressions of interest for Networks and Collaborative proposals will
also be considered, under either of the themes Carbon management and
Renewable energy.
.
Expressions of Interest for preparation for projects (Capacity
Building) will also be considered under any of the areas except Nuclear
power.
The key features of Consortia, Research Groups, Networks, Collaborative
Proposals and Capacity Building are described in the Application Process.
Consortium bids: Nuclear power - Keeping the Nuclear Option Open
The research challenges in fission R&D span areas as diverse as maintaining
and extending the life of existing generation plant; management of the
current and future fission waste legacy; technology for future fission power
generation; and research that can contribute to an open and informed debate
on the current and future role for nuclear power in the UK's energy supply
industry. The scope of this theme has been broken down into three main
topics:
.
maintaining current generation capacity
.
fission within a sustainable energy economy
.
future fission power.
The sponsors intend to commission one or more large, integrated,
multidisciplinary projects that can address the research challenges, with
the scope of projects potentially cutting across the three topics.
Further details on the scope of the theme and consortia requirements can be
found in Annex 2.
Research Group bids: Managing new uncertainties - The Socio-Economic
Challenges and Implications of Moving Towards a Sustainable Energy Economy
The aim of this theme is to facilitate research on the cross-cutting
socio-economic challenges and implications of moving towards a sustainable
energy economy and their interactions with broader technological,
engineering, and environmental issues. It offers opportunities for
productive, interdisciplinary research within and beyond the socio-economic
field, with the potential to contribute to the development of whole-systems
approaches to energy issues. Many of the potential research issues have
resonance in a number of other areas of public policy and are not specific
to energy. In line with the aims of the programme, this theme is not
constrained by traditional disciplinary or Research Council boundaries,
whilst focusing on the socio-economic research agenda. Although a number of
the proposed topics and questions focus on UK and European issues, many are
generic and could be applied to both OECD and developing country contexts.
Possible topics identified under this theme include:
.
Processes of long-run change in socio-technical systems
.
Vulnerability, resilience and adaptiveness
.
Services, systems of provision and consumption practices
.
Policies in natural monopolies and liberalised markets
.
Public attitudes and processes of governance
.
Energy in the global context
.
Integrated appraisal of energy systems.
This framework should be regarded as illustrative, not definitive.
Researchers are encouraged to define and justify alternative topics and
questions which would contribute towards the TSEC programme's overall
objectives.
More detail on this theme can be found in Annex 3.
Expressions of Interest under the themes Carbon management and Renewable
energy will be considered in this call. However, the following brief
indication of the scope of these two themes is given for initial guidance
only; a detailed scope will be provided in the next call, expected to be mid
2004.
Carbon management
Conventional energy research is often vertically divided, so that research
looks at the use of individual fuels, or energy use in particular
industrial, commercial or domestic sectors. There needs to be more
"cross-boundary" and "whole systems" research, looking at how different
technologies and social/environmental factors might be optimised to deliver
the overall objectives. The following are two examples of the type of issues
which should be addressed.
Fuel switching and renewables
Displacing coal and petroleum with natural gas and/or biogas, or biofuels,
or renewables are alternative ways of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions. These options require a full whole lifecycle approach to carbon
management, integrating environmental, engineering, resource, economic and
social dimensions. Issues such as length and type of supply chains,
emissions associated with agriculture, fuel processing, infrastructure and
construction need to be fully understood to limit the risk that emissions
are increased or displaced to another part of the energy/resource chain.
Carbon dioxide capture and storage
The continued use of fossil fuels will demand effective carbon management,
particularly through reduction of the associated CO2 emissions. The greatest
long-term potential for reduced CO2 emissions to the atmosphere from fossil
fuels is likely to be through capturing CO2 from large industrial point
sources before it enters the atmosphere, and then sequestering it back into
the bio/geosphere by geological means. The research challenges include: the
mechanisms of large-scale carbon capture at source, CO2 storage, transport
and distribution, and geological sequestration, monitoring and verification
technologies as well as modelling the long term fate of CO2 injected into a
variety of geological scenarios. Understanding is also needed of the
potential risk posed by CO2 leakage into terrestrial and marine settings,
and of the economic risks, costs and benefits, public acceptability and
regulatory issues associated with moving towards large-scale CO2 capture.
Renewable energy
The objectives for TSEC in this area will centre on work that supports the
development of renewable and sustainable energy systems of relevance to the
UK economy. Specifically, it will: encourage the introduction of renewable
and sustainable energy systems into the UK economy; encourage consideration
of renewable energy in the context of social/economic/environmental issues
and carbon management; and provide data for the development of policy. TSEC
will fund research that is complementary to that supported through other
Research Council activities, such as the ongoing Sustainable Power
Generation and Supply Programme (SUPERGEN). Again, the following is purely
an example of the type of research which could be funded.
Carbon cycle audits
Audits of full lifecycle carbon (or carbon equivalents of other greenhouse
gases emitted in the lifecycle) need to be undertaken, and the energy
balances of different renewable energy generating technologies need to be
considered and understood, if true impacts on carbon reduction are to be
achieved. For example, if energy crops are to be encouraged, then
consequences on land use change, aquifer recharge, and rainfall run off need
to be fully understood. It would also be important to ensure that the crops
are 'low-input' in terms of energy usage and that the energy balance is
therefore positive. Environmental impacts of growing energy crops would have
to be compared with the alternative land use (food crops, set-aside, etc)),
and consideration given to their potential economic and social impacts.
