Ed
just back from really sunny Austria and very pleasant south of France. Have talked at
length with Jan and he says it is fine to send the raw and detrended cores series
(segmented for each site if possible). Do you also have a convenient Table with the Lats
and Longs you used to plot the sites map? This would mean I don't have to look them all up.
I will phone to report on our discussions and ask several things that arose from these.
Just have to do essential other stuff first - so probably tuesday afternoon (my time) Do
you have that review yet?
love and kisses
Keith
At 07:59 AM 4/29/03 -0400, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
I will start out by sending you the chronologies that I sent Bradley, i.e. all but
Mongolia. If you can talk Gordon out of the latter, you'll be the first from outside
this lab. The chronologies are in tabbed column format and Tucson index format. The
latter have sample size included. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or even Bradley
after I warned him about small sample size problems) to realize that some of the
chronologies are down to only 1 series in their earliest parts. Perhaps I should have
truncated them before using them, but I just took what Jan gave me and worked with the
chronologies as best I could. My suspicion is that most of the pre-1200 divergence is
due to low replication and a reduced number of available chronologies. I should also say
that the column data have had their means normalized to approximately 1.0, which is not
the case for the chronologies straight out of ARSTAN. That is because the site-level
RCS-detrended data were simply averaged to produce these chronologies, without concern
for their long-term means. Hence the "RAW" tag at the end of each line of indices.
Bradley still regards the MWP as "mysterious" and "very incoherent" (his latest
pronouncement to me) based on the available data. Of course he and other members of the
MBH camp have a fundamental dislike for the very concept of the MWP, so I tend to view
their evaluations as starting out from a somewhat biased perspective, i.e. the cup is
not only "half-empty"; it is demonstrably "broken". I come more from the "cup half-full"
camp when it comes to the MWP, maybe yes, maybe no, but it is too early to say what it
is. Being a natural skeptic, I guess you might lean more towards the MBH camp, which is
fine as long as one is honest and open about evaluating the evidence (I have my doubts
about the MBH camp). We can always politely(?) disagree given the same admittedly
equivocal evidence.
I should say that Jan should at least be made aware of this reanalysis of his data.
Admittedly, all of the Schweingruber data are in the public domain I believe, so that
should not be an issue with those data. I just don't want to get into an open critique
of the Esper data because it would just add fuel to the MBH attack squad. They tend to
work in their own somewhat agenda-filled ways. We should also work on this stuff on our
own, but I do not think that we have an agenda per se, other than trying to objectively
understand what is going on.
Cheers,
Ed
Ed
thanks for this - and it is intriguing , not least because of the degree of coherence in
these series between 1200 and 1900 - more than can be accounted for by either
replication of data between the series (of which there is still some) or artifact of the
standardisation method (with the use of RCS curves which are possibly inappropriate for
all the data to which each is applied) . Having then got some not insubstantial
confidence in the likelihood of a real temperature signal in this period - the question
of why the extreme divergence in the series pre-1200 and post 1900? A real geographic
difference in the forcing , replication and standardisation problems? - both are likely.
We would like the raw cores for each site: the RCS indices upon   which you base the
chronologies ; the site chronologies (which I think you sent to Ray?). At first we will
simply plot the site chronologies , correlate each with local climate and come back to
you again. We will also plot each "set" of indices and compare site RCS curves and
reconsider the validity of the classification into linear and non-linear growth
patterns. I know you have done all this but we need to get a feel for these data and do
some comparisons with my early produce ring-width RCS chronologies for ceratin sites and
compare the TRW series with the same site MXD chronologies - all a bit suck and see at
first. I am talking with Tim later today about the review idea and I will email/phone
before 16.00 my time today.
Thanks
Keith
At 10:01 AM 4/28/03 -0400, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
Here is the new Esper plot with three different forms of regionalization: linear vs.
nonlinear (as in the original paper), north vs. south as defined in the legend, and east
vs. west (i.e. eastern hemisphere vs. western hemisphere). All of the series have been
smoothed with a 50-yr spline after first averaging the annual values. The number of
cores/chronologies are given in the legend in parentheses. Not surprisingly, the north
and south chronologies deviate most in the post-1950 period. Before 1950 and back to
about 1200 the series are remarkably similar (to me anyway). Prior to 1200 there is more
chaos, perhaps because the number of chronologies have declined along with the
within-chronology replication. However, there is still some evidence for spatially
coherent above-average growth. I showed this plot at the Duke meeting. Karl Taylor
actually told me that he thought it looked fairly convincing, i.e. that the
low-frequency structure in the Esper series was not an artefact of the RCS method.
Cheers,
Ed
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[1]
--
==================================
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
==================================
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[2]
References
1.
2.
3.


Mike
Lennart has managed to confuse me with his latest message. At one point he mentioned that
you and I would do a joint overview paper . Now he suggests we choose 5-10 co-authors but
also refers to "other people in our section" who he has apparently already informed , need
"to consult with you (ie us) as required" (my emphasis).
As for my opinion of the theme or content of our section , I suggest it be "quantifying
Natural and Anthropogenic influences on the course of Global climate during recent
millennia" or some such . This allows for the review , redefinition of Global climate
history (Southern as well as Northern , and moisture as well as Temperature). Importantly ,
it also incorporates the issue of forcing history(ies) and work quantifying the influence
of these histories - using simple empirical techniques or using them in conjunction with
models of different complexity to attribute causes of this change.
I am happy to go with the "usual suspects" in the overview paper , but would be happy if we
considered others who are also running controlled model/data comparisons (examples are Von
Storch , Simon Tett , Caspar Ammann).  We need first to clarify whether we will present one
large , multi-author presentation/paper or whether it is just me and you and the others
divided into other papers/presentations/posters. Should we copy this message to Lennart or
contact him directly with specific questions?
Keith
At 09:49 PM 5/18/03 -0400, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
I hope all is well.
Apparently, we're supposed to choose 5-10  additional "co-authors"? I guess the obvious
ones would be Phil, Tim, Ray, Malcolm, perhaps Ed Cook, Scott Rutherford,...any other
suggestions?
As I understand it, the co-authors would be invited to attend and present in the poster
session; I assume they are listed separately from you and I who will jointly present the
oral overview. As for the theme, I'm assuming "climate changes of the past couple/few
millennia" or something like that. As we have 45 minutes total between the two of us, I
would suggest we each take about 20 minutes, and then we'll have 5 minutes left for
questions.
Any suggestions, thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
thanks,
mike
X-Sender: m214001@regen.dkrz.de
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 22:53:58 +0200
To: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, mann@virginia.edu
From: "Prof. Dr. Lennart Bengtsson"
Subject: Clivar Conference 2004
Cc: bengtsson@dkrz.de, kornelia.mueller@dkrz.de
--
Dear Dr. Mann,
Dear Dr. Briffa,
The preparation of the Clivar conference is progressing well and all invited speakers
have now agreed (See attached draft program). As I have informed you previously Journal
of Climate will have a special issue devoted to the Conference and I expect you would be
willing to prepare a paper to be ready at the time of the conference. I have made
arrangements with the chief editor to make a flexible interpretation of the content of
the papers so to agree with the objective of the conference and the draft program.
We would now like you to come up with a suitable theme for your presentation at the
conference as well a list of names which you have selected as co-authors. As we
anticipate a broad and forward-looking contribution I believe some 5-10 people seems
appropriate. It was our intention that the first person listed should be the lead author
but you can arrange this otherwise if you prefer to do so. I have informed the other
speakers in your section to consult with you as required.
For the conference I expect a rather wide audience in addition to a broad scientific
community including representatives from different agencies such as the meteorological
services, as well as media representatives. For the media we intend to provide a special
set of information. In view of the societal importance of the CLIVAR program and the
considerable progress in extended range forecasts and climate change assessment and
prediction I believe there will be an excellent opportunity to bring the scientific
progress and associated applications of CLIVAR to the participants of the conference.
It would be very helpful if you could to let me know the status of your arrangements not
later than June 15. If you see any particular difficulties please let me know as soon as
possible.
As you can see from the attached program each part of the conference will have poster
sessions. The poster sessions will be an important part of the conference and I
anticipate that some of your co-authors will prepare such posters. We also plan to have
the poster contents on a CD ROM prior to the conference.
The practical planning of the conference as a whole is proceeding well. The arrangements
in Baltimore are quite excellent with the nearby Baltimore inner  harbor as a particular
attractive focal point. There are all reasons that the conference will be a success both
scientifically and socially. See further the Clivar Conference website:
[1]
We are presently exploring the possibilities for financial support of selected
participants. However, any support you may manage to obtain from national funds would be
most helpful.
With my very best regards
Lennart Bengtsson
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[2]
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[3]
References
1.
2.
3.
4.


Mike and Tom and others
My silence to do with the specific issue of the Soon and Baliunas conveys general strong
agreement with all the general remarks (and restatement of many in various forms ) by Tom
Crowley, Mike Mann, Neville Nichols and now Tom Wigley regarding the scientific value of
the paper and its obvious methodological flaws.
I have to say that I tended towards the "who cares" camp , in as much as those who are
concerned about the science should see through it anyway . I also admit to thinking that
some of you seem a little paranoid (especially in the implication that Climate Research is
a pro sceptic journal) but I am changing my mind regarding the way the "meaning" of the BS
paper is being presented to the wider public - in response to some very poor recent
reporting in the British press and several requests from the US that indicate that those of
you who work there can not simply rely on the weight of good science eventually showing
through as regards the public perception . As Tom W. states , there are uncertainties and
"difficulties" with our current knowledge of Hemispheric temperature histories and valid
criticisms or shortcomings in much of our work. This is the nature of the beast  - and I
have been loathe to become embroiled in polarised debates that force too simplistic a
presentation of the state of the art or "consensus view". Having read Tom W's and Mike's
latest statements I now agree about the need to make some public comment on BS . (I too
have given my personal view of the work to David Appell who I assume is writing a balanced
view of this paper for Scientific American). I see little need to get involved in a over
detailed critic of all the points in the paper , because I am not sure what audience would
benefit from it, but the points made by those I listed above could usefully be fashioned
into a simple letter to Climate Research, signed by those who wish. This would then go on
record as a simple statement of refutation of the method employed and corresponding
limitation of the work for informing the "global warming " debate . This could be quickly
citable when talking to the media.
