The leads and lags are analyzed in detail in this paper
Trenberth, K. E., J. M. Caron, D. P. Stepaniak, and S. Worley 2002: [1]The evolution of
ENSO and global atmospheric surface temperatures J. Geophys. Res., 107, D8,
10.1029/2000JD000298.
and we were not able to reproduce Tom Wigley's result (we tried).  It may depend in indices
used.  In this paper we also document the extent to which ENSO contributes to warming
overall.
Kevin
Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
See below for instructions.
Also, just because IPCC (2007, Ch 3) didn't point out the 6/7-month lag
between the SOI and global temperatures doesn't mean it hasn't been
known for years. IPCC is an assessment and not a review of everything
done. If they had even read Wigley (2001) they would have seen this
lag pointed out.  I wasn't the first to do this in 1989 either. I don't
think Walker was either. I think the first was Hildebrandsson in the
1890s. Why does it always go back to a Swede!
file is at [2]ftp.cru.uea.ac.uk
login anonymously with emails as pw
then go to people/philjones
and you should find santeretal2001.pdf
Cheers
Phil
At 14:08 28/07/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
thanks Phil,
this is very helpful and reaffirms what we've identified as some of
the main points that need to be covered in a formal response. I've
taken the liberty of copying in a couple other colleagues who have
been looking into this. Grant Foster was the first author on a
response to a similarly bad paper by Schwartz that was published some
time ago, and has been doing a number of analyses aimed at
demonstrating the key problems in McClean et al.
I've suggested that Grant sent out a draft of the response when it is
ready to the broader group of people who have been included in these
exchanges for feedback and potential co-authorship,
mike
p.s. Santer et al paper still didn't come through in your followup
message. Can you post in on ftp where it can be downloaded?
On Jul 28, 2009, at 5:15 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Jim et al,
Having now read the paper in a moment of peace and quiet, there
are a few things
to bear in mind. The authors of the original will have a right of
reply, so need to
ensure that they don't have anything to come back on. From doing
the attached a
year or so ago, there is a word limit and also it is important to
concentrate only
on a few key points. As we all know there is so much wrong with the
paper, it
won't be difficult to come up with a few, but it does need to be
just two or three.
The three aspects I would emphasize are
1. The first difference type filtering. Para 14 implies that they
smooth the series
with a 12 month running mean, then subtract the value in Jan 1980
from that in
Jan 1979, then Feb 1980 from Feb 1979 and so on.  As we know this
removes
any long-term trend.
The running mean also probably distorts the phase, so this is
possibly why
they get different lags from others. Using running means also
enhances the
explained variance. Perhaps we should repeat the exercise without
the smoothing.
2. Figure 4 and Figure 1 show the unsmoothed GTTA series. These
clearly have a
trend. Perhaps show the residual after extracting the ENSO part.
3. They do the same first difference on the smoothed SOI. The SOI
doesn't explain
the climate jump in the 1976/77 period. Their arguments in para 30
are all wrong.
A few minor points
- there are some negative R*R values just after equation 3.
- I'm sure Tom Wigley wouldn't have proposed El Nino events
occurring after volcanoes!
Attached this paper as well. From a quick read it doesn't say
what is purported - in fact
it seems to show clearly how the analysis should have been done.
- there is a paper by Ben Santer (more recent) where he applies
the same type
of extraction procedure to models. I'll send this separately as it
is large. In case it
is too large here is the reference.
Santer, B.D., Wigley, T.M.L., Doutriaux, C., Boyle, J.S., Hansen,
J.E., Jones, P.D., Meehl, G.A., Roeckner, E., Sengupta, S. and
Taylor K.E., 2001:  Accounting for the effects of volcanoes and ENSO
in comparisons of modeled and observed temperature trends.  Journal
of Geophysical Research 106, 2803328059.
Finally I've attached a paper I wrote in 1990, where I did
something similar to
what they did. I looked at residuals from a Gaussian filter, and I
added
the smoothed data back afterwards. I was working at the annual
timescale
and I did have many more years.
Cheers
Phil
At 00:19 25/07/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Jim,
Grant Foster ('Tamino') did a nice job in a previous response
(attached) we wrote to a similarly bad article by Schwartz which
got a
lot of play in contrarian circles.
since he's already done some of the initial work in debunking this, I
sent him an email asking hi if we was interested in spearheading a
similar effort w/ this one.
let me get back to folks after I've heard back from him, and we can
discuss possible strategy for moving this forward,
mike
On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Kia orana All from the Tropical South Pacific
Yes, Phil, a bit like 'A midsummer night's dream!'. and Gavin
Tamino's bang up job is great, And good that you go up with stuff on
Real Climate, Mike. As Kevin is preoccupied, for the scientific
record we need a rebuttal somewhere pulled together. Who wants to
join in on the multiauthored effort?? I am happy to coordinate it.
Return to 'winter' this evening after enjoying a balmy south east
trades and sunny dry 24 C in the Cook Islands.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann [3]
:
folks, we're going to go up w/ something brief on RealClimate
later  today, mostly just linking to other useful deconstructions
of the  paper already up on other sites,
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
I am tied up next week, but could frame something up the
following  week which , I hope would be multi-authored. It would
be quite good  to have a rebuttal from the same Department at Uni
of Auckland  (which Glenn McGregor of IJC is director of)!
I haven't had tne oportunity to download the text here in the
Cook  Islands, so this would give me the opportunity to do that.
Who else  wants to join in??
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth [4]
:
I am on vacation today and don't have the time.  I have been on
travel the
past 4 weeks (including AR5 IPCC scoping mtg); the NCAR summer
Colloquium
is coming up in a week and then I am off to Oz and NZ for 3 weeks
(GEWEX/iLeaps, CEOP) and I have an oceanobs'09 plenary paper to
do.
Kevin
a formal comment to JGR seems like a worthwhile undertaking
here.
contrarians will continue to cite the paper regardless of
whether or
not its been rebutted, but for the purpose of future scientific
assessments, its important that this be formally rebutted in
the  peer-
reviewed literature.
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Hi All
Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to
write a
letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??....if
it is
not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their
position.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann [5]
:
2nd email
________
Thanks Kevin, hadn't even noticed that in my terse initial
skim of
it.  yes--that makes things even worse than my initial
impression.
this is a truly horrible paper. one wonders who the editor
was,
and  what he/she was thinking (or drinking),
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
I just looked briefly at the paper.  Their relationships use
derivatives
of the series.  Well derivatives are equivalent to a high
pass
filter,
that is to say it filters out all the low frequency
variability  and
trends.
If one takes y= A sin wt
and does a differentiation one gets
dy = Aw cos wt.
So the amplitude goes from A to Aw where w is the frequency
=  2*pi/
L  where
L is the period.
So the response to this procedure is to reduce periods of 10
years  by a
factor of 5 compared with periods of 2 years, or 20 and 50
years get
reduced by factors of 10 an 25 relative to two year periods.
i.e.  Their
procedure is designed to only analyse the interannual
variability
not the
trends.