Risks, barriers and incentives in renewables innovation
Innovation will be essential in the renewables industry if the sector is to
play a central role in future energy supply. Research is required to
understand and quantify the risks inherent in the development of new
technology and the barriers preventing its exploitation to inform both the
priorities of future renewable energy R&D and the development of future
market instruments and incentives that can encourage the effective
management of risk and enable the exploitation of the outputs of R&D. In the
longer term, new disruptive technology may significantly affect the
operation of the energy market, and research is required to investigate how
incentives and market instruments can adapt to changing market conditions
while still providing a long term framework within which companies can make
capital investments requiring a return on capital over long (20-30 year)
timescales. (In addition to research on such issues relating specifically to
renewables there are opportunities for broader cross-cutting research on
these issues under the Managing New Uncertainties Theme).
The Application Process
The schemes and theme areas under which EoIs will be accepted in this call
are highlighted in colour in the table below.
Nuclear power Managing new uncertainties Carbon management Renewable
energy
Consortia
Research groups
Networks
Collaborative proposals
Capacity building
Characteristics of the schemes
Consortium
A Consortium will comprise a number of academic groups, normally from
different disciplines and institutions, working in partnership with
appropriate stakeholders and users to design and deliver a collaborative
programme of world-class research. It is expected that the consortium will
deliver higher quality research outputs than groups working in isolation.
This call for expressions of interest is open to all potential partners of a
research consortium, irrespective of their existing links to academic
research in the field. Consortia may be funded at a value of up to £5m.
Expressions of interest can be submitted by individuals, existing groups,
and existing or new collaborations. However, where expressions of interest
are made by a group or collaboration, the Research Councils reserve the
right to take forward those expressions in total or in part during the
Consortium-building process, potentially excluding elements of proposed
collaborations.
Research Groups
A Research Group will be a national focal point for research where
researchers can collaborate on long-term inter-disciplinary projects. It
will facilitate the building of strong relationships with research users,
international collaboration and the development of the careers of new and
outstanding researchers.
Funded initially for five years, Research Groups will be expected to provide
the training for postgraduate students and other new researchers where
appropriate, and to improve opportunities for securing co-funding or
sponsorship from sources outside the Science Vote. Applications for Research
Group funding will normally be expected to be in the range of £200k - £600k
per annum although applications outside this range can be considered.
Networks
A major task of UKERC will be to co-ordinate a National Energy Research
Network that will draw in all significant research activities. However, once
the components of this network are known, the TSEC programme will wish to
support new research 'nodes' that complement them. Such complementary
activities would normally be UK-based networks that link research groups and
industrial organisations, across disciplines, to develop new or enhanced
collaborations.
Collaborative Proposals
These will be intended to support focussed, co-ordinated, collaborative
research into specific issues and will be expected to enhance opportunities
for inter-disciplinary collaboration. A minimum of three eligible
institutions are required for a proposal under this scheme, each of which
will be separately awarded funds. The consortium will retain ownership and
management of the science programme, and a lead institution will be expected
to act as co-ordinator.
Collaboration awards will provide funding for up to five years with costs
ranging, as required by the research, from modest sums up to approximately
£2M. Proposals may include tied research studentships.
Proposers are free to submit expressions of interest for one or more themes.
Capacity building
For projects that require considerable preparation, applicants may submit an
Expression of Interest for capacity building, to a maximum of £50k, for:
.
support for a researcher to work in a different science department for
a period of up to 12 months (eg for a natural scientist to work in a social
science department);
.
support for an overseas researcher to work in a UK institution, or for
a UK researcher to work in an overseas institution, for up to 12 months
focusing on interdisciplinary research issues;
.
support for a series of four or more interdisciplinary events
(involving social and natural scientists) over a 12 month period;
.
scoping studies, focusing on any of the TSEC themes. Applicants must
demonstrate the interdisciplinary nature of the proposed research. Awards
may be up to 12 months in duration
Eligibility
Standard Research Council eligibility criteria will apply to this call;
those normally eligible to participate in any Research Council programme can
apply. Research Council funding can only be awarded to UK universities,
Research Council institutes, Government Research Establishments and
not-for-profit research organisations. Organisations and industry which are
themselves ineligible for receipt of Research Council funding may
participate, using their own cash or in-kind support.
Applications from members of the public or individuals outside academia will
not be accepted.
Academic expressions of interest may be submitted by leaders of individual
research groups within one or more universities. While existing groups of
researchers are able to apply as a team, it should be recognised that the
Research Councils may recommend the building of new partnerships involving
only a minority of members from existing collaborations. Where there is
scope to do so, it is recommended that individuals submit their own
expression of interest on behalf of their group.
The Selection Process
An initial sift of EoIs will be conducted by expert panels established by
the Programme Scientific Advisory Committee or by the SAC. Applications will
be judged on their quality, innovation, originality and compliance with the
objectives of the programme.
.
Quality - The proposal should indicate clear potential to support
innovative and high quality research of international standing and include
information on the capacity and track record of the applicants in delivering
such high quality research. This should not rely on publication lists, but
present evidence of recognised first-class research, innovation and
collaboration.
.
Innovation - The proposal should present novel approaches to current
research challenges and persuasive approaches to roadmap solutions. This
should be in the context of the research theme defined in the technical
appendix.
.
Originality - The proposal should demonstrate innovative approaches to
problem solving with evidence of ability, creativity and vision and added
value to current research in the field. The application should be focused
toward addressing research challenges of the theme.
.
Objectives - The applicant should communicate an enthusiasm for
collaboration and ability to contribute to a programme of research that
delivers the objectives of the TSEC programme. They should demonstrate
awareness of the drivers affecting the research agenda and the potential to
contribute to the development of whole-systems approaches to energy issues.
Applicants for consortia will be informed of the outcome of their bids in
January 2004 and if successful will be invited to a workshop in March 2004
to facilitate the formation of consortia partnerships. Attendance at the
workshops will be mandatory for consortium members, including users and
industrial collaborators. Following the workshops, consortium partners will
be invited to submit EPSRC grant applications, which will be subject to
rigorous peer review.
Applicants for Research Groups will be informed of the outcome of their bids
by mid-March 2004 and if successful invited to submit full proposals by
mid-June. Assessment of full proposals will entail applicants being
interviewed by the assessment panel in September/October 2004.
All other applicants will be informed of the outcome of their bids in
February 2004 and successful applicants invited to submit full proposals as
appropriate.
How to Apply
Expressions of Interest
Expressions of Interest must be submitted using the Research Councils' joint
application form (available in Word or PDF versions)and (with the exception
of proposals for Research Groups on Managing the New Uncertainties - see
below) be accompanied by no more than four sides of A4 text (minimum font 12
pt), including diagrams, figures and charts etc. in support of the
application. This should include any relevant information that will assist
assessment of the project that is not covered in the sections of the
application form. It should include
.
Details of the track record of the applicant or business and the
particular qualities they would bring to the proposal.
.
Identification of the broad challenge which the applicant would seek to
address or to which they would be able to contribute
.
Definition of the perceived key research challenges within the theme.
.
Indication of potential deliverables.
.
Information on the collaborating organisation in terms of cash or
in-kind support and proposed benefits from collaboration.
Expressions of interest for Research Groups under the 'Managing the New
Uncertainties' theme must be submitted using the Research Councils joint
application form. However instead of the four sides outlined above the form
should be accompanied by the following information:
.
A research proposal of no more than 3,000 words outlining the main
proposed elements of the proposed Group's research programme and how this
would contribute towards the achievement of the objectives of the Towards a
Sustainable Energy Economy Programme
.
Plus the following appendices:
- no more than 1 side of A4 (minimum font 12 pt) providing
details of references cited in the research proposal
- no more than 1 side of A4 (minimum font 12 pt) giving details
of the proposed strategies for involving non-academic users at all stages
and outlining the potential for collaboration and/or co-funding
- no more than two sides of A4 (minimum font 12 pt) outlining
the proposed management structure of the Research Group, including time
commitments of the proposed Director(s) and abbreviated cvs for all named
applicants.
- no more than one side of A4 (minimum font 12 pt) outlining the
Group's strategy for contributing to the development of inter-disciplinary
research capacity in the field.
In section E of the form, under Scheme applicants should state Consortium,
Centre Group, Network, Collaborative proposal, or Capacity building, as
appropriate; and under Call should insert 'TSEC call 1': followed by the
appropriate theme name: Nuclear; Managing new uncertainties; Carbon
Management, or Renewable energy.
As the majority of institutions have not yet registered with the Research
Councils for electronic submission, in this call electronic submissions
cannot be accepted. An original plus ONE copy are required in hard copy.
Faxed copies are not acceptable.
All applications should be submitted to reach the NERC at the address below
no later than 5pm on 19th January 2004. Personal callers may deliver
applications during normal office hours only (9am - 5pm Monday - Friday).
The Research Councils will reject late or incomplete submissions and those
that do not comply with the application criteria set out above.
Receipt of applications will be acknowledged after the closing date. It will
assist administration of the call if applicants do not telephone to enquire
if their proposal has been received.
Applications and administrative queries should be addressed in the first
instance to:
Dr Chris Baker (e-mail preferred)
Programme Co-ordinator
Science and Innovation Programmes
NERC, Polaris House, North Star Avenue
SWINDON, Wiltshire SN2 1EU.
Telephone 01793 411758.
Queries regarding the technical aspects of the Nuclear Power theme should be
addressed to: Dr Peter Hedges, EPSRC, telephone 01793 444176. Queries
regarding the application criteria or eligibility for the Nuclear Power
theme should be addressed to the Associate Programme Manager Mr Robert
Heathman, Room GFN, EPSRC, telephone 01793 444131.
Queries regarding the application criteria or eligibility for the Managing
New Uncertainties theme should be addressed to Mr Paul Rouse, Senior Science
and Development Manager, Research Training and Development Directorate
(RTD), ESRC, at the above address, telephone 01793 413030, or Mr Oliver
Moss, Science and Development Manager, RTD, ESRC, telephone 01793 413064.
All other queries should
____________________________
Dr. J.P. Darch
Research Administrator
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich
NR4 7TJ
U.K.
Tel  : 44 (0)1603 592994
Fax : 44 (0)1603 593035
Attachment Converted: up151.gif: 00000001,00000001,00000000,00000000


Hi Ed and Keith
for your information, I attached the revision of the EOS article. In
this version we added some lines about the data-overlap between the
MBH and ECS records.
I also attached a figure showing a comparison between MBH and
EsperFULL (using all data) and EsperSUB (without Tornetraesk and the
Polar Urals).
Take care
Jan
--
Dr. Jan Esper
Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL
Zuercherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf
Switzerland
Phone: +41-1-739 2510
Fax:     +41-1-739 2215
Email:   esper@wsl.ch
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\!Low_and_High_rev.pdf"
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Figure1.eps.pdf"
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Response_Figure.eps.pdf"


Mike,
This is for YOURS EYES ONLY. Delete after reading - please !  I'm trying to redress the
balance. One reply from Pfister said you should make all available !!  Pot calling the
kettle
black - Christian doesn't make his methods available.  I replied to the wrong Christian
message
so you don't get to see what he said. Probably best.  Told Steve separately and to get
more
advice from a few others as well as Kluwer and legal.
