Section 5 Responses

5. It is alleged that there have been improper attempts to influence the peer review system and a violation of IPCC procedures in attempting to prevent the publication of opposing ideas. It is alleged that there has been an attempt to subvert the peer review process and exclude publication of scientific articles that do not support the Jones-Mann position on global climate change. A paper by Soon & Balunias was published in the Journal Climate Research arguing that the 20th century was abnormally warm.An email from Professor Michael Mann on 11th March 2003 contained the following: “I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”  The  allegation is that journals might be pressured to reject submitted articles that do not support a particular view of climate change. In an email to a fellow researcher in June 2003, Briffa wrote: “Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting (an unnamed paper) to support Dave Stahle‟s and really as soon as you can.” In an email to Mann on 8th July 2004, Jones wrote: “The other paper by MM is just garbage. […] I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer- review literature is!” The allegation is of an attempt to prevent ideas being published and the author being prepared to subvert the peer review process for a journal and to undermine the IPCC principle of accounting properly for contradictory views.

This non-question oriented topic is intended to give background refs for the overall issues raised in Section 5, not the specific questions that are to be addressed although they should apply.

Advertisements

23 Responses to “Section 5 Responses”

  1. jimchip Says:

    Here’s the full emails Re: Soon & Baliunas or Fwd: Re:, all from around the ides of March, 2003. One per comment.

    1047388489.txt

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

    ,rbradley@geo.umass.edu, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu,srutherford@gso.uri.edu,tcrowley@duke.edu
    Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
    Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:14:49 -0500
    Cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,jto@u.arizona.edu,drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu, keith.alverson@pages.unibe.ch,mmaccrac@comcast.net,jto@u.arizona.edu, mann@virginia.edu

    Thanks Phil,
    (Tom: Congrats again!)
    The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn’t have cleared a ‘legitimate’ peer review process
    anywhere. That leaves only one possibility–that the peer-review process at Climate
    Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn’t just De
    Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my own department…
    The skeptics appear to have staged a ‘coup’ at “Climate Research” (it was a mediocre
    journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite ‘purpose’).
    Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors:
    [1]http://www.int-res.com/journals/cr/crEditors.html
    In fact, Mike McCracken first pointed out this article to me, and he and I have discussed
    this a bit. I’ve cc’d Mike in on this as well, and I’ve included Peck too. I told Mike that
    I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They’ve already achieved what they
    wanted–the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but
    the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the
    community on the whole…
    It is pretty clear that thee skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the
    presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton, Goodess, …). My
    guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he’s an odd individual, and I’m
    not sure he isn’t himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and without Von Storch on their
    side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision.
    There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon & Baliunas paper, that
    couldn’t get published in a reputable journal.
    This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the
    “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal!
    So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a
    legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate
    research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also
    need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently
    sit on the editorial board…
    What do others think?
    mike
    At 08:49 AM 3/11/2003 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:

    Dear All,
    Apologies for sending this again. I was expecting a stack of emails this morning
    in
    response, but I inadvertently left Mike off (mistake in pasting) and picked up Tom’s
    old
    address. Tom is busy though with another offspring !
    I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling – worst word I can
    think of today
    without the mood pepper appearing on the email ! I’ll have time to read more at the
    weekend
    as I’m coming to the US for the DoE CCPP meeting at Charleston. Added Ed, Peck and
    Keith A.
    onto this list as well. I would like to have time to rise to the bait, but I have so
    much else on at
    the moment. As a few of us will be at the EGS/AGU meet in Nice, we should consider what
    to do there.
    The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper determine the answer they
    get. They
    have no idea what multiproxy averaging does. By their logic, I could argue 1998 wasn’t
    the
    warmest year globally, because it wasn’t the warmest everywhere. With their LIA being
    1300-
    1900 and their MWP 800-1300, there appears (at my quick first reading) no discussion of
    synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental record, the early and
    late
    20th century warming periods are only significant locally at between 10-20% of grid
    boxes.
    Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do something – even if this is
    just
    to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think the skeptics will
    use
    this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of years if it goes
    unchallenged.
    I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it
    until they
    rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the editorial board, but
    papers
    get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.
    Cheers
    Phil
    Dear all,
    Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore probably, so don’t let it
    spoil your
    day. I’ve not looked at it yet. It results from this journal having a number of
    editors. The
    responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers
    through by
    Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got
    nowhere.
    Another thing to discuss in Nice !
    Cheers
    Phil

  2. jimchip Says:

    1047390562.txt

    From: Phil Jones

    To: rbradley@geo.umass.edu,mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu,srutherford@gso.uri.edu, “Michael E. Mann” ,tcrowley@duke.edu
    Subject: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
    Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:49:22 +0000
    Cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,jto@u.arizona.edu,drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu, keith.alverson@pages.unibe.ch

    Dear All,
    Apologies for sending this again. I was expecting a stack of emails
    this morning in
    response, but I inadvertently left Mike off (mistake in pasting) and
    picked up Tom’s old
    address. Tom is busy though with another offspring !
    I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling – worst
    word I can think of today
    without the mood pepper appearing on the email ! I’ll have time to read
    more at the weekend
    as I’m coming to the US for the DoE CCPP meeting at Charleston. Added Ed,
    Peck and Keith A.
    onto this list as well. I would like to have time to rise to the bait,
    but I have so much else on at
    the moment. As a few of us will be at the EGS/AGU meet in Nice, we should
    consider what
    to do there.
    The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper determine the
    answer they get. They
    have no idea what multiproxy averaging does. By their logic, I could
    argue 1998 wasn’t the
    warmest year globally, because it wasn’t the warmest everywhere. With
    their LIA being 1300-
    1900 and their MWP 800-1300, there appears (at my quick first reading) no
    discussion of
    synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental record,
    the early and late
    20th century warming periods are only significant locally at between
    10-20% of grid boxes.
    Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do something –
    even if this is just
    to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think the
    skeptics will use
    this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of years
    if it goes
    unchallenged.

    I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more
    to do with it until they
    rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the
    editorial board, but papers
    get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.

    Cheers
    Phil

    Dear all,
    Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore probably, so
    don’t let it spoil your
    day. I’ve not looked at it yet. It results from this journal having a
    number of editors. The
    responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few
    papers through by
    Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about
    this, but got nowhere.
    Another thing to discuss in Nice !

    Cheers
    Phil

    >X-Sender: f055@pop.uea.ac.uk
    >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
    >Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:32:14 +0000
    >To: p.jones@uea
    >From: Tim Osborn
    >Subject: Soon & Baliunas
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >Dr Timothy J Osborn | phone: +44 1603 592089
    >Senior Research Associate | fax: +44 1603 507784
    >Climatic Research Unit | e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
    >School of Environmental Sciences | web-site:
    >University of East Anglia __________| http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
    >Norwich NR4 7TJ | sunclock:
    >UK | http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm

    Prof. Phil Jones
    Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
    School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
    University of East Anglia
    Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
    NR4 7TJ
    UK
    —————————————————————————-

    Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\Soon & Baliunas 20031.pdf”

  3. jimchip Says:

    1047474776.txt

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

    , Malcolm Hughes , Tom Crowley
    Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
    Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 08:12:56 -0500
    Cc: rbradley@geo.umass.edu,mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu,srutherford@gso.uri.edu, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk,mann@virginia.edu

    Dear All,
    I like Phil’s suggestion. I think such a piece would do a lot of good for the field. When
    something as full of half-truths/mis-truths as the S&B piece is put forth, it would be
    very useful to have a peer-reviewed review like this, which we all have endorsed through
    co-authorship, to point to in response. This way, when we get the inevitable “so what do
    you have to say about this” from our colleagues, we already have a self-contained, thorough
    rejoinder to point to. I’m sure we won’t all agree on every detail, but there is enough
    commonality in our views on the big issues to make this worthwhile.
    Perhaps Phil can go ahead and contact the editorial board at “Reviews of Geophysics” and
    see if they’re interested. If so, Phil and I (and anyone else interested) could take the
    lead with this, and then we can entrain everyone else in as we proceed with a draft, etc.
    mike
    p.s. Keith: I hope you’re feeling well, and that your recovery proceeds quickly!
    At 10:02 AM 3/12/2003 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:

    Dear All,
    I agree with all the points being made and the multi-authored article would be a
    good idea,
    but how do we go about not letting it get buried somewhere. Can we not address the
    misconceptions by finally coming up with definitive dates for the LIA and MWP and
    redefining what we think the terms really mean? With all of us and more on the paper,
    it should
    carry a lot of weight. In a way we will be setting the agenda for what should be being
    done
    over the next few years.
    We do want a reputable journal but is The Holocene the right vehicle. It is
    probably the
    best of its class of journals out there. Mike and I were asked to write an article for
    the EGS
    journal of Surveys of Geophysics. You’ve not heard of this – few have, so we declined.
    However,
    it got me thinking that we could try for Reviews of Geophysics. Need to contact the
    editorial
    board to see if this might be possible. Just a thought, but it certainly has a high
    profile.
    What we want to write is NOT the scholarly review a la Jean Grove (bless her soul)
    that
    just reviews but doesn’t come to anything firm. We want a critical review that enables
    agendas to be set. Ray’s recent multi-authored piece goes a lot of the way so we need
    to build on this.
    Cheers
    Phil
    At 12:55 11/03/03 -0500, Michael E. Mann wrote:

    HI Malcolm,
    Thanks for the feedback–I largely concur. I do, though, think there is a particular
    problem with “Climate Research”. This is where my colleague Pat Michaels now publishes
    exclusively, and his two closest colleagues are on the editorial board and review editor
    board. So I promise you, we’ll see more of this there, and I personally think there *is*
    a bigger problem with the “messenger” in this case…
    But the Soon and Baliunas paper is its own, separate issue too. I too like Tom’s latter
    idea, of a more hefty multi-authored piece in an appropriate journal (Paleoceanography?
    Holocene?) that seeks to correct a number of misconceptions out there, perhaps using
    Baliunas and Soon as a case study (‘poster child’?), but taking on a slightly greater
    territory too.
    Question is, who would take the lead role. I *know* we’re all very busy,
    mike
    At 10:28 AM 3/11/03 -0700, Malcolm Hughes wrote:

    I’m with Tom on this. In a way it comes back to a rant of mine
    to which some of you have already been victim. The general
    point is that there are two arms of climatology:
    neoclimatology – what you do based on instrumental records
    and direct, systematic observations in networks – all set in a
    very Late Holocene/Anthropocene time with hourly to decadal
    interests.
    paleoclimatology – stuff from rocks, etc., where major changes
    in the Earth system, including its climate, associated with
    major changes in boundary conditions, may be detected by
    examination of one or a handful of paleo records.
    Between these two is what we do – “mesoclimatology” –
    dealing with many of the same phenomena as neoclimatology,
    using documentary and natural archives to look at phenomena
    on interannual to millennial time scales. Given relatively small
    changes in boundary conditions (until the last couple of
    centuries), mesoclimatology has to work in a way that is very
    similar to neoclimatology. Most notably, it depends on heavily
    replicated networks of precisely dated records capable of
    being either calibrated, or whose relationship to climate may
    be modeled accuarately and precisely.
    Because this distinction is not recognized by many (e.g.
    Sonnechkin, Broecker, Karlen) we see an accumulation of
    misguided attempts at describing the climate of recent
    millennia. It would be better to head this off in general, rather
    than draw attention to a bad paper. After all, as Tom rightly
    says, we could all nominate really bad papers that have been
    published in journals of outstanding reputation (although there
    could well be differences between our lists).
    End of rant, Cheers, Malcolm
    > Hi guys,
    >
    > junk gets published in lots of places. I think that what could be
    > done is a short reply to the authors in Climate Research OR a SLIGHTLY
    > longer note in a reputable journal entitled something like “Continuing
    > Misconceptions About interpretation of past climate change.” I kind
    > of like the more pointed character of the latter and submitting it as
    > a short note with a group authorship carries a heft that a reply to a
    > paper, in no matter what journal, does not.
    >
    > Tom
    >
    >
    >
    > > Dear All,
    > > Apologies for sending this again. I was expecting a stack of
    > >emails this morning in
    > > response, but I inadvertently left Mike off (mistake in pasting)
    > >and picked up Tom’s old
    > > address. Tom is busy though with another offspring !
    > > I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling –
    > >worst word I can think of today
    > > without the mood pepper appearing on the email ! I’ll have time to
    > >read more at the weekend
    > > as I’m coming to the US for the DoE CCPP meeting at Charleston.
    > >Added Ed, Peck and Keith A.
    > > onto this list as well. I would like to have time to rise to the
    > >bait, but I have so much else on at
    > > the moment. As a few of us will be at the EGS/AGU meet in Nice, we
    > >should consider what
    > > to do there.
    > > The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper
    > >determine the answer they get. They
    > > have no idea what multiproxy averaging does. By their logic, I
    > >could argue 1998 wasn’t the
    > > warmest year globally, because it wasn’t the warmest everywhere.
    > >With their LIA being 1300-
    > >1900 and their MWP 800-1300, there appears (at my quick first
    > >reading) no discussion of
    > > synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental
    > >record, the early and late
    > > 20th century warming periods are only significant locally at
    > >between 10-20% of grid boxes.
    > > Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do
    > >something – even if this is just
    > > to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think
    > >the skeptics will use
    > > this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of
    > >
    > >years if it goes
    > > unchallenged.
    > >
    > > I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having
    > >nothing more to do with it until they
    > > rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the
    > >editorial board, but papers
    > > get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.
    > >
    > > Cheers
    > > Phil
    > >
    > > Dear all,
    > > Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore
    > >probably, so don’t let it spoil your
    > > day. I’ve not looked at it yet. It results from this journal
    > >having a number of editors. The
    > > responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let
    > >
    > >a few papers through by
    > > Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch
    > >
    > >about this, but got nowhere.
    > > Another thing to discuss in Nice !
    > >
    > > Cheers
    > > Phil
    > >

  4. jimchip Says:

    1047478548.txt

    From: Tom Crowley
    To: Phil Jones

    Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
    Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:15:48 -0500
    Cc: “Michael E. Mann” , Malcolm Hughes , Tom Crowley , rbradley@geo.umass.edu, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu, srutherford@gso.uri.edu, mann@virginia.edu, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk

    Phil et al,

    I suggest either BAMS or Eos – the latter would probably be better because it is shorter,
    quicker, has a wide distribution, and all the points that need to be made have been made
    before.

    rather than dwelling on Soon and Baliunas I think the message should be pointedly made
    against all of the standard claptrap being dredged up.

    I suggest two figures- one on time series and another showing the spatial array of
    temperatures at one point in the Middle Ages. I produced a few of those for the Ambio
    paper but already have one ready for the Greenland settlement period 965-995 showing the
    regional nature of the warmth in that figure. we could add a few new sites to it, but if
    people think otherwise we could of course go in some other direction.

    rather than getting into the delicate question of which paleo reconstruction to use I
    suggest that we show a time series that is an eof of the different reconstructions – one
    that emphasizes the commonality of the message.

    Tom

    Dear All,
    I agree with all the points being made and the multi-authored article would be a
    good idea,
    but how do we go about not letting it get buried somewhere. Can we not address the
    misconceptions by finally coming up with definitive dates for the LIA and MWP and
    redefining what we think the terms really mean? With all of us and more on the paper,
    it should
    carry a lot of weight. In a way we will be setting the agenda for what should be being
    done
    over the next few years.
    We do want a reputable journal but is The Holocene the right vehicle. It is
    probably the
    best of its class of journals out there. Mike and I were asked to write an article for
    the EGS
    journal of Surveys of Geophysics. You’ve not heard of this – few have, so we declined.
    However,
    it got me thinking that we could try for Reviews of Geophysics. Need to contact the
    editorial
    board to see if this might be possible. Just a thought, but it certainly has a high
    profile.
    What we want to write is NOT the scholarly review a la Jean Grove (bless her soul)
    that
    just reviews but doesn’t come to anything firm. We want a critical review that enables
    agendas to be set. Ray’s recent multi-authored piece goes a lot of the way so we need
    to build on this.
    Cheers
    Phil
    At 12:55 11/03/03 -0500, Michael E. Mann wrote:

    HI Malcolm,
    Thanks for the feedback–I largely concur. I do, though, think there is a particular
    problem with “Climate Research”. This is where my colleague Pat Michaels now publishes
    exclusively, and his two closest colleagues are on the editorial board and review editor
    board. So I promise you, we’ll see more of this there, and I personally think there *is*
    a bigger problem with the “messenger” in this case…
    But the Soon and Baliunas paper is its own, separate issue too. I too like Tom’s latter
    idea, of a more hefty multi-authored piece in an appropriate journal (Paleoceanography?
    Holocene?) that seeks to correct a number of misconceptions out there, perhaps using
    Baliunas and Soon as a case study (‘poster child’?), but taking on a slightly greater
    territory too.
    Question is, who would take the lead role. I *know* we’re all very busy,
    mike
    At 10:28 AM 3/11/03 -0700, Malcolm Hughes wrote:

    I’m with Tom on this. In a way it comes back to a rant of mine
    to which some of you have already been victim. The general
    point is that there are two arms of climatology:
    neoclimatology – what you do based on instrumental records

    and direct, systematic observations in networks – all set in a

    very Late Holocene/Anthropocene time with hourly to decadal

    interests.

