Thanks Scott,
I concur. We may want to  try a few different alignment/scaling choices in the end, and
then just vote on which we like the best,
Anxious to here others' thoughts on all of this,
mike
At 10:53 AM 3/12/2003 -0500, Scott Rutherford wrote:
Dear All,
First, I'd be willing to handle the data and the plotting/mapping. Second, regarding
Mike's suggestions, if we use different reference periods for the reconstructions and
the models we need to be extremely careful about the differences. Not having seen what
this will look like, I suggest that we start with the same instrumental reference period
for both (1856-1960). If you are willing to send me your series please send the raw
(i.e. unfiltered) series. That way I can treat them all the same. We can then decide how
we want to display the results.
Finally, Tom's suggestion of Eos struck me as a great way to get a short, pointed story
out to the most people (though I have no feel for the international distribution).  My
sense (being relatively new to this field compared to everyone else) is that within the
neo- and mesoclimate research community there is a (relatively small?) group of people
who don't or won't "get it" and there is nothing we can do about them aside from
continuing to publish quality work in quality journals (or calling in a Mafia hit).
Those (e.g. us) who are engrossed in the issues and are aware of all the literature
should be able to distinguish between well done and poor work.  Should then the intent
of this proposed contribution be to education those who are not directly involved in
MWP/LIA issues including those both on the perifery of the issue as well as those
outside? If so, then the issue that Phil raised about not letting it get buried is
significant and I think Eos is a great way to get people to see it.
Cheers,
Scott
On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 10:32 AM, Michael E. Mann wrote:
p.s. The idea of both a representative time-slice spatial plot emphasizing the spatial
variability of e.g. the MWP or LIA, and an EOF analysis of all the records is a great
idea. I'd like to suggest a small modification of the latter:
I would suggest we show 2 curves, representing the 1st PC of two different groups, one
of empirical reconstructions, the other of model simulations, rather than just one in
the time plot.
Group #1 could include:
1) Crowley & Lowery
2) Mann et al 1999
3) Bradley and Jones 1995
4) Jones et al, 1998
5) Briffa et al 200X? [Keith/Tim to provide their preferred MXD reconstruction]
6) Esper et al [yes, no?--one series that differs from the others won't make much of a
difference]
I would suggest we scale the resulting PC to the CRU 1856-1960 annual Northern
Hemisphere mean instrumental record, which should overlap w/ all of the series, and
which pre-dates the MXD decline issue...
Group #2 would include various model simulations using different forcings, and with
slightly different sensitivities. This could include 6 or so simulation results:
1) 3 series from Crowley (2000) [based on different solar/volcanic reconstructions],
2) 2 series from Gerber et al (Bern modeling group result) [based on different assumed
sensitivities]
1) Bauer et al series (Claussen group EMIC result) [includes 19th/20th century land use
changes as a forcing].
I would suggest that the model's 20th century mean is aligned with the 20th century
instrumental N.Hem mean for comparison (since this is when we know the forcings best).
I'd like to nominate Scott R. as the collector of the time series and the performer of
the EOF analyses, scaling, and plotting, since Scott already has many of the series and
many of the appropriate analysis and plotting tools set up to do this.
We could each send our preferred versions of our respective time series to Scott as an
ascii attachment, etc.
thoughts, comments?
thanks,
mike
At 10:08 AM 3/12/2003 -0500, Michael E. Mann wrote:
Thanks Tom,
Either would be good, but Eos is an especially good idea. Both Ellen M-T and Keith
Alverson are on the editorial board there, so I think there would be some receptiveness
to such a submission.t
I see this as complementary to other pieces that we have written or are currently
writing (e.g. a review that Ray, Malcolm, and Henry Diaz are doing for Science on the
MWP) and this should proceed entirely independently of that.
If there is group interest  in taking this tack, I'd be happy to contact Ellen/Keith
about the potential interest in Eos, or I'd be happy to let Tom or Phil to take the lead
too...
Comments?
mike
At 09:15 AM 3/12/2003 -0500, Tom Crowley wrote:
Phil et al,
I suggest either BAMS or Eos - the latter would probably be better because it is
shorter, quicker, has a wide distribution, and all the points that need to be made have
been made before.
rather than dwelling on Soon and Baliunas I think the message should be pointedly made
against all of the standard claptrap being dredged up.
I suggest two figures- one on time series and another showing the spatial array of
temperatures at one point in the Middle Ages.  I produced a few of those for the Ambio
paper but already have one ready for the Greenland settlement period 965-995 showing the
regional nature of the warmth in that figure.  we could add a few new sites to it, but
if people think otherwise we could of course go in some other direction.
rather than getting into the delicate question of which paleo reconstruction to use I
suggest that we show a time series that is an eof of the different reconstructions - one
that emphasizes the commonality of the message.
Tom
Dear All,
I agree with all the points being made and the multi-authored article would be a
good idea,
but how do we go about not letting it get buried somewhere. Can we not address the
misconceptions by finally coming up with definitive dates for the LIA and MWP and
redefining what we think the terms really mean? With all of us and more on the paper,
it should
carry a lot of weight. In a way we will be setting the agenda for what should be being
done
over the next few years.
We do want a reputable journal but is The Holocene the right vehicle. It is
probably the
best of its class of journals out there.  Mike and I were asked to write an article for
the EGS
journal of Surveys of Geophysics. You've not heard of this - few have, so we declined.
However,
it got me thinking that we could try for Reviews of Geophysics. Need to contact the
editorial
board to see if this might be possible. Just a thought, but it certainly has a high
profile.
What we want to write is NOT the scholarly review a la Jean Grove (bless her soul)
that
just reviews but doesn't come to anything firm. We want a critical review that enables
agendas to be set. Ray's recent multi-authored piece goes a lot of the way so we need
to build on this.
Cheers
Phil
At 12:55 11/03/03 -0500, Michael E. Mann wrote:
HI Malcolm,
Thanks for the feedback--I largely concur. I do, though, think there is a particular
problem with "Climate Research".  This is where my colleague Pat Michaels now publishes
exclusively, and his two closest colleagues are on the editorial board and review editor
board. So I promise you, we'll see more of this there, and I personally think there *is*
a bigger problem with the "messenger" in this case...
But the Soon and Baliunas paper is its own, separate issue too. I too like Tom's latter
idea, of a  more hefty multi-authored piece in an appropriate journal (Paleoceanography?
Holocene?) that seeks to correct a number of misconceptions out there, perhaps using
Baliunas and Soon as a case study ('poster child'?), but taking on a slightly greater
territory too.
Question is, who would take the lead role. I *know* we're all very busy,
mike
At 10:28 AM 3/11/03 -0700, Malcolm Hughes wrote:
I'm with Tom on this. In a way it comes back to a rant of mine
to which some of you have already been victim. The general
point is that there are two arms of climatology:
neoclimatology - what you do based on instrumental records
and direct, systematic observations in networks - all set in a
very Late Holocene/Anthropocene time with hourly to decadal
interests.
paleoclimatology - stuff from rocks, etc., where major changes
in the Earth system, including its climate, associated with
major changes in boundary conditions, may be detected by
examination of one or a handful of paleo records.