PLEASE DELETE - just for you, not even Ray and Malcolm
Cheers
Phil
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:37:29 +0000
To: Christian Azar
, christian.pfister@hist.unibe.ch
From: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: AW: CLIMATIC CHANGE needs your advice
Cc: "'David G. VICTOR'"
, 'Katarina Kivel'
,
N.W.Arnell@soton.ac.uk, frtca@fy.chalmers.se, d.camuffo@isac.cnr.it, scohen@sdri.ubc.ca,
pmfearn@inpa.gov.br, jfoley@facstaff.wisc.edu, pgleick@pipeline.com,
harvey@geog.utoronto.ca, ahs@ansto.gov.au, Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov, rwk@ucar.edu,
rik.leemans@rivm.nl, diana.liverman@eci.ox.ac.uk, mccarl@tamu.edu, lindam@atd.ucar.edu,
rmoss@usgcrp.gov, ogilvie@spot.colorado.edu, barrie.pittock@dar.csiro.au,
pollard@essc.psu.edu, nj.rosenberg@pnl.gov, crosenzweig@giss.nasa.gov,
j.salinger@niwa.co.nz, santer1@llnl.gov, h.j.schellnhuber@uea.ac.uk,
F.I.Woodward@sheffield.ac.uk, gyohe@wesleyan.edu, leonid@atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca,
shs@stanford.edu
Dear Steve et al,
I've been away this week until today. Although the responses so far all make valid
points, I
will add my thoughts. I should say I have been more involved in all the exchanges
between
Mike and MM so I'm probably biased in Mike's favour. I will try and be impartial,
though, but
I did write a paper with Mike (which came out in GRL in Aug 2003) and we currently have
a long paper tentatively accepted by Reviews of Geophysics. With the latter all 4
reviewers
think the paper is fine, but the sections referring to MM and papers by Soon and
Baliunas
are not and our language is strong. We need to work on this.
Back to the question in hand:
1.  The papers that MM refer came out in Nature in 1998 and to a lesser extent in GRL
in
1999. These reviewers did not request the data (all the proxy series) and the code. So,
acceding to the request for this to do the review is setting a VERY dangerous
precedent.
Mike has made all the data series and this is all anyone should need. Making model
code available is something else.
2. The code is basically irrelevant in this whole issue. In the GRL paper (in 2003 Mann
and Jones), we simply average all the series we use together. The result is pretty much
the same as MBH in 1998, Nature and MBH in 1999 in GRL.
3. As many of you know I calculate gridded and global/hemispheric temperature time
series
each month. Groups at NCDC and NASA/GISS do this as well. We don't exchange codes
- we do occasionally though for the data. The code here is trivial as it is in the
paleo work.
MBH get spatial patterns but the bottom line (the 1000 year series of global temps) is
almost the same if you simply average. The patterns give more, though, when it comes to
trying to understand what has caused the changes - eg by comparison with models. MM
are only interested in the NH/Global 1000-year time series - in fact only in the MBH
work
from 1400.
4. What has always intrigued me in this whole debate, is why the skeptics (for want of
a better term) always pick on Mike. There are several other series that I've produced,
Keith Briffa has and Tom Crowley. Jan Esper's work has produced a slightly different
series
but we don't get bombarded by MM.  Mike's paper wasn't the first. It was in Nature and
is well-used by IPCC. I suspect the skeptics wish to concentrate their effort onto one
person as they did with Ben Santer after the second IPCC report.
5. Mike may respond too strongly to MM, but don't we all decide not to work with or
co-operate with people we do not get on with or do not like their views. Mike will say
that MM are disingenuous, but I'm not sure how many of you realise how vicious the
attack on him has been. I will give you an example.
When MM came out, we had several press calls (I don't normally get press calls about
my papers unless I really work at it - I very rarely do). This was about a paper in
E&E, which when we eventually got it several days later was appalling. I found out
later that the authors were in contact with the reviewers up to a week before the
article
appeared. So there is peer review and peer review !! Here the peer review was done by
like-minded colleagues. Anyway, I'm straying from the point. Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa
and I felt we should put something on our web site about the paper and directs people
to Mike's site and also to E&E and the MM's site. MM have hounded us about this for
the last four months. In the MM article, they have a diagram which says 'corrected
version' when comparing with MBH. We have seen people refer to this paper (MM)
as an alternative reconstruction - yet when we said this is our paragraph MM claim they
are not putting forward a new reconstruction but criticizing MBH 1998 !!  We have
decided to remove the sentence on our web page just to stop these emails. But if a
corrected version isn't a new or alternative reconstruction I don't know what is.
So, in conclusion, I would side with Mike in this regard.  In trying to be
scrupulously
fair, Steve, you've opened up a whole can of worms. If you do decide to put the Mann
response into CC then I suspect you will need an editorial. MM will want to respond
also.
I know you've had open and frank exchanges in CC before, but your email clearly shows
that you think this is in a different league.  MM and E&E didn't give Mann the chance
to
respond when they put their paper in, but this is a too simplistic. It needs to be
pointed
out in an editorial though - I'm not offering by the way.
I could go on and on ....
Cheers
Phil
At 10:36 15/01/2004 +0100, Christian Azar wrote:
Dear all,
I agree with most of what has been said so far. Reproducibility is the key word. If the
Mann el al material (to be) posted on the website is sufficient to ensure
reproducibility, then there is no compelling need to force them to hand it out. If not,
then the source code is warranted. Also, even if there is no compelling need to make the
source code public, doing it anyway would clearly be beneficial for the entire debate.
Yours,
Christian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Azar
Professor
Department of physical resource theory
Chalmers University of Technology
Göteborg University
412 96 Göteborg
Sweden
ph: ++46 31 772 31 32
[1]www.frt.fy.chalmers.se
[2]www.miljo.chalmers.se/cei
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.


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


Malcolm seems to have done a good job sorting out these constituent sets ,
and I don't have anything to add other than agreeing that as a general
principal , where possible, original chronologies should be used in
preference to reconstructed temperature series ( the latter having been
already optimized using simple or multiple regression to fit the target
temperature series ). This applies not only to our western US
reconstructions (which it should be stressed are based on very flexible
curve fitting in the standardisation - and inevitably can show little
variance on time scales longer than a decade or so) but also to the
Tornetrask and Polar Urals reconstructions (each of which was based on ring
width and density data , but standardised to try to preserve centennial
variability - though the density series had by far the largest regression
coefficients). There is though a question regarding the PCs of the Siberian
network (presumably provided by Eugene?) . The correlation between density
and ring width can get high in central and eastern parts of the network ,
so even though these are different variables , it might not be strictly
true to think of them as truly independent (statistically) of the density
chronologies we use from the Schweingruber network ( there may also  be a
standardisation issue here , as the density chronologies were standardised
with Hugershoff functions for our initial network work (as reported in the
Holocene Special Issue) whereas your PC amplitudes may be based on
"Corridor Standardisation" - which likely preserves less  low frequency? ) .
These remarks are simply for clarification and discussion , and I too will
wait on your response draft , though I would throw in the pot the fact that
omitting the time dependent stuff would simplify the message at his stage.
cheers
Keith
At 01:42 PM 1/19/04 -0700, Malcolm Hughes wrote:
>Mike - there are the following density data in that set:
>1) 20 Schweingruber/Frttss series from the ITRDB (those that
>met the criteria described in the Mann et al 2000 EI paper)
>2) Northern Fennoscandia reconstruction (from Keith)
>3) Northern Urals reconstruction (from Keith)
>4) 1 density series for China (Hughes data) and one from India
>(also Hughes data) - neither included in Keith's data set, I think.
>5) To my great surprise I find that you used the Briffa gridded
>temperature reconstruction from W. N. America (mis-attributed
>to Fritts and Shao) - of course I should have picked up on this 6
>years ago when reading the proofs of the Nature sup mat. It was
>my understanding that we had decided not to use these
>reconstructions, as the data on which they were based were in the
>ITRDB, and had been subject to that screening process. So
>depending on whether you used the long or the shorter versions
>of these, there will have been a considerable number of density
>series included , some of them twice. It means that there is
>considerably more overlap between the two data sets, in North
>America, than I have been telling people. I stand corrected.
>Cheers, Malcolm
>.
>.Malcolm Hughes
>Professor of Dendrochronology
>Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
>University of Arizona
>Tucson, AZ 85721
>520-621-6470
>fax 520-621-8229
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784


Mike - you are right that we should probably leave the network
uncahnged for this mss. In fact, however, as Keith indicated, the
Vaganov data probably retained a fair amount of low frequency
because of the use of the corridor method (i.e. were not "heavily
standardized"). CHeers, Malcolm
On 20 Jan 2004 at 7:58, Michael E. Mann wrote:
> Thanks Keith,
>
> I agree w/ this--I think the Vaganov chronologies were pretty heavily
> standardized, and the other issues you raise are important. In the
> future, we would (and will) be a bit more circumspect about the use of
> some of these data.
>
> In the present case, however, I think we are forced to use the exact
> same network.
>
> Re, the omission of some results. I think we can probably keep them.
> Simply by cleaning up the text, removing redundancy, etc. I've
> shortened and tightened the manuscript considerably, and I think I've
> improved the logical flow a bit in the process. So my feeling is that
> we will not have to split this up, but I'll leave this to all of you
> to decide after you see the revised draft from Scott and me...
>
> Thanks,
>
> mike
>
> At 09:45 AM 1/20/2004 +0000, Keith Briffa wrote:
>     Malcolm seems to have done a good job sorting out these
>     constituent sets , and I don't have anything to add other than
>     agreeing that as a general principal , where possible, original
>     chronologies should be used in preference to reconstructed
>     temperature series ( the latter having been already optimized
>     using simple or multiple regression to fit the target temperature
>     series ). This applies not only to our western US reconstructions
>     (which it should be stressed are based on very flexible curve
>     fitting in the standardisation - and inevitably can show little
>     variance on time scales longer than a decade or so) but also to
>     the Tornetrask and Polar Urals reconstructions (each of which was
>     based on ring width and density data , but standardised to try to
>     preserve centennial variability - though the density series had by
>     far the largest regression coefficients). There is though a
>     question regarding the PCs of the Siberian network (presumably
>     provided by Eugene?) . The correlation between density and ring
>     width can get high in central and eastern parts of the network ,
>     so even though these are different variables , it might not be
>     strictly true to think of them as truly independent
>     (statistically) of the density chronologies we use from the
>     Schweingruber network ( there may also be a standardisation issue
>     here , as the density chronologies were standardised with
>     Hugershoff functions for our initial network work (as reported in
>     the Holocene Special Issue) whereas your PC amplitudes may be
>     based on "Corridor Standardisation" - which likely preserves less
>     low frequency? ) . These remarks are simply for clarification and
>     discussion , and I too will wait on your response draft , though I
>     would throw in the pot the fact that omitting the time dependent
>     stuff would simplify the message at his stage. cheers Keith
>
>     At 01:42 PM 1/19/04 -0700, Malcolm Hughes wrote:
>     Mike - there are the following density data in that set:
>     1) 20 Schweingruber/Frttss series from the ITRDB (those that
>     met the criteria described in the Mann et al 2000 EI paper)
>     2) Northern Fennoscandia reconstruction (from Keith)
>     3) Northern Urals reconstruction (from Keith)
>     4) 1 density series for China (Hughes data) and one from India
>     (also Hughes data) - neither included in Keith's data set, I
>     think. 5) To my great surprise I find that you used the Briffa
>     gridded temperature reconstruction from W. N. America
>     (mis-attributed to Fritts and Shao) - of course I should have
>     picked up on this 6 years ago when reading the proofs of the
>     Nature sup mat. It was my understanding that we had decided not to
>     use these reconstructions, as the data on which they were based
>     were in the ITRDB, and had been subject to that screening process.
