Sunday, June 10, 2012

5024.txt

date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:56:30 +0000
from: "Folland, Chris" <chris.follandatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk>
subject: FW: Hockey stick.
to: "p.jones" <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, OSBORN <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>

Phil, Tim and Keith



Please see what I sent in reply to the unknown Sceptic via Antonio Regalado. .



Chris





Professor Chris Folland

Head of Climate Variability Research

Global climate data sets are available from [1]http://www.hadobs.org
Met Office, Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom
Email: chris.follandatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1392 886646
Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050
(International) +44 (0)113 336 1072)<[2]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk

Also: Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia

-----Original Message-----
From: Folland, Chris
Sent: 10 February 2005 21:19
To: 'Sir John Houghton'; Regalado, Antonio
Subject: RE: Hockey stick.

Dear John and Antonio



Here is my reply to "Observations of a Sceptic" which also includes some observations on
today's paper in Nature by Moberg et al. in the context of the Sceptic's concerns. I
believe some technical details of this new paper might be contested by some paleoclimate
experts. Its a cutting edge area of climate change science.



I hope this helps. If you want any more help, please let me know.



Best wishes



Chris





Professor Chris Folland

Head of Climate Variability Research

Global climate data sets are available from [3]http://www.hadobs.org
Met Office, Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom
Email: chris.follandatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1392 886646
Fax: (in UK) 0870 900 5050
(International) +44 (0)113 336 1072)<[4]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk

Also: Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia

-----Original Message-----
From: Sir John Houghton [mailto:john.houghton@jri.org.uk]
Sent: 04 February 2005 11:47
To: Regalado, Antonio
Cc: Chris Folland
Subject: Re: Hockey stick.

Dear Antonio Regalado

Thank you for your email. I am copying this to Chris Folland as he was a convening lead
author of the chapter

to which you refer and will be able to reply to the queries your skeptic has raised much
better than I can.

The only points I would make are

(1) the discussions around the Mann and other diagrams were entirely scientific in nature;
the Mann diagram was the one that was included in the Summary

because we believed it to be the best data available at the time. I remember a significant
entirely scientific debate regarding its quality at the time.

There was no inappropriate bias or 'conspiracy' attached to its inclusion - indeed no such
bias would have survived the thorough and open IPCC refereeing procedures.

(2) whether or not the MWR was warmer than colder in global average terms than 1998 would
make no difference to the IPCC's 2001 report's conclusions

about the 20th century record and the contribution of greenhouse gases.

With best regards

John Houghton

On 2 Feb 2005, at 19:39, Regalado, Antonio wrote:

Dear Dr. Houghton,

Thanks for speaking to me about climate change, skeptics and the IPCC from Exeter.

Below appear some questions sent to me by a 'skeptic' (who shall remain anonymous) and who
wonders why the Mann graph was presented so prominently in the summary for policy makers.
He may be seeing a "conspiracy" where there is none, but I think the observations are
interesting. It comes down to a matter of emphasis.

Thanks,

Antonio Regalado

Staff Reporter, Health & Science

The Wall Street Journal

200 Liberty Street

New York, NY 10281

tel: 212-416-3011

mobile: 917-686-3389

OBSERVATIONS OF A SKEPTIC

In Sir Houghton's book Global Warming: the Complete Briefing , published in 1994, he
emphasizes (pp 51-52) the widespread evidence of a medieval warm period. This was also
shown in the SAR.

As of 1997, there were several studies offering hemispheric or global averages:

-The borehole records of Huang, Pollack and Shen, published in GRL in 1997, showing a
strong MWP much warmer than today

-The graphs of Briffa and Jones that appear in Figure 2.21

-The Mann hockey stick with the peak in the late 20th century

THe hockey stick is the only reconstruction shown in the Summary (why?) and is the sole
basis for the claim that temperatures are the highest in 1000 years. On page 134 in the
IPCC's Third Assessment Report the hockey stick is printed twice, in two half-page, full
colour versions, one above the other. In Figure 2.20 it is graphed alone. In Figure 2.21 it
is overlaid with one graph due to P. Jones and the other due to K. Briffa. The original
Jones graph (published in The Holocene in 1998) does not look like a hockey stick, as the
"warmest" years are AD1106, AD1074, and AD1103, and the warmest decade is the 1930s. This
is not visible in the IPCC version because the line is so heavily smoothed (why?-- the
Hockey stick is shown unsmoothed in Fig 2.20). The original Briffa graph (published in
Quaternary Science Reviews in 2000) also reaches peak values in the 11th century, but this
is not visible in the IPCC presentation since the first 400 years were left out (why?).

Two graphs of data based on borehole temperature measurements by Huang et al don't look
like the hockey stick either, but one is banished to a small chart on an earlier page (p.
132) and the other is mentioned in the text but is not reproduced at all. Why?

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\REPLIES TO OBSERVATIONS OF A SCEPTIC.doc"
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Re Hockey stick..htm"

No comments:

Post a Comment