Thursday, June 14, 2012

5126.txt

cc: "Tim Osborn" <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, mannatXYZxyzginia.edu
date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:24:41 -0500
from: "Michael E. Mann" <mannatXYZxyzginia.edu>
subject: Re:Moberg Critique
to: Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>

Thanks Keith,
Sounds good--interestingly, I sat next to Donald Kennedy (cheif editor at Science) on the
way back from this symposium honoring Steve Schneider. He was at the symposium too, it
turns out, and he saw my talk. I didn't recognize him at first. But he was going through
Nature, marking with a "?" certain pages. As I'm watching him, he puts a questionmark above
the Nature news story on the Moberg paper. I ask him about it, he introduces himself. He
mentions he's checking out "the competition". I introduce myself, but I guess he already
had recognized me. Anyway, we start talking about this. I tell him Dick Kerr's story on
this was much better. We had a great several hour conversation--he's really a great guy (a
close friend of Steve's, it turns out). One of the things I showed him (in confidence) were
the results of our own analysis that showed the Moberg method probably overestimates the
variability. He found it very persuasive, and said he really hopes Nature publishes it.
So the long and short of it is that if Nature doesn't want to go with this, I bet we can
get Don Kennedy to consider running this in Science.
What do you guys think?
mike
At 11:55 AM 2/16/2005, Keith Briffa wrote:

Mike
just a quick note to provide evidence of life here!
We are having trouble here with work loads - teaching, marking, proposal writing, and
overdue annual report (they are threatening to withold funding on our current EC grant!)
will get to you soon re this version - Certainly do not imagine having to say anything
too significant .
It is vital that this letter is sent soon . I would expect Nature to prevaricate , but I
really hope we can convince them to publish this.
Keith
At 22:44 12/02/2005, you wrote:

sorry. text revised yet again. no more changes until I receive comments from everyone.
thanks...
mike
At 12:03 PM 2/11/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
Keith and Tim are here next week, but very busy with a proposal to the EU.
So you may have to hassle them a bit, or hang on for a week or two.
Nature dragged in the IPCC angle which annoyed me. I tried to explain to
him how IPCC works. IPCC won't be discussing this in Beijing in May - except
as part of Chapter 6. Hans von Storch will likely regret some of the words he's said.
FYI, just as NCAR have put up a web site to give the whole story re Chris Landseas's
'resignation' from a CA in the atmos. obs. chapter (to help Kevin Trenberth out), KNMI
are doing the same re Rob van Dorland and that Dutch magazine. The chief scientist
at KNMI has got involved as Rob didn't say the things attributed to him. I'll find
out more on this in Pune as a guy from KNMI will be there.
Several other CAs on our chapter pulled out, or just didn't do anything. Their
stories
never got run.
Dick's report was good and my bit in Nature cam across well.
Say hi to all there and wish Steve well.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:19 11/02/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote:

Phil--thanks, that's great. Really happy to hear that everyone is on board with this.
I'm at a symposium honoring Steve Schneider out at stanford right now. Lots of folks
here--as I talk this over w/ them, and see Dick Kerr's coverage of this, etc. I realize
its not so bad--I was afraid this would be spun as bolstering the contrarians, but it
hasn't. In large part due to quotes from you and others pointing out that the study
actually reinforces the key conclusions, etc., and the fact Dick Kerr showed Keith and
Tim's plot showing the scattering of multiple reconstructions, etc. which takes the
focus off "Mann" a bit...
Nonetheless, I *am* convinced their methodology is suspect, as the analysis I sent
shows. So I will really appreciate input from Keith, Tim, and you to make sure the
language and wording are appropriate and fair...
I will revise as I get input from various people, with an aim to having this
submission-ready in about 10 days (so you can have one final look after you return, and
before you have to head out again).
looking forward to getting people's comments, feedback, etc.
thanks again,
mike
At 08:05 AM 2/11/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike et al,
I've talked to Keith and Tim here and it seems best if we all come in with you on
this response. What you have done is basically fine. We can discuss specific wording
later.
My problem is that I'm off tomorrow to Pune till Feb 20 and email may be
sporadic or non-existent. So can you discuss revised drafts with Keith and Tim,
but keep me on - lower down as I'm away. I'm here on Feb 21 then off to Chicago
to review the vertical temperature report for the NRC/NAS Feb 22-25.
Keep me on the emails in case email works well in Pune.
Cheers
Phil
At 23:35 10/02/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote:

Dear Caspar, Gene, Scott, Phil,
I am attaching a response I've drafted to the Moberg et al paper (attached for those of
you who haven't seen it). The message is pretty clear and simple--their method
overemphasizes the low-frequency variability. To demonstrate this, I've made use of
stuff from Mann and Jones, and from the Mann/Rutherford/Wahl/Ammann J. Climate letter on
Pseudoproxies. So I would welcome any of you to be co-authors on this--just let me now
if you're interested. I've been in touch w/ Keith (he and Tim are potentially working on
their own independent response--waiting to hear further).
This is a very rough draft, so comments much appreciated.
Looking forward to hearing back,
Mike
______________________________________________________________
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

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
NR4 7TJ
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

______________________________________________________________
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

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
NR4 7TJ
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

______________________________________________________________
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
[3]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

______________________________________________________________
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
[5]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

cc: "Tim Osborn" <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>, Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>, mann@virginia.edu
date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:24:41 -0500
from: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@virginia.edu>
subject: Re:Moberg Critique
to: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>

Thanks Keith,
Sounds good--interestingly, I sat next to Donald Kennedy (cheif editor at Science) on the
way back from this symposium honoring Steve Schneider. He was at the symposium too, it
turns out, and he saw my talk. I didn't recognize him at first. But he was going through
Nature, marking with a "?" certain pages. As I'm watching him, he puts a questionmark above
the Nature news story on the Moberg paper. I ask him about it, he introduces himself. He
mentions he's checking out "the competition". I introduce myself, but I guess he already
had recognized me. Anyway, we start talking about this. I tell him Dick Kerr's story on
this was much better. We had a great several hour conversation--he's really a great guy (a
close friend of Steve's, it turns out). One of the things I showed him (in confidence) were
the results of our own analysis that showed the Moberg method probably overestimates the
variability. He found it very persuasive, and said he really hopes Nature publishes it.
So the long and short of it is that if Nature doesn't want to go with this, I bet we can
get Don Kennedy to consider running this in Science.
What do you guys think?
mike
At 11:55 AM 2/16/2005, Keith Briffa wrote:

Mike
just a quick note to provide evidence of life here!
We are having trouble here with work loads - teaching, marking, proposal writing, and
overdue annual report (they are threatening to withold funding on our current EC grant!)
will get to you soon re this version - Certainly do not imagine having to say anything
too significant .
It is vital that this letter is sent soon . I would expect Nature to prevaricate , but I
really hope we can convince them to publish this.
Keith
At 22:44 12/02/2005, you wrote:

sorry. text revised yet again. no more changes until I receive comments from everyone.
thanks...
mike
At 12:03 PM 2/11/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
Keith and Tim are here next week, but very busy with a proposal to the EU.
So you may have to hassle them a bit, or hang on for a week or two.
Nature dragged in the IPCC angle which annoyed me. I tried to explain to
him how IPCC works. IPCC won't be discussing this in Beijing in May - except
as part of Chapter 6. Hans von Storch will likely regret some of the words he's said.
FYI, just as NCAR have put up a web site to give the whole story re Chris Landseas's
'resignation' from a CA in the atmos. obs. chapter (to help Kevin Trenberth out), KNMI
are doing the same re Rob van Dorland and that Dutch magazine. The chief scientist
at KNMI has got involved as Rob didn't say the things attributed to him. I'll find
out more on this in Pune as a guy from KNMI will be there.
Several other CAs on our chapter pulled out, or just didn't do anything. Their
stories
never got run.
Dick's report was good and my bit in Nature cam across well.
Say hi to all there and wish Steve well.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:19 11/02/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote:

Phil--thanks, that's great. Really happy to hear that everyone is on board with this.
I'm at a symposium honoring Steve Schneider out at stanford right now. Lots of folks
here--as I talk this over w/ them, and see Dick Kerr's coverage of this, etc. I realize
its not so bad--I was afraid this would be spun as bolstering the contrarians, but it
hasn't. In large part due to quotes from you and others pointing out that the study
actually reinforces the key conclusions, etc., and the fact Dick Kerr showed Keith and
Tim's plot showing the scattering of multiple reconstructions, etc. which takes the
focus off "Mann" a bit...
Nonetheless, I *am* convinced their methodology is suspect, as the analysis I sent
shows. So I will really appreciate input from Keith, Tim, and you to make sure the
language and wording are appropriate and fair...
I will revise as I get input from various people, with an aim to having this
submission-ready in about 10 days (so you can have one final look after you return, and
before you have to head out again).
looking forward to getting people's comments, feedback, etc.
thanks again,
mike
At 08:05 AM 2/11/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike et al,
I've talked to Keith and Tim here and it seems best if we all come in with you on
this response. What you have done is basically fine. We can discuss specific wording
later.
My problem is that I'm off tomorrow to Pune till Feb 20 and email may be
sporadic or non-existent. So can you discuss revised drafts with Keith and Tim,
but keep me on - lower down as I'm away. I'm here on Feb 21 then off to Chicago
to review the vertical temperature report for the NRC/NAS Feb 22-25.
Keep me on the emails in case email works well in Pune.
Cheers
Phil
At 23:35 10/02/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote:

Dear Caspar, Gene, Scott, Phil,
I am attaching a response I've drafted to the Moberg et al paper (attached for those of
you who haven't seen it). The message is pretty clear and simple--their method
overemphasizes the low-frequency variability. To demonstrate this, I've made use of
stuff from Mann and Jones, and from the Mann/Rutherford/Wahl/Ammann J. Climate letter on
Pseudoproxies. So I would welcome any of you to be co-authors on this--just let me now
if you're interested. I've been in touch w/ Keith (he and Tim are potentially working on
their own independent response--waiting to hear further).
This is a very rough draft, so comments much appreciated.
Looking forward to hearing back,
Mike
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

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.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

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.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[3]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

--
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +44-1603-593909
Fax: +44-1603-507784
[4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[5]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

No comments:

Post a Comment