>     So depending on whether you used the long or the shorter versions
>     of these, there will have been a considerable number of density
>     series included , some of them twice. It means that there is
>     considerably more overlap between the two data sets, in North
>     America, than I have been telling people. I stand corrected.
>     Cheers, Malcolm . .Malcolm Hughes Professor of Dendrochronology
>     Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research University of Arizona Tucson, AZ
>     85721 520-621-6470 fax 520-621-8229
>
>     --
>     Professor Keith Briffa,
>     Climatic Research Unit
>     University of East Anglia
>     Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>
>     Phone: +44-1603-593909
>     Fax: +44-1603-507784
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> __
> Professor Michael E. Mann
>  Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, VA 22903
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _ e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770FAX: (434) 982-2137
>
Malcolm Hughes
Professor of Dendrochronology
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
520-621-6470
fax 520-621-8229


X-Sender: esper@mail.wsl.ch
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:26:27 +0100
To: Briffa Keith
,
Cook Ed
From: Jan Esper
Subject: EOS revision
Hi Ed and Keith
for your information, I attached the revision of the EOS article. In this version we
added some lines about the data-overlap between the MBH and ECS records.
I also attached a figure showing a comparison between MBH and EsperFULL (using all data)
and EsperSUB (without Tornetraesk and the Polar Urals).
Take care
Jan
--
Dr. Jan Esper
Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL
Zuercherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf
Switzerland
Phone: +41-1-739 2510
Fax:     +41-1-739 2215
Email:   esper@wsl.ch
--
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.
2.


Andrew,
Here is an update on the Inter-reg proposal, based upon the recent Oxford
workshop.
Organisations involved:
EA, EN, Oxford ECI, Oxford Brooks (Planning), Alterra (Netherlands), Hampshire
CC, Kent CC, Conservatoire de Littoral, Clare CC, Maynooth U., Tyndall
Funding:
Aiming for a 3 year project of 3-4 million Euros. Inter-reg 3B most closely
fits project objectives but still unknown whether sufficient funds remain for
this. Inter-reg 3C represents an alternative, but requires more high-level
policy. Inter-reg deadline is April 29th. Other alternatives are LIFE and
Framework VI.
Key issue:
Are Tyndall to be included as a Partner or a Contractor? Partners have more
influence on project development but would require 50% matched funding
(however this can be met through including other contributing R&D projects).
Contractors do not need matched funding but may have to officially tender for
sub-contract.
Proposed Work Packages:
1 Policy Review of spatial planning mechanisms for biodiversity (European,
national, regional, local). How will this cope with climate change? Oxford
Brooks & Oxford ECI to lead on developing this WP.
2 Broad-scale Review of impacts of climate change on biodiversity in NW
Europe. To identify main drivers, issues and vulnerabilities on a network
basis. Lead: Alterra, Oxford ECI, Tyndall
3 Coastal case studies - Hamble (England), Shannon (Ireland), Baie de Vaie
(France). Objectives to evaluate local management issues with regard to
simulation of future coastal evolution. Lead: EA, Hampshire CC
4 Terrestrial case studies - 2 regions: SE England, Limburg. Lead Alterra, ECI
5 Policy Development & Guidance - based on review of research outputs. Lead EN
6 Dissemination
Cross-cutting issues - stakeholder engagement, assessment/management of key
habitats
Next steps - develop WPs, workplans and costing of proposal by 27th Feb.
Next meeting 4th/5th March, Oxford.
regards,
Iain


From: Timo Hämeranta
To:
Subject: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:04:28 +0200
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
Importance: Normal
Mike,
In an odd way this is cheering news !  One other thing about the CC paper - just found
another email - is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals
to give all the data and codes !!  According to legal advice IPR overrides this.
Cheers
Phil
"It is with deep sadness that the Daly Family have to announce the sudden death of John
Daly.Condolences may be sent to John's email account (daly@john-daly.com)
"
Reported with great sadness
Timo Hämeranta
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Timo Hämeranta, LL.M.
Moderator, Climatesceptics
Martinlaaksontie 42 B 9
01620 Vantaa
Finland, Member State of the European Union
Moderator: timohame@yahoo.co.uk
Private: timo.hameranta@pp.inet.fi
Home page: [1]
Moderator of the discussion group  "Sceptical Climate Science"
[2]
"To dwell only on horror scenarios of the future
shows only a lack of imagination".  (Kari Enqvist)
"If the facts change, I'll change my opinion.
What do you do, Sir" (John Maynard Keynes)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Prof. Phil Jones
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.


