Sounds great on all counts.
Kevin's comments are all good ones,
mike
At 04:09 PM 6/10/2003 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:
Scott,
Seems OK. we will send both figures and the text for one last look through today.
Trying now to incorporate Kevin's comments.
Cheers
Phil
At 10:48 10/06/03 -0400, Scott Rutherford wrote:
Phil and others,
Here is a revised figure. What do you think?
Scott
On Tuesday, June 10, 2003, at 07:21 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Scott (and Mike if he's still there),
The three of us have been through the text, Fig 1 and decided
what to put in Fig 2.
Tim is doing Fig 2 (9 long series - we'll send when we have it). I'm
modifying the text
slightly - adding in refs that are missing (mostly with Fig 2) and
generally tidying up.
Keith is working on the final sentence of the penultimate para. We
all agree with this,
but it could be misinterpreted - so trying to avoid this.
WRT Fig 1.
There are quite a few changes we think would improve things and
make it more consistent,
all to the labelling.
1. Add et al to Bauer and Gerber (twice).
2. Years only in for Mann et al., so this is the only one where refs
would be ambiguous.
3. So, Briffa et al 2000 becomes Briffa and Osborn 1999
4. Briffa et al, 2001 becomes Briffa et al .
5 Remove Long instrumental - the orange line from the plot and key.
It isn't explained in the
caption, nor in the text.
6. As the grey line may not be seen under the grey shading, we think
that all lines should
be as thin as the grey one. Some are thicker than others - can all be
the same thinness.
7. Back to key, change Optimal borehole (Mann et al, 2003) to Mann et
al. 2003 (Optimal
borehole)  for consistency with the others.
8 . Most important is the SCALING. Needs to be clear which are scaled
(to annual) and which
aren't. Text in caption is ambiguous. So can you tell us which is
scaled (to annual) and
which aren't. If they are scaled then key should say - scaled
1856-1980 as with Jones et al .
Does this apply to Briffa and Osborn and to Briffa et al  (the grey
and orange lines).
9. Whilst on scaling are all scaled or regressed?  Scaling we think
of as giving the same
mean and variance. Regression does this also but which has been used.
10. Finally, Figure would look good with a thin black line along the
zero line from 0 to 2000.
Call me or Tim if anything you don't follow. Try Mike as well. I
sent him an email earlier
today and he'd already put his reply message up for the next 4-5
weeks.
Cheers
Phil
At 12:25 09/06/03 -0400, Scott Rutherford wrote:
Mike and Phil,
Attached is figure 1. The format is Adobe Illustrator with an
embedded PDF. You can view it in Acrobat. Let me know if you have
questions.
Regards,
Scott
______________________________________________
Scott Rutherford
Marine Research Scientist
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island
e-mail: srutherford@gso.uri.edu
phone: (401) 874-6599
fax: (401) 874-6811
snail mail:
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
______________________________________________
Scott Rutherford
Marine Research Scientist
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island
e-mail: srutherford@gso.uri.edu
phone: (401) 874-6599
fax: (401) 874-6811
snail mail:
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[1]
References
1.


HI Scott,
I concur w/ your assessment--keeping the figure the way it is now is preferable in my
opinion...
mike
At 02:23 PM 6/10/2003 -0400, Scott Rutherford wrote:
Dear All,
I agree that figure 1 is very busy, but I'm not sure that is a bad thing in this case
because we aren't trying to highlight differences between reconstructions/models or
single out one or two from the rest. I think the current figure illustrates the range of
reconstructions, the range of models and how well they agree (similar to one of our
original ideas of a "cloud of reconstructions").
If we put the models into a separate panel we will need a curve common to both panels
that people can use as a reference.  If we go with the two panel figure I suggest that
the second panel include the models, the Mann et al. 1999 reconstruction with
uncertainties and the instrumental record.
I'll leave it to the group to decide.
-Scott
On Tuesday, June 10, 2003, at 01:16 PM, Michael E. Mann wrote:
I don't really like the idea of changing the figure dramatically at this point.
If we have to, I suggest the following options:
1) Take out one of the model simulation results--e.g. Gerber et al w/ the lower
sensitivity
2) If we want to adopt Kevin's two panel strategy, then show the model results along w/
the gray-shaded uncertainty region from the top (reconstructions) panel. And show the
instrumental record in both panels.
Anyway, up to you guys...
mike
At 10:59 AM 6/10/2003 -0600, you wrote:
Phil
Thanks for the great work.
Some reactions.
1) Fig. 1 is very busy and perhaps unduly crowded.  My reaction is to take the model
results out and put them in a separate panel.  The separate panel would fit along side
the key.  But better below the main figure.
Can we change "gridded and arealy weighted" to "gridded, area-weighted..".)
What is "optimal borehole",?  Should "optimal" be in quotes?
2) Fig. 2: Can we please add a country to each name for those that don't have them?
Increased spacing between them would be nice.
Thanks
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:
Dear All,
Keith, Tim and I have been at this for part of the day. Scott has also
redrawn Fig 1.
Attached is the latest draft, which includes Kevin's from about 1 hour ago, but not
Ray's
latest email.
Fig 1 from Scott is OK to us here. Fig 2 is a draft. Tim needs to space the
series
out a little. To use all these we've needed to add a load of references. Getting these
and
making the captions OK has taken most time and the drawing of Fig 2.
Hopefully we can all agree to this in the next day or so, then I'll submit on
say
Thursday UK morning time, so you've all got all day today and tomorrow.
We've been through the text carefully and all happy with it.
Apologies - no time to make Fig 2 pdf. Hope all can see postscript.  We still need
to work
on the captions and tidy the refs a little more.
We'll be back at 8.30 tomorrow UK time.  Peck - you've got 2 days to say yes/no !
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                              e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR                  [1]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000,                                 (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                               (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 3080 Center Green Drive, Boulder, CO  80301
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[2]
______________________________________________
Scott Rutherford
Marine Research Scientist
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island
e-mail: srutherford@gso.uri.edu
phone: (401) 874-6599
fax: (401) 874-6811
snail mail:
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[3]
References
1.
2.
3.


thanks and all now ok
Keith
At 10:30 AM 6/10/03 -0400, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
no problem...Responses below. let me know what you think...
thanks,
mike
At 03:01 PM 6/10/2003 +0100, Keith Briffa wrote:
thanks for that Mike - sorry but just a few more questions
the reference to "agree remarkably well with the proxy-based reconstructions (Figure 1)
"  [later part of paragraph ] . Unfortunately , the Bauer et al curve clearly does not -
at least from  AD 1100 to 1400!
Again some qualifyer is needed - perhaps "for the most part , agree well " ?
Yes, "remarkably" is an overstatement given that, as you say, Bauer et al does stray
some bit.
How about simply:
"Agree with the proxy-based reconstructions within estimated uncertainties (Figure 1)".
and later [middle of the 6th paragraph],
"relative hemispheric warmth during the 10th to 12th centuries" is ambiguous and we
prefer "relative hemispheric warmth during much of the the 10th,11th and 12th centuries"
yep, better...
but also , where we say [just below] "the specific periods of cold and warm apparent for
Europe differ significantly from those for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole."  , to
what evidence of European anomalies are we referring?
ahh--I left that open-ended, for Phil and you guys to deal with as you see best. I was
anticipating that Figure 2 would include an appropriate proxy series or two for Europe
(CET, Fennoscandia?) that would make this point.  But why don't you guys revise the
wording, as necessary, based on Figure 2?
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[1]
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[2]
References
1.
2.
3.


Hi all
On isotopes, see the paper by Werner et al (briefly discussed in our
Science perspectives) showing that isotopes don't sample the deep winter
well as there is inadequate precip then in Greenland during the past.
I had to send this as I have been getting 2 of everything and I so I
adjusted the cc list.
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:
>
>  Tom,
>     The W. Greenland series is based on a stack of 6 isotope series -
> see chapter by
>  Fisher et al in book from 1996 by Jones, Bradley and Jouzel.
> Correlation of this series
>  with Greenland Annual temps is 0.58 on annual timescale over 1901-80.
> It is one of the
>  better ones of the series in Fig 2. Others are better with different
> seasons, but this one
>  is good for annual.  The averaging of the 6 sites improves it a lot.
>
>  Cheers
>  Phil
>
>
>
> At 08:51 13/06/03 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:
>
>> Phil,
>>
>> If W Greenland is based on isotopes, I note that the correlation
>> between these and temperature is very low. Do we really want to
>> perpetuate the myth that ice core isotopes are a good proxy for
>> temperature?
>>
>> Tom.
>> ___________________________
>>
>> Phil Jones wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Dear All,
>>>
>>>            Keith, Tim and I have been at this for part of the day.
>>> Scott has also redrawn Fig 1.
>>>  Attached is the latest draft, which includes Kevin's from about 1
>>> hour ago, but not Ray's
>>>  latest email.
>>>           Fig 1 from Scott is OK to us here. Fig 2 is a draft. Tim
>>> needs to space the series
>>>  out a little. To use all these we've needed to add a load of
>>> references. Getting these and
>>>  making the captions OK has taken most time and the drawing of Fig 2.
>>>            Hopefully we can all agree to this in the next day or so,
>>> then I'll submit on say
>>>  Thursday UK morning time, so you've all got all day today and
>>> tomorrow.
>>>     We've been through the text carefully and all happy with it.
>>>     Apologies - no time to make Fig 2 pdf. Hope all can see postscript.
>>> We still need to work
>>>  on the captions and tidy the refs a little more.
>>>     We'll be back at 8.30 tomorrow UK time.  Peck - you've got 2
>>> days to say yes/no !
>>>  Cheers
>>>  Phil
>>>
>>>
>>> Prof. Phil Jones
>>> Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
>>> School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
>>> University of East Anglia
>>> Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
>>> NR4 7TJ
>>> UK
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>>
>
> 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                           	e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR              	www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/
P. O. Box 3000,                              	(303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                           	(303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 3080 Center Green Drive, Boulder, CO  80301


Hi Phil et al,
Re, Malcolm co-authorship--big oversight on my part. Can you ask Ellen if we can add his
name (i.e., just say it was 'accidentally left off'), where it belongs alphabetically in
the list.
I've talked to Malcolm on the phone. The PC #1 *is* the right one--but Malcolm has raised
the valid point that we need to cover our behinds on what was done here, lest we be
vulnerable to the snipings of the Idsos and co (i.e., that non-climatic influences on
recent growth were nominally dealt w/, as in MBH99).
Malcolm is supposed to be sending some text to Phil.
So, can we incorporate his small bit of text, and add his name, and then resubmit to AGU
ASAP?
Thanks all for all the help here. Now, I better get back to my newlywed wife!
mike
At 05:25 PM 6/20/2003 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Malcolm has just called Keith. He's been with Ray. Apart from probably being a
little
miffed off he's not on the article, he says that the W. US series in Figure 2 is wrong.
He says
it looks the first PC (which I said it was), but that this isn't the corrected one (for
CO2 growth
effects). Can you check whether it is the right one?  Malcolm says that Idso (who was
on
E&E) will say that the increase in that series is not climatic but due to
fertilization. This
would not look good obviously. Idso was on a paper with Don Graybill re fertilisation
effects
on bristlecones.
If you need to send a revised series for this top series in Fig 2 then send it to
Tim.
Tim has done this plot so can make the alterations if another series is needed. If you
think
that the series is OK then we'll leave it.  If you do change it will affect Fig 2 of
the GRL also
but probably not to any noticeable effect - at least at the size the plot will be.
Tim will send round the copyright forms to all and reprint forms. Tell Tim if you
want any.
Seems like the pdf will do.
Cheers
Phil
PS Tell Lorraine I'm not always emailing you - but Malcolm thought the above was
important.
I assumed you would have sent the corrected one you used in GRL in 1999.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[1]
References
1.


Hi Ellen,
I'm still travelling, and have only intermittent email access. I'm pretty sure Phil is
travelling now too, so I'm hoping Keith or Tim can help out here.
I think we actually discussed two small changes from the final version Phil sent you. This
involved adding Malcolm Hughes as a co-author (his name was accidentally left off the
list), and changing the wording of one sentence slightly. I believe that Tim and Keith have
these changes, and hopefully they can submit this via GEMS? If not, will have to wait until
Phil or I have a solid internet connection to do this (that will likely be at IUGG in
Sapporo in about 2 weeks).
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Phil--if you're reading email, any way you can
help out here?
thanks all,
mike
At 04:36 PM 6/23/2003 -0400, Ellen Mosley-Thompson wrote:
Phil,
I just learned from AGU that you did not submit the revised version back to AGU via the
GEMS system.  Can you or Mike do this as soon as possible?  I would like to get this
paper moving through AGU.  Fred Spilhaus still has to approve it - he approves all Forum
pieces - so this adds a layer that will cost us time.
Thanks
Ellen
P.S. I have copied everyone who might be able to handle this in your and Mike's
absence.  Thanks
At 05:13 PM 06/20/2003 +0100, you wrote:
Dear Ellen,
I'm off on Sunday, but I've managed to get the revisions done. The revised pdf is
attached. This contains a reduced size manuscript by about 10 lines and we've reduced
the
references to the absolute minimum. This is still 30. If we go any lower we have to
change the
figures. As we are commenting on a paper we need to specifically reference all the
series we
use.
Thanks for going through so quickly.
If further changes are required I won't be here so can you email either Keith
Briffa
or Tim Osborn (k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk) .
I will ask Keith and Tim to get the copyright forms rolling.
Cheers
Phil
At 13:50 18/06/03 -0400, eos@agu.org wrote:
Dear Dr. Mann:  (copy to Phil Jones)
I am pleased to accept "On Past Temperatures and Anomalous late-20th Century Warmth" for
publication in Eos with the provision that in your final submission you modify to the
first paragraph slightly so that it is fully consistent with the text of the AGU
statement on climate change and greenhouse gases:
[1]
Note that first sentence of your paper indicates that the AGU statement includes the
inference that there is a high probability ....   I cannot find the words high
probability in the AGU statement (unlike IPCC that does state "high probability.").  It
is critical that the introductory paragraph is carefully constructed so as not to
diminish any of the points you make in the Forum piece.  I suggest a modification of
your first paragraph - please feel free to further modify this.
Evidence from ....    Gases," that there is a compelling basis for concern over future
climate changes, including increases in global mean surface temperatures, due to
increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, primarily from fossil fuel burning.
If this is too long, you might wish to break it into two sentences.  This says the same
thing as your original intro sentence but is fully consistent with the text of the AGU
statement.
Also in the first paragraph would you agree to this change?
... such anomalous warm cannot be fully explained natural factors ......    (Added the
word "fully" to indicate that some but not all of the anomalous warming can be explained
by natural factors.)
Another suggestion is to remove the second reference to the AGU policy (second
paragraph).  What about ... these claims in light of the fact that they have ......
The content of the Forum piece is just fine, but I did find a few minor problems that
you need to fix in the final submission.
1) 3rd paragraph line 8 - reference to Jones et al. (1998) - this date occurs in several
places in the paper and should be Jones et al. 1999; e.g., point (2) line 3
2) page 2 - the second (2) point
last 3 lines: remove double period after U.S.; also that sentence reads awkwardly - try
a comma after the word 'cancelling'.
3) the second paragraph of point 2 (2); last three lines: this is awkward; the word
"apparent" is out of place; I think this should this read ..... apparent coldness and
warmth differ .....
4) point 3) last line of first paragraph - change ...   insight to ....  (Remove in from
into)
5) references - the Jones et al. 1999 reference is formatted differently than the rest
(put date at end).
Finally - everywhere throughout the text et al should be corrected to et al  (The period
is consistently absent)
Before publication, your article will be edited to reflect the Eos newspaper style,
including a possible change in the headline.  We will send the edited version to you for
review and final approval before the article is published.
Please note that before we can proceed with production work on your submission, a
copyright transfer agreement and reprint order form must be completed and returned to
AGU.  These forms may be printed* from the AGU web site:
[2]
[3]
For information on the production process, please contact Shermonta Grant, Eos
Production Coordinator, at +202.777.7533 or sgrant@agu.org.
In the absence of information from you to the contrary, I am assuming that all authors
listed on the manuscript concur with publication in its final accepted form and that
neither this manuscript nor any of its essential components have been published
previously or submitted to another journal.  The AGU Guidelines for Publication
emphasize that: "It is unethical for an author to publish manuscripts describing
essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication."
Thank you for your contribution to Eos.
Sincerely,
Ellen Mosley-Thompson
Editor, Eos
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*If you need Adobe Acrobat Reader, it is freely available at:
[4]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[5]
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.


Tim,
I suggest we let Eos size the figures, etc. Then, in the end, we can simply substitute a
version of Figure 2 w/ the correlations added at the proof stage. Anything else will slow
down the publication of the manuscript unnecessarily, in my opinion.
Phil and I have already discussed--we agree that the low weight given to the record in the
Mann and Jones composite treats the record appropriately...
mike
At 02:37 PM 6/24/2003 +0100, Tim Osborn wrote:
Hi Tom,
In Phil's absence I was just now looked at his PC because I needed some files/emails for
a separate matter, and I noticed that you had emailed Phil/Ray/Mike concurring with
Ray's concerns.  Until I saw that, I hadn't realised that anyone else had commented on
Yang et al.
Keith and I discussed exactly this issue this morning, and though Keith also had
concerns about the record (I haven't read their paper, so can't comment) we decided to
leave things as they were because: (i) Mike suggested adding correlations to the figure
at the proof stage rather than now; (ii) I wasn't sure how to word a caveat about Yang
et al. without making it seem odd that we were including a doubtful record and odd that
we hadn't added caveats about some of the other records.
The current status is that the version I circulated has been submitted back to EOS
(because of the reasons given above), and Ellen Mosley-Thompson has approved it.  It
needs to be reviewed internally at AGU by either Fred Spilhaus or an Associate Editor.
It will then be edited to reflect the Eos newspaper style.
I've cc'd this to Mike and Phil to see what they want to do.  I/we can put a hold on the
processing of the current submission and then submit a new version with revised figure
and caption.  Alternatively we could wait and see what it's like after EOS have edited
it, and then make any final modifications at that stage.
Over to you/Mike/Phil.
Cheers
Tim
At 14:00 24/06/2003, you wrote:
Tim,
I think it is *extremely* important to cover Ray's point about Yang et al. and Mike
Mann's response about weighting. This requires a small addition to the Figure caption.
Tom.
Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
phone:    +44 1603 592089
fax:      +44 1603 507784
web:      [1]~timo/
sunclock: [2]~timo/sunclock.htm
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[3]
References
1. ~timo/
2. ~timo/sunclock.htm
3.


Thanks Keith,
I just read your email after reading the others. We actually eliminate records with
negative correlations (this is mentioned breifly in the GRL article,), and we investigated
a variety of weighting schemes to assure the basic robustness of the composite--but I
certainly endorse your broader point here. Many of these records have some significant
uncertainties or possible sources of bias, and this isn't the place to get into that. The
uncertainties get at this, at some level, and other places (e.g. the Reviews of Geophysics
paper Phil and I are drafting) will provide an opportunity to discuss these kinds of issues
in more detail--we will certainly be seeking advice (either officially or unofficially)
from each of you once we have finalized the draft of that...
Now back to my honeymoon...
mike
At 02:38 PM 6/24/2003 +0100, Keith Briffa wrote:
To keep you informed , here is a reply to Tom Wigley re his request to "deal with Ray's
Comments" re the China series in EOS piece
Tom
Tim has just told me of your message expressing concern about the China series , and
your statement of the necessity to "deal with Ray's comment" and add in the "small
adjustment to the Figure Caption". .
We (I and Tim) decided to get this off as soon as possible to Ellen (AGU) , as we had
been asked to do (and as requested by Ellen). Hence it went off  earlier today (and
before your message arrived). Mike was aware of Ray's comment and was happy to leave any
amendment to the text "until the proof stage" .
In my opinion it is not practical (or desirable) to try to "qualify " any one record in
this limited format. It was a majority decision to leave the Mann and Jones 2000-year
series in the Figure 1 (as it was to remove the Briffa and Osborn tree-ring based one) ,
and the details of the logic used to derive the Mann and Jones series is to be found in
the (cited) text of their paper. Signing on to this letter , in my mind. implies
agreement with the text and not individual endorsement of all curves by each author. I
too have expressed my concern to Phil (and Ray) over the logic that you leave all series
you want in but just weight them according to some (sometimes low) correlation (in this
case based on decadal values). I also believe some of the series that make up the
Chinese record are dubious or obscure , but the same is true of other records Mann and
Jones have used (e.g. how do you handle a series in New Zealand that has a -0.25
correlation?) . Further serious problems are still (see my and Tim's Science comment on
the Mann 1999 paper) lurking with the correction applied to the Western US tree-ring PC
amplitude series used (and shown in Figure 2). There are problems (and limitations )
with ALL series used. At this stage , singling out individual records for added (and
unavoidably cursory added description) is not practical. We were told to cut the text
and References significantly - and further cuts are implied by Ellen's messages to us.
If you wish to open this up to general discussion , it may be best to wait 'til the
proof stage and then we can all consider the balance of emphasis - but we had also
better guard against too "selective" a choice of data to present? If you want to get a
somewhat wider discussion of this point going in the meantime , feel free to forward
this to whoever you wish along with your disagreement , while we wait on the response
from AGU.
Best wishes
Keith
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[1]
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[2]
References
1.
2.


Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Ninh
NOAA want to give us more money for the El Nino work with IGCN.
How much do we have left from the last budget? I reckon most has been spent but we need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn't make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven't spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious.
Politically this money may have to go through Simon's institute but there overhead rate is high so maybe not!
Best wishes
Mick
____________________________________________
Mick Kelly          Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
Tel: 44-1603-592091 Fax: 44-1603-507784
Email: m.kelly@uea.ac.uk
Web:
____________________________________________
--


Asher,
Spoke with Sinclair-Wilson from Earthscan yesterday about this and we agreed one or two
things.  We should take next steps on this after the Assembly business has died down.
Mike
At 07:51 19/06/2003 +0100, you wrote:
Mike, this message below id fresh-in from RK Pachauri. He seems keen, and we
have been given a direct contact at TERI. He has made a few interesting
suggestions on content, though nothing on funding as of yet.
Asher
------------------------------
Mr Asher Minns
Communication Manager
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
[1]www.tyndall.ac.uk
Mob: 07880 547 843
Tel: +44 0 1603 593906
----- Original Message -----
From: "R K Pachauri"
To:
Cc: "Ulka Kelkar"
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 7:34 AM
Subject: Dear Prof. Hulme
Dear Prof. Hulme,
Thank you for your letter proposing that the Tyndall Centre and TERI jointly
produce a series of yearbooks on climate change. May I congratulate you on
this excellent idea! I am convinced that a market exists for precisely such
a publication, and am delighted that you thought of TERI as a partner in
this venture.
I am putting down some initial thoughts on the proposed publication and the
suggested contents that you had sent.
While there is a lot of information and related data available on climate
change, it is scattered. On the one hand we have the IPCC assessment on the
state of knowledge about climate change, and on the other the WMO's annual
bulletins. Similarly, the UNFCCC compiles GHG inventory information from
periodically submitted National Communications, while the IEA presents
annual fuel combustion emission statistics. In such a scenario, the metier
of our Yearbook would be to synthesise the current knowledge on climate
change. As mentioned in your note, it would present this information in a
clear and visually appealing manner. Moreover, it would go into climate
change issues in more detail than say, the annual World Resources brought
out by WRI.
The Foreword - and perhaps an Emerging Issues section at the end of the
book - could comment on scientific and political issues, which are otherwise
not discussed in either the IPCC Reports or in the types of publications
mentioned above.
In the draft table of contents, there are two sections that are slightly
different in character from the others. In the chapter on national policies,
we may choose between alternative structures:
1 By Annex I country
2 By type of policy/instrument (e.g. CDM, international trading regimes,
taxation, etc)
The proposed chapter on Social Change and Adaptation is important to
complete the set of topics/issues covered in the Yearbook, but is probably
the most complex in terms of scope/structure. One option that we could
discuss is to cover adaptation policies not in chapter 7, but in chapter 9,
and to highlight studies of community and local government level
implementation.
With such a scope, the media would also be an important part of the audience
for this yearbook
I do appreciate that producing this Yearbook would involve significant
commitment in terms of time and effort if all relevant literature is to be
reviewed. However, by teaming up authors from our two organisations, I am
confident that we will provide an impartial yet balanced North-South
perspective to the Yearbook. For specialised subjects, like the chapter on
business, we may even think of invited chapters, by say the WBCSD.
You may also be interested to know that TERI also brings out a yearbook
focusing on India, called the TERI Energy Directory, Database, and Yearbook
(TEDDY). This publication has a readership of 15000-20000, reaching out to
government, corporates, individual researchers, and libraries in India and
overseas.
These are just some initial thoughts, and my colleagues can be in touch with
your team to develop this outline further. Ms Ulka Kelkar
(ulkak@teri.res.in) will coordinate this effort on behalf of TERI.
We look forward to working with you on this Yearbook.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
R.K. Pachauri
References
1.


Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Trevor
A quick update:
1. I'm arranging a meeting between our team and the Museums Service (including I hope the director) late July to discuss next stage. I'll consult Chris Flack about possible dates. They are ready to push ahead with the next stage.
2. N County Council now appear well and truly behind the project and want to bring development responsibility into their Economic Development Unit. Good news in terms of political will, but some concern about loss of control and transformation into a tourism project.
Think we need to resolve how best this initiative might relate to the linking CRED initiative, as discussed, and reach understanding with Museums Service sooner rather than later? Unless it's premature?
Finally, Melissa Burgan, ex MSc student, now with NCC transport division is very impressed with way CRED has been taken seriously by county council politicos. I assume her assessment is accurate!
Mick
____________________________________________
Mick Kelly          Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
Tel: 44-1603-592091 Fax: 44-1603-507784
Email: m.kelly@uea.ac.uk
Web:
____________________________________________
--