Between these two is what we do - "mesoclimatology" -
dealing with many of the same phenomena as neoclimatology,
using documentary and natural archives to look at phenomena
on interannual to millennial time scales. Given relatively small
changes in boundary conditions (until the last couple of
centuries), mesoclimatology has to work in a way that is very
similar to neoclimatology. Most notably, it depends on heavily
replicated networks of precisely dated records capable of
being either calibrated, or whose relationship to climate may
be modeled accuarately and precisely.
Because this distinction is not recognized by many (e.g.
Sonnechkin, Broecker, Karlen) we see an accumulation of
misguided attempts at describing the climate of recent
millennia. It would be better to head this off in general, rather
than draw attention to a bad paper. After all, as Tom rightly
says, we could all nominate really bad papers that have been
published in journals of outstanding reputation (although there
could well be differences between our lists).
End of rant, Cheers, Malcolm
> Hi guys,
>
> junk gets published in lots of places.  I think that what could be
> done is a short reply to the authors in Climate Research OR a SLIGHTLY
> longer note in a reputable journal entitled something like "Continuing
> Misconceptions About interpretation of past climate change."  I kind
> of like the more pointed character of the latter and submitting it as
> a short note with a group authorship carries a heft that a reply to a
> paper, in no matter what journal, does not.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> >  Dear All,
> >        Apologies for sending this again. I was expecting a stack of
> >emails this morning in
> >  response, but I inadvertently left Mike off (mistake in pasting)
> >and picked up Tom's old
> >  address. Tom is busy though with another offspring !
> >      I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling -
> >worst word I can think of today
> >  without the mood pepper appearing on the email ! I'll have time to
> >read more at the weekend
> >  as I'm coming to the US for the DoE CCPP meeting at Charleston.
> >Added Ed, Peck and Keith A.
> >  onto this list as well.   I would like to have time to rise to the
> >bait, but I have so much else on at
> >  the moment. As a few of us will be at the EGS/AGU meet in Nice, we
> >should consider what
> >  to do there.
> >      The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper
> >determine the answer they get. They
> >  have no idea what multiproxy averaging does. By their logic, I
> >could argue 1998 wasn't the
> >  warmest year globally, because it wasn't the warmest everywhere.
> >With their LIA being 1300-
> >1900 and their MWP 800-1300, there appears (at my quick first
> >reading) no discussion of
> >  synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental
> >record, the early and late
> >  20th century warming periods are only significant locally at
> >between 10-20% of grid boxes.
> >       Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do
> >something - even if this is just
> >  to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think
> >the skeptics will use
> >  this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of
> >
> >years if it goes
> >  unchallenged.
> >
> >        I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having
> >nothing more to do with it until they
> >  rid themselves of this troublesome editor.  A CRU person is on the
> >editorial board, but papers
> >  get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.
> >
> >  Cheers
> >  Phil
> >
> >  Dear all,
> >       Tim Osborn has just come across this.  Best to ignore
> >probably, so don't let it spoil your
> >  day. I've not looked at it yet.  It results from this journal
> >having a number of editors. The
> >  responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ.  He has let
> >
> >a few papers through by
> >  Michaels and Gray in the past.  I've had words with Hans von Storch
> >
> >about this, but got nowhere.
> >      Another thing to discuss in Nice !
> >
> >  Cheers
> >  Phil
> >
> >>X-Sender: f055@pop.uea.ac.uk
> >>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
> >>Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:32:14 +0000
> >>To: p.jones@uea
> >>From: Tim Osborn
> >>Subject: Soon & Baliunas
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Dr Timothy J Osborn                 | phone:    +44 1603 592089
> >>Senior Research Associate           | fax:      +44 1603 507784
> >>Climatic Research Unit              | e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
> >>School of Environmental Sciences    | web-site: University of East
> >>Anglia __________|   [1]~timo/ Norwich  NR4
> >>7TJ         | sunclock: UK                       |
> >>[2]~timo/sunclock.htm
> >
> >Prof. Phil Jones
> >Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> >School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> >University of East Anglia
> >Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
> >NR4 7TJ
> >UK
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >-------
> >
> >
> >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Soon & Baliunas 2003.pdf (PDF
> >/CARO) (00016021)
>
>
> --
> Thomas J. Crowley
> Nicholas Professor of Earth Systems Science
> Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences
> Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences
> Box 90227
> 103  Old Chem Building Duke University
> Durham, NC  27708
>
> tcrowley@duke.edu
> 919-681-8228
> 919-684-5833  fax
Malcolm Hughes
Professor of Dendrochronology
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
520-621-6470
fax 520-621-8229
_______________________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Thomas J. Crowley
Nicholas Professor of Earth Systems Science
Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences
Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences
Box 90227
103  Old Chem Building Duke University
Durham, NC  27708
tcrowley@duke.edu
919-681-8228
919-684-5833  fax
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@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]
______________________________________________
Scott Rutherford
University of Virginia          University of Rhode Island
Environmental Sciences          Graduate School of Oceanography
Clark Hall                                      South Ferry Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903       Narragansett, RI 02882
srutherford@virginia.edu                srutherford@gso.uri.edu
phone: (434) 924-4669           (401) 874-6599
fax: (434) 982-2137                     (401) 874-6811
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[6]
References
1. ~timo/
2. ~timo/sunclock.htm
3.
4.
5.
6.


Dear Tim,
Thanks for your rapid replies and your help. This is all very useful.
Well, lets see what this gives...
There are some notable differences just between our relative comparisons of the different
series which  must have something to do with the relative scaling and aligning of the
series. The position of Crowley and Lowery, in particular, is quite inconsistent between
our respective comparisons.  When we scale the various series to the full N. Hem
instrumental annual mean  CRU record 1856-1980, we get a a very different relative ordering
of the different series, as shown in the attached figure from my Science perspective piece
from last year
This should not, however,  influence the EOF decomposition if all series are zero-mean and
standardized prior to the EOF analysis, but the scaling and alignment of the result, in the
end, will be sensitive to all of these various issues.
So, in short, lets see what we get, and then discuss any similarities/differences w/ your
result, then make a decision as to what to show in the Eos piece. I'm sure we can come up
w/ something we're all happy with...
Please do send us your & Keith's preferred version of the MXD reconstruction--we'll collect
the others from the individual sources (most we already have, I think)...,
mike
At 04:53 PM 3/12/2003 +0000, Tim Osborn wrote:
At 16:29 12/03/03, Michael E. Mann wrote:
but there are many variables here [not the least of which is the choice of scaling the
series to an extratropical summer mean, which as we have argued before, we don't think
is appropriate for a full N. Hem mean because of changes in meridional temperature
gradient over time, and the choice of calibration period--I wonder if 1856-1960 or
1856-1980 gives a more stable result).