Rashit
that sounds great - at least I am happy you are working on the sub fossil material still. I
have done some work comparing the Swedish and Finnish long series after standard RCS
detrending and there is good similarity at the century timescale for some considerable
periods - but significant differences over some others , even allowing for uncertainty in
the series  These are only 300 km separated so this is an interesting indication of changes
in continentality perhaps. I am also interested in extending the high-frequency density
series before 1400 AD , to show earlier volcanoes , even though the spatial coverage is
poor. It would be interesting to see your extreme year series - do you have a preprint of
your paper? I would really like to get support to continue a wider collaboration ,
including other northern long series to produce wide scale integrated series . What is the
latest state of your tree-line reconstruction , for periods earlier than you showed in the
Holocene paper? I am still hoping such support may come again from Europe.
very best wishes
Keith
At 07:28 PM 2/2/04 +0500, you wrote:
Dear Keith,
it is very nice to hear from you.
We live and work in the old way. Stepan has been updated his woody
vegetation descriptions in the Polar Urals to reconstruct dynamics of
forest structure near upper timberline for the last century.
Because of some reasons (sometimes without any reasons) the work on
constructing Yamal chronology is going not very well. Duration of
chronology is now 7315 years (7314 BC - AD 2000). The last valuable
field work has been realized in 2000, when we have collected 370
subfossil samples. Half of them have been dated. Now I successfully
collect money for field work (for helicopter rent). I hope this field
season will be fruitful. Meantime we have analyzed frost- and
light-ring frequency in Yamal tree rings for the last 2100 years to
reconstruct extreme events. The later half of this reconstruction, I
hope, will be published this year in Palaeo3. Now I contracted
(together with Stepan) to write by June something like textbook on
tree-ring dating for archeologists (in Russian). Then I'm going to
return to work on Yamal chronology. It would be pleasure to keep on
our joint work.
Best regards
Rashit Hantemirov
Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
8 Marta St., 202
Ekaterinburg, 620144
Russia
Tel: +7(3432)51-40-92
Fax: +7(3432)51-41-61
E-mail: rashit@ecology.uran.ru
Monday, February 2, 2004, 1:57:37 PM, you wrote:
KB> Dear Rashit
KB> thanks for this - these people ask many questions as they try constantly to
KB> attack the global warming proponents . I answer sometimes , but it usually
KB> means they come back with many more questions. All part of science I suppose.
KB> How are you , and Stepan? I have a student working on trying to refine the
KB> RCS approach , to allow less trees and reduce bias that comes from using
KB> only recent data . Hope to get him to test new methods on your and
KB> Vaganov's data if that is OK with you . I wish to work towards a new
KB> EuroSiberian series for several millennia at least. Are you still adding
KB> new data? How are you all?
KB> Keith
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[1]
References
1.
2.


Dear Keith,
it is very nice to hear from you.
We live and work in the old way. Stepan has been updated his woody
vegetation descriptions in the Polar Urals to reconstruct dynamics of
forest structure near upper timberline for the last century.
Because of some reasons (sometimes without any reasons) the work on
constructing Yamal chronology is going not very well. Duration of
chronology is now 7315 years (7314 BC - AD 2000). The last valuable
field work has been realized in 2000, when we have collected 370
subfossil samples. Half of them have been dated. Now I successfully
collect money for field work (for helicopter rent). I hope this field
season will be fruitful. Meantime we have analyzed frost- and
light-ring frequency in Yamal tree rings for the last 2100 years to
reconstruct extreme events. The later half of this reconstruction, I
hope, will be published this year in Palaeo3. Now I contracted
(together with Stepan) to write by June something like textbook on
tree-ring dating for archeologists (in Russian). Then I'm going to
return to work on Yamal chronology. It would be pleasure to keep on
our joint work.
Best regards
Rashit Hantemirov
Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
8 Marta St., 202
Ekaterinburg, 620144
Russia
Tel: +7(3432)51-40-92
Fax: +7(3432)51-41-61
E-mail: rashit@ecology.uran.ru
Monday, February 2, 2004, 1:57:37 PM, you wrote:
KB> Dear Rashit
KB> thanks for this - these people ask many questions as they try constantly to
KB> attack the global warming proponents . I answer sometimes , but it usually
KB> means they come back with many more questions. All part of science I suppose.
KB> How are you , and Stepan? I have a student working on trying to refine the
KB> RCS approach , to allow less trees and reduce bias that comes from using
KB> only recent data . Hope to get him to test new methods on your and
KB> Vaganov's data if that is OK with you . I wish to work towards a new
KB> EuroSiberian series for several millennia at least. Are you still adding
KB> new data? How are you all?
KB> Keith


Rashit
thanks for these - I think you are making magnificent progress , and I wish you the very
best . I would like to see the information you mention if you do not mind . It would be
useful to compare with the long density data.
cheers again
Keith
At 07:20 PM 2/3/04 +0500, you wrote:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1251
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by alanllein.uran.ru id
i13EL9co081373
Dear Keith,
attached manuscript concerning frost and light rings has been
submitted to Paleo3 special issue (PAGES conference in Moscow in
2002). I'm still waiting for final decision.
Meantime we prepare next version of extremes reconstruction (on the
base of Yamal data only) for the last 2100 years using frost, light,
missing and very narrow rings. Unfortunately, I could not find time to
prepare even draft version of this paper. I can send to you the
picture and list of the "extreme" years for this period, if you are
interested. Now analysis is going on, little by little. Most probably,
we will prepare for publication data for longer reconstruction (up to
4000 years).
