D et al - Please write all emails as though they will be made public.
I would not rush and I would not respond to any of them until the best strategy is
developed - don't want to waste anyone's time, including yours or Mc's. Since the recon in
Science has an error, I think you do need to publish a correction in Science. In that, you
can very briefly not it didn't affect the calibration, nor the final result. I don't think
you have a choice here. And I don't think RealClimate alone is the place for this, although
RC could be good for the bigger list of issues. Don't do it on Mc;s blog. But, it would be
good to hear from Ray and Mike, since they have the most experience in getting it right.
Here are some other QUICK thoughts - don't count on me for the next week. Proposal hell and
traveling.
Make sure you have Keith's feedback before saying anything about the dendro aspects.
Don't know about Dye3 issue
Error analysis should be done and be the topic of another paper - it wasn't included in
this paper, so it's something that should be done outside the peer-review process. There is
lots of new research to be done, and someone should do it as time allows. Don't get pushed
into something too rushed or preliminary, and your defense is that you wrote a paper that
reviewed well and was published. The goal wasn't to do everything in this paper.
#4 - your are absolutely right and that could be in a blog someplace, or just let them go
ahead and do a stupid thing. If this was a climate field recon it would be different, no?
#5 is tricky. Giving him the data would be good, but only if it is yours to give. You can't
give him data that you got from others and are not allowed to share. But, it would be nice
if he could have access to all the data that we used - that's the way science is supposed
to work. See what Mike and Ray say...
Be careful, very careful. But now you know why I advocated redoing all the analyses a few
months ago - to make sure we got it all right. We knew we'd get this scrutiny.
This paper has had great impact so far, so that's something to remember - its good work.
Thanks, peck
On 9/5/09 8:44 AM, "Darrell Kaufman"
wrote:
All:
I received my first hate mail this AM, which helped me to realize that I shouldn't be
wasting time reading the blogs.
Regarding the "upside down man", as Nick's plot shows, when flipped, the Korttajarvi
series has little impact on the overall reconstructions. Also, the series was not
included in the calibration. Nonetheless, it's unfortunate that I flipped the
Korttajarvi data. We used the density data as the temperature proxy, as recommended to
me by Antii Ojala (co-author of the original work). It's weakly inversely related to
organic matter content. I should have used the inverse of density as the temperature
proxy. I probably got confused by the fact that the 20th century shows very high density
values and I inadvertently equated that directly with temperature.
This is new territory for me, but not acknowledging an error might come back to bite us.
I suggest that we nip it in the bud and write a brief  update showing the corrected
composite (Nick's graph) and post it to RealClimate. Do you all agree?
There's other criticisms that have come up by McIntyre's group:
(1) We cherry-picked the tree-ring series in Eurasia. Apparently this is old ground, but
do we need to address why we chose the Yamal record over the Polar Urals? Apparently,
there's also a record from the Indigirka River region, which might not have been
published and doesn't seem to be included in Keith's recent summary. If we overlooked
any record that met our criteria, I suggest that we explain why. Keith: are you back?
Can Ray or Mike provide some advise?
(2) The correction for Dye-3 was criticized because the approach/rationale had not been
reviewed independently on its own. Bo: has this procedure now been published anywhere?
(3) We didn't publish any error analysis (e.g., leave-one-out ), but I recall that we
did do some of that prior to publication. Would it be worthwhile including this in our
update? The threshold-exceedence difference (O&B-style) does include a boot-strapped
estimate of errors. That might suffice, but is not the record we use for the temperature
calibration.
(4) We selected records that showed 20th century warming. The only records that I know
of that go back 1000 years that we left out were from the Gulf of Alaska that are known
to be related strongly to precipitation, not temperature, and we stated this upfront. Do
we want to clarify that it would be inappropriate to use a record of precip to
reconstruct temperature? Or do we want to assume that precip should increase with
temperature and add those records in and show that the primary signals remain?
(5) McIntyre wrote to me to request the annual data series that we used to calculate the
10-year mean values (10-year means were up on the NOAA site the same AM as the paper was
published). The only "non-published" data are the annual series from the ice cores
(Agassiz, Dye-3, NGRIP, and Renland). We stated this in the footnote, but it does
stretch our assertion that all of the data are available publicly. Bo: How do you want
to proceed? Should I forward the annual data to McIntyre?
Please let me -- better yet, the entire group -- know whether you think we should post a
revision on RealScience, and whether we should include a reply to other criticism (1
through 5 above). I'm also thinking that I should write to Ojala and Tiljander directly
to apologize for inadvertently reversing their data.
Other thoughts or advise?
Darrell
On Sep 4, 2009, at 5:24 PM, Nick McKay wrote:
The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said.
I took a look at the original reference - the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray
density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had
higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong,
unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don't remember. Darrell, does this
sound right to you?
This dataset is truncated at 1800, so it doesn't enter the calibration, nor does it
affect the recent warming trend.
The attached plot (same as before) shows the effect of re-orienting the record on the
reconstruction. It doesn't change any of our major or minor interpretations of course.
Nick
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Nick McKay
wrote:
Hi all,
I haven't checked the original reference for it's interpretation, but I checked the code
and we did use it in the orientation that he stated. He's also right that flipping
doesn't affect any of the conclusions. Actually, flipping it makes it fit in better with
the 1900-year trend.
I've attached a plot of the original, and another with Korttajarvi flipped.
Nick
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Co-Director, Institute of the Environment
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute of the Environment
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
Email: [3]jto@u.arizona.edu
PA Lou Regalado +1 520 792-8712
[4]regalado@email.arizona.edu
Embedded Content: image7.jpg: 00000001,780e1428,00000000,00000000
References
1. file://localhost/tmp/Darrell.Kaufman@nau.edu
2. file://localhost/tmp/nmckay@email.arizona.edu
3. file://localhost/tmp/jto@u.arizona.edu
4. file://localhost/tmp/regalado@email.arizona.edu


Bo and others:
Regarding the annual data: You're correct that we only use 10-year means throughout our
calculations (Fig 2 shows annual values, but are not used in any calculation/conclusion).
In his e-mail to me, McIntyre requested the annual data that we say are not publicly
available as a footnote to Table S1.
Unless anyone has another suggestion, I will reply and send him the 10-year data (which is
already posted at NOAA-Paleoclimate) and explain that they were the basis for all of the
calculations. He might want the annual data that the mean values were based on. I suppose
we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
Darrell
On Sep 6, 2009, at 5:42 AM, Bo Vinther wrote:
Hi Darrell
Sorry to hear that you are getting trouble for doing such a nice paper....I by the way
agree completely with Peck that we should not be rushed and that a correction probably
should go into Science.
Anyway, let me answer the two questions you had for me:
2) Correcting ice core data for upstream effects should not be controversial (while not
correcting in areas of flow should be highly controversial indeed!).
Upstream correction of delta-18O was in fact already done 30 years ago for the Milcent ice
core - a quick quote from Hammer et al. 1978, page 14:
"The delta values are corrected for decreasing deltas up-slope at the site of formation of
the individual layers"
Hammer, C. U., H. B. Clausen, W. Dansgaard, N. Gundestrup, S. J.
Johnsen and N. Reeh, Dating of Greenland ice cores by flow models,
isotopes, volcanic debris, and continental dust, J. Glaciol., 20, 326,
1978.
So upstream correction of delta data from ice cores 8using ice flow models9 has in fact
been performed since the year I was born.....
5) I will suggest that we release the 1860-2000 section of the annually resolved ice core
data, as these are the data that go into figure 2 in the paper.
Such a limited release I can permit immediately.
Releasing everything is something different and I can't see the need - as far as I rememver
we are not presenting/using the 1-1859 part of the series in annual resolution anywhere in
the paper - or am I wrong?
Cheers........Bo
Darrell Kaufman wrote:
All:
I received my first hate mail this AM, which helped me to realize that I shouldn't be
wasting time reading the blogs.
Regarding the "upside down man", as Nick's plot shows, when flipped, the Korttajarvi series
has little impact on the overall reconstructions. Also, the series was not included in the
calibration. Nonetheless, it's unfortunate that I flipped the Korttajarvi data. We used the
density data as the temperature proxy, as recommended to me by Antii Ojala (co-author of
the original work). It's weakly inversely related to organic matter content. I should have
used the inverse of density as the temperature proxy. I probably got confused by the fact
that the 20th century shows very high density values and I inadvertently equated that
directly with temperature.
This is new territory for me, but not acknowledging an error might come back to bite us. I
suggest that we nip it in the bud and write a brief  update showing the corrected composite
(Nick's graph) and post it to RealClimate. Do you all agree?
There's other criticisms that have come up by McIntyre's group:
(1) We cherry-picked the tree-ring series in Eurasia. Apparently this is old ground, but do
we need to address why we chose the Yamal record over the Polar Urals? Apparently, there's
also a record from the Indigirka River region, which might not have been published and
doesn't seem to be included in Keith's recent summary. If we overlooked any record that met
our criteria, I suggest that we explain why. Keith: are you back? Can Ray or Mike provide
some advise?
(2) The correction for Dye-3 was criticized because the approach/rationale had not been
reviewed independently on its own. Bo: has this procedure now been published anywhere?
(3) We didn't publish any error analysis (e.g., leave-one-out ), but I recall that we did
do some of that prior to publication. Would it be worthwhile including this in our update?
The threshold-exceedence difference (O&B-style) does include a boot-strapped estimate of
errors. That might suffice, but is not the record we use for the temperature calibration.
(4) We selected records that showed 20th century warming. The only records that I know of
that go back 1000 years that we left out were from the Gulf of Alaska that are known to be
related strongly to precipitation, not temperature, and we stated this upfront. Do we want
to clarify that it would be inappropriate to use a record of precip to reconstruct
temperature? Or do we want to assume that precip should increase with temperature and add
those records in and show that the primary signals remain?
(5) McIntyre wrote to me to request the annual data series that we used to calculate the
10-year mean values (10-year means were up on the NOAA site the same AM as the paper was
published). The only "non-published" data are the annual series from the ice cores
(Agassiz, Dye-3, NGRIP, and Renland). We stated this in the footnote, but it does stretch
our assertion that all of the data are available publicly. Bo: How do you want to proceed?
Should I forward the annual data to McIntyre?
Please let me -- better yet, the entire group -- know whether you think we should post a
revision on RealScience, and whether we should include a reply to other criticism (1
through 5 above). I'm also thinking that I should write to Ojala and Tiljander directly to
apologize for inadvertently reversing their data.
Other thoughts or advise?
Darrell
On Sep 4, 2009, at 5:24 PM, Nick McKay wrote:
The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said.
I took a look at the original reference - the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray
density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had
higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong,
unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don't remember. Darrell, does this
sound right to you?
This dataset is truncated at 1800, so it doesn't enter the calibration, nor does it
affect the recent warming trend.
The attached plot (same as before) shows the effect of re-orienting the record on the
reconstruction. It doesn't change any of our major or minor interpretations of course.
Nick
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Nick McKay
wrote:
Hi all,
I haven't checked the original reference for it's interpretation, but I checked the code
and we did use it in the orientation that he stated. He's also right that flipping
doesn't affect any of the conclusions. Actually, flipping it makes it fit in better with
the 1900-year trend.
I've attached a plot of the original, and another with Korttajarvi flipped.
Nick
References
1. mailto:nmckay@email.arizona.edu