True, but as I indicated I have tried alternatives.  The attached is what I get with
annual mean temperature as the target series - still taken only from land >20N though
[but I have extracted that domain from your spatial reconstructions to produce the time
series that I used for "Mann et al." - which should make it reasonably appropriate back
to 1400 at least].  I have also tried different calibration periods (including not
calibrating against instrumental data at all!).  All give qualitatively similar results
- see attached .pdf and compare with the first one I sent.
The point is, that (I believe) the approach will introduce a *new* result and while that
is interesting it wouldn't be appropriate for a short EOS piece - and having found this
out, I was trying to save you the effort.
But, on reflection, it would be good if you went ahead and did this anyway, because the
results might well be useful to publish in another paper, even if they weren't deemed
suitable for the EOS piece.
I could provide the 7 series that I have used, but would prefer that you got them from
the original sources to ensure that you have the most up-to-date/correct versions.
Cheers
Tim
Dr Timothy J Osborn                 | phone:    +44 1603 592089
Senior Research Associate           | fax:      +44 1603 507784
Climatic Research Unit              | e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
School of Environmental Sciences    | web-site:
University of East Anglia __________|   [1]~timo/
Norwich  NR4 7TJ         | sunclock:
UK                       |   [2]~timo/sunclock.htm
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[3]
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\mannpersp2002.gif"
References
1. ~timo/
2. ~timo/sunclock.htm
3.


This is an excellent idea, Mike, IN PRINCIPLE at least.  In practise,
however, it raises some interesting results (as I have found when
attempting this myself) that may be difficult to avoid getting bogged down
with discussing.
The attached .pdf figure shows an example of what I have produced (NB.
please don't circulate this further, as it is from work that is currently
being finished off - however, I'm happy to use it here to illustrate my point).
I took 7 reconstructions and re-calibrated them over a common period and
against an observed target series (in this case, land-only, Apr-Sep, >20N -
BUT I GET SIMILAR RESULTS WITH OTHER CHOICES, and this re-calibration stage
is not critical).  You will have seen figures similar to this in stuff
Keith and I have published.  See the coloured lines in the attached figure.
In this example I then simply took an unweighted average of the calibrated
series, but the weighted average obtained via an EOF approach can give
similar results.  The average is shown by the thin black line (I've ignored
the potential problems of series covering different periods).  This was all
done with raw, unsmoothed data, even though 30-yr smoothed curves are
plotted in the figure.
The thick black line is what I get when I re-calibrate the average record
against my target observed series.  THIS IS THE IMPORTANT BIT.  The
*re-calibrated* mean of the reconstructions is nowhere near the mean of the
reconstructions.  It has enhanced variability, because averaging the
reconstructions results in a redder time series (there is less common
variance between the reconstructions at the higher frequencies compared
with the lower frequencies, so the former averages out to leave a smoother
curve) and the re-calibration is then more of a case of fitting a trend
(over my calibration period 1881-1960) to the observed trend.  This results
in enhanced variability, but also enhanced uncertainty (not shown here) due
to fewer effective degrees of freedom during calibration.
Obviously there are questions about observed target series, which series to
include/exclude etc., but the same issue will arise regardless: the
analysis will not likely lie near to the middle of the cloud of published
series and explaining the reasons behind this etc. will obscure the message
of a short EOS piece.
It is, of course, interesting - not least for the comparison with
borehole-based estimates - but that is for a separate paper, I think.
My suggestion would be to stick with one of these options:
(i) a single example reconstruction;
(ii) a plot of a cloud of reconstructions;
(iii) a plot of the "envelope" containing the cloud of reconstructions
(perhaps also the envelope would encompass their uncertainty estimates),
but without showing the individual reconstruction best guesses.
How many votes for each?
Cheers
Tim
At 15:32 12/03/03, Michael E. Mann wrote:
>p.s. The idea of both a representative time-slice spatial plot emphasizing
>the spatial variability of e.g. the MWP or LIA, and an EOF analysis of all
>the records is a great idea. I'd like to suggest a small modification of
>the latter:
>
>I would suggest we show 2 curves, representing the 1st PC of two different
>groups, one of empirical reconstructions, the other of model simulations,
>rather than just one in the time plot.
>
>Group #1 could include:
>
>1) Crowley & Lowery
>2) Mann et al 1999
>3) Bradley and Jones 1995
>4) Jones et al, 1998
>5) Briffa et al 200X? [Keith/Tim to provide their preferred MXD
>reconstruction]
>6) Esper et al [yes, no?--one series that differs from the others won't
>make much of a difference]
>
>I would suggest we scale the resulting PC to the CRU 1856-1960 annual
>Northern Hemisphere mean instrumental record, which should overlap w/ all
>of the series, and which pre-dates the MXD decline issue...
>
>Group #2 would include various model simulations using different forcings,
>and with slightly different sensitivities. This could include 6 or so
>simulation results:
>
>1) 3 series from Crowley (2000) [based on different solar/volcanic
>reconstructions],
>2) 2 series from Gerber et al (Bern modeling group result) [based on
>different assumed sensitivities]
>1) Bauer et al series (Claussen group EMIC result) [includes 19th/20th
>century land use changes as a forcing].
>
>I would suggest that the model's 20th century mean is aligned with the
>20th century instrumental N.Hem mean for comparison (since this is when we
>know the forcings best).
>
>
>I'd like to nominate Scott R. as the collector of the time series and the
>performer of the EOF analyses, scaling, and plotting, since Scott already
>has many of the series and many of the appropriate analysis and plotting
>tools set up to do this.
>
>We could each send our preferred versions of our respective time series to
>Scott as an ascii attachment, etc.
>
>thoughts, comments?
>
>thanks,
>
>mike
>
>At 10:08 AM 3/12/2003 -0500, Michael E. Mann wrote:
>>Thanks Tom,
>>
>>Either would be good, but Eos is an especially good idea. Both Ellen M-T
>>and Keith Alverson are on the editorial board there, so I think there
>>would be some receptiveness to such a submission.t
>>
>>I see this as complementary to other pieces that we have written or are
>>currently writing (e.g. a review that Ray, Malcolm, and Henry Diaz are
>>doing for Science on the MWP) and this should proceed entirely
>>independently of that.
>>
>>If there is group interest  in taking this tack, I'd be happy to contact
>>Ellen/Keith about the potential interest in Eos, or I'd be happy to let
>>Tom or Phil to take the lead too...
>>
>>Comments?
>>
>>mike
>>
>>At 09:15 AM 3/12/2003 -0500, Tom Crowley wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Phil et al,
>>>
>>>I suggest either BAMS or Eos - the latter would probably be better
>>>because it is shorter, quicker, has a wide distribution, and all the
>>>points that need to be made have been made before.
>>>
>>>rather than dwelling on Soon and Baliunas I think the message should be
>>>pointedly made against all of the standard claptrap being dredged up.
>>>
>>>I suggest two figures- one on time series and another showing the
>>>spatial array of temperatures at one point in the Middle Ages.  I
>>>produced a few of those for the Ambio paper but already have one ready
>>>for the Greenland settlement period 965-995 showing the regional nature
>>>of the warmth in that figure.  we could add a few new sites to it, but
>>>if people think otherwise we could of course go in some other direction.
>>>
>>>rather than getting into the delicate question of which paleo
>>>reconstruction to use I suggest that we show a time series that is an
>>>eof of the different reconstructions - one that emphasizes the
>>>commonality of the message.
>>>
>>>Tom
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dear All,
>>>>      I agree with all the points being made and the multi-authored
>>>> article would be a good idea,
>>>>  but how do we go about not letting it get buried somewhere. Can we
>>>> not address the
>>>>  misconceptions by finally coming up with definitive dates for the LIA
>>>> and MWP and
>>>>  redefining what we think the terms really mean? With all of us and
>>>> more on the paper, it should
>>>>  carry a lot of weight. In a way we will be setting the agenda for
>>>> what should be being done
>>>>  over the next few years.
>>>>      We do want a reputable journal but is The Holocene the right
>>>> vehicle. It is probably the
>>>>  best of its class of journals out there.  Mike and I were asked to
>>>> write an article for the EGS
>>>>  journal of Surveys of Geophysics. You've not heard of this - few
>>>> have, so we declined. However,
>>>>  it got me thinking that we could try for Reviews of Geophysics. Need
>>>> to contact the editorial
>>>>  board to see if this might be possible. Just a thought, but it
>>>> certainly has a high profile.
>>>>      What we want to write is NOT the scholarly review a la Jean Grove
>>>> (bless her soul) that
>>>>  just reviews but doesn't come to anything firm. We want a critical
>>>> review that enables
>>>>  agendas to be set. Ray's recent multi-authored piece goes a lot of
>>>> the way so we need
>>>>  to build on this.
>>>>
>>>>  Cheers
>>>>  Phil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At 12:55 11/03/03 -0500, Michael E. Mann wrote:
>>>>>HI Malcolm,
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for the feedback--I largely concur. I do, though, think there
>>>>>is a particular problem with "Climate Research".  This is where my
>>>>>colleague Pat Michaels now publishes exclusively, and his two closest
>>>>>colleagues are on the editorial board and review editor board. So I
>>>>>promise you, we'll see more of this there, and I personally think
>>>>>there *is* a bigger problem with the "messenger" in this case...
>>>>>
>>>>>But the Soon and Baliunas paper is its own, separate issue too. I too
>>>>>like Tom's latter idea, of a  more hefty multi-authored piece in an
>>>>>appropriate journal (Paleoceanography? Holocene?) that seeks to
>>>>>correct a number of misconceptions out there, perhaps using Baliunas
>>>>>and Soon as a case study ('poster child'?), but taking on a slightly
>>>>>greater territory too.
>>>>>
>>>>>Question is, who would take the lead role. I *know* we're all very busy,
>>>>>
>>>>>mike
>>>>>
>>>>>  At 10:28 AM 3/11/03 -0700, Malcolm Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>I'm with Tom on this. In a way it comes back to a rant of mine
>>>>>>to which some of you have already been victim. The general
>>>>>>point is that there are two arms of climatology:
>>>>>>  neoclimatology - what you do based on instrumental records
>>>>>>and direct, systematic observations in networks - all set in a
>>>>>>very Late Holocene/Anthropocene time with hourly to decadal
>>>>>>interests.
>>>>>>paleoclimatology - stuff from rocks, etc., where major changes
>>>>>>in the Earth system, including its climate, associated with
>>>>>>major changes in boundary conditions, may be detected by
>>>>>>examination of one or a handful of paleo records.
>>>>>>Between these two is what we do - "mesoclimatology" -
>>>>>>dealing with many of the same phenomena as neoclimatology,
>>>>>>using documentary and natural archives to look at phenomena
>>>>>>on interannual to millennial time scales. Given relatively small
>>>>>>changes in boundary conditions (until the last couple of
>>>>>>centuries), mesoclimatology has to work in a way that is very
>>>>>>similar to neoclimatology. Most notably, it depends on heavily
>>>>>>replicated networks of precisely dated records capable of
>>>>>>being either calibrated, or whose relationship to climate may
>>>>>>be modeled accuarately and precisely.
>>>>>>Because this distinction is not recognized by many (e.g.
>>>>>>Sonnechkin, Broecker, Karlen) we see an accumulation of
>>>>>>misguided attempts at describing the climate of recent
>>>>>>millennia. It would be better to head this off in general, rather
>>>>>>than draw attention to a bad paper. After all, as Tom rightly
>>>>>>says, we could all nominate really bad papers that have been
>>>>>>published in journals of outstanding reputation (although there
>>>>>>could well be differences between our lists).
>>>>>>End of rant, Cheers, Malcolm
>>>>>> > Hi guys,
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > junk gets published in lots of places.  I think that what could be
>>>>>> > done is a short reply to the authors in Climate Research OR a SLIGHTLY
>>>>>> > longer note in a reputable journal entitled something like "Continuing
>>>>>> > Misconceptions About interpretation of past climate change."  I kind
>>>>>> > of like the more pointed character of the latter and submitting it as
>>>>>> > a short note with a group authorship carries a heft that a reply to a
>>>>>> > paper, in no matter what journal, does not.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Tom
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > >  Dear All,
>>>>>> > >        Apologies for sending this again. I was expecting a stack of
>>>>>> > >emails this morning in
>>>>>> > >  response, but I inadvertently left Mike off (mistake in pasting)
>>>>>> > >and picked up Tom's old
>>>>>> > >  address. Tom is busy though with another offspring !
>>>>>> > >      I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling -
>>>>>> > >worst word I can think of today
>>>>>> > >  without the mood pepper appearing on the email ! I'll have time to
>>>>>> > >read more at the weekend
>>>>>> > >  as I'm coming to the US for the DoE CCPP meeting at Charleston.
>>>>>> > >Added Ed, Peck and Keith A.
>>>>>> > >  onto this list as well.   I would like to have time to rise to the
>>>>>> > >bait, but I have so much else on at
>>>>>> > >  the moment. As a few of us will be at the EGS/AGU meet in Nice, we
>>>>>> > >should consider what
>>>>>> > >  to do there.
>>>>>> > >      The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper
>>>>>> > >determine the answer they get. They
>>>>>> > >  have no idea what multiproxy averaging does. By their logic, I
>>>>>> > >could argue 1998 wasn't the
>>>>>> > >  warmest year globally, because it wasn't the warmest everywhere.
>>>>>> > >With their LIA being 1300-
>>>>>> > >1900 and their MWP 800-1300, there appears (at my quick first
>>>>>> > >reading) no discussion of
>>>>>> > >  synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental
>>>>>> > >record, the early and late
>>>>>> > >  20th century warming periods are only significant locally at
>>>>>> > >between 10-20% of grid boxes.
