Thursday, March 15, 2012


date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 16:46:22 +0100
from: Phil Jones <>
subject: Re: 2003GL017814 Decision
to: Scott Rutherford <>

Forwarded this to Tim and Keith here. It does look good. I'm away tomorrow but I'll
be back Friday.
If I spot anything I'll get back to you then.
At 10:54 18/06/03 -0400, Scott Rutherford wrote:

Attached is a revised figure that shows the Mann and Jones NH reconstruction instead of
the Briffa and Osborn, 1999). I've also added the uncertainties. In Mike's e-mail he
said the 2-sigma limits were +-0.16 but I think those are actually 1-sigma. They are way
too small and inconsistent with Mann and Jones 2003 to be 2-sigma. I used +-0.32 for the
uncertainties. I've also truncated the x-axis at AD 200 instead of 0. I've changed the
figure legend to match but leave the actual text of the caption up to you since you have
the final text version and know the background of the series.
The figure is in Adobe Illustrator 10 with a pdf embedded.
On Tuesday, June 17, 2003, at 11:42 AM, Phil Jones wrote:

I'm off home now. Do you want to see if you can switch the two series around as
suggested. Replace the long Briffa one with the appended and alter caption accordingly.
I'll email Ellen and Judy to see if possible.
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:36:05 -0400
To: Phil Jones <>
From: "Michael E. Mann" <>
Subject: Re: Fwd: 2003GL017814 Decision
Cc: Scott Rutherford <>
HI Phil,
Thanks--that all sounds very good. I'll go ahead and make these changes, and then send
you the PDF of the submitted file, hopefully later today.
I like your idea of checking w/ Ellen or Judy Jacobs if we can substitute in the NH
reconstruction (area and local-correlation weighted version) from the Mann and Jones
(2003) paper. When I originally asked, Judy said we probably couldn't do it, because it
was not accepted/in press. Now that it is, I'm sure we can substitute it for the long
Briffa series--I agree that would be better. I assume this is still possible, as long as
the piece hasn't gone into production--can you check w/ Judy and/or Ellen on this (and
cc to me)?
Also, would you mind working w/ Scott to get figure 1 modified appropriately--should
just be a simple switch of series. I've attached the ascii data for the Mann and Jones
NH reconstruction. We should probably also show the uncertainty limits as well for this
(slightly different shading color)? They are +/- 0.16 for the 2 sigma limits. We'll also
need to modify the figure 1 caption, and to add the reference for Mann and Jones to the
Eos piece [Mann, M.E., Jones, P.D., Global Surface Temperatures over the Past two
Millennia, Geophys. Res. Lett., in press, 2003]. Can you and Scott cc me the modified
version of the Eos piece and figure when its done, if we go this route?
Hope to resubmit the GRL before I leave for Hawaii (if Lorraine lets me)...By the way,
the borehole GRL paper should be out today or tomorrow!
talk to you later,
At 11:53 AM 6/17/2003 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:
Take a rest until the IUGG when you've got this off !! Subject to a few
alterations below,
I'm happy for you to send this back to GRL. Cover letter and responses to reviewer are
Comments on new manuscript version.
1. You need to get rid of some tracked bits of text.
2. p3 line 8 of first para of methods, suggest adding possible to uncertainties re the
dating -
they may be correct ! They appear to be over 1901-80 !
3. Middle para on this page, 1856-1980 should possibly be 1901-1980 as in the Fig 1
I've used 1901-80 in all the local correlations - that you now plot in Fig 1. Maybe
referring to correlations with the NH temperature average at this point.
4. Bottom of this para and the numbers you want. First can you add after proxy
network on the
3rd last line (8 sites for the NH and 3 for the SH). This is just to make it clear
which we've used
(see also comment later on Fig 2 caption).
I produced the NH and SH averages (weighted by area - so China and N. Russia get a
bigger weight than the rest) and then calculated r-squared values (well r values which
squared) over 1901-80 with the same hemisphere for both the land-only average and the
land+marine average. Land/marine are better so I would go with these. On the decadal
timescale (over these 80 years) the values you want are 0.73 for NH and 0.60 for SH.
This just goes to show that the instrumental record is too short to really look at
properly. The values for land-only are 0.61 for NH and 0.20 for SH. By the way the
same values for land-only with land+marine are 0.81 for NH and 0.64 for SH, so the
numbers you'll use are amazingly high - especially as for the SH there are only 3
and one of these only has data from 1957.
On the annual timescale the 73/60 numbers become 54/41 .
I wouldn't comment on the 73/60 numbers - we'll just wait to see if anyone notices
They should be an eye-opener to SB03 !! As I say though they are only based on 80
of data.
What we might think of with RoG is doing 2 NH reconstructions, putting half our
series into
one and the other half in the other. Then we can look at low-freq over longer periods.
Need to
choose which goes into which but we could do this maintaining spatial and proxy
Discuss more in Sapporo - I'll be at your hotel at 3pm on July 6.
5. Next para - it wasn't clear to me what the composites were so qualify by saying 'The
hemispheric and global composites.
6. 6th line of p4, change little to no or no hemispheric-scale - unless you're trying
to refer
to longer instrumental data. There is nothing before 1856 and some proxies don't go
7. 2cnd to last line of text on p5, suggest removing such.
8. Figure 2 caption. After sentence ending in AD 200, could add ' and all 8 back to AD
or 7 back to AD 256 and 8 back to AD 553. You've done this for the SH later.
Send me the submitted pdf. I've not heard any more about the EOS piece but Ellen has
got it - I got an email from her to Judy.
I can send out this pdf if you want - to the group with the EOS piece and also to
Ellen. I would
suggest with EOS we add this series into Fig 1, back to AD200, possibly by replacing
long Briffa series.
At 15:02 16/06/03 -0400, you wrote:
Thanks Phil,
We had a great wedding--Ray was there w/ Jane, now we're in San Fran, and I've promised
Lorraine that I'll deal w/ email stuff this morning and maybe a bit tomorrow--otherwise
its sightseeing. Glad to hear the seasonal paper is coming out soon--we can update the
reference in ROG along w/ a few others soon, I hope. GRL is definitely faster--this one
could appear in less than 2 months from the time of submission!
Hoping we can wrap up the revised version within the next couple days, before next leg
of our trip (Hawaii)...
Attached is the revised version (w/ revised figures as provided by Scott included),
cover letter, and response to reviewers, pending your final suggestions--yellow
highlighted text indicates information that I am awaiting from you. Re, comment #5, I
think we just need two numbers now to address the comment--the decadal correlations
between the full NH and SH decadal instrumental series, and the series formed by
arealy-averaging in each hemisphere only over the grid-boxes corresponding to the
regions sampled by the proxy data. Do you have those two numbers, or can you calculate
them easily enough? I suspect these are indeed quite high, and adding those (where I
indicate in yellow highlighting) should be the last thing we need to do...
Also, note that I've changed the way we smooth the series to preserve the late 20th
century trend, like we did in the Eos piece. I've always estimated the uncertainties a
bit more conservatively as described in text--so they're a bit expanded now. None of the
conclusions change, although the globe is actually a bit more anomalous in the late 20th
century when you spreserve the late 20th century trend in the smoothing, so I've tweaked
the wording there just a bit...
Once I hear back from you, I'll incorporate this final info, and any final comments you
have, and resubmit via GEMS.
Let me also suggest that we send out the revised draft to our Eos co-authors, and others
like S. Solomon, and Ellen M-T and Mike Hulme, who are following these developments?
Feel free to send it to others, now that it can be considered 'in press'.
I don't think we should distribute it broadly, however, until we discuss e.g. a possible
press release w/ Harvey Leiffert to coincide w/ the publication of the paper.
Let me know what you think. looking forward to hearing back from you,
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

Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
e-mail: Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
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

Scott Rutherford
Marine Research Scientist
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island
phone: (401) 874-6599
fax: (401) 874-6811
snail mail:
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882

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

No comments:

Post a Comment