Kevin
hi Seth, you always seem to catch me at airports. only got a
few
minutes. took a cursory look at the paper,  and it has all
the
worry
signs of extremely bad science and scholarship. JGR is a
legitimate
journal, but some extremely bad papers have slipped through
the
cracks
in recent years, and this is another one of them.
first of all, the authors use two deeply flawed datasets
that
understate the warming trends: the Christy and Spencer MSU
data and
uncorrected radiosonde temperature estimates. There were a
series
of
three key papers published in Science a few years ago, by
Mears
et  al,
Santer et al, and Sherwood et al.
see Gavin's excellent RealClimate article on this:
[6] tu- lt/
these papers collectively showed that both datasets were
deeply
flawed
and understate actual tropospheric temperature trends. I
find it
absolutely remarkable that this paper could get through a
serious
review w/out referencing any 3 of these critical papers--
papers
whose
findings render that conclusions of the current article
completely
invalid!
The Christy and Spencer MSU satellite-derived tropospheric
temperature
estimates contained two errors--a sign error and an
algebraic
error--
that had the net effect of artificially removing the
warming  trend.
Christy and Spencer continue to produce revised versions of
the MSU
dataset, but they always seem to show less warming than
every  other
independent assessment, and their estimates are largely
disregarded  by
serious assessments such as that done by the NAS and the
IPCC.
So these guys have taken biased estimates of tropospheric
temperatures
that have artificially too little warming trend, and then
shown,
quite
unremarkably, that El Nino dominates much of what is left
(the
interannual variability).
the paper has absolutely no implications that I can see at
all
for  the
role of natural variability on the observed warming trend
of  recent
decades.
other far more careful analyses (a paper by David Thompson
of  CSU,
Phil Jones, and others published in Nature more than  year
ago)
used
proper, widely-accepted surface temperature data to estimate
the
influence of natural factors (El Nino and volcanos) on the
surface
temperature record. their analysis was so careful and
clever  that
it
detected a post-world war II error in sea surface
temperature
measurements (that yields artificial cooling during the mid
1940s)
that had never before been discovered in the global surface
temperature record. needless to say, they removed that
error  too.
and
the correct record, removing influences of ENSO, volcanoes,
and
even
this newly detected error, reveal that a robust warming of
global  mean
surface temperature over the past century of a little less
than 1C
which has nothing to do w/ volcanic influences or ENSO
influences.  the
dominant source of the overall warming, as concluded in
every
legitimate  major scientific assessment, is anthropogenic
influences
(human greenhouse gas concentrations w/ some offsetting
cooling
due  to
sulphate aerosols).
this later paper provides absolutely nothing to cast that in
doubt.  it
uses a flawed set of surface temperature measurements for
which the
trend has been artificially suppressed, to show that whats
left
over
(interannual variability) is due to natural influences. duh!
its a joke! and the aptly named Mark "Morano" has fallen for
it!
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:
Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It's Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
Marc  Morano
is hyping wildly. It's in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
[7]sborenstein@ap.org
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,
Washington, DC
20005-4076
202-641-9454
The information contained in this communication is intended
for
the
use
of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of
this
communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified
that you have received this communication in error, and
that  any
review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is
strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error,
please
notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at
+1-212-621-1898
and delete this e-mail. Thank you.
[IP_US_DISC]
msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938
On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Precisely.
Mike Mann: You better rush something up on RealClimate. Jim,
Brett,  myself and maybe others will have to deal with the
local
fallout  this will cause...oh dear......
Bye the way June was the warmest month on record for the
oceans
according tro NOAA
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth [8]
:
Exactly
They use 2 datasets that are deficient in the first place
and
then  they
use derivatives: differentiation is a high pass filter,
and so
they  show
what we have long known that ENSO accounts for a lot of high
frequency
variability.  It should not have been published
Kevin
kia orana from Rarotonga
How the h... did this get accepted!!
Jim
Dominion today {24/7/09]
Nature blamed over warming - describing recently published
paper
in
JGR by Chris de Freitas, Bob Carter and J McLean, and
including
comment by J Salinger  "little new"
McLean J. D., C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter (2009),
Influence
of  the
Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J.
Geophys.
Res.,
114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.
paper at
[9]
--
Associate Professor Jim Salinger
School of Geography and Environmental Science
University of Auckland
Private Bag 92 019
Auckland, New Zealand
Tel: + 64 9 373 7599 ext 88473
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph 303 497 1318
[10]
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814)
863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814)
865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [11]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [12]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[13]
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814)
865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [14]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [15]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[16]
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph 303 497 1318
[17]
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814)
865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [18]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [19]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[20]
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814)
865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [21]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [22]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[23]
Hi Jim,
Grant Foster ('Tamino') did a nice job in a previous response
(attached) we wrote to a similarly bad article by Schwartz which
got a lot of play in contrarian circles.
since he's already done some of the initial work in debunking this,
I sent him an email asking hi if we was interested in spearheading
a similar effort w/ this one.
let me get back to folks after I've heard back from him, and we can
discuss possible strategy for moving this forward,
mike
On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Kia orana All from the Tropical South Pacific
Yes, Phil, a bit like 'A midsummer night's dream!'. and Gavin
Tamino's bang up job is great, And good that you go up with stuff
on Real Climate, Mike. As Kevin is preoccupied, for the scientific
record we need a rebuttal somewhere pulled together. Who wants to
join in on the multiauthored effort?? I am happy to coordinate it.
Return to 'winter' this evening after enjoying a balmy south east
trades and sunny dry 24 C in the Cook Islands.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann [24]
:
folks, we're going to go up w/ something brief on RealClimate
later  today, mostly just linking to other useful deconstructions
of the  paper already up on other sites,
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
I am tied up next week, but could frame something up the
following  week which , I hope would be multi-authored. It would
be quite good  to have a rebuttal from the same Department at
Uni of Auckland  (which Glenn McGregor of IJC is director of)!
I haven't had tne oportunity to download the text here in the
Cook  Islands, so this would give me the opportunity to do that.
Who else  wants to join in??
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth [25]
:
I am on vacation today and don't have the time.  I have been
on  travel the
past 4 weeks (including AR5 IPCC scoping mtg); the NCAR summer
Colloquium
is coming up in a week and then I am off to Oz and NZ for 3 weeks
(GEWEX/iLeaps, CEOP) and I have an oceanobs'09 plenary paper to
do.
Kevin
a formal comment to JGR seems like a worthwhile undertaking
here.
contrarians will continue to cite the paper regardless of
whether or
not its been rebutted, but for the purpose of future scientific
assessments, its important that this be formally rebutted in
the  peer-
reviewed literature.
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Hi All
Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to
write a
letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??....if
it is
not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their
position.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann [26]
:
2nd email
________
Thanks Kevin, hadn't even noticed that in my terse initial
skim of
it.  yes--that makes things even worse than my initial
impression.
this is a truly horrible paper. one wonders who the editor
was,
and  what he/she was thinking (or drinking),
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
I just looked briefly at the paper.  Their relationships use
derivatives
of the series.  Well derivatives are equivalent to a high
pass
filter,
that is to say it filters out all the low frequency
variability  and
trends.
If one takes y= A sin wt
and does a differentiation one gets
dy = Aw cos wt.
So the amplitude goes from A to Aw where w is the frequency
=  2*pi/
L  where
L is the period.
So the response to this procedure is to reduce periods of 10
years  by a
factor of 5 compared with periods of 2 years, or 20 and 50
years get
reduced by factors of 10 an 25 relative to two year periods.
i.e.  Their
procedure is designed to only analyse the interannual
variability
not the
trends.
Kevin
hi Seth, you always seem to catch me at airports. only got
a few
minutes. took a cursory look at the paper,  and it has all
the
worry
signs of extremely bad science and scholarship. JGR is a
legitimate
journal, but some extremely bad papers have slipped
through the
cracks
in recent years, and this is another one of them.
first of all, the authors use two deeply flawed datasets
that
understate the warming trends: the Christy and Spencer
MSU  data and
uncorrected radiosonde temperature estimates. There were
a  series
of
three key papers published in Science a few years ago, by
Mears
et  al,
Santer et al, and Sherwood et al.
see Gavin's excellent RealClimate article on this:
[27]
these papers collectively showed that both datasets were
deeply
flawed
and understate actual tropospheric temperature trends. I
find it
absolutely remarkable that this paper could get through a
serious
review w/out referencing any 3 of these critical papers-- papers
whose
findings render that conclusions of the current article
completely
invalid!
The Christy and Spencer MSU satellite-derived tropospheric
temperature
estimates contained two errors--a sign error and an
algebraic
error--
that had the net effect of artificially removing the
warming  trend.
Christy and Spencer continue to produce revised versions
of  the MSU
dataset, but they always seem to show less warming than
every  other
independent assessment, and their estimates are largely
disregarded  by
serious assessments such as that done by the NAS and the
IPCC.
So these guys have taken biased estimates of tropospheric
temperatures
that have artificially too little warming trend, and then
shown,
quite
unremarkably, that El Nino dominates much of what is left
(the
interannual variability).
the paper has absolutely no implications that I can see at
all
for  the
role of natural variability on the observed warming trend
of  recent
decades.
other far more careful analyses (a paper by David Thompson
of  CSU,
Phil Jones, and others published in Nature more than  year
ago)
used
proper, widely-accepted surface temperature data to
estimate the
influence of natural factors (El Nino and volcanos) on
the  surface
temperature record. their analysis was so careful and
clever  that
it
detected a post-world war II error in sea surface
temperature
measurements (that yields artificial cooling during the
mid  1940s)
that had never before been discovered in the global surface
temperature record. needless to say, they removed that
error  too.
and
the correct record, removing influences of ENSO,
volcanoes, and
even
this newly detected error, reveal that a robust warming of
global  mean
surface temperature over the past century of a little
less  than 1C
which has nothing to do w/ volcanic influences or ENSO
influences.  the
dominant source of the overall warming, as concluded in
every
legitimate  major scientific assessment, is anthropogenic
influences
(human greenhouse gas concentrations w/ some offsetting
cooling
due  to
sulphate aerosols).
this later paper provides absolutely nothing to cast that in
doubt.  it
uses a flawed set of surface temperature measurements for
which the
trend has been artificially suppressed, to show that whats
left
over
(interannual variability) is due to natural influences. duh!
its a joke! and the aptly named Mark "Morano" has fallen
for it!
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:
Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It's Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
Marc  Morano
is hyping wildly. It's in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
[28]sborenstein@ap.org
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,
Washington, DC
20005-4076
202-641-9454
The information contained in this communication is
intended for
the
use
of the designated recipients named above. If the reader
of this
communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified
that you have received this communication in error, and
that  any
review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is
strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error,
please
notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at
+1-212-621-1898
and delete this e-mail. Thank you.
[IP_US_DISC]
msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938
On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Precisely.
Mike Mann: You better rush something up on RealClimate. Jim,
Brett,  myself and maybe others will have to deal with the
local
fallout  this will cause...oh dear......
Bye the way June was the warmest month on record for the
oceans
according tro NOAA
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth [29]
:
Exactly
They use 2 datasets that are deficient in the first place
and
then  they
use derivatives: differentiation is a high pass filter,
and so
they  show
what we have long known that ENSO accounts for a lot of high
frequency
variability.  It should not have been published
Kevin
kia orana from Rarotonga
How the h... did this get accepted!!
Jim
Dominion today {24/7/09]
Nature blamed over warming - describing recently
published  paper
in
JGR by Chris de Freitas, Bob Carter and J McLean, and
including
comment by J Salinger  "little new"
McLean J. D., C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter (2009),
Influence
of  the
Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J.
Geophys.
Res.,
114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.
paper at
[30]
--
Associate Professor Jim Salinger
School of Geography and Environmental Science
University of Auckland
Private Bag 92 019
Auckland, New Zealand
Tel: + 64 9 373 7599 ext 88473
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph 303 497 1318
[31]
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814)
863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814)
865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [32]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [33]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[34]
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814)
865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [35]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [36]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[37]
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph 303 497 1318
[38]
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814)
865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [39]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [40]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[41]
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814)
865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [42]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [43]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[44]
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    [45]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [46]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [47]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[48]
thanks Phil,
this is very helpful and reaffirms what we've identified as some of the main points that
need to be covered in a formal response. I've taken the liberty of copying in a couple
other colleagues who have been looking into this. Grant Foster was the first author on a
response to a similarly bad paper by Schwartz that was published some time ago, and has
been doing a number of analyses aimed at demonstrating the key problems in McClean et
al.
I've suggested that Grant sent out a draft of the response when it is ready to the
broader group of people who have been included in these exchanges for feedback and
potential co-authorship,
mike
p.s. Santer et al paper still didn't come through in your followup message. Can you post
in on ftp where it can be downloaded?
On Jul 28, 2009, at 5:15 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Jim et al,
Having now read the paper in a moment of peace and quiet, there are a few things
to bear in mind. The authors of the original will have a right of reply, so need to
ensure that they don't have anything to come back on. From doing the attached a
year or so ago, there is a word limit and also it is important to concentrate only
on a few key points. As we all know there is so much wrong with the paper, it
won't be difficult to come up with a few, but it does need to be just two or three.
The three aspects I would emphasize are
1. The first difference type filtering. Para 14 implies that they smooth the series
with a 12 month running mean, then subtract the value in Jan 1980 from that in
Jan 1979, then Feb 1980 from Feb 1979 and so on.  As we know this removes
any long-term trend.
The running mean also probably distorts the phase, so this is possibly why
they get different lags from others. Using running means also enhances the
explained variance. Perhaps we should repeat the exercise without the smoothing.
2. Figure 4 and Figure 1 show the unsmoothed GTTA series. These clearly have a
trend. Perhaps show the residual after extracting the ENSO part.
3. They do the same first difference on the smoothed SOI. The SOI doesn't explain
the climate jump in the 1976/77 period. Their arguments in para 30 are all wrong.
A few minor points
- there are some negative R*R values just after equation 3.
- I'm sure Tom Wigley wouldn't have proposed El Nino events occurring after
volcanoes!
Attached this paper as well. From a quick read it doesn't say what is purported -
in fact
it seems to show clearly how the analysis should have been done.
- there is a paper by Ben Santer (more recent) where he applies the same type
of extraction procedure to models. I'll send this separately as it is large. In case it
is too large here is the reference.
Santer, B.D., Wigley, T.M.L., Doutriaux, C., Boyle, J.S., Hansen, J.E., Jones, P.D.,
Meehl, G.A., Roeckner, E., Sengupta, S. and Taylor K.E., 2001:  Accounting for the
effects of volcanoes and ENSO in comparisons of modeled and observed temperature
trends.  Journal of Geophysical Research 106, 28033-28059.
Finally I've attached a paper I wrote in 1990, where I did something similar to
what they did. I looked at residuals from a Gaussian filter, and I added
the smoothed data back afterwards. I was working at the annual timescale
and I did have many more years.
Cheers
Phil
At 00:19 25/07/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Jim,
Grant Foster ('Tamino') did a nice job in a previous response
(attached) we wrote to a similarly bad article by Schwartz which got a
lot of play in contrarian circles.
since he's already done some of the initial work in debunking this, I
sent him an email asking hi if we was interested in spearheading a
similar effort w/ this one.
let me get back to folks after I've heard back from him, and we can
discuss possible strategy for moving this forward,
mike
On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Kia orana All from the Tropical South Pacific
Yes, Phil, a bit like 'A midsummer night's dream!'. and Gavin
Tamino's bang up job is great, And good that you go up with stuff on
Real Climate, Mike. As Kevin is preoccupied, for the scientific
record we need a rebuttal somewhere pulled together. Who wants to
join in on the multiauthored effort?? I am happy to coordinate it.
Return to 'winter' this evening after enjoying a balmy south east
trades and sunny dry 24 C in the Cook Islands.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann
:
folks, we're going to go up w/ something brief on RealClimate
later  today, mostly just linking to other useful deconstructions
of the  paper already up on other sites,
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
I am tied up next week, but could frame something up the
following  week which , I hope would be multi-authored. It would
be quite good  to have a rebuttal from the same Department at Uni
of Auckland  (which Glenn McGregor of IJC is director of)!
I haven't had tne oportunity to download the text here in the
Cook  Islands, so this would give me the opportunity to do that.
Who else  wants to join in??
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth
:
I am on vacation today and don't have the time.  I have been on
travel the
past 4 weeks (including AR5 IPCC scoping mtg); the NCAR summer
Colloquium
is coming up in a week and then I am off to Oz and NZ for 3 weeks
(GEWEX/iLeaps, CEOP) and I have an oceanobs'09 plenary paper to do.
Kevin
a formal comment to JGR seems like a worthwhile undertaking here.
contrarians will continue to cite the paper regardless of
whether or
not its been rebutted, but for the purpose of future scientific
assessments, its important that this be formally rebutted in
the  peer-
reviewed literature.
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Hi All
Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to write a
letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??....if it is
not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their
position.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann
:
2nd email
________
Thanks Kevin, hadn't even noticed that in my terse initial
skim of
it.  yes--that makes things even worse than my initial
impression.
this is a truly horrible paper. one wonders who the editor was,
and  what he/she was thinking (or drinking),
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
I just looked briefly at the paper.  Their relationships use
derivatives
of the series.  Well derivatives are equivalent to a high pass
filter,
that is to say it filters out all the low frequency
variability  and
trends.
If one takes y= A sin wt
and does a differentiation one gets
dy = Aw cos wt.
So the amplitude goes from A to Aw where w is the frequency
=  2*pi/
L  where
L is the period.
So the response to this procedure is to reduce periods of 10
years  by a
factor of 5 compared with periods of 2 years, or 20 and 50
years get
reduced by factors of 10 an 25 relative to two year periods.
i.e.  Their
procedure is designed to only analyse the interannual
variability
not the
trends.
Kevin
hi Seth, you always seem to catch me at airports. only got a
few
minutes. took a cursory look at the paper,  and it has all the
worry
signs of extremely bad science and scholarship. JGR is a
legitimate
journal, but some extremely bad papers have slipped through
the
cracks
in recent years, and this is another one of them.
first of all, the authors use two deeply flawed datasets that
understate the warming trends: the Christy and Spencer MSU
data and
uncorrected radiosonde temperature estimates. There were a
series
of
three key papers published in Science a few years ago, by
Mears
et  al,
Santer et al, and Sherwood et al.
see Gavin's excellent RealClimate article on this:
[52] lt/
these papers collectively showed that both datasets were
deeply
flawed
and understate actual tropospheric temperature trends. I
find it
absolutely remarkable that this paper could get through a
serious
review w/out referencing any 3 of these critical papers-- papers
whose
findings render that conclusions of the current article
completely
invalid!
The Christy and Spencer MSU satellite-derived tropospheric
temperature
estimates contained two errors--a sign error and an algebraic
error--
that had the net effect of artificially removing the
warming  trend.
Christy and Spencer continue to produce revised versions of
the MSU
dataset, but they always seem to show less warming than
every  other
independent assessment, and their estimates are largely
disregarded  by
serious assessments such as that done by the NAS and the IPCC.
So these guys have taken biased estimates of tropospheric
temperatures
that have artificially too little warming trend, and then
shown,
quite
unremarkably, that El Nino dominates much of what is left (the
interannual variability).
the paper has absolutely no implications that I can see at all
for  the
role of natural variability on the observed warming trend
of  recent
decades.
other far more careful analyses (a paper by David Thompson
of  CSU,
Phil Jones, and others published in Nature more than  year
ago)
used
proper, widely-accepted surface temperature data to estimate
the
influence of natural factors (El Nino and volcanos) on the
surface
temperature record. their analysis was so careful and
clever  that
it
detected a post-world war II error in sea surface temperature
measurements (that yields artificial cooling during the mid
1940s)
that had never before been discovered in the global surface
temperature record. needless to say, they removed that
error  too.
and
the correct record, removing influences of ENSO, volcanoes,
and
even
this newly detected error, reveal that a robust warming of
global  mean
surface temperature over the past century of a little less
than 1C
which has nothing to do w/ volcanic influences or ENSO
influences.  the
dominant source of the overall warming, as concluded in every
legitimate  major scientific assessment, is anthropogenic
influences
(human greenhouse gas concentrations w/ some offsetting
cooling
due  to
sulphate aerosols).
this later paper provides absolutely nothing to cast that in
doubt.  it
uses a flawed set of surface temperature measurements for
which the
trend has been artificially suppressed, to show that whats
left
over
(interannual variability) is due to natural influences. duh!
its a joke! and the aptly named Mark "Morano" has fallen for
it!
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:
Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It's Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
Marc  Morano
is hyping wildly. It's in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
[53]sborenstein@ap.org
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,
Washington, DC
20005-4076
202-641-9454
The information contained in this communication is intended
for
the
use
of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of
this
communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified
that you have received this communication in error, and
that  any
review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is
strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please
notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at
+1-212-621-1898
and delete this e-mail. Thank you.
[IP_US_DISC]
msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938
On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Precisely.
Mike Mann: You better rush something up on RealClimate. Jim,
Brett,  myself and maybe others will have to deal with the
local
fallout  this will cause...oh dear......