>>>>>> > >       Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do
>>>>>> > >something - even if this is just
>>>>>> > >  to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think
>>>>>> > >the skeptics will use
>>>>>> > >  this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >years if it goes
>>>>>> > >  unchallenged.
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >        I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having
>>>>>> > >nothing more to do with it until they
>>>>>> > >  rid themselves of this troublesome editor.  A CRU person is on the
>>>>>> > >editorial board, but papers
>>>>>> > >  get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >  Cheers
>>>>>> > >  Phil
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >  Dear all,
>>>>>> > >       Tim Osborn has just come across this.  Best to ignore
>>>>>> > >probably, so don't let it spoil your
>>>>>> > >  day. I've not looked at it yet.  It results from this journal
>>>>>> > >having a number of editors. The
>>>>>> > >  responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ.  He has let
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >a few papers through by
>>>>>> > >  Michaels and Gray in the past.  I've had words with Hans von Storch
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >about this, but got nowhere.
>>>>>> > >      Another thing to discuss in Nice !
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >  Cheers
>>>>>> > >  Phil
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >>X-Sender: f055@pop.uea.ac.uk
>>>>>> > >>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
>>>>>> > >>Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:32:14 +0000
>>>>>> > >>To: p.jones@uea
>>>>>> > >>From: Tim Osborn
>>>>>> > >>Subject: Soon & Baliunas
>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>> > >>Dr Timothy J Osborn                 | phone:    +44 1603 592089
>>>>>> > >>Senior Research Associate           | fax:      +44 1603 507784
>>>>>> > >>Climatic Research Unit              | e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
>>>>>> > >>School of Environmental Sciences    | web-site: University of East
>>>>>> > >>Anglia __________|   ~timo/ Norwich  NR4
>>>>>> > >>7TJ         | sunclock: UK                       |
>>>>>> > >>~timo/sunclock.htm
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >Prof. Phil Jones
>>>>>> > >Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
>>>>>> > >School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
>>>>>> > >University of East Anglia
>>>>>> > >Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
>>>>>> > >NR4 7TJ
>>>>>> > >UK
>>>>>> > >---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> > >-------
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Soon & Baliunas 2003.pdf (PDF
>>>>>> > >/CARO) (00016021)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > --
>>>>>> > Thomas J. Crowley
>>>>>> > Nicholas Professor of Earth Systems Science
>>>>>> > Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences
>>>>>> > Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences
>>>>>> > Box 90227
>>>>>> > 103  Old Chem Building Duke University
>>>>>> > Durham, NC  27708
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > tcrowley@duke.edu
>>>>>> > 919-681-8228
>>>>>> > 919-684-5833  fax
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Malcolm Hughes
>>>>>>Professor of Dendrochronology
>>>>>>Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
>>>>>>University of Arizona
>>>>>>Tucson, AZ 85721
>>>>>>520-621-6470
>>>>>>fax 520-621-8229
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>>>>                      Professor Michael E. Mann
>>>>>           Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
>>>>>                       University of Virginia
>>>>>                      Charlottesville, VA 22903
>>>>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>>>>e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>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
>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>Thomas J. Crowley
>>>Nicholas Professor of Earth Systems Science
>>>Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences
>>>Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences
>>>Box 90227
>>>103  Old Chem Building Duke University
>>>Durham, NC  27708
>>>
>>>tcrowley@duke.edu
>>>919-681-8228
>>>919-684-5833  fax
>>
>>______________________________________________________________
>>                     Professor Michael E. Mann
>>            Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
>>                       University of Virginia
>>                      Charlottesville, VA 22903
>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
>>
>
>______________________________________________________________
>                     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
>
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\synth1.pdf"
Dr Timothy J Osborn                 | phone:    +44 1603 592089
Senior Research Associate           | fax:      +44 1603 507784
Climatic Research Unit              | e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
School of Environmental Sciences    | web-site:
University of East Anglia __________|   ~timo/
Norwich  NR4 7TJ         | sunclock:
UK                       |   ~timo/sunclock.htm


Daer Armin,
I would like to confirm that RIVM is strongly committed to make a
substantial contribution to the AMS proposal, as was clear from our active
involvement in the discussions so far (except the Paris meeting where we
unfortunately could not send a representative). We have been in touch with
several other partners in developing ideas for the workpackage, but in view
of the high pressure under which the proposal is being put together,
communication is not always easy. I therefore include a list of elements we
would like to contribute to the respective parts of the proposal:.
WP1.      Scenarios: involved with proposal Brian O'Neill (contact: Detlef
van Vuuren). Important issues: delineation with scenarios in other
workpackages - no response so far.
WP   3.1. Possible contribution, depends on connection with WP1
3.3. Primarily through cooperation with Un.Utrecht - proposal sent to
Wokaun but no response. Possible to add global context with IMAGE/TIMER and
add non-energy emssion reductions not covered in original proposal by
Wokaun
3. 4. and 3.5: as for  3.3
WP   4.1. Suggested role for multi-gas stabilization profiles, burden
sharing regimes and EU action with IMAGE-FAIR combination (building on work
we have done with other partners for the European Commission). Current
proposal by Haxeltine, Leemans and Adger has 100% focus on impacts and
adaptation and should be broadened. We are ready to contribute
4.2. Now contains the regimes that should go under 4.1
4.6. Involved actively: see proposal Olsson&Metz that went to John
Schellnhuber
WP   5.4. Strong interest, but no response from coordinator (C. Jaeger) and
WP coordinator Hasselmann refers back to CJ (!). We will put together
proposal with Tyndall towards development of CIAS model.
Best regards,
Bert Metz


Press release from Earth Government and April Newsletter
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
This Press release from Earth Government is found at
[1]
Formation of Earth Government for the good of all
March 27th, 2003
To all Peoples of the Earth,
Earth has long been waiting for a truly global governing body based on universal values,
human rights, global concepts and democracy. Earth Government might as well be created now,
there is no longer any reason to wait. We are the Earth Community, and we will form the
Earth Government. Earth management is a priority and is a duty by every responsible person.
A democratically elected Earth Government will now be formed, and we want you to reflect on
future effects of such an event on the history of humanity. Certainly one will expect
extraordinary changes: a reorganizing of human activities all over the planet;
participation by all societies on the planet in solving local and global problems; new
alliances forming; north meeting with south (eradication of poverty will be the price to
pay to get votes from the south) in order to gather more votes within the newly created
Earth Government to satisfy power struggles between European, Asian and Western countries;
adoption of democratic principles, human and Earth rights, global concepts, and universal
values by every human being; expansion of consciousness; gathering and coordinating of
forces to resolve social and political problems in a peaceful way (no more conflicts or
wars); gathering and coordinating of forces (technologies, scientific research, exploration
work, human resources, etc.) to resolve global problems such as global climate,
environment, availability of resources, poverty, employment, etc. Thousands more changes!
Let your heart and mind reflect on 'the good' of a democratically elected Earth Government.
Everyone is part of Earth Community by birth and therefore everyone has a right to vote.
Everyone should be given a chance to vote. Decisions will be made democratically.
Earth Government is proposing that:
a) different nations may require different political systems at different times
b) a democratic system is not a "must have it" to be a responsible member nation of the
Earth Government
c) all democracies are to be upgraded, or improved upon, to be a responsible member nation
of the Earth Government. The Scale of Human and Earth Rights and the Charter of the Earth
Government are the newly added requirements to all democratic systems of the world.
In today's Earth Government it is important for our survival to cooperate globally on
several aspects such as peace, security, pollution in the air, water and land, drug trade,
shelving the war industry, keeping the world healthy, enforcing global justice for all,
eradicating poverty worldwide, replacing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the
Scale of Human and Earth Rights, and entrenching the Charter of Earth Government as a way
of life for the good of all.
Earth needs urgently a world system of governance. The United Nations fail to satisfy the
needs of the people of the 21st Century. It has never improved upon the old ways and
thinking of the middle of the 20th Century. Its voting system no longer satisfy the 6.157
billion people on Earth. The challenges are different and require a world organization up
for dealing with the needs of all these people.
During the past several years, the Earth Government has been pleading the United Nations
leaders to make changes in the UN organizational structure and ways of doing things. There
has been an urgent need for fundamental changes in the United Nations organization. The
decision of the United States Government to invade the Middle East nations and Afghanistan
has shown to be a result of this incapacity for changes on the part of the United Nations.
A lack of leadership at the United Nations is a major threat to the security of the world.
The world wants a true democratic world organization. The UN is not!
The most fundamental requirement of a world organization is a democratic system of voting.
Democracy must be a priority. The right that the greatest number of people has by virtue of
its number (50% plus one) is a human right. It should be respected. The actual UN system of
voting is undemocratic, unfair and noone likes it. It does not work! Earth Government has
proposed a voting system based on democracy.
Of the 190 Member States of the United Nations, it takes only one of the five permanent
members to overthrow any decision or proposal during a meeting. This means 1/189 or 0.5% of
the membership is more powerful than the remaining 99.5%. If that is not a dictature, what
is it? It does not say much about democracy at the UN. More like a dictature of the five
permanent members. In the Preamble of the Charter of the United Nations, it says "WE THE
PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS " but in fact it should say "WE THE FIVE PERMANENT MEMBERS".
The voting system for Earth Government is very simple and practical. One representative per
million people. If all countries in the world had decided now to participate with this
process we would have today 6,114 elected representatives to form Earth Government. They
would form the Legislative body of Earth Government. They could actually all stay home to
govern or from some place in their communities. Today communications are more than good
enough to allow voting and discussing issues, etc. through the Internet and video
conferencing. That would cut cost of governing down to a minimum, at least administrative
costs. The Executive body would also govern in this way to cut cost down to a minimum.
Ministers can administer their Ministries from where they live if they wish to. There will
be a place for the Headquarters. We will show that it costs very little to administer Earth
Government, and that we can achieve immense results. There is no limit to the good the
Earth Government can achieve in the world. Think! What can do a unified 6.114 billion
people determined to make things work to keep Earth healthy?
For the first time in human history, and the first time this millennium, humanity has
proposed a benchmark:
* formation of Earth Government
* formation of global ministries in all important aspects of our lives
* the Scale of Human and Earth Rights as a replacement to the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights
* an evolved Democracy based on the Scale of Human and Earth Rights and the Charter of
the Earth Government
* a central organization for Earth management, the restoration of the planet and Earth
governance: the Global Community Assessment Centre (GCAC)
* the Earth Court of Justice to deal with all aspects of the Governance and Mangement of
the Earth
* a new impetus given to the way of doing business and trade
* more new, diversified (geographical, economical, political, social, business,
religious) symbiotical relationships between nations, communities, businesses, for the
good and well-being of all
* the event and formation of the human family and the Soul of Humanity
* proposal to reform the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the World Bank,
the IMF, NAFTA, FTAA, and to centralize them under Earth Government, and these
organizations will be asked to pay a global tax to be administered by Earth Government
* the Peace Movement of the Earth Government and shelving of the war industry from
humanity
* a global regulatory framework for capitals and corporations that emphasizes global
corporate ethics, corporate social responsibility, protection of human and Earth rights,
the environment, community and family aspects, safe working conditions, fair wages and
sustainable consumption aspects
* the ruling by the Earth Court of Justice of the abolishment of the debt of the poor or
developing nations as it is really a form of global tax to be paid annually by the rich
or industrialized nations to the developing nations
* establishing freshwater and clean air as primordial human rights
The political system of an individual country does not have to be a democracy. Political
rights of a country belong to that country alone. Democracy is not to be enforced by anyone
and to anyone or to any community. Every community can and should choose the political
system of their choice with the understanding of the importance of such a right on the
Scale of Human and Earth Rights. On the other hand, representatives to Earth Government
must be elected democratically in every part of the world. An individual country may have
any political system at home but the government of that country will have to ensure (and
allow verification by Earth Government) that representatives to Earth Government have been
elected democratically. This way, every person in the world can claim the birth right of
electing a democratic government to manage Earth: the rights to vote and elect
representatives to form the Earth Government.
In order to elect representatives to Earth Government it is proposed the following:
A. Each individual government in the world will administer the election of
representatives to Earth Government with an NGO and/or members of Earth Government be
allowed to verify all aspects of the process to the satisfaction of all parties
involved.
B. Representatives be elected every five years to form a new Earth Government.
C. It is proposed here that there will be one elected representative per 1,000,000
people. A population of 100 million people will elect 100 representatives. This process
will create a feeling of belonging and participating to the affairs of the Earth
Community and Earth Government.
D. A typical community of a million people does not have to be bounded by a geographical
or political border. It can be a million people living in many different locations all
over the world. The Global Community is thus more fluid and dynamic. We need to let go
the archaic ways of seeing a community as the street where I live and contained by a
border. Many conflicts and wars will be avoided by seeing ourselves as people with a
heart, a mind and a Soul, and as part of a community with the same.
E. Earth population is now 6.114 billion people. If all representatives had been elected
this year there would be 6,114 representatives to form Earth Government. They would be
the Legislative elected body of Earth Government. They would participate in some ways in
choosing the Executive and Judiciary bodies of Earth Government.
Humanity has now a Vision of the Earth in the years to come and a sense of direction.
May the DIVINE WILL come into our lives and show us the way.
May our higher purpose in life bring us closer to the Soul of Humanity and God.
Germain Dufour, President
Earth Community Organization (ECO) and Earth Government
___________________________________________________________________________________________
The Newsletter can be found at the following location:
April 2003 Newsletter
[2]
There are no costs in reading our Newsletters
([3]
The Table of Contents of the Newsletter is shown here.