    paleoclimatology – stuff from rocks, etc., where major changes
    in the Earth system, including its climate, associated with

    major changes in boundary conditions, may be detected by
    examination of one or a handful of paleo records.
    Between these two is what we do – “mesoclimatology” –
    dealing with many of the same phenomena as neoclimatology,
    using documentary and natural archives to look at phenomena
    on interannual to millennial time scales. Given relatively small
    changes in boundary conditions (until the last couple of
    centuries), mesoclimatology has to work in a way that is very
    similar to neoclimatology. Most notably, it depends on heavily
    replicated networks of precisely dated records capable of
    being either calibrated, or whose relationship to climate may
    be modeled accuarately and precisely.
    Because this distinction is not recognized by many (e.g.
    Sonnechkin, Broecker, Karlen) we see an accumulation of
    misguided attempts at describing the climate of recent
    millennia. It would be better to head this off in general, rather
    than draw attention to a bad paper. After all, as Tom rightly
    says, we could all nominate really bad papers that have been
    published in journals of outstanding reputation (although there
    could well be differences between our lists).
    End of rant, Cheers, Malcolm
    > Hi guys,
    >
    > junk gets published in lots of places. I think that what could be
    > done is a short reply to the authors in Climate Research OR a SLIGHTLY
    > longer note in a reputable journal entitled something like “Continuing
    > Misconceptions About interpretation of past climate change.” I kind
    > of like the more pointed character of the latter and submitting it as
    > a short note with a group authorship carries a heft that a reply to a
    > paper, in no matter what journal, does not.
    >
    > Tom
    >
    >
    >
    > > Dear All,
    > > Apologies for sending this again. I was expecting a stack of
    > >emails this morning in
    > > response, but I inadvertently left Mike off (mistake in pasting)
    > >and picked up Tom’s old
    > > address. Tom is busy though with another offspring !
    > > I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling –
    > >worst word I can think of today
    > > without the mood pepper appearing on the email ! I’ll have time to
    > >read more at the weekend
    > > as I’m coming to the US for the DoE CCPP meeting at Charleston.
    > >Added Ed, Peck and Keith A.
    > > onto this list as well. I would like to have time to rise to the
    > >bait, but I have so much else on at
    > > the moment. As a few of us will be at the EGS/AGU meet in Nice, we
    > >should consider what
    > > to do there.
    > > The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper
    > >determine the answer they get. They
    > > have no idea what multiproxy averaging does. By their logic, I
    > >could argue 1998 wasn’t the
    > > warmest year globally, because it wasn’t the warmest everywhere.
    > >With their LIA being 1300-
    > >1900 and their MWP 800-1300, there appears (at my quick first
    > >reading) no discussion of
    > > synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental
    > >record, the early and late
    > > 20th century warming periods are only significant locally at
    > >between 10-20% of grid boxes.
    > > Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do
    > >something – even if this is just
    > > to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think
    > >the skeptics will use
    > > this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of
    > >
    > >years if it goes
    > > unchallenged.
    > >
    > > I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having
    > >nothing more to do with it until they
    > > rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the
    > >editorial board, but papers
    > > get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.
    > >
    > > Cheers
    > > Phil
    > >
    > > Dear all,
    > > Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore
    > >probably, so don’t let it spoil your
    > > day. I’ve not looked at it yet. It results from this journal
    > >having a number of editors. The
    > > responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let
    > >
    > >a few papers through by
    > > Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch

    > >
    > >about this, but got nowhere.
    > > Another thing to discuss in Nice !
    > >
    > > Cheers
    > > Phil

  5. jimchip Says:

    1047484387.txt

    From: Scott Rutherford
    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: Re: Soon & Baliunas
    Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:53:07 -0500
    Cc: Tom Crowley , Phil Jones

    , Malcolm Hughes , rbradley@geo.umass.edu, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk

    Dear All,

    First, I’d be willing to handle the data and the plotting/mapping.
    Second, regarding Mike’s suggestions, if we use different reference
    periods for the reconstructions and the models we need to be extremely
    careful about the differences. Not having seen what this will look
    like, I suggest that we start with the same instrumental reference
    period for both (1856-1960). If you are willing to send me your series
    please send the raw (i.e. unfiltered) series. That way I can treat
    them all the same. We can then decide how we want to display the
    results.

    Finally, Tom’s suggestion of Eos struck me as a great way to get a
    short, pointed story out to the most people (though I have no feel for
    the international distribution). My sense (being relatively new to
    this field compared to everyone else) is that within the neo- and
    mesoclimate research community there is a (relatively small?) group of
    people who don’t or won’t “get it” and there is nothing we can do
    about them aside from continuing to publish quality work in quality
    journals (or calling in a Mafia hit). Those (e.g. us) who are
    engrossed in the issues and are aware of all the literature should be
    able to distinguish between well done and poor work. Should then the
    intent of this proposed contribution be to education those who are not
    directly involved in MWP/LIA issues including those both on the
    perifery of the issue as well as those outside? If so, then the issue
    that Phil raised about not letting it get buried is significant and I
    think Eos is a great way to get people to see it.

    Cheers,
    Scott

    On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 10:32 AM, Michael E. Mann wrote:

    p.s. The idea of both a representative time-slice spatial
    plot emphasizing the spatial variability of e.g. the MWP or LIA, and
    an EOF analysis of all the records is a great idea. I’d like to
    suggest a small modification of the latter:

    I would suggest we show 2 curves, representing the 1st PC of two
    different groups, one of empirical reconstructions, the other of model
    simulations, rather than just one in the time plot.

    Group #1 could include:

    1) Crowley & Lowery

    2) Mann et al 1999

    3) Bradley and Jones 1995

    4) Jones et al, 1998

    5) Briffa et al 200X? [Keith/Tim to provide their preferred MXD
    reconstruction]

    6) Esper et al [yes, no?–one series that differs from the others
    won’t make much of a difference]

    I would suggest we scale the resulting PC to the CRU 1856-1960 annual
    Northern Hemisphere mean instrumental record, which should overlap w/
    all of the series, and which pre-dates the MXD decline issue…

    Group #2 would include various model simulations using different
    forcings, and with slightly different sensitivities. This could
    include 6 or so simulation results:

    1) 3 series from Crowley (2000) [based on different solar/volcanic
    reconstructions],

    2) 2 series from Gerber et al (Bern modeling group result) [based on
    different assumed sensitivities]

    1) Bauer et al series (Claussen group EMIC result) [includes 19th/20th
    century land use changes as a forcing].

    I would suggest that the model’s 20th century mean is aligned with the
    20th century instrumental N.Hem mean for comparison (since this is
    when we know the forcings best).

    I’d like to nominate Scott R. as the collector of the time series and
    the performer of the EOF analyses, scaling, and plotting, since Scott
    already has many of the series and many of the appropriate analysis
    and plotting tools set up to do this.

    We could each send our preferred versions of our respective time
    series to Scott as an ascii attachment, etc.

    thoughts, comments?

    thanks,

    mike
    At 10:08 AM 3/12/2003 -0500, Michael E. Mann wrote:

    Thanks Tom,

    Either would be good, but Eos is an especially good idea. Both Ellen
    M-T and Keith Alverson are on the editorial board there, so I think
    there would be some receptiveness to such a submission.t

    I see this as complementary to other pieces that we have written or
    are currently writing (e.g. a review that Ray, Malcolm, and Henry Diaz
    are doing for Science on the MWP) and this should proceed entirely
    independently of that.

    If there is group interest  in taking this tack, I’d be happy to
    contact Ellen/Keith about the potential interest in Eos, or I’d be
    happy to let Tom or Phil to take the lead too…

    Comments?
    mike
    At 09:15 AM 3/12/2003 -0500, Tom Crowley wrote:

    Phil et al,

    I suggest either BAMS or Eos – the latter would probably be
    better because it is shorter, quicker, has a wide distribution, and
    all the points that need to be made have been made before.

    rather than dwelling on Soon and Baliunas I think the message
    should be pointedly made against all of the standard claptrap being
    dredged up.

    I suggest two figures- one on time series and another showing
    the spatial array of temperatures at one point in the Middle Ages.  I
    produced a few of those for the Ambio paper but already have one ready
    for the Greenland settlement period 965-995 showing the regional
    nature of the warmth in that figure.  we could add a few new sites to
    it, but if people think otherwise we could of course go in some other
    direction.

    rather than getting into the delicate question of which paleo
    reconstruction to use I suggest that we show a time series that is an
    eof of the different reconstructions – one that emphasizes the
    commonality of the message.

    Tom

    Dear All,

         I agree with all the points being made and the multi-authored
    article would be a good idea,

     but how do we go about not letting it get buried somewhere. Can we
    not address the

     misconceptions by finally coming up with definitive dates for the LIA
    and MWP and

     redefining what we think the terms really mean? With all of us and
    more on the paper, it should

     carry a lot of weight. In a way we will be setting the agenda for
    what should be being done

     over the next few years.

         We do want a reputable journal but is The Holocene the right
    vehicle. It is probably the

     best of its class of journals out there.  Mike and I were asked to
    write an article for the EGS

     journal of Surveys of Geophysics. You’ve not heard of this – few
    have, so we declined. However,

     it got me thinking that we could try for Reviews of Geophysics. Need
    to contact the editorial

     board to see if this might be possible. Just a thought, but it
    certainly has a high profile.

         What we want to write is NOT the scholarly review a la Jean Grove
    (bless her soul) that

     just reviews but doesn’t come to anything firm. We want a critical
    review that enables

     agendas to be set. Ray’s recent multi-authored piece goes a lot of
    the way so we need

     to build on this.

     Cheers

     Phil

    At 12:55 11/03/03 -0500, Michael E. Mann wrote:

    HI Malcolm,

    Thanks for the feedback–I largely concur. I do, though, think there
    is a particular problem with “Climate Research”.  This is where my
    colleague Pat Michaels now publishes exclusively, and his two closest
    colleagues are on the editorial board and review editor board. So I
    promise you, we’ll see more of this there, and I personally think
    there *is* a bigger problem with the “messenger” in this case…

    But the Soon and Baliunas paper is its own, separate issue too. I too
    like Tom’s latter idea, of a  more hefty multi-authored piece in an
    appropriate journal (Paleoceanography? Holocene?) that seeks to
    correct a number of misconceptions out there, perhaps using Baliunas
    and Soon as a case study (‘poster child’?), but taking on a slightly
    greater territory too.

    Question is, who would take the lead role. I *know* we’re all very
    busy,

    mike

     At 10:28 AM 3/11/03 -0700, Malcolm Hughes wrote:

    I’m with Tom on this. In a way it comes back to a rant of mine

    to which some of you have already been victim. The general

    point is that there are two arms of climatology:

     neoclimatology – what you do based on instrumental records

    and direct, systematic observations in networks – all set in a

    very Late Holocene/Anthropocene time with hourly to decadal

    interests.

    paleoclimatology – stuff from rocks, etc., where major changes

    in the Earth system, including its climate, associated with

    major changes in boundary conditions, may be detected by

    examination of one or a handful of paleo records.

    Between these two is what we do – “mesoclimatology” –

    dealing with many of the same phenomena as neoclimatology,

    using documentary and natural archives to look at phenomena

    on interannual to millennial time scales. Given relatively small

    changes in boundary conditions (until the last couple of

    centuries), mesoclimatology has to work in a way that is very

    similar to neoclimatology. Most notably, it depends on heavily

    replicated networks of precisely dated records capable of

    being either calibrated, or whose relationship to climate may

    be modeled accuarately and precisely.

    Because this distinction is not recognized by many (e.g.

    Sonnechkin, Broecker, Karlen) we see an accumulation of

    misguided attempts at describing the climate of recent

    millennia. It would be better to head this off in general, rather

    than draw attention to a bad paper. After all, as Tom rightly

    says, we could all nominate really bad papers that have been

    published in journals of outstanding reputation (although there

    could well be differences between our lists).

    End of rant, Cheers, Malcolm

    > Hi guys,

    >

    > junk gets published in lots of places.  I think that what could be

    > done is a short reply to the authors in Climate Research OR a
    SLIGHTLY

    > longer note in a reputable journal entitled something like
    “Continuing

    > Misconceptions About interpretation of past climate change.”  I kind

    > of like the more pointed character of the latter and submitting it as

    > a short note with a group authorship carries a heft that a reply to a

    > paper, in no matter what journal, does not.

    >

    > Tom

    > >  Dear All,

    > >        Apologies for sending this again. I was expecting a stack of

    > >emails this morning in

    > >  response, but I inadvertently left Mike off (mistake in pasting)

    > >and picked up Tom’s old

    > >  address. Tom is busy though with another offspring !

    > >      I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling –

    > >worst word I can think of today

    > >  without the mood pepper appearing on the email ! I’ll have time to

    > >read more at the weekend

    > >  as I’m coming to the US for the DoE CCPP meeting at Charleston.

    > >Added Ed, Peck and Keith A.

    > >  onto this list as well.   I would like to have time to rise to the

    > >bait, but I have so much else on at

    > >  the moment. As a few of us will be at the EGS/AGU meet in Nice, we

    > >should consider what

    > >  to do there.

    > >      The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper

    > >determine the answer they get. They

    > >  have no idea what multiproxy averaging does. By their logic, I

    > >could argue 1998 wasn’t the

    > >  warmest year globally, because it wasn’t the warmest everywhere.

    > >With their LIA being 1300-

    > >1900 and their MWP 800-1300, there appears (at my quick first

    > >reading) no discussion of

    > >  synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental

    > >record, the early and late

    > >  20th century warming periods are only significant locally at

    > >between 10-20% of grid boxes.

    > >       Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do

    > >something – even if this is just

    > >  to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think

    > >the skeptics will use

    > >  this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number
    of

    > >

    > >years if it goes

    > >  unchallenged.

    > >

    > >        I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having

    > >nothing more to do with it until they

    > >  rid themselves of this troublesome editor.  A CRU person is on the

    > >editorial board, but papers

    > >  get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.

    > >

    > >  Cheers

    > >  Phil

    > >

    > >  Dear all,

    > >       Tim Osborn has just come across this.  Best to ignore

    > >probably, so don’t let it spoil your

    > >  day. I’ve not looked at it yet.  It results from this journal

    > >having a number of editors. The

    > >  responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ.  He has
    let

    > >

    > >a few papers through by

    > >  Michaels and Gray in the past.  I’ve had words with Hans von
    Storch
    > >about this, but got nowhere.

    > >      Another thing to discuss in Nice !

  6. jimchip Says:

    1047485263.txt

    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    To: Scott Rutherford
    Subject: Re: Soon & Baliunas
    Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:07:43 -0500
    Cc: Tom Crowley ,Phil Jones

    , Malcolm Hughes ,rbradley@geo.umass.edu, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk,mann@virginia.edu

    Thanks Scott,
    I concur. We may want to try a few different alignment/scaling choices in the end, and
    then just vote on which we like the best,
    Anxious to here others’ thoughts on all of this,
    mike
    At 10:53 AM 3/12/2003 -0500, Scott Rutherford wrote:

    Dear All,
    First, I’d be willing to handle the data and the plotting/mapping. Second, regarding
    Mike’s suggestions, if we use different reference periods for the reconstructions and
    the models we need to be extremely careful about the differences. Not having seen what
    this will look like, I suggest that we start with the same instrumental reference period
    for both (1856-1960). If you are willing to send me your series please send the raw
    (i.e. unfiltered) series. That way I can treat them all the same. We can then decide how
    we want to display the results.
    Finally, Tom’s suggestion of Eos struck me as a great way to get a short, pointed story
    out to the most people (though I have no feel for the international distribution). My
    sense (being relatively new to this field compared to everyone else) is that within the
    neo- and mesoclimate research community there is a (relatively small?) group of people
    who don’t or won’t “get it” and there is nothing we can do about them aside from
    continuing to publish quality work in quality journals (or calling in a Mafia hit).
    Those (e.g. us) who are engrossed in the issues and are aware of all the literature
    should be able to distinguish between well done and poor work. Should then the intent
    of this proposed contribution be to education those who are not directly involved in
    MWP/LIA issues including those both on the perifery of the issue as well as those
    outside? If so, then the issue that Phil raised about not letting it get buried is
    significant and I think Eos is a great way to get people to see it.
    Cheers,
    Scott
    On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 10:32 AM, Michael E. Mann wrote:

    p.s. The idea of both a representative time-slice spatial plot emphasizing the spatial
    variability of e.g. the MWP or LIA, and an EOF analysis of all the records is a great
    idea. I’d like to suggest a small modification of the latter:
    I would suggest we show 2 curves, representing the 1st PC of two different groups, one
    of empirical reconstructions, the other of model simulations, rather than just one in
    the time plot.
    Group #1 could include:
    1) Crowley & Lowery
    2) Mann et al 1999
    3) Bradley and Jones 1995
    4) Jones et al, 1998
    5) Briffa et al 200X? [Keith/Tim to provide their preferred MXD reconstruction]
    6) Esper et al [yes, no?–one series that differs from the others won’t make much of a
    difference]
    I would suggest we scale the resulting PC to the CRU 1856-1960 annual Northern
    Hemisphere mean instrumental record, which should overlap w/ all of the series, and
    which pre-dates the MXD decline issue…
    Group #2 would include various model simulations using different forcings, and with
    slightly different sensitivities. This could include 6 or so simulation results:
    1) 3 series from Crowley (2000) [based on different solar/volcanic reconstructions],
    2) 2 series from Gerber et al (Bern modeling group result) [based on different assumed
    sensitivities]
    1) Bauer et al series (Claussen group EMIC result) [includes 19th/20th century land use
    changes as a forcing].
    I would suggest that the model’s 20th century mean is aligned with the 20th century
    instrumental N.Hem mean for comparison (since this is when we know the forcings best).
    I’d like to nominate Scott R. as the collector of the time series and the performer of
    the EOF analyses, scaling, and plotting, since Scott already has many of the series and
    many of the appropriate analysis and plotting tools set up to do this.
    We could each send our preferred versions of our respective time series to Scott as an
    ascii attachment, etc.
    thoughts, comments?
    thanks,
    mike
    At 10:08 AM 3/12/2003 -0500, Michael E. Mann wrote:
    Thanks Tom,
    Either would be good, but Eos is an especially good idea. Both Ellen M-T and Keith
    Alverson are on the editorial board there, so I think there would be some receptiveness
    to such a submission.t
    I see this as complementary to other pieces that we have written or are currently
    writing (e.g. a review that Ray, Malcolm, and Henry Diaz are doing for Science on the
    MWP) and this should proceed entirely independently of that.
    If there is group interest in taking this tack, I’d be happy to contact Ellen/Keith
    about the potential interest in Eos, or I’d be happy to let Tom or Phil to take the lead
    too…
    Comments?
    mike
    At 09:15 AM 3/12/2003 -0500, Tom Crowley wrote:

    Phil et al,

    I suggest either BAMS or Eos – the latter would probably be better because it is
    shorter, quicker, has a wide distribution, and all the points that need to be made have
    been made before.

    rather than dwelling on Soon and Baliunas I think the message should be pointedly made
    against all of the standard claptrap being dredged up.

