Dear Peck et al
Thanks for clearing this up. The bottom line is that the version of this paper on the UCAR
site is fine. Unfortunately though, the one we have on the IPCC WG1 web site is not!
I am attaching a copy of that for clarity. The metadata in this PDF file indicate that it
was created by Oyvind Paasche from a Word document in early March when we were asking the
chapter teams to provide copies of the unpublished literature. It seems that Oyvind worked
from an earlier and significantly shorter version  - less text, fewer tables and the
figures are different - as you can see in the attached. Although to repeat my earlier
statement the conclusions of this earlier draft do not appear to me to be substantially
different.
Based on what we now know, the TSU should add the NCAR version of the paper to our review
web site and we will do that today.
Thanks
Martin
At 07:58 AM 5/22/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
Thanks all who have commented. Below is the likely final word unless Martin needs more
clarification. Seem ok, Martin? Sorry for the confusion. Guess some reviewers are
running out of substantive issues, so that might be a sign that we're getting close to
the final draft...
Best, Peck
From Caspar:
Dear all, yes the UCAR version can be considered the "official" one. I changed the order
of pages because I needed to separate the "primary content" of the paper from its
"supplement"; thus I moved tables xS, figure 1S and its caption to the end. Everything
else is identical.
From Keith:
"the differences are as I understand , insubstantial and not pertinent to the
interpretation used in preparing the draft."
and Gene:
Wahl, Eugene R wrote:
Hello Peck, Martin, Bette, Eystein, Caspar:
I just double checked the UCAR website version with the pdf version I have, and they
are identical with the exception that the supplemental tables (Tables 1S and 2S), and
supplemental figure caption and figure (Figure 1S) are placed at the very end of the
document in the UCAR version.  The content is identical in both versions.
The text (including tables and figure captions) of the UCAR pdf is also identical to
the WORD text that I sent to Peck, Keith Briffa, and Eyestein Jansen on February 24.
There was a version sent on February 21, which the February 24 version superceded.
There were 3 words changed on p. 17, and some changes made to Appendix 1 in the February
24 version.  Perhaps this difference between the 2/21 and 2/24 versions is the cause of
the differences that Martin has seen.  [Note:  I would have sent the graphics separately
with these versions, and I did not keep copies of the sent files in my email account --
to deal with memory limits in the system here.  Thus, I cannot confirm exactly which
graphic files are associated with the February 24 version.  My apologies.]
In summary, the UCAR website pdf document should be considered the official one that is
"accepted/in press".  Formal notification of acceptance from Stephen Schneider at
Climatic Change came on February 28.  The article is still in this status.
Let me know if I can help clarify things futher.  Please note that I will be in Boulder
starting May 27, to be a visiting scholar at NCAR for a month.  I will be keeping up
with email from there.
Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl
Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies
Alfred University
607-871-2604
1 Saxon Drive
Alfred, NY 14802 ________________________________
From: Jonathan Overpeck [[1] mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu]
Sent: Sat 5/20/2006 8:39 PM
To: Martin Manning
Cc: Bette Otto-Bleisner; Eystein Jansen; Caspar Ammann; Wahl, Eugene R
Subject: Re: Wahl & Amman paper
Hi Martin - We'll look into this asap. I'll cc to Caspar and Gene to see if they can
clarify the situation and make sure we have the correct version. I'll also cc Bette
since she may see Caspar around NCAR and make sure he know's we are trying to clarify
things with his paper.
More soon, thx, Peck
Dear Eystein and Jonathan
It has been pointed out to us by a reviewer that the version of the Wahl and
Amman paper (accepted by Climatic Change) on our review web site differs from the
version that is available publicly from the NCAR web site at:
[
[2]
pdf
]
Although the differences are not (in my view) substantial, the paper on the NCAR
web site is apparently dated Feb 24th (i.e. before the date of final submission of the
SOD), it has additional figures and data, and the running header says "Feb 24, .... in
press".
Could you please clarify which of the two versions of this paper would reflect
most accurately the status of the paper as used by the Chapter 6 team when preparing the
SOD. That has been our basis for deciding on which version to include on our reviewer
web pages up until now, but we are now reconsidering whether to also include updated
versions of unpublished papers as well. If you have any thoughts on that please let me
know.
Best regards
Martin
--
Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov
** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address
Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit
NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory                        Phone: +1 303 497 4479
325 Broadway, DSRC R/CSD8         Fax: +1 303 497 5628
Boulder, CO 80305, USA
--
Caspar M. Ammann
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology
1850 Table Mesa Drive
Boulder, CO 80307-3000
email: ammann@ucar.edu    tel: 303-497-1705     fax: 303-497-1348
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
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
[4]
[5]
--
Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov
** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address
Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit
NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory                          Phone: +1 303 497 4479
325 Broadway, DSRC R/CSD8                Fax: +1 303 497 5628
Boulder, CO 80305, USA
Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my
documents\eudora\attach\Wahl_&_Ammann.pdf"
References
1. mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu
2.
3.
4.
5.


Hello all:
Yes, Martin, the paper you sent today is indeed an old version, and should be replaced by
the NCAR pdf version.
This old version sent today is actually older than the Feb 21 version I mentioned yesterday
(see below), and has no relevance in terms of the text that is accepted/in press with
Climatic Change as of February 28, 2006.
As I mentioned yesterday (see below), the text of the UCAR pdf is identical to the WORD
version I sent to Peck, Keith, and Eyestein on February 24.
Peace, Gene
*******************************
Dr. Eugene R. Wahl
Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies
Alfred University
___________________________________________________________________________________________
From: Wahl, Eugene R
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 6:49 PM
To: Wahl, Eugene R
Subject: Sent by Martin Manning -- Wahl & Amman paper --with old version
___________________________________________________________________________________________
From: Martin Manning
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 12:19 PM
To: Jonathan Overpeck; Caspar Ammann
Cc: Bette Otto-Bleisner; Eystein Jansen; Wahl, Eugene R; t.osborn@uea.ac.uk; Keith Briffa
Subject: Re: Wahl & Amman paper
Dear Peck et al
Thanks for clearing this up. The bottom line is that the version of this paper on the UCAR
site is fine. Unfortunately though, the one we have on the IPCC WG1 web site is not!
I am attaching a copy of that for clarity. The metadata in this PDF file indicate that it
was created by Oyvind Paasche from a Word document in early March when we were asking the
chapter teams to provide copies of the unpublished literature. It seems that Oyvind worked
from an earlier and significantly shorter version  - less text, fewer tables and the
figures are different - as you can see in the attached. Although to repeat my earlier
statement the conclusions of this earlier draft do not appear to me to be substantially
different.
Based on what we now know, the TSU should add the NCAR version of the paper to our review
web site and we will do that today.
Thanks
Martin
At 07:58 AM 5/22/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
Thanks all who have commented. Below is the likely final word unless Martin needs more
clarification. Seem ok, Martin? Sorry for the confusion. Guess some reviewers are running
out of substantive issues, so that might be a sign that we're getting close to the final
draft...
Best, Peck
>From Caspar:
Dear all, yes the UCAR version can be considered the "official" one. I changed the order of
pages because I needed to separate the "primary content" of the paper from its
"supplement"; thus I moved tables xS, figure 1S and its caption to the end. Everything else
is identical.
>From Keith:
"the differences are as I understand , insubstantial and not pertinent to the
interpretation used in preparing the draft."
and Gene:
Wahl, Eugene R wrote:
Hello Peck, Martin, Bette, Eystein, Caspar:
I just double checked the UCAR website version with the pdf version I have, and they are
identical with the exception that the supplemental tables (Tables 1S and 2S), and
supplemental figure caption and figure (Figure 1S) are placed at the very end of the
document in the UCAR version.  The content is identical in both versions.
The text (including tables and figure captions) of the UCAR pdf is also identical to the
WORD text that I sent to Peck, Keith Briffa, and Eyestein Jansen on February 24.  There was
a version sent on February 21, which the February 24 version superceded.  There were 3
words changed on p. 17, and some changes made to Appendix 1 in the February 24 version.
Perhaps this difference between the 2/21 and 2/24 versions is the cause of the differences
that Martin has seen.
[Note:  I would have sent the graphics separately with these versions, and I did not keep
copies of the sent files in my email account -- to deal with memory limits in the system
here.  Thus, I cannot confirm exactly which graphic files are associated with the February
24 version.  My apologies.]
In summary, the UCAR website pdf document should be considered the official one that is
"accepted/in press".  Formal notification of acceptance from Stephen Schneider at Climatic
Change came on February 28.  The article is still in this status.
Let me know if I can help clarify things futher.  Please note that I will be in Boulder
starting May 27, to be a visiting scholar at NCAR for a month.  I will be keeping up with
email from there.
Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl
Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies
Alfred University
607-871-2604
1 Saxon Drive
Alfred, NY 14802 ________________________________
From: Jonathan Overpeck [[1] mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu]
Sent: Sat 5/20/2006 8:39 PM
To: Martin Manning
Cc: Bette Otto-Bleisner; Eystein Jansen; Caspar Ammann; Wahl, Eugene R
Subject: Re: Wahl & Amman paper
Hi Martin - We'll look into this asap. I'll cc to Caspar and Gene to see if they can
clarify the situation and make sure we have the correct version. I'll also cc Bette since
she may see Caspar around NCAR and make sure he know's we are trying to clarify things with
his paper.
More soon, thx, Peck
Dear Eystein and Jonathan
It has been pointed out to us by a reviewer that the version of the Wahl and Amman
paper (accepted by Climatic Change) on our review web site differs from the version that is
available publicly from the NCAR web site at:
[
[2]
]
Although the differences are not (in my view) substantial, the paper on the NCAR
web site is apparently dated Feb 24th (i.e. before the date of final submission of the
SOD), it has additional figures and data, and the running header says "Feb 24, .... in
press".
Could you please clarify which of the two versions of this paper would reflect most
accurately the status of the paper as used by the Chapter 6 team when preparing the SOD.
That has been our basis for deciding on which version to include on our reviewer web pages
up until now, but we are now reconsidering whether to also include updated versions of
unpublished papers as well. If you have any thoughts on that please let me know.
Best regards
Martin
--
Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov
** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address
Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit
NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory                        Phone: +1 303 497 4479
325 Broadway, DSRC R/CSD8         Fax: +1 303 497 5628
Boulder, CO 80305, USA
--
Caspar M. Ammann
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology
1850 Table Mesa Drive
Boulder, CO 80307-3000
email: ammann@ucar.edu    tel: 303-497-1705     fax: 303-497-1348
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
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
[4]
[5]
--
Recommended Email address: mmanning@al.noaa.gov
** Please note that problems may occur with my @noaa.gov address
Dr Martin R Manning, Director, IPCC WG I Support Unit
NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory                          Phone: +1 303 497 4479
325 Broadway, DSRC R/CSD8                Fax: +1 303 497 5628
Boulder, CO 80305, USA
References
1. mailto:jto@u.arizona.edu
2.
3.
4.
5.


Hi Keith,
here is the submitted comment by Tapio Schneider, attached. Please do
not pass along or show to others. Thanks in advance,
mike
Keith Briffa wrote:
> Hi Mike
> thanks for these comments and especially thanks for your remarks on
> the effort of trying to produce a balanced picture of the current
> state of things in the IPCC Chapter 6. In fact , I know that it is
> already out of date and I am going to get particularly lambasted for
> not discussing problems with recent tree responses to warming and
> potential problems wit CO2 fertilization - I may have to add even more
> text yet .You are absolutely correct that we had unreasonable trouble
> from Susan , who was not as "hands off" as she might have been. I will
> certainly study your comments carefully - as I always do .  I would
> rather reserve comment on the Crowley reconstruction til I speak
> personally to you. I really hope that we can get an atmosphere of
> constructive discussion that , I believe, must include some discussion
> of the sceptics . Look forward to those drinks and some time away from
> the mad house of teaching/exam marking etc. See you soon
>
> best wishes
> Keith
>
> At 18:08 24/05/2006, you wrote:
>
>> Hi Keith,
>>
>> I wanted you to have an advance copy of the comments I'll be
>> submitting on the final draft of the AR4. I commend you for the
>> excellent work you've done and the tough battle I know you have had
>> to fight. I don't envy it, and you know the tough battles I've been
>> through.
>>
>> Confidentially,  I do have a number of specific concerns mostly in
>> the area of discussions of where things actually now stand in terms
>> of some of the earlier criticisms. I believe that the discussion is
>> still out of date, given what has been shown in recent publications,
>> including Wahl and Ammann (Science). Also, and I don't think this is
>> the only place you're going to hear this from, there are deep
>> problems w/ Hegerl et al '06, particularly the claims of what TLS can
>> do, which are egregiously incorrect.  There is a comment in review in
>> Nature (not me, but I can promise you, by someone who understands the
>> statistical issues involved better than anyone else in our community)
>> that is very critical.  I think its unwise for the TAR to
>> uncritically accept the claims made, particularly given that the
>> actual J. Climate paper was in limbo at least at the time the most
>> recent draft was finalized. I believe that disqualifies it for
>> consideration for AR4, no?
>>
>> Also, I think it is an absolute travesty that figure 6.10 isn't being
>> shown in the SPM. I think that is unforgiveable, and there should be
>> an effort to over-ride that decision (I would suspect that is Susan
>> Solomon's doing?),
>>
>> I hope we can discuss these things (and much else) over a few beers
>> in Switzerland. Looking forward to seeing you soon,
>>
>> mike
>>
>> --
>> Michael E. Mann
>> Associate 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
>>
>>

>>
>>
>
> --
> Professor Keith Briffa,
> Climatic Research Unit
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>
> Phone: +44-1603-593909
> Fax: +44-1603-507784
>
>
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate 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

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\hegerl06_comment.pdf"


Hi Mike
thanks for these comments and especially thanks for your remarks on the effort of trying to
produce a balanced picture of the current state of things in the IPCC Chapter 6. In fact ,
I know that it is already out of date and I am going to get particularly lambasted for not
discussing problems with recent tree responses to warming and potential problems wit CO2
fertilization - I may have to add even more text yet .You are absolutely correct that we
had unreasonable trouble from Susan , who was not as "hands off" as she might have been. I
will certainly study your comments carefully - as I always do .  I would rather reserve
comment on the Crowley reconstruction til I speak personally to you. I really hope that we
can get an atmosphere of constructive discussion that , I believe, must include some
discussion of the sceptics . Look forward to those drinks and some time away from the mad
house of teaching/exam marking etc. See you soon
best wishes
Keith
At 18:08 24/05/2006, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
I wanted you to have an advance copy of the comments I'll be submitting on the final
draft of the AR4. I commend you for the excellent work you've done and the tough battle
I know you have had to fight. I don't envy it, and you know the tough battles I've been
through.
Confidentially,  I do have a number of specific concerns mostly in the area of
discussions of where things actually now stand in terms of some of the earlier
criticisms. I believe that the discussion is still out of date, given what has been
shown in recent publications, including Wahl and Ammann (Science). Also, and I don't
think this is the only place you're going to hear this from, there are deep problems w/
Hegerl et al '06, particularly the claims of what TLS can do, which are egregiously
incorrect.  There is a comment in review in Nature (not me, but I can promise you, by
someone who understands the statistical issues involved better than anyone else in our
community) that is very critical.  I think its unwise for the TAR to uncritically accept
the claims made, particularly given that the actual J. Climate paper was in limbo at
least at the time the most recent draft was finalized. I believe that disqualifies it
for consideration for AR4, no?
Also, I think it is an absolute travesty that figure 6.10 isn't being shown in the SPM.
I think that is unforgiveable, and there should be an effort to over-ride that decision
(I would suspect that is Susan Solomon's doing?),
I hope we can discuss these things (and much else) over a few beers in Switzerland.
Looking forward to seeing you soon,
mike
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University      email:  [1]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
[2]
--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[3]
References
1. mailto:mann@psu.edu
2.
3.


Hi John - thanks. I'll cc to Keith and Tim too, and we'll be sure to discuss these in
Bergen. I'll be on my normal email to the extent we have time to be check email -
experience suggests it's tough. But... we'll try to keep an eye on email.
See you soon, best, peck
Hi Eystein, Jon,
I am in Geneva at the WMO EC meeting,so I have not had a lot of time to look at the SOD
comments. I can not get to Bergen before Tuesday. I had a quick look at the comments on
the hockey stick and include below the questions I think need to be addressed which I
hope will help the discussions.  I do tbelieve we need a clear answer to the skeptics .
I have also copied these comments to Jean. Please let me know that you have received
this, and what email address I can contact you at in Bergen¨.
With best wishes
John
1.      There needs to be a clear statement of why the instrumental and proxy data are
shown on the same graph. The issue of why we dont show the proxy data for the last few
decades ( they dont show continued warming) but assume that they are valid for early
warm periods needs to be explained.
2 . There are number of methodological issues which need a clear response. There are two
aspects to this. First , in relation to the TAR and MBA which seems to be the obsession
of certain reviewers. Secondly (and this I believe this is the main priority for us) in
relation to conclusions we make in the chapter We should make it clear where our
comments apply to only MBH (if that is appropriate) , and where they apply to the
overall findings of the chapter. Our response should consider all the issues for both
MBH and the overall chapter conclusions
a. The role of bristlecone pine data
Is it reliable?
Is it necessary to include this data to arrive at the conclusion that recent
warmth is unprecedented?
b. Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It
seems to me  that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no. It is not clear how
robust and significant the more recent approaches are.
3.      The chapter notes that new data has been included, but we dont say how much or
is this is substantial or minor. The impression I have that the amount added is minor,
but I cant tell.
4.      The Esper et al and Moburg et al data both show increased variance, but the
temporal patterns are quite different. We need to say why the discrepancy does not
undermine our conclusions of greater cooling in the Little Ice Age.
5.      I have not had time to check the original chapter, but the comments give the
impression that the recent 50 yr warming is unprecedented over the last 500years (seems
reasonable) and elsewhere over the last 1000years (less clear)
John FB Mitchell
13 De Vitre Green Wokingham
RG40 1SE
Tel 01189 782936
jfbmitchell@yahoo.co.uk
john.f.mitchell@metoffice.com
___________________________________________________________________________________
Like being first? Check out the [1]all-new Yahoo! Mail today.
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
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

References
1.


Hi Simon, Philip, Eduardo & Gerd (cc Keith),
I thought you might be interested in a brief report back from the recent Wengen meeting, specifically about how SO&P-funded work on pseudo-proxies was covered and related hockey-stick issues.
**Please don't circulate this further, because it is just my personal viewpoint**
Thanks for letting me show some of your material.  I skipped over some graphs I took from Philip's regression presentation at the SO&P meeting because Francis Zwiers covered forward/inverse/total least squares before me.  I did show some results from Eduardo, including pseudo-proxy results from Erik-II.  And I showed a figure from Gerd's "many flavours" pseudo-proxy paper.
The meeting included fairly intensive discussions about many issues, and this included some discussion of von Storch et al. (2004, 2006), Wahl et al. (2006), Mann et al. (2005), Burger and Cubasch (2005) and Burger et al. (2006).  Generally the discussion was quite open, with only a few disdainful remarks made about the work of people not there -- certainly not enough to distract from useful discussions.
In general, most people accepted that the MBH method could, in some situations, result in biased reconstructions with too little low-frequency.  I'm not sure how much Mike Mann accepted this, but it was reinforced by findings shown by Eugene Wahl that indicated some bias in their CSM pseudo-proxy studies, and particularly by Francis Zwiers who looked to have almost completely replicated the von Storch et al. results with respect to the MBH method (though he emphasised the preliminary nature of his work and he may not have implemented the MBH method correctly... we'll have to wait and see).
Mike showed many detailed psuedo-proxy tests of the RegEM method and these seemed quite convincing in showing little problem with that method... it does assume equal error in both instrumental and proxies, so it should show less bias than other methods that wrongly put all the error in the instrumental record (i.e., "typical" regression).
So... there was some confusion about how the MBH method can be biased but the RegEM not be biased (in pseudo-proxy tests) yet they give the same results for the real proxies.
Mike thought it might be the ECHO-G vs CSM differences, but I argued against this and was supported by Caspar Ammann and Eugene Wahl who did not think that the character of the model runs was a big factor in explaining different results.
There was limited discussion of trend/detrend and white/red noise pseudo-proxy issues.  Many seemed to think that if pseudo-proxy studies showed that detrending definitely caused a problem, then this was a reason not to detrend.  The alternative of finding a method that worked with detrended data was not really discussed.
The discussion was fairly constructive and for the most part friendly.  Eugene Wahl in particular seemed keen to "build bridges" within the community.
I should also mention two of the workshop outcomes.
The first is that a paper is being planned based on the things discussed at the workshop and covering many issues from proxy data, forcings, model simulations and reconstructions.  I hope that the authorship of this might be wider than just the participants of the workshop, but we will have to wait and see who else is asked to contribute.
The second is that we should set up a "climate reconstruction challenge".  The idea would be to use a simulation (*not* of the last 1000 years, so none of us know the expected answer) and provide some data from a "calibration period" and some "pseudo-proxies" from the full period and make these public so that anyone could attempt to make a reconstruction using their favoured method(s).  The true model NH temperature series would be kept secret for 6 months or so.  Thus it would be a "blind" test and after attempts had been submitted they would be evaluated against the true result to assess which methods were most successful.
Caspar Ammann will probably provide the simulation, so he wouldn't take part in making any reconstructions.  He would keep the details secret from all others so that any one, including MBH, you and us, could enter the challenge.
Finally, it was asked whether the model runs that have so far been used for pseudo-proxy studies (NCAR CSM, ECHO-G Erik-I, HadCM3, maybe ECHO-G Erik-II?) might be made publicly available for shared use, so results are less model dependent.  This would just be the surface air temperature fields from the runs, not all the other variables.  What do you think, Simon and Eduardo?  If you are happy with this then they could get them from the SO&P website, so no need for data extraction on your part.
Hope you find this summary interesting.  It's just my opinions.  I've cc'd this to Keith in case he wants to say anything different!
Cheers
Tim


Hi Christoph,
sounds excellent. 20th is a good target with three weeks left. Let me
launch one full round to solicit comments and ideas, and then I can send
you what we have to build the web site. I'll check with Mike about
having him fold this into the report.
Cheers
Caspar
Christoph Kull wrote:
> Dear Caspar and Tim,
> Thanks for putting this issue forward!!
> PAGES/CLIVAR may help communicating this challenge to the community.
>
> We will be able to setup the website with the data sets and the call etc.:
> - let me know what you need! It would be best for us to have first a simple
> "word document with the structure, headings and text. We will then produce a
> "hidden site" that can be updated and finalized before it will go public
> online.
>
> We will be able to announce the challenge to the community via the
> Newsletter and e-news:
> - we need a respective experiment description.
> - the next Newsletter is going to be published by end of July. Can you
> provide me this information by the 20th? This would also fit with the
> planned announcement in the workshop report for EOS...Mike will draft this
> report.
> I suggest to directly contact him for an incorporation of this call.
>
> All the best, thanks a lot and greetings from Bern,
> Christoph
>
>
> On 23.06.2006 19:23, "Caspar Ammann"
wrote:
>
>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> just back from the various trips and meetings, most recently
>> Breckenridge and the CCSM workshop until yesterday. This coincided with
>> the release of the NRC report...
>>
>> Thanks Tim for getting in touch with Simon and Eduardo. And I would
>> think it would be excellent if you would be on the reconstruction side
>> of things here. We really need to make sure that all the reconstruction
>> groups (the ones that show up in the spaghetti-graph) also provide
>> reconstructions for the Challenge. By the way, Mike Mann is fine with
>> the participation of the german group in this as he has spoken now
>> favorably on the project.
>>
>> I think the separation you point at is absolutely crucial. So, as I
>> indicated in Wengen, I would suggest that we could organize a small
>> group of modelers to define the concepts of the experiments, and then
>> make these happen completely disconnected from standard data-centers. A
>> Pseudo-Proxy group should then develop concepts of how to generate
>> pseudo-proxy series and tell the modelers where they need what data. But
>> what they do is not communicated to the modelers. Based
>>
>> The underlying concept as well as the technical procedure of how we
>> approach the pseudo-proxies should be made public, so that everybody
>> knows what we are dealing with. We could do this under the PAGES-CLIVAR
>> intersection umbrella to better ensure that the groups are held separate
>> and to give this a more official touch. Below a quick draft, we should
>> iterate on this and then contact people for the various groups.
>>
>> So long and have a good trip to Norway,
>> Caspar
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Here a very quick and simple structural draft we can work from: (all
>> comments welcome, no hesitations to shoot hard!)
>>
>>
>> Primary Goals:
>>
>> - cross-verification of various emulations of same reconstruction
>> technique using same input data
>> - comparison of skill at various time scales of different techniques if
>> fed with identical pseudo-proxy data
>> - sensitivities of hemispheric estimates to noise, network density
>> - identify skill of resolving regional climate anomalies
>> - isolate forced from unforced signal
>> - identify questionable, non-consistent proxies
>> - modelers try to identify climate parameters and noise structure over
>> calibration period from pseudo-proxies
>>
>>
>> Number of experiments:
>>
>> - available published runs
>> - available unpublished, or available reordered runs
>> - CORE EXPERIMENTS OF CHALLENGE: 1-3 brand new experiments
>>     ^one experiment should look technically realistic: trend in
>> calibration, and relatively reasonable past (very different phasing)
>>     ^one experiment should have no trend in calibration at all, but
>> quite accentuated variations before
>>     ^...one could have relatively realistic structure but contains a
>> large landuse component (we could actually do some science here...)
>>
>>
>>
>> Pseudo-Proxies and "instrumental-data":
>>
>> - provide CRU-equivallent instrumental data (incl. some noise) that is
>> degrading in time
>> - provide annually resolved network of pseudo proxies ((we could even
>> provide a small set of ~5 very low resolution records with some
>> additional uncertainty in time))
>> - 2 networks:  one "high" resolution (100 records), one "low" resolution
>> (20), though only one network available for any single model experiment
>> to avoid "knowledge-tuning", or through time separation: first 500-years
>> only low-red, then second 500-years with both.
>> - pseudo-proxies vary in representation in climate (temperature, precip,
>> combination),  time (annual, seasonal) and space (grid-point, small region)
>>
>>
>>
>> Organization of three separate and isolated groups, and first steps:
>>
>> - Modeler group to decide on concept of target climates, forcing series.
>> Provide only network information to Proxy-Group (People? Ammann, Zorita,
>> Tett, Schmidt, Graham, Cobb, Goosse...).
>> - Pseudo-proxy group to decide on selection of networks, and
>> representation of individual proxies to mimic somewhat real world
>> situation, but develop significant noise (blue-white-red) concepts,
>> non-stationarity, and potential "human disturbance" (People? Brohan,
>> Schweingruber, Wolff, Thompson, Overpeck/Cole, Huybers, Anderson, ...).
>> - Reconstruction group getting ready for input file structures: netCDF
>> for "instrumental", ascii-raw series for pseudo-proxy series. Decide
>> common metrics and reconstruction targets given theoretical pseudo-proxy
>> network information. (People: everybody else)
>>
>>
>>
>> Direct science from this: (important!)
>>
>> - Forced versus internal variations in climate simulations (Modelers)
>> - Review and catalog of pseudo-proxy generation: Noise and stationarity
>> in climate proxy records, problems with potential human/land use
>> influence (Proxy Group)
>> - Detection methods and systematic uncertainty estimates (Reconstruction
>> Group)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Tim Osborn wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Caspar and Christoph,
>>>
>>> I just wanted to let you know that:
>>>
>>> (1) I have emailed Simon Tett (for HadCM3) and Eduardo Zorita (for
>>> ECHO-G Erik-I, not sure about Erik-II) to ask if they would be
>>> prepared for surface temperature fields to be made available from
>>> their model runs and placed on a pseudo-proxy website for use in
>>> pseudo-proxy studies.  I'll let you know their response.
>>>
>>> (2) In Wengen I suggested that Philip Brohan, a colleague of Simon
>>> Tett, might be interested in creating pseduo-proxies from the output
>>> of Caspar's secret model simulation, because of Philip's interest in
>>> statistical error models (e.g. in the error model he just published of
>>> the instrumental temperature record, HadCRUT3). I have emailed Philip
>>> to ask him if he would be interested.  Again, I'll let you know his
>>> response.
>>>
>>> With regard to the "climate reconstruction challenge", Keith and I
>>> were wondering how it is going to be run.  Obviously some kind of
>>> organising group would be useful to ensure it is designed to be as
>>> scientifically useful an experiment as possible.  Yet there needs to
>>> be a clear distinction between provided experimental design advice
>>> (and things like convening EGU sessions) and having too much knowledge
>>> of the setup that would prevent such people from taking part in the
>>> challenge.  Keith and I would be interested in the former, but would
>>> also like to keep our distance and take part in the challenge.  I'm
>>> not sure that it was clear in Wengen exactly who is to organise this all.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
>>> Climatic Research Unit
>>> School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
>>> Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
>>>
>>> e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
>>> phone:    +44 1603 592089
>>> fax:      +44 1603 507784
>>> web:      ~timo/
>>> sunclock: ~timo/sunclock.htm
>>>
>>> **Norwich -- City for Science:
>>> **Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
--
Caspar M. Ammann
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology
1850 Table Mesa Drive
Boulder, CO 80307-3000
email: ammann@ucar.edu    tel: 303-497-1705     fax: 303-497-1348


