From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
To: mann@psu.edu
Subject: Re: Out in latest J. Climate
Date: Thu Aug  4 09:49:54 2005

    Mike,
       Gabi was supposed to be there but wasn't either. I think Gabi isn't
    being objective as she might because of Tom C.  I recall Keith
    telling me that her recent paper has been rejected, not sure if outright
    or not.
       Gabi sees the issue from a D&A perspective, not whether any curve
    is nearer the truth, but just what the envelope of the range might be.
        There is an issue coming up in IPCC. Every curve needs error
    bars, and having them is all that matters. It seems irrelevant whether
    they are right or how they are used. Changing timescales make this
    simple use impractical.
        We have a new version of HadCRUT just submitted, so soon
    the'll be HadCRUT3v and CRUTEM3v.  The land doesn't change much.
    This has errors associated with each point, but the paper doesn't yet
    discuss how to use them.
       I'll attach this paper. Only just been submitted to JGR - not
    in this format though. This format lays it out better.
       Thanks for reminding Scott.
    Cheers
    Phil
   At 08:48 04/08/2005, you wrote:

     Hi Phil,
     Thanks for the heads up. Will be prepared for this then. I thought that Gabi Hegerl was
     involved with this guy? Doesn't she know better? It is disturbing that she hasn't set
     them straight on this.
     By the way, as you may or may not have heard, its been discovered that there is a major
     error in Von Storch et al '04 that they now appear to be trying to hide (they have some
     obscure article in an Italian journal where they attempt to justify the error).  There
     are several comments that have been or are soon to be submitted to Science about this.
     As it turns out, they introduces a spurious step in their supposed implementation of the
     MBH98 procedure in which they detrended the series first, gives completely wrong
     results.. Caspar Ammann and Gene Wahl and David Ritson of Stanford have both
     independently discovered this, because they noticed that  amplitude of the calibrated
     signal in VS04 scales with the signal-to-noise ratio--this was the first clue that there
     was a major problem. There may be calls upon Science for them to retract their paper.
     The results are completely wrong, aside from the problems w/ the GKSS simulation. You
     can expect to hear more about this soon...
     I'll remind Scott about the proxies. He and Zhang are in the process of screening the
     proxy series for temperature signals, etc. Once they've done that, should be more
     useful. I expect we'll be able to get you some stuff by late August.
     I did hear about the 3 papers coming out in Science. Apparently Donald Kennedy is doing
     an editorial that will discuss this in the context of the whole Barton business. That
     should be interesting...There will be articles by both Gavin and Steve Sherwood on
     "RealClimate" in coordination with the publication of the papers in Science Express.
     This should help turn the debate around.
     talk to you later,
     mike
     Phil Jones wrote:

      Mike,
          He's been working with Myles Allen. Tim went to the first meeting of this
      Dutch funded project near Oxford last week.
          Tim said they were doing some odd things, like correlating all the proxy series
      they had with CET (yes CET)!  Even the few SH proxies they have. The others
      who went to the meeting were Zorita and Moberg. Zorita was still showing the
      GKSS run with Moberg series, even though its forcing is too large, it doesn't
      have aerosols in the 20th century and has spin up problems for the first
      200 years.
           Meeting wasn't that productive according to Tim. There was a belief amongst
      those there that all trees you used have lost low-freq, but this isn't true as you
     know.
      Also, it was a good job Keith wasn't there (he didn't go as his father died the
      weekend before and he's not been in CRU since) as Martin assumed that RCS
      was developed by Esper (who also wasn't there). Tim put them right on this
      one, but RCS isn't applicable for normal tree sites, nor useful for bristlecones.
      Tim said Esper was wrong is his use of RCS, but they wouldn't accept that
      as Esper wasn't there to defend himself!
           Basically only Tim knew anything about proxy data especially trees. Tim
      got the impression that they wanted to find that MBH is wrong. Given the
      previous comment, as you weren't there they are using double standards.
           So, in conclusion, act carefully. Don't jump in, but some carefully thought
      through comments should be productive. Suggest they read the RevG article.
           Martin isn't associated with the contrarians, but he's not in possession
      of the all the facts. He isn't aware of Casper's work, nor your latest study
      which you sent the other day, nor Rutherford et al.
           There still seems to be a belief in these lower responding proxies. This is
      something we want to work on more here, as the only way it seems to show
      that these lower-freq proxies aren't that great is to use higher-freq proxies.
          When you're back or sometime, can you remind Scott to send your
      latest set of proxies. I'll have some time in the autumn to work on them
      as the AR4 should be in by Aug 12.
         Science should be publishing 3 papers on the MSU issue by the end of Aug
      or early Sept. This is Mears/Wentz, Santer et al. and Sherwood et al. Latter
      shows that sondes are only truly reliable when flown at night. Daytime ones
      have all manner of problems with heating, just like air temps on board ships -
      hence the NMAT series.
         I'll forward another email for interest.
      Cheers
      Phil
     At 03:40 04/08/2005, you wrote:

     Hi Phil,
     Thanks, yes I'm in China now. As you might imagine, ,things have been very busy, but
     calming down a bit. Looks like Barton may be backing down...
     Martin Juckes has an invited talk in my session. I invited him, because he was working
     w/ Stott et al, and so I assume he was legit, and not associated with the contrarians.
     But if he's associated w/ the Dutch group, he may actually be a problem. Do you have
     additional information about him and what he has been up to?
     Thanks,
     mike
     Phil Jones wrote:

      Mike,
          Good to hear it is out  !
      Hope the changeover is going OK and life is getting back to normal.
      If you're not gone to China yet - you'll meet someone called Martin
      Dukes (?). He's giving a talk at your session. He knows about maths
      etc but not much about paleo !   Might need some education, but
      is probably OK. Not met him, but Tim has.  Doing some worked
      funded by the Dutch govt on the hockey stick.
      Cheers
      Phil
     At 04:05 03/08/2005, you wrote:

     Dear Colleagues,
     FYI, two papers attached:
     First (reprint), Rutherford et al, is now out in latest issue of Journal of Climate.
     This paper, aside from addressing other more scientifically-worthwhile issues,  also
     happens to discredit most of the McIntyre and McKitrick claims.
     Second (preprint), Mann et al, is formally in press (i.e., has gone off to the AMS
     production staff) in Journal of Climate. This paper strongly challenges the conclusions
     of von Storch et al (2004), and raises some methodological issues w/ the approach used
     by Moberg et al (2005).
     Feel free to pass along to others. Thanks
     Mike
     --
     Michael E. Mann
     Associate Professor
     Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
     Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
     503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
     The Pennsylvania State University      email:  mann@psu.edu
     University Park, PA 16802-5013
     [1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

     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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     --
     Michael E. Mann
     Associate Professor
     Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
     Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
     503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
     The Pennsylvania State University      email:  mann@psu.edu
     University Park, PA 16802-5013
     [2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

     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
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     --
     Michael E. Mann
     Associate Professor
     Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
     Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
     503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
     The Pennsylvania State University      email:  mann@psu.edu
     University Park, PA 16802-5013
     [3]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

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

References

   1. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
   2. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
   3. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