    I suggest two figures- one on time series and another showing the spatial array of
    temperatures at one point in the Middle Ages. I produced a few of those for the Ambio
    paper but already have one ready for the Greenland settlement period 965-995 showing the
    regional nature of the warmth in that figure. we could add a few new sites to it, but
    if people think otherwise we could of course go in some other direction.

    rather than getting into the delicate question of which paleo reconstruction to use I
    suggest that we show a time series that is an eof of the different reconstructions – one
    that emphasizes the commonality of the message.

    Tom

    Dear All,
    I agree with all the points being made and the multi-authored article would be a
    good idea,
    but how do we go about not letting it get buried somewhere. Can we not address the
    misconceptions by finally coming up with definitive dates for the LIA and MWP and
    redefining what we think the terms really mean? With all of us and more on the paper,
    it should
    carry a lot of weight. In a way we will be setting the agenda for what should be being
    done
    over the next few years.
    We do want a reputable journal but is The Holocene the right vehicle. It is
    probably the
    best of its class of journals out there. Mike and I were asked to write an article for
    the EGS
    journal of Surveys of Geophysics. You’ve not heard of this – few have, so we declined.
    However,
    it got me thinking that we could try for Reviews of Geophysics. Need to contact the
    editorial
    board to see if this might be possible. Just a thought, but it certainly has a high
    profile.
    What we want to write is NOT the scholarly review a la Jean Grove (bless her soul)
    that
    just reviews but doesn’t come to anything firm. We want a critical review that enables
    agendas to be set. Ray’s recent multi-authored piece goes a lot of the way so we need
    to build on this.
    Cheers
    Phil
    At 12:55 11/03/03 -0500, Michael E. Mann wrote:
    HI Malcolm,
    Thanks for the feedback–I largely concur. I do, though, think there is a particular
    problem with “Climate Research”. This is where my colleague Pat Michaels now publishes
    exclusively, and his two closest colleagues are on the editorial board and review editor
    board. So I promise you, we’ll see more of this there, and I personally think there *is*
    a bigger problem with the “messenger” in this case…
    But the Soon and Baliunas paper is its own, separate issue too. I too like Tom’s latter
    idea, of a more hefty multi-authored piece in an appropriate journal (Paleoceanography?
    Holocene?) that seeks to correct a number of misconceptions out there, perhaps using
    Baliunas and Soon as a case study (‘poster child’?), but taking on a slightly greater
    territory too.
    Question is, who would take the lead role. I *know* we’re all very busy,
    mike
    At 10:28 AM 3/11/03 -0700, Malcolm Hughes wrote:
    I’m with Tom on this. In a way it comes back to a rant of mine
    to which some of you have already been victim. The general
    point is that there are two arms of climatology:
    neoclimatology – what you do based on instrumental records
    and direct, systematic observations in networks – all set in a
    very Late Holocene/Anthropocene time with hourly to decadal
    interests.
    paleoclimatology – stuff from rocks, etc., where major changes
    in the Earth system, including its climate, associated with
    major changes in boundary conditions, may be detected by
    examination of one or a handful of paleo records.
    Between these two is what we do – “mesoclimatology” –
    dealing with many of the same phenomena as neoclimatology,
    using documentary and natural archives to look at phenomena
    on interannual to millennial time scales. Given relatively small
    changes in boundary conditions (until the last couple of
    centuries), mesoclimatology has to work in a way that is very
    similar to neoclimatology. Most notably, it depends on heavily
    replicated networks of precisely dated records capable of
    being either calibrated, or whose relationship to climate may
    be modeled accuarately and precisely.
    Because this distinction is not recognized by many (e.g.
    Sonnechkin, Broecker, Karlen) we see an accumulation of
    misguided attempts at describing the climate of recent
    millennia. It would be better to head this off in general, rather
    than draw attention to a bad paper. After all, as Tom rightly
    says, we could all nominate really bad papers that have been
    published in journals of outstanding reputation (although there
    could well be differences between our lists).
    End of rant, Cheers, Malcolm
    > Hi guys,
    >
    > junk gets published in lots of places. I think that what could be
    > done is a short reply to the authors in Climate Research OR a SLIGHTLY
    > longer note in a reputable journal entitled something like “Continuing
    > Misconceptions About interpretation of past climate change.” I kind
    > of like the more pointed character of the latter and submitting it as
    > a short note with a group authorship carries a heft that a reply to a
    > paper, in no matter what journal, does not.
    >
    > Tom
    >
    >
    >
    > > Dear All,
    > > Apologies for sending this again. I was expecting a stack of
    > >emails this morning in
    > > response, but I inadvertently left Mike off (mistake in pasting)
    > >and picked up Tom’s old
    > > address. Tom is busy though with another offspring !
    > > I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling –
    > >worst word I can think of today
    > > without the mood pepper appearing on the email ! I’ll have time to
    > >read more at the weekend
    > > as I’m coming to the US for the DoE CCPP meeting at Charleston.
    > >Added Ed, Peck and Keith A.
    > > onto this list as well. I would like to have time to rise to the
    > >bait, but I have so much else on at
    > > the moment. As a few of us will be at the EGS/AGU meet in Nice, we
    > >should consider what
    > > to do there.
    > > The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper
    > >determine the answer they get. They
    > > have no idea what multiproxy averaging does. By their logic, I
    > >could argue 1998 wasn’t the
    > > warmest year globally, because it wasn’t the warmest everywhere.
    > >With their LIA being 1300-
    > >1900 and their MWP 800-1300, there appears (at my quick first
    > >reading) no discussion of
    > > synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental
    > >record, the early and late
    > > 20th century warming periods are only significant locally at
    > >between 10-20% of grid boxes.
    > > Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do
    > >something – even if this is just
    > > to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think
    > >the skeptics will use
    > > this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of
    > >
    > >years if it goes
    > > unchallenged.
    > >
    > > I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having
    > >nothing more to do with it until they
    > > rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the
    > >editorial board, but papers
    > > get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.
    > >
    > > Cheers
    > > Phil
    > >
    > > Dear all,
    > > Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore
    > >probably, so don’t let it spoil your
    > > day. I’ve not looked at it yet. It results from this journal
    > >having a number of editors. The
    > > responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let
    > >
    > >a few papers through by
    > > Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch
    > >
    > >about this, but got nowhere.
    > > Another thing to discuss in Nice !
    > >
    > > Cheers
    > > Phil

  7. jimchip Says:

    1047489122.txt

    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    To: Tim Osborn ,Tom Crowley , Phil Jones

    Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
    Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:12:02 -0500
    Cc: rbradley@geo.umass.edu,mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu,srutherford@gso.uri.edu, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,mann@virginia.edu

    Dear Tim,
    Thanks for your rapid replies and your help. This is all very useful.
    Well, lets see what this gives…
    There are some notable differences just between our relative comparisons of the different
    series which must have something to do with the relative scaling and aligning of the
    series. The position of Crowley and Lowery, in particular, is quite inconsistent between
    our respective comparisons. When we scale the various series to the full N. Hem
    instrumental annual mean CRU record 1856-1980, we get a a very different relative ordering
    of the different series, as shown in the attached figure from my Science perspective piece
    from last year
    This should not, however, influence the EOF decomposition if all series are zero-mean and
    standardized prior to the EOF analysis, but the scaling and alignment of the result, in the
    end, will be sensitive to all of these various issues.
    So, in short, lets see what we get, and then discuss any similarities/differences w/ your
    result, then make a decision as to what to show in the Eos piece. I’m sure we can come up
    w/ something we’re all happy with…
    Please do send us your & Keith’s preferred version of the MXD reconstruction–we’ll collect
    the others from the individual sources (most we already have, I think)…,
    mike
    At 04:53 PM 3/12/2003 +0000, Tim Osborn wrote:

    At 16:29 12/03/03, Michael E. Mann wrote:

    but there are many variables here [not the least of which is the choice of scaling the
    series to an extratropical summer mean, which as we have argued before, we don’t think
    is appropriate for a full N. Hem mean because of changes in meridional temperature
    gradient over time, and the choice of calibration period–I wonder if 1856-1960 or
    1856-1980 gives a more stable result).

    True, but as I indicated I have tried alternatives. The attached is what I get with
    annual mean temperature as the target series – still taken only from land >20N though
    [but I have extracted that domain from your spatial reconstructions to produce the time
    series that I used for “Mann et al.” – which should make it reasonably appropriate back
    to 1400 at least]. I have also tried different calibration periods (including not
    calibrating against instrumental data at all!). All give qualitatively similar results
    – see attached .pdf and compare with the first one I sent.
    The point is, that (I believe) the approach will introduce a *new* result and while that
    is interesting it wouldn’t be appropriate for a short EOS piece – and having found this
    out, I was trying to save you the effort.
    But, on reflection, it would be good if you went ahead and did this anyway, because the
    results might well be useful to publish in another paper, even if they weren’t deemed
    suitable for the EOS piece.
    I could provide the 7 series that I have used, but would prefer that you got them from
    the original sources to ensure that you have the most up-to-date/correct versions.
    Cheers
    Tim

  8. jimchip Says:

    1047503776.txt

    From: Tim Osborn
    To: “Michael E. Mann” ,Tom Crowley , Phil Jones

    Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
    Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:16:16 +0000
    Cc: Malcolm Hughes ,rbradley@geo.umass.edu, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu,srutherford@gso.uri.edu,k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, mann@virginia.edu

    This is an excellent idea, Mike, IN PRINCIPLE at least. In practise,
    however, it raises some interesting results (as I have found when
    attempting this myself) that may be difficult to avoid getting bogged down
    with discussing.

    The attached .pdf figure shows an example of what I have produced (NB.
    please don’t circulate this further, as it is from work that is currently
    being finished off – however, I’m happy to use it here to illustrate my point).

    I took 7 reconstructions and re-calibrated them over a common period and
    against an observed target series (in this case, land-only, Apr-Sep, >20N –
    BUT I GET SIMILAR RESULTS WITH OTHER CHOICES, and this re-calibration stage
    is not critical). You will have seen figures similar to this in stuff
    Keith and I have published. See the coloured lines in the attached figure.

    In this example I then simply took an unweighted average of the calibrated
    series, but the weighted average obtained via an EOF approach can give
    similar results. The average is shown by the thin black line (I’ve ignored
    the potential problems of series covering different periods). This was all
    done with raw, unsmoothed data, even though 30-yr smoothed curves are
    plotted in the figure.

    The thick black line is what I get when I re-calibrate the average record
    against my target observed series. THIS IS THE IMPORTANT BIT. The
    *re-calibrated* mean of the reconstructions is nowhere near the mean of the
    reconstructions. It has enhanced variability, because averaging the
    reconstructions results in a redder time series (there is less common
    variance between the reconstructions at the higher frequencies compared
    with the lower frequencies, so the former averages out to leave a smoother
    curve) and the re-calibration is then more of a case of fitting a trend
    (over my calibration period 1881-1960) to the observed trend. This results
    in enhanced variability, but also enhanced uncertainty (not shown here) due
    to fewer effective degrees of freedom during calibration.

    Obviously there are questions about observed target series, which series to
    include/exclude etc., but the same issue will arise regardless: the
    analysis will not likely lie near to the middle of the cloud of published
    series and explaining the reasons behind this etc. will obscure the message
    of a short EOS piece.

    It is, of course, interesting – not least for the comparison with
    borehole-based estimates – but that is for a separate paper, I think.

    My suggestion would be to stick with one of these options:
    (i) a single example reconstruction;
    (ii) a plot of a cloud of reconstructions;
    (iii) a plot of the “envelope” containing the cloud of reconstructions
    (perhaps also the envelope would encompass their uncertainty estimates),
    but without showing the individual reconstruction best guesses.

    How many votes for each?

    Cheers

    Tim

    At 15:32 12/03/03, Michael E. Mann wrote:
    >p.s. The idea of both a representative time-slice spatial plot emphasizing
    >the spatial variability of e.g. the MWP or LIA, and an EOF analysis of all
    >the records is a great idea. I’d like to suggest a small modification of
    >the latter:
    >
    >I would suggest we show 2 curves, representing the 1st PC of two different
    >groups, one of empirical reconstructions, the other of model simulations,
    >rather than just one in the time plot.
    >
    >Group #1 could include:
    >
    >1) Crowley & Lowery
    >2) Mann et al 1999
    >3) Bradley and Jones 1995
    >4) Jones et al, 1998
    >5) Briffa et al 200X? [Keith/Tim to provide their preferred MXD
    >reconstruction]
    >6) Esper et al [yes, no?–one series that differs from the others won’t
    >make much of a difference]
    >
    >I would suggest we scale the resulting PC to the CRU 1856-1960 annual
    >Northern Hemisphere mean instrumental record, which should overlap w/ all
    >of the series, and which pre-dates the MXD decline issue…
    >
    >Group #2 would include various model simulations using different forcings,
    >and with slightly different sensitivities. This could include 6 or so
    >simulation results:
    >
    >1) 3 series from Crowley (2000) [based on different solar/volcanic
    >reconstructions],
    >2) 2 series from Gerber et al (Bern modeling group result) [based on
    >different assumed sensitivities]
    >1) Bauer et al series (Claussen group EMIC result) [includes 19th/20th
    >century land use changes as a forcing].
    >
    >I would suggest that the model’s 20th century mean is aligned with the
    >20th century instrumental N.Hem mean for comparison (since this is when we
    >know the forcings best).
    >
    >
    >I’d like to nominate Scott R. as the collector of the time series and the
    >performer of the EOF analyses, scaling, and plotting, since Scott already
    >has many of the series and many of the appropriate analysis and plotting
    >tools set up to do this.
    >
    >We could each send our preferred versions of our respective time series to
    >Scott as an ascii attachment, etc.
    >
    >thoughts, comments?
    >
    >thanks,
    >
    >mike
    >
    >At 10:08 AM 3/12/2003 -0500, Michael E. Mann wrote:
    >>Thanks Tom,
    >>
    >>Either would be good, but Eos is an especially good idea. Both Ellen M-T
    >>and Keith Alverson are on the editorial board there, so I think there
    >>would be some receptiveness to such a submission.t
    >>
    >>I see this as complementary to other pieces that we have written or are
    >>currently writing (e.g. a review that Ray, Malcolm, and Henry Diaz are
    >>doing for Science on the MWP) and this should proceed entirely
    >>independently of that.
    >>
    >>If there is group interest in taking this tack, I’d be happy to contact
    >>Ellen/Keith about the potential interest in Eos, or I’d be happy to let
    >>Tom or Phil to take the lead too…
    >>
    >>Comments?
    >>
    >>mike
    >>
    >>At 09:15 AM 3/12/2003 -0500, Tom Crowley wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Phil et al,
    >>>
    >>>I suggest either BAMS or Eos – the latter would probably be better
    >>>because it is shorter, quicker, has a wide distribution, and all the
    >>>points that need to be made have been made before.
    >>>
    >>>rather than dwelling on Soon and Baliunas I think the message should be
    >>>pointedly made against all of the standard claptrap being dredged up.
    >>>
    >>>I suggest two figures- one on time series and another showing the
    >>>spatial array of temperatures at one point in the Middle Ages. I
    >>>produced a few of those for the Ambio paper but already have one ready
    >>>for the Greenland settlement period 965-995 showing the regional nature
    >>>of the warmth in that figure. we could add a few new sites to it, but
    >>>if people think otherwise we could of course go in some other direction.
    >>>
    >>>rather than getting into the delicate question of which paleo
    >>>reconstruction to use I suggest that we show a time series that is an
    >>>eof of the different reconstructions – one that emphasizes the
    >>>commonality of the message.
    >>>
    >>>Tom
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Dear All,
    >>>> I agree with all the points being made and the multi-authored
    >>>> article would be a good idea,
    >>>> but how do we go about not letting it get buried somewhere. Can we
    >>>> not address the
    >>>> misconceptions by finally coming up with definitive dates for the LIA
    >>>> and MWP and
    >>>> redefining what we think the terms really mean? With all of us and
    >>>> more on the paper, it should
    >>>> carry a lot of weight. In a way we will be setting the agenda for
    >>>> what should be being done
    >>>> over the next few years.
    >>>> We do want a reputable journal but is The Holocene the right
    >>>> vehicle. It is probably the
    >>>> best of its class of journals out there. Mike and I were asked to
    >>>> write an article for the EGS
    >>>> journal of Surveys of Geophysics. You’ve not heard of this – few
    >>>> have, so we declined. However,
    >>>> it got me thinking that we could try for Reviews of Geophysics. Need
    >>>> to contact the editorial
    >>>> board to see if this might be possible. Just a thought, but it
    >>>> certainly has a high profile.
    >>>> What we want to write is NOT the scholarly review a la Jean Grove
    >>>> (bless her soul) that
    >>>> just reviews but doesn’t come to anything firm. We want a critical
    >>>> review that enables
    >>>> agendas to be set. Ray’s recent multi-authored piece goes a lot of
    >>>> the way so we need
    >>>> to build on this.
    >>>>
    >>>> Cheers
    >>>> Phil
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>At 12:55 11/03/03 -0500, Michael E. Mann wrote:
    >>>>>HI Malcolm,
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Thanks for the feedback–I largely concur. I do, though, think there
    >>>>>is a particular problem with “Climate Research”. This is where my
    >>>>>colleague Pat Michaels now publishes exclusively, and his two closest
    >>>>>colleagues are on the editorial board and review editor board. So I
    >>>>>promise you, we’ll see more of this there, and I personally think
    >>>>>there *is* a bigger problem with the “messenger” in this case…
    >>>>>
    >>>>>But the Soon and Baliunas paper is its own, separate issue too. I too
    >>>>>like Tom’s latter idea, of a more hefty multi-authored piece in an
    >>>>>appropriate journal (Paleoceanography? Holocene?) that seeks to
    >>>>>correct a number of misconceptions out there, perhaps using Baliunas
    >>>>>and Soon as a case study (‘poster child’?), but taking on a slightly
    >>>>>greater territory too.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Question is, who would take the lead role. I *know* we’re all very busy,
    >>>>>
    >>>>>mike
    >>>>>
    >>>>> At 10:28 AM 3/11/03 -0700, Malcolm Hughes wrote:
    >>>>>>I’m with Tom on this. In a way it comes back to a rant of mine
    >>>>>>to which some of you have already been victim. The general
    >>>>>>point is that there are two arms of climatology:
    >>>>>> neoclimatology – what you do based on instrumental records
    >>>>>>and direct, systematic observations in networks – all set in a
    >>>>>>very Late Holocene/Anthropocene time with hourly to decadal
    >>>>>>interests.
    >>>>>>paleoclimatology – stuff from rocks, etc., where major changes
    >>>>>>in the Earth system, including its climate, associated with
    >>>>>>major changes in boundary conditions, may be detected by
    >>>>>>examination of one or a handful of paleo records.
    >>>>>>Between these two is what we do – “mesoclimatology” –
    >>>>>>dealing with many of the same phenomena as neoclimatology,
    >>>>>>using documentary and natural archives to look at phenomena
    >>>>>>on interannual to millennial time scales. Given relatively small
    >>>>>>changes in boundary conditions (until the last couple of
    >>>>>>centuries), mesoclimatology has to work in a way that is very
    >>>>>>similar to neoclimatology. Most notably, it depends on heavily
    >>>>>>replicated networks of precisely dated records capable of
    >>>>>>being either calibrated, or whose relationship to climate may
    >>>>>>be modeled accuarately and precisely.
    >>>>>>Because this distinction is not recognized by many (e.g.
    >>>>>>Sonnechkin, Broecker, Karlen) we see an accumulation of
    >>>>>>misguided attempts at describing the climate of recent
    >>>>>>millennia. It would be better to head this off in general, rather
    >>>>>>than draw attention to a bad paper. After all, as Tom rightly
    >>>>>>says, we could all nominate really bad papers that have been
    >>>>>>published in journals of outstanding reputation (although there
    >>>>>>could well be differences between our lists).
    >>>>>>End of rant, Cheers, Malcolm
    >>>>>> > Hi guys,
    >>>>>> >
    >>>>>> > junk gets published in lots of places. I think that what could be
    >>>>>> > done is a short reply to the authors in Climate Research OR a SLIGHTLY
    >>>>>> > longer note in a reputable journal entitled something like “Continuing
    >>>>>> > Misconceptions About interpretation of past climate change.” I kind
    >>>>>> > of like the more pointed character of the latter and submitting it as
    >>>>>> > a short note with a group authorship carries a heft that a reply to a
    >>>>>> > paper, in no matter what journal, does not.
    >>>>>> >
    >>>>>> > Tom
    >>>>>> >
    >>>>>> >
    >>>>>> >
    >>>>>> > > Dear All,
    >>>>>> > > Apologies for sending this again. I was expecting a stack of
    >>>>>> > >emails this morning in
    >>>>>> > > response, but I inadvertently left Mike off (mistake in pasting)
    >>>>>> > >and picked up Tom’s old
    >>>>>> > > address. Tom is busy though with another offspring !
    >>>>>> > > I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling –
    >>>>>> > >worst word I can think of today
    >>>>>> > > without the mood pepper appearing on the email ! I’ll have time to
    >>>>>> > >read more at the weekend
    >>>>>> > > as I’m coming to the US for the DoE CCPP meeting at Charleston.
    >>>>>> > >Added Ed, Peck and Keith A.
    >>>>>> > > onto this list as well. I would like to have time to rise to the
    >>>>>> > >bait, but I have so much else on at
    >>>>>> > > the moment. As a few of us will be at the EGS/AGU meet in Nice, we
    >>>>>> > >should consider what
    >>>>>> > > to do there.
    >>>>>> > > The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper
    >>>>>> > >determine the answer they get. They
    >>>>>> > > have no idea what multiproxy averaging does. By their logic, I
    >>>>>> > >could argue 1998 wasn’t the
    >>>>>> > > warmest year globally, because it wasn’t the warmest everywhere.
    >>>>>> > >With their LIA being 1300-
    >>>>>> > >1900 and their MWP 800-1300, there appears (at my quick first
    >>>>>> > >reading) no discussion of
    >>>>>> > > synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental
    >>>>>> > >record, the early and late
    >>>>>> > > 20th century warming periods are only significant locally at
    >>>>>> > >between 10-20% of grid boxes.
    >>>>>> > > Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do
    >>>>>> > >something – even if this is just
    >>>>>> > > to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think
    >>>>>> > >the skeptics will use
    >>>>>> > > this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of
    >>>>>> > >
    >>>>>> > >years if it goes
    >>>>>> > > unchallenged.
    >>>>>> > >
    >>>>>> > > I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having
    >>>>>> > >nothing more to do with it until they
    >>>>>> > > rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the
    >>>>>> > >editorial board, but papers
    >>>>>> > > get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.
    >>>>>> > >
    >>>>>> > > Cheers
    >>>>>> > > Phil
    >>>>>> > >
    >>>>>> > > Dear all,
    >>>>>> > > Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore
    >>>>>> > >probably, so don’t let it spoil your
    >>>>>> > > day. I’ve not looked at it yet. It results from this journal
    >>>>>> > >having a number of editors. The
    >>>>>> > > responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let
    >>>>>> > >
    >>>>>> > >a few papers through by
    >>>>>> > > Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch
    >>>>>> > >
    >>>>>> > >about this, but got nowhere.
    >>>>>> > > Another thing to discuss in Nice !
    >>>>>> > >
    >>>>>> > > Cheers
    >>>>>> > > Phil

  9. jimchip Says:

    1062618881.txt now into Sept 2003 but there may be some intervening

    From: Tim Osborn
    To: Keith Briffa , Edward Cook
    Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
    Date: Wed Sep 3 15:54:41 2003

    Hi Ed,
    first all, yes I agree that we need a paper that takes a more objective look at where we
    are now and how we can take things forward in terms of NH temperature reconstructions (and
    possibly global, SH, spatial etc.).
    As Keith said, we (mainly I so far) have been planning our version of this (hopefully)
    “objective assessment”, and by chance I was sketching out a vague outline of its possible
    content. We’ve been keeping this fairly close to our chests for now, so please keep our
    plans/ideas to yourself for the moment. There is partial overlap between our ideas and
    yours, so it might be good to do this jointly. Anyway, my current ideas are a number of
    forum articles, the first comparing existing reconstructions but without going into more
    depth, and the other three looking at the way forward (i.e. what should we attempt to do to
    improve them):
    Forum piece (1): Comparison of existing reconstructions
    This has most overlaps with your ideas, though I hadn’t thought of it being so
    comprehensive. I was thinking more of:
    (a) comparing original series.
    (b) comparing them after our recalibration to common target data, including discussion of
    why some things don’t change much (e.g. relative positioning of reconstructions), though
    amplitudes can change – and of course the comparison of Mann et al. with and without
    oceans/tropics.
    (c) maybe a bit on comparison with boreholes, though maybe not.
    (d) uncertainty estimates and how these may decrease with time scale and hence not all
    reconstructions lie in the Mann et al. uncertainty ranges.
    Forum piece (2): Selection of predictand and predictor data
    (a) What to try to reconstruct and why it matters – e.g. will we get the wrong spectral
    shape if we reconstruct ocean SST from land-based proxies. Plus some on seasonality,
    though Jones, Osborn and Briffa cover part of that issue (are you aware of that paper, in
    press with JGR?).
    (b) What proxies should be used – e.g. does throwing in “poor” proxies cause a problem with
    simple averaging, weighted averaging and multivariate regression approaches. Plus does
    using precipitation proxies to reconstruct temperature result in the wrong spectral shape?
    Forum piece (3): Reconstruction methods
    Something here on different methods (simple averaging, multivariate regression type
    approaches) and different implementation choices (e.g. calibration against trends/filtered
    data). Not entirely sure about this, but it would not be new work, just would critically
    appraise the methods used to date and what their theoretical/potential problems/advantages
    might be.
    Forum piece (4): Estimating uncertainty
    Again, not entirely sure yet, but this must emphasise the absolute requirement to estimate
    AND USE uncertainty when comparing reconstructions against observations or simulations
    etc. Then something about how to do it, contrasting using calibration residuals,
    verification residuals, parameter uncertainty, with the type of approach that you’ve taken
    (bootstrap uncertainty, or measures of the EPS) to look at the common signal, with
    additional uncertainty of how the common signal differs from the predictand.
    So that’s it!! Perhaps rather ambitious, so maybe a reduction to certain key points might
    be required. I was deliberately avoiding any review of tree-ring contributions and
    low-frequency per se, thinking that you and Keith would be taking the lead on that kind of
    review.
    One final think to mention, is that the emails copied below and the attached file might be
    of interest to you as an example of something that *might* go in a comparison paper of
    existing reconstructions. It’s shows how the recalibrated average of existing
    reconstructions differs from the average of existing calibrated reconstructions. You’ll
    see from Mike Mann’s initial request below that he was thinking of it as a contribution to
    the EOS rebuttal of Soon and Baliunas, but I’ve not heard much from him since. Also Tom
    Crowley was very interests in this composite of the reconstructions, and I started to
    converse with him about it but never finished estimating the uncertainty range on the
    composite series and kind of stopped emailing him. But I guess either of them might
    reproduce this idea sometime, if it suits them.
    A visit to talk face to face about all these things would be good. Keith and I have been
    talking about how to fit a visit in.
    Cheers
    Tim

    Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:16:16 +0000
    To: “Michael E. Mann” , Tom Crowley , Phil Jones

    From: Tim Osborn
    Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
    Cc: Malcolm Hughes , rbradley@geo.umass.edu,
    mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu, srutherford@gso.uri.edu, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, mann@virginia.edu
    This is an excellent idea, Mike, IN PRINCIPLE at least. In practise, however, it raises
    some interesting results (as I have found when attempting this myself) that may be
    difficult to avoid getting bogged down with discussing.
    The attached .pdf figure shows an example of what I have produced (NB. please don’t
    circulate this further, as it is from work that is currently being finished off –
    however, I’m happy to use it here to illustrate my point).
    I took 7 reconstructions and re-calibrated them over a common period and against an
    observed target series (in this case, land-only, Apr-Sep, >20N – BUT I GET SIMILAR
    RESULTS WITH OTHER CHOICES, and this re-calibration stage is not critical). You will
    have seen figures similar to this in stuff Keith and I have published. See the coloured
    lines in the attached figure.
    In this example I then simply took an unweighted average of the calibrated series, but
    the weighted average obtained via an EOF approach can give similar results. The average
    is shown by the thin black line (I’ve ignored the potential problems of series covering
    different periods). This was all done with raw, unsmoothed data, even though 30-yr
    smoothed curves are plotted in the figure.
    The thick black line is what I get when I re-calibrate the average record against my
    target observed series. THIS IS THE IMPORTANT BIT. The *re-calibrated* mean of the
    reconstructions is nowhere near the mean of the reconstructions. It has enhanced
    variability, because averaging the reconstructions results in a redder time series
    (there is less common variance between the reconstructions at the higher frequencies
    compared with the lower frequencies, so the former averages out to leave a smoother
    curve) and the re-calibration is then more of a case of fitting a trend (over my
    calibration period 1881-1960) to the observed trend. This results in enhanced
    variability, but also enhanced uncertainty (not shown here) due to fewer effective
    degrees of freedom during calibration.
    Obviously there are questions about observed target series, which series to
    include/exclude etc., but the same issue will arise regardless: the analysis will not
    likely lie near to the middle of the cloud of published series and explaining the
    reasons behind this etc. will obscure the message of a short EOS piece.
    It is, of course, interesting – not least for the comparison with borehole-based
    estimates – but that is for a separate paper, I think.
    My suggestion would be to stick with one of these options:
    (i) a single example reconstruction;
    (ii) a plot of a cloud of reconstructions;
    (iii) a plot of the “envelope” containing the cloud of reconstructions (perhaps also the
    envelope would encompass their uncertainty estimates), but without showing the
    individual reconstruction best guesses.
    How many votes for each?
    Cheers
    Tim
    At 15:32 12/03/03, Michael E. Mann wrote:

    p.s. The idea of both a representative time-slice spatial plot emphasizing the spatial
    variability of e.g. the MWP or LIA, and an EOF analysis of all the records is a great
    idea. I’d like to suggest a small modification of the latter:
    I would suggest we show 2 curves, representing the 1st PC of two different groups, one
    of empirical reconstructions, the other of model simulations, rather than just one in
    the time plot.
    Group #1 could include:
    1) Crowley & Lowery
    2) Mann et al 1999
    3) Bradley and Jones 1995
    4) Jones et al, 1998
    5) Briffa et al 200X? [Keith/Tim to provide their preferred MXD reconstruction]
    6) Esper et al [yes, no?–one series that differs from the others won’t make much of a
    difference]
    I would suggest we scale the resulting PC to the CRU 1856-1960 annual Northern
    Hemisphere mean instrumental record, which should overlap w/ all of the series, and
    which pre-dates the MXD decline issue…
    Group #2 would include various model simulations using different forcings, and with
    slightly different sensitivities. This could include 6 or so simulation results:
    1) 3 series from Crowley (2000) [based on different solar/volcanic reconstructions],
    2) 2 series from Gerber et al (Bern modeling group result) [based on different assumed
    sensitivities]
    1) Bauer et al series (Claussen group EMIC result) [includes 19th/20th century land use
    changes as a forcing].
    I would suggest that the model’s 20th century mean is aligned with the 20th century
    instrumental N.Hem mean for comparison (since this is when we know the forcings best).
    I’d like to nominate Scott R. as the collector of the time series and the performer of
    the EOF analyses, scaling, and plotting, since Scott already has many of the series and
    many of the appropriate analysis and plotting tools set up to do this.
    We could each send our preferred versions of our respective time series to Scott as an
    ascii attachment, etc.
    thoughts, comments?
    thanks,
    mike
    At 10:08 AM 3/12/2003 -0500, Michael E. Mann wrote:

    Thanks Tom,
    Either would be good, but Eos is an especially good idea. Both Ellen M-T and Keith
    Alverson are on the editorial board there, so I think there would be some receptiveness
    to such a submission.t
    I see this as complementary to other pieces that we have written or are currently
    writing (e.g. a review that Ray, Malcolm, and Henry Diaz are doing for Science on the
    MWP) and this should proceed entirely independently of that.
    If there is group interest in taking this tack, I’d be happy to contact Ellen/Keith
    about the potential interest in Eos, or I’d be happy to let Tom or Phil to take the lead
    too…
    Comments?
    mike
    At 09:15 AM 3/12/2003 -0500, Tom Crowley wrote:

    Phil et al,

    I suggest either BAMS or Eos – the latter would probably be better because it is
    shorter, quicker, has a wide distribution, and all the points that need to be made have
    been made before.

    rather than dwelling on Soon and Baliunas I think the message should be pointedly made
    against all of the standard claptrap being dredged up.

    I suggest two figures- one on time series and another showing the spatial array of
    temperatures at one point in the Middle Ages. I produced a few of those for the Ambio
    paper but already have one ready for the Greenland settlement period 965-995 showing the
    regional nature of the warmth in that figure. we could add a few new sites to it, but
    if people think otherwise we could of course go in some other direction.

    rather than getting into the delicate question of which paleo reconstruction to use I
    suggest that we show a time series that is an eof of the different reconstructions – one
    that emphasizes the commonality of the message.

    Tom

    Dear All,
    I agree with all the points being made and the multi-authored article would be a
    good idea,
    but how do we go about not letting it get buried somewhere. Can we not address the
    misconceptions by finally coming up with definitive dates for the LIA and MWP and
    redefining what we think the terms really mean? With all of us and more on the paper,
    it should
    carry a lot of weight. In a way we will be setting the agenda for what should be being
    done
    over the next few years.
    We do want a reputable journal but is The Holocene the right vehicle. It is
    probably the
    best of its class of journals out there. Mike and I were asked to write an article for
    the EGS
    journal of Surveys of Geophysics. You’ve not heard of this – few have, so we declined.
    However,
    it got me thinking that we could try for Reviews of Geophysics. Need to contact the
    editorial
    board to see if this might be possible. Just a thought, but it certainly has a high
    profile.
    What we want to write is NOT the scholarly review a la Jean Grove (bless her soul)
    that
    just reviews but doesn’t come to anything firm. We want a critical review that enables
    agendas to be set. Ray’s recent multi-authored piece goes a lot of the way so we need
    to build on this.
    Cheers
    Phil
    At 12:55 11/03/03 -0500, Michael E. Mann wrote:

    HI Malcolm,
    Thanks for the feedback–I largely concur. I do, though, think there is a particular
    problem with “Climate Research”. This is where my colleague Pat Michaels now publishes
    exclusively, and his two closest colleagues are on the editorial board and review editor
    board. So I promise you, we’ll see more of this there, and I personally think there *is*
    a bigger problem with the “messenger” in this case…
    But the Soon and Baliunas paper is its own, separate issue too. I too like Tom’s latter
    idea, of a more hefty multi-authored piece in an appropriate journal (Paleoceanography?
    Holocene?) that seeks to correct a number of misconceptions out there, perhaps using
    Baliunas and Soon as a case study (‘poster child’?), but taking on a slightly greater
    territory too.
    Question is, who would take the lead role. I *know* we’re all very busy,
    mike
    At 10:28 AM 3/11/03 -0700, Malcolm Hughes wrote:

    I’m with Tom on this. In a way it comes back to a rant of mine
    to which some of you have already been victim. The general
    point is that there are two arms of climatology:
    neoclimatology – what you do based on instrumental records
    and direct, systematic observations in networks – all set in a
    very Late Holocene/Anthropocene time with hourly to decadal
    interests.
    paleoclimatology – stuff from rocks, etc., where major changes
    in the Earth system, including its climate, associated with
    major changes in boundary conditions, may be detected by
    examination of one or a handful of paleo records.
    Between these two is what we do – “mesoclimatology” –
    dealing with many of the same phenomena as neoclimatology,
    using documentary and natural archives to look at phenomena
    on interannual to millennial time scales. Given relatively small
    changes in boundary conditions (until the last couple of
    centuries), mesoclimatology has to work in a way that is very
    similar to neoclimatology. Most notably, it depends on heavily
    replicated networks of precisely dated records capable of
    being either calibrated, or whose relationship to climate may
    be modeled accuarately and precisely.
    Because this distinction is not recognized by many (e.g.
    Sonnechkin, Broecker, Karlen) we see an accumulation of
    misguided attempts at describing the climate of recent
    millennia. It would be better to head this off in general, rather
    than draw attention to a bad paper. After all, as Tom rightly
    says, we could all nominate really bad papers that have been
    published in journals of outstanding reputation (although there
    could well be differences between our lists).
    End of rant, Cheers, Malcolm
    > Hi guys,
    >
    > junk gets published in lots of places. I think that what could be
    > done is a short reply to the authors in Climate Research OR a SLIGHTLY
    > longer note in a reputable journal entitled something like “Continuing
    > Misconceptions About interpretation of past climate change.” I kind
    > of like the more pointed character of the latter and submitting it as
    > a short note with a group authorship carries a heft that a reply to a
    > paper, in no matter what journal, does not.
    >
    > Tom
    >
    >
    >
    > > Dear All,
    > > Apologies for sending this again. I was expecting a stack of
    > >emails this morning in
    > > response, but I inadvertently left Mike off (mistake in pasting)
    > >and picked up Tom’s old
    > > address. Tom is busy though with another offspring !
    > > I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling –
    > >worst word I can think of today
    > > without the mood pepper appearing on the email ! I’ll have time to
    > >read more at the weekend
    > > as I’m coming to the US for the DoE CCPP meeting at Charleston.
    > >Added Ed, Peck and Keith A.
    > > onto this list as well. I would like to have time to rise to the
    > >bait, but I have so much else on at
    > > the moment. As a few of us will be at the EGS/AGU meet in Nice, we
    > >should consider what
    > > to do there.
    > > The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper
    > >determine the answer they get. They
    > > have no idea what multiproxy averaging does. By their logic, I
    > >could argue 1998 wasn’t the
    > > warmest year globally, because it wasn’t the warmest everywhere.
    > >With their LIA being 1300-
    > >1900 and their MWP 800-1300, there appears (at my quick first
    > >reading) no discussion of
    > > synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental
    > >record, the early and late
    > > 20th century warming periods are only significant locally at
    > >between 10-20% of grid boxes.
    > > Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do
    > >something – even if this is just
    > > to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think
    > >the skeptics will use
    > > this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of
    > >
    > >years if it goes
    > > unchallenged.
    > >
    > > I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having
    > >nothing more to do with it until they
    > > rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the
    > >editorial board, but papers
    > > get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.
    > >
    > > Cheers
    > > Phil
    > >
    > > Dear all,
    > > Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore
    > >probably, so don’t let it spoil your
    > > day. I’ve not looked at it yet. It results from this journal
    > >having a number of editors. The
    > > responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let
    > >
    > >a few papers through by
    > > Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch
    > >
    > >about this, but got nowhere.
    > > Another thing to discuss in Nice !
    > >
    > > Cheers
    > > Phil

  10. jimchip Says:

    1053461261.txt Briffa finally chimes in re: S&B

    From: Keith Briffa
    To: “Michael E. Mann” , Tom Wigley , Phil Jones

    , rbradley@geo.umass.edu
    Subject: Re: Soon et al. paper
    Date: Tue May 20 16:07:41 2003
    Cc: Jerry Meehl , Caspar Ammann , mann@virginia.edu

    Mike and Tom and others
    My silence to do with the specific issue of the Soon and Baliunas conveys general strong
    agreement with all the general remarks (and restatement of many in various forms ) by Tom
    Crowley, Mike Mann, Neville Nichols and now Tom Wigley regarding the scientific value of
    the paper and its obvious methodological flaws.
    I have to say that I tended towards the “who cares” camp , in as much as those who are
    concerned about the science should see through it anyway . I also admit to thinking that
    some of you seem a little paranoid (especially in the implication that Climate Research is
    a pro sceptic journal) but I am changing my mind regarding the way the “meaning” of the BS
    paper is being presented to the wider public – in response to some very poor recent
    reporting in the British press and several requests from the US that indicate that those of
    you who work there can not simply rely on the weight of good science eventually showing
    through as regards the public perception . As Tom W. states , there are uncertainties and
    “difficulties” with our current knowledge of Hemispheric temperature histories and valid
    criticisms or shortcomings in much of our work. This is the nature of the beast – and I
    have been loathe to become embroiled in polarised debates that force too simplistic a
    presentation of the state of the art or “consensus view”. Having read Tom W’s and Mike’s
    latest statements I now agree about the need to make some public comment on BS . (I too
    have given my personal view of the work to David Appell who I assume is writing a balanced
    view of this paper for Scientific American). I see little need to get involved in a over
    detailed critic of all the points in the paper , because I am not sure what audience would
    benefit from it, but the points made by those I listed above could usefully be fashioned
    into a simple letter to Climate Research, signed by those who wish. This would then go on
    record as a simple statement of refutation of the method employed and corresponding
    limitation of the work for informing the “global warming ” debate . This could be quickly
    citable when talking to the media.
    The one additional point I would make that seems to have been overlooked in the discussions
    up to now , is the invalidity of assuming that the existence of a global Medieval Warm
    period , even if shown to be as warm as the current climate , somehow negates the
    possibility of enhanced greenhouse warming. The business of constructing a reliable climate
    history is only one part of establishing the relative roles of natural and anthropogenic
    forcings, now and in the future. Without reference to the roles of natural forcings in
    recent and past times , comparisons with other periods are of very limited value anyway.
    So I agree with Tom and Mike that something needs to go “on record” . The various papers
    apparently in production, regardless of their individual emphasis or approaches, will find
    their way in to the literature and the next IPCC can sift and present their message(s) as
    it wishes., but in the meantime , why not a simple statement of the shortcomings of the BS
    paper as they have been listed in these messages and why not in Climate Research?
    Keith
    At 05:04 PM 5/16/03 -0400, Michael E. Mann wrote:

    Tom,
    Thanks for your response, which I will maintain as confidential within the small group
    of the original recipients (other than Ray whom I’ve included in as well), given the
    sensitivity of some of the comments made.
    Whether or not their comments are ad hominem or potentially libelous is probably
    immaterial here (some people who have read them think they might be–in certain places,
    alterior motives are implied on the part of individually named scientists in the
    discussion of scientific methodologies).
    However, the real issue, as you point out, is whether or not their arguments and
    criticisms are valid. I would argue that very few of them are–I have prepared (and have
    attached) a draft of replies to some of the specifics in their two papers–this is
    rough, and I’m working on preparing a refined version of this for use by those who are
    trying to combat the disinformation that the Baliunas and co. supporters are working at
    spreading within the beltway, with the full support of industry, and perhaps the
    administration. By necessity this is brief and focus on the most salient points–a
    point-by-point rebuttal would take a very long time.
    In the meantime, Phil and I, and Ray/Malcolm/Henry D are independently working on review
    pieces (ours for R.O.G., Ray et al’s for Science) that will also correct in more detail
    some of the most egregious untruths put forward by the Baliunas/Soon pieces (what one
    colleague of mine aptly chooses to abbreviate as “BS”).
    The most fundamental criticism, of course, is that the hypothesis, methods, and
    assumptions are absolutely nonsensical by construction–as you already pointed out. One
    could demonstrate that with an example, but then again, why do so when it is self
    evident that defining an anomaly of either wetter or dryer (what does that leave out?)
    relative to the 20th century (a comparison which is itself also ill-defined by the
    authors, since they don’t use a uniform 20th century reference period for defining their
    qualitative anomalies, and discuss proxy records with variable resolution and temporal
    sampling of the 20th century) was “warmer than the 20th century” is nonsense at the
    most fundamental level. It defies the most elementary logic, and thus is difficult to
    reply to other than noting that it is nonsense by its very nature.
    Would we be compelled to provide a counterexample to disprove the authors if they had
    asserted that “1=2”? What they have done isn’t that much different…
    So its one thing to throw out a bunch of criticisms, very few of which are valid. But to
    then turn around and present a fundamentally ill-posed, supposed “analysis” which
    doesn’t even attempt to provide a quantitative “alternative” to past studies, to claim
    to have disproven those past studies, and to supposedly support the non-sequitor
    conclusion that the “MWP was warmer than the 20th century” is irresponsible, deceptive,
    dishonest, and a violation of the very essence of the scientific approach in my view.
    One or two people can’t fight that alone, certainly not with the “artillary” (funding
    and political organization) that has been lined up on the other side. In my view, it is
    the responsibility of our entire community to fight this intentional disinformation
    campaign, which represents an affront to everything we do and believe in. I’m doing
    everything I can to do so, but I can’t do it alone–and if I’m left to, we’ll lose this
    battle,
    mike
    At 02:18 PM 5/16/2003 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:

    Dear folks,
    I have just read the Soon et al. paper in E&E. Here are some comments, and a request.
    Mike said in an email that he thought the paper contained possibly
    ‘legally actionable’ ad hominem attacks on him and others. I do not
    agree that there are ad hominem attacks. There are numerous criticisms, usually
    justified (although not all the justifications are valid). I did not notice any
    intemperate language.
    While many of the criticisms are invalid, and some are irrelevant, there are a number
    that seem to me to be quite valid. Probably, most of these can be rebutted, and perhaps
    some of these are already covered in the literature. In my view, however, there a small
    number of points that are valid criticisms.
    [Off the record, the most telling criticisms apply to Tom Crowley’s work — which I do
    not hold in very high regard.]
    The real issue that the press (to a limited extent) and the politicians (to a greater
    extent) have taken up is the conclusions of the paper’s original research.
    First, Soon et al. come down clearly in favor of the existence of a MWE and a LIA. I
    think many of us would agree that there was a global-scale cool period that can be
    identified with a LIA. The MWE is more equivocal. There are real problems in identifying
    both of these ‘events’ with certainty due to (1) data coverage, (2) uncertainty in
    transfer functions, and (3) the noise of internally generated variability on the
    century time scale. [My paper on the latter point is continually ignored by the paleo
    community, but it is still valid.]
    So, we would probably say: there was a LIA; but the case for *or against* a MWE is not
    proven. There is no strong diagreement with Soon et al. here.
    The main disagreements are with the methods used by Soon et al. to draw their LIA/MWE
    conclusion, and their conclusion re the anomalousness/uniqueness of the 20th century (a
    conclusion that is based on the same methods).
    So what is their method? I need to read the paper again carefully to check on this, but
    it seems that they say the MWE [LIA] was warm [cold] if at a particular site there is a
    50+ year period that was warm, wet, dry [cold, dry, wet] somewhere in the interval
    800-1300 [1300-1900], where warm/cold, wet, dry are defined relative to the 20th
    century.
    The problems with this are …..
    (1) Natural internally generated variability alone virtually guarantees that these
    criteria will be met at every site.
    (2) As Nev Nicholls pointed out, almost any period would be identified as a MWE or LIA
    by these criteria — and, as a corollary, their MWE period could equally well have been
    identified as a LIA (or vice versa)
    (3) If the identified warm blips in their MWE were are different times for different
    locations (as they are) then there would be no global-mean signal.
    (4) The reason for including precip ‘data’ at all (let alone both wet and dry periods in
    both the MWE and LIA) is never stated — and cannot be justified. [I suspect that if
    they found a wet period in the MWE, for example, they would search for a dry period in
    the LIA — allowing both in both the MWE and LIA seems too stupid to be true.]
    (5) For the uniqueness of the 20th century, item (1) also applies.
    So, their methods are silly. They seem also to have ignored the fact that what we are
    searching is a signal in global-mean temperature.
    The issue now is what to do about this. I do not think it is enough to bury criticisms
    of this work in other papers. The people who have noticed the Soon et al paper, or have
    had it pointed out to them, will never see or become aware of such rebuttals/responses.
    Furthermore, I do not think that a direct response will give the work credibility. It is
    already ‘credible’ since it is in the peer reviewed literature (and E&E, by the way, is
    peer reviewed). A response that says this paper is a load of crap for the following
    reasons is *not* going to give the original work credibility — just the opposite.
    How then does one comprehensively and concisely demolish this work? There are two issues
    here. The first is the point by point response to their criticisms of the literature. To
    do this would be tedious, but straightforward. There will be at least some residual
    criticisms that must be accepted as valid, and this must be admitted. Cross-referencing
    to other review papers would be legitimate here.
    The second is to demolish the method. I have done this qualitatively (following Nev
    mainly) above, but this is not enough. What is needed is a counter example that uses the
    method of reductio ad absurdem. This would be clear and would be appropriate since it
    avoids us having to point out in words that their methods are absurd. I have some ideas
    how to do this, but I will let you think about it more before going further.
    You will see from this email that I am urging you to produce a response. I am happy to
    join you in this, and perhaps a few others could add their weight too. I am copying this
    to Jerry since he has to give some congressional testimony next week and questions about
    the Soon et al work are definitely going to be raised. I am also copying this to Caspar,
    since the last millenium runs that he is doing with paleo-CSM are relevant.
    Best wishes,
    Tom.

  11. jimchip Says:

    1054757526.txt More on EOS rebuttal to S&B:

    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    To: rbradley@geo.umass.edu, Keith Briffa , Tom Crowley , Phil Jones

    , Michael Oppenheimer , Jonathan Overpeck , Kevin Trenberth , Tom Wigley
    Subject: Fwd: Re: Prospective Eos piece?
    Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 16:12:06 -0400
    Cc: mann@virginia.edu, Scott Rutherford

    Dear All,
    I’ve attached a draft (attached word document), incorporating many of the suggestions,
    wording, etc. I’ve already recieved from various of you. Some specific
    comments/inquiries/requests for help indicated in yellow highlighting. Waiting to hear
    back from Peck and Tom C (guys: if you’re out there, can you give a holler, to let me know
    your disposition? thanks). Otherwise everyone else has indicated they’re on board.
    I’ve been in touch w/ Judy Jacobs at AGU to clarify the ground rules. Apparently we *can*
    refer, where necessary, to press releases, parenthetically in the piece. I think this is
    important in our case because there is a subtle, but important, distinction between what
    the papers actual purport to show, and what the authors (and their promoters) have
    *claimed* they show (e.g. in the Harvard-Smithsonian press release). We need to draw out
    this distinction-I sent Judy my paragraph on that, and she said it looks fine–so
    apparently its kosher.
    I’ve avoided any reference to unpublished work however (e.g. Mann and Jones), because this
    opens up a can of worms. We can nicely make use of work that Keith has already done to
    provide a suggestion of the longer-term (past 2K) changes, for greater context…
    Re, references–we necessarily have to go well over the normal 10 or so, because part of
    the strength of our piece is the wealth of recent studies supporting our basic conclusions.
    Judy said that’s ok too–especially since our text is short (by about 100 words) relative
    to the official (1200 word) limit. So we should try to keep it that way..ie, we need to
    play a zero-sum game, as much as possible, with any suggested revisions.
    Re figures, Scott Rutherford has generously offered to help prepare a draft of figure 1
    which I’ll send on to everyone once its available.
    I’ve also described, in the figure caption, my concept of Figure 2–clearly it would be
    helpful if Phil and Ray could collaborate on the preparation of this one (guys?).
    Looking forward to comments, and suggested revisions. I’ll just accumulate these from
    everyone in whatever form you prefer to provide them (emailed comments, word file w/ track
    changes or highlighting of changes used, etc) and try to prepare a revised draft once I’ve
    heard back from everyone.
    Thanks again to everyone for their willingness to help with this and to be involved with
    this,
    mike

    Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:17:57 -0400
    To: Phil Jones

    , rbradley@geo.umass.edu, Tom Wigley
    , Tom Crowley , Keith Briffa ,
    trenbert@cgd.ucar.edu, Michael Oppenheimer , Jonathan Overpeck

    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: Re: Prospective Eos piece?
    Cc: mann@virginia.edu, Scott Rutherford
    Thanks Phil, and Thanks Tom W and Keith for your willingness to help/sign on. This
    certainly gives us a “quorum” pending even a few possible additional signatories I’m
    waiting to hear back from.
    In response to the queries, I will work on a draft today w/ references and two
    suggested figures, and will try to send on by this evening (east coast USA). Tom W
    indicated that he wouldn’t be able look at a draft until Thursday anyway, so why doesn’t
    everyone just take a day then to digest what I’ve provided and then get back to me with
    comments/changes (using word “track changes” if you like).
    I’d like to tentatively propose to pass this along to Phil as the “official keeper” of
    the draft to finalize and submit IF it isn’t in satisfactory shape by the time I have to
    leave (July 11–If I hadn’t mentioned, I’m getting married, and then honeymoon, prior to
    IUGG in Sapporo–gone for about 1 month total). Phil, does that sound ok to you?
    Re Figures, what I had in mind were the following two figures:
    1) A plot of various of the most reliable (in terms of strength of temperature signal
    and reliability of millennial-scale variability) regional proxy temperature
    reconstructions around the Northern Hemisphere that are available over the past 1-2
    thousand years to convey the important point that warm and cold periods where highly
    regionally variable. Phil and Ray are probably in the best position to prepare this (?).
    Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this
    category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a
    timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made
    w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”,
    even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back
    [Phil and I have one in review–not sure it is kosher to show that yet though–I’ve put
    in an inquiry to Judy Jacobs at AGU about this]. If we wanted to be fancy, we could do
    this the way certain plots were presented in one of the past IPCC reports (was it 1990?)
    in which a spatial map was provided in the center (this would show the locations of the
    proxies), with “rays” radiating out to the top, sides, and bottom attached to rectanges
    showing the different timeseries. Its a bit of work, but would be a great way to convey
    both the spatial and temporal information at the same time.
    2) A version of the now-familiar “spaghetti plot” showing the various reconstructions as
    well as model simulations for the NH over the past 1 (or maybe 2K). To give you an idea
    of what I have in mind, I’m attaching a Science piece I wrote last year that contains
    the same sort of plot.
    However, what I’d like to do different here is:
    In addition to the “multiproxy” reconstructions, I’d like to Add Keith’s maximum
    latewood density-based series, since it is entirely independent of the multiproxy
    series, but conveys the same basic message. I would also like to try to extend the scope
    of the plot back to nearly 2K. This would be either w/ the Mann and Jones extension (in
    review in GRL) or, if that is deemed not kosher, the Briffa et al Eurasian tree-ring
    composite that extends back about 2K, and, based on Phil and my results, appears alone
    to give a reasonably accurate picture of the full hemispheric trend.
    Thoughts, comments on any of this?
    thanks all for the help,
    mike
    At 09:25 AM 6/4/2003 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:

    Mike,
    This is definitely worth doing and I hope you have the time before the 11th, or can
    pass
    it on to one of us at that time. As you know I’m away for a couple of days but back
    Friday.
    So count me in. I’ve forwarded you all the email comments I’ve sent to reporters/fellow
    scientists, so you’re fully aware of my views, which are essentially the same as all of
    the list
    and many others in paleo. EOS would get to most fellow scientists. As I said to you the
    other
    day, it is amazing how far and wide the SB pieces have managed to percolate. When it
    comes
    out I would hope that AGU/EOS ‘publicity machine’ will shout the message from rooftops
    everywhere. As many of us need to be available when it comes out.
    There is still no firm news on what Climate Research will do, although they will
    likely
    have two editors for potentially controversial papers, and the editors will consult
    when papers
    get different reviews. All standard practice I’d have thought. At present the editors
    get no
    guidance whatsoever. It would seem that if they don’t know what standard practice is
    then
    they shouldn’t be doing the job !
    Cheers
    Phil
    At 22:34 03/06/03 -0400, Michael E. Mann wrote:

    Dear Colleagues,
    Eos has invited me (and prospective co-authors) to write a ‘forum’ piece (see below).
    This was at Ellen Mosely-Thompson’s suggestion, upon my sending her a copy of the
    attached memo that Michael Oppenheimer and I jointly wrote. Michael and I wrote this to
    assist colleagues who had been requesting more background information to help counter
    the spurious claims (with which I believe you’re all now familiar) of the latest
    Baliunas & Soon pieces.
    The idea I have in mind would be to use what Michael and I have drafted as an initial
    starting point for a slightly expanded piece, that would address the same basic issues
    and, as indicated below, could include some references and figures. As indicated in
    Judy Jacobs’ letter below, the piece would be rewritten in such a way as to be less
    explicitly (though perhaps not less implicitly) directed at the Baliunas/Soon claims,
    criticisms, and attacks.
    Phil, Ray, and Peck have already indicated tentative interest in being co-authors. I’m
    sending this to the rest of you (Tom C, Keith, Tom W, Kevin) in the hopes of broadening
    the list of co-authors. I strongly believe that a piece of this sort co-authored by 9
    or so prominent members of the climate research community (with background and/or
    interest in paleoclimate) will go a long way ih helping to counter these attacks, which
    are being used, in turn, to launch attacks against IPCC.
    AGU has offered to expedite the process considerably, which is necessary because I’ll be
    travelling for about a month beginning June 11th. So I’m going to work hard to get
    something together ASAP. I’d would therefore greatly appreciate a quick response from
    each of you as to whether or not you would potentially be willing to be involved as a
    co-author. If you’re unable or unwilling given other current commitments, I’ll
    understand.
    Thanks in advance for getting back to me on this,
    mike

    Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 20:19:08 -0400
    From: Ellen Mosley-Thompson
    Subject: Re: position paper by Mann,
    Bradley et al that is a refutation to Soon et al
    X-Sender: ethompso@pop.service.ohio-state.edu
    To: Judy Jacobs , “Michael E. Mann”
    X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3
    Judy and Mike –
    This sounds outstanding.
    Am I right in assuming that Fred reviews and approves the Forum pieces?
    If so, can you hint about expediting this. Timing is very critical here.
    Judy, thanks for taking the bull by the horns and getting the ball rolling.
    Best regards,
    Ellen
    At 07:33 PM 06/03/2003 -0400, Judy Jacobs wrote:

    Dear Dr. Mann,
    Thanks for the prompt reply.
    Based on what you have said, it sounds to me as if Mann, Bradley, et al. will not be in
    violation of AGU’s prohibition on duplicate publication.
    The attachment to your e-mail definitely has the look and feel of something that would
    be published in Eos under the “FORUM” column header. FORUM pieces are usually comments
    on articles of any description that have been published in previous issues of Eos; or
    they can be articles on purely scientific or science policy-related issues around which
    there is some controversy or difference of opinion; or articles on current public issues
    that are of interest to the geosciences; or on issues–science or broader policy
    ones—0n which there is an official AGU Position Statement. In this last category, I
    offer, for example, the teaching of creationism in public schools, either alongside
    evolution, or to the exclusion of evolution.
    AGU has an official Position Statement, “Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases,” which
    states, among other things, that there is a high probability that man-made gases
    primarily from the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to a gradual rise in mean
    globab temperatures. In this context, your proto-article—in the form of the attachment
    you sent me– would seem right on target for a Forum piece. However, since the Soon et
    al. article wasn’t actually published in Eos, anything that you and Dr. Bradley craft
    will have to minimize reference to the specific article or articles, and concentrate on
    “the science” that is set forth in these papers. Presumably this problem could be
    solved by simply referencing these papers.
    A Forum piece can be as long as 1500 words, or approximately 6 double-spaced pages. A
    maximum of two figures is permitted. A maximum of 10 references is encouraged, but if
    the number doesn’t exceed 10 too outrageously, I don’t make a fuss, and neither will
    Ellen.
    Authors are now asked to submit their manuscripts and figures electronically via AGU’s
    Internet-based Geophysical Electronic Manuscript System (GEMS), which makes it possible
    for the entire submission-review process to be conducted online.
    If you have never used GEMS before, you can register for a login and password, and get
    initial instructions, by going to
    [1]http://eos-submit.agu.org/
    If you would like to have a set of step-by-step instructions for first-time GEMS users,
    please ask me.
    Ellen indicated that she/you would like to get something published sooner rather than
    later. The Eos staff can certainly expedite the editorial process for anything you and
    your colleagues submit.
    Don’t hesitate to contact me with any further questions.
    Best regards,
    Judy Jacobs
    Michael E. Mann wrote:

    Dear Judy,
    Thanks very much for getting back to me on this. Ellen had mentioned this possibility,
    and I have been looking forward to hearing back about this.
    Michael Oppenheimer and I drafted an informal memo that we passed along to colleagues
    who needed some more background information so that they could comment on the Soon et al
    papers in response to various inquiries they were receiving from the press, etc. I’ve
    attached a copy of this memo.
    It has not been our intention for this memo to appear in print, and it has not been
    submitted anywhere for publication. On the other hand, when Ellen mentioned the
    possibility of publishing something *like* this in e.g. the “Eos” forum, that seemed
    like an excellent idea to me, and several of my colleagues that I have discussed the
    possibility with.
    What we had in mind was to produce a revised version of the basic memo that I’ve
    attached, modifying it where necessary, and perhaps expanding it a bit, seeking broader
    co-authorship by about 9 or so other leading climate scientists. So far, Phil Jones of
    the University of East Anglia, Ray Bradley of the University of Massachusetts, and
    Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona, have all indicated their interest in
    co-authoring such a piece. We suspect that a few other individuals would be interested
    in being co-authors as well. I didn’t want to pursue this further, however, until I
    knew whether or not an Eos piece was a possibility.
    So pending further word from you, I would indeed be interested in preparing a
    multi-authored “position” paper for Eos in collaboration with these co-authors, based
    loosely on the memo that Ihave attached.
    I look forward to further word from you on this.
    best regards,
    mike mann
    At 04:59 PM 6/3/2003 -0400, you wrote:

    Dear Dr. Mann,
    I am the managing editor for Eos, the weekly newspaper of the American
    Geophysical Union.
    Late last week, the Eos editor for atmospheric sciences, Ellen
    Mosley-Thompson, asked me if Eos would publish what she called “a
    position paper” by you, Phillip Bradley, et al that would, in effect,
    be a refutation to a paper by Soon et al. that was published in a
    British journal, Energy & Environment a few weeks ago. This Energy &
    Environment article was subsequently picked up by the Discovery
    Channel and other print and electronic media that reach the general
    public.
    Before I can answer this question, I need to ask if you and your
    colleagues intend for this position paper to be published
    simultaneously in outlets other than Eos. If this is the case, I’m
    afraid it being published in Eos is a moot point, because of AGU’s no
    duplicate publication policy: if the material has been published
    elsewhere first, AGU will not publish it.
    I look forward to your response.
    Best regrds,
    Judy Jacobs

  12. jimchip Says:

    1055004012.txt Mann to Trenberth: p.s. Tom W is taking the lead on preparing a companion, more targeted commentary, to be
    submitted to “Climate Research”. Any one else interested should contact Tom…

    :
    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    To: Kevin Trenberth
    Subject: Re: Revised Version!
    Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 12:40:12 -0400
    Cc: “Raymond S. Bradley” , Keith Briffa , Tom Crowley , Caspar Ammann , Phil Jones

    , Michael Oppenheimer , Kevin Trenberth , Tom Wigley , jto@u.arizona.edu, Scott Rutherford , mann@virginia.edu

    Thanks Kevin,
    Those are helpful–Tom C. has returned from travels and will be providing comments shortly.
    Will incorporate those and any others I receive into a revised version, which I hope to
    send out (w/ Figure 1 included) tonight or tomorrow,
    mike
    p.s. Tom W is taking the lead on preparing a companion, more targeted commentary, to be
    submitted to “Climate Research”. Any one else interested should contact Tom…
    At 05:16 PM 6/6/2003 -0600, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

    Good job. I am attaching marked up copy with few suggestions.
    Kevin
    Michael E. Mann wrote:

    Dear all,
    Here is my best attempt to incorporate everyone’s suggestions, views, etc. One major
    change you’ll notice is that the final item (the one on co2 increase and recent warming)
    was eliminated, because it seemed to open a can of warms, and also distract from the
    central message. Note that, with the number of references we have, we are currently just
    about at the word limit for the piece. We shouldn’t go over 1400 words, which puts some
    tight constraint on any additions, etc.
    I hope to forward a draft of Figure 1 later on this afternoon. I’m assuming that Phil
    can take care of Figure 2 (Phil?–Scott has graciously indicated his willingness to help
    if necessary), but its pretty clear what this figure will show, so I don’t thinks its
    that essential that we have that figure done to try to finalize the draft.
    I’ll attempt one final(?) revision of the text based on any remaining comments you may
    have–please try, if possible, to keep the suggested changes minimal at this point. I’ll
    assume that anyone we haven’t yet heard back from in the author list over the next day
    or so is unable to be a co-author, and will respectfully drop them from the author list
    any related future emailings.
    Thanks all for your help. Its rare to have every single co-author make substantial
    contributions to improving the draft, and that was clearly the case here…
    mike

  13. jimchip Says:

    1055258297.txt This looks like trivial discussion re figure one of the EOS
    ? paper but there is a list of references and how they dealt with them

  14. jimchip Says:

    1055269567.txt Decisions and comment of EOS S&B rebuttal
    :
    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    To: Scott Rutherford
    Subject: Re: EOS text
    Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 14:26:07 -0400
    Cc: phil Jones

    , Keith Briffa , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk

    HI Scott,
    I concur w/ your assessment–keeping the figure the way it is now is preferable in my
    opinion…
    mike
    At 02:23 PM 6/10/2003 -0400, Scott Rutherford wrote:

    Dear All,
    I agree that figure 1 is very busy, but I’m not sure that is a bad thing in this case
    because we aren’t trying to highlight differences between reconstructions/models or
    single out one or two from the rest. I think the current figure illustrates the range of
    reconstructions, the range of models and how well they agree (similar to one of our
    original ideas of a “cloud of reconstructions”).
    If we put the models into a separate panel we will need a curve common to both panels
    that people can use as a reference. If we go with the two panel figure I suggest that
    the second panel include the models, the Mann et al. 1999 reconstruction with
    uncertainties and the instrumental record.
    I’ll leave it to the group to decide.
    -Scott
    On Tuesday, June 10, 2003, at 01:16 PM, Michael E. Mann wrote:

    I don’t really like the idea of changing the figure dramatically at this point.
    If we have to, I suggest the following options:
    1) Take out one of the model simulation results–e.g. Gerber et al w/ the lower
    sensitivity
    2) If we want to adopt Kevin’s two panel strategy, then show the model results along w/
    the gray-shaded uncertainty region from the top (reconstructions) panel. And show the
    instrumental record in both panels.
    Anyway, up to you guys…
    mike
    At 10:59 AM 6/10/2003 -0600, you wrote:
    Phil
    Thanks for the great work.
    Some reactions.
    1) Fig. 1 is very busy and perhaps unduly crowded. My reaction is to take the model
    results out and put them in a separate panel. The separate panel would fit along side
    the key. But better below the main figure.
    Can we change “gridded and arealy weighted” to “gridded, area-weighted..”.)
    What is “optimal borehole”,? Should “optimal” be in quotes?
    2) Fig. 2: Can we please add a country to each name for those that don’t have them?
    Increased spacing between them would be nice.
    Thanks
    Kevin
    Phil Jones wrote:
    Dear All,
    Keith, Tim and I have been at this for part of the day. Scott has also
    redrawn Fig 1.
    Attached is the latest draft, which includes Kevin’s from about 1 hour ago, but not
    Ray’s
    latest email.
    Fig 1 from Scott is OK to us here. Fig 2 is a draft. Tim needs to space the
    series
    out a little. To use all these we’ve needed to add a load of references. Getting these
    and
    making the captions OK has taken most time and the drawing of Fig 2.
    Hopefully we can all agree to this in the next day or so, then I’ll submit on
    say
    Thursday UK morning time, so you’ve all got all day today and tomorrow.
    We’ve been through the text carefully and all happy with it.
    Apologies – no time to make Fig 2 pdf. Hope all can see postscript. We still need
    to work
    on the captions and tidy the refs a little more.
    We’ll be back at 8.30 tomorrow UK time. Peck – you’ve got 2 days to say yes/no !
    Cheers
    Phil

  15. jimchip Says:

    1055273033.txt Typical approach to their objective comparisons:

    This is Briffa trying to tone Mann down: the reference to “agree remarkably well with the proxy-based reconstructions (Figure 1)
    ” [later part of paragraph ] . Unfortunately , the Bauer et al curve clearly does not –
    at least from AD 1100 to 1400!
    Again some qualifyer is needed – perhaps “for the most part , agree well ” ?

    Yes, “remarkably” is an overstatement given that, as you say, Bauer et al does stray
    some bit.
    How about simply:
    “Agree with the proxy-based reconstructions within estimated uncertainties (Figure 1)”

    Whole email:

    From: Keith Briffa
    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: Re: possible rewording of section of letter?
    Date: Tue Jun 10 15:23:53 2003

    thanks and all now ok
    Keith
    At 10:30 AM 6/10/03 -0400, you wrote:

    Hi Keith,
    no problem…Responses below. let me know what you think…
    thanks,
    mike
    At 03:01 PM 6/10/2003 +0100, Keith Briffa wrote:

    thanks for that Mike – sorry but just a few more questions
    the reference to “agree remarkably well with the proxy-based reconstructions (Figure 1)
    ” [later part of paragraph ] . Unfortunately , the Bauer et al curve clearly does not –
    at least from AD 1100 to 1400!
    Again some qualifyer is needed – perhaps “for the most part , agree well ” ?

    Yes, “remarkably” is an overstatement given that, as you say, Bauer et al does stray
    some bit.
    How about simply:
    “Agree with the proxy-based reconstructions within estimated uncertainties (Figure 1)”.

    and later [middle of the 6th paragraph],
    “relative hemispheric warmth during the 10th to 12th centuries” is ambiguous and we
    prefer “relative hemispheric warmth during much of the the 10th,11th and 12th centuries”

    yep, better…

    but also , where we say [just below] “the specific periods of cold and warm apparent for
    Europe differ significantly from those for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.” , to
    what evidence of European anomalies are we referring?

    ahh–I left that open-ended, for Phil and you guys to deal with as you see best. I was
    anticipating that Figure 2 would include an appropriate proxy series or two for Europe
    (CET, Fennoscandia?) that would make this point. But why don’t you guys revise the
    wording, as necessary, based on Figure 2?

  16. jimchip Says:

    1055512559.txt EOS S&B but also applies to 1.6:

    From: Kevin Trenberth
    To: Phil Jones

    Subject: Re: EOS text
    Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:55:59 -0600
    Cc: Tom Wigley , “Michael E. Mann” , “Raymond S. Bradley” , Keith Briffa , Caspar Ammann , Michael Oppenheimer , Tom Crowley , Scott Rutherford , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, jto@u.arizona.edu

    Hi all
    On isotopes, see the paper by Werner et al (briefly discussed in our
    Science perspectives) showing that isotopes don’t sample the deep winter
    well as there is inadequate precip then in Greenland during the past.
    I had to send this as I have been getting 2 of everything and I so I
    adjusted the cc list.
    Kevin

    Phil Jones wrote:

    >
    > Tom,
    > The W. Greenland series is based on a stack of 6 isotope series –
    > see chapter by
    > Fisher et al in book from 1996 by Jones, Bradley and Jouzel.
    > Correlation of this series
    > with Greenland Annual temps is 0.58 on annual timescale over 1901-80.
    > It is one of the
    > better ones of the series in Fig 2. Others are better with different
    > seasons, but this one
    > is good for annual. The averaging of the 6 sites improves it a lot.
    >
    > Cheers
    > Phil
    >
    >
    >
    > At 08:51 13/06/03 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:
    >
    >> Phil,
    >>
    >> If W Greenland is based on isotopes, I note that the correlation
    >> between these and temperature is very low. Do we really want to
    >> perpetuate the myth that ice core isotopes are a good proxy for
    >> temperature?
    >>
    >> Tom.
    >> ___________________________
    >>
    >> Phil Jones wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Dear All,
    >>>
    >>> Keith, Tim and I have been at this for part of the day.
    >>> Scott has also redrawn Fig 1.
    >>> Attached is the latest draft, which includes Kevin’s from about 1
    >>> hour ago, but not Ray’s
    >>> latest email.
    >>> Fig 1 from Scott is OK to us here. Fig 2 is a draft. Tim
    >>> needs to space the series
    >>> out a little. To use all these we’ve needed to add a load of
    >>> references. Getting these and
    >>> making the captions OK has taken most time and the drawing of Fig 2.
    >>> Hopefully we can all agree to this in the next day or so,
    >>> then I’ll submit on say
    >>> Thursday UK morning time, so you’ve all got all day today and
    >>> tomorrow.
    >>> We’ve been through the text carefully and all happy with it.
    >>> Apologies – no time to make Fig 2 pdf. Hope all can see postscript.
    >>> We still need to work
    >>> on the captions and tidy the refs a little more.
    >>> We’ll be back at 8.30 tomorrow UK time. Peck – you’ve got 2
    >>> days to say yes/no !
    >>> Cheers
    >>> Phil

  17. jimchip Says:

    1056477710.txt Still EOS S&B

    [Side Note: Osborn routinely lo0oks at Phils PC: “In Phil’s absence I was just now looked at his PC because I needed some files/emails for a separate matter, and I noticed that you had emailed Phil/Ray/Mike concurring with Ray’s concerns.” Hmmmm]

    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    To: Tim Osborn , Tom Wigley
    Subject: Re: bradley comment
    Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:01:50 -0400
    Cc: Keith Briffa , Phil Jones

    , “Raymond S. Bradley” , mann@virginia.edu

    Tim,
    I suggest we let Eos size the figures, etc. Then, in the end, we can simply substitute a
    version of Figure 2 w/ the correlations added at the proof stage. Anything else will slow
    down the publication of the manuscript unnecessarily, in my opinion.
    Phil and I have already discussed–we agree that the low weight given to the record in the
    Mann and Jones composite treats the record appropriately…
    mike
    At 02:37 PM 6/24/2003 +0100, Tim Osborn wrote:

    Hi Tom,
    In Phil’s absence I was just now looked at his PC because I needed some files/emails for
    a separate matter, and I noticed that you had emailed Phil/Ray/Mike concurring with
    Ray’s concerns. Until I saw that, I hadn’t realised that anyone else had commented on
    Yang et al.
    Keith and I discussed exactly this issue this morning, and though Keith also had
    concerns about the record (I haven’t read their paper, so can’t comment) we decided to
    leave things as they were because: (i) Mike suggested adding correlations to the figure
    at the proof stage rather than now; (ii) I wasn’t sure how to word a caveat about Yang
    et al. without making it seem odd that we were including a doubtful record and odd that
    we hadn’t added caveats about some of the other records.
    The current status is that the version I circulated has been submitted back to EOS
    (because of the reasons given above), and Ellen Mosley-Thompson has approved it. It
    needs to be reviewed internally at AGU by either Fred Spilhaus or an Associate Editor.
    It will then be edited to reflect the Eos newspaper style.
    I’ve cc’d this to Mike and Phil to see what they want to do. I/we can put a hold on the
    processing of the current submission and then submit a new version with revised figure
    and caption. Alternatively we could wait and see what it’s like after EOS have edited
    it, and then make any final modifications at that stage.
    Over to you/Mike/Phil.
    Cheers
    Tim
    At 14:00 24/06/2003, you wrote:

    Tim,
    I think it is *extremely* important to cover Ray’s point about Yang et al. and Mike
    Mann’s response about weighting. This requires a small addition to the Figure caption.
    Tom.

    Dr Timothy J Osborn

  18. jimchip Says:

    see 5.2 https://crutapeletters.wordpress.com/section-5-responses/section-5-2-responses/ for more background refs.

  19. Jimchip Says:

    see https://crutapeletters.wordpress.com/section-1-responses/section-1-2-response/#comment-214

  20. Jimchip Says:

    https://crutapeletters.wordpress.com/section-1-responses/section-1-6-response/#comment-223

    Also a proxies discussion

  21. Jimchip Says:

    1065636937.txt repeated from Sec. 1.6 re EOS, S&B…

    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    To: Tom Wigley
    Subject: Re: Fwd: EOS: Soon et al reply
    Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:15:37 -0400
    Cc: Caspar Ammann , rbradley@geo.umass.edu, Keith Briffa , tcrowley@duke.edu, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu, omichael@princeton.edu, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, jto@u.arizona.edu, Scott Rutherford , Kevin Trenberth , Tom Wigley , mann@virginia.edu, p.jones@uea.ac.uk

    Thanks Tom,
    In fact, I’m almost done with a brief (<750 word) response that addresses all of these
    issues, and I'll be looking forward to comments on this. Hope to send it out later today,
    mike
    At 12:05 PM 10/8/2003 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:

    Folks,
    I agree with Kevin that any response should be brief.
    On the second page of their comment, SBL quote some of the caveat statements in their
    earlier papers. The irony is that they do not heed their own caveats. If taken
    literally, all these proxy data problems would mean that one can draw no conclusions
    about the existence or otherwise of the MWE or LIA as global phenomena. This is what we
    say (I hope — at least I have said this in the paper cited below) — but our over-bold
    skeptics say that these anomalous intervals *did* exist. You can't have it both ways —
    and basically what BS are doing is a confidence trick.
    What is still needed here is an analysis of the BS method to show that it could be used
    to prove anything they wanted.
    I am still concerned about 'our' dependence on treerings. Are our results really
    dependent on one region pre 1400 as SNL state? Is the problem of nonclimate obfuscating
    factors in the 20th century enough to screw up calibrations on moderate to long
    timescales? If not, we need to state and document this clearly. Does this problem apply
    to both widths and densities? Are the borehole data largely garbage? I recall a paper of
    Mike's on this issue that I refereed last year — and there was something in GRL (I
    think) very recently pointing out some serious potential problems.
    Finally, did we really say what SBL claim we did in their p. 1 point (2)? Surely the
    primary motive for all of this paleo work is that it DOES have a bearing on
    human-induced climate effects?
    Tom.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
    Michael E. Mann wrote:

    Thanks Kevin,
    I agree w/ your take on this. We need to come up with a short, but powerful rebuttal.
    According to Judy Jacobs, we're only allowed 750 words, so we will need to be even more
    sparing and precise in our words that in the original Eos piece. By the way, we have 3
    weeks to submit (i.e., our response is due October 27).
    We need to focus on the key new claims, while simply dismissing, by reference to earlier
    writings, the recycled ones. The Kalnay et al paper seems to be the new darling of the
    contrarians, and you're precise wording on this will be very helpful. Phil, Tim and
    others should be able to put to rest, in one or two sentences, the myths about urban
    heat bias on the CRU record. A few words from Malcolm and Keith on the biological tree
    growth effects would help too. The comments on the various paleo figures are confusing
    and inconsistent, but from what I can tell, just plain wrong. I'll draft some words on
    that.
    I'll just continue to assimilate info and suggestions from everyone over the next week
    or so, and then try to put this in the form a rough draft rebuttal to send out.
    Thanks for your quick reply. Looking forward to hearing back from others,
    mike
    At 09:16 AM 10/6/2003 -0600, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

    Hi Mike et al
    Firstly, you should know that comments by myself and the group at NCDC (Vose et al) on
    the Kalnay and Cai Nature paper were accepted (after a rebuttal and review process), and
    then fine tuned. But it is a slow process and Kalnay and Cai have yet to finalize their
    rebuttal. I am attaching FYI the "final" version of my comment. NCDC deals with the
    problems with the records.
    My reaction to the reply is as follows:
    The first page deals with comments on proxy records and their problems. I think we
    should agree that there are issues with proxy records, they are not the same as
    instrumental records (which have their own problems), but they are all we have.
    However, some are better than others (e.g. borehole) and annual or better resolution is
    highly desirable in particular to make sure that anomalies are synchronous. The records
    are not really the issue here, it is there use (and abuse).
    There are several charges about only US or Northern Europe that can be quickly dealt
    with. However the main points are on p 2.
    We know from the observational record that global or hemispheric means are typically
    small residuals of large anomalies of opposite signs so that large warm spots occur
    simultaneously with large cold regions (witness last winter).
    This fact means that we need high temporal resolution (annual or better) AND an ability
    to compute hemispheric averages based on a network. The Soon and Baliunas approach
    fails dismally on both of these critical points.
    BS point out that Fig 2 of Mann and Jones show some temperatures as high as those in the
    20th C. (They are wrong, do they mean Fig 2 of
    M03?) You can counter that by looking at China where this is far from true.
    I would be inclined to respond with a fairly short minimalist but powerful rebuttal,
    focussing mostly on the shortcomings of BS and not defending the M03 and other records.
    It should point out (again) that their methodolgy is fundamentally flawed and their
    conclusions are demonstrably wrong. For this, the shorter the better.
    Regards
    Kevin
    Michael E. Mann wrote:

    Dear Colleagues,
    Sorry to have to bother you all with this– I know how busy our schedules are, and this
    comes at an unfortunately busy time for many of us I would guss. But I think we *do*
    have to respond, and I'm hoping that the response can be, again, something we all sign
    our names to.
    I've asked Ellen for further guidance on the length limits of our response, and the due
    date for our response. The criticisms are remarkably weak, and easy to reply to in my
    view. S&B have thus unwittingly, in my view, provided us with a further opportunity to
    expose the most egregious of the myths perpetuated by the contrarians (S&B have managed
    to cram them all in there) in the format of a response to their comment.
    THeir comment includes a statement about how the article is all based on Mann et al
    [1999] which is pretty silly given what is stated in the article, and what is shown in
    Figure 1. It would be appropriate to begin our response by pointing out this obvious
    straw man.
    Then there is some nonsense about the satellite record and urban heat islands that Phil,
    Kevin, and Tom W might in particular want to speak to. And Malcolm and Keith might like
    to speak to the comments on the supposed problems due to non-biological tree growth
    effects (which even if they were correctly described, which they aren't, have little
    relevance to several of the reconstructions shown, and all of the model simulation
    results shown). There is one paragraph about Mann and Jones [2003] which is right from
    the Idsos' "Co2 science" website, and Phil and I and Tim Osborn and others have already
    spoken too. I will draft a short comment on that.
    I'd like to solicit individual comments, sentences or paragraphs, etc. from each of you
    on the various points raised, and begin to assimilate this into a "response". I'll let
    you know as soon as I learn from Ellen how much space we have to work with.
    Sorry for the annoyance. I look forward to any contributions you can each provide
    towards a collective response.
    Thanks,
    mike

    Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 08:23:03 -0400
    To: Caspar Ammann , rbradley@geo.umass.edu
    , Keith Briffa
    , Tom Crowley, “Malcolm Hughes”
    , omichael@princeton.edu
    , Tim Osborn
    , Jonathan Overpeck
    , Scott Rutherford
    , Kevin Trenberth
    , Tom Wigley

    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: Fwd: EOS: Soon et al reply
    Comments?
    Mike

    Delivered-To: mem6u@virginia.edu
    Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 12:33:04 -0400
    From: Ellen Mosley-Thompson
    Subject: EOS: Soon et al reply
    X-Sender: ethompso@pop.service.ohio-state.edu

    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Cc: lzirkel@agu.edu , jjacobs@agu.org

    X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22
    Dear Dr. Mann (and co-authors of the Forum piece that appeared in EOS),
    Dr. Willie Soon and his co-authors have submitted a reply to your Forum piece that I
    have accepted. Let me outline below the official AGU procedure for replies so that you
    know the options available. I have sent these same instructions to Dr. Soon.
    As you wrote the original piece you now have the opportunity to see their comment
    (attached) on your Forum piece. You may decide whether or not to send a reply. If you
    choose not to reply – their reply will be published alone.
    Should you decide to reply then your response will be published along with their comment
    on your paper. One little twist is that if you submit a reply, they are allowed to see
    the reply, but they can’t comment on it. They have two options: they can let both
    their and your comments go forward and be published together or (after viewing your
    reply) they also have the option of withdrawing their comment. In the latter case, then
    neither their comment or your reply to the comment will be published. Yes this is a
    little contorted, but these are the instructions that I received from Judy Jacobs at
    AGU.
    I have attached the pdf of their comment. Please let me know within the next week
    whether you and your colleagues plan to prepare a reply. If so, then you would have
    several weeks to do this.
    I have copied Lee Zirkel and Judy Jacobs of AGU as this paper is out of the ordinary and
    I want to be sure that I am handling all this correctly.
    I look forward to hearing from you regarding your decision on a reply.
    Best regards,
    Ellen Mosley-Thompson
    EOS, Editor
    cc: Judy Jacobs and Lee Zirkel

  22. Jimchip Says:

    1066077412.txt The fixation on Soon and Baliunas is incredible to me.
    Briffa to Trenberth, re EOS rebuttal draft: I’ll edit severe overlaps later.

    From: Keith Briffa
    To: Kevin Trenberth , “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: Re: draft
    Date: Mon Oct 13 16:36:52 2003
    Cc: Caspar Ammann , rbradley@geo.umass.edu, tcrowley@duke.edu, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu, omichael@princeton.edu, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, jto@u.arizona.edu, Scott Rutherford , Tom Wigley , p.jones@uea.ac.uk

    Mike and all
    Hi , just back from a trip and only now catching up with important emails. Given
    the restricted time and space available to furnish a response to SB comments ,
    I offer the following mix of comment and specific wording changes:
    I agree that the S+B response is designed to deflect criticism by confusing the issues
    rather than answering our points.
    In fact they fail to address any of the 3 specific
    issues we raised Namely , 1. the need for critical evaluation of proxy inputs , 2. the
    need for a consistent assimilation of widespread (dated and well resolved ) records,
    3. the essential requirement for objective/quantitative calibration (scaling) of the input
    records to allow for assessment of the uncertainties when making
    comparisons of different reconstructions and when comparing early with recent
    temperatures.
    Their own , ill-conceived and largely subjective approach did not take
    account of the uncertainties and problems in the use of palaeodata that they chose to
    highlight in their opening remarks.
    I would be in favour of stating something to this effect at the outset of our response.
    Also , as regards the tree-ring bit , I fully concur with the sense of your text as
    regards Section 1, but suggest the following wording (to replace “,rarely for annual
    ring widths, and almost entirely at higher latitudes.”)
    “but in certain high-latitude regions only. Where this is the case , these relatively
    recent
    (ie post 1950) data are not used in calibrating temperature reconstructions. In many other
    (even high-latitude) areas density or ring-width records display no bias.”
    In the spirit of healthy debate – I agree with Tim’s remarks , warning against presenting a
    too
    sanguine impression that the borehole debate is closed ( though I do think it is closing!).
    I also believe , as you already know, that the use of a recent padding algorithm to extend
    smoothed data to the present time, is inappropriate if it assumes the continuation of a
    recent
    trend. This is likely to confuse , rather than inform, the wider public about the current
    climate state .
    Finally , I repeat my earlier remarks (made before EOS piece published) that we are missing
    an opportunity to say that a warm Medieval period per se is not a refutation of
    anthropogenic
    warming , {as its absence is no proof}, if we do not understand the role of specific
    forcings (natural
    and anthropogenic) that influenced medieval and current climates.
    Cheers
    Keith
    At 12:48 PM 10/9/03 -0600, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

    Hi all
    Here are my suggested changes: toned down in several places. Tracking turned on
    Kevin
    Michael E. Mann wrote:

    Dear co-authors,
    Attached is a draft response, incorporating suggestions Kevin, Tom W, and Michael. I’ve
    aimed to be as brief as possible, but hard to go much lower than 750 words and still
    address all the key issues. 750 words, by the way, is our allotted limit.
    Looking forward to any comments. Feel free to send an edited version if you prefer, and
    I’ll try to assimilate all of the suggested edits and suggestions into a single revised
    draft. If you can get comments to me within the next couple days, that would be very
    helpful as we’re working on a late October deadline for the final version.
    Thanks for your continued help,
    mike

  23. Jimchip Says:

    1066337021.txt Might as well put the Holdren S&B “demolished” email and it applies to 5.4 also.

