Section 1.3 Response

The terms of reference are as follows:

1.1 Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.

ISSUES ARISING ON Para 1.1 OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE

1. The allegation of ignoring potential problems in deducing palaeotemperatures from tree ring data that might undermine the validity of the so-called “hockey-stick” curve. In the late 20th century, the correlation between the tree ring record and instrumental record of temperature change diverges from that for the earlier period. The cause of this divergence does not appear to be understood. If the method used to deduce temperatures from tree ring proxy metrics for the earlier tree ring record is applied to the late 20th century tree ring series, then declining temperatures would be deduced for the late 20th century. It is alleged that if the cause of divergence between the tree ring and instrumental temperature record is unknown, it may have existed in earlier periods.  Therefore if tree rings had similarly failed to reflect the warming of the early Middle Ages, they may significantly under- estimate the warming during the Medieval Warm Period, thus falsely enhancing the contrast between the recent warming and that earlier period.  (It is this contrast that has led to statements that the late 20th century warming is unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years.)

QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS: 

3 How open have you been about this issue?

RESPONSE

3 Responses to “Section 1.3 Response”

  1. jimchip Says:

    There was a Dec. 1, 2005 Fox News report that Michael Mann responded to via email 1133532909.txt

    “thought you all would be interested in this. Esper et al have played
    right into the hands of the contrarians:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177380,00.html

    The wording of their abstract is frankly just irresponsible…”

  2. jimchip Says:

    1189515774.txt They’re gonna sue. Mann teaching Schmidt about Jailhose lawyering: This is over Wei Chyung ( or Cheung). See also https://crutapeletters.wordpress.com/second-4-responses/section-4-1-responses/#comment-75

    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    To: Phil Jones

    Subject: Re: Fwd: paper on alleged Wang fraud
    Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:02:54 -0400
    Reply-to: mann@psu.edu
    Cc: Gavin Schmidt

    Phil,

    sorry, first version of my message was a bit garbled. Here is the full
    message:

    thanks for forwarding. It may be difficult for me to sue them over a
    footnote, and in fact he is very careful only to intimate accusations
    against me in a response to your comments. Note that he does not do so
    in the paper. I’m sure they know that I would sue them for that, and
    that I have a top lawyer already representing me.

    Wei Chyung needs to sue them, or at the least threaten a lawsuit. If he
    doesn’t, this will set a dangerous new precedent. I could put him in
    touch w/ anleading attorney who would do this pro bono. Of course, this
    has to be done quickly. The threat of a lawsuit alone my prevent them
    from publishing this paper, so time is of the essence. Please feel free
    to mention this directly to Wei Chyung, in particular that I think he
    needs to pursue a legal course her independent of whatever his
    university is doing. He cannot wait for Stony Brook to complete its
    internal investigations! If he does so, it will be too late to stop this.

    Gavin is in Shanghai, but perhaps may be able to provide some brief
    thoughts himself on this,

    mike

    Michael E. Mann wrote:
    > Phil,
    >
    > thanks for forwarding. It may be difficult for me to sue them over a
    > footnote, and in fact he is very careful only to intimate accusations
    > against me in a response to your comments. Note that he does not do so
    > in the paper. I’m sure they know that I would sue them for that, and
    > that I have a top lawyer already representing me.

  3. Jimchip Says:

    1060021835.txt Thoughts on uncertainity, for want of a better place. Read the whole email for technical discussion on some regression methodology.

    here’s some thoughts on uncertainty…

    At 10:42 04/08/2003, Simon Tett wrote:
    >1) Calibration uncertainty — there is some uncertainty in the
    >relationship between proxy and temperature.
    >2) Residual noise — the proxyies do not capture large-scale temperature
    >variability perfectly.
    >3) Internal-climate variability in “real” life — there is some chaotic
    >variability in the real climate system
    >4) Internal-climate variability in the model — ditto!
    >
    >3) & 4) I suggest we estimate from HadCM3 — model var agrees well with
    >paleo var so can’t be too far wrong!

    Yes, I’m happy that we use (3) and (4) from the model. If you use a short
    baseline to take the anomalies from, then the internal variability comes in
    twice in each case, both in comparing the baseline mean and the
    anomaly. We can minimise this by using a long baseline.

    >1) & 2) are, to some extent related, as calibration is estimate by
    >regression — thus minimising residual var (2). Nicest thing to do would
    >be to estimate residual from indep. data but I don’t think there is enough…..

    From: Tim Osborn
    To: Simon Tett ,Keith Briffa , Philip Brohan
    Subject: Re: Uncertainty in model-paleo uncertainty
    Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 14:30:35 +0100

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: