date: Wed Jan 16 09:23:52 2008
from: Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Edouard Bard]]
to: Raymond P. <rtp1atXYZxyzsci.uchicago.edu>
Glad to see you're onto this. Obviously anything shouldn't make it even worse
for Edouard, but you're in contact with him.
I'd be happy to sign onto any letter from Science, but this isn't essential. I know
the series Courtillot has used (and Pasotti re-uses) came from here, but it isn't
what he and the authors says it was. I also know it doesn't make much difference
if the correct one was used - given the smoothing. It is just sloppy and a
principle thing. The correct data are sitting on our web site and have been since
Brohan et al (2006) appeared in JGR. Even the earlier version (HadCRUT2v) would
have been OK, but not a specially produced series for a tree-ring reconstruction
paper back in 2001/2 and not on our web site.
Then there are all the science issues you and Edouard have raised in RC and the EPSL
I have had a couple of exchanges with Courtillot. This is the last of them from
March 26, 2007. I sent him a number of papers to read. He seems incapable of
grasping the concept of spatial degrees of freedom, and how this number can
change according to timescale. I also told him where he can get station data at
NCDC and GISS (as I took a decision ages ago not to release our station data,
mainly because of McIntyre). I told him all this as well when we met at a meeting of
the French Academy in early March.
What he understands below is my refusal to write a paper for the proceedings of
the French Academy for the meeting in early March. He only mentioned this requirement
afterwards and I said I didn't have the time to rewrite was already in the literature.
It took me several more months of emails to get my expenses for going to Paris!
From Courtillot 26 March 2007
Sure I understand. Now research wise I would like us to remain in contact. Unfortunately, I
have too little time to devote to what is in principle not in my main stream of research
and has no special funding. But still I intend to try and persist. I find these temperature
and pressure series fascinating. I have two queries:
1) how easy is it for me (not a very agile person computer wise) to obtain the files of
data you use in the various global or non global averages of T (I mean the actual montly
data in each 5� box prior to any processing, including computation of the "temperature
anomaly")? How do I do it? What I would like to be able to extract is for instance all of
the data within a given 5� by 5� box with their dates (so: lat, lon, time, value). I
understand these are monthly means, though we find that there may be some quite important
information in the daily values which is likely lost on monthly averaging, but this is
2) I know you answered my question but still I have trouble grasping the answer. Could you
explain how the global T average for periods say before 1900 can haev a total uncertainty
under 0.2�C back to 1850. This can only be true, given the data distribution in the Rayner
et al paper, if T is an incredibly smooth function of location. Did you really answer me
that by extracting from the recent (post 1950) database data with the same geographical and
temporal distributions as the 1850-1900 data you get almost the same result as with the
full modern data (with an uncertainty just above 0.1�C). This seems truly amazing, and
would never work with the global magnetic field data I am accustomed to work on. Yet it
does not seem to me that climate varies as slowly and with as long spatial scales as the
I will very much appreciate your comments and help on those.
Thank you again for having come to our meeting.
Yours very sincerely,
Professor of Geophysics University Paris 7,
Director Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris,
Member Institut Universitaire de France,
Member Academia Europaea and French Academy of Sciences
President, Geomagnetism and Paleomagnetism, American Geophysical Union
President, Scientific Council, City of Paris
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:20:57 -0500
From: Michael Mann <mannatXYZxyzeo.psu.edu>
Organization: Penn State University
User-Agent: Thunderbird 22.214.171.124 (Windows/20071031)
To: Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidtatXYZxyzs.nasa.gov>
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Edouard Bard]]
update from Ray P...
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Edouard Bard]
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:20:59 -0600
From: Raymond P. <email@example.com>
To: Group RealClimate <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Michael E. Mann
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: email@example.com
University Park, PA 16802-5013
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by f05n05.cac.psu.edu id
Yes indeed. I am writing a letter to Science today regarding Pasotti's ridiculous
article. If anybody things the rest of RC should sign on to that as well, just let
I will also have to write a Part III, covering all the junk mentioned by Edouard and
by Phil Jones. Courtillot's response (published via a legal device activated where
there is the possibility of threatening a libel suit) appeared in Le Monde today. I
may give it a week or so for new developments to settle down before writing.
For example, Foucart may get a chance to write a response in Le Monde.
While I'll wait a bit before doing the RC piece, I plan to send off the letter to
Science this week.
On Jan 15, 2008, at 8:26 AM, Michael Mann wrote:
-------- Original Message --------
Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:59:44 +0000
Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
Michael E. Mann <mannatXYZxyzeo.psu.edu>
<46E534DD.30206atXYZxyz.no> <4756A519.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4757EFB1.email@example.com>
Some emails within this and an attachment. Send on to Ray Pierrehumbert.
Maybe you're aware but things in France are getting bad.
One thing might be a letter to Science re the diagram in an editorial in Science.
I did talk to the idiot who wrote this, but couldn't persuade him it was rubbish. This
isn't the worst - see this email below from Jean Jouzel and Edouard Bard. My French is
at the best of times, but this all seems unfair pressure on Edouard.
See also this in French about me - lucky I can't follow it that well !
I know all this is a storm in a teacup - and I hope I'd show your resilience Mike if
this was directed at me. I'm just happy I'm in the UK, and our Royal Society knows
who and why it appoints its fellows!
In the Science piece, the two Courtillot papers are rejected. I have the journal
rejection emails - the other reviewer wasn't quite as strong as mine, but they were
From: Jean Jouzel <jean.jouzelatXYZxyze.ipsl.fr>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: FYI: Daggers Are Drawn
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (shiva.jussieu.fr
[126.96.36.199]); Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:07:14 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/5483/Mon Jan 14 15:45:01 2008 on shiva.jussieu.fr
X-Miltered: at shiva.jussieu.fr with ID 478BEB15.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (
Yes the situation is very bad in and I was indeed going to write you to ask somewhat for
your help in getting some support to Edouard, which is really needed. Certainly one
thing you could do would be to write to the editor of Science at least pointing to the
fact that the figure is misleading using again the seasonal above 20�N Briffa et al.
data set as global.
May be also at some point write something supporting the answer of Edouard and Gilles
Delaygue, to EPSL ( or in answering the letter Courtillot has recently written see
attached in which he is very critical with respect to your work). I don't know ....
Yes I will be in Vienna , this will be a pleasure to meet you With my best Jean
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 p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk