Sunday, March 18, 2012

2622.txt

cc: mannatXYZxyzginia.edu
date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 16:19:08 -0400
from: "Michael E. Mann" <mannatXYZxyzginia.edu>
subject: Fwd: EOS: Soon et al reply
to: Caspar Ammann <ammannatXYZxyzr.edu>, rbradleyatXYZxyz.umass.edu, Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, tom crowley <tomatXYZxyzan.tamu.edu>, "Malcolm Hughes" <mhughesatXYZxyzr.arizona.edu>, omichaelatXYZxyznceton.edu, Tim Osborn <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Jonathan Overpeck <jtoatXYZxyzrizona.edu>, Scott Rutherford <srutherfordatXYZxyz.edu>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbertatXYZxyz.ucar.edu>, Tom Wigley <wigleyatXYZxyzr.edu>, Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>

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 <ammannatXYZxyzr.edu>, rbradleyatXYZxyz.umass.edu, Keith Briffa
<k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Tom Crowley, "Malcolm Hughes" <mhughesatXYZxyzr.arizona.edu>,
omichaelatXYZxyznceton.edu, Tim Osborn <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Jonathan Overpeck
<jtoatXYZxyzrizona.edu>, Scott Rutherford <srutherfordatXYZxyz.edu>, Kevin Trenberth
<trenbertatXYZxyz.ucar.edu>, Tom Wigley <wigleyatXYZxyzr.edu>
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mannatXYZxyzginia.edu>
Subject: Fwd: EOS: Soon et al reply
Comments?
Mike

Delivered-To: mem6uatXYZxyzginia.edu
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 12:33:04 -0400
From: Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson.4atXYZxyz.edu>
Subject: EOS: Soon et al reply
X-Sender: ethompsoatXYZxyz.service.ohio-state.edu
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mannatXYZxyzginia.edu>
Cc: lzirkelatXYZxyz.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: mannatXYZxyzginia.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: mannatXYZxyzginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

No comments:

Post a Comment