Dear Claudia,
The 13th session of the Working Group on Climate Modelling (WGCM) is
going to be taking place in San Francisco at the end of this month.
PCMDI is hosting this event. I just received an invitation to talk about
IDAG at this meeting. I'd be very happy to do this, but would appreciate
some guidance from you and others regarding what aspects of IDAG you'd
like me to discuss.
With best regards,
Ben
claudia tebaldi wrote:
> Hi again
>
> I'm attaching the current version after some remassaging, especially of
> the task list.
> There is a need for a reference that I would like to get from David
> Karoly, and a general request for input having to do with the synthesis
> products that originally were described as instrumental to AR5 but Gabi
> thinks they would not be prepared in time for that. So I'm wondering if
> people have specific ideas for the next round of review papers that we
> could describe at the end of Section 3 of the document.
>
> MOST IMPORTANTLY:
> I need some very specific input from *all of you* (only exception,
> Francis's group).
>
> After asking Anjuli I can confirm that government employees cannot
> receive funding besides travel reimbursement. So for those of you that
> are GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, the only thing that remains to do is to go
> through the document once again, make sure your work (past and future)
> is not misrepresented, and then send me a note with an "OK" or your new
> comments, specifying that you are a government employee (please don't
> let me guess it).
>
> For those of you that are ACADEMICS WITH 12 MONTHS SALARY all that we
> can budget is a small amount of consulting fees, up to 2 weeks' worth.
> If you belong to this category please respond saying that you are or you
> are not interested. If you are, then include in the document at the end
> in the place already arranged for it a statement of work referring to
> specific tasks as they stand in Section 3 of the narrative, and a
> bio-sketch (see end of this email for specific instructions).
>
> For THOSE OF YOU THAT CAN GET FULL SUPPORT, please say if you want it or
> not, and if you do, then do as I requested above: include in the
> document at the end in the place already arranged for it a statement of
> work referring to specific tasks as they stand in Section 3 of the
> narrative, and a bio-sketch (see end of this email for specific
> instructions).
>
> Please shoot me an email and say something, esp. those of you abroad for
> whom I'm not familiar with affiliations/months of salary. Needless to
> say, if you don't send the bio and don't put yourself down in the
> Statements of Work session you won't be budgeted but for travel
> reimbursement.
>
> Can I ask you to do this at your earliest convenience, but at the latest
> before mid-week next week?
>
> Thanks
>
> c
>
> PS I received only 2 figures in response to my earlier request. If you
> take the time to read the narrative and have a good figure for it, send
> it along!
>
> ############################
> Biographical Sketches: Instructions
> ############################
>
> The biographical sketch is limited to a maximum of two pages. It must
> contain name and position title, organization, degree, years and field
> of study for each academic degree; a listing of research and
> professional positions, awards, and honors; and references to all
> publications for the past three years along with any earlier
> publications pertinent to this application. If this list causes the
> biographical sketch to exceed two pages, select the most pertinent
> publications to stay within the page limit.
>
>
> Current and Pending Support
>
> The PI/PD(s) are requested to list all their current and pending
> non-Federal and Federal support.
>
> Identification of Potential Conflicts of Interest/Bias in Selection of
> Reviewers
>
> Provide the following information:
>
>      Collaborators and Co-editors: List in alphabetical order all
> persons, including their current organizational affiliation, who are, or
> who have been, collaborators or co-authors with you on a research
> project, book or book article, report, abstract, or paper during the 48
> months preceding the submission of this application. Also, list any
> individuals who are currently, or have been, co-editors with you on a
> special issue of a journal, compendium, or conference proceedings during
> the 24 months preceding the submission of this application. If there are
> no collaborators or co-editors to report, state 'none'.
>
>      Graduate and Postdoctoral Advisors and Advisees: List the names and
> current organizational affiliations of your graduate advisor(s) and
> principal postdoctoral sponsor(s) during the last 5 years. Also, list
> the names and current organizational affiliations of your graduate
> students and postdoctoral associates during the past 5 years.
>
> --
> Claudia Tebaldi
> Research Scientist, Climate Central
>
> & Adjunct Professor
> Department of Statistics - UBC Vancouver
> office 604 822 3595 (Canadian area code)
> cell 303 775 5365 (US area code)
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel:   (925) 422-3840
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hi Tom - please find the Esper article in question attached. The
so-called Indigirka River data set is not yet available because it has
not been  published. I am currently working on that with Russian
colleagues, and was indeed in Switzerland the week before last to work
with one of them on specifically this. All being well, there will be an
accepted manuscript before next summer, and at that point I will make
the data freely available. Once we get to that point, I'll let you know,
of course. Cheers, Malcolm
Tom Melvin wrote:
> Malcolm,
>
> 1. There was a recent Esper Siberian paper I recall reading but I
> cannot find it at the moment (my comment was on the Divergence
> pitfalls paper).  I will find the paper and see if there is an
> explanation.
>
> 2. For trend distortion to produce a "divergence" effect there needs
> to be a distinct increase (or decrease) over the last few decades of
> growth, e.g. at TTHH and curve fitting methods should be used. In the
> attached figure the Scandinavian site groups (red) have an increase at
> 1920 and are likely to show divergence using curve fitting methods.
> Some of the eastern most chronologies might also show divergence if
> 250+ year old trees were used.
>
> 3. RCS should not produce "divergence" over decades as an artifact if
> sub-fossil trees are used.  RCS on modern chronologies has all sorts
> of  bias. We have lots of ideas to test in the divergence project and
> lots of data to test them on.
>
> 4. Keith has been complained at by Climate Audit for cherry picking
> and not using your long Indigirka River data set. Not used because we
> did not have the data. Please, could we have the data? We will make
> proper aknowledgement/coauthorship if we use the data.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> At 16:35 21/09/2009, you wrote:
>> Tom, I don't disagree with your take on the lack of originality of
>> much of what is in the paper. The question is: why is there apparently
>> divergence in ring width in some of this region in Briffa et al 98 but
>> not in this paper? Isn't espers failure to see divergence
>> counterintuitive when using RCS in his way?
>> Cheers, Malcolm
>>
>>
>> On Sep 21, 2009, at 2:11 AM, Tom Melvin
wrote:
>>
>>> Malcolm,
>>>
>>> The Esper "Divergence pitfalls .." paper does not appear to add
>>> anything of significance. None of the figures show any form of the
>>> divergence discussed in papers e.g. a recent (last few decades)
>>> change in the slope of tree-ring growth indices compared to climate.
>>> Differences in overall slope, generally weak relationships,
>>> differences in variance, and the effects of using selected
>>> calibration periods are all problems to be addressed in
>>> reconstructions but are not divergence.
>>>
>>> I cannot foresee needing to reference this paper in discussions of
>>> divergence as all the suggestions have more detailed, earlier
>>> references.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>
>>> At 22:33 18/09/2009, you wrote:
>>>> Hi Tom - I had a good talk with Keith on the phone the other day,
>>>> mainly to wish him well. He did suggest I ask you for your take on
>>>> the recent Esper et al paper on divergence (or rather the lack of
>>>> it) in Siberia. Looks like the problem disappears. WHat do you
>>>> think? Cheers, Malcolm
>>>
>>> Dr. Tom Melvin
>>> Climatic Research Unit
>>> University of East Anglia
>>> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>>
>>> Phone: +44-1603-593161
>>> Fax: +44-1603-507784
> Dr. Tom Melvin
> Climatic Research Unit
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>
> Phone: +44-1603-593161
> Fax: +44-1603-507784
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Esper-2009-GCB.pdf"


Hey Tom, thanks for checking w/ me on this. Re, Moberg: Yes, in fact we (me, Phil, Tim,
Keith, Caspar, etc.) submitted a comment to Nature about the problem w/ the variance
scaling used by Moberg. It can easily be shown to inflate the low- frequency variance in
synthetic experiments. I've attached both the original comment (which they judged to be too
technical to merit publication) and also a J. Climate paper where we discussed the same
result (see Figure 5 and associated discussion). Re, Von Storch et al. Yes, the paper you
have in mind is Osborn et al Climate Dynamics '06. I only seem to have the preprint though
(attached), please let me know if I can be of any further help w/ an of this, mike p.s. you
can delete the U.Va email address--haven't been there for 4 years! On Sep 22, 2009, at
10:31 AM, Tom Wigley wrote: > Dear all, > > (Apologies Mike for email address confusion --
one of them will > get you I hope.) > > I need some help to finish a report I've had to
write for EPRI -- > which is due in a few days. Hence the questions below ... > > (1) The
Moberg paper (2005 Nature) is used by the skeptics as evidence > that most of recent
warming could still be natural. Has anyone > published a critique/criticism of this? It
seems to me take this > work is fundamentally flawed. First, variance scaling is crap >
statistics as it produces results with far less explained variance > than normal
least-squares regression. Second, the paper seems to > have no independent validation.
Third, what happens if one just takes > his low-frequency (numbered in his Fig. 1) points
and calculates > the area average? Surely this will have much greater variability > than
the full global mean? (If no-one has done this please let me > know -- I can do it very
easily myself.) But perhaps his scaling > method circumvents this "problem"? > > (2) What
is the paper of Caspar's (with Doug Nychka) that shows > that McIntyre is wrong? Are there
other papers I should see/cite > in this regard? > > (3) What are the papers that explain
what is wrong with the von > Storch ECHO simulation? I think Tim Osborn did something on
this. > > Many thanks for your help, > Tom. > -- Michael E. Mann Professor Director, Earth
System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 503 Walker
Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: ~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
 Hey Tom,
thanks for checking w/ me on this.
Re, Moberg: Yes, in fact we (me, Phil, Tim, Keith, Caspar, etc.) submitted a comment to
Nature about the problem w/ the variance scaling used by Moberg. It can easily be shown to
inflate the low-frequency variance in synthetic experiments.
I've attached both the original  comment (which they judged to be too technical to merit
publication) and also a J. Climate paper where we discussed the same result (see Figure 5
and associated discussion).
Re, Von Storch et al. Yes, the paper you have in mind is Osborn et al Climate Dynamics '06.
I only seem to have the preprint though (attached),
please let me know if I can be of any further help w/ an of this,
mike
p.s. you can delete the U.Va email address--haven't been there for 4 years!
On Sep 22, 2009, at 10:31 AM, Tom Wigley wrote:
Dear all,
(Apologies Mike for email address confusion -- one of them will
get you I hope.)
I need some help to finish a report I've had to write for EPRI --
which is due in a few days. Hence the questions below ...
(1) The Moberg paper (2005 Nature) is used by the skeptics as evidence
that most of recent warming could still be natural. Has anyone
published a critique/criticism of this? It seems to me take this
work is fundamentally flawed. First, variance scaling is crap
statistics as it produces results with far less explained variance
than normal least-squares regression. Second, the paper seems to
have no independent validation. Third, what happens if one just takes
his low-frequency (numbered in his Fig. 1) points and calculates
the area average? Surely this will have much greater variability
than the full global mean? (If no-one has done this please let me
know -- I can do it very easily myself.) But perhaps his scaling
method circumvents this "problem"?
(2) What is the paper of Caspar's (with Doug Nychka) that shows
that McIntyre is wrong? Are there other papers I should see/cite
in this regard?
(3) What are the papers that explain what is wrong with the von
Storch ECHO simulation? I think Tim Osborn did something on this.
Many thanks for your help,
Tom.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [1]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [2]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[3]
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\MRWA-JClimate05.pdf" Attachment Converted:
"c:\eudora\attach\62811_0_merged_1109271201.pdf" Attachment Converted:
"c:\eudora\attach\osbornetalClimDynInPress06.pdf"
References
Visible links
1. mailto:mann@psu.edu
2. ~mann/Mann/index.html
3.
Hidden links:
4.


Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean -- but
we'd still have to explain the land blip.
I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with "why the blip".
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
in the NH -- just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note -- from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently is not) -- but not really enough.
So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I'd
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tom.
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\TTHEMIS.xls"
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\TTLVSO.XLS"


Tom,
A few thoughts
[1]
f
This is a link to the longer Thompson et al paper. It isn't yet out in final form - Nov09
maybe?
[2]
-matching-and-removal-of-natural-variables/
is a link to wattsupwiththat - not looked through this apart from a quick scan. Dave
Thompson just emailed me this over the weekend and said someone had been busy!  They seemed
to have not fully understood what was done.
Have looked at the plots. I'm told that the HadSST3 paper is fairly near to being
submitted, but I've still yet to see a copy. More SST data have been added for the WW2 and
WW1 periods, but according to John Kennedy they have not made much difference to these
periods.
Here's the two ppts I think I showed in Boulder in June. These were from April 09, so
don't know what these would look like now. SH is on the left and adjustment there seems
larger, for some reason - probably just British ships there?
Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but the adjustments won't reduce the 1940s
blip but enhance it. It won't change the 1940-44 period, just raise the 10 years after Aug
45.
I expect MOHC are looking at the NH minus SH series re the aerosols. My view is that a
cooler temps later in the 1950s and 1960s it is easier to explain.
Land warming in the 1940s and late 1930s is mainly high latitude in NH.
One other thing - MOHC are also revising the 1961-90 normals. This will likely have more
effect in the SH.
With the SH around 1910s there is the issue of exposure problems in Australia - see
Neville's paper.
This shouldn't be an issue in NZ - except maybe before 1880, but could be in southern
South America. New work in Spain suggest screens got renewed about 1900, so maybe this
happened in Chile and Argentina, but Mossmann was head of the Argentine NMS so he may have
got them to use Stevenson screens early.
Neville has never been successful getting any OZ funding to sort out pre-1910 temps
everywhere except Qld.
Here's a paper in CC on European exposure problems. There is also one on Spanish series.
Cheers
Phil
At 06:25 28/09/2009, Tom Wigley wrote:
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean -- but
we'd still have to explain the land blip.
I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with "why the blip".
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
in the NH -- just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note -- from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently is not) -- but not really enough.
So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I'd
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tom.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.
2.


Dear All
Im afraid its bad news on the JRF bid. We were not selected.
The gist of the letter I have now received says the problem was that it went over the
£100,000 mark for a single bid and was therefore out of contention on those grounds - they
accepted I'd rung to check about this and so said they reviewed the proposal given 'the
potential confusion' about this.
They also said "it was unfortunate that the proposal did not more clearly demonstrate how
it could build on the findings from the existing review of social impacts CAG has
conducted".  (No mention of the 3,000 word word limit for the whole proposal).
I just want to say thanks again for all you great work on this. I do think JRF wrote a
confusing and difficult brief and we did  a good job despite their strange requirements.
I hope this won't put people bidding again should other suitable work come up.
all the best
Susan
ps I will be scanning their letter and will send round tomorrow.
Dr Susan Parham
Director - CAG Consultants
Tel: 020 7704 0018 Mob: 07967 816 295
[1]sp@cagconsult.co.uk
www.cagconsult.co.uk
Office: 30 Aberdeen Road,
London, N5 2UH
HQ: Gordon House, 6 Lissenden Gardens, London, NW5 1LX
References
1. mailto:sp@cagconsult.co.uk


Hi all
About time.  Incidentally i gave a copy to Mike McPhaden and discussed it with him last
week when we were together at the OceanObs'09 conference.  Mike is President of AGU.
Basically this is an acceptance with a couple of suggestions for extras, and some
suggestions for toning down the rhetoric.  I had already tried that a bit.  My reaction is
that the main thing is to expedite this.  That means no extras unless it really makes
sense.  And removal of a few unnecessary words like "absolutely".
In the abstract, we have a number of such adjectives that could be removed:  I agree with
Rev 3 in this.
"greatly overstates"  could be just "overstates" as it is reinforced better later.
"severely overestimates"  could be just "overestimates"
"faulty analysis"  maybe "flawed analysis"?
"extremely high" maybe "very high" or "unduly high"
I would leave last sentence alone though as the main comment.
A few more comments embedded below.
Grant Foster wrote:
> From: [1]jgr-atmospheres@agu.org
> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:54:05 +0000
> To: [2]tamino_9@hotmail.com
> Subject: 2009JD012960 (Editor - Steve Ghan):Decision Letter
> CC: [3]twistor9@gmail.com
>
> Manuscript Number: 2009JD012960
> Manuscript Title: Comment on "Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric
temperature" by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Reviewer Comments
>
> Reviewer #1 (Comments):
>
> This paper does an excellent job of showing the errors in the analytical methods used
by McLean et al. and why their conclusions
> about the influence of ENSO on global air temperature is incorrect.
> I have only a couple of suggestions to help clarify their analysis of the methods.
First, a little more explanation of the comment about the time derivative reduced to an
additive constant would help. Second, in the analysis of the artificial time series I
think it would be interesting to show the results of both steps of filtering (running
mean and derivative) as separate time series. This would help the reader understand why
the filtering creates false correlations. The only other suggestion is to find a better
adjective than "faulty" in the abstract to characterize the analysis.
>
It is not so easy to see the result from the derivative owing to the phase shift.  The
spectrum actually does a better job.  I would address this comment in this way and change
"faulty".
>
> Reviewer #2 (Comments):
>
> I think this comment on McLean et al can be published more or less as is.
>
> I have two comments
>
> First, in the abstract (page 3, line 15), I'm not sure that "inflating" is quite the
right verb - the paper itself does not make the point that the filter constructed by
McLean et al inflates power in the 2-6 year window. Perhaps "isolating" would be a
better verb.
Yes it should not be in abstract if not in text.  Need to point out that the response
function in Fig. 1 is greater than unity and does "inflate".  So adjust the text.
>
> Secondly, I think the points that are being made with Figures 4 and 5 could be
strengthened by adding to the right of each plot of a pair of time series, a scatter
plot of the pairs of values available at each time. Such a scatter plot would help to
clearly illustrate the absence (upper panels) or presence (lower panels) of correlation
between red and black values.
I don't think this helps.  There is nothing to be gained from a scatter plot that a
correlation or regression value does not summarize.
>
>
> Reviewer #3 (Comments):
>
> Accept pending major changes (mainly in style not scientific comment)
>
> The real mystery here, of course, is how the McLean et al. paper ever made it into
JGR. How that happened, I have no idea. I can't see it ever getting published through J
Climate. The analyses in McLean et al. are among the worst I have seen in the climate
literature. The paper is also a poorly guised attack on the integrity of the climate
community, and I guess that is why Foster et al. have taken the energy to contradict its
findings.
>
> So the current paper (Foster et al.) should certainly be accepted. Someone needs to
address the science in the McLean et al paper in the peer-reviewed literature. But the
current paper could be - and should be - done better. That's why I am suggesting major
changes before the paper is accepted. All of my suggestions have to do more with the
tone and framing of the current paper, rather than its content.
>
> 1. As noted above, I agree McLean et al is problematic. But as it is written, the
current paper almost stoops to the level of "blog diatribe". The current paper does not
read like a peer-reviewed journal article. The tone is sometimes dramatic and sometimes
accusatory. It is inconsistent with the language one normally encounters in the
objectively-based, peer-reviewed literature. For examples....
> - In the abstract: Do you really need all of these adjectives?...'greatly overstates';
'severely overestimates'; 'faulty analysis'; 'extremely high'.
Agree, see above
> - In the introduction... 'Unfortunately, their conclusions are seriously in error..."
strikes me as overly subjective. Better to say: 'We will demonstrate that their
conclusions are strongly dependent on ....' or something like that...
Don't go that far.  Could drop "seriously" but they are "in error"
> - Page X-6: 'tell us absolutely nothing'. Surely it's enough to state 'tell us
nothing'.
agree
> - Page X-9: 'it is misleading...' That's a strong word. It may be true. But I think we
should rise above such accusations.
misleading is OK.  I did a search (not sure I have latest) and found "grossly misleading"
and the "grossly" could be removed.
>
> Anyway, I'm sure the lead author gets my point. I think the current paper will have a
much greater impact (and can claim the high road) if it is rewritten in a more objective
manner.
>
> 2. Similarly, instead of framing the paper as "Taking down McLean et al.", why not
focus more on interesting aspects of the science, such as the frequency dependence
between ENSO and global-mean temperature (perhaps cross-correlation analysis would be
useful); the importance of not extrapolating results from one timescale to another
timescale; or the lack of trends in ENSO. That way, the current paper contributes to the
peer-reviewed literature while also doing a service by highlighting the problems with
McLean et al.
I think I tried to emphasize that this should be a teaching moment.  Even more important
given the time lapse.
>
> 3. In general, the current paper is sloppy and needs tightening. I don't think the
lead author needs 10 pages of text to make the main points.
>
>
So over to you to generate the next draft.
Thanks
Kevin
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                  e-mail: [4]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section,           [5]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
NCAR
P. O. Box 3000,                     (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                   (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80305
References
1. mailto:jgr-atmospheres@agu.org
2. mailto:tamino_9@hotmail.com
3. mailto:twistor9@gmail.com
4. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
5.


Hi Tim, I know Keith is out of commission for a while (give him my
regards when you see him), but someone needs to at least give some
context to the latest McIntyre meme.

None of us at RC have any real idea what was done or why and so we are
singularly unable to sensibly counter the flood of nonsense. Of course,
most of the reaction is hugely overblown and mixed up but it would be
helpful to have some kind of counterpoint to the main thrust. If you can
point to someone else that could be helpful, please do!
Thanks
Gavin


> From: jgr-atmospheres@agu.org
> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:54:05 +0000
> To: tamino_9@hotmail.com
> Subject: 2009JD012960 (Editor - Steve Ghan):Decision Letter
> CC: twistor9@gmail.com
>
> Manuscript Number: 2009JD012960
> Manuscript Title: Comment on "Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric
temperature" by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter
>
>
> Dear Dr. Foster:
>
> 3 reviews of your above-referenced manuscript are attached below. Reviewer 3 is concerned
with the tone on the writing; while I appreciate the value of "taking the high road", I do
not object to emphatic statements that conclusions are incorrect. Strong language is needed
sometimes when errors must be corrected. Please carefully consider the Reviewers'
recommendations for revisions, make the necessary changes, and respond to me with a
point-by-point response of how you have addressed each concern. In your cover letter,
please include a statement confirming that all authors listed on the manuscript concur with
submission in its revised form.
>
>
>
> The due date for your revised paper is October 28, 2009. If you will be unable to submit
a revised manuscript by this time, please notify my office and arrange for an extension
(maximum two weeks). If we do not hear from you by the revision due date, your manuscript
will be considered as withdrawn.
>
> When you are ready to submit your revision, please use the link below.
>
> *The link below will begin the resubmission of your manuscript, please Do Not click on
the link until you are ready to upload your revised files. Any partial submission that sits
for 3 days without files will be deleted.
>
>
>
>
> (NOTE: The link above automatically submits your login name and password. If you wish to
share this link with co-authors or colleagues, please be aware that they will have access
to your entire account for this journal.)
>
> **In order to save time upon acceptance, it would be helpful if files in the correct
format are uploaded at revision. Article and table files may be in Word, WordPerfect or
LaTeX and figure files should be separately uploaded as .eps, .tif or pdf files. If you
have color figures, please go to the site below to select a color option. Please put your
color option in the cover letter.

>
> Please see the AGU web site for more information about preparing text and art files
( If you have any questions, please contact the
editor�s assistant.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Steve Ghan
> Editor, Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres
>
> -----------Important JGR-Atmospheres Information-------------------------------
>
> Submission, Review and Publication Stages Chart
> Text Preparation and Formatting
> Manuscript Preparation
> Acceptable Electronic File Formats
> Editorial Style Guide for Authors
> Auxiliary Materials (Electronic Supplements)
>
> Artwork Preparation
> Guidelines for Preparing Graphics Files
> Figure FAQ
> Prices for Color in AGU Journals
>
> AGU Copyright Transfer Form
> Manuscript Status Tool (for manuscripts recently accepted)
>
> If you need assistance with file formats and/or color options please e-mail
jgr-atmospheres@agu.org and quote your manuscript number.
>
> If you need Adobe Acrobat Reader to download the forms, it is available, free, on the
internet at:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Reviewer Comments
>
> Reviewer #1 (Comments):
>
> This paper does an excellent job of showing the errors in the analytical methods used by
McLean et al. and why their conclusions
> about the influence of ENSO on global air temperature is incorrect.
> I have only a couple of suggestions to help clarify their analysis of the methods. First,
a little more explanation of the comment about the time derivative reduced to an additive
constant would help. Second, in the analysis of the artificial time series I think it would
be interesting to show the results of both steps of filtering (running mean and derivative)
as separate time series. This would help the reader understand why the filtering creates
false correlations. The only other suggestion is to find a better adjective than "faulty"
in the abstract to characterize the analysis.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Reviewer #2 (Comments):
>
> I think this comment on McLean et al can be published more or less as is.
>
> I have two comments
>
> First, in the abstract (page 3, line 15), I'm not sure that "inflating" is quite the
right verb - the paper itself does not make the point that the filter constructed by McLean
et al inflates power in the 2-6 year window. Perhaps "isolating" would be a better verb.
>
> Secondly, I think the points that are being made with Figures 4 and 5 could be
strengthened by adding to the right of each plot of a pair of time series, a scatter plot
of the pairs of values available at each time. Such a scatter plot would help to clearly
illustrate the absence (upper panels) or presence (lower panels) of correlation between red
and black values.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Reviewer #3 (Comments):
>
> Accept pending major changes (mainly in style not scientific comment)
>
> The real mystery here, of course, is how the McLean et al. paper ever made it into JGR.
How that happened, I have no idea. I can't see it ever getting published through J Climate.
The analyses in McLean et al. are among the worst I have seen in the climate literature.
The paper is also a poorly guised attack on the integrity of the climate community, and I
guess that is why Foster et al. have taken the energy to contradict its findings.
>
> So the current paper (Foster et al.) should certainly be accepted. Someone needs to
address the science in the McLean et al paper in the peer-reviewed literature. But the
current paper could be - and should be - done better. That's why I am suggesting major
changes before the paper is accepted. All of my suggestions have to do more with the tone
and framing of the current paper, rather than its content.
>
> 1. As noted above, I agree McLean et al is problematic. But as it is written, the current
paper almost stoops to the level of "blog diatribe". The current paper does not read like a
peer-reviewed journal article. The tone is sometimes dramatic and sometimes accusatory. It
is inconsistent with the language one normally encounters in the objectively-based,
peer-reviewed literature. For examples....
> - In the abstract: Do you really need all of these adjectives?...'greatly overstates';
'severely overestimates'; 'faulty analysis'; 'extremely high'.
> - In the introduction... 'Unfortunately, their conclusions are seriously in error..."
strikes me as overly subjective. Better to say: 'We will demonstrate that their conclusions
are strongly dependent on ....' or something like that...
> - Page X-6: 'tell us absolutely nothing'. Surely it's enough to state 'tell us nothing'.
> - Page X-9: 'it is misleading...' That's a strong word. It may be true. But I think we
should rise above such accusations.
>
> Anyway, I'm sure the lead author gets my point. I think the current paper will have a
much greater impact (and can claim the high road) if it is rewritten in a more objective
manner.
>
> 2. Similarly, instead of framing the paper as "Taking down McLean et al.", why not focus
more on interesting aspects of the science, such as the frequency dependence between ENSO
and global-mean temperature (perhaps cross-correlation analysis would be useful); the
importance of not extrapolating results from one timescale to another timescale; or the
lack of trends in ENSO. That way, the current paper contributes to the peer-reviewed
literature while also doing a service by highlighting the problems with McLean et al.
>
> 3. In general, the current paper is sloppy and needs tightening. I don't think the lead
author needs 10 pages of text to make the main points.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________________________
Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Dont worry about storage limits. [1]Check it out.
References
1.


Mike, Gavin,
As Tim has said Keith is making a good recovery and hopes to be back in soon, gradually
during October and hopefully full time from November.
I talked to him by phone yesterday and sent him and Tom Melvin the threads on CA. As
you're fully aware, trying to figure out what McIntyre has done is going to be difficult.
It would be so much easier if they followed normal procedure and wrote up a comment and
submitted it to a journal. I looked through the threads yesterday trying to make sense of
what he's done. My suspicion is that he's brought in other tree ring series from more
distant sites, some of which may not even be larch. There are two chronologies that have
been used - one called the Polar Urals and one called Yamal. PU is a Schweingruber site
with density as well as ring width. The PU reconstruction is therefore not a chronology,
but a regression based reconstruction from both MXD and TRW. Yamal is just a ring width
series (with lots of sub-fossil material, so much older) from an area some distance (at
least 500km) north of PU. It was developed by Hantemirov and Shiyatov and was poorly
standardized - corridor method. I also don't think McIntyre understands the RCS method even
though he claims to have a program.  The ends and the age structure of the samples are
crucial in all this, but I think he just throws series in.
I totally agree that these attacks (for want of a better word) are getting worse.
Comments on the thread are snide in the extreme, with many saying they see no need to
submit the results to a journal. They have proved Keith has manipulated the data, so job
done.
Hadn't thought of Senate debates. I'd put this down to the build up to Copenhagen,
which is sort of the same.
[1]
matching-and-removal-of-natural-variables/
is a complete reworking of Dave Thompson's paper which is in press in J. Climate
(online). Looked at this, but they have made some wrong assumptions, but someone has put a
lot of work into it.
[2]
ther-station-siting-failure-moved-station-and-told-nobody/
This one is a complete red herring - nothing wrong with De Bilt measurements. This is what
it is about according to someone at KNMI
The issue you refer to is causing a lot of noise in the Netherlands (even MP's asking
questions to the minister). It seems this is not at all about the observational series
(nothing strange is going on), but more related to the "Law on KNMI" and the division of
tasks between commercial providers and KNMI to be discussed by parliament soon.
Cheers
Phil
At 08:46 29/09/2009, Tim Osborn wrote:
Hi Mike and Gavin,
thanks for your emails re McIntyre, Yamal and Keith.
I'll pass on your best wishes for his recovery when I next speak to Keith.  He's been
off almost 4 months now and won't be back for at least another month (barring a couple
of lectures that he's keen to do in October as part of a gradual return).  Hopefully
he'll be properly back in November.
Regarding Yamal, I'm afraid I know very little about the whole thing -- other than that
I am 100% confident that "The tree ring data was hand-picked to get the desired result"
is complete crap.  Having one's integrity questioned like this must make your blood boil
(as I'm sure you know, with both of you having been the target of numerous such
attacks).  Though it would be nice to shield Keith from this during his recovery, I
think Keith will already have heard about this because he had recently been asked to
look at CA in relation to the Kaufman threads (Keith was a co-author on that and Darrell
had asked Keith to help with a response to the criticisms).
Apart from Keith, I think Tom Melvin here is the only person who could shed light on the
McIntyre criticisms of Yamal.  But he can be a rather loose cannon and shouldn't be
directly contacted about this (also he wasn't involved in the Yamal chronology being
discussed, though he has been involved in a regional reconstruction that we've recently
been working towards that uses these -- and more -- data).
Perhaps Phil and I should talk with Tom and also see if Keith is already considering a
response.
Off to lecture for a couple of hours now...
Cheers
Tim
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
phone:    +44 1603 592089
fax:      +44 1603 507784
web:      [3]~timo/
sunclock: [4]~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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.
2.
3. ~timo/
4. ~timo/sunclock.htm


Grant, Kevin,
Agree on the responses. It does just seem a case of removing a number of the
adjectives. It is important to keep the moral high ground in this, if just to show how a
comment on a paper should be written and submitted to the same journal that had the poor
paper in the first instance. Might be worth reiterating this if any of us get  called when
the comment does come out. There does seem a trend these days to slam a paper on blogs with
no attempt to submit a comment to a journal.
Agree on the running mean/derivative issue - the spectral diagram is better.
Scatter plots aren't that useful unless. They's might help with the (a) parts, but it's
obvious from the time series plots  and the r-squareds are so different!
Finally - there was this comment via Jim S from Neville Nicholls. I vaguely recall Angell
and Korshover papers
from that time. The attached refers to some of them - also found Newell and Weare. This
isn't the first, but it might be worth adding. Attached this one from Science as well.
Neville Nicholls wrote:
Hi JIm.
I hop things are going well with you.
Thanks for being part of this robust response to the latest silliness. You have
certainly gathered an illustrious group of co-authors.
I am disappointed that you didnt cite the very early (1970s) work by Newell and Weare,
and by Angell and Korshover. I think you should squeeze these in, to demonstrate that
the climate community did not have to wait for McLean et al to understand the influence
of ENSO on global temperatures. In fact, our colleagues in the 1970s understood this,
and demonstrated it much more scientifically than does the McLean et al paper.
Cheers,
Neville
Cheers
Phil
At 21:45 28/09/2009, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi all
About time.  Incidentally i gave a copy to Mike McPhaden and discussed it with him last
week when we were together at the OceanObs'09 conference.  Mike is President of AGU.
Basically this is an acceptance with a couple of suggestions for extras, and some
suggestions for toning down the rhetoric.  I had already tried that a bit.  My reaction
is that the main thing is to expedite this.  That means no extras unless it really makes
sense.  And removal of a few unnecessary words like "absolutely".
In the abstract, we have a number of such adjectives that could be removed:  I agree
with Rev 3 in this.
"greatly overstates"  could be just "overstates" as it is reinforced better later.
"severely overestimates"  could be just "overestimates"
"faulty analysis"  maybe "flawed analysis"?
"extremely high" maybe "very high" or "unduly high"
I would leave last sentence alone though as the main comment.
A few more comments embedded below.
Grant Foster wrote:
> From: [1]jgr-atmospheres@agu.org
> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:54:05 +0000
> To: [2]tamino_9@hotmail.com
> Subject: 2009JD012960 (Editor - Steve Ghan):Decision Letter
> CC: [3]twistor9@gmail.com
>
> Manuscript Number: 2009JD012960
> Manuscript Title: Comment on "Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric
temperature" by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Reviewer Comments
>
> Reviewer #1 (Comments):
>
> This paper does an excellent job of showing the errors in the analytical methods used
by McLean et al. and why their conclusions
> about the influence of ENSO on global air temperature is incorrect.
> I have only a couple of suggestions to help clarify their analysis of the methods.
First, a little more explanation of the comment about the time derivative reduced to an
additive constant would help. Second, in the analysis of the artificial time series I
think it would be interesting to show the results of both steps of filtering (running
mean and derivative) as separate time series. This would help the reader understand why
the filtering creates false correlations. The only other suggestion is to find a better
adjective than "faulty" in the abstract to characterize the analysis.
>
It is not so easy to see the result from the derivative owing to the phase shift.  The
spectrum actually does a better job.  I would address this comment in this way and
change "faulty".
>
> Reviewer #2 (Comments):
>
> I think this comment on McLean et al can be published more or less as is.
>
> I have two comments
>
> First, in the abstract (page 3, line 15), I'm not sure that "inflating" is quite the
right verb - the paper itself does not make the point that the filter constructed by
McLean et al inflates power in the 2-6 year window. Perhaps "isolating" would be a
better verb.
Yes it should not be in abstract if not in text.  Need to point out that the response
function in Fig. 1 is greater than unity and does "inflate".  So adjust the text.
>
> Secondly, I think the points that are being made with Figures 4 and 5 could be
strengthened by adding to the right of each plot of a pair of time series, a scatter
plot of the pairs of values available at each time. Such a scatter plot would help to
clearly illustrate the absence (upper panels) or presence (lower panels) of correlation
between red and black values.
I don't think this helps.  There is nothing to be gained from a scatter plot that a
correlation or regression value does not summarize.
>
>
> Reviewer #3 (Comments):
>
> Accept pending major changes (mainly in style not scientific comment)
>
> The real mystery here, of course, is how the McLean et al. paper ever made it into
JGR. How that happened, I have no idea. I can't see it ever getting published through J
Climate. The analyses in McLean et al. are among the worst I have seen in the climate
literature. The paper is also a poorly guised attack on the integrity of the climate
community, and I guess that is why Foster et al. have taken the energy to contradict its
findings.
>
> So the current paper (Foster et al.) should certainly be accepted. Someone needs to
address the science in the McLean et al paper in the peer-reviewed literature. But the
current paper could be - and should be - done better. That's why I am suggesting major
changes before the paper is accepted. All of my suggestions have to do more with the
tone and framing of the current paper, rather than its content.
>
> 1. As noted above, I agree McLean et al is problematic. But as it is written, the
current paper almost stoops to the level of "blog diatribe". The current paper does not
read like a peer-reviewed journal article. The tone is sometimes dramatic and sometimes
accusatory. It is inconsistent with the language one normally encounters in the
objectively-based, peer-reviewed literature. For examples....
> - In the abstract: Do you really need all of these adjectives?...'greatly overstates';
'severely overestimates'; 'faulty analysis'; 'extremely high'.
Agree, see above
> - In the introduction... 'Unfortunately, their conclusions are seriously in error..."
strikes me as overly subjective. Better to say: 'We will demonstrate that their
conclusions are strongly dependent on ....' or something like that...
Don't go that far.  Could drop "seriously" but they are "in error"
> - Page X-6: 'tell us absolutely nothing'. Surely it's enough to state 'tell us
nothing'.
agree
> - Page X-9: 'it is misleading...' That's a strong word. It may be true. But I think we
should rise above such accusations.
misleading is OK.  I did a search (not sure I have latest) and found "grossly
misleading" and the "grossly" could be removed.
>
> Anyway, I'm sure the lead author gets my point. I think the current paper will have a
much greater impact (and can claim the high road) if it is rewritten in a more objective
manner.
>
> 2. Similarly, instead of framing the paper as "Taking down McLean et al.", why not
focus more on interesting aspects of the science, such as the frequency dependence
between ENSO and global-mean temperature (perhaps cross-correlation analysis would be
useful); the importance of not extrapolating results from one timescale to another
timescale; or the lack of trends in ENSO. That way, the current paper contributes to the
peer-reviewed literature while also doing a service by highlighting the problems with
McLean et al.
I think I tried to emphasize that this should be a teaching moment.  Even more important
given the time lapse.
>
> 3. In general, the current paper is sloppy and needs tightening. I don't think the
lead author needs 10 pages of text to make the main points.
>
>
So over to you to generate the next draft.
Thanks
Kevin
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                  e-mail: [4]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section,           [5]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
NCAR
P. O. Box 3000,                     (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                   (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80305
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. mailto:jgr-atmospheres@agu.org
2. mailto:tamino_9@hotmail.com
3. mailto:twistor9@gmail.com
4. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
5.


Thanks for the clarification Tim, doesn't change the fact the the
attack was inappropriate and unfair of course, but perhaps not as
despicable as at first might appear,
M
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
~mann/Mann/index.html

On Sep 29, 2009, at 9:50 AM, Tim Osborn
wrote:
> At 14:30 29/09/2009, Gavin Schmidt wrote:
>> The fact is that they launched an assault on Keith knowing full
>> well he isn't in a position to respond. This is despicable.
>
> Gavin,
>
> be careful here, I think it more likely that McIntye only learned of
> Keith's absence after he started posting about Yamal and the real
> reason for the timing of all this is that we made the Yamal tree-
> core measurements available about 2-3 weeks ago (in fact Keith had
> thought they had been made available before he fell ill, and only
> realised in early September that they weren't -- and asked for that
> to be rectified).
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
> Climatic Research Unit
> School of Environmental Sciences
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
>
> e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
> phone:    +44 1603 592089
> fax:      +44 1603 507784
> web:      ~timo/
> sunclock: ~timo/sunclock.htm
>
>


p.s.  Tim Osborn ([1]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk) is probably the best person to contact for further
details, in Keith's absence,
mike
On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:08 PM, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Andy,
I'm fairly certain Keith is out of contact right now recovering from an operation, and is
not in a position to respond to these attacks. However, the preliminary information I have
from others familiar with these data is that the attacks are bogus.
It is unclear that this particular series was used in any of our reconstructions (some of
the underlying chronologies may be the same, but I'm fairly certain the versions of these
data we have used are based on a different composite and standardization method), let alone
any of the dozen other reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature shown in the
most recent IPCC report, which come to the conclusion that recent warming is anomalous in a
long-term context.
So, even if there were a problem w/ these data, it wouldn't matter as far as the key
conclusions regarding past warmth are concerned.  But I don't think there is any problem
with these data, rather it appears that McIntyre has greatly distorted the actual
information content of these data. It will take folks a few days to get to the bottom of
this, in Keith's absence.
if McIntyre had a legitimate point, he would submit a comment to the journal in question.
of course, the last time he tried that (w/ our '98 article in Nature), his comment was
rejected. For all of the noise and bluster about the Steig et al Antarctic warming, its now
nearing a year and nothing has been submitted. So more likely he won't submit for
peer-reviewed scrutiny, or if it does get his criticism "published" it will be in the
discredited contrarian home journal  "Energy and Environment". I'm sure you are aware that
McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap published in legitimate
journals. All they have to do is put it up on their blog, and the contrarian noise machine
kicks into gear, pretty soon Druge, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and their ilk (in this case,
The Telegraph were already on it this morning) are parroting the claims. And based on what?
some guy w/ no credentials, dubious connections with the energy industry, and who hasn't
submitted his claims to the scrutiny of peer review.
Fortunately, the prestige press doesn't fall for this sort of stuff, right?
mike
I'm sure you're aware that you will dozens of bogus, manufactured distortions of the
science in the weeks leading up to the vote on cap & trade in the U.S. senate. This is no
On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Andrew Revkin wrote:
needless to say, seems the 2008 pnas paper showing that without tree rings still solid
picture of unusual recent warmth, but McIntyre is getting wide play for his statements
about Yamal data-set selectivity.
Has he communicated directly to you on this and/or is there any indication he's seeking
journal publication for his deconstruct?
--
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax:  509-357-0965
[2]
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [3]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [4]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[5]
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [6]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [7]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[8]
References
Visible links
1. mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
2.
3. mailto:mann@psu.edu
4. ~mann/Mann/index.html
5.
6. mailto:mann@psu.edu
7. ~mann/Mann/index.html
8.
Hidden links:
9.
10.


