date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 16:24:28 -0400
from: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@virginia.edu>
subject: Re: Fwd: EOS: Soon et al reply
to: Caspar Ammann <ammann@ucar.edu>, rbradley@geo.umass.edu, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, tom crowley <tom@ocean.tamu.edu>, "Malcolm Hughes" <mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu>, omichael@princeton.edu, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@rwu.edu>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@cgd.ucar.edu>, Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>, Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>, mann@virginia.edu

   p.s. one other point that needs to be addressed in this: the supposed inconsistency w/
   boreholes. There are two issues here: one involves whether the borehole GST estimates are
   representative of past SAT variations, and there are now numerous peer-reviewed studies
   that suggest the answer is "no". So its an 'apples and organges' issue, which is a
   diplomatic way of putting it w/out getting into the specific disagreements between Pollack
   and coworkers, and many of the rest of us (which would detract from our message). The other
   point is that Pollack and others have indicated that they don't believe the boreholes have
   sensitivity to temperature changes more than 500 years ago or so, and that these
   longer-term estimates that S&B refer to that supposedly show a Medieval warm period, are
   not trusted by even Pollack and coworkers--I believe Tom C (Tom?) has written on this at
   some point?
   look forward to comments,
   mike
   At 04:19 PM 10/5/2003 -0400, 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 <ammann@ucar.edu>, rbradley@geo.umass.edu, Keith Briffa
     <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, Tom Crowley, "Malcolm Hughes" <mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu>,
     omichael@princeton.edu, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>, Jonathan Overpeck
     <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@rwu.edu>, Kevin Trenberth
     <trenbert@cgd.ucar.edu>, Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>
     From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@virginia.edu>
     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 <thompson.4@osu.edu>
     Subject: EOS: Soon et al reply
     X-Sender: ethompso@pop.service.ohio-state.edu
     To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@virginia.edu>
     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
     attachment

     ______________________________________________________________
                         Professor Michael E. Mann
                Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
                           University of Virginia
                          Charlottesville, VA 22903
     _______________________________________________________________________
     e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
              [1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

     ______________________________________________________________
                         Professor Michael E. Mann
                Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
                           University of Virginia
                          Charlottesville, VA 22903
     _______________________________________________________________________
     e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
              [2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

   ______________________________________________________________
                       Professor Michael E. Mann
              Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
                         University of Virginia
                        Charlottesville, VA 22903
   _______________________________________________________________________
   e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137
            [3]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