    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    To: Malcolm Hughes , Tim Osborn , Keith Briffa , Kevin Trenberth , Caspar Ammann , rbradley@geo.umass.edu, tcrowley@duke.edu, omichael@princeton.edu, jto@u.arizona.edu, Scott Rutherford , p.jones@uea.ac.uk, mann@virginia.edu, Tom Wigley
    Subject: Fwd: Correspondence on Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas views on climate
    Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:43:41 -0400

    Dear All,
    Thought you would be interested in this exchange, which John Holdren of Harvard has been
    kind enough to pass along…
    mike

    Delivered-To: mem6u@virginia.edu
    X-Sender: jholdren@camail2.harvard.edu
    X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
    Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:53:08 -0400
    To: “Michael Mann” , “Tom Wigley”
    From: “John P. Holdren”
    Subject: Correspondence on Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas
    views on climate
    Michael and Tom —
    I’m forwarding for your entertainment an exchange that followed from my being quoted in
    the Harvard Crimson to the effect that you and your colleagues are right and my
    “Harvard” colleagues Soon and Baliunas are wrong about what the evidence shows
    concerning surface temperatures over the past millennium. The cover note to faculty
    and postdocs in a regular Wednesday breakfast discussion group on environmental science
    and public policy in Harvard’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences is more or
    less self-explanatory.
    Best regards,
    John

    Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:02:24 -0400
    To: schrag@eps.harvard.edu, oconnell@eps.harvard.edu, holland@eps.harvard.edu,
    pearson@eps.harvard.edu, eli@eps.harvard.edu, ingalls@eps.harvard.edu,
    mlm@eps.harvard.edu, avan@fas.harvard.edu, moyer@huarp.harvard.edu,
    poussart@fas.harvard.edu, jshaman@fas.harvard.edu, sivan@fas.harvard.edu,
    bec@io.harvard.edu, saleska@fas.harvard.edu
    From: “John P. Holdren”
    Subject: For the EPS Wednesday breakfast group: Correspondence on Harvard Crimson
    coverage of Soon / Baliunas views on climate
    Cc: jeremy_bloxham@harvard.edu, william_clark@harvard.edu,
    patricia_mclaughlin@harvard.edu,
    Bcc:
    Colleagues–
    I append here an e-mail correspondence I have engaged in over the past few days trying
    to educate a Soon/Baliunas supporter who originally wrote to me asking how I could think
    that Soon and Baliunas are wrong and Mann et al. are right (a view attributed to me,
    correctly, in the Harvard Crimson). This individual apparently runs a web site on which
    he had been touting the Soon/Baliunas position.
    While it is sometimes a mistake to get into these exchanges (because one’s interlocutor
    turns out to be ineducable and/or just looking for a quote to reproduce out of context
    in an attempt to embarrass you), there was something about this guy’s formulations that
    made me think, at each round, that it might be worth responding. In the end, a couple
    of colleagues with whom I have shared this exchange already have suggested that its
    content would be of interest to others, and so I am sending it to our “environmental
    science and policy breakfast” list for your entertainment and, possibly, future
    breakfast discussion.
    The items in the correspondence are arranged below in chronological order, so that it
    can be read straight through, top to bottom.
    Best,
    John

    At 09:43 PM 9/12/2003 -0400, you wrote:
    Dr. Holdren:
    In a recent Crimson story on the work of Soon and Baliunas, who have written for my
    website [1]www.techcentralstation.com, you are quoted as saying:
    My impression is that the critics are right. It s unfortunate that so much attention is
    paid to a flawed analysis, but that s what happens when something happens to support the
    political climate in Washington.
    Do you feel the same way about the work of Mann et. al.? If not why not?
    Best,
    Nick
    Nick Schulz
    Editor
    TCS
    1-800-619-5258

    From: John P. Holdren [[2]mailto:john_holdren@harvard.edu]
    Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 11:06 AM
    To: Nick Schulz
    Subject: Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas controversy
    Dear Nick Schultz —
    I am sorry for the long delay in this response to your note of September 12. I have
    been swamped with other commitments.
    As you no doubt have anticipated, I do not put Mann et al. in the same category with
    Soon and Baliunas.
    If you seriously want to know “Why not?”, here are three ways one might arrive at what I
    regard as the right conclusion:
    (1) For those with the background and patience to penetrate the scientific arguments,
    the conclusion that Mann et al. are right and Soon and Baliunas are wrong follows from
    reading carefully the relevant Soon / Baliunas paper and the Mann et al. response to it:
    W. Soon and S. Baliunas, “Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000
    years”, Climate Research, vol. 23, pp 89ff, 2003.
    M. Mann, C. Amman, R. Bradley, K. Briffa, P. Jones, T. Osborn, T. Crowley, M. Hughes, M.
    Oppenheimer, J. Overpeck, S. Rutherford, K. Trenberth, and T. Wigley, “On past
    temperatures and anomalous late-20th century warmth”, EOS, vol 84, no. 27, pp 256ff, 8
    July 2003.
    This is the approach I took. Soon and Baliunas are demolished in this comparison.
    (2) Those lacking the background and/or patience to penetrate the two papers, and
    seriously wanting to know who is more likely to be right, have the option of asking
    somebody who does possess these characteristics — preferably somebody outside the
    handful of ideologically committed and/or oil-industry-linked professional
    climate-change skeptics — to evaluate the controversy for them. Better yet, one could
    poll a number of such people. They can easily be found by checking the web pages of
    earth sciences, atmospheric sciences, and environmental sciences departments at any
    number of major universities.
    (3) The least satisfactory approach, for those not qualified for (1) and lacking the
    time or initiative for (2), would be to learn what one can about the qualifications
    (including publications records) and reputations, in the field in question, of the
    authors on the two sides. Doing this would reveal that Soon and Baliunas are,
    essentially, amateurs in the interpretation of historical and paleoclimatological
    records of climate change, while the Mann et al. authors include several of the most
    published and most distinguished people in the world in this field. Such an
    investigation would also reveal that Dr. Baliunas’ reputation in this field suffered
    considerable damage a few years back, when she put her name on an incompetent critique
    of mainstream climate science that was never published anywhere respectable but was
    circulated by the tens of thousands, in a format mimicking that of a reprint from the
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in pursuit of signatures on a petition
    claiming that the mainstream findings were wrong.
    Of course, the third approach is the least satisfactory because it can be dangerous to
    assume that the more distinguished people are always right. Occasionally, it turns out
    that the opposite is true. That is one of several good reasons that it pays to try to
    penetrate the arguments, if one can, or to poll others who have tried to do so. But in
    cases where one is not able or willing to do either of these things — and where one is
    able to discover that the imbalance of experience and reputation on the two sides of the
    issue is as lopsided as here — one ought at least to recognize that the odds strongly
    favor the proposition that the more experienced and reputable people are right. If one
    were a policy maker, to bet the public welfare on the long odds of the opposite being
    true would be foolhardy.
    Sincerely,
    John Holdren
    PS: I have provided this response to your query as a personal communication, not as
    fodder for selective excerpting on your web site or elsewhere. If you do decide that
    you would like to propagate my views on this matter more widely, I ask that you convey
    my response in its entirety.

    At 11:16 AM 10/13/2003 -0400, you wrote:
    I have the patience but, by your definition certainly, not the background, so I suppose
    it s not surprising I came to a different conclusion. I guess my problem concerns what
    lawyers call the burden of proof. The burden weighs heavily much more heavily, given
    the claims on Mann et.al. than it does on Soon/Baliunas. Would you agree?
    Falsifiability for the claims of Mann et. al. requires but a few examples, does it
    not? Soon/Baliunas make claims that have no such burden. Isn t that correct?
    Best,
    Nick

    From: John P. Holdren [[3]mailto:john_holdren@harvard.edu]
    Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 5:54 PM
    To: Nick Schulz
    Subject: RE: Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas controversy
    Nick–
    Yes, I can see how it might seem that, in principle, those who are arguing for a strong
    and sweeping proposition (such as that “the current period is the warmest in the last
    1000 years”) must meet a heavy burden of proof, and that, because even one convincing
    counter-example shoots the proposition down, the burden that must be borne by the
    critics is somehow lighter. But, in practice, burden of proof is an evolving thing —
    it evolves as the amount of evidence relevant to a particular proposition grows.
    To choose an extreme example, consider the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
    Both of these are “empirical” laws. Our confidence in them is based entirely on
    observation; neither one can be “proven” from more fundamental laws. Both are very
    sweeping. The first law says that energy is conserved in all physical processes. The
    second law says that entropy increases in all physical processes. So, is the burden of
    proof heavier on somebody who asserts that these laws are correct, or on somebody who
    claims to have found an exception to one or both of them? Clearly, in this case, the
    burden is heavier on somebody who asserts an exception. This is in part because the
    two laws have survived every such challenge in the past. No exception to either has
    ever been documented. Every alleged exception has turned out to be traceable to a
    mistake of some kind. This burden on those claiming to have found an exception is so
    strong that the US Patent Office takes the position, which has been upheld in court,
    that any patent application for an invention that violates either law can be rejected
    summarily, without any further analysis of the details.
    Of course, I am not asserting that the claim we are now in the warmest period in a
    millennium is in the same league with the laws of thermodynamics. I used the latter
    only to illustrate the key point that where the burden is heaviest depends on the state
    of prior evidence and analysis on the point in question — not simply on whether a
    proposition is sweeping or narrow.
    In the case actually at hand, Mann et al. are careful in the nature of their claim.
    They write along the lines of “A number of reconstructions of large-scale temperature
    changes support the conclusion” that the current period is the warmest in the last
    millennium. And they write that the claims of Baliunas et al. are “inconsistent with
    the preponderance of scientific evidence”. They are not saying that no shred of
    evidence to the contrary has ever been produced, but rather that analysis of the
    available evidence as a whole tends to support their conclusion.
    This is often the case in science. That is, there are often “outlier” data points or
    apparent contradictions that are not yet adequately explained, but still are not given
    much weight by most of the scientists working on a particular issue if a strong
    preponderance of evidence points the other way. This is because the scientists judge it
    to be more probable that the outlier data point or apparent contradiction will
    ultimately turn out to be explainable as a mistake, or otherwise explainable in a way
    that is consistent with the preponderance of evidence, than that it will turn out that
    the preponderance of evidence is wrong or is being misinterpreted. Indeed, apparent
    contradictions with a preponderance of evidence are FAR more often due to measurement
    error or analysis error than to real contradiction with what the preponderance
    indicates.
    A key point, then, is that somebody with a PhD claiming to have identified a
    counterexample does not establish that those offering a general proposition have failed
    in their burden of proof. The counterexample itself must pass muster as both valid in
    itself and sufficient, in the generality of its implications, to invalidate the
    proposition.
    In the case at hand, it is not even a matter of an “outlier” point or other seeming
    contradiction that has not yet been explained. Mann et al. have explained in detail why
    the supposed contrary evidence offered by Baliunas et al. does NOT constitute a
    counterexample. To those with some knowledge and experience in studies of this kind,
    the refutation by Mann et al is completely convincing.
    Sincerely,
    John Holdren

    At 08:08 AM 10/15/2003 -0400, you wrote:

    Dr. Holdren:
    Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I genuinely appreciate you taking the time.
    You are quite right about the laws of thermodynamics. And you are quite right that Mann
    et al is not in the same league as those laws and that s not to take anything from their
    basic research.
    You write to those with knowledge and experience in studies of this kind, the refutation
    by Mann et all is completely convincing. Since I do not have what you would consider
    the requisite knowledge or experience, I can t speak to that. I ve read the Mann papers
    and the Baliunas Soon paper and the Mann rebuttal and find Mann s claims based on his
    research extravagant and beyond what he can legitimately claim to know. That said, I m
    willing to believe it is because I don t have the tools necessary to understand.
    But if you will indulge a lay person with some knowledge of the matter, perhaps you
    could clear up a thing or two.
    Part of the confusion over Mann et al it seems to me has to do not with the research
    itself but with the extravagance of the claims they make based on their research.
    And yet you write: Mann et al. are careful in the nature of their claim. They write
    along the lines of A number of reconstructions of large-scale temperature changes
    support the conclusion that the current period is the warmest in the last millennium.
    And they write that the claims of Baliunas et al. are inconsistent with the
    preponderance of scientific evidence .
    That makes it seem as if Mann s not claiming anything particularly extraordinary based
    on his research.
    But Mann claimed in the NYTimes in 1998 that in their Nature study from that year Our
    conclusion was that the warming of the past few decades appears to be closely tied to
    emission of greenhouse gases by humans and not any of the natural factors.” Does that
    seem to be careful in the nature of a claim? Respected scientists like Tom Quigley
    responded at the time by saying “I think there’s a limit to how far you can ever go.” As
    for using proxy data to detect a man-made greenhouse effect, he said, “I don’t think
    we’re ever going to get to the point where we’re going to be totally convincing.” These
    are two scientists who would agree on the preponderance of evidence and yet they make
    different claims about what that preponderance means. There are lots of respected
    climatologists who would say Mann has insufficient scientific basis to make that claim.
    Would you agree? The Soon Baliunas research is relevant to that element of the debate
    what the preponderance of evidence enables us to claim within reason. To that end, I
    don t think claims of Soon Baliunas are inconsistent with the preponderance of
    scientific evidence.
    I ll close by saying I m willing to admit that, as someone lacking a PhD, I could be
    punching above my weight. But I will ask you a different but related question How much
    hope is there for reaching reasonable public policy decisions that affect the lives of
    millions if the science upon which those decisions must be made is said to be by
    definition beyond the reach of those people?
    All best,
    Nick

    Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:46:23 -0400
    To: “Nick Schulz”
    From: “John P. Holdren”
    Subject: RE: Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas controversy
    Nick–
    You ask good questions. I believe the thoughtfulness of your questions and the progress
    I believe we are making in this interchange contain the seeds of the answer to your
    final question, which, if I may paraphrase just a bit, is whether there’s any hope of
    reaching reasonable public-policy decisions when the details of the science germane to
    those decisions are impenetrable to most citizens.
    This is a hard problem. Certainly the difficulty is not restricted to climate science
    and policy, but applies also to nuclear-weapon science and policy, nuclear-energy
    science and policy, genetic science and policy, and much more. But I don’t think the
    difficulties are insurmountable. That’s why I’m in the business I’m in, which is
    teaching about and working on the intersection of science and technology with policy.
    Most citizens cannot penetrate the details of what is known about the how the climate
    works (and, of course, what is known even by the most knowledgeable climate scientists
    about this is not everything one would like to know, and is subject to modification by
    new data, new insights, new forms of analysis). Neither would most citizens be able to
    understand how a hydrogen bomb works (even if the details were not secret), or what
    factors will determine the leak rates of radioactive nuclides from radioactive-waste
    repositories, or what stem-cell research does and promises to be able to do.
    But, as Amory Lovins once said in addressing the question of whether the public deserved
    and could play a meaningful role in debates about nuclear-weapon policy, even though
    most citizens would never understand the details of how nuclear weapons work or are
    made, “You don’t have to be a chicken to know what to do with an egg.” In other words,
    for many (but not all) policy purposes, the details that are impenetrable do not matter.
    There CAN be aspects of the details that do matter for public policy, of course. In
    those cases, it is the function and the responsibility of scientists who work across the
    science-and-policy boundary to communicate the policy implications of these details in
    ways that citizens and policy makers can understand. And I believe it is the function
    and responsibility of citizens and policy makers to develop, with the help of scientists
    and technologists, a sufficient appreciation of how to reach judgments about
    plausibility and credibility of communications about the science and technology relevant
    to policy choices so that the citizens and policy makers are NOT disenfranchised in
    policy decisions where science and technology are germane.
    How this is best to be done is a more complicated subject than I am prepared to try to
    explicate fully here. (Alas, I have already spent more time on this interchange than I
    could really afford from other current commitments.) Suffice it to say, for now, that
    improving the situation involves increasing at least somewhat, over time, the scientific
    literacy of our citizens, including especially in relation to how science works, how to
    distinguish an extravagant from a reasonable claim, how to think about probabilities of
    who is wrong and who is right in a given scientific dispute (including the question of
    burden of proof as you and I have been discussing it here), how consulting and polling
    experts can illuminate issues even for those who don’t understand everything that the
    experts say, and why bodies like the National Academy of Sciences and the
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change deserve more credibility on the question of
    where mainstream scientific opinion lies than the National Petroleum Council, the Sierra
    Club, or the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.
    Regarding extravagant claims, you continue to argue that Mann et al. have been guilty of
    this, but the formulation of theirs that you offer as evidence is not evidence of this
    at all. You quote them from the NYT in 1998, referring to a study Mann and co-authors
    published in that year, as saying

    “Our conclusion was that the warming of the past few decades appears to be closely
    tied to emission of greenhouse gases by humans and not any of the natural factors.”

    and you ask “Does that seem to be careful in the nature of a claim?” My answer is:
    Yes, absolutely, their formulation is careful and appropriate. Please note that they
    did NOT say “Global warming is closely tied to emission of greenhouse gases by humans
    and not any of the natural factors.” They said that THEIR CONCLUSION (from a
    particular, specified study, published in NATURE) was that the warming of THE PAST FEW
    DECADES (that is, a particular, specified part of the historical record) APPEARS (from
    the evidence adduced in the specified study) to be closely tied… This is a carefully
    specified, multiply bounded statement, which accurately reflects what they looked at and
    what they found. And it is appropriately contingent –“APPEARS to be closely tied” —
    allowing for the possibility that further analysis or new data could later lead to a
    different perspective on what appears to be true.
    With respect, it does not require a PhD in science to notice the appropriate boundedness
    and contingency in the Mann et al. formulation. It only requires an open mind, a
    careful reading, and a degree of understanding of the character of scientific claims and
    the wording appropriate to convey them that is accessible to any thoughtful citizen.
    That is why I’m an optimist.
    You go on to quote the respected scientist “Tom Quigley” as holding a contrary view to
    that expressed by Mann. But please note that: (1) I don’t know of any Tom Quigley
    working in this field, so I suspect you mean to refer to the prominent climatologist Tom
    Wigley; (2) the statements you attribute to “Quiqley” do not directly contradict the
    careful statement of Mann (that is, it is entirely consistent for Mann to say that his
    study found that recent warming appears to be tied to human emissions and for Wigley to
    say that that there are limits to how far one can go with this sort of analysis, without
    either one being wrong); and (3) Tom Wigley is one of the CO-AUTHORS of the resounding
    Mann et al. refutation of Soon and Baliunas (see attached PDF file).
    I hope you have found my responses to be of some value. I now must get on with other
    things.
    Best,
    John Holdren

    JOHN P. HOLDREN
    —————————————————————————–
    Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy
    & Director, Program in Science, Technology, & Public Policy,
    Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs,
    John F. Kennedy School of Government
    —————————————————————————-
    Professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy,
    Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences
    —————————————————————————-
    HARVARD UNIVERSITY

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: