Friday, January 20, 2012


cc: Tom Wigley <>, "Raymond S. Bradley" <>, Keith Briffa <>, Caspar Ammann <>, Phil Jones <>, Michael Oppenheimer <>, Kevin Trenberth <>,, Tom Crowley <>
date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 21:59:06 -0400
subject: Re: EOS text
to: "Michael E. Mann" <>

Quoting "Michael E. Mann" : Mike, thank you for your comments; in principle I agree with
them, but you cannot have it both ways - you cannot state that you are addressing a general
problem of logical errors in alternate paleoclimate reconstructions, and then go out of
your way to single out Soon and Baliunas with every point and a closing barb. I agree with
you that it should be kept at a general level. That is why I would argue that you
consistently keep the critiques at a general level as to why people run into trouble when
looking at different data - the need for temperature proxies, different temporal and
spatial patterns of warming, and failure to adequately define what is the "present", ie,
late 20th century. stated from that viewpoint there is NO need to mention Soon and Baliunas
after the original statement, and there is certainly not a need to make a charge of "flawed
analyses with an apparently non-scientific agenda." why make a statement that is just going
to turn off referees and AGU? I therefore argue that the rebuttal points be rewritten
(shortened) to avoid singling out s+b, AND that the last part of the last paragraph be
dropped. I also strongly feelthatthe Hegerl et al paper should be referenced - that paper
compared a model with four different paleoclimate data sets - to my knowledge no one else
has done that and concluded that for all the data the question of an anthropogenic signal
in the 20th century is clear. I will be out of town and virtually incommunicado from Sunday
to Wednesday so I am not sure if I will be able to respond before Thursday to any other
thoughts you have. Regards, Tom > > Dear Tom and others...
> Thanks Tom for the comments, several of which are quite helpful and > have > been
incorporated into the attached, final (?) version. > Unfortunately, > you arrived very late
in the game. Not your fault, but it does make > it > difficult to incorporate a number of
your suggestions at this very > late > stage. I don't want to open up the "N body problem"
> at > this point...
> We've all already worked extremely hard to agree upon the > latest > wording (looks like
the draft you were working on was actually > slightly out of date, so some of your
suggested changes are similar > to > ones that were already made in the most recent draft).
One thing > we've > been over several times now is the issue of why we need to > reference
the S&B papers as tangentially as we do--it has to do > with > the instructions that were
given to us by Judy Jones as to how we may > and > may not refer to the S&B work, given the
nature of the Eos > "forum" rules, since the S&B papers didn't appear in > Eos. I've
forwarded Judy's email to you, in case you missed it. > Tom > W is drafting a separate
piece, which more directly targets the > S&B > piece, to be sent to "Climate Research" and
you want to > discuss > this with him. This will be good opportunity for a more directed, >
point-by-point rebuttal of S&B. We don't have the mandate to do > that > in this piece. We
can only use S&B as examples of more general > points. That's why they are simply
referenced, parenthetically, in > the > context of broader points that we are making. Re
the last few > sentences, > I think they give the piece some critical impact, and I'm
averse to > removing them. AGU is the final arbiter here--I'm sure they will tell > us > if
they feel we're out of bounds, when we submit the piece.
> Adopting your suggested additions would also put us about 500 words > over > the limit. I
would really like to discuss a lot of the things you > mention. But we simply cannot with
the length restrictions.We > already > worked extremely hard to hit the key points in about
1400 words (we > need > to be about 100 under the 1500 word limit, given the >
larger-than-normal > number of references). I'm sure there are alternative ways we could >
achieve this, but we've already worked very hard to arrived at the > particular version we
> In summary, I apologize we can't incorporate several of your > comments at this point,
and I hope you feel comfortable enough with > the > attached, revised version that you're
willing to sign on.
> I want to close the text today or tomorrow, so I'm proposing the > attached > as a
tentative final version, pending Phil's finalization of Figure > #2 > and caption, and
only, please (!), the most minor of any additional > suggested changes in wording now!
> Thanks for understanding,
> mike
> At 04:18 PM 6/7/2003 -0400, Tom Crowley wrote:

> I've been out of town and therefore out of the loop with respect to > the > recent
flurry of emails on the EOS piece. I have my own views > on > the writeup that are a
little different that what is presently > included - > I offer the changes for your
contemplation - note that my comments > are in > green and include Kevin's modifications
in red. there are some > places > where the two texts don't mesh because I did not want
to be changing > anything that Kevin wrote before everybody saw everything.
> Tom
> ps suggest that people date any future modifications and list > who > is doing the
modification (see my file name as an example).
> --
> Thomas J. Crowley
> Nicholas Professor of Earth Systems Science
> Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences
> Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences
> Box 90227
> 103 Old Chem Building Duke University
> Durham, NC 27708
> 919-681-8228
> 919-684-5833 fax


> ______________________________________________________________
> &nb> sp; > Professor Michael E. Mann
> > Department > of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
> &nbs> p; > University of Virginia
> &nbs> p; > Charlottesville, VA 22903
> _______________________________________________________________________
> e-mail: Phone: (434) > 924-7770 > FAX: (434) 982-2137
> > [1]eudora=> "autourl">

No comments:

Post a Comment