Dear Keith, thanks for the update. I think I am reading much the same
message as you do. I also agree that we need focus, and not too many
groups involved. In terms of where the focus should be I agree that
DOCC is too wide, and my feeling now is to dissolve it and reorganise
under another heading with fewer groups, perhaps as an IP if Brussels
allows. I do not have any preconceived notions as to where the
co-ordinations hould lie.
I agree with you that integration with biogeochemistry is not
straight forward with Holocene climate variability except for the
vegetation feedback which may be important.
I also know of one other palaeo-based initiative, ICON, dealing with
the thermohaline circulation, coordinated by Rainer Zahn. We are
involved. This will be submitted for the call just launched under the
hot spots in the climate system heading, but may be brought over to
the next call if unsuccessful (probably). We are involved there with
a number of modelling centres and many of the palaeoceanography labs.
I guess we should discuss a bit further after summer has passed what
to do. I am very keen on the science of Holclim and hope to be able
to develop this initiative with you and others.
Last thing - any idea of when the conference Brussels wants is going
to happen?.
I am away for two weeks on the Greek islands, but then I am back again.
Cheers,
Eystein
>Eystein
>I seem to keep getting distracted this week so I have not phoned
>again. I can say the basics here though. I went to the meeting that
>was also attended by Berger, Raynaud, Shackleton , Starkel and
>Zorita
>(in place of Von Storch). The rationale for the meeting was nothing
>more than The EC (Hans Brelen) felt that they ought to be organising
>a palaeoclimate conference, but there was some hinting that this
>might signal the new call (in Sept 04) but not imply any weighting
>in the appraisal of proposals. It seems definite that there will be
>money for a single (new instrument) project only , as we supposed .
>Some at the meeting spoke about a range of time scales  and possible
>subject foci for the conference (and by implication also for the
>call) but I still feel strongly , on the evidence of other projects
>that I have heard are to be funded , that the need is for a sharper
>focus than was involved in our DOCC concept , and that the HOLIVAR
>approach is the optimum way forward. The problem will be scale of
>initiative (15-20 million seems a maximum likely request , with
>perhaps 12-15 a likely maximum award). The unified data / modelling
>route, as outlined in the HOLCLIM NoI seems the most likely
>candidate still. Obviously there remain difficulties even with this
>, such as geographic focus , use of the integrated data for defining
>future climate probabilities and links with socio-economic (impacts)
>community. This is also likely to clash with the direct interests of
>some major palaeoclimate scientists who focus on longer time scales
>and stronger climate and response signals. It is easier to think of
>climate forcings and the interaction of bio-geochemical cycles at
>glacial /interglacial time scales , but I am not convinced that this
>type of work would be a practical inclusion in this call. This is
>still my opinion , but an admittedly (unashamedly) biased one.
>Keith
>
>
>At 07:34 PM 6/19/03 +0200, you wrote:
>>Dear Keith,
>>I wonder if there are any news around the meeting with Brelen on
>>FP6 that can be used. Lots of rumors around and not much specific
>>knowledge, so if you have an update I´d appreciate it.
>>Cheers,
>>Eystein
>>
>>På mandag, 7. april 2003, kl. 10:46, skrev Keith Briffa:
>>
>>>Eystein
>>>your point is exactly correct , that only one project (and I
>>>believe it should be an IP) will be allowed and with the shrinking
>>>general scale of these things, it likely needs to be very clearly
>>>focused (on integrating evidence and providing some
>>>state-of-the-art product on climate history and its causes) . I am
>>>not in Nice (have to go to 2 other meetings in May) . I am still
>>>leaning towards your institute co-ordinating this . I have not
>>>discussed anything with the rest of the HOLIVAR committee.
>>>We do need some sort of meeting but only small - there is no
>>>chance of a 25 million Euro project and many people are likely to
>>>be disappointed . I have to be in Brussels for a meeting with
>>>Brelen in June . What are you thinking about , re. a meeting?
>>>Keith
>>>At 10:01 PM 4/3/03 +0200, you wrote:
>>>>Dear Keith,
>>>>  I was just wondering whether you were coming the the EGS meeting
>>>>in Nice next week, in order for us to exchange some ideas about
>>>>how to proceed for FP6. Recent rumors says that the palaeoclimate
>>>>variablity item is in the books for the third call, and that the
>>>>call will be issued by the turn of the year, thus we should start
>>>>discussing how to proceed. So far my DOCC initiative is dormant,
>>>>and I am more inclined to develop or take part in developing an
>>>>IP if the call for proposals allow for one. But the size of these
>>>>IPs seems to be diminishing, hence a careful focussing needs to
>>>>be undertaken in order for there to be resources for the science
>>>>teams. I would be happy to discuss idea with you on this in Nice
>>>>or sometime else if you´re not there.
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>Eystein
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Eystein Jansen
>>>>prof/director
>>>>Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research
>>>>Allégaten 55, N5007 Bergen, Norway
>>>>tel: +4755583491/secr:+4755589803/fax:+4755584330
>>>>eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no, www.bjerknes.uib.no
>>>
>>>--
>>>Professor Keith Briffa,
>>>Climatic Research Unit
>>>University of East Anglia
>>>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>>
>>>Phone: +44-1603-593909
>>>Fax: +44-1603-507784
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Eystein Jansen
>>prof/director
>>Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research
>>Allégaten 55, N5007 Bergen, Norway
>>tel: +4755583491/secr:+4755589803/fax:+4755584330
>>eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no, www.bjerknes.uib.no
>
>--
>Professor Keith Briffa,
>Climatic Research Unit
>University of East Anglia
>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>
>Phone: +44-1603-593909
>Fax: +44-1603-507784
>
>
--
______________________________________________________________
Eystein Jansen
Professor/Director
Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and
Dep. of Geology, Univ. of Bergen
Allégaten 55
N-5007 Bergen
NORWAY
e-mail: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no
Phone:	+47-55-583491  -  Home: +47-55-910661
Fax: 	+47-55-584330
-----------------------
The Bjerknes Training site offers 3-12 months fellowships to PhD students
More info at: www.bjerknes.uib.no/mcts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear Rick, Keith and Eystein,
It is certainly good news that FP6 will have a climate change and paleo
related call.  My personal feeling is that whatever paleo proposal(s)
eventually do go in that it would be a good thing to specifically include
the PAGES office in Bern as a participant in the network. This would, I
believe, help the network by providing an international context and the many
PAGES resources for outreach within Europe, and inclusion of non-europeans.
On the other side of the coin, PAGES is currently seeking to broaden our
support base beyond USA and Switzerland and participation in an EU framework
proposal would be an ideal way to do this, given the strong representation
of European scientists within the PAGES community. If, however, you have
reason to believe that explicit inclusion of the PAGES office in the list of
partner organizations would reduce the chance of success of such a proposal,
then of course don't do it. Basically, I would much appreciate being kept in
the loop with your plans and am happy to participate, and offer the help of
PAGES, in any way I that you deem useful.
Keith
on 07/04/2003 08:08 PM, Rick Battarbee at r.battarbee@geog.ucl.ac.uk wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> We have just come to the end of a very rewarding and successful HOLIVAR
> training course here with a very good bunch of young scientists from across
> Europe all involved in some aspect of  high resolution Holocene change and
> embracing climate modelling, and climate reconstruction both from marine
> and continental records.  We shall be putting details on the HOLIVAR
> website soon.  (I should also say that Andy Lotter's workshop in April on
> age modelling was also very successful, and details are now on the web)
>
> I will produce a more detailed report on HOLIVAR activities and plans for
> the future shortly, and there should be plenty to discuss at our next
> Steering Committee meeting on October 3rd (please check your diaries -
> Innsbruck October 3rd).
>
> The main reason for writing, however, is to alert you to the probability of
> a call for proposals on climate change by the EU in FP6 for 2004, and the
> need for us to begin thinking again about an integrated project based on
> HOLIVAR.  If you remember Keith Briffa submitted on behalf of the HOLIVAR
> community an Expression of Interest called HOLCLIM that found much favour
> at the time with the EU.  Although I have not spoken at length with Keith
> about this I'm sure he is keen to see a project based on HOLCLIM taken
> forwards.
>
> Whilst we can not be sure of the detailed wording of the call I think it is
> nevertheless not too soon to begin designing the project  It would be very
> useful to have your thoughts on how to proceed so that we can prepare a
> document for discussion on October 3rd.  One issue is the potential overlap
> with DOCC.  Eystein, what is your view on this?  I'm sure there will be
> only one "palaeo" project funded and therefore if we simply followed the
> original intentions, HOLCLIM and DOCC would be in competition.  And putting
> the two together would be difficult, HOLCLIM is an IP, and DOCC a NoE and
> the research community potentially involved would be huge, especially in
> relation to the budget which may be no more than 10 million euros.
>
> Please let me have your views, and then I will get together with Keith and
> come up with some kind of proposed way forwards for the meeting in October.
>
> Best wishes to all,
>
> Rick
> Professor R.W. Battarbee
> Environmental Change Research Centre
> University College London
> 26 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AP, UK.
> Tel. +44 (0)20 7679 7582, Fax +44 (0)20 7679 7565
>
>
--
Keith Alverson
Executive Director
PAGES International Project Office
Bärenplatz 2, 3011 Bern, Switzerland

email: alverson@pages.unibe.ch
Tel (office): +41 31 312 31 33
Tel (direct): +41 31 312 31 54
Tel (cell): +41 79 705 65 36
Fax: +41 31 312 31 68


