cc: jto@u.arizona.edu,rbradley@geo.umass.edu,k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:08:23 +0100
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Fwd: Re: The broken "Hockey Stick"
to: mann@virginia.edu

    Dear All,
        I have just wasted an hour responding to this. Already had 2 calls - one from the BBC
    about this new paper by Legates !
        Whilst doing this Hameranta sent round a paper saying that Ice Ages are caused by
    cosmic rays and not related at all to Milankovitch forcing. What is the world coming to !
        Susan Solomon was here yesterday getting an honorary degree. Had a brief chat
    with her and she went out of her way to tell me that AR4 will have to deal with all this
   sort
    of rubbish - so Peck (and Keith) you can deal with McIntyre and McKittrick and all the
    other paleoloonies out there.
        I don't get away scot free, I'll have to deal with the MSU record, the Mckittrick and
    Michaels work on the instrumental record and more that Legates hasn't thought of yet.
    Latter will be easy as Legates doesn't seem to think.
       I'm really looking forward to the first IPCC meeting in Trieste.
       Off home now to our new house and a bottle of wine - the attached is just to show
    Ray we've moved. The front part is 17th century - might think about asking Keith to date
    some timbers, but I want the house not to fall down. It looks old and that's good enough
    for us !
    Cheers
    Phil

     Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:54:53 +0100
     To: Timo Hmeranta <timo.hameranta@pp.inet.fi>
     From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
     Subject: Re: The broken "Hockey Stick"
     Cc: "David R. Legates" <legates@udel.edu>, "Ross McKitrick" <rmckitri@uoguelph.ca>,
     "Stephen McIntyre" <smcintyre@cgxenergy.com>, "Willie Soon" <wsoon@cfa.harvard.edu>, "Al
     Arking" <arking@jhu.edu>, "Al Pekarek" <apekarek@stcloudstate.edu>, "Charles F.
     \"Chick\" Keller" <cfk@lanl.gov>, "Daniel Sarewitz" <dsarewitz@asu.edu>, "David H.
     Douglass" <douglass@pas.rochester.edu>, "David J. Karoly" <dkaroly@ou.edu>, "Fangqun Yu"
     <yfq@asrc.cestm.albany.edu>, "George H. Taylor" <taylor@coas.oregonstate.edu>, "Hans
     Erren" <erren21@zonnet.nl>, "Hugh W. Ellsaesser" <hughel@sbcglobal.net>, "Igor Polyakov"
     <igor@iarc.uaf.edu>, "Jack Barrett" <Jack1Barrett@aol.com>, "Jarl R. Ahlbeck"
     <jahlbeck@abo.fi>, "Joe Friday" <jfriday99@yahoo.com>, "John Brignell"
     <jeb@numberwatch.co.uk>, "Julian Morris" <jmorris@policynetwork.net>, "Kirill Ya.
     Kondratyev" <kondratyev@KK10221.spb.edu>, "Leonid B. Klyashtorin"
     <klyashtorin@mtu-net.ru>, "Lowell D. Stott" <stott@usc.edu>, "Martin Visbeck"
     <visbeck@ldeo.columbia.edu>, "Marty Hoffert" <marty.hoffert@nyu.edu>, "Michael C.
     MacCracken" <mmaccrac@comcast.net>, "Michael Schlesinger" <schlesin@atmos.uiuc.edu>,
     "Nir Shaviv" <shaviv@phys.huji.ac.il>, "Reid A. Bryson" <rabryson@facstaff.wisc.edu>,
     "Richard S. Courtney" <RichardSCourtney@aol.com>, "Richard S. Lindzen"
     <lindzen@wind.mit.edu>, "S. Fred Singer" <singer@sepp.org>, "Sallie Baliunas"
     <baliunas@cfa.harvard.edu>, "Warwick S. Hughes" <climate@webace.com.au>, Wibjrn Karln
     <wibjorn.karlen@natgeo.su.se>, "Vincent Gray" <vinmary.gray@paradise.net.nz>, "James E.
     Hansen" <jhansen@giss.nasa.gov>, "John Christy" <christy@nsstc.uah.edu>, "Kevin E.
     Trenberth" <trenbert@ucar.edu>, Olavi Krner <olavi@aai.ee>, "Rajendra K. Pachauri"
     <chairipcc@teri.res.in>, "Robert C. Balling Jr" <robert.balling@asu.edu>, "Roger A.
     Pielke Sr." <pielke@atmos.colostate.edu>, "Roy W. Spencer" <roy.spencer@msfc.nasa.gov>,
     "Tad Anderson" <tadand@atmos.washington.edu>, "Tom M. L. Wigley" <wigley@ucar.edu>,
     "Zbigniew Jaworowski" <zbigniew.jaworowski@neostrada.pl>
      Dear Timo,
          I can fully understand why Mike Mann doesn't have email contact with you. I have
     read
      David Legates' piece on the NCPA web site and there is so much wrong with it, I don't
     know
      whether I should attempt to respond. I will, but I'll be brief. I don't want it to seem
     like
      nitpicking, but David should get his facts right. He should have read the papers
     properly and
      noted their dates and years. He should put up an apology and he should back up his text
      with some facts/details and not just statements saying the record is unreliable and
     can't
      be reproduced. I will go through a few points and will not respond any more unless
     David issues
      an apology.
           Surely, if you want people to believe your point of view you should get the facts
     right.
      Keynes changed his opinion when the facts changed, but I'm sure he first checked that
      the facts were right !
      1. The Figure is from the IPCC Report of 2001. Fact.
      2. The GRL paper by Mann and Jones was written in 2003. Fact
      3. The GRL paper was not an update of what IPCC reported, nor was it an update of what
           IPCC used in 2001 (namely the Mann et al papers in 1998/1999). Fact
      4. The GRL paper had a clearly different intention as stated in the paper. Fact
      5. So, the curve from the GRL 2003 paper was not used in the 2001 IPCC report. Fact -
     it
           couldn't have been.
      6. The McIntyre and McKittrick paper in 2003 in Energy and Environment didn't contend
          that Mann and Jones unjustifiably truncated and extrapolated trends or data. Fact -
     it
          couldn't have because it was printed before the Mann and Jones 2003 paper in GRL
          came out.
      7. The Mann and Jones 2003 paper didn't unjustifiably truncate or extrapolate trends or
     data
          in any of the series used. Fact - I have all the series.
      8. The Mann and Jones 2003 paper uses series from 2 ice boreholes in Greenland. Fact -
     we
          digitized the series from the original papers.
      9. Land borehole data are not used in Mann and Jones 2003. Fact - we stated in the
     paper we
          wanted to only use series that correlate with instrumental records. If someone can
     tell
          me how to correlate a series with two values (one for 2000 and one for 1900) then
     please
          do. The 2003 paper's aim was to develop an annual-timescale series. Borehole series
     are
          not amenable for this. There is a paper by Huang (2004) in a recent GRL where a
          combination is attempted, but an assumption is made that boreholes give one
     timescale,
          conventional another.
     10. Esper et al (2004) argue that our tree-ring series are over standardised and have
     lost
          low frequency. The techniques Esper et al use were developed here at CRU (by my
     colleague
          Keith Briffa). Fact - Jan Esper often seems to forget this. If you note the series
     Mann and
          Jones (2003) use, you will see we were very careful with standardization. All the
     discussion
          about trees and the loss of low-frequency variation began in CRU. Fact.
      11. None of the series we use are based on too few trees. A more relevant fact is that
     many
           of Esper et al are in the earliest years. It is necessary to go back and read the
     papers,
           back to the first in the early 1990s.
      12. We do not correlate temperature trends with tree age. Fact - this just shows how
     ridiculous
           some of the sentences in the Legates' piece are. Why would we want to do this.
      13. The borehole retraction by Mann and Rutherford is about 0.1 deg C. Fact - read the
            retraction.
      14. The trend over the 20th century in the Figure and in the instrumental data. IPCC
     quotes
            0.6 deg C over the 1901-2000 period. Fact - but Legates is eyeballing the curve
     to get
            0.95 deg C. A figure isn't given in Mann and Jones (2003). Take it from me the
     trend is
            about the same as the instrumental record.
      15. The series in Mann and Jones (2003) is a simple average of all the constituent
     series. Fact.
            Averaging is straightforward, we also experimented with various weights. I
     wouldn't call
            averaging a statistical technique, but I suppose a weighted mean could be
     referred to as a
            statistic. Throughout the whole piece though Legates appears to me be referring
     back to
            Mann et al paper in 1998. I may be wrong here, and I apologize if I am. I only
     read
            continued reference to Mann and Jones (2003).
      16. Isn't it a good idea to base the use of proxy records on how they match
     instrumental
            records !  Am I missing something here? When did anyone decide that proxy records
            could be assumed to match something else?  They are proxy records - past climate
            proxies, in this case for temperature. If a record is a proxy for temperature,
     then to my
            mind it should have some agreement with an instrumental record. This is a basic
            fundamental of paleoclimatology.
      17. The instrumental record has not been considered up to now - although you accepted
     the
            IPCC warming of 0.6 deg C earlier. I could go into more detail here but won't as
     it is
            another issue.
      18. Mann and Jones (2003) had a method for estimating uncertainty back in time. When I
     say
            we had a method, I mean we used numbers to estimate it. Legates says based on
            his preliminary analysis it is twice as large - based on what?  Clearly based on
     someone
            who believed we were wrong to base our use of proxy records solely on how well
     they
            matched instrumental temperature data !
      19. Mann  and Jones (2003) make no such claim that all change over the last 2000 years
            occurred in the 20th century. Fact, we don't. We have stated in other articles
     that the
            MWP and LIA are simplistic interpretations of the past and all
     paleoclimatologists
            would be better referring to the past using calendar dates. If the widely
     accepted MWP
            and LIA were as clear as Legates seems to think, why are paleoclimatologists
            bothering to collect more data?
      20. We do claim that the late-20th century is the warmest period of the millennium.
     Fact. We
            also claim that the 1990s are the warmest decade and that 1998 is the warmest
     year. We
            don't make those claims in the 2003 paper.
        As I said at the beginning I could go into more detail. I have only done to put the
     record
      straight, not to enter into any debate.
      Regards
      Phil

     At 11:43 14/07/2004 +0300, Timo Hmeranta wrote:

     Dear Phil Jones,

     for years we have discussed and debated with scientific courtesy, and agreed to disagree
     when disagreed. Now, Id like to learn your comments on the following brief analysis

     Legates, David R., 2004. Breaking the Hockey StickNational Center for Policy Analysis
     Brief Analysis No. 478, July 12, 2004, online <[1]http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba478/> and
     pfd <[2]http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba478/ba478.pdf>

     In the straightforward American way David ends his analysis as follows:

     The Hockey Stick is Broken. Mann wrote the part of the IPCC Third Assessment Report
     (2001) that proclaims that nearly all of the climate change seen during the last two
     millennia occurred during the 20th century and that it is due to human activities. The
     report contends that industrialization put carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases
     into the atmosphere, leading to increasing global air temperatures. Furthermore, it
     claims that the 1990s were the warmest decade of the last two millennia and 1998 was the
     warmest year. But a review of the data shows that these claims are untenable. Manns
     research is clearly the outlier and does not fit with the overwhelming evidence of
     widespread global warming and cooling within the previous two millennia.
     Consider that if 1) the amount of uncertainty is doubled (an appropriate representation
     of the sheath), 2) appropriate 20th century increases in observed air temperature are
     applied (a correct representation of the blade), or 3) the period from A.D. 200 to 1900
     correctly reproduces millennial-scale variability (a reliable representation of the
     shaft), then one can have no confidence in the claim that the 1990s are the warmest
     decade of the last two millennia. The assertions of Mann and his colleagues and,
     consequently, the IPCC are open to question if even one component of their temperature
     reconstruction is in error, let alone all three!

     Further, one very important concern (to us all, I do hope!) is that David also is unable
     to reproduce the results you received. We have already e.g. McIntyre & McKitrick on
     MBM98 and Soon on IPCC TAR. David correctly states that reproducibility is a hallmark of
     scientific inquiry.
     Unfortunately, Michael E. Mann refuses to communicate.

     Dear Phil, your comments are again greatly appreciated.

     All the best

     Timo

     xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

     Timo Hmeranta, LL.M.
     Moderator, Climatesceptics
     Martinlaaksontie 42 B 9
     01620 Vantaa
     Finland, Member State of the European Union

     Moderator: timohame@yahoo.co.uk
     Private: timo.hameranta@pp.inet.fi

     Home page: [3]http://personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/climate.htm

     Moderator of the discussion group  "Sceptical Climate Science"
     [4]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics

     "To dwell only on horror scenarios of the future
     shows only a lack of imagination".  (Kari Enqvist)

     "If the facts change, I'll change my opinion.
     What do you do, Sir" (John Maynard Keynes)

     "As long as we are unable to explain the evident
     inconsistencies that fly in the face of climate
     alarmism, attempts to associate scientific scepticism
     with Holocaust denial can only be regarded as
     political incitement."
     (Benny J. Peiser, CCNet January 30, 2003)


     xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


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


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

