date: Thu Aug  4 08:34:25 2005
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Re: Out in latest J. Climate
to: mann@psu.edu

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