Dear Keith,
I hope that you had a good trip back from Bergen.
Some of the review comments which appeared to be relevant for the
Holocene section are yours. I copy them here so that you can take there
of them.
All the best,
Valérie.
6-687
A
26:18
28:19
Replace "limiting the vallue" on line 18 to "review as a" on line 19 by
"which means there is no legitimate"
[VINCENT GRAY (Reviewer\u2019s comment ID #: 88-774)]
FOR KEITH
6-694
A
27:0
33:
Section 6.6.1.1 (on 2000-yr proxy reconstructions) is a little too long.
It can be either shortened or reorganized into 2 or more shorter
sections, say on reconstruction history, debate, and new development.
[Govt. of United States of America (Reviewer\u2019s comment ID #: 2023-407)]
6-695
A
27:0
Fig. 6.10a. Rather than showing the average of 4 European stations I
suggest to plot the available averaged European mean land temperature
(using much more than just 4 stations) from Luterbacher et al. 2004 and
Xoplaki et al. 2005. This continental scale average would provide a more
appropriate overview for the last 250 years. The first lead author has
the data or they can be obtained prepared from xoplaki@giub.unibe.ch or
juerg@giub.unibe.ch. Xoplaki, E., Luterbacher, J., Paeth, H., Dietrich,
D., Steiner N., Grosjean, M., and Wanner, H., 2005: European spring and
autumn temperature variability and change of extremes over the last half
millennium, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L15713. Luterbacher, J., Dietrich,
D., Xoplaki, E., Grosjean, M., and H. Wanner, 2004: European seasonal
and annual temperature variability, trends and extremes since 1500,
Science, 303, 1499-1503.
[Jürg Luterbacher (Reviewer\u2019s comment ID #: 151-8)]
6-696
A
27:0
Fig 6.10. I here repeat a point made in my comments on the FOD. It is
statistically invalid and visually misleading to overlay the black
instrumental line on this diagram. The coloured graph lines show proxy
records that end at 1980. If you want a line that continues up to more
recent years that then you must use the proxy records that continue past
1980, not switch to a different type of series. There are up to date
proxy records available, but as I'm sure the authors of this chapter are
aware, they depart from the surface instrumental record, many of them
declining after 1980. By failing to show this, and including the surface
temperature data in black, it constitutes a misrepresentation, since the
black line is an invalid forward extrapolation of the proxy data. If the
reason for not showing the updated proxies is that they are not
considered to be good representatives of temperature anymore, then by
what right does the Figure insinuate that they were good proxies 8-10
centuries ago? It is no defence to claim that MBH99 established a
statistically skillful relationship between the proxy network and the
instrumental data, since that claim has been refuted, as discussed
above. McIntyre and McKitrick (2005a,d) showed that the pre-1450 RE
statistic was incorrectly benchmarked, yielding a spurious inference,
and the r2 stat calculated by MB&H themselves, which showed the lack of
skill, was simply not reported. The failure of the r2 and CE stats is
confirmed by Wahl and Ammann. The squared correlation between the MBH
long proxies and the instrumental record is nearly zero (MM05a,c). The
mean correlation between the long NOAMER proxies and gridcell
temperatures in the MBH98 data set (which dominate the pre-AD1450
portion) is -0.08 (McIntyre and McKitrick 2005c), and the RE
significance benchmark is above the MBH98 RE score, using all available
implementation of the Mann code (McIntyre and McKitrick 2005d). The
surface instrumental record cannot be used as a statistically valid
extrapolation for the proxies after 1980.
[Ross McKitrick (Reviewer\u2019s comment ID #: 174-35)]


Hi Peck et al,
Thanks for your note about the Africa borehole reconstructions, along
with the correspondence with Jason Smerdon. In my e-mail to you on
April 18,2006 I had indicated that the African work was unpublished.
However, I had forgotten that the Nature paper by Huang, Pollack and
Shen (Temperature trends over the past five centuries reconstructed
from borehole temperatures, Nature 403, pp 756-758, 2000) actually
showed the reconstructions for both southern Africa and Australia as
bar graphs of century-long changes in Figure 3 of that paper. The
figure displaying both the Africa and Australia borehole
reconstructions that appears in the FAR draft (Figure 6.12? or was it
6.11?) shows temperature vs. time for five centuries, a display that
differs from the bar-graphs in the Nature paper only in format, not
data.
Inasmuch as there have been no additions to the datasets since that
paper, it seems that we can correctly say that the reconstructions for
southern Africa and Australia have both been published in the Nature
(2000) paper. There is nothing "wrong" or outdated with either of those
reconstructions. We have, in addition, a newer and more expansive paper
about Australia alone (discussing the same reconstruction as appeared
in the Nature paper), now in press in the Journal of Quaternary
Science.  This paper was already mentioned in the e-mail of April 18,
2006, which I will paste at the end of this message.
Other questions?
Cheers,
Henry
___    ___    Henry N. Pollack
[   \  /   ]   Professor of Geophysics
|   \/   |    Department of Geological Sciences
|MICHIGAN|    University of Michigan
[___]\/[___]   Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1005, U.S.A.
Phone: 734-763-0084   FAX: 734-763-4690
e-mail: hpollack@umich.edu
URL:  www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~hpollack/
URL:  www-personal.umich.edu/~hpollack/book.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail of April 18, 2006:
Date:   	Tue, 18 Apr 2006 16:26:27 -0400 [04/18/2006 04:26:27 PM EDT]
From:  	Henry Pollack
Add to Address book
(hpollack@umich.edu) United States
To:  	Keith Briffa
Cc:  	jto@u.arizona.edu, eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no
Subject:  	IPCC FAR draft
Headers:  	Show All Headers
Hi Keith (and Peck and Eystein),
I have recently been sent the current draft of the IPCC FAR by the US
Global Change
Research Program, asking for comments on the draft. This is the first
time I have seen
this product since we were feverishly exchanging e-mails in February.
Let me call to your
attention some small but not insignificant corrections to be made to
the next draft.
Page 6-33, Section 6.6.1.2, line 22.  The title of this section (in
italics) should be
changed to "What do ground surface temperature reconstructions derived
from subsurface
temperature measurements tell us?"
Page 6-33, lines 49 and 52, there is a reference (Smerdon et al., in press).
This paper has now been published, so substitute "2006" for "in press",
and in the list
of references the citation should include the following:
J. Geophys. Res. 111, D07101, doi:10.1029/2004JD005578
Page 6-34, lines 43 and 44. This section is dealing with the southern
hemisphere. The
sentence "...these both indicate unusually warm conditions prevailing
in the 20th century
(Pollack and Smerdon, 2004)"  , and the reference therein, are both incorrect.
The ground surface temperature changes over the last 500 years DO NOT
indicate unusually
warm conditions prevailing in the 20th century in Australia and
southern Africa. This is
because the unusually warm conditions developed late in the century,
after most of the
boreholes had already been logged.  What the borehole reconstruction
for Australia does
show is very good correspondence with the Cook et al (2000)
reconstruction for Tasmania
and the Cook et al. (2002) recon for New Zealand. The Australia work is
described in a
manuscript “Five centuries of Climate Change in Australia: The View
from Underground” by
Pollack, Huang and Smerdon now under review in the Journal of
Quaternary Science. The
Africa work is unpublished.
Is this e-mail to you sufficient to activate these changes? Or should I
submit these
comments to the US Government Review Panel? If I am to submit to the
latter, they require
all comments to be filed by May 9.
Cheers,
Henry
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoting Jonathan Overpeck
:
> Hi Henry - hope you're having a nice summer. I just got back from the
> IPCC mtg where we made plans for generating the final draft of our
> paleo chapter. One question that came up is whether we can show (in
> Fig 6.12 - southern hemisphere climate records of the last
> millennium) your borehole recon for southern Africa. As you can see
> below, Jason Smerdon has told our SH lead, Ricardo Villalba that the
> recon we've used is not yet published. The question for you is
> whether we can/should use a version that IS published, We feel your
> recon is an important one to show as it represents a region not
> represented by other good reconstructions. But, we don't want to use
> something that has proven to be wrong.
>
> We appreciate your input on this issue. Also, if there is a published
> recon that we can use, would you pls send the recon (guess it's only
> one value per century, right?) and the ref we should cite?
>
> As you can imagine, we're under a tough time constraint, so if you
> can let us know as soon as you can, that would be great.
>
> Many thanks, Peck
>
>
>> X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>> From: "Ricardo Villalba"
>> To: "Keith R. Briffa"
,
>> 	"Jonathan Overpeck"
>> Subject: Borehole in the Southern Hemisphere
>> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 06:00:20 -0300
>>
>> Hi Keith and Peck,
>> Please, find below a copy of the message that I got from Jason Smerdon,
>> regarding the South African borehole record. It looks that the record as it
>> is shown in Figure 6.12 has not been published, however former versions of
>> the South African reconstruction have been included in at least two papers.
>> Please, let me know your impressions to proceed with this matter. Cheers,
>> Ricardo
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jason Smerdon"
>> To: "Ricardo Villalba"
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 8:09 PM
>> Subject: Re: Publication in JQR
>>
>>
>>>  Hi Ricardo,
>>>
>>>  I believe that you are referring to the reconstruction from the Southern
>>>  Africa holes that we provided to Tim Osborn.  That reconstruction has not
>>>  been published as a time series as it is shown in Tim's figure.  I
>>>  believe, however, that the same reconstruction was published as a
>>>  histogram in the following reference:
>>>
>>>  Huang S, Pollack HN, Shen PY. 2000. Temperature trends over the last five
>>>  centuries reconstructed from borehole temperatures. Nature 403: 756-758.
>>>
>>>  The only thing that might be different is the number of holes that were
>>>  used, but I don't think that part of the dataset has been updated since
>>>  Huang's 2000 paper.  To confirm this I would encourage you to contact
>>  > Henry Pollack at hpollack@umich.edu.  He will know for sure.  A similar
>>>  reconstruction using a subset of the Southern Africa holes is referenced
>>>  in the Australian paper:
>>>
>>>  Tyson PD, Mason SJ, Jones MQW, Cooper GRJ. 1998. Global warming and
>>>  geothermal profiles: The surface rock temperature response in South
>>>  Africa.  Geophysical Research Letters 25: 2711-2714.
>>>
>>>  But the reconstruction will of course not be exactly equal to the larger
>>>  Southern African reconstruction that we provided for Tim.  I hope this
>>>  helps and let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
>>>
>>>  Jason
>>>
>>>  On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Ricardo Villalba wrote:
>>>
>>>  > Dear Jason,
>>>  >  Thanks for the preprint. Do you know if the South African borehole
>> records
>>>  > has been published? Thanks,
>>>  > RIcardo
>>>  >
>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> Jonathan T. Overpeck
> Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
> Professor, Department of Geosciences
> Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>


Hi again Henry - I've attached an 1997 paper of your's and wonder if
you could shed some up-to-date insights on how to best interpret. In
particular:
1) it has been pointed out to us that the result in this paper argue
for a globally warm period during the middle Holocene that was warmer
than today. Our assessment (i.e., Figure 6.9) indicates that there
was likely no period during the Holocene that was warmer around the
global than the late 20th century. Especially outside of the tropics,
there were periods warmer than today during the Holocene, but these
regionally warm periods were not synchronous - at least at the
centennial scale we can examine with proxy data. Thus, although Huang
et al. 1997, indicates greater mean annual global warmth, it was
unlike the synchronous global warming of the late 20th century.
Plus, we believe the warmth of the Holocene was driven by orbital
forcing, and that what we see makes sense in that regard. Huang et
al, 1997 can be explained perhaps (this is a question) by the heavy
borehole coverage in the Northern mid- to high-latitudes? We also
know that proxy data shown in Fig 6.9 also indicate more warming
(again, not synchronous) in Southern Hem mid-latitudes - where there
are also many boreholes.
Obviously, another issue is that the boreholes don't give the same
temporal resolution as the other proxy records we
synthesized/assessed, and at least in your paper, there isn't
regional information either.
So - the point is not (unless you suggest otherwise) that Huang et al
97 is wrong, but rather than within the limits of the data, it is
compatible with what the higher-resolution, regionally-specific,
multi-proxy data are showing in Fig 6.9, and that there was likely no
period during the Holocene that was warmer synchronously around the
global than the during the late 20th century. Do you agree with this,
and is our reasoning accurate and complete?
2) Huang et al 1997 also shows evidence for warmth within the last
500-1000 years that was greater than during the 20th century AND a
cool minima 200 years ago. Both of these are highlighted in your
abstract, and both seem incompatible with other evidence. For
example, your own more recent work has shown the coolest temperatures
to be about 500 years ago.
We didn't think it was within our focus to comment on these issues,
but we are being asked to by reviewers, and it would be good to have
your help in addressing these issues - hopefully in our responses to
review comments rather than in our main text (which has to be
shortened).
Many thanks for your help with this paper and the issues it raises.
Best, Peck
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
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

Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\huang1997GRLHoloceneBoreholes.pdf"


Hi all - including Eystein, whom I haven't been able to talk with on
these issues yet:
1) I'd like to get your status report on Fig. 6.12 - based on
feedback from Henry Pollack, we will keep the borehole curves and
corresponding instrumental data. I believe we are also going to add
the new recon from Law Dome - Valerie was going to send. Do you have
everything needed for this figure revision?
2) Since we met in Bergen, I have received feedback from many about
our MWP box, and would like to float the idea that we delete the
bottom (Osborn and Briffa) panel. I know this is shocking coming from
me (I think O&B, 2006 is a paper of the year contender!), but I have
become convinced that it will be too much of a lightening rod for
what it gives us. We still show the data in the top panel, which
conveys the same thing (although in a much less sophisticated way!),
and we still back up with citations to O&B2006. BUT, we hopefully
avoid a possible intense focus on methodological focus on the fig,
and the criticism that it's LA work that hasn't been thoroughly
vetted. This focus (i.e., from skeptics and those inclined to listen
to them for political reasons) is stupid, but we want to keep readers
focused on the science and not on the politically-generated flak. I
think we can do this just as well without the O&B06 figure, assuming
we still cite the findings of the O&B06 paper, but just don't show
the figure. We also save space - not the reason for my suggestion,
but a good thing given what Keith and Tim need to add in response to
issue like divergence etc.
Obviously, was the biggest fan and pusher for the figure to be
included, and I'm sorry to be suggesting otherwise now.
Does this make sense?
Thanks, Peck
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
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


Dr. Solomon,
It is not clear what makes the Wegman Committee Report in your opinion a
"new low". In scientific study, one part is clearly physical (growth
rates of trees, IR absorption, etc.) and a separate part is the
statistical treatment of the data.
Dr. Wegman's report is clearly focused on the latter. He is well
qualified to analyze statistical methods, as chair of the National
Academy of Sciences' (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical
Statistics, and a board member of the American Statistical Association.
The conclusion of the Committee headed by Dr. Wegman is clear - the
statistical methods of MBH 98/99 cannot be relied upon to support the
claim that the 90's were the hottest decade of the past millennium. If
one wants to argue with Dr. Wegman's conclusion, it will be necessary to
show how he has misunderstood or misrepresented the statistical methods
used in those studies.
Obviously this does not prove that the 90's were not the hottest decade
of the past millennium, only that the MBH 98/99 analyses cannot be used
to support that claim, nothing more and nothing less.
Anyone interested in paleoclimatology in general, and dendrochronology
in particular, should read the recent NAS report and the Wegman
Committee Report (or in fact anyone interested in the use of statistics
in climatology).
Your last comment seems to reflect a belief that it is scurrilous to
"question unquestioned science". Wouldn't there seem to be a long
honored history of exactly this type of action, both before and after
Einstein? Or perhaps I'm misinterpreting your remarks.
Geoff Smith
Singapore
-----Original Message-----
From: ITRDB Dendrochronology Forum
On Behalf Of Allen M. Solomon
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 6:53 AM
To: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: Re: Joe Barton's hockey stick hearing coming up
You also may want to look at a new "report" prepared for Barton by a
group
of statisticians regarding the hockey stick - this is going to be the
focus
of the hearing, in order to advertise it. It seems (to me) to be a new
low
in politics to have a "congressional report" generated specifically to
question unquestioned science.
-Al
Allen M Solomon, Ph.D.
National Program Leader, Global Change Research
USDA Forest Service
4th Floor, RPC
1601 North Kent St
Arlington VA 22209
allensolomon@fs.fed.us
703 605 5251
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
E&ENews PM
Friday, July 14, 2006
CLIMATE: New House report sets stage for another 'hockey stick' brawl
Lauren Morello, E&ENews PM reporter
Flawed statistics underlie the controversial "hockey stick" climate
analysis, according to a report released today by an ad hoc panel of
scientists assembled by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The report contradicts a recent National Academy of Sciences study that
found the hockey stick analysis -- which concluded Earth has been warmer
over the last millennium than at any other point -- is largely correct.
Published in 1998 by the journal Nature, the hockey stick reconstructs
past
global average temperatures using data from corals, tree rings, ice
cores
and bore holes deep within the Earth -- the first to draw on multiple
sources of "proxy data" to sketch a picture of past climate.
The study includes a graph that shows Earth's average temperature
increasing
sharply during the 20th century, with an upward curve that resembles the
blade of a hockey stick. Often cited as evidence that human emissions
are
the dominant cause of rising global temperatures, the graph became
controversial after it appeared in a 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate
Change report.
But the House Committee's ad hoc panel says the hockey stick's authors
relied on statistics that are pre-disposed to produce the hockey-stick
shape.
Claims by the hockey stick paper's authors of unprecedented global
warming
during the 20th century "cannot be supported by [the] analysis," the
panel
concluded.
The Energy and Commerce Committee -- whose chairman, Rep. Joe Barton
(R-Texas), is a leading Capitol Hill critic of the hockey-stick study --
has
scheduled a hearing next week on the ad hoc panel's conclusions.
In June 2005, Barton and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee
Chairman
Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) launched a probe into scientific and financial
records
of climatologists who created the graph -- Michael Mann of Pennsylvania
State University, Raymond Bradley of the University of Massachusetts and
Malcolm Hughes of the University of Arizona (Greenwire, July 18, 2005).
That prompted a rare show of public infighting between Barton and
Whitfield
and House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), who
asked
the National Academy of Sciences to examine the validity of the hockey
stick
and similar climate reconstructions (Greenwire, June 23).
Click here to view the House panel report.
Click here to view the National Academy of Sciences report.
Click here to view the hockey stick paper [Nature subscription
required].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Want more stories like this every day? Sign up for a free trial and get
the
best environmental and energy policy coverage available. Go to

Watch OnPoint every day to see interviews with key environment and
energy
policy makers. Go to
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC
E&E DAILY -- GREENWIRE -- E&ENews PM -- LAND LETTER -- E&ETV
Phone: 202-628-6500
Copyright 2006
----- Original Message -----
From: "David M. Lawrence"
To:
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 3:13 PM
Subject: Joe Barton's hockey stick hearing coming up
>I thought I'd pass this on since tree-ring data and their use in
> reconstructing past climates are central to the controversy.  I wonder
if
> any attention will be paid to the recently released NRC report on
climate
> over the past 2,000 years, or in a forthcoming paper in Climate Change
> that
> finds the method used to obtain the hockey stick reasonably robust.
>
> Dave
>
> -- here's my note posted to two journalism lists --
>
> It looks like Joe Barton will get all the climate uncertainty sorted
out
> on
> Wednesday, June 19, at 10 a.m.  He will be holding a hearing called
> "Questions Surrounding the 'Hockey Stick' Temperature Studies:
> Implications
> for Climate Change Assessments."  The hearing will focus on the
notorious
> "hockey stick" graph indicating that the temperatures in the latter
part
> of
> the 20th century were higher than at any time in the last millennium.
>
> I doubt there will be more light than heat, but the hearing will be
> interesting to watch, if anything.  The hearing can be watched live
via
> the
> Internet.
>
> For more information:
>
>
>
>

.htm
>
> Dave
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> David M. Lawrence        | Home:  (804) 559-9786
> 7471 Brook Way Court     | Fax:   (804) 559-9787
> Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: dave@fuzzo.com
> USA                      | http:
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> "We have met the enemy and he is us."  -- Pogo
>
> "No trespassing
> 4/17 of a haiku"  --  Richard Brautigan
>


Hi Keith,
Thanks, please comment on the attached version which incorporated all
other comments received.
thanks,
mike
Keith Briffa wrote:
> Mike
> just back from holiday - can you send me latest draft and I will
> comment asap on it - somewhat confused re where we are with others  -
> or should I just comment immediately on the one you sent?
> Keith
>
> At 16:36 12/07/2006, you wrote:
>
>> thanks very much Guys,
>>
>> will await comments from Keith and Heinz (?), prepare one last
>> version, and then submit...
>>
>> mike
>>
>> Caspar Ammann wrote:
>>
>>> Mike,
>>> here also a few thoughts and edits from me (in-between kids waking
>>> up, dressing, feeding, etc.)
>>> Caspar
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 12, 2006, at 6:18 AM, Michael E. Mann wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Christoph,
>>>> Awainting comments from others.
>>>>
>>>> Caspar: any comments on our discussion of the challenge?
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>>
>>>> mike
>>>>
>>>> Christoph Kull wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> Thanks Mike for this report.
>>>>> I made a few edits / suggestions - it's up to you to decide on them.
>>>>> Hopefully Caspar can also provide some input.
>>>>> We will be ready to communicate the weblink for the challenge by
>>>>> end of this
>>>>> week. I will let you know....
>>>>>
>>>>> All the best, thanks a lot and greetings from Bern,
>>>>> Christoph
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10.07.2006 19:57, "Michael E. Mann"
>>>>>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Keith/Phil/Christoph/Thorsten/Heinz,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Attached is a draft meeting report for EOS. Rather than re-invent
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> wheel, I have followed closely the PAGES newsletter piece, but have
>>>>>> expanded on certain points as appropriate for the broader EOS
>>>>>> audience.
>>>>>> I've also included Caspar. Though not a member of the PAGES/CLIVAR
>>>>>> intersection working group, I want to get his feedback too,
>>>>>> particularly
>>>>>> on the discussion of the "PR Challenge".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The word limit for an Eos meeting piece is 1500 words, we're
>>>>>> currently
>>>>>> about 200 words under. So there is room for small additions or
>>>>>> expansions of key points.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please send me any suggested changes/additions/etc. or, if you
>>>>>> have none
>>>>>> simply indicate that you are happy with it as is, and happy to
>>>>>> lend your
>>>>>> name to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Michael E. Mann
>>>> Associate 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
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael E. Mann
>> Associate 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
>>
>>

>>
>>
>
> --
> Professor Keith Briffa,
> Climatic Research Unit
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>
> Phone: +44-1603-593909
> Fax: +44-1603-507784
>
>
--
Michael E. Mann
Associate 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

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\EosMeetingReportFinal.doc"


Hi Peck, Eystein and Fortunat,
I've drafted two versions of the new fig 6.14, comprising a new panel
showing the forcing used in the EMIC runs, plus the old fig 6.13e
panel showing the EMIC simulated NH temperatures.  Keith has seen them already.
First you should know what I did, so that you (especially Fortunat)
can check that what I did was appropriate:
(1) For the volcanic forcing, I simply took the volcanic RF forcing
from Fortunat's file and applied the 30-year smoothing before plotting it.
(2) For the solar forcing there are 2 curves.  For the first, I took
the Bard 0.25% column from Fortunat's RF file.  For the second, I
took the Bard 0.08% column from Fortunat's RF file from 1001 to 1609,
and then appended the WLS RF forcing from 1610 to 1998.  Then I
smoothed the combined record.  NOTE that for the Bard0.25%, the line
is flat from 1961 onwards which probably isn't realistic, even though
that is what was used in the model runs.
(3) For the "all other forcings" there are 2 curves.  For the first,
I took the CO2 concentrations provided by Fortunat, then used the
"standard" IPCC formula from the TAR (in fact the first of the three
options for CO2 in IPCC TAR Table 6.2) to convert this to a radiative
forcing.  I then added this to the non-CO2 radiative forcings data
from Fortunat's file, to get the total radiative forcing.  For the
second, I replaced all values after 1765 with the 1765 value (for the
natural forcings case).  Then I smoothed the combined record (as in
fig 6.13c, I only applied a 10-year smoothing when plotting the "all
other forcings", because it is fairly smooth anyway and using a high
smoothing results in lower final values when there is a strong trend
at the end of a time series).
Now, some comments on the figures themselves (please print them and
refer to them when reading this):
(1) File 'chap6_f6.14_option1.pdf' is strongly preferred by Keith and
me.  This shows the three forcing components separately, which helps
with understanding the individual causes of specific warming and
cooling periods.  I have managed to reduce the size of this
considerably, compared to the equivalent panel in fig 6.13, because
with only a few series on it I could squeeze them together more and
also reduce the range of the vertical axes.
(2) Although we don't prefer it, I have also made
'chap6_f6.14_option2.pdf' which is even smaller by only showing the
sum of all the forcings in the top panel.
Which version do you prefer?  Please let me know so I can make final
changes only to the preferred version.
Some more comments:
(1) Fig 6.14b was originally Fig 6.13e.  When it was part of that
figure, the colour bar showing the shades of grey used to depict the
overlapping ranges of the published temperature reconstructions was
only on Fig 6.13d.  Do you think I should now also add it to the EMIC
panel (6.14b), now that it is in a separate figure?  It will be a bit
of a squeeze because of the legend that is already in 6.14b.
(2) Another carry over from when 6.14b was part of 6.13, is that the
time range of all panels had to match (900-2010).  Now that the EMICs
are in a separate figure, I could start them in year 1000, which is
when the forcing and simulations begin.  Unless you want 6.13 and
6.14 to remain comparable?  Again please comment/decide.
(3) I wasn't sure what colours to use for the forcing series.  In
option 1, the volcanic and other forcings apply to all runs, so I
chose black (with thick/thin used to distinguish the "all" forcings
from the "natural-only" forcings (basically the thin flat line in
"all other forcings).  The cyan-green-blue runs used strong solar
forcing, so I used blue for that forcing.  The red-orange-brown runs
used weak solar forcing, so I used brown for that forcing.  Sound ok?
Sorry for the long email, but I wanted to get everything explained to
avoid too many iterations.
Please let me know your decisions/comments on these questions, or on
any other aspects of the new figure.
Cheers
Tim
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\chap6_f6.14_option1.pdf"
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\chap6_f6.14_option2.pdf"
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
phone:    +44 1603 592089
fax:      +44 1603 507784
web:      ~timo/
sunclock: ~timo/sunclock.htm
**Norwich -- City for Science:
**Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006


Hi all,
I'm halfway through these changes and will get the revised figures out to you probably
tomorrow, except maybe the SH one, because:
I'm not sure if the van Ommen (pers. comm.) data shown by Jones & Mann and suggested by
Riccardo are the data to use or not.  Is it published properly?  I've seen the last 700
years of the Law Dome 18O record published, so perhaps we should show just the period since
1300 AD?  That period appears in:
Mayewski PA, Maasch KA, White JWC, et al.
A 700 year record of Southern Hemisphere extratropical climate variability
ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY 39: 127-132 2004
and
Goodwin ID, van Ommen TD, Curran MAJ, et al.
Mid latitude winter climate variability in the South Indian and southwest Pacific regions
since 1300 AD
CLIMATE DYNAMICS 22 (8): 783-794 JUL 2004
See below for some more comments in respect to individual figures.
At 21:36 30/06/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
Figure 6.10.
1. shade the connection between the top and middle panels
yes
2. remove the dotted (long instrumental) curve from the middle panel
yes
3. replace the red shaded region in the bottom panel with the grey-scale one used in Fig
6.13
yes
4. label only every increment of 10 in the grey-scale bar (formally color) in the bottom
panel
yes
5. Increase font sizes for axis numbering and axis labeling - all are too small. You can
figure out the best size by reducing figs to likely page size minus margins. We guess
the captions need to be bigger by a couple increments at least.
yes
Figure 6.11.
1. This one is in pretty good shape except that Ricardo has to determine if S. African
boreholes need to be removed.
I think Henry said they were published and could stay
Figure 6.12
1. again, please delete S. African borehole if Ricardo indicates it's still not
published.
I think Henry said they could stay.
2. consider adding Law Dome temperature record - Ricardo is investigating, but perhaps
Keith/Tim can help figure out if it's valid to include. Feel free to check with Valerie
on this too, as she seems to know these data at least a little
Already discussed above.
3. also, please increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10 - probably better to
use bold fonts
You are right that I've mixed bold and non-bold.  When reduced to small size, the non-bold
actually read more clearly than the bold, I think, so I'll standardise on non-bold.  It's
not possible to completely standardise on the size, because each figure I provide might be
scaled by different amounts.  I don't know final figure size, so will make a good guess.
Should be ok.
Figure 6.13
1. we are going to split the existing 6.13 into two figure. The first is 100% Tim's
fig., and is just an upgrade of the existing 6.13 a-d, with the only changes being:
1a. delete the old ECHO-G red dashed line curve in panel d, and
Keith says this was discussed and rejected, so I should keep old ECHO-G in?
1b. please also increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10 and 12 - please use
bold fonts.
ok, as discussed above.
2. The existing 6.13e is going to become a new 6.14, with the addition of a new forcings
panel "a" on top of the existing panel e (which becomes 6.14b). To make this happen, Tim
and Fortunat have to coordinate, as Tim has the forcing data (and knows what we what)
and Tim has the existing figure. We suspect it will be easier for Fortunat to give Tim
data and layout advice, and for Tim to make a figure that matches the other figs he's
doing. PLEASE NOTE that this fig can't be as large as the existing 6.13a-d, but needs to
be more compact to permit its inclusion.
done.
Cheers
Tim


"Non-independence" of reconstructions and "worthlessness" of the hockey
stick model were raised as separate issues.
If the worth of a model is measured by its ability to predict, then a
model that explains 0.5% of the variation in some variable is fairly
(but not necessarily completely) "worthless". Surely, one hopes for
better. Especially where consensus is required.
The proxy data on which multi-proxy reconstructions are based may be
statistically independent, but the reconstructions themselves are not.
This is not because of any lack of "independence" (i.e. objectivity)
among networked researchers, but a measurable fact of arithemtic. To the
extent that multi-proxy reconstructions are built on the same proxy
data, they are statistically non-independent (i.e. correlated).
i.e. It's not the non-independence that make the model worthless. It's
the uncertainty.
On your last point of social networks, try a Google search of 'Exxon
Secrets'. The difference between a ruling orthodoxy and a scientific
network is not the degree of connectivity, but the mode of governance:
coercion & inculcation vs. facts & reason (including statistical
inference). Be wary of any science that loathes statistics or resents
external investigation. That's the start of rot.
If Wegman et al. are suggesting that statisticians should be put to work
to serve the interests of paleoclimatologists (which they are), then who
on this list is going to argue that? I say let's put them to work!
Barry Cooke
-----Original Message-----
From: ITRDB Dendrochronology Forum
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 6:43 AM
To: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: Re: Joe Barton's hockey stick hearing coming up
>Maryanne's message further claims that the "characterization of the
>hockey stick as 'worthless' underscores what appears to be a basic lack
>of understanding of how scientific consensus is formed".  Yet if a
>consensus is based on invalid statistical analysis, then the consensus
>is wrong.
To explain my point (and my apologies to those to whom this is obvious):
it would not be unprecedented for a scientific consensus to be wrong.
However, there is also ample precedent for papers containing flaws
(which virtually all do, if somebody looks hard enough, or has the
misfortune of having the resources of Congress devoted to finding them)
to have constructive influence on debate. To take an example from
history, many of Charles Darwin's observations are pure amateurish
nonsense by the standards of even the late 19th century, but no one
would doubt their value in building the consensus for evolution. The
question is not always strict veracity, but whether work provokes
fruitful questions, or leads research in a constructive direction. (By
the way, this is not to take a position on the Wegman judgement on the
MBH papers).
>Dave's message further claims that there are multiple "independent
>lines of evidence" for the hockey stick.  The Wegman report discusses
>this claim.  See especially p.46-47, which cite twelve different
>studies and concludes that those studies "cannot really claim to be
>independent".
This part of the report is more precious than useful. In most empirical
fields, leading primary investigators have linkages--nothing unusual
about that. We could construct similar matrices of social networks in
physics, biology, statistics. That doesn't mean the works produced in
physics, biology or statistical theory are "worthless". A similar point
can be made about different investigators using the same proxy data. In
fact, isn't it one of the recommendations of the Wegman report that the
paleoclimate community share data more effectively? Seems that if that
recommendation was followed, certain statisticians would have even more
occasion to complain of a lack of true independence. Seems these poor
climate experts can't win!
Wouldn't it be interesting to see a "social network" matrix--or a
funding matrix--between those the scientists, statisticians,
Congressional Republicans, and oil companies most passionate about
"debunking" global climate change?
Dr. Maryanne W. Newton
Research Associate
Malcolm and Carolyn Wiener Laboratory for Aegean and Near Eastern
Dendrochronology Cornell University


Hi Tim et al (especially Valerie) - again, sorry for the confusion,
but hopefully the emails sent and forwarded from Valerie and me this
evening helps figure this out. I think we're going with borehole for
Law Dome, but you guys need to confirm it's the way to go. I'm cc'ing
to Valerie in the hope she can try to provide more guidance in this -
with a confirmation that it's the best way to go and will stand up to
criticism. If we have multiple conflicting temp recons from Law Dome,
and one can't be shown from the literature as being the best, then we
should state that, and show neither - just an idea. BUT, I think
Valerie was pretty sure the borehole was best. She should be more
available in a day or so.
Thanks all, cheers, Peck
>Hi all,
>
>I'm halfway through these changes and will get the revised figures
>out to you probably tomorrow, except maybe the SH one, because:
>
>I'm not sure if the van Ommen (pers. comm.) data shown by Jones &
>Mann and suggested by Riccardo are the data to use or not.  Is it
>published properly?  I've seen the last 700 years of the Law Dome
>18O record published, so perhaps we should show just the period
>since 1300 AD?  That period appears in:
>
>Mayewski PA, Maasch KA, White JWC, et al.
>A 700 year record of Southern Hemisphere extratropical climate variability
>ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY 39: 127-132 2004
>
>and
>
>Goodwin ID, van Ommen TD, Curran MAJ, et al.
>Mid latitude winter climate variability in the South Indian and
>southwest Pacific regions since 1300 AD
>CLIMATE DYNAMICS 22 (8): 783-794 JUL 2004
>
>See below for some more comments in respect to individual figures.
>
>At 21:36 30/06/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>Figure 6.10.
>>1. shade the connection between the top and middle panels
>
>yes
>
>>2. remove the dotted (long instrumental) curve from the middle panel
>
>yes
>
>>3. replace the red shaded region in the bottom panel with the
>>grey-scale one used in Fig 6.13
>
>yes
>
>>4. label only every increment of 10 in the grey-scale bar (formally
>>color) in the bottom panel
>
>yes
>
>>5. Increase font sizes for axis numbering and axis labeling - all
>>are too small. You can figure out the best size by reducing figs to
>>likely page size minus margins. We guess the captions need to be
>>bigger by a couple increments at least.
>
>yes
>
>>Figure 6.11.
>>
>>1. This one is in pretty good shape except that Ricardo has to
>>determine if S. African boreholes need to be removed.
>
>I think Henry said they were published and could stay
>
>>Figure 6.12
>>
>>1. again, please delete S. African borehole if Ricardo indicates
>>it's still not published.
>
>I think Henry said they could stay.
>
>>2. consider adding Law Dome temperature record - Ricardo is
>>investigating, but perhaps Keith/Tim can help figure out if it's
>>valid to include. Feel free to check with Valerie on this too, as
>>she seems to know these data at least a little
>
>Already discussed above.
>
>>3. also, please increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10 -
>>probably better to use bold fonts
>
>You are right that I've mixed bold and non-bold.  When reduced to
>small size, the non-bold actually read more clearly than the bold, I
>think, so I'll standardise on non-bold.  It's not possible to
>completely standardise on the size, because each figure I provide
>might be scaled by different amounts.  I don't know final figure
>size, so will make a good guess.  Should be ok.
>
>>Figure 6.13
>>
>>1. we are going to split the existing 6.13 into two figure. The
>>first is 100% Tim's fig., and is just an upgrade of the existing
>>6.13 a-d, with the only changes being:
>>1a. delete the old ECHO-G red dashed line curve in panel d, and
>
>Keith says this was discussed and rejected, so I should keep old ECHO-G in?
>
>>1b. please also increase font sizes and make sure they match 6.10
>>and 12 - please use bold fonts.
>
>ok, as discussed above.
>
>>2. The existing 6.13e is going to become a new 6.14, with the
>>addition of a new forcings panel "a" on top of the existing panel e
>>(which becomes 6.14b). To make this happen, Tim and Fortunat have
>>to coordinate, as Tim has the forcing data (and knows what we what)
>>and Tim has the existing figure. We suspect it will be easier for
>>Fortunat to give Tim data and layout advice, and for Tim to make a
>>figure that matches the other figs he's doing. PLEASE NOTE that
>>this fig can't be as large as the existing 6.13a-d, but needs to be
>>more compact to permit its inclusion.
>
>done.
>
>Cheers
>
>Tim
>
>
>Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
>Climatic Research Unit
>School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
>Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
>
>e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
>phone:    +44 1603 592089
>fax:      +44 1603 507784
>web:      ~timo/
>sunclock: ~timo/sunclock.htm
>
>**Norwich -- City for Science:
>**Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
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


Hi all - Thanks for all the Euro-dialog before I even got to my
computer - lots of good issues raised, and glad the misunderstanding
got cleared up.
Eystein and I can't connect easily today, so I'm going to take a stab
at the CLA compromise, guessing that he'll concur. If not, he can
clarify.
1) We really do need to see the original forcing (spikes for volc,
higher freq for solar), so that should be a given. If Tim can do his
usual graphical magic and get a smoothed version in there too, that's
ok, but I think Fortunat is correct that this new 6.14 gives us a
chance to show data differently (and in a way that the TS team really
would like). BUT, to show a smoothed curve, perhaps behind? (or
whatever looks best and makes it easy to see the more raw data) the
more raw data, would be a nice way to connect 6.14 with 6.13, and
also make the points that Tim points out - especially highlighting
the obvious link between forcing and response prior to 1900. This
last point is key for the TS too. BUT, please don't make the more raw
data hard to see - they are a KEY part of this fig, especially in the
TS. So... go for it Tim - I suggest some annotation for those peaks
that are too large to plot - perhaps an asterisk with a note in the
caption that "*volcanic forcing peaks larger than XXX are truncated
for plotting purposes" or something like that.
2) the nomalisation reference period should be consistent between all
of the associated figs, so I'd stick with with you've been doing Tim.
Otherwise, it will be too confusing.
3) as to whether forcing should be proportional. As long as the
scaling (y-axis labeling) is explicit we can be flexible here in
order to make sure viewers can see all of the smoothed and unsmoothed
forcing data clearly. That is the key, and we can relax the need to
have them all proportional in this fig.
Bottom line is that the forcing data we present should have the
ability to see the differences in solar clearly - as Fortunat's
mock-up plot does. This is driven more from the TS, but that's ok -
we get serious play in the TS.
Hope this provides enough for Tim to go with, and as always, if you
want to provide some options, that's fine.
Fortunat - you'll need write the caption - hopefully keeping it as
brief as possible by citing the earlier captions in the report.
thanks all! best, Peck
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
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


That may be "the point" that you're choosing to focus on. My point,
quite apart from yours, is that (1) there were oversights in MBH98, (2)
that paper appears to have been rushed to publication, (3) M&M03 appear
to have been shunned by the scientific review process, (4) Wegman et al.
have got a couple of good points on the statistics of tree-ring
calibration worthy of discussion, (5) the issue of calibration error
cuts to the core of the debate, as it is what underlies the breadth of
the confidence envelope around the hockey stick during the MWP. You
criticize their analysis of the MBH98 social network, but what do you
make of their more substantive argument regarding errors in calibration
response functions?
Barry
-----Original Message-----
From: ITRDB Dendrochronology Forum
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 6:28 AM
To: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: Re: Joe Barton's hockey stick hearing coming up
At 05:46 PM 7/17/2006 -0400, Barry Cooke wrote:
>The proxy data on which multi-proxy reconstructions are based may be
>statistically independent, but the reconstructions themselves are not.
>This is not because of any lack of "independence" (i.e. objectivity)
>among networked researchers, but a measurable fact of arithemtic. To
>the extent that multi-proxy reconstructions are built on the same proxy
>data, they are statistically non-independent (i.e. correlated).
Fair enough. But I believe the point (or at least the implication) is
being made that these networked researchers are failing to adequately
review the work of their peers. It would also be naive not to expect
that Mr. Barton and the political wing of the "Climate science is bunk"
crowd will use those connects to argue for the "worthlessness" of most
everything produced by the network. (Note the recent public comments by
Senator Inhofe).
Dr. Maryanne W. Newton
Research Associate
Malcolm and Carolyn Wiener Laboratory for Aegean and Near Eastern
Dendrochronology Cornell University


Hi Tim, Ricardo and friends - your suggestion to
leave the figure unchanged makes sense to me. Of
course, we need to discuss the Law Dome ambiguity
clearly and BRIEFLY in the text, and also in the
response to "expert" review comments (sometimes,
it is hard to use that term "expert"...).
Ricardo, Tim and Keith - can you take care of
this please. Nice resolution, thanks.
best, Peck
>Hi all,
>
>(1) Jones/Mann showed (and Mann/Jones used in
>their reconstruction) an isotope record from Law
>Dome that is probably O18 (they say "oxygen
>isotopes").  This has a "cold" present-day and
>"warm" MWP (indeed relatively "warm" throughout
>the 1000-1750 period).  The review comments from
>sceptics wanted us to show this for obvious
>reasons.  But its interpretation is ambiguous
>and I think (though I'm not certain) that it has
>been used to indicate atmospheric circulation
>changes rather than temperature changes by some
>authors (Souney et al., JGR, 2002).
>
>(2) Goosse et al. showed Deuterium excess as an
>indicator of Southern Ocean SST (rather than
>local temperature).  Goosse et al. also showed a
>composite of 4 Antarctic ice core records (3
>deuterium, 1 O18).  Neither of these comes up to
>the 20th century making plotting on the same
>scale as observed temperature rather tricky!
>
>(3) Dahl-Jensen showed the temperatures obtained
>by inverting the borehole temperature profiles.
>This has a colder MWP relative to the recent
>period, which shows strong recent warming.
>
>I have data from (1) and now from (3) too, but
>not from (2) though I could ask Hugues Goosse
>for (2).  Anyway, (1) and (2) aren't calibrated
>reconstructions like the others in the Southern
>Hemisphere figure, so plotting them would alter
>the nature of the figure.
>
>But if we show only (3) then we will be accused
>of (cherry-)picking that (and not showing (1) as
>used by Mann/Jones) because it showed what we
>wanted/expected.
>
>Can I, therefore, leave the SH figure unchanged
>and can we just discuss the Law Dome ambiguities
>in the text?
>
>Cheers
>
>Tim
>
>At 02:41 18/07/2006, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>>Hi Tim, Ricardo and Keith - Valerie just
>>reminded me that she sent this to us all (minus
>>Tim) back in June. There is plenty below for
>>discussion in the text, and the Law Dome
>>borehole data can be obtained at the site below
>>( This is
>>the record that should be added to the SH
>>figure.
>>
>>Thanks, Peck
>>
>>>X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
>>>Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 12:44:50 +0200
>>>From: Valérie Masson-Delmotte
>>>Reply-To: Valerie.Masson@cea.fr
>>>Organization: LSCE
>>>To: Jonathan Overpeck
,
>>>         Ricardo Villalba
,
>>>         Keith Briffa
>>>Subject: (pas de sujet)
>>>
>>>Dear Ricardo and Peck,
>>>
>>>Here are the references for the Law Dome temperature discussion :
>>>
>>>* stack of Antarctic ice cores and Law Dome
>>>deuterium excess profile (showing large
>>>changes in moisture source)
>>>
>>>Title: *A late medieval warm period in the
>>>Southern Ocean as a delayed response to
>>>external forcing?*
>>>Author(s): *Goosse H*
>>>
,
>>>*Masson-Delmotte V*
>>>
,
>>>Renssen H
>>>
,
>>>Delmotte M
>>>
,
>>>Fichefet T
>>>
,
>>>Morgan V
>>>
,
>>>van Ommen T
>>>
,
>>>Khim BK
>>>
,
>>>Stenni B
>>>
>>>Source: GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 31 (6): Art. No. L06203 MAR 17 2004
>>>Document Type: Article
>>>Language: English
>>>Abstract: On the basis of long simulations
>>>performed with a three-dimensional climate
>>>model, we propose an interhemispheric climate
>>>lag mechanism, involving the long-term memory
>>>of deepwater masses. Warm anomalies, formed in
>>>the North Atlantic when warm conditions
>>>prevail at surface, are transported by the
>>>deep ocean circulation towards the Southern
>>>Ocean. There, the heat is released because of
>>>large scale upwelling, maintaining warm
>>>conditions and inducing a lagged response of
>>>about 150 years compared to the Northern
>>>Hemisphere. Model results and observations
>>>covering the first half of the second
>>>millenium suggest a delay between the
>>>temperature evolution in the Northern
>>>Hemisphere and in the Southern Ocean. The
>>>mechanism described here provides a reasonable
>>>hypothesis to explain such an interhemipsheric
>>>lag.
>>>KeyWords Plus: CLIMATE-CHANGE; ICE CORE; LAW
>>>DOME; TEMPERATURES; ANTARCTICA; PALEOCLIMATE;
>>>CIRCULATION; MILLENNIUM; RECORDS; SIGNAL
>>>
>>>* borehole temperature profile from Law Dome :
>>>Title: *Monte Carlo inverse modelling of the
>>>Law Dome (Antarctica) temperature profile*
>>>Author(s): *DahlJensen D*
>>>
,
>>>Morgan VI
>>>
,
>>>Elcheikh A
>>>
>>>Source: ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY, VOL 29, 1999
>>>ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY 29: 145-150 1999
>>>Document Type: Article
>>>Language: English
>>>
>>>Abstract: The temperature profile in the 1200
>>>m deep Dome Summit South (DSS) borehole near
>>>the summit of Law Dome, Antarctica, was
>>>measured in 1996, 3 years after the
>>>termination of the deep drilling.
>>>
>>>The temperature profile contains information
>>>on past surface temperature over the last 4
>>>ka. This temperature history is determined by
>>>the use of a Monte Carlo inverse method in
>>>which no constraints are placed on the unknown
>>>temperature history and no solution is assumed
>>>to be unique. The temperature history is
>>>obtained from a selection of equally
>>>well-fitting solutions by a statistical
>>>treatment.
>>>
>>>The results show that solutions covering the
>>>last 4 ka have a well-developed central value,
>>>a most likely temperature history. The
>>>temperature record has two well-developed
>>>minima at: AD 1250 and 1850. From 1850 to the
>>>present, temperatures have gradually increased
>>>by 0.7 K. The reconstructed temperatures are
>>>compared with the stable oxygen isotope
>>>(delta(18)O) from the DSS ice core.
>>>
>>>=> The inversed temperature data are available on the GFY web site at :
>>> go to "Dye
>>>3, GRIP, Law Dome temperature reconstructed
>>>from borehole measurements"
>>>
>>>* Regarding the calibration issue there are several publications :
>>>- seasonal calibration between 18O and T :
>>>
>>>[van Ommen and Morgan, 1997a]
>>>
>>>
>>>Tas D. van Ommen and Vin Morgan. Calibrating
>>>the ice core paleothermometer using
>>>seasonality. J. Geophys. Res.,
>>>102(D8):9351-9357, 1997, [AAD Cat. Ref. 7488].
>>>
>>>[van Ommen and Morgan, 1997b]
>>>
>>>
>>>Tas D. van Ommen and Vin Morgan. Correction to
>>>"Calibrating the ice core paleothermometer
>>>using seasonality". J. Geophys. Res.,
>>>102(D25):30,165, 1997, [AAD Cat. Ref. 8236].
>>>
>>>- decadal calibration from a high resolution
>>>ice core (using deuterium excess)
>>>
>>>*Recent southern Indian Ocean climate
>>>variability inferred from a Law Dome ice core:
>>>new insights for the interpretation of coastal
>>>Antarctic isotopic records*
>>>V. Masson-Delmotte ^A1 , M. Delmotte ^A1 A4 ,
>>>V. Morgan ^A2 , D. Etheridge ^A3 , T. van
>>>Ommen ^A2 , S. Tartarin ^A1 , G. Hoffmann
>>>
>>>Stable isotopes in water have been measured
>>>along a very high accumulation ice core from
>>>Law Dome on the east Antarctic coast. These
>>>enable a detailed comparison of the isotopic
>>>records over sixty years (1934-1992) with
>>>local (Antarctic station data) and remote
>>>meteorological observations (atmospheric
>>>reanalyses and sea-surface temperature
>>>estimates) on a seasonal to inter-annual time
>>>scale. Using both observations and isotopic
>>>atmospheric general circulation model (GCM)
>>>results, we quantify the relationships between
>>>stable isotopes (d ^18 O, dD and deuterium
>>>excess; /d/ = dD -8 × d ^18 O) with site and
>>>source temperature at seasonal and decadal
>>>time scales, showing the large imprint of
>>>source conditions on Law Dome isotopes. These
>>>calibrations provide new insights for the
>>>quantitative interpretation of temporal
>>>isotopic fluctuations from coastal Antarctic
>>>ice cores. An abrupt change in the local
>>>meridional atmospheric circulation is clearly
>>>identified from Law Dome deuterium excess
>>>during the 1970s and analysed using GCM
>>>simulations.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Valérie.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Jonathan T. Overpeck
>>Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
>>Professor, Department of Geosciences
>>Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
>>
>>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
>>
>>
>
>Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
>Climatic Research Unit
>School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
>Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
>
>e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
>phone:    +44 1603 592089
>fax:      +44 1603 507784
>web:      ~timo/
>sunclock: ~timo/sunclock.htm
>
>**Norwich -- City for Science:
>**Hosting the BA Festival 2-9 September 2006
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
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