The one additional point I would make that seems to have been overlooked in the discussions
up to now , is the invalidity of assuming that the existence of a global Medieval Warm
period , even if shown to be as warm as the current climate , somehow negates the
possibility of enhanced greenhouse warming. The business of constructing a reliable climate
history is only one part of establishing the relative roles of natural and anthropogenic
forcings, now and in the future. Without reference to the roles of natural forcings in
recent and past times , comparisons with other periods are of very limited value anyway.
So I agree with Tom and Mike that something needs to go "on record" . The various papers
apparently in production, regardless of their individual emphasis or approaches, will find
their way in to the literature and the next IPCC can sift and present their message(s) as
it wishes., but in the meantime , why not a simple statement of the shortcomings of the BS
paper as they have been listed in these messages and why not in Climate Research?
Keith
At 05:04 PM 5/16/03 -0400, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Tom,
Thanks for your response, which I will maintain as confidential within the small group
of the original recipients (other than Ray whom I've included in as well), given the
sensitivity of some of the comments made.
Whether or not their comments are ad hominem or potentially libelous is probably
immaterial here (some people who have read them think they might be--in certain places,
alterior motives are implied on the part of individually named scientists in the
discussion of scientific methodologies).
However, the real issue, as you point out, is whether or not their arguments and
criticisms are valid. I would argue that very few of them are--I have prepared (and have
attached) a draft of replies to some of the specifics in their two papers--this is
rough, and I'm working on preparing a refined version of this for use by those who are
trying to combat the disinformation that the Baliunas and co. supporters are working at
spreading within the beltway, with the full support of industry, and perhaps the
administration. By necessity this is brief and focus on the most salient points--a
point-by-point rebuttal would take a very long time.
In the meantime, Phil and I, and Ray/Malcolm/Henry D are independently working on review
pieces (ours for R.O.G., Ray et al's for Science) that will also correct in more detail
some of the most egregious untruths put forward by the Baliunas/Soon pieces (what one
colleague of mine aptly chooses to abbreviate as "BS").
The most fundamental criticism, of course, is that the hypothesis, methods, and
assumptions are absolutely nonsensical by construction--as you already pointed out. One
could demonstrate that with an example, but then again, why do so when it is self
evident that defining an anomaly of either wetter or dryer (what does that leave out?)
relative to the 20th century (a comparison which is itself  also ill-defined by the
authors, since they don't use a uniform 20th century reference period for defining their
qualitative anomalies, and discuss proxy records with variable resolution  and temporal
sampling of the 20th century)  was "warmer than the 20th century" is nonsense at the
most fundamental level. It defies the most elementary logic, and thus is difficult to
reply to other than noting that it is nonsense by its very nature.
Would we be compelled to provide a counterexample to disprove the authors if they had
asserted that "1=2"? What they have done isn't that much different...
So its one thing to throw out a bunch of criticisms, very few of which are valid. But to
then turn around and present a fundamentally ill-posed, supposed "analysis" which
doesn't even attempt to provide a quantitative "alternative" to past studies, to claim
to have disproven those past studies, and to supposedly support the non-sequitor
conclusion that the "MWP was warmer than the 20th century" is irresponsible, deceptive,
dishonest, and a violation of the very essence of the scientific approach in my view.
One or two people can't fight that alone, certainly not with the "artillary" (funding
and political organization) that has  been lined up on the other side. In my view, it is
the responsibility of our entire community to fight this intentional disinformation
campaign, which represents an affront to everything we do and believe in. I'm doing
everything I can to do so, but I can't do it alone--and if I'm left to, we'll lose this
battle,
mike
At 02:18 PM 5/16/2003 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:
Dear folks,
I have just read the Soon et al. paper in E&E. Here are some comments, and a request.
Mike said in an email that he thought the paper contained possibly
'legally actionable' ad hominem attacks on him and others. I do not
agree that there are ad hominem attacks. There are numerous criticisms, usually
justified (although not all the justifications are valid). I did not notice any
intemperate language.
While many of the criticisms are invalid, and some are irrelevant, there are a number
that seem to me to be quite valid. Probably, most of these can be rebutted, and perhaps
some of these are already covered in the literature. In my view, however, there a small
number of points that are valid criticisms.
[Off the record, the most telling criticisms apply to Tom Crowley's work -- which I do
not hold in very high regard.]
The real issue that the press (to a limited extent) and the politicians (to a greater
extent) have taken up is the conclusions of the paper's original research.
First, Soon et al. come down clearly in favor of the existence of a MWE and a LIA. I
think many of us would agree that there was a global-scale cool period that can be
identified with a LIA. The MWE is more equivocal. There are real problems in identifying
both of these 'events' with certainty due to (1) data coverage, (2) uncertainty in
transfer functions, and (3) the noise of internally generated variability on the
century time scale. [My paper on the latter point is continually ignored by the paleo
community, but it is still valid.]
So, we would probably say: there was a LIA; but the case for *or against* a MWE is not
proven. There is no strong diagreement with Soon et al. here.
The main disagreements are with the methods used by Soon et al. to draw their LIA/MWE
conclusion, and their conclusion re the anomalousness/uniqueness of the 20th century (a
conclusion that is based on the same methods).
So what is their method? I need to read the paper again carefully to check on this, but
it seems that they say the MWE [LIA] was warm [cold] if at a particular site there is a
50+ year period that was warm, wet, dry [cold, dry, wet] somewhere in the interval
800-1300 [1300-1900], where warm/cold, wet, dry are defined relative to the 20th
century.
The problems with this are .....
(1) Natural internally generated variability alone virtually guarantees that these
criteria will be met at every site.
(2) As Nev Nicholls pointed out, almost any period would be identified as a MWE or LIA
by these criteria -- and, as a corollary, their MWE period could equally well have been
identified as a LIA (or vice versa)
(3) If the identified warm blips in their MWE were are different times for different
locations (as they are) then there would be no global-mean signal.
(4) The reason for including precip 'data' at all (let alone both wet and dry periods in
both the MWE and LIA) is never stated -- and cannot be justified. [I suspect that if
they found a wet period in the MWE, for example, they would search for a dry period in
the LIA -- allowing both in both the MWE and LIA seems too stupid to be true.]
(5) For the uniqueness of the 20th century, item (1) also applies.
So, their methods are silly. They seem also to have ignored the fact that what we are
searching is a signal in global-mean temperature.
The issue now is what to do about this. I do not think it is enough to bury criticisms
of this work in other papers. The people who have noticed the Soon et al paper, or have
had it pointed out to them, will never see or become aware of such rebuttals/responses.
Furthermore, I do not think that a direct response will give the work credibility. It is
already 'credible' since it is in the peer reviewed literature (and E&E, by the way, is
peer reviewed). A response that says this paper is a load of crap for the following
reasons is *not* going to give the original work credibility -- just the opposite.
How then does one comprehensively and concisely demolish this work? There are two issues
here. The first is the point by point response to their criticisms of the literature. To
do this would be tedious, but straightforward. There will be at least some residual
criticisms that must be accepted as valid, and this must be admitted. Cross-referencing
to other review papers would be legitimate here.
The second is to demolish the method. I have done this qualitatively (following Nev
mainly) above, but this is not enough. What is needed is a counter example that uses the
method of reductio ad absurdem. This would be clear and would be appropriate since it
avoids us having to point out in words that their methods are absurd. I have some ideas
how to do this, but I will let you think about it more before going further.
You will see from this email that I am urging you to produce a response. I am happy to
join you in this, and perhaps a few others could add their weight too. I am copying this
to Jerry since he has to give some congressional testimony next week and questions about
the Soon et al work are definitely going to be raised. I am also copying this to Caspar,
since the last millenium runs that he is doing with paleo-CSM are relevant.
Best wishes,
Tom.
______________________________________________________________
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]
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[2]
References
1.
2.
3.


Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 13:38:24 -0400
To: Keith Briffa
From: Edward Cook
Subject: Re: reminder
Hi Keith,
Busy, busy, busy as usual. Here are the lats and lons.
LAT     LON        SITE       COORDINATES IN DECIMAL DEGREES
52.220  -117.23         ATHABASCA
36.000  -118.33         BOREAL
68.160  -133.20         CAMPHILL
57.000  18.500          GOTLAND
63.500  13.500          JAEMTLAND
66.680  82.300          MANGAZEJA
48.280  98.920          MONGOLIA
66.830  65.670          POLAR URALS
57.500  -76.000         QUEBEC
72.000  102.00          TAYMIR
47.000  11.000          TIROL
68.220  19.720          TORNETRASK
37.000  -118.42         UPPER WRIGHT
67.450  142.62          ZHASCHIVIERSK
I will get the data to you next week. I have to off to Rob Wilson's thesis defense now.
Cheers,
Ed
.. about the review and the data ( or at least accurate lats and longs while waiting)
cheers
Keith
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[1]
--
==================================
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
==================================
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[2]
References
1.
2.
3.


Simon,
Some comments to your questions below ......
At 13:46 20/05/2003 +0100, Simon J Shackley wrote:
dear Melvin, Tim, Mike, Tim, Sam and Kevin
For our analysis of acceptable leakage rates of carbon dioxide from
geological storage sites, we can use the data provided in Lenton &
Cannell CC paper I think.  In particular, we could use your finding
that to limit warming to under 0.2oC per decade, rate of increase of
fossil fuel emissions has to be limited to under 0.03 GtC/yr/yr.
This would seem sufficient to avoid the peak warming which occurs
in about 2250 under the IS92a emissions scenario (figure 1(c)).  Is
the 0.2oc / decade threshold widely accepted in the science
community however?
This threshold (0.2/decade; 2degC absolute by 2100) is the most commonly cited in
science-policy circles.  The EU have formally adopted it as a preferred target.  It's
origin however is less than obvious and it's adequacy difficult to establish.  And of
course it also depends whether this is carried out to 2200 - the impacts of 4degC by 2200
is not the equivalent of impacts of 2degC by 2100.
My personal view is that there is much circular argument here.  The first GCM experiments
in the 1980s were 2xCO2 equilibrium, i.e., 550ppmv (cf. 275ppmv pre-industrial).  Thus much
early work used these scenarios.  550ppmv is also a commonly cited target for no other
reason than this.  A 60% reduction in CO2 is broadly commensurate with 550ppm stabilisation
(admittedly, the range is wide coz of C cycle uncertainty; but 60% is mid-range).  And
(again mid-range) 550ppm leads to about a 2degC global warming, which by 2100 is
0.2degC/decade.  Independent arguments for 0.2deg/decade exist for sure - e.g. rate of
ecosystem migration - but as we all know (and have pointed out in our paper on external and
internal definitions of dangerous climate change), no single metric is adequate.
My feeling is that the 2degC (0.2deg/decade) mantra is as much related to the early
mind-set of 2xCO2 GCM experiments as it is rooted in any more substantive reasoning.  One
might also point out of course that the world has been warming at about 0.15degC/decade now
for three decades (since the 1970s) - has this been acceptable/dangerous?
Should we also be looking at a 0.1oC /
decade threshold as well?
I would regard this threshold as a very conservative (or radical - depending on how you
look at it) one
Since we are only looking at the UK we will need to translate the
0.03 GtC figure into allowable rate of increase (presumably
decrease) of European emissions and then pro-rata to the UK.
IPCC SRES Emissions scenarios would provide some basis for
doing these calculations and i'll have a look at the data they
provide.  Alternatively / in addition, we could use the Contraction
and Convergence model of the GCI to calculate 'acceptable' rates
of change (decreasing) of UK emissions into the next millenium.
In Lenton & Cannell, the authors argue that: 'Early consideration
should be given to leaving a fraction of fossil carbon unused, and/or
to carbon capture and storage'.  One implication of the work on
leakage from geological storage sites is that the suggestion to use
CCS to lessen eventual warming might not hold on longer
timescales, depending on the rate of leakage.  So does any one
have any idea on what fraction of fossil carbon should be left in the
ground so as to provide a cap on the eventual warming on long time
scales (3000 years say)?   Is there an 'accepted' threshold for
eventual warming which is 'safe' and to which society can adapt?
If so, what does this threshold tell us about how much carbon has
to be left in the ground?  A simpler way forward for us might again
be to use Contraction & Convergence to provide us with an
acceptable absolute level of emissions from the UK on long
millenial timescales and to work backwards from that figure to
calculate acceptable leakage rates for the UK.
Thanks for any help you can provide
Simon


Dear Osvaldo and Martin,
It is very difficult to make considered input into this process at such short notice.  I
received the emails Wednesday afternoon, just before being away from the office for 48
hours.  I also am not fully aware of the process into which this is fitting and it is the
first time I have seen the WGII outline.  I do however make some comments on the following:
The WGII outline
Chapter 2 on data etc.
Chapter 13 on critical damage etc.
WGII outline
-----------------
Key Questions:  there is, in analytical terms, very little difference between the 2nd and
4th key question you pose.  The impacts under unmitigated CC (Q2) are not in any
fundamental way different from the impacts under mitigated CC (Q4).  2degC warming, for
example, will give broadly the same impacts whether this occurs because of strong CC policy
intervention or whether it occurs because of low carbon development paths.  What matters
more for impacts is the rate of CC and what matters more for how important those impacts
are is the development path pursued.  I think this distinction between mitigated and
unmitigated CC is tenuous and unhelpful.  This has a bearing on the later discussions about
stabilisation (where "stabilisation" is usually assumed to be, indeed often synonymous
with, the result of mitigative action; actually (quasi-) stabilisation, at different
levels, can occur in a world with relatively little direct CC mitigation policy).
The progression through the sections follows a rather linear and reductionist model -
observed impacts, future impacts, adaptation,regions.  I would have liked to have seen an
early opening chapter on the nature of the dynamic relationship between climate and society
(before we even start talking about climate change), this being able to bring out notions
of vulnerability and adaptation - both fundamental to put on the table before we start
thinking about future climate change and how important it is.  This could also point out
that "critical" damage is already being caused by climate and climate variability.
Under your structure, the observed impacts section (II) should surely parallel the later
future impacts section (III) in terms of sectors/themes.  There are only 4 themes in
section II, yet 6 (different) themes in section III.  Why for example is nothing said about
observed impacts on urban infrastructure or on coasts?  The asymmetry between these section
sub-themes is itself perhaps revealing.
It seems odd that adaptation is to be addressed in all the thematic chapters in Section III
*as well as* in a separate later chapter on adaptation.  This situation is ripe for overlap
and redundancy.  Our understanding of adaptation in any case should be brought in right at
the beginning (see above).
The avoiding critical damage chapter suffers from the same problem identified above - what
matters is whether and how such exceedance rates can be identified, not whether they result
from either a mitigated or an unmitigated scenario - this academic distinction cannot be
sustained in the real world.
The regional section is in danger of repeating the mistake in the TAR, again leading to
dispersion of effort and redundancy.  My suggestion would be *not* to assess all new
regional knowledge (again; very turgid), but instead to produce a much more streamlined
section focusing on a few regional/local case studies that illustrate sharply many of the
(integrating) themes introduced earlier - vulnerability, adaptation, criticality, impacts.
Deliberately seek to be selective and not comprehensive.
I also do not see how the WGII chapters will be co-ordinated with the 5 cross-cutting
papers identified here - again, there seems much scope for duplicitous effort and
redundancy or even contradiction.  And since the cross-cutting papers are really the
interesting and useful ones, this suggests to me that the old traditional WG structure of
IPCC is now deeply flawed (as I have said more than once before in public).
Chapter 2 - Assumptions, etc.
---------------------------------------------
First question to raise is what is WGI doing in this regard?  I cannot comment sensibly
without knowing how WGI will tackle questions of scenarios and future projections.
In section 2.3, 4th bullet:  how relevant really are these "Stabilisation scenarios
(mitigation)"?  At the very least IPCC must clear up this issue about whether stabilisation
is a short-hand for mitigation (as implied here).  This is potentially misleading, since
stabilisation can occur in many different worlds, by no means all of them worlds with
strong CC mitigation policies.  Continuation of this thinking means reality is being forced
to accommodate the arbitrary thinking of the UNFCCC rather than UNFCCC being forced to take
account of reality.
Also in this bullet is "Impacts of extreme climate events".  Why are impacts being looked
at here?  Surely this is totally misplaced.  What is important are scenarios - of whatever
origin and methodology - that embed within them changes in the character of "extreme"
weather and how we describe such changes.  We should not separate this out as a separate
issue surely.
Section 2.4 (the second appearance) confuses me.  Much of this material appears earlier in
2.3, thus characterisations of future conditions is what 2.3 is about and also the
projected changes in key drivers is what the scenarios part of 2.3 is all about.  Do you
mean to differentiate between methodology (2.3) and outcomes (2.4b)?  And as always you
will run into the problem of summarising what scenarios actually *are* assumed in this
report - is there to be an IPCC 4AR standard scenario(s) that all should use?  I suspect
not.  Resolving this problem gets to the heart of the structural problem with IPCC.
Different people will use different assumptions.
Chapter 13 - Critical Damage ...
------------------------------------------------
This outline was almost unintelligible to me!  For example having read the opening aims and
scope statement several times, I an still not clear about the approach this chapter is
taking.  Sections 13.2 and 13.3 are also extremely unclear as is section 13.4.
I think someone needs to do some clearer thinking about this chapter before sending it out
for people to comment on.  I have my own views on this, but at such short notice and
without knowing the agreed IPCC process I'm not going to write the chapter outline for you.
Inter alia, the chapter should address the following:
- different paradigms for defining "critical"; will vary by sector, culture, etc.
- distinction between external (pronounced) definitions of critical and internal
(experienced/perceived) definitions
- relationship between adaptive capacity and "critical" rates of change
- dependence of critical thresholds on sector and spatial scale
- reversibility (or not) of critical damage
... and if the use of "critical" is a euphemism for "dangerous" then it is not very subtle
- people will see through this.  What is the difference between critical and dangerous?
Professor Mike Hulme
Tyndall Centre
At 14:32 28/05/2003 +0100, you wrote:
Dear Mike
We are now developing chapter outlines for the Fourth Assessment Report of
the IPCC and we write to ask if you will help us in this task. Enclosed is a
one-page outline of the proposed chapter on Assumptions, Data and Scenarios,
which we would like you to adjust and expand (but not to more than one and a
half pages in all, please).  The overall list of proposed topics to be
covered in the assessment is also attached.
We would like to make the next revision to the outline in a few days so
could you please return your outline to Norah Pritchard
>  at the WGII Techical Support Unit at the UK Met
Office's Hadley Centre not later than 2nd June?
The process of designing the Fourth Assessment and selecting authors is
different from previously.  This time the authors will not be nominated by
governments and then selected until *after* the outline has been approved by
IPCC Plenary this November.  The outlines are there fore being widely
commented on between now and mid-September, when they will be finalised. We
consider your input at this time to be most important.
We appreciate that you are busy, but urge that you give a few minutes to
this crucial task.
In another message we will be writing for your suggestions regarding other
experts to consult in the fields of Assumptions, Data and Scenarios.
We look forward to hearing from you
With thanks and kind regards,
Osvaldo Canziani and Mart in Parry
Co-Chairs, IPCC Working Group II (Vulnerability, Impacts and Adaptation)
Dr Martin Parry,
Co-Chair Working Group II (Impacts and Adaptation),
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Hadley Centre,
UK Met Office,
London Road,
Bracknell RG12 2SY, UK.
Tel direct: +44 1986 781437
Tel switchboard: +44 1344 856888
direct e-mail: parryml@aol.com
e-mail for WGII Technical Support Unit: ipccwg2@metoffice.com
>
>


Attached to this e-mail is a revision of the northern hemisphere
comparison manuscript. First some general comments. I tried as best as
possible to incorporate everyone's suggestions. Typically this meant
adding/deleting or clarifying text. There were cases where we disagreed
with the suggested changes and tried to clarify in the text why.
In this next round of changes I encourage everyone to make specific
suggestions in terms of wording and references (e.g. Rutherford et al.
GRL 1967 instead of "see my GRL paper").  I also encourage everyone to
make suggestions directly in the file in coloured text or by using
Microsquish Word's "Track Changes" function (this will save me
deciphering cryptic penmanship; although I confess, my writing is worse
than anyone's). If you would prefer to use the editing functions in
Adobe Acrobat let me know and I will send a PDF file. If you still feel
strongly that I have not adequately addressed an issue please say so.
I will incorporate the suggestions from this upcoming round into a
manuscript to be submitted. After review, everyone will get a crack at
it again.
I will not detail every change made (if anyone wants the file with the
changes tracked I can send it).  Here are the major changes:
1) removal of mixed-hybrid approach and revised discussions/figures
2) removal of CE scores from the verification tables
3) downscaling of the Esper comparison to a single figure panel and one
paragraph.
4) revised discussion of spatial maps and revised figure (figure 8).
5) seasonal comparisons have been revised
Several suggestions have been made for where to submit. These are
listed on page 1 of the manuscript. Please indicate your preference
ASAP and I will tally the votes.
I would like to submit by late July, so if you could please get me
comments by say July 15 that would be great. I will send out a reminder
in early July.  If I don't hear from you by July 15 I will assume that
you are comfortable with the manuscript.
Please let me know if you have difficulty with the file or would prefer
a different format.
Regards,
Scott
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\nhcomparison_v7_1.doc"
______________________________________________
Scott Rutherford
Marine Research Scientist
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island
e-mail: srutherford@gso.uri.edu
phone: (401) 874-6599
fax: (401) 874-6811
snail mail:
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882


Thanks Phil, and Thanks Tom W and Keith for your willingness to help/sign on. This
certainly gives us a "quorum" pending even a few possible additional signatories I'm
waiting to hear back from.
In response to the queries, I will work on a draft today w/ references and  two suggested
figures, and will try  to send on by this evening (east coast USA). Tom W indicated that he
wouldn't be able look at a draft until Thursday anyway, so why doesn't everyone just take
a day then to digest what I've provided and then get back to me with comments/changes
(using word "track changes" if you like).
I'd like to tentatively propose to pass this along to Phil as the "official keeper" of the
draft to finalize and submit IF it isn't in satisfactory shape by the time I have to leave
(July 11--If I hadn't mentioned, I'm getting married, and then honeymoon, prior to IUGG in
Sapporo--gone for about 1 month total). Phil, does that sound ok to you?
Re Figures, what I had in mind were the following two figures:
1) A plot of various of the most reliable (in terms of strength of temperature signal and
reliability of millennial-scale variability) regional proxy temperature reconstructions
around the Northern Hemisphere that are available over the past 1-2 thousand years to
convey the important point that warm and cold periods where highly regionally variable.
Phil and Ray are probably in the best position to prepare this (?). Phil and I have
recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many
of which are available nearly 2K back--I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K,
rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the
memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet
have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back [Phil and I have one in
review--not sure it is kosher to show that yet though--I've put in an inquiry to Judy
Jacobs at AGU about this]. If we wanted to be fancy, we could do this the way certain plots
were presented in one of the past IPCC reports (was it 1990?) in which a spatial map was
provided in the center (this would show the locations of the proxies), with "rays"
radiating out to the top, sides, and bottom attached to rectanges showing the different
timeseries. Its a bit of work, but would be a great way to convey both the spatial and
temporal information at the same time.
2) A version of the now-familiar "spaghetti plot" showing the various reconstructions as
well as model simulations for the NH over the past 1 (or maybe 2K). To give you an idea of
what I have in mind, I'm attaching a Science piece I wrote last year that contains the same
sort of plot.
However, what I'd like to do different here is:
In addition to the "multiproxy" reconstructions,  I'd like to Add Keith's maximum latewood
density-based series, since it is entirely independent of the multiproxy series, but
conveys the same basic message. I would also like to try to extend the scope of the plot
back to nearly 2K. This would be either w/ the Mann and Jones extension (in review in GRL)
or, if that is deemed not kosher, the Briffa et al  Eurasian tree-ring composite that
extends back about 2K, and, based on Phil and my results, appears alone to give a
reasonably accurate picture of the full hemispheric trend.
Thoughts, comments on any of this?
thanks all for the help,
mike
At 09:25 AM 6/4/2003 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
This is definitely worth doing and I hope you have the time before the 11th, or can
pass
it on to one of us at that time. As you know I'm away for a couple of days but back
Friday.
So count me in. I've forwarded you all the email comments I've sent to reporters/fellow
scientists, so you're fully aware of my views, which are essentially the same as all of
the list
and many others in paleo. EOS would get to most fellow scientists. As I said to you the
other
day, it is amazing how far and wide the SB pieces have managed to percolate. When it
comes
out I would hope that AGU/EOS 'publicity machine' will shout the message from rooftops
everywhere.  As many of us need to be available when it comes out.
There is still no firm news on what Climate Research will do, although they will
likely
have two editors for potentially controversial papers, and the editors will consult
when papers
get different reviews. All standard practice I'd have thought. At present the editors
get no
guidance whatsoever. It would seem that if they don't know what standard practice is
then
they shouldn't be doing the job !
Cheers
Phil
At 22:34 03/06/03 -0400, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Eos has invited me (and prospective co-authors) to write a 'forum' piece (see below).
This was at Ellen Mosely-Thompson's suggestion, upon my sending her a copy of the
attached memo that Michael Oppenheimer and I jointly wrote. Michael and I wrote this to
assist colleagues who had been requesting more background information to help counter
the spurious claims (with which I believe you're all now familiar) of the latest
Baliunas & Soon pieces.
The idea I have in mind would be to use what Michael and I have drafted as an initial
starting point for a slightly expanded piece, that would address the same basic issues
and, as indicated below, could include some references and figures. As indicated  in
Judy Jacobs' letter below, the piece would  be rewritten in such a way as to be less
explicitly (though perhaps not less implicitly) directed at the Baliunas/Soon claims,
criticisms, and attacks.
Phil, Ray, and Peck have already indicated  tentative interest in being co-authors. I'm
sending this to the rest of you (Tom C, Keith, Tom W, Kevin) in the hopes of broadening
the list of co-authors.  I strongly believe that a piece of this sort co-authored by 9
or so prominent members of the climate research community (with background and/or
interest in paleoclimate) will go a long way ih helping to counter these attacks, which
are being used, in turn, to launch attacks against IPCC.
AGU has offered to expedite the process considerably, which is necessary because I'll be
travelling for about a month beginning June 11th. So I'm going to work hard to get
something together ASAP.  I'd  would therefore greatly appreciate a quick response from
each of you as to whether or not you would potentially be willing to be involved as a
co-author. If you're unable or unwilling given other current commitments, I'll
understand.
Thanks in advance for getting back to me on this,
mike
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 20:19:08 -0400
From: Ellen Mosley-Thompson
Subject: Re: position paper by Mann,
Bradley et al that is a refutation  to Soon et al
X-Sender: ethompso@pop.service.ohio-state.edu
To: Judy Jacobs
, "Michael E. Mann"
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3
Judy and Mike -
This sounds outstanding.
Am I right in assuming that Fred reviews and approves the Forum pieces?
If so, can you hint about expediting this. Timing is very critical here.
Judy, thanks for taking the bull by the horns and getting the ball rolling.
Best regards,
Ellen
At 07:33 PM 06/03/2003 -0400, Judy Jacobs wrote:
Dear Dr. Mann,
Thanks for the prompt reply.
Based on what you have said, it sounds to me as if Mann, Bradley, et al. will not be in
violation of AGU's prohibition on duplicate publication.
The attachment to your e-mail definitely has the look and feel of something that would
be published in Eos under the "FORUM" column header.  FORUM pieces are usually comments
on articles of any description that have been published in previous issues of Eos; or
they can be articles on purely scientific or science policy-related issues around which
there is some controversy or difference of opinion; or articles on current public issues
that are of interest to the geosciences; or on issues--science or broader policy
ones---0n which there is an official AGU Position Statement.  In this last category, I
offer, for example, the teaching of creationism in public schools, either alongside
evolution, or to the exclusion of evolution.
AGU has an official Position Statement, "Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases,"  which
states, among other things, that there is a high probability that man-made gases
primarily from the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to a gradual rise in mean
globab temperatures. In this context, your proto-article---in the form of the attachment
you sent me-- would seem right on target for a Forum piece.  However, since the Soon et
al. article wasn't actually  published in Eos, anything that you and Dr. Bradley craft
will have to minimize reference to the specific article or articles, and concentrate on
"the science" that is set forth in these papers.  Presumably this problem could be
solved by simply referencing these papers.
A Forum piece can be as long as 1500 words, or approximately 6 double-spaced pages.  A
maximum of two figures is permitted.  A maximum of 10 references is encouraged, but if
the number doesn't exceed 10 too outrageously, I don't make a fuss, and neither will
Ellen.
Authors are now asked to submit their manuscripts and figures electronically via AGU's
Internet-based Geophysical Electronic Manuscript System (GEMS), which makes it possible
for the entire submission-review process to be conducted online.
If you have never used GEMS before, you can register for a login and password, and get
initial instructions, by going to
[1]
If you would like to have a set of step-by-step instructions for first-time GEMS users,
please ask me.
Ellen indicated that she/you would like to get something published sooner rather than
later.  The Eos staff can certainly expedite the editorial process for anything you and
your colleagues submit.
Don't hesitate to contact me with any further questions.
Best regards,
Judy Jacobs
Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear Judy,
Thanks very much for getting back to me on this. Ellen had mentioned this possibility,
and I have been looking forward to hearing back about this.
Michael Oppenheimer and I  drafted an informal memo that we passed along to colleagues
who needed some more background information so that they could comment on the Soon et al
papers in response to various inquiries they were receiving from the press, etc. I've
attached a copy of this memo.
It has not been our intention for this memo to appear in print, and it has not been
submitted anywhere for publication. On the other hand, when Ellen mentioned the
possibility of publishing something *like* this in e.g. the "Eos" forum, that seemed
like an excellent idea to me, and several of my colleagues that I have discussed the
possibility with.
What we had in mind was to produce a revised version of the basic memo that I've
attached, modifying it where necessary, and perhaps expanding it a bit,  seeking broader
co-authorship by about 9 or so other  leading climate scientists. So far, Phil Jones of
the University of East Anglia, Ray Bradley of the University of Massachusetts,  and
Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona, have all indicated their interest in
co-authoring such a piece. We suspect that a few other individuals would be interested
in being co-authors as well.  I didn't want to pursue this further, however, until I
knew whether or not an Eos piece was a possibility.
So pending further word from you, I would indeed be interested in preparing a
multi-authored "position" paper for Eos in collaboration with these co-authors, based
loosely on the memo that Ihave attached.
I look forward to further word from you on this.
best regards,
mike mann
At 04:59 PM 6/3/2003 -0400, you wrote:
Dear Dr. Mann,
I am the managing editor for Eos, the weekly newspaper of the American
Geophysical Union.
Late last week, the Eos editor for atmospheric sciences, Ellen
Mosley-Thompson, asked me if Eos would publish what she called "a
position paper"  by you, Phillip Bradley, et al that would, in effect,
be a refutation to a paper by Soon et al. that was published in a
British journal, Energy & Environment a few weeks ago.  This  Energy &
Environment article was subsequently picked up by the Discovery
Channel and other print and electronic media that reach the general
public.
Before I can answer this question, I need to ask if you and your
colleagues intend for this position paper to be published
simultaneously in outlets other than Eos.  If this is the case, I'm
afraid it being published in Eos is a moot point, because of AGU's no
duplicate publication policy:  if the material has been published
elsewhere first, AGU will not publish it.
I look forward to your response.
Best regrds,
Judy Jacobs
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[2]
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[3]
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[4]
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\MannPersp20021.pdf"
References
1.
2.
3.
4.


I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review - Confidentially I now need a hard
and if required extensive case for rejecting - to support Dave Stahle's and really as soon
as you can. Please
Keith
At 08:00 AM 5/28/03 -0400, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
Okay, here is a zipped archive containing Jan's ring-width measurement series. The
directory names are:
random
all
slope
flat
"All" contains files with "all" series; "slope" has those series Jan reckoned had
curvilinear growth trends; "flat" has those series with linear growth trends; "random"
are those series that Jan chose not to use. Note that I had to pull out the Mongolia
data set. I would love to give you it, but Gordon would go nuts if he found out. I don't
know any way around this problem.
The file names are:
01ath   Athabasca
02bor   Boreal
03cam   Camphill
04que   Quebec
05upp   Upper Wright
06got   Gotland
07jae   Jaemtland
08lau   Lauenen (site not used in paper)
09tir   Tirol
10tor   Tornestrask
11man   Mangazeja
13pol   Polar Urals
14tay   Taymir
15zha   Zhaschiviersk
I can't put my hands on the derived RCS indices for these sites just now, but I can find
them if you want them. This at least gives you the basic data and how it was partitioned
by Jan. I did not participate in this stage of the analysis, so any questions about it
should be directed to Jan.
Cheers,
Ed
--
==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
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
==================================
--
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.


Hi Big Boy
You just caught me as I was about to slope off after a brutal day - we spent all day
yesterday interviewing for a job we have and then someone accepted it - and now Janice
tells us we don't have the money to pay at therate the job was advertised for! This attack
sounds like the last straw- from what you say it is a waste of time my looking at it but
send a copy anyway. The file you have is an old version of a reconstruction output for one
Tornetrask reconstruction - if it was labelled something like 990 it is the original Nature
one , but 997 (i Think//1) would make it the Climate Dynamics one . Trouble is I will have
to go back and find out which . Please ring if I haven't my tomorrow to remind me  - and
concentrate on the review for now. I will also talk about an extended nearby data set
(temp) that might allow a longer more rigorous validation . Kirsten has just done Math GCSE
and Amy her driving test so I have to go and picjk them up. I will looke at the file and be
ready with an answer by midday my time. the best and a beer til then
Keith
At 09:50 AM 6/4/03 -0400, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
Okay, today. Promise! Now something to ask from you. Actually somewhat important too. I
got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and
Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims
that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression)
is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your Tornetrask recon as the main
whipping boy. I have a file that you gave me in 1993 that comes from your 1992 paper.
Below is part of that file. Is this the right one? Also, is it possible to resurrect the
column headings? I would like to play with it in an effort to refute their claims.
If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to
review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It
won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically,
but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies,
without showing that their improved inverse regression method is actually better in a
practical sense. So they do lots of monte carlo stuff that shows the superiority of
their method and the deficiencies of our way of doing things, but NEVER actually show
how their method would change the Tornetrask reconstruction from what you produced.
Your assistance here is greatly appreciated. Otherwise, I will let Tornetrask sink into
the melting permafrost of northern Sweden (just kidding of course).
Cheers,
Ed
TORNETRASK RECONSTRUCTION
500    1.24   -9.99    0.00    0.16    0.81    0.31
501    0.38   -9.99    0.00    0.25    0.81    0.39
502    0.51   -9.99    0.00    0.08    0.81    0.25
503    0.14   -9.99    0.00    0.19    0.81    0.34
504   -1.32   -9.99    0.00    0.19    0.81    0.34
505   -0.65   -9.99    0.00    0.08    0.81    0.25
506   -0.19   -9.99    0.00    0.07    0.81    0.24
507    0.55   -9.99    0.00    0.19    0.81    0.33
508    0.54   -9.99    0.00    0.16    0.81    0.31
509    0.93   -9.99    0.00    0.11    0.81    0.27
510    0.02   -9.99    0.00    0.14    0.81    0.29
511   -1.62   -9.99    0.00    0.20    0.81    0.35
512   -0.01   -9.99    0.00    0.13    0.81    0.28
513    1.00   -9.99    0.00    0.11    0.81    0.27
514    0.10   -9.99    0.00    0.14    0.81    0.29
515   -0.96   -9.99    0.00    0.11    0.81    0.26
516   -0.08   -9.99    0.00    0.12    0.81    0.27
517    0.35   -9.99    0.00    0.09    0.85    0.25
518    0.30   -9.99    0.00    0.10    0.85    0.26
519    0.55   -9.99    0.00    0.10    0.85    0.26
520   -0.19   -9.99    0.00    0.10    0.85    0.26
521   -0.84   -9.99    0.00    0.23    0.85    0.38
522   -0.83   -9.99    0.00    0.23    0.85    0.37
523    0.05   -9.99    0.00    0.07    0.85    0.24
524   -0.27   -9.99    0.00    0.08    0.85    0.25
525    0.14   -9.99    0.00    0.07    0.85    0.24
526    0.01   -9.99    0.00    0.10    0.85    0.25
527   -0.31   -9.99    0.00    0.13    0.85    0.28
528    0.46   -9.99    0.00    0.09    0.85    0.25
529    0.01   -9.99    0.00    0.09    0.85    0.25
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1848    0.10   -9.99    0.00    0.09    1.00    0.24
1849   -0.39   -9.99    0.00    0.14    1.00    0.28
1850    0.55   -9.99    0.00    0.16    1.00    0.29
1851    0.04   -9.99    0.00    0.13    1.00    0.27   1.92   0.96  -1.98  -1.24
-1.41  -0.35
1852    0.68   -9.99    0.00    0.12    1.00    0.26  -2.82   0.59   1.66   1.95
2.12   0.70
1853    0.67   -9.99    0.00    0.14    1.00    0.28  -2.23   0.24   2.27   1.64
-0.33   0.32
1854    1.13   -9.99    0.00    0.14    1.00    0.27   0.21   1.57   0.89   2.47
2.11   1.45
1855    0.05   -9.99    0.00    0.15    1.00    0.29  -0.74  -0.80   0.24   4.19
-0.16   0.55
1856   -1.41   -9.99    0.00    0.19    1.00    0.33  -0.48  -1.24  -1.37  -0.34
-2.55  -1.20
1857   -0.30   -9.99    0.00    0.19    1.00    0.32  -1.13  -0.78  -1.39  -0.23
2.44  -0.22
1858    0.81   -9.99    0.00    0.15    1.00    0.28  -0.63   0.48   1.37   2.74
2.72   1.34
1859   -0.60   -9.99    0.00    0.10    1.00    0.25  -1.28   0.73   1.04   0.10
0.16   0.15
1860    0.49   -9.99    0.00    0.10    1.00    0.24  -0.41  -1.37   0.62   0.42
0.17  -0.11
1861    0.73   -9.99    0.00    0.10    1.00    0.24  -1.19  -2.59   1.54   2.27
0.33   0.07
1862   -0.15   -9.99    0.00    0.06    1.00    0.22  -0.06   0.50  -1.16  -2.08
-1.95  -0.95
1863    0.03   -9.99    0.00    0.08    1.00    0.23   1.00  -0.79   0.18  -1.72
-0.60  -0.39
1864   -0.50   -9.99    0.00    0.11    1.00    0.25  -0.49  -3.34   0.26   0.74
-2.40  -1.05
1865   -0.32   -9.99    0.00    0.07    1.00    0.22   0.10   0.14  -2.96   1.61
-1.31  -0.48
1866   -0.37   -9.99    0.00    0.10    1.00    0.24   0.29  -1.99   0.67  -1.17
0.67  -0.31
1867   -1.03   -9.99    0.00    0.12    1.00    0.26  -2.83  -5.37  -2.59  -0.62
-0.31  -2.34
1868   -0.28   -9.99    0.00    0.16    1.00    0.29  -0.02   1.04  -0.36   1.72
2.78   1.03
1869   -0.84   -9.99    0.00    0.10    1.00    0.25   1.21  -1.14  -1.40   0.53
-0.63  -0.29
1870   -0.25   -9.99    0.00    0.12    1.00    0.26   1.33  -0.70  -0.27   1.12
-0.36   0.22
1871   -0.59   -9.99    0.00    0.10    1.00    0.24  -2.34  -2.32  -2.34   1.12
-0.09  -1.19
1872    0.44   -9.99    0.00    0.10    1.00    0.25   0.80   0.57   1.16   1.32
-0.34   0.70
1873    0.52   -9.99    0.00    0.14    1.00    0.28  -1.97  -2.50   0.82   1.38
0.12  -0.43
1874   -0.54   -9.99    0.00    0.11    1.00    0.25   0.25  -2.24  -1.15   0.15
-1.06  -0.81
1875    0.36   -9.99    0.00    0.09    1.00    0.24  -1.96   0.36   0.00   0.87
-0.33  -0.21
1876    0.46   -0.15    0.61    0.12    1.00    0.25  -0.70  -3.06   1.93   0.74
0.34  -0.15
1877   -0.98   -1.74    0.76    0.14    1.00    0.28  -3.31  -2.70  -1.18   0.26
-1.76  -1.74
1878   -0.04   -0.19    0.15    0.08    1.00    0.23   1.02  -0.30   0.16  -1.71
-0.12  -0.19
1879    0.20   -0.41    0.62    0.10    1.00    0.25  -1.24  -0.19  -1.09  -0.64
1.09  -0.41
1880   -1.05    0.14   -1.19    0.17    1.00    0.31   0.17  -0.53  -0.70  -0.20
1.94   0.14
1881   -1.34   -1.88    0.54    0.17    1.00    0.30  -3.66  -2.02  -1.35  -1.07
-1.32  -1.88
1882    0.30    0.37   -0.08    0.16    1.00    0.30  -0.32   0.21  -0.36   0.56
1.78   0.37
1883    1.13    0.24    0.89    0.13    1.00    0.26   0.49  -0.08   0.99   0.52
-0.70   0.24
1884    0.00   -0.80    0.80    0.14    1.00    0.27  -0.80  -1.99  -1.15   0.32
-0.39  -0.80
1885   -1.26   -1.25   -0.01    0.14    1.00    0.28  -0.29  -2.26  -2.34   0.42
-1.76  -1.25
1886   -0.24    0.10   -0.34    0.15    1.00    0.28   0.69  -0.55  -0.01   0.13
0.24   0.10
1887   -0.83   -0.40   -0.43    0.14    1.00    0.27  -0.10   0.23  -1.01  -0.12
-1.02  -0.40
1888   -0.79   -1.69    0.90    0.12    1.00    0.26  -2.95  -1.85  -1.37  -1.05
-1.25  -1.69
1889    0.28    0.71   -0.43    0.08    1.00    0.23  -0.46   2.98   2.28  -0.40
-0.84   0.71
1890    0.47    0.22    0.25    0.08    1.00    0.23   1.06   2.04  -0.58  -1.18
-0.26   0.22
1891   -0.55   -0.49   -0.06    0.16    1.00    0.30  -0.43  -0.38  -1.74   1.24
-1.12  -0.49
1892   -1.58   -1.46   -0.12    0.16    1.00    0.29  -0.95  -1.55  -2.20  -1.24
-1.36  -1.46
1893   -0.61   -0.60   -0.01    0.10    1.00    0.24  -0.46  -1.17  -0.48  -0.07
-0.80  -0.60
1894    0.53    0.79   -0.26    0.09    1.00    0.24   2.61   0.07   0.50   1.18
-0.40   0.79
1895    0.68    0.38    0.30    0.09    1.00    0.24  -0.15   2.19   0.78  -0.66
-0.24   0.38
1896    0.06    0.47   -0.41    0.11    1.00    0.25  -0.04  -0.30   1.40   2.02
-0.73   0.47
1897    0.71    1.01   -0.30    0.13    1.00    0.27   0.90   2.20  -0.20   1.10
1.05   1.01
1898    0.10   -0.61    0.71    0.12    1.00    0.25  -1.06  -0.20  -0.16  -1.03
-0.60  -0.61
1899   -1.36   -0.84   -0.53    0.17    1.00    0.31  -0.98  -1.95  -1.85   2.38
-1.79  -0.84
1900   -0.38   -0.89    0.51    0.18    1.00    0.31  -1.31  -2.02  -0.02  -1.11
-0.01  -0.89
1901    0.85    1.32   -0.47    0.17    1.00    0.30   0.76   0.56   1.05   3.24
1.00   1.32
1902   -1.59   -2.44    0.85    0.19    1.00    0.33  -2.71  -2.33  -2.44  -2.52
-2.22  -2.44
1903   -1.27   -0.42   -0.85    0.20    1.00    0.33   0.36   0.14  -0.37  -1.02
-1.22  -0.42
1904   -1.52   -1.11   -0.42    0.15    1.00    0.29   0.77  -1.61  -1.73  -1.64
-1.32  -1.11
1905   -0.45   -0.06   -0.39    0.08    1.00    0.23  -1.29   0.69   1.41   0.05
-1.16  -0.06
1906   -0.44    0.55   -0.98    0.08    1.00    0.23   1.44   1.74   0.34   0.69
-1.47   0.55
1907   -0.40   -1.10    0.69    0.07    1.00    0.23   0.24  -2.05  -0.31  -0.70
-2.67  -1.10
1908   -0.15   -0.55    0.41    0.11    1.00    0.25   0.36  -1.22  -1.31  -0.22
-0.38  -0.55
1909   -0.77   -1.71    0.94    0.09    1.00    0.24  -2.54  -3.21  -1.26  -0.51
-1.03  -1.71
1910   -0.16    0.00   -0.16    0.09    1.00    0.24   1.18   0.91  -0.19  -0.60
-1.32   0.00
1911   -0.38    0.02   -0.40    0.09    1.00    0.24  -0.37   1.25  -1.34  -0.55
1.12   0.02
1912    0.06   -0.23    0.29    0.06    1.00    0.22  -1.32  -0.99   0.16   0.79
0.20  -0.23
1913    0.08    0.29   -0.21    0.07    1.00    0.22   1.68   0.02  -1.15   0.99
-0.07   0.29
1914    0.09    0.84   -0.75    0.07    1.00    0.22   1.51  -0.37   0.47   3.50
-0.93   0.84
1915    0.11   -0.91    1.01    0.06    1.00    0.22  -0.20  -1.59  -2.40   0.61
-0.95  -0.91
1916   -0.35   -0.51    0.16    0.13    1.00    0.26   0.46  -1.26  -1.37   1.65
-2.04  -0.51
1917    0.18   -0.02    0.20    0.11    1.00    0.25  -1.95  -1.60   1.89  -0.78
2.35  -0.02
1918    0.71   -0.39    1.10    0.10    1.00    0.24   1.11  -0.49  -1.73   0.68
-1.52  -0.39
1919   -0.09    0.12   -0.21    0.07    1.00    0.22  -0.88   1.29   0.09   1.87
-1.79   0.12
1920    0.33    0.85   -0.52    0.07    1.00    0.22   2.05   2.16  -0.36   0.93
-0.51   0.85
1921    0.29    0.75   -0.46    0.10    1.00    0.24   3.97   2.43  -0.68  -1.35
-0.62   0.75
1922    0.66   -0.23    0.89    0.12    1.00    0.26  -0.60   0.22   0.00   0.12
-0.88  -0.23
1923   -0.66   -1.84    1.19    0.12    1.00    0.26  -1.53  -1.74  -3.76   0.02
-2.20  -1.84
1924    0.49   -0.46    0.95    0.08    1.00    0.23  -1.60  -0.68  -1.93   0.64
1.25  -0.46
1925    0.30    1.10   -0.80    0.12    1.00    0.26   1.66   0.70  -0.63   3.49
0.30   1.10
1926    0.47    0.06    0.41    0.10    1.00    0.24  -0.06  -0.51   0.02   0.75
0.12   0.06
1927    0.23    0.10    0.14    0.11    1.00    0.25  -0.58  -2.17  -1.54   3.18
1.60   0.10
1928   -0.82   -1.21    0.39    0.11    1.00    0.25   0.42  -0.20  -3.05  -2.14
-1.09  -1.21
1929    0.00   -1.25    1.26    0.15    1.00    0.28  -3.24   0.57  -1.51  -1.02
-1.06  -1.25
1930    1.00    1.42   -0.42    0.16    1.00    0.29   1.78   1.81   0.59   1.58
1.34   1.42
1931   -0.67   -0.21   -0.46    0.08    1.00    0.23  -0.29   1.18  -2.95   1.21
-0.20  -0.21
1932   -0.32    0.27   -0.59    0.08    1.00    0.23   0.54   0.03  -1.68   1.74
0.74   0.27
1933    0.65    0.36    0.29    0.12    1.00    0.26  -0.33  -0.86   1.64   1.77
-0.43   0.36
1934    0.56    0.98   -0.42    0.12    1.00    0.26   0.37   1.88  -0.48   1.88
1.27   0.98
1935   -0.56   -0.37   -0.20    0.09    1.00    0.24   0.30  -1.94   0.11  -0.05
-0.25  -0.37
1936   -0.09    1.48   -1.57    0.19    1.00    0.33   0.03   1.84   2.96   1.86
0.71   1.48
1937    1.77    2.39   -0.62    0.19    1.00    0.32   2.82   2.55   1.32   2.26
3.01   2.39
1938    0.58    0.91   -0.33    0.09    1.00    0.24   0.59  -0.07  -0.60   2.49
2.14   0.91
1939    0.31    0.71   -0.40    0.08    1.00    0.23  -0.22  -0.15   0.04   0.99
2.88   0.71
1940    0.20    0.42   -0.22    0.15    1.00    0.28  -0.95   2.26   0.72   0.67
-0.60   0.42
1941   -0.03   -0.20    0.17    0.14    1.00    0.28  -2.00  -1.34  -1.20   3.70
-0.17  -0.20
1942    0.11   -0.50    0.61    0.08    1.00    0.23   0.14  -1.04  -1.47  -0.32
0.20  -0.50
1943    0.36    0.69   -0.33    0.07    1.00    0.22   1.55   0.88   0.99   0.69
-0.64   0.69
1944    0.12   -0.50    0.62    0.10    1.00    0.24  -1.67  -1.25  -1.58   1.18
0.83  -0.50
1945    0.57    0.71   -0.14    0.10    1.00    0.25   1.21  -0.53  -0.86   1.81
1.91   0.71
1946    0.48    0.64   -0.16    0.09    1.00    0.24   1.17   0.28  -0.18   1.62
0.31   0.64
1947    0.69    1.20   -0.51    0.10    1.00    0.24   0.18   1.48   1.69   1.43
1.20   1.20
1948    0.00    0.67   -0.67    0.08    1.00    0.23   2.10   1.66   0.03   0.74
-1.18   0.67
1949   -0.21    0.11   -0.32    0.14    1.00    0.27   1.26   1.76  -1.34  -0.14
-1.01   0.11
1950    0.83    0.73    0.09    0.10    1.00    0.24   2.24   0.91  -0.14  -0.52
1.18   0.73
1951   -0.13   -0.34    0.21    0.07    1.00    0.22   0.78  -1.83  -1.25  -1.23
1.84  -0.34
1952   -0.13   -0.38    0.25    0.12    1.00    0.26   1.78  -0.91  -1.17  -0.26
-1.34  -0.38
1953    0.95    1.11   -0.16    0.11    1.00    0.25   1.80   0.21   3.01   0.37
0.16   1.11
1954    0.12    0.32   -0.20    0.10    1.00    0.24  -0.60   2.11  -0.57   0.70
-0.05   0.32
1955    0.02   -0.76    0.77    0.09    1.00    0.24  -2.65  -2.42  -2.22   1.42
2.09  -0.76
1956   -0.26   -0.94    0.68    0.07    1.00    0.22  -2.32   0.39   0.12  -0.73
-2.15  -0.94
1957   -0.15   -0.31    0.16    0.07    1.00    0.22  -0.09  -0.53  -2.06   1.32
-0.19  -0.31
1958   -0.08   -0.90    0.82    0.09    1.00    0.24  -1.29  -1.07  -1.05  -0.77
-0.31  -0.90
1959    0.83    0.98   -0.16    0.15    1.00    0.28   1.03   0.66   0.44   1.32
1.47   0.98
1960    1.13    1.02    0.11    0.13    1.00    0.27   0.63   1.88   0.92   1.39
0.29   1.02
1961    0.05    0.17   -0.11    0.10    1.00    0.25  -0.12   0.10   1.47   0.19
-0.81   0.17
1962   -0.45   -1.01    0.56    0.09    1.00    0.24   1.27  -0.52  -2.15  -1.65
-2.00  -1.01
1963    0.11    0.79   -0.68    0.18    1.00    0.31   0.43   3.15  -0.33  -0.07
0.77   0.79
1964   -0.21   -0.09   -0.13    0.15    1.00    0.28   0.64   1.02  -0.78  -0.42
-0.90  -0.09
1965   -0.82   -0.82    0.00    0.10    1.00    0.24   0.62  -1.64  -0.03  -1.74
-1.30  -0.82
1966    0.07   -0.13    0.20    0.06    1.00    0.22  -2.47   0.26   1.97   0.46
-0.87  -0.13
1967   -0.22    0.21   -0.44    0.08    1.00    0.23   0.69   0.29  -0.80   0.13
0.75   0.21
1968   -0.57    0.10   -0.67    0.13    1.00    0.27   1.18  -1.20   1.37  -1.07
0.22   0.10
1969    0.55    0.54    0.01    0.08    1.00    0.23   0.21  -0.61   0.90   0.37
1.82   0.54
1970    0.37    0.40   -0.04    0.10    1.00    0.24  -1.25   0.51   2.27   0.05
0.44   0.40
1971   -0.31   -0.12   -0.19    0.07    1.00    0.22  -0.71   0.81  -0.64   0.03
-0.07  -0.12
1972    0.25    1.18   -0.94    0.08    1.00    0.23   0.18   0.44   1.62   3.00
0.68   1.18
1973    0.30    0.85   -0.55    0.10    0.99    0.25  -0.02   0.76   1.31   2.85
-0.66   0.85
1974    0.07    0.12   -0.05    0.11    0.99    0.25   0.86  -0.41   0.62  -0.30
-0.18   0.12
1975   -0.49    0.51   -1.00    0.08    0.99    0.23   0.45   1.72  -1.09   0.62
0.84   0.51
1976    0.08   -9.99    0.00    0.07    0.99    0.22  -0.28   1.72  -1.36  -0.23
0.05  -0.02
1977   -0.33   -9.99    0.00    0.08    0.99    0.23  -1.05  -0.01  -0.50  -0.90
-0.65  -0.62
1978   -0.30   -9.99    0.00    0.07    0.96    0.23  -0.98   0.92   0.14  -0.48
-1.07  -0.29
1979    0.06   -9.99    0.00    0.12    0.95    0.26  -0.73   0.75   1.02  -0.83
0.07   0.06
1980    0.93   -9.99    0.00    0.13    0.95    0.26   1.42  -0.37   1.23   1.02
-0.36   0.59
I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review - Confidentially I now need a hard
and if required extensive case for rejecting - to support Dave Stahle's and really as
soon as you can. Please
Keith
At 08:00 AM 5/28/03 -0400, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
Okay, here is a zipped archive containing Jan's ring-width measurement series. The
directory names are:
random
all
slope
flat
"All" contains files with "all" series; "slope" has those series Jan reckoned had
curvilinear growth trends; "flat" has those series with linear growth trends; "random"
are those series that Jan chose not to use. Note that I had to pull out the Mongolia
data set. I would love to give you it, but Gordon would go nuts if he found out. I don't
know any way around this problem.
The file names are:
01ath   Athabasca
02bor   Boreal
03cam   Camphill
04que   Quebec
05upp   Upper Wright
06got   Gotland
07jae   Jaemtland
08lau   Lauenen (site not used in paper)
09tir   Tirol
10tor   Tornestrask
11man   Mangazeja
13pol   Polar Urals
14tay   Taymir
15zha   Zhaschiviersk
I can't put my hands on the derived RCS indices for these sites just now, but I can find
them if you want them. This at least gives you the basic data and how it was partitioned
by Jan. I did not participate in this stage of the analysis, so any questions about it
should be directed to Jan.
Cheers,
Ed
--
==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
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
==================================
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[1]
--
==================================
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
==================================
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[2]
References
1.
2.
3.


Dear All,
I've attached a draft (attached word document), incorporating many of the suggestions,
wording, etc. I've already recieved from various of you.  Some specific
comments/inquiries/requests for help indicated in yellow highlighting.  Waiting to hear
back from Peck and Tom C (guys: if you're out there, can you give a holler, to let me know
your disposition? thanks). Otherwise everyone else has indicated they're on board.
I've been in touch w/ Judy Jacobs at AGU to clarify the ground rules. Apparently we *can*
refer, where necessary, to press releases, parenthetically in the piece. I think this is
important in our case because there is a subtle, but important, distinction between what
the papers actual purport to show, and what the authors (and their promoters) have
*claimed* they show (e.g. in the Harvard-Smithsonian press release). We need to draw out
this distinction-I sent Judy my paragraph on that, and she said it looks fine--so
apparently its kosher.
I've avoided any reference to unpublished work however (e.g. Mann and Jones), because this
opens up a can of worms. We can nicely make use of work that Keith has already done to
provide a suggestion of the longer-term (past 2K) changes, for greater context...
Re, references--we necessarily have to go well over the normal 10 or so, because part of
the strength of our piece is the wealth of recent studies supporting our basic conclusions.
Judy said that's ok too--especially since our text is short (by about 100 words) relative
to the official (1200 word) limit. So we should try to keep it that way..ie, we need to
play a zero-sum game, as much as possible, with any suggested revisions.
Re figures, Scott Rutherford has generously offered to help prepare a draft of figure 1
which I'll send on to everyone once its available.
I've also described, in the figure caption, my concept of Figure 2--clearly it would be
helpful if Phil and Ray could collaborate on the preparation of this one (guys?).
Looking forward to comments, and suggested revisions. I'll just accumulate these from
everyone in whatever form you prefer to provide them (emailed comments, word file w/ track
changes or highlighting of changes used, etc) and try to prepare a revised draft once I've
heard back from everyone.
Thanks again to everyone for their willingness to help with this and to be involved with
this,
mike
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:17:57 -0400
To: Phil Jones
, rbradley@geo.umass.edu, Tom Wigley
, Tom Crowley
, Keith Briffa
,
trenbert@cgd.ucar.edu, Michael Oppenheimer
, Jonathan Overpeck
From: "Michael E. Mann"
Subject: Re: Prospective Eos piece?
Cc: mann@virginia.edu, Scott Rutherford
Thanks Phil, and Thanks Tom W and Keith for your willingness to help/sign on. This
certainly gives us a "quorum" pending even a few possible additional signatories I'm
waiting to hear back from.
In response to the queries, I will work on a draft today w/ references and  two
suggested figures, and will try  to send on by this evening (east coast USA). Tom W
indicated that he wouldn't be able look at a draft until Thursday anyway, so why doesn't
everyone just take  a day then to digest what I've provided and then get back to me with
comments/changes (using word "track changes" if you like).
I'd like to tentatively propose to pass this along to Phil as the "official keeper" of
the draft to finalize and submit IF it isn't in satisfactory shape by the time I have to
leave (July 11--If I hadn't mentioned, I'm getting married, and then honeymoon, prior to
IUGG in Sapporo--gone for about 1 month total). Phil, does that sound ok to you?
Re Figures, what I had in mind were the following two figures:
1) A plot of various of the most reliable (in terms of strength of temperature signal
and reliability of millennial-scale variability) regional proxy temperature
reconstructions around the Northern Hemisphere that are available over the past 1-2
thousand years to convey the important point that warm and cold periods where highly
regionally variable. Phil and Ray are probably in the best position to prepare this (?).
Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this
category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back--I think that trying to adopt a
timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made
w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP",
even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back
[Phil and I have one in review--not sure it is kosher to show that yet though--I've put
in an inquiry to Judy Jacobs at AGU about this]. If we wanted to be fancy, we could do
this the way certain plots were presented in one of the past IPCC reports (was it 1990?)
in which a spatial map was provided in the center (this would show the locations of the
proxies), with "rays" radiating out to the top, sides, and bottom attached to rectanges
showing the different timeseries. Its a bit of work, but would be a great way to convey
both the spatial and temporal information at the same time.
2) A version of the now-familiar "spaghetti plot" showing the various reconstructions as
well as model simulations for the NH over the past 1 (or maybe 2K). To give you an idea
of what I have in mind, I'm attaching a Science piece I wrote last year that contains
the same sort of plot.
However, what I'd like to do different here is:
In addition to the "multiproxy" reconstructions,  I'd like to Add Keith's maximum
latewood density-based series, since it is entirely independent of the multiproxy
series, but conveys the same basic message. I would also like to try to extend the scope
of the plot back to nearly 2K. This would be either w/ the Mann and Jones extension (in
review in GRL) or, if that is deemed not kosher, the Briffa et al  Eurasian tree-ring
composite that extends back about 2K, and, based on Phil and my results, appears alone
to give a reasonably accurate picture of the full hemispheric trend.
Thoughts, comments on any of this?
thanks all for the help,
mike
At 09:25 AM 6/4/2003 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
This is definitely worth doing and I hope you have the time before the 11th, or can
pass
it on to one of us at that time. As you know I'm away for a couple of days but back
Friday.
So count me in. I've forwarded you all the email comments I've sent to reporters/fellow
scientists, so you're fully aware of my views, which are essentially the same as all of
the list
and many others in paleo. EOS would get to most fellow scientists. As I said to you the
other
day, it is amazing how far and wide the SB pieces have managed to percolate. When it
comes
out I would hope that AGU/EOS 'publicity machine' will shout the message from rooftops
everywhere.  As many of us need to be available when it comes out.
There is still no firm news on what Climate Research will do, although they will
likely
have two editors for potentially controversial papers, and the editors will consult
when papers
get different reviews. All standard practice I'd have thought. At present the editors
get no
guidance whatsoever. It would seem that if they don't know what standard practice is
then
they shouldn't be doing the job !
Cheers
Phil
At 22:34 03/06/03 -0400, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Eos has invited me (and prospective co-authors) to write a 'forum' piece (see below).
This was at Ellen Mosely-Thompson's suggestion, upon my sending her a copy of the
attached memo that Michael Oppenheimer and I jointly wrote. Michael and I wrote this to
assist colleagues who had been requesting more background information to help counter
the spurious claims (with which I believe you're all now familiar) of the latest
Baliunas & Soon pieces.
The idea I have in mind would be to use what Michael and I have drafted as an initial
starting point for a slightly expanded piece, that would address the same basic issues
and, as indicated below, could include some references and figures. As indicated  in
Judy Jacobs' letter below, the piece would  be rewritten in such a way as to be less
explicitly (though perhaps not less implicitly) directed at the Baliunas/Soon claims,
criticisms, and attacks.
Phil, Ray, and Peck have already indicated  tentative interest in being co-authors. I'm
sending this to the rest of you (Tom C, Keith, Tom W, Kevin) in the hopes of broadening
the list of co-authors.  I strongly believe that a piece of this sort co-authored by 9
or so prominent members of the climate research community (with background and/or
interest in paleoclimate) will go a long way ih helping to counter these attacks, which
are being used, in turn, to launch attacks against IPCC.
AGU has offered to expedite the process considerably, which is necessary because I'll be
travelling for about a month beginning June 11th. So I'm going to work hard to get
something together ASAP.  I'd  would therefore greatly appreciate a quick response from
each of you as to whether or not you would potentially be willing to be involved as a
co-author. If you're unable or unwilling given other current commitments, I'll
understand.
Thanks in advance for getting back to me on this,
mike
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 20:19:08 -0400
From: Ellen Mosley-Thompson
Subject: Re: position paper by Mann,
Bradley et al that is a refutation  to Soon et al
X-Sender: ethompso@pop.service.ohio-state.edu
To: Judy Jacobs
, "Michael E. Mann"
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3
Judy and Mike -
This sounds outstanding.
Am I right in assuming that Fred reviews and approves the Forum pieces?
If so, can you hint about expediting this. Timing is very critical here.
Judy, thanks for taking the bull by the horns and getting the ball rolling.
Best regards,
Ellen
At 07:33 PM 06/03/2003 -0400, Judy Jacobs wrote:
Dear Dr. Mann,
Thanks for the prompt reply.
Based on what you have said, it sounds to me as if Mann, Bradley, et al. will not be in
violation of AGU's prohibition on duplicate publication.
The attachment to your e-mail definitely has the look and feel of something that would
be published in Eos under the "FORUM" column header.  FORUM pieces are usually comments
on articles of any description that have been published in previous issues of Eos; or
they can be articles on purely scientific or science policy-related issues around which
there is some controversy or difference of opinion; or articles on current public issues
that are of interest to the geosciences; or on issues--science or broader policy
ones---0n which there is an official AGU Position Statement.  In this last category, I
offer, for example, the teaching of creationism in public schools, either alongside
evolution, or to the exclusion of evolution.
AGU has an official Position Statement, "Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases,"  which
states, among other things, that there is a high probability that man-made gases
primarily from the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to a gradual rise in mean
globab temperatures. In this context, your proto-article---in the form of the attachment
you sent me-- would seem right on target for a Forum piece.  However, since the Soon et
al. article wasn't actually  published in Eos, anything that you and Dr. Bradley craft
will have to minimize reference to the specific article or articles, and concentrate on
"the science" that is set forth in these papers.  Presumably this problem could be
solved by simply referencing these papers.
A Forum piece can be as long as 1500 words, or approximately 6 double-spaced pages.  A
maximum of two figures is permitted.  A maximum of 10 references is encouraged, but if
the number doesn't exceed 10 too outrageously, I don't make a fuss, and neither will
Ellen.
Authors are now asked to submit their manuscripts and figures electronically via AGU's
Internet-based Geophysical Electronic Manuscript System (GEMS), which makes it possible
for the entire submission-review process to be conducted online.
If you have never used GEMS before, you can register for a login and password, and get
initial instructions, by going to
[1]
If you would like to have a set of step-by-step instructions for first-time GEMS users,
please ask me.
Ellen indicated that she/you would like to get something published sooner rather than
later.  The Eos staff can certainly expedite the editorial process for anything you and
your colleagues submit.
Don't hesitate to contact me with any further questions.
Best regards,
Judy Jacobs
Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear Judy,
Thanks very much for getting back to me on this. Ellen had mentioned this possibility,
and I have been looking forward to hearing back about this.
Michael Oppenheimer and I  drafted an informal memo that we passed along to colleagues
who needed some more background information so that they could comment on the Soon et al
papers in response to various inquiries they were receiving from the press, etc. I've
attached a copy of this memo.
It has not been our intention for this memo to appear in print, and it has not been
submitted anywhere for publication. On the other hand, when Ellen mentioned the
possibility of publishing something *like* this in e.g. the "Eos" forum, that seemed
like an excellent idea to me, and several of my colleagues that I have discussed the
possibility with.
What we had in mind was to produce a revised version of the basic memo that I've
attached, modifying it where necessary, and perhaps expanding it a bit,  seeking broader
co-authorship by about 9 or so other  leading climate scientists. So far, Phil Jones of
the University of East Anglia, Ray Bradley of the University of Massachusetts,  and
Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona, have all indicated their interest in
co-authoring such a piece. We suspect that a few other individuals would be interested
in being co-authors as well.  I didn't want to pursue this further, however, until I
knew whether or not an Eos piece was a possibility.
So pending further word from you, I would indeed be interested in preparing a
multi-authored "position" paper for Eos in collaboration with these co-authors, based
loosely on the memo that Ihave attached.
I look forward to further word from you on this.
best regards,
mike mann
At 04:59 PM 6/3/2003 -0400, you wrote:
Dear Dr. Mann,
I am the managing editor for Eos, the weekly newspaper of the American
Geophysical Union.
Late last week, the Eos editor for atmospheric sciences, Ellen
Mosley-Thompson, asked me if Eos would publish what she called "a
position paper"  by you, Phillip Bradley, et al that would, in effect,
be a refutation to a paper by Soon et al. that was published in a
British journal, Energy & Environment a few weeks ago.  This  Energy &
Environment article was subsequently picked up by the Discovery
Channel and other print and electronic media that reach the general
public.
Before I can answer this question, I need to ask if you and your
colleagues intend for this position paper to be published
simultaneously in outlets other than Eos.  If this is the case, I'm
afraid it being published in Eos is a moot point, because of AGU's no
duplicate publication policy:  if the material has been published
elsewhere first, AGU will not publish it.
I look forward to your response.
Best regrds,
Judy Jacobs
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[2]
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[3]
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[4]
______________________________________________________________
Professor 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
[5]
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\EosForum.doc"
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.


Thanks Kevin,
Those are helpful--Tom C. has returned from travels and will be providing comments shortly.
Will incorporate those and any others I receive into a revised version, which I hope to
send out (w/ Figure 1 included) tonight or tomorrow,
mike
p.s. Tom W is taking the lead on preparing a companion, more targeted commentary, to be
submitted to "Climate Research".  Any one else interested  should contact Tom...
At 05:16 PM 6/6/2003 -0600, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Good job.  I am attaching marked up copy with few suggestions.
Kevin
Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear all,
Here is my best attempt to incorporate everyone's suggestions, views, etc. One major
change you'll notice is that the final item (the one on co2 increase and recent warming)
was eliminated, because it seemed to open a can of warms, and also distract from the
central message. Note that, with the number of references we have, we are currently just
about at the word limit for the piece. We shouldn't go over 1400 words, which puts some
tight constraint on any additions, etc.
I hope to forward a draft of Figure 1 later on this afternoon.  I'm assuming that Phil
can take care of Figure 2 (Phil?--Scott has graciously indicated his willingness to help
if necessary), but its pretty clear what this figure will show, so I don't thinks its
that essential that we have that figure done  to try to finalize the draft.
I'll attempt one final(?) revision of the text based on any remaining comments you may
have--please try, if possible, to keep the suggested changes minimal at this point. I'll
assume that anyone we haven't yet heard back from in the author list over the next day
or so is unable to be a co-author, and will respectfully drop them from the author list
any related future emailings.
Thanks all for your help. Its rare to have every single co-author make substantial
contributions to improving the draft, and that was clearly the case here...
mike
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: [1]mann@virginia.edu  Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[2]
--
****************
Kevin E.
Trenberth
e-mail:
[3]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section,
NCAR
[4]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box
3000,
(303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO
80307
(303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 3080 Center Green Drive, Boulder, CO  80301
______________________________________________________________
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
[5]
References
1. mailto:mann@virginia.edu%A0
2.
3. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
4.
5.