HI Andy,
Yep, what was written below is all me, but it was purely on background, please don't quote
anything I said or attribute to me w/out checking specifically--thanks.
Re, your point at the end--you've taken the words out of my mouth. Skepticism is essential
for the functioning of science. It yields an erratic path towards eventual truth. But
legitimate scientific skepticism is exercised through formal scientific circles, in
particular the peer review process.  A necessary though not in general sufficient condition
for taking a scientific criticism seriously is that it has passed through the legitimate
scientific peer review process.  those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside
of this system are not to be trusted.
mike
On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:19 PM, Andrew Revkin wrote:
thanks heaps.
tom crowley has sent me a direct challenge to mcintyre to start contributing to the
reviewed lit or shut up. i'm going to post that soon.
just want to be sure that what is spliced below is from YOU ...  a little unclear  .  ?
I'm copying this to Tim, in hopes that he can shed light on the specific data assertions
made over at climateaudit.org.....
I'm going to blog on this as it relates to the value of the peer review process and not on
the merits of the mcintyre et al attacks.
peer review, for all its imperfections, is where the herky-jerky process of knowledge
building happens, would you agree?
p.s.  Tim Osborn ([1]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk) is probably the best person to contact for
further details, in Keith's absence,
mike
On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:08 PM, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Andy,
I'm fairly certain Keith is out of contact right now recovering from an operation, and
is not in a position to respond to these attacks. However, the preliminary information I
have from others familiar with these data is that the attacks are bogus.
It is unclear that this particular series was used in any of our reconstructions (some
of the underlying chronologies may be the same, but I'm fairly certain the versions of
these data we have used are based on a different composite and standardization method),
let alone any of the dozen other reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature
shown in the most recent IPCC report, which come to the conclusion that recent warming
is anomalous in a long-term context.
So, even if there were a problem w/ these data, it wouldn't matter as far as the key
conclusions regarding past warmth are concerned.  But I don't think there is any problem
with these data, rather it appears that McIntyre has greatly distorted the actual
information content of these data. It will take folks a few days to get to the bottom of
this, in Keith's absence.
if McIntyre had a legitimate point, he would submit a comment to the journal in
question. of course, the last time he tried that (w/ our '98 article in Nature), his
comment was rejected. For all of the noise and bluster about the Steig et al Antarctic
warming, its now nearing a year and nothing has been submitted. So more likely he won't
submit for peer-reviewed scrutiny, or if it does get his criticism "published" it will
be in the discredited contrarian home journal  "Energy and Environment". I'm sure you
are aware that McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap
published in legitimate journals. All they have to do is put it up on their blog, and
the contrarian noise machine kicks into gear, pretty soon Druge, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn
Beck and their ilk (in this case, The Telegraph were already on it this morning) are
parroting the claims. And based on what? some guy w/ no credentials, dubious connections
with the energy industry, and who hasn't submitted his claims to the scrutiny of peer
review.
Fortunately, the prestige press doesn't fall for this sort of stuff, right?
mike
I'm sure you're aware that you will dozens of bogus, manufactured distortions of the
science in the weeks leading up to the vote on cap & trade in the U.S. senate. This is
no
On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Andrew Revkin wrote:
needless to say, seems the 2008 pnas paper showing that without tree rings still solid
picture of unusual recent warmth, but McIntyre is getting wide play for his statements
about Yamal data-set selectivity.
Has he communicated directly to you on this and/or is there any indication he's seeking
journal publication for his deconstruct?
--
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax:  509-357-0965
[2]
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [3]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [4]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[5]
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [6]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [7]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[8]
--
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax:  509-357-0965
[9]
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [10]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [11]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[12]
References
Visible links
1. mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
2.
3. mailto:mann@psu.edu
4. ~mann/Mann/index.html
5.
6. mailto:mann@psu.edu
7. ~mann/Mann/index.html
8.
9.
10. mailto:mann@psu.edu
11. ~mann/Mann/index.html
12.
Hidden links:
13.
14.
15.


Hi Phil,
lets not get into the topic of hate mail. I promise you I could fill your inbox w/ a very
long list of vitriolic attacks, diatribes, and threats I've received.
Its part of the attack of the corporate-funded attack machine, i.e. its a direct and highly
intended outcome of a highly orchestrated, heavily-funded corporate attack campaign. We saw
it over the summer w/ the health insurance industry trying to defeat Obama's health plan,
we'll see it now as the U.S. Senate moves on to focus on the cap & trade bill that passed
congress this summer. It isn't coincidental that the original McIntyre and McKitrick E&E
paper w/ press release came out the day before the U.S. senate was considering the McCain
Lieberman climate bill in '05.
we're doing the best we can to expose this. I hope our Realclimate post goes some ways to
exposing the campaign and pre-emptively deal w/ the continued onslaught we can expect over
the next month.
thanks for alerting us to that detail of Kaufman et al which I'd overlooked. We'd already
asked Darrell if he could compute a Yamal-less version of his series, but as you point out
he's really already done this!  And Osborn and Briffa '06 is also immune to this issue, as
it eliminated any combination of up to 3 of the proxies and showed the result was
essentially the same (fair to say this Tim?).
Also, is it fair to say that this particular version of Keith's Yamal series was not what
we used in Mann and Jones '03 (we reference Briffa et al '01)?
thanks for the help! We're hoping to have something up tomorrow at the latest, and any
updates at your end will be extremely helpful to the case,
mike
On Sep 30, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike, Gavin,
The short note may not say much.  As you're aware Kaufman et al have a plot without
trees - their plots shows trees, lakes and ice separately.
Another issue is science by blog sites - and the then immediate response mode. Science
ought to work through the peer-review system.....  sure you've said all these things
before.
We're getting a handful of nasty emails coming and requests for comments on other blog
sites. One email has gone to the University Registrar because of the language used. Keith
had one that said he was responsible for millions of deaths!  Even one reading far too much
into his off ill message.
Even though I've had loads of FOIs and nasty emails, a few in the last 2 days have been
the worst yet. I'm realizing more what those working on animal experiments must have gone
through.
Cheers
Phil
At 14:56 30/09/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
great--thanks Tim, sounds like we have a plan. in our post, which we'll target for
tomorrow as well, we'll simply link to whatever CRU puts up and re-iterate the sentiment
of the temporary short response (i.e. that there was no cherry-picking, a careful and
defensible selection procedure was used) and we'll mostly focus on the broader issues,
i.e. that any impact of this one series in the vast array of paleoclimate
reconstructions (and the importance of the paleoclimate reconstructions themselves) has
been over-stated, why these sorts of attacks are not legitimate science, etc.
mike
On Sep 30, 2009, at 9:51 AM, Gavin Schmidt wrote:
of course. we're preparing a 'bigger picture' response and will link directly to CRU and
maybe quote from it directly.
=============
Gavin Schmidt
NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies
2880 Broadway
New York, NY 10025
Tel: (212) 678 5627
Email: [1]gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov URL: [2]~gavin
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Tim Osborn wrote:
Hi Mike and Gavin,
Keith's temporarily come in to get a handle on all this, but it will take time.  Likely
outcome is (1) brief holding note that no cherry-picking was done and demonstrating data
selection is defendable by our time tomorrow; (2) longer piece with more evaluation etc.
in around a week.  No point is posting something that turns out to be wrong.
Keith may post them on the CRU website, but presumably they could be linked to from a
RealClimate page or, if Keith agrees, be reproduced on RealClimate?
Cheers
Tim
At 14:16 30/09/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Tim,
Just checking if there are any further developments here, i.e. some more info from
either Tom or Keith.
Gavin and I feel we need to do something on RealClimate on this quickly, probably by
later today.
thanks in advance for any help you can offer,
mike
On Sep 29, 2009, at 3:46 AM, Tim Osborn wrote:
Hi Mike and Gavin,
thanks for your emails re McIntyre, Yamal and Keith.
I'll pass on your best wishes for his recovery when I next speak to Keith. He's been off
almost 4 months now and won't be back for at least another month (barring a couple of
lectures that he's keen to do in October as part of a gradual return).  Hopefully he'll
be properly back in November.
Regarding Yamal, I'm afraid I know very little about the whole thing -- other than that
I am 100% confident that "The tree ring data was hand-picked to get the desired result"
is complete crap.  Having one's integrity questioned like this must make your blood boil
(as I'm sure you know, with both of you having been the target of numerous such
attacks). Though it would be nice to shield Keith from this during his recovery, I think
Keith will already have heard about this because he had recently been asked to look at
CA in relation to the Kaufman threads (Keith was a co-author on that and Darrell had
asked Keith to help with a response to the criticisms).
Apart from Keith, I think Tom Melvin here is the only person who could shed light on the
McIntyre criticisms of Yamal.  But he can be a rather loose cannon and shouldn't be
directly contacted about this (also he wasn't involved in the Yamal chronology being
discussed, though he has been involved in a regional reconstruction that we've recently
been working towards that uses these -- and more -- data).
Perhaps Phil and I should talk with Tom and also see if Keith is already considering a
response.
Off to lecture for a couple of hours now...
Cheers
Tim
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail:
[4]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
phone:    +44 1603 592089
fax:      +44 1603 507784
web:
[6] ~timo/
sunclock:
[8]
~timo/sunclock.htm
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:
[10]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website:
[12]
~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[14]

Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail:   [15]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
phone:    +44 1603 592089
fax:      +44 1603 507784
web:      [16]~timo/
sunclock: [17]~timo/sunclock.htm
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [18]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [19]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[20]
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    [21]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [22]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [23]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[24]
References
Visible links
1. mailto:gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov
2. ~gavin
3. mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
4. mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
5. ~timo/
6. ~timo/
7. ~timo/sunclock.htm
8. ~timo/sunclock.htm
9. mailto:mann@psu.edu
10. mailto:mann@psu.edu
11. ~mann/Mann/index.html
12. ~mann/Mann/index.html
13.
14.
15. mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
16. ~timo/
17. ~timo/sunclock.htm
18. mailto:mann@psu.edu
19. ~mann/Mann/index.html
20.
21. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
22. mailto:mann@psu.edu
23. ~mann/Mann/index.html
24.
Hidden links:
25.


Mike,
I realized you'd have many more bad emails!
As for MJ2003 what we used was an average of Fennoscan, Yamal and Taymir (as one of the
series).
Briffa et al (2001) was just referred to in that as a ref to RCS. The paper also talks
about N Eurasia, so the sites get a mention.
At 16:06 30/09/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Phil,
lets not get into the topic of hate mail. I promise you I could fill your inbox w/ a
very long list of vitriolic attacks, diatribes, and threats I've received.
Its part of the attack of the corporate-funded attack machine, i.e. its a direct and
highly intended outcome of a highly orchestrated, heavily-funded corporate attack
campaign. We saw it over the summer w/ the health insurance industry trying to defeat
Obama's health plan, we'll see it now as the U.S. Senate moves on to focus on the cap &
trade bill that passed congress this summer. It isn't coincidental that the original
McIntyre and McKitrick E&E paper w/ press release came out the day before the U.S.
senate was considering the McCain Lieberman climate bill in '05.
we're doing the best we can to expose this. I hope our Realclimate post goes some ways
to exposing the campaign and pre-emptively deal w/ the continued onslaught we can expect
over the next month.
thanks for alerting us to that detail of Kaufman et al which I'd overlooked. We'd
already asked Darrell if he could compute a Yamal-less version of his series, but as you
point out he's really already done this!  And Osborn and Briffa '06 is also immune to
this issue, as it eliminated any combination of up to 3 of the proxies and showed the
result was essentially the same (fair to say this Tim?).
Also, is it fair to say that this particular version of Keith's Yamal series was not
what we used in Mann and Jones '03 (we reference Briffa et al '01)?
thanks for the help! We're hoping to have something up tomorrow at the latest, and any
updates at your end will be extremely helpful to the case,
mike
On Sep 30, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike, Gavin,
The short note may not say much.  As you're aware Kaufman et al have a plot without
trees - their plots shows trees, lakes and ice separately.
Another issue is science by blog sites - and the then immediate response mode.
Science ought to work through the peer-review system.....  sure you've said all these
things before.
We're getting a handful of nasty emails coming and requests for comments on other
blog sites. One email has gone to the University Registrar because of the language used.
Keith had one that said he was responsible for millions of deaths!  Even one reading far
too much into his off ill message.
Even though I've had loads of FOIs and nasty emails, a few in the last 2 days have
been the worst yet. I'm realizing more what those working on animal experiments must
have gone through.
Cheers
Phil
At 14:56 30/09/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
great--thanks Tim, sounds like we have a plan. in our post, which we'll target for
tomorrow as well, we'll simply link to whatever CRU puts up and re-iterate the sentiment
of the temporary short response (i.e. that there was no cherry-picking, a careful and
defensible selection procedure was used) and we'll mostly focus on the broader issues,
i.e. that any impact of this one series in the vast array of paleoclimate
reconstructions (and the importance of the paleoclimate reconstructions themselves) has
been over-stated, why these sorts of attacks are not legitimate science, etc.
mike
On Sep 30, 2009, at 9:51 AM, Gavin Schmidt wrote:
of course. we're preparing a 'bigger picture' response and will link directly to CRU and
maybe quote from it directly.
=============
Gavin Schmidt
NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies
2880 Broadway
New York, NY 10025
Tel: (212) 678 5627
Email: [1]gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov URL: [2]~gavin
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Tim Osborn wrote:
Hi Mike and Gavin,
Keith's temporarily come in to get a handle on all this, but it will take time.  Likely
outcome is (1) brief holding note that no cherry-picking was done and demonstrating data
selection is defendable by our time tomorrow; (2) longer piece with more evaluation etc.
in around a week.  No point is posting something that turns out to be wrong.
Keith may post them on the CRU website, but presumably they could be linked to from a
RealClimate page or, if Keith agrees, be reproduced on RealClimate?
Cheers
Tim
At 14:16 30/09/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Tim,
Just checking if there are any further developments here, i.e. some more info from
either Tom or Keith.
Gavin and I feel we need to do something on RealClimate on this quickly, probably by
later today.
thanks in advance for any help you can offer,
mike
On Sep 29, 2009, at 3:46 AM, Tim Osborn wrote:
Hi Mike and Gavin,
thanks for your emails re McIntyre, Yamal and Keith.
I'll pass on your best wishes for his recovery when I next speak to Keith. He's been off
almost 4 months now and won't be back for at least another month (barring a couple of
lectures that he's keen to do in October as part of a gradual return).  Hopefully he'll
be properly back in November.
Regarding Yamal, I'm afraid I know very little about the whole thing -- other than that
I am 100% confident that "The tree ring data was hand-picked to get the desired result"
is complete crap.  Having one's integrity questioned like this must make your blood boil
(as I'm sure you know, with both of you having been the target of numerous such
attacks). Though it would be nice to shield Keith from this during his recovery, I think
Keith will already have heard about this because he had recently been asked to look at
CA in relation to the Kaufman threads (Keith was a co-author on that and Darrell had
asked Keith to help with a response to the criticisms).
Apart from Keith, I think Tom Melvin here is the only person who could shed light on the
McIntyre criticisms of Yamal.  But he can be a rather loose cannon and shouldn't be
directly contacted about this (also he wasn't involved in the Yamal chronology being
discussed, though he has been involved in a regional reconstruction that we've recently
been working towards that uses these -- and more -- data).
Perhaps Phil and I should talk with Tom and also see if Keith is already considering a
response.
Off to lecture for a couple of hours now...
Cheers
Tim
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail:
[4]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
phone:    +44 1603 592089
fax:      +44 1603 507784
web:
[6]~timo/
sunclock:
[8]~timo/sunclock.htm
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:
[10]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website:
[12]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[14]
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail:   [15]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
phone:    +44 1603 592089
fax:      +44 1603 507784
web:      [16]~timo/
sunclock: [17]~timo/sunclock.htm
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [18]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [19]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[20]
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    [21]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [22]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [23]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[24]
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. mailto:gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov
2. ~gavin
3. mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
4. mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
5. ~timo/
6. ~timo/
7. ~timo/sunclock.htm
8. ~timo/sunclock.htm
9. mailto:mann@psu.edu
10. mailto:mann@psu.edu
11. ~mann/Mann/index.html
12. ~mann/Mann/index.html
13.
14.
15. mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
16. ~timo/
17. ~timo/sunclock.htm
18. mailto:mann@psu.edu
19. ~mann/Mann/index.html
20.
21. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
22. mailto:mann@psu.edu
23. ~mann/Mann/index.html
24.
Hidden links:
25. ~timo/
26. ~timo/sunclock.htm
27. ~mann/Mann/index.html
28.


At 16:06 30/09/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
And Osborn and Briffa '06 is also immune to this issue, as it eliminated any combination
of up to 3 of the proxies and showed the result was essentially the same (fair to say
this Tim?).
Mike,
yes, you're right: figs S4-S6 in our supplementary information do indeed show results
leaving out individual, groups of two, and groups of three proxies, respectively.  It's
attached.
I wouldn't say we were immune to the issue -- results are similar for these leave 1, 2 or 3
out cases, but they certainly are not as strong as the case with all 14 proxies.  Certainly
in figure S6, there are some cases with 3 omitted (i.e. some sets of 11) where modern
results are comparable with intermittent periods between 800 and 1100.
Plus there is the additional uncertainty, discussed on the final page of the supplementary
information, associated with linking the proxy records to real temperatures (remember we
have no formal calibration, we're just counting proxies -- I'm still amazed that Science
agreed to publish something where the main analysis only involves counting from 1 to 14!
:-)).
But this is fine, since the IPCC AR4 and other assessments are not saying the evidence is
100% conclusive (or even 90% conclusive) but just "likely" that modern is warmer than MWP.
So, yes, it should be possible to find some subsets of data where MWP and Modern are
comparable and similarly for some seasons and regions.  And as you've pointed out before,
if any season/region is comparable (or even has MWP>Modern) then it will probably be the
northern high latitudes in summer time (I think you published on this, suggesting that
combination of orbital forcing, land-use change and sulphate aerosols could cause this for
that season/region, is that right?).
So, this Yamal thing doesn't damage Osborn & Briffa (2006), but important to note that O&B
(2006) and others support the "likely" statement rather than being conclusive.
Cheers
Tim


Dear Tim, Phil, Malcolm, I've enclosed a draft of our article, which we'd like to go online
w/ tomorrow (attached as a word file--unfortunately this distorts the post relative to the
way it will actually look on the website, but it was the easiest way to send w/ hyperlinks
and figures intact). Please let us know if there is anything that you think is either
erroneous, unclear, etc. in the piece. we'll link to whatever CRU puts up tomorrow as soon
as a link is available. thanks in advance for your help, mike -- Michael E. Mann Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology Phone: (814)
863-4075 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 The Pennsylvania State University email:
mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website:
~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site:
 Dear Tim, Phil, Malcolm,
I've enclosed a draft of our article, which we'd like to go online w/ tomorrow (attached as
a word file--unfortunately this distorts the post relative to the way it will actually look
on the website, but it was the easiest way to send w/ hyperlinks and figures intact).
Please let us know if there is anything that you think is either erroneous, unclear, etc.
in the piece.
we'll link to whatever CRU puts up tomorrow as soon as a link is available.
thanks in advance for your help,
mike
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [1]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [2]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[3]
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\HeyYa.doc"
References
Visible links
1. mailto:mann@psu.edu
2. ~mann/Mann/index.html
3.
Hidden links:
4.