As to tree-line reconstruction, we have almost no progress. To get
more reliable reconstruction we need more samples from sites
northwards of 68°N. In 2002 we have sampled subfossil wood in this
area. However, without success (only 30 samples, only 5 of them I was
able to date). Now we have in all 30 dated samples from the area to
the north of 68°. Attached .pcx files show reconstructions that have
been published before in the local publications. Only one correction
we can do after 2002 field season, namely that big shift of tree line
took place after 2420 BC. Hope I will succeed finally in dating of
rest of samples to improve reconstruction.
Best regards
Rashit Hantemirov
Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
8 Marta St., 202
Ekaterinburg, 620144
Russia
Tel: +7(3432)51-40-92
Fax: +7(3432)51-41-61
E-mail: rashit@ecology.uran.ru
Monday, February 2, 2004, 7:37:36 PM, you wrote:
KB> Rashit
KB> that sounds great - at least I am happy you are working on the sub fossil
KB> material still. I have done some work comparing the Swedish and Finnish
KB> long series after standard RCS detrending and there is good similarity at
KB> the century timescale for some considerable periods - but significant
KB> differences over some others , even allowing for uncertainty in the
KB> series  These are only 300 km separated so this is an interesting
KB> indication of changes in continentality perhaps. I am also interested in
KB> extending the high-frequency density series before 1400 AD , to show
KB> earlier volcanoes , even though the spatial coverage is poor. It would be
KB> interesting to see your extreme year series - do you have a preprint of
KB> your paper? I would really like to get support to continue a wider
KB> collaboration , including other northern long series to produce wide scale
KB> integrated series . What is the latest state of your tree-line
KB> reconstruction , for periods earlier than you showed in the Holocene paper?
KB> I am still hoping such support may come again from Europe.
KB> very best wishes
KB> Keith
--
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.
2.


Dear Keith,
attached file contains results of analysis of anomalous rings in Yamal
material for 100BC - 2000 AD.
I forgot to inform you about one more thing. We have
organized data bank of Russian tree-ring chronologies.
Unfortunately (for you), in Russian.

(and then  click on the icon in the bottom (in center) of page).
This databank is made for archeologists and people that need to date
woody constructions and etc. The aim is to give them information about
where and what kind of chronologies there are in Russia. For some
locations chronology is available or links to other databanks, for
others - information only. Site is still filling up. If you are
interested to see you can ask Vladimir Shishov to translate. By the
way, you can remind him about my request to place chronologies of their
lab in this bank.
Best regards
Rashit Hantemirov
Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
8 Marta St., 202
Ekaterinburg, 620144
Russia
Tel: +7(3432)51-40-92
Fax: +7(3432)51-41-61
E-mail: rashit@ecology.uran.ru
Tuesday, February 3, 2004, 7:30:38 PM, you wrote:
KB> Rashit
KB> thanks for these - I think you are making magnificent progress , and I wish
KB> you the very best . I would like to see the information you mention if you
KB> do not mind . It would be useful to compare with the long density data.
KB> cheers again
KB> Keith
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Extreme2100.pdf"


Dear All,
So now it seems that we're separating 'providing the code' from 'running the code'. I
can't
see the purpose of one without the other. Even if Mike complies I suspect there will need
to be several sessions of interaction, which neither side will be very keen on. As I said
before
I know the code will involve lots of combinations (for different periods with different
proxies).
Also I would expect, knowing the nature of the PC-type regression approach, that there
will
be library routines. If the code is sent, there needs to be conditions. We don't want
McIntyre
(MM) to come out and say he can't get it to work after a few days.
So, it is far some simple. I'm still against the code being given out.  Mike has made
the
data available. That is all they should need.  The method is detailed in the original
paper -
in the online (methods) and also in several other papers Mike has written.
As an aside, Mike is now using a different method from MBH98.  Also, as an aside,
whilst we've been deliberating, MM have submitted another comment on MBH98 to another
journal. In this they say they have a program that replicates MBH98 (although it isn't
very convincing that they have it exactly right, as they never show a like for like
comparison) , but
most of the comment goes on about the results being different due to different
combinations of
proxies. The latter isn't surprising.
It might appear they want the code to check whether their version works properly. If
this
is the case, then there are issues of IPR.  So, if they get the code, how do we stop them
using it for anything other than this review.
Cheers
Phil
At 11:40 04/02/2004 -0800, Peter H. Gleick wrote:
Yes, excellent point. This should be what we do. Further, we can point out that we've
bent over backward here and provided more than typically necessary in order to satisfy
persistent but inappropriate demands.
Peter
At 08:46 PM 2/4/04 +0100, Mearns Linda O wrote:
Peter et al.,
Thanks for reminding me about the new email list.
My point about the code is still that 'providing the code'  can be
interpreted alot of ways.  I have thought about this, and imagined if in
one of my larger and more complex projects, I was asked to provide all
code.  I could do that just by sending the pieces with a summary file
explaining what each piece was used for.   It still theoretically allows
someone to see how coding was done.  And I do think that is a far sight
easier than providing stuff that can be run, etc.    I am suggesting that
one could do the minimum.  Then the point is, one isn't faced with garish
headlines about 'refusal to provide code'.  I think it is harder to come
up with a garish headline about 'refusal to provide completely documented
code with appropriate readme files and handholding for running it'.
Linda
Dr. Peter H. Gleick
Director, 2003 MacArthur Fellow
Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security
654 13th Street
Oakland, California 94612
510 251-1600 phone
510 251-2203 fax
[1]www.worldwater.org (World Water site)
[2]www.pacinst.org (Pacific Institute site)
Prof. Phil Jones
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.