Thursday, June 7, 2012


date: Mon Nov 1 10:53:16 2004
from: Phil Jones <>
subject: Mann papers in press

The second is the paper I was referring to earlier. Much of the email text relates to
visit David Bellamy made to the HC. He's another idiot who just spouts the same garbage.
Yes, he is the well-known ecologist. Believes putting up wind turbines will ruin
biodiversity -
and doesn't like them spoiling the landscape !
One final thing - all this stuff from Muller, Bellamy and also Legates getting at Mann
MBH doesn't realise that if climate variability were larger over the millennium, then
change will be larger ! Point is made at the end of comment piece on Von Storch by
Tim and Keith.

X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 10:13:56 -0400
To: Gabi Hegerl <>, Phil Jones <>
From: "Michael E. Mann" <>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: Timetable for Bellamy visit]
Cc: "Stott, Peter" <>,,
X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-UEA-MailScanner-SpamScore: s
Dear All,
This is a good discussion. Peter: IPCC should *not* over-react to the skeptics, and I'm
a bit surprised at Chris's statements. I'm glad Phil has forwarded him the Reviews of
Geophysics paper to read. I think the rest of the group has echoed the right attitude
towards this.
As Gabi notes, even if various researchers disagree about scaling (and I'm not sure the
disagreements are that big, and they depend on seasonal and spatial sampling issues that
are somewhat debatable at present--see one of the attached papers by Rutherford et al),
the qualitative picture doesn't change--i.e., the anomalous nature of late 20th century
warmth remains, regardless of how you scale the reconstruction. Qualitatively, Tom',
ours, Phil's, and all of the other reconstructions are similar--they mostly differ in
overall amplitudes of variability, and by a modest amount.
Now, the GKSS run should be viewed in the context of a dozen other published model runs
(see e.g. the Review of Geophysics paper) that are in excellent agreement w/ the
paleoreconstructions. These runs use more reasonable forcing estimates. In the GKSS
runs, the solar constant varies by about 8W/m^2. According to the solar physicists
(e.g. Judith Lean), that could be as much as 10 times too large!! No wonder they get the
huge medieval peak, and an unreasonable estimate that 40% of 20th century warmth is
solar!! Christensen et al at DKMI have done runs using the same model (GKSS) but more
traditional forcing estimtes, and get a very similar result to the existing
paleoreconstructions, and nothing at all like the GKSS run using that model. Its all in
the forcings, and the GKSS group does not have reasonable forcing estimates...
Anyways, that's my two cents.
Now for my plug: I've attached 2 papers that are quite relevant to these issues, both
now in press in "Journal of Climate"...
Thanks all for your efforts here,
p.s. I've added Peck to the mix for good measure...
At 09:38 AM 9/8/2004, Gabi Hegerl wrote:

ps on the vines: I also learned in some lecture about medieval eating and drinking
habits that
they all grew their local wine, and when it was sour they sweetened it, or spiced it or
(had nothing to do with climate, it was a talk about findings from well archeology).
They also found
crazy cherries (Tollkirschen) suggesting that some local brewers had watered the beer
and then
put poisonous cherries into it to make sure it still had an effect ;) - that was the
reason for the beer
purity law later.
So you can't compare medieval wine growing with present day at all!
I agree with Phil - the proof lies with them. Taking Hans' analysis at face value, it
still doesn;t
question the 20th century being the warmest - it just questions the variability and
signal size.
And it assumes teleconnections in the model being right. I used his run too to fake
reconstruction, it works fairly well.
Phil Jones wrote:

I don't expect the AR4 to withdraw what they said in the TAR. I did have an email
with Chris the other day as he's seeing Bellamy as well. What we say in our IDAG paper
fine. I'm happy with probably, but don't think it is necessary.
You should be putting the argument the other way round - i.e. it is up to those
that don't think
the finding is robust to disprove it. As Gabi says, CRU (me, Keith and Tim), Tom C. and
Mike (and Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes) have performed the most comprehensive
analyses. We've analysed all the data we can get our hands on.
If Bellamy takes issue with this - tell him to do proper analyses, rather than just
what some web sites in the US say. Also it is no good just saying we all know it was
in the Medieval period and in Roman times - vines in Yorkshire etc.
(Aside - our new house
had two vines in different parts of the garden. Both had grapes on when we arrived in
July. All bunches have turned purple - despite the wet August ! Just need to read up
on how
to prune the things !). Tell him they are growing in my garden in Norfolk,with no help
at all !
What would they do with some tlc - the medieval monks ahd all the time in the world.
I sent Chris a pdf of my review with Mike in Rev. Geophysics. Suggest you print one
and suggest he reads it.
The other aspect is that we are all talking about global (and NH) averages in the
paleo time.
The only way to do this is to get series from as many locations as possible and average
together. No one region is more representative for hemispheric conditions than any
(despite many people saying their pet region is important). Even if England were warmer
Medieval times, it is the NH and Globe we are talking about. Not everywhere in the
period has the 1990s decade as the warmest (e.g. Iceland/Greenland), but it is the
for the NH, the SH and the Globe.
I don't think von Storch's work will change anyone's views. It is based on a model.
The skeptics
are making something of it - but they seem to forget they have to believe the model to
this. They
decry other models as not being realistic, but accept them when their conclusions are
to their
liking. The ECHAM model volcanic forcing is far too strong - no model gets the seasonal
of the response correct.
Have fun tomorrow !
At 12:43 08/09/2004, wrote:

Yes, since its only the scaling (the overall amplitude) that is
under question for analyses that are averages of a fixed number of
sites like Tom's analyses, or Phil's. Mann et al is a bit more
complex, but its easiest to argue with simple reconstruction based
on a limited number of sites.
THey tend to give the early 20th century as the warmest of the
reconstruction, and we know the second half was way warmer than the
first, and the first finding does not depend on scaling, and the second
only to a small extent.
The scaling is not as much uncertain for records with good correlations
with what they are trying to reconstruct (order 10%) during the
calibration period.
poppycock, hm, good luck
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, Stott, Peter wrote:
> Dear Gabi, Tom and Phil,
> I'm meeting David Bellamy tomorrow along with a group of colleagues from
> the Hadley Centre. Those in the UK at least know that David Bellamy has
> been saying that global warming is "poppycock".
> At the moment I have the plot from EOS and the statement (I put the
> probably back in)
> "Temperatures during the last two decades of the 20th century were
> probably the warmest of the last millennium."
> The question is, is this conclusion likely to be robust to the
> reanalyses of the paleo reconstructions being done at the moment; I'm
> thinking of von Storch et al but also of Gabi's recent work.
> My most immediate concern is to whether to leave this statement in or
> whether I should remove it in the anticipation that by the time of the
> 4th Assessment Report we'll have withdrawn this statement - Chris
> Folland at least seems to think this is possible. Of course this issue
> also affects what we say in the IDAG paper.
> Thanks and greetings,
> Peter
> --
> Dr. Peter Stott Climate Scientist Met Office
> Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research (Reading Unit)
> Meteorology Building, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB
> Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5613 Fax: +44 (0)118 378 5615
> Mobile: 07753880683
> [1]
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gabriele Hegerl
Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment
Duke University, Durham NC 27708
phone 919-684-6167, fax 919-684-5833
email: [2]

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

Gabriele Hegerl Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School for the
Environment and Earth Sciences,
Box 90227
Duke University, Durham NC 27708
Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833
email:, [3]

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

No comments:

Post a Comment