Bye the way June was the warmest month on record for the oceans
according tro NOAA
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth
:
Exactly
They use 2 datasets that are deficient in the first place and
then  they
use derivatives: differentiation is a high pass filter, and so
they  show
what we have long known that ENSO accounts for a lot of high
frequency
variability.  It should not have been published
Kevin
kia orana from Rarotonga
How the h... did this get accepted!!
Jim
Dominion today {24/7/09]
Nature blamed over warming - describing recently published
paper
in
JGR by Chris de Freitas, Bob Carter and J McLean, and
including
comment by J Salinger  "little new"
McLean J. D., C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter (2009),
Influence
of  the
Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J. Geophys.
Res.,
114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.
paper at
[55]
--
Associate Professor Jim Salinger
School of Geography and Environmental Science
University of Auckland
Private Bag 92 019
Auckland, New Zealand
Tel: + 64 9 373 7599 ext 88473
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph 303 497 1318
[56]
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814)
865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [57]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [58]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[59]
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814)
865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [60]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [61]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[62]
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph 303 497 1318
[63]
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814)
865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [64]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [65]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[66]
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [67]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [68]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[69]
Hi Jim,
Grant Foster ('Tamino') did a nice job in a previous response (attached) we wrote to a
similarly bad article by Schwartz which got a lot of play in contrarian circles.
since he's already done some of the initial work in debunking this, I sent him an email
asking hi if we was interested in spearheading a similar effort w/ this one.
let me get back to folks after I've heard back from him, and we can discuss possible
strategy for moving this forward,
mike
On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Kia orana All from the Tropical South Pacific
Yes, Phil, a bit like 'A midsummer night's dream!'. and Gavin Tamino's bang up job is
great, And good that you go up with stuff on Real Climate, Mike. As Kevin is
preoccupied, for the scientific record we need a rebuttal somewhere pulled together. Who
wants to join in on the multiauthored effort?? I am happy to coordinate it.
Return to 'winter' this evening after enjoying a balmy south east trades and sunny dry
24 C in the Cook Islands.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann
:
folks, we're going to go up w/ something brief on RealClimate later  today, mostly just
linking to other useful deconstructions of the  paper already up on other sites,
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
I am tied up next week, but could frame something up the following  week which , I hope
would be multi-authored. It would be quite good  to have a rebuttal from the same
Department at Uni of Auckland  (which Glenn McGregor of IJC is director of)!
I haven't had tne oportunity to download the text here in the Cook  Islands, so this
would give me the opportunity to do that. Who else  wants to join in??
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth
:
I am on vacation today and don't have the time.  I have been on  travel the
past 4 weeks (including AR5 IPCC scoping mtg); the NCAR summer  Colloquium
is coming up in a week and then I am off to Oz and NZ for 3 weeks
(GEWEX/iLeaps, CEOP) and I have an oceanobs'09 plenary paper to do.
Kevin
a formal comment to JGR seems like a worthwhile undertaking here.
contrarians will continue to cite the paper regardless of whether or
not its been rebutted, but for the purpose of future scientific
assessments, its important that this be formally rebutted in the  peer-
reviewed literature.
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Hi All
Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to write a
letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??....if it is
not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their
position.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann
:
2nd email
________
Thanks Kevin, hadn't even noticed that in my terse initial skim of
it.  yes--that makes things even worse than my initial impression.
this is a truly horrible paper. one wonders who the editor was,
and  what he/she was thinking (or drinking),
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
I just looked briefly at the paper.  Their relationships use
derivatives
of the series.  Well derivatives are equivalent to a high pass
filter,
that is to say it filters out all the low frequency variability  and
trends.
If one takes y= A sin wt
and does a differentiation one gets
dy = Aw cos wt.
So the amplitude goes from A to Aw where w is the frequency =  2*pi/
L  where
L is the period.
So the response to this procedure is to reduce periods of 10
years  by a
factor of 5 compared with periods of 2 years, or 20 and 50  years get
reduced by factors of 10 an 25 relative to two year periods.
i.e.  Their
procedure is designed to only analyse the interannual variability
not the
trends.
Kevin
hi Seth, you always seem to catch me at airports. only got a few
minutes. took a cursory look at the paper,  and it has all the
worry
signs of extremely bad science and scholarship. JGR is a  legitimate
journal, but some extremely bad papers have slipped through the
cracks
in recent years, and this is another one of them.
first of all, the authors use two deeply flawed datasets that
understate the warming trends: the Christy and Spencer MSU  data and
uncorrected radiosonde temperature estimates. There were a  series
of
three key papers published in Science a few years ago, by Mears
et  al,
Santer et al, and Sherwood et al.
see Gavin's excellent RealClimate article on this:
[73]
these papers collectively showed that both datasets were deeply
flawed
and understate actual tropospheric temperature trends. I find it
absolutely remarkable that this paper could get through a  serious
review w/out referencing any 3 of these critical papers--papers
whose
findings render that conclusions of the current article  completely
invalid!
The Christy and Spencer MSU satellite-derived tropospheric
temperature
estimates contained two errors--a sign error and an algebraic
error--
that had the net effect of artificially removing the warming  trend.
Christy and Spencer continue to produce revised versions of  the MSU
dataset, but they always seem to show less warming than every  other
independent assessment, and their estimates are largely
disregarded  by
serious assessments such as that done by the NAS and the IPCC.
So these guys have taken biased estimates of tropospheric
temperatures
that have artificially too little warming trend, and then shown,
quite
unremarkably, that El Nino dominates much of what is left (the
interannual variability).
the paper has absolutely no implications that I can see at all
for  the
role of natural variability on the observed warming trend of  recent
decades.
other far more careful analyses (a paper by David Thompson of  CSU,
Phil Jones, and others published in Nature more than  year ago)
used
proper, widely-accepted surface temperature data to estimate the
influence of natural factors (El Nino and volcanos) on the  surface
temperature record. their analysis was so careful and clever  that
it
detected a post-world war II error in sea surface temperature
measurements (that yields artificial cooling during the mid  1940s)
that had never before been discovered in the global surface
temperature record. needless to say, they removed that error  too.
and
the correct record, removing influences of ENSO, volcanoes, and
even
this newly detected error, reveal that a robust warming of
global  mean
surface temperature over the past century of a little less  than 1C
which has nothing to do w/ volcanic influences or ENSO
influences.  the
dominant source of the overall warming, as concluded in every
legitimate  major scientific assessment, is anthropogenic
influences
(human greenhouse gas concentrations w/ some offsetting cooling
due  to
sulphate aerosols).
this later paper provides absolutely nothing to cast that in
doubt.  it
uses a flawed set of surface temperature measurements for  which the
trend has been artificially suppressed, to show that whats left
over
(interannual variability) is due to natural influences. duh!
its a joke! and the aptly named Mark "Morano" has fallen for it!
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:
Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It's Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that Marc  Morano
is hyping wildly. It's in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
[74]sborenstein@ap.org
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,  Washington, DC
20005-4076
202-641-9454
The information contained in this communication is intended for
the
use
of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of this
communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified
that you have received this communication in error, and that  any
review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please
notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at
+1-212-621-1898
and delete this e-mail. Thank you.
[IP_US_DISC]
msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938
On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Precisely.
Mike Mann: You better rush something up on RealClimate. Jim,
Brett,  myself and maybe others will have to deal with the local
fallout  this will cause...oh dear......
Bye the way June was the warmest month on record for the oceans
according tro NOAA
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth
:
Exactly
They use 2 datasets that are deficient in the first place and
then  they
use derivatives: differentiation is a high pass filter, and so
they  show
what we have long known that ENSO accounts for a lot of high
frequency
variability.  It should not have been published
Kevin
kia orana from Rarotonga
How the h... did this get accepted!!
Jim
Dominion today {24/7/09]
Nature blamed over warming - describing recently published  paper
in
JGR by Chris de Freitas, Bob Carter and J McLean, and including
comment by J Salinger  "little new"
McLean J. D., C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter (2009), Influence
of  the
Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J. Geophys.
Res.,
114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.
paper at
[76]
--
Associate Professor Jim Salinger
School of Geography and Environmental Science
University of Auckland
Private Bag 92 019
Auckland, New Zealand
Tel: + 64 9 373 7599 ext 88473
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging  Program.
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph 303 497 1318
[77]
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814)
865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [78]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [79]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[80]
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814)  865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [81]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [82]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[83]
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph 303 497 1318
[84]
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [85]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [86]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[87]
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [88]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [89]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[90]
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    [91]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [92]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [93]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[94]
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    [95]p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
****************
Kevin E. Trenberth                  e-mail: [96]trenbert@ucar.edu
Climate Analysis Section,           [97]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
NCAR
P. O. Box 3000,                     (303) 497 1318
Boulder, CO 80307                   (303) 497 1333 (fax)
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO  80305
References
1.
2. ftp://ftp.cru.uea.ac.uk/
3. mailto:mann@meteo.psu.edu
4. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
5. mailto:mann@meteo.psu.edu
6.
7. mailto:sborenstein@ap.org
8. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
9.
10.
11. mailto:mann@psu.edu
12.
13.
14. mailto:mann@psu.edu
15.
16.
17.
18. mailto:mann@psu.edu
19.
20.
21. mailto:mann@psu.edu
22.
23.
24. mailto:mann@meteo.psu.edu
25. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
26. mailto:mann@meteo.psu.edu
27.
28. mailto:sborenstein@ap.org
29. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
30.
31.
32. mailto:mann@psu.edu
33.
34.
35. mailto:mann@psu.edu
36.
37.
38.
39. mailto:mann@psu.edu
40.
41.
42. mailto:mann@psu.edu
43.
44.
45. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
46. mailto:mann@psu.edu
47.
48.
49. mailto:mann@meteo.psu.edu
50. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
51. mailto:mann@meteo.psu.edu
52.
53. mailto:sborenstein@ap.org
54. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
55.
56.
57. mailto:mann@psu.edu
58.
59.
60. mailto:mann@psu.edu
61.
62.
63.
64. mailto:mann@psu.edu
65.
66.
67. mailto:mann@psu.edu
68.
69.
70. mailto:mann@meteo.psu.edu
71. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
72. mailto:mann@meteo.psu.edu
73.
74. mailto:sborenstein@ap.org
75. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
76.
77.
78. mailto:mann@psu.edu
79.
80.
81. mailto:mann@psu.edu
82.
83.
84.
85. mailto:mann@psu.edu
86.
87.
88. mailto:mann@psu.edu
89.
90.
91. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
92. mailto:mann@psu.edu
93.
94.
95. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk
96. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
97.


Jim et al,
Having now read the paper in a moment of peace and quiet, there are a few things
to bear in mind. The authors of the original will have a right of reply, so need to
ensure that they don't have anything to come back on. From doing the attached a
year or so ago, there is a word limit and also it is important to concentrate only
on a few key points. As we all know there is so much wrong with the paper, it
won't be difficult to come up with a few, but it does need to be just two or three.
The three aspects I would emphasize are
1. The first difference type filtering. Para 14 implies that they smooth the series
with a 12 month running mean, then subtract the value in Jan 1980 from that in
Jan 1979, then Feb 1980 from Feb 1979 and so on.  As we know this removes
any long-term trend.
The running mean also probably distorts the phase, so this is possibly why
they get different lags from others. Using running means also enhances the
explained variance. Perhaps we should repeat the exercise without the smoothing.
2. Figure 4 and Figure 1 show the unsmoothed GTTA series. These clearly have a
trend. Perhaps show the residual after extracting the ENSO part.
3. They do the same first difference on the smoothed SOI. The SOI doesn't explain
the climate jump in the 1976/77 period. Their arguments in para 30 are all wrong.
A few minor points
- there are some negative R*R values just after equation 3.
- I'm sure Tom Wigley wouldn't have proposed El Nino events occurring after volcanoes!
Attached this paper as well. From a quick read it doesn't say what is purported - in
fact
it seems to show clearly how the analysis should have been done.
- there is a paper by Ben Santer (more recent) where he applies the same type
of extraction procedure to models. I'll send this separately as it is large. In case it
is too large here is the reference.
Santer, B.D., Wigley, T.M.L., Doutriaux, C., Boyle, J.S., Hansen, J.E., Jones, P.D.,
Meehl, G.A., Roeckner, E., Sengupta, S. and Taylor K.E., 2001:  Accounting for the effects
of volcanoes and ENSO in comparisons of modeled and observed temperature trends.  Journal
of Geophysical Research 106, 2803328059.
Finally I've attached a paper I wrote in 1990, where I did something similar to
what they did. I looked at residuals from a Gaussian filter, and I added
the smoothed data back afterwards. I was working at the annual timescale
and I did have many more years.
Cheers
Phil
At 00:19 25/07/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Jim,
Grant Foster ('Tamino') did a nice job in a previous response
(attached) we wrote to a similarly bad article by Schwartz which got a
lot of play in contrarian circles.
since he's already done some of the initial work in debunking this, I
sent him an email asking hi if we was interested in spearheading a
similar effort w/ this one.
let me get back to folks after I've heard back from him, and we can
discuss possible strategy for moving this forward,
mike
On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Kia orana All from the Tropical South Pacific
Yes, Phil, a bit like 'A midsummer night's dream!'. and Gavin
Tamino's bang up job is great, And good that you go up with stuff on
Real Climate, Mike. As Kevin is preoccupied, for the scientific
record we need a rebuttal somewhere pulled together. Who wants to
join in on the multiauthored effort?? I am happy to coordinate it.
Return to 'winter' this evening after enjoying a balmy south east
trades and sunny dry 24 C in the Cook Islands.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann
:
folks, we're going to go up w/ something brief on RealClimate
later  today, mostly just linking to other useful deconstructions
of the  paper already up on other sites,
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
I am tied up next week, but could frame something up the
following  week which , I hope would be multi-authored. It would
be quite good  to have a rebuttal from the same Department at Uni
of Auckland  (which Glenn McGregor of IJC is director of)!
I haven't had tne oportunity to download the text here in the
Cook  Islands, so this would give me the opportunity to do that.
Who else  wants to join in??
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth
:
I am on vacation today and don't have the time.  I have been on
travel the
past 4 weeks (including AR5 IPCC scoping mtg); the NCAR summer
Colloquium
is coming up in a week and then I am off to Oz and NZ for 3 weeks
(GEWEX/iLeaps, CEOP) and I have an oceanobs'09 plenary paper to do.
Kevin
a formal comment to JGR seems like a worthwhile undertaking here.
contrarians will continue to cite the paper regardless of
whether or
not its been rebutted, but for the purpose of future scientific
assessments, its important that this be formally rebutted in
the  peer-
reviewed literature.
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Hi All
Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to write a
letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??....if it is
not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their
position.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann
:
2nd email
________
Thanks Kevin, hadn't even noticed that in my terse initial
skim of
it.  yes--that makes things even worse than my initial
impression.
this is a truly horrible paper. one wonders who the editor was,
and  what he/she was thinking (or drinking),
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
I just looked briefly at the paper.  Their relationships use
derivatives
of the series.  Well derivatives are equivalent to a high pass
filter,
that is to say it filters out all the low frequency
variability  and
trends.
If one takes y= A sin wt
and does a differentiation one gets
dy = Aw cos wt.
So the amplitude goes from A to Aw where w is the frequency
=  2*pi/
L  where
L is the period.
So the response to this procedure is to reduce periods of 10
years  by a
factor of 5 compared with periods of 2 years, or 20 and 50
years get
reduced by factors of 10 an 25 relative to two year periods.
i.e.  Their
procedure is designed to only analyse the interannual
variability
not the
trends.
Kevin
hi Seth, you always seem to catch me at airports. only got a
few
minutes. took a cursory look at the paper,  and it has all the
worry
signs of extremely bad science and scholarship. JGR is a
legitimate
journal, but some extremely bad papers have slipped through
the
cracks
in recent years, and this is another one of them.
first of all, the authors use two deeply flawed datasets that
understate the warming trends: the Christy and Spencer MSU
data and
uncorrected radiosonde temperature estimates. There were a
series
of
three key papers published in Science a few years ago, by
Mears
et  al,
Santer et al, and Sherwood et al.
see Gavin's excellent RealClimate article on this:
[1] lt/
these papers collectively showed that both datasets were
deeply
flawed
and understate actual tropospheric temperature trends. I
find it
absolutely remarkable that this paper could get through a
serious
review w/out referencing any 3 of these critical papers-- papers
whose
findings render that conclusions of the current article
completely
invalid!
The Christy and Spencer MSU satellite-derived tropospheric
temperature
estimates contained two errors--a sign error and an algebraic
error--
that had the net effect of artificially removing the
warming  trend.
Christy and Spencer continue to produce revised versions of
the MSU
dataset, but they always seem to show less warming than
every  other
independent assessment, and their estimates are largely
disregarded  by
serious assessments such as that done by the NAS and the IPCC.
So these guys have taken biased estimates of tropospheric
temperatures
that have artificially too little warming trend, and then
shown,
quite
unremarkably, that El Nino dominates much of what is left (the
interannual variability).
the paper has absolutely no implications that I can see at all
for  the
role of natural variability on the observed warming trend
of  recent
decades.
other far more careful analyses (a paper by David Thompson
of  CSU,
Phil Jones, and others published in Nature more than  year
ago)
used
proper, widely-accepted surface temperature data to estimate
the
influence of natural factors (El Nino and volcanos) on the
surface
temperature record. their analysis was so careful and
clever  that
it
detected a post-world war II error in sea surface temperature
measurements (that yields artificial cooling during the mid
1940s)
that had never before been discovered in the global surface
temperature record. needless to say, they removed that
error  too.
and
the correct record, removing influences of ENSO, volcanoes,
and
even
this newly detected error, reveal that a robust warming of
global  mean
surface temperature over the past century of a little less
than 1C
which has nothing to do w/ volcanic influences or ENSO
influences.  the
dominant source of the overall warming, as concluded in every
legitimate  major scientific assessment, is anthropogenic
influences
(human greenhouse gas concentrations w/ some offsetting
cooling
due  to
sulphate aerosols).
this later paper provides absolutely nothing to cast that in
doubt.  it
uses a flawed set of surface temperature measurements for
which the
trend has been artificially suppressed, to show that whats
left
over
(interannual variability) is due to natural influences. duh!
its a joke! and the aptly named Mark "Morano" has fallen for
it!
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:
Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It's Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
Marc  Morano
is hyping wildly. It's in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
sborenstein@ap.org
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,
Washington, DC
20005-4076
202-641-9454
The information contained in this communication is intended
for
the
use
of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of
this
communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified
that you have received this communication in error, and
that  any
review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is
strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please
notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at
+1-212-621-1898
and delete this e-mail. Thank you.
[IP_US_DISC]
msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938
On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Precisely.
Mike Mann: You better rush something up on RealClimate. Jim,
Brett,  myself and maybe others will have to deal with the
local
fallout  this will cause...oh dear......
Bye the way June was the warmest month on record for the oceans
according tro NOAA
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth
:
Exactly
They use 2 datasets that are deficient in the first place and
then  they
use derivatives: differentiation is a high pass filter, and so
they  show
what we have long known that ENSO accounts for a lot of high
frequency
variability.  It should not have been published
Kevin
kia orana from Rarotonga
How the h... did this get accepted!!
Jim
Dominion today {24/7/09]
Nature blamed over warming - describing recently published
paper
in
JGR by Chris de Freitas, Bob Carter and J McLean, and
including
comment by J Salinger  "little new"
McLean J. D., C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter (2009),
Influence
of  the
Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J. Geophys.
Res.,
114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.
paper at
[2]
--
Associate Professor Jim Salinger
School of Geography and Environmental Science
University of Auckland
Private Bag 92 019
Auckland, New Zealand
Tel: + 64 9 373 7599 ext 88473
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph 303 497 1318
[3]
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814)
865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [4]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[5]
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814)
865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [6]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[7]
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph 303 497 1318
[8]
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814)
865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [9]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[10]
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [11]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[12]
Hi Jim,
Grant Foster ('Tamino') did a nice job in a previous response (attached) we wrote to a
similarly bad article by Schwartz which got a lot of play in contrarian circles.
since he's already done some of the initial work in debunking this, I sent him an email
asking hi if we was interested in spearheading a similar effort w/ this one.
let me get back to folks after I've heard back from him, and we can discuss possible
strategy for moving this forward,
mike
On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Kia orana All from the Tropical South Pacific
Yes, Phil, a bit like 'A midsummer night's dream!'. and Gavin Tamino's bang up job is
great, And good that you go up with stuff on Real Climate, Mike. As Kevin is
preoccupied, for the scientific record we need a rebuttal somewhere pulled together. Who
wants to join in on the multiauthored effort?? I am happy to coordinate it.
Return to 'winter' this evening after enjoying a balmy south east trades and sunny dry
24 C in the Cook Islands.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann
:
folks, we're going to go up w/ something brief on RealClimate later  today, mostly just
linking to other useful deconstructions of the  paper already up on other sites,
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
I am tied up next week, but could frame something up the following  week which , I hope
would be multi-authored. It would be quite good  to have a rebuttal from the same
Department at Uni of Auckland  (which Glenn McGregor of IJC is director of)!