Dear Phil,
In June 2003, Climate Research published a paper by David Douglass et al. The
"et al." includes John Christy and Pat Michaels. Douglass et al. attempt to
debunk the paper that Tom and I published in JGR in 2001 ("Accounting for the
effects of volcanoes and ENSO in comparisons of modeled and observed temperature
trends"; JGR 106, 28033-28059). The Douglass et al. paper claims (and purports
to show) that collinearity between ENSO, volcanic, and solar predictor variables
is not a serious problem in studies attempting to estimate the effects of these
factors on MSU tropospheric temperatures. Their work has serious scientific
flaws - it confuses forcing and response, and ignores strong temporal
autcorrelation in the individual predictor variables, incorrectly assuming
independence of individual monthly means in the MSU 2LT data. In the Douglass et
al. view of the world, uncertainties in predictor variables, observations, etc.
are non-existent. The error bars on their estimated ENSO, volcano, and solar
regression coefficients are miniscule.
Over a year ago, Tom and I reviewed (for JGR) a paper by Douglass et al. that
was virtually identical to the version that has now appeared in Climate
Research. We rejected it. Prior to this, both Tom and I had engaged in a long
and frustrating dialogue with Douglass, in which we attempted to explain to him
that there are large uncertainties in the deconvolution of ENSO, volcano, and
solar signals in short MSU records. Douglass chose to ignore all of the comments
we made in this exchange, as he later ignored all of the comments we made in our
reviews of his rejected JGR paper.
Although the Douglass et al. Climate Research paper is largely a criticism of
our previously-published JGR paper, neither Tom nor I were asked to review the
paper for Climate Research. Nor were any other coauthors of the Santer et al.
JGR paper asked to review the Douglass et al. manuscript. I'm assuming that
Douglass specifically requested that neither Tom nor I should be allowed to act
as reviwers of his Climate Research paper. It would be interesting to see his
cover letter to the journal.
In the editorial that you forwarded, Dr. Kinne writes the following:
"If someone wishes to criticise a published paper s/he must present facts and
arguments and give criticised parties a chance to defend their position." The
irony here is that in our own experience, the "criticised parties" (i.e., Tom
and I) were NOT allowed to defend their positions.
Based on Kinne's editorial, I see little hope for more enlightened editorial
decision making at Climate Research. Tom, Richard Smith and I will eventually
publish a rebuttal to the Douglass et al. paper. We'll publish this rebuttal in
JGR - not in Climate Research.
With best regards,
Ben
======================================================================================
Phil Jones wrote:
>
>   Dear All,
>          Finally back in the UK after Asheville and IUGG.  Attached is an
> editorial from the
>   latest issue of climate research. I can only seem to save it this way.
> Seems like we are
>   now the bad guys.
>
>   Cheers
>   Phil
>
> At 07:51 04/07/03 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:
> >Mike (Mann),
> >I agree that Kinne seems like he could be a deFreitas clone. However, what
> >would be our legal position if we were to openly and extensively tell
> >people to avoid the journal?
> >Tom.
> >__________________________________
> >
> >Michael E. Mann wrote:
> >>Thanks Mike
> >>It seems to me that this "Kinne" character's words are disingenuous, and
> >>he probably supports what De Freitas is trying to do. It seems clear we
> >>have to go above him.
> >>I think that the community should, as Mike H has previously suggested in
> >>this eventuality,  terminate its involvement with this journal at all
> >>levels--reviewing, editing, and submitting, and leave it to wither way
> >>into oblivion and disrepute,
> >>Thanks,
> >>mike
> >>At 01:00 PM 7/3/2003 +0100, Mike Hulme wrote:
> >>
> >>>Phil, Tom, Mike,
> >>>
> >>>So, this would seem to be the end of the matter as far as Climate
> >>>Research is concerned.
> >>>
> >>>Mike
> >>>
> >>>>To
> >>>>CLIMATE RESEARCH
> >>>>Editors and Review Editors
> >>>>
> >>>>Dear colleagues,
> >>>>
> >>>>In my  20.06. email to you I stated, among other things, that I would
> >>>>ask CR editor Chris de Freitas to present to me copies of the
> >>>>reviewers' evaluations for the 2 Soon et al. papers.
> >>>>
> >>>>I have received and studied the material requested.
> >>>>
> >>>>Conclusions:
> >>>>
> >>>>1) The reviewers consulted (4 for each ms) by the editor presented
> >>>>detailed, critical and helpful evaluations
> >>>>
> >>>>2) The editor properly analyzed the evaluations and requested
> >>>>appropriate revisions.
> >>>>
> >>>>3) The authors revised their manuscripts accordingly.
> >>>>
> >>>>Summary:
> >>>>
> >>>>Chris de Freitas has done a good and correct job as editor.
> >>>>
> >>>>Best wishes,
> >>>>Otto Kinne
> >>>>Director, Inter-Research
> >>>>--
> >>>>-------------------------------------------------
> >>>>Inter-Research, Science Publisher
> >>>>Ecology Institute
> >>>>Nordbuente 23,
> >>>>D-21385 Oldendorf/Luhe,
> >>>>Germany
> >>>>Tel: (+49) (4132) 7127     Email: ir@int-res.com
> >>>>Fax: (+49) (4132) 8883
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Inter-Research - Publisher of Scientific Journals and Book Series:
> >>>>
> >>>>- Marine Ecology Progress Series (MEPS)
> >>>>- Aquatic Microbial Ecology (AME)
> >>>>- Diseases of Aquatic Organisms (DA0)
> >>>>- Climate Research (CR)
> >>>>- Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics (ESEP)
> >>>>- Excellence in Ecology
> >>>>- Top Books
> >>>>- EEIU Brochures
> >>>>
> >>>>YOU ARE INVITED TO VISIT OUR WEB SITES:  www.int-res.com
> >>>>
and  www.eeiu.org
> >>>>
> >>>>-------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>______________________________________________________________
> >>                     Professor Michael E. Mann
> >>            Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
> >>                       University of Virginia
> >>                      Charlottesville, VA 22903
> >>_______________________________________________________________________
> >>e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
> >>
> >
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>              Name: CR.txt
>    CR.txt    Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
>          Encoding: quoted-printable
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCMDI HAS MOVED TO A NEW BUILDING. NOTE CHANGE OF MAIL 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) 422-7638
FAX:   (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hi Tom,
I'm not sure what format to try if ASCII doesn't work for you.  I've attached the same ones
again, in case it was just some random reason that corrupted the files.  If this doesn't
work, then please suggest a format I should try.
The name I have is Yamal not Yarnal.  Yamal is coastwards (northward) of the "Polar Urals"
and is at a lower elevation than the Polar Urals record.  The latitude/longitude I have for
it is:
67.5 N, 70 E
Hope that helps
Tim
At 21:40 07/07/2003, you wrote:
Hi Tim, thanks for sending the data - unfortunately I cannot open it, can you send it in
some other format?  tom
ps  what is the location of the Yarnal site?
Hi Tom
Sorry for not replying sooner - its been a hectic week (or two)!
The new Mann and Jones 2000-year series I don't actually have.  It appears in Figure 1
of our EOS piece, of course, but Scott Rutherford generated that figure.  I generated
Figure 2 for EOS and that has the Yamal, Tornetrask, western US and western Greenland
O18 stack in it.  So I have these data and they are attached in the following files.
western US and western Greenland are in file "mann12prox.dat".  I didn't have time to
extract just these two series from the full file, so the file contains 11 others series
too.  Please do *not* use the others because I'm not sure whether I am free to
distribute them or not - I just haven't time to extract the 2 you want.  I'm sure I can
trust you not to use anything that I shouldn't have sent! The top of the file lists the
13 series and the start/end years. These are in the same order as the 13 columns of data
that then follow (the first column is simply year AD).  So you should be able to find
"westgrpfisher.dat" and "wustrees.dat".
The other files are "tornad.rcs" and "yamal.rcs" which are RCS-standardised tree-ring
width series.  I would really strongly suggest that you contact Keith Briffa about
exactly what these series are and what the primary reference to them should be.  The
reason is that there are multiple version of Tornetrask and Yamal series and the
differences are certainly not insignificant!
I'm not sure what the "units" of any of these series are, so I would suggest you
normalise them in some way or do your own calibration.
Hope that helps
Cheers
Tim
At 16:28 30/06/2003, you wrote:
Tim, would it be possible to obtain the time series listed below, plus the west
Greenland composite? (see below).
tom
X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
X-Sender: f028@pop.uea.ac.uk
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 08:10:57 +0100
To: Tom Crowley
From: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Climate Research
Cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter, Duke University ([1]
Tom,
I'm off tomorrow to NCDC and then onto IUGG, so away 3 weeks in all. I've asked Tim,
who's cc'd on this reply to send you what he can.
You also said sometime ago, you would send your new long series and your latest NH
average. Can you do this sometime?  Mike and I are making progress on RoG. When we
get back we will be working on the figures. I realise you may want to add something
once
Tim sends you the series, so if I (and Mike) can get something by July 10 that would be
great.
We will be sending whole or part drafts of the RoG piece around - we have most of
the text,
but we need the figures for people to look at as well. So you might get a draft in
September.
Have a good few weeks.
Cheers
Phil
At 12:33 19/06/03 -0400, you wrote:
Phil,
would it be possible to obtain the Yamal, Tornetrask, and w. U.S. series you illustrate
in the eos article?  I too am putting together a slightly different long composite and
would like to include these records.
would it also be possible to obtain the 2000 year northern hemisphere series?  is that
30-90N summer?  whatever, we have extended our forcing time series back to before 1 AD
and would like to compare with some longer data.
thanks and regards, Tom
Dear All,
Keith and I have discussed the email below.  I don't want to start a discussion of
it and I
don't want you sending it around to anyone else, but it serves as a warning as to where
the debate might go should the EOS piece come out.
I think it might help Tom (W) if you are still going to write a direct response to
CR. Some of
de Freitas' views are interesting/novel/off the wall to say the least. I am glad that
he doesn't
consider himself a paleoclimatologist - the statement about the LIA having the lowest
temperatures since the LGM. The paleo people he's talked to didn't seem to mention the
YD,
8.2K or the 4.2/3K events - only the Holocene Optimum.  There are also some snipes at
CRU and our funding, but we're ignoring these here. Also Mike comes in for some stick,
so stay
cool Mike - you're a married man now !
So let's keep this amongst ourselves .
I have learned one thing. This is that the reviewer who said they were too busy was
Ray.
I have been saying this to loads of papers recently (something Tom(w) can vouch for).
It is
clear from the differences between CR and the ERE piece that the other 4 reviewers did
not say much, so a negative review was likely to be partly ignored, and the article
would still
have come out. I say this as this might come out if things get nasty.
De Freitas will not say to Hans von Storch or to Clare Goodess who the 4 reviewers
were. I
believe his paleoclimatologist is likely to be Anthony Fowler, who does dendro at
Auckland.
Cheers
Phil
X-Sender: f037@pop.uea.ac.uk
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 09:29:22 +0100
To: c.goodess@uea,phil Jones
From: Mike Hulme
Subject: Fwd: Re: Climate Research
Clare, Phil,
Since Clare and CRU are named in it, you may be interested in Chris de Freitas' reply to
the publisher re. my letter to Otto Kinne.  I am not responding to this, but await a
reply from Kinne himself.
Mike
From: "Chris de Freitas"
To: Inter-Research Science Publisher
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:45:56 +1200
Subject: Re: Climate Research
Reply-to: c.defreitas@auckland.ac.nz
CC: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Otto (and copied to Mike Hulme)
I have spent a considerable amount of my time on this matter and had
my integrity attacked in the process. I want to emphasize that the
people leading this attack are hardly impartial observers. Mike
himself refers to "politics" and political incitement involved. Both
Hulme and Goodess are from the Climate Research Unit of UEA that is
not particularly well known for impartial views on the climate change
debate.  The CRU has a large stake in climate change research funding
as I understand it pays the salaries of most of its staff.  I
understand too the journalist David Appell was leaked information to
fuel a public attack. I do not know the source
Mike Hulme refers to the number of papers I have processed for CR
that "have been authored by scientists who are well known for their
opposition to the notion that humans are significantly altering
global climate." How many can he say he has processed? I suspect the
answer is nil. Does this mean he is biased towards scientists "who
are well known for their support for the notion that humans are
significantly altering global climate?
Mike Hulme quite clearly has an axe or two to grind, and, it seems, a
political agenda. But attacks on me of this sort challenge my
professional integrity, not only as a CR editor, but also as an
academic and scientist. Mike Hulme should know that I have never
accepted any research money for climate change research, none from
any "side" or lobby or interest group or government or industry. So I
have no pipers to pay.
This matter has gone too far. The critics show a lack of moral
imagination. And the Cramer affair is dragged up over an over again.
People quickly forget that Cramer (like Hulme and Goodess now) was
attacking Larry Kalkstein and me for approving manuscripts, in
Hulme's words,  "authored by scientists who are well known for their
opposition to the notion that humans are significantly altering
global climate."
I would like to remind those who continually drag up the Cramer
affair that Cramer himself was not unequivocal in his condemnation of
Balling et al's manuscript (the one Cramer refereed and now says I
should have not had published - and what started all this off). In
fact, he did not even recommend that it be rejected. He stated in his
review: "My review of the manuscript is mainly with the conclusions
of the work. For technical assessment, I do not myself have
sufficient experience with time series analysis of the kind presented
by the authors." He goes on to recommend: "revise and resubmit for
additional review". This is exactly what I did; but I did not send it
back to him after resubmission for the very reason that he himself
confessed to ignorance about the analytical method used.
Am I to trundle all this out over and over again because of criticism
from a lobbyist scientists who are, paraphrasing Hulme, "well known
for their support for the notion that humans are significantly
altering global climate".
The criticisms of Soon and Baliunas (2003) CR article raised by Mike
Hume in his 16 June 2003 email to you was not raised by the any of
the four referees I used (but is curiously similar to points raided
by David Appell!). Keep in mind that referees used were selected in
consultation with a paleoclimatologist. Five referees were selected
based on the guidance I received. All are reputable
paleoclimatologists, respected for their expertise in reconstruction
of past climates. None (none at all) were from what Hans and Clare
have referred to as "the other side" or what Hulme refers to as
people well known for their opposition to the notion that humans are
significantly altering global climate." One of the five referees
turned down the request to review explaining he was busy and would
not have the time. The remaining four referees sent their detailed
comments to me. None suggested the manuscript should be rejected. S&B
were asked to respond to referees comments and make extensive
alterations accordingly. This was done.
I am no paleoclimatolgist, far from it, but have collected opinions
from other paleoclimatologists on the S&B paper. I summarise them
here. What I take from the S&B paper is an attempt to assess climate
data lost from sight in the Mann proxies. For example, the raising on
lowering of glacier equilibrium lines was the origin of the Little
Ice Age as a concept and still seems to be a highly important proxy,
even if a little difficult to precisely quantify.
Using a much larger number of "proxy" indicators than Mann did, S&B
inquired whether there was a globally detectable 50-year period of
unusual cold in the LIA and a similarly warm era in the MWP. Further,
they asked if these indicators, in general, would indicate that any
similar period in the 20th century was warmer than any other era.
S&B did not purport to do independent interpretation of climate time
series, either through 50-year filters or otherwise. They merely
adopt the conclusions of the cited authors and make a scorecard. It
seems pretty evident to me that temperatures in the LIA were the
lowest since the LGM. There are lots of peer-reviewed paleo-articles
which assert the existence of LIA.
Frankly, I have difficulty understanding this particular quibble.
Some sort of averaging is necessary to establish the 'slower' trends,
and that sort of averaging is used by every single study - they
average to bring out the item of their interest. A million year
average would do little to enlighten, as would detailed daily
readings. The period must be chosen to eliminate as much of the
'noise' as possible without degrading the longer-term signals
significantly.
As I read the S&B paper, it was a relatively arbitrary choice - and
why shouldn't it be? It was only chosen to suppress spurious signals
and expose the slower drift that is inherent in nature. Anyone that
has seen curves of the last 2 million years must recognize that an
averaging of some sort has taken place. It is not often, however,
that the quibble is about the choice of numbers of years, or the
exact methodology - those are chosen simply to expose 'supposedly'
useful data which is otherwise hidden from view.
Let me ask Mike this question. Can he give an example of any dataset
where the S&B characterization of the source author is incorrect? (I
am not vouching for them , merely asking.)
S&B say that they rely on the original characterizations, not that
they are making their own; I don't see a problem a priori on relying
on characterizations of others or, in the present circumstances, of
presenting a literature review. While S&B is a literature review, so
is this section of IPCC TAR, except that the S&B review is more
thorough.
The Mann et al multi-proxy reconstruction of past temperatures has
many problems and these have been well documented by S&B and others.
My reading of the IPCC TAR leads me to the conclusion that Mann et al
has been used as the basis for a number of assertions: 1. Over the
past millennium (at least for the NH) the temperature has not varied
significantly (except for the European/North Atlantic sector) and
hence the climate system has little internal variability. This
statement is supported by an analysis of model behaviour, which also
shows little internal variability in climate models. 2. Recent global
warming, as inferred from instrument records, is large and unusual in
the context of the Mann et al temperature reconstruction from multi-
proxies. 3. Because of the previous limited variability and the
recent warming that cannot be explained by known natural forcing
(volcanic activity and solar insolation changes) human activity is
the likely cause of the recent global change.
In this context, IPCC mounts a powerful case. But the case rests on
two main foundations; the past climate has shown little variability
and the climate models reflect the internal variability of the
climate system. If either or both are shown to be weak or fallacious
then the IPCC case is weakened or fails.
S&B have examined the premise that the globally integrated
temperature has hardly varied over the past millennium prior to the
instrumental record. I agree it is not rocket science that they have
performed. They have looked at the evidence provided by researchers
to see if the trend of the temperature record of the European/North
Atlantic sector (which is not disputed by IPCC) is reflected in
individual records from other parts of the globe (Their three
questions). How objective is their assessment? From a purely
statistical viewpoint the work can be criticised. But if you took a
purely statistical approach you probably would not have sufficient
data to reach an unambiguous conclusion, or you could try statistical
fiddles to combine the data and end up with erroneous results under
the guise of statistical significance. S&B have looked at the data
and reached the conclusion that probably the temperature record from
other parts of the globe follows the same pattern as that of the
European/North Atlantic sector. Of the individual proxy records that
I have seen I would agree that this is the case. I certainly have not
found significant regions of the NH that were cold during the
medieval period and warm during the Little Ice Age period that are
necessary offsets of the European/North Atlantic sector necessary to
reach a hemispherically flat pattern as derived by Mann et al.
S&B have put forward sufficient evidence to challenge the Mann et al
analysis outcome and seriously weaken the IPCC assertions based on
Mann et al. Paleo reconstruction of temperatures and the global
pattern over the past millennium and longer remains a fertile field
for research. It suggests that the climate system is such that a
major temporal variation as is universally recognised for the
European/North Atlantic region would be reflected globally and S&B
have given support to this view.
It is my belief that the S&B work is a sincere endeavour to find out
whether MWP and LIA were worldwide phenomena. The historical evidence
beyond tree ring widths is convincing in my opinion. The concept of
"Little Ice Age" is certainly used practically by all Holocene paleo-
climatologists, who work on oblivious to Mann's "disproof" of its
existence.
Paleoclimatologists tell me that, for debating purposes, they are
more inclined to draw attention to the Holocene Optimum (about 6000
BP) as an undisputed example of climate about 1-2 deg C warmer than
at present, and to ponder the entry and exit from the Younger Dryas
as an example of abrupt climate change, than to get too excited about
the Medieval Warm Period, which seems a very attenuated version.
However, the Little Ice Age seems valid enough as a paleoclimatic
concept. North American geologists repeatedly assert that the 19th
century was the coldest century in North America since the LGM. To
that extent, showing temperature increase since then is not unlike a
mutual fund salesmen showing expected rate of return from a market
bottom - not precisely false, but rather in the realm of sleight-of-
hand.
Regards
Chris
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Thomas J. Crowley
Nicholas Professor of Earth Systems Science
Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences
Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences
Box 90227
103  Old Chem Building Duke University
Durham, NC  27708
tcrowley@duke.edu
919-681-8228
919-684-5833  fax
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Thomas J. Crowley
Nicholas Professor of Earth Systems Science
Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences
Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences
Box 90227
103  Old Chem Building Duke University
Durham, NC  27708
tcrowley@duke.edu
919-681-8228
919-684-5833  fax
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="mann12prox.dat"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="mann12prox.dat"
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:mann12prox.dat (????/----) (0001B5B5)
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="yamal.rcs"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="yamal.rcs"
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:yamal.rcs (????/----) (0001B5B6)
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="tornad.rcs"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="tornad.rcs"
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:tornad.rcs (????/----) (0001B5B7)
Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
phone:    +44 1603 592089
fax:      +44 1603 507784
web:      [2]~timo/
sunclock: [3]~timo/sunclock.htm
--
Thomas J. Crowley
Nicholas Professor of Earth Systems Science
Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences
Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences
Box 90227
103  Old Chem Building Duke University
Durham, NC  27708
tcrowley@duke.edu
919-681-8228
919-684-5833  fax
References
1.
2. ~timo/
3. ~timo/sunclock.htm


Hi Keith,
Thanks for the paper and help in toning down Mike's efforts to put a
stake in the Esper heart. I quickly read the paragraph you mention.
Undoubtedly part of what is said is true, but it doesn't explain it
all of the differences between the original MBH reconstruction and
any of the other NH recons. Now that Mike has moved on to a totally
new NH recon, I suppose all of this is a mute point. However, your
Blowing Hot and Cold piece clearly showed that the MBH estimates were
undoubtedly deficient in low-frequency variability compared to ANY
other recon. Enough said. I need to enjoy myself.
Cheers,
Ed
>Ed
>Thought you should see this (in confidence) . Have succeeded in
>getting reasonable citation to your work and much toning down of
>criticism of Esper et al in first draft  ( see last paragraph before
>Section C) . Cheers
>Keith
>
>P.S.  Do not ask me why Ray, Malcolm and Phil are on this cause I
>don't know - work cam out of stuff Tim did with Scott when visiting
>there last year.
>
>>Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:51:09 -0400
>>Subject: revised NH comparison manuscript
>>Cc: Mike Mann
>>To: Malcolm Hughes
,
>>    Raymond Bradley
, Tim Osborn
,
>>    Keith Briffa
, Phil Jones
>>From: Scott Rutherford
>>X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552)
>>
>>
>>
>>Attached to this e-mail is a revision of the northern hemisphere
>>comparison manuscript. First some general comments. I tried as best
>>as possible to incorporate everyone's suggestions. Typically this
>>meant adding/deleting or clarifying text. There were cases where we
>>disagreed with the suggested changes and tried to clarify in the
>>text why.
>>
>>In this next round of changes I encourage everyone to make specific
>>suggestions in terms of wording and references (e.g. Rutherford et
>>al. GRL 1967 instead of "see my GRL paper").  I also encourage
>>everyone to make suggestions directly in the file in coloured text
>>or by using Microsquish Word's "Track Changes" function (this will
>>save me deciphering cryptic penmanship; although I confess, my
>>writing is worse than anyone's). If you would prefer to use the
>>editing functions in Adobe Acrobat let me know and I will send a
>>PDF file. If you still feel strongly that I have not adequately
>>addressed an issue please say so.
>>I will incorporate the suggestions from this upcoming round into a
>>manuscript to be submitted. After review, everyone will get a crack
>>at it again.
>>
>>I will not detail every change made (if anyone wants the file with
>>the changes tracked I can send it).  Here are the major changes:
>>
>>1) removal of mixed-hybrid approach and revised discussions/figures
>>2) removal of CE scores from the verification tables
>>3) downscaling of the Esper comparison to a single figure panel and
>>one paragraph.
>>4) revised discussion of spatial maps and revised figure (figure 8).
>>5) seasonal comparisons have been revised
>>
>>Several suggestions have been made for where to submit. These are
>>listed on page 1 of the manuscript. Please indicate your preference
>>ASAP and I will tally the votes.
>>
>>I would like to submit by late July, so if you could please get me
>>comments by say July 15 that would be great. I will send out a
>>reminder in early July.  If I don't hear from you by July 15 I will
>>assume that you are comfortable with the manuscript.
>>
>>Please let me know if you have difficulty with the file or would
>>prefer a different format.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Scott
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>______________________________________________
>>                       Scott Rutherford
>>
>>Marine Research Scientist
>>Graduate School of Oceanography
>>University of Rhode Island
>>e-mail: srutherford@gso.uri.edu
>>phone: (401) 874-6599
>>fax: (401) 874-6811
>>snail mail:
>>South Ferry Road
>>Narragansett, RI 02882
>
>--
>Professor Keith Briffa,
>Climatic Research Unit
>University of East Anglia
>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>
>Phone: +44-1603-593909
>Fax: +44-1603-507784
>
>
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:nhcomparison_v7_1.doc (WDBN/MSWD)
>(0008AC53)
--
==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Doherty Senior Scholar and
Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Palisades, New York 10964  USA
Email:	drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu
Phone:	845-365-8618
Fax:	845-365-8152
==================================


Dear fellow Eos co-authors,
Given the continued assault on the science of climate change by some on Capitol Hill,
Michael and I thought it would be worthwhile to send this letter to various members of the
U.S. Senate, accompanied by a copy of our Eos article.
Can we ask you to consider signing on with Michael and me (providing your preferred title
and affiliation). We would like to get this out ASAP.
Thanks in advance,
Michael M and Michael O
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[1]
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\EOS.senate letter-final.doc"
References
1.


Hi all - I'm not too comfortable with this, and would rather not sign - at least not
without some real time to think it through and debate the issue. It is unprecedented and
political, and that worries me.
My vote would be that we don't do this without a careful discussion first.
I think it would be more appropriate for the AGU or some other scientific org to do this -
e.g., in reaffirmation of the AGU statement (or whatever it's called) on global climate
change.
Think about the next step - someone sends another letter to the Senators, then we respond,
then...
I'm not sure we want to go down this path. It would be much better for the AGU etc to do
it.
What are the precedents and outcomes of similar actions? I can imagine a special-interest
org or group doing this like all sorts of other political actions, but is it something for
scientists to do as individuals?
Just seems strange, and for that reason I'd advise against doing anything with out real
thought, and certainly a strong majority of co-authors in support.
Cheers, Peck
Dear fellow Eos co-authors,
Given the continued assault on the science of climate change by some on Capitol Hill,
Michael and I thought it would be worthwhile to send this letter to various members of
the U.S. Senate, accompanied by a copy of our Eos article.
Can we ask you to consider signing on with Michael and me (providing your preferred
title and affiliation). We would like to get this out ASAP.
Thanks in advance,
Michael M and Michael O
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137

Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:EOS.senate letter-final.doc (WDBN/MSWD) (00055FCF)
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
fax: +1 520 792-8795


Folks,
Here are some thoughts about the Soon issue, partly arising from talking
to Ben.
What is worrying is the way this BS paper has been hyped by various
groups. The publicity has meant that the work has entered the
conciousness of people in Congress, and is given prominence in some
publications emanating from that sector. The work appears to have the
imprimateur of Harvard, which gives it added credibility.
So, what can we as a community do about this? My concerns are two-fold,
and I think these echo all of our concerns. The first is the fact that
the papers are simply bad science and the conclusions are incorrect. The
second is that the work is being used quite openly for political purposes.
As scientists, even though we are aware of the second issue, we need to
concentrate on exposing the scientific flaws. We also need to do this in
as authoritative a way as possible. I do not think it is enough to speak
as individuals or even as a group of recognized experts. Even as a
group, we will not be seen as having the 'power' of the Harvard stamp of
approval.
What I think is necessary is to have the expressed support of both AGU
and AMS. It would also be useful to have Harvard disassociate themselves
from the work. Most importantly, however, we need the NAS to come into
the picture. With these 4 institutions, together with us (and others) as
experts, pointing out clearly that the work is scientific rubbish, we
can certainly win this battle.
I suggest that we try to get NAS to set up a committee to (best option)
assess the science in the two BS papers, or (less good, but still
potentially very useful) assess the general issue of the paleo record
for global- or hemispheric-scale temperature changes over the past 1000
years. The second option seems more likely to be acceptable to NAS. This
is arguably an issue of similar importance to the issue of climate
sensitivity uncertainties which NAS reviewed earlier this year (report
still in preparation).
I am not sure how to fold AGU and AMS into this -- ideas are welcome.
Similarly, perhaps some of you know some influential Harvard types
better than I do and can make some suggestions here.
The only way to counter this crap is to use the biggest guns we can
muster. The Administration and Congress still seem to respect the NAS
(even above IPCC) as a final authority, so I think we should actively
pursue this path.
Best wishes,
Tom.
Michael Oppenheimer wrote:
> Dear All:
>
> Since several of you are uncomfortable, it makes good sense to step back and
> think about a more considered approach.  My view is that scientists are fully
> justified in taking the initiative to explain their own work and its relevance in
> the policy arena. If they don't, others with less scruples will be heard
> instead.  But each of us needs to decide his or her own comfort zone.
>
> In this case, the AGU press release provides suitable context, so it may be that
> neither a separate letter nor another AGU statement would add much at this time.
> But this episode is unlikely to be the last case where clarity from individuals
> or groups of scientists will be important.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> Tom Wigley wrote:
>
>
>>Folks,
>>
>>I am inclined to agree with Peck. Perhaps a little more thought and time
>>could lead to something with much more impact?
>>
>>Tom.
>>_____________________________
>>
>>Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>
>>>Hi all - I'm not too comfortable with this, and would rather not sign -
>>>at least not without some real time to think it through and debate the
>>>issue. It is unprecedented and political, and that worries me.
>>>
>>>My vote would be that we don't do this without a careful discussion first.
>>>
>>>I think it would be more appropriate for the AGU or some other
>>>scientific org to do this - e.g., in reaffirmation of the AGU statement
>>>(or whatever it's called) on global climate change.
>>>
>>>Think about the next step - someone sends another letter to the
>>>Senators, then we respond, then...
>>>
>>>I'm not sure we want to go down this path. It would be much better for
>>>the AGU etc to do it.
>>>
>>>What are the precedents and outcomes of similar actions? I can imagine a
>>>special-interest org or group doing this like all sorts of other
>>>political actions, but is it something for scientists to do as individuals?
>>>
>>>Just seems strange, and for that reason I'd advise against doing
>>>anything with out real thought, and certainly a strong majority of
>>>co-authors in support.
>>>
>>>Cheers, Peck
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dear fellow Eos co-authors,
>>>>
>>>>Given the continued assault on the science of climate change by some
>>>>on Capitol Hill, Michael and I thought it would be worthwhile to send
>>>>this letter to various members of the U.S. Senate, accompanied by a
>>>>copy of our Eos article.
>>>>
>>>>Can we ask you to consider signing on with Michael and me (providing
>>>>your preferred title and affiliation). We would like to get this out ASAP.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks in advance,
>>>>
>>>>Michael M and Michael O
>>>
>>>>______________________________________________________________
>>>>                    Professor Michael E. Mann
>>>>           Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
>>>>                      University of Virginia
>>>>                     Charlottesville, VA 22903
>>>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>>>e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
>>>>
>>>
>>>>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:EOS.senate letter-final.doc
>>>>(WDBN/MSWD) (00055FCF)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>Jonathan T. Overpeck
>>>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
>>>Professor, Department of Geosciences
>>>
>>>Mail and Fedex Address:
>>>
>>>Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
>>>715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
>>>University of Arizona
>>>Tucson, AZ 85721
>>>direct tel: +1 520 622-9065
>>>fax: +1 520 792-8795
>>>
>>>
>>


Tim,
Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks
back to:
AD 1000
AD 1400
AD 1600
I can't find the one for the network back to 1820! But basically, you'll see that the
residuals are pretty red for the first 2 cases, and then not significantly red for the 3rd
case--its even a bit better for the AD 1700 and 1820 cases, but I can't seem to dig them
up. In any case, the incremental changes are modest after 1600--its pretty clear that key
predictors drop out before AD 1600, hence the redness of the residuals, and the notably
larger uncertainties farther back...
You only want to look at the first column (year) and second column (residual) of the files.
I can't even remember what the other columns are!
Let me know if that helps. Thanks,
mike
p.s. I know I probably don't need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on
this, I'm providing these for your own personal use, since you're a trusted colleague. So
please don't pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of
"dirty laundry" one doesn't want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try
to distort things...
At 02:58 PM 7/31/2003 +0100, you wrote:
Thanks for the explanation, Mike.  Now I see it, it looks familiar - so perhaps you've
explained it to me previously (if you have, then sorry for asking twice!).
I now understand how you compute them in theory.  I have two further questions though
(sorry):
(1) how do you compute them in practise?  Do you actually integrate the spectrum of the
residuals?
(2) how would I estimate an uncertainty for a particular band of time scales (e.g.
decadal to secular, f=0.0 to 0.1)?  If integrating the spectrum of the residuals, I
wonder whether integrating from f=0 to f=0.02 and then f=0.02 to (e.g.) f=0.1 (note this
last limit has changed) would give me the right error for time scales of 10 years and
longer (i.e. for a 10-yr low pass filter)?  The way I had planned to do this was to
assume the residuals could be modelled as a first order autoregressive process, with
lag-1 autocorrelation r1=0.0 after 1600 (essentially white) and r1=??? before 1600.  Do
you know what the lag-1 autocorrelation of the residuals is for the network that goes
back to 1000 AD?
The stuff back 2000 years will be interesting, though the GCM runs we're starting to
look at go back only 500 (Hadley Centre) or 1000 (German groups), so MBH99 seems fine
for now.
Cheers
Tim
At 14:28 31/07/2003, you wrote:
Tim,
The one-sigma *total* uncertainty is determined from adding the low f and high f
components of uncertainty in quadrature. The low f and high f uncertainties aren't
uncertainties for a particular (e.g. 30 year or 40-year) running mean,they are band
integrated estimates of uncertainties (high-frequency band from f=0 to f=0.02,
low-frequency band from f=0.02 to f=0.5 cycle/year) taking into account the spectrum of
the residual variance (the broadband or "white noise" mean of which is the nominal
variance of the calibration residuals)
Alternatively, one could calculate uncertainties for a particular timescale average
using the standard deviation of the calibration residuals, and applying a square-root-N'
argument (where N' is the effective degrees of freedom in the calibration residuals). I
believed I did this at one point, and got similar results.
Let me know if this needs further clarification. Thanks,
mike
p.s. you might want to try to using Mann and Jones N. Hem if you're going back further
than AD 1000? Crowley has some EBM results now back to 0 AD, and is in the process of
comparing w/  that. SHould be interesting...
At 02:04 PM 7/31/2003 +0100, you wrote:
Hi Mike,
we've recently been making plans with Simon Tett at the Hadley Centre for comparing
model simulations with various climate reconstructions, including the MBH98 and MBH99
Northern Hemisphere temperatures.  I was stressing the importance of including
uncertainty estimates in the comparison and that the error estimates should depend on
the timescale (e.g. smoothing filter or running mean) that had been applied.
I then looked at the file that I have been using for the uncertainties associated with
MBH99 (see attachment), which I must have got from you some time ago.  Column 1 is year,
2 is the "raw" standard error, 3 is 2*SE.
But what are columns 4 and 5?  I've been plotting column 4, labelled "1 sig (lowf)" when
plotted your smoothed reconstruction, assuming that this is the error appropriate to
low-pass filtered data.  I'd also assumed that the last column "1 sig (highf)" was
appropriate to high-pass filtered data.  I also noticed that the sum of the squared high
and low errors equalled the square of the raw error, which is nice.
But I've realised that I don't understand how you estimate these errors, nor what time
scale the lowf and highf cutoff uses (maybe 40-year smoothed as in the IPCC plots?).
From MBH99 it sounds like post-1600 you assume uncorrelated gaussian calibration
residuals.  In which case you would expect the errors for a 40-year mean to be reduced
by sqrt(40).  This doesn't seem to match the values in the attached file.  Pre-1600 you
take into account that the residuals are autocorrelated (red noise rather than white),
so presumably the reduction is less than sqrt(40), but some factor (how do you compute
this?).
The reason for my questions is that I would like to (1) check whether I've been doing
the right thing in using column 4 of the attached file with your smoothed
reconstruction, and (2) I'd like to estimate the errors for a range of time scales, so I
can compare decadal means, 30-year means, 50-year means etc.
Thanks in advance for any help you can give me here.
Tim
Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
phone:    +44 1603 592089
fax:      +44 1603 507784
web:      [1]~timo/
sunclock: [2]~timo/sunclock.htm
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[3]
Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
phone:    +44 1603 592089
fax:      +44 1603 507784
web:      [4]~timo/
sunclock: [5]~timo/sunclock.htm
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
[6]
Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my
documents\eudora\attach\nh-ad1000-resid.dat" Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and
settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\nh-ad1400-resid.dat" Attachment Converted:
"c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\nh-ad1600-resid.dat"
References
1. ~timo/
2. ~timo/sunclock.htm
3.
4. ~timo/
5. ~timo/sunclock.htm
6.


Hi Mike,
we've recently been making plans with Simon Tett at the Hadley Centre for comparing model simulations with various climate reconstructions, including the MBH98 and MBH99 Northern Hemisphere temperatures.  I was stressing the importance of including uncertainty estimates in the comparison and that the error estimates should depend on the timescale (e.g. smoothing filter or running mean) that had been applied.
I then looked at the file that I have been using for the uncertainties associated with MBH99 (see attachment), which I must have got from you some time ago.  Column 1 is year, 2 is the "raw" standard error, 3 is 2*SE.
But what are columns 4 and 5?  I've been plotting column 4, labelled "1 sig (lowf)" when plotted your smoothed reconstruction, assuming that this is the error appropriate to low-pass filtered data.  I'd also assumed that the last column "1 sig (highf)" was appropriate to high-pass filtered data.  I also noticed that the sum of the squared high and low errors equalled the square of the raw error, which is nice.
But I've realised that I don't understand how you estimate these errors, nor what time scale the lowf and highf cutoff uses (maybe 40-year smoothed as in the IPCC plots?).  From MBH99 it sounds like post-1600 you assume uncorrelated gaussian calibration residuals.  In which case you would expect the errors for a 40-year mean to be reduced by sqrt(40).  This doesn't seem to match the values in the attached file.  Pre-1600 you take into account that the residuals are autocorrelated (red noise rather than white), so presumably the reduction is less than sqrt(40), but some factor (how do you compute this?).
The reason for my questions is that I would like to (1) check whether I've been doing the right thing in using column 4 of the attached file with your smoothed reconstruction, and (2) I'd like to estimate the errors for a range of time scales, so I can compare decadal means, 30-year means, 50-year means etc.
Thanks in advance for any help you can give me here.
Tim


Thanks very much for helping me out with this Mike.  Rest assured that the data won't be
passed on to anyone else.  I'll let you know if I use them to compute uncertainties at
different time scales.
Cheers
Tim
At 16:18 31/07/2003, you wrote:
Tim,
Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks
back to:
AD 1000
AD 1400
AD 1600
I can't find the one for the network back to 1820! But basically, you'll see that the
residuals are pretty red for the first 2 cases, and then not significantly red for the
3rd case--its even a bit better for the AD 1700 and 1820 cases, but I can't seem to dig
them up. In any case, the incremental changes are modest after 1600--its pretty clear
that key predictors drop out before AD 1600, hence the redness of the residuals, and the
notably larger uncertainties farther back...
You only want to look at the first column (year) and second column (residual) of the
files. I can't even remember what the other columns are!
Let me know if that helps. Thanks,
mike
p.s. I know I probably don't need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify
on this, I'm providing these for your own personal use, since you're a trusted
colleague. So please don't pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This
is the sort of "dirty laundry" one doesn't want to fall into the hands of those who
might potentially try to distort things...