Saturday, March 31, 2012


cc: Tim Osborn <>, Malcolm Hughes <>, Keith Briffa <>, Kevin Trenberth <>, Caspar Ammann <>,,,, Scott Rutherford <>, Tom Wigley <>,
date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:09:04 -0400
from: Michael Oppenheimer <omichaelatXYZxyznceton.EDU>
subject: Re: draft
to: "Michael E. Mann" <>


I'm fine with the last paragraph. However, the section on latitude dependence of
tree-growth data remains obscure. In particular, the sentence "In such cases, relatively
recent (i.e. post 1950) data are not used in calibrating temperature reconstructions"
leaves the impression that data is rejected because it doesn't fit expectation. For the
uninitiated, you need a few words on why this procedure is acceptable, like perhaps
"because confounding influences obscure the response to temperature" or whatever.



"Michael E. Mann" wrote:

Thanks Tim and Malcolm,

The latest round of suggestions were extremely helpful. I've accepted them w/ a few
minor tweaks (attached). We're at 765 words--I think AGU will let us get away w/ that...

So, comments from others?



At 02:11 PM 10/14/2003 +0100, Tim Osborn wrote:

SO3 argue that borehole data provide a conflicting view of past temperature histories.
To the contrary, the borehole estimates for recent centuries shown in M03 may be
consistent with other estimates, provided consideration is given to statistical
uncertainties, spatial sampling and possible influences on the ground surface [e.g.,
snow cover changes--Beltrami and Kellman, 2003]. It is not meaningful to compare the
late 20th century with a much longer period 1000 years ago [Bradley et al., 2003],
especially given the acknowledged limitations [Pollack et al., 1998] of borehole data.

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

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\omichael8.vcf"

No comments:

Post a Comment