I haven't had tne oportunity to download the text here in the Cook  Islands, so this
would give me the opportunity to do that. Who else  wants to join in??
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth
:
I am on vacation today and don't have the time.  I have been on  travel the
past 4 weeks (including AR5 IPCC scoping mtg); the NCAR summer  Colloquium
is coming up in a week and then I am off to Oz and NZ for 3 weeks
(GEWEX/iLeaps, CEOP) and I have an oceanobs'09 plenary paper to do.
Kevin
a formal comment to JGR seems like a worthwhile undertaking here.
contrarians will continue to cite the paper regardless of whether or
not its been rebutted, but for the purpose of future scientific
assessments, its important that this be formally rebutted in the  peer-
reviewed literature.
mike
On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Hi All
Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to write a
letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??....if it is
not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their
position.
Jim
Quoting Michael Mann
:
2nd email
________
Thanks Kevin, hadn't even noticed that in my terse initial skim of
it.  yes--that makes things even worse than my initial impression.
this is a truly horrible paper. one wonders who the editor was,
and  what he/she was thinking (or drinking),
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
I just looked briefly at the paper.  Their relationships use
derivatives
of the series.  Well derivatives are equivalent to a high pass
filter,
that is to say it filters out all the low frequency variability  and
trends.
If one takes y= A sin wt
and does a differentiation one gets
dy = Aw cos wt.
So the amplitude goes from A to Aw where w is the frequency =  2*pi/
L  where
L is the period.
So the response to this procedure is to reduce periods of 10
years  by a
factor of 5 compared with periods of 2 years, or 20 and 50  years get
reduced by factors of 10 an 25 relative to two year periods.
i.e.  Their
procedure is designed to only analyse the interannual variability
not the
trends.
Kevin
hi Seth, you always seem to catch me at airports. only got a few
minutes. took a cursory look at the paper,  and it has all the
worry
signs of extremely bad science and scholarship. JGR is a  legitimate
journal, but some extremely bad papers have slipped through the
cracks
in recent years, and this is another one of them.
first of all, the authors use two deeply flawed datasets that
understate the warming trends: the Christy and Spencer MSU  data and
uncorrected radiosonde temperature estimates. There were a  series
of
three key papers published in Science a few years ago, by Mears
et  al,
Santer et al, and Sherwood et al.
see Gavin's excellent RealClimate article on this:
[16]
these papers collectively showed that both datasets were deeply
flawed
and understate actual tropospheric temperature trends. I find it
absolutely remarkable that this paper could get through a  serious
review w/out referencing any 3 of these critical papers--papers
whose
findings render that conclusions of the current article  completely
invalid!
The Christy and Spencer MSU satellite-derived tropospheric
temperature
estimates contained two errors--a sign error and an algebraic
error--
that had the net effect of artificially removing the warming  trend.
Christy and Spencer continue to produce revised versions of  the MSU
dataset, but they always seem to show less warming than every  other
independent assessment, and their estimates are largely
disregarded  by
serious assessments such as that done by the NAS and the IPCC.
So these guys have taken biased estimates of tropospheric
temperatures
that have artificially too little warming trend, and then shown,
quite
unremarkably, that El Nino dominates much of what is left (the
interannual variability).
the paper has absolutely no implications that I can see at all
for  the
role of natural variability on the observed warming trend of  recent
decades.
other far more careful analyses (a paper by David Thompson of  CSU,
Phil Jones, and others published in Nature more than  year ago)
used
proper, widely-accepted surface temperature data to estimate the
influence of natural factors (El Nino and volcanos) on the  surface
temperature record. their analysis was so careful and clever  that
it
detected a post-world war II error in sea surface temperature
measurements (that yields artificial cooling during the mid  1940s)
that had never before been discovered in the global surface
temperature record. needless to say, they removed that error  too.
and
the correct record, removing influences of ENSO, volcanoes, and
even
this newly detected error, reveal that a robust warming of
global  mean
surface temperature over the past century of a little less  than 1C
which has nothing to do w/ volcanic influences or ENSO
influences.  the
dominant source of the overall warming, as concluded in every
legitimate  major scientific assessment, is anthropogenic
influences
(human greenhouse gas concentrations w/ some offsetting cooling
due  to
sulphate aerosols).
this later paper provides absolutely nothing to cast that in
doubt.  it
uses a flawed set of surface temperature measurements for  which the
trend has been artificially suppressed, to show that whats left
over
(interannual variability) is due to natural influences. duh!
its a joke! and the aptly named Mark "Morano" has fallen for it!
m
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:
Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It's Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that Marc  Morano
is hyping wildly. It's in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
[17]sborenstein@ap.org
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,  Washington, DC
20005-4076
202-641-9454
The information contained in this communication is intended for
the
use
of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of this
communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified
that you have received this communication in error, and that  any
review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please
notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at
+1-212-621-1898
and delete this e-mail. Thank you.
[IP_US_DISC]
msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938
On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Precisely.
Mike Mann: You better rush something up on RealClimate. Jim,
Brett,  myself and maybe others will have to deal with the local
fallout  this will cause...oh dear......
Bye the way June was the warmest month on record for the oceans
according tro NOAA
Jim
Quoting Kevin Trenberth
:
Exactly
They use 2 datasets that are deficient in the first place and
then  they
use derivatives: differentiation is a high pass filter, and so
they  show
what we have long known that ENSO accounts for a lot of high
frequency
variability.  It should not have been published
Kevin
kia orana from Rarotonga
How the h... did this get accepted!!
Jim
Dominion today {24/7/09]
Nature blamed over warming - describing recently published  paper
in
JGR by Chris de Freitas, Bob Carter and J McLean, and including
comment by J Salinger  "little new"
McLean J. D., C. R. de Freitas, R. M. Carter (2009), Influence
of  the
Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J. Geophys.
Res.,
114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.
paper at
[19]
--
Associate Professor Jim Salinger
School of Geography and Environmental Science
University of Auckland
Private Bag 92 019
Auckland, New Zealand
Tel: + 64 9 373 7599 ext 88473
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging  Program.
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph 303 497 1318
[20]
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814)
865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [21]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [22]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[23]
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814)  865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [24]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [25]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[26]
___________________
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307
ph 303 497 1318
[27]
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [28]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [29]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[30]
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [31]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [32]~mann/Mann/index.html
"Dire Predictions" book site:
[33]
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1.
2.
3.
4. ~mann/Mann/index.html
5.
6. ~mann/Mann/index.html
7.
8.
9. ~mann/Mann/index.html
10.
11. ~mann/Mann/index.html
12.
13. mailto:mann@meteo.psu.edu
14. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
15. mailto:mann@meteo.psu.edu
16.
17. mailto:sborenstein@ap.org
18. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu
19.
20.
21. mailto:mann@psu.edu
22. ~mann/Mann/index.html
23.
24. mailto:mann@psu.edu
25. ~mann/Mann/index.html
26.
27.
28. mailto:mann@psu.edu
29. ~mann/Mann/index.html
30.
31. mailto:mann@psu.edu
32. ~mann/Mann/index.html
33.