Table of Contents
1.0    President's Message
2.0    Letter to the Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chretien, concerning Peace in the
Middle East
3.0    Letter to the American and British Peoples concerning the invasion of the Middle
East
4.0    Letter to all Canadians concerning the total and global embargo on all US products,
all goods and services
5.0    Letter to the Moslem and the Arab Peoples
6.0    Letter to Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji of China, and to the Chinese People
7.0    Letter to the United Nations
8.0    Articles
A)    How women matter in decreasing world population
B)    The energy we need
C)    Mining the impacts
D)     Symbiotical relationship of religion and global life-support systems
E)    Celebration of Life Day
F)    The hidden agenda: China
G)    Earth Government now a priority
H)    The splitting of America into separate independent states living at peace for the
good of all
I)    The war industry: the modern evil at work in the Middle East
J)    Earth security
K)    Earth governance
L)    The Earth Court of Justice holds the people of the U.S.A. and Britain as criminals
M)    Foundation for the new world order, Earth Government
Improved Democracy, Nonviolence, and Peace
Respect and Care for the Global Community of Life
Ecological Integrity
Social and Economic Justice
A new symbiotical relationship between that of spirituality and the
protection of the global life-support systems
Scale of Human and Earth Right
Earth Court of Justice
Charter of Earth Government
May the DIVINE WILL come into our lives and show us the way.
May our higher purpose in life bring us closer to the Soul of Humanity and God.
Germain Dufour, President
[4]Earth Community Organization (ECO) and  [5]Earth Government
Website of the Earth Community Organization and of  Earth Government
[6]
[7]
Email addresses
[8]gdufour@globalcommunitywebnet.com
[9]gdufour@telusplanet.net
[10]earthgov@shaw.ca
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. mailto:gdufour@globalcommunitywebnet.com
9. mailto:gdufour@telusplanet.net
10. mailto:earthgov@shaw.ca


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


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


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


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


Dear friends and colleagues
This will be the last from me for the moment and I believe we are all
arriving at a consensus voiced by Tom, Barrie, Neville et al., from
excellent discussions.
Firstly both Danny and Tom have complained to de Freitas about
his editorial decision, which does not uphold the principles of good
science.  Tom has shared the response. I would be curious to find
out who the other four cited are - but a rebuttal would be excellent.
Ignoring bad science eventually reinforces the apparent 'truth' of
that bad science in the public mind, if it is not corrected.  As
importantly, the 'bad science' published by CR is used by the
sceptics' lobbies to 'prove' that there is no need for concern over
climate change.  Since the IPCC makes it quite clear that there are
substantial grounds for concern about climate change,  is it not
partially the responsibility of climate science to make sure only
satisfactorily peer-reviewed science appears in scientific
publications?  - and to refute any inadequately reviewed and wrong
articles that do make their way through the peer review process?
I can understand the weariness which the ongoing sceptics'
onslaught would induce in anyone, scientist or not.  But that's no
excuse for ignoring bad science.  It won't go away, and the more
we ignore it the more traction it will gain in the minds of the general
public, and the UNFCCC negotiators.  If science doesn't uphold the
purity of science, who will?
We Australasians (including Tom as an ex pat) have suggested
some courses of action.  Over to you now in the north to assess
the success of your initiatives, the various discussions and
suggestions and arrive on a path ahead.  I am happy to be part of it.
Warm wishes to all
Jim
On 23 Apr 2003, at 23:53, Tom Wigley wrote:
> Dear friends,
>
> [Apologies to those I have missed who have been part of this email
> exchange -- although they may be glad to have been missed]
>
> I think Barrie Pittock has the right idea -- although there are some
> unique things about this situation. Barrie says ....
>
> (1) There are lots of bad papers out there
> (2) The best response is probably to write a 'rebuttal'
>
> to which I add ....
>
> (3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in the 4AR.
>
> ____________________
>
> Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years ago by
> Legates and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, pp. 2319-1222, 1997) that was
> nothing more than a direct and pointed criticism of some work by
> Santer and me -- yet neither of us was asked to review the paper. We
> complained, and GRL admitted it was poor judgment on the part of the
> editor. Eventually  (> 2 years later) we wrote a response (GRL 27,
> 2973-2976, 2000). However, our response was more that just a rebuttal,
> it was an attempt to clarify some issues on detection. In doing things
> this way we tried to make it clear that the original Legates/Davis
> paper was an example of bad science (more bluntly, either sophomoric
> ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation).
>
> Any rebuttal must point out very clearly the flaws in the original
> paper. If some new science (or explanations) can be added -- as we did
> in the above example -- then this is an advantage.
>
> _____________________________
>
> There is some personal judgment involved in deciding whether to rebut.
> Correcting bad science is the first concern. Responding to unfair
> personal criticisms is next. Third is the possible misrepresentation
> of the results by persons with ideological or political agendas. On
> the basis of these I think the Baliunas paper should be rebutted by
> persons with appropriate expertise. Names like Mann, Crowley, Briffa,
> Bradley, Jones, Hughes come to mind. Are these people willing to spend
> time on this?
>
> _______________________________
>
> There are two other examples that I know of where I will probably be
> involved in writing a response.
>
> The first is a paper by Douglass and Clader in GRL (vol. 29, no. 16,
> 10.1029/2002GL015345, 2002). I refereed a virtually identical paper
> for J. Climate, recommending rejection. All the other referees
> recommended rejection too. The paper is truly appalling -- but somehow
> it must have been poorly reviewed by GRL and slipped through the net.
> I have no reason to believe that this was anything more than chance.
> Nevertheless, my judgment is that the science is so bad that a
> response is necessary.
>
> The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in Climate
> Research (vol. 23, pp. 1–9, 2002). Danny Harvey and I refereed this
> and said it should be rejected. We questioned the editor (deFreitas
> again!) and he responded saying .....
>
> The MS was reviewed initially by five referees. ... The other three
> referees, all reputable atmospheric scientists, agreed it should be
> published subject to minor revision. Even then I used a sixth person
> to help me decide. I took his advice and that of the three other
> referees and sent the MS back for revision. It was later accepted for
> publication. The refereeing process was more rigorous than usual.
>
> On the surface this looks to be above board -- although, as referees
> who advised rejection it is clear that Danny and I should have been
> kept in the loop and seen how our criticisms were responded to.
>
> It is possible that Danny and I might write a response to this paper
> -- deFreitas has offered us this possibility.
>
> ______________________________
>
> This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that
> deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the
> skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other
> occasions. How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number
> of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used
> by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that 'anti-greenhouse' science can
> get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen,
> Baliunas, Soon, and so on).
>
> The peer review process is being abused, but proving this would be
> difficult.
>
> The best response is, I strongly believe, to rebut the bad science
> that does get through.
>
> _______________________________
>
> Jim Salinger raises the more personal issue of deFreitas. He is
> clearly giving good science a bad name, but I do not think a barrage
> of ad hominem attacks or letters is the best way to counter this.
>
> If Jim wishes to write a letter with multiple authors, I may be
> willing to sign it, but I would not write such a letter myself.
>
> In this case, deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply
> disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat
> Michaels' PhD is at the same level).
>
> ______________________________
>
> Best wishes to all,
> Tom.
>
*********************************************************
Dr Jim Salinger, CRSNZ
NIWA
P O Box 109 695
Newmarket, Auckland
New Zealand
Tel + 64 9 375 2053  Fax + 64 9 375 2051
e-mail:  j.salinger@niwa.co.nz
**********************************************************


Thanks Ed
Can I just say that I am not in the MBH camp - if that be characterized by an unshakable
"belief" one way or the other , regarding the absolute magnitude of the global MWP. I
certainly believe the " medieval" period was warmer than the 18th century - the equivalence
of the warmth in the post 1900 period, and the post 1980s ,compared to  the circa Medieval
times is very much still an area for much better resolution. I think that the geographic /
seasonal biases and dating/response time issues still cloud the picture of when and how
warm the Medieval period was . On present evidence , even with such uncertainties I would
still come out favouring the "likely unprecedented recent warmth" opinion - but our
motivation is to further explore the degree of certainty in this belief - based on the
realistic interpretation of available data. Point re Jan well taken and I will inform him
At 07:59 AM 4/29/03 -0400, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
I will start out by sending you the chronologies that I sent Bradley, i.e. all but
Mongolia. If you can talk Gordon out of the latter, you'll be the first from outside
this lab. The chronologies are in tabbed column format and Tucson index format. The
latter have sample size included. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or even Bradley
after I warned him about small sample size problems) to realize that some of the
chronologies are down to only 1 series in their earliest parts. Perhaps I should have
truncated them before using them, but I just took what Jan gave me and worked with the
chronologies as best I could. My suspicion is that most of the pre-1200 divergence is
due to low replication and a reduced number of available chronologies. I should also say
that the column data have had their means normalized to approximately 1.0, which is not
the case for the chronologies straight out of ARSTAN. That is because the site-level
RCS-detrended data were simply averaged to produce these chronologies, without concern
for their long-term means. Hence the "RAW" tag at the end of each line of indices.
Bradley still regards the MWP as "mysterious" and "very incoherent" (his latest
pronouncement to me) based on the available data. Of course he and other members of the
MBH camp have a fundamental dislike for the very concept of the MWP, so I tend to view
their evaluations as starting out from a somewhat biased perspective, i.e. the cup is
not only "half-empty"; it is demonstrably "broken". I come more from the "cup half-full"
camp when it comes to the MWP, maybe yes, maybe no, but it is too early to say what it
is. Being a natural skeptic, I guess you might lean more towards the MBH camp, which is
fine as long as one is honest and open about evaluating the evidence (I have my doubts
about the MBH camp). We can always politely(?) disagree given the same admittedly
equivocal evidence.
I should say that Jan should at least be made aware of this reanalysis of his data.
Admittedly, all of the Schweingruber data are in the public domain I believe, so that
should not be an issue with those data. I just don't want to get into an open critique
of the Esper data because it would just add fuel to the MBH attack squad. They tend to
work in their own somewhat agenda-filled ways. We should also work on this stuff on our
own, but I do not think that we have an agenda per se, other than trying to objectively
understand what is going on.
Cheers,
Ed
Ed
thanks for this - and it is intriguing , not least because of the degree of coherence in
these series between 1200 and 1900 - more than can be accounted for by either
replication of data between the series (of which there is still some) or artifact of the
standardisation method (with the use of RCS curves which are possibly inappropriate for
all the data to which each is applied) . Having then got some not insubstantial
confidence in the likelihood of a real temperature signal in this period - the question
of why the extreme divergence in the series pre-1200 and post 1900? A real geographic
difference in the forcing , replication and standardisation problems? - both are likely.
We would like the raw cores for each site: the RCS indices upon   which you base the
chronologies ; the site chronologies (which I think you sent to Ray?). At first we will
simply plot the site chronologies , correlate each with local climate and come back to
you again. We will also plot each "set" of indices and compare site RCS curves and
reconsider the validity of the classification into linear and non-linear growth
patterns. I know you have done all this but we need to get a feel for these data and do
some comparisons with my early produce ring-width RCS chronologies for ceratin sites and
compare the TRW series with the same site MXD chronologies - all a bit suck and see at
first. I am talking with Tim later today about the review idea and I will email/phone
before 16.00 my time today.
Thanks
Keith
At 10:01 AM 4/28/03 -0400, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
Here is the new Esper plot with three different forms of regionalization: linear vs.
nonlinear (as in the original paper), north vs. south as defined in the legend, and east
vs. west (i.e. eastern hemisphere vs. western hemisphere). All of the series have been
smoothed with a 50-yr spline after first averaging the annual values. The number of
cores/chronologies are given in the legend in parentheses. Not surprisingly, the north
and south chronologies deviate most in the post-1950 period. Before 1950 and back to
about 1200 the series are remarkably similar (to me anyway). Prior to 1200 there is more
chaos, perhaps because the number of chronologies have declined along with the
within-chronology replication. However, there is still some evidence for spatially
coherent above-average growth. I showed this plot at the Duke meeting. Karl Taylor
actually told me that he thought it looked fairly convincing, i.e. that the
low-frequency structure in the Esper series was not an artefact of the RCS method.
Cheers,
Ed
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.


HI Keith,
No problem, I know how hectic the past couple months have been for you, so no apologizes
necessary whatsoever!
Call me old fashioned, but I still tend to prefer the "blind" reviewer convention, so I'd
prefer to remain anonymous unless you think that revealing my identity would be help in any
particular way.
I agree w/ your take on this--a journal like GRL is probably more appropriate, or even
"Climatic Change" because a number of similar papers have been published there in the past
(by folks like Nychka, Bloomfield, and others). I'm not sure if Steve Schneider is sick and
tired of those papers though...
Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can be of any additional help w/ this.
Looking forward to seeing you one of these days,
mike
At 02:36 PM 5/2/2003 +0100, you wrote:
Mike
in hassling another reviewer , I realised that I did not thank you properly for the
review you did of the manuscript by Gil-Alana  (fractionally integrated techniques used
to show increased persistence in global temperature record in 20th century). So this is
by way of thanks and to ask whether you wish me to reveal your name to the reviewer
(considering you make some very helpful suggestions for further analysis)? I would
otherwise assume no. As it happens I can not get a response from the other reviewer -
but rather than prolong the wait for the submitter , I am tempted (on the basis of my
reading also) to just send your  comments and reject the manuscript as it is - I suppose
they could resubmit a major rework following your suggestions - but I tend to the
opinion that it would  be better suited to another journal anyway - GRL comes to mind.
What do you think
Cheers
Keith
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[1]
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[2]
References
1.
2.